Holocaust to Resistance, My Journey

October 20th, 2019 by Suzanne Berliner Weiss

An excerpt from Holocaust to Resistance: My Journey by Suzanne Berliner Weiss (pp. 45-47). Weiss’s book, released this month by Fernwood Publishers, tells of her eight decades of engagement with the movement for social justice. Her book launch will take place Friday, October 18, at 7 p.m., at Friends House, 60 Lowther Ave. (St. George Station), Toronto.

***

When I arrived from war-scarred France (1950), I thought the United States, my new home, was a land of liberty, freedom, love, and comfort. I entered grammar school and began to learn its true nature. It tore my heart.

Louis Weiss, my adoptive father, was proud to have sung as a young man in the opera chorus in a performance of Boris Godunov in Moscow, Russia.

Russia! At school, the word was spoken with hate and fear. Often, my parents invited their “progressive” friends over, and I got to listen to their chatter. They didn’t mention Russia but spoke of the Soviet Union with respect. When I asked questions, they used guarded terms. “Progressives” were the good people, and as for those who were “against us,” that was everyone else.

My parents covered many books in the apartment with brown paper against the inquisitive eyes of maintenance men, visitors, and housekeepers. On buses and subways there were signs warning “foreigners” to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In school, a fellow student warned me, “You’re lucky that you’re from France. Otherwise, we could send you back.” To be perceived as an immigrant was decidedly hazardous, I thought.

At school I heard that “our enemies” were among us – the communists. Mom explained it differently: There was persecution of “progressives.” Some of them were in jail, some in hiding. She confided that before my arrival she and Dad had hidden a couple in their apartment at the request of the Communist Party. “You must be careful to protect me from losing my job,” Mom explained. When she and Dad talked with their friends about world events, it was with hushed voices. “Don’t tell your schoolmates anything about this,” she counselled.

Mom and Dad allowed me to listen in on their discussions of the news, as they focused on the opinions expressed in the radical newsletter I.F. Stone’s Weekly, which they spread out on the table. In 1956, the tone of these discussions changed. A secret speech by Soviet Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev, leaked to the daily press, revealed many of the crimes of Joseph Stalin, who had died three years earlier.

This news weighed heavily on my parents, who had been loyal to Stalin. They discussed the situation anxiously with their friends. I recalled how, when Stalin died in 1953, Mom had gazed at his image and said, “What a kind face. He was so good to the people.” I had wondered how you can tell kindness by looking at a face. But now it turned out that much of the anti-Soviet propaganda in the US media, decrying the stifling of civil liberties there, had in fact been true. Jewish doctors and scientists had been murdered. “I must look at things with new eyes,” Dad declared.

I respected his honest response; it created some much-needed common ground for us.

A Wave of Fear and Repression

The atmosphere was different when we visited Aunt Dorothy. There was open discussion in her house. Friends who gathered there were upset and angry about the persecution of progressives and communists orchestrated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. They spoke of people they knew who had lost their jobs. Ben Gold’s furriers’ union was in danger of destruction, they murmured. It was he, Dad told me, who had written Shmulek in France to open the road to my adoption. Aunt Dorothy was unnerved and Mom and Dad were fearful.

When the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) came to Newark, its blows struck the family of Aunt Dorothy. Robert Lowenstein, the teacher of Dorothy’s daughter, Joan, was summoned. He refused to give names of progressive associates and was therefore fired from his job, leaving his family in desperate straits. Dorothy’s husband Hy, angry over the incident, courageously hired Lowenstein to work in his combined pharmacy, soda fountain, and liquor store. I was very happy to hear of Hy’s principled stand.

My Cousin’s Bold Stand

After her high school graduation, Joan went to Antioch College, where she was involved in radical activities. She and her partner at the time attended the World Youth Festival in 1955 in Warsaw, the capital of the Polish People’s Republic. The theme of the festival was For Peace and Friendship – Against the Aggressive Imperialist Pacts.

Much to Dorothy’s dismay, Joan was subpoenaed to appear before the HUAC. Mom and Dad spoke of this with alarm. Joan took the Fifth Amendment’s constitutional safeguard against self-incrimination. For that, she was ordered to surrender her passport, but she refused, and her audacious stand made the media. “I got regular visits from the FBI from then on. But I didn’t let them in my apartment,” she told me. I was proud of Joan’s boldness and strength.

Senator McCarthy’s outrageous anti-communist accusations turned up a large proportion of Jewish people, and it was widely suspected in our circles that he was hunting Jews more than communists. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, a Jewish couple with a “progressive” background, were hauled into court, tried over a two-year period, and found guilty of giving secrets to the Soviet Union. On Friday evening, June 19, 1953, Mom, Dad, and I were in the car listening to the radio when we heard that the Rosenbergs had been executed in Sing Sing prison. I was stunned. How could this happen in America? “America is for peace, liberty, and justice,” Mr. Berman [my guardian in France until 1950], had told me. Tears flooded my eyes. It was evident that Mom and Dad felt as I did. “Can you believe the government killed them?!” Mom cried.

*

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.

Suzanne Weiss is a Holocaust survivor based in Toronto, Canada. She is a member of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) and Not In Our Name: Jewish Voices Opposing Zionism. She blogs at suzanneberlinerweiss.com.

Featured image is from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Holocaust to Resistance, My Journey

This article addresses the alleged interference of unnamed “foreign powers” in Canada’s elections as well as the historical process of US interference, including a secret US Military Invasion of Canada formulated in the 1930s.

***

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.  …  

“In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. (February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130. This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

***

US-Canada relations have not been an issue for meaningful debate in the 2019 Canada elections campaign. Ottawa complies with Washington’s foreign policy agenda. None of the major parties has addressed the issue in the course of the election campaign.

A “fake initiative” was launched by the Trudeau government to identify “foreign intervention” in our electoral process without acknowledging that the only country which has actively intervened in our politics is the United States.

And that means that Canada’s participation in US led wars is not an issue for debate by the leaders of major of political parties.

***

Are the Russians coming to disrupt our elections scheduled for October 21st? Back in July, Canada’s Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould  intimated that Canada’s 2019 elections could be the target of interference by foreign powers.

While Ottawa did not explicitly point its finger at the Kremlin, the official statement and media reports intimated that it could be Russia (and possibly China) because Vladimir Putin had allegedly interfered in favor of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections.  And apparently Moscow had also intervened in the French elections. 

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP were said to be “monitoring foreign threat activity in Canada and around the world”.

“At this time, we haven’t seen direct threats to the 2019 general election,” the official said.

CSIS continues to observe hostile foreign actors “taking steps to position themselves to clandestinely influence, promote or discredit certain messages, candidates or groups during the campaign,” the official added. (CBC, July 09, 2019)

Three months prior to the October 2019 Elections,  the Trudeau government issued a “Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol” (CEIPP) to “protect Canada’s Democratic Institutions”  against unnamed foreign powers
.

The Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol sets out the ministers’ expectations with respect to the general directions and the principles to guide the process for informing the public during the writ period of an incident that threatens Canada’s ability to have a free and fair election. Consult the document here

In the event of a threat by a foreign power to disrupt the election, a top level national security panel “will inform the prime minister”,  (see Global News, July 9, 2019)

Russia Dirty Tricks? 

With some exceptions, Canada’s media has remained silent on the matter. According to a recent “authoritative”  CTV  report  the Kremlin is once again up to “Dirty Tricks”, intent upon manipulating Canada’s elections. Which party are they going to support?

In an attempt to stop foreign interference during the 2019 Canadian federal election, Canada’s top security agencies are monitoring the web 24/7. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), works hand in hand with a largely secret organization, Communication Security Establishment (CSE), …

….  Former Russian troll Vitaly Bespalov thinks the Russians have already come up with new ways to meddle with our political views. After being implicated for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, they have to be more creative as Canadians get ready to go to the polls.

“So now I think they are going to invent some other schemes of influencing the audience. It will be done in a different way. No need to look for trolls on Facebook, they will find a new way.”

 

Intervention of an Unnamed Foreign Power: The United States of America

There is ample of evidence of foreign interference by an “unnamed foreign power”, which has barely been mentioned in the course of the election campaign.

In Canada’s history, as well as during the mandate of the Justin Trudeau’s government, the United States of America (rather than “unnamed foreign powers”) has intervened in what is euphemistically called  “America’s Backyard”, i.e. a nation state inside America’s sphere of influence.

And I am not referring to former president Obama’s recent statement in support for Justin Trudeau.

 

 

Washington is on record of having interfered in elections  in 45 countries according to political scientist Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.  

While Canada is not mentioned in Don H Levin’s study, the history of US interference in Canada’s internal affairs goes far beyond the process of meddling in Canadian elections.

Canadian farmers are acutely aware of how the Trump administration in 2017 imposed without real negotiation, a complete overhaul of trade and investment relations leading to the formation of the so-call United States, Mexico, Canada USMCA trade agreement which is intended to replace NAFTA.

Politicians in the Trudeau government were coopted. The economic impacts of this agreement on Canada’s economy are potentially devastating.

But there is much more in our history which has a direct bearing on national sovereignty and democracy in Canada. While US interventionism is part of our history, US-Canada relations are not an issue for debate in the election campaign.

Flashback to 1930…

America’s Plan to Invade Canada

While the US plan to Annex Canada in 1866 (a de facto act of war formulated as a Bill by the US Congress) is on record, most Canadians are unaware that the US in the late 1920s had formulated a detailed plan to invade Canada, entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. The plan was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1930.

It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 following the outbreak of the Second World War. (The full text of the 1935 Invasion Plan is in Annex)

This insidious military agenda which was intent on ultimately annexing Canada to the US as well as disabling the British Empire, involved the planned bombings of four major cities: Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax.

And guess who was assigned to oversee these bombings: General Douglas MacArthur (image left, 1940s), who was US Army chief of staff (1930-37). MacArthur’s mandate coincided with  the release of the 1930 and 1935 invasion plan of Canada. As we recall MacArthur was subsequently put in charge of leading the bombing raids against Japan during World War II. (See Floyd Rudman)

The 1935 plan to invade Canada consisted of a 94-page document “with the word SECRET stamped on the cover.” It had been formulated over a period of over five years (See full text in Annex).

In February 1935, the [US] War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to “be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula” (from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose “outnumbered and outgunned” when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army’s pamphlet “Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History” (p.2). ( Professor F.W. Rudmin Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Comments on “War Plan Red”,

One of the updates to the 1930 invasion plan was the use of chemical weapons against civilians:

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.” (Ibid)

It is worth noting that in the course of World War II,  a decision was taken by the War Department to retain the invasion plan on the books. War Plan Red was declassified in 1974.

Raiding the Icebox. How the US Media Trivializes History

The Washington Post, which casually dismissed the historical significance of “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”, nonetheless acknowledged the aggressive nature of the proposed military endeavor:

“A bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. …First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts — marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.  … “(Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson, Washington Post, 30 December 2005, emphasis added)

The original documents pertaining to the invasion of Canada including “War Plan Red” and “Defence Scheme No. 1.” are in the archives of the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.  (url link no longer functional)

The  plan is detailed. It involves both military as well an intelligence components. According to historian John Major “War, Plan Red” also consisted in “a series of possible pre-emptive American campaigns to invade Canada in several areas and occupy key ports and railways before British troops could provide reinforcement to the Canadians…”

Concluding Remarks Concerning US Interference

While the 1935 invasion of Canada Plan was never carried out, historically “the military threat of an invasion plan served to oblige Canada to ultimately surrender to US political and economic pressures.”

In recent history, this hegemonic objective was achieved in 2002 with the creation of US Northern Command (NorthCom).

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that:

“NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'”

NorthCom’s stated mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),


ANNEX

The complete text of the 1935 Invasion of Canada can be consulted here  (Introduction by Prof Floyd Rudmin, Queens University) See below
See also Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Plan to Annex and Invade Canada
 and America’s Plan to Invade Canada 
US Invasion of Canada Plan 
 .
Full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935.
 .
The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified invasion plan available from the US archival sources. Centered pagination is that of the original document.
 .
The spelling and punctuation of the original document are reproduced as in the original document, even when in error by present-day norms. This document was first identified by Richard Preston in his 1977 book, “The Defence of the Undefended Border: Planning for War in North America 1867-1939” (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.)
 .
Preston’s reference citation (p. 277) identified this to be archived at the US Military History Collection, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., coded AWC 2-1936-8, G2, no. 19A. It was located by the US National Archives and supplied on microfilm.
 .
                       SUPPLEMENT NO. 3

                             TO

                 REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 8

                          SUBJECT:

      CRITICAL AREAS OF CANADA AND APPROACHES THERETO
      _______________________________________________
 .

                        Prepared by:

                     SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3

               Major Charles H. Jones, Infantry, Chairman.
               Lt. Col. H.W. Crawford, Engineers.

  I. Papers Accompanying.
     ___________________
  1. Bibliography.                      (Omitted, filed in Rec.Sec.)
  2. List of Slides.                                "
  3. Appendices (1 and 2).                          "
  4. Annexes. (Incl. A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,K, and L)      "

  II. The Study Presented.
      ___________________
       Determine under the geographical factor, the critical areas in
 Crimson (Canada) and the best approaches thereto for Blue.  A critical
 area is assumed to be any area of such strategic importance to either
 belligerent that control thereof may have a material bearing on the out-
 come of the war.

 III. Facts bearing on the study.
      __________________________
   1. General Considerations:
       An area in Crimson territory may be of strategic importance from
 the viewpoint of tactical, economic, or political considerations.  In the
 final analysis, however, critical areas must be largely determined in the
 light of Red's probable line of action and Crimson's contribution to that
 effort.
   2. Geographical Features of Canada.
   a. Location and extent.  The location and extent of the Dominion of
   _
 Canada is shown on the Map herewith (see Exhibit A).  It comprises the
 entire northern half of the the North American continent, excepting only
 Alaska and the coast of Labrador, a dependency of the colony of New-
 foundland.
       The principal political subdivisions are those located along the
 border of the United States.  These from east to west are:
       (1) The Maritime Provinces:
            Prince Edward Island.
            Nova Scotia.
            New Brunswick.
       (2) Quebec.
       (3) Ontario.
       (4) The Prairie Provinces:
            Manitoba.
            Saskatchewan.
            Alberta.


                                   -41-

       (5) British Columbia.
       Newfoundland, while not a part of the Dominion of Canada, would
 undoubtedly collaborate in any Crimson effort.
   b. Topography. (Slide 14852)
   _
      The great area in eastern Canada underlain by rocks of Precambrian
 age is known as the Canadian Shield.  Its northern boundary crosses the
 Arctic archipelago; the eastern boundary lies beyond Baffin Island and
 Labrador, and reaches the depressed area occupied by the St. Lawrence, a
 short spur crossing this valley east of Lake Ontario to join the Adirondack
 Mountains of New York.  The southern boundary runs from this spur west to
 Georgian Bay thence along the north shore of Lake Huron and Lake Superior,
 thence northwest from the Lake of the Woods to the western end of Lake
 Athabaska.  Its average elevation does not exceed 1500 feet.  The greatest
 known elevations are in the eastern part of Baffin Island and along the
 coast of northern Labrador.  Peaks of the Torngat Mountains of Labrador
 have elevations of between 4000 and 5000 feet.  The coast is one of the
 boldest and most rugged in the world, with many vertical cliffs rising
 1000 to 2000 feet high.  Occasional exceptions occur in which there are
 reliefs of several hundred feet, as in the hills along the north shore of
 Lake Huron and Lake Superior.  The area is dotted with lakes, large and
 small, and of irregular outline.  A lowland of considerable extent
 stretches for some distance into Ontario and Manitoba from Hudson Bay.
      Extending south and west form the Canadian Shield, between the Ap-
 palachian Mountains on the east and the Cordilleras on the west, lies the
 Great North American plain.  The northeastern portion of this plain called
 the St. Lawrence lowlands occupies southern Ontario, south of a line ex-
 tending from Georgian Bay to the east end of Lake Ontario; eastern Ontario
 lying between the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, and that part of Quebec
 lying adjacent to the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec.
      The plain west of the Canadian Shield, known as the Interior Plains,
 stretches northward to the Arctic Ocean between a line approximately join-
 ing Lake Winnipeg and Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake
 on the east, and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the west.
      That part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands lying in the eastern angle of
 Ontario, and in Quebec south of Montreal and extending down the St. Law-
 rence is comparatively flat and lies less than 500 feet above sea level.
 On the lower St. Lawrence it is greatly narrowed by the near approach of
 the Appalachian system to the Canadian Shield.  The part lying adjacent to
 Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron is of less even surface, has its greatest
 elevation of over 1700 feet south of Georgian Bay and slopes gently to
 the Great Lakes.
      The Interior Plains region is in general rolling country with broad
 undulations and a slope eastward and northward of a few feet per mile,
 descending from an elevation of 3000 to 5000 feet near the mountains on the
 west to less than 1000 feet at the eastern border.  The rolling character
 of the area is relieved by several flat topped hills, by flat areas that
 formed the beds of extensive lakes, and by deep river valleys.
      The Appalachain and Arcadian regions occupy practically all that part
 of Canada lying east of the St. Lawrence, with the exception of the lowlands
 west of a line joining Quebec City and Lake Champlain.  The Applachain
 region is a continuation into Quebec of three chains of the Applachain
 system of mountains.  The most westerly of these ranges, the Green Mountains
 of Vermont, stretches northeast into the Gaspe peninsula, where it forms
 flat topped hills some 3000 feet high.  The Acadian region, which includes

                                  -42-

 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is an alternation of
 upland with hills and ridges rising 2500 feet and higher.  Adjacent to the
 Bay of Fundy is a series of ridges rising in places to 1200 feet.  Between
 these two New Brunswick uplands, which converge toward the southwest is a
 lowland forming the whole eastern part of the province.  This lowland ex-
 tends east to include Prince Edward Island, the western fringe of Cape
 Breton Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia north of the Cobequid moun-
 tains, which have an elevation of 800 to 1000 feet.  South of the Cobequid
 Mountains lies a long narrow lowland stretching from Chedabucto Bay to
 Minas Basin, and along the Cornwallis Annapolis valley between North and
 South Mountains.  South of this lowland is a highland sloping to the Atlantic
 Coast.  The northern part of Cape Breton Island is a tableland 1200 feet
 high with its central part rising to an elevation of over 1700 feet.
      The Cordelleran region, a mountainous area bordering the Pacific
 extends from the United States through Canada into Alaska and embraces
 nearly all of British Columbia and Yukon and the western edge of Alberta
 and the Northwest Territories.  The eastern part of the Cordillera is occu-
 pied by the Rocky Mountains, with peaks rising to 10,000 feet and 12,000
 feet.  They extend northwest and fall away towards the Liard River.  The
 western part of the Cordillera is occupied by the Coast Range and the
 mountains of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands.  The Coast Range rises
 to heights of 7000 to 9000 feet. Between the Rocky Mountains and the Coast
 Range lies a vast plateau 3000 to 4000 feet high and cut by deep river
 valleys.
   3. Population.
      According to the census of 1931, the total population on June 1, 1931
 was 10,376,786, of whom 5,374,541 were males.  The inhabited areas of the
 Dominion are essentially confined to a narrow strip along the United States
 boundary, generally south of the 56th parallel of latitude west of the Lake
 Winnipeg, and south of the 49th parallel of latitude east of Lake Superior.
 Approximately 10% of the total population are found in the Maritime provinces,
 61%  in Quebec and Ontario, 23% in the Prairie Provinces and 6% in British
 Columbia.
      Of the present population, 51.86% are of British descent, 28.22%
 French, and the remainder of widely scattered nativity.
   4. Climate.
      The climate of southern Canada is comparable to that of the northern
 tier of the states of the United States.  The west coast of British Columbia
 tempered by the Pacific Ocean is mild and humid.  The prairie provinces
 generally experience extreme cold weather from November to March, with heavy
 snow fall.  The climate of southern Ontario, the St. Lawrence Valley and the
 Maritime Provinces is much milder that that of the prairie provinces, but
 freezing temperatures are general between the end of November and the first
 of April, and the ground is usually covered with between one and three
 feet of snow.  Any extensive military operations in Canada between November
 1st and April 15th would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
   5. Communications.
   a. Railways.
   _
      There are only two railway systems in Canada, both crossing Canada
 east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  These lines generally
 parallel the United States border, in some instances crossing through the
 United States.


                                -43-

      (1) The Canadian national Railways system (See inclosure B) belonging
 to and operated by the government, has eastern terminals at Halifax, N.S.,
 Portland, Maine (Grand Trunk), and through the Central Vermont, at Boston,
 New London and New York.  Western terminals are Vancouver and Prince Rupert
 B.C.  An extension from Cochrane, Ontario, to Moosonee, Ontario on James
 Bay, was completed by the Province of Ontario in July 1932, to connect with
 water routes to Churchill, Hudson Bay and with the northern route to Europe.
      (2) The Canadian Pacific system (see inclosure C) has its eastern
 terminus at Saint John, N.B. and it western terminus at Vancouver, B.C.
 As indicated by the systems maps, there are numerous branch lines serving
 the industrial and farming areas of the Dominion, and connecting lines ty-
 ing in with various railroads of the United States.
      From a military viewpoint, these railroads provide excellent trans-
 portation facilities for Blue, if invasion of Crimson is decided upon, and
 being located in close proximity to the border are, from the Crimson view-
 point, very liable to interruption.  This is particularly true at Winnipeg
 some 60 miles north of Blues border, through which both transcontinental
 systems now pass.  This fact probably encouraged Canada to construct the
 railroad from The Pass, Manitoba and develop the port at Churchill.
      Complete details concerning all railroads of Canada are contained in
 Appendix No. 1.
   b. Highways.
   _
      In recent years Canada has greatly increased and improved her road con-
 struction and while there are enormous stretches of country, particularly
 in the northern portion of the Dominion, with few or no roads, the southern
 portion is well served with improved roads.  A number of transcontinental
 motor roads are under construction or projected, the most important being
 the "Kings International Highway" from Montreal to Vancouver, via Ottawa,
 North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, MacLeod, Crow's Nest Pass,
 Fernia and Cranbrook.  Another highway is being constructed from
 Calgary to Vancouver.
      The principal roads in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces
 are shown on Inclosure D, herewith.  Roads in the Prairie Provinces and
 British Columbia are shown on inclosure E.
      The majority of improved roads are classified as gravel; macadam and
 concrete construction amounting to only 7870 miles out of a total of some
 95,000 miles improved.  Gravel roads will require extensive maintenance
 under heavy motor traffic, especially during the spring.
   c. Water Transportation.
   _
      (1) Inland Waterways.
           The Great Lakes, with the St. Lawrence River, is the most im-
 portant fresh water transportation system in the world.  At the present
 time it affords a draft of 21.0 feet over all the Great Lakes and through
 the Welland Canal into the St. Lawrence.  From the Atlantic Ocean to Mon-
 treal, the present head of ocean navigation on the St. Lawrence, a draft
 of 30.0 feet is available, adequate for the great majority of ocean shipping.
 For some distance above Montreal the present channel has an available depth
 of only 14.0 feet.
          The inland waterway is of prime importance to the economic life
 of both the United States and Canada for the transportation of bulk com-
 modities, especially for the movement of wheat from the western plains to
 shipping centers on the eastern seaboard; of iron ore from the mines in
 Minnesota to foundaries along Lake Ontario; and for coal from  the mines of
 Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Ontario, Quebec and the northwest.


                                  -44-

          The locks at Sault Ste. Marie, the boundary channels between Port
 Huron and Detroit and to a lesser degree the Welland Canal are the critical
 points on this waterway and effective control of such areas is vital to
 Blue.
          Navigation on the Great Lakes is generally closed by ice from
 about the end of November to the first of April.
          The St. Lawrence River is ordinarily ice bound for a similar period,
 but somewhat later about early in December to the latter part of April.
 While there are a number of Canadian lake ports of importance, Montreal is
 the only one which would not be automatically closed by Blue control of the
 Lakes.  Montreal is also an important ocean port and will be considered
 along with other deep sea ports.
      (2) Ocean Shipping.
          The Dominion of Canada owns and operates a cargo and passenger
 carrying fleet consisting of some 57 cargo vessels and 11 passenger ships.
          The principal ocean ports and the magnitude of Canadian ocean
 traffic is indicated by the following tabulation:

 A. Number and tonnage of sea-going vessels entered and cleared at the
 principal ports of Canada. (For year ending March 31, 1934.)

                            SEA-GOING VESSELS
          PORT       arrived      departed    TOTAL TONS (REGISTERED)
          ____       _______      ________    _______________________
 Halifax, N.S. *        1259        1484            7,540,990
 Yarmouth, N.S.          535         519            1,102,191
 St. John, N.B. *        684         688            2,924,822
 Montreal, Quebec *     1078         907            7,266,569
 Quebec, Que.  *         397         308            3,388,829
 Prince Rupert, B.C.    1141        1155              251,881
 Vancouver, B.C. *      2332        2137           11,705,775
 Victoria, B.C.         1927        1938            8,874,481
 New Westminster, B.C.   678         700            3,123,606

                         IMPORTANT SECONDARY PORTS.

 Churchill, Man. *        15          15              132,000
 Three Rivers, Que        79          79              424,560
 Windsor, N.S.            56          69              201,032

 Note: The above figures do not indicate amount of commerce; Register tons
                         ______
 are gross tons. (Namely cubical contents in cubic feet divided by 100)
 less deductions for crews space, stores, etc.

          A brief description of the above ports to indicate size, avail-
 able depths and important terminal facilities is included in Appendix No.
 2.
          While the above tabulation lists the principal ports, it should be
                                               _________
 realized that there are a large number of less desirable ports having
 available depths at low water of from 20 to 30 feet and provided with satis-
 factory terminal facilities, which can be used in an emergency for landing
 troops or supplies.  Examples of this class of harbors are:
                  Pictou, N.S.
                  Sydney, N.S.
                  Canso, N.S.
                  Gaspe', Quebec
                  Sorel, Quebec


                                  -45-

      The port of Montreal, favorably located at the head of ocean naviga-
 tion on the St. Lawrence and the foot of inland navigation of the Great
 Lakes, is a natural shipping and railroad center.  The port of Quebec is
 less favorable situated economically being more than 100 miles northeast
 of Montreal.  Strategically, however, Quebec controls the commerce of Canada
 moving to or from the Atlantic seaboard.  Its possession by Blue would
 interrupt eastern rail and water communication between England and the Mari-
 time Provinces and the rest of Canada.
      The port of Halifax is one of the best harbors on the Atlantic Coast
 and the principal winter port of Eastern Canada.  The harbor has been ex-
 tensively developed by the Dominion government as a modern ocean terminal
 and naval base.  It is fortified, though much of the armament is obsoles-
 cent.  In case of war with Red, Halifax would become of prime importance
 to Red as a naval base and as a debarkation point for overseas expeditions
 in case Blue controlled the St. Lawrence.  However, the routes available
 for a Red advance from Halifax into northeastern United States or towards
 Quebec and Montreal are quite difficult.
      The port of Saint John, New Brunswick is similar in many respects to
 the port of Halifax.  It is open throughout the year and equipped with the
 most modern terminal facilities, including one of the largest drydocks in
 the world.  It is an important shipping center for grain and dairy products.
 Due to the proximity of the port to the United States border and the fact
 that the principal rail connections (C.P. Ry.) passes through the state of
 Maine, the port would be of little use to Crimson or Red, at least in the
 early stages of war, provided Blue made any effort to control this area.
      The port of Vancouver, B.C. came into prominence with the opening of
 the Panama Canal, providing an alternate route to that of the transcontinental
 railroads for grain, dairy, lumber and the other products of western Canada
 to Europe.
      The port of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, is similarly situated,
 but due to the absence of rail connection with the mainland is more concerned
 with passenger and mail traffic than with bulk commodities.  Esquimalt, two
 miles west of Victoria, and the only Canadian naval base on the west coast,
 is equipped with a large modern drydock, and affords good anchorage for the
 largest vessels.  Consequently this area is of prime importance to Crimson.
 With the closing of the Panama Canal to Red traffic and the presence of
 Blue naval forces based on Honolulu, its commercial value is largely des-
 troyed.  Assuming that Blue controls the St. Lawrence and cuts Crimson's
 eastern communication with Red, the areas importance is enhanced, although
 it remains a decidedly unsatisfactory outlet.  If Red should win control of
 the Pacific steamship lanes, the area becomes of first importance to Red.
 All factors considered, it must be controlled by Blue.
      The port of Prince Rupert is a first class harbor with modern terminal
 facilities and excellent and extensive anchorages.  It becomes of extreme
 importance to Crimson, if and when they are denied the use of the southwest
 British Columbia ports, although, as in the case of Vancouver, it affords
 a most unsatisfactory and hazardous route to Europe.  Physical occupation
 of Prince Rupert harbor by Blue is not vital, but closing the port to ocean
 traffic should be effected.
      The port of Churchill, Manitoba now offers a good harbor and limited
 but modern terminal facilities, affording a back door to the Prairie Provin-
 ces and, by way of Moosonee, Ontario, and the Temiskaming and Northern
 Ontario Railroad, with central and western Ontario.  Hudson Bay and James
 Bay are open to navigation only about 4 months of the year, but this condition
 is partially offset by the fact that the distance from the Prairie Provinces


                                 -46-

 to Europe, via Churchill is from 500 to 1000 miles shorter than the rail-
 water route via Montreal.  In case Red is denied the use of the Atlantic
 or Pacific ports, or both, Churchill will afford an outlet for grain and
 meat products from Ontario, Manitoba and Sasketchewan and an inlet for mili-
 tary supplies and troops from Europe unless the northern trade route through
 Hudson Strait is controlled by the Blue fleet, and this is improbable.
   d. Air Transportation (Civil).
   _
      During 1933 there were 90 commercial aircraft operators in Canada.
 Their activities included forest file patrols, timber cruising, air photo-
 graphy, transportation of passengers, express and mail, etc.
      To encourage a more widespread interest and knowledge of aviation
 the Department of National Defense, since 1928, has issued two light air-
 planes and made certain grants to each of 23 flying clubs and a large air
 terminal has been built at St. Hubert, seven miles south of Montreal and
 a terminal airdrome at Rimouski, Quebec for the reception of trans-atlantic
 mails.
      At the close of 1934 there were 101 air fields of all types, 368
 civil aircraft and 684 licensed pilots in Canada.  Some details of airports
 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are given in a letter from the Office of
 the Chief of Air Corps, herewith. (See inclosure F)
   e. Telephone and Telegraph.
   _
      (1) Cables.
          Six transoceanic cables have termini in Canada, five on the Atlantic
 and one on the Pacific.  The Atlantic cables are landed at Halifax, though
 several of them are routed through Newfoundland.  The Pacific cable lands
 at Vancouver from whence a cable also leads to the United States.
      (2) Radio.
          A transoceanic commercial radio beam service is carried on by a
 station at Drummondville, Quebec, with Australia, Great Britain and the
 United States.  In 1932 a direct radio telephone circuit with Great Britain
 was opened through the medium of this beam station.
      (3) General.
          Canada is well supplied with local telephone, telegraph and radio
 service.
          Interruption of Canada's trans-oceanic telegraph and radio service
 will seriously handicap Red-Crimson cooperation.
   6. Other Economic Factors.
   a. Agriculture.
   _
      Agriculture, including stock raising and horticulture, is the chief
 single industry of the Canadian people.  Canada is not only self-sustaining,
 as far as food is concerned, but has a large excess for export.  Food pro-
 duction is varied and so distributed throughout the dominion that each
 section is practically self-sustaining and cutting her off from the outside
 would would mere serve to deny her people certain luxuries, such as
 coffee, tea, sugar, spices and tropical fruit.
      The Maritime Provinces are noted for their fruit and vegetable crop,
 particularly for the oat and potato crops of Prince Edward Island and New
 Brunswick and apples in Nova Scotia.  Quebec and Ontario are mixed farming
 communities with the Niagara peninsula specializing in fruit.  Manitoba,
 Saskatchewan and Alberta are the principal wheat producing centers, with
 other grains and stock raising of increasing importance.  The rich valleys
 of British Columbia produce apples, other fruit and vegetables.


                                  -47-

   b. Forests.
   _
      The principal forests are in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario,
 Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.  The manufacture of lumber, lath,
 shingles and other products such as paper pulp, is the second most important
 Canadian industry.
   c. Mineral Resources.
   _
      Canada is one of the greatest mineral producing countries of the world.
 Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Yukon Ter-
 ritory contain the chief mining districts.  The following summary notes
 pertinent facts concerning minerals of primary military importance.
      Aluminum.  Aluminum was the 16th ranking Canadian export in 1934.
 Large quantities of bauxite, the principal source of supply were imported
 from the United States.
      Coal.
          There are enormous deposits of coal in Canada, largely in Nova
 Soctia and New Brunswick, in the east and in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
 British Columbia in the west.  Due mainly to the distance of the fields from
 the manufacturing and industrial centers, about 50% of the coal consumed
 is imported from the United States, via the Great Lakes.  Statistics for
 the calendar year 1933 show:
          Produced:
            Nova Scotia               6,340,790 tons
            New Brunswick               314,681  "
            Manitoba                      3,036  "
            Saskatchewan                903,776  "
            Alberta                   4,748,074  "
            British Columbia          1,484,653  "
            Yukon Territory                 638  "
          Imported:
            From United States        8,865,935 tons
            From United Kingdom       1,942,875  "
          Total - - - - - - ............................22,265,235 tons.
 (see slide 14855)
          In case of war with the United States, Canadas coal imports from
 this country would be cut off and her railroads and industrial activities
 seriously handicapped.  If Blue controlled the Quebec area and Winnipeg,
 Canada's railroads and industries dependent upon "steam power" would be
 crippled.
      Copper.
          The world production of copper in 1933 was (in short tons):
            Canada        149,992      Mexico         43,900
            Rhodesia      144,954      Peru           28,000
            Belgian Congo  73,409      Spain and )
            Chile         179,200      Portugal  )    34,720
            Japan          75,459      United States 196,190
          Canada's production was distributed approximately as follows:
            Province                   Tons
            ________                   ____
            Quebec                     35,000 Eastern Townships
            Ontario                    72,700 Sudbury area
            Manitoba                   19,000 Flin Flon
            Saskatchewan                1,600
            British Columbia           21,600 Western Manitoba


                                  -48-

      Iron and Steel.
         Canada ranks seventh among the nations as a producer of iron and
 steel but only a small percentage of her production is derived from domestic
 ores, in view of the abundant supply of higher grade ores in Newfoundland
 and Minnesota.  The Wabana section of Newfoundland contains the largest
 known single deposit of iron ore in the world.  There are large iron ore
 deposits in Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia but for various
 reasons they are handicapped for blast furnace treatment.  Iron and steel
 are produced in Nova Scotia (Sydney) and in Ontario.  Iron ore is obtained
 from the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, via the Great Lakes and from Newfound-
 land. (See slide 14856)  The bulk of iron and steel products, however, are
 imported, principally from the United States and the United Kingdom.
      Lead.
          Lead is obtained in Canada largely from deposits in British Columbia,
 the largest porting being exported to England.
      Nickel.
          The world production of nickel in 1933 was about 50,736 tons, of
 which about 82% originated in the Sudbury district, north of Georgian Bay
 in Ontario.  The remainder came chiefly from New Caledonia (Fr.).  A new
 deposit of nickel was recently discovered in northern Saskatchewan but has
 not yet been worked.
          Nickel is necessary to industry and indispensable in war.  Control
 of the Sudbury mines, in case of war, is therefor of vital importance.
      Petroleum.
          The production of crude oil or petroleum in Canada during 1934
 amounted to 1,417,368 barrels, principally from the Turner Valley field in
 Alberta.  A small amount is also obtained from wells near Monkton, New
 Brunswick and in southwest Ontario, between Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
 Considerable quantities are also imported from the United States.
      Zinc.
          Canada ranks fourth among the worlds producers of zinc.  Her out-
 put in 1934 totaled 298,579,531 pounds.  The principal producing mines are
 located in the Kootenay district of British Columbia and near Flin-Flon
 in northwest Manitoba.  Approximately 2/3 of the zinc exported goes to Great
 Britain.
   d. Manufacturing.
   _
      (1) General.
          Canada is the second largest manufacturing country in the British
 Empire, with Ontario and Quebec the most important industrial centers.  The
 relative standing of the various provinces during 1933, based on the value
 of products manufactured, was approximately as follows:
                 Ontario             $1,000,000,000.
                 Quebec                 650,000,000.
                 British Columbia *     146,500,000.
                 Manitoba                91,000,000.
                 Alberta                 55,000,000.
                 Nova Scotia             53,000,000.
                 New Brunswick           45,000,000.
                 Saskatchewan            36,000,000.
                 Prince Edward Island     3,000,000.
        *Includes Yukon Territory


                                  -49-

          The principal industries ranked according to gross value of
 products (1932) are:
           Pulp and Paper                 $123,415,492.
           Central Electrical Stations     117,532,081.
           Non-ferrous metal smelting      100,561,297.
           Slaughtering and meat packing    92,366,137.
           Flour and food mills             83,322,099.
           Butter and Cheese                80,395,887.
           Petroleum Products               70,268,265.
           Bread and other bakery product   51,244,162.
           Cotton yarn and cloth            51,197,628.
           Printing and publishing          50,811,968.
           Clothing factory, women's        44,535,823.
           Automobiles.                     42,885,643.
           Rubber goods.                    41,511,556.
           Hosiery and knitted goods        40,997,210.
           Sawmills.                        39,438,057.
      (2) Munitions.
          (a) Aircraft.
              There are at present six firms manufacturing aircraft as
 follows:
                Canadian-Vickers...............Montreal, Que.
                De Haviland....................Toronto, Ont.
                Curtis Reid....................Cartierville, Que.
                Fairchild......................Longueuil, Que.
                Boeing.........................Vancouver, B.C.
                Ottawa Car Mfg. Co.............Ottawa, Que.
              Aero engine factories have been established by:
                Armstrong-Siddeley Motors Co. at Ottawa, Que.
                Aero Engines of Canada at Montreal, Que.
                Canadian Pratt-Whitney Aircraft Co. at Longueuil, Que.
          (b) Miscellaneous.
                During the World War Canada demonstrated her ability to
 divert her peace time industries to the production of munitions, when she
 manufactured and exported large quantities of shells, fuses, cartridge
 cases, explosives, gun forgings, machine guns and small arms ammunition.
 This production could not be obtained in case of war with Blue but some
 munitions could be produced if her factories were free to operate and raw
 materials were available.  The government arsenal at Lindsey, Ont., is
 equipped to produce small arms ammunition and the arsenal at Quebec manu-
 factures some small arms and artillery ammunition.
   e. Commerce.
   _
      Analysis of Canada's industry and resources indicate that she has a
 sufficiency or surplus of certain raw materials but a deficiency of others.
 The more important of these materials are as follows:
      (1) Sufficiency or surplus;
          Arsenic, asbestos, cadmium, cobalt, copper, feldspar, fish oil,
 fluospar, foodstuffs, furs, gold, graphite, gypsum, lead, leather, magnesium,
 mica, nickel, silver, talc, wood and zinc.
      (2) Deficiency;
          Aluminium, antimony, bauxite, barytes, camphor, chromite, coal,
 cotton, flax, hemp, iron, jute, kaolin, manganese, mercury, nitrates,
 phosphate, petroleum, opium, quinine, rubber, silk, sugar, sulphur, tea,
 tin, tobacco and wool.


                                  -50-

   7. Combat Estimate.
   a. All matters pertaining to the defense of Canada are under a Department
   _
 of National Defense (Act of Jan. 9, 1923) with a minister of National De-
 fense at the head.  A Defense Council has been constituted to advise the
 Minister.
   b. The Navy has an authorized complement of 104 officers and 812 men, a
   _
 large majority serving under 7 year enlistments.  In addition certain spec-
 ialists are loaned from the British Royal Navy.  The Reserve consists of
 from 70 to 113 officers and from 430 to 1026 men recruited from sea-faring
 personnel.
      The ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are:

 Built    Class     Displacement  Name          Location     Status   Armament
 1931  Destroyer     1337 tons    Saguenay    Halifax, N.S. In comm.  4-4.7"
 1931     "          1337  "      Skenna      Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    4-4.7"
 1919     "           905  "      Champlain   Halifax, N.S.  "   "    3-4"
 1919     "           905  "      Vancouver   Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    3-4"
 1918  Mine Sweeper   360  "      Armentieres Esquimalt,B.C. "   "
 1918   "     "       360  "      Festubert   Halifax, N.S.  " reserve
 1918   "     "       360  "      Ypres       Halifax, N.S.  "   "

   c. Army.
   _
      (1) Personnel: Estimated Strength (by G-2):
                            Organized Forces.
                            ________________
                                          Active        Reserve     Total
                                          ______        _______     _____
 Permanent Active Militia                   403                      403
      Officers                              403                      403
      Men                                  3300                    3,300
 Non Permanent Active Militia
      Officers                                           6,911     6,911
      Men                                               44,962    44,962

 Reserves, Non-active
      Officers                                          10,000    10,000
      Men                                               30,000    30,000
                                                     __________________
   Total Organized                        3,703         91,873    95,576 *
 Note: The Canada Year Book, 1935, pp 1114, gives permanent and non-permanent
 active militia 1934:
      Permanent Officers and men---------    3,760
      Non-permanent officers and men-----  135,184
                                           _________
                                   Total   138,941
      The latest information concerning the distribution of the active militia
 is shown on the accompanying map. (Incl. G)
      (2) It is probable that the Non-permanent Active Militia can be brought
 to a strength of 60,000 at M plus 15 and to full strength of 126,000 in M
 plus 30 days.  (Note: This estimate is approximately twice that of G-2,
 First Army.) New troops will begin to appear in 180 days at the rate of
 50,000 monthly.
   d. Air Service.
   _
      The Royal Canadian Air Force operates under a directorate in the office
 of the Chief of Staff of the Army.
           Strength (Dec. 1, 1934)
                Active:
                  Officers          117
                  Men               664
                Reserve:
                  Officers           38
                  Men               236
                                  _____
                          Total   1,055


                                   -51-

      The equipment consists of some 84 combat planes with probably 20 on
 order. (G-2 estimate)  The Armaments Year Book, League of Nations, gives
 a total of 166 planes of all kinds and the Statesman Year Book, 1935 gives
 189 planes of all kinds.  It is probable that about one squadron of pursuit
 and one squadron of observation could be organized for immediate service.
   e. Comment.
   _
      The location of Canada's industry and population along a narrow extent
 front facing the northern United States border and her relatively weak
 military and naval forces, widely dispersed, will necessitate a defensive
 role until Red forces are landed.  The promptness and effectiveness of
 British aid must depend upon suitable debarkation points on Canada's east
 coast.  The West Coast does not favor overseas operations unless Red controls
 the Pacific, and even then is too remote from critical Blue areas.
   f. Red Reinforcements.
   _
      Various estimates have been made of the size, composition, and time of
 placing Red reinforcements in Canada.  In any such estimate, the time factor
 is of prime importance but depends on an unknown quantity, viz, "the period
 of strained relations."
      The following estimate is considered conservative:
                    Probable Enemy Forces in Canada
                    _______________________________
                                   Empire
 Days after       Crimson      (Less Crimson)                 Total
   M Day      men      Div.     Men        Div.        Men         Divisions
    15      25,000      5       ---        ---       25,000            5
    30      50,000      5       ---        ---       50,000            5
    60      50,000      5       126,000*    8       176,000           13
    90      50,000      5       203,000    13       253,000           13
   120      50,000      5       238,000    16       288,000           21
   150      50,000      5       255,000    16       305,000           21
   180      90,000      6       255,000    16       345,000           22
 *Under certain conditions this force might be landed in Canada by 30 M.

                                Air Forces.
                                __________
      Red has available at once 48 squadrons of 10 to 12 planes each.  The
 following forces can probably be landed in Canada as indicated.
                       10 M         13 squadrons.
                       30 M         30 squadrons.
                       60 M         41 squadrons.
                       90 M         56 squadrons.
                      120 M         74 squadrons.
   f. Conclusion.
   _
      Crimson cannot successfully defend her territory against the United
 States (Blue).  She will probably concentrate on the defense of Halifax
 and the Montreal-Quebec line in order to hold bases of operation for Red.
 Important secondary efforts will be made to defend her industrial area and
 critical points on her transcontinental railroad lines.

   8. Areas of Strategic Importance.
      Analysis of the above data and discussion indicates certain areas which
 would become of considerable military importance in the event of war with
 Red; namely,
   a. The Halifax Monkton St. John area, sometimes called the Martime
   _
      Province area.
   b. The Montreal Quebec area, sometimes called the St. Lawrence Area.
   _


                                   -52-

   c. The Great Lakes Area.
   _
      (1) Niagara River Area.
      (2) Sarnia-Windsor Area.
      (3) Sault Ste. Marie Area.
      (4) Sudbury Area.
   d. Winnipeg Area.
   _
      (1) Winnipeg City and vicinity.
      (2) Churchill, Manitoba Area.
   e. Vancouver-Victoria Area.
   _
      (1) Ports of Vancouver and Victoria, area.
      (2) Prince Rupert area.
   f. The reasons why these various areas are strategically important may be
   _
 briefly summarized as follows:
      (1) Halifax Monkton St. John Area. (Maritime Province)
          The port of Halifax is the key point in the area, for while the
 port of St. John affords excellent facilities for an overseas expedition,
 it is so close to the United States border that uninterrupted use by Red
 cannot be expected.  At Monkton, the peninsula connecting Nova Scotia and
 the mainland narrows to 14 miles.  With Halifax in possession of Crimson,
 this area affords the best defensive position to prevent any advance west-
 ward by Red.
          (a). Control of Halifax by Blue would:
               1. Deny Red the only ice free port on the east coast and the
               _
 only ports, other than the St. Lawrence River ports, suitable as an overseas
 base.
               2. Deny Red a prepared naval base on the east coast, from which
               _
 to operate against Blue naval forces or commercial shipping.
               3. Disrupt transoceanic submarine cable service between Crimson
               _
 and Red (except from Newfoundland) and between Crimson and the West Indies.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
               _
 against northeastern United States.
          (b) The control of Halifax by Blue, renders the Port of St. John
 and the Monkton area of secondary importance. Failing to secure Halifax
                                               _______
 control of the Monkton area by Blue would:
 ___________________________
               1. Deny Red the use of St. John Harbor.
               _
               2. Cut the lines of communication between the port of Halifax
               _
 and St. John and the remainder of Canada.
               3. Place Blue directly across the only line of advance (by
               _
 Red) from Halifax, on the shortest possible defensive line.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
               _
 against northeastern United States.
               5. Give Blue the use of various small air fields at Monkton
               _
 and St. John.
      (2) Montreal - Quebec Area (St. Lawrence River Area).
          The ports of Montreal and Quebec, while ice bound about four months
 of the year, still afford the best overseas base both as to facilities and
 location.  In addition the area is of great commercial importance in that
 it controls all lines of communication, by land, sea and wire between in-
 dustrial and agricultural centers of Canada and the eastern seaboard.  While
 Montreal has the larger and more commodius harbor and terminal facilities,
 Quebec, due to its physical location, is the key point of the area.
         Control of this area by Blue would:
         (a) Deny the use of all good St. Lawrence River ports to Red.
         (b) Cut all Canada, west of Quebec, viz. industrial, and agricult-
 ural centers from the eastern seaboard.


                                   -53-

          (c) Deny Red and Crimson and make available to Blue, the principal
 air bases in eastern Canada.
          (d) Deny Crimson coal and iron from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as
 well as all imports via the Atlantic.
      (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          This area comprises several critical points:
          (a) Niagara River crossings and Welland Canal.
          (b) The waters connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
          (c) The great industrial area of Canada - that part of Ontario lying
 between Lake Huron and Lakes Erie and Ontario.
          (d) The waters connecting Lake Superior and Lake Huron, including
 the Soo Locks.
          (e) The Sudbury nickel-copper mines.
      Control of the Great Lakes waterway is vital to Blue, for the transporta-
 tion of iron ore, coal and grain and such control will necessitate occupation
 of a bridgehead covering the narrow boundary waters at and near the Soo
 Locks and in the Detroit Area.  The bridges over the Niagara River and the
 Welland Canal, connecting Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are of importance to
 Blue for occupation of the Important industrial area of the Niagara-Ontario
 peninsula.  The Welland Canal would become of importance as a line of communi-
 cation if Blue seized the peninsula.  While control of that area is of
 importance in crippling Crimson industry, it is probably of greater importance
 in denying the enemy Crimson and Red, a most convenient base for operations
 against highly industrialized areas in the United States.
      (4) Winnipeg Area.
          Winnipeg is the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad
 system.  Control by Blue will effectively separate eastern and western
 Canada and block transportation on men, grain, coal, meat and oil to the
 east.  The completion of the Canadian National Railroad to Churchill
 Manitoba on Hudson Bay and the development of the port at Churchill provide
 an alternate route to Europe via Moosonee, Ont., and the Tem. and Ont.
 Ry. to northeast Ontario.  While the water route through Hudson Bay is only
 open about four months of the year, and the ports are supplied by single
 track railroads, a considerable amount of traffic could be developed in an
 emergency.
      (5) Vancouver - Victoria Area.
          As pointed out above, the ports in this area are of secondary im-
 portance only under the conditions, which may reasonable be assumed.  How-
 ever, the area has certain military importance, due to the naval base at
 Esquimalt, and is a possible outlet for the Canadian plan provinces and
 western Canada.  Its control by Blue would deny the enemy any base or outlet
 on the West Coast; simplify the problem of protecting our shipping in the
 Puget Sound area; and interrupt cable communication with the far east.
          While Prince Rupert, B.C. has an excellent harbor and terminal
 facilities with good rail connections leading east, naval blockade of this
 port would be readily possible, once the Vancouver - Victoria area was in
 Blue control.

   9. Routes of Approach to the Areas of Strategic Importance.
   a. Halifax - Monkton - St. John Area (Maritime Provinces) (Incls. D & H).
   _
      Three possible routes of approach are considered, viz:
      (1) Via water from Boston or New York to Halifax or vicinity.
      (2) Via water from Boston or New York to ports in Western Nova Scotia
 and thence overland to Halifax.


                                   -54-

      (3) From Eastern Maine, via St. John and/or Fredericton to Monkton -
 Amherst - Truro to Halifax.
   b. Discussion of Routes of Approach to the Halifax - Monkton  - St. John
   _
 (Maritime Province) Area.
      (1) The distance by water from Boston to Halifax is 370 miles and from
 New York 600 miles, or in time about 30 or 50 hours respectively.  The
 Port of Halifax is fortified and would undoubtedly be mined.  A frontal
 attack would require a large force and would involve undesirable delays.
 Other developed ports of Nova Scotia on the Atlantic are too distant from
       _________
 Halifax and involve a long advance after a landing is effected and this
 advance would be over difficult terrain.
          A number of undeveloped bays along the east shore offer favorable
 conditions for landing operations and of these, St. Margarets Bay, the near-
 est, being some 16 miles by road west of Halifax, appears satisfactory.
 Deep water, with a minimum depth of 7 fathoms extends nearly to the head of
 the Bay, not far from Hubley and French Village, which are on an improved
 road and on the railroad from Yarmouth to Halifax.  The bay is protected
 from all winds and seas, except those from the south and is of sufficient
 size to harbor any fleet required for the expedition.  Tidal range is the
 same as at Halifax, 6 to 6 1/2 feet.  There are numerous small but adequate
 boat and barge landings on the west, north and east shore of the bay, from
 whence improved roads lead to the main highway.
          The highway Hubbard - French Village - Hubley - Halifax is 18
 feet wide, of macadam, with east grades and with concrete bridges capable
 of carrying heavy artillery and tanks.  The railroad is single track,
 standard gauge and parallels the road.  It has rather heavy grades and is
 of light construction.
          Rocky wooded hills rise rather steeply to a height of 200 to 400
 feet all around St. Margarets Bay, but the roads are within the 50 foot
 contour and the terrain between the roads and the water is greatly rolling.
 The main highway French Village - Halifax, runs through low rocky hills
 and movement off the roads by wheeled vehicles would be practically im-
 possible.
      (2) The ports on the western shore of Nova Scotia off the Bay of Fundy
 are subjected to extremely high tides - 20 to 25 feet, and generally afford
 only limited terminal facilities and have depths generally inadequate for
 docking transports.  Tidal currents are strong.  From Windsor, on the Avon
 River, to Halifax, there is one improved road and a branch of the Canadian
 Northern Railroad.  The distance is about 50 miles, with high ground and good
 defensive positions in the center of the island.  As a route of approach to
 Halifax it is considered inferior to the route from St. Margarets Bay.
      (3) The All Land Route via Eastern Maine.
          This route involves an advance from the Maine border of approximately
 320 miles over difficult terrain.  The St. Johns River, rising near the border
 of northern Maine, flows south just east of the Maine - New Brunswick border
 to Woodstock, thence generally southeast through Fredericton to St. John.  It
 is navigable from the mouth to the falls some distance above Woodstock, N.B.
 The average tidal range at St. John is 20 1/2 feet, decreasing up stream.  The
 river is crossed by a highway and a railroad bridge at Fredericton, each
 nearly 1/2 mile long.  Two other bridges, a cantilever railroad bridge and a
 suspension bridge span the river about one mile above the city of St. John.
 There are numerous ferries operating alone the river.  It is apparent that
 the St. John River is a serious obstacle to any advance overland from
 Maine.  While the St. John could be bridged, such operations would
 result in considerable delay.


                                  -55-

          The railroad and road nets available are shown on Inclosures B,
 C and D.  They are reasonably adequate for a force of the size probably
 required for this operation.
      (4) Conclusion.
          If Halifax is to be captured without the use of large forces and
 expenditure of considerable time and effort, it must be accomplished promptly
 before Red reinforcements can be landed or Crimson organize for its defense.
 Any advance overland from Maine would eliminate all elements of surprise and
 make the capture extremely difficult - a major operation.
          An overseas expedition is one of the most uncertain of military
 operations, and with the Red fleet on guard in the North Atlantic, with
 Red's immediate military objective the retention of a base in eastern
 Canada for future operations against Blue, a joint operation against Halifax
 must be promptly and perfectly executed to assure any hope of success.  This
 route is considered the best but existing conditions at the time, may make
 this route impracticable, and the all land route necessary.
   c. The St. Lawrence Area. (Quebec - Montreal)
   _
      The only practicable routes of advance for Blue, into this area, are
 from northern New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and from northwest Maine.
 (See map) (Incl. K)
      (1) Rivers.
          (a) The St. Lawrence River flanks the left side of all routes of
 approach to Quebec.  From Montreal to Three Rivers it flows through an
 alluvial plain, with the south bank 25 to 75 feet above the river.  Below
 Three Rivers the banks increase steadily in height to Quebec, where they are
 140 to 175 feet high. The normal rise and fall of the river above the tidewater
 is 10 feet but this maybe doubled by ice jams.  Tidal range reaches a
 maximum of 18 feet at Quebec, and practically disappears at Richelieu Rapids
 40 miles above Quebec. The river above Quebec is obstructed by ice from
 November to April but ice breakers can get through.  The river from Quebec
 to Montreal, generally about 1/2 to 2 miles wide (except at Lake St. Peter)
 is navigable on a 30' draft to Montreal.  The distance from Quebec to Mon-
 treal is 160 miles.
              In the area south of the St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Mon-
 treal, are several rivers of importance which will naturally influence any
 plans for an advance on Quebec, viz:
                          Richelieu River
                          St. Francis River
                          Nicolet River
                          Becancour River
                          Chaudiere River
                          Etchemin River
              Other streams will create obstacles of lesser importance.
          (b) The Richelieu River flows north from Lake Champlain to enter
 the St. Lawrence about 35 miles north of Montreal.  It is navigable on a
 6 1/2 foot draft throughout its length.
          (c) The St. Francis River rises in St. Francis Lake some 50 miles
 northwest of Jackman, Maine.  It flows southwest to Lennoxville, Quebec,
 where it turns sharply northwest to flow into the St. Lawrence (Lake St.
 Peter).  Headwaters are controlled.  The regulated flow is some 3000 feet
 per second or more, with an average fall of 6.6 feet per mile. It is not
 fordable below Sherbrooke.


                            -56-

          (d) The Nicolet River rises in Nicolet Lake, 8 miles west of Lake
 Alymer, and flows generally northwest to empty into the St. Lawrence at the
 east end of Lake St. Peter.  The average low water flow is about 2000 feet
 per second. Banks in the upper reaches - hilly wooded terrain - are steep
 and from 200 to 500 feet higher.  The average fall is about 21 feet per mile
 but there are a number of dams.  From Arthabaska to Lake St. Peter the stream
 flows through a flat open country, with banks 25 feet high or less, except
 for a gorge starting about 4 miles north of St. Clothilda and ending 3 miles
 from Lake St. Peter.  The river is not a serious obstacle but there are many
 swampy areas between it and the Becancour River.
          (e) The Becancour River rises about 5 miles northwest of Lake St.
 Francis and flows north, then southwest, then northwest to enter the St.
 Lawrence a few miles below Three Rivers, Que.  The lower reaches of the
 river, below the vicinity of Lyster, Que, flows through generally flat country
 of gentle slope.  The stream averages 300 to 400 feet wide and is fordable
 at few places.  From Maddington Falls to within 3 miles of the St. Lawrence
 the river flows through a narrow gorge 100 to 250 feet below the surrounding
 flat country.  The river is not a serious obstacle to an advance on Quebec,
 by reason of the general direction of flow in its lower reaches and the
 characteristics of the country.
          (f) The Chaudierre River rises in Lake Megantic, about 45 miles
 west of Jackman, Maine and flows generally north into the St. Lawrence, op-
 posite Quebec.  From Lake Megantic to Hersey Mills, it flows swiftly between
 steep banks in a narrow valley.  The adjacent terrain is rugged and heavily
 timbered.  From St. George to Valley Junction the valley widens materially
 and the country is less rugged.  Below Valley Junction the river flows through
 gentle undulating country between relatively low banks.  The Chaudiere is a
 strong swift stream with an average discharge of over 4000 feet per second.
 The width varies from 200 feet at St. George to 400 feet or more in the lower
 reaches.  From St. Maxine to the St. Lawrence it is 600 to 1500 feet wide.
 This river must be considered a serious obstacle.
          (g) The Etchemin River rises in Lake Atchemin and flows northwest
 into the Chaudiere.  It is 200 to 300 feet wide in the lower reaches, with
 banks generally high and steep.  It forms a considerable obstacle.
      (2) Terrain.
          The southerly portion of the area bordering on the United States,
 east of the Richelieu River, is hilly verging on mountainous (up to 3000').
 The Notre Dame Mountains extend the Green Mountains of Vermont in the form
 of a series of ridges, gradually decreasing in elevation from Lake Champlain
 northeast to the meridian of Quebec, thence northeast parallel to the St.
 Lawrence.  From the St. Lawrence the terrain rises smoothly and gradually
 toward the southeast to the foothills of the Notre Dame Mountains.  On the
 line Montreal Sherbrooke a serious of eight hills (wooded) rise sharply
 to heights varying from 800 to 1500 feet or more above the surrounding
 country.
          In general the hills of the Quebec theatre are wooded, those below
 the 500 foot contour and east of the Becancour River sparsely, while west
 of the river there are densely forested areas at intervals.
      (3) Roads.
          The main roads to Montreal lead north from Plattsburgh, New York and
 Burlington, Vermont.  Quebec may be reached via routes No. 1 and 5, through
 Sherbrooke, Que; via route No. 3 along the south bank of the St. Lawrence;
 or via Montreal and the north bank of the St. Lawrence.  The latter is the
 longest route and undoubtedly the most difficult.  Another route is available
 from Jackman, Maine, via route No. 23 through Valley Junction.  The road
 net available is shown on inclosure No. "D" and "K."


                                   -57-

      (4) Railroads.
          The railroads available are shown on inclosures "B" and "C."  They
 are entirely adequate for any probable movement against this area.
      (5) Discussion of routes.
          (a) Northern New York - Vermont to Montreal
               Roads: No. 9 from Plattsburgh to St. Lambert and South Mon-
 treal.  Distance 69.2 miles, all paved.
                      No. 7 from Burlington, Vt., via St. John, Que. to
 St. Lambert or South Montreal.  Distance 94.2 miles, all paved.  There is
 a bridge across the Richelieu River at St. Johns.  There are two highway
 bridges across the St. Lawrence at Montreal.
              Railroads: Delaware and Hudson - Albany to Montreal.
                         New York Central - Malone to Montreal.
                         Rutland and C.P. - Burlington to Montreal.
                         Central Vermont and C.N. Montpelier to Montreal.
              Comments: The terrain is favorable and no physical barrier
 to the advance as far as the St. Lawrence, except the crossing of the Rich-
 elieu River, for a force moving from Vermont.  An advance on Quebec from
 Montreal is possible, but offers the longest route, with many rivers per-
 pendicular to the line of advance (down the St. Lawrence) which offer
 excellent defensive positions.
          (b) Northern Vermont and New Hampshire to Quebec.
                Physical features: The Richelieu River on the west and the
 Chaudiere and Etchemin Rivers on the east tend to delimit the zone of advance.
              Roads:
                No. 5 - Newport, Vt. to Sherbrook then No. 7 to Valley
 Junction to the highway bridge on the St. Lawrence and to Quebec, or via
 No. 23 from Scott Junction to Levis, Que and the ferry to Quebec.  Distance
 212.5 miles from Newport, Vt.  All improved road, mostly gravel.  Some of
 the road through the hilly country is paved.  No. 5 from Sherbrooke via
 Victoriaville is an alternate route.
                No. 23, Jackman, Maine - Valley Junction - Levis.  This dis-
 tance is 109 miles.  The road is improved and about 50% paved.  It is the
 shortest route.  It crosses the Chauderie and Etchemin Rivers. There are
 numerous alternate routes and connecting roads.
                Railroads:
                   Canadian Pacific - Newport to Quebec.
                   Canadian Pacific - Jackman via Megantic to Quebec.
                   Canadian National - Portland, Me., via Sherbrooke to Quebec.
                Comments:
                   While the terrain in this sector is hilly verging on the
 mountainous, with several defiles and river crossings, it offers the short-
 est and best route of advance on Quebec.

    d. The Great Lakes Area.
    _
        This area must be considered under the following subdivisions, as the
 routes of approach vary, and approach must be made from all of these direc-
 tions.
            The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
            The Port Huron - Detroit Area.
            The Sault St. Marie or Soo Locks - Sudbury Area.
       (1) The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
             Bridges cross the Niagara River at Buffalo (Peace Bridge);
 at Niagara Falls (suspension Bridge) and the (lower Arch Bridge) and at
 Lewiston, New York. "      "   "


                                -58-

           Roads: The road net approaching the Niagara River from the
 United States and leading across the river into southern Ontario and through
 Hamilton to Toronto and Montreal, is one of the best along the inter-
 national boundary and is entirely adequate for any probably movement.
           Railroads: The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National rail-
 roads have a network of railways connecting Buffalo with Toronto and points
 east.  Branch lines lead to all important parts of the Niagara peninsula.
           Comment: The crossings over the Niagara River should be promptly
 secured to assure a line of advance into the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario.

      (2) The Detroit - Port Huron Area.
           This area has much the same characteristics as the Buffalo
 Niagara River Area but beyond securing the crossings over the boundary
 waters, sufficient area to cover the Great Lakes water routes against
 Crimson interference is essential.
           Crossings:
              Ambassador Bridge - Detroit - Windsor.
              Two tunnels (one railroad) Detroit - Windsor.
              Numerous ferries.
           Railroads and roads: There is an excellent railroad and road net
 available for any advance eastward from Detroit and Port Huron.
           Comment: The Ontario Peninsula is of great industrial importance
 to Canada and a military area of great strategic value, as a base for air
 or land operations against the industrialized areas between Chicago and
 Buffalo.  Any Blue operations should advance via Buffalo - Niagara Falls and
 Port Huron - Detroit simultaneously.

      (3) Sault Ste. Marie - Sudbury Area.
           The best route of approach to the Sudbury area, about 200 miles
 east of the Soo, is obviously via Sault St. Marie, along the north shore
 of North Channel.  An operation along this route, automatically covers the
 Soo.  The Canadian Pacific railroad and one good gravel road leads east
 from the Soo.  These provide ample facilities for supply of the probable
 force required.  The southern flank of this line is protected by North
 Sound and the north flank by rough heavily wooded terrain entirely devoid
 of roads or other communications suitable for the movement of armed forces.

      (4) Winnipeg Area.
            The main route from the United States to Winnipeg is north
 from Grand Forks and Crookston through Emerson.  A main road follows the
 west bank of the Red River, from Emerson into Winnipeg.  A good hard sur-
 face road from Grand Forks and one from Crookston furnishes a suitable
 road net south of the border.  There are several secondary roads on both
 sides of the border to supplement the hard surface roads.
            The Canadian Pacific has two main lines extending north from
 the border, one leading from Fargo through Gretna along the west bank of
 the Red River, and one from Thief River Falls, through Emerson along the
 east bank of the Red River.  The Canadian Northern has a line from Grand
 Forks through Emerson Junction to Winnipeg on the west bank of the Red
 River and another line connecting with Duluth and extending through
 Warroad to Winnipeg.
            The best and only practicable route of approach is obviously
 north from Grand Forks and Crookston.  The terrain is flat and open and
 offers no natural obstacles to an advance.


                                     -59-

            Churchill, on Hudson Bay, has rail connection by the Canadian
 National system at Hudson Bay Junction about 325 miles northwest of Winni-
 peg.  The best and only route of approach to cut this line is along the
 railroad from Winnipeg.

      (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver - Victoria) (See Incl. E & L) (Omitted)
            The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99 through
 Bellingham, a distance of 55 miles and over a paved highway, through wooded
 and farming country.  A secondary and longer route lies about 15 miles fur-
 ther to the east running through Sumas to strike the highways running east
 from Vancouver at the meridian of Mission City.
             The Grand Trunk Railroad extending from Vancouver to Seattle fur-
 nishes a satisfactory rail service.
             Victoria and Esquimalt, on the island of Vancouver can be reached
 by water only.  Ferry service is maintained between Vancouver and Nanaimo on
 the east shore of the island, some 50 miles north of Victoria and between
 Vancouver, Burlingham and Port Angeles and Victoria.  The best route of ap-
 proach is by water from Port Angeles, Washington.

  IV. Conclusions:
      ___________
   a That the critical areas of Canada are:
   _
          (1) The Halifax-Monkton-St.John Area (The Maritime Provinces).
          (2) The St.Lawrence Area (Quebec and Montreal).
          (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          (4) The Winnipeg Area.
          (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver and Victoria).

    b. That the best routes of approach to these areas are:
    _
    To  (1) By joint operations by sea from Boston.
        (2) From Northern New Hampshire-Vermont area.
        (3) (a) From Sault St. Marie and the Soo Locks Area.
            (b) From Port Huron - Detroit Area.
        and (c) From the Buffalo-Niagara Falls Area.
        (4) From Grand Forks-Crookston through Emerson.
        (5) Along Puget Sound through Everett and Bellingham, supported
               by an attack by water in Puget Sound.

    V. Recommendations.
       _______________
          None.

   VI. Concurrences.
       ____________
          The committee concurs in the foregoing conclusions.

                                       CHARLES H. JONES
                                       Major, Infantry,
                                    Subcommittee Chairman.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Interference by Unnamed “Foreign Powers” in Canada’s Elections? The Invasion of “America’s Backyard”

First published on May 9, 2019

Ever since ‘the wrong result’ occurred at the referendum launched by then Prime Minister David Cameron, a fiasco of unprecedented proportions has been taking place in British politics. It is a depressing and, owing to the pathos, a tragi-comical spectacle.

However, there is nothing comical about the direction things are moving in, but there is something tragic. The UK is being hijacked from within and without, simultaneously. The pretext for this dissolution of everything that holds the country together as an Independent Nation State is the collusion between leading figures in the British Civil Service and leading figures in the European Commission. That collusion is symptomatic of the technocratic march towards an ever more centralised European Super State.

Because of the complexity of the surface Brexit story, which plays-out it’s contortions on the front pages of UK press day after day, I’m going to concentrate only on the key issues that remain largely hidden due to this orchestrated media smoke screen.

Britain’s civil service once held the reputation of being largely true to its traditional role of  transcribing into law the decrees of State. British Civil Servants acted out of a long established tradition to make their priority ‘the representation of the people’. The institution, which essentially acts as the first call in public administration, is historically structured to be independent of government.

However, in recent decades, as the pressure of the ‘corporate will’ has gained an ever stronger influence over government policy, the civil service also fell victim to internal slippage – and a tendency to keep a covert ear open to the corporate cabal. As most of us know, the interests of Big Money and Big Banking are essentially united in wanting to expand their empires into ever more powerful dictatorships – and this makes them central to driving the ambitions of A New World Order in which purely material power gives those at the helm the authority to act as despots. Certain civil service operatives have recently started believing that they also have a right to a stake in a position at the top of this authoritarian pyramid.

After Prime Minister Cameron’s political demise, Theresa May placed herself as the chief architect in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU. She had behind her the 17.2 million UK citizens who had called for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, demanding an exit strategy to be settled and put in place without delay. May was not new to the politics of power, as head of The Home Office she was also in charge of national security and familiar with the workings of MI5 and MI6. Now, as Prime Minister, she inclined to listen to the voices of those dealing with international relations and foreign strategy, rather than the elected members of parliament to whom she is expected to report and consult.

Those ‘remainers’ who see the key power base of the future as an expanding centralisation programme centred around a supranational body of technocrats based in Brussels, put out a heavily financed call – that to quit the EU would be a disaster. Particularly for the economy, they claimed. Who are these figures? No doubt big-time financial henchmen who back the technocratic institutional road to power as the surest way to achieve their hegemonic goals.

Brussels had already produced the perfect template for technocrats to assume absolute authority. The EU has, since its inception, been a project to covertly create a federation run by unelected civil servant-style bureaucrats, cleverly disguised as an economic instrument for uniting Europe around common financial interests. Its early leaders include Walter Hallstein a leading ex Nazi who envisioned the European Union as a direct extension of the Third Reich: A Fourth Reich. The Bilderbergers were then responsible for concocting the poisoned formula that is intended to eventually do-away with nation states altogether, putting in their place a supranational authoritative body with total control over all aspects of civilian and military life.

With ‘Stay’ (remainer) voices shrilly supported by the majority of the mainstream British press – owned by just one or two well known media magnates – the dream of the UK being hard wired to the heart of the Fourth Reich was given enough impetus to present a direct challenge to the will of the British people, who had voted 52% to 48% to quit the European Union. A project conferred upon them by Prime Minister Edward heath back in 1973, with no consultation process being involved.

Theresa May has become a kind of mesmerized zombie within this high stakes battle for the fate of the British Isles. Her heavy reliance on the Cabinet committee and closed ears to parliament, has isolated her from the supposed ‘democratic process’ which is meant to be relied upon to resolve such a situation. Furthermore, she has shown a clear deficit in patriotism in her dealings with Donald Tusk (President of the European Council)  and Jean-Claude Juncker (President of the European Commission), who have made it clear that the UK will not be allowed out of fortress Brussels except on terms that suit the grandiose plans of the federal superstate.

Since these terms already involve the UK being (by treaty) locked into all regulatory controls emanating from Brussels, both before and after any ‘withdrawal’, it looks like game, set and match to Brussels regardless of what gets ‘agreed’ and signed up to on paper.

Whoever is pulling the strings that see Theresa May constantly pinging to and fro’ between London and Brussels on her supposed ‘negotiations’ with Tusk and Juncker, has got a plan which, if enacted, will play a critical role in bringing about the end of the UK as an independent Nation State’. That plan is called ‘EU Military Unification’.

Military Unification follows the edicts of the New World Order script by establishing a ‘One European Army’ able to exert its military influence at the behest of the technocrats in charge of EU home and foreign policy. Its stated aim is to bolster NATO in counterbalancing the ‘aggressive’ powers of Russia and China – which are always conveniently painted as ‘aggressors’ in spite of the fact that no evidence is available to validate this label.

But the under-text of this ‘military unification programme’ is considerably more sinister than the by now standard vilification of the Eastern super powers. It is coldly designed to strip the UK of its military strength by subsuming its army, navy and air force into a ‘One European Army’ under the command of foreign military personnel. And, at the time of writing, it looks as though the high command of this army will be headed by German Generals; although France is also pushing hard for the number one spot.

The sheer travesty of this EU heist for technocratic control of another Country’s military defence capabilities, is electrifying. It is at once both deeply sinister and alarming and suggests that the Fourth Reich is indeed close to becoming operational in Europe. Yet it cannot become so without the UK military – since the UK has the largest and best trained army in Europe.

Suddenly the whole game freezes into one starkly strategic ambition: to render the UK – and it will be true of other nations too once the precedent is set – a vassal state under the dictatorship of a despotic centralised regime moving ever closer to the totalitarian New World Order model planned by secret societies and carefully disguised elite clubs of hegemonic 21stcentury empire builders.

Already the forerunner of full ‘EU military unification’ is to be seen in action. In France, there have been many claims that foreign military police have been drafted in by Macron in order to take a strong line with Yellow Vest protesters. The reasoning is that, being outsiders, they will be able to be more brutal with French nationals without feeling bad about it. What a sick idea. But in taking such a line one can see how a European military/police unification process can be used to suppress individuals – in any part of Europe – attempting to  kick back against oppressive leadership.

Back in London, Mark Sedwell, head of the British Civil Service, sits in an ornate regal chair in Westminster – and with a wry smile declares himself to be ‘King of the United Kingdom’. The Prime Minister recently authorised Sedwell’s present position as head National Security Advisor, head of the Cabinet Office and head of the Civil Service. If one ever needed proof that civil service boffins are shedding their traditional roles as ‘answering to the will of the people’ and are instead occupying the front line of UK policy makers – this is surely conclusive evidence. Civil Servants, according to Brian Guerrish, lead presenter of UK Column News “are the new oligarchs.”

The United Kingdom is in deep trouble. Brexit is a sham. A deception of the highest order. The Country’s very own Prime Minister is involved in an act of treason, selling the nation she was elected to defend and to direct according to the will of the people. While down the road at Buckingham Palace, the Queen of England, titular head of ‘Her Majesty’s Armed Forces’ and sworn defender of the United Kingdom as an Independent Nation State – sits passively on the side lines – seemingly unmoved by the fact that her kingdom is being auctioned-off and rendered impotent, right in front of her eyes. Rendered impotent and defenceless.

You might imagine that The Queen of England would, by now, have called the Prime Minister to the Palace and told her – in  no uncertain terms – that this is a bridge too far. But no. All is silent. Eerily so.

Back in parliament, MP’s of both the ruling Conservative party and the opposition Labour Party, also remain tight lipped when questioned if they are aware that the nation’s military defence is being disbanded in favour of a realignment with an EU military unification programme.  Are they playing ignorant – or are they actually ignorant?

Using the infamous technique of divide and conquer, citizens of the United Kingdom are being goaded into ‘taking sides’. Neither ‘solution’ (to leave or to stay) reflect much clarity of thought. This is due to the fact that a significant majority cannot comprehend the details of the spurious arguments the national press put forward. Not surprisingly, since there is a great pall of obfuscation being deliberately injected into the whole process in order to produce the sort of chaos which will allow the the hidden government or ‘deep state’ as it is known in the USA – to sneak through its strategic agenda for achieving a further turning of the screw in the direction of a One World dictatorship.

As if to compound the Huxleyan agenda, the very same cabal is pushing 5G WiFi forward as the ‘solution’ for a one world electromagnetic microwave grid to survey and influence the behaviour and health of every single person on the planet. This ubiquitous ‘silent weapon’ is to be the power source for ‘the smart internet of everything’ and precursor of a robotic age in which microwaving and mind controlling of populations is callously and indiscriminately performed in the name of the maintenance of ‘law and order’.

However there is resistance to universal despotism. Growing resistance. Growing in direct response to all attempts being made to snuff it out. The great Brexit deception is being exposed for what it is as more and more people witness the hard edged controlling hand of the EU at work against any non conformist elements making a stand for another way of doing things. Witness the EU at work in support of Macron’s imperialist leadership of France; in the suppression of of an independent Basque State; in the cold economic suffocation of Greece and the blocking of the new government of Italy and its reassertion of the values of Nation Statehood.  Witness also continuing EU support for US led military invasions of foreign countries and the backing of US troop and armament installations in Poland and other Eastern European Countries.

Those who can think are increasingly on the side of a ‘peoples resistance movement’ and initiatives that expose the top down heavy-handed militarisation of once democratic countries. We are witnessing a remarkable global upsurge of humanitarian calls for a completely new paradigm of socio-economic and environmental reform – a revolution in the way that the wealth of the planet is shared and distributed, including an end to brutal imperialistic wars that are destroying everything of value and sanctity on this precious planet.  The top down New World Order design model envisaged by Bush, Cheney, Blair et al. with its post 9/11 hegemonic charge into the Middle East and beyond, is teetering on the brink.  While the emergence of a diametrically opposing ‘new world order’ is fermenting a bottom up resurgence of people power that, once it reaches critical mass, will depose the old criminal order once and for all. It comes down to a race against time.

As regards the UK’s future in or outside the European Union, I’ll leave you with the telling words of professor Gwythian Prins “The people have chosen the outer world. The officials and the May cell have chosen military EU. This is absolutely the wrong choice. It is therefore an inescapable fact that the Orwellian non withdrawal documents pose a real and present threat to UK national security in the most fundamental way possible.”

Brexit is undoubtedly a huge wake up call for a very large number of individuals in the UK, in Europe and beyond. What is playing-out is highly significant in all respects. It comes down to a case of accepting indefinite slavery to an empire building totalitarian technocracy or finding the strength of imagination and purpose to create and uphold a society of responsible, community conscious, independent and freedom loving individuals, able to set a just and sane course for humanity as a whole. Let us make sure that our voices and actions are fully aligned with the latter outcome.

*

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

Julian Rose 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. He is the author of two acclaimed titles: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life and is a long time exponent of yoga/meditation.  His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must  Come Through’ comes out in June. See Julian’s web site for more information and to purchase his books www.julianrose.info

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Are We Witnessing the End of the United Kingdom as an Independent Nation State?

The Global Research News Hour radio program is hosting a fund-raiser. These funds are necessary in order to improve and expand on the reporting and analysis we produce on a weekly basis to explore in-depth those issues missed by mainstream and even a lot of alternative media. Please consider a donation to Global Research and earmark it as for ‘Global Research News Hour’ or for the ‘radio show.’ Visit the fund-raising page here.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Over the course of five weeks of campaigning, politicians from 6 major political parties have put forward their platforms and tried to explain to Canadians why they deserve to be sent to Ottawa as opposed to their partisan rivals.

As is typically the case, foreign policy got short shrift during the election. The Munk debate on foreign policy, named after its founder, the notorious far-right global mining magnate Peter Munk, was cancelled due to Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision not to participate.

Much of the discourse during the campaign saw substantive policy discussions displaced by questions about ‘moral leadership.’ One example: embarrassing 18 year old photographs of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in ‘black/brown face’ during his time as a school teacher evoked questions about his hypocrisy and sensitivity on issues of racial injustice.

Where there was discussion of actual policy, the topics mostly centred around climate change mitigation strategies, job creation, deficits, and what to do about a controversial Bill in the francophone province of Quebec restricting public employees from adorning themselves with symbols of their religious faith while on the job.

Complicating any public discussion on foreign policy, however, was mainstream media long-standing reporting and commentary, ignoring Canada’s exploitive and imperialistic roles abroad. They, the major media, participate in the demonization of the governments of Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, while failing to challenge political leaders on Canadian support for the more anti-democratic behaviour of governments in Haiti and the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Democracy in the broadest sense of the term, is supposed to mean power of, by and for the people. A necessary prerequisite of democratic choices is reliable information on which responsible decisions can be made.

With less than 48 hours to go before Canadians go to the polls to elect their next government (as of this writing) the Global Research News Hour endeavours to do a little fact-checking and explore some of the important foreign policy issues not being discussed in the lead-up to election day.

In the first half hour, we are joined by activists Yves Engler and Ken Stone. Over the course of a 20 minute conversation, they discuss Canada’s policy in Syria and the Middle East. They also talk about the unquestioned devotion by all the major political parties to increased military spending. As well, they also elaborate on their involvement, during the campaign, in something called the ‘disruption network’ which confronts politicians in all political parties on their platforms and their records.

In the second half hour, writer, lecturer and author Arnold August, who is currently on a multi-city tour, speaks specifically about Canada’s hostile approach to Venezuela under the Trudeau Liberals, as well as its changing engagements with Cuba.

Finally, writer / researcher Joyce Nelson provides her assessment of the little discussed Canada Infrastructure Bank, and its role in securing the privatization of public infrastructure, particularly water an wastewater services in municipalities and First Nations communities across the country.

Yves Engler is a Montreal based political activist and writer specializing in dissident perspectives on Canadian foreign policy. He has authored close to a dozen books over the last decade. His most recent book is Left, Right — Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada. More of Engler’s articles can be found at the site yvesengler.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. Ken is author of “Defiant Syria”, an e-booklet available at Amazon, iTunes, and Kobo. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. He collaborates with many web sites, television and radio broadcasts based in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. His trilingual website: www.arnoldaugust.com.

Joyce Nelson is an award-winning freelance writer and researcher. She  writes regularly for The Watershed SentinelCounterpunch, and Global Research among other publications. She has authored 7 books including Beyond Banksters: Resisting the New Feudalism, from 2016 and its 2018 sequel, Bypassing Dystopia: Hope-filled Challenges to Corporate Rule. Her most recent article for Global Research is Privatizing Canada’s Water Infrastructure Should be an Election Issue.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 273)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Elections Campaign 2019: The Issues Nobody is Talking About

Canada is to become the second country after Uruguay to legalize the recreational use of cannabis. Adults will be able to purchase cannabis from “federally licensed producers”.  At present, Canada has according to the BBC “one of the highest rates of  cannabis use” Worldwide. “Canadians spent an estimated C$5.7bn ($4.6bn; £3.5bn) in 2017 alone on combined medical and recreational use – about $1,200 per user. The bulk of that spending was on black market marijuana.” (BBC, October 14, 2018).

Legalization kills the black market. Who is going to benefit? Ellen Brown analyses the corporate interests behind the legalization of Marijuana. It’s a multibillion corporate bonanza. In the US, the push has come from Big Pharma and Big Ag with Bayer-Monsanto in the lead. 

***

California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA) is a voter initiative characterized as legalizing marijuana use. But critics warn that it will actually make access more difficult and expensive, squeeze home growers and small farmers out of the market, heighten criminal sanctions for violations, and open the door to patented, genetically modified (GMO) versions that must be purchased year after year. 

As detailed in Part I of this article, the health benefits of cannabis are now well established. It is a cheap, natural alternative effective for a broad range of conditions, and the non-psychoactive form known as hemp has thousands of industrial uses. At one time, cannabis was one of the world’s most important crops. There have been no recorded deaths from cannabis overdose in the US, compared to about 30,000 deaths annually from alcohol abuse (not counting auto accidents), and 100,000 deaths annually from prescription drugs taken as directed. Yet cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance (“a deadly dangerous drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse”), illegal to be sold or grown in the US.

Powerful corporate interests no doubt had a hand in keeping cannabis off the market. The question now is why they have suddenly gotten on the bandwagon for its legalization. According to an April 2014 article in The Washington Times, the big money behind the recent push for legalization has come, not from a grassroots movement, but from a few very wealthy individuals with links to Big Ag and Big Pharma.

Leading the charge is George Soros, a major shareholder in Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company and producer of genetically modified seeds. Monsanto is the biotech giant that brought you Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, dioxin-based pesticides, aspartame, rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone), RoundUp (glyphosate) herbicides, and RoundUp Ready crops (seeds genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate).

Monsanto now appears to be developing genetically modified (GMO) forms of cannabis, with the intent of cornering the market with patented GMO seeds just as it did with GMO corn and GMO soybeans. For that, the plant would need to be legalized but still tightly enough controlled that it could be captured by big corporate interests. Competition could be suppressed by limiting access to homegrown marijuana; bringing production, sale and use within monitored and regulated industry guidelines; and legislating a definition of industrial hemp as a plant having such low psychoactivity that only GMO versions qualify. Those are the sorts of conditions that critics have found buried in the fine print of the latest initiatives for cannabis legalization.

Patients who use the cannabis plant in large quantities to heal serious diseases (e.g. by juicing it) find that the natural plant grown organically in sunlight is far more effective than hothouse plants or pharmaceutical cannabis derivatives. Letitia Pepper is a California attorney and activist who uses medical marijuana to control multiple sclerosis. As she puts it, if you don’t have an irrevocable right to grow a natural, therapeutic herb in your backyard that a corporation able to afford high license fees can grow and sell to you at premium prices, isn’t that still a war on people who use marijuana?

Follow the Money to Uruguay

Monsanto has denied that it is working on GMO strains. But William Engdahl, author ofSeeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, presents compelling circumstantial evidence to the contrary. In a March 2014 article titled “The Connection Between the Legalization of Marijuana in Uruguay, Monsanto and George Soros”, Engdahl observes that in 2014, Uruguay became the first country to legalize the cultivation, sale and consumption of marijuana. Soros is a major player in Uruguay and was instrumental in getting the law passed. He sits on the board of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the world’s most influential organization for cannabis legalization. The DPA is active not only in the US but in Uruguay and other Latin American countries. Engdahl writes:

Studies show that Monsanto without much fanfare conducts research projects on the active ingredient in marijuana, namely THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), in order to genetically manipulate the plant. David Watson of the Dutch company Hortapharm has since 1990 created the world’s largest collection of Cannabis seed varieties. In 1998, the British firm GW Pharmaceuticals signed an agreement with Hortapharm that gives GW Pharma the rights to use the Hortapharm cannabis for their research.

In 2003 the German Bayer AG then signed an agreement with GW Pharmaceuticals for joint research on a cannabis-based extract. In 2007, Bayer AG agreed to an exchange of technology with . . . Monsanto . . . . Thus Monsanto has discreet access to the work of the cannabis plant and its genetic modification. In 2009 GW Pharmaceuticals announced that it had succeeded in genetically altering a cannabis plant and patented a new breed of cannabis.

Monsanto could have even greater access to the Bayer/GW research soon. In March 2016, Monsanto approached the giant German chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG with a joint venture proposal concerning its crop science unit. In May, Bayer then made an unsolicited takeover bid for Monsanto. On May 24th, the $62 billion bid was rejected as too low; but negotiations are continuing.

The prospective merger would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and chemicals. Environmentalists worry that the entire farming industry could soon be looking at sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for simply saving seeds from year to year, something they have done for millennia. Organic farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to prevent contamination of their crops by Monsanto’s GMOs.

In Seeds of Destruction, Engdahl quotes Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State. Kissinger notoriously said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” Engdahl asserts that the “Green Revolution” was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil- and gas-based agricultural products in which Rockefeller had a major interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. About 75% of the foodstuffs at the grocery store are now genetically manipulated, in what has been called the world’s largest biological experiment on humans.

Genetic engineering is now moving from foodstuffs to plant-based drugs and plant-based industrial fibers. Engdahl writes of Monsanto’s work in Uruguay:

Since the cultivation of cannabis plants in Uruguay is allowed, one can easily imagine that Monsanto sees a huge new market that the Group is able to control just with patented cannabis seeds such as today is happening on the market for soybeans. Uruguay’s President Mujica has made it clear he wants a unique genetic code for cannabis in his country in order to “keep the black market under control.”

Genetically modified cannabis seeds from Monsanto would grant such control. For decades Monsanto has been growing gene-soybean and GM maize in Uruguay too. George Soros is co-owner of agribusinesses Adecoagro, which planted genetically modified soybeans and sunflowers for biofuel.

Other commentators express similar concerns. Natural health writer Mike Adams warns:

[W]ith the cannabis industry predicted to generate over $13 billion by 2020, becoming one of the largest agricultural markets in the nation, there should be little doubt that companies like Monsanto are simply waiting for Uncle Sam to remove the herb from its current Schedule I classification before getting into the business.

In a 2010 article concerning Proposition 19, an earlier legalization initiative that was defeated by California voters, Conrad Justice Kiczenski noted that criminalization of cannabis as both industrial hemp and medical marijuana has served a multitude of industries, including the prison and military industry, the petroleum, timber, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries, and the banking industry. With the decriminalization of cannabis, he warned:

The next stage in continuing this control is in the regulation, licensing and taxation of Cannabis cultivation and use through the only practical means available to the corporate system, which is through genetic engineering and patenting of the Cannabis genome.

AUMA: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Suspicions like these are helping to fuel opposition to the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), a 2016 initiative that would rewrite the medical marijuana laws in California. While AUMA purports to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the bill comes with so many restrictions that it actually makes acquisition more difficult and expensive than under existing law, and makes it a criminal offense for anyone under 21. Critics contend that the Act will simply throw access to this medicinal wonder plant into the waiting arms of the Monsanto/Bayer/petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex. They say AUMA is a covert attempt to preempt California’s Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215, which was passed in 1996 by voter initiative.

Prop 215 did not legalize the sale of marijuana, but it did give ill or disabled people of any age the right to grow and share the plant and its derivatives on a not-for-profit basis. They could see a doctor of their choice, who could approve medical marijuana for a vast panoply of conditions; and they were assured of safe and affordable access to the plant at a nearby cooperative not-for-profit dispensary, or in their own backyards. As clarified by the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines, Prop 215 allowed reimbursement for the labor, costs and skill necessary to grow and distribute medical marijuana; and it allowed distribution through a “storefront dispensing collective.” However, the sale of marijuana for corporate profit remained illegal. Big Pharma and affiliates were thus blocked from entering the field.

At the end of 2015 (effective 2016), the California state legislature over-rode Prop 215 with MMRSA – the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act of 2015/16 – which effectively rewrites the Health Code pertaining to medical marijuana. Opponents contend that MMRSA is unconstitutional, since a voter initiative cannot be changed by legislative action unless it so provides. And that is why its backers need AUMA, a voter initiative that validates MMRSA in its fine print. In combination with stricter California Medical Association rules for enforcement, MMRSA effectively moves medical marijuana therapy from the wholistic plant to a pharmaceutical derivative, one that must follow an AUMA or American Pharmaceutical Association mode of delivery. MMRSA turns the right to cultivate into a revocable privilege to grow, contingent on local rules. The right to choose one’s own doctor is also eliminated.

Critics note that of the hundreds of millions in tax revenues that AUMA is expected to generate from marijuana and marijuana-related products, not a penny will go to the California general fund. That means no money for California’s public schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure. Instead, it will go into a giant slush fund controlled by AUMA’s “Marijuana Control Board,” to be spent first for its own administration, then for its own law enforcement, then for penal and judicial program expenditures.

Law enforcement and penalties will continue to be big business, since AUMA legalizes marijuana use only for people over 21 and makes access so difficult and expensive that even adults could be tempted to turn to the black market. “Legalization” through AUMA will chiefly serve a petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex bent on controlling all farming and plant life globally.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, Founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM. ellen Brown is a frequent contributor to Global Research

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The War on Weed: Monsanto, Bayer, and the Push for “Corporate Cannabis”

When US forces rape and destroy nonbelligerent nations threatening no one, it’s called humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect, and democracy building — notions Washington’s power elites abhor.

When victimized nations defend themselves lawfully against Pentagon terror-bombing and atrocities by ISIS and likeminded jihadists used as US proxy foot soldiers, they’re wrongfully condemned for aggression — notably by establishment media, operating as imperial press agents.

The Obama and Trump regimes respectively supported Turkey’s 2016 and 2018 aggression in Syria — Operations Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch, both flagrantly illegal under international law.

Aggression committed by other countries is only OK with Washington when serving its interests — notably when Israel smashes defenseless Palestinians, rapes Lebanon, and terror-bombs Syria, along with conducting targeted assassinations.

Throughout much of Obama’s war on Syria, now Trump’s, the Pentagon and CIA used Kurdish YPG fighters in the country’s north as proxy foot soldiers against Damascus.

They were supplied with heavy weapons, related equipment, logistical support, intelligence, and air cover for aggression, supporting Washington’s imperial aims, along with their own self-interest against Syria’s sovereign independence and territorial integrity.

When Turkey’s Erdogan launched so-called Operation Peace Spring in northern Syria days earlier, his third cross-border aggression since 2011, the Trump regime OK’d it, then expressed opposition along with congressional members for political and strategic reasons.

The US has a long history of abandoning support for allies to higher priorities, Kurds victimized time and again, early October their latest betrayal, pushing them to ally with Damascus against a common Turkish foe.

Turkey is a NATO member, its alliance with Washington uneasy at best. A rupture could happen any time over US actions Erdogan rejects, Russia the beneficiary if things turn out this way.

Trump and his handlers are trying to have things both ways, criticizing Turkey’s cross-border adventurism while stopping short of harsh actions to stop it — notably by continuing to sell Ankara weapons and munitions used for warmaking.

Neither DJT, his geopolitical team, or congressional leaders give a hoot about ordinary people anywhere, including at home.

Trump’s Wednesday letter to Erdogan showed he wants bilateral differences smoothed over, relations between both countries kept firm, saying:

“Let’s work out a good deal. You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people” — what the US, NATO, and Israel do in all their wars of aggression, accountability by the world community never forthcoming.

Republicans and undemocratic Dems have no compunction about mass slaughter and destruction committed against targeted nations.

They’re responsible for millions of casualties post-9/11 alone, their numbers growing daily as endless US wars of aggression continue in multiple theaters.

Separately on Wednesday, Speaker Pelosi and other undemocratic Dems had a stormy White House meeting with Trump, the first one since announcing their politicized Ukrainegate/witch-hunt impeachment inquiry.

It ended with both sides insulting each other, seeking political advantage, more evidence of what Paul Craig Roberts calls “today’s Amerika,” Washington’s “insane asylum” — governance all about enforcing might over right at home and abroad.

On the same day, undemocratic House Dems joined by scores of Republicans passed a nonbinding resolution (354 – 60) — condemning Trump’s withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria.

Unmentioned was Obama regime-launched war of aggression on the Syrian Arab Republic, raging since early 2011 — with no resolution in prospect because both right wings of the US war party reject peace, stability, equity and justice everywhere.

Achieving it defeats their imperial aims. Endless hot wars and by other means further them, what the US permanent war agenda is all about.

At home it includes force-fed neoliberal harshness, transferring wealth from ordinary people to privileged ones, controlling the message, censoring speech, media, and academic freedoms, along with police state crackdowns on nonbelievers.

All of the above reflect the disturbing state of today’s America.

Never beautiful or the land of the free and home of the brave, today’s USA is unsafe and unfit to live in for the vast majority of its people – exploited and otherwise mistreated to benefit its privileged class exclusively.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Aggression Only OK for US If Led by the Pentagon and Partners

Radiofrequency Radiation: The Invisible Hazards of “Smart” Meters

October 19th, 2019 by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri

This incisive article by the late Dr. Ilya Perlingueri was first published in August 2011

“The Seletun Scientific Statement recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe that existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread. Current US…standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation from wireless technologies are entirely inadequate. They were never intended to address this kind of exposure from wireless devices that now affect over 4 billion people.” The Seletun Scientific Statement, Feb. 3, 2011

Do You Have a New “Smart” Meter?

Over the past year-and-a-half, various power companies have been removing the analogue [disc-like] meters placed on your homes, apartments and businesses, and installing what they call their new “Smart” Meters. This is part of the larger plan throughout the US and Canada where these meters have already been installed. “According to the Edison Foundation, more than 8 million Smart Meters have been deployed by electric utilities in the US and nearly 60 million should be in place by 2020.”(1)

In Canada, 2 million of these meters are planned. “BC Hydro has a $930-million rollout of ‘Smart’ Meters” installation that began on July 4.(2)

The US nationwide program is

“driven, in part by funding for the Smart Grid Program approved as part of the American Recovery[sic] and Reinvestment Act [AARA] of 2009.”(3)

“There is great concern because exposure to microwave and radiowave radiation from these meters in involuntary and continuous. The transmitting meters may not even comply with FCC ‘safety’ standards. …These standards [are totally outdated and] were not designed to protect a diverse population from non-thermals effects of continuous exposure to microwave and radiowave radiation. Therefore, these ‘safety’ standards were not designed to protect the public from health problems under the circumstances which the meters are being used.”(4)

As Marti Oakley has just written, the best way to look at what’s happening is to:

“follow the money. In late October 2009, the [US] Department of Energy announced the $3.4 billion in stimulus grants under AARA. Award selections were announced for 100 smart grid projects that are intended to lead to the rollout of approximately 18-million smart meters, 1-million in-home energy management displays, and 170,000 smart thermostats, as well as numerous advanced transformers and load management devices.”(5)

Smart-grid projects are supposed to “meet strict cyberspace guidelines”(6); but that has not happened, because greed trumped everything else: our health, safety, precaution, and any remnants of law. Government corruption is endemic, while Wall Street behind-the-scenes manipulation and the bankers theft of trillions of taxpayer dollars is ignored. White-collar crime is rarely prosecuted, because (1) there are few honest people left in government; and (2) those in charge are part of the bigger problem. All Precaution was thrown out in the race to compete for millions of fiat dollars. Without an informed and educated public and with the mass media compliant to elite and secret plans, no one is told the truth.

There has been no public discussion on the known biological hazards, both to humans and our pets, with these new meters. There has been no testing of these meters for any kind of safety. However, utilities Public Relations “spin” includes that: they will cut power costs to consumers, thus lowering your monthly bills; help customers reduce power consumption during peak times; and the meters can be read anytime, via a planned new “grid” in the works for the entire country that will use these meters. Utility companies insist these meters are safe.

“Smart” Meters are a new type of electronic device that monitors electricity, natural gas, and water usage via radio frequency (RF or rf) in an invisible but dangerous range, between 2.4GHz [GigaHertz] and 5.8Ghz. This corresponds to the electrical signals frequency used to produce radio waves. The worldwide digital wireless communications network is based upon this. RF has both an electric and magnetic components both of which can cause damage.

Malfunctioning Meter Problems

In many areas, customers were given no notice that their meters would be changed, or the new meter was put in a day after a brief notice was sent. In all cases, customers were never notified of the dangers involved with these new so-called “Smart” Meters. It was a “done deal” behind closed doors. No one was given any choice about keeping an old analogue meter. According to educator Susan Brinchman, Director of San Diego, CA’s www.electrosmogprevention.org, almost 98% of San Diego has already had these meters installed in home, apartments, and businesses. Here are some of the “Smart” Meter problems already being reported where they have been installed:

  • *Radiofrequency interference that causes malfunctioning of wireless equipment, such as Wi-Fi and Netflix (7)
  • *Radiofrequency interference that causes malfunctioning of medical and critical-care equipment, such as pacemakers, wireless insulin pumps, pain pumps, ventilators, and baby monitors *Radiofrequency spikes causing appliances to break or malfunction, such as garage doors that won’t open or close properly
  • *Cyber-security breaches [e.g., illegal access to 179,000 accounts at Hydro Toronto]
  • *Excessive billing and inaccurate readings *Interception of personal identity information (electronic eavesdropping) *Safety risks: Electrical fires and explosions(8)

“Smart” meters have not been tested by Underwriters Laboratories and do not carry the “UL” label, required for electronic devices. With their 116-year record and having developed more than 1,000 standards for safety, why is UL certification missing on these meters?

The EMR Policy Institute further notes that

“components of Smart Meters are out of compliance with the National Electric Code (NEC) because they trip the Ground Fault Interrupters and Arc Fault Interrupters, creating a fire hazard. …Un-intentional re-radiation of RF/MW signal (with its higher energy) on the electrical wires may overload wires, particularly in poorly grounded or ungrounded homes, or homes with older wiring or faulty wiring.”(9)

In addition, several types of PG&E [Pacific Gas and Electric] meters with a “switching mode power-supply” (SMPS) “emit sharp spikes of millisecond burst constantly, 24/7.” They have been measured “to emit spikes of up to 50,000Hz and higher. These spikes are known as “dirty electricity,” the subject of physician and epidemiologist Dr. Sam Milham’s new book, “Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization.”(10) Dr. Milham documents a relationship between the high frequency found on buildings and cancer [now at an all-time epidemic high where 1 out of every 2 person will develop it]. Another term for dirty electricity is electrical pollution. Dr. Milham calls that the “universal carcinogen, and ‘Smart’ Meters and oxymoron.”

See his interview: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci5GGqEPeCE

See also: “The Dark Side of Smart Meters”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ionX4ckX8e8

Hertz, abbreviated Hz, is a unit to measure Alternating Current (AC), sound and ocean waves, and electromagnetic waves. It is an internationally recognized measurement equal to 1 cycle per second: e.g., 1,000 cycles per second = 1,000 Hz. It is well known in scientific community that over 33 Hz, these invisible waves of energy damage many aspects of our biology and our ability to think clearly.

In a excellent and informative Brainwave Chart, “Think of Energy, Frequency and Vibration,” done by Bevolution in Denmark, it is clear what this invisible energy does to all living things:

http://www.bevolution.dk/pdf/BrainwavemodelBevolutionGB.pdf

These new meters can be read any time via their continuous wireless linking to the cell-towers. They can detect all your household usage of appliances, lights, etc. This information can be shared with and/or sold to other companies, so you no longer have any privacy. It is a spying device. These meters are not secure. They also can be hacked into, so it is possible for someone to know if you are not home (by lack of power usage). There are also “collector” meters used to gather and transmit RF/microwave radiation signals from various surrounding buildings and then “retransmit RF information for somewhere between 500-5,000 homes or buildings.” In addition, the utility company now also has the ability to control your own usage. Via these new meters, the power company can shut off your home usage, your block or community, or city usage without notifying you. What excuse will people be given, if power is shut off without any notification to customers? Do you remember the Enron debacle, and the enormous overcharging of millions of Californians?

As part of the placement of a nationwide “smart grid,” there are additional plans to have individual power transmitters built into in all new appliances to measure the energy use of each one (washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwashers, etc.). This means that in every home or apartment there may be dozens of power transmitters for kitchen and laundry appliances that will send energy use, via wireless radio frequency, back to the “Smart” Meter. In addition to a complete lack of safety, are these power transmitters part of untested nano-technology? Are consumers told at point-of-purchase that a new appliance has a power transmitter in it? A consumer must be willing to have these new appliances constantly transmitting power usage to the utility company. Or, they may be mandated via federal legislation.

Where is there any legal federal mandate for any of this? Marti Oakley’s August 15 article notes: “THERE IS NO FEDERAL SECURITY MANDATE FOR SMART METERS, according to George W. Arnold the national coordinator for smart-grid interoperability at the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. This agency of the US Department of Commerce is said NOT [author emphasis] to be involved in regulations but is only tasked with promoting standards among industries. While both the 2005 and 2007 faux energy bills were codified into public laws, NO part of them creates a federal law pertaining to individual consumers or dictating that the public must be forced to comply with provisions of SMART grid. Contrary to the bleating of manufacturers and utility talking heads, who claim there is no “op out,” the fact is you, the consumer must be offered the meter, or request a meter ‘OPT IN.’ No one can be forced to comply with an unrevealed contract between private corporations, and to which you were never a party and had no knowledge of.”(12)

So far, “Smart” Meters have not been “optional” in most areas around the US and Canada. This is another illegal invasion of our privacy, health, and safety. However, in northern California more than 44 municipalities, including eight counties, “have criminalized the installation of, banned or taken resolutions out against ‘smart’ meters.” In Maine, Central Maine Power Company [CMP], has a $200-million meter project [half of it funded by the federal government] and plans to install 600,000 new meters throughout the state. CMP was taken to court because numerous people became ill, once a new digital “Smart” Meter was installed. A landmark legal decision was made on May 25, 2011, “that represents the first time any [US] state had ordered an electric utility to permit customers the choice to op out of a smart meter program.” Did the attorneys handling this case not know that there was no federal mandate?

Now, Mainers can choose to “op out” but it will cost them to do so. This entire program revolves around money, not around any safety. The Portland Press Herald reported that “if smart meters are banned and the [Maine] program is abandoned…CMP would lose its federal grant and be required to pay back $22 million…and remove the more than 157,000 digital meters already installed. The cost would be borne by all customers” who did not request them in the first place.(13)

In a Letters to the Editor, an irate CMP customer wrote on August 15:

“It comes as somewhat of a shock considering easements have not been passed down through deeds. Without warning, notice, or knowledge that soon we would be a buzzing, humming community of power stations, wires, eyesores, broken promises, diminished property values and broken lands, CMP marches in with smiles as it steals. We…suggest, CMP, you alter your title to Central Maine Cover-up. We think that the next time you barge into someone’s community you have the common decency to inform the residents that you will soon be turning their backyards into industrial wastelands.”(14)

Last February, Connecticut’s Attorney George Jepson sent out a press release urging Connecticut Light and Power Company [CL&P] not “to replace existing electric meters with advanced technology [that] would be very expensive and would not save enough electricity for its 1.2 million customers to justify the expense. …The pilot results showed no beneficial impact on total energy usage…and the savings that were seen in the pilot were limited to certain types of customers and would be far outweighed by the cost of installing new meters.”(15) This press release was ignored.

However, increasingly, city councils and county supervisors are becoming more responsive to valid and serious consumer complaints to reduce constant exposure (24/7/365) to the invisible dangers of RF and EMF [electromagnetic frequency]. These can be documented as causing a variety of health problems for humans and all other animals (from our pets, to farm and wild animals). This constant pulsing of high frequencies, in addition to the RF function, is causing not only interference with other electric and electronic equipment in many homes with smart meters installed, but also is causing havoc with biological systems in its field exposure.”(16)

Health Problems and Damage Many experts are speaking out of the dangers of RF/EMF exposure. Medical journals and scientific reports show that there is DNA damage, cell mutation, degenerative diseases, and damage to vision and clear-thinking (short-term memory and speech are affected).(17)

The protective Blood Brain Barrier has been breached; and there are numerous studies that show that “exposure to low levels pulsed or continuous microwave radiation has been reported to affect neurotransmitter metabolism…” while other studies suggest that “RF radiation can alter the electrical activity of the brain” and changes cognitive function and behavior. Although there has been very little reported in mainstream media, there is extensive information available information on the Internet.

In a recent community TV program, Joshua Hart, Director of Stop Smart Meters! was interviewed on July 24 about the issues. He noted it is now a public health emergency since these were installed. He said: “There has been insufficient privacy protection…and violation of civil liberties.

There is a clear expression of democratic opposition to this program”:

http://communitytv.org/blog/kenknobler/vftv-7-24-11-pg-e-smart-meters

Health problems, due to constant exposure of RF radiation, already reported include: migraines, nausea, vomiting, vision impairment, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), muscle spasms and nerve pain, heart palpitations, chest pain, and sleeplessness caused by intense bursts (pulsing) of radiofrequency radiation that has recently been classified as a “possible carcinogen” by the World Health Organization —in the same category as lead, engine exhaust, and DDT.

Other physical problems relate to people who have metal in their bodies: dental metals (such as silver-mercury amalgams or gold inlays); or wear metal jewelry or metal eyeglasses (the metal intensifies the RF). People with pacemakers, prosthetic devices, and wireless insulin pumps have had medical problems due to RF interference.

Most medical professionals and veterinarians have no training in RF/EMF health-related damage. So, often symptoms can be mis-diagnosed. Some people, such as those who have MCS [Multiple Chemical Sensitivity], are aware of these dangers. However, this is a massive experiment on all living beings without any informed consent. This is not “sensitivity” but a chronic and invisible poisoning to the entire population. Susan Brinchman says “there was no public warning of the health dangers with these new meters that have an unsafe technology. This exposes everyone all the time. There is no escape from electrosmog.”

Here are comments by some of the top authorities: Dr. Martin Blank, Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University: “Cells in the body react to EMF’s as potentially harmful, just like any other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure [not covered by current outdated laws]; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cells phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.”

Prof. Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, and co-author of the Bioinitiative Report’s section on the Immune System: “Cancer may be the least important effect [of RF/EMF exposure]. Other effects may be much more important…for instance, the impact on the Immune System which his supposed to protect you against whatever bacteria, microbes, or molecules that enter your body; effects on fertility…effects on various mental functions; including short-term memory. You have concentration capacity decreases after microwave radiation.”

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v-cczGVhd63pM

Dr. David Carpenter, Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University of Albany, State University of NY: “We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue cannot be underestimated.”

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7L21XOC2wA

We are up against the collusion of corporations and governments. In new posting at SmartMetersDangers.org, So CA Edison is regarding the city of Irvine, CA, as a “living laboratory” for using unsuspecting citizens as experimental laboratory subjects. So CA Edison was awarded $39,621,208 from the US DoE [Department of Energy]. The grant notes: “Thus, the project will literally provide a living laboratory for accurately assessing the interoperability of, and interaction between, all of these various Smart Grid technologies and systems working at the same time. The ISGD [Irvine Smart Grid Demonstration] will be deployed in the City of Irvine, and ideal demonstration site typical of most heavily populated areas of Southern California in climate, topography, environmental concerns and public[sic] policy issues.”(18)

What You Can Do

This is an unsafe technology, where we all are experimental lab subjects being used for dangerous levels of invisible but constant RF/EMF exposure. There is already an enormous public health threat to all of us. It is urgent for people to become informed. We must do this peacefully and COLLECTIVELY.

Here are things you can do:

1. Read up on RF/EMF exposure. Do your homework and become well-informed about these dangers. (See NOTES below.)

2. Write to the CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission]. A public meeting is planned for September 14 in San Francisco. Letters can be sent to:  www.electrosmogprevention.org/joinus.html

3. Join together and have public meetings. Demand of public officials that analogue meters be restored at no charge to customers. Where “Smart” meters have not been installed, demand that analogue meters be kept at no charge to customers. In some states, customers are charged up to $500 to op-out; while other power companies are charging a monthly rate to keep analogue meters.

4. People should flood ALL public officials with letters, as this is another way of harming us; and it is a complete invasion of our privacy.

With our economy in chaos and funding of all social services slashed, there are several other news items of note:

1. Thousands of meter readers will be or are already out of work, with these “smart” meters installed. With jobs off-shored and millions of Americans out of work, where will these people find jobs?

2. On June 13, the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] announced that it had a goal of “investing $250 million in smart grid equipment deployment in rural America over the next 12 months.” (Newsroom-magazine.com) Is this tax-payer money? Why are they investing in dangerous technology? Why is there no public discussion?

3. Sempra Energy just posted its second quarter profits. According to PRNewswire (on Aug. 9): “Sempra Energy’s earnings through the first six months of 2011 were $769 million, compared with $328 million in 2010.

4. For the “first six months of 2011, SDG&E (a subsidiary of Sempra Energy) earned $160 million, up from $158 million in the same period last year.”

There is a long history of deception in this country. Much of it involves our being uninformed experimental laboratory subjects for illegal testing of drugs and other products that have caused enormous harm to us. Remember the thalidomide scandal? Or, Toxic Shock Syndrome? Or the most recent one: the 2009 H1N1 Vaccines scam? None of the various “flu” vaccines were ever independently tested for safety. There were numerous reports that the H1N1 “flu” was geo-engineered. With Orwellian scare tactics, and no supporting evidence of any real “pandemic,” millions of doses were “forced” on hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Many children died. I know personally of the one-year-old grandson of a friend who was given an H1N1 vaccine and died two days later. There was no informed consent. No one was ever prosecuted.

Evidence piled up that the WHO pushed for a [false] “Level 6” Pandemic listing when there was no pandemic. What was at stake was billions of dollars for various drug companies to market a variety of unsafe and untested vaccines. Michel Chossudovsky reported on what happened behind the scenes, “Manipulating Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency”: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14901

The corporate bottom line is all about profits. The Precautionary Principle [“first do no harm”] and our well being and safety are not included in that. We are all expendable for the bottom line. How much longer do we want to keep silent for continuous harm, lies, and deceit?

NOTES:

1. “The Benefits[sic] of Smart Meters.” California Public Utilities Commission: www.cpuc.ca.gov/energy/Demand+Response.htm

2. See: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/smart-meters-and-grids-in-communities-governments,25,0

3. “Transmitting Smart Meters Pose a Serious Threat To Public Health”: www.electricalpollution.com/smartmeters.html

4. “See Ref. 4 above.

5. Marti Oakley. “Smart Meters: No Federal Mandate.” Aug. 15, 2011: http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/smart-meters-no-federal-mandate/#more-17629

6. See Ref. 5 above.

7. “Smart Meter Interference.” www.ve3ncq.ca/wordpress/?page_id-10

8. EMR Policy Institute: www.emrpolicy.org  June 5, 2011 Report, p. 2.

9. See Ref. 8 above.

10. See: www.sammilham.com

11. Brainwave Chart: www.bevolution.dk/pdf/BrainwavemodelBevolutionGB.pdf

12. Marti Oakley…See Ref. 5 above. Dr. Arnold previously was V-P for Lucent Technologies Bell Laboratories.

13. Tux Turkel. “CMP: Smart meter bills come with huge costs.” April 5, 2011: www.pressherald.com/news/cmp-smart-meter-bills-come-with-huge-costs_2011-04-05.html

14. Dara Leigh Roberts. Letters to the Editor: “CMP’s attitude disdainful about customer’s interests.” Portland Press Herald: Aug. 15, 2011.

15. www.ct.gov/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/020811clpmeters.pdf

16. “New Critical Problem with ‘Smart’ Meters: The Switching-Mode Power Supply (SMPS).” March 30, 2011: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=2180

17. Important studies include: J. Phillips et al. “Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology (2009) Vol. 16, Issue 2: 79-88; M. Dämvik and O. Johansson. “Health Risk Assessment of Electromagnetic Fields: A Conflict between the Precautionary Principle and Environmental Medicine Methodology.” Reviews on Environmental Health (2010) Vol. 25, No. 4: 325-333; A. Frangopoulou et al. The Seletun Scientific Statement. “Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendation, and rationales.” Rev Environ Health (Oct.-Dec. 2010) Vol 25, No. 4: 307-317; A. Kosowsky et al. “Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism.” JAMA. Aug. 1, 2011: http://jama.ama_assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract; R. Baan et al. “Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.” Lancet Oncology. (June 22, 2011) Vol. 12 Issue 7: 624-626; O. Johansson. “Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment.” Electromagn Biol Med. (2006) Vol. 25, No. 4: 245-258.

18. “Irvine, CA is Living Laboratory for Smart Grid”: www.smartmeterdangers.org/index.php/smartmeter-facts/95-living-lab]

Other Important Reports: 1. The Seletun Scientific Statement, Feb. 3, 2011: http://vimeo.com/180188440 2. The Bioinitiative Report: www.bioinitiative.org  3. “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency Exposure from Smart Meters.” Final report, April 2011. California Council on Science and Technology. ISBN-13: 978-1-930117-42-6 Also available online. One of the conclusions of this report is: “There is no evidence that additional standards are needed to protect the public from smart meters.” Despite its recent publication, this report is VERY outdated and did not use current research on the significant health dangers. 4. The 2003 EU-REFLEX four-year Study found that “after being exposed to electromagnetic fields, the cells showed significant increase in DNA damage which could not always be repaired by the cell…and damage was also seen in the next generation of cells.” See, “EU REFLEX Project Report”: http://omegatwoday.net/stories/436261

ORGANIZATIONS: 1. www.elecrosmogprevention.org  2. www.smartmeterdangers.org  3. www.emfsafetynetwork.org  4. American Coalition Against Smart Meters: www.causes.com/594297 5. In Canada: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/smart-meters-and-grids-in-communities-governments,25,0

Educator and environmental writer Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri is the author of the highly acclaimed book, “The Uterine Crisis.” London’s “The Ecologist” calls this book “an inspiration.”

The United States of America emerged victorious from the Second World War, and came out stronger than any other country in the world. The allies- notably the Soviet Union- won the war but emerged much weaker. They needed to reconstruct their countries and rebuild their economies, with the US demanding huge retrospective payments for its support. The US became a superpower with nuclear bomb capability and an imposing power of dominance. Industrial countries rebuilt in what the Germans called their Wirtschaftswunder and the French les Trentes Glorieuses, the thirty years of post-war prosperity. Meanwhile the US leveraged its prosperity to spread its hegemony around the world. US power was enhanced with the beginning of Perestroikaand after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the new millennium the US establishment declared the “War on Terror” as justification to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, while attempting to subdue Hezbollah in Lebanon, changing the régime in Libya and attempting to destroy Syria, all with the goal of reshuffling and forming a “New Middle East”.

In the Levant, the US has dramatically failed to reach its objectives, but it has succeeded in waking Russia from its long hibernation, to challenge the US unilateral hegemony of the world and to develop new forms of alliance. Iran has also challenged the US hegemony incrementally since the 1979 “Islamic Revolution”. Iran has planned meticulously, and patiently built a chain of allies connecting different parts of the Middle East. Now, after 37 years, Iran can boast a necklace of robust allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan- who are all ready, if necessary, to take up arms to defend Iran. Iran, in fact, has greatly benefited from US mistakes.  Through its lack of understanding of populations and leaders around the world, it has universally failed to win “hearts and minds” in every Middle Eastern country where it imposed itself as a potential ally.

The arrival of President Donald Trump to power helped US allies and the anti-US camp to discover, together, the limits and reach of US sanctions. Russia and China took the lead in offering a new, softer model of an alliance, which apparently does not aim to impose another kind of hegemony. The offer of an economic alliance and partnership is especially attractive to those who have tasted US hegemony and wish to liberate themselves from it by means of a more balanced alternative.

During this period of Trump’s ruling, the Middle East became a huge warehouse of advanced weapons from varied sources. Every single country (and some non-state actors) has armed drones- and some even have precision and cruise missiles. But superiority in armaments by itself counts for very little, and its very balance is not enough to shift the weight to one side or another. Even the poorest country, Yemen, has done significant damage to oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a country highly equipped, militarily, and with the most modern US hardware in the Middle East.

US President Trump was informed about the evident failure to change the régime in Syria and the equal impossibility of dislodging Iran from the Levant. He most probably aimed to avoid the loss of lives and therefore decided to abandon the country that his forces have occupied for the past few years. Nonetheless, his sudden withdrawal, even if so far it is partial (because he says, a small unit will remain behind at al-Tanf, to no strategic benefit since al-Qaem border crossing is now operational) – came as a shock to his Kurdish and Israeli allies. Trump proved his readiness to abandon his closest friends & enemies overnight.

Trump’s move offered an unexpected victory to Damascus. The Syrian government is now slowly recovering its most important source of food, agriculture and energy. North-East Syria represents a quarter of the country’s geography. The northern provinces have exceptional wealth in water, electricity dams, oil, gas and food. President Trump has restored it to President Bashar al-Assad. This will also serve Trump’s forthcoming election campaign.

Assad trusts that Russia will succeed in halting the Turkish advance and reduce its consequences, perhaps by asking the Kurds to pull back to a 30 km distance from the Turkish borders to satisfy President Erdogan’s anxiety. That could also fit the Turkish-Syrian 1998 Adana agreement (5 km buffer zone rather than 30 km) and offer tranquillity to all parties involved. Turkey wants to make sure the Kurdish YPG, the PKK Syrian branch, is disarmed and contained. Nothing seems difficult for Russia to manage, particularly when the most difficult objective has already been graciously offered: the US forces’ withdrawal.

President Assad will be delighted to trim the Kurds’ nails. The Kurds offered Afrin to Turkey to prevent the Syrian government forces controlling it. The Kurds, in exchange for the State of their dreams (Rojava), supported US occupation and Syria’s enemy, Israel. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu bombed hundreds of targets in Syria, preferring ISIS to dominate the country and pushing Trump to give him the Syrian-occupied Golan Heights as a gift- although the US has no authority over this Syrian territory.

Hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, millions of refugees were driven from their homes and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on destroying Syria. Nonetheless, the Syrian state and President Assad have prevailed. Notwithstanding the consequences of the war, Arab and Gulf countries are eager to return to Syria and participate in reconstruction. Whoever rules Syria, the attempt to destroy the Syrian state and change the existing régime has failed.

Russia is one of the most successful players here, on numerous fronts, and is now in a position President Putin could only have dreamed about before 2015. Numerous analysts and think tanks predicted Moscow would sink into the Syrian quagmire, and they mocked its arsenal. They were all wrong. Russia learned its lesson from the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It offered air and missile coverage and brilliantly cooperated with Iran and its allies as ground forces.

President Putin skillfully managed the Syrian war, striking a balance and creating good ties with Turkey, a NATO ally- even after the downing of his jet by Ankara in 2015. Russia wanted to collaborate with the US but was faced with an administration with persistent “Red-Soviet” phobia. Moscow proceeded without Washington to solve the Syrian war and defeat the jihadists who had flocked to the country with support from the West (via Turkey and Jordan) from all over the world.

Russia showed off its new arsenal and managed to sell a lot of its weapons. It has trained its Air Force using real battle scenarios, fought alongside the Syrian and Iranian armies, and a non-state actor (Hezbollah). It defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda 40 years after its defeat in Afghanistan. President Putin has distinguished himself as a trustworthy partner and ally, unlike Trump- who abandoned the Kurds, and who blackmails even his closest ally (Saudi Arabia).

Russia imposed the Astana process instead of Geneva for peace talks, it offered countries to use their local currencies for commerce rather than the dollar, and it is dealing pragmatically with Iran and Saudi Arabia, and with Assad and Erdogan. The Americans, by their recklessness, showed themselves incapable of diplomacy.

Moscow mediated between the Syrian Kurds and the central government in Damascus even when these had been under US control for years. Putin behaved wisely with Israel even when he accused Tel Aviv of provoking the killing of his officers, and stayed relatively neutral in relation to the Iran-Israel struggle.

On the other hand, Tel Aviv never thought Syria would be reunited. Today Damascus has armed drones, precision and cruise missiles from Iran, supersonic anti-ship Russian missiles- and has survived the destruction of its infrastructure and so many years of war.

Israel has lost the prospect of a Kurdish state (Rojava) as an ally. This dream has gone now for many decades to come and with it the partition of Syria and Iraq. The “Deal of the Century” makes no sense anymore and the non-aggression deal with the Arab states is a mirage. Everything that Trump’s close advisor, Prime Minister Netanyahu, wanted has lost its meaning, and Israel now has to deal with the Russian presence in the Middle East and bear the consequences of the victory achieved by Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians.

After the Kurds, Israel is the second biggest loser– even if it has suffered no financial damage and no Israeli lives have been lost in combat. Netanyahu’s ambitions can no longer be used in his election scenario. Israel needs to prepare for living next door to Assad, who will certainly want back Syria’s Golan- a priority for Damascus to tackle once domestic reconstruction is on its way. He has been preparing the local resistance for years, for the day when Syria will recover this territory.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Winners and Losers in the Turkish Attack on Syria. Russia is the Most Successful Player
  • Tags: , ,

The Syrian Debacle Is Actually Well Planned Chaos

October 18th, 2019 by Brandon Smith

For many years now I have focused a considerable amount of analysis on the subject of Syria, with an emphasis on the country’s importance to the global elites as a kind of geopolitical detonator; the first domino in a chain of dominoes that could lead to a war involving international powers. I believe this war will develop on multiple fronts, most importantly on the economic front, but it could very well turn into a shooting war involving numerous actors.

Syria is so important, in fact, that the establishment has been careful to smother all discussion about what is really going on there in a fog of propaganda. And make no mistake, BOTH Republicans and Democrats as well as eastern and western governments are participating in the lies and misdirection.  Obviously, the first and most important lie is a multi-sided one, and we can’t continue forward until it’s dissected – I am speaking of the lie of US involvement in the region.

Lie #1: The US Has Legitimacy In The Original Syrian Conflict

First, most people reading this should know by now that US covert intelligence agencies (among others) were the force behind the “revolution” in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad. The majority of the fighters coming into the region were trained and equipped in Jordan in camps run by western agencies. The program was called “Operation Timber Sycamore” and was launched in different stages from 2011-2013.

It’s clear according to the evidence that the Arab Spring and the conflict in Syria were products of global establishment meddling in the area. Weapons were funneled from the Libyan crisis into the hands of “rebels” that infiltrated Syria, and equipment directly provided by the US found its way into the hands of groups that would eventually become what we now know as ISIS. The Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Bolton and many others were intimately involved in Timber Sycamore. The war in Syria was entirely engineered from behind the scenes.

The bottom line:  The US has no legitimacy there.

In the Liberty Movement we talk about this conspiracy fact often, but I don’t think many people consider the wider implications. Was the purpose merely to overthrow Assad? Was it about installing a government that was hostile to Russia? Was it to lure Iran into a vulnerable position? Was it all about oil? The answer is no to most of these questions. These are surface explanations that do not satisfy the facts on hand. There is far more to Syria than meets the eye.

Lie #2: The Original Conflict In Syria Is The Current Conflict

Let’s distill this down to some primary facts: The US and other nations created ISIS and deliberately destabilized Syria. The establishment then tried to convince the American public to support the use of military forces in the region to back the insurgents and the civil war they created. This initial plan failed.

Then, the establishment used the terror groups they created in Syria as an argument for why the US needed to send troops into Syria. This plan partially succeeded, but failed overall to generate public support for wider US involvement.

Kurdish tribes in northern Syria were then forced to defend themselves against the spread of the ISIS plague. The Kurds fought bravely to defend their homes from the terror threat that western agencies had conjured, losing 11,000 fighters in the process. They seem to be the only innocent people involved in the entire affair. They joined the US as allies under the assumption that the US goal was to destroy ISIS. This was NOT the US goal. Not under Obama, nor under Trump. The real goal has always been to use ISIS as an excuse to maintain a US presence in Syria (we will get to why in a moment).

Today, the war has shifted once again. This time, Turkey is invading Syria with claims that the Kurds present an existential danger. The reality is that the Turkish government has sought to erase all Kurdish culture from Turkey and Northern Syria since the 1970’s, including banning the Kurdish language and Kurdish dress and Kurdish names. Even the words “Kurd” and “Kurdish were eventually banned. The Kurds responded by forming the PKK and calling for a sovereign Kurdish state which would allow them to live without oppression. The Kurds did not turn to direct action until the 1980’s after many years of totalitarian subjugation.

The Turkish invasion today is made possible by the rather convenient surprise pull-back of US forces from the northern border. Now, there is yet another excuse for wider involvement in Syria. The US is not out of the war; the war is just getting started. Each time the Syrian problem starts to fade and it looks like it will be resolved, something else happens which triggers another explosion of fighting. This is not a coincidence.

Lie #3: The Trump Administration Is Pulling US Troops Out Of Syria

This is not happening, and anyone who believes Trump is actually ending US involvement has been duped. It’s also not the first time we’ve heard promises from Donald Trump on an end to the wars in the Middle East.

Over a year ago Trump proclaimed that he would be pulling the troops out of Syria, yet, only a week later it was determined that they would remain. Recently Trump made the claim again, and only days later the Pentagon admitted that US troops were only going to be shifted back from the border while the Kurds, our former allies, would be attacked by Turkish forces. Turkey’s military spokesman has said that they will “correct the demographics changed by the YPG (Kurdish defense units much like citizen militias) in Northeast Syria”. In other words, the goal is ethnic cleansing, and as the Armenian genocide teaches us, the Turks are no strangers to ethnic cleansing.

Trump is not the only world leader to pull this kind of stunt, either. Vladimir Putin did the same thing in 2016, announcing an end to military action by Russia in Syria and a removal of troops, only to keep Russian forces there and well entrenched. The Russian presence has done little to prevent a flurry of Israeli air strikes against Syria, nor have they acted to prevent the Turkish invasion, so we must question what exactly Russia is still doing there as much as the US?

These constant fake-outs on a Syrian withdrawal are meant only for the general public as a way of pacifying concerns, and it seems to be working. To this day many people still believe that Trump had pulled US troops out of Syria (or is withdrawing them right now) and Putin pulled Russian troops out after “defeating ISIS”. None of this ever happened. If you tell a big lie enough times the uneducated masses will start to adopt it as the truth.

Lie #4: The International Community Is Sincerely Worried About A Kurdish Genocide

Wow, it truly warms my heart to witness the sudden international outpouring of support for the Kurds in Syria. Establishment rags like the Washington Post and the New York Times, the EU government, the Israeli government, even Trump himself are all announcing their support for the Kurds and admonishing Turkish actions. They are all ready to enforce sanctions or even go to war in the name of defending the Kurdish people. How noble…

The truth is, none of these agents of despair have any concern for the Kurds, and they will do nothing to save them until it’s too late. Later, they will act, but not to save any remaining Kurds. A Kurdish genocide is only a means to an end. And here we start to see the entire reason for the Syrian crisis unfold…

Lie #5: The Kurds Are Not Our Concern, Or, They Are “Getting What They Deserve”

On the flip side of the paradigm, I’m seeing the Trump cult making some outlandish arguments (as they always do) to rationalize the president’s bizarre and abrupt policy actions. The first argument claims that “it’s about time” that a president “stood against the deep state” and ended US involvement in Syria, and we should let Turkey and the Kurds sort out their own mess. I would repeat the fact that Trump is not leaving Syria or any other nation in the Middle East with a US military presence. He is only pulling troops back and leaving the door open to Turkish attack.

I would also point out once again that it is not “their mess”, it is a mess created by western governments including the US.

The Kurds lost tens of thousands of fighters battling ISIS, and the Turkish incursion into Syria seems to be taking advantage of their weakened defenses. This is a situation the US created. The Turkish invasion is a DIRECT result of the destabilization of Syria, and Trump’s pullback from the northern border was the icing on the cake.  It acted as a form of permission by the US that Turkey could now do whatever they wanted (for a time).

I am also seeing the narrative that the Kurds are “getting what they deserve”.

Some argue that the Kurds were stupid for trusting the US government as an ally and now they are reaping the consequences. This is hardly a valid assertion. Punishing the victims of a con for being conned is not the American way. At least, it shouldn’t be the American way. Also, the Kurds are not the real target of this disinfo campaign; conservatives are the target, and they’re falling right into the trap.  I believe this is a propaganda narrative designed to make conservatives sound like sociopaths.

Trump’s claim that the Kurds were “not really our allies” as they “did not help us during WWII”, and that they were only defending their homes rather than supporting our efforts against ISIS shows an insane (but calculated) disinformation campaign designed to make conservatives look monstrous and untrustworthy. If Trump was really against the “deep state” he would not try to tarnish the image of our only legitimate allies in the region.

Finally, another narrative being spread around is that because the Kurds have a socialist form of governance, they deserve to be wiped out. I would remind the people making this claim that the Kurds are not trying to force their political ideologies on anyone, and Turkey’s Erdogen is a classic totalitarian who has tightened his grip on the nation using every trick in the book, including a false flag coup attempt. Socialists or not, the Kurds don’t deserve ethnic cleansing.

Yes, the US should not have been in Syria in the first place, but then again, we ARE in Syria, and it doesn’t look like we’re leaving, so if we’re going to be there we might as well do some good with our presence and act as a deterrent to an obvious Turkish attempt to erase the Kurds (our allies who fought a terrorist threat the US GOVERNMENT FUNDED) from the area.   Of course, it’s too late for that now…

What Is Really Going On In Syria?

If you’re not buying the mainstream narrative, you might be wondering why Donald Trump would suddenly abandon the Syrian border allowing Turkey to invade? You also might be wondering why he would then immediately threaten to “crush” Turkey with economic sanctions and place “thousands of US troops” on the ground if his goal was to end US involvement in Syria? The answer is in the macro-picture. That is to say, we have to ask the most important of all questions – Who benefits?

As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, geopolitical events are being exploited by the globalist establishment as distraction and cover for their controlled demolition of the economy. They need scapegoats for the implosion of the Everything Bubble, an implosion they started in 2018 with liquidity tightening policies that has now accelerated into a full-blown financial crisis.  The Turkish invasion of Syria may be the pinnacle distraction event.

With engineered chaos in Syria, Trump’s globalist handlers can achieve a historic level of chaos while avoiding direct culpability.  What do we get when we combine all the elements listed above along with lies on both sides of the political paradigm? Well, we get a rationale for war.  We also get yet another event which makes Trump look like a bumbling villain and conservatives look like fools or soulless robots.

By extension, any tensions with Turkey suggest the beginning of the end for NATO. As I predicted in January of 2019, it appears that Turkey, a key component of the western alliance, is about to exit. This furthers the globalist goal of the deterioration of the west; the decline of the old world order making way for their “new world order” in which Eastern powers will play a larger role in conjunction with certain European elements. This is a dynamic globalists like George Soros have publicly and proudly discussed in the past.

The Kurds may also be a direct target of the globalist agenda.  In a declassified CIA document titled ‘The Kurdish Minority Problem’, the agency indicated that the establishment has seen the Kurds as an unknown factor (which they don’t like) that is fiercely independent (which they really don’t like) as far back as the 1940’s.  The CIA suggests that the Kurds are an uncontrolled element that could make establishment goals in the region difficult to achieve.

In the 1970’s the US manipulated the Kurds into actions against Iraq, which was amassing forces against the Shah of Iran and threatening to invade Kurdish occupied lands.  Once the Shah was removed from power by Iranian revolt, the US abandoned support for the Kurds.  The Iraqi government used the opportunity to attempt genocide against them using chemical weapons sold to them by the US government.  History does indeed seem to repeat.

I suggest that because the Kurds are a tribal force of millions that might oppose the globalist agenda in the Middle East, they may have been slated for erasure, and this latest event is merely one of a long series of events designed to kill off the Kurds.  Or, at the very least, killing the Kurds is a bonus for the establishment.

Beyond the Kurdish issue, a renewed Syrian crisis and EU opposition to Erdogen could lead to another flood of Muslim migrants into Europe. The last time this happened it sent the EU into an economic and political tailspin. It also opens the door to more fear in Europe and provides extra cover for a financial crash there.

And, ultimately, the Turkish invasion provides a perfect excuse to draw a number of opposing camps into a single place in close proximity, The possibilities for the globalists are endless. The Kurds are turning to Assad for aid and protection from Turkey. Iran is a military ally of Assad. Russia is still heavily involved in the area, and so is the US and Israel. I think anyone with any intelligence can see where this is headed.

If the globalists are successful in turning Syria into the center of the world by encouraging a Turkish invasion with a US troop pull back from the border, they would be killing multiple birds with one stone.

They get a renewed rationale for wider US military involvement within the year.  They get increased economic uncertainty as major powers fight over the dynamics of the region.  They get a scapegoat for the crash of the Everything Bubble as the potential for wider economic or kinetic war rises.  They get a scapegoat in Donald Trump and his conservative supporters, who will not only take the blame for the economic crisis, but also any tragedy that befalls the Kurds.  And finally, they get a rationale for the end of NATO, which would be the next step in ending the old western world order.

This clears the path for the introduction of a fully global and completely centralized new world order; a world without economic or national borders in which the elites govern openly rather than from behind the curtain.

One “mistake” (or false flag) could ignite a conflagration between the nations involved. This is why the EU, the Russians, the Israelis and Trump all suddenly care so much about the Kurdish plight. They CREATED the Kurdish plight, and now they are going to use it to turn Syria into a massive powder keg. Syria is an artificially manufactured “linchpin”, as DARPA would call it. It is designed to provide catastrophe while maintaining plausible deniability for the establishment. Trump’s actions in Syria may seem random, but they make perfect sense when we understand that he is serving a greater agenda. The US “withdrawal” is not a withdrawal, it is a prelude to a bigger conflict which benefits the globalist cabal.

*

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

On Thursday in Ankara, Turkish President Erdogan met with Mike Pence and Pompeo, a joint statement by both sides issued following talks. See below. 

Trump regime hardliners want their imperial agenda in Syria continued, notably aiming to undermine Russian efforts to restore peace and stability to the country, along with preserving and protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Turkey is playing the US and Russia cards simultaneously, Erdogan wanting all he can get both countries to agree to that serve his revanchist interests.

Agreements only work when fair, equitable, and all parties fulfill their obligations. US and Turkish regimes can never be trusted.

Their Thursday agreement on Syria has no international law legitimacy. They’re unlawful occupying powers, wanting control over the republic and its people.

Thursday’s agreement is all about continuing their illegal occupation and control of Syrian territory, wanting the country partitioned, its sovereignty lost — a flagrant  international law breach.

Turkey will allegedly suspend cross-border aggression for five days, a senior Ankara official saying: “We got exactly what we wanted out of the meeting.”

The US and Turkey agreed on what they called an “orderly withdrawal” of Kurdish YPG fighters from northern Syrian territory Erdogan wants for a so-called “safe zone.”

His scheme is all about a cross-border land grab — unrelated to security concerns or sovereign Syrian rights, including for its Kurdish citizens.

If things go as illegally agreed on, the temporary ceasefire will continue along territory bordering Syria and Turkey, US aggression continuing elsewhere in the country, notably in Idlib province, largely controlled by US-supported al-Nusra terrorists.

The US wants continued occupation and control over parts of Syrian territory. Both Ankara and Washington want control over Syria’s oil-producing areas.

Thursday’s agreement has nothing to do with restoring peace and stability to the country, notions US and Turkish regimes reject — why endless war rages with no prospect for near-term resolution.

Southfront reported that Turkish forces are solidifying their illegal control over seized Syrian territory.

Here’s what the US and Turkey unlawfully agreed on.

1. Officials of both countries invented Turkish security concerns that don’t exist.

The US operates the same way to justify its wars of aggression — phony pretexts invented to pursue them.

2. The US and Turkey agreed on coordinating their actions to facilitate pursuing their imperial aims.

3. They agreed to observe NATO Charter notions that a so-called threat to one member-state will be addressed and countered by them all.

4. Pledging “to uphold human life, human rights, and the protection of religious and ethnic communities” belies how ruling regimes of both countries operate at home and abroad.

5. They agreed to continue combatting the scourge of ISIS Washington and Ankara support.

6. Claiming they’ll “target…terrorists and their hideouts, shelters, emplacements, weapons, vehicles and equipment” is polar opposite how they’ve operated throughout the war.

7. The same goes for falsely saying they’ll “ensure safety and well-being of residents of all population centers in the safe zone controlled by the Turkish Forces (safe zone) and reiterated that maximum care will be exercised in order not to cause harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

All of the above are Big Lies, proved throughout years of war by no-holds-barred aggression against Syria and the fundamental rights of its long-suffering people.

8. So is saying “(b)oth countries reiterate their commitment to the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria and UN-led political process, which aims at ending the Syrian conflict in accordance with UNSCR 2254.”

Since unanimously adopted by Security Council members on December 18, 2015, endless US-led war raged.

It continues endlessly, both right wings of the US war party rejecting restoration of peace in Syria because it undermines their imperial aims in the country, regionally and elsewhere.

Endless conflicts and chaos serve US hegemonic aims. Peace, stability, equity and justice defeat them.

9. The US and Turkey “agree on the continued importance and functionality of a safe zone” — that has nothing to do with Turkish safety or security, everything to do with US/Turkish imperial aims.

10. The US agreed to let Turkish forces occupy and control Syrian territory they illegally seized, a flagrant international law breach, what Damascus won’t ever agree to.

11. Turkish aggression will pause, Washington and Ankara agreeing on pursuing their hegemonic aims cooperatively.

12. If Trump regime hardliners succeed in getting Erdogan to go along with their demands, sanctions ordered by Trump will be rescinded.

13. Officials of both countries agreed to work cooperatively “to implement all their goals…”

On Friday, Turkish cross-border shelling continued. Dems objected to the agreement, part of their politicized war on Trump.

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said he’s “ready to (work) with (Trump) to build” on Thursday’s agreement.

At the same time on Thursday, he and Senator Chris Van Hollen introduced sanctions legislation on Turkish banks, military transactions, and energy sector activities — relating to its cross-border incursion and purchase of Russian S-400 air defense missiles.

The measure states that sanctions “will remain in place until the (White House) certifies to Congress that Turkey has halted attacks against the Syrian Kurdish community, has withdrawn from all locations that they didn’t occupy prior to the October 9, 2019 invasion, and is not hindering counterterrorism operations against ISIS” — the scourge Washington and Ankara support.

Damascus clearly rejects what was unlawfully agreed on yesterday. “Of course we cannot accept it,” Assad’s geopolitical advisor Bouthaina Shaaban stressed, adding:

“As for the term a ‘security zone,’ it is incorrect. What Turkey really implies is a zone of occupation.”

Kurdish official Aldar Khalil said “(w)e welcome the truce.” Erdogan’s aims to control northern Syrian territory are unchanged.

According to Foreign Minister Cavusoglu, Ankara continues pursuing its objective to (unlawfully) establish a 32-km-deep so-called “safe zone” from the Euphrates River to the Syrian/Iraqi border, including its oil producing areas — controlled by Turkish troops.

Tass quoted Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia, saying:

“The Turkish side tells us that they will respect the territorial integrity of Syria, and that the ultimate goal is to ensure sovereignty and the integrity of Syria.”

That’s clearly not so as long as Turkish forces unlawfully occupy and control Syrian territory. The same goes for illegal US occupation.

Erdogan, Pence, and Pompeo agreed on carving up and controlling Syrian territory — ignoring what the UN Charter and other international laws prohibit.

What’s unclear is how the agreement will be enforced given strong opposition from Damascus.

It also calls for Kurdish fighters to relinquish their heavy weapons, leaving them defenseless if agree to this stipulation.

On October 22, the day the ceasefire expires, Putin and Erdogan are scheduled to meet in Sochi to discuss Syria.

Russian military police are deployed between Turkish and Syrian forces, aiming to prevent clashes between them.

How things play out ahead remain very much uncertain. Moscow and Damascus want Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity preserved and protected.

US/Turkish aims are polar opposite, conflict and chaos in parts of the country likely to continue with no near-term end-game in sight.

At the same time, the US failed to prevent Russia from being a key power broker in determining what lies ahead in Syria.

Note: On Friday morning, Press TV reported that Turkish terror-bombing killed civilians in northeast Syria today, adding:

“(S)poradic clashes continue despite a ceasefire agreed (on) between Ankara and Washington” — that has no legitimacy.

*

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.

Death, Bloodshed, and Misery in Yemen

October 18th, 2019 by Kathy Kelly

Writing about his visit to the world’s largest weapons bazaar, held in London in October, journalist Arron Merat describes reading the slogan emblazoned above Raytheon’s stall: “Strike With Creativity.” Raytheon manufactures Paveway laser-guided bombs—produced in factories in the United States and the United Kingdom—fragments of which have been found in the wreckage of schools, hospitals, and markets across Yemen. 

How, I wonder, can a weapons manufacturer that causes such death, bloodshed, and misery lay claim to creativity?

Consider the Raytheon weapons now demolishing Yemen. Fragments of Raytheon and other U.S.-manufactured weapons dot blast sites where Yemeni survivors collect body parts and scattered bits of clothing, which are needed to compile lists of the dead.

In September, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia hit a detention center in the Dhamar governorate, in the northern highlands of Yemen with seven airstrikes that killed at least 100 people and “pulverized” the area, according to Bethan McKernan, reporting for The Guardian. “It took five days to remove all the bodies impaled on metalwork ripped from the walls in the blasts,” she wrote.

After the attack, McKernan interviewed Mustafa al-Adel, a twenty-two-year-old security guard employed at the site. His brother, Ahmed, also a guard, was among those killed. Adel pointed to a blanket, visible on the second floor of a building where the guards had slept. “You can see Ahmed’s blue blanket up there,” said Adel. “There were 200 people here but now it’s just ghosts.”

Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Saudi-led coalition bombarding and blockading Yemen have killed tens of thousands of people, wrecking the country’s already enfeebled infrastructure and bringing Yemen to the brink of a famine that may kill millions. President Donald Trump signaled additional support for Saudi Arabia on October 11 when the U.S. military announced it would send thousands more troops to the kingdom, bringing the number of U.S. troops there to 14,000.

For people in the United States to understand why Yemenis would join together to resist the Saudis requires a deepening awareness of how financial institutions, in attempting to gain control of valuable resources, have pushed farmers and villagers across Yemen into debt and desperation. Isa Blumi writes about this sordid history in his 2018 book, Destroying Yemen: What Chaos in Arabia Tells Us about the World.

Blumi details how Yemen’s society, largely independent and agrarian, became a guinea pig for International Monetary Fund (IMF) “development projects” which, based on strikingly colonialist theories of modernization, crushed grassroots institutions, and amounted to “cost-effective ways of prying Yemen’s wealth out of its peoples’ hands.”

Local development associations, for example, were formed during the 1970s to help people cooperatively determine what crops they would grow and how they would use the profits. But U.S. Agency for International Development “experts” pressured these groups to instead produce “cash crops strictly meant for export.”

“After all,” Blumi writes, “with the right kind of cash crop and the use of American labor-saving technology, pesticides and fertilizers included, Yemen’s villagers were no longer needed in the fields. Alternatively, they could work in cities in sweatshops producing clothes for a global market . . . or the soon booming oil and gas projects.”

Blumi’s book documents the fiercely stubborn creativity with which, decade by decade, Yemenis kept surprising the West, exploring and pursuing countermeasures to resist its exploitative control, and risking the West’s destructive anger.

When farmers desperate for cash went to work in Saudi Arabia, for instance, “they consistently sent remittances home to families that saved the cash and invested in local projects, using local bank transfers.” Imams and village leaders encouraged people to resist imperialist “modernization” projects, knowing that the West’s preferred “modern” role for them was as wage slaves with no hope of developing a better future.

The “Huthi” movement began when Husayn al-Huthi, an opponent of Yemen’s dictatorial (and Western-allied) Saleh regime, tried to defend the water and land rights of locals in the Sa’adah province in northwestern Yemen. Sharing what was then a porous and informal border with the KSA, they often found themselves in disputes with Saudi border patrols. They also resisted ‘structural adjustment’ demands by the International Monetary Fund to privatize some of Yemen’s best farming and grazing land. When the dictator Saleh made criminal concessions to the KSA, al-Huthi and his followers persisted with protests. Each new confrontation won over thousands of people, eventually spreading beyond Sa’adah.

Blumi cites numerous instances in which Yemen’s economic assets were pillaged, with Saleh’s approval, by “well-heeled global financial interests.”

In 2008, an extremely wealthy member of the bin Laden family aimed to build a bridge across the mouth of the Red Sea from Yemen to Djibouti. The project could generate hundreds of billions for investors, and quicken the process of exploitative modernization; but it would also require building railways and roads where there are only villages now. People living along the coastline of the Red Sea would be in the way.

Since 2015, fighting has been concentrated in this area, called the Tihama. Control of the coastline would also allow financial takeover of potentially profitable Yemeni fisheries. Blumi says billions of dollars of annual income are at stake, noting with irony that a war causing starvation is being waged, in part, to gain control over food assets.

A recent United Nations report says that Yemen is now “on course to become the world’s poorest country,” with 79 percent of the population living beneath the poverty line and 65 percent deemed “extremely poor.” The Yemen Data Project estimated in March that 600 civilian structures on average are damaged or destroyed monthly in Yemen, mostly by airstrikes.

“Staple food items are now on average 150 percent higher than before the crisis escalated,” says a 2019 report by the Norwegian Refugee Council. “Teachers, health workers and civil servants in the northern parts of the country haven’t been paid for years,” according to the same report.

Here in the United States, news commentators discussing the Trump impeachment story liken the breaking developments to “bombshell after bombshell.” In Yemen, real bombshells, made in the United States, kill and maim Yemeni civilians, including children, every day.

*

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.

Featured image is from The Progressive

In what has been deemed a boost for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a Brexit deal has finally been agreed with the EU, just a fortnight before the UK’s planned withdrawal date of 31st October. It was unclear right till the very last minute whether a deal could be achieved, with differences over issues such as the Irish border question having prevented another draft agreement from being reached for months. Yet Johnson stood defiant at the press conference with EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker in Brussels on Thursday, calling it a ‘very good deal’ and ‘a reasonable and fair outcome’ after all the intense negotiations of recent weeks.  He said: ‘Now is the moment for us to come together’ to pass a Brexit deal.  Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar hailed the deal as ‘unique’ as it respected the specific history and geography of the island of Ireland.

There are several key points of this deal which set it apart from the previous agreement reached by former Prime Minister Theresa May earlier this year. The first is the status of Northern Ireland, which under this deal would remain part of the customs territory of the UK, instead of being in the EU as previous drafts had proposed. Yet the situation is not altogether black and white, as in legal terms, Northern Ireland will still be effectively within the EU. If goods are, for example, passed from Belfast to Dublin, the UK will still be required to collect tariffs and excise duties on these items on behalf of the EU. The most important aspect of this set-up however is perhaps the fact that there will be no checks at the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Instead checks will take place at Irish ports, therefore not provoking any tensions on the border between north and south.

The Irish border question was a real obstacle to a deal being passed by the UK parliament in the past. This time the withdrawal agreement proposes that the Northern Ireland assembly must provide democratic approval for the deal in the form of a majority vote. However, the Northern Irish DUP has said it will not vote for such a deal as it ‘undermines the integrity of the union’ and also would, it claims, harm the Northern Ireland economy; and it is far from the only party to take this stance.

The reality is that, despite the celebratory atmosphere in Brussels on Thursday, Boris Johnson is likely to hit the same brick wall as Theresa May did when he brings the deal back to Westminster for a vote on Saturday. The Liberal Democrats, SNP and Labour party have already said they will not vote such a deal through, and even some arch Brexiteers such as Nigel Farage have already termed it as not being ‘Brexit enough’, saying ‘we will not be making our own laws in our own country” and that the treaty “binds us in to other commitments”. Commentators are already number crunching to estimate just how many Westminster politicians are likely to vote for the deal, and so far it’s not looking good. There have been suggestions that a clause could be attached to the draft agreement stipulating a second referendum, but it’s unlikely that Johnson would do this as it would be deemed a further delay to his ‘come what may’ Brexit date of October 31st.

As it stands, Johnson should have around 259 votes for the deal, but he needs around another 60 to get it over the line. This would involve securing the votes of the 28 Conservative Eurosceptic ‘Spartans’ who rejected Theresa May’s deal, plus some of the Tory rebels who lost the Tory whip, along with some Labour MPs. But the chances of winning over enough are slim. Already several have indicated that they consider this deal to be even worse than the one proposed by Theresa May.

Jean Claude Juncker for his part has indicated that ‘no prolongation’ to the Brexit negotiation period would be necessary with such a deal in place. Therefore, at this stage it is unclear whether an extension period would be granted by the EU if this deal is rejected by Westminster MPs. The fact is, that Brexit fatigue has long set in for the EU. This puts further pressure on Westminster to pass Johnson’s proposal or face the dreaded No Deal Brexit, for which preparations are being made in any case. Already many are complaining about the lack of time given to them to analyse the 600 page withdrawal agreement which they are due to vote upon on Saturday and the fact that there has been no time to create economic forecasts based on the withdrawal proposals.

And so on the day Boris Johnson finally achieved what was thought impossible – a Brexit deal with the EU – it is still too early to celebrate.  Britain is no closer to a Brexit deal than it was yesterday and a No Deal scenario is still very much on the horizon.

*

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.

Did you watch the Democrat debate? I didn’t. I haven’t had cable television and access to the alphabet propaganda networks for well over a decade. I suppose I could have watched it on the web, but why bother? The outcome was predictable. 

For instance, it was predictable the candidates had no intention of addressing the forever wars engineered by the ruling elite. That is a strict no-go zone. Ask Tulsi Gabbard what happens when a hopeful dwells too closely on war and its consequences. The war party propaganda media have relentlessly attacked her. 

And yet, we can’t trust Tulsi to follow through. On Wednesday, virtually every member of the House of Representatives, both Republican and Democrat, supported a resolution to condemn Trump’s decision to move troops out of Syria. Here is the final roll call. 

Scroll down to the bottom of the document. Those not voting include Gabbard and Elijah Cummings. Mr. Cummings had an excuse—he was in the hospital, awaiting death. But what about Tulsi? She didn’t vote “nay” on this bill, more than likely due to its deceptive wording—manufactured outrage over Turkey’s decision to invade northern Syria and massacre an unknown number of Kurds. 

Do you really think the Demopublican war party cares about the Kurds? Of course not. The resolution is another anti-Trump stunt designed to tarnish the self-proclaimed stable genius as we slip and slide into the election season. 

Tulsi opted out, realizing if she voted against the bill she would be ruthlessly pilloried by the war propaganda media, not that it really matters—they have gone after her for months now, even though she carts around the same identity demagoguery as her fellow Democrats.

If we really want to know what the Dem side of the Demopublican party favors, it might be instrumental to read a Julian Zelizer op-ed posted at CNN. 

Mr. Zelizer enumerates what he considers top priorities for the red and blue serpentine hydra navigating the murky water of the swamp. 

What should immigration policy look like in the 21st century? How would they define the limits of presidential power? Will internationalism continue to be a priority—in terms of policy and institutions—over the next decade? What are the steps that need to be taken to curb the devastating effects of climate change? How can the federal government start to reverse the growing economic inequality that defines our country? How can we begin a new phase of the civil rights movement that deals with institutional racism? What are the key goals in the pursuit of women’s full equality? How can we do more to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of their sexuality? What is the proper role of government in taxing and regulating the economy?

Did you see anything in there about ending the wars? Neither did I. Instead, we are subjected to unabashed veneration of war crimes. 

The history of great leadership revolves around moments when US presidents have been able to tackle these sorts of challenges. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman defeating the forces of fascism and participating in the establishment of institutions such as the United Nations and NATO that entrenched liberal alliances…

Nazism—not fascism per se, which is alive and well within the state—was primarily defeated by Russia, not FDR (who, it can be argued, lied America into a war it overwhelmingly wanted nothing to do with) or Truman (who is the only human to have presided over nuking hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians). 

As a nation, it is clear that we are in desperate need of great leaders. We face an enormous number of problems and crises that keep going unaddressed from one administration to the other. The debates should offer a first forum for voters to hear what a potential president has to say about how we can get out of these messes.

No, as a nation, we need to reject what the ruling corporate elite designates as “great leaders,” modeled on the aforementioned war criminals. 

The reason “problems and crises… keep going unaddressed from one administration to the other” is simple—first, there is very little difference between leaders selected by the state, and second the ruling elite thrive on crises, most manufactured in Hegelian ordo ab hoc (order out of this) fashion, a very effective method of emotionally manipulating the plebs and gaining consensus for war, torture, mass surveillance, and rampant violations of international law.

Finally, and somewhat comically, liberal Democrats are expressing their outrage that supposed liberal lesbian Ellen DeGeneres yucked it up with “conservative” war criminal George W. Bush during an NFL game in Texas. 

Of course, as framed by the corporate media, this incident had nothing to do with Bush’s neocon wars of mass destruction, but rather LGBT issues that are of far more importance to liberals than the ongoing wars that have killed well over a million innocent people and destroyed entire nations. 

DeGeneres would have us follow her “lessons in kindness.” However, her version of soft and squishy (and highly selective) kindness seems to be tailored for those who sit in exclusive boxes at football games played in stadiums paid for by taxpayers. She can forgive Bush for his support of anti-LGBT legislation while completely ignoring he is one of the vilest war criminals in recent memory. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

The scenario agreed on behind the curtains through months of confidential exchanges, often one-on-one, between the Russian and Turkish leaders regarding north-eastern Syria is entering a critical phase of implementation on the ground with the agreement between the Kurds and the Assad regime.

We have a complex scenario where on the one hand the Turkish army and the Syrian opposition units loyal to Ankara are relentlessly continuing their southward offensive expanding control over Syria’s border regions populated by the Kurds. According to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, 1000 sq.kms. of territory previously under Kurdish control have been “liberated”.

On the other hand, following up on the agreement with the Kurds, the first columns of Syrian government forces have moved into the north of the country toward the Turkish border.

Prima facie, Damascus is challenging the Turkish offensive — as it should — and, in principle, a confrontation can ensue. But things are never really quite what they appear on the surface in Syria.

A clash between the Turkish and Syrian forces is simply out of the question. That is not how the game is being played. A Turkish Defence Ministry statement on Monday disclosed that the military chief Gen. Yasar Guler and his Russian counterpart Gen. Valery Gerasimov were in contact on the phone and discussed the “security situation in Syria and recent developments.”

No further details have been divulged but the picture that emerges is that Russia proposed and Turkey agreed that Russian units will be patrolling between Turkish and Syrian forces in northern Syria after the withdrawal of the US troops from the area.

Accordingly, Moscow’s Defense Ministry has revealed that its military police in the Kurdish town of Manbij have begun patrolling along the Syria-Turkey border and interacting with Turkish authorities. Russian troops entered Manbij town with the Syrian government forces on Monday.

More importantly, through Russian mediation, Ankara and Damascus will prefer to agree on dividing the zones of control in northern Syria. That is to say, things are broadly moving in the direction of what the Adana Agreement of 1998 (over the Kurdish question) between Turkey and Syria had envisaged, namely, that the security of the Syrian-Turkish border will be a bilateral affair between Ankara and Damascus.

In the given situation, Turkey’s imperative need is to prevent a contiguous “Kurdistan” emerging on its borders. The so-called “safe zone” aimed at frustrating the US plans to create a Kurdistan in Syria akin to what it succeeded in creating in Iraq in the Saddam Hussein era.

Arguably, there could be congruence of interests between Ankara and Damascus on this score. (Tehran too has common interests with its two neighbours in this regard.)

Indeed, for Damascus all this is a bonanza insofar as the “deliberate withdrawal” (as Pentagon put it), or, more accurately, the inevitable eviction of the US troops in the northern regions of Syria triggered by the Turkish incursion, enables it to reoccupy parts of the northeast regions, especially those parts that are well-endowed with water resources and hydrocarbon reserves, which the American military had designated as its exclusive zone.

For President Bashar al-Assad, this is a great leap forward in the fulfilment of his pledge to reclaim control of entire Syria. (See the Euronews commentary Damascus is looking stronger than ever’: What next for Syria as Kurds join forces with Assad?)

As for the Kurds, they have nowhere to go but to settle with Damascus. They are simply no match for the highly professional Turkish army.

Clearly, the Turkish incursion and impending offensive against Kurds has made continued American military presence in northern Syria untenable and Russia has leveraged the situation to bring about the agreement between Kurds and Damascus.

Having succeeded in this endeavour, Russians have taken Turks into confidence. Unsurprisingly, President Recep Erdogan is nonchalant about the agreement between the Kurds and Damascus and has shrugged off the Syrian troop movements close to Turkey’s borders. He evasively referred to Vladimir Putin’s assurances.

In the final analysis, the Americans are paying a heavy price for being clever by half — stringing Turkey along in the recent years while methodically consolidating the ground for the creation of an autonomous Kurdistan on its borders, apart from arming and training the Kurdish militia to shape up as a regular army.

Turkey operations in Syria map

Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring in Northern Syria has reportedly advanced to a 1000 square kilometers area

Erdogan gave a long rope to the Americans to hang themselves, literally. When he struck, the contradictions in the US policy got exposed overnight — the game plan to balkanise Syria and overthrow Assad; the Faustian deal with a terrorist group that has been bleeding a NATO ally; and the geopolitical agenda to severe Iran’s axis with Syria and the Levant.

Suffice to say, with the eviction of the US forces from northern Syria, the Turks have achieved something that Russia and Iran (and Damascus) all along wished for but couldn’t attain. From this point onward, Russia and Iran will prevail upon Ankara to reconcile with Damascus.

The US has belatedly understood that Turkey has summarily terminated its 8-year old intervention in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime. The vitriolic reaction by Trump and US defence Secretary Mark Esper (here and here) is self-evident.

But the threat of US sanctions will not deter Erdogan, as the spectre of Kurdistan on its borders threatened Turkey’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and there is no scope for compromise when national security is under threat. By the way, the Turkish domestic opinion is overwhelmingly supportive of Erdogan.

Turkey was uncharacteristically patient with the US, hoping that the latter would give up the nexus with YPG (Kurdish militia) once the fight against ISIS got over. It is not Trump so much as the Pentagon who is responsible for the breakdown in trust between Turkey and the US. Like on most foreign policy issues, Washington had two policies on Syria — Trump’s and the US security and defence establishment’s.

The US has no locus standii under international law to keep a permanent military presence in Syria and when Trump first announced the troop withdrawal, it should have been implemented. But, instead, the Pentagon undercut Trump’s decision, whittled it down and finally ignored it altogether.    

Erdogan knows that the US will huff and puff but will get used to the “new normal” in Syria. Europe won’t have an alibi, either, as Russians will never allow the ISIS to surge in Syria. Trump is reportedly deputing V-P Mike Pence to travel to Turkey seeking a “negotiated settlement” — whatever that may mean in tackling the fait accompli that Erdogan has created.

*

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.

It is very popular these days to talk and write about the “trade war” between the United States and China. But is there really one raging? Or is it, what we are witnessing, simply a clash of political and ideological systems: one being extremely successful and optimistic, the other depressing, full of dark cynicism and nihilism?

In the past, West used to produce almost everything. While colonizing the entire planet (one should just look at the map of the globe, between the two world wars), Europe and later the United States, Canada and Australia, kept plundering all the continents of natural resources, holding hundreds of millions of human beings in what could be easily described as ‘forced labor’, often bordering on slavery.

Under such conditions, it was very easy to be ‘number one’, to reign without competition, and to toss around huge amounts of cash, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating local and overseas ‘subjects’ on topics such as the ‘glory’ of capitalism, colonialism (open and hidden), and Western-style ‘democracy’.

It is essential to point out that in the recent past, the global Western dictatorship (and that included the ‘economic system) used to have absolutely no competition. Systems that were created to challenge it, were smashed with the most brutal, sadistic methods. One only needs recall invasions from the West to the young Soviet Union, with the consequent genocide and famines. Or other genocides in Indochina, which was fighting its wars for independence, first against France, later against the United States.

*

Times changed. But Western tactics haven’t.

There are now many new systems, in numerous corners of the world. These systems, some Communist, others socialist or even populist, are ready to defend their citizens, and to use the natural resources to feed the people, and to educate, house and cure them.

No matter how popular these systems are at home, the West finds ways to demonize them, using its well-established propaganda machinery. First, to smear them and then, if they resist, to directly liquidate them.

As before, during the colonial era, no competition has been permitted. Disobedience is punishable by death.

Naturally, the Western system has not been built on excellence, hard work and creativity, only. It was constructed on fear, oppression and brutal force. For centuries, it has clearly been a monopoly.

*

Only the toughest countries, like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Cuba, have managed to survive, defending they own cultures, and advancing their philosophies.

To the West, China has proved to be an extremely tough adversary.

With its political, economic, and social system, it has managed to construct a forward-looking, optimistic and extraordinarily productive society. Its scientific research is now second to none. Its culture is thriving. Together with its closest ally, Russia, China excels in many essential fields.

That is precisely what irks, even horrifies the West.

For decades and centuries, Europe and the United States have not been ready to tolerate any major country, which would set up its own set of rules and goals.

China refuses to accept the diktat from abroad. It now appears to be self-sufficient, ideologically, politically, economically and intellectually. Where it is not fully self-sufficient, it can rely on its friends and allies. Those allies are, increasingly, located outside the Western sphere.

*

Is China really competing with the West? Yes and no. And often not consciously.

It is a giant; still the most populous nation on earth. It is building, determinedly, its socialist motherland (applying “socialism with the Chinese characteristics” model). It is trying to construct a global system which has roots in the thousands of years of its history (BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, often nicknamed the “New Silk Road”).

Its highly talented and hardworking, as well as increasingly educated population, is producing, at a higher pace and often at higher quality than the countries in Europe, or the United States. As it produces, it also, naturally, trades.

This is where the ‘problem’ arises. The West, particularly the United States, is not used to a country that creates things for the sake and benefit of its people. For centuries, Asian, African and Latin American people were ordered what and how to produce, where and for how much to sell the produce. Or else!

Of course, the West has never consulted anyone. It has been producing what it (and its corporations) desired. It was forcing countries all over the world, to buy its products. If they refused, they got invaded, or their fragile governments (often semi-colonies, anyway) overthrown.

The most ‘terrible’ thing that China is doing is: it is producing what is good for China, and for its citizens.

That is, in the eyes of the West, unforgiveable!

*

In the process, China ‘competes’. But fairly: it produces a lot, cheaply, and increasingly well. The same can be said about Russia.

These two countries are not competing maliciously. If they were to decide to, they could sink the US economy, or perhaps the economy of the entire West, within a week.

But they don’t even think about it.

However, as said above, to just work hard, invent new and better products, advance scientific research, and use the gains to improve the lives of ordinary people (they will be no extreme poverty in China by the end of 2020) is seen as the arch-crime in London and Washington.

Why? Because the Chinese and Russian systems appear to be much better, or at least, simply better, than those which are reigning in the West and its colonies. And because they are working for the people, not for corporations or for the colonial powers.

And the demagogues in the West – in its mass media outlets and academia – are horrified that perhaps, soon, the world will wake up and see the reality. Which is actually already happening: slowly but surely.

*

To portray China as an evil country, is essential for the hegemony of the West. There is nothing so terrifying to London and Washington as the combination of these words: “Socialism/ Communism, Asian, success”. The West invents new and newer ‘opposition movements’, it then supports them and finances them, just in order to then point fingers and bark: “China is fighting back, and it is violating human rights”, when it defends itself and its citizens. This tactic is clear, right now, in both the northwest of the country, and in Honk Kong.

Not everything that China builds is excellent. Europe is still producing better cars, shoes and fragrances, and the United States, better airplanes. But the progress that China has registered during the last two decades, is remarkable. were it to be football, it is China 2: West1.

Most likely, unless there is real war, that in ten years, China will catch up in many fields; catch up, and surpass the West. Side by side with Russia.

It could have been excellent news for the entire world. China is sharing its achievements, even with the poorest of the poor countries in Africa, or with Laos in Asia.

The only problem is, that the West feels that it has to rule. It is unrepentant, observing the world from a clearly fundamentalist view. It cannot help it: it is absolutely, religiously convinced that it has to give orders to every man and woman, in every corner of the globe.

It is a tick, fanatical. Lately, anyone who travels to Europe or the United States will testify: what is taking place there is not good, even for the ordinary citizens. Western governments and corporations are now robbing even their own citizens. The standard of living is nose-diving.

China, with just a fraction of the wealth, is building a much more egalitarian society, although you would never guess so, if you exclusively relied on Western statistics.

*

So, “trade war” slogans are an attempt to convince the local and global public that “China is unfair”, that it is “taking advantage” of the West. President Trump is “defending” the United States against the Chinese ‘Commies’. But the more he “defends them”, the poorer they get. Strange, isn’t it?

While the Chinese people, Russian people, even Laotian people, are, ‘miraculously’, getting richer and richer. They are getting more and more optimistic.

For decades, the West used to preach ‘free trade’, and competition. That is, when it was in charge, or let’s say, ‘the only kid on the block’.

In the name of competition and free trade, dozens of governments got overthrown, and millions of people killed.

And now?

What is China suppose to do? Frankly, what?

Should it curb its production, or perhaps close scientific labs? Should it consult the US President or perhaps British Prime Minister, before it makes any essential economic decision? Should it control the exchange rate of RMB, in accordance with the wishes of the economic tsars in Washington? That would be thoroughly ridiculous, considering that (socialist/Communist) China will soon become the biggest economy in the world, or maybe it already is.

There is all that abstract talk, but nothing concrete suggested. Or is it like that on purpose?

Could it be that the West does not want to improve relations with Beijing?

On September 7, 2019, APreported:

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow compared trade talks with China on Friday to the U.S. standoff with Russia during the Cold War…

“The stakes are so high, we have to get it right, and if that takes a decade, so be it,” he said.

Kudlow emphasized that it took the United States decades to get the results it wanted with Russia. He noted that he worked in the Reagan administration: “I remember President Reagan waging a similar fight against the Soviet Union.”

Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other means).

Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it.

But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest 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.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are China and Ecological Civilization with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Stansberry Churchouse

The Russian Masterpiece in Syria: Everyone Wins

October 18th, 2019 by Federico Pieraccini

“Moscow and Damascus have always maintained they are against any form of partition or illegal foreign presence in Syria.”

Moscow has managed to maintain contacts with all parties in the conflict, even in spite of its stance against partition and illegal foreign presence. Trilateral talks between Iran, Turkey and Russia occurred in Astana at Moscow’s urging. Putin managed to bring together in Sochi the Syrian government and opposition groups to discuss the future of Syria. In Geneva, Moscow mediated between Damascus and the international community, shielding Syria from the diplomatic skulduggery of the US and other enemies of Syria.

Turkey, solely as a result of its defeat in Syria, now finds itself in active dialogue with Moscow and Tehran. As Ankara experiences worsening relations with Washington and other European capitals, Moscow saw a great opportunity to bring Turkey closer to Damascus.

Russia’s operation was complicated and required a lot of patience; but thanks to negotiations supervised by Russia, together with the bravery and courage of Syrian soldiers, almost all of the terrorist pockets scattered around Syria have been progressively overcome.

Other than the Idlib province, the main problem for Damascus lay with the US occupation in the northeast of the country, under the pretext of protecting the Kurds (SDF) from the “Assad regime”, as well as to “fight Daesh”.

Erdogan currently finds himself boxed in, squeezed in by a collapsing economy, threatened by his allies (the purchase of the Russian S-400 system irritated many in Washington and in NATO): he desperately needs to present some kind of victory to his base.

This may be the primary reason behind Erdogan’s decision to move into Syria under the pretense that the YPG is a terrorist organization linked with the PKK — proceeding to create a buffer zone on the border between Syria and Turkey and declaring “mission accomplished” to boost popularity ratings.

With Trump, he is desperate to shift attention away from the impeachment proceedings (a hoax), and similarly needs to present some kind of victory to his base. Why, what better way to do this than with a mini withdrawal of US troops from Syria, leaving the Kurds to their destiny (Trump’s care factor regarding SDF is minimal, as they are more connected to his political opponents in the Democratic Party), while claiming victory over Daesh for the umpteenth time in recent months?

Trump, with a handful of tweets directed against the Pentagon’s “crazy spending” and America’s past wars, finds himself and his base giving each other high fives on their commitment to the doctrine of “America First”.

Erdogan and Trump have also solved the embarrassing internal conflict within NATO between Turkey and the US, probably reestablishing personal relationships (the tough talk from the White House notwithstanding).

The agreement between the Kurds (SDF) and Damascus is the only natural conclusion to events that are heavily orchestrated by Moscow.  The deployment of Syrian and Russian troops on the border with Turkey is the prelude to the reconquest of the entirety of Syrian territory — the outcome the Kremlin was wishing for at the beginning of this diplomatic masterpiece.

Washington and Ankara have never had any opportunities to prevent Damascus from reunifying the country. It was assumed by Moscow that Washington and Ankara would sooner or later seek the correct exit strategy, even as they proclaimed victory to their respective bases in the face of defeat in Syria. This is exactly what Putin and Lavrov came up with over the last few weeks, offering Trump and Erdogan the solution to their Syrian problems.

Trump will state that he has little interest in countries 7,000 miles from the homeland; and Erdogan (with some reluctance) will affirm that the border between Turkey and Syria, when held by the Syrian Arab Army, guarantees security against the Kurds.

Putin has no doubt advised Assad and the Kurds to begin a dialogue in the common interests of Syria. He would have no doubt also convinced Erdogan and Trump of the need to accept these plans.

An agreement that rewards Damascus and Moscow saves the Kurds while leaving Erdogan and Trump with a semblance of dignity in a situation that is difficult to explain to a domestic or international audience.

Moscow has started joint patrols with the Syrian Arab Army on the borders with Turkey for the purposes of preventing any military clashes between Ankara and Damascus. If Ankara halts its military operation in the coming days, Damascus will regain control of the oil fields.

The world will then have witnessed one of the greatest diplomatic masterpieces ever conceived, responsible for bringing closer the end of the seven-year-long Syrian conflict.

*

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

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Russian Masterpiece in Syria: Everyone Wins
  • Tags: ,

The Syrian Arab Army is deploying at Ayn Al-Arab, the tip of the Syrian northern borders with Turkey, its vanguards arriving in Raqqa, the city which US forces obliterated quite deliberately and claimed it had been liberated it from its own ISIS terrorists.

Ayn Al Arab is in Aleppo’s northeastern countryside 30 kilometers east of Euphrates River and 125 kilometers northeast of Aleppo. The arrival of the SAA in this city cuts Erdogan’s plan to create his borders-long so-called ‘Safe Zone’ where he wanted to Israelize the presumed region by replacing the people of the border cities and towns with anti-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood terrorists loyal to him from Al-Qaeda FSA groups and their affiliates of ISIS, Turkmens, and Uighur.

The city of Ayn Al-Arab is in the center of the presumed zone, and with the SAA entering the city of Raqqa the ‘East of Euphrates’ NATO criminals Trump and Erdogan was also the area the Kurds wanted to Israelize as well because it’s rich with oil, gas, water, and rich agriculture land. Now the SAA moved ‘East of Euphrates’ 30 kilometers east.

The Syrian state during 8.5 years was fighting on over 400 open fronts the world’s most vicious human garbage sponsored by the world’s superpowers spearheaded by the USA and its two United Nations Security Council and NATO lackeys Britain and France, and the world’s super-rich like the Gulfies, Germany, and others. This is the first time in 5 years it enters its Raqqa Province.

Kurdish separatist Kurdish SDF militias who occupied Ayn Al Arab renamed it to Kobane after the name of a German railway company that existed there early last century.

Erdogan is due in Moscow on October 22nd, after receiving the US vice president Pence and his delegation within 24 hours, who is coming to Turkey under Trump’s threats of destroying the country’s economy if they cannot forge an agreement or redraw the limits of the Erdogan forces invasions of northern Syria. The US might be withdrawing its troops from parts of the country it occupied terrorized with all sorts of criminal tactics and tried to divide into cantons based on sectarian and ethnic lines, will not leave easily without trying to gain any political achievement, it’ll be interesting to see how Erdogan will get out of the mess he put himself in and dragged his country to.

*

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 in July 2019.

B’Tselem investigation published today proves a soldier fired live ammunition, hitting ‘Abd a-Rahman a-Shteiwi, 9, in the head. A-Shteiwi was injured last week while playing in the entrance to a home in Kafr Qadum during the weekly demonstration in the village. Now hospitalized in critical condition, he is the latest victim of the reckless open-fire policy that allows soldiers to use live fire even when neither they nor anyone else is in any danger.

At about 1:30 PM on Friday, 12 July 2019, the regular weekly demonstration against the closure of the main access road from Kafr Qadum to the regional capital Nablus took place. The military blocked the road in the early 2000s, following the expansion of the adjacent settlement of Kadum. Since then, residents have been forced to use a bypass road that lengthens the journey by about half an hour.

During the demonstration, a few dozen youths threw stones at a number of soldiers deployed along the ridge on the outskirts of the village, several dozen meters from the demonstrators. The soldiers fired rubber coated metal bullets at the protestors, but, in a departure from previous practice in Kadum protests, this time, they also fired a large number of live rounds in the air.

At a distance of about 200 meters from the main protest, about ten protestors threw stones at four soldiers who were a few dozen meters away from them, on another hill on the same ridge. About 100 meters away from this group, further down the road, a resident of Kafr Qadum was sitting under an olive tree with his two 10-year-old children. Opposite them, about 10 meters away, ‘Abd a-Rahman a-Shteiwi, 9, was sitting at the entrance of one of the homes on the edge of the village playing with a piece of wood.

At about 2:20 PM, as the main demonstration, some 200 meters away from ‘Abd a-Rahman a-Shteiwi, began to disperse, a soldier fired a live bullet. It hit boy’s head and he immediately fell to the ground. The resident who was sitting nearby and a young man who was in the area evacuated the boy to an ambulance waiting some 50 meters away down the road. ‘Abd a-Rahman was taken unconscious to Rafidia Hospital in Nablus and underwent head surgery. Two days later, on 14 July 2019, sedated and ventilated, he was transferred to the intensive care unit at Sheba Hospital in Tel Hashomer.

In its statements to the media, the military denied that soldiers used live fire, and even rejected any responsibility for the incident. A response the military released claimed that the soldiers had used “various crowd-control methods” and that “a report was received of an injured boy aged around ten.” However, 9-year-old A-Shteiwi’s injury is a direct result of the open-fire policy implemented by the military in the Occupied Territories. This policy illegally and without any justification permits the use of live fire against Palestinians who are not endangering anyone. The policy remains in force despite the fact that it has resulted in hundreds of Palestinian deaths and thousands of injuries.

The military prides itself on regulations restricting the circumstances in which live fire may be used, while at the same time claiming that the law enforcement system will take action against soldiers who violate the regulations. However, these statements are hollow and meaningless. In many cases, the open-fire regulations are completely disregarded. Meanwhile, the law enforcement system is actually a whitewashing system intended to create the illusion of investigations. A-Shteiwi is the latest victim of this policy, but unless it is changed, it is only a matter of time before the next victim is added to the list.

*

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

Featured image is from the family of the boy

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Contrary to Israeli Military Statement: 9 Year Old Child Abd a-Rahman Was Shot in the Head with Live Ammunition
  • Tags: ,

Greek-U.S. relations have entered “a new era” with U.S. Secretary of State stating earlier this month that he has “come to Greece to expand the partnership that’s already at the best level it has ever been.” He followed up this statement in a tweet, saying “A strong and prosperous Greece is good for the Greek people and good for America.”

Why? Well during Pompeo’s trip to Greece, he finalized a new deal with the newly-elected Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis for the U.S. to open 3 new military bases in the Aegean country, but most importantly, a naval presence in the port in Alexandroupolis. The port is strategically located close to the Turkish-controlled Dardanelles that connects the Aegean/Mediterranean Seas via also the Bosporus with the Black Sea, and therefore Russia. Therefore, Pompeo is ecstatic as Greece has now been firmly placed in the U.S. camp and has willingly become a NATO stronghold in the eastern Mediterranean.

It is likely that the U.S. is also ‘rewarding’ Greece for its continued and strengthening economic ties with Israel. The Greece-Cyprus-Israel pipeline, GRISCY, has likely pleased Washington, especially as all three states are anti-Turkish and it helps further secure Israel’s place in the region. Andrew Korybko argues that GRISCY is the U.S.’ key to containing multipolarity in the eastern Mediterranean. He continued to explain that the U.S. could try to thwart TurkStream’s possible expansion to Greece en route to Italy, continue cracking down on oligarchic holdings in Cyprus, and try to weaken the Russian-“Israeli” Strategic Partnership, as well as potentially cut off Moscow’s “Levantine Line” trade route between Crimea, Syria, the Sinai, and Eritrea in the event of a crisis.

With Turkish-Russian relations strengthening, the U.S. has turned to Greece as its Plan B to blockade the Russian Navy in the Black Sea as the Dardanelles spills open into the northern Aegean Sea, where there are thousands of islands, making it a naval labyrinth with limited manoeuvrability. With Greece having a respectable Navy and backed by a U.S. naval base, if ever Washington needed to illegally blockade the Dardanelles, it would be able to do without a likely amount of success.

This is a major security concern for Moscow, leading to Russian Ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, to warn Greece that the U.S. might abandon it just as it had recently done with the Kurds in Syria, correctly adding that the recent military base deal in Greece was a mistake.

“I think this is wrong, but this is my personal opinion. Of course, you need to ask the Greek side why they made such a decision. But I do not rule out the possibility that they did so amid tensions between the United States and Turkey. However, this does not mean that this decision is well weighed for the future,” he said.

However, a reason why Greece has done this should be simply known to Chizhov, with Athens on a daily basis reporting Turkish air violations in its territory, Turkey threatening to invade Cyprus as recently as August, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan delivering a speech last month in front of a map that had Greece’s eastern Aegean islands under Turkish control.

When quizzed about the Turkish invasion in northeastern Syria and the US decision to abandon the Kurds, Chizhov commented:

“We had warned the Kurds that the Americans will abandon them. And here, […]  I can personally warn the Greeks about it, that they will have the same fate as the Kurds.”

However, this is an unfair comparison considering Greece is a country with full state functions unlike the stateless Kurds. This prompted the Greek government’s national security adviser, Alexander Diakopoulos, to state a day later that

“the U.S. bases will not remain in Greece forever. Nowadays, nothing lasts forever.”

Although what he says could be true if a truly anti-American government came to power, something that could be a possibility considering that only 36% of Greeks view the U.S. favourably according to 2018 Pew survey, it remains unlikely since every political party that has come into power turned out to be pro-U.S. despite some pre-election rhetoric.

Although the rhetoric by the Russian and Greek officials was friendly in nature, it does demonstrate that sides are being drawn, even if unwillingly in Moscow’s view, between Turkey and Greece and their relations with the Great Powers. Although Turkey is the most important member of the anti-Russian NATO alliance because of its critical strategic position, delicate and impressive diplomacy by Russian President Vladimir Putin has not only meant the strengthening of relations with his Black Sea neighbour, but has returned the question on whether Turkey will or should leave NATO.

Although both officials were disingenuous with their comments, it remains to be seen whether a war of words will erupt between the two Christian Orthodox countries, however it is unlikely in the short term. Although the current Greek government has not expressed any anti-Russian sentiment, Athens continues to pivot closer to Washington as U.S. officials claim they will protect Greek sovereignty.

Greece’s alliance with the U.S. is not anti-Russian in its view, but rather a guarantee of protection in case armed hostilities breakout with Turkey. However, Greece’s constant search for security because of Turkey’s escalated aggression in recent years has provided the perfect opportunity for the U.S. to exact revenge on Turkey for its purchase of the Russian S-400 system.

The Aegean is becoming increasingly volatile between Greece and Turkey, and the U.S. is leveraging these hostilities to its advantage in a double move to secure a Plan B in strangling the Russian Navy in the Black Sea if needed, and punishing Turkey for its increasing relations with Moscow. Therefore, Russia as the most sensible player has the potential influence to calm the situation between Turkey and Greece, and therefore also secure its sea passages.

With Greece being the original ancient Eurasian civilization and Russia being a giant Eurasian power, commonalities between the two countries can easily be made. Although U.S. military bases are here to stay in the foreseeable future, there is every potential that a new government can emerge in Athens that will expel all U.S. military presence in the country, as indirectly said by Diakopoulos. Therefore, Russia must be ready to take every opportunity that could be opened from 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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Greece-US: Lines Being Drawn by the U.S. in the Eastern Mediterranean, against Turkey and Russia?
  • Tags: , ,

Serbia Is Surrendering to Greater Albania

October 18th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The geopolitical project of “Greater Albania” received unprecedented support from an extremely unlikely source after Serbia surprisingly surrendered to the policy of passport-free travel for its Albanian and Macedonian neighbors by 2021 as part of an entirely voluntarily initiative that Belgrade believes will boost its prospects of one day joining the EU but which dangerously risks undermining its sovereignty even further with time to the point where the patriotic slogan of “Kosovo is Serbia” might monstrously transform into “Serbia is Albania”.

Regional observers of the Balkans long feared that a multi-national conflict was brewing as a result of the US-backed geopolitical project of “Greater Albania” that threatens the territorial integrity of Serbia and the Republic of (“North”) Macedonia, which is why everyone was surprised when both of the countries most directly affected by this plot simply surrendered to it last week by agreeing to a policy of passport-free travel between all three. It was long suspected that Macedonian premier Zoran Zaev, who came to power after a long-running US-backed Color Revolution, was going to sell his country’s interests out to its Albanian neighbor after already doing so with its Greek and Bulgarian ones, but many thought that Serbia would at least put up some principled resistance instead of rolling over and legally allowing more Albanians to invade its sovereign territory after they already succeeded in de-facto detaching the Serbs’ civilizational cradle of Kosovo and Metohija from the rest of the state.

Apologists will implore the domestic and international audience to applaud this move as a much-needed pragmatic step to avoid the larger regional war that so many observers had feared, but the fact of the matter is that there was no pressing reason for Serbia to allow Albanians passport-free travel by 2021, which wasn’t a 1914-like ultimatum. Instead, Belgrade simply undertook this entirely voluntary step because it believes that it will boost its prospects of one day joining the EU even though Brussels never demanded anything of the sort from Serbia (which is the actual surprise in this story). President Vucic is a diehard europhile who earnestly wants to do everything in his power to incorporate Serbia into the EU, which includes tacitly “recognizing” Kosovo as an “independent state” per the bloc’s long-standing prerequisite to joining. It’s with that anti-constitutional goal in mind that his decision to go ahead with the passport-free policy begins to make more sense since it’s designed to pressure his people into accepting what he’d portray as a fait accompli by then.

It should be said that while many Alt-Media voices have done excellent work in raising awareness about the geostrategic ends that the US seeks to advance by coercing Serbia into “recognizing” Kosovo, few have dared to draw attention to the interests that Russia has in this as well because it’s too “politically incorrect” for most people to handle. The author elaborated on the Kremlin’s behind-the-scenes strategic calculus in his piece earlier this year about how “Russia Might Return To The Balkans In A Big (But Controversial) Way“, which relied upon three expert analyses from Russia’s highly influential and well-connected Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) think tank to prove that Moscow wouldn’t really mind all that much if Serbia went along with the West’s plans because it seems to have resigned itself to realizing that they’re probably irreversible without the political will to make unacceptable sacrifices to change (which might not even be successful in that scenario). Therefore, the tacit Russian position seems to be to redirect the strategic dynamics instead, if at all possible.

This understanding also explains why Moscow recognized the Republic of Macedonia’s anti-constitutional name change despite previously pledging not to, so it follows that it would also respect the will of Serbia’s internationally recognized government as well no matter how unconstitutional of a move it may undertake regarding Kosovo. Outspoken patriotic political analyst Anna Filimonova warned that Russia’s interests-driven approach to the issue risks losing the enormous soft power that it commands in Serbia in her 2018 piece about how “Russia Is Losing The Serbian People” (in Russian) because of its unwillingness to take into account extremely strong domestic public opposition to Vucic’s Kosovo plans in order to avoid losing state-level contracts that serve as the contemporary basis for its influence in the Balkan country, though her words will probably fall on deaf ears because modern-day Russia broke with its Soviet predecessor’s policy of “people’s revolutions” long ago and now deals mostly with inter-elite relations on the state level, not interpersonal ones.

As jarring as this might be for some people, it’s simply the most accurate reflection of reality as it objectively exists, which in and of itself doesn’t have any value component added to it unless an individual personally wants to attach one. The same goes for Vucic’s policy of passport-free travel for Albanians and Macedonians by 2021 (the latter of which will likely be Macedonian Albanians), which in and of itself is pragmatic in a political vacuum if looked at solely from the socio-economic perspective, though this approach is actually very dangerous from the standpoint of international security because it risks encouraging more illegal Albanian migration that could then be exploited to make Kosovo-like territorial demands against the state with time. Not only that, but it’s also irresponsible from a political position as well because the author’s twopart article series in 2015 about how “‘Greater Albania’ Is A Myth To Preserve The Country’s Unity” explained why there’s no need to appease this fascist-era geopolitical project, which is being advanced to prevent Albania from falling apart.

Even so, Vucic is willing to risk losing even more of his country’s sovereignty in the future as a result of the long-term demographic consequences that this capitulation could foreseeably cause simply because he believes that it’s the secret to fast-tracking Serbia’s membership in the EU by indirectly facilitating Belgrade’s “recognition” of Kosovo. It’s difficult to imagine why this wouldn’t happen by the time that policy enters into force since the Kosovo Albanians might already have.

Albanian citizenship at that point and therefore make this a fait accompli anyhow after receiving the Belgrade-approved right to travel back and forth from the occupied province to the rest of Serbia without experiencing any difficulties at the line of control. In other words, the Albanian invasion of Kosovo will proceed even deeper into the Serbian heartland than ever before as the Hybrid War on Serbia presses on, resulting in the worst-ever nightmare scenario that would send chills down the spine of any true Serbian patriot, and that’s the slogan of “Kosovo is Serbia” monstrously transforming into “Serbia is Albania”.

*

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

This article was also published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Gabbard deserves praise for being anti-war and on the right side of other major issues.

Her “vision for America” includes world peace over endless US wars, no longer “supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.” 

She supports Medicare for all and other social justice policies over neoliberal tyranny harming most Americans.

Political rhetoric is one thing, following through another entirely. Time and again, candidates promise one thing, then go another way if elected — notably true of the Clintons, Bush/Cheney, Obama, Trump, and congressional leadership, betraying the public trust in office time and again.

That said, Gabbard alone among US presidential aspirants wants “trillions of dollars on regime change wars in the Middle East” and elsewhere ended.

She calls for using the nation’s resources for “affordable housing, (fixing) aging infrastructure…invest(ing) in education, healthcare, and so much more.”

Her Stop Arming Terrorist Act prohibits direct and indirect US support for ISIS and other jihadists.

She opposes Trump’s trade war with China, his regime’s economic terrorism on Iran and Venezuela, his JCPOA  pullout, along with US interventionist policies against any sovereign state.

She’s against legislation that “restrict(s) freedom of speech by imposing legal penalties against those who participate in the BDS movement.”

She called all anti-government forces in Syria and elsewhere terrorists, not moderate rebels, stressing “(t)hat is a fact.”

She said “issues of war and peace” are central to her campaign, describing herself as an anti-war/anti-Trump progressive.

Undemocratic Dems, other US dark forces, and establishment media consider her unfit for high office for being anti-war/pro-social justice.

Unfairly denied participation in September’s Dem debate, she was one of 12 party aspirants in the October 15 one, her remarks alone noteworthy Tuesday night.

She slammed the NYT/CNN lying machines. Calling them neither neutral or objective, she accused them of disigracefully “smear(ing) and call(ing) (her) a traitor.”

CNN, the most distrusted name in television propaganda masquerading as news, shamefully called her “a puppet for the Russian government.”

The channel and other US establishment media operate as press agents for imperial wars, Wall Street, and other corporate interests.

They’re unapologetically hostile to peace, equity, justice, and journalism the way it should be.

In an article updated on Wednesday, the NYT shamefully accused Gabbard of “injecting chaos in the (Dem party) primary” process, supporting “isolationist foreign polic(ies),” adding:

“(A)n array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists…anti-Semites…and Russians have praised her.”

The above and volumes more like it is typical Times disinformation and fake news. In virtually all its editions, the NYT feature “news that’s” unfit to read.

Gabbard’s agenda is progressive and anti-war — notions the Times, CNN, and other establishment media abhor.

They collectively threaten fundamental freedoms just societies cherish.

Tune them out! Avoid their on air and print rubbish! Follow credible independent media exclusively, mainly online, the only way to be informed.

Some of Gabbard’s Tuesday night remarks were as follows:

“(H)yperpartisan (calls for impeaching Trump) began shortly after (his) election. (A)s unhappy as that may make us (Dems), he won that election in 2016.”

To her discredit, she supports the politicized impeachment inquiry, a Ukrainegate spinoff from the failed Russiagate scam.

At the same time, she said if House impeachment isn’t followed by removal from office by Senate members, it’ll “further (deepen) the divides in this country that we cannot afford.”

The real divide is between privileged Americans and vast majority of others, exploited and otherwise mistreated so monied interests can benefit — fascist tyranny wrapped in the American flag.

Gabbard: A “universal basic income is a good idea to help provide that security so that people can have the freedom to make the kinds of choices that they want to see.”

“(B)ad trade deals (like NAFTA harm ordinary Americans, compromising their ability to) provide for their families.”

“(W)hat we need to do is look at how we can best serve the interests of (all) the American people” — not just the privileged few.

She strongest remarks were as follows, denouncing Turkish “slaughter of the Kurds,” calling it “another negative consequence of the regime change war that we’ve been waging in Syria,” adding:

“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war.”

“Not only that, but the New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war.”

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears.”

“This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

“As president, I will end these regime change wars by doing two things — ending the draconian sanctions that are really a modern-day siege the likes of which we are seeing Saudi Arabia wage against Yemen, that have caused tens of thousands of Syrian civilians to die and to starve, and I would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like al-Qaida in Syria who have been the ground force in this ongoing regime change war.”

“I’d like to ask Senator Warren if she would join me in calling for an end to this regime change war in Syria, finally.”

Warren, Sanders, Biden, and other undemocratic Dems are on the wrong side of most major issues, their voting records belying their rhetoric.

Gabbard slammed Buttigieg’s support for endless regime change wars, saying:

“(W)hat you’re saying, mayor Pete, is that you would continue to support having US troops in Syria for an indefinite period of time to continue this regime change war that has caused so many refugees to flee Syria, that you would continue to have our country involved in a war that has undermined our national security, you would continue this policy of the US actually providing arms in support to terrorist groups in Syria, like al-Qaida, HTS, al-Nusra and others, because they are the ones who have been the ground force in this regime change war? That’s really what you’re saying!”

It’s what he, Biden, Warren, Sanders and the others are saying — talking peace while supporting endless wars of aggression, including Israeli state terror against Palestinians, Gabbard the only real peace candidate.

The real question needing to be asked and answered is “(w)ho is fit to serve as our commander-in-chief,” Gabbard stressed, adding:

“This is the most important responsibility that the president has. What Donald Trump has been doing in Syria, and what we have just seen with him, inviting Turkey to come in and slaughter the Kurds, show what an unfit president looks like.”

“It highlights how critical it is that we have a president and commander-in-chief who is ready on day one, bringing experience and understanding in foreign policy and national security.”

“Bringing the experience that I have, both serving in Congress now for nearly seven years, serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, serving on the Armed Services Committee, subcommittees related to terrorism and upcoming threats, serving on the Homeland Security Committee, the experience that I have as a soldier, serving for over 16 years in the Army National Guard, deploying twice to the Middle East, being able to serve in different capacities, joint training exercises, training the Kuwait National Guard.”

“I understand the importance of our national security. I am prepared to do this job, to fulfill this responsibility as commander-in-chief on day one.”

CNN co-host Erin Burnett cut Gabbard off from asking the other Dem candidates where they stand on war and peace and what credentials do they have to serve as commander-in-chief — saying: “We’re going to take (a) break now.”

Note: Establishment media NYT and CNN co-sponsored Tuesday’s “debate,” wrecking its legitimacy except for Gabbard’s remarks.

What’s needed are real debates, , hosted by apolitical independent organizations, not scripted ones, featuring slogans and one-liners over solutions, along with promises made to be broken by most aspirants if elected.

Independent candidates should either be invited to participate or given equal nationally televised airtime to air their views.

The US is a one-party state with two right wings, Gabbard an exception to the rule — why she has virtually no change of being Dem standard bearer in November 2020.

*

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 Birth of a New English State?

October 18th, 2019 by Mike Wayne

The right’s New Jerusalem: The birth of any new nation-state typically requires revolutionaries. And the British and Unionist Conservative Party is today the (perhaps surprising) political agent of a potentially new English nation-state. For this is not a Conservative party that is interested in conserving anything, least of all the conditions for keeping the United Kingdom’s constituent parts together. The threat of a no-deal Brexit is looming, support is growing in Scotland for independence, and in Northern Ireland the prospects of a Border Poll that could lead to a United Ireland are accelerating. Even in Wales, support for independence is rising.

Boris Johnson’s rhetoric around the so-called ‘surrender bill’ designed to stop a Halloween no-deal crash-out is pitched squarely at an England still trapped in the last reel of a Second World War movie. And it could play well with the electorate. A hard Brexit of some sort before or after the presumably imminent General Election could see the constituent parts of the British state peel away, leaving the English state standing alone. And the New English state will not be pretty.

English nationalism does not have anything of the progressive potential which smaller nationalisms fighting against larger oppressive political units can often have. English nationalism is the larger oppressive nationalism. It has, I think, four key features.

Firstly, England has a strong centralised state, around which it has wrapped a supra-national political unit called Britain – including Wales and Scotland and the United Kingdom, which included the whole of Ireland from 1801 until 1921 and now Northern Ireland. This wrap-around state construction was designed to stop Scotland and Ireland being a place where European enemies could launch intrigues and attacks. So English nationalism taps into centuries of distrust directed at European powers and is itself a power-hoarding apparatus.

Secondly, English nationalism demands a muscular military presence able to project itself internationally as befits a country with an imperial legacy that it cannot quite leave behind. Britain’s Imperial adventures around the world meant that its conservative political culture never really saw itself as a European power, but as a world power. England solved the problem of not being able to dominate Europe directly due to its own geographical position and the relative strength of other powers (Spain, France and eventually Germany), by conquering territories elsewhere that could not withstand its military and economic power.

Thirdly, English nationalism depends on powerful ideological resources around British exceptionalism. For example, an island nation protected by the sea and the White Cliffs of Dover with an unbroken political order that has avoided internal revolution or external invasion for hundreds of years. Central to this appeal to deep historical continuity is also the constitutional monarchy – which reconciles tradition and freedom, hierarchy and liberty. This exceptionalism and constitutional monarchy became all the more pronounced following the French revolution where attempts at radical change could be said to lead to tyranny. However, conservative gradualism is just one of many conservative moral-cultural reflexes that have been liquidated by neo-liberalism.

Finally and most importantly, England is the heartland of a historic commitment to a brutal free-market political economy. This last point is crucial for understanding recent history. English nationalism is the means by which conservatism displaces the anger and discontent which its own economic policies produce, onto a series of scapegoats. EU Brussels bureaucracy and inward migration from the EU are only the latest in a long line of such scapegoats. However, conservative English nationalism has yet to acquire any lucidity about is its own fraught and contradictory relationship with the British state and the political forces mobilising English nationalism which themselves remain, formally at least, committed to ‘the Union’.

Thatcherism forged the template for the contemporary English nationalism that we see today in the Brexit crisis. Thatcherism flaunted an aggressive foreign policy (the war in Ireland, the Falklands war, a virulent anti-communism and pro-nuclear policy) that invoked the imperial past, aggressive militarism, unstinting Atlanticism, and a hefty dose of xenophobia and racism to wash it all down.  Alongside the aggressive foreign policy was a new authoritarian populism (the term coined by Stuart Hall) that attacked social democratic rights and civil society institutions as the preserve of elites who thought they knew better than ‘the people’ (understood as consumers not citizens). How familiar that sounds today, from Michael Gove’s dismissal of ‘experts’ in 2016, to Johnson’s framing of the forthcoming election as one between Parliament vs the People.. And of course, Thatcher herself was deeply Eurosceptic, seeing in it, as today’s Brexiters do, a threat to the conservative national identity from where they draw some of their powerful ideological wellsprings (the British legislature, the British judiciary, the British army, etc).

English nationalism was reforged by Thatcherism in order to extricate itself from the British social democratic project. While successful at a domestic level, in the late 80s and 90s, it was unable to extricate itself from the EU project. The right had historically viewed with antipathy a continent which it regarded as having been bypassed by conservatism on the way to building a global empire. Thatcher’s anti-EU stance was an important factor in her being deposed, of course. But today it’s returning – unfinished business that now threatens not just the remnants of British social democracy but the British state itself.

“Thatcher’s anti-EU stance was an important factor in her being deposed, of course. But today it’s returning – unfinished business that now threatens not just the remnants of British social democracy but the British state itself.”

Thatcherism had never really disappeared, it just lost its leading position within governing elite circles. Tony Blair’s tenure as Prime Minister grafted a new set of political and cultural options onto a broadly similar neo-liberal political economy. But the paradox is that the pursuit of that broadly similar political economy sowed the seeds for the Thatcherite version of the same project to be resurrected (on steroids). As inequalities deepened during the Blair years and then culminated in the post-crash austerity project enforced by the Conservative-Lib-Dem coalition government, so deep resentments against Westminster seethed. And it was Thatcherite nationalism (stretching across the ERG wing of the Conservative party and into an ascendant UKIP) that was best placed to capitalise on this. They have the best displacement mechanisms that can transform economically generated pain into various cultural consolations. This is because they have the cultural reference points and images most deeply embedded in the major institutions. It is their rhetoric that strikes the emotional chords most powerfully (‘Take Back Control’). Against these displacement mechanisms, neo-liberal liberalism (stretching from Cameroonian Conservatives, across the Lib-Dems and deep into the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour party) has no answer, at least within England. At the same time, the neo-liberal liberals may have torpedoed the only political project that could have offered an alternative in the forthcoming election, namely Corbyn’s alt-left Labour party.

“The Thatcherite revolution transformed Britain but at the cost of opening up fault lines that led to the 2014 Referendum on Scottish independence. The second Thatcherite revolution, if it transpires in the form of a hard Brexit, will likely lead to a second (and successful) independence poll for Scotland. From there the dominoes are likely to fall, with Northern Ireland and even Wales (in time) going.”

Angela Merkel recently warned of the dangers posed by Britain if it were to become a ‘Singapore-on-the Thames’ free market economy on the edge of Europe, attracting investment by undercutting the EU’s floor in standards and regulations.

Merkel and other European leaders are acutely aware that the neo-liberal extremists are even more committed to the market abandoning social responsibilities than the EU is. Yet this is not a vision that has much traction outside of England and pursuing it threatens to unwind the supra-national political construct that the English state once wrapped around itself. It may be a case of unintended consequences. It may be consequences that the English nationalists do not believe will really happen. How, they might think, would anyone want to leave a country graced with the likes of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel at the helm?

It may be that in the end, as polling indicates, they and their party members do not really care. Conservative English nationalism is the content that is slowly bursting through the political form of the British state, liquidating its apparently most cherished construct. Unlike Scotland, England’s leaving will travel further and faster in the very direction that is causing the problems in the first place. The New Right’s Jerusalem, if it comes to pass, will consume itself and everyone in it.

*

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

Mike Wayne is a Professor of Media at Brunel University and author of England’s Discontents: Political Cultures and National Identities Pluto Press 2018. This article also appeared at openDemocracy.

Featured image is from TP

The U.S. Armed Forces are not withdrawing from the eastern Euphrates River Valley region of Deir Ezzor or its plethora of oil fields, a military source in Damascus told Al-Masdar News.

According to the source, the U.S. Armed Forces won’t withdraw from these areas because of Iran’s presence in eastern Syria and the reality that Damascus would again have access to Deir Ezzor’s vital oil fields.

He would add the U.S.’ two largest military bases in Syria are in eastern Syria near some of the country’s largest oil fields like Al-‘Umar.

Damascus has wanted the Al-‘Umar and Conoco oil fields to be returned to their government; however, with the U.S.’ large military presence in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor, they have found themselves blocked from these critical petrol supplies.

Furthermore, with the ongoing sanctions against the Syrian government, the U.S. administration sees the return of these oil fields to Damascus as a benefit to the state and their allies like Iran.

Syria has been under an economic siege for several years now, leaving much of the country in dire need of resources like medicine, gas, et al.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Military Unlikely to Withdraw from Eastern Syria and Its Oil Fields
  • Tags: ,

UBI promoter Andrew Yang may be the first candidate for president running under a major party banner to advocate it, but he is certainly not the first in history.

The idea of UBI has been around at least since Thomas More included it in his 16th century Utopia and Thomas Paine, the author of Revolutionary War tract Common Sense, wrote of it as a bedrock ideal of social justice.

In our own era, UBI was mentioned favorably by conservative economist Milton Friedman and civil rights champion Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It also drew the attention of President Richard Nixon. and morphed into today’s Earned Income Credit.

But Andrew Yang is faced with the same question as every other economic reformer, which is how are we going to pay for it? The answer is always the same: income redistribution through taxing the rich. But no matter how much that might appeal to our sense of fairness, it has never worked.

The problem is that the income redistribution argument always assumes a well-cooked and scrumptious pie—the economy—that can readily be divided however we like. So it’s just a matter of which socioeconomic class has the power to decide. But the big scrumptious pie analogy itself has rarely been challenged.

The fact is that in a world of competing nation states, one country’s prosperity has always been at the expense of others. Competition among nations for a favorable balance of trade led to World Wars I and II, when Germany began to outpace Great Britain. Today the American empire that came out of these wars feverishly tries to maintain its dominance by control of the world’s financial system through enforcing the role of the dollar as the international reserve currency and the basis of oil trading.

Meanwhile, the U.S. sovereign debt continues to skyrocket. Not to mention domestic household and business debt, including student loan debt, at levels that collectively can never be repaid. National income, including the income of the very rich, is far less than the long-term liabilities, always payable with interest.

So again, where is the money going to come from for UBI or any other social program that can resolve the ongoing collapse not only of workers’ income but of the entire American middle class?

What we have steadfastly refused to face during the modern era is that no capitalist economy has ever succeeded in providing sufficient income through paid employment to support its population. Private enterprise has one goal: maximize income and minimize expenses, including labor costs. Thus the people who work for the private sector will never have enough money to buy what they produce. Class war is a given. Also, the race to maximize production results in long-term waste of resources, even perhaps global warming.

The U.S. did not emerge from the Great Depression until it first became the “arsenal of democracy” for Great Britain and France, then built its own war machine to fight in Europe and the Pacific. But Germany also had to use military rearmament as the convenient tool to regain its own prosperity after the devastation of World War I. Both sides unabashedly used war as a means to support their domestic economies.

Does this sound familiar? In the U.S. today, our own private sector is woefully inadequate to assure prosperity, especially with so many jobs outsourced abroad. So to compensate, we have maintained a huge military-industrial complex that from an economic standpoint is nothing but corporate welfare on a massive scale. Throw in government employment at the federal, state, and local levels, along with all the economic activity in the manufacturing and service sectors that feed directly off the spending power of public employees, and the myth of unabashed capitalism vanishes.

Boom times come only when the government spends. And since taxation totally fails to support such a system, government debt constantly grows. Always trying to keep one step ahead of economic collapse is a privately-owned and managed financial system, headed by the Federal Reserve, with its own army of employees kept busy shuffling numbers.

Then as every possible job is taken over by automation, which is the ultimate cost-cutting measure, consumer purchasing power falls even further, and disaster looms. This is the situation Andrew Yang is trying to address.

But it was figured out in the 1920s by a Scottish engineer name C.H. Douglas. In a series of books, Douglas explained the structural elements that ensure a perpetual gap between a nation’s income and its GDP. The main cause of the gap is savings, particularly retained earnings by businesses that need to invest for the future. Economist John Maynard Keynes saw the same thing. Keynes’s solution was government deficit spending, which helped bring us to where we are today.

But Douglas saw the gap between income and production as a positive, an indicator of a nation’s economic prosperity. So he proposed that an amount equivalent to the gap be issued to the public as an annual National Dividend. The system he proposed was called Social Credit. Douglas’s ideas are alive today among researchers in Great Britain and elsewhere. If applied worldwide the disastrous standoff among nations and blocs for supremacy and survival would change rapidly because the tensions created by unjust and untenable monetary structures would find relief other than through war and conquest.

I learned of Douglas’s ideas when I worked in the Carter White House in 1979-80 and immediately saw their applicability. Much later, I retired from the government in 2007, after spending the last 20 years with the U.S. Treasury Department. I wrote a book entitled We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform, where I traced the history of the debt-based monetary system and explained how Douglas’s Social Credit would solve the underlying problems. I also have spoken on the subject at the Public Banking Institute and other venues.

I believe Social Credit, aka UBI, would do the job, if implemented as a dividend and not through taxation. I hope Andrew Yang is listening.

*

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.

Richard C. Cook is a retired federal government analyst. He is also the author of the definitive account of the Challenger disaster, “Challenger Revealed.” He may be reached at [email protected].

In Ecuador, the fight against IMF austerity measures is far from over. Just a few hours after my article was published on Sunday, 13 October, Ecuador  – and the IMF’s Killing Spree – President Lenin Moreno declared the infamous Decree 883 was canceled, i.e. the astronomical price increases for fuel were reversed, the (police) state of emergency and curfew were called off. He wanted to put an end to the 11 days of protests with police and military induced violence.

The police, supported by the army carried out repression during the protests, like they have not been seen in Ecuador’s recent history, claiming at least 7 death, about 1,340 injured and more than 1,100 arrested. The streets of Quito were an absolute chaos; destruction, fire, tear gas, smoke.

Austerity measures, other than an exorbitant hike in fuel prices, included shrinking government spending, laying off 23,000 state employees, privatization of social services and infrastructure – and more – all linked to the IMF loan of US$ 4.2 billion. These measures were apparently also “canceled”. At least, so it looked and sounded at the outset.

This seeming victory was achieved largely thanks to the indigenous movement, the Conaie (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) – an umbrella organization of indigenous groups across Ecuador.They have relentlessly fought for their rights and against the ferocious abrogation of all the social benefits they acquired – finally – during the ten years of Rafael Correa’s socialist government – which served, and still serves, as an example for much of Latin America.

Not the indigenous groups, or anybody else of the Ecuadorian people – were consulted about the IMF loan. The basic IMF deal was already brokered in January 2019, when Lenin Moreno met Madame Lagarde, at that time still head of the IMF, at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. There were just some “minor issues” that Moreno had to resolve before he could sign this horrendous debt onto Ecuador’s books.

One of the “issues” was a request by the US via its extended arm, the IMF – to expel Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, to bring him closer to extradition to the US, where he may face the death penalty, or Guantanamo, for having said and published the truth about the atrocious war crimes committed by the United States. And neo-Nazi, Moreno, complied. Julian Assange is now slowly degenerating by torture and disease in a UK maximum security prison. And the world says nothing. Not even our “Peace Loving’ UN system. All is quiet. Not to molest the Chief-in-Tyrant, sitting on his cardboard throne in Washington.

Just a few days after British police dragged Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, the 4.2-billion-dollar loan / debt deal was signed. No coincidence. Assange was holed-up by self-imposed asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, for almost seven years, for justified fear of being “renditioned” to the US or another torturing US ally.

Now, when all the austerity measures were to be cancelled, by nullifying Decree 883, why did Moreno assemble a team of advisers to work out a new decree? Who are these advisers? People from the IMF, from the US Treasury – or simply “Fifth Columnists”, trained and funded by NED (National Endowment for Democracy)? – Why isn’t the decree and with it all IMF-imposed austerity simply canceled? Full stop?

In any case, Sunday night, Conaie reported that a “commission” was set up to “draft the decree that replaces it 883 – that this does not end until the agreement is fully implemented”.

Who is part of this commission and what exactly is the commission drafting? Will the commission prepare a new decree with new conditions? None of this is clear at this point. Is Conaie prepared to make conditions that in the long-rung could be disastrous? Does Conaie know that the empire never gives up, i.e. the IMF – as long as they have their dirty fingers in Ecuador with 4.2 billion dollars? No compromise, please, Conaie!

If anything, the new “decree” should include a clause requesting full cancellation of the IMF loan. Otherwise, the IMF will not let go, will come back in one form or another to grab Ecuador’s resources. That is the US doctrine, never depart from a goal – and it is extended through the IMF, the World Bank and through other financial institutions over which the US Treasury has control. This is modern warfare through a financial handle on a country, stealing accumulated social capital and natural resources by strictly enforced austerity programs – causing famine, disease, desperation, and death. See recent examples, Greece, Ukraine, Argentina.

Of course, it takes two to tango, and without a corrupt government on the other side, the IMF can do nothing.

What will happen to the protest leaders? Is this being covered by the new decree? The front men and women of a revolution that shook the country for eleven days? Many of the leaders, and others, are incarcerated as political prisoners and should be freed.

A new decree to replace the old one, Decree 883, smells like a rat; like a new deception is being prepared and the apparent “victory” is just a make-believe for the moment – to reinstate order in Quito and the country. Instead of crushing Ecuadorians with a bulldozer, i.e. the Decree 883 that attempted to shove all the IMF austerity measures down the throat of the Ecuadorians at once, it may come piecemeal, little by little, so the immediate impact will be less noticeable and eventually the sour bites are sliding better down the throat of Ecuadorians – so Moreno may expect. This would not be the first time that a Government weasels its way out of protests: Stop the “killer measures” for now, and reintroduce them later, slowly in a different format.

Conaie’s leaders are concerned about this. They have said so. They would like to know what the new decree contains, and want to have a say in its drafting, before they definitely call off their protests. What they really want, is the resignation of Lenin Moreno. That’s what they should aim for, because this man has already proven several times in only two years of presidency that he is a liar, cannot be trusted, and sells the people and their natural resources for the benefit of a small Ecuadorian elite and their foreign partners, mostly US oil corporations. Even if he were to cave in now, Moreno will come back, if allowed to stay in power, to neoliberalize the country. That’s his compact. That’s the premise under which he has been made president.

And, what nobody talked about, nor are there any reports in either mainstream or progressive news – is, what will happen with the US$ 4.2 billion IMF loan? – Why is it not cancelled? Is the cancellation of this loan going to be part of the new decree? Ecuador doesn’t need the loan. With a debt – GDP ratio of 40%, there is definitely no need whatsoever to call for IMF’s “help”. As proportion of GDP, Ecuador’s debt is only two-thirds of that of Germany.

Instead of foreign loans, Ecuador’s Government could call in the outstanding debt of about US$ 4.5 billion from fines, unpaid interests and other overdue fees from corporations and Ecuadorian oligarchs – so the government could recapitalize her treasury with own, interest free money. But instead, Moreno “forgave” the debt of the oligarchs, when contracting the IMF loan. That in itself is telling a lot. President Moreno used to be Correa’s Vice President, running on the same Platform, the center-left PAIS Alliance, turned tables less than a year into his presidency, destroyed the PAIS Alliance and betrayed his compatriots miserably.

Canceling an IMF loan is relatively easy. There is no law that would prevent Ecuador from withdrawing from the IMF deal, at no penalty. This has happened many times before. All that’s needed are politicians with a people-oriented mentality – a people’s friendly attitude – and the country would be rid of this debt and rid of the dictate of the IMF.

Conaie may consider insisting on two objectives before calling off the protests and moving back to their lands: One, canceling the IMF loan of US$ 4.2 billion, and two, suspending the Parliament and President Moreno of his functions; calling-in a caretaker government and planning new elections within 3 months; elections, in which Rafael Correa might again run for President.

*

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.

Most Popular Articles This Week

October 18th, 2019 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Most Popular Articles This Week

“Voices from Syria”: Syria’s War for Humanity

October 17th, 2019 by Mark Taliano

Global Research Publishers bring you “Voices from Syria”, an important book by Mark Taliano. The book is available for order on our online store.

Click HERE to order.

Mark Taliano is an author and independent investigative reporter who travelled to Syria with the Third International Tour of Peace to Syria in 2016. In this book, he combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes mainstream media narratives about the dirty war on Syria.


**Voices from Syria** – Print Edition

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Pages: 128 (Includes 1 new chapter)

Year: 2017

List Price: $17.95

Special Offer: $9.95 

Click to order


PREFACE:

The Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) is an ancient holy land surrounded by terrorist-sup-porting countries that want to destroy it. These countries, in turn, are supported by the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The secular government of Syria is led by Bashar al-Assad, its elected President. al-Assad is progressive and forward-looking. The terrorists invading and occupying parts of the country are neither progressive nor forward-looking, and most Syrians are happy to be rid of them. Many Syrians are critical of al-Assad for being too soft on the terrorists. They have dubbed him Mr. Soft Heart.

Al-Assad has earned the support of most Syrians by providing for them and by protecting them. Healthcare and education, including higher education, are free in Syria. Before the externally orchestrated and perpetrated war on Syria started, Syria was one of the safest countries in the world to visit.

Now that the West has injected terrorists into the country and imposed illegal sanctions on Syrians, the war-torn country and its people are mostly defiant. The future of the country is theirs to decide, as per international law, and they will not be colonized. Their defiance comes easily thanks to the Western-supported, illegal “opposition” that confronts them.

Image: Author Mark Taliano

None of the “opposing” terrorists are moderate. They slaughter Christians, minorities, and Muslims alike. They seek a blank slate upon which to impose their extremist Wahhabi ideology, and they seek to erase both Syria’s history and its people.

Historical memory teaches us that the West’s use of proxy mercenaries is not new. The West has destroyed a series of countries in quick succession since 11 September 2001 (9/11), including but not limited to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, all by design, and always aided and abetted by mercenary ground troops.

But Syria has strong institutions and strong allies. It will be victorious, to the benefit of Syrians and humanity.

This book presents the story of Syria and Syrians as they struggle valiantly against NATO terrorism.

The narrative contradicts mainstream messaging, as it must. The West and its agencies could never garner public support for their genocidal campaigns if the truth emerged and was acknowledged by a broad base.

Truth leads to peace, but the governing polities that manipulate us and contaminate the public mindset enrich themselves through war, mass slaughter, and propaganda campaigns. Truth and justice are their unstated enemies.

This book aims to shed light on truth, justice and governing lies, with a view to expanding the reach of global peace and destroying the cancer of terrorism.

We initially recount the story of Syria as told by Syrians, unfiltered by mainstream media propaganda. We see and hear the trauma lived by defiant, heroic Syrians, and we discover that this ancient, holy land will surely survive the current barbarian invasion to rise again as a beacon of civilization, hope, and dignity.

The externally orchestrated war is being resolved internally – by Syrians, for Syrians –and the solutions are often the fruit of genuine democratic processes, in contrast to the processes masquerading as democracy in the West. Syria insists on being a sovereign nation.

We subsequently elaborate upon the real story of Syria and the drivers behind the current war, in which the US-led Empire is using terrorist proxies to advance its reach, contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of Syrians.

The alternative to Syria’s elected government is genocidal despotism and sharia law. The (non-existent) “moderates” cannot be separated from the “extremists” because all of the mercenary terrorists share the same goals and the same ideologies.

The predictable result of engineered deception is that domestic Western populations re-main deceived and politically passive. The truth is inverted and large swaths of our populations remain deluded. Whereas the West and its allies support all the terrorists invading Syria, our domestic populations think that we are fighting terrorism. This is the great fraud of the “Global War on Terrorism.”

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

The invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all based on lies; likewise for Ukraine. All of the post-9/11 wars were sold to Western audiences through a sophisticated network of interlocking governing agencies that disseminate propaganda to both domestic and foreign audiences.

But the dirty war on Syria is different. The degree of war propaganda levelled at Syria and contaminating humanity at this moment is likely unprecedented.

I had studied and written about Syria for years, so I was not entirely surprised by what I saw. What I felt was a different story.

Syria is an ancient land with a proud and forward-looking people. To this ancient and holy land we sent mercenaries, hatred, bloodshed and destruction. We sent strange notions of national exceptionalism and wave upon wave of lies.

As a visitor I felt shame, but Syrians welcomed me as one of them. These are their stories; these are their voices.


**Voices from Syria** – PDF Edition

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order


Excerpt from Foreword by Michel Chossudovsky:

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

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


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

Author Name: Mark Taliano / Tim Anderson

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

Year: 2017 / 2016

Pages: 128 / 240

List Price: $41.90

Special Price: $19.95

Click to order


Voices from Syria is also available via Amazon here

German language print version also available here

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Voices from Syria”: Syria’s War for Humanity

Damascus, December 2018. Two great independent journalists sit down together:

 Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley 


Eva Bartlett
: ‘when I arrived on the 29th (of December 2018) I was told that, aside from yourself (gestures to Vanessa Beeley), I was the only other western journalist in Syria. And it struck me not so much as surprising, in fact it’s more expected, that corporate media journalists could very well be here, but they’re not.’ 

Vanessa Beeley: ‘Well, there’s been silence in the media about what is effectively a victory for Syria, for the secularism of Syria against extremism and persecution and tyranny.’ 

***

In April 2017 I made my first trip to Syria because of these two inspiring women. Having been awakened to the bias, distortion and outright lies of the corporate media for
many years I had found others who shared my anger and frustration and had done my best through online campaigning an
d writing to challenge those who dare call them journalists but who obediently, enthusiastically and willfully amplify the narrative fed them by their official sources. Their stenography has abetted the murderous wars that have killed, literally, millions of innocent people and it is no slander to accuse these media criminals of having blood on their hands. And when it comes to Syria, the blood stains on those corporate journalists’ hands can never be washed away.

I didn’t trust mainstream media reports, of course, when they first talked of an ‘uprising’ in Syria and a ‘brutal’ crackdown by the government, but thanks to Vanessa Beeley (image right) and Eva Bartlett (image leftand their, sometimes, life-risking efforts to bring the truth out of Syria, I realised just how poi
soned the dark pool of propaganda against this sovereign nation actually was, and as time went on it was brought home to me, as I watched corporate journalists reporting from Beirut before introducing the latest White Helmet fictional production, that as an independent journalist myself, I simply had to go to Syria and report first-hand on what I found there. My co-editor at BSNewsMike Raddie, made the first journey for our website, in 2016 when I had been unable to join him, but in 2017 we both made the trip which was to change my life.

Damascus in April 2017 was still being shelled from Ghouta (the civilian death toll being now 11,000 deaths) and the district of Bab Touma where we were staying had been targeted, as both Vanessa and Eva have reported. So it was with a strange kind of joy that we drove through the Old City gate, guarded by Syrian Army soldiers, to arrive at our hotel. It was exhilarating knowing I was finally here! And the next morning, when the sound of an explosion in the near distance woke me up, there was a surreal sense that I had passed through into a parallel reality. But this was life for the people of Damascus: the waiters and waitresses glided back and forth throughout breakfast as the booms continued and in the streets people were going about their business much as you see here in this video I shot last year as we walked back to our hotel through Bab Touma.

That well-worn phrase ‘an indomitable spirit’  became infused with deeper meaning as I walked the streets of Damascus, Aleppo and Homs in 2017. The affect upon me of our visit to East Aleppo talking to residents who’d had children murdered by the terrorists is beyond my powers of description to fully convey, but it left a mark on my soul that will never be erased. In Homs, too, we met those who had suffered this most unimaginable of horrors, igniting a special kind of anguish within me fueled by the fact that the Syrian people are suffering at the hands of my own government which meant an involuntary apology hovered on my lips during my encounters. However, we were met everywhere with a moving understanding, being told more than once that ‘people are not their governments’, a sentiment I wrote about last year from Damascus where we happened to be when the UK, US and France bombed in ‘retaliation’ for the ‘Assad chemical attack’ in Douma, which was, of course, another despicable propaganda exercise.

We also returned to Aleppo last year, a city that has found a very special place in my heart, and to see it rising again with bustling cafes and building work everywhere I felt uplifted by the sheer resilience and bravery of a people who have resisted an imperial onslaught that has ravaged and devoured so many other nations.

The Syrian people have given up their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters to be martyred in a battle for all our survival; how tragic then that news consumers in the West do not know what a debt they owe. George Orwell couldn’t have written anything more sinister and Goebbels himself could not have devised a more nefarious propaganda strategy than the one to which Syria has been subjected. I have seen time and again in my everyday life how those who are happy to be spoon fed their news by corporate sources react on command to the ‘trusted’ information they absorb. But these willfully ignorant citizens in Western countries carry a responsibility for the carnage in Syria and they must learn – they will learn in the end – that there was no fence to sit on when crimes of this magnitude were being committed by their governments. I once read that western populations are the most ignorant and apathetic in the world and I have to agree.

How could corporate journalists get away with their lies if they were consistently held to account by an awakened audience? This is the job of every responsible citizen, not just a few independent activists like myself who have taken up the pen in order to expose the rotten nexus that is setting the world aflame for profit and power. It has to stop. And Syria has been the field upon which the endgame has played out, testing every one of us to stand up and declare our allegiances. Thoreau wrote in 1849 that slavery called upon every person to declare their opposition to it and to act upon that moral stance even if it meant imprisonment. He stated that the issue divides nations, communities, families, and even the individual, separating ‘the diabolical in him from the divine.’ And so it is with Syria.

This conflict has tested even seasoned media activists and found them wanting: Media Lens have refused to support Vanessa Beeley, a journalist embodying everything they have pleaded for in their books and online output for almost twenty years. They could not bear the heat of the fire that Vanessa lives with every day for even a moment, and so they have helped to suppress the voices of Syrians, ironically aiding the very forces they have railed against for so long. They folded when it truly mattered, unlike their ally John Pilger who publicly and unequivocally declared his support for Vanessa from the start without hesitation.

When the truth is at stake our actions tell us who we really are.

And for the independent journalist that means knowingly devoting yourself to a path that will never bring the material rewards or accolades of a corporate career.

But what price integrity? What price truth? We fund ourselves with part-time jobs or much appreciated donations and we have, in reality, something a corporate hack will never know – freedom.

And no amount of money in the world can buy that. I have crowdfunded my upcoming trip to Syria and I’m incredibly grateful to everyone who helped me reach my target so that I can now go. Support for journalism that counters the mainstream’s lies is never more vital than in this historical moment. The voices of the Syrian people must be brought out for the world to hear.

There are just a few days left before my funder closes and every penny beyond my target will be used to that end. Thank you.

Support Alison at Alison Banville’s crowdfunder 

 

*

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 Truth About Syria.”How Could Corporate Journalists Get Away with Their Lies…”
  • Tags:

Video: Syrian Army Entering Kobani and Raqqa

October 17th, 2019 by South Front

On October 16, units of the Syrian Army entered the city of Raqqah for the first time since 2014. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has controlled the city since 2017, when they with help from the United States seized it from ISIS. The Syrian Army reportedly established several observation posts in the area and continued deployment within the SDF-held area.

According to pro-government sources, government troops are also preparing to enter the Omar oil fields. A day earlier, on October 15, Syrian troops and Russian Military Police units started patrolling the contact line between Turkish-backed forces and the SDF near Manbij.

On October 16, US-led coalition forces withdrew from the Kharab Ashk military base where dozens of US and French troops had been deployed. US-led forces burned the base in order to destroy equipment that they were not able to evacuate.

Watch the video here.

The Turkish Army and Turkish-backed militants are developing their offensive on SDF positions. They captured thirteen villages west of Tell Abyad and made another attempt to secure Ras al-Ayn. According to pro-SDF sources, 49 Turkish-backed militants were killed in an SDF counter-attack in the town. SDF units employed US-supplied military equipment. Pro-Turkish militants captured a Humvee armored vehicle near the town.

There are also reports that the SDF and the Syrian Army jointly recaptured the villages of al-Ahras, al-Rihaniyah and Manajir from Turkish-led forces south of Ras al-Ayn. Nonetheless, this was a tactical development involving Turkish proxies only. It is not likely that government forces and the SDF will carry out large-scale joint operations attacking positions of the Turkish Army. The main reason is that such an attack may lead to a large-scale escalation in the region and even a limited open conflict between Syria and Turkey.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the contingent alongside Kurdish militias controlled the vast territories. Trump clarified that the decision is connected with the intention of Turkey to attack the Kurdish units, posing a threat to Ankara.

It’s incredible that the Turkish military operation against Kurds – indeed the territorial integrity of Syria has resulted in the escape of the U.S., Great Britain, and France. These states essentially are key destabilizing components of the Syrian crisis.

Could this factor favourably influence the situation in the country? For instance, after the end of the Iraqi war in 2011 when the bulk of the American troops left the country, the positive developments took place in the lives of all Iraqis. According to World Economics organization, after the end of the conflict, Iraq’s GDP grew by 14% in 2012, while during the U.S. hostilities the average GDP growth was about 5,8%.

Syria’s GDP growth should also be predicted. Not right away the withdrawal of U.S., French, British, and other forces, but a little bit later after the end of the Turkish operation that is not a phenomenon. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict has been going on since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when Kurds started to promote the ideas of self-identity and independence. Apart from numerous human losses, the Turks accomplished nothing. It is unlikely that Ankara would achieve much in Peace Spring operation. The Kurds realize the gravity of the situation and choose to form an alliance with the Syrian government that has undermined the ongoing Turkish offensive.

Under these circumstances, Erdogan could only hope for the creation of a narrow buffer zone on the Syrian-Turkish border. The withdrawal of the Turkish forces from the region is just a matter of time. However, we can safely say that the Turkish expansion unwittingly accelerated the peace settlement of the Syrian crisis, as the vital destabilizing forces left the country. Besides, the transfer of the oil-rich north-eastern regions under the control of Bashar Assad will also contribute to the early resolution of the conflict.

It remains a matter of conjecture what the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia agreed on during the high-level talks. Let’s hope that not only the Syrians, but also key Gulf states are tired of instability and tension in the region, and it’s a high time to strive for a political solution to the Syrian problem.

*

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 Could Turkish Aggression Boost Peace in Syria? Has Triggered Exit of US, Britain and France
  • Tags: ,

A senior Iraqi security expert disclosed that Washington is attempting to transfer 3,000 members of the ISIS terrorist group from Syria to Iraq. Hafez Al-Basharah told the Arabic-language al-Ma’aloumeh news website on Tuesday that the US which has created and supported the ISIS terrorists in the past few years is now plotting to create a safe area for them in Iraq. He added that Washington, which has chosen three areas in Iraq for the ISIS relocation, wants to transfer the militants first to the regions under Turkey’s military attacks in Syria and then to Iraq.

“The first region that the US intends to transfer the ISIS terrorists is an area between Albu Kamal in Syria and Qa’em in Iraq; the second region is Ein al-Assad base; and the third area is one of the US bases in the Iraqi Kurdistan region,” al-Basharah said.

The Arabic-language media outlets had reported in July that Washington planned to bring back a more dangerous version of the ISIS terrorist group to Iraq and Syria after its failure to achieve its mischievous goals in the region. The Arabic-language website of the Russian Sputnik news agency quoted Hessam Sho’aib, a Syrian military expert on terrorist organizations, as saying that a recent report by the US-based Institute for Studies of War (ISW) on rebirth of the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria exposes this reality that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has created the ISIS and is preparing the grounds for the return of the terrorist groups, especially the ISIS, to the region.

Sho’aib noted that the ISW’s report on ISIS’ dominance over several regions in Iraq and Syria such as Mosul shows that the US is not looking for establishment of peace in the region and ISIS’ retreat from Raqqa has taken place on CIA’s order and not a defeat in war against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

He reiterated that the SDF is also a part of the CIA’s plot for Syria, and said, “The US has come to know that it cannot conduct any kind of military operation against Iran, and therefore it has resorted to reviving the terrorist groups to carry out terrorist attacks as a much cheaper scenario for the region.”

Sho’aib noted that Washington uses the terrorist groups in the region as a pressure lever, and said that the purpose of reviving the terrorist organizations is preoccupying the regional countries’ armies, specially Iraq, Syria and Iran.

*

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

The Brexit Catch 22. The Great Con

October 17th, 2019 by Robert Woodward

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations. This is Britain – caught up in its own Brexit Catch 22. It started its own fire, bought no extinguisher and now everyone is engulfed in its flames where a never-ending amount of fuel is added. It’s like being in hell. Every day is the same – more flames.

If a country could have chosen a worse time in history to have voted for Brexit it would be right now. Britain was a central power broker in a group of countries with a built-in market of 500 million that enabled it to negotiate with the other great power players of the world by pooling their own as one. With Germany, France and Italy, Britain was indeed a global power player with 23 other smaller nations that broadly speaking had to agree with it. The EU made itself stronger in a truly globalised market, at a time of intense challenge to the world order.

Instead, Britain has ended up negotiating itself into the worst possible scenario it could have ever imagined. It now can’t go back or forward. Instead, with this latest iteration of a withdrawal agreement, Britain is attempting to sidestep a fast-moving modern global system, which will inevitably fail.

For the free-trade jihadists, represented by the ERG, Farage’s Brexit Party and their fanboy hedge-funders – the cash machine of chaos is soon to start ringing. For all of their complaints of Project Fear, their fact-free protestations are drowned out by numerous reports, not just from economic experts but government departments. But that’s OK for them.

Right now, Russia is siding with China and between them are rewriting the geopolitical rules in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. The One Belt initiative demonstrates the desire to isolate America and combine Eurasia to a new trading regime. Eurasia is the largest continent on Earth, comprising all of Europe and Asia. Located primarily in the Northern and Eastern Hemispheres. It is home to nearly 5 billion people. The EU is ultimately heading in that direction over time.

And Britain has chosen to walk away from a club that made it safer, healthier and wealthier (in so may ways), making itself more dependent on Trump’s America – a country who chose an isolationist and nationalistic one-way road to institutional racism and neofascism – as its own influence in the world wanes.

America has $20 trillion in direct government debt, a military body that has admitted it spent over $8trillion in 15 years and is unable to account for several trillion more. America’s unfunded liabilities have just been calculated to be an eye-watering £210trillion.

America can no longer afford to be the world’s bully boy. The consequence is that it has chosen to fight the world with economic wars. This could not be demonstrated any better than Trump’s recent announcement that American troops are being sent to the Mid-East, for hire, whilst withdrawing from Syria and leaving their allies – the Kurds to face annihilation. Why would anyone trust America (or Britain that blindly follows) if this is how they treat allies.

I’ve said this before and I’ll keep saying it – America has no friends in the world – it has only sycophants and the frightened. The point for Britain is that the EU provided us with friends – 500 million friends. We negotiated as equals – but like in Orwell’s Animal Fram – we were more equal than others in this club of 28. But now, like America, we have voted for no friends. And just like Catch 22 we can escape club rules but only by delivering ourselves straight into the hands of free-marketeers whose own rules will ensnare us all with all of their exploitative and underhand strategies that by design will make us all worse off.

No Consensus – at all – anywhere

There is a stark reality that everyone should take note of. What we have is the result of a referendum in 2016 at 52/48 to leave the EU. Three and a half years later there is no consensus by the electorate for any course of action. The most popular of electorate scenario’s today is to remain the in EU – but only by 34%. By contrast, no-deal is supported by 23% of the electorate. But then again, if you ask the electorate would they choose no-deal or revoke – no-deal is supported by 34% and revoke Article 50 by 22%. Ask just Leavers and Remainers and bingo – it’s the other way round – no-deal gets 51% support and Remain gets 67% support.

Remain voters can’t agree. On average, nearly four in 10 Remain voters say Brexit should simply be reversed, while about three in 10 opt for another vote. You can guess what Leavers want – the same as they voted for but they can’t agree on what.

On average, during the last month, polls that ask people how they would vote in a second referendum suggest that 88% of those who backed Remain would do so again. Among those who voted Leave, 86% have not changed their minds. If calculated exactly the same, that 2% difference adds 350,000 votes to Remain – meaning the result would simply be even tighter.

This Catch22 was enabled and facilitated by the state and this demonstration of the disintegration of statecraft should tell everyone just one thing. Britain’s system of governing is in terminal failure. Many will tell you that representative democracy and that the rule of law is working exactly as it should do. But how is Britain supposed to thrive in a modern world if our leaders are capable of doing this to the country and no-one can agree on the way forward – for decades? In the meantime, everyone else is still on the bus and Britain is being left behind.

The great con

What we are witnessing is a great con. The ERG are full of millionaires that will be doing the exploiting. The Brexit Party who number just 20 political candidates – are made up of bankers, hedge-fund managers and derivative traders – the same crew as Farage and his pals. They represent little more than the Trojan horse of Britain’s demise.

Simon Wren-Lewis is a well-known economist. In his time, he has worked for Her Majesty’s Treasury as a budget-team member for the National Income Forecasting Team amongst other notable roles.

The reason is that currently Johnson’s proposals for a free trade deal abandon regulatory alignment. They want to reduce workers rights and consumer protection and environmental protection, and that will mean a far less extensive trade deal with the EU than under the backstop. That in turn means that the long term economic costs of any deal will still be large, although obviously not so large and we avoid the short term disruption.

Dr Nicholas Westcott is Research Associate, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy:

“In today’s international jungle it will also be more important than ever to have friends, and a no-deal Brexit is the best way to lose them fast. The Commonwealth is too disparate, and will wonder if this is how Britain treats its neighbours, how will it treat them? So Britain may have no option but to turn to the US, swapping 27 firm and equal friends for one big fickle one. Good luck with that.”

These are the comments now coming from dozens of professionals who vastly outnumber economists or experts that support leaving the EU.

But Britain is stuck in its Catch22. The only thing that is guaranteed is that the PM’s latest deal will continue to fail Britain’s long-term interests and will inevitably boost division and nationalism. In a modern world, the EU was in fact, central to Britain’s power. What Johnson, Farage and the Brexit jihadists are really pushing for is a deregulation fest – called the ‘Singapore Scenario‘. Incredibly, Singapore, a median ranking country in the early 1990s for inequality is now one of the worst in the world by ranking 149th out of 157 countries in the CRI Index. It also fell into the 22nd spot out of 23 countries in East Asia and the Pacific in reducing inequality.

In Singapore, tax reductions were met with lower public spending. That is about the only direction guaranteed by Britain’s Catch22. To out-compete the EU – it will have no choice but to do the same. This is why Johnson is already crowing about tax-free ports and promoting the prospect of reduced corporation tax.

It makes no difference if this government or any other government in future does a deal, no-deal, revokes, offers EUref2 or any other combination. There is no accepted consensus with a majority of the electorate for the time being. We are trapped in the Brexit Catch 22.

*

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 TruePublica

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Brexit Catch 22. The Great Con

As spectacular and indicative of America’s sinking fortunes in Syria as its bombing of its own military base in northern Syria was – it is also an indicator of something else much more sinister.

CNN in its article, “US conducts airstrike on weapons storage site as troops pull out of Syria,” notes that (emphasis added):

“On Oct. 16, after all Coalition personnel and essential tactical equipment departed, two Coalition F-15Es successfully conducted a pre-planned precision airstrike at the Lafarge Cement Factory to destroy an ammunition cache, and reduce the facility’s military usefulness,” US Army Col. Myles Caggins, a spokesman for the US-led military coalition fighting ISIS, confirmed in a statement Wednesday.

And indeed the airstrike eliminated the facility’s military usefulness once and for all.

Larfarge Facility Served ISIS, then US Occupation of Syrian Territory 

Missing from CNN’s article was the long and dubious backstory of the Lafarge facility.

In a 2018 Guardian article titled, “Lafarge charged with complicity in Syria crimes against humanity,” it was reported that the company had paid terrorists including members of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) millions of Euros in protection money, bought supplies from them, and may even have sold cement to them.

The article noted:

The French cement giant Lafarge was charged on Thursday with complicity in crimes against humanity and financing terrorists, for allegedly paying millions to jihadists, including the Islamic State group, to keep a factory open in war-torn Syria.

The article also noted:

A source close to the inquiry said investigators also suspected that Lafarge sold cement to Isis.

Worse still – as early as 2014 the French government was in contact with Washington in a bid to have the facility spared despite its central role in aiding, abetting, and providing material support to ISIS and other terrorist organizations in Syria.

France asked the United States in 2014 not to bomb a Lafarge cement plant in northern Syria, an area which was at the time controlled by Islamic State, emails that are part of an investigation into the company’s Syria operations show.

While Reuters attempts to question whether or not the US knew the facility was aiding and abetting terrorist organizations it is inconceivable that Washington would be unable to unlock the “mystery” as to how a Western corporation was still able to do business in the heart of ISIS-occupied territory.

With ISIS mostly defeated where the facility is located and with Syrian forces prepared to retake the area it is located in – only then did the US decide to eliminate the facility after serving for years – first in support of US-backed terrorists – then the US’ own illegal occupation of Syrian territory.

While documented evidence ranging from the US’ own Defense Intelligence Agency to leaked e-mails written by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria was the result of extensive and deliberate state-backing from the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar – the fact that the US only destroyed a facility serving ISIS and Al Qaeda when it became clear it would never be able to be used by them again – adds further light to the truth of Washington’s deliberate and central role in engineering, executing, and perpetuating the devastating war in Syria.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that forces taking over where Lafarge’s facility was located will undoubtedly be tasked with fighting the remnants of or state-sponsored resurgence of ISIS and Al Qaeda in the near future – minus a key facility that would have helped them do so.

From the beginning of the conflict when the French government refused to have a facility destroyed it and its US allies knew was aiding and abetting terrorists – to America’s destruction of the facility to deny its and the surrounding base’s resources to Syrian forces tasked with preventing ISIS and Al Qaeda’s resurgence – the facility is a symbol of the West’s malicious and insidious state-sponsorship of terrorism in their failed proxy war against Damascus.

*

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

This article was originally published on Land Destroyer Report.

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

Featured image is from LDR

Winners and Losers in the Turkish Attack on Kurds in Syria?

October 17th, 2019 by Elijah J. Magnier

Turkish forces invaded north-east Syria (NES) only when it had coordinated with the US to define the red line of the invasion. Moreover, both superpowers, the US and Russia, protected Turkey by blocking an EU-drafted UN resolution to halt the Turkish advance. Turkey refused to allow the US to arm, train and give an independent state to the Syrian Kurds on the Turkish borders and simultaneously keep Turkey as an ally. President Donald Trump had no choice but to accept Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s position over that of the Kurdish separatists. Russia considered the Turkish presence in NES much easier to deal with than the US forces and the disillusionment of the Kurds with their US mentor worth allowing President Erdogan’s operation. So, who is the winner and who is the loser among these players?

Ankara has played one of the most disastrous roles in the Syrian war since the beginning,  allowing jihadists to flock into Syria from all over the world. The Turkish position was in harmony with the US-EU directives calling for regime change in Syria or a failed State so that each player could take a chunk of the country and leave it in total chaos. Moreover, Turkey supported the jihadists to attack and successfully occupy the city of Idlib starting from the Turkish borders. It did the same when jihadists attacked Kesseb and threatened the province of Latakia.

However, President Erdogan did pull out his proxies from Aleppo, allowing the Syrian Army to free the northern city with fewer human losses. It also played an effective role in the fall of al-Ghouta, in the suburb of Damascus, to the benefit of the Syrian Army.

President Erdogan also pushed his forces into Jarablus in NES and, two years later, occupied Afrin, disturbing the Syrian Kurds’ dream of a “Rojava” state. His invasion of NES caused the end of Northern Kurdistan and, indirectly, pushed the US forces out of NES, with the exception of a “small footprint” at al-Tanaf.

The Turkish President is today an essential partner in the Astana peace process due to his control over 10% of the Syrian territory and his influence over militants and jihadists. He has also managed to play his cards well by creating a balance between the US and Russia, buying weapons from both despite the discontent and disapproval of the US administration.

Although Turkey failed to deliver on its promise to paralyse, contain and dismantle the jihadist groups in Idlib, it allowed a military expedition against them when the jihadists refused to stop sending armed drones against the Russian military base in Hmaymeem.

Today, President Erdogan will be negotiating a new constitutional framework in Astana, holding Idlib and aiming (hoping) to control almost 14,000 sq km (440×32) of NES. His country is hosting 3.6 million refugees and would like to relocate a few million to Syria. He also needs to satisfy his Syrian proxies, who will accuse him of treachery if he doesn’t offer to these at least the minimum of their required objectives: a reintegration into the Syrian system without persecution for their previous acts, and an approved change in the constitution.

Although President Erdogan was thoroughly in the US-NATO camp at the beginning of the Syrian war and went as far as to shoot down a Russia jet on November 2015, he has managed to strike a balance with Moscow. He is becoming a strategic partner of Russia, not only buying the S-400 but also part of the Gazprom-sponsored pipeline Turkish Stream that is expected to supply Europe with Russian gas. President Erdogan may find himself threatening to leave NATO – to the jubilation of Russia – if the US imposes sanctions on his country and on Turkish personalities.

The Syrian war is not yet over. The role of President Erdogan is still to be played out in its last phase. Is the Turkish presence in Syria to last as long as the occupation of north-east Cyprus? That will definitely indicate a military confrontation with Damascus in the long term and the disapproval of his Russian and Iranian allies.

The Syrian Kurds and the Arab tribes loyal to Damascus will not stand idle in the face of a long Turkish occupation. That will no doubt disturb the relationship between the allies, who need to look for the development of commercial and business relationships at a time when the US is fighting for its hegemony and freely imposing sanctions on so many countries. It all depends on the latest Turkish moves in the Levant, and Turkey will have to choose what to become: a partner or an enemy, and of whom?

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Winners and Losers in the Turkish Attack on Kurds in Syria?
  • Tags: , ,

Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent warm greetings to African leaders, business people and participants early October, signaling that everything is set for the first Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi, southern coastal city of Russia.

The message reads, in part:

“Today, the countries of Africa are well on their way towards social, economic, scientific and technological development, and are playing a significant role in international affairs. They are strengthening mutually beneficial integration processes within the African Union and other regional and sub regional organizations across the continent.”

In recent years, the traditionally friendly ties of partnership between Russia and Africa have gained new momentum, both at a bilateral level and in various multilateral formats. In addition to preserving past experience of successful cooperation, have also managed to make significant new steps forward.

Trade and investment are growing dynamically, and new joint projects are under way in extractive industries, agriculture, healthcare, and education. Russian companies are ready to offer their scientific and technological developments to their African partners, and share their experience of upgrading energy, transport and communications infrastructures, according to President Putin.

It is, broadly, expected that the Summit will help identify new areas and forms of cooperation, put forward promote collaboration between Russia and Africa to a qualitatively new level and further contribute enormously to the development of bilateral relations between Russia and Africa.

According to the Organizing Committee, some 50 African heads of state have already confirmed their participation. It will feature more than 200 CEOs, ministers of key industries, and representatives of the expert community from Russia and Africa. The events will be attended by more than 3,000 representatives of African businesses.

The main event are the plenary session “Russia-Africa: Uncovering the Potential for Cooperation” during which the Presidents of Russia, Vladimir Putin, and Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, are expected to speak. A final declaration of the Summit titled “For Peace, Security, and Development” has been prepared and it includes items on the global and regional agendas that are important for Russia as well as comprehensive proposals on diverse ways to develop the full scope of future Russian-African relations.

In addition, at least 23 intergovernmental and interagency agreements and other agreements between African and Russian companies will be signed on the sidelines.

Under the theme “Russia and Africa: Uncovering the Potential for Cooperation” here are the key areas the Summit will discuss:

The Role of Media in Russian-African Relations

The African continent is becoming ever more important in today’s international order. Russian-African relations are adding an additional dimension to developments, especially with the boost provided by rapidly expanding links across a vast range of areas.

The media can, and indeed must be a decisive factor in building effective ties. Africa is frequently portrayed in the media as suffering from numerous intergovernmental, religious, and ethnic conflicts; political and economic instability; and an array of demographic and social problems. Knowledge of today’s Russia and the steps being taken by its political leaders to tackle global challenges is also given little space in the continent’s media landscape.

Contribution of Nuclear Technologies in the Development of Africa

Today, African countries face major challenges. Rapid population growth and the worsening energy crisis are constraining economic growth on the continent. The poor transport infrastructure, access of the population to health services, low level of education and food supply insecurity are severely hampering Africa’s efforts to improve the quality of life in the region. It is clear that to solve these problems a large-scale development programme is required, including a strategy based on achieving the UN sustainable development goals. Nuclear technologies can become a driver for socio-economic development and a comprehensive solution to the systemic continent-wide problems.

Humanitarian cooperation: Development Goals and Corporate Social Responsibility

Humanitarian partnership between Russia and African countries is becoming increasingly important. It is an area covering the development of human capital (education and culture), social programmes, healthcare, and access to essential benefits supporting people’s lives and national development in countries across the continent.

Current Objectives in Developing the Housing Construction Market on the African Continent

Access to housing is one of the most pressing issues facing most African countries. Modern housing and a comprehensive approach to spatial planning can help ensure sustainable urban development and socioeconomic growth. We must now determine the needs of the housing construction market in African countries and identify joint solutions and ways of working together to achieve the most effective results in the shortest possible time. Practical steps aimed at identifying, supporting, and implementing joint projects are vital to such partnerships.

Investing in Africa

In 2050, Africa’s total GDP will reach $29 tn, exceeding the combined GDP of US and Euro zone in 2012. Pan-African and national growth strategies as well as global thinktanks’ forecasts highlight the following growth areas and potential key drivers of the continent’s rise in the medium and long term: commodities; infrastructure (utilities and roads) and industrialization; demography; education; expanding middle class; access to financial services. These factors will define the continent’s investment outlook: future investment climate, current investments and their diversification. They have potential either to bolster or hamper the capital inflows.

Economic Sovereignty for Africa: Problems and Solutions

In order to fulfil their development objectives and meet the needs of their citizens, countries in Africa are compelled to turn to foreign sources of financing. However, these mainly take the form of credit from international financial institutions and direct loans whereby the creditor imposes socioeconomic and political requirements which limit a country’s sovereignty. Sovereign bonds and other forms of borrowing on the capital market account for just a small proportion of African debt, but some countries on the continent are still unable to access this form of financing. As a result, more than USD 100 billion of borrowing potential is going untapped. More than USD 200 billion of existing debt could be refinanced under less stringent conditions.

Russia and Africa: Energy for Development and Cooperation

Africa today has a population of over one billion people, huge resource potential and a platform for development. The continent has the potential to become one of the world’s largest economies and most populated regions by 2050 through organic growth and reform. Creating a foundation for growth at the very outset and using the continent’s mineral wealth in the most effective way possible requires the right energy policy.

Transport Infrastructure on the African Continent: Opportunities to Implement Joint Projects

The transport sector in Africa possesses excellent potential for development. The continent’s railways offer great promise, as do joint ventures. Several African nations have prioritized the development of their transport infrastructures, particularly given transport’s ability to spur growth in key industries. The expansion of transport links brings with it additional jobs and expertise, and improves quality of life for the local population. Russia is able to offer technology and expertise at the very forefront of construction, planning, engineering, and equipment supplies. However, there remain a number of barriers to the market, as well as a lack of financing and country specific risks.

Financing as an Essential Instrument of Economic Growth in Africa

The African continent has enormous economic potential and is actively integrating into the system of international economic relations. Prospects for Russia to increase its trade with African countries are directly linked to the diversification of its merchandise exports. However, this is only a realistic aim if international financing channels are put in place to facilitate growth in trade. Given the interest in Russia and Africa increasing economic cooperation, new solutions need to be found to implement ambitious trade projects.

Russian–African Collaboration in the Diamond Industry

The diamond mining industry is key to the economies of several African countries, accounting for a significant portion of income from exports. Today, diamond mining faces a number of industry-wide challenges, attempts to tackle which will determine its future.

The Future of the African Continent: Sovereignty and Traditional Values as Crucial Elements of a Development Strategy

In an era of globalization, protecting national values and priorities is a pressing concern. Economic and political sovereignty are the foundation of development in a polycentric world, and African countries are no exception. The African Union’s strategic framework Agenda 2063 highlights the importance of preserving African values and Pan-Africanism.

Collaboration in Industry: Potential Areas of Growth

The development of high-tech and export-oriented industries in the Russian manufacturing sector has laid the groundwork for expanding areas of collaboration and launching ambitious long-term projects. What needs to be done to bring about a substantial improvement in collaboration between Russia and Africa? Which areas of cooperation are of most interest to Russian businesses and African nations? What projects and forms of Russian-African partnership are in need of financial support from parties such as Afreximbank?

Doing Business in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities

Today, Africa is one of the most promising and fastest-growing regions of the world, with leading powers actively competing with one another. However, the continent should not be viewed as a single, monolithic market. Its economy varies from place to place in terms of type, scale, and structure. Africa today is a place of great political, cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity. As a result, each country has a unique business culture, requiring an individual approach from any company wishing to enter its market.

Biosecurity: Current Projects and Opportunities for Cooperation

Global threats in today’s interconnected world, such as epidemics of infectious diseases, have a huge impact on the development of African nations. Robust healthcare systems and the ability to react to these threats can boost prosperity and help countries to thrive. Over the past few years, the African continent has had to tackle outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases affecting thousands of lives and costing national economies millions of dollars. Russia has a great deal of experience in reacting to health threats, and today is implementing large-scale projects in countries around the world.

Digital Transformation as a Driver of State Development

Today, digitalization is a major driver of state development. Effective e-government simplifies communication between people and the state, and helps create an effective system for departments to interact with one another. As a result, people gain quicker access to government services. In turn, this leads to greater user satisfaction, and substantial monetary savings.

The Eurasian Economic Union and Africa: Trends and Opportunities to Develop Integrated Processes and Collaborate

Over the past few decades, economic integration processes have become an overarching trend in regional development throughout the world. They have helped member states to successfully embed themselves in the global economy and minimize the risk of crises occurring in various industries. Economic integration provides a new perspective on crucial projects related to infrastructure, logistics, energy, trade, agricultural and industrial development, digitalization, migration policy, and employment.

It offers additional opportunities to form common approaches to issues concerning the environment, renewable energy, and other factors determining scientific and technological progress. In view of the substantial expertise that regional associations offer, the next logical step is to foster dialogue between them and exchange experience at the forefront of integration, with the aim of optimizing economic integration processes and collaborating on the widest possible range of issues.

Technological Sovereignty and Security in a Digital World: Solutions to Tomorrow’s Challenges

Africa’s fast-growing commercial sector is making rapid inroads in the virtual space. African companies are overcoming problems related to communication and financial infrastructure and choosing to immediately build their business online, implementing modern mobile solutions as they do so. However, the cyber security measures used by these fast-growing companies cannot keep up with their rapid development, leaving the companies vulnerable to cyber criminals.

In terms of governmental information systems, a monopolization of global IT markets by a handful of major Western corporations could result in financial losses in Africa, threatening citizens’ personal safety and Africa’s sovereignty at large. Russian companies are global leaders in digital security and are capable of protecting African businesses from cyber threats while ensuring digital sovereignty for African states. Success can be guaranteed through building partnerships between African and Russian companies and training up an IT security workforce in each country.

Using Minerals in Africa for the Benefit of Its Peoples

There is a long history of Soviet and Russian specialists participating in and supporting the systemic geological study of a number of countries in the African continent. Their work on natural resource bases has done a great deal to aid mineral extraction. These countries now have the opportunity to leverage modern means of geological research and exploration, and in doing so, continue the comprehensive study of subsoil resources. This could lead to new and globally unique sites being developed, both on land and the continental shelf.

Business Associations in Russia and Africa: A Starting Point for Long-Term Business Partnership

A major barrier hindering greater cooperation between the Russian and African business communities is a lack of awareness regarding the current state of markets, along with trade and investment opportunities. There is also an insufficient level of trust towards potential partners. These issues can be solved through establishing an effective system of communication between public business associations in Russia and African nations. These organizations can both serve the interests of entrepreneurs, and also guarantee their reliability and integrity.

Russia and Africa: Science, Education, and Innovation for Economic Development

The accelerated development of both Russia’s and Africa’s economic potential is inextricably linked to scientific output and the improvement of general education and professional training. The 21st century has heralded the rise of the knowledge economy. Scientific research and development results in new products and industries, and is able to make a vital contribution to tackling current social and economic challenges facing our countries. The Soviet Union made an invaluable contribution to developing the scientific and educational potential of a number of African countries.

A Safe Africa

Illegal migration, contraband, and criminal activity are all too frequent problems facing the African continent. The biggest threat of all though is terrorism. Experts agree that to ensure a country’s national security, a set of measures needs to be taken, along with preventative action to combat possible threats. The biggest vulnerabilities in this regard include weak border control, unprotected industrial facilities, and large urban areas where it becomes easy to disappear into a crowd. An effective set of measures has been developed in Russia to counter terrorism, curtail illegal activity, and provide dependable protection for citizens. Russian organizations and companies are ready and able to share their experience with African partners.

Drivers of Growth in National Healthcare Systems

National healthcare systems are simply unable to cope economically with the burden of disease in Africa. Particular attention is given to infectious diseases; however, there is a growing need to fight against cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. What’s more, the high cost of medicines and services, together with a shortage of vital modern equipment, is hindering access to medical care in African countries.

The lack of medical personnel is a particularly pressing problem. Cutting-edge technologies, such as mobile phones, blockchain, 3D printing, UAVs, and others clearly need to be applied as drivers of growth in this area. If used correctly, they could significantly improve the quality of medical services while cutting costs. The high number of people in Africa suffering from chronic diseases and requiring remotely administered care and treatment will spur the development of telemedicine.

New Forms of Cooperation between Russia and Africa: Opportunities for Special Economic Zones Based on the Project to Establish a Russian Industrial Zone in Egypt

A new model for the development of production lines is based on closing the gap between production and delivery to the end consumer, minimising logistical and technical expenses and facilitating projects with a social dimension to successfully develop the local economy. Based on this logic, creating and facilitating conditions conducive to competitive production, including the production of quality hi-tech products, can be done most effectively through the use of points of entry.

Such points draw on the advantages of special (free) economic zones, which provide additional competitive advantages when gaining access to local markets. The project to create a Russian Industrial Zone – devised and implemented at the interface between governments, state development institutions and business communities – is a unique step toward ensuring state investment and implementing the industrial zone mechanism to support access to foreign markets for relevant companies.

Digitalization in the Mining Industry: New Opportunities, Robots, Artificial Intelligence

Africa is a world leader in volume of reserves and the extraction of many valuable raw materials and fuels, over 90% of which is then exported. The mining industry forms the basis of many countries’ industrial capacity and exports and accounts for around 75% of all foreign investments. Traditional field development methods are becoming increasingly expensive. Productivity is dropping due to high maintenance costs, unreliable equipment, reactive troubleshooting, low capacity factors, and incidents related to safety violations.

Russian Geological Exploration in Africa: Looking to the Past and to the Future

Africa is exceptionally rich in mineral reserves, although these have not yet been studied comprehensively. Compared with other continents, it boasts the largest ore reserves of manganese, chromite, bauxite, gold, platinum, cobalt, diamond, and phosphorite. It also has substantial oil, natural gas, graphite and asbestos reserves. Russian companies, for their part, have a wealth of experience leading exploratory work and are interested in working on the African continent.

Creating a New Quality of Life in Africa

Africa has the fastest-growing population in the world. Over 50% of people living in Africa are under the age of 26. At the same time, the quality of life in the African continent is one of the lowest in the world.

Women in Russian-African Relations: Gender Balance in Politics, the Economy and the Social Sector

Developing female entrepreneurship and leadership is currently of interest in every region of the world and is discussed at platforms of leading international organisations and associations. According to forecasts, women’s full involvement in the economy will allow global GDP to reach 28 trillion dollars by 2025, which is equal to that of the Chinese and US economies combined. On average, a woman in Europe currently earns 15% less than a man working in the same position. This gender gap is even more pronounced in Africa and Asia. In 2019, Russia presented an integrated systemic development model entitled ‘Women and the economy’ at UNIDO, which was formed on the basis of best practice in Russia and beyond.

The Contribution to Global Sustainable Development Made by Young People in Russia and Africa

It is crucial that young people play a role in international cooperation and efforts to build an environment allowing young leaders and entrepreneurs to be fully involved in efforts to tackling global challenges. These aims also tally with the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Collaboration between young people in Russia and Africa can be strengthened by exchanging best practices and working together on specific projects. Leadership and startup communities play a particularly important role in establishing partnerships, as these are the most effective mechanisms for enacting a structural shift in the socioeconomic sphere.

Oil and Gas Projects in Africa: Implementation Prospects

The African continent’s oil reserves are estimated at 129.2 billion barrels, or 7.5% of global reserves, and it produces 8.2 million barrels per day, representing 8.6% of global production. There is significant potential for the continent to increase production and monetize reserves. At the same time, Russian companies currently have a limited presence in the region. Broadening Russian-African cooperation could boost competition and efficiency in field development, and provide an additional stimulus for efforts to localize equipment and strengthen technological partnership.

Sustainable Partnership in Agriculture: Institutions, Tools, and Guarantees

The steady development of African countries in the last few years, together with growing populations and income levels are all factors helping to boost agricultural production. However, a deficit of modern technology, lack of land suitable for farming, and a shortage of qualified personnel mean that the needs of the African market have not been fully met.

Russia’s unique geographic conditions, together with its vast land and water resources, provide the country with enormous agricultural potential. In the past few years, Russian companies have taken active steps to increase exports of agricultural products and food. Indeed, Russia is already one of the ten largest food suppliers to Africa. However, a range of barriers related to infrastructure is currently hindering effective trade. Removing these could help collaboration reach an entirely new level.

The Roscongress Foundation, a socially oriented non-financial development institution, is the organiser of the events, and the Russian Export Center and Afreximbank are the co-organisers of this first Russia-Africa Summit.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah writes frequently on Russia, Africa and BRICS. He is the author of the Geopolitical Handbook titled “Putin’s African Dream and The New Dawn: Challenges and Emerging Opportunities” devoted to the first Russia-Africa Summit 2019.

Uneasy Damascus/Kurdish Alliance

October 17th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Throughout most of Obama’s war, now Trump’s, against Syrian sovereign independence and territorial integrity, Kurdish YPG fighters and their politicians allied with US imperial aims for their own self-interest — including support for jihadists used as Pentagon/CIA proxy foot soldiers.

Kurdish betrayal complicates rapprochement with Damascus. Trust must be earned. Kurds have lots of proving to do.

For now, an uneasy alliance was formed against a common Turkish foe. Southfront said agreed on terms between both sides haven’t been revealed — each side with its “own version of events,” adding:

For Kurdish politicians and fighters, it’s for “the defense sphere only,” a political agreement to be discussed “in the coming days.”

Russia is acting as “guarantor” of terms agreed on, Moscow alone able “to prevent the further Turkish incursion into northeastern Syria.”

If things go as planned, Syrian forces will be deployed along areas bordering Turkey to “guarantee” Syrian Arab Republic territorial integrity — what Russia called for throughout years of war, along with preserving the country’s sovereignty.

“(A)reas captured by” Turkish and proxy fighters will remain active conflict theaters until “liberated,” said Southfront.

According to Damascus, oil-producing areas east of the Euphrates river must be returned to government control.

Assad may grant concessions to Kurds short of an autonomous state within the Syrian Arab Republic — maybe something along the lines of the US federal system.

Under the US 10th Amendment,

“powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Something like the above might work for both sides. As for Turkish cross-border aggression, Erdogan wants to seize and control as much Syrian territory as possible, part of his revanchist agenda.

Syrian Arab Army forces aim to preserve and protect the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity against all illegal foreign occupiers.

Syrian troops entered and control strategic Manbij, its surrounding areas, Kobani, Raqqa, Tabqa, Ayn Isa, and areas near Tell Tamr, Kurdish YPG fighters operating alongside them.

Russian military police are deployed between their forces and Erdogan’s to prevent both sides from clashing — a key objective.

US troops still illegally occupy southern Syrian territory. Its special forces and CIA elements may be operating covertly anywhere in the country.

Pentagon-led terror-bombing remains a constant threat, along with continued arming and training of ISIS and other jihadists on its regional bases.

On Wednesday, Erdogan claimed Turkish forces control about 1,000 sq. km of northern Syrian territory.

On Thursday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that Ras al-Ayn civilians in harm’s way of Turkish aggression were hospitalized with “severe burns” believed to be from (banned) “chemical substances,” adding:

“(S)ources (reported that) the Turkish regime used the internationally-banned (white) phosphorus in shelling residential neighborhoods in Ras al-Ayn city.”

US-dominated NATO and Israel use chemical, biological, radiological, and other banned terror weapons against adversaries time and again, accountability never forthcoming.

In response to Trump’s letter to Erdogan discussed in a same-day article, Turkish media reported that it was “rejected…and thrown away,” an unnamed Ankara source saying:

“The straightest answer to this letter is the Operation Peace Spring, which began on October 9,” adding:

“Trump understood such proposals were not valid. (He) has seen that he cannot make Erdogan do anything with the mediation offer.”

Erdogan and Trump will meet next month in Washington. On October 22, the Turkish president will meet with Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Syria the topic of discussion for both meetings.

On Thursday morning in Ankara, Trump’s national security advisor Robert O’Brien and special presidential envoy James Jeffrey met with Turkish foreign minister Cavusoglu — reportedly only for “45 minutes…no further details…given” on how talks went, according to Turkish media.

On Wednesday, Erdogan’s spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said

“(n)either sanction threats nor condemnations can deter us from our rightful cause (sic),” adding:

So-called “Operation Peace Spring will continue without slowing down until it reaches its aims.”

There’s nothing “rightful” about aggression, the highest of high crimes by one state against another.

*

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 Liberty Nation

Gaza

Treating drug-resistant infections in Gaza under the blockade

Medicin Sans Frontieres 2 Sept. 2019-More than 7,400 Palestinians have been injured by live ammunition during protests in Gaza.  About half of those suffering from open fractures, in which the bone is broken near the wound.  More than 1,000 of them have developed bone infections; these serious and complex wounds require months – if not years – of dressing, surgery, and physiotherapy. Infections prevent recovery and many of them are resistant to antibiotics.  To prevent the spread of resistant bacteria, those with resistant infections have to be isolated in a single room for six weeks. Everyone entering the room must wear protective clothing and clean their hands. MSF has developed the first lab in Gaza that is able to analyze bone samples.

Palestinian protester injured by Israeli sniper fire dies in hospital

Peoples Dispatch 2 Sept. 2019-A Palestinian protester shot by Israeli security forces during the weekly Great March of Return protests in August, succumbed to his injuries at the Gaza European Hospital. According to sources, he was shot by an Israeli army sharpshooter in the southern part of the Gaza strip. More than 6,000 Palestinians participated in the August protests.

17-year old Ali al-Ashqar killed at Gaza protest

Electronic Intifada 30 Sept. 2019-Ali al-Ashqar, age 17, a young participant of the Great March of Return, threw one stone on September 6 while standing 80 meters from the separation wall in Gaza. He was immediately shot by an Israeli sniper who prevented medics from reaching him before he bled to death.

Gaza children’s mental health rapidly deteriorating

Norwegian Refugee Council 25 March 2019-A study conducted by the Norwegian Refugee Council found that 68 percent of schoolchildren in areas close to the Israeli perimeter fence has clear indications of psycho-social distress. The majority said they were most severely affected by the sounds of nearby explosions and media images of conflict in Gaza.  One year since the start of mass protests along the perimeter fence with Israel, children have reported witnessing violence first hand, as well as knowing people who have been injured, killed or lost their homes. Fifty-four percent said they had no hope for a brighter future. Eighty-one percent of children struggle academically due to conflict-related stress.

Qatar Red Crescent backs healthcare sector in Gaza

The Gulf Times 1 Sept. 2019-Qatar Red Crescent is implementing a mega project to enhance the health sector in Gaza, by providing medical expertise and training to staff.  The multifaceted project involves hiring consultants in pulmonology, internal medicine, cardiothoracic surgery, neonatology, and urology.  Other capacity-building components of the program include MA in Mental Health at the Al Quds University (Abu Dis campus) and Diploma in Anesthesia and Intensive Care at the Islamic University of Gaza (IUG). Read more: The Peninsula

Unclaimed rockets sent across Gaza’s frontier prompt Israeli authorities to cut electrical power in sweltering summer heat

Middle East Eye 26 August 2019-The impact of power cuts is felt in almost every aspect of the life of Gaza’s residents. Food can no longer be kept in the fridge, staying at home is unbearable due to the heat, and even the simple task of visiting relatives would have to depend on the highly unreliable electricity schedule. Businesses, schools, and hospitals are disrupted and the majority of people cannot afford a generator.

West Bank

Another fatal attack on a Palestinian woman occurred near a checkpoint in Ramallah on September 28

Electronic Intifada 18 Sept. 2019-Israeli forces shot 28-year-old Alaa Wahdan in the legs and prevented Palestinian Red Crescent personnel from providing timely medical treatment.

The murder of a young Palestinian woman by her family has sparked widespread protests against misogyny, honor killings, and the Israeli occupation

+972 Magazine 23 Sept. 2019-One consequence of the murder of Israa Gharib has been a campaign for a new law against gender violence in the West Bank.

Israeli raids office of Palestinian prisoner rights group

Middle East Eye Sept. 19 2019-“Addameer sees this raid as a part of ongoing and systematic attacks against the Palestinian civil society organization,” said the Palestinian prisoner rights group Addameer in a statement published by Middle East Eye. “Addameer reassures that those constant raids will not stand in the face of any duties the organization has for Palestinian political prisoners.”

Constant fires of trash and waste, much if it acquired from Israel, is contaminating fields where sheep once grazed in the southern West Bank

The New York Times 12 Sept. 2019-In villages in the Hebron area an estimated 80% of households rely directly or indirectly on handling electronic waste to survive. On the villages’ outskirts and along the separation wall — where Israeli and Palestinian security is largely absent — the burning of cables, useless e-waste scraps and trash have blackened the soil and saturated once fertile pastures with what Dr. Garb calls a “witches’ brew” of contaminants.

UN High Commissioner should immediately release Settlement Business Database

Human rights Watch 23 Sept. 2019-Almost 4 years have passed since the UN Human Rights Council approved without opposition resolution 31/36 mandating the establishment of a database of businesses that are engaged in certain, specific activities in the occupied Palestinian territory that are either explicitly linked to Israeli settlements or form part of processes that “enable and support the establishment, expansion and maintenance of Israeli residential communities beyond the Green Line. HRW has requested that the High Commissioner release the data before the end of the current session.

Israeli Supreme Court will hear arguments against deportation of Human Rights Watch’s Israel and Palestine Director, accused of promoting boycott

NPR 23 Sept. 2019-The Israeli Supreme Court will hear HRW’s appeal of a deportation order against its Israel and Palestine Director, Omar Shakir. Israel has caricatured HRW’s call on companies to stop doing business in settlements in order to avoid contributing to rights abuses, as “promoting boycotts,” and sought to deport Shakir from the country. HRW argues that these are attempts to stifle criticism and should be a concern for all who care about democracy, human rights and freedom of expression in Israel. Amnesty International recently joined the appeal, citing potential ramifications for them and other rights groups. Read more: Haaretz

Israel’s fiscal standoff impacts environment and health of Palestinians.

Down to Earth 11 Sept. 2019-180 Palestinian communities in the West Bank (more than 20 percent) lack access to good quality water, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and UN Conference on Trade and Development ((UNCTAD). Among those living in East Jerusalem, only 44 percent are formally connected to the water network. The oPt is also facing serious public health risks with Israel dumping large amounts of hazardous waste including sewage sludge, infectious medical waste, used oils, solvents, metals, and electronic waste and batteries.  The shortage of electricity, destruction, and disrepair of the sanitation infrastructure has severely affected the environment in Gaza. More than 100 million liters of untreated sewage is discharged into the Mediterranean Sea daily, causing extensive contamination of beaches — four times higher than the international environmental standards — and also impacting the fishing economy.

UN Report on fiscal crisis in Palestinian economy

UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process 23 Sept. 2019-A newly published United Nations report highlighted the urgency to resolve the continuing fiscal crisis faced by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and to support the Palestinian economy. It called for increased attention to Gaza’s health system. According to the report, an evolving health crisis in Gaza is caused, in part, by limited electricity supply to healthcare centers and hospitals, dual-use restrictions on medical equipment and a shortage of medicines and disposables.  The report called for the Palestinian Ministry of Health’s full cooperation with this effort. “To move away from humanitarian assistance, fundamental improvements to health care infrastructure, including increased electricity supply, access to clean water, upgrading of medical equipment and establishing a transparent and effective supply chain for medicines and other essential goods are key,” the report added. Read more: MENAFN, Emirates News Agency

Update on Palestinian prisoner hunger strike

Electronic Intifada 25 Sept. 2019-Some 140 Palestinian prisoners have been rejecting food for more than two weeks after Israel failed to cease jamming their phone reception, and to install public telephones, preventing them from communicating with the outside world, which Israel had agreed to do following a previous hunger strike. Some 460 are being held in “administrative detention”, under which Israel can imprison individuals without charge or trial and detainees are not allowed to see the evidence against them.

Ten-minute video by BBC gives a thorough overview of Palestinian childhood detention by the Israeli military

BBC 28 Aug. 2019-Many interviews with experts and several children themselves. This is a concise and excellent resource–pass it on to your MOC to urge them to sign onto HR 2407–Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act.

Israel

Israel’s highest court ruled in September that Israel can legally hold the bodies of ‘slain terrorists’ for leverage in negotiations with the Palestinians

Electronic Intifada 19 Sept. 2019-The remains of more than a dozen recently killed Palestinians are being held for such purposes.

Palestinian prisoner Bassam al-Sayih, 46, died at the Yitzhak Shamir Medical Center in Tel Aviv

PCHR 9 Sept. 2019-He was suffering from bone cancer when he was arrested and imprisoned by Israeli occupation forces on 8 October 2015 on suspicion of involvement with the killing of two Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. Over the subsequent four years, he was not granted a trial, never sentenced, and his medical condition neglected, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. His death was “due to torture, medical negligence and stalling in giving him the medical care he needed,” prisoners rights group Addameer His is the third death within Israeli prisons in 2019.

United States

Harvard president expresses concerns about obstacles facing foreign scholars, interview on ‘All Things Considered’

NPR 3 Sept. 2019-Ismail Ajjawi, a Palestinian who was due at Harvard this fall as an incoming freshman, was denied entry to the U.S., had his visa canceled, and was sent home to Lebanon.  He was allowed to come back in time for the start of classes at Harvard following meetings between Harvard’s president, Larry Bacow, Congress members, and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security.   Mr. Bacow sat down with NPR to discuss his concerns about immigration and visa obstacles faced by other international students and faculty.

The contested whiteness of Arab identity in the US: implications for health disparities research

Sarah Abboud, Perla Chebli, Em Rabelais, Am J Public Health, published online ahead of print, September 19, 2019: e1–e4. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305285

American Journal of Public Health Oct. 2 2019-In this commentary, the authors make the case that individuals of Arab descent in the United States are classified as White in the U.S. (but do not benefit from white privilege), and are not recognized as a minority group.  This is a form of structural violence that leaves them invisible, their needs unaddressed, and their health status impacted. Health disparities due to social exclusion, stigma, and discrimination are experienced by this group.  The authors call on the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) at the National Institutes of Health to acknowledge the undocumented health inequities that Arabs experience in the U.S. and to ensure their inclusion in the NIMHD’s new multi-domain health disparities research framework.International

Protests ahead of London arms fair to ‘Stop Arming Israel’

The People’s Dispatch 4 Sept. 2019-In early September, hundreds of people protested outside the venue which hosted the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in London. The protesters, from the War on Want, demanded an end to the sale of weapons to Israel, due to its occupation of Palestine and other grave crimes. The DSEI fair is supported by the UK government. The executive director of War on Want said that the British government is “rolling out the red carpet for human rights violating regimes to buy the weapons of death.”

According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) the British government approved the sale of weapons and military equipment worth USD 17.8 million to Israel in 2018. In May 2018, just four days after Israeli forces massacred 68 Palestinians during the Great March of Return protests in Gaza, a deal for the sale of military training equipment to Israel worth USD 125,000 was approved.

Focus On: International Aid to Palestine, with pieces by Samer Abdelnour, Sam Bahour, Nora Lester Murad, Alaa Tartir, Jeremy Wildeman 

Al-Shabaka 4 Sept. 2019-The analysts argue that development cannot be understood as a mere technocratic, apolitical, and neutral process. Rather, it must be recognized as operating within relations of colonial dominance and rearticulated as linked to the struggle for rights, resistance, and emancipation.

*

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

The legal battle over the extradition of Mun Chol-Myong to the United States continues, as Malaysian courts postpone judgment until the end of October. Mun is a 54-year-old citizen of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who has lived in Malaysia since 2008.

He was arrested at the behest of the United States in May and charged with four counts of money laundering, two counts of conspiracy to launder money, and violating sanctions against the DPRK.

Although Malaysia approved the US extradition request, Mun filed a legal objection. He is currently being held without bail.

The charges stem from his work with Sinsar Trading Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-based company where he worked as a development officer.

Many compare his situation with that of three people in Singapore who were arrested for violating UN sanctions by sending perfume, wine, and watches to the DPRK. Unlike Mun, however, the US did not seek their extradition.

Jagjit Singh, Mun’s lawyer, denied the accusations and said recently that the US was using his client for political purposes in order to gain leverage over the DPRK. The case shows that the extent of the US’s bullying knows virtually no limits, and that there is no escaping the reach of the US government.

Further, it demonstrates the backward priorities of the US government.

This is clear when we contrast their approach to Mun with their approach to the billionaire Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma. Beginning in 1995 the Sacklers manufactured, promoted, and sold the deadly opiod, OxyContin.

Through aggressive marketing, bribery, and misinformation, the Sacklers are larely responsible for initiating the deadly opioid crisis in the US, which has taken tens of thousands of lives. Yet the Sacklers all remain free and remain billionaires.

*

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. Derek Ford is Associate Professor, DePauw University.

Mumia Abu-Jamal Just One Step from Freedom

October 17th, 2019 by Noelle Hanrahan

From the minute Mumia picked up a microphone and a pen at the age of 14, Philadelphia’s notoriously racist police department has been seeking to silence him.  Just look at the FBI files- documenting that the Philadelphia PD Civil Disobedience Unit Red Squad trailed him — and the Police Chief Frank Rizzo targeted him — feeding his name to the FBI to put him on the “security index.”  Mumia was literally covering community events and rallies, and writing for the Black Panther Party Paper, all this while he was still in his teens!

During the 1995 PCRA hearings, 13 yrs after Mumia’s questionable murder conviction, a Philadelphia police officer was heard by a NY Times reporter outside the courtroom saying “we should have executed him that night.”

Remember: it was Philly cops who shot Mumia.  The Philly cops who brutally beat him at the scene, in the police wagon, and on the floor of the Jefferson Hospital emergency room entrance.

Joe McGill, the prosecutor on Mumia’s case, and Ed Rendell, the District Attorney at the time, worked closely with the police to frame and convict Mumia for the Dec. 9th 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

In 2020, a new hearing in Philadelphia Common Pleas could be, and should be, free from bias.  Everyone knows that Mumia’s trial judge in 1981-1982 was s stone cold racist.   A current sitting homicide judge on the Common Pleas Court bench has commented that Albert Sabo was “the most racist and sexist judge I have ever met.”

Here is information that has been suppressed and buried for decades and now could be available for the first time during a new trial.

  • Did DA Joe McGill pay off witnesses with favors and cash?
  • Did McGill allow the cabbie with a suspended license to keep driving? Photos of the crime scene by the Philadelphia Bulletin prove the cab driver’s car was literally not at the scene.
  • Did Joe McGill illegally remove Black jurors because of their race?
  • Did Joe McGill track and fix the outstanding cases of other key witnesses?
  • Did the DA’s office for 37 yrs withhold and suppress critical information from Mumia’s criminal defense team?
  • Did judge Albert Sabo state “I am going to help them fry the n*****” in front of Judge Richard Klein and court clerk Terry Maurer Carter?
  • Did Alfonso Giordano Philadelphia Police Commander– the highest ranking officer on the scene of officer Faulkner’s murder on Dec. 9th 1981 falsely state that Mumia confessed while he was beating him in the police van?  At the time Giordano was under federal scrutiny for running gambling, extortion and payoffs and thus not used as a trial witness. He testified at pretrial hearings but was not “available” at trial.  He retired the day after Mumia was found guilty, with full pay. Soon thereafter he pleaded guilty to tax evasion for the bribes taken from illegal gambling in East Division, 29 officers were convicted in just that scandal alone.

A few months ago, I got a chance to speak with Maureen Faulkner.  I asked her:

What did she think was going to happen next in Mumia’s case? 

She replied:

“You have to go to Prison Radio’s website and listen. Judith Ritter, Mumia’s lawyer really thinks they have a chance.”   

Maureen, paused, and continued. She had to admit:

“We are in a really hard spot.  There is not much we can do, the way it is going…We have to fight to keep Mumia in prison as long as possible.” 

Finally the tides are turning. Justice is palpable.

While Maureen Faulkner, widow of Daniel Faulkner, is being put forward as the face of the opposition in recent court proceedings, the real players behind the scenes are the Fraternal Order of Police.  And they are worried. There is a lot of self-interest on the part of the 6500-member Philadelphia Police Union in toppling Larry Krasner, the popular new DA with an anti-corruption agenda.

Early this fall, in a groundbreaking development, Krasner filed a brief in Superior Court (see sidebar) agreeing that a new evidentiary hearing should be held in Mumia’s case by the Philadelphia Common Pleas court.  “The Commonwealth does not oppose defendant’s motion for a remand to the PCRA court for defendant to present newly-discovered evidence.”

This PCRA hearing would evaluate the evidence found in the six previously undisclosed banker boxes from Storage Room 17, that Larry Krasner found after taking office and turned over to the defense.   Maureen Faulkner tried to file an objection to the seeking removal of Krasner’s office. But just last week, her pro se application to intervention in the Superior Court Appeal was denied.

10-4-19 FOP breakfast Rally for Maureen, John “Jack” O’Neil, Esq.  Staff attorney for the IBEW Electrical Workers Union.  He is volunteering to assist Maureen.  He also ran against Krassner and placed a distant sixth.   Note that the “trades unions” in Philadelphia  share with the FOP a notoriously racist history.  The motto of both the IBEW and Lodge 5 – could easily be “protect upper middle class white jobs, at the expense of people of color.”  Note Krasner has identified and gone after a key lynch pin to the problem of mass incarceration: “police overtime” which is fed by the churning of false arrests in poor communities.  (see the 39th District scandal, and others).  

Fast forward to October of 2019, “Mumia Abu-Jamal is just one step away from Freedom”,  Maureen announced at her press conference at the DA’s office at 3 Penn Square in Philadelphia.

Things are changing. Grassroots organizing popularly elected a progressive District Attorney Larry Krassner who is willing to hold the police and former district attorneys accountable.  It has been 37 years, and we are closer to justice than we have been since the 1995 PCRA hearing. The courts may be slow to follow, but there is no way to go back. We are on the path to freedom.

You have been there, making it happen, each and every single step.  Thank you.

We all must remember that the Philadelphia police have been violent and racist and corrupt for decades. They have a lot to lose if Mumia wins — because when Mumia wins, the forces that support Black dignity and freedom are winning.

Let us not misunderstand the depth of racism – throughout the police department in Philadelphia.  Here is a picture of the brand new (this month) acting Police Chief Christine Coulter.  Here she is wearing an LAPD t-shirt mocking the beating of Rodney King.  “LAPD “We treat you like a King”. She did not resign when this photo surfaced.

John McNesby, the FOP Lodge 5 President, is deeply invested in continuing the brutal power that the Philly police department enjoyed in the past.   At the FOP Lodge Five Event in April he tells his brother officers: “Krasner is going after cops instead of keeping this city safe…We have so many officers on the do-not-call list, we could invade Cuba”.   This was a riff on the line by former Mayor and Police Chief Frank Rizzo that “We could invade Cuba and win”. The “do not call list” includes officers designated by the DA’s office as not available to testify at trial because they have been caught by the courts “test-a-lying” or they have been indicted.

The scandals regarding police corruption are splashed across the Philadelphia Inquirer’s front page each and every single week.  This week another African-American man was exonerated after proving police falsification of evidence. Willie Veasy’s return to his family after 27 years of bondage was the 10th so far this year.

Mumia Abu-Jamal will follow Willie Veasey out of imprisonment. But only because thousands of you have stood by him and committed to this fight for justice. We still have work to do, we still need every one of you to make sure that justice is done and Mumia comes home.

Join all of us. It is time to move this forward towards justice and freedom and bring Mumia home.

*

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.

Read the first part of this series here.

The elements of a new international financial crisis are in place. Although we do not know when it will break out, it is unavoidable, and its impact on world economy will be as significant as the 1880s-90s, 1930s-40s and more recent 2008-09 meltdowns. Worse, far fewer of the global capacities of the latter period – rapid lowering of interest rates, printing of money to buy up state debt (‘Quantitative Easing’), and sufficient fiscal space for bailouts – are available to global crisis managers. And most troubling, many more of the proto-fascistic political characteristics reminiscent of the 1930s are looming, especially in the new contextualisations of the Global South.

The contributing economic factors include:

  • sharply increased private debts of corporations;
  • speculative bubbles in financial asset prices: stock markets, debt security prices, and in some countries, the real estate sector (at the end of December 2018, a major stock market crash almost broke out in the United States and the contagion effect was immediate, an additional signal that a major crash will have as great a global impact as did 2008-09’s);
  • the major banks remain extremely fragile, with share values falling in the United States and Europe since the second half of 2018;
  • the US real estate market has become fragile again, overall global prices up by 50% since 2012, with lev- els in excess of those reached just before the crisis that began in 2005-2006;
  • Quantitative Easing policies in Europe and their return in the US (as the Federal Reserveeases interest rates in mid-2019 under pressure from President Donald Trump, running for re-election) represent further factors that have the effect of pushing ‘risk on’ funding into South African securities, but at the expense of further rapid outflows when ‘risk off’ sentiments dominate.

Total Debt (Corporate, Household, Government) in the World Economy, 2012-19

Source: Institute of International Finance 2019

Economic growth in the most industrialized “old” countries remains weak. Especially in Europe after low growth in 2017, the year 2018 ended with stagnation and in the case of Germany, a fall in industrial production in the 4th quarter. German authorities lowered their growth forecasts for 2019 to 1% (while in 2016-2017 the annual growth rate exceeded 2%). In the euro zone, growth in the third quarter of 2018 was only 0.2%, the lowest in 4 years. In Japan, growth over the year through period April 2018 – March 2019 was around 0.9%, also down on 2017. The US economy is also in a slowdown phase; the IMF forecasts growth of 2.5% in 2019 compared to 2.9% in 2018. In other words, the North continues to suffer sustained stagnation.

Moreover, Chinese growth is still slowing, as discussed below, as are the economies of the other BRICS, except for India, which is growing at just over 7% annually. Russia is experiencing very weak growth, of the order of 1.2% in 2018 and a forecast of 1.3% for 2019. South Africa was in recession in the first half of 2018, and again in 2019 was likely to fall into a technical recession thanks to -3.2% GDP growth rate in the first quarter. Brazil, which experienced a severe recession in 2015-2016, has regained some growth, but it is very low, at just over 1% in 2018, and out of desperation, the Bolsonaro government authorised a large interest rate cut in mid-2019.

Other so-called emerging countries are also suffering profound economic crises, especially Turkey, Argentina and Venezuela. The symptoms include devaluation of the currency, great difficulties in repaying public and private external debt, and rising joblessness; these are also the kinds of conditions that generate political instability, which all three countries have suffered in different ways in recent years.

To complete the set of gloomy indicators, we will consider the African continent in more detail below, where South Africa’s comparative advantage rests in exporting automobiles, construction and mining services, banking, cellular phones and other consumer goods through Johannesburg-based retail networks (in one case, Massmart, controlled from the US via Walmart). As discussed later, economic conditions are even worse for imports and FDI profit repatriation in Africa than in the rest of the world, as a result of structural exploitation, over-reliance on primary export orientation, and a new debt crisis.

The above remarks relate to the geographical categories within the world community of nations. When we expand our perspective to look at marginalised and oppressed peoples, along the lines of class and other categories, the picture appears even gloomier as a result of neo-fascistic tendencies in many parts of the world. All over the world, economic austerity and political offensives against workers, marginalised and oppressed peoples continue and worsen.

Women are the hardest hit, together with people of colour, indigenous peoples, migrants and young workers. In many instances, women will suffer multiple oppresions if these categorisations are inclusive (for example, young migrant women workers). In the case of all the above groups the offensive is partly a result of the position of these groups in the labour market, for example in historically worse paid jobs. In the case of women and also disabled workers, the impact of the offensive against public services also has a disproportionate impact. Women, who even in times of boom continued to have the major responsibility for caring for children, sick people and elderly people, are adversely affected by cuts in those services, resulting in them often being forced into even more marginal employment or out of the labour market all together. Disabled people who relied on the availability of certain services to work or live independently are similarly impacted.

This offensive operates on different levels:

  • repressive policies, including the tightening of immigration rules, attacks on abortion and contraception services, the abuse of indigenous lands for the extraction of extreme fossil fuel or biofuels against the wishes of those communities, etc;
  • the emboldening of the extreme right through hate offensives against those groups, including murders in indigenous communities in Brazil by ranchers, official Islamaphobia and anti-semitism, growth of ‘militant’ mobilisations against abortion clinics, increasing violent attacks against LGB and particularly trans people, and mass shootings;
  • diminishing support for the most marginalised sections of working people, in part by an aggrieved working class failing to provide solidarity when feminism, anti-racism, LGBTIQ liberation, immigrant rights are labeled as merely ‘identity’ politics, especially when this entails blaming the loss of jobs and services on migrants, women.

Apart from a very minority category of workers whose wages are very high – which makes them prone to allying with big business – almost all categories of waged workers are targeted by economic austerity. These include sectors that had historically succeeded in winning important rights, whether in the industrial sector, in public services, in the financial sector (banking, insurance) and in the commercial sector. Examples include:

  • the new precariousness of working conditions and contracts;
  • the facilitation of dismissals in part through technological change;
  • stagnation or a fall in the purchasing power of wage-workers and popular sectors in general;
  • increased retirement ages, with stagnation or fall in pensions;
  • decreased access to and quality of public services;
  • the reduction in the number of employees protected by collective agreements;
  • attacks on the rights of union members and the rights to organise and strike;
  • increased indebtedness of working class households all over the world (through consumer loans, mortgage debts, student debts, tax debts, microcredit for survival – and women represent more than 80% of the 120 million people who use such high-priced services worldwide – and rising peasant debts not only in countries like India where the phenomenon has taken on dramatic proportions but also in northern countries.

Source: Branko Milanovic

  • precarious work, especially the increase in part-time work by women in services (cleaning, catering, personal care);
  • destruction of public services such as public transport, childcare and healthcare, resulting in an increased unpaid workload for mothers; women’s pensions are structurally very low because of the years not worked (because of the need for care for small children at home);
  • discriminatory measures in the unemployment system include less income for “non-head of households,” who are mostly women;
  • sexual harassment of women in many sectors and in precarious employment (male power in hiring women, which were unveiled in #MeToo);
  • decline in access to abortion and contraception rights, in the United States at both local (city) and state levels; closure of family planning centres; non-reimbursement for contraception, lack of sexual education in schools; rise of anti-abortion religious groups in both the US and Latin America with the extreme example of Brazil (Poland and Ireland represent contrary forces given victories in reproductive rights mobilisations);
  • the rise of fundamentalism in India, Bangladesh, with more frequent public punishment of “adulterous” women or young women with non-approved sexual contact; but also revolt of young women against the extremely harsh family regime, e. g. Saudi Arabia;
  • calls for women to have more children in Turkey, Hungary, Poland, for nationalist reasons;
  • the Russian Federation’s Duma, under pressure from the authorities and the Orthodox Church, decriminalized domestic violence in 2017;
  • countries where 40% of serious crimes, primarily against women but also against children, occur in the family environment;
  • growth of the sex industry worldwide includes sale of women in Libya, slavery of immigrant women, growing pornography in prostitution, amongst other aspects;
  • ongoing inequality of women farmers even in small family farms, as Via Campesina regularly reports;
  • violence against women, including femicide, domestic violence, harassment of women on the streets;
  • in Italy, under pressure from lobbies of very virulent separated fathers, portrayed as as “masculinists”, fundamentalist components of the Catholic Church and a government formed by a coalition between an extreme right-wing party and the Five Stars movement, a project was launched to reform family law to make divorce much more difficult; and
  • in Argentina, in August 2018, parliament rejected the bill that legalized abortion.

All of these social processes combine home-based patriarchal power and a wider attack on the rights of women and the LGBTIQ movement by an authoritarian state. Globally, authoritarian forms of government are being strengthened without, so far, taking the form of military dictatorships. In spite of winning electoral contests, the new rightwing leaders are curtailing fundamental democratic freedoms. The means of the repressive forces have greatly increased, which allows for an increased intrusion into the lives of individuals and organisations. The use of preventive arrests is spreading, even in the “old” bourgeois democracies. Legislative and judicial powers are being reduced in many places to the benefit of executive power.

There is, of course, political resistance to all these trends. The various forms of attacks on workers’ rights, women’s rights, the rights of migrants, and on all categories of the oppressed and oppressed fortunately provoke many struggles all over the world. Feminist mobilisations are the most encouraging, but there are many others. Labour struggles are less important than before in a number of countries, but they are progressing in others such as China and Bangladesh. The new forms of organisation or mobilisation that partly respond to the loss of political weight of the organized workers movement are developing and making it possible to build new blocks of the working classes: there are similarities between the mobilisations of the Argentine piqueteros (2001-2003) and those of the Yellow Vests in France (2018-2019), as well as the 2011 movements of the ‘Arab Spring’ and the Occupiers, or the mobilisations in Greece (2011-15), Turkey (2013), Mexico against the increase in gasoline prices (2017), and those of Nicaragua (2018), Haiti (2018-2019), the Moroccan Rif (2018), Puerto Rico (2019), Hong Kong (2019) and many other places, including 18 African countries, as we see below. There are also regular mobilisations among school children in parts of the world; we are witnessing increasing mobilisation on the issue of climate, the environment and common goods.

*

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 CADTM.

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. 

Patrick Bond is professor of political economy at the Wits University School of Governance in Johannesburg and co-editor of BRICS: An anti-capitalist critique (published by Haymarket, Pluto, Jacana and Aakar).

Source

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Policy Paper #1/2 on South Africa’s Special Economic Zones in Global Context September 2019 By Eric Toussaint, Ishmael Lesufi, Lisa Thompson and Patrick Bond

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Economic Volatility. Towards a New Financial Crisis. Socio-Political Reactions

“Our proposal is for the terrorists to lay down their arms, leave their equipment, destroy the traps they have created, and leave the safe zone we designated, as of tonight,” Turkish President Erdogan said. “If this is done, our Operation Peace Spring will end by itself.”

Erdogan of Turkey has stated he will not order a ceasefire in Syria, even though his NATO partners have asked for it.  Pres. Trump has sent VP Pence to Ankara today to ask for a ceasefire, and to explain the consequences should Erdogan refuse.

Turkey began ‘Operation Spring Peace’ one week ago with the stated goal to eliminate Kurdish terrorists from the border region and to create a ‘safe-zone’ in northeast Syria for Syrian refugees currently in Turkey to return to.  Trump inadvertently gave the green-light to Erdogan in a phone call, after which Trump ordered the US troops in the area to withdraw.  Trump has explained his withdraw order was not a stamp of approval on Turkey’s military incursion into Syria but instead was done to keep the US troops safe.

Once Turkey began the military attack, first by airstrikes and then using ground troops, the international community, including American critics of Trump, began an outcry based on humanitarian concerns of a possible bloodbath of the Kurdish population.  Additionally, the US military and legislators have expressed dismay and regret at having left behind a valuable ally in the fight against ISIS: the Kurdish militia Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who were to be the target of the Turkish invasion into Syria.

The Kurds are a minority in Syria, and while they do have towns and villages in the northeastern corner of Syria, they are still a minority there. During the Syrian conflict which began in 2011, the Kurds of Afrin saw an opportunity to benefit from aligning themselves with the Obama backed Free Syrian Army’ (FSA), who were Syrian mercenaries supported by Obama and the US Congress.  The FSA was openly Jihadist, following the political ideology of Radical Islam, with the final goal of ‘regime change’ to pave the way for an Islamic government in Syria.  Obama and his right hand in Syria, Republican Senator John McCain, were not themselves adherents of Radical Islam, but used the assets on hand for ‘boots-on-the-ground’, knowing that the US Congress would never approve of a regime change’ project in Syria.  Getting US troops to invade Syria was too complicated, and the Jihadists were local assets that only required funding and weapons, which was done covertly through a CIA program, and then later McCain lobbied the US Congress for funding.  Trump pulled the plug on the CIA funding of the FSA, which had by then become Al Qaeda after the FSA failed to find support among the Syrian population, and was forced to recruit Jihadists from around the world, who came pouring in through Turkey.

The Kurds were fighting the Syrian government to establish a Kurdish ‘state’.  The FSA was fighting to establish an Islamic ‘state’ in Damascus, while the Kurds took advantage of the chaos throughout the country to take their piece of the pie: the northeastern section, which they began to call ‘Rojava’, and later they termed the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria (NES).   Their political ideology was extreme socialism and secular.  The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims, as were the FSA; however, we have seen in the Kurdish city of Kobani hundreds of the Sunni have changed their religion to American Evangelical Christianity, which is linked to the support of Israel.  A female, former Muslim, convert to the church in Kobani commented, “I don’t mind leaving Islam, but I want to continue to wear my headscarf.”

In 2014 the ISIS attacked Kobani and the Kurds fought back, and eventually became the US ally in the fight to defeat ISIS. The US military used the assets on hand to fight ISIS, and eventually, in a small village in northeast Syria, they were declared defeated in 2019.  It was the SDF who fought alongside the US troops to defeat ISIS, with the US having lost 5 soldiers, compared to about 11,000 Kurds. Many cautioned the SDF and their political wing in NES that the US would eventually abandon them, as they had done with the FSA. The Kurds had confidence their Rojava would remain, and they remained loyal to the US promises and support.

Posters of Abdullah Ocalan are plastered everywhere in Kobani, and throughout NES.  He is the imprisoned leader of the PKK, an internationally recognized terrorist group, responsible for 40,000 deaths in Turkey for over 30 years. The Kurds in Syria claim they are SDF and YPG and are not connected to PKK; however, you will see SDF soldiers with PKK patches on their uniforms, and with the posters of Ocalan everywhere, it is obvious that the Kurds are PKK, and the PKK are Kurds.  This did not bother the US Pentagon, because they had to use the assets on hand to defeat ISIS.

Erdogan continuously complained to the US about their support of Kurdish ‘terrorists’ in northeast Syria, even long after ISIS was defeated.  To Turkey, the SDF is the PKK and had set up a ‘state’, NES, on the Turkish border, and this was unacceptable and reason enough to invade Syria to neutralize the threat to Turkey’s national security.  Now, the Turkish ground troops are face-to-face with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) at Manbij. The land is Syrian, the SAA are all Syrians, as it is mandatory military service in Syria for all males over 18 who are not enrolled in a University.  The SDF has recently agreed with Damascus to align with the SAA to repel the invasion of Turkey. However, the ground troops used by Turkey to invade Syria are not Turkish: they areSyrians who were formerly terrorists, who survived the battles against the Kurds and the US, and escaped to Turkey through Idlib, and fell into the open arms of the Turkish military, who saved them for the invasion of northeast Syria as they were the assets on hand.

Russian security forces are patrolling Manbij and are tasked with keeping the SAA and the former ISIS mercenaries employed by Erdogan from clashing.  The place is a tinder-box ready to blow. In a phone call between Russia and Turkey today, an invitation for Erdogan to meet Putin in Moscow was accepted.

“Everything related to the destiny and future of Syria is a one hundred percent Syrian issue, and the unity of Syrian territory is self-evident and not up for debate or discussion,” President Bashar al-Assad stated in his speech on August 2017.

After more than 8 years of war, the Syrian President’s promise is poised to be fulfilled for the Syrian people.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a Middle East observer. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bashar al-Assad Government Poised to Fulfill the Promise of Regaining all Syrian Territory
  • Tags: , ,

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have reached a groundbreaking deal with the Assad government.

This happened on October 13 evening after the US-led coalition expectedly abandoned their ‘local partners’ in face of Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring and an ‘accident Turkish shelling’ of a US military garrison near Kobani. Turkey is a NATO member state and a key US ally in the eastern Mediterranean. Ankara considers the SDF to be a terrorist group linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. So, it was hard to expect that the US would really fight the Turks on behalf of the Syrian Kurds.

Units of the Syrian Army already deployed in Manbij, Tabqah, Tabqah Dam, Ain Issa and other key areas in eastern Aleppo, western al-Hasakah and southern Raqqah. Russia, which was the main mediator between the SDF and Damascus, also sent its military police to Manbij. Official details of the agreement are yet to be revealed and all the sides involved in the northeastern Syria standoff seem to have own versions of events.

Watch the video here.

The SDF and affiliated Kurdish political organizations say that the deal with the Assad government was a least-evil solution and it was related to the defense sphere only. A political agreement still has to be reached and the sides are going to start negotiations in the coming days. SDF sources see Russia as a guarantor of the agreement and the only power that is able to prevent the further Turkish incursion into northeastern Syria. According to this version, the Syrian Army will be deployed along the Turkish border and its presence there will guarantee Syrian territorial integrity. The areas captured by the Turkish military and pro-Turkish groups will remain a zone of military actions until their liberation. They name the liberation of the Turkish-controlled region of Afrin as one of the points of the agreement. Sources close to Damascus say that the SDF will have to hand over to the government the control of oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

In the political sphere, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), the only real military political power within the SDF, will seek to get recognition of their self-proclaimed Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria by Damascus. The format of this recognition and a possible Kurdish autonomy will depend on the course of negotiations and the development of the Turkish offensive.

The Syrian government has not released official comments on the deal with the SDF so far. The Syrian Army is also not hurrying up to start a fully-fledged war with Turkey on behalf of the SDF. In these conditions, the best strategy is to block directions of possible Turkish-led advance rather than engage the Turkish Army and Turkish proxies in an open battle. This turns the Turkish advance in northern Syrian into a race against time, whose main goal is to capture as much area as possible, while the Syrian Army has not come. The situation in Manbij is a demonstration of this approach:

On October 14, the Syrian National Army, a coalition of Turkish-backed armed groups, officially announced the start of advance on Manbij. However, no real advance happened, because the Syrian Army and the Russians came.

The Turkish behavior demonstrates that Anakra knows the rules of this game. On October 15, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the operation was ongoing successfully and Turkish forces ‘liberated’ 1,000km2. Erdogan added that his country aims to clear northern Syria of ‘terrorists’ (i.e. Kurdish armed groups) stretching from Manbij to the Iraqi-Turkish border. Nonetheless, this is just an official rhetoric that should not fully comply with the real actions. Turkey will likely gain control of the area between Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and the M4 highway south of these towns. What really matters is who will get control of the city of Ayn al-Arab (Kobani). In the current conditions, Ayn al-Arab is the only area, where clashes between the Syrian Army and Turkish-led forces can start if they reach it simultaneously. The fate of the town will likely be determined by some kind of behind the scenes deal among Ankara, Moscow and Damascus. At the same time, all the sides will continue to employ their formal rhetoric as if such a deal has never existed.

In own turn, US President Donald Trump used the Turkish operation to deliver his repeatedly delayed promise to withdraw American troops from the war-torn country, at least formally. US forces indeed abandoned their military garrisons in northern Syria about 1,000 personnel are withdrawing. However, the reduced contingent of about 150 troops will remain in place in the al-Tanf area as a part of Trump’s anti-Iranian strategy in the region. The US does not want the Damascus-Baghdad highway to be used by Iran to supply its allies in Syria and Lebanon. Additionally, the US-Israeli bloc uses the al-Tanf base to project its power on the Syrian-Iraqi border and monitor supposed Iranian operations in the area.

Another factor behind the US move is the need to improve its relations with Turkey. US military support to Kurdish armed groups in Syria used to be a factor of constant tension in the relations between Washington and Ankara. Now, it is removed. A new round of anti-Turkish sanctions announced by President Trump is mostly a formal move aimed at the US internal audience.

Meanwhile, the United States and Russia blocked attempts of the UN Security Council to condemn Turkey’s military action in northeastern Syria. If this was really a part of some unpublicized coordination, key powers involved in the conflict may be on the edge of reaching a long-expected wide political deal on settling the conflict in Syria.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Will Iran be the Next to Withdraw from Syria?

October 17th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The smoothness with which the US’ “sudden” withdrawal played out and the Pentagon’s decision not to militantly enforce the so-called “deconfliction line” along the Euphrates River after the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) triumphantly crossed it en route to protecting their new Kurdish “allies” strongly suggest that these were premeditated decisions indirectly coordinated with Russia in advance as part of the “New Detente” whereby Moscow’s reciprocal “compromise” would be in “convincing” Damascus to request Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” next on the “face-saving” basis that its anti-terrorist assistance is no longer required.

***

Alt-Media is cheering the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) restoration of sovereignty over parts of the formerly US-occupied Northeast following America’s “sudden” withdrawal earlier this week, rightly believing that the kinetic phase of the nearly nine-year-long war is finally drawing to a close but prematurely celebrating what they’re convinced is the indisputably maximalist victory of President Assad over his foes without any “compromises” at all. It’s “politically incorrect” to question the narrative that this is supposedly the result of “5D chess grandmaster” Putin’s rapid judo-like response to the seemingly unforeseeable US-Turkish split over the YPG Kurds, but the “inconvenient truth” is that the smoothness with which the US’ departure from the region took place and the Pentagon’s decision not to militantly enforce the so-called “deconfliction line” along the Euphrates River after the SAA triumphantly crossed it like it unlike how it previously responded with disproportionately deadly force the last time this was attempted in February 2018 during the Disaster at Deir ez-Zor strongly suggest that these were premeditated decisions indirectly coordinated with Russia in advance as part of the “New Detente“.

Before explaining exactly why that may be and what quid pro quo it would entail on the Russian side, it’s important to clarify an “unpopular fact” that’s been largely suppressed by the Alt-Media Community since Turkey’s “Operation Peace Spring” was launched last week, which is that Russia — unlike most of the world except for the global pivot state of Pakistan — is actually in support of Ankara’s anti-terrorist actions. Lavrov reassured his country’s strategic partner at the beginning of September that its plans to jointly create a so-called ‘safe zone’ with the US were “absolutely legal” so long as they respected Syria’s territorial integrity, the latter point of which Turkey was reminded by Putin’s spokesman Peskov right after the operation began and to which Ankara agreed. Russia’s top diplomat later acknowledged that the Russian and Turkish still “maintain regular contact with each other”, which Peskov reaffirmed earlier this week after the news broke about the US’ planned withdrawal. Russian UN Representative Nebenzya even went as far as to blame the US-led coalition for Turkey’s invasion, boldly asserting that “this operation is the result of demographic engineering that some of the coalition partners did in the northeast of Syria”, while Peskov proclaimed that “We respect Turkey’s right to take measures for ensuring its security, but we expect the operation to be proportionate to the…tasks of ensuring security.”

Given these objectively existing, easily verifiable, and official statements of support for “Operation Peace Spring” by Russia, there should be no question about its position towards this campaign, thus meaning that the heavily propagated “interpretation” that Russia’s mediation of the SAA-YPG talks was somehow detrimental to Turkey’s interests is wrong. It’s true that Turkey would have preferred to have its proxies control the so-called “safe zone” instead of the SAA, but the latter are regarded by Ankara as the “lesser evil” compared to the YPG. Moreover, the argument can be made that Damascus’ restoration of sovereignty over the northern border with Turkey and the SAA’s new “alliance” with the YPG makes the Syrian government legally responsible for the actions of that armed group in the areas under its control, meaning that the Adana Agreement that Anakra based its three conventional military interventions on would be indisputably legal in any follow-up actions, thus conforming to its international interests as well as Russia’s. The author still believes that Trump sprung a trap on Turkey by purposely failing to fulfill its agreed-upon responsibility to keep the YPG away from the border in order to provoke Erdogan’s promised response in that scenario, but the outcome isn’t as bad for Ankara as it otherwise would could have been had Moscow not mediated the SAA-YPG agreement and thus prevented its strategic partner from getting stuck in a quagmire due to “mission creep”.

Back to Russia’s reciprocal “compromise” that it probably made in exchange for the preplanned US withdrawal that was just undertaken in response to the manufactured “sudden” pretext that America itself provoked from Turkey, Moscow will most likely seek to “convince” Damascus to request Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” next on the “face-saving” basis that its anti-terrorist assistance is no longer required. The reason for this prediction is that Russia never made it a secret that it wants Iran to withdraw after the kinetic phase of the conflict ends, something that Tehran always said it would do if asked, whether it ever expected Damascus to actually do so or not. Putin reminded the world about this in his recent interview with Arab media (official Kremlin transcript here, key highlights here) before his trip to the Gulf when he said that “if Syria’s new legitimate government chooses to say that they have no more need for Russia’s military presence, this will be just as true for Russia. Right now, we are discussing this openly with all our partners, including Iran and Turkey. We spoke about it with our American partners many times. And I will be as open with you as I have been with my counterparts: Syria must be free from other states’ military presence.” Importantly, he also revealed that he spoke about the situation in Syria with both the Saudi and Emirati leaderships during his visits there.

These frank admissions, especially the one about the conversations that he’s had with his “partners” about their military withdrawal from Syria, convincingly makes it seem as though a large degree of the latest developments were agreed to ahead of time between the US, Russia, and possibly even Syria itself, although Moscow’s Astana “allies” in Ankara and Tehran were likely left in the dark about this the entire time. The US is already in the process of smoothly leaving Syria (not anxiously scrambling like have some misportrayed the withdrawal as being), but it didn’t militantly enforce the “deconfliction line” along the Euphrates River after the SAA crossed it in response to the YPG’s request because Washington must have already agreed with Moscow in advance to allow this to happen in exchange for Russia “convincing” Syria to subsequently request Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” as well on the “face-saving” pretext that its anti-terrorist assistance is no longer required after Assad fulfilled his promise to liberate “every square inch” of Syria (except for Idlib that’s under Turkish control per the Damascus-approved Astana peace process). It’ll of course remain to be seen whether Iran really does end up leaving Syria, but if Putin secretly got Saudi Arabia and the UAE to agree to reinstate Syria to the Arab League if this happens and then contribute to its reconstruction soon thereafter (seeing as how he said in his latest interview that “it is time to get Syria back into the Arab family, to re-instate it in the Arab League”), then Damascus might have the financial incentive to finally do what’s been asked of it before Russia once again gives a wink and a nod to “Israel” to turn up the pressure in pursuit of this outcome.

*

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

This article was also published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from The Arab American News

U.S., NATO, Turkey Out of Syria!

October 17th, 2019 by Sara Flounders

The conflict within the U.S. ruling class about the Turkish invasion of northern Syria has created some confusion about events there. The latest new development — an alliance of Kurdish-based forces with the Syrian national army to defend the border from the Turkish army — may increase that confusion. To clarify the situation as best as possible, we need to state some basic positions and underline some basic facts.

First of all, U.S. imperialism never had, never has and never will have any legitimate “humanitarian” reason to station troops anywhere in Syria. Washington places troops in areas for strategic advantage and/or for economic domination. The reason U.S. troops have been in Syria and elsewhere in the region is for U.S. oil monopolies to control and exploit the natural resources — mainly fossil fuels, oil and gas — so the capitalist owners of these companies can get richer.

For the last eight years, U.S. arms and political influence, and those of other NATO countries, have fed a brutal war that has torn apart Syria, causing the death of hundreds of thousands of Syrian people. This war has also made as many as 10 million Syrians refugees, many within Syria or in neighboring countries and some in Europe. The U.S. goal was to remove the sovereign Syrian government and replace it with a puppet of Western imperialist powers.

In Libya, for example, in 2011 the imperialists succeeded in removing a legitimate government and replaced it with an unstable horror.

Nothing good has come or will come from the presence of U.S. troops, nor from political domination by U.S. imperialism. No one should believe that the racist, misogynist and xenophobic U.S. president has somehow become a peacemaker. Apparently as an electoral strategy, he has ordered the removal of a handful of U.S. troops from northern Syria. Simultaneously the Pentagon is sending 1,800 troops to the Saudi Arabian monarchy to defend the oil fields and continue the genocidal war in Yemen.

Turkey’s war crimes

Second, by sending troops to and arming puppet groups in northern Syria, the reactionary regime of President Recep Erdogan in Ankara, Turkey, is committing a war crime. This invasion is naked aggression against Turkey’s neighbor, Syria, the latest of many crimes committed against Syria in the last eight years. This aggression will cause additional suffering to the people of northeastern Syria, who are mainly Kurdish, but whose makeup reflects the many ethnic and religious groups that inhabit the whole of Syria.

Erdogan persecutes Turkey’s own Kurdish population, who are estimated to be 14 to 20 million of Turkey’s 80 million people. The Ankara regime has been using its army, especially in the Kurdish regions, in an attempt to crush the Kurdish people’s movement. Erdogan’s government persecutes opposition political parties and journalists throughout Turkey as it oppresses Turkey’s working class.

That Erdogan has taken some steps in the recent past that put him at odds with either the U.S. or the European Union — buying arms from Russia, participating in conferences with Russia and Iran to settle the war in Syria — should mislead no one into thinking the Turkish president represents any progressive tendency worldwide. Thieves, even those in the same gang, can have a falling out.

We do not at this time know the specifics of the agreement between the Kurdish-based fighters in northern Syria and the legitimate Syrian government, nor can we foresee how it will play out. We applaud, however, any alliance that confronts a local hegemonic power like Turkey and, even more importantly, excludes the imperialist regimes of Europe and the United States, who are the primary oppressors of humanity worldwide.

*

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

This article was originally published on Workers World.

Sara Flounders has traveled twice to Syria in solidarity delegations during the U.S. war against that country. She is co-director of the International Action Center and helps coordinate the United National Antiwar Coalition, the Hands Off Syria Campaign, and the Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Planet Has Been Heating Up for Almost Two Centuries

October 17th, 2019 by Shane Quinn

First published by Global Research on September 4, 2018

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Irish scientist John Tyndall, one of the most distinguished physicists in modern history, provided evidence in 1861 that human-generated gases such as carbon dioxide and ethylene transmit enormous volumes of heat. Tyndall wrote of “the astonishment with which I saw the foregoing effects” of gases capable of trapping heat then released into the earth’s atmosphere, remaining there.

While Tyndall was unearthing these discoveries in the early 1860s, the Industrial Age had already taken off 100 years before. The Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain around 1760, was one of the defining moments in human history: the gradual shift away from “old-fashioned” manual devices towards machines and fossil fuel powered engines. It heralded the era of mass burning of coal, later gas and oil, which continues apace to current times. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution almost 260 years ago, global carbon emissions have increased by over 260%.

Indeed, it was recently discovered that the planet has in fact been warming for about 180 years, dating to the 1830s, due to human exploitation of fossil fuels. A decade before this, in the 1820s, an eminent French physicist Joseph Fourier – a scientific adviser and companion of Napoleon – had already deduced that something unforeseen was occurring within the globe’s atmosphere. Fourier, noting the earth’s distance from the sun, calculated that our world should have been much colder than it was in reality.

He concluded that the planet’s atmosphere had the ability to trap great volumes of heat, in a similar manner to a human-designed greenhouse. Fourier was christened as the discoverer of the “greenhouse effect”, a term coined later for the atmosphere’s absorption of largely human-engineered carbon emissions. The warning signs regarding the climate were being written from a very early stage. Even before Fourier was outlining his groundbreaking analysis, famous Industrial Revolution inventions had for years been spewing out carbon emissions – such as the steamboat (created 1787) and steam locomotive (created 1804), run through heavy consumption of coal.

Image result for Svante Arrhenius

Come the end of the 19th century Sweden’s renowned physicist, Svante Arrhenius (image on the right), was the first person to estimate the impact of carbon dioxide upon the planet. In early 1896 Arrhenius noted that the burning of fossil fuels, like coal, contribute significantly to world carbon emission levels, therefore leading to a heating globe. With regard rising greenhouse gases, Arrhenius wrote that the results would be felt “nearly the same over the whole earth”, but that “the effect will be less there [in the Southern hemisphere] than in the Northern Hemisphere”. He accurately estimated that, “if the quantity in carbonic acid [carbon dioxide] increases… the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression”.

Arrhenius further compiled the world’s total coal production levels in the late 19th century, which he wrote were a seemingly massive “500 millions of tons per annum” (global coal production has recently been around 7,000 million tons each year). Arrhenius’ work was publicly available from 1896 onwards: That year his paper was published first in German, then quickly reprinted in English with the long-established London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science.

It may have been clear to anyone who read Arrhenius’ findings that the world would continue heating, yet full-steam-ahead policies were continued by business industries. Some of the technological advancements were heavily reliant upon extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

Image result for Karl Benz

A decade before, in 1885, the German engineer Karl Benz (image on the left) had developed the petrol (gasoline) powered automobile, one of the most significant creations in the human world. Yet, if truth be told, also among the most harmful. The reality is that cars, along with other vehicles like trucks, are today the largest contributors to carbon emissions in America. The US is the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter, but in overall history the country is by far the largest carbon producer, with the highest per capita emission rates today among the major powers.

Along with other policies, Donald Trump‘s business-led administration is currently dismantling emission regulations on vehicles, as efforts to curb such gases are impacting profits. One can again only marvel at the corporate desire to burn up the planet as quickly as possible.

There are over 260 million vehicles in America and more than a billion around the world, releasing gigantic quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment each year. The transformation to electric vehicles has been painfully limited (three million in use globally). Electric cars are far less lucrative to fossil fuel reliant corporations like Volkswagen and Nissan – who have gone so far as to falsify emission levels in their recent models, such is their dedication to profits.

As the 19th century moved into the 20th, emerging were further evidence-supported works regarding a heating planet. In 1938 the English inventor and engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, believed that almost all the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel consumption remained within the earth’s atmosphere. Callendar provided evidence that greenhouse emissions were behind the gradual rise in temperatures of recent decades, and would continue into the future.

In the late 1950s, warnings of a warming world were becoming increasingly pointed, for example with regard the work of American scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess. Their 1957 study highlighted that

“human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past, nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few centuries, we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years”.

The Revelle-Suess paper warned that,

“Rapid changes in the amount of carbon dioxide produced by volcanoes… or as, in our case, in the rate of combustion of fossil fuels, may therefore cause considerable departures from average conditions”.

They further noted,

“In contemplating the probably large increase of CO2 production by fossil fuel combustion in coming decades, we conclude that a total increase of 20% to 40% in atmospheric CO2 can be anticipated”.

The implications of which are being increasingly felt around the world today.

As we may see, the consequences of a changing climate were becoming more pointed by at least 1957. Yet, once again, such scientific findings – with increasingly blunt language being used – were overlooked or ignored by elite figures and mainstream commentators. Governments followed suit. The public, as a result, remained unaware of the looming planetary crisis, with business-as-usual policies continuing unhindered.

In 1961 another American scientist, Charles Keeling, produced evidence-based data demonstrating that global emissions were undoubtedly rising, due to fossil fuel consumption. His graph, the “Keeling Curve”, has revealed rapidly increasing emissions in the elapsing five decades, a far steeper climb than the 130-year warming period prior to his study.

Keeling’s work even prompted America’s National Science Foundation to issue public warnings about global warming in 1963, which were presented to America’s new leader Lyndon B. Johnson late that year. In November 1965, president Johnson admitted that “our affluence spews out vast quantities of wastes… Pollution now is one of the most pervasive problems of our society”. It was a commendable statement that would be anathema to Trump for instance, but words without weight behind them. Indeed, Johnson failed to mention that the planet itself was warming.

Had Johnson seriously acted upon the scientific analyses forwarded to him, much of the threat enveloping the earth today could have been reduced. It instead appears that other things were more important, such as escalating America’s war on the other side of the world against Vietnam. Indeed, successive US presidents to the present day have either been unwilling, or uninterested, in seriously tackling climate change. Were America to have taken an early stand against this issue much of the world may have followed suit.

In the early 1970s John Sawyer, an English meteorologist, even predicted with accuracy the planet’s rate of heating by the year 2000. Sawyer’s work was published in a long-running scientific publication called Nature, yet as with the above works, it failed to penetrate the mainstream conscience, quickly entering obscurity.

In 2008, about 180 years after Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect, slightly more than half of Americans and Britons still did not believe that climate change was occurring due to human activity. It was a particularly telling poll result, considering America and Britain supposedly possess two of the most advanced educational systems in the world.

To the present day, large swathes of elite power shun alerting public attention towards climate change. This planet-threatening issue continues receiving scant coverage in the mainstream media, and government leaders avoid discussing it publicly, particularly those governing the rich states responsible for emitting the highest emissions. Addressing climate change goes against many of the requirements of capitalist societies. In America, Britain and across the world, big business interests dictate much of government and media policy, while controlling increasing numbers of universities.

This disregard for the environment is captured perfectly by the Republican Party in the US. It is hardly a traditional party, but a corporate-controlled organization intent on greatly enriching its core base. Last November, it was reported that less than a third of Republican Party voters believe humans are causing climate change. About 75% of Republican voters are comprised of white Christians, among them significant numbers of evangelicals.

During the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries almost all the candidates were climate change deniers. This included the eventual victor Trump who, since assuming the presidency, has pursued savage environmental policies that will inflict further harm on the earth. Trump’s climate actions have received remarkably little criticism from power centers, though much condemnation arrives his way for being an alleged “Russian stooge”, amid other unsubstantiated claims.

*

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.

Why Withdrawing US Troops from Northern Syria Is Good

October 17th, 2019 by Rick Sterling

The foreign policy elite is in an uproar. They claim “we have abandoned our allies”. They question “how can America be trusted?” They say the decision to withdraw from northern Syria was a “gift”  to Russia, Iran, and Assad…. even ISIS. It is true that the policy of US/NATO interventionism is failing. But that has been true since the invasion of Iraq or earlier.  After the disastrous invasions and attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and the 8 year undeclared war on Syria,  isn’t it time to  question the foreign policy elite? 

If one believes in restoring international law and the UN Charter,  it is GOOD that US military forces have been withdrawn from  northern Syria. Here are some facts and history which explain why.

Basic fact: It’s not our country and US troops were never authorized by the sovereign government. Whether or not Washington likes Damascus is irrelevant. Under international law those troops have no right to be there. Even the overflights of Syria by the US air coalition violate international agreements. It’s up to  Syrians to defend their country against invading Turkey. If they choose to get support from another country, that is their right.

Another fact: President Obama was correct when he said that “putting boots on the ground” in Syria would be a “profound mistake”.  Later he said,  “We have a very specific objective, one that will not lead into boots on the ground or anything like that.” But the hawks prevailed.  There were not only “boots on the ground”, there was a shifting rationale why they had to be there.

The US and allies have done all they could, short of direct invasion, to overthrow the Syrian government. They have spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars in weapons, training, equipment, recruitment, etc.. This is in violation of international law. More than one hundred thousand Syrians have died defending their country against a foreign sponsored army of mercenaries and foreign fighters.

An astonishing fact: The US encouraged the emergence of the Islamic State. Why? Because it put pressure on Damascus and because it justified the entry of the US. While the US carpet bombed Raqqa, it looked the other way as hundreds of trucks conveyed oil from eastern Syria into Turkey to fund the Islamic State. The US air coalition attacked the Syrian Arab Army in the midst of a critical battle against ISIS near Deir Ezzor. In a secretly recorded conversation in New York with Syrian “activists”, John Kerry admitted they were watching ISIS and hoping to use it to pressure Damascus. In other words, US foreign policy was duplicitous and used terrorism as a tool. This is well documented in the book “The Management of Savagery”.

After the US backed “Free Syrian Army” failed, the US looked for another means to destabilize Syria. They started to fund  the Syrian Kurdish militias known as the Peoples Protection Unit (YPG /YPJ). They gave the militias a new name, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and encouraged the secessionist tendency. Meanwhile in Turkey, which has the largest Kurdish community,  most Kurds want to have their rights within Turkey and have formed a political party (Peoples Democratic Party – HDP) which unites progressives of all ethnicities.  In the 2015 Turkish election this party emerged as the third most popular party and stopped Erdogan’s election domination.  Currently the HDP is campaigning against Turkey’s invasion of Syria. As of 13 October the Syrian Kurdish militias have come to an agreement to work with Damascus to combat the Turkish invasion. The agreement specifies that the Syrian Arab Army will control and defend the entire area from Jarablus on the Euphrates River to the far eastern border with Iraq.

Advocates of US intervention claim that the Kurds were fighting and dying “for us”. That is not true. They were defending their own community.  To the extent that they accepted and welcomed US air support, equipment, weaponry, etc. it was for their own benefit. There were two parties trying to use each other.

Whenever the US attacks or occupies a country it needs a rationalization. In 1991 there were false claims about incubators being stolen by Iraqi troops in Kuwait. In 2003 there were false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In 2011 there were false claims of civilians being threatened by Libyan troops in Benghazi. All these claims were subsequently found to be exaggerated or entirely false.

One of the main justifications for continuing US presence in Syria is “keeping our word” and not “abandoning” the Kurdish forces. This is a favorite rationalization for war.  In Cuba, the CIA trained Cuban exiles that attacked Playa Giron “were counting on us”. Fortunately, JFK resisted the pressure and said “No”.  In Vietnam, the US continued the war for a decade because we could not let down our “ally”, the government of Saigon. Millions of Vietnamese were killed plus 55,000 US troops because we could not “abandon” a government that in reality was a proxy.

In the Democratic Debates (15 October) Joe Biden said that the  withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria was “the most shameful thing any president has done in modern history in terms of foreign policy.” This is absurd. Over one million died in Iraq including 4500 and at least 100,000 severely injured US soldiers. Joe Biden was an influential supporter of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Later, as Vice President, he supported the overthrow of the Libyan government. The country is still in chaos with tens of thousands dead.  These two countries were devastated by US actions. It is evidence of shameless unaccountability in media and politics that Joe Biden is a serious candidate for President after he destroyed so many lives at a cost of trillions.  In the same Democratic debates Tulsi Gabbard was honest and accurate as she said that the plight of the Kurds in northern Syria is “yet another consequence of the regime change war we’ve been waging in Syria”.

Despite the howls of indignation and disinformation,  withdrawing US troops from northern Syria is a step in the right direction.

 

*

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

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who has visited Syria several times since 2014. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

When Time Stands Still

October 17th, 2019 by Edward Curtin

The intimate human experience of time standing still is universal, although rare.  When we undergo it, we are stunned.  Silence seems to enclose us. It is the correlative to the more common experience of time passing at different speeds, sometimes slowly, sometimes fast, despite clocks.  These universal experiences do not accord with the teleology that underlies the modern world with its scientific principle that leads to entropic death triumphant. They are therefore, as John Berger, the English writer and art critic, writes,

“dismissed as subjective, because time, according to the nineteenth-century view, is objective, incontestable and indifferent; to its indifference there are no limits.” 

As a result of living within this scientific and technical presupposition that the background ticking of the clock is the only truth and time is a one-way street, we are now living inside a hopeless mind-frame of a scientific theocracy that says all will end in entropy.  This is nihilism; for at the end of this clock time is nothingness, the infinite void.  This is the unstated “future,” but a future that is also now, a noxious injection that surreptitiously poisons people at the well of their lives where cracks in the consensual reality open and other truths fly in, or as Emily Dickinson said,

“’Hope’ is the thing with feathers/That perches in the soul/And sings the tune without the words/And never stops – at all”.

The one-dimensional finality of the view of time as death triumphant is the nihilistic future Nietzsche said was coming, and it is here.  And being here, it tries to reduce any experience that transports us beyond time to personal lunacy and worthy only of dismissal. It reduces human subjectivity and transcendent joy and despondent suffering to the ravings of a madman. Facts are facts says this unstated premise, and if you don’t get that, you are a joker and will be rendered invisible.

In the new movie “Joker,” the suffering Arthur Fleck, the eponymous Joker, is abandoned by a cruel American society whose capitalist order cares not a whit for its regular people, and in a penultimate scene when Arthur is appearing on a late night television show where the snide and condescending host mocks him and his attempt at comedy, Joker says to the host:

Comedy is subjective, Murray. Isn’t that what they say? All of you, the system that knows so much, you decide what’s right or wrong. The same way that you decide what’s funny or not.

In that quote lies our current fate, the dark night that has descended on our world since Nietzsche issued his warning. The system that knows and controls so much decides human truth and what is good and evil, always of course, deciding in its own favor, even to suggest that all is woe and all hope is gone while heading to the bank with its ill-begotten lucre.

No wonder all the media, mainstream and alternative, are today filled with headlines and titles screaming about our impending extinction, doomsday, and the apocalypse. The end days are near.  Just as our fictitious “telling of time” with advanced technology has sped up since the simplest clock and speed has devoured space, so too have all the admonitions to prepare for the end of the world, as if you could.  Just pack your suitcase and you’re off.  These warning are often accompanied by assertions that humans, having contaminated the planet, don’t deserve to survive; that humans are vermin; and that, anyway, it’s too little too late, we don’t have time.  Extinction will be arriving shortly, even if we protest its arrival.  It’s hopeless, so don’t have children, or, if you have them already, teach them that “life is a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing.”  A one-way trip to dusty death where the trains run on time and the last stop is Nowhere.

Such political commentary, while often based on obvious problems caused by systemic structures of capitalist exploitation and technological hubris, implicitly rejects millennia of human experience and the testimony of the world’s great art and spiritual experience.  It rests upon a metaphysical assumption disguised as science that brackets out any word to the contrary.  It is the triumph of technical reason over the revelation of hope that is rooted in love, sexuality, and the human body, not abstractions.

“Our totalitarianism begins with our teleology,” writes Berger in his brilliant essay, “That Which Is Held.”

He adds:

What is ahistorical is the need to hope.  And the act of hoping is inseparable from the energy of love, from that which ‘holds,’ from that which is art’s constant example.

Such as the painting of a plaid suitcase by a little-known artist that hangs in my mental museum.  My father once went on vacation, and when he arrived at his destination and opened this suitcase, he found that it is was empty.  He had forgotten to pack and was overcome with joy at the realization. He wanted for nothing.  This was his masterpiece, created when he wasn’t looking.

Just yesterday, I was being thought by these thoughts as I took an early morning walk by the neighboring lake.  A group of geese, like battleships on the sea, greeted me with their honking, and as I dawdled along, they dove to show me their white asses, as if they were college boys out on a drunken lark, mooning anyone who passed.  It seemed as if I were being mocked for allowing these thoughts to drift into my mind, guests that I did not summon but came uninvited.  Many days I feel as though I am visited by words and images that transport me into reveries of time lost and time found and time beyond time. Rilke captures a bit of this with these words:

O longing for places that were not

Cherished enough in that fleeting hour

How I long to make good from far

The forgotten gesture, the additional act.

Who, among us, has not heard such words whispering into our silences?

Then I stopped by a swampy area at the end of the lake and took a look through the gently swaying bushes. A blue heron stood stock still on the far side, as if it were a statue or a silhouetted profile on an ancient Greek vase.  I froze and watched intently, lost in the sight of the bird’s eerie stillness.  For an instant I was that blue heron.  Its immobility and my stop-time staring seemed to fuse us in the way one is transported into a cataleptic state when watching dust motes in a flash of sunlight or unexpectedly seeing the full moon hanging on the world’s edge when stepping outdoors with night coming on.  It seems at these moments that a crack opens in the conventional reality machine that runs the world and one shivers with an erotic happiness that transcends description. Berger calls these “enclaves of the beyond.”

When I finally shook myself loose from being the heron, I walked on by myself but with many voices whispering in my ears.  Kris Kristofferson, whom I had recently seen in a documentary on country music, was singing “Me and Bobby McGee,” which took me back to a night years ago when a woman I knew played the song over and over for me as she drank wine in her low-cut dress, coming on to me, even as my then wife sat with us.

There is an infinite sadness in this memory, the loneliness of her yearning, not just for sex but for love, for a relationship, for tenderness, for “that which is held,” and while I remember the night vividly, I sadly can’t remember her name and she slips into the penumbra of the dreamy past. But vividly alive, present.  She walks with me as I head down the road, where the sign reads: Rough Road Ahead.  The words live:

Then somewhere near Salinas, Lord, I let her slip away/She was lookin’ for the love I hope she’ll find.

Just a moment of time out of mind.  A moment the time-keepers can’t imagine.

We know it.  We live it. We use and are used by our memories and forgetteries in equal measure, thinking we control the flow of life, which we don’t.

There is an experience that lovers, writers, singers, and athletes have. Everyone has it at least once in a lifetime, or so I hope. It is called by some “being in the zone,” by others “being unconscious,” by others “ecstasy” and “inspiration”; in all cases it transcends clocks and the underlying bias of our age.  It is hope incarnate. It is time out of mind. By discounting it, we embrace hopelessness, nihilism.

Living in the age of abstractions, we tend to abandon the body, the earth, and the chance that we might redeem this sordid era.  By remembering that hope lies in the shadows, in the unexpected places and faces that flash through our times even when we are induced to believe we are only dreaming, we have a chance. But only if we reject the belief that entropy is time’s arrow.  Therein lies the real danger that will result in our forgetting of how instantly time can stand still in the ultimate sense, as it did for the Japanese victims of America’s murderous rage on August 6, 1945.  Galway Kinnell, in his poem “The Fundamental Project of Technology” reminds us to remember:

The children go away. By nature they do. And by memory,
in scorched uniforms, holding tiny crushed lunch tins.
All the ecstasy-groans of each night call them back, satori
their ghostliness back into the ashes, in the momentary shrines,
the thankfulness of arms, from which they will go
again and again, until the day flashes and no one lives
to look back and say, a flash, a white flash sparkled.

Where was the lightning before it flashed?  To us it wasn’t.  Its flashing was it.  It was its act. But the nuclear weapons that we once used and are now preparing to use already exist and if they flash again all time will be extinguished and we will be gone with it.

The road ahead is rough indeed.  A despairing teleology will not save us.  We need to see it for the trap that it is.

Rhythm, melody, and movement: from these life is born and sustained.  They are also integral to art – music, writing, painting, sculpture, dance, etc. – even when they are apparently absent, as with my distorted perception of the seemingly immobile heron. They lie at the heart of spiritual experience, as breath is the inspiration that carries us along.

As I walk up the hill past the lake and my respiration increases, I see Alberto Giacometti’s sculpture, “Tall Walking Figure” in my mind’s eye. Its immobility implies movement, just as the ticking of the turning clock down through the ages has implied the earth’s solid resistance to time’s final victory, as the seasons turn and renew themselves timelessly.  Movement and stasis, time and the timeless. Such paradoxical inclusiveness pertains to still-life painting as well.  While seemingly immobile, and defined by some as dead life encompassed by the presence of the absence of movement and change, the essence of all living things, such paintings come to life in the encounter with the living.  Relationship is all. To grasp the paradoxical nature of art – and life – one must approach them as an artist and see the wholeness in broken pieces.  “Everything is broken,” Bob Dylan sings, “take a deep breath, feel like you’re choking.”

It seems that way.  But I am enjoying my walking reveries and so will let John Berger have the final word:

There is no question of looking away from the modern world and its practices.  There is no question of a Pre-Raphaelite flight back to the Middle Ages.  It is rather that Dante advances toward us. And in the specific purgatory of the modern world, created and maintained by corporate capitalism, every injustice is grounded in that unilinear view of time, for which the only relation conceivable is that between cause and effect.  In contrast to this, in defiance of this, the ‘single synchronic act’ is that of loving.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on When Time Stands Still

The decades-long struggle by tens of thousands of Israelis against being uprooted from their homes – some for the second or third time – should be proof enough that Israel is not the western-style liberal democracy it claims to be.

Last week 36,000 Bedouin – all of them Israeli citizens – discovered that their state is about to make them refugees in their own country, driving them into holding camps. These Israelis, it seems, are the wrong kind.

Their treatment has painful echoes of the past. In 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were expelled by the Israeli army outside the borders of the newly declared Jewish state established on their homeland – what the Palestinians call their Nakba, or catastrophe.

Israel is regularly criticised for its belligerent occupation, its relentless expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian land and its repeated and savage military attacks, especially on Gaza.

On rare occasions, analysts also notice Israel’s systematic discrimination against the 1.8 million Palestinians whose ancestors survived the Nakba and live inside Israel, ostensibly as citizens.

But each of these abuses is dealt with in isolation, as though unrelated, rather than as different facets of an overarching project. A pattern is discernible, one driven by an ideology that dehumanises Palestinians everywhere Israel encounters them.

That ideology has a name. Zionism provides the thread that connects the past – the Nakba – with Israel’s current ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, the destruction of Gaza, and the state’s concerted efforts to drive Palestinian citizens of Israel out of what is left of their historic lands and into ghettoes.

The logic of Zionism, even if its more naive supporters fail to grasp it, is to replace Palestinians with Jews – what Israel officially terms Judaisation.

The Palestinians’ suffering is not some unfortunate side effect of conflict. It is the very aim of Zionism: to incentivise Palestinians still in place to leave “voluntarily”, to escape further suffocation and misery.

The starkest example of this people replacement strategy is Israel’s long-standing treatment of 250,000 Bedouin who formally have citizenship.

The Bedouin are the poorest group in Israel, living in isolated communities mainly in the vast, semi-arid area of the Negev, the country’s south. Largely out of view, Israel has had a relatively free hand in its efforts to “replace” them.

That was why, for a decade after it had supposedly finished its 1948 ethnic cleansing operations and won recognition in western capitals, Israel continued secretly expelling thousands of Bedouin outside its borders, despite their claim on citizenship.

Meanwhile, other Bedouin in Israel were forced off their ancestral lands to be driven either into confined holding areas or state-planned townships that became the most deprived communities in Israel.

It is hard to cast the Bedouin, simple farmers and pastoralists, as a security threat, as was done with the Palestinians under occupation.

But Israel has a much broader definition of security than simple physical safety. Its security is premised on the maintenance of an absolute demographic dominance by Jews.

The Bedouin may be peaceable but their numbers pose a major demographic threat and their pastoral way of life obstructs the fate intended for them – penning them up tightly inside ghettoes.

Most of the Bedouin have title deeds to their lands that long predate Israel’s creation. But Israel has refused to honour these claims and many tens of thousands have been criminalised by the state, their villages denied legal recognition.

For decades they have been forced to live in tin shacks or tents because the authorities refuse to approve proper homes and they are denied public services like schools, water and electricity.

The Bedouin have one option if they wish to live within the law: they must abandon their ancestral lands and their way of life to relocate to one of the poor townships.

Many of the Bedouin have resisted, clinging on to their historic lands despite the dire conditions imposed on them.

One such unrecognised village, Al Araqib, has been used to set an example. Israeli forces have demolished the makeshift homes there more than 160 times in less than a decade. In August, an Israeli court approved the state billing six of the villagers $370,000 (Dh1.6 million) for the repeated evictions.

Al Araqib’s 70-year-old leader, Sheikh Sayah Abu Madhim, recently spent months in jail after his conviction for trespassing, even though his tent is a stone’s throw from the cemetery where his ancestors are buried.

Now the Israel authorities are losing patience with the Bedouin.

Last January, plans were unveiled for the urgent and forcible eviction of nearly 40,000 Bedouin from their homes in unrecognised villages under the guise of “economic development” projects. It will be the largest expulsion in decades.

“Development”, like “security”, has a different connotation in Israel. It really means Jewish development, or Judaisation – not development for Palestinians.

The projects include a new highway, a high-voltage power line, a weapons testing facility, a military live-fire zone and a phosphate mine.

It was revealed last week that the families would be forced into displacement centres in the townships, living in temporary accommodation for years as their ultimate fate is decided. Already these sites are being compared to the refugee camps established for Palestinians in the wake of the Nakba.

The barely concealed aim is to impose on the Bedouin such awful conditions that they will eventually agree to be confined for good in the townships on Israel’s terms.

Six leading United Nations human rights experts sent a letter to Israel in the summer protesting the grave violations of the Bedouin families’ rights in international law and arguing that alternative approaches were possible.

Adalah, a legal group for Palestinians in Israel, notes that Israel has been forcibly evicting the Bedouin over seven decades, treating them not as human beings but as pawns in its never-ending battle to replace them with Jewish settlers.

The Bedouin’s living space has endlessly shrunk and their way of life has been crushed.

This contrasts starkly with the rapid expansion of Jewish towns and single-family farming ranches on the land from which the Bedouin are being evicted.

It is hard not to conclude that what is taking place is an administrative version of the ethnic cleansing Israeli officials conduct more flagrantly in the occupied territories on so-called security grounds.

These interminable expulsions look less like a necessary, considered policy and more like an ugly, ideological nervous tic.

*

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.

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

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.

United States and Venezuela: A Historical Background

October 17th, 2019 by Prof. James Petras

First published on Global Research on May 18, 2019.

“Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and they own it and we want it” — (Anonymous Trump official)

Introduction

US hostility and efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan government forms parts of a long and inglorious history of US intervention in Latin America going back to the second decade of the 19th century.

In 1823 US President Monroe declared, in his name, the ‘Monroe Doctrine” – the US right to keep Europeans out of the region, but the right of the US to intervene in pursuit of its economic, political and military interests.

We will proceed to outline the historical phases of US political and military intervention on behalf of US corporate and banking interests in the region and the Latin American political and social movements which opposed it.

The first period runs from the late 19th century to the 1930’s, and includes Marine invasions , the installation of US client dictatorships and the resistance of popular revolutions led by several revolutionary leaders in El Salvador, (Farabundo Marti), Nicaragua, (Augusto Sandino), Cuba (Jose Marti) and Mexico [Lazaro Cárdenas].

We will then discuss the Post-WWII US interventions, the overthrow of popular governments and the repression of social movements, including Guatemala (1954), Chile coup (1973), US invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1982),and Panama (1989).

We will then exam US efforts to overthrow the Venezuela government (1998 to the present).

US Policy to Latin America: Democracy, Dictatorship and Social Movements

US General Smedley Butler summarized his 33 years in the military as a ‘muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers . . . I helped Mexico safe for American oil interest in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for National City Bank to collect revenue . . . I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the . . . House of Brown Brothers in 1902 – 1912. I brought a light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interest in 2016. I helped make Honduras right for American fruit companies in 1903 . . . looking back on it, I could have given Al Capone a few hints’!

During the first 40 years of the 20th century the US invaded Cuba , converted it into a quasi-colony and repudiated its hero of independence Jose Marti; it provided advisers and military support to El Salvador’s dictator, assassinated its revolutionary leader Farabundo Marti and murdered 30,000 landless peasants seeking land reform. The US intervened in Nicaragua, fought against its patriotic leader Augusto Sandino and installed a dictatorial dynasty led by the Somoza regime until it was overthrown in 1979. The US intervened in Cuba to install a military dictatorship in 1933 to suppress an uprising of sugar workers. Between 1952 – 1958 Washington armed the Batista dictatorship to destroy the revolutionary July 26 Movement led by Fidel Castro. In the late 1930s the US threatened to invade Mexico when President Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the US oil companies and redistributed land to millions of landless peasants.

With the defeat of fascism (1941-45), there was an upsurge of social democratic governments in Latin America. But the US objected. In 1954 the US overthrew the elected Guatemala president Jacobo Arbenz for expropriating the banana plantations of United Fruit Company. It backed a military coup in Brazil in 1964; the military remained in power for 20 years. In 1963 the US overthrew the Dominican Republic’s democratically elected government of Juan Bosch and invaded in 1965 to prevent a popular uprising. In 1973 the US supported a military coup overthrowing democratic socialist president Salvador Allende and backed the military regime of General Augusto Pinochet for nearly 20 years.

Subsequently, the US intervened and occupied Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.

US propped up rightwing regimes throughout the region which backed US banking and corporate oligarchs which exploited resources, workers and peasants.

But by the early 1990’s powerful social movements led by workers, peasants, middle class public employees/doctors and teachers challenged the alliance of domestic and US elite rulers. In Brazil the 300,000 strong rural workers movement (MST) succeeded in expropriating large fallow estates; in Bolivia indigenous miners and peasants including coca farmers overthrew the oligarchy. In Argentina general strikes and mass movements of unemployed workers overthrew corrupt rulers allied with City Bank. The success of the popular nationalist and populist movements led to democratic elections won by progressive and leftist Presidents throughout Latin America, especially Venezuela.

Venezuela: Democratic Election, Social Reforms and the Election of President Chavez

In 1989 the US backed President of Venezuela imposed austerity programs that provoked popular demonstrations which led to the government ordering the police and military to repress the demonstrators: several thousand were killed and wounded. Hugo Chavez, a military official, rebelled and supported the popular uprising. He was captured, arrested, later freed and ran for presidential office.. He was elected by a wide margin in 1999 on a program of social reforms, economic nationalism, an end of corruption and political independence.

Washington began a hostile campaign to pressure President Chavez to accept Washington’s (President Bush) global war agenda in Afghanistan and around the world. Chavez refused to submit. He declared, “You don’t fight terror with terror”. By late 2001 the US Ambassador met with the business elite and a sector of the military to oust President elect Chavez via a coup in April 2002. The coup lasted 24 hours ..Over a million people, mostly slum dwellers, marched to the Presidential palace, backed by military loyalists .They defeated the coup and restored President Chavez to power. He proceeded to win a dozen democratic elections and referendums over the following decade.

President Chavez succeeded in large part because of his comprehensive program of socio-economic reforms favoring the workers, unemployed and middle class.

Over 2 million houses and apartments were built and distributed free to the popular classes; hundreds of clinics and hospitals provided free health care in the populer neighborhoods; universities, training schools and medical centers for low income students were built with free tuition.

Thousands in neighborhood community centers and ‘local collectives’ discussed and voted on social and political issues – including criticism and recall of local politicians, even elected Chavez’ officials.

Between 1998 and 2012, President Chavez won four straight Presidential elections, several congressional majorities and two national referendums, garnering between 56% and over 60% of the popular vote. After Chavez died President Maduro won elections in 2013 and 2018 but by a narrower margin. Democracy flourished, elections were free and open to all parties.

As a result of the inability of US backed candidates to win elections, Washington resorted to violent street riots, and appealed to the military to revolt and reverse the electoral results. The US applied sanctions beginning with President Obama and deepen with President Trump. The US seized billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets, and oil refineries in the US. The US selected a (non-elected) new President (Guaido) who was directed to subvert the military to revolt and seize power.

They failed: about one hundred soldiers out of 267,000 and a few thousand rightwing supporters heeded the call. The “opposition” revolt was a failure.

US failures were predictable as the mass of voter defended their socio-economic gains; their control of local power; their dignity and respect. Over 80% of the population including the majority of the opposition – rejected a US invasion.

US sanctions contributed to hyper-inflation and the death of 40,000 Venezuelan citizens due to the scarcity of medical products.

Conclusion

The US and the CIA followed in the footsteps of the past century seeking to overthrow the Venezuelan government and seize control of its oil and mineral resources. As in the past the US sought to impose a submissive dictatorship which would repress the popular movements and subvert the democratic electoral processes. Washington sought to impose a electoral apparatus which would ensure the election of submissive rulers as it did in the past and as it has done in recent times in Paraguay, Brazil and Honduras.

So far Washington has failed, in great part because of the peoples’ defense of their historical gains. Most poor and working people are aware that a US invasion and occupation will lead to mass killing and the destruction of sovereignty and dignity.

The people are aware of US aggression as well as the mistakes of the government. They are demanding corrections and rectifications .The government of President Maduro favors a dialogue with the non-violent opposition; Venezuelans are developing economic ties with Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Bolivia, Mexico and other independent countries.

Latin America has experienced decades of US exploitation and domination; but it has also created a history of successful popular resistance including revolutions in Mexico, Bolivia and Cuba; successful social movements and voting outcomes in recent years in Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela.

President Trump and his murderous cohort of Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams have declared war against the Venezuelan people but they have thus far been defeated.

The struggle continues.

*

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

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on United States and Venezuela: A Historical Background

On both sides of the political aisle, workforce-training reforms are being touted as the be-all, end-all of America’s public education system.

Right-wing “school choice” proponents, such as President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, push corporate charter school programs with workforce-training curriculums.

Left-wing “community schooling” advocates, such as Democratic Presidential candidates Joe Biden and Julián Castro, push “lifelong-learning” programs with school-to-work curriculums. Both “conservatives” and “liberals” concur: the purpose of public education is workforce development.

It’s nice to know that, in this divisive era of Trump outrage, America’s political representatives can still reach across the aisle to agree on something. Too bad this bipartisan movement will reduce the US schooling system to a corporate-government bureaucracy that deploys Big Data to train students to fill labor quotas prescribed by workforce-planning algorithms.

Career-Aptitude Pigeonholes

In this new age of rapidly advancing technologies that are automating “low-skill” jobs, many parents are understandably concerned that their children’s schooling will fail to prepare them to survive in a hi-tech future where the economy is driven by computers. However, parents should be skeptical of hyped-up “career pathways” curriculums that train students in hi-tech skills prescribed for job placement in the fields of “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics” (STEM). While this polytechnical training might offer quick shortcuts to hi-tech jobs, such vocational tech-training pigeonholes the student into a predetermined job with limited upward mobility.

Such “cradle-to-career” training is based on three of the “six basic functions” of schooling systematized by Harvard Professor of Education, Alexander Inglis, who believed that public schools are instruments of Statecraft and social engineering. In “Against School,” Inglis’s authoritarian “principles of education” are paraphrased by the renowned New York State Teacher of the Year (1991), John Taylor Gatto:

  1. The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. . . .
  2. The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits—and not one step further. . . .
  3. The propaedeutic function. The social system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

By pipelining students directly from the classroom to the jobsite, career-pathways curriculums diagnose each student’s social role by consigning him or her to a job caste that is directed by Big Business partnering with publicly funded school-to-work programs. Furthermore, to efficiently determine each student’s socioeconomic role, the cradle-to-career “conveyor belt” differentiates the student body into a hierarchy of managers and wage slaves who are trained with minimal job competences so that the chain of economic command is not destabilized by social ambitions.

Simply put, career-pathways do not teach students how to choose their own careers and social roles; rather, they teach students job-specific skills for limited employment openings which are predetermined by the market projections of the politically connected corporations that partner with government-funded schools.

Psychometric Learning Analytics for “Personalized” Job Training

Rather than applaud school-to-work curriculums that train students to keep up with the evolution of a hi-tech economy, perhaps schoolboards should be disconcerted about the encroachment of the Big Tech economy on schools and learning. With growing popularity, Big Data is becoming an integral component of career-pathways training through “adaptive-learning” computers that literally reduce students to numbers. By data-mining a student’s responses to digital lessons, adaptive-learning software (such as Dreambox, Alta, and Brightspace Leap™) can tabulate student-learning algorithms which diagnose students as mentally “fit” or “unfit” for certain jobs. The result is a psychometrical “bell curve” system that pathologizes a student’s workforce “competences” based on his or her “cognitive-behavioral” algorithms.

Such data-mining of student psychometrics might be an efficient way to distribute job placement through workforce-schooling programs. Nonetheless, acclaimed education theorist Alfie Kohn documents that the psychological conditioning methods of schooling advocated by “economists and a diehard group of orthodox behaviorists (who have restyled themselves ‘behavior analysts’)” usually “backfire” and “undermine the very thing we’re trying to promote.” Indeed, workforce-schooling psychometrics are “undermined” when “personalized” student-learning profiles “backfire” by socially engineering the student body into a workforce caste hierarchy with limited job opportunities that restrict upward mobility.

A Post-Humanism?

If parents are worried that their children may get run over by the hi-speed, hi-tech automation economy on the horizons, their attempts to reform education so that students can “compete” with the new computerized economy may actually exacerbate the problem. Rather than encourage school-to-work curriculums that train students to “interface” with a techno-automated workforce, perhaps it is more important to teach the humanities of philosophy, history, and the arts so that the next generations can make humane decisions which ensure that technological evolution serves the inalienable rights of human dignity and conscience.

We are at a crossroads here: the “career pathways” to a technocratic economy, or the “classical way” to a moral economy based on the “categorical-imperative” values of human dignity and conscience. I am not saying that technological advancement cannot progress alongside the preservation of human values. But in a computer-automated economy driven by Big Data, algorithms must be programmed with certain values; and without the preservation of humane values in the minds of students, there will be nothing to ensure that human morality is programmed into the algorithms that plan the workforces of the future. If we amputate the arts and humanities from the “new education,” which worships the supposed infallibility of data, what will it profit our children to gain the world of hi-tech jobs only to lose their humanity?

*

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

John Klyczek has an MA in English and has taught college rhetoric and research argumentation for over seven years. His literary scholarship concentrates on the history of global eugenics and Aldous Huxley’s dystopic novel, Brave New World. He is the author of School World Order: The Technocratic Globalization of Corporatized Education (TrineDay Books); and he is a contributor to the Centre for Research on Globalization, OpEdNews, the Intrepid Report, the Dissident Voice, Blacklisted News, the Activist Post, News With Views, The Saker, and Natural News. His website is https://www.schoolworldorder.info/

The Environmental Protection Agency today released two scientific analyses of paraquat that detail the weed killer’s lethal risks to humans and wildlife but discount its strong links to Parkinson’s disease.

The agency opened a 60-day comment period on the assessments, which are part of a reapproval review for the pesticide. Paraquat is banned across much of the world but used widely and in growing amounts in the United States. By law all pesticides must be reapproved by the EPA every 15 years.

“A pesticide this toxic has no place near our food or the people who help to grow and harvest it,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The EPA should follow the lead of nearly every other major agricultural country in the world and ban this dangerous stuff for good.”

The EPA’s analysis discounted considerable evidence that paraquat has been shown to more than double the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in farmworkers and others suffering occupational exposure.

A separate environmental analysis estimated that approved uses of the pesticide could expose small mammals like chipmunks and bats to more than 600 times the levels known to cause reproductive harm. The analysis found that small songbirds are potentially being exposed to more than 50 times the concentration known to cause death.

Paraquat is one of only two pesticides still used in the United States that is either banned or being phased out in the European Union, China and Brazil. From 1990 to 2014 there have been 27 deaths and more than 200 incidents of harmful exposure involving paraquat in the United States. There has also been at least one death from paraquat ingestion in the United States each year since 2012.

Despite this paraquat use in the United States is higher than it’s been in the past 25 years, with use rising nearly 200 percent since 2009. The increase has been triggered by its use on superweeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, commonly sold as Bayer’s Roundup.

U.S. farmers currently use more than 8 million pounds of paraquat each year, including on peanuts, citrus, wheat, soy, corn, almonds, artichokes, garlic, pears, strawberries, grapes and sweet potatoes.

“It only takes a teaspoon of paraquat to kill a person, so it’s clear 8 million pounds of this stuff is doing extreme harm to our health and the environment,” said Donley.

In July U.S. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to ban paraquat.

*

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.

You cannot get away from it, at least in print or in Google land. African swine fever is doing its rounds, cutting through the swine population of Asia with remorseless dedication.  Since its deadly debut in China last year, it has done away with some 25 percent of the globe’s pig population.  The symptoms are dramatic and lethal (mortality rates range from 95 to 100 percent), with the infected animal haemorrhaging and perishing between a period of five to fifteen days.  This decline has sparked all manner of comment: a feared deprivation of pork dishes, a spark of hope in exports of pork untouched by the disease and alternative meat supplies, and the more serious issue of food security.

In China itself, the decline of pork is causing a strain of desperation, though it is always marked by reassurance and stiff-upper lip confidence.  Pork supplies, both domestically and internationally, had been seen to be something of an essential in Chinese food security.  In September, the country’s pig population, numbering some 440 million animals, had shrunk by 41.1 percent.  While figures coming out of various Chinese ministries should be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism, the numbers from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs have caused a stir.  Such contractions are perpetuating and will continue to perpetuate a loss in the global consumption of protein.

On Monday, China’s Premier, Li Keqiang did something uncharacteristic for the politburo: he ventured to a roadside stall to test the vox populi on the subject of rising pork prices.  Not that the episode lacked its fair share of choreographic sense.  The owner was suitably stoic; it simply would not do to panic.  “Our prices have also risen a bit accordingly.  The effect on business hasn’t been too big.”  Bravely dishonest for party and country, perhaps?

The disastrous wasting of domestic herds, one that sees no ebbing, has caused a spike in imports in pork.  The PRC saw some 1.3 million tonnes coming into the country in the first three quarters this year.

Other countries are also showing a certain fear in the face of rumour and speculation.  In Europe, the fever is being held at bay, though pork consumers are seeing prices rise.  But in Asian countries, the response is graver, and slightly panicked.  South Korea, for instance, is mobilising snipers and civilians in an effort to shore up its border with North Korea.  Drones equipped with thermal vision will also be deployed.  All of this is in aid of one thing: targeting infected pigs near the line of civilian control.  The South China Morning Post is positively apocalyptic. “The intensified measures aim to exterminate feral pigs in areas including Incheon, Seoul, Goseong and Bukhan River.”

As far as North Korea is concerned, the concern is that the fever is doing its worst, though official figures suggest the opposite.  The North Korean agriculture ministry claimed in a May 30 report to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) that animal deaths had been modest, with only 22 recorded on a cooperative farm some 260km north of Pyongyang.

For those in the Asia-Pacific region as yet untouched by ASF, nerves are catching.  Countries like Australia have demonstrated that terror characteristic of island mentalities: Be wary of what you import and what you let in.  Biosecurity is a tic of the Australian policy mindset, though it does not come without its ironies: the Australian scientific and agricultural sector has been arguably more devastating and disastrous for the country’s ecology than any malicious or accidental introduction.

Be that as it may, Australia’s $5 billion pork industry is nothing to sneeze at, keeping something in the order of 36,000 people busy.  But off Australian shores, the fear is that the fever is making its marauding march, with news that East Timor had become the tenth Asian nation to be added to the list.  Customs officials are proving edgier than usual, and the federal Agricultural Minister Bridget McKenzie is getting a tad judgmental.

“People are still disregarding our biosecurity laws.  We can send them home, we can slap significant fines on them and I’ll be encouraging our biosecurity officials to be doing exactly that with those offenders.”

On Saturday, a Vietnamese woman was sent packing after arriving at Sydney Airport with quail, squid and raw pork.  The unfortunate had her visa cancelled, the result of amendments made in April.  As the Department of Agriculture described it,

“International visitors who are believed to have contravened particular provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 can have their visitor visa cancelled for up to three years.”

The biosecurity and vet gate keepers have their eye on one aspect of Australia’s pig population.  The 2.5 million domestic population might well be one thing, but imagine, fears Chief Veterinary Officer Dr Mark Schipp, the prospect of 15 million feral pigs being infected.  (This figure, it should be said, varies – another estimate puts the number at 24 million.)  But where crisis presents itself, there are salivating opportunities.  Australian Pork Limited chief executive Margo Andrae is one who is drooling at the prospect that Australia can “increase production and prices to fill gaps that other markets can’t supply.”

What then, to do?  From a thriving epidemic, ASF has become an enthusiastic pandemic. It is cutting through protein consumption and posing a risk to food supply, but as yet, there are no cures nor vaccines.  The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has also noted that the disease’s impact is complicated by “the range of pig production systems coexisting in the different countries.”  Such instances, if they do at least conjure up a world without pork, may well encourage a world less reliant on the staple.  But till then, individuals such as Dr Hirofumi Kugita of the OIE are punting for the border control and biosecurity obsessives.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The African Swine Fever Outbreak, Devastating Impacts on Food Supply
  • Tags:

Farage, the Brexit Party – and the Con-trick

October 16th, 2019 by True Publica

On May 16th 2016, over a month before the 2016 EU referendum, Nigel Farage said – “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

On the night of the EU referendum itself, Sky News reported that they had an exclusive –

We now expect that the United Kingdom will remain part of the European Union. It’s 52 per cent Remain, 48 per cent Leave.

At 10:52 p.m., the pound rose above $1.50 and reached its highest mark in six months. What no-one knew except for a privileged few, was that the pollsters had sold hedge funds critical, advance information, including data that would have been illegal for them to give the public. Within hours of the actual result, Sterling had crashed to $1.32 making hundreds of millions in short bet profits against billions laid down for an unexpected Leave result. Farage is also allegedly in that privileged few. The crisis has since seen even greater speculator profits being made as the Brexit chaos unfolded.

The result that followed in the early hours stunned many and amazingly it turned out to be 52/48 for Leave.

Nigel Farage celebrated that morning by saying:

We have fought against the multinationals, we have fought against the big merchant banks, we have fought against big politics, we have fought against lies, corruption and deceit, and today honesty, decency and belief in nation, I think now is going to win. And we will have done it without having to fight, without a single bullet being fired. We’d have done it by damned hard work on the ground.”

Farage stood accused of falsely conceding on the night of the referendum sending the pound to soar (as confidence grew of a Remain result) and then crash (with the actual result). Like all insider dealing, proof for a conviction is, at best, hard to obtain. The ‘Brexit Big Short‘ as it has become known within the banking and hedge-fund industry is legendary. And just like the massive scandal of bailing out the banks and making the poorest pay for it under the guise of austerity, itself, nothing more than the retaliatory mask of a class-war – the Brexit Big Short demonstrates that some are inoculated from the biggest of crimes.

A lot has happened since June 2016. We have seen a significant move to hard right-wing politics within the Conservatives with Farage now leading the Brexit Party in anticipation of a snap election.

For all of Farage’s finger-pointing that the EU was corrupt and anti-democratic and against the ordinary people of Britain, it is interesting to see where he now stands aside from the sweet-talking rhetoric of ‘sunny uplands’.

The Brexit Party chairman himself, Richard Tice, is now facing calls to “urgently” address concerns about his family’s links to offshore tax havens, after an investigation by openDemocracy this week that reveals that two offshore firms own large shareholdings in his family’s business.

“The Brexit Party MEP has also been urged to stand down from the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, which oversees EU tax policy, until the matter is fully investigated.”

Tice, a co-founder of Arron Banks’s Leave.EU, says he has no knowledge of who runs two offshore companies that have held shares for over 25 years in his family business, Sunley Family Limited, and which now own a combined 42% stake. Of course, Tice denies any financial interests of the offshore companies.

Accusations of money laundering, fraud, fake news, cash-for-access, disinformation and electoral manipulation through social media have been rife with the hub of the Leave campaign. The names synonymous with this villainous and unprincipled lot roll off the tongue with ease – the IEA, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Aggregate IG, ERG, Bannon, Legatum, TaxPayers Alliance and many individuals with nothing more on their minds than making their fortunes out of the mess they created.

Byline Times has published some home-truths about Nigel Farage’s party of the ‘common people’ by simply looking at its candidates a little more closely.

“Out of these 20 profiled candidates, 18 are company directors, 8 are bankers, 5 work in derivatives and hedge funds, ranking them among a metropolitan and business elite which the Brexit Party rhetoric repeatedly condemns. Many of these candidates are involved with hedge funds or derivatives, sectors of the financial industry were the ones who profited from the Brexit turmoil, by betting on Sterling’s collapse and downturns in British firms. These organisations are known to oppose EU attempts to regulate the hedge fund industry.”

And as Byline also mentions, two of the candidates are directors of Leave Means Leave, the organisation promoting a hard  (WTO) Brexit.  Another is a director of the Leave group Veterans for Britain which received donations from Arron Banks and from Leave.eu.   Others have links to far-right groups which are already fomenting tensions, such as the American right-wing youth group, Turning Point; the website Westmonster, and UK organisations such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance (with all of its dodgy, undisclosed and ‘opaque’ funding).

Turning Point is a very nasty right-wing American outfit that spits its bile out – “With numerous right-wing and religious links to Donald Trump. The scandal-hit group has been plagued by incidents of racism and allegations of illegal campaign spending since its launch.”  Sounds familiar, doesn’t it.

We should not forget who Farage is dallying with either. It only emerged a few months ago that he discussed the idea of fronting a global alliance of populist and far-right politicians being put together by the controversial former White House strategist Steve Bannon. Farage is even on camera as saying he would be keen to take the role of forming a group based around populism and “economic nationalism” that would align themselves with some of the worst authoritarians in politics today.

These people – Farage, Tice, Banks, et al – are the very public face of what’s gone wrong in Britain. It’s a con, a lie – one huge deception that somehow they are the representatives of the 17.4 million that voted to leave the EU.

No-one voted in the EU referendum for the Britain of today. In the 1980s – 86 per cent of the adult population were proud to be British. Today, no less than 90 per cent of the adult population feels that Brexit represents little more than a national humiliation and 45 per cent of Britain’s young (18-24) are no longer proud of their home nation. Another 34 per cent say they no longer care one way or the other and 10 per cent are actively embarrassed to call themselves English. That is what Brexit has brought us.

As Jonathan Lis, Deputy Director of the think tank British Influence quite rightly puts it because this is exactly what has happened:

What was billed as a way for people to take back control of democracy has become a systematic attack on every institution which underpins it.”

And the very people doing that damage are Farage, Tice, Banks and so on.

The Brexit being offered today does not look remotely like anything sold to the public. And don’t think that people can’t operate such huge con-games. From the Parmalat boss who stole 800 million euros before Europe’s largest bankruptcy to Enron, the world’s biggest fraud, con-artists have managed to hoodwink even the most privileged and powerful – let alone ‘ordinary people.’

As Farage himself quite rightly said in 2012, reiterated in 2014 and 2016 –

I think frankly when it comes to chaos you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

He is right on that.

On some level, I feel sure that Nigel Farage really did and maybe still does believe in leaving the EU to take back national sovereignty – but I also feel that not even he expected his wet dream to become reality, and as they say – “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Farage and his fellow hedge-fund banker boy travellers also know that Brexit is a con trick.

*

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.

Winners and Losers in the Turkish Attack on Kurds in Syria

October 16th, 2019 by Elijah J. Magnier

President Donald Trump has given the orders to begin a “deliberate withdrawal” of his troops and end the occupation of north-east Syria (NES). This is accelerating the race between the Turkish and the Syrian forces to control NES.

Turkey is in a rush to establish its 30-35km wide safe zone on the borders with Syria in the US-occupied north-east territory, currently under the control of the Syrian Kurdish separatists. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is aware of the pressure his US ally, President Donald Trump is under for approving this operation, an operation which has made Trump even more unpopular among the US and western élites.

Trump took it upon himself to unilaterally take control of an area in Syria bigger than Switzerland. Uninvited by the central government, he had established over a dozen military and air bases in the country and kept them there notwithstanding the defeat of ISIS. Trump has now agreed to pull back some US troops, allowing Turkey and its Syrian proxies to move into this part of Syrian territory. The US President and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin blocked an EU-drafted resolution condemning the Turkish offensive. Now, the winners in this operation are much more numerous than the losers and it would be a mistake to suppose that only Turkey is gaining from this operation. All winners have their own objectives and perspectives to assess how they can benefit from the Turkish invasion.

By deciding to pull out 1,000 men from NES, Trump is reshuffling the cards, moving the burden away from his administration and dropping it into the hands of Russia, Turkey and Syria (and their allies). There is a serious need for Russia to move fast and bring concerned players around the table to organise a situation that could turn more chaotic and lead to even more confrontation.

The biggest losers are the Kurds: the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the armed wing of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)- which were classified as terrorist organisations by the US (since 1997), by the European Union (since 2002), and by NATO, Turkey, and some other countries.

The Kurds in the Levant

The Kurds are now in south-east Turkey, north-east Syria, the north of Iraq, north-west Iran, and south-west Armenia. With an estimated population of 30 million, they may be the largest stateless minority in the world. More than half of the Kurds live in Turkey; it is thus less than accurate to call the Turkish attack on Syrian Kurds “ethnic cleansing”.

The 1923 Lausanne Peace treaty with the Republic of Turkey denied the Kurds the realisation of their dream for an independent “Kurdistan” state of their own. The Kurds staged many rebellions but all failed to achieve their aspirations for a state. These include the Sheikh Said rebellion (1925), the Ararat (1930) revolution led by the Armenian Ziylan Bey, one of the most famous rebels of the mountains (the Iraqi Mustafa Barzani crossed the borders to join the rebellion), and the Sayid Riza 1937-1938 Kurdish-Alevi Dersim genocide (known today as Tenceli). The latter operation was carried out under the orders of Turkish President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and is recognised by President Erdogan as a “massacre”.

In 1974, Abdullah Ocalan formed a Maoist proletarian movement, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and focussed on Turkish targets within the country. Thus far at least 40,000 people have been killed in this conflict without the Kurds achieving their goal of a state. Ocalan and some 3,000 PKK militants are festering in jail. The US, the EU and many other countries categorize the PKK as a terrorist group. “The PKK is on the terror list of the EU and delisting it is not on the cards,” said EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini last March.

When the war in Syria began in 2011, the Syrian Kurds were neutral but provided many besieged Syrian cities with much-needed supplies. But everything changed on September 2014 when the “Islamic State” (IS, ISIS, ISIL or Daesh) attacked the Kurdish town of Ayn al-Arab, known to the Kurds as Kobane.

Although Turkey refused (in order to avoid a domestic uprising) to allow Turkish Kurds to cross the borders to help their Syrian brothers, it opened the borders for Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga to walk in just when the city was about to fall. The Peshmerga had the task of providing laser designators to guide US jets against ISIS targets. The town was destroyed but ISIS failed to occupy it and withdrew in January 2015.

In October 2015 the US-led coalition formed, trained and armed the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) under Kurdish command and alongside local Arab militias. The Kurds hoped their dream would finally materialise since the prospect of dividing Iraq and Syria now seemed realistic. A Kurdish state seemed attainable, and the name of “Rojava” (Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), one of the four parts of Greater Kurdistan, was chosen. This territory extends from the city of Afrin in the north-west to al-Hasaka in the north-east.

In August 2016, Turkey inserted its own troops into Syria with the help of Syrian proxies and captured the border town of Jarablus. This disturbed the Kurds’ plans. Almost two years later, Turkey conquered the Kurdish city of Afrin, curtailing the map of Rojava and displacing tens of thousands of Kurds.

The Kurds preferred to hand Afrin to Turkey rather than allow the Syrian army to defend the city. Intensive negotiations were held between Kurdish leaders and the Syrian government in Damascus, the Russian military base of Hmaymeem, and other locations. The Kurds refused to hand over the billions of dollars they had accumulated from Syrian agriculture and refused to join Syria’s National Defence Forces. They wanted both full autonomy and at the same time, they wanted the Syrian Army to serve as their border guards. They preferred to fight and lose the battle rather than handing Syrian territory back to Syrian government control. The Kurds opted for Turkish occupation. This has proved to be their first major mistake.

In September 2015, when Russia was persuaded to move its air force into Syria, coordination with the US was necessary to avoid clashes. Any area east of the Euphrates River was considered subject to US operations and control. The west of the river was controlled by Russian forces. After defeating ISIS, the Syrian army tried, with its allies, to cross the Euphrates in order to eliminate ISIS from the oil and gas-rich wells north of Deir-ezzour before the arrival of US-backed forces. The Syrian troops were decimated by US forces. Over 200 men were killed, showing that the US was not ready to give up what it considered its “zone of influence,” with its considerable accompanying material advantages.

Clearly, the US had the intention of staying and occupying an area that represents slightly less than the third of Syria, an area particularly rich in agriculture and in energy resources.

Then Kurdish Iraqi leader Masoud Barzani’s hasty and failed attempt to declare his independent state in Iraq finally put an end to the Kurdish dream of uniting Rojava with Iraqi Kurdistan.

With the arrival of Donald Trump, the newly appointed President came a promise to bring the US forces home from the Middle East. Trump described north-east Syria as “a land of death and sand ”. He intended to pull out unless the area could bring him revenues. Arab states who were heavily involved in the war in Syria, financing jihadists and rebels, had lost their appetite to supply monies and arms. They were no longer ready to pay Trump for keeping his troops there.

Trump stated that the Syrian Kurds “were not great fighters” and needed his jets to clear the way before attacking ISIS. Thus he minimised their role and their losses in defeating ISIS in the capital of the “Caliphate” in Raqqah.

The Kurds never imagined the US would betray them, despite their previous experience in 1975. That was their second big mistake. Kurdish military leaders tried, to no avail, to convince Kurdish political leaders to open a serious dialogue with Damascus. But in fact the Kurds suspended negotiations and once again seemed to prefer facing a Turkish attack rather than working with the Syrian government. They put their hopes in the support of the international community and the mainstream media. The media and public personalities have indeed offered the Kurds abundant verbal support. But that will certainly not be enough to stop the Turkish attack that is now advancing rapidly in the designated area.

Trump looks on the Kurds as mercenaries he has bought and paid for. Since their services are no longer required, he is now ready to withdraw US forces to win favour with Turkey. The Kurds are expendable now that their manpower is not needed by Trump.

The Kurds, however, insisted for years on acting as human shields for Trump’s soldiers in al-Hasaka and Qamishli. And they believe that social media together with a media campaign can reverse Trump’s decision. But they are now left with no allies on the ground, and not even the mountains will protect them. Their wrong choices – in surrendering territory that did not belong to them- have made them today’s biggest losers. The US short notice announcement of a sudden withdrawal gave a cold shower to the Kurds who have now asked Damascus to move in to protect them from the Turkish advance. It was certainly high time to wake up to what is, at this stage, the only available option.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Winners and Losers in the Turkish Attack on Kurds in Syria
  • Tags: , ,

This week, the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund will again be held in Washington, DC, with back-slapping now that the Bretton Woods twins have reached age 75 (they were founded at a New Hampshire hotel in 1944). And with more passion than in recent years, there will be protests, especially climate activists on Friday at noon with a strong set of messages, to “end all funding for fossil fuels!”

One voice will be especially loud: Trevor Ngwane’s. A leading activist from Soweto, he was last at a Washington protest in April 2000, amidst 30,000 demonstrators. That week, he co-starred – along with World Bank board chairperson Trevor Manuel – in a documentary, Two Trevors Go to Washington. (Regrettably, young Trevor Noah was still in a Johannesburg high school and not in that particular film; but with his attitude, would have fit in just fine on that picket line.)

The latter Trevor was South Africa’s finance minister from 1996-2009 and in the process, turned the economy into a neoliberal wasteland, as manufacturing fell from 24 to 13 percent of national output and commodity export-dependency rose. On the ground, Manuel’s policies ensured the apartheid era’s world-leading inequality worsened, along with poverty. The main unemployment rate nearly doubled from 16 to 29 percent, and foreign debt soared from $25 billion to $70 billion during his reign – and is now $180 billion. Manuel was always treated with the greatest regard inside the Bank and IMF.

An example of the kinds of dubious deals Manuel and his successor Pravin Gordhan arranged with international financiers was the Medupi coal-fired power-plant, which at 4800MW is the largest under construction on earth today. There was widespread corruption on the project by Hitachi – which in 2015 was prosecuted and fined $19 million under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for bribing South Africa’s ruling party – and many other contractors. This was all well known by World Bank president Robert Zoellick, who nevertheless arranged his institution’s largest-ever project loan for Medupi: $3.75 billion.

But it’s a kind of “Odious Debt,” one so awful that Medupi is the reason in late 2017, 16 months before Donald Trump named him World Bank President, David Malpass admitted South Africa was the exemplary case of fraudulent relations with the lender. Correctly, he insulted Bank loan officers while testifying to the U.S. Congress:

“They’re often corrupt in their lending practices, and they don’t get the benefit to the actual people in the countries. They get the benefit to the people who fly in on a first-class airplane ticket to give advice to the government officials in the country, that flow of money is large, but not so much the actual benefit to normal people within poor countries.”

This description perfectly fits Medupi and a sister power plant (Kusile), which are driving Eskom’s finances to the brink, due to eight-year production delays, incompetent design and massive cost over-runs, in turn threatening South Africa’s credit-worthiness, as well as security of power supply. (On October 16, power was turned off in a “Stage 2 load-shedding” disruption due to a broken conveyor belt at Medupi.) Even in their half-built state, the climate implications from CO2 emissions and the consumption of scarce water for cooling the reactors are horrendous.

But merely in financial terms, even leading bourgeois representatives from Anglo American Corporation’s main think tank now contemplate just shutting the two white-elephant plants and walking away. Progressive writers in South Africa’s main ezines – Kevin Bloom in Daily Maverick and Jonathan Cannard in the Mail&Guardian – argue the Bank should be compelled to face lender liability, and write off the debt.

Instead, refusing to learn, the Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) subsidiary has just made a $2 million investment in another South African fossil-dependent project: a major new gas terminal on the coast; its partner,Transnet, is one of the most corrupt institutions in Africa. The arrogance is stunning given that the IFC lost its U.S. diplomatic immunity in a Supreme Court case just six months ago.

As local environmental justice, community-feminist and anti-poverty activists contemplate how to punish the World Bank for its proclivity to finance one absurd project after the other, all the while churning out neoliberal research,South Africa appears as a microcosm of what’s gone wrong with Bretton Woods pro-corporate neoliberal malgovernance, more generally, these last 75 years.

The multilateral cul-de-sac

Multilateralism has surfed the up-swells and down the troughs of globalisation. In the latter case, the League of Nations faded away during the 1930s as a relevant force for peace, once the waves of Great Depression ripped Western economic interests apart. Today, multilateralism also seems to have entered the final, life-support stage of its 21st-century crisis, in part because of the overwhelming power of multinational corporations, and in part because of fast-rising reactionary nationalisms.

As the 2019 G7 summit confirmed, the world cannot contend with the bully-boy ascendance of Donald Trump and other right-wing critics of ‘globalism’ (an anti-Semitic smear), who spew ever more toxic nativist-populist hatred while ignoring their countries’ historic responsibilities to solve problems that their corporations mainly created. As a result, concluded the founder of world-systems theory, the late Immanuel Wallerstein, the 2018 G7 meeting was simply farcical:

“Trump may have done us all the favour of destroying this last major remnant of the era of Western domination of the world-system.” 

Even at the G20, which is the economic grouping responsible for three quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions and hence the site where addressing climate catastrophe is most urgent, the 2017-19 hosts in Hamburg, Buenos Aires and Osaka were cowed by Trump.

As a result, the world’s most important climate, trade and financial arrangements are increasingly ineffectual and discredited. Notwithstanding a decade-old network of five ‘middle powers’ (better termed ‘subimperialists’), the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS) bloc, the South is much less capable of giving the world’s oppressed a chance to make inputs and win long-overdue concessions.

Those expecting progressive change through the BRICS’ collective financial and trade statecraft are disappointed, especially as the world spins out of control economically. “BRICS should be much stronger by now,” one of its founders, former Brazilian president Lula da Silva told Asia Times recently.

“I imagined a more aggressive BRICS, more proactive and more creative.”

Instead, global-scale neoliberalism remains dominant. The ill-conceived United Nations (UN) collaboration deal with the plutocratic Davos World Economic Forum in June 2019 followed persistent ‘bluewashing’ concerns about the UN’s discredited Global Compact with some of the world’s least ethical firms, growing corporate manipulation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and sabotage of multilateral environmental and human rights governance.

Another sign of ever-worsening degeneracy is personal. Thanks to unashamed cronyism, all the major multilateral economic organisations with the exception of the near-impotent World Trade Organisation (WTO) are run by Westerners: the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements and the United Nations itself.

The only exception, Brazilian WTO leader Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo, has notoriously pandered to the West, although to be fair, he is now openly expressing frustration as Trump ratchets up protectionism and as US trade representative Robert Lighthizer obstructs appointments to his crucial Appellate Body.

“The dispute resolution mechanism is in crisis,” according to neoliberal Peterson Institute scholars, a paralysis which “runs the risk of returning the world trading system to a power-based free-for-all, allowing big players to act unilaterally and use retaliation to get their way.”

That is exactly how Trump and Xi Jinping are handling their trade dispute.

Meanwhile, Bolsonaro is following Trump’s anti-multilateral lead, quickly renouncing ‘special and differential treatment’ provisions for poor and middle-income countries at the WTO – although it is sacred to other BRICS members, especially India. But Brasilia’s divorce began much earlier, complains Third World Network’s Ravi Kanth, because although the developing-country bloc inside the WTO now “exists on paper, it remains paralysed after Azevêdo became director-general in September 2013.”

Bolsonaro also cancelled Brazil’s hosting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) summitlater this year, forcing its move to Chile. Deploying bogus anti-colonial rhetoric, he turned his nose up at the G20’s tokenistic $20 million grant to control the Amazon’s conflagration. Moreover, Bolsonaro could well wreck the BRICSwhen he hosts the other four leaders in November.

In any case, the BRICS have already failed miserably when attempting to reform global finance, for example by complaining about – but failing to contest – the IMF and Bank leaders, chosen by Europeans and the US in the 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 and 2019 ‘elections.’ At the same time, four of the BRICS bought expensive voting-power increases in the IMF (e.g. China rising 37 per cent), but at the expense of countries like Nigeria and Venezuela (which in 2015 both lost 41 per cent of their votes, while even South Africa’s IMF ‘voice’ softened by 21 per cent).

The BRICS’ supposed alternative to the IMF, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, was founded in 2014 with a notional $100 billion. It actually gives Washington even more power, by leveraging most of its loans on the condition that the borrower accept an IMF structural adjustment program. The BRICS New Development Bank’s first five years of lending confirm that it is as rife with corruption, non-consultation, climate damage and inappropriate currency denominations as the World Bank, and even more unfriendly to gender equity.

Likewise, there is no BRICS alternative to Western domination in trade or climate multilateralism. At the WTO, the BRICS were fatally divided, leading to the 2015 destruction of food sovereignty options during the Nairobi summit. And as for climate, the Brazil-South Africa-India-China (BASIC) leaders’ close alignment with Barack Obama at the Copenhagen UNFCCC summit in 2009 held firm through the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

But that won’t solve our existential crisis, for the BASIC countries are absolute CO2 emitters at levels even higher than the West (and in South Africa’s case higher per capita than any country in Western Europe). So Paris’ fatal weaknesses suit them fine.

More recently, new causes of global governance illegitimacy appear similar to the centrifugal forces tearing Europe apart. The political commitments of climate-denialist, ‘paleo-conservative’ xenophobes like Trump are different to other Washington philosophies imposed on the world, including the 1980s-90s’ Reagan-Bush-Clinton era of neoliberalism (stretching with Thatcher and Blair into Britain and Kohl and Schroeder into Europe), George W. Bush’s 2000s neoconservatism and Obama’s 2010s fusion of these two US-centric ideologies.

With just a couple of exceptions (discussed below), an earlier generation of global-scale social-democratic hopes – fostered by serious multilateralists from 1970s traditions, e.g. Willy Brandt and Gro Harlem Brundtland – were dashed by the early 1980s, thanks to the role the Bretton Woods Institutions played in fracturing the world’s progressive potentials on behalf of international financiers. The poorest countries went through a ‘lost’ decade or more of austerity. The 1995-2002 middle-income countries’ rolling crises meant local elites allowed the same inappropriate neoliberal regime to be imposed by Washington even more deeply and dangerously in Mexico, East Asia, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey.

Then it was the turn of the West’s ‘labour aristocracy,’ a core group of working-class people dethroned, for they lost their once-solid manufacturing jobs to machines and overseas outsourcing, and were reduced to taking underpaid and under-valued service-based jobs and relying upon fast-degenerating public services. In 2008-09 they too witnessed a replay of brutal 1980s-90s Bretton Woods power plays, once their elites agreed upon a multilateral ‘solution’ to the world financial meltdown: a coordinated central bank bailout for the largest Western financial institutions.

This generosity was confirmed by the 2010s’ official prioritisation – by the IMF, European Central Bank and European Union (EU) – of the Frankfurt, New York, London, Paris and Rome bankers’ interests, which were near-fatally exposed to Greece and other peripheral European borrowers. By 2016, neo-fascist political parties were thriving there, while the most resentful within the British and U.S. working classes chose xenophobic backlash in the form of Brexit and Trump.

Self-destructive IMF and World Bank ideology and financing

The crucial break point for multilateral potential was the 1980s world debt crisis, during which neoliberal ideology stretched the Third World so far that the likes of Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere and Cuba’s Fidel Castro even proposed a ‘debtors’ cartel’ – but could not find a sufficient critical mass of other brave leaders even in a Latin America suffering sustained IMF rioting, to the relief of international elites.

At one point in 1983, World Bank president William Clausen quite bluntly explained the balance of forces: “We must ask ourselves: How much pressure can these nations be expected to bear? How far can the poorest peoples be pushed into further reducing their meagre standards of living? How resilient are the political systems and institutions in these countries in the face of steadily worsening conditions?”

Clausen’s power came from the 1979-80 ‘Volcker Shock’: soaring interest rates catalysed by US Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker’s decision to restore the Dollar’s power, in turn causing the Third World Debt Crisis. Clausen and all his successors abused that power to impose the Washington Consensus’s ten policy commandments. The term came from John Williamson of that city’s Institute of International Finance, representing the world’s major banks:

1. Budget deficits … should be small enough to be financed without recourse to the inflation tax.
2. Public expenditure should be redirected from politically sensitive areas that receive more resources than their economic return can justify…

3. Tax reform… so as to broaden the tax base and cut marginal tax rates.
4. Financial liberalisation, involving an ultimate objective of market-determined interest rates.
5. A unified exchange rate at a level sufficiently competitive to induce a rapid growth in non-traditional exports.
6. Quantitative trade restrictions to be rapidly replaced by tariffs, which would be progressively reduced until a uniform low rate of 10 to 20 per cent was achieved.
7. Abolition of barriers impeding the entry of foreign direct investment.
8. Privatisation of state enterprises.
9. Abolition of regulations that impede the entry of new firms or restrict competition.
10. The provision of secure property rights…

Needless to say, the victims were mainly women, youth, the elderly and people of colour. The IMF’s flows of annual loans that, thanks to conditionality, locked these policies into place, were initially less than $15 billion before the Volcker Shock, then soared to $40 billion by the late 1980s, jumped as high as $100 billion by the early 2000s, and exceeded $140 billion by the early 2010s (see Fig 1). The World Bank had similar bursts.

Fig 1. IMF loans, 1970-2015

Source: Reinhart and Trebesch, 2015, p.24.

Added to the neoliberal agenda were trillions worth of ‘illicit financial flows’ manoeuvred into offshore financial centres, leaving governments with rising budget deficits and their social sectors experiencing permanent cost-cutting pressures. IMF economists Jonathan Ostry, Prakash Loungani, and Davide Furceri admitted in 2016 that as a result,

“The increase in inequality engendered by financial openness and austerity might itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neoliberal agenda is intent on boosting. There is now strong evidence that inequality can significantly lower both the level and the durability of growth.”

But notwithstanding that admission, most subsequent Article IV consultations offered advice that amplified inequality, Oxfam researchers discovered.

The IMF also made a similar confession about its role in patriarchy, namely that “some policies recommended by staff… may… exacerbate gender inequality” – but again, when it came to a correction, the IMF “missed the forest for the policy trees,” explains Emma Bürgisser of the Bretton Woods Project.

“Almost every macroeconomic policy the IMF regularly prescribes carries harmful gendered impacts, including labour flexibilisation, privatisation, regressive taxation, trade liberalisation and targeting social protection and pensions.”

Activists try to undo destruction

In turn the predatory debt, precarious work and privatisation of so many aspects of life experienced by the world’s citizenries calls forth two kinds of responses: appeals to global governance to sort out problems national states have shied away from, and popular revolt. There are both good and bad versions of these top-down and bottom-up responses, as we have seen, with cases such as the Montreal Protocol and Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria as top-down successes, but the latter owes more to bottom-up pressures.

Since the urgency of the situation required a global response, the 1987 Montreal Protocol was supported by even the reactionary Ronald Reagan administration. It committed national states to ensure their corporations (e.g. Dow Chemical and General Electric) stop producing and emitting CFCs within nine years. The ban worked and the problem is receding (aside from recent Chinese corporate cheating on hydro-CFCs).

At present, a Montreal Protocol-type ban on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions is presumed unthinkable, notwithstanding the impending eco-social catastrophe. A solution as forceful as the Montreal Protocol is needed for GHGs, but the weakness of multilateralism and the pro-corporate balance of forces makes it unlikely within the UNFCCC – unless the world’s rising youth and other climate activists ramp up the civil disobedience and divestment advocacy that is now beginning to worry fossil fuel financiers.

In that spirit, there was one other more recent multilateral solution to a world crisis, AIDS, which shows how to shift the balance of forces not through elites’ top-down meetings of minds (although within the World Health Organisation and UN AIDS, there were a few bureaucratic allies) – but instead, bottom-up, through militant activism.

Because of groups like South Africa’s Treatment Action Campaign (led by visionaries Zackie Achmat and Vuyiseka Dubula), the US AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (‘ActUp’) and the health NGO Medicins sans Frontiers, a persuasive case emerged in the 1990s – and gained confirmation in 2001 – to exempt copyrighted AIDS medicines within the WTO’s Trade Related Intellectual Property System. Generics were permitted, not made in the US and Germany, but instead in many Southern countries. This resulted in more than a decade’s rise in life expectancy, in South and North alike.

Anti-neoliberal protests help shift the balance of forces, including many millions in the Third World who objected to structural adjustment, or “IMF Riots.” In the main study of these protests, David Seddon and John Walton in 1994 remarked on how not just poor and working-class people, but larger coalitions of society rose up: “Once mass discontent is made evident by these coalitions, political parties may take up the anti-austerity cause in successful bids for national office (e.g. Peru, Dominican Republic). In several countries, austerity protests initiated political crises that sooner (e.g. Sudan, Turkey) or later (e.g. Philippines, Haiti, Poland) toppled the national government.”

Since then, there have been scores more countries – especially in Africa – whose unpatriotic leaders were tossed out of power or drew sustained dissent as they imposed the BWIs’ logic.

Solidarity activism in the North is vital, such as demonstrations at IMF and Bank official events. Major protests included the 1988 Berlin Annual Meetings (which attracted tens of thousands of protestors), the 2000 Spring Meetings in Washington (30,000) and 2000 Prague Annual Meetings (50,000), as well as even the Oslo 2002 Bank research conference on development economics (10,000). One of the main activist challenges to Bretton Woods power was the early 2000s “World Bank bonds boycott” which – at the peak of the global justice movement’s mobilisations – compelled cities as large and financially potent as San Francisco to divest from Bank securities. (Trevor Ngwane and another South African, the poet Dennis Brutus, joined then-U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders to launch the boycott in 2000.)

This led to a ‘fix it or nix it’ debate, in which reforms of the Bank and IMF were so slow that TransNational Institute scholar Susan George fumed in 2000,

“These institutions have had their chance. Anytime anyone asks, ‘And what would you put in its place?’ I am tempted to respond, ‘And what would you put in the place of cancer?’” Added Kenyan activist Njoki Njehu, the leading Washington protest organiser at the Bank/Fund Spring Meetings that year, “The IMF and the World Bank increase poverty. The consensus is that the IMF and World Bank cannot be reformed. They have to be abolished.”

It’s a debate that needs kick-starting once again. The 75th anniversary is a good time to ask whether such out-dated ideologies and their enforcers deserve to be retired, not (as the right-wing populist protectionists argue) so as to close the door on global governance, but to open it much wider in a way that serves people and planet, not multinational corporate profits. At the same time, by posing the question of abolition, we should also recall instances where impressive reforms were won at the multilateral scale.  

*

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.

A version of this article was originally published in Bretton Woods Project Observer, October 2019.

Patrick Bond teaches political economy at Wits University in Johannesburg: [email protected] 

Featured image is from Atlanta Black Star

Selected Articles: 15 Days to Brexit?

October 16th, 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. Here’s how you can help:

*     *     *

Scotland Edges Closer to Independence Amid Brexit Chaos

By Johanna Ross, October 16, 2019

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced on Sunday that she would be setting a date for a second referendum on Scottish independence within ‘a matter of weeks’. Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show she said that she would seek a section 30 order this year, after the latest poll on Scottish independence revealed support is now as high as 50 percent – a five-point increase in the same poll carried out last year.

$35 Billion: UK Faces Huge Loss from Electric Vehicle Adoption

By Jon LeSage, October 15, 2019

The government faces other hits on tax revenue. The UK will be seeing a drop of about 20 billion pounds a year ($24.5 billion) from the government’s new policy of freezing tax duties to help people struggling with the cost of living, the IFS said. There’s also concern that another 1 billion pounds ($1.229 billion) could be lost if Prime Minister Boris Johnson follows through on his commitment to cut duties by 2 pence per liter of fuel.

Johnson’s Queen’s Speech – ‘Pre-election Propaganda’ It Can’t Deliver

By True Publica, October 15, 2019

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

Brexit, Environmental Law and the Level Playing Field

By Molly Scott Cato MEP, October 15, 2019

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

The Dangers of a US-UK Trade Deal as TTIP in EU Re-emerges: Leaked Government Paper

By True Publica, October 09, 2019

The warnings given to government about Brexit have come thick and fast, especially in the last 12 months where time has allowed more in-depth analysis of the likely effects of Brexit – deal or no-deal. These warnings have come from the most respected organisations and institutions in Britain such as the – Confederation of British Industry, Department for International Trade, Bank of England, The Office for Budget responsibility, and Centre of Economic Performance. Then there have been industry sectors such as financial services, motor, agricultural and even the UK Warehousing Association that have issued warnings of the scale of problems that various forms of Brexit brings.

British Unions Vote to Boycott Israel

By Glen Davies, October 09, 2019

The motion affirmed the collective rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to return to their homes, called for a stop to the British arms trade with Israel, and reaffirmed the union movement’s call to boycott companies complicit with the Israeli settlement industry.

Brexit: Boris Johnson Moves to Scrap Environment and GMO Safeguards to Get Deal with Trump

By GMWatch, October 08, 2019

The Minister heading up the Department for International Trade, Liz Truss, is known to have had “off the record” meetings about weakening UK regulations with some of the right-wing US pressure groups that have driven Trump’s radical programme of deregulation.  And last week at a Conservative party conference fringe event, Truss said that while she is “proud” of Britain’s high environmental standards, she wants to take “a much more free-market approach”. Since then she has tweeted that scrapping EU protections is “vital for giving us the freedom and flexibility to strike new trade deals and become more competitive”.

*

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

In Krutaya Balka, a village north of Donetsk which is routinely attacked by Ukrainian forces with shelling and heavy machine gun fire, I meet a man standing outside his home, where he lives with his wife, roughly 600 metres from the front line.

To my question about where his home has been damaged he laughs, “Many times. Which house hasn’t been? The roof, the wall… from mortar fire and heavy machine gun fire.”

His replies are in line with the others I’ve spoken with: things got worse after Zelensky became president; the attacks are daily; where would he leave to? He is in favour of joining Russia.

“We should go to Ukraine, which damaged my house? I’m Russian, this is Russian land. Everyone who knows history knows this. Of course I want to join Russia! In earlier times, before the war, I didn’t care either way. But after all Ukraine did what it has done, absolutely I want to be a part of Russia. I can’t imagine being back in Ukraine. Anyway, most of the people here would be killed as ‘separatists’. A known Ukrainian politician (Boris Filatov) said: ‘At the beginning, give them what they want, later hang them.’

I ask if he has anything to say to a Western audience. At first he says there’s no point, people already know, the West gives money to Ukraine…

“The snipers use US rifles, if they gave less money it would be better.”

But later in our conversation he adds:

“Going back to the question of a message to the West…You remember WW2. Why do you support Nazis if you remember WW2? Why do you now support Nazis. Openly Nazis. They wear swastikas. Why is Europe silent? Everyone comes here and agrees with me, but nothing changes. OSCE shouts, but when they are under fire, they are silent, they don’t say that Ukraine attacks 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.

Featured image is from Stars and Stripes

Singer and rap artist M.I.A. visited Julian Assange at Belmarsh Prison on Saturday, calling for his freedom. The WikiLeaks publisher and journalist faces extradition to the United States under the Espionage Act, with charges that carry a 175-year prison term.

M.I.A.’s visit followed a brief court hearing Friday at Westminster Magistrates Court. Assange appeared via remote video-link to hear Judge Tam Ikram confirm his remand at the maximum-security prison while a US extradition request is heard. He will appear in court again on October 21.

Speaking at a press conference outside Belmarsh late Saturday afternoon, M.I.A.—Sri Lankan-born Mathangi ‘Maya’ Arulpragasam—condemned Assange’s tormentors, indicting the US and UK governments, the courts and the corporate media. M.I.A. is a long-time friend and supporter of Assange.

M.I.A. speaking to reporters outside Belmarsh Prison

Asked about Assange’s condition, she replied, “I think when you know there are people outside who are criminals, and you are inside for advocating peace, while people that profit from war are outside, and celebrated and given Nobel peace prizes, that hurts. I think that’s hard for anyone.”

Former US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel prize in 2009, as his administration escalated US military operations across the globe, including a drone assassination program he personally supervised.

M.I.A. explained that she and Julian had discussed conditions “for everyone” inside the prison “and the concept of freedom and what that really means.”

A WSWS reporter asked M.I.A. to comment on the UK government’s assertion that it “does not participate in or condone the use of torture.” The UK government last week rejected UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer’s findings (published May 31) that Assange is the victim of unprecedented state persecution and “psychological torture.”

She responded,

“I’ve been trying to get a yoga book to him for a month now and I come here every week trying to hand it in and it’s been impossible… To me that’s a very extreme method they are using where you’re denying even reading books. I wasn’t able to take in sketchbooks where he could write thoughts or draw and I haven’t been able to take puzzles which might help stimulate the mind.

“I first thought that maybe all prisoners were treated like that, where they’re not able to have some sort of dignity and own the space between their ears and have that mental freedom… I can sympathise with people who feel that he’s been treated unfairly… I think there is an element of discrimination.”

Asked for her opinion on media coverage of Assange, M.I.A. said,

“I think there should be more, given that now we know the truth and that the debate is about extradition to the US. It’s no longer about all the other things people have accused him of. Now it’s about truth—and that’s something people have to uphold and fight for especially in these years.”

M.I.A. replied forthrightly to a question about bogus sexual misconduct allegations against Assange in Sweden:

“It’s now really about extraditing Julian to the US. I wish there was more emphasis given to that truth and people really making a statement about that.

“The basic bottom line is he’s in there because he exposed some war crimes and he just campaigned for peace. This cannot be the example. We can’t make that an example to society where we penalise people for that and not a single person has been convicted for the financial crisis of 2008. Nobody has been convicted for the war crimes before then of the Bush era, no one’s been convicted from the Obama era and everything the Democrats did. Nothing has happened legally, so why trust the legal system, that hasn’t come through on any of those things?”

M.I.A.’s press conference was boycotted by the major news networks and the BBC, despite having been widely advertised. Only Sputnik and Ruptly published live footage. A Press Association report was picked up by the Independent and the Belfast Telegraph, while the Daily Mail carried a report that recycled false and defamatory statements about Assange. Its headline set the tone, “Singer MIA becomes Julian Assange’s latest celebrity supporter…”

M.I.A. has defended Assange for years and is herself an outspoken opponent of imperialist war and oppression. In November 2013, she opened her concert in New York City with a 10-minute address from Assange, via video livestream. Assange used his appearance to champion the cause of whistle-blower Edward Snowden. He warned of the dangers of the National Security Agency’s spying operations and urged M.I.A’s fans to become politically aware and active in seeking to change the world for the better.

On Saturday, M.I.A. explained,

“I support Julian because I think someone like this is valuable to society because of his knowledge about so many different things.

“I try not to be prejudiced in a time where things change and evolve at such a fast rate. People’s values are changing, people’s beliefs are changing, the political climate is changing, the social climate is changing, the financial situation is changing—and throughout all of this change, we’re so constricting this man.”

M.I.A. concluded her press conference by urging attendance at an event for Assange being staged with fellow rap artist Lowkey outside the UK Home Office on November 5. The free event follows last month’s live performance outside the same building by Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters that saw hundreds gather to show their support for the WikiLeaks founder.

*

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.

U.S. Sanctions Could Push Turkey to Leave NATO

October 16th, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

The administration of the Kurdish-controlled regions in north-eastern Syria announced on Sunday that they had reached an agreement with the central Syrian government in Damascus to deploy Syrian troops along areas of the border region with Turkey to help repel the Turkish aggression.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan legitimized Turkey’s operations in Syria because of so-called security concerns, particularly from the Islamic State and the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian branch of the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). However, with the YPG finally allowing Syrian troops to enter their controlled areas, what options does Erdoğan have left?

Turkish officials have endlessly said that the establishment of a “safe zone” that penetrates 30km into Syria is for the purpose of expelling the YPG from this region and to facilitate the return of Syrian refugees. With the Syrian Army soon to control the area with the withdrawal of the YPG, Erdoğan’s “safe zone” has now been achieved, thus illegitimating his operation once Syrian government control has been established.

Turkey assured that its operation was only against terrorism and not territorial expansionism with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu stating in an interview that

“Russia is concerned about some sensitive issues, such as territorial integrity and the unity of the country. We are also worried. If we look at all the joint statements of Turkey, Russia and Iran, we emphasize it.”

Although Turkish leaders assure that the purpose of the operation is not for annexation, this has not eased the belief among Syrians that Turkey plans to permanently occupy the area, as they remember the illegal 1939 Turkish annexation of Hatay and the invasion of neighboring Cyprus in 1974, with the status of the occupied Turkish-controlled northern regions of the island remaining doggedly unresolved by Ankara.

Therefore, with patient diplomacy with the political branches of the YPG, the Syrian government has trapped Erdoğan into leaving all Syrian territory since terrorism cannot be cited as a reason, a reason they heavily focused on. If Turkey does not withdraw from the occupied territories, it will surely become an international issue involving all major countries.

Such a situation will not be easy for Washington. In fact, the major factor for Ankara’s split from the U.S. is because of the American support for the YPG, despite contradictorily recognizing the PKK as a terrorist organization. Although Ankara is a NATO member, Turkey has been strengthening relations with Russia, a source of American anger against its supposed NATO ally.

U.S. President Donald Trump threatened the complete destruction of the Turkish economy last week if Ankara exceeded its operation targets. With the U.S. putting a direct threat against Turkey, it is unlikely for Ankara to submit to Washington’s demands, which will inevitably create another source of division between Ankara and Washington.

This is especially crucial as Çavuşoğlu boldly stated that

“We are not afraid to remain isolated if the truth is on our side, since we are destined to fight terrorism.”

It would suggest that if Turkey is willing to be isolated over fighting the YPG, then it would be willing to be isolated for the goal of territorial expansionism, a suggestion that can be legitimized if the Turkish military does not withdraw after Syrian government administration is achieved in the border region.

For its part, Moscow understands Turkey’s concerns about its safety but advocates that Ankara respect its agreements with Damascus. With Russian and Turkish relations strengthening in the economic, military and diplomatic fields, Erdoğan’s next move can also affect the image of Russia, who is also a close ally of Syria, having defended the country from terrorism since September 2015.

As Russia has consistently adhered to international norms and laws, and strongly advocates that all states should follow such norms and laws, any refusal of the Turkish military and its proxies to withdraw from Syrian territory could be a source of resentment from Moscow. Russia has invested heavily into flourishing its relations with Turkey after its Black Sea neighbour downed a Russian jet in Syria, leading to the murder of the pilot by Turkish-backed forces.

However, any chance for Washington to reconcile with Ankara is all but over with the imposition of sanctions on Monday. These measures have been considered ineffective by Republican senator Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chris van Hollen who want wider sanctions against Turkey and to cut military support, despite being NATO allies. This is in a supposed effort to stop Turkey’s widespread human rights abuses and the release of ISIS terrorists.

Therefore, Erdoğan’s next decision towards Syria will heavily impact the future of not only the region, but his relations with the U.S. and Russia. With murmurings existing for years now whether Turkey should leave the NATO alliance, these sanctions against Turkey, a country already in a deep economic crisis, will only bring this question to the forefront of debate.

Although the U.S. cites human right abuses as the reason for the sanctions, an allegation that cannot be taken seriously considering their own long list of war crimes, it is likely Trump is ‘punishing’ Erdoğan for his insistence and defiance in buying the Russian S-400 system. This means that the souring relations between Washington and Ankara provides the perfect moment for Russian President Vladimir Putin to consolidate his country’s relations with Turkey.

Turkey has the second largest military in NATO, but more importantly has sovereignty over the imperative waterways of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles that gives Russia access to the Mediterranean from its Black Sea ports. Whether Putin will be able to convince Turkey, a fellow Eurasian country and Black Sea neighbour of Russia’s, to leave the NATO alliance is to be seen. But, if he can convince Turkey to leave, this would not only be a powerful military blow to NATO, but a strategic one as they will lose any challenge they could pose against Russia in the Black Sea.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is director of the Multipolarity research centre.

Featured image is from InfoRos

President Lenin Moreno betrayed ordinary Ecuadorians by abandoning his pledge to continue progressive policies of his predecessor Rafeal Correa.

Instead he instituted force-fed austerity, enforced with police state harshness, and sold Julian Assange to the US and UK for a loan shark of last resort $4.2 billion IMF loan — requiring corporate-friendly policies at the expense of beneficial social justice continuity, abandoned by his regime.

Days of police state violence against legitimate protesters from early October through Sunday left at least 10 dead, around 2,000 injured, and over 1,000 arrested — ignited by a Moreno decree to end longstanding fuel subsidies, doubling prices overnight in deference to an IMF diktat.

Following weekend talks with indigenous and other protest leaders, he cancelled his unacceptable order, saying:

“With this agreement, the mobilizations…across Ecuador are terminated, and we commit ourselves to restoring peace in the country.”

It all depends on fulfilling his campaign pledges, requiring much more than reinstating fuel subsidies.

As long as neoliberal harshness continues, mass outrage could erupt again any time ahead.

Moreno surrendered to IMF financial terrorism. It obligates borrower nations to sell their soul for blood money.

It assures debt bondage, requiring new loans to service old ones, structural adjustment harshness against millions most vulnerable, and policies favoring Western and internal monied interests at the expense of governance for everyone equitably.

Nations in bed with the predatory IMF are required to let bankers and other dominant corporate interests strip mine their material wealth and resources, tolerate no democratic values, abandon social justice, and exploit working class people as serfs.

An elite few benefit at the expense of most others, entrapped nations controlled by Western monied interests, their sovereign independence lost to a higher power.

IMF diktats mandate no public sphere, unrestrained corporate empowerment, elimination of social spending, and earmarking state resources for predatory profit-making, national security and internal control.

It’s war by other means on ordinary people in affected countries, transformed into dystopian backwaters, Western and internal privileged interests benefitting from exploitive harshness.

IMF debt bondage assures mass unemployment, underemployment, and impoverishment, loss of essential to life social services, and economic decline.

Years after agreeing to onerous terms for IMF loans, borrower nations are worse off, deeper in debt, their ordinary people paying the biggest price.

Yet Article I of the IMF Articles of Agreement states the following:

Its loans to nations are intended to “facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy.”

There’s more, claiming IMF policies are to “give confidence to members by making the general resources of the Fund temporarily available to them under adequate safeguards, thus providing them with opportunity to correct maladjustments in their balance of payments without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity.”

Claiming loans aim to “promot(e) and maint(ain) high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy” is mass deception.

So is saying “(i)n difficult economic times, (the IMF) helps countries…protect the most vulnerable in a crisis.”

Its agenda is polar opposite, force-feeding deprivation on vulnerable millions so privileged interests can benefit from their immiseration.

It works the same way everywhere under IMF mandates, including mass impoverishment, public wealth transferred to private hands, out-of-control corruption and cronyism, and nations transformed into dystopian shells to benefit monied interests exclusively.

What’s ahead for Ecuador after Moreno reinstated fuel subsidies remains to be seen.

He capitulated to Western interests. Ordinary Ecuadorians want him replaced by equitable rule — not likely coming while he’s in office.

As long as neoliberal harshness continues, mass outrage could erupt again any time.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ecuador Regime’s “Fake Deal” with Protesters: Neocon Moreno Surrendered to IMF “Financial Terrorism”
  • Tags: , ,