US sanctions are war by other means on targeted countries. The Senate, House, and White House are preparing them on Turkey — nothing imposed so far.

They’re unrelated to Ankara’s alliance with US war on the Syrian Arab Republic, nor support by Erdogan, the US, and allied regimes for ISIS, al-Nusra, and likeminded terrorists in the country.

The Trump regime abandoned Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria by OKing Turkey’s cross-border aggression against them and vetoing a Security Council resolution condemning its actions.

On the one hand, the White House is OK with Turkish aggression by failing to oppose and denounce it.

At the same time, Trump signed an executive order, authorizing Treasury Department sanctions on Turkey, secretary Mnuchin saying:

“We can shut down the Turkish economy if we need to.”

A Treasury Department statement said Trump’s EO authorizes Mnuchin to sanction “designate(d) individuals and entities of the government of Turkey…”

It also lets him “impose secondary sanctions on those engaging in knowing and significant transactions with designated individuals and entities of” Turkey’s government, adding:

“(W)e will be targeting specific Turkish individuals or departments as needed. This is a notice to banks and other parties to be on notice of potential actions.”

Separately, a proposed Senate Graham-Van Hollen sanctions bill on Turkey states the following:

They’ll be ordered unless the White House certifies to Congress every 90 days that Ankara is not operating in Syria “without US support east of the Euphrates and west of the Iraqi border” — territory Washington wants control over.

Congress has no objection to Turkish aggression elsewhere in Syria, nor its support for jihadists.

Senate sanctions if imposed target Turkey’s president, vice president, war minister, foreign affairs minister, finance and trade ministers, among other senior officials.

They’ll cover military transactions between foreign nations, entities and individuals “who sell or provide financial, material, or technological support or knowingly (conduct) transactions with the Turkish military.”

They also target Turkey’s energy sector, including “any foreign person, or entity who supplies goods, services, technology, information, or other support that maintains or supports Turkey’s domestic petroleum production and natural gas production for use by its armed forces.”

Sale of US weapons, munitions, and related transactions to Turkey are prohibited.

Ankara’s legitimate purchase of Russian S-400 air defense missiles is denounced.

Visa restrictions on Turkish officials for travel to the US are imposed. Assets held by Erdogan and other senior Turkish officials in the US, if any, will be frozen.

House Foreign Relations Committee chairman Eliot Engel and ranking Republican committee member Michael McCaul said they’ll introduce similar legislation to impose sanctions on Turkey, Engel saying:

“I strongly condemn both President Erdogan’s decision to attack America’s partners in Syria and President Trump’s decision to step back and let it happen,” adding:

“The Turkish assault on the Syrian Kurds is a gift to Russia, Iran, and ISIS, and a blow to our national security interests (sic).”

McCaul made similar remarks, along with falsely claiming Turkish aggression “will enable an ISIS resurgence” — failing to explain their fighters are US proxy foot soldiers, operating where the Pentagon and CIA send them in the Middle East and elsewhere.

In response to possible US sanctions, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said:

“No one should doubt that we will respond in full against each step to the full extent of reciprocity.”

On Friday, Russia and China blocked a draft Security Council statement, saying its members “expressed deep concern over the Turkish military operation and its implications, including humanitarian and security dimensions,” adding:

“They call upon Turkey to halt its military operation and to make full use of diplomatic channels to address its security concerns.”

Russia’s UN mission website and English language media reported nothing about this action.

US and Russian UN envoys failed to denounce Turkish aggression in Syria during Thursday and Friday closed-door Security Council sessions.

Both countries vetoed an EU Security Council resolution, calling on Turkey “to cease unilateral military action.”

Failing to condemn its aggression showed support for what the UN Charter and other international laws strictly prohibit at all times, under all conditions, with no exceptions — other than in self-defense if authorized by the SC.

*

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.

Violence is pervasive throughout human society and it has a vast range of manifestations. Moreover, some of these manifestations – particularly the threat of nuclear war (which might start regionally), the climate catastrophe and the ongoing ecological devastation, as well as geoengineering and the deployment of 5G – threaten imminent human extinction if not contained. Separately from these extinction-threatening manifestations, however, violence occurs in a huge range of other contexts denying many people the freedom, human rights and opportunities necessary for a meaningful life. Moreover, human violence is now driving 200 species of life on Earth to extinction daily with another 1,000,000 species under threat.

For just a sample of the evidence in relation to the threats noted above see, for example, ‘Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe’, ‘Plan A’,‘City on Fire’, ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’, Geoengineering Watch, ‘International Appeal: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space’ and ‘5G and the Wireless Revolution: When Progress Becomes a Death Sentence’.

Given the expanding range of threats to human survival that require a strategic response if they are to be contained, is that possible?

Well, any candid assessment of the relevant scientific literature coupled with an understanding of the psychological, sociological, political, economic and military factors driving the violence, clearly indicates that the answer is ‘highly unlikely’. Particularly because so many people are so (unconsciously) terrified and incapable of responding powerfully.

However, this does not mean that many people are not trying and some of these people perceive the interrelated and synergistic nature of these threats and know that we must be addressing each of them strategically if humanity and an enormous number of other species are to have any meaningful chance of survival in a viable biosphere. These people range from ‘ordinary’ activists, who work passionately to end violence in one context or another, to globally prominent individuals doing the same. Let me tell you about some of them.

Ramesh Agrawal is a prominent social and environmental activist in India who has devoted many years to educating and organizing local village people, including adivasi communities, to defend their homes and lands from those corporations and governments that would deprive them of their rights, livelihoods, health and a clean environment for the sake of mining the abundant coal in the state of Chhattisgarh. However, because his ongoing efforts to access and share key information and his organization of Gandhian-inspired grassroots satyagrahas (nonviolent campaigns) have been so effective, he has also paid a high price for his activism, having been attacked on many occasions. In 2011, for example, he was arrested despite ill-health at the time and chained to a hospital bed. A year later he was shot in the leg, which required multiple operations. He still has difficulty walking with six metal rods inserted through his thigh.

The Jan Chetna (‘peoples’ awareness’) movement started by Ramesh has spread to several parts of Chhattisgarh as well as other states of India. For the latest account of his efforts including the recent ‘coal satyagrapha’ focused on coal blocks owned by state power companies but being developed and operated by Adani Enterprises, see ‘Thousands Hold “Coal Satyagraha”, Allege Manufacturing of Consent at Public Hearing’. For his nonviolent activism, Ramesh was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2014. See ‘Ramesh Agrawal: 2014 Goldman Prize Recipient Asia’ and ‘Chhattisgarh activist, Ramesh Agrawal, bags Goldman prize’.

In Ghana, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) continues its work under the leadership of President Dr. Ayo Ayoola-Amale, a certified mediator and peacebuilder. One recent activity was a two weeks training course on negotiation and mediation as a tool for conflict resolution for women in the Upper West region of Ghana, particularly three districts: Lawra, Nadowli and Lambussie. The training was aimed at providing local NGOs, community elders, administrators and others with the skills and knowledge to further improve their capacity in the work they do. In such courses, Ayo emphasizes the importance of trust, identity and relationship building issues, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

‘Life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.’

But Ayo has also conducted other courses, such as a three day workshop on peacemaking and mediation skills for the teachers and students at Okyereko Methodist Junior High School which taught skills such as communication (listening, speaking, silence), cooperation, trusting, empathy, responsibility, reconciliation and problem solving. Ayo also used her storytelling skills to convey an understanding of what it means to be a responsible person and how that puts us in charge of our lives. Through the storytelling she reveals some of the personal benefits that come from being honest, reliable, trustworthy and principled and how treating people with respect helps us get along with each other, avoid and resolve conflicts, and create a positive social climate. She told workshop participants that every choice they make helps define the kind of person they are choosing to be and their character is defined by what they do, not what they say or believe.

Professor René Wadlow, President of the Association of World Citizens headquartered in France, has been involved for decades in efforts to engage people in world events rather than leave these events to be mismanaged by elites with a vested interest in a particular outcome. In this article, for example, he reflects thoughtfully on the ‘Iran Crisis: Dangers and Opportunities’ by drawing attention to opportunities for citizen engagement through NGOs to influence how the conflict plays out. As he notes: ‘The dangers are real. We must make the most of the opportunities.’ René also continues to examine issues and throw light on subjects well outside the spotlight of the corporate media, such as conflicts in Africa. See, for example, his article ‘Sahel Instability Spreads’.

Since 2017 Dr Marthie Momberg in South Africa has been working with international colleagues to address Zionism amongst Christians. Along with a colleague from Kairos USA, Marthie offered, for example, a seminar entitled ‘Christianity and the Shifting of Perceptions on Zionism’ at Stellenbosch University’s Beyers Naudé Centre. ‘With some other colleagues we are also in the midst of a research project at this Centre to understand how to sensitise Christians on the nature of Zionism and how it serves as an important lens on so many other struggles in our world. I am also in the process of writing a number of scholarly articles on ethics and religion in the context of Israel and the Palestinian struggle.’

And while on Palestine, US activist journalist Abby Martin recently completed her debut feature film Gaza Fights for Freedom. Directed, written and narrated by Abby, the film had its origins while Abby was reporting in Palestine, where she was denied entry into Gaza by the Israeli government on the accusation she was a ‘propagandist’. Connecting with a team of journalists in Gaza to produce the film through the blockaded border, this collaboration shows you Gaza’s protest movement ‘like you’ve never seen it before’. Filmed during the height of the Great March Of Return protests, it features riveting footage of demonstrations ‘where 200 unarmed civilians have been killed by Israeli snipers since March 30, 2018’ and is a thorough indictment of the Israeli military for war crimes, and a stunning cinematic portrayal of the heroic resistance by Palestinians. You can watch a preview of the film here: Gaza Fights for Freedom (preview). And if you would like to buy or rent the film (and support Abby’s work) you can do so here: Gaza Fights For Freedom.

In Guatemala, Daniel Dalai continues his visionary work providing opportunities for girls to develop their leadership capacities at ‘Earthgardens’. If you haven’t previously been aware of their work, including in Bolivia and Nicaragua, you will find it fascinating to read how girls – including Carmen, Angelica, Reyna, Katiela, Yapanepet, Zenobia, Deysi, Rosalba, Charro, Katarina and Marleni – in this community each changed their society, often by forming ‘Eco-Teams’, with a remarkable variety of initiatives.

The Asia Institute ‘is the first truly pan-Asian think tank. A research institution that addresses global issues with a focus on Asia, The Asia Institute is committed to presenting a balanced perspective that takes into account the concerns of the entire region. The Asia Institute provides an objective space wherein a significant discussion on current trends in technology, international relations, the economy and the environment can be carried out.’ Focused on research, analysis and dialogue, and headed by president Emanuel Yi Pastreich, the Institute was originally founded in 2007 while Emanuel was working in Daejeon, Republic of (South) Korea. Emanuel writes extensively on culture, technology, the environment and international relations with a focus on Northeast Asia. He also serves as president of the Earth Management Institute, a global think tank dedicated to developing original approaches to global governance in this dangerous age. But for more on The Asia Institute, see the website above.

While the individuals and organizations mentioned above are just a sample of those directly involved, they are part of an expanding worldwide network in 105 countries committed to working to end human violence in all of its manifestations. Whatever the odds against it, they refuse to accept that violence cannot be ended, and each has chosen to focus on working to end one or more manifestations of violence, according to their particular circumstances and interests. If you would like to join these people, you are welcome to sign the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

If your own interest is campaigning on a peace, climate, environment or social justice issue, consider doing it strategically. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

If your focus is a defense or liberation struggle being undertaken by a national group, consider enhancing its strategic impact. See Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

If your preference is addressing the climate and environmental catastrophes systematically while working locally, consider participating in (and inviting others to participate in) ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

If you would like to tackle violence at its source, consider revising your parenting in accordance with ‘My Promise to Children’. If you want the evidence to understand why this is so crucial, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

If you are self aware enough to know that you are not dealing effectively with our deepening, multifaceted crisis, consider doing the personal healing necessary to do so. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

Perhaps ending human violence is impossible. If that is true, then human extinction is inevitable and it will occur as a result of one cause or another. Moreover, it will happen in the near term. But every person who believes that human violence can be ended, and then takes strategic action to end it, is participating in the most important undertaking in human history: a last ditch strategy to fight for human survival.

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The recently-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky keeps saying there was “no blackmail” in a July telephone call with President Donald Trump that caused an impeachment inquiry in the USA.

He made the comments recently during an all-day press marathon held in a food court in Kyiv, while he was conversed with hundreds of local and international reporters.

Questions have been raised about the Trump administration frozen military aide to Ukraine around the time of the July 25 phone call between the two leaders and whether that was related to Trump’s request to Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden for alleged corruption tied to his son Hunter Biden’s job with a Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

“This has nothing to do with weapons and the Burisma situation,” Zelensky said. “There was no blackmail; it was not the subject of our conversation. The call could have no impact on our relations with America.”

“But if it happens, we will learn about that from Twitter,” he added, jokingly.

It is a natural thing to make fun of the serious themes for Zelensky who is known for his salty comic performances and a TV series, Servant of the People, where he was playing the country’s president in dodgy situations.

Yet the comedian-turned-leader seems to be growing more and more serious with every new day.

In these recent times he is gearing up to hold negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to put the stopper on the five-year pro-Russian conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

Critics are receiving the move as capitulation to Russia. So Mr. Zelensky’s efforts to pull back Kiev forces and separatists troops from the frontline apparently would trigger another mass riots in central Kiev on October 14, when the Defender of Ukraine Day will take place.

Everything is according to the well-trodden old path. The Ukrainian media are pumping hysteria right now. The crowds of thousands with national flags and combative slogans are ready to storm the presidential administration. The former combatants such as Azov and Beletsky militants acclaim that there will be no pullback of troops in the Donbass, and if there is, they will take up the relinquished positions of the Ukrainian Army. Nationalists, protesting against Mr. Zelensky’s peace plan, called the him a “traitor and a puppet” — not for obsequiousness to Mr. Trump, but for his capitulation to Mr. Putin.

The next few days will show us how the situation develops, but the Ukrainian leader is obviously inclined toward the extreme choice — complete cease-fire and the end of the war. Thus his confrontation with the anti-Russian movement is almost inevitable. Is the “Servant of the People” ready to fighting against the people?

*

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

Sergey Maidukov is a Ukrainian writer.

The Zionist Neoconservatives who run US foreign policy are now herding the US out of the remaining arms limitations agreements.  It appears that Washington intends to withdraw from the Open Skies agreement with Russia. See this. 

The Open Skies Treaty allowed the US and Russia to overfly each other’s territory in order that there could be mutual assurance that one country or the other wasn’t building up forces for attack.  If Washington withdraws from the treaty, which seems in the cards, tensions and uncertainties between the two major nuclear powers will increase.  In no way is this a good thing. 

The American military/security complex wants the tensions to increase, because this makes the orchestrated “Russian Threat” even larger and leads to a larger budget and more profits and power for the US military/security complex.  The military/security complex about which President Eisenhower warned us, to no effect, has been highly successful in dismantling the arms control agreements made between past US and Russian leaders.  This has raised the profits of the US military/security complex at the expense of the security of the world.

On top of this, Washington is currently raising tensions in the Black Sea, arming Ukraine, Georgia, and Romania, countries that border the Black Sea along with Russia, Turkey, and Bulgaria.  The US and its NATO puppets are conducting military exercises in this internal sea that hosts Russia’s Crimean naval base.  The Black Sea is Russia’s exit to the Mediterranean Sea.  The Zionist neocon warmongers would love to cut off Russia’s access to the Mediterranean and, thereby, Russia’s naval base in Syria. This would make it easier for the Zionist neoconservatives to overthrow Syria for Israel.

This is irresponsible provocation on the part of Washington.  A buildup of forces in such a small area carries all kinds of risks.  It would be easy for a CIA black ops to provoke one of the Ukrainian nazis or one of the Georgian fools or one of the bought-and-paid for Romanian vassals to provoke an incident. 

Indeed, the purpose of the US buildup of forces is to provoke incidents that can be blamed on Russia in order to create more fear and loathing in the West in order to keep feeding the military/security budget.  

Russia, a country in which the military/security complex, to the extent that it exists, does not run the country, has difficulty comprehending what it is facing.  Wanting no conflict, the Russian responses, as I have often emphasized, are passive, and thus provoke more irresponsible moves by Washington.  

As there is no doubt that the buildup of US and vassal state military forces in Russia’s neighborhood is very dangerous and gives every opportunity to the CIA to create incidents that can be used for anti-Russian propaganda, and as it is very easy for such incidents to have unintended consequences and to get out of control, anything that can be done to stop the buildup of Western forces in the Black Sea and in Romania, Ukraine, and Georgia, is an act of peace.  Russia needs to understand that sometimes peace is protected by a more aggressive, instead of passive, response.

What might such a response be?

It seems to me that if the US can declare the South China Sea, thousands of miles from the US coastline to be a “US national security interest,” Russia can declare the Black Sea on Russia’s own coast to be a Russian national security interest. 

It would be a highly responsible decision for the Russian government to prevent the dangers that Washington is creating by taking a lesson from Ancient Rome.  

Rome declared a much larger sea, the Mediteranian Sea,  to be “mare nostrum,” — our sea.  The Russians could declare the Black Sea  to be “our sea.”  

As Russia is by far the most powerful force in the area, the US is on the low end of the correlation of forces. No one could do anything about it if Russia were to declare the Black Sea “mare nostrum.” 

Russia could politely inform other parties that no military vessels of any other country are permitted in the Black Sea without Russian permission.  This would exclude the US and its NATO, Ukrainian, Romanian, and Georgian vassals.  Russia should specity an immediate date by which the foreign military vessels must leave the Black Sea or be escorted out by Russian forces, or, if resistence is met, destroyed.

This would bring to an end the Zionist/CIA attempt to create a new avenue to demonize Russia. It would protect Russia from multiple attacks all along its borders.

Russian nationalists, that is the actual Russians who are patriotic and love Russia, will see the wisdom in this suggestion.  The Russian “American worshipers,” such as the traitorous vermin Alexei Kudrin, will continue to scream at the top of their foul lungs against any defense of Russian national interests. Why the Russian government puts up with a traitor in their midst is a mystery.  Kudrin is the foul traitor who forced Russia to pay off illegitimate “foreign debts” piled on Russia during the corrulpt Yeltsin 1990s by Western  and Israeli interests for the single purpose of enriching Russia’s oppressors and driving Russians deep into the ground.  

In the US, this suggestion, which I believe is pro-peace, pro-avoiding a conflict destined to go nuclear, the idiot American superpatriots will denounce me as an “anti-American Russian-lover.”  The Zionist Neocons will denounce me as a “traitor to American Imperialism,” a “traitor to US world hegemony.”

But actually I am neither anti-American nor pro-Russian.  I am just for common sense and peace.  If Washington’s provocations of Russia continue and Russia continues to accept them passively, a fatal line will be crossed, and the world will be blown up, and none of us will be here.

*

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

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

Moreno campaigned on a platform of continuing the progressive policies of his predecessor Rafael Correa.

Straightaway in office, he betrayed the public trust.  Ecuadorian legal scholar Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga accused him of abandoning his pledges, implementing neoliberal policies demanded by US and internal special interests, purging Correa loyalists from his regime, operating extrajudicially.

Moreno sold Julian Assange to the US and UK for $4.2 billion in loan shark of last resort IMF blood money — requiring force-fed austerity, serving bankers and other corporate interests at the expense of the public welfare he abandoned.

Ruling anti-democratically, he waged war on independent journalists, human rights activists, and individuals criticizing his regime.

Mass protests in the capital Quito and other Ecuadorian cities since October 3 continue over Moreno’s elimination of longstanding fuel subsidies and other harsh neoliberal policies — in deference to IMF diktats.

Protesters want fuel subsidies reinstated, austerity ended, a return to progressive rule instituted by Correa, Moreno’s resignation, and snap elections to replace him.

After 10 days of public outrage, police and other security forces killed at least five protesters, injured countless others, and arrested around 1,000 individuals — what police state repression is all about.

The Moreno regime unleashed state-sponsored viciousness, refusing to reinstate the fuel subsidy or soften his hardline neoliberal agenda.

Reportedly on Saturday, indigenous CONAIE leaders accepted his request to meet for direct talks — short of suggesting he’ll ease support for privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary Ecuadorians.

He ordered a military-enforced curfew, starting at 3:00 PM Saturday, saying: “We’re going to restore order in all of Ecuador. We’re starting with the curfew in Quito” and surrounding areas.

Last Tuesday, he announced a curfew near government facilities, ports, bridges, and other so-called “strategic zones.”

Ecuador’s ombudsman Freddy Carrion slammed the curfew, calling it “a desperate attempt by (Moreno) that will only worsen the violence.”

Urging him to reinstate the fuel subsidy, he said “(i)t’s the only way to reduce violence” and curb public anger over his harsh agenda.

CONAIE official Leonidas Iza said conditions for talks include holding them publicly, broadcasting them on national television.

“We’re not going to talk behind closed doors,” he stressed. Talks “ha(ve) to be with the Ecuadorean people. There has to be large screens so every tiny input from our members can be heard” and seen.

CONAIE president Jaime Vargas urged Ecuadorian military officials to back legitimate demands of protesters against “the orders of that traitor, liar and thief” Moreno.

He falsely accused Correa and Venezuela’s Maduro of orchestrating a coup against his rule.

According to Ecuador’s energy ministry, protests curbed oil production. A copper mining company announced curtailment of its operations.

Ecuadorians want progressive rule enjoyed during a decade of Correa’s tenure reinstated.

Interviewed by Sputnik News, Correa said an “Ecuadorian press ‘wall’ supports Moreno. Ordinary people reject their one-sided coverage.

“The hegemonic press (operates as) Moreno’s greatest accomplice.” Since earlier military dictatorial rule, “I have not seen such cruel persecution with curfews, the abolition of constitutional guarantees and physical repression, beating protesters, dispersing demonstrations” violently, he said, adding:

Moreno is discredited, his rule at “an end. He is a puppet of lobbying groups.” Ordinary Ecuadorians no longer tolerate him.

“With his help, the elite has regained power based on fraud and treachery. What way out do I see? If he remains in office, he will become a bigger nobody even more than today.”

His regime “is already in a state of clinical death, in a vegetative state. Hegemonic media, business, financial power, the military, the police, and part of the church continue to support it.”

“Our democracy is made of playdough. (Power elites) control all the real branches of government, including the state institutions that they have taken over, for example, the Electoral Commission, to prevent me from participating in free elections. Nevertheless, I am being optimistic. I believe that we will win.”

Correa noted that throughout his decade in office, Ecuador prospered without IMF involvement.

Ordinary Ecuadorians yearn for governance enjoyed during his tenure. They want neoliberal harshness ended and Moreno replaced with new leadership, serving everyone in the country equitably.

*

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 Grayzone Project

Whatever follows the 13th round of US/China trade talks concluding Friday alone matters. Major differences over structural issues remain hard-wired on both sides — unchanged and not about to ahead.

Following Thursday talks, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that “Chinese and US officials agree(d) on lunch but are no closer to (a) deal” — other than on minor issues that could have been resolved last year.

Ahead of an October 15 deadline for US tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports to increase from 25 – 30%, what Trump called a “phase one almost complete” deal was agreed on.

Based on the history of bilateral talks so far, it more accurately should be called a no-deal/deal.

On Thursday, SCMP reported that the Trump regime is considering imposition of restrictions on US investments in China, creating a greater breach between both countries if he goes this far — on top of major damage to bilateral relations already in place.

On Saturday, SCMP said

“Beijing warn(ed) of more uncertainty in trade war negotiations despite ‘constructive’ talks in Washington.”

More talks will continue on major unresolved issues. For the moment, subject to change any time and likely will ahead, US tariff hikes scheduled for October 15 are on hold, not cancelled.

Scores of Chinese companies on the Trump regime’s blacklist will be reviewed, actions against tech giant Huawei to be discussed separately in follow-up talks.

Nothing substantive is in writing. According to Trump, it’ll be weeks before issues agreed on to be finalized. As many times before, Chinese negotiators pledged to purchase billions of dollars of US agricultural products — clearly dependent on Trump regime reciprocity on issues vital to Beijing.

China’s Global Times said

“trade talks progress (should be viewed) with rationality (and) calmness.”

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that stocks and bonds rose sharply over Trump’s offer to meet with China’s chief negotiator Vice Premier Liu He and optimism over a possible deal between both sides — despite no evidence suggesting resolution of major differences was possible.

Irreconcilable ones separate both countries on major political, economic and military issues.

Unresolved after many rounds of talks, the latest one is unlikely to achieve what earlier high-level efforts failed at — no matter public pronouncements by both sides now and ahead.

Beijing is especially outraged over Trump’s economic war, including scores of blacklisted Chinese enterprises, human rights accusations, provocative Pentagon incursions near its territorial waters and airspace, along with US dirty hands all over months of violent protests in Hong Kong.

Longstanding meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is forbidden by international law, consistently ignored by both right wing of the US war party.

On Friday, a day when Sino/US negotiators seek to reach accommodation on major differences, Beijing’s official People’s Daily broadsheet slammed the Trump regime “for attempt(ing) to suppress and defame China,” adding its effort “will prove futile eventually.”

Trump very much wants a deal with China to further his reelection chances. Beijing has no incentive to accommodate him without significant reciprocity not forthcoming so far.

It’s increasingly reliant on domestic consumption while continuing to be an export powerhouse.

According to analyst Brandon Smith:

“Even when we set aside all the geopolitical obstacles to a trade deal…there is nothing compelling China to make a deal in the near term, and this makes the trade talks this month rather predictable.”

Smith believes talks would either continue impasse or both sides would announce a “positive discussion (and) possible deal” — a “head fake” with no significant fruition ahead like earlier.

There’s no cause for optimism when both sides remain irreconcilably apart on major structural issues China won’t compromise on to accommodate unacceptable Trump regime demands.

*

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 Stansberry Churchouse

“Don’t tempt me. Do your job” Hillary Clinton responded in a tweet to Trump when he said that “I think that Crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race to try and steal it away from Uber Left Elizabeth Warren.” In reality, the democrats have no one that can face Trump and win. Trump’s popularity has remained basically the same despite polls that suggest otherwise. The Democrats have pushed the Russia-Gate conspiracy theory that failed and now the Impeachment inquiry as their latest plot to remove Trump from office by a whistle blower who happened to be a CIA operative planted inside the White House who exposed Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the conversation, Trump had asked to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter for their involvement in the Ukraine’s largest energy company, Burisma where Hunter Biden sat on the board of the energy company and was paid more than $50,000 a month. Although there might be some ethical problems with Trump’s suggestion to the Ukrainian leader, the American’s do have a right to know about the Joe Biden’s business dealings with the Ukrainian government who is absolutely corrupt to its core.

Besides the mainstream media’s 24 hour news reporting on the Impeachment Inquiry, Joe Biden has practically put his own foot in his mouth when the Democrats were asked about the legacy of slavery at the third Democratic debate last month, when he said

“Look, there’s institutional segregation in this country,” Biden struggling with his answer “and from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Redlining, making sure that we are in a position where – look, talk about education. I proposed that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend.”

Biden continued

“the teachers … have every problem coming to them, we have to make sure that every single child does, in fact, have three, four, and five-year-olds go to school – school, not daycare, school. We bring social workers into homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help. They don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio. Make sure the television – excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night.”

Biden’s fate has been sealed with his scandals with the Ukraine along with his black people who don’t know “how to raise their children” problem is a red flag for the Democrats. They will not take a chance with Biden under these circumstances. The democrats have ruined the prospect of winning the 2020 elections against Trump since they have no original platform to run on besides their conspiracy theories and propaganda. Now they are banking Trump’s conversation with Zelensky as an impeachable offence in hopes of removing Trump from office which will not happen with a majority of Republicans in the senate who will vote against impeachment.

Forget Biden and Warren, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party

Image on the right is from Another Day in the Empire

Elizabeth Warren will not be President or Vice-President without Hillary Clinton. In fact, according to an NBC News article from early September ‘Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies’ claims that

“Elizabeth Warren’s team doesn’t want to talk about Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean the 2020 presidential candidate isn’t talking with her party’s 2016 nominee” the report said. “The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren’s launch has been previously reported.”

Warren knows that Clinton is the power and the face of the Democratic party. Who has credibility among the establishment Democrats according to NBC News? “with a progressive base behind her, Warren’s political need is to make establishment Democrats comfortable with her candidacy. Clinton, whose politics arguably have been closer to Biden’s over the course of her career, has deep credibility in those circles.” So Clinton is Warren’s go to person for advice. Bloomberg News reported back on July 25th that by Warren “endorsing Sanders, her ideological ally, would mean sacrificing her ability to influence Clinton, who was widely expected to win” Warren did not endorse anyone until Clinton became the Democratic nominee. “In essence, Warren bet that she had a better chance of enacting her liberal agenda by working through Clinton than by banking on a Sanders revolution.” Warren’s domestic and foreign policies is not too far off from establishment Democrats or Republicans. For example, In Wall Street, there are some high level bankers and Hedge Fund managers who would support Warren. Bloomberg News reported that

“there’s a new whisper on Wall Street — maybe Elizabeth Warren isn’t so bad.” the story continued “the Democratic senator, who rose to national prominence by calling for tough regulation after the financial crisis, is winning respect from a small but growing circle of senior bankers and hedge fund managers.”

Warren’s foreign policy stance won’t be any different from Clinton’s either. Warren’s Q&A with the Council of Foreign Relations published last month shows where Warren stands on Iran, Venezuela, Russia and others. Warren said that there are “serious concerns” on Iran’s policies concerning its nuclear program and its “support for destabilizing regional proxies.” On Venezuela, Warren said that “Maduro is a dictator and a crook who has wrecked his country’s economy, dismantled its democratic institutions, and profited while his people suffer.” She actually Sounds like Donald Trump. What Warren forgot to mention is that the U.S. sanctions and attempted regime change operations over the years that have repeatedly failed has contributed to Venezuela’s economic and political crisis. She will also support regime change policies when she said that “the United States should lead the international community in addressing Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis and supporting regional efforts to negotiate a political transition, including free and fair elections as soon as possible.” Warren also mentioned Russia who “by illegally annexing Ukrainian territory and fueling a war in eastern Ukraine, Russia has imperiled the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace that prevailed for nearly a quarter century.” Well by now you can get the idea where Warren’s foreign policy is going.

Elizabeth Warren has also insulted Indigenous tribes in the U.S. by claiming she had Native American blood from the Cherokee Nation. Warren faced a backlash even from Trump who consistently still calls her “Pocahontas.” The Washington Times reported the response from the Cherokees on October 15th, 2018:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren trumpeted Monday DNA test results showing she has a smidgen of Native American blood, although no more than the average U.S. white person, even as Cherokees accused her of dishonoring them with her dubious claims of tribal ancestry. Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said the Massachusetts Democrat was “undermining” Native Americans with her attempt to prove her tribal heritage using genetic testing, calling it “inappropriate and wrong.”

“Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong,” said Mr. Hoskin in a statement. “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.” “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage,” he concluded

Warren has apologized since then. The only way I see Warren in the White House if of course, the Democrats win, is as vice-president under the queen of the Democratic party who has significant political and economic power within the establishment. The two most important front-runners Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren have no chance against Trump. Without getting into the details, you can forget about the rest of the Democratic candidates including Bernie Sanders (whose health is now in question since his heart attack), Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, and the rest especially the only anti-war candidate out of all the Democrats, Tulsi Gabbard.

An interesting story by the Washington Free Beacon ‘Good News for Hillary Clinton 2020, Inevitable?’ claimed that

“There is one battle-tested candidate still on the sidelines who could enter the race at any time and wrest her party’s nomination from the likes of former vice president Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The article also mentioned the flaws between Joseph Biden and Bernie Sanders “Biden looks wobbly, and Clinton’s rival from the 2016 campaign, Bernie Sanders, is struggling to stay relevant.” the article continued “Donald Trump’s first term in office has been an epically entertaining saga thus far. What better way to cap it off than by bringing back a major character from the early episodes and setting up what is sure to be the most highly rated rematch in American history?” Mainly CNN and MSNBC would welcome a Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump rematch at the U.S. presidential debates since their viewership has declined due to their propaganda and their ridicules conspiracy theories. A rematch would surely add a boost to their ratings. Hillary Clinton has come out more so in recent months and more so since the Democratic party and a handful of Republicans came out and called for Trump’s impeachment due to his phone call with Zelensky. I believe the democrats and many of the Clintonistas in Washington are conducting psychological warfare against Trump. Taint him with the label of a traitor who is conspiring with Russia which is further from the truth since Trump himself has been more aggressive towards Russia with economic sanctions and geopolitical moves that has threatened Russia right up to its borders. Overall it’s all nonsense.

A Clinton-Warren ticket in the making? It will be an uphill battle for the Democrats unless the coming economic recession happens before the November elections which is most likely, then Trump will be the fall guy who will take the blame for the economic downturn. The Democrats will have something to work with in regards to an economic recession therefore they will have a better chance of winning. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is willing to do anything to ensure a Democratic victory over Trump. They undermined Bernie Sanders in 2016, so don’t think they won’t attempt to steal the elections from Trump in 2020. U.S. Representative from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard is seriously considering boycotting the Democratic debate on October 15th due to the fact that she knows that the DNC and the mainstream-media will rig the Democratic primary election. Here is what she said:

I share your concerns, and I’m sure that all our supporters throughout the country do as well. The 2016 Democratic Primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders. 

In this 2020 election, the DNC and corporate media are rigging the election again, but this time against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten. In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process 

I would not be surprised if Hillary Clinton runs again, although back in March, she told a local New York City television station News 12 that

“I’m not running,” she said “but I’m going to keep working on and speaking and standing up for what I believe.”

She basically believes that she still can become the first woman president of the United States.  Several journalists and researchers in the alternative media and of course, H.A. Goodman of the Huffington Post who since 2016, has been consistently saying that Clinton will run again. They could steal the elections from Trump and the Trump supporters will challenge the outcome. There could be another Bush-Gore debacle with the Florida recount during the presidential election of 2000. Will history repeat itself? We need to factor in that Clinton still has many friends who hate Trump in the Military-Industrial Complex, in congress, intelligence agencies, major corporations, banks and the mainstream media. She is still influential among the establishment.

Ironically, Clinton recently authored a new book with her daughter Chelsea titled ‘The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience’ according to their Amazon page it’s about “gutsy women who have inspired them—women with the courage to stand up to the status quo, ask hard questions, and get the job done.”

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Erdogan has accelerated his war crimes against Syria, in Day 2 of Turkey’s new military aggression. His regime thug troops again bombed the electrical cables of the Alouk Water Station in Ras al-Ain, bombed on Day 1, and immediately repaired by the Syrian government. This water plant meets the daily needs of almost 2 million Syrians and remains out of service at the time of this writing. The Industrial Region of Ras al-Ain has also been targeted. 

As does every amoral war criminal, the rabid Erdogan targets the vital essentials of life: Electricity, water, dams, oil, and homes.

Erdogan troops didn’t spare a church

These illicit Turkish troops are focusing on villages in Hasaka, Qamishli, and Raqqa, and on Day 2, even bombed cars on the road between Raqqa and Tal Abyad (three martyred, dozens injured).

One child was martyred in the neighborhood of Qadouar Beik, Qamishli. Five civilians were murdered in Ras al-Ain city, with 9 others injured. Erdogan regime thugs also bombed the villages of Naddas, Alouk, Hamid, and Tal Arqam, from the skies and from ground artillery. The Saeeda petroleum station was bombed, caught fire, and burnt to the ground.

Transatlantic NATO media are currently engaged in near apoplexia over the horror of Erdogan’s war crimes, though they are the same war crimes that have been committed against Syria since President Barack Obama announced his creation of the fascist coalition of war criminals, on 10 September 2014, in a live address to the nation.

Is it possible that the criminal liars of journalism have suddenly had a crisis of conscience, over their previous cheering of the obliteration of al Raqqa, by the war criminal coalition?

CNN cheers destruction as far as the eye can see. This is al Raqqa, courtesy of the US-led war criminal coalition.

Have the warmongering media had a Trumpian epiphany against perpetual war?

Let us not get silly with optimism.

Their seeming concern is not over rabid Erdogan continuing the same military aggression as was committed by Obama and accelerated by Trump.

NATO media — including artificial liberal and independent sources — are nominally concerned for the cannon fodder of the armed terrorist SDF, the separatist Kurds given weapons and the promise to Israelize a large carved off piece of Syria, the criminals who have closed schools, tried to bomb churches, set fire to wheat fields, ambushed and slaughtered members of Syrian security — atrocities that would be condemned were they to be perpetrated in western countries.

Imagine American soldiers slaughtered in the US, their bodies dumped & the world writing about “moderate American opposition.”

Note that the western condemnations of Erdogan do not mention the destruction of vital infrastructure, the bombing of homes, do not note that the attacks are against the country of Syria.

Instead, they obsess on the ”abandoned” and “betrayed” SDF terrorists (abandoned with massive weapons that Trump has been providing since early August).

And what have the ‘betrayed’ and abandoned only with trucks, explosives, military guns been doing since the war criminal Erdogan began his new onslaught to destroy Syrian infrastructure, slaughter Syrians, annex part of the Syrian country?

Why, they continue to terrorize the Syrian civilian population.

SDF armed terrorists again stormed a village, this one Tal Tamer in Hasaka. They committed dozens of home invasions, rounding up and abducting youths for forced military training, to be then forced into combat zones.

US-run ‘SDF’ continues to kidnap Syrian children to make them ‘soldiers.’ [Archive]

Yesterday, Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Fayssal Mikdad, held a press conference at the Foreign Ministry. He condemned Erdogan as war criminal, noting the military aggression is a breach of Syria’s sovereignty, a breach of international law, and a breach of the UN Charter.

Minister Mikdad asserted that the Erdogan regime is responsible for much of the foreign terrorism inflicted on the Syrian people, their murders, their displacements, the destruction of their infrastructure, of their homes.

He reminded the press that the Erdogan regime was responsible for the facilitation of illegal entry of foreign terrorists via the Turkey-Syrian border [again, note that no illegal entering Syria ever stepped on any of the nearly 200,000 land mines that Turkey promised to clean up when it joined the Mine Ban Treaty in 2003.]

Dr. Mikdad also noted the cowardice of the Turkish thugs, of invading part of Syria in which the Syrian Arab Army is not currently deployed.

In response to a question on whether the SAA is prepared to enter the area, Dr. Mikdad explained that the government has been in dialogue with all of its citizens, and again offered reconciliation. The armed gangs — the US’s ‘betrayed’ SDF, the armed separatist Kurds — refused the offer of rejoining the state — instead, preferring to remain “in the bosom of the foreigner” [illegal US occupiers].

The refusal of these armed terrorists to put down their weapons and rejoin the state, effectively allowed the Erdogan regime to invade and occupy this region.

Most of the more than 300,000 foreign terrorists and illegals of NATO media, Sen. John McCain, and even the poisoned measles vaccines which murdered 50 Syrian children in 2015, entered through the Turkish border.

It is worthy of mention that many of the various media sources who arrogantly and illegally entered Syria through Erdogan’s ‘benevolence,’ who embedded themselves with armed terrorists engaged in the most heinous of atrocities against Syrian civilians, are suddenly screeching that the war criminal is engaged in criminal aggression.

Can a thinking mind not grasp the colonial hypocrisy in the ongoing, demonic attempt to inflict a new Sykes-Picot on the citizens of Syria?

Let us put an end to western peak colonialism.

*

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

All images in this article are from Syria News unless otherwise stated

Heinous. Savage. Ghastly. It’s hard to find the words to describe the act of luring journalist Jamal Khashoggi into a Saudi consulate in Istanbul, suffocating him, chopping him up and dissolving his bones. Yet a year later, governments and businesspeople around the world are eager to forgive and forget–or already have.

So far, not a single Saudi official has been found guilty or punished for this crime. The Saudi government has put 11 officials on trial but these trials, which began in January and drag on behind closed doors, are a mockery of justice. The government is prosecuting lower-level officials but not the top guns who are truly responsible. The defendants have not been named but it is known that Saud al-Qahtani, a former top aide to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) and the alleged mastermind of the murder, is not a defendant and the government refuses to say where he is.

And what about the crown prince himself? In a September 29 PBS interview, MbS accepted responsibility for the killing because it happened “under his watch” — but he denied having prior knowledge. The CIA, however, concluded in November that the prince, who maintains tight control in the kingdom, likely ordered the killing. A report by United Nations Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard said there was “credible evidence” linking him to the murder and cover up of what she said was undoubtedly a “state killing.” Still, the trials continue even though they do nothing to indict the person who gave the orders.

When Khashoggi was murdered, the outrage had a major effect on US congressional support for the Saudis, manifested by growing opposition to the US support for the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Several key Republicans turned against MbS, not in response to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen but in response to the public outcry against Khashoggi’s horrific murder. A broad-based coalition of peace, human rights and humanitarian groups was able to convince a majority in both the House and the Senate to cut off support for the Saudi war in Yemen, a necessary step to hold MbS accountable for his complete disregard for human life. Even some of the most hawkish Republicans stepped up in response. Lindsey Graham, for example, called MbS a “wrecking ball” and voted to end support for the war, explaining in a statement,

“I changed my mind because I’m pissed. The way the administration had handled [Khashoggi’s murder] is just not acceptable.”

The bills were vetoed by President Trump but Congress is still trying to force the President’s hand by including an amendment in the must-pass military funding bill (NDAA).

On the heels of Khashoggi’s death, businesses, embarrassed by their Saudi connections, started pulling out of deals. Dozens of companies and notables, from the New York Times to Uber CEO to the head of the World Bank, decided to skip the major annual Saudi Future Investment Initiative, also known as Davos in the Desert. Talent agent Endeavor returned a $400 million investment from Saudi Arabia. Several think tanks, including the Brookings Institution and the Middle East Institute, announced that they would no longer accept Saudi funding. In the past year, five PR firms—Glover Park Group, BGR Group, Harbour Group, CGCN Group and Gibson, Dunn & Crutche—have severed ties with the kingdom. At the behest of groups including the Human Rights Foundation, singer Nicki Minaj canceled her performance in Saudi Arabia, citing concerns about the treatment of women, the LGBTQ community and freedom of expression. Freedom Forward was successful in getting the New York Public Library to cancel its “Youth Forum” with MbS’s charity, the Misk Foundation.

Still, the Saudis have been investing huge sums of money in companies and notables to “rebrand” the Kingdom, prompting CODEPINK to launch a full-blown Boycott Saudi campaign in January. The campaign includes urging entertainers not to perform, asking Vice Media to stop producing promotional/propaganda videos for the Saudis, encouraging Lush Cosmetics to close their Saudi stores, and pushing the G20 nations to reconsider their decision to hold their 2020 meeting in Saudi Arabia. The campaign’s long list of targets shows just how much money Saudi invests in whitewashing its crimes and how overreaching its influence is.

While human rights groups work to hold the private sector accountable, the biggest obstacle to holding Saudi accountable is the Trump administration continued support. Trump has focused on Saudi Arabia’s key role as a purchaser of US weapons and an ally against Iran. In the wake of the September 14 attacks on the kingdom’s oil infrastructure, Trump announced the deployment of 200 troops and Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia to bolster its defences against Iran. It is also Trump who vetoed legislation to end military assistance for the Saudi war on Yemen on three different occasions and went so far as to declare a state of emergency to sell $8 billion in weapons to the Saudis while bypassing Congressional disapproval.

Trump has not only stood by MbS but pushed for his rehabilitation on the world stage. With the “Davos in the Desert” Future Investment Initiative taking place against this year, on October 29-31, Jared Kushner is expected to lead a robust US delegation. Big banks and investment firms, including Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, CitiGroup, are once again lining up to attend. It seems the money to be made in the anticipated initial public offering of the world’s wealthiest company, the Saudi oil company Aramco–valued at between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion–is just too enticing.

Khashoggi himself was critical of the international community’s unwillingness to take substantive steps to hold the Saudi regime accountable. In a column about the need for freedom of speech in the Arab world, he remarked that the repression by Arab governments “no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community. Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.” The sad irony is that in response to his own murder, governments and private interests are proving his point.

One year later, their silence has allowed MbS to tighten his grip on power and increase repression against political rivals and women activists. It has given the green light for governments around the world to sell weapons to the Saudis to destroy Yemen. It allows businesses to rake in billions in petrodollar investments and foreign entertainers to provide a veneer of normalcy and modernity to the kingdom. Far from being held accountable for Khashoggi’s murder, MbS is thriving—thanks to his rehabilitation by an international community that cares more about money than it does human rights.

In times like this, it’s difficult not to ask oneself: Who is more evil—the maniacal Saudi crown prince responsible for Khashoggi’s murder and the murder of tens of thousands of  Yemenis, or the mendacious world leaders and businesspeople who continue to embrace what should be a pariah state?

*

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

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection.

Featured image is from the author

“If we burn, you burn with us.” “Self-destruct together.” (Lam chao.)

The new slogans of Hong Kong’s black bloc – a mob on a rampage connected to the black shirt protestors – made their first appearance on a rainy Sunday afternoon, scrawled on  walls in Kowloon.

Decoding the slogans is essential to understand the mindless street violence that was unleashed even before the anti-mask law passed by the government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) went into effect at midnight on Friday, October 4.

By the way, the anti-mask law is the sort of measure that was authorized by the 1922 British colonial Emergency Regulations Ordnance, which granted the city government the authority to “make any regulations whatsoever which he [or she] may consider desirable in the public interest” in case of “emergency or public danger”.

Perhaps the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, was unaware of this fine lineage when she commented that the law “only intensifies concern over freedom of expression.” And it is probably safe to assume that neither she nor other virulent opponents of the law know that a very similar anti-mask law was enacted in Canada on June 19, 2013.

More likely to be informed is Hong Kong garment and media tycoon Jimmy Lai, billionaire publisher of the pro-democracy Apple Daily, the city’s Chinese Communist Party critic-in-chief and highly visible interlocutor of official Washington, DC, notables such as US Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and ex-National Security Council head John Bolton.

On September 6, before the onset of the deranged vandalism and violence that have defined Hong Kong “pro-democracy protests” over the past several weeks, Lai spoke with Bloomberg TV’s Stephen Engle from his Kowloon home.

He pronounced himself convinced that – if protests turned violent China would have no choice but to send People’s Armed Police units from Shenzen into Hong Kong to put down unrest.

“That,” he said on Bloomberg TV, “will be a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre and that will bring in the whole world against China….. Hong Kong will be done, and … China will be done, too.”

Still, before the violence broke out, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people had gathered in peaceful protests in June, illustrating the depth of feeling that exists in Hong Kong. These are the working-class Hongkongers that Lai supports through the pages of Apple Daily.

But the situation has changed dramatically from the early summer of non-violent demonstrations. The black blocs see such intervention as the only way to accomplish their goal.

For the black blocs, the burning is all about them – not Hong Kong, the city and its hard-working people. Those are all subjected to the will of this fringe minority that, according to the understaffed and overstretched Hong Kong police force, numbers 12,000 people at the most.

Cognitive rigidity is a euphemism when applied to mob rule, which is essentially a religious cult. Even attempting the rudiments of a civilized discussion with these people is hopeless. The supremely incompetent, paralyzed Hong Kong government at least managed to define them precisely as “rioters” who have plunged one of the wealthiest and so far safest cities on the planet “into fear and chaos” and committed “atrocities” that are “far beyond the bottom line of any civilized society.”

“Revolution in Hong Kong”, the previous preferred slogan, at face value a utopian millennial cause, has been in effect drowned by the heroic vandalizing of metro stations, i.e., the public commons; throwing petrol bombs at police officers; and beating up citizens who don’t follow the script. To follow these gangs running amok, live, in Central and Kowloon, and also on RTHK, which broadcasts the rampage in real-time, is a mind-numbing experience.

I’ve sketched before the basic profile of thousands of young protestors in the streets fully supported by a silent mass of teachers, lawyers, bewigged judges, civil servants and other liberal professionals who gloss over any outrageous act – as long as they are anti-government.

But the key question has to focus on the black blocs, their mob rule on rampage tactics, and who’s financing them. Very few people in Hong Kong are willing to discuss it openly. And as I’ve noted in conversations with informed members of the Hong Kong Football Club, businessmen, art collectors, and social media groups, very few people in Hong Kong – or across Asia for that matter – even know what black blocs are all about.

The black bloc matrix

Black blocs are not exactly a global movement; they are a tactic deployed by a group of protesters – even though intellectuals springing up from different European strands of anarchism mostly in Spain, Italy, France and Germany since the mid-19^th century may also raise it from the level of a tactic to a strategy that is part of a larger movement.

The tactic is simple enough. You dress in black, with lots of padding, ski masks or balaclavas, sunglasses, and motorcycle helmets. As much as you protect yourself from police pepper spray and/or tear gas, you conceal your identity and melt into the crowd. You act as a block, usually a few dozen, sometimes a few hundred. You move fast, you search and destroy, then you disperse, regroup and attack again.

From the inception, throughout the 1980s, especially in Germany, this was a sort of anarchist-infused urban guerrilla tactic employed against the excesses of globalization and also against the rise of crypto-fascism.

Yet the global media explosion of black blocs only happened over a decade later, at the notorious Battle of Seattle in 1999, during the WTO ministerial conference, when the city was shut down. The WTO summit collapsed and a  state of emergency was in effect for nearly a week. Crucially, there were no casualties, even as black blocs made themselves known as part of a mass riot organized by radical anarchists.

The difference in Hong Kong is that black blocs have been instrumentalized for a blatantly search-and-destroy agenda. The debate is open on whether black bloc tactics, deployed randomly, only serve to legitimize the police state even more. What’s clear is that smashing a subway station used by average working people is absolutely irreconcilable with advancing a better, more responsible, local government.

My interlocutor shows up impeccably dressed for dim sum on Saturday at a deserted Victoria City outlet in CITIC tower, with a spectacular view of the harbor. He’s Shanghai aristocracy, the family having migrated to Hong Kong in 1949, and he’s a uniquely informed insider on all aspects of the Hong Kong-China-US triangle. Via mutual Chinese diaspora connections that hark back to the handover era, he agreed to talk on background. Let’s call him Mr. E.

In the aftermath of dark Friday, Mr. E is still appalled:

“Not only you’re harming the people making their living in businesses, companies, shopping malls. You’re destroying subway stations. You’re destroying our streets. You’re destroying our hard-earned reputation as a safe, international business center. You’re destroying our economy.”

He cannot explain why there was not a single police officer in sight, for hours, as the rampage continued.

Cutting to the chase, Mr. E attributes the whole drama to a pathological hatred of China by a “significant majority” of Hong Kong’s population. Significantly, the day after our conversation, a small black bloc contingent circled around the PLA’s Kowloon East Barracks in Kowloon Tong in the early evening. Chinese soldiers in camouflage filmed them from the rooftop.

There’s no way black blocs would take their gas masks, steel rods and petrol bombs to fight the PLA. That’s an entirely new ball game compared with thrashing metro stations. And color-coded “revolution” manuals don’t teach you how to do it.

Mr. E points out there is nothing “leaderless” about the Hong Kong black blocs. Mob rule is strictly regimented. One of the black shirt slogans  – “Occupy, disrupt, disperse, repeat” – has in effect mutated into “Swarm, destroy, disperse, repeat.”

Mr. E asks me about black blocs in France. Western mainstream media, for months, have ignored solid, peaceful protests by the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vests across France, against corruption, inequality and the Macron administration’s neoliberal push to turn France into a start-up benefitting the 1%.

Charges that French intel has manipulated black blocs and inserted undercover agents and casseurs (persons vandalizing property, specifically during protests) to discredit and demonize the Yellow Vests are widespread. As I’ve witnessed in Paris first hand, the feared CRS have been absolutely ruthless in their RAND-conceptualized militarized operations in urban terrain – repression tactics – without excluding the odd beating up of elderly citizens.

In contrast, mob rule in Hong Kong is excused as protest against “totalitarian” China.

Most of the conversation with Mr. E centers on possible sources of financing for the initial nonviolent protest and, particularly, for the mob rule that the black blocs have brought in its place.

Motivation and opportunity will get you on the list, which is not terribly long – but is long enough to include names of people and organizations diametrically opposed to one another and thus unlikely to be working together.

Among governments, we can start with the still (if not, probably, for much longer) number one superpower. Trump administration officials, locked in a trade war with Beijing, would have no trouble imagining some advantage coming from a weakening of the People’s Republic’s rule over Hong Kong, and could perhaps see good in positively destabilizing China, starting with fomenting a violent revolution in the former British colony.

The United Kingdom, contemplating a lonely post-Brexit old age, could have pondered how nice it would be to get closer to its favorite former colony, still an island of Britishness in a less and less British world.

Taiwan, of course, would have had interest in provoking a test run of how One Country, Two Systems – the formula that the PRC and the UK used with Hong Kong in 1997 and that Beijing has offered to Taiwan, as well – might work out under stress. And after the stress of peaceful protest had exposed weak underpinnings, the temptation may well have arisen to go farther and make such a hash of Chinese-ruled Hong Kong that no Taiwanese would ever again fall for the merger propaganda.

The People’s Republic seems an unlikely protagonist for the initial, nonviolent phase, but there are plenty of Hong Kongers who believe it is now encouraging provocations that would justify a major crackdown. And we can’t completely rule out the possibility that a mainland CCP faction – opposed to the breach of recent tradition with which Xi Jinping extended his time in the presidency, say – is trying to discredit him.

OK, enough about governments. Now we need some on-the-ground agents, Chinese with plausible deniability who can blend in as they receive and disburse the necessary funding and handle organizational and training matters.

Here the possibilities are far too numerous to list, but one popular name would be Guo Wengui, aka Miles Kwok. The billionaire fell out with the CCP and, in 2014, fled to the United States to pursue a career as a long-distance political operative.

Even more popular would be name of Jimmy Lai, mentioned above. Confirming another of my key meetings, when Mr. E points to the usual funding suspects, the name of Jimmy Lai inevitably comes up. In fact, a US-Taiwan-Jimmy Lai combination may be number one on the hit parade when it comes to the common wisdom.

But when I tried that combination on for size I encountered problems. For one big thing, Jimmy Lai has made no effort to hide his aid to pro-democracy groups but in his public remarks has invariably encouraged nonviolent agendas.

As South China Morning Post columnist Alex Lo wrote not long ago, “What’s wrong with making massive donations to political parties and anti-government groups? Nothing! So I am puzzled by the media brouhaha over Apple Daily boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s alleged donations worth more than HK$40 million to his pals in the pan-democratic camp over a two-year period.”

Let’s not give up so easily, though. I believe that some things are best hidden right out in the open in bright daylight.

Yes, Lai’s public voice happens to be Mark Simon, who worked for four years as a US naval intelligence analyst.

Yes, Lai has been good friends with neo-con guru Paul Wolfowitz since the latter became chairman of the US Taiwan Business Council in 2008, according to a Lai aide.

Wolfowitz served as deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005 under Donald Rumsfeld, sort of by accident: He was supposed to become George W Bush’s head of CIA. But, alas, that didn’t work out because his wife got wind of an affair Paul, a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED, had with a staffer, who was married at the time … and so it goes.

And, yes, according to Wikileaks documentation, in 2013 Lai paid US$75,000 to Wolfowitz for an introduction to Myanmar government bigwigs.

A document suggesting a transaction between Lai and Wolfowitz. Photo: Wikileaks via SCMP

But none of that really proves anything, does it now? Innocent until proven guilty. Colluding with arguably the most important US policy and intelligence operative of the past two decades, apparently yes – but can we establish active involvement by either the Pauls or the Jimmys of this world in black bloc provocations to achieve the bloody Chinese intervention that Lai forecast? Innocent until proven guilty.

This is going to take some further work. Back to the old drawing board with Asia Times.

There will be blowback

“We in Hong Kong are few in number. But we know that the world will never know genuine peace until the people of China are free.” – Wall Street Journal op-ed by Jimmy Lai,  Sept 30

As much as there have been frantic efforts by the usual suspects to obliterate them, the images of black bloc mob rule and rampage across Hong Kong are now imprinted all over the Global South, not to mention in the unconscious of hundreds of millions of Chinese netizens.

Even the black blocs’ invisible financial backers may have been stunned by the counter-productive effects of the rampage, to the point of essentially declaring victory and ordering a retreat. In any case, Jimmy Lai continues to blame the Hong Kong police for “excessive and brutal violence” and to demonize the “dictatorial, cold-blooded and violent beast.”

Yet there’s no guarantee the black terror mob will back down – especially with Hong Kong fire officials now alarmed by the proliferation of online instructions for making petrol bombs using lethal white phosphorous. Once again – remember al-Qaeda’s “freedom fighters” – history will teach us: Beware of the Frankenstein terrors you create.

*

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.

Some say the following quote came from journalist John Swinton (1829-1901), but it matters not who actually said it. The cold hard truth is that it was spoken by someone who worked as a writer for a newspaper, and had a career writing for more than a few. He stated:

“There is no such thing at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press…There is not ONE of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print! I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with… The business of journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread… We are the tools of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes!“ 

We only need go back a few short years to see the utter magnitude of what Swinton was talking about. Remember the illegal and immoral USA invasion and occupation of Iraq? Most of the ‘levers of empire’ were pushed to accommodate that bit of lying, disinformation and half truths. This writer remembers when Phil Donahue had his nightly news/talk show on MSNBC. By February of 2003 or thereabouts, Jeff Cohen, Phil’s producer, recalls how he was told to have TWO pro invasion guests on for every anti invasion guest. Remember, at that time General Electric Corp. owned MSNBC. Yet, that was not enough to satisfy the empire. On February 23 the Donahue show was cancelled, although the ratings were pretty good. You see, by that time, late February, the machine was all ready for the attack. It just needed a few more morsels of propaganda to sink into both the Congress and of course the consumers… Sorry, I mean the citizenry.

This writer was extremely agitated by the high level of Pro invasion info coming over the embedded mainstream print and electronic media. One slight consolation was when C-Span actually ‘did the correct thing’ and showed a Canadian news channel’s coverage of the impending doom. Of course, when the die was cast and Rumsfeld’s famous Shock and Awe campaign began, the three major news talk channels, CNN, MSNBC and FOX, were all over us with cheerleading. FOX was so off the radar that no critique is needed. However, CNN and MSNBC, trying to look like ‘Neutral Journalism 101’, could not contain their peanut gallery mindsets, the one that John Swinton referred to in his famous speech. You had Aaron Brown, Lester Holt and little Katie Couric (of flagship station NBC, owned by GE), along with Brian Williams (later to be outed, for but awhile, for his phony news stories in Iraq) all right there celebrating the ‘Liberators of Iraq’. They all wore their flag buttons on their lapels, and little Katie was filmed strolling through the halls of NBC shouting ‘Marines Rock!’ Of course, Lester Holt did the ‘right (wing) thing’ and now is a respected anchor… so much so that good ole Lester moderates presidential debates. Swinton’s use of the phrase ‘Intellectual prostitutes’ rang true then.

Now we come to a recent bit of disgrace. Ellen Degeneres, the highly celebrated and successful daytime talk show hostess and proud gay woman, was seen sitting with Junior Bush at a Dallas Cowboys game, in the exclusive owner’s box area. She has had Junior on her show to talk about his painting, has visited him at his ranch, and considers him a ‘Nice guy’. Junior has, on record as president, never did squat to help with the AIDs pandemic, and allowed his far right evangelical beliefs to keep him from ever speaking favorably about gay rights etc. Yet, this openly gay woman, who must have felt alarmed by our illegal invasion (OR DID SHE?), must have had friends who were enraged by that invasion at the time. All the many alternative news blips must have gotten to her eyes and ears, telling her that the Bush/Cheney gang were WAR CRIMINALS! Yet Ms. DeGeneres continues to satisfy the lie which tells us to take a pass on the dastardly things done by the war criminals in the White House. As the war criminal Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack and occupation of Iraq, that it was time to ‘Move forward’. Forward he did by increasing the number of drone murderous assaults by Tenfold! Now that he is out of office, Barack, the ‘Hope and Change’ king, just purchased a home for $8.1 million. Tell that to the suckers who fell for his rhetoric in the Afro American communities.

Anyone but the foolish people who still support Mr. Trump realize that he is as much of a populist as the man he emulates with his body gestures: Il Duce! Nothing ever changes when the majority of working stiffs suck in the foul air that comes from the mouths of the empire’s minions, whether they be presidents, congress people or (so called) journalists and talk show hosts. It is time for those of good conscience to boycott the lot of 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.

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

The university, in a global sense, is passing into a managerial oblivion.  There are a few valiant holdouts, but they have the luxury of history, time, and learning.  Cambridge and Oxford, for instance, still boast traditional academics, soaking erudition, and education as something more than a classroom brawl of the mind.  They can barricade themselves against the regulatory disease that has made imbeciles of administrators and cretins of the pretend academic class.  They can, for instance, rely on their colleges to fight the university, a concept so utterly alien to others.  Across Europe, the management structures wear heavily.  In the United States, the corporate university took hold decades ago.  Academics are retiring, committing suicide, and going on gardening leave.

In Australia, a more serious problem has become evident: You cannot expose the obvious.  You cannot, for instance, expose the evident plagiarism of colleagues.  You cannot expose corruption within the university, notably the sort that celebrates graft over industry.  You cannot discuss the decline in academic standards, or the purposeful lowering of admission levels.  The obvious, in a certain sense, is that standards will be lowered if there is a need for largesse and revenue.  The natural impulse of fat cat Vice-Chancellors is to cry foul that the government of the day has not forked out from the tax payer’s wallet.  Pay the university; fund more places.  Give us more funding, because we are teaching and research institutions.

The problem with this dubious formulation is that funding a university in its current, monstrous form is tantamount to giving a drug lord a state subsidy for a pool, a perk, or a prostitute.  (A suitable doctoral dissertation: Compare the rhetoric of Pablo Escobar with Australian university management from 2000 to 2019.  You won’t be disappointed.)  Vice-Chancellors of the university world are white collar criminals on par with bankers, and, like those bankers, claim they perform an invaluable service.  When they fail, they are simply moved on to another institution, leaving their sludge in ample supply.

The pro-vice chancellors, the deputies, the deputy-deputies and the deputies under them, are co-conspirators in an enterprise that robs students blind and plunders the goodwill of academic staff.  Never has there been a better case to start putting these types into re-education camps, the very sort that they wish academics who disagree with them to attend.  Apropos on that point, it is notable that universities in Australia love sending disagreeing and disagreeable academics to counsellors hired by the university itself.  Thought-crime thrives down under.

Be that as it may, the recent news that Murdoch University in Western Australia, has decided to counter-sue an academic for exposing the lowering of academic standards, should come as confirmation.  How utterly revolting to expose such a squalid secret!  How revolting to believe that standards should be kept!  (The issue here, as much as anything else, is to put to bed the snake oil language of being a “global educator”.  A local non-educator will suffice.)

Federal Court documents have done more than reveal that the university is seeking compensation from Associate Professor Gerd Schröder-Turk for millions lost since he appeared on a Four Corners program in May discussing the plight of failing Indian students.  It involves a counter-action against the academic, who initially filed an action under the Fair Work Act to restrain the university from disciplining him for discussing the lowering of academic standards.

The university has been rightfully punished by a decline in student numbers but insists that it “maintains admission standards consistent with the national standards for international students, along with English language requirements in line with those across the sector.”  In short, the Murdoch argument is that made by those who think failure sells: they all do it, so why pick on us?

Murdoch University’s overpaid VC, Eeva Leinonen, claims to refute (is it not confute?) “the claims made by the ABC” in an email sent to students after the Four Corners program aired.  She babbles incorrigibly, resorting to those nonsenses about employability and global reputation for a university that struggles, just, to be local.  “In 2018, Murdoch was ranked number one in Australia for graduate employability.  Employers value the knowledge and skills that you have learnt at Murdoch University.”  (Leinonen is yet another example of how corruption, to be pure, needs to be imported – she cut her teeth as Vice-President in Education at King’s College, University of London.)

Even Australia’s restrained whistleblowing commentators have been a touch troubled by the arid and vicious reasoning of Murdoch University.  The university, as a realm of academic protection, is a piecemeal matter in Australia.  But modern management, being itself a high-functioning criminal class, has made it imperative to cast an eye on protections for those who blow that all too rare whistle on plagiarism, charlatanism, shallow standards and good, down-to-earth theft.

A. J. Brown, who wears the rather rusted crown of whistleblowing authority in a country that has found the practice irksome, ventured the obvious in his assessment: the action by Murdoch University will stifle whistleblowing.  “I’m not aware of any situation where a university, or really… any sort of organisation, has counter-sued the whistleblower for damages.”

Murdoch University has revealed some important, and cheery results, for those who believe that the academy, and university, remains a place of challenge and learning rather than numbers and padding.  The institution, in an effort to target Shröder-Turk, is full of complaint: shovelling amounts out for investigations by tertiary regulators; lamenting the upgrade of the Immigration Risk Rating by the Department of Home Affairs.  Schröder-Turk should be given a knighthood.

What is needed, in the immediate future, is a redrafting of laws in states and the Commonwealth that permits full, iron-sheeted immunity to those who expose managerial corruption.  This case shows the quibbling and the lack of clarity of those who engage in what is called “public interest disclosure”.  University academics fit uncomfortably within that skimpy bit of legislation known as the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, but Shröder-Turk has attempted to apply it.  (The provisions are so miserably weak and vague as to be ineffectual and, as the court documents note, he was “largely unsuccessful in his interlocutory application.”)  Nor can they avail themselves of the Corporate protections recently passed in Australia, exaggerated in their protections, but nonetheless important for having taken place.

What is astonishing is the free rein given to universities to punish and discipline their personnel for a disgusting tendency, namely, to have, and defend, principles central to teaching and research.  How dare these learned types stand up for principled admission standards?  Care about grades?  Worry about performance?  Away with those hideous farts, those people who refuse to play the corporate ball game.

We so happen to disturb an age where the university, as it has become, should be abolished.  We await the madly dedicated Martin Luther in academic dress and garb to target his theses with venom against the Papacy of Management; we await the sit-ins of keen students, aware of thought, who have decided to be more than drugged consumers, leading the militant protests directed to learning, the determined opposition to expose the corporate hypocrisy of this dying animal.  (Academics won’t, cowardice being their poesy and milky blood.)  Best kill it off now, and put us, and everybody else, out of a collective misery that serves to rob taxpayer, learner and instructor.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

On Saturday, the fourth day of Turkey’s cross border military operation, Turkey’s Defense Minister claimed that they had captured a key border town called Ras Al Ain, however the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) denied the claim.

Turkey accidently put US special forces in harm’s way on Friday, when they attacked a known US observation post on Friday. Turkey denied firing on US forces. No injuries were reported.

Turkey has stated that “Operation Peace Spring” is directed at safeguarding its border security, preventing the formation of a terror corridor, preventing the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) and its Syrian offshoots the People’s Protection Units (YPG), Democratic Union Party (PYD) and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from disrupting the demographic structures of the region, protecting Syria’s territorial integrity, resettling Syrian refugees in terror-free safe zone, terminate the PKK/YPG/PYD drug trade including production and sales, and preventing these militias from recruiting child soldiers.

However, residential neighborhoods have been targeted, and civilians have been killed in border towns. The situation is fluid with chaos, fear, and violence raging on. Armenia has reached out the Armenian Bishop and offered Armenians in Qamishli to leave Syria during this difficult time but many are saying that they would rather remain in their country (Syria).

The PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by NATO including the US and the EU. Turkey states the PKK has killed 40,000 people in Turkey since its inception thirty years ago.

Turkey is worried about a terror corridor being built under the guise of being an energy corridor. The Kurdish militias took control of energy sources. They wanted to transfer gas and oil that they seized to the Mediterranean passing through Hatay through this “energy corridor” which Turkey believes is a terror corridor.

Mortar shells and rocket attacks have been launched by both sides dozens of times claiming hundreds of innocent civilian lives. Turkey says that they want to prevent the Kurdish militias from disrupting the demographic structure of the region. Stating that the PKK/YPG/PYD are terrorizing civilians and forcing Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen out of their homes if they do not recognize their authority and then seizing their properties. They also demolish buildings where land registry records are kept.

On the ground sources in Syria that are not allied with Turkey have also stated similar things, homes and businesses are being confiscated, young men are kidnapped from the streets in forced conscription by the Turkish militias. Illegitimate taxes are being placed on non-Kurds. Schools have been closed and administrators thrown in jail for not accepting an unrecognized Kurdish curriculum.

Although Turkey has stated at every opportunity that it is interested in protecting Syria’s territorial integrity and wants to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state on its border some worry that the real intention behind establishing a safe zone and peace corridor is to encroach on Syrian land. Turkey has claimed that they will return Syrian land to “its rightful owners” but hasn’t specified who that is.

Turkey claims it wants to eliminate the presence of all terrorist groups in the region, but that doesn’t seem to include the nefarious militias and terrorists that it supports such as the Free Syrian Army and its affiliates. Turkey is fixated on eliminating only Kurdish militias.

Turkey’s two previous military operations, Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch cleared Kurdish militias along 4,000 km of Turkey’s border and this latest operation is aiming to clear 480 kilometers east of the Euphrates and establishing a safe zone.

Another aim is to terminate the Kurdish militia’s drug trade. Turkey states that the PKK/YPG/PYD have drug production facilities in the region and sell their drugs to Europe and the USA. Turkey is aiming at ending their drug production and trade in the region.

Turkey is also looking to resettle 1-2 million of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees it is currently hosting. It aims to purge the Kurdish militias first, then restore the infrastructure system and then resettle them in the safe zone area. The issue here is that demographics will be forcefully changed by Turkey, just as they were in the two previous cross border operations.

Turkey makes the distinction that Kurdish militias do not represent most Kurdish people. Most Kurdish movements and political parties are focused on the concerns and autonomy of Kurds within their respective countries. Within each country, there are Kurds who have assimilated and whose aspirations may be limited to greater cultural freedoms and political recognition.

The PKK/YPG have previously admitted to recruiting and using child soldiers. Turkey is aiming at eliminating that as well.

It’s important to remember that Turkey was not granted permission by the Syrian state to carry out these military operations on its sovereign land. Also, had the United States and the Kurdish self-administration given control of these areas to the Syrian army Turkey wouldn’t have had a pretext to justify these illegal military missions.

Turkey is using artillery and war plans in Ras al-Ayn and Qamishli in the Al Hassaka governorate and Ein Issa in Raqqa’s northern countryside. Also, the Allouk water station in Ras al-Ayn is not rendered after electrical cables were severed during Turkish aggression. It’s also been reported that 100 US soldiers withdrew from the targeted areas in two batches and headed to Iraq along with dozens of vehicles and that ten US officers and several foreign experts left the Rumailan US base for Iraq.

On Thursday, the Directorate-General for Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) stated that archeological sites and hills in northern Syria have sustained serious damage. Dr. Mahmoud Hammoud the Director General of DGAM said that several archeological sites that date back to the modern stone age and have been home to several consecutive civilizations for thousands of years have been targeted by Turkish aggression. He is pleading with the international community, academics, archeologists and UNESCO to pressure Turkey into halting its aggression which threatens Syria’s cultural heritage. He also noted that the northern area of Syria which Turkey wants to occupy contains archeological sites that date back more than 3,000 years and are an integral part of this region’s history. He called the Turkey’s actions crimes against humanity and stated that its barbaric aggression is a methodical attack on Syria’s heritage.

By Friday, the UN estimates 100,000 civilians have fled their homes, 342 Kurdish fighters have been killed, major cities in northern Syria have been hit including, residential neighborhoods, dams, vital electric and water facilities. Civilian casualties are rising as well.  President Trump has said mediation is one of the three options the other two are to send thousands of troops or enforce harsh sanctions.

We are likely to see more bloodshed, civilian deaths, prison breaks, ISIS detainees fleeing, battles over border towns such as Ras Al Ayn and other strategic areas in the upcoming days. Although the international community has called for Turkey to end its invasion and exercise restrain not enough is being done to end “Operation Peace Spring” which is anything but peaceful.

*

The article was also published on The American Herald Tribune

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

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. She is a frequent contributor of Global Research.

For media inquiries please email [email protected].  

Since October 9, the Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish-backed militants have been developing a ground phase of their operation against Kurdish armed groups in northeastern Syria.

The main Turkish efforts were focused on the towns of Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad. Turkey-led forces captured several villages surrounding the towns and event entered Tell Abyad. Nonetheless, the situation in the area remains unstable. It is expected that the Syrian Democratic Forces, a brand used by mainstream media to describe the YPG and the YPJ, will be able to defend fortified urban areas until they are not encircled.

According to pro-Turkish sources, over 100 YPG/YPJ members were neutralized since the start of the operation. This number remains unconfirmed. Pro-Kurdish sources claim that the YPG was able to eliminate several pieces of Turkish military equipment and kill two dozens of Turkish proxies. These claims were also barely confirmed by any evidence. However, at least 17 civilians were injured in a mortar shelling that targeted the Turkish town of Ceylanpınar.

Watch the video here.

Syria’s state-run news agency SANA reported on October 10 that about 100 US troops had left northeastern Syria through the Semalka border crossing with Iraq. Taking into account that US President Donald Trump called Turkey’s operation a “bad idea”, but distanced himself from Kurdish forces because they did not help the US in World War II, it becomes more and more clear that the Turkish military action in the region is in fact coordinated with the US.

By this move, the Trump administration makes an important step to return confidence of its key ally in the eastern Mediterranean and, at the same time, delivers a blow to efforts of the Obama administration and the CIA that had contributed notable efforts in supporting the Kurdish project in northern Syria.

The possible rapprochement of the US and Turkey over the conflict in Syria will allow Washington to strengthen its campaign to limit influence of Iran and the Assad government in the war-torn country, as well as open additional opportunities for a revanche of the US military industrial complex on the Turkish market. This is a logical step in the framework of the national-oriented policy provided by the Trump administration.

The key question is how deep into Syria the Turkish military is planning to expand its Operation Peace Spring. Currently, pro-Turkish sources speculate about the possible creation of a 30km-deep corridor. If the US allows Turkey and Turkey appears to be capable of reaching this goal, Anakra will boost its role in the conflict even further and gain a wide range of options to influence its possible settlement. In this event, the Assad government will lost all the remaining chances to restore the territorial integrity and the Trump administration will get additional leverages of pressure on Iran, the Assad government and Russia 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

This article was first published in April 2019, following the granting of a $4.2 billion IMF loan to Ecuador.

It should be understood that the conditions underlying this loan are intended to impoverish an entire country. 

The IMF policy conditionalities are very specific. Massive layoffs in the public sector, dramatic hikes in fuel prices, reduction in real wages, the privatization of pension funds. 

The diesel fuel price more than doubled overnight. Gasoline prices increased by 29%. 

The $4.2 billion is tagged for the reimbursement of Ecuador’s external debt. new loans to pay back old debts. It is fake loan.

See the text of the IMF loan agreement in Annex below

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 12, 2019

****

The evidence of political pressure on Ecuador is surfacing. The IMF Executive Board Approved US$4.2 Billion  (435% of quota and SDR 3.035 billion).

Extended Fund Facility for Ecuador. The Executive Board agreed to this arrangement with strings attached. The Board’s decision enables the immediate disbursement of US$652 million (equivalent to SDR 469,7 million, or 67.3 percent of Ecuador’s quota). This arrangement provides support for the Ecuadorean government’s economic policies over the next three years provided they gave up Julian Assange.

It is very interesting how corruption and bribes grease the world. Every person who ever becomes a whistleblower on government goes to prison.

The USA immediately unveiled its request for extradition on computer hacking charges that carry 5 years. Of course, the US must put on its case to get its hands around Julian’s neck. Once he is extradited to the USA, they will unleash a battery of other charges to ensure he does life.

The rumblings behind the curtain are that the Democrats in league with the Deep State are behind this, hoping to force Assange to say he got Hillary’s emails from Putin as part of a plea deal. The danger of all of this nonsense is simply the plain fact it will bring us one more step closer to world war. What is clearly involved here seems to be a highly coordinated scheme that links the IMF and throwing Chelsea Manning in prison who will conveniently have to testify against Assange who can be eventually charged as was Manning and face the death penalty. By linking this to Russia, they hope to also prevent Trump from granting him any pardons.

This is getting very deep. Tyranny under the Banner of Liberty & Human Rights.

*

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

Martin Arthur Armstrong is the former chairman of Princeton Economics International Ltd. He is best known for his economic predictions based on the Economic Confidence Model, which he developed. 

---

The IMF Report 

click to read full report.

emphasis and comments in brackets added by Global Research

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Context: The authorities face a difficult situation. Wage increases have outpaced productivity growth [IMF calls for a reduction in real wages] over the past decade which, has led to a deterioration in competitiveness. This has been exacerbated by a strong U.S. dollar—Ecuador’s economy is fully dollarized—leaving the real exchange rate overvalued. [engineered by Wall Street]

Public debt is high and rising, the government faces sizable gross financing needs, and international reserves are precariously low. The recent volatility in oil prices and tighter global financial conditions have exacerbated these strains.

Article IV: The Article IV discussions focused on diagnosing the nature of the imbalances facing Ecuador and the policy changes that will be needed to address them. At the center of the discussion was the proper calibration of the size, pace, and composition of the reduction in the fiscal deficit that will be needed in the coming years. [implementation  of drastic austerity measures] In addition, there was broad agreement that fundamental supply-side efforts will be needed to foster competitiveness, create jobs, rebuild institutions, and make Ecuador a more attractive destination for private investment. Finally, improving the social safety net and increasing the effectiveness of public spending, particularly on health and education, will be essential to achieving strong, sustained, and socially equitable growth.

Program Objectives: Consistent with the findings of the Article IV, the authorities’ policy plan seeks to decisively address the systemic vulnerabilities facing Ecuador. The goals of these policies are to boost competitiveness and job creation, protect the poor and most vulnerable, fortify the institutional foundations for dollarization, [denies Ecuador to have an independent and sovereign monetary policy] and to improve transparency and good governance to public sector operations while strengthening the fight against corruption.

Program Modalities: The proposed program would be a 36-month Extended Fund Facility with access of US$4.209 billion (SDR 3.035 billion, 435 percent of quota) [New loans to pay back outstanding foreign debts, harsh policy conditionalities imposed by creditors]. The program has quarterly reviews and the full amount of Fund resources would be made available for direct budget support. Performance criteria have been established on the non-oil primary balance of the nonfinancial public sector (including fuel subsidies), net international reserves (excluding bank deposits held at the central bank), and on social assistance spending. There are continuous performance criteria to prevent new external payment arrears and to prohibit central bank financing of the nonfinancial public sector (both directly or indirectly through public banks). The program also includes a quarterly indicative target on the overall balance of the nonfinancial public sector.

Featured image is from HoweStreet.com

Big powers, as with the greatest of gangsters, have always had a certain, indulgent luxury; their prerogative is to make promises they can choose to abide by or ignore.  A vision is assured, guarantees made.  Then comes the betrayal.  The small powers, often pimped in the process, can only deal with the violent consequences.

The United States has gone the way of other powers in this regard.  On Monday, the White House announced that US troops would be withdrawn from the Syrian-Turkish border.  At a press conference, President Donald Trump explained that the US had been in Syria “for a long time”.  The stint was intended to be short; and besides, the US had, by and large, “defeated ISIS.  One hundred percent of the caliphate.” (This point is confuted by the US Defence Department Inspector General.)  Distinctly un-imperial sentiments were expressed.  “We want to bring our soldiers home.  These are the endless wars.”

Ankara, having been beating at the door impatiently for some for action to be taken against the Kurdish fighters who form the bulk of the Syrian Democratic Forces, has now been given what is tantamount to an encouragement: when we leave, do your worst.  Trump, for his part, has made less than convincing overtures that any violent action on the part of Turkish forces against the Kurdish fighters will lead to an economic retaliation from Washington.  In operational terms, Turkey has also been scratched from the roster of coalition air operations over Syria and limited in terms of receiving US intelligence.

Critics of the decision see the matter less in pro-Kurdish terms than in those benefitting US adversaries in the region.  Russia, Iran and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, warned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), would be delighted as this “precipitous withdrawal”.  Islamic State forces would also receive a boost of encouragement.  For Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) Trump had made “an impulsive decision that has long-term ramifications” cutting “against sound military and geopolitical advice.”

The United States has, like a deep-pocketed sugar-daddy, funded, watered and encouraged agents, allies, entities and states in various global theatres, only to withdraw support at vital moments.  The Kurds and Marsh Arabs, or the Ma’dan, were offered promises of support in 1991 in taking up arms against the Saddam regime.  The more than heavy hint given was that Washington would put boots and vehicles on the road to Baghdad once the Iraqis were banished from Kuwait.  Rebellions were started in anticipation.

The mission never went much beyond the issue of restoring Kuwait’s sovereign status.  President George W. H. Bush felt that tic of restraint, the cold hand of geopolitical reason: to go further would inspire doom and possible quagmire, the US having previously received a most telling bruising in Indochina.  The result of this cruel calculus was simple: Best abandon the promised.  The result was massacre, with Iraqi forces mopping up with an efficiency unseen in its confrontation with Coalition forces.

The Kurdish story of abandonment and betrayal is historical staple.  No mention was made of the Kurdish nation in the Treaty of Lausanne, which saw Britain and France deal with Syria and Iraq in artificial, jigsaw terms.  Sects and tribes were jumbled.  The ingredients for future conflict were mixed.  Britain’s own great power contribution during the 1920s was to quash Kurdistan within the borders of Iraq.  But it saw little trouble, at least initially, in recognising the Kurdish Republic of Ararat, as it was set up within the boundaries of a severely weakened post-Ottoman Turkish state.  The Foreign Office, however, saw much value in Turkey as a geopolitical player.  Britain duly repudiated its position, permitting Turkey to wipe that fledgling experiment from the map.

In time, the United States replaced European powers as the Kurds’ serial betrayers, and seemed to relish leading projects of autonomy down the garden path.  Washington did not shy away from providing assistance to Iraqi Kurds during the rule of Abd al-Karim Qasim in the late 1950s.  With Kassem’s overthrow in a 1963 military coup, support dried up.  The US objective of having Kassem removed had been achieved, allowing the new order to liquidate Kurdish resistance.

In February 1975, the Village Voice published details of a covert action program supplying Iraqi Kurds with weapons and material that had run for three years costing $16 million.  The aim was to turn the Kurds into a harassing force rather than a full blown autonomous unit.  This took place despite strenuous objections from those within the Central Intelligence Agency, a body not always known for its cautious take on such matters, warning that thousands of Kurds would perish.  As ever, the man behind the effort – President Richard Nixon – made sure that the State Department was left in the dark for a good time after the program had commenced.

Despite US approval of an Iran-Iraq agreement over the Shatt-al-Arab in 1975, the Kurds were purposely not informed about the political shift and encouraged to keep fighting.  For the border dispute, Saddam got what he wanted: Iranian-US cessation of support for the Kurdish cause, resulting in the deaths of 35,000 and the creation of 200,000 refugees.  Before the  House Select Committee on Intelligence (also known as the Pike Committee), Nixon’s Iago, Henry Kissinger, was untroubled: “covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”  The final report of the Pike Committee would not let this one pass.  “Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise.”

The pattern of cold indifference, fed by hardened cynicism, continues through the 1980s.  Few tears were shed in the White House over the use of nerve and mustard gas against the Kurdish populace of Halabja in March 1988.  In fact, President Ronald Reagan, in the great US tradition of he’s-our-sonofabitch, made a point of ensuring that Iraq was not penalised by sanctions.  In the 1990s, the Clinton administration separated its favourite, noble Kurds from their destabilising counterparts, the former a celebrated nuisance to Saddam; the latter a terrorist threat to Turkey, a US ally.  In 2007, just to recapitulate the point, Turkey was allowed free rein to target Iraqi Kurds within a post-Saddam country.

The rise of Islamic State with its daft and dangerous caliphate pretensions had a seedling effect in northern Syria and Iraq: an incipient Kurdish independence movement throbbed in resistance.  Turkey looked on, worried.  But US support for the Kurdish resistance was premised on the continuing presence of Islamic State, and its eventual neutralisation.  The defeat of its fighters, many of whom have found themselves in Kurdish custody, with their families in camps, gave Trump the signal to move US personnel out.  While his sentiment on not feeding eternal wars is eminently sensible, the consequences of this decision make it just another betrayal, and another bloodbath in waiting.  To the Kurds go the sorrows.

*

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

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

The withdrawal of US troops from the Turkish border has caused a kind of panic among the leadership of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which mostly consist of Kurdish militias.

On October 7, the group already speculated that the Syrian Army is preparing to capture the town of Manbij taking an upper hand of the US troops’ withdrawal. The Syrian military in fact deployed reinforcements near the area. Pro-government sources say the army is preparing to act in response to a possible Turkish military operation.

On October 8, the Turkish Armed Forces announced that they had carried out strikes on the Syrian-Iraqi border in order to prevent Kurdish groups from using the route to reinforce their positions in northeastern Syria. Ankara expects that units of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which it recognizes as a terrorist group, could be re-deployed from northern Iraq to the Syrian-Turkish border.

Watch the video here.

Almost immediately after first Turkish strikes, the SDF leadership announced that it is ready to consider resuming talks with Damascus, and therefore Russia. Earlier, the group sabotaged all Damascus attempts to settle the existing differences through political measures by demanding the Syrian government to de-facto recognize and fund a de-facto independent state with own military within Syria. Now, when the SDF’s key ally has once again appeared to be not ready to sacrifice its geo-strategic interests to create a Kurdish state in Syria, the SDF is once again seeking negotiations with the ‘bloody Assad regime.’

At the same time, the Turkish military and Turkish proxies continue their preparations for a possible military action against Kurdish militias. Recently, a Turkish military convoy was spotted near the town of Jarabulus. In the event of a military operation, the town will become an important logistical point.

*

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

Most of the world remembers the controversy in recent years about Russian athletes allegedly failing to comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) policies, but that scandal still continues to this day after the international organization recently threatened that country’s sportspeople with being banned from next year’s Tokyo Olympics on the same basis. The narrative is that there are supposedly “inconsistencies” with the lab data that Russia submitted to prove its adherence to WADA’s regulations, though that storyline is extremely suspect and also reeks of selective enforcement for political reasons.

To explain, it’s illogical that Russian athletes would continue to use banned substances after the agency globally humiliated them and the country that they represented several years ago on that basis, nor would their coaches and those responsible for them allow “inconsistent” lab results to be given to that international sports body if that was still the case (though it was always questionable to begin with the first time around whether there were actually any violations or not). Every stakeholder therefore has a self-interested reason in ensuring that the testing process proceeds smoothly and without incident, not to cheat the rules while under scrutiny.

Another valid point to make is that other countries’ athletes use questionable medi cation to treat certain health symptoms that might have actually given them an unfair advantage during competitions. For instance, RT reported last year on how Swedish media alleged that “70 percent of Norwegian medals in Olympic skiing events were won by athletes diagnosed with asthma”, yet those athletes aren’t under WADA’s microscope like Russia’s are. Quite clearly, the agency is only selectively enforcing its standards for what can only be presumed to be political reasons related to the New Cold War.

Russia is one of the US’ chief geopolitical adversaries across the world, and Washington is weaponizing all means at its disposal to wage a Hybrid War against Moscow, one that transcends the traditional definition of war to include intangible and unquantifiable aspects such as the degrading of national dignity. Understanding this, it makes sense why WADA is threatening Russian athletes, since that’s intended to damage their country’s dignity on the world stage as punishment for their government refusing to submit to the US’ foreign policy diktats. As a result, all Russians might be made to suffer.

This strategy isn’t just being carried out for the sake of schadenfreude, but as part of a far-fetched plan to decrease the population’s support of their government. The theory goes that average Russians might eventually be misguided by a forthcoming US-backed infowar campaign to somehow blame their government for this humiliation, which could contribute to increasing anti-government sentiment and then indirectly influence their political preferences in 2024 after President Putin’s final term ends. That idea might sound attractive in Washington think tanks and the halls of Langley, but it’s completely unrealistic in practice.

A supposedly apolitical international organization punishing a population for the disagreements that their government has with another violates all morality and exposes that said body for what it truly would be in that scenario, which is an American proxy organization being weaponized for Hybrid War ends. It doesn’t matter that the consequences of such a decision wouldn’t have any effect on political stability in Russia, but just that it would be very cruel to do to ordinary people who more often than not could care less about international politics and are more interested in patriotically rooting for their country’s team as they compete in Tokyo.

The Olympics are supposed to bring the world together for a few weeks by allowing everyone’s athletes to bask in glory that they deserve for being the best of the best selected to compete in this prestigious event, provided that they earned their place fairly. Singling out Russians for alleged “inconsistencies” while ignoring the much more credible case of Norwegians gaming the system — to say nothing of transsexuals now being allowed to participate, even without undergoing gender reassignment surgery — is a travesty of everything that the Olympics are supposed to stand for and actually degrades the international community’s dignity most of all.

*

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 InfoBrics.

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 Wikimedia Commons

It remains one of the more unusual arrangements in terms of funding. Like a club filled with members of erratic disposition, the United Nations can never count on all dues to come in on time.  Some members drag their feet.  The bill is often delayed.  In the United States, responsible for some 22 percent for the operating budget of the UN, payment only tends to come in after October, a matter put down to the nature of the fiscal year.

That, however, is only one aspect of the broader problem.  Withholding money is as much a political as it is a budgetary act, despite it being notionally a breach of Article 17 of the UN Charter.  The article is important for stipulating that the Organisation’s expenses “shall by borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.”

Historically, foreign policy and matters of organisation reform have been cited as key matters to reduce or withhold membership dues.  The reason is simple: such “assessed dues” go to funding the official regular budget, which defrays administrative costs, peacekeeping operations and various programs.

For the United States, this has been a critical matter, given that some 40 percent of running costs for the organisation were initially borne by Washington.  It was therefore unsurprising that some pressure would come to bear upon the organisation.  In the mid-1980s, for instance, it became US policy to threaten the reduction of Washington’s “annual assessed contribution… by 8.34 percent for each month which United States is suspended” if Israel was “illegally expelled, suspended, denied its credentials or in any manner denied its right to participate.”

The funding issue has been a burning one for a US Congress mindful of the money bags.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms, the immoveable furniture of that committee for years, could claim to be the one deciding voice on whether the US would pay its UN dues either in full or on time.  (It often did neither.)  Along with Senator Joe Biden, a deal was struck in 1997 to pressure the UN to observe various “benchmarks” in order to receive full payments.  These included the necessary reduction of UN staff, appropriate reporting procedures between the Inspector General and the Secretary General, and a ban on funds to other organisations.

In January 2000, Senator Helms was given a chance to advise, poke and condescend to the body he had held in such deep suspicion for decades, this so-called shadow government in waiting.  The UN was greeted to the unusual spectacle of a Congressman addressing the UN Security Council, an event engineered by then US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke.  Despite professing a degree of strained friendship for the organisation, his purpose was to rebuke those critics who had considered US contributions to the body those of a “deadbeat”.  As “the representative of the UN’s largest investors – the American people- we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange for their investment.”

President Donald Trump’s arrival was unlikely to start a new chapter of warm accommodation between US money and UN operating costs.  In September 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would cease US humanitarian aid contributions to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).  Despite threatening social services, healthcare and education, Jared Kushner was convinced by the wisdom of the move.

“This agency is corrupt, inefficient, and doesn’t help peace.”

The 2018 budget proposal also included slashing half of US funding to UN programs, with climate change being a particularly inviting target.  (Congress has relented on the issue of enforcing a cap on contributions to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.)  Such an example of hectoring, threatening UN agencies with a cessation of funding designed to induce changes of policy, remains a steadfast practice.

Of the current amount of some $1.3 billion owed to the UN by members, the US boasts the lion’s share of arrears at $1 billion.  This figure of imbalance has not prevented Trump, from venting about other members.  “So make all Member Countries pay, not just the United States!”

In June this year, Secretary-General António Guterres informed the budget overseers at the Fifth Committee that the UN faced catastrophe in terms of reputation and its ability to operate if payroll and supplies were not covered.

“The solution lies not only in ensuring that all Member States pay in full and on time, but also in putting certain tools in place.”

By the end of May, the organisation was facing a deficit of $492 million.  Guterres could not help but sound apocalyptic.

“We are at a tipping point and what we do next will matter for years to come.”

The situation has duly worsened.  On Monday, Guterres suggested the possibility that the UN would run dry of cash reserves by the end of October.  In a letter to the 37,000 employees based at the UN secretariat, the secretary general explained that,

“Member states have paid only 70 percent of the total amount needed for our regular budget operations in 2019. This translates into a cash shortage of $230 million at the end of September.  We run the risk of depleting our backup liquidity reserves by the end of the month.”

Belt tightening measure are being suggested.  Conferences and meetings are being postponed.  Non-essential travel is being stopped.  UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric is pressing member states, of whom 129 have paid their annual dues in full to date “to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally.”  As the UN is only as relevant, and as effective, as its member states, failure to fill the coffers may well confirm Trump’s sentiment that the globalist is in retreat.  Behold the parochial patriot.

*

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]

For the first time in recent history, a poor, underdeveloped country has in no time developed into an economic superpower, with a major impact on world affairs. How has this been made possible? What does this mean for the rest of the world? A retrospective of 70 years of Chinese revolutions.

Back on the world map

For centuries, China exerted a cultural attraction and was, together with India, a leading player on the world stage. After a century of harrowing colonization, humiliation and internal civil wars, Mao Zedong put his country back on the world map in 1949. The Chinese regained their dignity.

It was the start of a ‘development marathon at a great pace’ that would shake up global relations. And as Napoleon Bonaparte predicted earlier:

“China is a sleeping giant. When it awakens, the whole world will shake “.

Economic miracle

At the time of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the country was one of the poorest and most backward in the world. The vast majority of the Chinese were employed in (often primitive) agriculture. Per capita GDP was half that of Africa and one sixth of that of Latin America. To give the revolutionary ideals of equality a chance in a highly hostile world environment, it was necessary to achieve rapid economic and technological growth. This was to take place over the next 70 years through a process of trial and error.

After an extremely introverted and turbulent period under Mao Zedong – in which controversial mass campaigns were launched such as ‘The Great Leap Forward’ and ‘The Cultural Revolution’ – Deng Xiaoping took up the torch in 1978. Almost immediately but cautiously, he launched economic reforms and established relations with numerous countries, including, remarkably, the United States.

In comparison with Western Europe, China’s industrialization went four times as fast, and with a population five times as large.^[i] Seventy years ago, the Chinese economy was insignificant on a global level. In 2014, the Chinese surpassed the US as the largest economy (in terms of volume) and it also becomes the largest exporting country. Today there are 35 Chinese cities with a GDP equal to that of countries such as Norway, Switzerland or Angola. The Chinese GDP has meanwhile become larger than the combined GDP of 154 countries. In 2011-2012, China produced more cement than the US during the entire twentieth century. It built ten new airports each year and has the world’s most extensive network of motorways and high-speed train lines. At the present, the country exports as much in six hours as it did in 1978 on an annual basis.

Technological leap forward

China is not only surprising in terms of quantitative evolution. In terms of quality, the Chinese economy has also made huge leaps forward, technological development being the prime example. Millions of engineers, scientists and technicians have graduated from Chinese universities in recent decades. Until recently, China was seen as an imitator of technology. Today it is a leading innovator. China currently has the fastest supercomputer and is building the world’s most advanced research center to develop even faster quantum computers. In recent years, the country has achieved impressive results in the field of hypersonic rockets, human gene processing tests, quantum satellites and perhaps most importantly: artificial intelligence. The Made in China 2025 project aims to strengthen that technological innovation in vital socio-economic sectors.

Does China owe part of its technological progress to the stealing of intellectual property? Undoubtedly, as is the case with countries such as Brazil, India and Mexico. In the past, the US, too, has only been able to develop its economic growth at the level of superpower thanks to the large-scale theft of technology from Great Britain and Europe. As The Economist puts it:

“The transfer of know-how from rich countries to poorer ones, by hook or crook, is an integral part of economic development.”

Recipe

The success of the Chinese modernization sprint is based on various pillars:

1. The key sectors of the economy are in the hands of the government, which also indirectly controls most of the other sectors, inter alia through the controlling presence of the Communist Party in most medium-sized and large companies.
2. The financial sector is under strict government control.
3. The economy is planned, not in all details but in general, both in the short term and in the longer term.
4. There is room for (quite a lot of) private initiative within a well-delineated market mechanism that is dynamically developed in various economic domains; the market mechanism is tolerated as long as it does not interfere with economic and social objectives (of the overall planning).
5. Compared to other emerging countries, there is a high degree of openness to foreign investment and foreign trade, provided that it is in line with China’s global economic objectives.
6. A great deal of effort is being put into developing infrastructure and Research & Development.
7. Wages largely follow the increase in productivity, which has created a large and dynamic internal market.
8. A relatively large amount is invested in education, health care and social security.
9. The country has enjoyed peace for decades and there is a relatively high level of social peace in the workplace.

• The distribution of agricultural land to farmers at the start of the revolution and the system of individual household registration (Hukou) have made it relatively possible to avoid the typical chaotic rural exodus of most Third World countries, resulting in massive informal and unproductive work.
• Unlike the Soviet Union, China has not embarked on a very expensive arms race with the US.

This approach contrasts with the recipe of capitalist countries where financial capital and multinationals are in charge, where short-term profit is the overriding goal and where governments are fixated on eliminating budget deficits through savings. The spectacular way in which they have tackled the financial crisis (2008) is typical of China. The Chinese government launched a stimulus program of 12.5 percent of GDP, probably the largest peacetime program ever. The Chinese economy plummeted a little but then picked up quickly, while the European economy has been teetering during ten years.

New growth model

Due to rapid changes in the internal labor market, wages and foreign markets, the Chinese government developed a different growth model. When President Xi Jinping took office in 2012, he stated that ‘growth for growth’s sake’ should no longer be the goal. The old model was based on exports and on investments in heavy industry, construction and the manufacturing industry. In the new model, the driving force is mass consumption (domestic market), the services sector and higher added-value activities by climbing the technological ladder. This transformation illustrates the flexibility in which the Chinese leadership implements economic policy. It is the 12th pillar of the Chinese recipe. This flexibility stands out from the way the Soviet Union dealt with these challenges in its later period.

Can the successful growth continue for a while now? Without doubt the economy is struggling with a high level of debt, shadow banks, over-investment in infrastructure, a real estate bubble, an ageing population, an increasing trade war with the US, and so on. Yet most observers still see China as a resilient economy with analyses showing that there is still substantial room for error and setbacks and a lot of room to grow at a rapid pace for a long time to come.

The largest poverty reduction in world history

In 1949, at the start of the Chinese revolution, the life expectancy was 35 years. Thirty years on, it had already doubled to 68 years.^[ii] Today, the life expectancy of the Chinese is 76 years. Infant mortality has improved fairly well. If, for example, India offered the same medical care and social support to its inhabitants as China does, 830,000 fewer Indian babies would die each year.^[iii]

Between 1978 and 2018 China succeeded in lifting a record number of people out of poverty: 770 million. This amounts to the total population of sub-Saharan Africa during that period. At the current pace, extreme poverty will be eradicated by 2020. According to Robert Zoellick, former President of the World Bank,

this is “certainly the greatest leap to overcome poverty in history. China’s efforts alone have ensured that the world’s Millennium Development Goal on poverty reduction will be met. We and the world have much to learn from this.”

While wages are stagnating or declining in many countries, they have tripled in China over the last decade. Fifteen years ago, Western multinationals flocked to China because of low wages. The reverse movement is now starting to take hold. The average wages in the Chinese industry are currently only 20 percent lower than in Portugal. Countries such as Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine already had lower minimum wages in 2013 than in China.

Dark sides

This success story also has its drawbacks. The faster increase in productivity in industry and services, compared to agriculture, has led to a big gap between urban and rural areas, between poorer regions and the richer eastern coastal provinces. The strict Hukou system (registration of the individual residence, determines the social status) causes a huge group (of hundreds of millions) of ‘internal migrants’ who have less social rights and are often being discriminated. The one-child policy (since 1978) has led – apart from its binding character – to numerous selective abortions and a male surplus of more than thirty million.

Democracy: input and output

The Western political system usually thinks of itself to be superior and regards itself as the only valid model. This doesn’t demonstrate much historical insight knowing that almost all fascist regimes were born in the womb of western parliamentary democracy. An unbiased observer also will observe that Western democracy mainly serves the interests of the 1 %. That it lacks both a long-term vision and an effective policy to tackle social and ecological problems. And that it has been the breeding ground for increasingly ludicrous, unpredictable and dangerous figures such as Trump, Johnson, Bolsonaro and Duterte.

When it comes to democracy, the emphasis in the West is on the input side, on the question of how and by whom decision-making takes place. What are the procedures for choosing the political leadership and is the will of the citizens voiced by the elected representatives? Elections are the most important element in this.

In China, the emphasis is on the outputside, i.e. on the consequencesof the decision: is the decision successful and who benefits? The result is paramount, good and fair governance is the most important criterion.^[iv] In this respect, the Chinese attach more importance to the quality of their politicians than to the procedures for choosing their leaders.

Political decision-making with Chinese characteristics

According to Daniel Bell, expert on the Chinese model, China’s political system is a combination of meritocracy at the top, democracy at the base and room for experimentation at the intermediate levels. The political leaders are selected on the basis of their merits and, before they reach the top, they go through a severe process of training, practice and evaluation. There are direct elections at the municipal level and for the provincial party congresses. Political, social or economic innovations are first tried out on a smaller scale (a few cities or provinces) and after thorough evaluation and adjustment introduced on a large scale.^[v] According to Daniel Bell, that combination “comes close to the best formula for governing a large country”.

In addition, the central government organizes opinion pollson a very regular basis which assess the government’s performance in the areas of social security, public health, employment and the environment. The popularity of local leaders is also the subject of the surveys. Based on this, policies are frequentlyadjusted.

The Chinese decision-making system has proved its worth. Francis Fukuyama, who can hardly be suspected of left-wing or Chinese sympathies:

“The most important strength of the Chinese political system is its ability to make large, complex decisions quickly, and to make them relatively well, at least in economic policy. China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively.”

For example, in just two years, China has extended the pension system to 240 million rural residents, which exceeds drastically the total number of people covered by the US state pension system.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the Chinese government can count on great support from the population. Around 90 percent say their country is heading in the right direction. In Western Europe, that is between 12 percent and 37 percent (the global average).

The Communist Party

The backbone of the Chinese model is the Communist Party. With more than 90 million members, it is by far the largest political organization in the world. That such a backbone is useful or even necessary is shown by the gigantic proportions of the country. China is the size of a continent: it is 17 times the size of France and has as many inhabitants as Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Arab countries, Russia and Central Asia combined. Translating this into the European situation would mean that Egypt or Kyrgyzstan would have to be governed from Brussels. Given these proportions, the large differences between the regions and the huge challenges facing the country, a strong cohesion force is needed to keep the country governable and to be able to implement a solid policy. According to The Economist:

“China’s rulers believe the country cannot hold together without one-party rule as firm as an emperor’s (and they may be right).”

The party recruits the most skilled people. The selection process for the promotion of top leaders is objective and rigorous. Kishore Mahbubani, a top expert on Asia:

“Far from being an arbitrary dictatorial system, the CPC may have succeeded in creating a rule-bound system that is strong and durable, not fragile and vulnerable. Even more impressive, this rule-bound system has thrown up possibly the best set of leaders that China could produce.”

Nearly three quarters of the population say they support the one-party system.

International relations

China’s economy has been largely self-sufficient in the past. It has been able to afford to live in isolation from the outside world and has often done so. Even at the height of its imperial power, China has spread its culture by diplomatic and economic relations rather than by (military) conquests.^[vi] This way of foreign policy is also maintained in recent history. China strives for a multipolar world, characterized by equality between all countries. It regards sovereignty as the cornerstone of the international order and rejects any interference in the internal affairs of another country, for whatever reason. This often gives China the reproach that it does too little against human rights violations in other countries. In any case, China is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that has not fired a single shot outside its own borders in the last 30 years.

Globalization in Chinese style

Today, China is no longer self-sufficient. With 18 percent of the world’s population, it has only 7 percent of the world’s arable farmland, and only imports 5 percent of the world’s oil. In addition, the country produces far more goods than it consumes. For all these reasons, China today is highly dependent on world markets.

China’s dependence on world trade and the – in essence – military ‘encirclement’ of the US (see below) has prompted the country to take the initiative for a New Silk Road. Two thousand years ago, during the Han Dynasty, the world-renowned Silk Road connected China to the Mediterranean Sea via Eurasia. Like the historic trade route, the project has also become a vast network of sea and land routes today, launched in 2013 under the name of ‘One Belt, One Road’.

In the meantime, more than 1,600 projects are involved in construction and infrastructure works, projects in transport, air and other ports, but also in initiatives of cultural exchange. Hundreds of investments, loans, trade agreements and dozens of Special Economic Zones, worth 900 billion dollars, are spread over 72 countries, representing a population of approximately 5 billion people or 65% of the world’s population. ‘One Belt, One Road’ is by far the largest development program since the Marshall Plan for post-World War II reconstruction in Europe.

Martin Jacques describes the New Silk Road as “Globalization in Chinese style”. The ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative is strongly reminiscent of the Netherlands’ trade strategy 400 years ago. British and French colonialism were literally on the hunt for conquered land. They organized military conquests to subdue societies and to steal wealth. Amsterdam, on the other hand, was striving for an ’empire of trade and credit’. It was not about territory but about business. The Dutch built a gigantic fleet, installed trading posts on the major routes and then tried to secure them. Like the Dutch in the 17th century, China currently has the largest merchant fleet.^[vii] The Special Economic Zones are “commercial garrisons of a supply chain world, enabling China to secure resources without the messy politics of colonial subjugation” says Stratfor, a prestigious think tank.

Tilting North-South relations

China’s enormous growth in the heart of Asia has acted as a catalyst for the entire continent. The world’s economic centre of gravity is shifting rapidly towards the poorer economies of Asia. It also dramatically increases the demand for raw materials, to the benefit of many countries in Latin America and Africa.

The industrialization of East Asia shows the pattern of ‘flying geese’. As a country upgrades economically, wages rise and less sophisticated production tasks shift to poorer regions with lower labor costs. This first happened in Japan, then in South Korea and Taiwan, and today this process is in full swing in China. Because of the higher wages, Chinese companies are now relocating their production to countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, but also increasingly to Africa. If this trend continues, it can help to build an industrial base on the African continent.

Confronting the US

The socialist revolutions did not break out in the heart of capitalism but in its weakest links, the poorest and most underdeveloped countries. An advanced social system then had to be built on a weak material basis, which has given rise to many handicaps and contradictions. Seventy years later, that situation has changed radically. China’s great leap forward in technology and spectacular economic growth have laid solid foundations for building a socialist society.

Of course, Washington is not amused with this. But even worse is the fact that China threatens to surpass the US economically. These two phenomena feed the ‘new Cold War’ between the US and China and the threat of a ‘hot war’.

In the context of the 2019 budget discussions, Congress stated that “long-term strategic competition with China is a principal priority for the United States”. It is not only about economic aspects, but about an overall strategy that must be conducted on several fronts. The aim is to maintain dominance in three areas: technology, the industries of the future and armaments.

Trump is aiming for a full reset of the economic relations between the US and China. The growing trade war is the most striking, but it is only the leading edge of a larger strategy that includes investment, both Chinese investment in the US and US investment in China. In the first place the strategic sectors are targeted with the aim of disrupting China’s technological advance. In this respect, the roll-out of the 5G network is crucial. It is no coincidence that the Huawei, which is far ahead in the development of 5G technology, has become a central target.

The Trump government is also trying to extend this economic war with China to other countries by having clauses signed in trade agreements or by simply putting pressure on them. The aim is to create a kind of “economic iron curtain” around the country.

US military strategy

The military strategy towards China has two tracks: an arms race and an encirclement on the country.^[viii] The arms race is in full swing. The US spends 650 billion dollars a year on weapons, or more than a third of the world total. That is 2.6 times as much as than China and 11 times as much as per capita. It also spends 150 billion dollars a year on military research, that’s five times as much as China. The Pentagon is feverishly working on a new generation of highly sophisticated weapons, drones and all kinds of robots, which a future enemy will not be able to cope with. A pre-emptive war is not excluded.

The second track is the military encirclement. For its foreign trade, China depends for 90 percent on maritime transport. More than 80 percent of the oil supply has to pass through the Strait of Malacca (near Singapore), where the US has a military base. Washington can easily cut off oil flows to China. Currently the country has no defence against it. Around China the US has more than thirty military bases, facilities or training centres (dots on the map). 60 percent of the total US fleet is stationed in the region. It is no exaggeration to say that China is encircled and squeezed. You can not imagine what would happen if China were to install even one military facility, let alone a base near the US.

It is in this context that China’s militarisation of small islands in the South China Sea should be seen as well as its  claim to a large part of this maritime area. Controlling the shipping routes along which its energy and industrial goods are transported is of vital importance to Beijing. It is in that same context that the New Silk Route must be seen.

Champion of pollution and greening

Since the end of the 1980s, China has entered a phase of development that has caused great environmental pollution. As the ‘workplace of the world’, it is one of the biggest polluters on the planet. At present the country is also – by far – the largest emitter of CO2, albeit that the emissions per person are less than half of those of the US and about the same size as those of Europe. China is also responsible for only 11 percent of cumulative emissions, compared with more than 70 percent for industrialized countries.

The situation is untenable. At the current rate, between 1990 and 2050, China will have produced as much carbon dioxide as the whole world did between the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and 1970, and that is catastrophic for global warming.

Ten years ago, the Chinese leadership changed course and the ecological issues were given high priority. In 2014 the “War on Pollution” was declared by Prime Minister Li Keqiang. A battery of measures is being drawn up, including trend-setting legislation on the environment, but its application is not always self-evident.

The results follow quickly. In no time, China has become number one in the field of solar panels and wind energy. Currently, 33 percent of the electricity is generated by green energy, compared to less than 17 percent in the US. China today invests about as much in green technology as the rest of the world combined. It wants to capture and store millions of tons of CO2 underground in the near future.

The country is a pioneer in the long-distance transmission of large amounts of energy (e.g. from distant solar panel fields), which is very important for green energy supply of cities. According to NASA data, China’s sustained reforestation efforts have made an important contribution to the global forestation, which is essential to keep emissions under control. On the other hand, Chinese companies still have a large share of illegal logging worldwide.

Patron saint of the Paris Climate Agreement

China is called the ‘patron saint of the Paris Climate Accord‘ (COP 21, 2015, focus: limiting global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees, with 1.5 degrees as a target value). When Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2017, Beijing declared that it would do everything in its power to achieve the goals of COP21, together with others – including the EU.

China also acts as a mediator between rich industrialized countries and developing countries, stressing that global warming is essentially a historical responsibility of the industrialized countries, and therefore arguing that rich countries should make financial resources and technology available to developing countries in order to combat climate change. Thanks to China, the large majority of developing countries have aligned themselves with the objectives of COP21 and submitted climate plans to the UN General Assembly in recent months.

There is, obviously, still a long way to go in China but it is going in the right direction. Witness to this is the report in mid-2017 that China has achieved its climate targets two years before the agreed date of 2020. China is

Errors

Many mistakes have been made over the past seventy years. Initially, the CPC tried to introduce socialism hastily with the Great Leap Forward (1958-1961), with catastrophic consequences. The left-wing extremism of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) left deep scars and led to a right-wing reaction. The introduction of market elements from 1978 onwards has given capitalist exploitation a controlled rein. The consequences were far-reaching: a deeper gap between rich and poor, and the creation of a top layer of capitalists.

The margin for personal enrichment has been widened and has caused rampant corruption and abuse of power. Nevertheless, this policy of ‘capitalist bird in the cage’ has made the Chinese economy grow spectacularly and has dramatically reduced extreme poverty. Whether this controlled market-oriented dynamic can be kept in check will remain to be determined by the future.

The Chinese leadership has succeeded in keeping the vast and very heterogeneous country together, but this was and is done by keeping certain minorities tightly in line. Tibetans and Uighurs feel treated like second-class citizens, even though there have been many formal efforts by the Chinese authorities to improve their situation. Quite a few questions remain about the unorthodox and muscular approach to ethnic tensions.

An advantage here is that the Chinese leadership is not in the habit of hiding or concealing weaknesses and problem issues. They are usually explicitly recognized and addressed. For example, before and during the eighteenth Congress, the country’s main problems were listed one by one and discussed and translated each with action points assigned. Such a rational political attitude makes it possible to learn from the mistakes and, if necessary, to adjust the course.

Stability of the planet

For the first time in recent history, a poor, underdeveloped country has rapidly developed into an economic superpower, with a major impact on world affairs. China, and in its wake India, is rapidly changing the balance of powers and transforming the world in an unprecedented way.

The more China follows an independent course, the more it deviates from the West and the more it holds up a mirror to ‘the Western system’, the more the country is criticized and attacked. It seems to be very difficult for us to look at this new world player in an open-minded way. According to Mahbubani, “the reluctance of Western leaders to acknowledge that Western world domination cannot continue is a major threat”.^[ix]

Yet we will have to learn to live with the realization that we are no longer the center and benchmark of the world. In fact. With the rise of populism in more and more countries, unpredictable and irresponsible people like Trump, Bolsonaro or Johnson are taking the reins. The stability and liveability of this planet will increasingly depend on people like Xi Jinping and other decent leaders.

*

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

Notes

[i] We take 1870 as a starting year for Western Europe and 1980 for China. We measure the speed of the industrialization process based on the growth of GDP per capita. The figures are calculated on the basis of Maddison A., Ontwikkelingsfasen van het kapitalisme, Utrecht 1982, p. 20-21 en UNDP, Human Development Report 2005,p. 233 en 267. Zie ook The Economist, 5 januari 2013, p. 48.

^[ii] Hobsbawm E., Een eeuw van uitersten. De twintigste eeuw 1914-1991, Utrecht 1994, p. 540.

^[iii] Calculated on the basis of UNICEF, The State Of The World’s Children 2017, New York, p. 154-155.

[iv] For the distinction between input and output of political decision-making, see Kruithof J., Links en Rechts. Kritische opstellen over politiek en kultuur, Berchem 1983, p. 66.

[v] Bell D., The China Model. Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, Princeton 2015, p. 179-188.

[vi] Luce E., The Retreat of Western Liberalism, New York 2017, p. 166.

[vii] In the seventeenth century, the Netherlands had 25 times more ships than England, France and Germany. Today, China has 20 times more merchant ships than the US. Maddison A., The World Economy. A Millennial Perspective, OESO 2001, p. 78; Khanna P., Use It or Lose It: China’s Grand Strategy, Stratfor,9 april 2016.

[viii] For a more extensive treatment, see Vandepitte M., Trump and China: Towards a Cold or Hot War?

[ix] Mahbubani K., De eeuw van Azië. Een onafwendbare mondiale machtsverschuiving, Amsterdam 2009, p. 18.

All images in this article are from the authors

On October 7th, Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said that Russia and the US needed to come to grips with the issue of short-range and intermediate-range missile deployment.

“In case the United States deploy these types of missiles very close to our borders, we will be forced to protect our country, we will be forced to resort to the necessary measures….It is high time for us to sit at the negotiations table, to stop negotiating via media trading accusations; it is high time to meet, perhaps in Geneva, in Vienna, in Washington, in Moscow and to come to grips with these issues,” he said.

Ambassador Antonov also said that he had requested a meeting with new US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien and with State department officials. This follows a statement by British ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow on October 4th, wherein he said that the UK government had received President Putin’s proposal concerning a moratorium on short-range and intermediate-range nuclear missiles, but that the UK-government did not consider it a realistic offer in view of Russia’s test-firing of the 9M729 cruise-missile from the Kapustin Yar launch-site in Astrakhan.

They’re still talking about Kapustin Yar. No mention whatsoever of the American cruise missile test on August 18th, or of the Pentagon’s announcement of plans to test-fire a missile similar to the Pershing II, which was prohibited under the now-defunct INF Treaty, or of the deployment of MK-41 missile launch-pads (which are capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles) in Japan, Poland and Romania.

Without having produced any publicly verifiable evidence whatsoever that the Kapustin Yar test did in fact violate the terms of the INF Treaty, the NATO alliance nonetheless still cites the Kapustin Yar test of the 9M729 cruise-missile as justification for pressing ahead with an extremely aggressive intermediate-range missile-policy. This completely unverified allegation regarding a marginal INF Treaty violation by Russia in the conduct of the cruise-missile test at Kapustin Yar remains their fig-leaf.

Of course, on the purely strategic level, Ambassador Antonov understands the situation as clearly as anyone, but well-trained diplomats don’t think out loud. He understands perfectly well that, in the case of this issue, it would be extremely dangerous to do so. Once we say the unsayable, it moves us one little cognitive step closer to doing the unthinkable. So Ambassador Antonov prudently decides to appeal to our pragmatic common sense, rather than analyzing the arms-race as the amoral chess-match which it is.

In coldly amoral terms, the strategic situation may be summarized as follows:

The United States has no particular reason to come to any agreement with Russia concerning short-range or intermediate-range missiles. The existence of US military bases in Poland, Romania, Japan etc, means that the United States’ strategic nuclear advantage exists on the level of short-range and intermediate-range weapons. The same cannot be said regarding intercontinental ballistic missiles. Therefore, when US officials argue that they would prefer “a more comprehensive agreement,” they are being disingenuous, ignoring the elephant in the room. Everybody in Russia’s political and foreign policy establishment, including Ambassador Antonov, understands this clearly.

However, once the coldly amoral, psychotic logic of that chess-match is publicly conceded or alluded to by people in positions of leadership, we are one little cognitive step closer to nuclear confrontation. Therefore Ambassador Antonov’s appeals to common sense, which may at first glance appear naïve, are grounded not only in a diplomat calculation but also in a moral calculation.

To understand the strategic nuclear situation in clear, coldly amoral terms, we must also bear in mind the economic fundamentals which drive it. The world is running out of natural resources very quickly, and Russia is blessed with natural resources. This is the most central factor determining the levels of geo-strategic hostility which the western alliance shows toward Russia. Ultimately, the nations of the western alliance need Russia to become a minerals and hydrocarbons colony, to subsidize their unsustainable models of financialized capitalism. That model has always required subsidization by the natural resources of de facto colonies, and always will.

If we compare the predicament of the United States today to its geo-strategic logic 35 years ago, the Reagan administration were also imperialists, of course. However, the Reagan administration believed that they could afford to play a long-term geo-strategic game.

That long-term game is no longer possible – the western economies’ access to cheap natural resources is now dwindling too quickly.

This sense of economic desperation is ultimately what forces the western alliance to once again raise the nuclear stakes. Subtle forms of geo-strategic pressure are no longer seen as adequate. This is the central reason why it is extremely improbable that we will see a new agreement on short-range or medium-range missiles between Russia and the United States in the foreseeable future. In short, it was always inevitable that a systemic crisis in the western model of financialized capitalism would re-ignite the cold war, and therefore trigger new nuclear threats. Furthermore, that crisis within financial capitalism was in itself always inevitable, because capitalism ultimately cannot be purely “financial.”

*

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

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

Global Research: On October 8 you were refused entry to a public event organized by the University of Concordia in Montreal that featured the so-called ambassador from Venezuela: The event: “The Crisis in Venezuela: a discussion with Venezuelan Ambassador to Canada”. What happened?

Arnold August: Since I am subscribed to the regular newsletter of the Montreal Network of Latin American Studies, which regroups all four universities in the city, I received their bulletin at the beginning of September which announced this event as a free public one. Thus, I got a ticket on September 14.

The goal of the Quebec Peace Movement, of which I am a member, as decided at its September 24 meeting, was to organize a surprise activity inside the hall where we would attempt to read our statement to be elaborated before hand. The goal was that, right from the beginning of the meeting, to surprise and verbally confront the so-called Ambassador to his face and the university authorities who invited him.

In addition to having received the ticket close to a month before the event, and several follow up emails as an attendee issued by Concordia until the day before the activity confirming my attendance, I was not allowed to enter. Security guards told me that I was “not on the list”! Upon insisting, they could not give any reason. They instead fumbled clumsily from one pretext to another. For example, they said that there was not enough space and thus they took the last 4 or 5 people to have registered off the list despite the fact that I was probably one of the FIRST people to have received a ticket. At another point they cited a possible “security threat” as a result of another very public protest with which I had nothing to do. Yet, they could still not answer the question: “why me?”

GR: What do you think alerted them to single you out?

AA: Well, our plan was to not make our intentions known publicly in order to surprise the “ambassador” face to face in the hall. Surrounded by his supporters. However, for some reason opposition to the event became public beforehand.  It seems that a result of that the university, probably in collaboration with the Canadians secret service agency, scoured the list of attendees and of course came upon mine. Thus, the exclusion.

Despite not being allowed in, we made our presence felt and as the videos show: we can see what the so-called ambassador” and the Concordia authorities had to hear.

GR: How did it end?

AA: It was a disaster for the very weak Trump-Trudeau forces in Montreal and a victory for those of us in Montreal who support the Bolivarian Revolution and democratically elected president Maduro.

Do you know that not one overtly pro-Guaidó supporter showed up at the meeting? Furthermore, after all the public appeals by the University, in a hall sitting 50 people, only about 25 showed up as reported to us by those who did attend!

GR: Yet they gave as one of the pretexts to bar you from entry that there was “no room”?

AA: Yes, the bottom line is that we are all a witness now of just another example of political persecution and/or media black-out in Canada against those of us across the country who oppose the Trump/Trudeau Venezuela policy.

It was also a victory for us because at the end of the meeting the “ambassador” had to leave the hall and sheepishly walk through our picket and listen to our slogans even more clearly than he had heard it from the inside. He even had to take our leaflet that was handed out to the attendees. I hope he enjoyed it. I would add this message. Do not show your face in Montreal again. You are not welcome!

*

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.

Tulsi Gabbard, who has at best minimal support by Democrats (around one percent), and zero from the corporate DNC, posted the following video earlier today.

.

.

There are so many of you who I’ve met in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me how frustrated you are that the DNC and corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be.

This, of course, is nothing new, but thanks to Tulsi for reminding us of how “elections” are conducted. In fact, the state long ago corrupted the process and has selected candidates for long as anybody can remember. 

How is it possible a cognitively challenged and corrupt hack like Joe Biden is number one in the running—or was until Elizabeth Warren took that spot away from him? It’s possible because Biden is a trusted asset eager to do whatever he is told, same as Obama, Bush the lesser, Clinton (a “brother by another mother”), Bush the elder, Reagan… on and on, down the line. Like Hillary Clinton, the Democrat establishment believes it is Biden’s “turn” to read the teleprompter. All the others, well, they’re spoilers. 

They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten.

That replacement happened decades ago. Trump won the election because our rulers left the election process intact, arrogantly confident their handpicked candidates will win because only those who have come up through the system are permitted to run. It’s left intact as a public relations gimmick designed to fool the proles who are, regrettably, all too easy to control—or were until Trump appeared on the scene. 

Tulsi is spot on about the “debates,” which are nothing of the sort. Indeed, they are a form of televised bread and circuses—bread because most Americans receive some kind of support from the government, and a circus because all circuses are comical, theatrical, and well-scripted. 

As for being informed, that’s the last thing the ruling elite want. They have us believe in fantasies so absurd they may as well be props in a Luis Buñuel film—for instance, killing people in foreign lands is humanitarian and the economy is doing great (never mind the unemployed, the homeless, and record debt, both governmental and personal). 

In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th. I will announce my decision within the next few days. With my deepest aloha, thank you all again for your support.

This is commendable, although, sadly, an almost transparent blip on the political radar screen. Big corporate media will certainly not take notice, and if they perchance do it will be with snide commentary. 

The soft totalitarian machine rejects the socialist palliatives of Elizabeth Warren. She appears to be anti-corporatist, and that is inexcusable. Many of our political and social problems are related to the domination of corporations, most of the crony variety. 

Elizabeth Warren will be unable to break the corporate stranglehold on America. It is pure insanity to believe otherwise. The Democrat and Republican parties—one party disguised as two—will not savage corporations with taxation and redoubled punitive regulation, not if they wish to remain in Congress and receive money to run obscenely expensive campaigns. 

Warren will be overshadowed by the Hildabeast, Hillary Clinton, who is determined to be president. She will enter the race sometime next year, overturning the apple cart of other hopefuls, all spouting the same wealth distribution nonsense because, after all, a well-trained and ceaselessly indoctrinated public, most on a modern version of the Roman Cura Annona grain dole, love free stuff (stolen from others).

No way will the DNC accept Elizabeth Warren as the nominee. She will be subverted, the same way Bernie Sanders was. 

Most Americans don’t trust or like Hillary, but that hardly matters. 

The days of Trump may soon be over. If he’s not impeached on spurious grounds, he will enter the race under a toxic cloud of accusation and unproven high crimes and misdemeanors greatly amplified by a propaganda media. Polls consistently show he is losing traction, and the MAGA crowd is increasingly disillusioned, unable to realize its populist agenda. 

I’m sorry, Tulsi. Your effort to unmask the subversion of the election system will largely fall on deaf ears. As of this morning, the above video garnered a mere 800 views.

It will take more than a “debate” boycott to send the message. It will take a revolution to finally drain Trump’s swamp, end the endless wars, and force transnational corporations and foreign governments (most egregiously Israel) out of the bed they have shared for so long with our “representatives,” who are largely nothing more than self-seeking sociopaths on short leashes. 

*

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

Turkey officially announced that it had launched a military operation in northeastern Syria. Over the past years, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other representatives of the country’s leadership have repeatedly announced this idea. However, this time promises were turned into reality.

On October 6, the administration of US President Donald Trump released a statement saying that Turkey will soon carry out its “long-planned operation” into northern Syria. According to the statement, US forces will not “support or be involved in the operation” and “will no longer be in the immediate area”. The announcement came following a phone conversation between the US and Turkish presidents.

On October 7, US forces started withdrawing from their positions along a large chunk of the Syrian-Turkish border. US military garrisons in Tel Abyad, Tel Musa, Tel Hinzir and Tel Arqam were abandoned. US patrols in the border area were halted. The Pentagon provided no details regarding the number of troops withdrawn from the border. US mainstream media outlets mention the numbers from 50 to 100.

Watch the video here.

This US decision caused a kind of panic among leaders and members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). They simultaneously called the US decision a backstab, asked the US-led coalition to establish a no-fly zone ‘like in Iraq’ and declared their readiness to resume negotiations with Russia and the Assad government, which they just a few weeks ago were calling a ‘bloody regime’.

Kurdish armed groups, mainly the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), are the core of the SDF. The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) dominates in the self-proclaimed administration of northeastern Syria. Ankara names the YPG, the YPJ and the PYD terrorist groups because of their links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This separatist group is engaged in a long-standing guerrilla war against the Turkish state in an attempt to establish an independent Kurdish state on territory of southeastern Turkey. The PYD and its military wings pursue similar goals in northeastern Syria.

Ankara has reasonable concerns that funds, weapons, equipment and training provided by the US to Kurdish armed groups in northern Syria will later be used by the PKK in its fight against the Turkish government. The US-Turkish ‘safe zone’ agreement on northern Syria was designed to remove these concerns. Turkey insisted that Kurdish armed groups should be removed from the border and disarmed, or, at least, the US should stop supplying them with weapons and equipment. However, this did not happen. The peak of the US-Turkish coordination over this question was several joint patrols along the border.

By evening of October 9, Turkey had put its proxy forces on a high alert and the Turkish Air Force had bombed SDF positions near Tell Abyad, Ras al-Ayn, Kobane and al-Qamishli. The Operation Peace Spring started.

President Erdogan says that its goals are to neutralize “terror threats” along the border, establish a real safe zone and facilitate return of Syrian refugees to their homes. Besides the anti-terror declarations, one of the main points of the Turkish public rhetoric is the oppression of Arab locals by Kurdish militias.

If the Operation Peace Spring develops like Turkish operations in al-Bab and Afrin, Ankara will use its proxy groups as a first line of the ground advance and a shield for Turkish personnel deployed on the ground. Artillery, warplanes and special forces of the Turkish military will be the main striking power. Pro-Turkish sources say that about 15,000-20,000 members of pro-Turkish groups have already been mobilized. If this is true, the total number of personnel, including Turkish servicemembers, involved in the operation may reach 30,000.

At the first phase of the advance, Turkey will likely to get control of the area of the non-implemented US-Turkish safe zone. Some Turkish sources speculate that in the event of success the Turkish Army may push even towards Deir Ezzor. However, this remains unlikely in the current military and diplomatic situation in the region.

*

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

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

Introductory note

Tulsi Gabbard has identified the nature of the electoral fraud committed by the Democratic National Committee in the 2016 primaries.

The 2016 Democratic Primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders.

In this 2020 election, the DNC and corporate media are rigging the election again, but this time against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. ( See video and transcript below)

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton conspired in 2015-16 with a view to undermining Bernie Sanders candidacy in the primaries in favor of Clinton.

There is ample evidence of rigging in 2016. Ironically this was confirmed by The Democratic Party’s DNC chair Donna Brazile who took over upon the resignation of  Wasserman Schultz:

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. (Donna Brazile, Politico, November 2, 2017, emphasis added)

These fraudulent actions including the rigging of the primaries conducted by the DNC of the Democratic Party were instrumental  in triggering Bernie Sanders loosing the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

If he had won the Democratic Party nomination, would he have won the November 8, 2016 presidential elections against Donald Trump?

Without the DNC riggings of the nomination  process, Bernie Sanders could have become President of the United States.

Déjà Vu: What will be the outcome of the 2019-2020 primaries?

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 11, 2019

***

I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate and I want to tell you why:

 

There are so many of you who I’ve met in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me how frustrated you are that the DNC and corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be.

I share your concerns, and I’m sure that all our supporters throughout the country do as well.

The 2016 Democratic Primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders.

In this 2020 election, the DNC and corporate media are rigging the election again, but this time against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten

In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process.

In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th. I will announce my decision within the next few days.

With my deepest, and warmest aloha, thank you all again for your support.

*

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.

As the sheep ventured out in search of food, the sun rose over the hills behind them. Their climb was made significantly easier than previous weeks, as the sweltering heat of the day didn’t arrive until after 8.30am. The sheep and their shepherd Burhan lead the way, accompanied by the sound of the flock rustling in the dry bushes; the bell on the donkey chiming with each wave of its neck.

This morning the sound of gunfire accompanied the donkey’s bell. The land here has been used to establish an Israeli military training camp; mounds of dirt form earthen alleys where soldiers take firing practice. The land where Burhan lives and shepherds his flock is surrounded by the training camp, a training base, and a smaller military site on the hill above his home. This leaves him and his family encircled, with little space for his sheep to find precious food and water – scarce now, as we wait for winter and the rain.

Gunfire and explosions can be heard from the hill where sheep graze across the road from the military training camp

It is this way in much of the occupied West Bank – shepherds and farmers find themselves surrounded by military firing zones, suddenly-closed ‘military areas’, and land occupied illegally by Israeli citizens living in militarised gated communities (settlements) on land that is, almost always, taken illegally from its owner.

It is particularly true in the Jordan Valley, which comprises almost one-third of the land in the West Bank. The Jordan Valley used to be an agricultural oasis, lush with farmland fed by natural springs and the water table from the Jordan River. It was famous for bananas and citrus, and grew an abundance of vegetables and grains. This is no longer true – much of it is now declared for use by the military, and there is a ‘buffer zone’ running the length of the border with Jordan, fenced off and inaccessible to the Palestinians who used to farm and graze their flocks in the area.

Human rights organisation Al Haq highlights the potential long-term impact of military zones:

‘The declaration of closed military areas is often a prelude to other categories of appropriation, and land initially closed for military purposes is often subsequently allocated to existing Israeli settlements or to establish new ones.’

As Israeli NGO Yesh Din puts it, land appropriation like this has led to a ‘creeping annexation’ of the West Bank.

Palestinian homes beyond an area where the sign declares, ‘Danger: Firing area. Entrance forbidden.’

Ahead of the elections on the 17th of September, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would annex the Jordan Valley to Israel if his party won the elections. The leader of the opposition party accused Netanyahu of stealing his party’s idea. Almost one month after the elections, leaders are still negotiating in attempts to form a government.

Regardless of the politics, and whatever outcome the of last month’s elections, annexation of territory by war or force violates international law (UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights).

The same week that Netanyahu promised to annex the Jordan Valley, he also visited the settlement outpost of Mevo’ot Yeriho. This visit included a cabinet meeting and an announcement that Netanyahu planned to formally recognise Mevo’ot Yeriho under Israeli law. Mevo’ot Yeriho is one of around 100 ‘outposts’ in the West Bank. An outpost is an Israeli settlement established by Israeli civilians on Palestinian land. They are set up without official authorisation by the government. While outposts like Mevo’ot Yeriho are illegal under both international and Israeli law, they receive the funding and assistance of various government bodies and the Israeli government has retroactively authorised or is in the process of authorising almost one third of 100 outposts.

The date trees of illegal outpost, Mevo’ot Yeriho can be seen here between the Palestinian community (foreground) and the homes of settlers from Mevo’ot Yeriho (background).

The Palestinian communities around Mevo’ot Yeriho are worried that Netanyahu’s statement will provoke increased hostility from the settlements. Already, one family in the area has seen heightened harassment from settlers:

‘It used to be that they would drive their cars behind us and our sheep to scare and scatter the flock. Since the announcement [about Mevo’ot Yeriho], the settlers have, for the first time, left their cars and thrown stones at us and the sheep.’

The family believes the settlers feel emboldened and protected by the promise to legalise their outpost. ‘Some of the sheep are pregnant, and a shock like this could cause problems.’

For shepherds with sheep as their only income, losing one lamb is significant. And as B’Tselem points out, ‘the long-term outcome of settler violence is the dispossession of Palestinians from more and more areas in the West Bank, facilitating Israel’s seizure of land and resources.’

On the hills surrounded by military camps and bases, Burhan and his neighbour reflect on the politicians’ promise to annex the Jordan Valley. ‘Where can I go?’ says his neighbour. ‘I’ve been here for 53 years. When I go to sleep, I am dreaming about our problems. I wake up thinking about these problems.’

Take Action

108 British MPs have signed a letter urging the UK Government to ‘act robustly’ in response to the promise of annexation. If you are in the UK, please write to your MP and ask them to add their name to this letter.

*

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

All images in this article are from EAPPI UK and Ireland Blogs

Just weeks before meeting Russian officials in the northern city of Kirkenes, to celebrate how the former Soviet Union liberated Finnmark from Nazi German occupation n 1944, Norwegian government officials have made a concession to their neighbours. They won’t be going along with the US- and NATO-backed missile defense program after all.

Norway was under pressure by its US and NATO allies to evaluate and accept sensors that would identify any incoming missiles and fire back if necessary. Russia views the US’ missile defense program as a provocation.

After what it called a “broader security policy evaluation,” the Norwegian government announced that even though it’s significantly boosting its defense budget for 2020 because of Russia’s own military activity in the Arctic, it won’t include acquisition of the sensors or anti-ballistic missiles. As newspaper Klassekampen reported this week, the evaluation clearly presented a dilemma for Norway, putting it in a squeeze between its biggest ally (the US) and its mighty neighbour in the north, Russia, which also has complained bitterly about installation of the missile defense system in both Romania and Poland.

Russia’s foreign minister will visit Norway later this month to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Finnmark, when Soviet soldiers crossed occupied Norway’s northern border and forced Nazi German forces into retreat. Finnmark residents remain grateful and want to stay on good terms with their Russian neighbours. Liberation ceremonies will be attended by King Harald V, Prime Minister Erna Solberg and Norwegian Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide.

*

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.

“President Trump stated clearly forcefully that space is in his words “a war-fighting domain, just like land, and air and sea.”

And just as we’ve done in ages past, the United States of America under his leadership will meet the emerging threats on this new battlefield, with American ingenuity and strength, to defend our nation, protect our people, and carry the cause of liberty and peace into the next great American frontier.”

– U.S. Vice President Mike Pence (August 9, 2018) [1]

.

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Thirty years ago, the collapse of the Berlin Wall brought forward the hope that the Cold War was thawing and the prospect of peace and a new era for humanity was about to open up.

Such hopes have clearly shattered as we see a world more consumed by war and militarism than ever.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, calls for sustaining and replacing current nuclear capability to deter attacks from rivals like China and Russia. In January’s Missile Defense Review, the Administration announced it would be expanding and modernizing its U.S. Homeland Defense and regional missile defense systems. And this past summer, the Trump Administration officially pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a significant arms control agreement that successfully eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.

One more shocking announcement from the Administration was a commitment in the summer of 2018 to create a sixth branch of the military – the U.S. Space Force, which would confer upon America war-fighting abilities in and from space. This new military branch is expected to be established in fiscal year 2020 and phased in gradually over the following five years.

 

These plans are all, of course, framed in the age-old language of protecting America from aggressive rivals like China and Russia, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea. But do these initiatives truly serve to protect the peace? Or do they compromise not only the peace but the prosperity of all inhabitants of Earth?

These issues are at the forefront of the Global Research News Hour on a week designated by peace activists as ‘Keep Space for Peace’ week.

In our first half hour, we get a perspective from Toronto-based academic and peace campaigner Tamara Lorincz, on Canada’s current role in advancing U.S. military agendas including their aspirations with regard to missile defense and dominance in space. She also provides a brief same day report back on a protest she organized outside the NATO Association of Canada office in downtown Toronto.

In our second half hour, Global Research News Hour associate Paul Graham conducts a conversation with Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Nuclear Power and Weapons in Space talks about America’s plans for the development of outer space as a war-fighting theatre. He also details the concerns about the use of nuclear power for space travel, the role of the military in guarding access to the heavens, and the cost of a new nuclear arms race to environment protection, social security and other projects i the public interest.

Tamara Lorincz is a PhD student in Global Governance at the Balsillie School for International Affairs (Wilfrid Laurier University). Tamara graduated with an MA in International Politics & Security Studies from the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom in 2015. Tamara is currently on the board of the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace and the international advisory committee of Global Network Against Nuclear Power and Weapons in Space. Details about her monthly actions outside the NATO Association of Canada office in Toronto among other actions can be found at the site: https://vowpeace.org/events-tamara-lorincz-adventures/

Bruce Gagnon has a 3 decade long history of involvement in the peace movement and active resistance to the militarization of and use of nuclear weapons in outer space. A member of the group Veterans for Peace, he co-founded the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space in 1992 in which he serves as secretary/Coordinator. He has contributed to a number of publications including  CounterPunch, Z Magazine, Space News, National Catholic Reporter, Global Research, Asia Times, Le Monde Diplomatique, and Canadian Dimension. He also has a blog and has produced educational videos all of which appear at his group’s site space4peace.org.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 272)

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.

 

The FT reported two days ago that – “Businesses would be hit with an annual £15bn bill for filling in customs forms for trade between the UK and the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to a British government paper published on Monday by HM Revenue & Customs.  In its no-deal impact assessment, the British tax authority detailed the cost to business to complete all the paperwork for the 215m consignments of goods crossing between the UK and the EU, assuming trade remained at 2017 levels.

Interestingly, HMRC’s figures are likely to be on the low side as they did not include the additional costs of complying with new VAT procedures for services companies, which dominate the UK economy, or for new VAT rules that would apply to parcels following a no-deal Brexit. They also exclude the one-off costs businesses would incur in preparing to fill in customs declarations.

But what the FT’s report does not include is another massive headache for business. If Britain hasn’t secured a deal to leave the European Union as the clock ticks past midnight on Oct. 31, billions of data transfers could be thrown into legal limbo with all the financial implications it brings with it. And there are a lot given that Britain is considered a global data hub.

Though not as visible as lines of trucks backing up at ports, disruption to data would affect more of Britain’s economy, four-fifths of which is services, not goods.

To avoid heavy fines and lawsuits for breaching the EU bloc’s strict privacy laws, the majority of U.K. companies that rely on data flows from the EU must submit a mountain of compliance paperwork. Those efforts have accelerated in recent months as the risk of a chaotic departure grew.

The estimate of the extra administrative costs to business in the event of no-deal contrasts heavily with Boris Johnson‘s claim to the recent Conservative conference that the UK could save £1bn a month by leaving the EU on 31 October.

Massive technical and costly headache

Data transfers on its own is huge. It covers anything from customer information for holiday bookings to human resources files and insurance claims moved between subsidiaries of multinationals. The EU has some of the toughest rules in the world for protecting personal data, including the “right to be forgotten” from search engines. The emergence of cloud computing means packets of data are constantly on the move, making it far harder to keep track.

Bloomberg News reported yesterday that –

“Companies can compile sets of rules governing the information that flows across borders within their organization, and then have them approved by a data protection authority. This can cost as much as 250,000 pounds ($305,000) and take years to draft. Instead, many have opted to copy and paste “standard contractual clauses” covering every cross-border data transfer they can find. Smaller firms may not be able to afford or implement the safeguards, or even be aware of the issues.”

A study published in August by academics at University College London said when an accord on data protection between the U.S. and EU was struck down by the European Court of Justice in 2015, one single company was forced to apply 2 million standard contractual clauses, they said. Anti-money laundering and terror financing checks by banks could also fall outside the law in a no-deal, industry lobby group U.K. Finance has warned.

Andrew Solomon, a senior associate at law firm Kingsley Napley said.

“Most companies are aware they need to do it but they’ve been hoping common sense would prevail and they wouldn’t have to do it in the end.”

Moving out of the UK

Bloomberg goes on to say that –

“Some companies have gone a step further and relocated their servers so their EU data doesn’t pass through the U.K. One of Britain’s biggest gambling companies, GVC Holdings Plc, is moving servers hosting its online betting platforms to Ireland and ensuring parts of the business that handle EU online gambling are covered by Maltese licenses. Banks face the same problem. “Firms may need to move data processing activities between countries, consider the relocation of their data centres and/or implement other procedures to avoid problematic cross-border transfers of personal data,” said a spokesman for U.K. Finance.

To all intents, what this means is that the U.K. will be ejected from the European Data Protection Board of regulators. For its data protection arrangements to be deemed “adequate” by the EU, it will have to prove it meets strict requirements imposed by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which ironically, it had a key role in drafting.

The U.K. has said it will recognize the EU’s rules, but the EU has warned Britain not to assume it will quickly reciprocate due to the uncertainty around the terms of its pending departure.

That accreditation process has never taken less than 18 months and Britain’s national security powers – allowing the government to monitor some private data communications — could draw detailed scrutiny, leading to longer delays.

To get around these problems many big corporations operating in both the U.K. and EU, such as former state phone monopoly BT Group Plc, have moved to register with continental data protection watchdogs to make sure they’ll still comply with EU data law.

However, it is seemingly forgotten by the Johnson government and by the more extreme elements within the government pushing for no-deal that the movement of data alone generates 174 billion pounds of value in the U.K., according to the Confederation of British Industry.

Part of that activity flows inside U.S. and Asian multinationals that chose the country as a hub for their European operations. Consultancy Frontier Economics says three-quarters of Britain’s international data flows are with the EU and a no-deal Brexit endangers the country’s position as a global hub for data flows, said Felicity Burch, the CBI’s director of digital and innovation.

“From day one, the free flow of data that underpins every sector from automotive to logistics will be hit,” said Burch. “Businesses have already undertaken costly legal processes and some are investing in EU data centres.”

*

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

Featured image is from TP

Hong Kong is losing to Mainland China. Its poverty rates are high, it suffers from corruption and savage capitalism. It is now the most expensive city on earth. People are frustrated, but paradoxically, they are blaming socialist Beijing for their problems, instead of the legacy of British colonialism. ‘Across the line’, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Xiang and other cities are leaving Hong Kong behind in almost all fields.

When my dear friend and a great concert pianist from Beijing, Yuan Sheng, used to live in New York, recording, giving concert and teaching at prestigious Manhattan School of Music, he told me that he used to cry at night: “In the United States, they smear China. I felt hurt, defenseless”.

He returned to Beijing, gave back his Green Card and began teaching at Beijing Conservatory. He never regretted his decision. “Beijing is much more exciting than New York, these days”, he told me.

It is obvious that Beijing is booming: intellectually, artistically; in fact, in all fields of life.

Yuan’s friend, who returned from London and became a curator at the iconic “Big Egg” (the biggest opera house on earth), shared her thoughts with me:

“I used to sit in London, frustrated, dreaming about all those great musicians, all over the world. Now, they come to me. All of them want to perform in Beijing. This city can make you or break you. Without being hyperbolic, this is now one of the most important places on earth. Just under one roof, in one single night, we can have a Russian opera company performing in our big halls, in another one there is a Chinese opera, and a Bolivian folklore ensemble in a recital hall. And this is only one of Beijing’s theatres.”

When the Chinese artists and thinkers are fighting for the prime with their Western counterparts, it is usually Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, ‘against’ London, Paris and New York. Hong Kong is ‘somewhere there’, behind, suddenly a backwater.

While Hong Kong University and the City University of Hong Kong used to be the best in China, many Mainland institutions of higher learning, including Peking University and Tsinghua, are now producing many more cutting-edge creative thinkers. I spoke at all of these schools, and can confirm that the young people in Beijing and Shanghai are extremely hardworking, endlessly curious, while in Hong Kong, there is always that mildly arrogant air of exceptionalism, and lack of discipline.

It used to be that the so-called “Sea Turtles” (students who went abroad and to Hong Kong, and then returned to Mainland China), were treated like celebrities, but now, it is much easier to get a job with the Mainland China’s diplomas.

Recently, while filming the riots in Hong Kong, I was told by a receptionist at one of the major shopping plazas:

“We do not treat visitors from Mainland China well. And, they lost interest in Hong Kong. Before, they used to come here, to admire out wealth. Now, most of them are avoiding this place. What we have, they have, too, and often better. If they travel, they rather go to Bangkok or Paris.”

These days, the contrast between Xiang, Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong is shocking. Mainland infrastructure is incomparably better. Public areas are vast, and cultural life much more advanced than that in a former British colony.

While the Mainland Chinese cities have almost no extreme poverty, (and by the end of 2020 will have zero), in Hong Kong, at least 20% are poor, and many simply cannot afford to live in their own city. Hong Kong is the most expensive place on earth. Just to park a car in could easily cost over US$700 per month, for just working hours. Tiny apartments cost over a million US dollars. Salaries in Hong Kong, however, are not higher than those in London, Paris or Tokyo.

The city is run by an extreme capitalist system, ‘planned’ by corrupt tycoons/developers. The obsolete British legal system here is clearly geared to protect the rich, not the majority. That was essentially why the “Extradition Bill” was proposed: to protect Hong Kong inhabitants from the unbridled, untouchable, as well as unelected de facto rulers.

But there is this ‘deal’, negotiated before Hong Kong was returned where it belongs, which is – to China. “One country, two systems”. It is an excellent contract for the turbo-capitalist magnates, and for the pro-Western “activists”. And it is extremely bad one for the average people of Hong Kong. Therefore, after months of riots sponsored by the West, the Hong Kong administration scrambled the bill.

*

Young hooligans know very little about their city. I talked to them, extensively, during their first anti-Beijing riots in 2014 (so-called “Umbrella Revolution”).

Correctly, then and now they have been frustrated about the declining standards of living, about the difficulties to get well-paid jobs and find affordable housing. They told me that ‘there is no future for them’, and that ‘their lives are going nowhere’.

But quickly, their logic would collapse. While realizing what tremendous progress, optimism and zeal could be observed in the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, they would still be demanding more capitalism, which is actually ruining their territory. In 2014, and now, they are readily smearing the Communist Party.

Being raised on the shallow values of selfishness and egotism, they are now betrayed their own country, and began treasonous campaigns, urging foreign powers, including US and UK, to “liberate them”. All for just fleeting moment of fame, for a “selfie uprising”.

To liberate from whom? China does not, (unfortunately for Hong Kong), interfere in Hong Kong’s economic and social affairs. If anything, it builds new infrastructure, like an enormous bridge now connecting Hong Kong with Macau (a former Portuguese colony) and a high-speed train system, linking Hong Kong with several cities in Mainland China.

Huanzhou high-speed train station – one of the biggest in the world

More restrain Beijing shows, more it gets condemned by the rioters and Western media, for ‘brutality’. More subway stations and public property get destroyed by rioters, more sympatry flows for them from the German, US and British right-wing politicians.

*

For decades, the British colonialists were humiliating people of Hong Kong, while simultaneously turning their city into a brutal, and by the Asian standards, ruthless and fully business oriented megapolis. Now people are confused and frustrated. Many are asking, who they really are?

For Hong Kong, this is a difficult moment of soul-searching.

Even those who want to “go back to UK”, can hardly speak English. When asked “why do they riot”, they mumble something about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ in the West, plus ‘evilness of Beijing’. Brochures of some obscure, extremist Japanese religious cults get distributed. It is one big intellectual chaos. Rioters know nothing about Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, countries which are being ruined by the West.

Leaders like Joshua Wong are proudly colluding with the Western embassies. To praise Chinese socialism publicly is now dangerous – people get beaten by the “pro-democracy” rioters, for such “crimes”.

Highly educated and overly-polite Singapore is literally sucking out hundreds of foreign companies from Hong Kong. Its people speak both English and Mandarin. In Hong Kong, great majority speaks only Cantonese. Many foreigners are also relocating to Shanghai. Not only big businesses: Shanghai is now full of European waiters.

Even tourism is down in Hong Kong, by 40%, according to the recent data.

Absurdly: the rioters want precisely what the Communist Party of China is providing: they want real struggle against corruption, as well as determined attempt to solve housing crises, create new jobs, and provide more public services. They want better education, and generally better life. They want “Shanghai or Beijing”, but they say that they want to be a colony of the UK, or a dependency of the USA.

They loosely define communist goals, and then they shout that they are against Communism.

*

China is now ready to celebrate its 70th Anniversary of the Founding of The People’s Republic of China.

Clearly, the West is using Hong Kong to spoil this great moment.

After leaving Hong Kong, in Shanghai, I visited a brilliant, socialist realism exhibition at the iconic, monumental China Art Museum. Country under the leadership of President Xi is once again confident, revolutionary and increasingly socialist; to horror of declining West. It is a proud nation with great, elegant cities constructed by the people, for the people, and with progressively ecological countryside. Its scientific, intellectual and social achievements speak louder than words.

China Art Museum, Shanghai

Contrast between Hong Kong and Shanghai is tremendous, and growing.

But do not get me wrong: I like Hong Kong. I have more than 20 years of history with that old, neurotic and spoiled lady. I can feel her pulse. I love old trams and ferries, and out-of-the-way islands.

But Hong Kong’s charm lies in its decay.

Mainland China’s beauty is fresh. China is one of the oldest cultures on earth, one of the deepest. But it feels crisp, full of hope and positive energy. Together with its closest ally, Russia, it is now working and fighting for the entire world; it is not selfish.

Hong Kong is fighting only for its vaguely defined uniqueness. Actually, it is not Hong Kong that is fighting, as most of people there want to be where they truly belong – in their beloved nation – China. It is a gang of kids with their face-masks that is fighting. In brief: a relatively big group of pro-Western extremists, whose leaders are putting their fame above the interests of the people.

*

Hong Kong has no “Big Egg”; no famous theatre where the greatest musicians are stunning the world. Its only art museum is closed for reconstruction, for years, and will re-open only at the end of 2019. Its cultural life is shallow, even laughable, for the place which is branding itself as the “Asia’s World City”. There are no great discoveries made here. It is all business. Big, big business. And creeping decay.

Beijing could ‘liberate’ Hong Kong, easily; to give it purpose, pride and future.

But young hooligans want to be liberated by Washington, instead. They want to be re-colonized by London. And they do not consult their fellow citizens. That clearly reflects their idea about ‘democracy’. Not the “rule of the people”, but the “rule of the West”.

Not only they feel spite for their country, but they also scorn and intimidate their fellow citizens who just want to have their meaningful life, based on the Chinese values.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

It’s worthwhile to wonder whether “Operation Peace Spring” is a trap sprung by Trump on Turkey after the US created the conditions for Ankara’s invasion but then proceeded to threaten punitive measures against the country after its nominal NATO “ally” bit the bait and conventionally invaded Syria for the third time.

This season could be called the Autumn of Discontent, as people from the Middle East to Latin America and the Caribbean have been rising up against corrupt neoliberal governments. Two of the countries in crisis, Haiti and Iraq, are on opposite ends of the earth but have something important in common. Not only are they reeling from protests against government corruption and austerity programs, like Ecuador and Algeria, but in both Haiti and Iraq, their corrupt neoliberal governments were imposed on them by the use of U.S. military force.

In 2003 and 2004 respectively, U.S. forces illegally invaded Iraq and Haiti, removed their internationally recognized governments from power and replaced them with U.S.-backed regimes. Both countries have since been governed in line with the dominant neoliberal ideology that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on most of the world since the 1980s. The protests and savage repression in Iraq and Haiti today are only the latest evidence of the utter failure of neoliberalism and the extraordinary human cost of U.S. efforts to impose it by military force on countries that resist.

In the first week of October, more than 100 people were killed and 6,000 wounded in Baghdad, Nasiriyah and other Iraqi cities, as the Iraqi Army and police fired into large demonstrations. Young Iraqis have risen up against government corruption, unemployment and poverty that leaves them with dismal prospects, even as record oil production fills the pockets of the ruling elite in Baghdad’s Green Zone.

Meanwhile, at least 17 people have been killed in the Haitian government’s repression of protests calling for the resignation of U.S.-backed President Juvenal Moise. Public anger has boiled over into the streets as Moise faces credible charges of embezzlement and corruption. His government has utterly failed to improve the lives of most Haitians. Haiti remains the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, with a per capita GDP of only $870 per year and 60% of the population living below a poverty line of $2.41 per day.

In a Foreign Affairs article in January 2019, Senator Elizabeth Warren explained

how the U.S. “began to export a particular brand of capitalism, one that involved weak regulations, low taxes on the wealthy, and policies favoring multinational corporations. And the United States took on a series of seemingly endless wars, engaging in conflicts with mistaken or uncertain objectives and no obvious path to completion. The impact of these policy changes has been devastating.”

What Senator Warren skated over, without connecting the dots, was that the real objective of those wars, coups and other regime change operations was precisely to impose the “particular brand of capitalism” she described, and, if necessary, to do so by the illegal and deadly use of military force.

While Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet empire and made peace with the West, the U.S. exported neoliberal capitalism to Eastern Europe without needing to use its war machine it had squandered our country’s wealth for 45 years to build.

Instead, Western political and economic experts like Jeffrey Sachs fanned out across the region reciting Margaret Thatcher’s dictum that “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism. They convinced Eastern European leaders to surrender their countries and their people to the “shock therapy” of corporate conquest, privatization, drastic cuts in public services and plutocratic oligarchy, superficially legitimized by Western-style multi-party elections.

But the U.S. and its allies then faced two thorny dilemmas. What should they do about countries that remained obstinately independent from their neoliberal empire, countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba and North Korea? And what should they do with the U.S. and NATO war machine that Gorbachev’s peacemaking had rendered redundant?

U.S. officials of both major parties, from neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz to “humanitarian interventionists” like Madeleine Albright, peddled the simplistic notion that the U.S. war machine could be repurposed to impose neoliberalism by force on dissident countries around the world. Twenty years on, the results of those policies have been universally catastrophic.

Even in the U.S., at the very heart of the neoliberal empire, a new generation raised on the myths of neoliberalism now rejects its absurdities: trickle down economics; the magic of the market; union-busting; privatized healthcare and education; the best Congress money can buy; the shrinking middle class; the rampant destruction of the natural world; and so on.  As British economist J.M. Keynes reportedly said in the 1930s,

“Laissez-faire capitalism is the absurd idea that the worst people, for the worst reasons, will do what is best for all of us.”

But as corrosive as neoliberalism has been to working people in the U.S., it has been far more destructive wherever the U.S. and its allies have tried to impose it by military force.

Afghanistan and Iraq

In Afghanistan, after 18 years of war, 80,000 U.S. bombs and missiles dropped in U.S.-led airstrikes, and hundreds of thousands of violent deaths, the Afghan people are so disillusioned with the U.S.-sponsored  “democratic system” that only 25 percent turned out to vote in the September presidential elections, a record low. The unending violence and the unbridled corruption of successive U.S.-backed governments has enabled the Taliban to make a comeback and set up a viable shadow government across more and more of the country.

In Iraq, 16 years after the U.S. invasion, a succession of corrupt U.S.-backed governments has boosted oil production to about 4.6 million barrels per day, the second highest production in OPEC.  But in line with U.S. neoliberal orthodoxy, the profits have been pocketed by Iraq’s new U.S.-installed ruling class, not redistributed to provide universal healthcare, education, housing and other public services as they were under Iraq’s nationalist and Baathist governments between 1958 and 2003, including under Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship.

Iraq was plunged back into full-scale war in 2014, as the alienated population in the north and west of the country fell under the sway of the Islamic State. The U.S. military responded with a campaign of air and artillery bombardment that destroyed most of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and many other towns and cities across Iraq and Syria, killing tens of thousands of civilians in Mosul alone.

The U.S. invasion and the unending waves of violence and chaos it unleashed have destroyed Iraq. The U.S.-imposed neoliberal model has empowered a series of corrupt governments to steal and squander Iraq’s oil wealth, while the rest of the population still struggles to recover from this unending “Made in the U.S.A.” national trauma. Voter turnout in Iraqi elections declined from 80% in 2005 to 45% in 2018. Now a desperate and angry new generation of Iraqis is taking to the streets to demand a government that will finally share their country’s wealth with its people.

The tragedy of Haiti

In 2000, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected president, was elected for a second term on a platform that explicitly rejected the neoliberal “free market,” debt and austerity policies imposed on Haiti by the U.S., the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

The U.S. responded to Aristide’s reelection by cutting off foreign aid to Haiti and setting up training camps in the Dominican Republic, where up to 200 U.S. special operations forces trained Haitian death squads to cross the border, assassinate Aristide’s supporters and terrorize the population.

In February 2004, these U.S.-trained death squads joined forces with a militia called the Cannibal Army in Gonaives, where they sacked the police station and took control of the city. Two weeks later, they seized Cap Haitien, Haiti’s second largest city.

As the U.S.-trained death squads threatened to march on the Haitian capital Port-Au-Prince, a U.S. embassy official and U.S. special operations forces entered the Presidential Palace and “persuaded” Aristide and his family to leave with them. A thousand U.S. Marines, plus French, Canadian and Chilean troops, invaded and occupied Haiti.

The U.S. flew Aristide to Antigua and then to the Central African Republic (CAR), where General Francois Bozize had just seized power in a Western-backed military coup. The Jamaican government rescued Aristide and his family from the CAR and brought them to Jamaica for a few months until they were granted permanent sanctuary in South Africa. Aristide was finally allowed to return to Haiti in 2011, and he is still widely seen as the only popular democratic leader Haiti has ever had.

Since 2004, when Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party was banned, elections in Haiti have been so obviously rigged and illegitimate that voter turnout has declined from at least 50% in 2000 (despite an opposition boycott), when Aristide won 92% of the votes, to 22% in 2011, 29% in 2015 and 18% in 2016, allowing every election to be won by openly corrupt U.S.-backed right-wing politicians and parties.

After the devastating 2010 earthquake, the 2011 election was won by Michel Martelly, a Haitian pop singer supported by Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was quickly mired in scandal over a $2.6 million bribe from a Dominican construction firm to whom he awarded $200 million in no-bid contracts for post-earthquake rebuilding work, triggering large anti-corruption protests in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

The latest election in 2016 was another fiasco. Evidence of massive election fraud triggered huge anti-government demonstrations before Jovenel Moise, the declared winner, even took office. Exit polls showed Moise only winning 6% of the votes in the first round, a small fraction of his official 33% share that won him a place in the run-off.

Now Haitian government auditors have released a 600-page report detailing how Moise has embezzled millions of dollars, mainly from the PetroCaribe fund.  Under this program, Venezuela supplied Haiti with oil but deferred payment for 25 years so that Haiti could spend the money on badly needed infrastructure, hospitals and social programs. The audit revealed how Moise siphoned millions of dollars from these funds into his own personal bank accounts.

Haiti remains under UN military occupation to this day. UN troops have used force against the public and unleashed a cholera epidemic. The UN mandate for the remaining 1,275-member UN police force, supported by about 300 Indian troops, finally expires on October 15th, when it is due to be replaced by a 30-member UN political mission.

Neoliberalism Begets Resistance

Neoliberalism is an inherently corrupt system. It creates a vicious circle in which ruling classes can leverage their wealth to gain dominant political power and then use that power to cut taxes and rewrite laws to further enrich themselves. This is a powerful engine to generate ever more concentrated wealth and political power for the 1%, with impoverishment and political marginalization for everybody else.

Neoliberalism reduces politics mainly to a choice between politicians and parties who represent factions of the same corrupt ruling class, which retains a monopoly on power whichever party wins. But the fatal flaw in the neoliberal view of the world is the presumption that ruling classes can safely ignore the 99% of the population they disenfranchise, exploit or even kill.

This idea that only the elites in each country matter has led directly to the U.S. policy of “regime change,” in which leaders who resist neoliberalism are overthrown by whatever means necessary.  It should be no surprise that the new governments installed by all these U.S. wars and coups are among the most corrupt regimes on earth.

But as U.S.-led occupation armies have discovered in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and as we can see right now in Iraq and Haiti, ordinary people still insist on having their say about the future of the world we all live in. U.S. policy is largely responsible for the life or death predicaments now facing young people in these countries, so they deserve our solidarity as they rise up to resist.

*

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

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

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, is the author of the new book, Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Her previous books include: Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection; Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control; Don’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart, and (with Jodie Evans) Stop the Next War Now (Inner Ocean Action Guide). Follow her on Twitter: @medeabenjamin

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq and of the chapter on “Obama At War” in Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

Amid the storm of denunciations—extending from right-wing Republicans to the Democratic Party, the New York Times and the pseudo-left Jacobinmagazine—of his decision to pull US troops out of Syria, President Donald Trump issued an extraordinary tweet on Wednesday in defense of his policy:

“The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE … IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.”

Trump’s Twitter account has dominated the US news cycle ever since he took office. Tweets have introduced fascistic new policies on immigration, announced the frequent firings of White House personnel and cabinet members and signaled shifts in US foreign policy.

Last month, amid the mounting of an impeachment inquiry, which the Democratic leadership in Congress has focused exclusively on “national security” concerns stemming from Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US president set a new personal record, tweeting 800 times.

Yet the corporate media has chosen to ignore Trump’s tweet on the protracted US military intervention in the Middle East.

From the standpoint of the bitter internecine struggle unfolding within the US capitalist state, the tweet expresses the sharp divisions over US global strategy. While those around Trump want to focus entirely on preparation for confrontation with China, layers within the political establishment and the military and intelligence apparatus see the continuation of the US intervention to assert its hegemony over the Middle East and countering Russia as critical for American imperialism’s drive to impose its dominance over the Eurasian landmass.

But aside from these disputes over geo-strategic policy, the admission by a sitting US president that Washington launched a war under a “false” and “disproven” premise that ended up killing “millions” has direct political implications, whatever Trump’s intentions.

It amounts to an official admission from the US government that successive US administrations are responsible for war crimes resulting in mass murder.

Trump acknowledges that Washington launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the “false premise” of “weapons of mass destruction.” In other words, the administration of George W. Bush lied to the people of the United States and the entire planet in order to facilitate a war of aggression.

Under international law, this war was a criminal action and a patently unjustified violation of Iraq’s sovereignty. The Nuremberg Tribunal, convened in the aftermath of the Second World War, declared the planning and launching of a war of aggression the supreme crime of the Nazis, from which all of their horrific atrocities flowed, including the Holocaust. On the basis of this legal principle, Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top US officials, as well as their successors in the Obama and Trump administrations who continued the US intervention in the Middle East—expanding it into Syria and Libya, while threatening a new war against Iran—should all face prosecution as war criminals.

The real basis for the war was the long-held predatory conception that by militarily conquering Iraq Washington could seize control of the vast energy resources of the Middle East—giving it a stranglehold over the oil lifeline to its principal rivals in Asia and Europe—and thereby offset the decline of US imperialism’s global hegemony.

The World Socialist Web Site described the consequences of the US assault on Iraq and its people as “sociocide,” the deliberate destruction of what had been among the most advanced societies, in terms of education, health care and infrastructure, in the Middle East (see: “The US war and occupation of Iraq—the murder of a society”).

The casualties inflicted by this war were staggering. According to a comprehensive 2006 study done by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, the death toll resulting from the US invasion rose to over 655,000 in the first 40 months of the US war alone.

The continued slaughter resulting from the US occupation and the bloody sectarian civil war provoked by Washington’s divide-and-rule tactics claimed many more direct victims, while the destruction of basic water, power, health care and sanitation infrastructure killed even more. The mass slaughter continued under the Obama administration with the launching in 2014 of what was billed as a US war against ISIS. This war, which saw the most intense bombing campaign since Vietnam and reduced Mosul, Ramadi, Fallujah and other Iraqi cities to rubble, claimed tens if not hundreds of thousands more lives.

Recent estimates of the death toll resulting from 16 years of US military intervention in Iraq range as high as 2.4 million people.

The Iraq war has had its own disastrous consequences for US society as well. In addition to claiming the lives of more than 4,500 US troops and nearly 4,000 US contractors, the war left tens of thousands of US troops wounded and hundreds of thousands suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries.

What of all the families in the United States who lost children, siblings or parents in a war that Trump now admits was based upon lies? Together with the veterans suffering from the wounds of this war, they should have the right to sue the US government for the results of its criminal conduct.

The cost of the US wars launched since 2001 has risen to nearly $6 trillion, the bulk of it stemming from Iraq, while interest cost on the money borrowed to pay for these wars will eventually amount to $8 trillion.

These grievous costs to US society are compounded by the social and political impact of waging an illegal war, resulting in the shredding of democratic rights and the wholesale corruption of a political system that is ever more dominated by the military and intelligence apparatus.

The media’s silence on Trump’s admission of war crimes carried out by US imperialism in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East is self-incriminating. It reflects the complicity of the corporate media in these crimes, with its selling of the lies used to promote the aggression against Iraq and its attempt to suppress antiwar sentiment.

Nowhere was this war propaganda developed more deliberately than at the New York Times which inundated the American public with lying reports about “weapons of mass destruction” by Judith Miller and the noxious opinion pieces by chief foreign affairs commentator Thomas “I have no problem with a war for oil” Friedman.

By all rights, the media editors and pundits responsible for promoting a criminal war of aggression deserve to sit in the dock alongside the war criminals who launched it.

The corporate media has also ignored Trump’s indictment of the US wars in the Middle East because it speaks for those sections of the US ruling establishment that want them to continue.

Trump’s cynical nationalist and populist rhetoric about ending US wars in the Middle East is aimed at currying support with a US population that is overwhelmingly hostile to these wars, even as his administration—backed by the Democrats—has secured a record $738 billion military budget in preparation for far more catastrophic wars, including against nuclear-armed China and Russia.

If the fascistic occupant of the White House is able to adopt the farcical posture of an opponent of imperialist war, it is entirely thanks to the Democrats, whose opposition to Trump is bound up with the concerns of the US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon over his conduct of foreign policy.

While there was mass opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the pseudo-left in the United States, together with the media, worked might and main to channel it behind the Democratic Party, which provided uninterrupted support and funding for the war. Today, it is the most pro-war party, aligned with the opposition to Trump by the likes of John Bolton, Lindsey Graham and Bush.

Trump’s admission about the criminality of the Iraq war only confirms what the World Socialist Web Site stated from its very outset. The struggle that it has waged for the building of a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class and armed with a socialist and internationalist program to unite the workers of the United States, the Middle East and the entire planet against the capitalist system provides the only way forward in the struggle against war.

*

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, the US and Russia vetoed the same Security Council Resolution, the first time this happened since the body initially met on January 17, 1946.

On Thursday in closed-door session, an EU Security Resolution called on Turkey “to cease unilateral military action.”

Warning that “renewed armed hostilities in the northeast will further undermine the stability of the whole region, exacerbate civilian suffering and provoke further displacements” ignored endless US-led regional aggression in multiple regional countries, notably Syria, Iraq and Yemen — supported by Britain, France, and perhaps other EU countries.

Failing to condemn Turkish aggression in Syria by the US and Russia showed support for Erdogan’s illegal cross-border offensive — no matter its short or longer-term aims.

Preemptively attacking another nation is a flagrant UN Charter breach, no ifs, ands, buts, or exceptions about it.

Yet Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow recognizes  “Turkey’s right to ensure its security.” Its only cross-border threats are invented.

No real ones exist from ISIS and other terrorists in Syria Ankara supports, nor from Kurdish YPG fighters — except in self-defense if attacked by Turkey’s military.

In remarks to reporters following yesterday’s SC session, Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia sounded weak-kneed like UN Secretary General Guterres, saying:

“We said that all sides should exercise maximum restraint during that operation,” adding:

“(T)his operation is a result of demographic engineering that some of the coalition partners did in the northeast of Syria. We warned (about this) a long time” ago.

Asked if Moscow supports a so-called Turkish “safe zone” in northern Syria, Nebenzia ducked the question, saying:

“If there is a product of the Security Council, it should take into account other aspects of the Syrian crisis, not just the Turkish operation.”

“It should also speak about the illegal military presence (of foreign forces) in that country and the need to terminate it immediately.”

“There are many other issues on the Syrian file that should be mentioned if there is any product of the Security Council.”

Nebenzia stressed that Russia will only support a Security Council resolution on Syria that addresses key issues, notably the illegal occupation of its northern and southern territory by (US-led) foreign forces.

US UN envoy Kelly Craft falsely said Trump “made abundantly clear” that the White House “has not in any way” endorsed Turkey’s offensive in northeast Syria.

Trump green-lighted the operation by agreeing to redeploy US troops away from conflict areas, along with failure to denounce Turkish aggression.

Erdogan’s so-called Operation Peace Spring is all about his longterm aim to annex northern Syrian territory, especially its oil-producing areas.

Notably, his revanchist aims extend to northern Iraqi territory he covets, far more oil-rich than Syria.

His strategy relies on maintaining the myth of a Kurdish/ISIS and other jihadist threat to unjustifiably justify his cross-border aggression in both countries, bordering Turkish territory.

According to the ICRC, tens of thousands of Syrian civilians fled their communities, seeking safe havens out of harm’s way, estimating numbers could exceed 300,000 if Turkish aggression is protracted.

Separately, Russia’s Sergey Lavrov called for Kurdish authorities in northern Syria and Damascus to engage in dialogue, saying:

“We contacted both the representatives of the Kurdish side and the representatives of the (Syrian) government, and confirmed that we are encouraging them to start a dialogue to resolve the problems of this part of Syria, including the problems of ensuring security on the Turkish-Syrian border. As before, this is the only way to achieve stability,” adding:

“We have repeatedly voiced our position on what is happening in northeast Syria, including in the Syrian-Turkish border region.”

“(O)ur position is unequivocal, based on the need to solve all the problems of this part of the Syrian Arab Republic through a dialogue between the central government in Damascus and representatives of the Kurdish communities that traditionally reside in this territory.”

The Trump regime’s failure to support Kurdish self-defense against Turkish aggression offers an opportunity for rapprochement with Damascus, both sides uniting for Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity against foreign aggression.

Lavrov also aims for “reconciliation talks” between Turkish and Syrian authorities.

They’re off the table as long as Erdogan’s ordered cross-border aggression continues, his revanchist objectives remain unchanged, as well as calling for toppling Bashar al-Assad remains firm.

Lavrov said

“(t)here are reasons to believe that (Syrian/Turkish dialogue) will meet the interests of both countries.”

He’s actively “promoting contacts between Damascus and Kurdish organizations that renounce extremism and terrorist methods of activity,” adding:

“We’ve heard Syrian officials and Kurdish organizations’ representatives say they are interested in Russia using its good relations with all parties to this process for assistance in establishing such a dialogue. We’ll see how to go about this business.”

Ahead of Turkish cross-border aggression in Syria, Kurds expressed interest in partnering with Damascus against the planned offensive now underway.

Throughout Obama’s war, now Trump’s, the US went all out to prevent an alliance between Kurds in northern Syria and Assad — a key objective to help defeat Washington’s imperial aims in the country.

On Thursday, Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad said Damascus will not hold talks with Kurdish forces because they “betrayed their country,” adding:

“The armed factions betrayed their country and committed crimes against it. We will not accept dialogue with those who became hostages of foreign forces. There will not be any foothold for agents of Washington on Syrian soil.”

Earlier Damascus talks with Kurds failed. Lavrov has his work cut out for him to try bringing both sides together again in hopes of achieving rapprochement that’s been out of reach so far.

Separately, Erdogan falsely accused Assad of “kill(ing) nearly one million Syrians,” according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency — ignoring his alliance with US-led aggression and support for jihadists against Syrian sovereign independence and territorial integrity.

His unbending hostility toward Syria and aim to annex its territory makes bilateral rapprochement unlikely.

*

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.

Ghaleb Abu Hadwan, 63, and his family are staying with extended family back in Shufat refugee camp after Israeli forces last week destroyed the new home they had constructed in Wadi al-Hummus, after saving up for it for years.

“We are refugees from Yafa [Jaffa in Hebrew and English]”, Ghaleb told MAP, “and lived in Shufat. My three sons and I worked so hard as plumbers to save all our money to construct a big building for all the family.”

Then last Monday at around 2:30am, Israeli forces surrounded the Wadi al Hummus neighbourhood in the Sur Bahir area of Jerusalem governorate. They ordered the residents to evacuate their homes and declared the area a “Closed Military Zone”.

“I refused to leave”, Ghaleb said. “This house was my life, all our savings and hard work. How can they destroy my life? I tried to resist, but I lost consciousness. My brain refused to witness my house turning to rubble.”

Mohammed Abu Tair, a 43-year-old father of four, told MAP a similar story.

“I was almost finished with my nine-story building. I had invested over nine million Shekels in it. It took me years of hard work. In 2017, we received an order from the Israeli Supreme Court to stop all construction in Wadi al Hummus, until the Court examined the military decision to demolish all the houses in the area. But I still had hope that the decision of the Supreme Court would be fair and humane. We had every right to be optimistic. My building and many others were in an area which is under the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority and had been granted the required building permits. There was no legal basis for them to be demolished by the Israelis”

“How can I let all the years of hard work be destroyed in few minutes? I did not know what to do,” continued Mohammed.

“I decided to lie down on the floor of my building. I told the soldiers that I refused to leave. There were several Israeli and international solidarity supporters present, but the Israeli soldiers hit them and forced them to leave. I was left alone. I did not move. At 5 am, four Israeli soldiers attacked me by kicking and punching me. They said it was illegal to disturb the work of the soldiers, and I was arrested. My arm and leg were slightly injured. But I could not care less. I lost everything. They released me from the interrogation centre at 8pm, to find my building turned to debris.”

What happened in Wadi al Hummus was the biggest demolition since 1967. Ahead of the demolition, OCHA warned

“Seventeen Palestinians, including nine Palestine refugees, face the risk of displacement, and over 350 others risk massive property loss, due to the Israeli authorities’ intention to demolish 10 buildings, including around 70 apartments, due to their proximity to the West Bank Barrier.”

The demolitions drew immediate protest:

The UK government strongly condemned the demolitions in a joint statement with France, Germany and Spain, stressing:

“In this specific case, the demolitions were particularly egregious as a number of the buildings were located in Areas A and B, under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.”

Meanwhile Saleh Higazi, head of Amnesty International’s Jerusalem Office, said:

“These demolitions are a flagrant violation of international law and part of a systematic pattern by the Israeli authorities’ to forcibly displace Palestinians in the occupied territories; such actions amount to war crimes.”

As highlighted by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, demolitions and forced evictions are some of the multiple pressures generating a risk of forcible transfer for many Palestinians in the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem and adjacent areas have been particularly affected, with a significant rise in demolitions there in 2019. Demolitions are grave violations of international law, have a devastating impact on Palestinians’ psychological well-being, especially for children, and are part of a systematic pattern of collective punishment.

Displaced again and back in Shufat refugee camp, Ghaleb said:

“My youngest grandchildren who were evacuated from their home are having trouble sleeping. They wake up screaming. I also wake up from nightmares. How can I not have nightmares? I saw my house turning into broken bricks for no reason but being a Palestinian under the Israeli occupation.”

*

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 MAP

“Operation Peace Spring” Turkey’s third cross border military operation in northern Syria, in as many years, was initiated east of the Euphrates River, on Wednesday. Turkish armed forces began heavy air and artillery strikes targeting about 180-200 Kurdish positions. Turkey’s Defense Ministry claims to have killed 174 YPG/PKK terrorists. However, this operation is much larger than expected at 300km wide and 50 kilometers deep according to some sources, and many major cities have been targeted, resulting in numerous innocent Syrian civilians’ deaths in residential areas.

Last Sunday night, The White House issued a statement, which some believe gave Turkey the green light to go through with its incursion against Kurdish militias on its border. In the White House statement, it states that President Donald J. Trump and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke on the phone and that US troops would not support or be involved in their military operation. The statement claims that Washington defeated ISIS and is no longer needed there. It also mentions that the United States pressured his European allies to take back their terrorists because and that Turkey would now be responsible for them.

Bipartisan disappointment and disapproval quickly followed the White House statement. Some were saying that Washington gave Turkey the green light to proceed with their planned military operation. There is some truth to that, Turkey wanted to make sure that US troops had vacated their border area before proceeding.

Following Ankara’s announcement on Saturday of an impending military operation, the SDF had said that they would respond to Turkey’s military operation with an all-out war and defend “their” land. However, thousands of Kurds fled their homes a few days after, some without a specific destination in sight.

A mass exodus most likely due to their lack of faith in their militias being able to properly protect them. Some said they were headed to US military posts to seek protection. Last year Operation Olive Branch in Afrin proved that Kurdish militias cannot fend off a Turkish assault without US troop support.

The fifty US troops that were stationed near or around Turkey’s border were given orders to evacuate further south and to not get involved in defending or helping the US-backed Kurdish SDF/YPG.  Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made an announcement on Saturday that he would take measures into his own hands and create a safe-zone and refugee “peace corridor” after not being satisfied with the progress that was made with the United States in their creation.

A day after the airstrikes commenced, on Thursday, a land operation began using the recently merged terrorist factions numbering roughly 60,000 that consist of Free Syrian Army fighters. Many international leaders have spoken up about their opposition to these military operations and have asked the Turkish government to cease them, including the Syrian government but Turkey is pushing through.

There’s been mention that Russia is in the process of organizing reconciliation talks between Turkey and Syria, which would be the first of their kind since diplomatic relations were severed in 2012.

On Thursday, the Syrian government ruled out talks with the Kurdish militias based on their betrayal and for committing crimes against the Syrian state and people. President Assad’s administration has not only given them many prior chances to repent and realign with the Syrian army but explained that ultimately, they will be discarded by the Trump administration and it’s in their best interest to cut those ties and return to peace and stability.

Unfortunately, Kurdish militias found working as agents pushing a foreign agenda for the United States and Israel more appealing and profitable, even at the cost of their own dignity. It was a known fact that once they were betrayed for the umpteenth time by the United States that they would be running back to renegotiate but that door of opportunity might be closing soon, if it hasn’t already.

According to a Norwegian official, Norway is suspending the delivery of arms to Turkey after its invasion of northeastern Syria.  World leaders from Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Russia, Australia, Japan etc. have spoken in condemnation of Turkey’s military operation stating it will undermine stability in the region and could provide the opportunity for a Daesh resurgence.

Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened to open the door for 3.6 million Syrian refugees if European leaders continue to call his cross-border military operation an occupation.

President Trump has said Washington is not abandoning the Kurds, but they have been fighting with Turkey for “hundreds of years” and need to fight their own battles going forward. He also mentioned that ISIS will now be the responsibility of Kurdish and Turkish forces which is problematic, both sides have been known to recruit and take in extremists.  It’s been mentioned that 12,000 ISIS fighters in 7 prisons are now under Kurdish control. Some are worried that they might be set free or escape. President Trump believes that if they did escape, they would return to their home countries in Europe.

Pulling out all illegal US, British and other foreign uninvited troops in the Middle East, is an excellent idea. President Trump said that the worst mistake the United States made was going to war in the Middle East based on false pretexts and lies. He will however face an uphill battle with the Pentagon and bipartisan political pariahs in Washington and Israel, which are all strong deterrents to his campaign promise.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

Featured image is from InfoBrics

First published on GR in March 2012

The study of world power has been blighted by Eurocentric historians who have distorted and ignored the dominant role China played in the world economy between 1100 and 1800.  John Hobson’s[1] brilliant historical survey of the world economy during this period provides an abundance of empirical data making the case for China ’s economic and technological superiority over Western civilization for the better part of a millennium prior to its conquest and decline in the 19th century.

China ’s re-emergence as a world economic power raises important questions about what we can learn from its previous rise and fall and about the external and internal threats confronting this emerging economic superpower for the immediate future.

First we will outline the main contours of historical China ’s rise to global economic superiority over West before the 19th century, following closely John Hobson’s account in The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization.  Since the majority of western economic historians (liberal, conservative and Marxist) have presented historical China as a stagnant, backward, parochial society, an “oriental despotism”, some detailed correctives will be necessary.  It is especially important to emphasize how China , the world technological power between 1100 and 1800, made the West’s emergence possible.  It was only by borrowing and assimilating Chinese innovations that the West was able to make the transition to modern capitalist and imperialist economies.

In part two we will analyze and discuss the factors and circumstances which led to China ’s decline in the 19th century and its subsequent domination, exploitation and pillage by Western imperial countries, first England and then the rest of Europe, Japan and the United States .

In part three, we will briefly outline the factors leading to China’s emancipation from colonial and neo-colonial rule and analyze its recent rise to becoming the second largest global economic power.

Finally we will look at the past and present threats to China ’s rise to global economic power, highlighting the similarities between British colonialism of the 18 and 19th centuries and the current US imperial strategies and focusing on the weaknesses and strengths of past and present Chinese responses.

China:  The Rise and Consolidation of Global Power 1100 – 1800

In a systematic comparative format, John Hobson provides a wealth of empirical indicators demonstrating China ’s global economic superiority over the West and in particular England .  These are some striking facts:

As early as 1078, China was the world’s major producer of steel (125,000 tons); whereas Britain in 1788 produced 76,000 tons.

China was the world’s leader in technical innovations in textile manufacturing, seven centuries before Britain ’s 18th century “textile revolution”.

China was the leading trading nation, with long distance trade reaching most of Southern Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe .  China’s ‘agricultural revolution’ and productivity surpassed the West down to the 18th century.

Its innovations in the production of paper, book printing, firearms and tools led to a manufacturing superpower whose goods were transported throughout the world by the most advanced navigational system.

China possessed the world’s largest commercial ships.  In 1588 the largest English ships displaced 400 tons, China ’s 3,000 tons.  Even as late as the end of the 18th century China ’s merchants employed 130,000 private transport ships, several times that of Britain . China retained this pre-eminent position in the world economy up until the early 19th century.

British and Europeans manufacturers followed China ’s lead, assimilating and borrowing its more advanced technology and were eager to penetrate China ’s advanced and lucrative market.

Banking, a stable paper money economy, manufacturing and high yields in agriculture resulted in China ’s per capita income matching that of Great Britain as late as 1750.

China ’s dominant global position was challenged by the rise of British imperialism, which had adopted the advanced technological, navigational and market innovations of China and other Asian countries in order to bypass earlier stages in becoming a world power[2].

Western Imperialism and the Decline of China

The British and Western imperial conquest of the East, was based on the militaristic nature of the imperial state, its non-reciprocal economic relations with overseas trading countries and the Western imperial ideology which motivated and justified overseas conquest.

Unlike China , Britain ’s industrial revolution and overseas expansion was driven by a military policy.  According to Hobson, during the period from 1688-1815 Great Britain was engaged in wars 52% of the time[3].  Whereas the Chinese relied on their open markets and their superior production and sophisticated commercial and banking skills, the British relied on tariff protection, military conquest, the systematic destruction of competitive overseas enterprises as well as the appropriation and plunder of local resources.  China ’s global predominance was based on ‘reciprocal benefits’ with its trading partners, while Britain relied on mercenary armies of occupation, savage repression and a ‘divide and conquer’ policy to foment local rivalries.  In the face of native resistance, the British (as well as other Western imperial powers) did not hesitate to exterminate entire communities[4].

Unable to take over the Chinese market through greater economic competitiveness, Britain relied on brute military power.  It mobilized, armed and led mercenaries, drawn from its colonies in India and elsewhere to force its exports on China and impose unequal treaties to lower tariffs.  As a result China was flooded with British opium produced on its plantations in India – despite Chinese laws forbidding or regulating the importation and sale of the narcotic.  China ’s rulers, long accustomed to its trade and manufacturing superiority, were unprepared for the ‘new imperial rules’ for global power.  The West’s willingness to use military power  to win colonies, pillage resources and recruit huge mercenary armies commanded by European officers spelt the end for China as a world power.

China had based its economic predominance on ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of its trading partners’.  In contrast, British imperialists intervened violently in Asia , reorganizing local economies to suit the needs of the empire (eliminating economic competitors including more efficient Indian cotton manufacturers) and seized control of local political, economic and administrative apparatus to establish the colonial state.

Britain ’s empire was built with resources seized from the colonies and through the massive militarization of its economy[5].  It was thus able to secure military supremacy over China .  China ’s foreign policy was hampered by its ruling elite’s excessive reliance on trade relations.  Chinese officials and merchant elites sought to appease the British and convinced the emperor to grant devastating extra-territorial concessions opening markets to the detriment of Chinese manufacturers while surrendering local sovereignty.  As always, the British precipitated internal rivalries and revolts further destabilizing the country.

Western and British penetration and colonization of China ’s market created an entire new class:  The wealthy Chinese ‘compradores’ imported British goods and facilitated the takeover of local markets and resources.  Imperialist pillage forced greater exploitation and taxation of the great mass of Chinese peasants and workers.  China ’s rulers were obliged to pay the war debts and finance trade deficits imposed by the Western imperial powers by squeezing its peasantry.  This drove the peasants to starvation and revolt.

By the early 20th century (less than a century after the Opium Wars), China had descended from world economic power to a broken semi-colonial country with a huge destitute population.  The principle ports were controlled by Western imperial officials and the countryside was subject to the rule by corrupt and brutal warlords.  British opium enslaved millions.

British Academics:  Eloquent Apologists for Imperial Conquest

The entire Western academic profession – first and foremost British  imperial historians – attributed British imperial dominance of Asia to English ‘technological superiority’ and China’s misery and colonial status to ‘oriental backwardness’, omitting any mention of the millennium of Chinese commercial and technical progress and superiority up to the dawn of the 19th century.  By the end of the 1920’s, with the Japanese imperial invasion, China ceased to exist as a unified country.  Under the aegis of imperial rule, hundreds of millions of Chinese had starved or were dispossessed or slaughtered, as the Western powers and Japan plundered its economy.  The entire Chinese ‘collaborator’ comprador elite were discredited before the Chinese people.

What did remain in the collective memory of the great mass of the Chinese people – and what was totally absent in the accounts of prestigious US and British academics – was the sense of China once having been a prosperous, dynamic and leading world power.  Western commentators dismissed this collective memory of China ’s ascendancy as the foolish pretensions of nostalgic lords and royalty – empty Han arrogance.

China Rises from the Ashes of Imperial Plunder and Humiliation:  The Chinese Communist Revolution

The rise of modern China to become the second largest economy in the world was made possible only through the success of the Chinese communist revolution in the mid-20th century.  The People’s Liberation ‘Red’ Army defeated first the invading Japanese imperial army and later the US imperialist-backed comprador led Kuomintang “Nationalist” army.  This allowed the reunification of China as an independent sovereign state.  The Communist government abolished the extra-territorial privileges of the Western imperialists, ended the territorial fiefdoms of the regional warlords and gangsters and drove out the millionaire owners of brothels, the traffickers of women and drugs as well as the other “service providers” to the Euro-American Empire.

In every sense of the word, the Communist revolution forged  the modern Chinese state.  The new leaders then proceeded to reconstruct an economy ravaged by imperial wars and pillaged by Western and Japanese capitalists.  After over 150 years of infamy and humiliation the Chinese people recovered their pride and national dignity.  These socio-psychological elements were essential in motivating the Chinese to defend their country from the US attacks, sabotage, boycotts, and blockades mounted immediately after liberation.

Contrary to Western and neoliberal Chinese economists, China ’s dynamic growth did not start in 1980.  It began in 1950, when the agrarian reform provided land, infrastructure, credits and technical assistance to hundreds of millions of landless and destitute peasants and landless rural workers. Through what is now called “human capital” and gigantic social mobilization, the Communists built roads, airfields, bridges, canals and railroads as well as the basic industries, like coal, iron and steel, to form the backbone of the modern Chinese economy.  Communist China’s vast free educational and health systems created a healthy, literate and motivated work force.  Its highly professional military prevented the US from extending its military empire throughout the Korean peninsula up to China ’s territorial frontiers.  Just as past Western scholars and propagandists fabricated a history of a “stagnant and decadent” empire to justify their destructive conquest, so too their modern counterparts have rewritten the first thirty years of Chinese Communist history, denying the role of the revolution in developing all the essential elements for a modern economy, state and society.  It is clear that China ’s rapid economic growth was based on the development of its internal market, its rapidly growing cadre of scientists, skilled technicians and workers and the social safety net which protected and promoted working class and peasant mobility were products of Communist planning and investments.

China ’s rise to global power began in 1949 with the removal of the entire parasitic financial, compradore and speculative classes who had served as the intermediaries for European, Japanese and US imperialists draining China of its great wealth.
China’s Transition to Capitalism

Beginning in 1980 the Chinese government initiated a dramatic shift in its economic strategy:  Over the next three decades, it opened the country to large-scale foreign investment; it privatized thousands of industries and it set in motion a process of income concentration based on a deliberate strategy of re-creating a dominant economic class of billionaires linked to overseas capitalists.  China ’s ruling political class embraced the idea of “borrowing” technical know-how and accessing overseas markets from foreign firms in exchange for providing cheap, plentiful labor at the lowest cost.

The Chinese state re-directed massive public subsidies to promote high capitalist growth by dismantling its national system of free public education and health care.  They ended subsidized public housing for hundreds of millions of peasants and urban factory workers and provided funds to real estate speculators for the construction of private luxury apartments and office skyscrapers. China ’s new capitalist strategy as well as its double digit growth was based on the profound structural changes and massive public investments made possible by the previous communist government.  China ’s private sector “take off” was based on the huge public outlays made since 1949.

The triumphant new capitalist class and its Western collaborators claimed all the credit for this “economic miracle” as China rose to become the world’s second largest economy.  This new Chinese elite have been less eager to announce China ’s world-class status in terms of brutal class inequalities, rivaling only the US .

China:  From Imperial Dependency to World Class Competitor

China ’s sustained growth in its manufacturing sector was a result of highly concentrated public investments, high profits, technological innovations and a protected domestic market.  While foreign capital profited, it was always within the framework of the Chinese state’s priorities and regulations.  The regime’s dynamic ‘export strategy’ led to huge trade surpluses, which eventually made China one of the world’s largest creditors especially for US debt.  In order to maintain its dynamic industries, China has required huge influxes of raw materials, resulting in large-scale overseas investments and trade agreements with agro-mineral export countries in Africa and Latin America .  By 2010 China displaced the US and Europe as the main trading partner in many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America .

Modern China ’s rise to world economic power, like its predecessor between 1100-1800, is based on its gigantic productive capacity:  Trade and investment was governed by a policy of strict non-interference in the internal relations of its trading partners.  Unlike the US , China did initiate brutal wars for oil; instead it signed lucrative contracts.  And China does not fight wars in the interest of overseas Chinese, as the US has done in the Middle East for Israel .

The seeming imbalance between Chinese economic and military power is in stark contrast to the US where a bloated, parasitic military empire continues to erode its own global economic presence.

US military spending is twelve times that of China .  Increasingly the US military plays the key role shaping policy in Washington as it seeks to undercut China ’s rise to global power.

China’s Rise to World Power: Will History Repeat Itself?

China has been growing at about 9% per annum and its goods and services are rapidly rising in quality and value.  In contrast, the US and Europe have wallowed around 0% growth from 2007-2012.  China ’s innovative techno-scientific establishment routinely assimilates the latest inventions from the West (and Japan ) and improves them, thereby decreasing the cost of production.  China has replaced the US and European controlled “international financial institutions” (the IMF, World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank) as the principle lender in Latin America .  China continues to lead as the prime investor in African energy and mineral resources.  China has replaced the US as the principle market for Saudi Arabian, Sudanese and Iranian petroleum and it will soon replace the US as the principle market for Venezuela petroleum products.  Today China is the world’s biggest manufacturer and exporter, dominating even the US market, while playing the role of financial life line as it holds over $1.3 trillion in US Treasury notes.

Under growing pressure from its workers, farmers and peasants, China ’s rulers have been developing the domestic market by increasing wages and social spending to rebalance the economy and avoid the specter of social instability.  In contrast, US wages, salaries and vital public services have sharply declined in absolute and relative terms.

Given the current historical trends it is clear that China will replace the US as the leading world economic power, over the next decade,  if the US empire does not strike back and if China ’s profound class inequalities do not lead to a major social upheaval.

Modern China ’s rise to global power faces serious challenges.  In contrast to China ’s historical ascent on the world stage, modern Chinese global economic power is not accompanied by any imperialist undertakings.  China has seriously lagged behind the US and Europe in aggressive war-making capacity.  This may have allowed China to direct public resources to maximize economic growth, but it has left China vulnerable to US military superiority in terms of its massive arsenal, its string of forward bases and strategic geo-military positions right off the Chinese coast and in adjoining territories.

In the nineteenth century British imperialism demolished China ’s global position with its military superiority, seizing China ’s ports – because of China ’s reliance on ‘mercantile superiority’.

The conquest of India , Burma and most of Asia allowed Britain to establish colonial bases and recruit local mercenary armies.  The British and its mercenary allies encircled and isolated China , setting the stage for the disruption of China ’s markets and the imposition of the brutal terms of trade.  The British Empire’s armed presence dictated what China imported (with opium accounting for over 50% of British exports in the 1850s) while undermining China ’s competitive advantages via tariff policies.

Today the US is pursuing similar policies:  US naval fleet  patrols and controls China ’s commercial shipping lanes and off-shore oil resources via its overseas bases.  The Obama-Clinton White House is in the process of developing a rapid military response involving bases in Australia , Philippines and elsewhere in Asia .  The US is intensifying  its efforts to undermine Chinese overseas access to strategic resources while backing ‘grass roots’ separatists and ‘insurgents’ in West China, Tibet, Sudan, Burma, Iran, Libya, Syria and elsewhere.  The US military agreements with India and  the installation of a pliable puppet regime in Pakistan have advanced its strategy of isolating China .  While China upholds its policy of “harmonious development” and “non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries”, it has stepped aside as US and European military imperialism have attacked a host of China’s trading partners to essentially reverse China’s  peaceful commercial expansion.

China’s lack of a political and ideological strategy capable of protecting its overseas economic interests has been an invitation for the US and NATO to set-up regimes hostile to China .  The most striking example is Libya where US and NATO intervened to overthrow an independent government led by President Gadhafi, with whom China had signed multi-billion dollar trade and investments agreements. The NATO bombardment of Libyan cities, ports and oil installation forced the Chinese to withdraw 35,000 Chinese oil engineers and construction workers in a matter of days.  The same thing happened in Sudan where China had invested billions to develop its oil industry.  The US, Israel and Europe armed the South Sudanese rebels to disrupt the flow of oil and attack Chinese oil workers[6].  In both cases China passively allowed the US and European military imperialists to attack its trade partners and undermine its investments.

Under Mao Tse Tung, China had an active policy countering imperial aggression:  It supported revolutionary movements and independent Third World governments.  Today’s capitalist China does not have an active policy of supporting governments or movements capable of protecting China ’s bilateral trade and investment agreements.  China ’s inability to confront the rising tide of US   military aggression against its economic interests, is due to deep structural problems.  China’s foreign policy is shaped by big commercial, financial and manufacturing interests who rely on their ‘economic competitive edge’ to gain market shares and have no understanding of the military and security underpinnings of global economic power.  China ’s political class is deeply influenced by a new class of billionaires with strong ties to Western equity funds and who have uncritically absorbed Western cultural values. This is illustrated by their preference for sending their own children to elite universities in the US and Europe .  They seek “accommodation with the West” at any price.

This lack of any strategic understanding of military empire-building has led them to respond ineffectively and ad hoc to each imperialist action undermining their access to resources and markets.  While China ’s “business first” outlook may have worked when it was a minor player in the world economy and US empire builders saw  the “capitalist opening” as a chance to easily takeover China ’s public enterprises and pillage the economy.  However, when China (in contrast to the former USSR) decided to retain capital controls and develop a carefully calibrated, state directed “industrial policy”  directing western capital and the transfer of technology to state enterprises, which effectively penetrated the US domestic and overseas markets, Washington began to complain and talked of retaliation.

China ’s huge trade surpluses with the US provoked a dual response in Washington :  It sold massive quantities of US Treasury bonds to the Chinese and began to develop a global strategy to block China ’s advance. Since the US lacked economic leverage to reverse its decline, it relied on its only “comparative advantage” – its military superiority based on a world wide  system of attack bases,  a network of overseas client regimes, military proxies, NGO’ers, intellectuals and armed mercenaries.  Washington turned to its vast overt and clandestine security apparatus to undermine China ’s trading partners.  Washington depends on its long-standing ties with corrupt rulers, dissidents, journalists and media moguls to provide the powerful propaganda cover while advancing its military offensive against China ’s overseas interests.

China has nothing to compare with the US overseas ‘security apparatus’ because it practices a policy of “non-interference”.  Given the advanced state of the Western imperial offensive, China has taken only a few diplomatic initiatives, such as financing English language media outlets to present its perspective, using its veto power on the UN Security Council to oppose US efforts to overthrow the independent Assad regime in Syria and opposing the imposition of drastic sanctions against Iran .  It sternly repudiated US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s vitriolic questioning of the ‘legitimacy’ of the Chinese state when it voted against the US-UN resolution  preparing  an attack on Syria[7].

Chinese military strategists are more aware and alarmed at the growing military threat to China .  They have successfully demanded a 19% annual increase in military spending over the next five years (2011-2015)[8].  Even with this increase, China’s military expenditures will still be less than one-fifth of the US military budget and China has not one overseas military base in stark contrast to the over 750 US installations abroad.  Overseas Chinese intelligence operations are minimal and ineffective.  Its embassies are run by and for narrow commercial interests who utterly failed to understand NATO’s brutal policy of regime change in Libya and inform Beijing of its significance to the Chinese state.

There are two other structural weaknesses undermining China ’s rise as a world power. This includes the highly ‘Westernized’ intelligentsia which has uncritically swallowed US economic doctrine about free markets while ignoring its militarized economy.  These Chinese intellectuals parrot the US propaganda about the ‘democratic virtues’ of billion-dollar Presidential campaigns, while supporting financial deregulation which would have led to a Wall Street takeover of Chinese banks and savings.  Many Chinese business consultants and academics have been educated in the US and influenced by their ties to US academics and international financial institutions directly linked to Wall Street and the City of London .  They have prospered as highly-paid consultants receiving prestigious positions in Chinese institutions.  They identify the ‘liberalization of financial markets’ with “advanced economies” capable of deepening ties to global markets instead of as a major source of the current global financial crisis.  These “Westernized intellectuals” are like their 19th century comprador counterparts who underestimated and dismissed the long-term consequences of Western imperial penetration.  They fail to understand how financial deregulation in the US precipitated the current crisis and how deregulation would lead to a Western takeover of China ’s financial system- the consequences of which would reallocate China ’s domestic savings to non-productive activities (real estate speculation), precipitate financial crisis and ultimately undermine China ’s leading global position.

These Chinese yuppies imitate the worst of Western consumerist life styles and their political outlooks are driven by these life styles and Westernized identities which preclude any sense of solidarity with their own working class.

There is an economic basis for the pro-Western sentiments of China ’s neo-compradors.  They have transferred billions of dollars to foreign bank accounts, purchased luxury homes and apartments in London , Toronto , Los Angeles , Manhattan , Paris , Hong Kong and Singapore . They have one foot in China (the source of their wealth) and the other in the West (where they consume and hide their wealth).

Westernized compradores are deeply embedded in China ’s economic system having family ties with the political leadership in the party apparatus and the state. Their connections are weakest in the military and in the growing social movements, although some “dissident” students and academic activists in the “democracy movements” are backed by Western imperial NGO’s.  To the extent that the compradors gain influence, they weaken the strong economic state institutions which have directed China ’s ascent to global power, just as they did in the 19th century by acting as intermediaries for the British Empire .  Proclaiming 19th Century “liberalism” British opium addicted over 50 million Chinese in less than a decade.  Proclaiming “democracy and human rights” US gunboats now patrol off China ’s coast.  China ’s elite-directed rise to global economic power has spawned monumental inequalities between the thousands of new billionaires and multi-millionaires at the top and hundreds of millions of impoverished workers, peasants and migrant workers at the bottom.

China ’s rapid accumulation of wealth and capital was made possible through the intense exploitation of its workers who were stripped of their previous social safety net and regulated work conditions guaranteed under Communism.  Millions of Chinese households are being dispossessed in order to promote real estate developer/speculators who then build high rise offices and the luxury apartments for the domestic and foreign elite.  These brutal features of ascendant Chinese capitalism have created a fusion of workplace and living space mass struggle which is growing every year.  The developer/speculators’ slogan  “to get rich is wonderful” has lost its power to deceive the people.  In 2011 there were over 200,000 popular encompassing urban coastal factories and rural villages.  The next step, which is sure to come, will be the unification of these struggles into  new national social movements with a class-based agenda demanding the restoration of health and educational services enjoyed under the Communists as well as a greater share of China’s wealth. Current demands for greater wages can turn to demands for greater work place democracy.  To answer these popular demands China ’s new compradore-Westernized liberals cannot point to their ‘model’ in the US empire where American workers are in the process of being stripped of the very benefits Chinese workers are struggling to regain.

China , torn by deepening class and political conflict, cannot sustain its drive toward global economic leadership.  China ’s elite cannot confront the rising global imperial military threat from the US with its comprador allies among the internal liberal elite while the country is  a deeply divided society with an increasingly hostile working class.  The time of unbridled exploitation of China ’s labor has to end in order to face the US military encirclement of China and economic disruption of its overseas markets.  China possesses enormous resources.  With over $1.5 trillion dollars in reserves China can finance a comprehensive national health and educational program throughout the country.

China can afford to pursue an intensive ‘public housing program’ for the 250 million migrant workers currently living in urban squalor.  China can impose a system of progressive income taxes on its new billionaires and millionaires and finance small family farmer co-operatives and rural industries to rebalance the economy.  Their program of developing alternative energy sources, such as solar panels and wind farms – are a promising start to addressing their serious environmental pollution.  Degradation of the environment and related health issues already engage the concern of tens of millions.  Ultimately China ’s best defense against imperial encroachments is a stable regime based on social justice for the hundreds of millions and a foreign policy of supporting overseas anti-imperialist movements and regimes – whose independence are in China ’s vital interest.  What is needed is a pro-active policy based on mutually beneficial joint ventures including military and diplomatic solidarity.  Already a small, but influential, group of Chinese intellectuals have raised the issue of the growing US military threat and are “saying no to gunboat diplomacy”.[9]

Modern China has plenty of resources and opportunities, unavailable to China in the 19th century when it was subjugated by the British Empire . If the US continues to escalate its aggressive militaristic policy against China , Beijing can set off a serious fiscal crisis by dumping a few of its hundreds of billions of dollars in US Treasury notes.  China , a nuclear power should reach out to its similarly armed and threatened neighbor, Russia , to confront and confound the bellicose rantings of US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton.  Russian President-to-be Putin vows to increase military spending from 3% to 6% of the GDP over the next decade to counter Washington’s offensive missile bases on Russia’s borders and thwart Obama’s ‘regime change’ programs against its allies, like Syria[10].

China has powerful trading, financial and investment networks covering the globe as well as powerful economic partners .These links have become essential for the continued growth of many of countries throughout the developing world.  In taking on China , the US will have to face the opposition of many powerful market-based elites throughout the world.  Few countries or elites see any future in tying their fortunes to an economically unstable empire-based on militarism and destructive colonial occupations.

In other words, modern China , as a world power, is incomparably stronger than it was in early 18th century.  The US does not have the colonial leverage that the ascendant British Empire possessed in the run-up to the Opium Wars.  Moreover, many Chinese intellectuals and the vast majority of its citizens have no intention of letting its current “Westernized compradors” sell out the country.  Nothing would accelerate political polarization in Chinese society and hasten the coming of a second Chinese social revolution more than a timid leadership submitting to a new era of Western imperial pillage.

Notes

[1] John Hobson, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization ( Cambridge UK :  Cambridge University Press 2004)
[2] Ibid, Ch. 9 pp. 190 -218
[3] Ibid, Ch. 11, pp. 244-248
[4] Richard Gott, Britain’s Empire:  Resistance, Repression and Revolt ( London : Verso 2011) for a detailed historical chronicle of the savagery accompanying Britain ’s colonial empire.
[5] Hobson, pp. 253 – 256.
[6] Katrina Manson, “South Sudan puts Beijing ’s policies to the test”, Financial Times, 2/21/12, p. 5.
[7] Interview of Clinton NPR, 2/26/12.
[8] La Jornada, 2/15/12 ( Mexico City ).
[9]  China Daily (2/20/2012)
[10]Charles Clover, ‘Putin vows huge boost in defense spending’, Financial Times, 2/12/2012

Author’s Note and Update

This article was first published by Global Research on October 2, 2016.

The United States and its allies use arms trafficking –i.e. the unregulated illicit trade in light weapons through private traders including organized crime–, to channel large amounts of weapons and ammunition to the terrorists inside Syria.

The US led coalition uses the illicit trade in light weaponry produced in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, China, etc. for delivery to rebel groups inside Syria, including ISIS-Daesh and Al Nusra. In turn, operating out of the occupied Golan Heights, Israel’s IDF has provided weapons, ammunition, logistical support to Al Qaeda rebels operating in Southern Syria.

In a September 2016 interview, with the Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger,  Jabhat al-Nusra unit commander Abu Al Ezz confirmed that the US is sending weapons to Al Nusrah through “third countries”. 

“Yes, the US supports the opposition [in Syria], but not directly. They support the countries that support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support,”

The above statement pertains to weapons deliveries by America’s allies including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey.

“when Jabhat Al-Nusra was “besieged, we had officers from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and America here… Experts in the use of satellites, rockets, reconnaissance and thermal security cameras.” ( RT, March 17, 2017)

The article below focusses on the supply routes and illicit trade in small arms used by the Pentagon to deliver weapons to the terrorists. And these are the same terrorists who are allegedly behind the bombings in European cities including Manchester, Brussels, Paris and Nice.

These weapons produced in third countries are purchased by the Pentagon. They are then channelled to Al Qaeda and ISIS-Daesh terrorists fighting government forces in Iraq and Syria.

In a different context,  CNN acknowledges that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are sending US Made weapons to Al Qaeda affiliated fighters in Yemen.

“Hodeidah, Yemen (CNN) – Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found.” (CNN, February 2019)

The report casually places the blame on America’s Middle East proxies for having broken the terms of their agreement with the Pentagon:

“By handing off this military equipment to third parties, the Saudi-led coalition is breaking the terms of its arms sales with the US, according to the Department of Defense. After CNN presented its findings, a US defense official confirmed there was an ongoing investigation into the issue.

The revelations raise fresh questions about whether the US has lost control over a key ally presiding over one of the most horrific wars of the past decade, and whether Saudi Arabia is responsible enough to be allowed to continue buying the sophisticated arms and fighting hardware.  Previous CNN investigations established that US-made weapons were used in a series of deadly Saudi coalition attacks that killed dozens of civilians, many of them children.”

The Pentagon has lost control of its allies, according to CNN. The unspoken truth is thar Saudi Arabia and the UAE are acting on behalf of the US. And Washington is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians.

The CNN nonetheless confirms that “The US is by far the biggest supplier of arms to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and its support is crucial to the Saudi-led coalition’s continuing war in Yemen.” CNN, op cit).

In a recent statement presidential candidate Rep Tulsi Gabbard accuses the Trump administration of channeling money and weapons to the “jihadists” in Syria:

The CIA has long been supporting a group called Fursan al Haqq, providing them with salaries, weapons and support, including surface to air missiles.  This group is cooperating with and fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliated group trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The Levant Front is another so-called moderate umbrella group of Syrian opposition fighters. Over the past year, the United States has been working with Turkey to give this group intelligence support and other forms of military assistance. This group has joined forces with al-Qaeda’s offshoot group in Syria. (Tulsi Gabbard, US House of Rep)

Michel Chossudovsky, May 23, 2017, June 24, 2019

*      *       * 

According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, quoting documents released by the U.S. Government’s Federal Business Opportunities (FBO), the US –as part of its “counterterrorism campaign”– has provided Syrian rebels [aka moderate Al Qaeda] with large amounts of weapons and ammunition. 

The US and its allies (including Turkey and Saudi Arabia) have relied on the illicit trade in light weaponry produced in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, China, etc. for delivery to rebel groups inside Syria, including ISIS-Daesh and Al Nusra. In turn, operating out of the occupied Golan Heights, Israel’s IDF has provided weapons, ammunition, logistical support to Al Qaeda rebels operating in Southern Syria. 

While Washington’s Middle East allies undertake shady transactions in a buoyant market for light weapons, a significant part of these illicit weapons shipments is nonetheless directly commissioned by the US government. 

These shipments of weapons are not conducted through internationally approved weapons transfers. While they are the result of  a Pentagon (or US government) procurement, they are not recorded as “official” military aid. They use private traders and shipping companies within the realm of a thriving illicit trade in light weapons. 

Based on the examination of a single December 2015 Pentagon sponsored shipment of more than 990 tons, one can reasonably conclude that the amounts of light weapons in the hands of  “opposition” rebels inside Syria is substantial and exceedingly large.  

Background: U.S. Weapons Supply Routes “Via Third Countries”

Although the bulk of the weapons and ammunition supplied to the Syrian rebels (including the FSA, Al Qaeda affiliated entities and ISIS-Daesh) are channelled by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the US is also involved in the routine delivery (originating from third countries) of light weapons to the rebels including anti-tank and rocket launchers.

America’s weapons shipments to Syria’s rebels are commissioned by the Pentagon (and/or a US government agency) through several intermediaries via private weapons trading and shipping companies from the Black Sea port city of Constanta. None of these weapons under this de facto (unofficial) “US military aid” program are “Made in the USA”. These light weapons purchased in Eastern Europe and the Balkans in the illicit market are relatively inexpensive.

Moreover, Washington’s decision not to send US made weaponry to the rebels is meant to uphold the camouflage. No doubt, what Washington wants is to ensure that US and/or Western made weapons are not found in the hands of terrorists. As we recall, the White House narrative at the outset of the war in 2011 was: “humanitarian aid” to the rebels, coupled with “some military gear….[but no weapons]” (BBC, October 10, 2015)

US military aid to the rebels channeled (unofficially) through the illicit market, is routine and ongoing. In December 2015, a major US sponsored shipment of a staggering 995 tons of weapons was conducted in blatant violation of the ceasefire. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the U.S.   “is providing [the weapons] to Syrian rebel groups as part of a programme that continues despite the widely respected ceasefire in that country [in December 2015].”

According to Jane, the shipments of weapons on behalf of the US are entrusted to private weapons traders and shipping companies:

“The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months [early 2015] looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command.” (Jane.com April 2016)

The shipments of weapons purchased and funded by the US are carefully coordinated, with deliveries to rebels in the North and South of Syria respectively. The weapons are shipped out of the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta (December 2015):

1) First, to the Turkish Eastern Mediterranean facility of Agalar-Limani near Tasucu in support of rebels in Northern Syria, to be smuggled into Syria with the support of the Turkish authorities. (half the shipment unloaded)

2) The remainder of the shipment to the Jordanian Red Sea port of Aqaba (for rebels in Southern Syria) via the Suez canal. From Aqaba, the weapons would be smuggled into Syria through the Southern Syria-Jordanian border.

According to Jane, the cargo of light weaponry included AK-47 rifles, PKM general-purpose machine guns, DShK heavy machine guns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, and 9K111M Faktoria anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) systems. It is worth noting that a large share of the RPG rocket launchers were slated for delivery to Northern Syria (see table below).

Also of significance, the Black Sea route to Syria has also been used to ship Ukrainian weapons to Al Qaeda and ISIS Daesh.

Sputnik, June 5, 2016

994 Tons of Weapons in a Single shipment, Courtesy of Uncle Sam

The following table provides information on the breakdown of the weapons shipment for December 2015 documented by Jane Defense Weekly.

Bear in mind the numbers pertain to a single shipment in December 2015, expressed in kilos (kg).

The amounts are substantial:

The 7.62 x 39 mm refers to ammunition for an AK47. Namely the shipment of 134 tons of ammunition.

The PG 7 VM (2 kg) and PV7 VT (3.3 kg) are anti-tank grenades (which suggests that more than 25,000 PG 7VM units were included in the shipment, and more than 60,000 PG 7VT.)

The total shipment to Aqaba and Agalar is of the order of 994 tons of “humanitarian” R2P light weapons for the “Moderates” in Syria. (in a single shipment out of Romania) among numerous comparable shipments by sea as well as by air. 

PG 7VM Anti-tank

Source Jane’s Defense Weekly

This trade in light weapons is transacted through private companies on contract to the US government’s Federal Business Opportunities (FBO), a commercial trading entity acting on behalf of the US Navy MSC:

Stages 1,2 and 3:

1) The Pentagon (or the relevant government agency) instructs the US Navy MSC with details and specifications of the light weapons to be purchased and shipped to Syria’s “freedom fighters” via Turkey and Jordan. The ports of delivery are specified. The final destination of the weapons is not mentioned.

2) The Navy’s MSC places the order with the FBO.

3) The FBO in turn transacts with private companies for the procurement and shipping of the weapons and “explosive materials” out of Constanta, Romania.

---

PENTAGON —- US NAVY MSC —- FEDERAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES (FBO) —-  (ILLICIT) PRIVATE TRADERS IN LIGHT WEAPONS, SHIPPING COMPANIES —- SMUGGLED INTO SYRIA THROUGH TURKEY AND JORDAN —- DELIVERED TO ISIS-DAESH, AL QAEDA, AL NUSRA, “MODERATE REBELS”, FREE SYRIAN ARMY (FSA), ET AL.

---

According to Jane’s report:”The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command.”  (emphasis added)

Released on 3 November 2015, the first solicitation sought a contractor to ship 81 containers of cargo that included explosive material from Constanta in Romania to Aqaba.

The solicitation was subsequently updated with a detailed packing list that showed the cargo had a total weight of 994 tonnes, a little under half of which was to be unloaded at Agalar, a military pier near the Turkish town of Tasucu, the other half at Aqaba. (Jane’s op cit)

The US Navy’s Military Sealift Command’s (MSC) mission is  to “Operate the ships which sustain our warfighting forces and deliver specialized maritime services in support of national security objectives in peace and war.” (MSC mission)

Source: http://www.msc.navy.mil/mission/

Weapons Shipments by America’s Allies in the Middle East 

The Jane Defence Weekly report pertains to shipments initiated by the Pentagon through a third country. It does not address the broader and much larger flow of military equipment and weaponry to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, commissioned by America’s allies in the Middle East (e.g Turkey, Saudi Arabia). These light weapons are also purchased from third countries  ( i.e. Eastern Europe, Balkans) through private traders:

[In 2012] representatives of the Free Syrian Army made contact with weapons dealers in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region, hoping to procure weapons that would then be smuggled across the Turkish-Syrian border. The Syrian rebels also reached out to [al Qaeda] militia groups in Libya for assistance. The Libyan groups have proven to be a particularly important source of weapons for the Syrian insurgents. …

Efforts by Libyan brokers to supply the rebels have coincided with, and perhaps been tied to, efforts by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan to arm the rebels. …   Global initiative against Transnational Crimes (2013 Study)

According to Deutsche Welle, exports of weapons from third countries (eg. Romania) to Syria are also dispatched by air via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the UAE:  “…the munitions, including Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles, machine guns, grenades as well as anti-tank guns, are initially off-loaded in Saudi airbases and ports before smugglers dispatch them to Syrian militants.” (quoted by Press TV, August 8, 2016, emphasis added)

“International norms governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment are brazenly flouted, the report said, and a considerable amount of munitions exported from Bulgaria to the aforementioned countries only bear the sign “unknown consignment.”

Such weapons have previously ended up in the hands of such terrorist groups as Daesh, which Saudi Arabia is widely believed to be supporting.

Earlier reports had already exposed that arms were purportedly being trucked into Syria under Turkish military escort, and transferred to militant leaders at prearranged rendezvous.” (Press TV, August 8, 2016)

Concluding Remarks

The United States and its allies use arms trafficking –i.e. the unregulated illicit trade in light weapons through private traders including organized crime–, to channel large amounts of weapons and ammunition to the terrorists inside Syria. These shady transactions initiated in Washington are in derogation of international law and the treaties under UN auspices pertaining to the trade in small and light weaponry.

Pentagon procurement is directed –through various intermediaries– towards the illicit purchase of light weapons: In all probability, the budgets allocated by the Pentagon to financing these  purchases of weapons channeled towards Syria are not accounted for and/or categorized by the US Department of Defense as bona fide “US military aid”. Meanwhile the UN has remained mum on the State sponsorship of the illegal purchase and smuggling of weapons into Syria.

 

First published on July 15, 2019

Not only are the ethnic-cleansing SDF playing a central role in the balkanization of Syria, but their criminal occupation of resource rich areas east of the Euphrates affords them and their Imperial masters strategic locations, useful not only for their preparations to wage war against Iran, but also for their on-going economic war against Syria. 

The presence of SDF-occupied areas near Turkey, however, has negatively impacted NATO cohesiveness.  Turkey and the US are at cross-purposes with the SDF. These conflicting military agendas have served as a catalyst for Turkey’s closer affiliations with Russia. 

— Mark Taliano, July 15, 2019

***

The war on Syria is not over. Western -supported terrorists still occupy Idlib, as well as al Tanif, and strategic resource-rich areas East of the Euphrates.  The Al- Rukban concentration camp[1] still holds about 40,000 desperate and dying captives, and the Al-Hawl camp[2] holds 73,000 captives.

The West’s terrorists are expendable, but the West supports them all, including al Qaeda, ISIS, and the YPG/SDF terrorists.

Under the familiar pretense of “going after ISIS”, the Western coalition carpet bombed Raqqa, shipped ISIS out, and re-occupied the ruins with SDF proxies – occupiers posing as liberators.

The same strategies were used East of the Euphrates and beyond (Raqqa, Hasaka, and Deir Ez Zor). Observers think that ISIS are Empire’s enemies, but they are place-setters[3], occupying and depopulating vast territories only to be replaced by new occupiers.  The SDF[4]– “new occupiers” ethnic cleanse areas such as the aforementioned areas, help to create chaos –as do all of the Western terrorists—and thereby open areas for Empire to steal, plunder, set up concentration camps, and occupy.  All of the strategies combined consist of supreme international war crimes.

The “Big Picture” is the most important picture since daily news reports – whose sources are embedded exclusively with the terrorists[5] — are not reliable.   Western propaganda is pervasive as are covert Western operatives, Special Forces, etc. operating illegally in Syria.

As disclosed by Laith Marouf in a Facebook posting, a recent report (corroborated) by the former spokesperson of the SDF, Talal Silo, sheds further light on SDF practices:

• the SDF is 70% Arab, 20% Kurdish and 10% Assyrian.
• Kurds are in control of the top-tier, Arabs were sent as cannon fodder in the fight against ISIS.
• US airlifted the ISIS leadership multiple times at critical moments, in Raqqa city and Baghouz.
• Raqqa city and all other Arab town on the Euphrates were then deliberately carpet bombed to force depopulation even though the ISIS leadership was airlifted.
• A civil war has begun amongst the ranks of SDF, with Kurdish Contras starting to assassinate Arab and Assyrian commanders as well as targeting any opposition outside the SDF like tribal leaders, intellectuals and religious figures.
• Cause of internal battle is that the majority of SDF members, as well as the population, want return of the Syrian Army and State before Turkey attacks; Kurdish Contras refuse.
• SDF used only 20% of arms delivered to them, with majority being smuggled by YPG to the PKK in the Qandil mountain range in north Iraq and are now positioned at the border of Iran and are expected to begin destabilizing that country.”

Western occupiers are preventing Kurds from negotiating with the Syrian government.  Empire seeks chaos and control, and resource theft, and occupation, and it is succeeding in its plans, at least in some areas of Syria.

The war, which includes on-going economic warfare continues to exact a terrible toll on Syria and Syrians. It is diabolical and criminal. Empire is the root cause of all of the refugees, all of the death, and all of the misery afflicting Syria and beyond.

Dr. Reema Hakim assessed the tragedy with these words on a Facebook[6] post:

The criminal warfare against Syria is a prelude to what portends for Iran.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net.

Notes

[1] Miri Wood, “Syria: US SS Won’t Leave Rukban Concentration Camp; MSM Ignore Terror Attacks.” Syria News, 4 April, 2019. (https://www.syrianews.cc/us-rukban-concentration-camp-terror-attacks-syria/) Accessed 26 April, 2019.

[2] “Russia: Situation in Al-Hawl, Al-Rukban Syria refugee camps ‘catastrophic’.” Middle East Monitor, 23 April, 2019. (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190423-russia-situation-in-al-hawl-al-rukban-syria-refugee-camps-catastrophic/) Accessed 26 April, 2019.

[3] Mark Taliano, “The Islamic State as “Place-Setter” for the American Empire. ISIS is the Product of the US Military-Intelligence Complex.” Global Research, 26 October, 2017. ( https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-as-place-setter-for-u-s-empire-isis-is-the-product-of-the-us-military-intelligence-complex/5606371) Accessed 26 October, 2017.

[4] Mark Taliano, “Kurdish SDF Terror Proxies Re-Occupy (What’s Left of) Raqqa, Syria.” Global Research, 16 October, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/kurdish-sdf-terror-proxies-re-occupy-whats-left-of-raqqa-syria/5613571) Accessed 26 April, 2019.

[5] Mark Taliano, “Mainstream War Propaganda. Embedded with the Terrorists.” Global Research, 22 February, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/mainstream-war-propaganda-embedded-with-the-terrorists/5629924) Accessed 26 April, 2019.

[6] Dr. Reema Hakim, Facebook post dated 15 April, 2019. (https://www.facebook.com/damascus.now/) Accessed 26 April, 2019.

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Government propaganda and NGO misinformation have coloured the story of the war on Syria from its inception. Stepping in to set the record straight, Dr. Tim Anderson explores the real beginnings of the conflict, the players behind it, and their agenda in his important book, “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance.”

The Dirty War on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. In seeking ‘regime change’ the big powers sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies of ‘Islamists’, demonising the Syrian Government and constantly accusing it of atrocities. In this way Syrian President Bashar al Assad, a mild-mannered eye doctor, became the new evil in the world.

The popular myths of this dirty war – that it is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or a sectarian conflict – hide a murderous spree of ‘regime change’ across the region. The attack on Syria was a necessary consequence of Washington’s ambition, stated openly in 2006, to create a ‘New Middle East’. After the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, Syria was next in line.

Several years into this war the evidence is quite clear and must be set out in detail. The terrible massacres were mostly committed by the western backed jihadists, then blamed on the Syrian Army. The western media and many western NGOs parroted the official line. Their sources were almost invariably those allied to the ‘jihadists’. Contrary to the myth that the big powers now have their own ‘war on terror’, those same powers have backed every single anti-government armed group in Syria, ‘terrorists’ in any other context, adding thousands of ‘jihadis’ from dozens of countries.

Yet in Syria this dirty war has confronted a disciplined national army which did not disintegrate along sectarian lines. Despite terrible destruction and loss of life, Syria has survived, deepening its alliance with Russia, Iran, the Lebanese Resistance, the secular Palestinians and, more recently, with Iraq. The tide has turned against Washington, and that will have implications beyond Syria.

As western peoples we have been particularly deceived by this dirty war, reverting to our worst traditions of intervention, racial prejudice and poor reflection on our own histories. This book tries to tell its story while rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, ethical principle and the search for independent evidence.

The Dirty War on Syria

by Tim Anderson

240 pages

Order the print version here

ISBN Number:

978-0-9737147-8-4

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

Mobile users, click here to order your copy.

To order the PDF version of the Dirty War on Syria, click here, sent directly to your email.

Click here to browse our combined offers of 2 books for 1 discounted price! 

O caça furtivo F-35 torna-se invisível não só ao radar, mas também à política: nos comunicados dos encontros do Secretário de Estado dos EUA, Mike Pompeo, em Roma, não há vestígios. No entanto, o ‘Corriere della Sera’ revela que Pompeo solicitou à Itália  para pagar os atrasos dos caças adquiridos e para desbloquear a encomenda de uma compra posterior, recebendo de Conte a garantia de que “seremos leais aos pactos”.

A Itália comprou até agora, 14 caças F-35 da americana Lockheed Martin, 13 dos quais já entregues,estão “completamente financiados”. Anunciou no Senado, em 3 de Junho, a então Ministra da Defesa, Elisabetta Trenta (M5S), anunciando outras aquisições que elevarão o total a 28 caças até 2022. A Itália comprometeu-se a comprar 90, com uma despesa prevista de 14 biliões de euros. A essa despesa, junta-se a da actualização contínua do software (o conjunto dos programas operacionais) do caça de que a Lockheed Martin mantém exclusividade: somente para os aviões comprados até agora, a Itália deve despender cerca de meio bilião de euros.

A Itália não é só compradora, mas fabricante do F-35, como parceira de segundo nível. A Leonardo (anteriormente Finmeccanica) – a maior indústria militar italiana, da qual o Ministério da Economia e Finanças é o principal accionista, com uma quota de cerca de 30% – administra a linha de montagem e testes do F-35 na fábrica de Faco de Cameri (Piemonte), de onde saem os caças destinados à Itália e à Holanda. A Leonardo também produz asas completas para os aviões montados nos EUA, utilizando materiais produzidos nas fábricas de Foggia (Puglia), Nola (Campania) e Venegono (Lombardia). O governo dos EUA seleccionou a fábrica de Cameri como centro regional europeu para manutenção e actualização da fuselagem.

O emprego na Faco é de cerca de mil trabalhadores, dos quais muitos são precários, apenas um sexto do esperado. As despesas para a construção da fábrica e a aquisição dos caças são muito superiores ao valor dos contratos estipulados pelas empresas italianas para a produção do F-35. E não devemos esquecer o facto de que, embora os ganhos vão quase inteiramente para os cofres das empresas privadas, as despesas saem do erário público, fazendo aumentar a despesa militar italiana, que já atingiu os 70 milhões de euros por dia.

O Secretário de Estado, Mike Pompeo, nos encontros com o Presidente Mattarella e com o Primeiro Ministro Conte, sublinhou a necessidade da Itália e de outros aliados europeus “aumentarem os seus investimentos na defesa colectiva da NATO”. Certamente, nas reuniões confidenciais, este pedido foi feito por Pompeu com tons não diplomáticos, mas peremptórios. Certamente, enquanto o Departamento de Estado elogia a Itália porque “alberga mais de 30 mil soldados e funcionários do Pentágono em cinco grandes bases e mais de 50 sub-instalações”, Mike Pompeo solicitou, em reuniões confidenciais, poder instalar outras bases militares em Itália (talvez em troca de algum alívio das taxas aduaneiras dos EUA sobre o parmesão italiano).

Certamente, na agenda secreta de Pompeo, estava também o ajuste para próxima chegada,  a Itália, das novas bombas nucleares USA B61-12, que substituirão as actuais B-61. Uma nova arma nuclear projectada especialmente para os caças bombardeiros F-35A, seis dos quais pertencentes à Força Aérea Italiana, receberam, em Outubro, o certificado da NATO de plena capacidade operacional..

Mike Pompeo, em Roma, não se ocupou só de coisas materiais, como o F-35 e o queijo Parmesão. Num simpósio no Vaticano, fez um discurso em 1º de Outubro, sobre “Dignidade Humana e Fé nas Sociedades Livres”: afirmou que “os Estados Unidos chegaram um pouco depois de São Pedro, mas protegeram sempre a liberdade religiosa” e, com ela, a “dignidade humana”; acusou a China, Cuba, Irão e Síria de suprimirem essas liberdades. Palavras proferidas, com uma grande cruz como fundo, por um homem santo que, no momento em que se tornou chefe da CIA, declarou ao Congresso que tinha considerado” a reintrodução do ‘waterboarding’ e de outras medidas de interrogatório aprimorado”, ou seja, a tortura.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

L’F-35 nell’agenda segreta di Pompeo a Roma

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

feature image: Augustus

Sometimes it may be instructive to look beyond foreign policy and pay attention to the actors and their words. I was struck by one of Trump’s tweets of this week not because of the threatening reference to Turkey (“I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey”) or the reason given (if Turkey…considers to be off limits”), but by his parenthetical statement “in my great and unmatched wisdom”. No one – maybe not even his supporters – would question the fact that Trump has a huge ego (problem) but his self-declared prowess in wisdom does show lack of modesty to say the least.

I have been reading about the Roman Empire lately so my reflection is triggered in part by my reading. 

Augustus who came to power in Rome in 27 BC is recognized as the first Roman emperor for his contribution to the building of the empire through conquests and exploitation of other peoples.

Augustus came to power after a period of civil unrest following the murder of dictator Julius Caesar (statue  in image) in 44 BC. was Augustus’ great-uncle and adoptive father and he had already made great military conquests for Rome. For that reason after his death his followers and admirers recognized him as a god and called him the Divine Julius. He was the first Roman to be deified and several temples were built to worship him. Consequently, his adoptive son, Octavian – later renamed Augustus, meaning “expansionist” – was also referred to as the “son of god”.

The interesting part about Augustus is that he did not have the patience to wait for his death to be elevated to infallible godliness. So he went ahead and decided that he had “great and unmatched wisdom” to proclaim himself god and to join the roster of Roman gods by realizing his own apotheosis (transformation into god). After all, he was already the son of one.

Of course, that had nothing to do with religion or philosophy. Aside from the megalomaniac and egocentric reason, there was a political angle to that decision. The expanding Roman Empire could not sustain itself by its army alone. Also, while the emperor was away from Rome for long periods of time conquering lands, Roman senators may have grown disloyal to him and provoke his physical demise. This situation required a way to ensure the loyalty of all people of the empire. After all, Julius Caesar was brutally murdered by a group of rebellious senators who were not loyal to him. Incidentally, among them one was called Brutus, which makes you wonder if that is where the word “brutal” – as in brutal assassination – comes from. 

What better way to hope for loyalty than by claiming to be god? Who would murder a god that by definition must be worshipped by people? 

The stratagem may have worked for him. Certainly he was not impeached. In fact, Augustus may have died of natural causes in 14 AD at the age of 75 after ruling for 41 years. But history is not definitive on this. Some historians claim that his third wife Livia poisoned him. She would have known the “real Augustus” beyond the worshipped Augustus. 

Aside from the ruins of their monuments and buildings that remain today as witness of their existence, mostly in Rome, those who use the Gregorian calendar today allude to their legacy every time they mention the months of July (named after Julius Caesar) and August (named after Augustus). They are the only two “human gods” in the calendar, while the months of January, March and May were named after mythical gods.

Looking at this snapshot of ancient history a couple of reflections may be drawn as conclusion. Seeking worship may not be a good idea for the worshipped. That would necessarily involve the need to “destroy and obliterate” any competitor in the worshipping arena. During the reign of Augustus a strong competitor to godliness was born in the year 1. He was eventually crucified (the standard way of torturing people to death in those days) under the reign of emperor Tiberius who was the adopted son of Augustus, and therefore a son of god himself. But worshippers should also beware that worship is not good for them either since they may be punished at the slightest deviation by firing, demotion or worse.

Finally, Augustus is quoted saying, “I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble”, in reference to his grandiose contribution to the city. One might say he made Rome great again. However, the apotheosis of the emperor did not prevent the eventual collapse and literal pillage of all the marble of the Roman Empire, albeit a few centuries later.

All of that is now history, but how much of an empire’s ancient history can teach us in the 21^st Century?

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

If you think the infestation of neocons within the Trump administration is worrisome, just wait until the president is impeached and Mike Pence takes the throne. 

Pence is a born-again Christian Zionist. While Trump may indeed be muddleheaded, Pence is not. If the Stable and Wise Genius is deposed, Pence will open the floodgates and in will rush in the neocons. It will be completely retro—harking back to the days of Bush the Lesser and his cabal of Israel-first neocons. 

Democrats don’t like Pence—he’s a “conservative” Republican—but as far as they’re concerned, a short-term (until the election) neocon as president is preferable to leaving Trump in the White House. 

Here’s what they’re missing—as soon as Trump gets on the helicopter and does a Nixonian farewell wave to his staff, the neocons will be taking up positions in the Pence administration and will work to wrap up the Zionist agenda in the Middle East, viz; unfinished business in Syria, Lebanon, and especially Iran. 

Of course, establishment Democrats are not concerned about this prospect—they also believe in Israel’s wars fought at the expense of American blood and treasure. Democrats are simply more sneaky on foreign affairs and habitually disguise their warmongering psychopathy with insincere platitudes about democracy and humanitarianism. 

Mike Pence will undoubtedly confront Iran militarily in the Persian Gulf. If Israel attacks Gaza or moves troops into Lebanon again, Pence will provide support and US troops. He told soldiers after Trump was elected they can expect to eventually be fed into a war, either in the Middle East, North Korea, and possibly the Western Hemisphere (that is, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua). 

If Pence moves to suck the US into a war Trump fears—for the sake of his legacy, not to spare the lives of Syrians and Iranians—the ensuing catastrophe will end up in the lap of whatever Democrat is elected next year, be that Elizabeth Warren or the predicted party crasher, Hillary Clinton. 

*

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

If you want to get an idea of what will happen in the U.S. when the telecom companies start rolling out 5G networks with new towers in your local neighborhood, take a look at what is happening in Switzerland today, where 90% of the population is now exposed to the new 5G networks.

People are getting sick, and they are marching in the streets to show their opposition to the new networks.

Yahoo News reports:

Thousands of people protested in the Swiss capital Bern Saturday (9/21/19) over the roll-out of a 5G wireless technology across the country, which they fear could damage people’s health.

The protesters, many carrying placards, gathered in front of the Swiss parliament building, in a bid to stop the construction of more 5G-compatible antennae.

“The fact that so many people turned out today is a strong sign against the uncontrolled introduction of 5G,” said Tamlin Schibler Ulmann, co-president of Frequencia, the group that organised the rally.

[C]ritics in Switzerland argue that the electromagnetic radiation the new system emits poses unprecedented health and environmental risks compared to previous generations of mobile technology.

Online petitions have helped persuade several Swiss cantons — in Geneva, Vaud, Fribourg and Neuchatel — to postpone the construction of antennae as a precaution.

The Swiss Federation of Doctors (FMH) has also argued for a cautious approach to the new technology.

The first injuries due to 5G are now being reported in Switzerland, according to Physicians for Safe Technology.

The first reported injury of 5G in a news report comes from Switzerland, where 5G has been launched in 102 locations.  The weekly French-language Swiss magazine L’Illustré  interviewed people living in Geneva after the 5G rollout with alarming details of illness.

In their article, With 5G, We Feel Like Guinea Pigs, posted July 18, 2019, they report neighbors met to discuss their many common symptoms and many unanswered questions.

As soon as the antennas were installed, several residents and entire families in the heart of Geneva reported similar unusual symptoms of loud ringing in the ear, intense headaches, unbearable earaches, insomnia, chest pain, fatigue and not feeling well in the house.

29-year-old Geneva resident, Johan Perruchoud, called up Swisscom and was told that indeed the 5G cell towers were activated on the same day he began to feel the symptoms. When others called Swisscom they were told everything is legal and within guidelines.

Dr. Bertrand Buchs, who has also called for a 5G moratorium, states he has seen more and more patients with similar symptoms.

He notes, “In this case, our authorities are going against common sense … we risk experiencing a catastrophe in a few years… no serious study exists yet, which is not surprising when we know that this technology was developed in China, then to the United States. In Switzerland, we could open a line for people who feel bad, listen to these complaints and examine them. Our country has the means and the skills. The debate must be launched because the story is not about to end.”

Are Telecom Giants Influencing U.S. Government to Override Local Opposition to 5G?

As Health Impact News reported back in June this year (2019), local opposition to the installation of 5G networks has been strong here in the U.S. as well, as more than two dozen municipalities, counties, and organizations are suing the FCC and the US Government for forcing them to submit to every desire of telecom companies as they rollout 5-G. Opposition has been strong in the U.K. as well, where one man was sentenced to jail for speaking out.

An estimated 1,000 turned out in Bern. (© Keystone / Peter Klaunzer)

Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policy that benefits their industry.

Internet service providers in the United States have spent more than $1.2 billion on lobbying since 1998, and 2018 was the biggest year so far with a total spend of more than $80 million.

Comparitech researchers compiled and analyzed 51 ISPs’ lobbying expenses from the US Senate’s Lobbying Disclosure Act database, which dates back to 1998.

Here are the highlights of our analysis:

• 2018 was the biggest year yet for ISP lobbying at $80 million.
• Top spenders include AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, which have amassed lobbying expenses of $341 million, $265 million, and $200 million, respectively since 1998.
• Since 2011, yearly spending on lobbying across all ISPs hasn’t strayed below $72 million.
• The largest amount spent by any provider in any year was AT&T in 1999, at almost $23 million. AT&T’s acquisition of Ameritech Corp accounted for much of this, and the merger eventually led to the creation of America’s largest telecom company.
• Total spend from 2016 to 2019 is set to exceed lobbying expenses between 2012 and 2015, which totaled $295 million.
• Lobbying in favor of mergers and acquisitions accounted for many of the biggest expenses for individual ISPs in a single year.
• $1.2 billion has been spent by ISPs on lobbying since 1998.

Top 25 ISP Lobbying Spenders in 2018

ISP	2018 Lobbying Expenses
AT&T	$15,820,000.00
Comcast	$15,072,000.00
Verizon	$10,489,000.00
Charter Communications	$9,390,000.00
Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile USA – 2007)	$8,105,000.00
Cox Enterprises	$3,450,000.00
CenturyLink	$3,360,000.00
Sprint Corporation	$3,130,000.00
América Móvil	$2,270,000.00
DISH Network	$2,060,000.00
Ligado Networks	$1,710,000.00
Viasat, Inc.	$890,000.00
Frontier Communications	$526,583.00
Granite Telecommunications	$510,000.00
U.S. Cellular	$500,000.00
Altice USA	$400,000.00
Puerto Rico Telephone Company	$360,000.00
General Communication, Inc (GCI)	$320,000.00
Iridium Communications	$210,000.00
Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico	$200,000.00
ATN International	$180,000.00
C Spire	$120,000.00
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc (TDS)	$110,477.00
Mediacom Communications	$90,000.00
Level 3 Communications (Now CenturyLink)	$85,000.00

What is ISP lobbying?

Lobbying expenses include any money used to influence local, state, or federal legislators and regulators. According to the IRS, that includes expenses incurred to participate or intervene in any political campaign for or against a candidate for public office. Attempts to influence the public about elections, legislative matters, and referendums also count as lobbying. Source.

Learn more about 5G technology and all of its hazards, which include more than just health hazards, but also privacy concerns and the possible use of 5G as a weapon to control dissenters.

*

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

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

Turkish aggression launched East of the Euphrates River Wednesday is proceeding over a far more widespread area than its earlier illegal cross-border operations in Syria — so-called Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch.

So-called “Operation Peace Spring” has nothing to do with peace, nothing to do with protecting Turkey from cross-border attacks, nothing to do with combatting ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups Ankara supports, nothing to do with establishing a “safe zone” for Syrian refugees, Erdogan wants transferred from Turkey to Syrian territory controlled by his regime.

His aggression has everything to do with wanting northern Syrian territory annexed, especially its oil-producing areas.

All wars are based on lies and deception. Truth and full disclosure would destroy pretexts for waging them.

On Wednesday, Erdogan falsely said the following:

“Our Turkish Armed Forces with Syrian National Army (sic) has started the #Operation Peace Spring against the PKK/YPG and Daesh terrorist organizations (sic), in northern Syria.”

“Our aim is to wipe out the terror corridor, trying to be implemented in our southern border (sic), and bring peace and security to the region.”

“With Operation Peace Spring, we will eliminate the terror threats towards our country (sic). With the safe zone we will establish, we will provide the return of Syrian refugees to their countries (sic).

“We will protect the territorial integrity of Syria and save the region’s people from the claws of terror (sic).”

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavuşoglu turned truth on its head, claiming Operation Peace Spring is being carried out under international law (sic), the UN Charter (sic), and UN Security Council resolutions on the fight against terrorism (sic).”

US and Turkish operations in Syria are flagrant UN Charter breaches. No nation may attack another preemptively, what naked aggression is all about — except in self-defense if authorized by Security Council members.

Syrian television accused Turkish warplanes of terror-bombing the city of Ras al-Ain. Other reports indicated the town of Tell Abyad and Kobane were struck. Civilians in harm’s way risk serious injuries or death.

Cross-border shelling preceded aerial operations, reportedly continuing.

In response to launched Turkish aggression, a Syrian Foreign Ministry source said the following:

“The hostile behavior of Erdogan’s regime appears clearly through the Turkish expansionist ambitions in the Syrian territories, and it couldn’t be justified under any pretext, and what the Turkish regime claims regarding the security of the borders is refuted by this regime’s ignorance of Adana Agreement.”

In 1998, both countries adopted the agreement related to combating terrorism. Damascus vowed to prevent terrorist elements in its territory from threatening Turkey.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry source added that

“(t)he Syrian Arab Republic holds some of the Kurdish organizations responsible for what is taking place due to their subordination to the US project as they have been previously warned during the meetings with them against the dangers of that project and to not be tools serving the US policy against their homeland, but these organizations have insisted on being tools in the hands of foreigners.”

Turkish and proxy troops mobilized along Syria’s border began a ground incursion into its territory along a 300-mile perimeter. It’s unclear how deep into its territory they’ll penetrate and try to occupy.

World community responses to Erdogan’s aggression failed to condemn it as naked aggression against a sovereign state, the highest of high crimes — based on Big Lies.

Through his spokesperson, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres made his usual weak-kneed response, urging all parties in northeast Syria to exercise maximum restraint.

A US war department statement said

“Turkey has chosen to act unilaterally. As a result we have moved the US forces in northern Syria out of the path of potential Turkish incursion to ensure their safety.”

Russia said it wasn’t notified in advance of the US intent to redeploy its forces in areas Turkey intends to attack.

Syrian Kurds called the Trump regime’s betrayal a “stab in the back.”

The US, NATO, the EU, UN, and Russia failed to condemn Erdogan’s aggression.

Russian Federation Council Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Vladimir Dzaborov said the following:

“Russia will definitely not get involved. This is not our conflict. Russian Armed Forces are not in Syria for this purpose. Their aim is to help free Syria from international terrorism.”

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow recognizes  “Turkey’s right to ensure its security,” adding:

“We are observing the situation carefully.”

Russia considers Turkey an important political and economic partner. It’s unwilling to disrupt the relationship it hopes to enhance — despite Erdogan’s aggression.

A Kurdish statement said

“Turkish warplanes have started to carry out airstrikes on civilian areas. There is a huge panic among people of the region.”

Trump tried having these both way, first green-lighting Turkish aggression, then threatening to “obliterate” its economy if Erdogan goes too far, later adding:

“So many people conveniently forget that Turkey is a big trading partner of the United States.”

How long and destructive Ankara’s operation becomes remains to unfold.

*

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.

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

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

.

.

.

*     *     *

Sanctioning Away Free Speech: Americans Meet with Iranians at Their Peril

By Philip Giraldi, October 10, 2019

The issue of the United States waging what seems to be a global war by way of sanctions rarely surfaces in the western media. The argument being made by the White House is that sanctions are capable of putting maximum pressure on a rogue regime without the necessity of having to go to war and actually kill people, but the reality is that while economic warfare may seem to be more benign than bombing and shooting the reality is that thousands of people die anyway, whether through starvation or inability to obtain medicines. It is often noted that 500,000 Iraqi children died in the 1990s due to sanctions imposed by the Bill Clinton White House and current estimates of deaths in Syria, Iran and Venezuela number in the tens of thousands.

Iran and the UN General Assembly: Mediation Efforts, Militant Threats, and Multilateral Cooperation

By Andrew Korybko, October 10, 2019

There was no doubt that Iran would be a hot topic at this year’s UN General Assembly meeting following its rivals’ accusations that it had a hand in the Ansarullah’s drone strike against the world’s largest oil production facility in Saudi Arabia earlier in the month, and this expectation proved to be correct. The Islamic Republic was discussed in three primary capacities at the event: first and foremost as represented by President Rouhani, secondly by the militant threats that the US and its allies continued to spew against it, and lastly through the mediation efforts of Pakistani Prime Minister Khan.

US Forces Will Not Likely Withdraw from Syria this Year. The Kurds Remain the Biggest Losers

By Elijah J. Magnier, October 10, 2019

Notwithstanding President Donald Trump’s announcement of the deal with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to tactically withdraw US forces from specific locations in occupied north-east Syria- and in consequence to leave the Syrian Kurds to their fate- the departure of US forces from Syria is highly implausible. These US forces have established several military bases and airports, offering logistic and operational support to US forces in Iraq and to the Israeli Air Force. Abandoning the occupation of north-east Syria would result in giving up a strategic location in the Middle East, a move that the US administration is not expected to take this year.

A Major Conventional War Against Iran Is an Impossibility. Crisis within the US Command Structure

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 10, 2019

Iran is ranked as “a major military power” in the Middle East, with an estimated 534,000 active personnel in the army, navy, air force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It has advanced ballistic missile capabilities as well as a national defense industry. In the case of a US air attack, Iran would target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf.

US Plans Permanent Occupation of Syrian Territory?

By Stephen Lendman, October 08, 2019

Along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Donbass (Ukraine), and Occupied Palestine, Syria is in the eye of the US storm. Its troops and proxy jihadists illegally occupy around 30% of its territory. Under both wings of its war party, the US came to Syria to stay, seeking another imperial trophy, wanting Iran isolated regionally, aiming to replace its legitimate government with US-controlled puppet rule.

Turkey’s Safe-zone and Refugee Peace-corridor in Syria Is a Cover for Encroachment and Territorial Expansion

By Sarah Abed, October 07, 2019

On Saturday, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that preparations have been made for a unilateral cross border air and land military operation in the next day or two, in northern Syria, east of the Euphrates River. Erdogan expressed his frustration with Washington’s lack of adherence to a September 30th deadline to establish a thirty-kilometer-deep safe zone on Syria’s northern border.

*

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.

Iran was a hot topic at this year’s UN General Assembly meeting, with Pakistani Prime Minister Khan attempting to mediate between it and its rivals while the latter continued spewing militant threats against the Islamic Republic, though the possibility remains that more fruitful multilateral cooperation between Iran and its Pakistani and Turkish neighbors could emerge as the main outcome of this event.

There was no doubt that Iran would be a hot topic at this year’s UN General Assembly meeting following its rivals’ accusations that it had a hand in the Ansarullah’s drone strike against the world’s largest oil production facility in Saudi Arabia earlier in the month, and this expectation proved to be correct. The Islamic Republic was discussed in three primary capacities at the event: first and foremost as represented by President Rouhani, secondly by the militant threats that the US and its allies continued to spew against it, and lastly through the mediation efforts of Pakistani Prime Minister Khan.

Concerning the first, President Rouhani condemned the US’ unilateral sanctions regime against his country as “merciless economic terrorism” and urged it to return to the 2015 JCPOA as a precondition for restarting negotiations between the two. He also talked about what he earlier called the “Hormuz Peace Initiative” to build a regional coalition for ensuring collective security in the Gulf in what was a direct challenge to the fledgling coalition that the US is seeking to form there for the purpose of “containing” his country. This was an important move because it represents the first non-US security proposal there in a long time.

Speaking of one of Iran’s chief adversaries, its President lambasted the Islamic Republic during his keynote speech for its involvement in regional conflicts such as Syria and its alleged complicity in the Ansarullah’s drone strike, which the UK, France, and Germany also seconded. Trump also spoke about the need for the Arab countries to cooperate with “Israel” against the so-called “Iranian threat”, which he claimed also includes Tehran’s supposed nuclear weapon and ballistic missile plans. Altogether, the West’s talk about Iran was predictably hostile and showed that the confrontation between the two won’t end anytime soon.

As for the mediation aspect, Pakistani Prime Minister Khan revealed that he was called upon by both Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to mediate between them and Iran in order to defuse tensions. That noble effort doesn’t seem to have been too successful, but it nevertheless speaks to the global pivot state of Pakistan’s growing international role. That indirect channel of communication can also be used in crisis scenarios in order to avert worsening whatever the situation may be at that time, but it can also be proactively leveraged by Islamabad to propose novel solutions to regional problems as well.

On that topic, it’s important to point out that the Pakistani leader and his Turkish and Malaysian counterparts announced the creation of an English-language media outlet for countering Islamophobia across the world. Although Iran isn’t formally involved in this initiative, it would be useful for it to eventually participate in some capacity or another in order to have a prominent Shiite presence on the platform. Islamophobia, after all, isn’t just a form of discrimination by non-Muslims against Muslims, but also sometimes between one sect of Islam and the other, so all should be represented in order to counteract intra-Muslim Islamophobia against Shiites.

Iran’s ties with its Pakistani and Turkish neighbors are improving and it’s possible for all three to geopolitically cooperate in a multilateral fashion in the future if the political will was present on all sides. Such a development is truly the need of the hour because it’s high time for these three strong Muslim countries to come closer together through the Multipolar CENTO framework by reviving their Old Cold War-era alliance but in a new multipolar and non-military way focused on connectivity and win-win outcomes. President Erdogan’s insistence on continuing trade ties with Iran and Prime Minister Khan’s mediation efforts give hope that this could occur.

That said, more concerted multilateral integrational cooperation between Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey would obviously take some time to develop, but the groundwork is already laid for them to focus on prioritizing this important objective if they really wanted to. Iran is facing a lot of pressure along its southern flank from the US, “Israel”, and their GCC allies, hence why it must seek relief along the western and eastern axes through its two neighbors. Chinese and Russian diplomatic and economic support is both welcome and helpful, though nothing can replace the importance of good neighborly cooperation with Pakistan and Turkey.

After this week’s events at the UN General Assembly, there’s no question that Iran is at a strategic crossroads. It’s being squeezed in both the Mashriq and the Gulf, yet at the same time new strategic opportunities have emerged in Asia Minor (Turkey) and South Asia (Pakistan), proving the adage that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. It’s now incumbent on Iran to decide whether it should continue pushing back with all its might along the fronts where it’s being “contained” or if it should seek to freeze the state of affairs there in order to concentrate its efforts on advancing regional integration with Pakistan and Turkey instead.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image: UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25, 2019  Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (C) addresses the General Debate of the 74th session of the UN General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York, on Sept. 25, 2019. Rouhani on Wednesday ruled out negotiations with the United States unless the latter lifts sanctions on his country first. (Credit Image: © Liu Jie/Xinhua via ZUMA Wire)

The issue of the United States waging what seems to be a global war by way of sanctions rarely surfaces in the western media. The argument being made by the White House is that sanctions are capable of putting maximum pressure on a rogue regime without the necessity of having to go to war and actually kill people, but the reality is that while economic warfare may seem to be more benign than bombing and shooting the reality is that thousands of people die anyway, whether through starvation or inability to obtain medicines. It is often noted that 500,000 Iraqi children died in the 1990s due to sanctions imposed by the Bill Clinton White House and current estimates of deaths in Syria, Iran and Venezuela number in the tens of thousands.

And meanwhile the regimes that are under siege through sanctions do not, in fact, capitulate to American demands even when they are feeling considerable pain. Cuba has been sanctioned by Washington since 1960 and nothing has been accomplished, apart from providing an excuse for the regime to tighten its control over the people. Indeed, one might argue that free trade and travel would have likely succeeded in democratizing Cuba much more quickly than threats coupled with a policy of economic and political isolation.

Apart from their ineffectiveness, the dark side of sanctions is what they do to third parties who get caught up in the conflict. America’s recently imposed total ban on Iranian petroleum exports comes with secondary sanctions that can be initiated on any country that buys the oil, alienating Washington’s few remaining friends and creating universal concern regarding the United States’ long-term intentions. Indeed, the United States was a country that prior to the “Global war on terror” was generally liked and respected, but today it is widely regarded as the most dangerous threat to peace in the world. This shift in perception is due to the actual wars that the US has started as well as the sanctions regime which has as its objective regime change of governments that it disapproves of.

Another aspect to sanctions that is somewhat invisible is the impact that government action has had on what are regarded as the constitutional rights of American citizens. Max Blumenthal has written an interesting article on a recent application of sanctions that has affected a group of citizens who were seeking to attend a conference in Beirut Lebanon.

Blumenthal describes how the attempt to criminalize any participation in a conference sponsored by the Iranian NGO New Horizon as a “significant escalation in the Trump administration’s strategy of ‘maximum pressure’ to bring about regime change in Iran.” A number of Americans who had intended to speak or otherwise participate in the conference were approached in advance by FBI agents, evidently acting under orders from Sigal Mandelker, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. The Agents warned that any participants in the conference might be subject to arrest upon return to the US because New Horizon is under sanctions. One of those who was approached by the Bureau explained that

“They’re interpreting the regulations to say that even if you associate with someone who has been sanctioned, you are subject to fines and imprisonment. I haven’t seen anything in the regulations that allows that, but they’ve set the bar so low that anyone can be designated.”

The New Horizon Conference is an annual event organized by Iranian TV host and filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh and his wife, Zeina Mehanna. New Horizon was placed under financial sanctions earlier this year by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). [Full disclosure: the author attended and spoke at the conference in Mashhad last year]

US government interest in New Horizon conferences appeared to begin in 2014, after the Jewish Anti-Defamation league (ADL) called that year’s meeting an “anti-Semitic gathering” that “included US and international anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and anti-war activists.”

Potential participants in the Beirut conference made strenuous efforts to find out just what the consequences might be if they were to attend the event, but the Treasury Department refused to be drawn into a debate over restrictions that were arguably unconstitutional. Lawyers who were consulted warned that any notice from the FBI that someone might be arrested should be interpreted as meaning that someone will be arrested. Other sources in the government suggested privately that the Trump Administration would be delighted if it could make an example of some Americans who were soft on Iran.

Now that the conference has been concluded without any significant American presence, there has been some clarification of how the sanctions might be applied. Responding to a query by a potential participant, an OFAC employee explained that “transaction” and “dealing in transactions,” as those terms are used by OFAC, are broadly construed to include not only monetary dealings or exchanges, but also “providing any sort of service” and “non-monetary service,” including giving a presentation at a conference. Any person engaging in that activity could be subject to legal consequences because the Treasury Department and OFAC have broad latitude to take action against persons who violate its rules or guidelines, and that a range of factors are taken into consideration when deciding to take action against any specific person or for any specific violation.

When asked whether dealing with non-sanctioned Iranian organizations might also be construed negatively, the OFAC employee observed that there could or might be consequences. That’s because Iran (along with North Korea and a few other countries) is a “comprehensively sanctioned” country, meaning that anything having to do with “supporting it” is sanctionable.

Exactly how speaking at any Iranian sponsored event is damaging to American interests remains unclear, in spite of the “clarification” provided by OFAC, but the real damage is to those US citizens who choose to travel to countries that are at odds with Washington to offer a different perspective on what Americans actually think. And there is also considerable value in those travelers returning to the United States to share with fellow citizens perceptions of how foreigners regard US foreign policy, insofar as anything describable as a policy actually exists. In truth, the sanctions regime with its steady diet of punishment has now entered a new phase, as Blumenthal observed, where White House aggression overseas is now blowing back, eroding the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights in an act of self-destruction that is both unnecessary and incomprehensible.

*

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

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

Featured image: Michael Maloof (2nd L) sits next to Nader Talebzadeh (3rd L), founder of the New Horizon Conference, in Tehran. (File photo via PressTV)

Notwithstanding President Donald Trump’s announcement of the deal with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to tactically withdraw US forces from specific locations in occupied north-east Syria- and in consequence to leave the Syrian Kurds to their fate- the departure of US forces from Syria is highly implausible. These US forces have established several military bases and airports, offering logistic and operational support to US forces in Iraq and to the Israeli Air Force. Abandoning the occupation of north-east Syria would result in giving up a strategic location in the Middle East, a move that the US administration is not expected to take this year.

Moreover, the international support the Kurds (in Syria and Iraq) enjoy may well protect them from being attacked on all fronts by jihadists and pro-Turkish militants. However, the interest of the US is to look after its NATO ally rather than prioritise Syrian Kurdish militants who fought and were paid money and military hardware in exchange for their services – as Trump has explained. This means a limited Turkish operation is expected (and has indeed started) notwithstanding all the complications and conflicts of interest Turkey will be facing with its Russian and Iranian allies.

The US has always been very clear that its own interests prevail above those of any other country or group. It has business partners rather than strategic allies. In this context it would be normal for the US administration to drop the Syrian Kurdish militants. After all, Trump seems to believe they have served their purpose: they are mercenaries who have been paid for a certain job – the task of eliminating the “Islamic State” (ISIS) – which is now done.

But the Syrian Kurds are threatening to withdraw from the protection of over 50 jails where they have locked away around 11,000 ISIS militants. They also control al-Hol camp, with over 80,000 ISIS family members. This move will never happen: the Kurds will be exterminated by the same ISIS if they set them free. Already the Al-Basel military base in Raqqah was targeted by two suicide attacks on Tuesday night, followed by around 50 other Jihadists attempting to capture the base.

ISIS has lost control of any cities but is still active as insurgency force, adopting hit-and-run tactics in both Syria and Iraq. The Kurds won’t shoot themselves in the foot by releasing any ISIS members: at the moment they serve the purpose of exerting pressure on the world, and in particular on Europe, to stop the US withdrawal decision.

What is actually expected is a Turkish attack – with its Syrian proxies – on two fronts, Tel Abiyad and Ras al-A’yen — following a US tactical and partial withdrawal of the area concerned. The targeted area that Turkey will try to occupy is 100 km long and around 300-400 sq km in area.

What is surprising is the fact that, in the circumstances, the Kurdish leadership has not lowered their expectations realistically in negotiations with the government of Damascus concerning their request to form a federation in the country. The Kurds have asked Damascus, in the presence of Russian and Iranian negotiators, to allow them to retain control over the very rich oil and gas fields they occupy in a bit less than a quarter of Syrian territory. Furthermore, the Kurds have asked that they be given full control of the enclave on the borders with Turkey without any Syrian Army presence or activity! Damascus doesn’t want to act as border control guards and would like to regain control of all Syrian territory. The Syrian government wants to end the accommodations the Kurds are offering to the US and Israel, similar to what happened with the Kurds of Iraq.

Moscow and Tehran refuse to exchange the US occupation for a Turkish one. Even if Russia, Iran and Syria believe that the Turkish presence is less dangerous than the US one, Damascus and its allies reject occupation of any part of Syria and are determined to see the central government regain its control over the entire territory and its energy resources.

Notwithstanding the fact that President Erdogan may close his eyes to the destiny of Idlib and could allow the Syrian government to regain control of the city and its rural territory (which would mean eliminating the jihadists including al-Qaeda), the Syrian President insists on regaining control of the entire territory.

Turkish negotiators met with Russian and Iranian officers to discuss Idlib in exchange for al-Hasaka and Qamishli. Assad rejected any similar deal with Turkey, and “will deal with the occupation of north-east Syria when the Middle East calms down”.

The Iranian nuclear deal and its consequences are on the table and have priority. The situation in Iraq is worrying, showing the capacity of the US and its allies to reshuffle the Middle Eastern cards to provoke demands for rightful reforms and job opportunities, and to exploit the “legitimate” demands of the population.

Turkey is aware that Russia and Iran can arm the Syrian Kurds if Ankara decides to occupy north-east Syria. Such a move could lead to Turkey sinking into the Syrian quagmire. It is too early to achieve an accommodation between the allies (Iran, Russia and Turkey) and Turkey is expected to move into a limited area in north-east Syria

The Kurds remain the biggest losers. What happened in Afrin is a prime example: the Kurds abandoned their city but refused to allow the Syrian government to control it. The battle of Afrin showed the inability of the Kurds to defend their territory on their own. The survival struggle pushed the Kurds to flee their territory and abandon it. If the occupation forces don’t reach a deal with Damascus – and very soon – there will be few places they can take shelter in. President Assad is ready to receive the Kurds with wide open arms- provided they end their reliance US protection.

Brett McGurk, the former Presidential (Obama and later Trump) US envoy to Iraq and Syria said “both Presidents developed and considered options to work with the Turkey-backed opposition, which is unfortunately riddled with extremists, many tied to al-Qaeda”. The stubbornness of the Syrian Kurds is leading them in total blindness to a no exit situation. They are stubbornly insisting on attempting to construct a State… on quicksand!

The Iraqi Kurds lost all their privileges when they tried to declare an Independent State. Trump believed the Syrian Kurds were “guns for hire” and they have now become unnecessary to the Americans. But the Kurds still refuse to face this reality.

There is a curse that afflicts many who have sought to reshape the Middle East. It affects Americans most conspicuously but now also the Kurds. It is the refusal to learn from history.

*

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 Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

With Argentine elections taking place on October 27, President Mauricio Macri is now making desperate attempts to win the elections as his popularity continues to plummet. While holding a rally in the city of Tucumán, the neoliberal president was thrilled with the presence of a woman celebrating her birthday at his rally. He then decided to kiss the elector’s foot. With the social and political chaos of Argentina, Macri is literally taking any measure to continue to lead a country whose economy continues to suffer.

The 72-year-old Manuela lost her shoe when she was taken to the stage. “Oh, it’s Cinderella! Who is the prince?” said the president. Macri then decided to engage in cheap flirtatious moves and kissed Manuela’s feet, crying out: “I found my Cinderella! It’s my Cinderella!” Macri obviously became a joke and users questioned the reason for the kiss on the foot, which actually did not happen in the Cinderella mythology.

Source: InfoBrics

The chances of Peronist duo Alberto Fernández and Cristina Kirchner winning the election continues to rise and recent polls show that Fernández has 52% of the electorate. But polls and elections are completely different things.

Macri promised miracles by taking over the Argentine presidency four years ago, claiming he would fight fiscal deficit, end poverty, establish sustainable growth, and so on. None of these have been achieved and rather the economy is now hopelessly ruined, the currency is destroyed, and suffering to the local people has only increased.

The numbers are brutal and do not tell a lie. 35% of the country’s population, approximately 15 million Argentines. However, if we take into account extreme poverty, this accounts for more than three million. More data reveals that more than a third of Argentinians under the age of 14 not only live in poverty, they are, malnourished, that is, they are starving. And there is little sign that under Macri these pressing issues will improve as Argentine inflation over the past year and a half is astounding, coming to 34% percent.

Inflation not only violently erodes the purchasing power of Argentines, but it destroys it because wage adjustments are always well below the inflationary boom. This has meant that hundreds of thousands of Argentines are struggling to pay their household bills.

Official data shows that Argentina today is as poor as it was in 2008, in the midst of an international economic meltdown. This of course cannot be compared to the 2001 crisis that saw the country have five presidents in two weeks.

Since then, the number of Argentines who have left the middle class, hitherto permanent characteristic of the country, and have moved to poverty has dramatically increased. Although Macri did not start the current economic crisis, he has certainly put more than enough fuel on the flame by prioritizing neoliberal agendas for the benefit of oligarchical interests rather than those of the Argentines.

However, the significant failures of Macri is now even being utilized by politicians in neighboring countries. Political heavyweights in both Uruguay and Bolivia have used the failures of Macri to attack their neoliberal rivals.

In one such example, Bolivian President Evo Morales, running for his fourth term, gave a blazing attack against Macri’s neoliberalism during a rally in the capital of La Paz, bellowing,

“Neoliberals and the far right are beginning to fall in the region. Look at Argentina: Macri has knelt before the IMF and is now being punished at the ballot box. Bolivia, our government, has freed itself from the IMF.”

Evo also mockingly said that Bolivia is preparing for the “massive return of [the one million] Bolivians living in Argentina, back to their country to escape the economic crisis.”

In Uruguay, Macri’s defeat in the primaries has given a new impetus to Frente Ampla, the left-wing coalition that has ruled the country since 2005. The leading candidate, Daniel Martinez, leads the race and has even gained popularity – rising from 35% approval rating to 39% last week.

Macri and his neoliberal allies in neighboring countries who have adopted Trump-like rhetoric that a country should be run like a country, highlights that they are far removed from the realities of the average person. There is the visual affect that the IMF has backed Macri for this upcoming election, especially because of the status of a $57 billion credit facility agreed to last year was discussed between Macri and IMF Acting Managing Director David Lipton at Argentina’s Mission to the United Nations just weeks after the Argentine president was badly defeated in the August presidential primary.

With the IMF imposing choking economic restriction and austerity on the average Argentine, Macri’s continued dealing with the financial institution will only be consolidate in the eyes of many that he has betrayed Argentina, an image he does not want with only days left until the election. With poverty increasing and the destruction of the economy, it is highly unlikely that flirting and kissing feet will be enough for him to win this election.

*

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.

Hypersonic weapons close in on their targets at a minimum speed of Mach 5, five times the speed of sound or 3,836.4 miles an hour. They are among the latest entrants in an arms competition that has embroiled the United States for generations, first with the Soviet Union, today with China and Russia. Pentagon officials tout the potential of such weaponry and the largest arms manufacturers are totally gung-ho on the subject. No surprise there. They stand to make staggering sums from building them, especially given the chronic “cost overruns” of such defense contracts — $163 billion in the far-from-rare case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Voices within the military-industrial complex — the Defense Department; mega-defense companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and Raytheon; hawkish armchair strategists in Washington-based think tanks and universities; and legislators from places that depend on arms production for jobs — insist that these are must-have weapons. Their refrain: unless we build and deploy them soon we could suffer a devastating attack from Russia and China.

The opposition to this powerful ensemble’s doomsday logic is, as always, feeble.

The (Il)logic of Arms Races

Hypersonic weapons are just the most recent manifestation of the urge to engage in an “arms race,” even if, as a sports metaphor, it couldn’t be more off base. Take, for instance, a bike or foot race. Each has a beginning, a stipulated distance, and an end, as well as a goal: crossing the finish line ahead of your rivals. In theory, an arms race should at least have a starting point, but in practice, it’s usually remarkably hard to pin down, making for interminable disputes about who really started us down this path. Historians, for instance, are still writing (and arguing) about the roots of the arms race that culminated in World War I.

The arms version of a sports race lacks a purpose (apart from the perpetuation of a competition fueled by an endless action-reaction sequence). The participants just keep at it, possessed by worst-case thinking, suspicion, and fear, sentiments sustained by bureaucracies whose budgets and political clout often depend on military spending, companies that rake in the big bucks selling the weaponry, and a priesthood of professional threat inflators who merchandise themselves as “security experts.”

While finish lines (other than the finishing of most life on this planet) are seldom in sight, arms control treaties can, at least, decelerate and muffle the intensity of arms races. But at least so far, they’ve never ended them and they themselves survive only as long as the signatories want them to. Recall President George W. Bush’s scuttling of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Trump administration’s exit from the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August. Similarly, the New START accord, which covered long-range nuclear weapons and was signed by Russia and the United States in 2010, will be up for renewal in 2021 and its future, should Donald Trump be reelected, is uncertain at best. Apart from the fragility built into such treaties, new vistas for arms competition inevitably emerge — or, more precisely, are created. Hypersonic weapons are just the latest example.

Arms races, though waged in the name of national security, invariably create yet more insecurity. Imagine two adversaries neither of whom knows what new weapon the other will field. So both just keep building new ones. That gets expensive. And such spending only increases the number of threats. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, U.S. military spending has consistently and substantially exceeded China’s and Russia’s combined. But can you name a government that imagines more threats on more fronts than ours? This endless enumeration of new vulnerabilities isn’t a form of paranoia. It’s meant to keep arms races humming and the money flowing into military (and military-industrial) coffers.

One-Dimensional National Security

Such arms races come from the narrow, militarized definition of “national security” that prevails inside the defense and intelligence establishment, as well as in think tanks, universities, and the most influential mass media. Their underlying assumptions are rarely challenged, which only adds to their power. We’re told that we must produce a particular weapon (price tag be damned!), because if we don’t, the enemy will and that will imperil us all.

Such a view of security is by now so deeply entrenched in Washington — shared by Republicans and Democrats alike — that alternatives are invariably derided as naïve or quixotic. As it happens, both of those adjectives would be more appropriate descriptors for the predominant national security paradigm, detached as it is from what really makes most Americans feel insecure.

Consider a few examples.

Unlike in the first three decades after World War II, since 1979 the average U.S. hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, has increased by a pitiful amount, despite substantial increases in worker productivity. Unsurprisingly, those on the higher rungs of the wage ladder (to say nothing of those at the top) have made most of the gains, creating a sharp increase in wage inequality. (If you consider net total household wealth rather than income alone, the share of the top 1% increased from 30% to 39% between 1989 and 2016, while that of the bottom 90% dropped from 33% to 23%.)

Because of sluggish wage growth many workers find it hard to land jobs that pay enough to cover basic life expenses even when, as now, unemployment is low (3.6% this year compared to 8% in 2013). Meanwhile, millions earning low wages, particularly single mothers who want to work, struggle to find affordable childcare — not surprising considering that in 10 states and the District of Columbia the annual cost of such care exceeded $10,000 last year; and that, in 28 states, childcare centers charged more than the cost of tuition and fees at four-year public colleges.

Workers trapped in low-wage jobs are also hard-pressed to cover unanticipated expenses. In 2018, the “median household” banked only $11,700, and households with incomes in the bottom 20% had, on average, only $8,790 in savings; 29% of them, $1,000 or less. (For the wealthiest 1% of households, the median figure was $2.5 million.) Forty-four percent of American families would be unable to cover emergency-related expenses in excess of $400 without borrowing money or selling some of their belongings.

That, in turn, means many Americans can’t adequately cover periods of extended unemployment or illness, even when unemployment benefits are added in. Then there’s the burden of medical bills. The percentage of uninsured adults has risen from 10.9% to 13.7% since 2016 and often your medical insurance is tied to your job — lose it and you lose your coverage — not to speak of the high deductibles imposed by many medical insurance policies. (Out-of-pocket medical expenses have, in fact, increased fourfoldsince 2007 and now average $1,300 a year.)

Or, speaking of insecurity, consider the epidemic in opioid-related fatalities (400,000 people since 1999), or suicides (47,173 in 2017 alone), or murders involving firearms (14,542 in that same year). Child poverty? The U.S. rate was higher than that of 32 of the 36 other economically developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Now ask yourself this: how often do you hear our politicians or pundits use a definition of “national security” that includes any of these daily forms of American insecurity? Admittedly, progressive politicians do speak about the economic pressures millions of Americans face, but never as part of a discussion of national security.

Politicians who portray themselves as “budget hawks” flaunt the label, but their outrage over “irresponsible” or “wasteful” spending seldom extends to a national security budget that currently exceeds $1 trillion. Hawks claim that the country must spend as much as it does because it has a worldwide military presence and a plethora of defense commitments. That presumes, however, that both are essential for American security when sensible and less extravagant alternatives are on offer.

In that context, let’s return to the “race” for hypersonic weapons.

Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

Although the foundation for today’s hypersonic weaponry was laid decades ago, the pace of progress has been slow because of daunting technical challenges. Developing materials like composite ceramics capable of withstanding the intense heat to which such weapons will be exposed during flight leads the list. In recent years, though, countries have stepped up their games hoping to deploy hypersonic armaments rapidly, something Russia has already begun to do.

China, Russia, and the United States lead the hypersonic arms race, but others — including Britain, France, Germany, India, and Japan — have joined in (and more undoubtedly will do so). Each has its own list of dire scenarios against which hypersonic weapons will supposedly protect them and military missions for which they see such armaments as ideal. In other words, a new round in an arms race aimed at Armageddon is already well underway.

There are two variants of hypersonic weapons, which can both be equipped with conventional or nuclear warheads and can also demolish their targets through sheer speed and force of impact, or kinetic energy. “Boost-glide vehicles” (HGVs) are lofted skyward on ballistic missiles or aircraft. Separated from their transporter, they then hurtle through the atmosphere, pulled toward their target by gravity, while picking up momentum along the way. Unlike ballistic missiles, which generally fly most of the way in a parabolic trajectory — think of an inverted U — ranging in altitude from nearly 400 to nearly 750 miles high, HGVs stay low, maxing out about 62 miles up. The combination of their hypersonic speed and lower altitude shortens the journey, while theoretically flummoxing radars and defenses designed to track and intercept ballistic missile warheads (which means another kind of arms race still to come).

By contrast, hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs) resemble pilotless aircraft, propelled from start to finish by an on-board engine. They are, however, lighter than standard cruise missiles because they use “scramjet” technology.  Rather than carrying liquid oxygen tanks, the missile “breathes” in outside air that passes through it at supersonic speed, its oxygen combining with the missile’s hydrogen fuel. The resulting combustion generates extreme heat, propelling the missile toward its target. HCMs fly even lower than HGVs, below 100,000 feet, which makes identifying and destroying them harder yet.

Weapons are categorized as hypersonic when they can reach a speed of at least Mach 5, but versions that travel much faster are in the works. A Chinese HGV, launched by the Dong Feng (East Wind) DF-ZF ballistic missile, reportedly registered a speed of up to Mach 10 during tests, which began in 2014. Russia’s Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, or “Dagger,” launched from a bomber or interceptor, can reportedly also reach a speed of Mach 10. Lockheed Martin’s AGM-183A Advanced Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), an HGV that was first test-launched from a B-52 bomber this year, can apparently reach the staggering speed of Mach 20.

And yet it’s not just the speed and flight trajectory of hypersonic weapons that will make them so hard to track and intercept. They can also maneuver as they race toward their targets. Unsurprisingly, efforts to develop defensesagainst them, using low-orbit sensors, microwave technology, and “directed energy” have already begun. The Trump administration’s plans for a new Space Force that will put sensors and interceptors into space cite the threat of hypersonic missiles. Even so, critics have slammed the initiative for being poorly funded.

Putting aside the technical complexities of building defenses against hypersonic weapons, the American decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and develop missile-defense systems influenced Russia’s decision to develop hypersonic weapons capable of penetrating such defenses. These are meant to ensure that Russia’s nuclear forces will continue to serve as a credible deterrent against a nuclear first strike on that country.

The Trio Takes the Lead

China, Russia, and the United States are, of course, leading the hypersonic race to hell. China tested a medium-range new missile, the DF-17 in late 2017, and used an HGV specifically designed to be launched by it. The following year, that country tested its rocket-launched Xing Kong-2 (Starry Sky-2), a “wave rider,” which gains momentum by surfing the shockwaves it produces. In addition to its Kinzhal, Russia successfully tested the AvangardHGV in 2018. The SS-19 ballistic missile that launched it will eventually be replaced by the R-28 Samrat. Its hypersonic cruise missile, the Tsirkon, designed to be launched from a ship or submarine, has also been tested several times since 2015. Russia’s hypersonic program has had its failures — so has ours — but there’s no doubting Moscow’s seriousness about pursuing such weaponry.

Though it’s common to read that both Russia and China are significantly ahead in this arms race, the United States has been no laggard. It’s been interested in such weaponry — specifically HGVs — since the early years of this century. The Air Force awarded Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne a contract to develop the hypersonic X-51A WaveRider scramjet in 2004. Its first flight test — which failed (creating something of a pattern) — took place in 2010.

Today, the Army, Navy, and Air Force are moving ahead with major hypersonic weapons programs. For instance, the Air Force test-launched its ARRW from a B-52 bomber as part of its Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) this June; the Navy tested an HGV in 2017 to further its Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) initiative; and the Army tested its own version of such a weapon in 2011 and 2014 to move its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) program forward. The depth of the Pentagon’s commitment to hypersonic weapons became evident in 2018 when it decided to combine the Navy’s CPS, the Air Force’s HCSW, and the Army’s AHW to advance the Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program (CPGS), which seeks to build the capability to hit targets worldwide in under 60 minutes.

That’s not all. The Center for Public Integrity’s R. Jeffrey Smith reports that Congress passed a bill last year requiring the United States to have operational hypersonic weapons by late 2022. President’s Trump’s 2020 Pentagon budget request included $2.6 billion to support their development. Smith expects the annual investment to reach $5 billion by the mid-2020s.

That will certainly happen if officials like Michael Griffin, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for research and engineering, have their way. Speaking at the McAleese and Credit Suisse Defense Programs conference in March 2018, he listed hypersonic weapons as his “highest technical priority,” adding, “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority… But there has to be a first and hypersonics is my first.” The big defense contractors share his enthusiasm. No wonder last December the National Defense Industrial Association, an outfit that lobbies for defense contractors, played host to Griffin and Patrick Shanahan (then the deputy secretary of defense), for the initial meeting of what it called the “Hypersonic Community of Influence.”

Cassandra Or Pollyanna?

We are, in other words, in a familiar place. Advances in technology have prepared the ground for a new phase of the arms race. Driving it, once again, is fear among the leading powers that their rivals will gain an advantage, this time in hypersonic weapons. What then? In a crisis, a state that gained such an advantage might, they warn, attack an adversary’s nuclear forces, military bases, airfields, warships, missile defenses, and command-and-control networks from great distances with stunning speed.

Such nightmarish scenario-building could simply be dismissed as wild-eyed speculation, but the more states think about, plan, and build weaponry along these lines, the greater the danger that a crisis could spiral into a hypersonic war once such weaponry was widely deployed. Imagine a crisis in the South China Sea in which the United States and China both have functional hypersonic weapons: China sees them as a means of blocking advancing American forces; the United States, as a means to destroy the very hypersonic arms China could use to achieve that objective. Both know this, so the decision of one or the other to fire first could come all too easily. Or, now that the INF Treaty has died, imagine a crisis in Europe involving the United States and Russia after both sides have deployed numerous intermediate-range hypersonic cruise missiles on the continent. 

Some wonks say, in effect, Relax, hi-tech defenses against hypersonic weapons will be built, so crises like these won’t spin out of control. They seem to forget that defensive military innovations inevitably lead to offensive ones designed to negate them. Hypersonic weapons won’t prove to be the exception.

So, in a world of national (in)security, the new arms race is on. Buckle up.

*

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

Rajan Menon, a TomDispatch regular, is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. His latest book is The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention.

The rapid military-strategic inroads that India’s making with Vietnam should be taken very seriously by China because of the challenge that they pose to its claims over the South China Sea, thus representing yet another geopolitical fault line between the two BRICS and SCO “frenemies” in the New Cold War.

***

Israel’s Minister of the Interior says he is taking action to force Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, out of the country.

I intend to act quickly to deprive Omar Barghouti of residency status in Israel… This is a man who does everything to harm the country and therefore must not enjoy the right to be a resident of Israel.

Aryeh Deri said he had directed the Population and Immigration Authority to prepare a legal opinion aimed at Barghouti’s deportation.

The announcement comes after Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber notified Deri’s office that it had the authority to revoke Barghouti’s residency. The legal basis: a 2018 amendment to the residency law, listing “breach of trust” as a crime which may justify stripping a residency status. Barghouti married a Palestinian citizen of Israel, and lives under the residency status in the city of Acre.

Imagine it – the state “trusts” you to not take it to task for its violations, it “trusts” you to not complain and to accept these violations, and if you protest, even in a non-violent and civil manner, you have breached that “trust”.

Barghouti has long been a target for fascistic suggestions. In a 2016 anti-BDS conference sponsored by the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, then Minister of Transportation and Intelligence Israel Katz suggested “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leadership. “Targeted elimination” is a well-known Israeli term for assassination. He merely added the “civil” to make it sound more “civil”. Barghouti was singled out by name, and the anti-BDS Czar Gilad Erdan said that BDS activists will “pay a price”. “We will soon be hearing more of our friend Barghouti”, Erdan hinted insidiously.

Soon after that, the local Ministry of the Interior office notified Barghouti that his travel document (which he has to renew every two years) would not be renewed. It was then temporarily renewed following legal pressure. Barghouti told Glenn Greenwald at the time:

So we are really unnerved, I am personally quite unnerved by those threats. We take them very seriously, especially in this context. We live in a country where racism and racial incitement against indigenous Palestinians has grown tremendously into the Israeli mainstream. It has really become mainstream today to be very openly racist against Palestinians. Many settlers and hard-right-wing Israelis are taking matters into their own hands – completely supported by the state – and attacking Palestinians. So in that context I am unnerved, but I’m certainly undeterred. I shall continue my non-violent struggle for Palestinian rights under international law and nothing they can do will stop me.

Barghouti was indeed “targeted”, but so far only by the “civil” means of preventing his travels by bureaucratic means. Lately that has included US and UK initiatives, with nebulous holdups and refusals which the governments didn’t seek to defend.

In the US case last April, Barghouti was stopped at the Israeli Ben Gurion airport and denied travel to the US, despite having a valid visa. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, which had been coordinating the trip, commented:

Omar Barghouti is a leading Palestinian voice on human rights. Omar’s denial of entry into the US is the latest example of the Trump administration’s disregard for those rights.

In the UK case from last month, Barghouti was meant to speak at a fringe event of the Labour conference, organized by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). He ended up speaking on skype, due to an “unexplained, abnormal delay” in the issuing of his visa. PSC said in a statement:

The unprecedented delay in processing Barghouti’s travel visa application by the British government is part and parcel of the growing efforts by Israel and its allies to suppress Palestinian voices and the movements for Palestinian rights,

The recent move to revoke Barghouti’s residency seems to result from a right-wing incitement campaign by the group Betzalmo (a pun on the human rights monitoring group B’tselem). They wrote to Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit and to Deri just over a week ago, urging them to expel Barghouti. In their letter they noted the US’s denial of entry, and asked why the Israeli government has not acted to strip Barghouti of his residency rights. They elaborated that Barghouti harms the state, breaches allegiance and is a security threat:

A recent law authorizes the Interior Minister, with the approval of the attorney-general, to revoke residency for anyone who harms state security or violates allegiance to the state, or endangers public peace… Undoubtedly Barghouti’s leadership of the boycott movement against all citizens of the State of Israel severely harms the State of Israel and is a blatant breach of allegiance, as well as a threat to Israel’s security and defense by pushing for an arms embargo against Israel.

So: The green light from the Attorney-General’s office, a further green light from Deri’s office, and the machine seems set to deport the “traitor”.

For Israel, Barghouti proves that you can’t trust Palestinians to shut up, and that they need to learn it the hard way. But every step that Israel takes in its repressive attempt to silence dissent, becomes another reason to boycott it. Indeed, as Erdan promised, we’ve heard a lot from, and about, Omar Barghouti. And we’re bound to hear much more about him, and BDS.

*

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

Jonathan Ofir is an Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Featured image is from Carlos Latuff

When the West’s leading media organizations attempt to convince audiences they know nothing about where Mohammed Aly – a Spanish-based Egyptian protest leader – came from, the first thing one can be sure of is they are being lied to.

Protests have begun to spread again in Egypt after nearly a decade of frustration in Washington over its inability to coerce Cairo into serving its regional and global designs.

Protesters have allegedly been stirred up by economic turmoil still plaguing Egypt, however familiar US-backed organizations used in the past to destabilize Egypt are turning up at the center of protest venues including the Muslim Brotherhood which has served a pivotal role in other regional US projects including filling the ranks of militant forces fighting the government in Syria.

The Western media’s feigned ignorance over self-proclaimed protest leader Mohammed Aly is meant to obfuscate his political ties and those of the organizations and enterprises he is associated with.

The New York Times in its article, “Egypt Protests Came as a Total Shock. The Man Behind Them Is Just as Surprising,” claims:

Under the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, so little dissent is allowed — and what little there is comes at such a high price — that when just a few hundred people across the country called for Mr. el-Sisi’s ouster in a burst of scattered protests on Friday night, it came as a shock. 

The apparent trigger for the demonstrations was almost as unexpected: Mohamed Ali, a 45-year-old construction contractor and part-time actor who says he got rich building projects for the Egyptian military and then left for Spain to live in self-imposed exile, where he began posting videos on social media accusing Mr. el-Sisi of corruption and hypocrisy.

The New York Times also claims:

“It is sort of odd,” said Amy Hawthorne, the deputy director for research at the Project on Middle East Democracy. “Who is this person, who is he connected to, what led him to come out with these allegations now? Obviously he’s very well connected, but who exactly are his connections?”

No mention is made by the New York Times regarding the Project on Middle Eastern Democracy (POMED) –  a Washington DC-based front funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which served as a propaganda nexus during the 2011 US-fuelled “Arab Spring” and is again promoting rhetoric to support ongoing protests in Egypt today.

POMED fails to disclose its funding and associations on its own website, but NED in a 2017 “Grantee Spotlight” titled, “BRAINSTORMING FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE MENA REGION,” reveals:

NED’s main partner in strengthening local policy centers is the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), a Washington-based think tank founded in 2006. 

That the deputy director of POMED – funded by NED – is unaware of who Mohammed Aly is and the US government-funded networks he is associated with is difficult to believe.

Who is Mohammed Aly? 

Aly claims to be an Egyptian contractor turned whistleblower after witnessing government corruption – but reports indicate he was only part of a family-owned contracting firm led by his father who has denounced him and his “activism.”

The BBC in its article, “Mohamed Ali: The self-exiled Egyptian sparking protests at home,” would report:

His father, Ali Abdul Khalek, was a national weightlifting champion before he launched his family contracting businesses for himself and his sons, including Mohamed. 

In an interview with pro-government TV presenter Ahmed Moussa, Abdul Khalek appeared to disown his son and sought to discredit his allegations, saying his family owed their fortunes to the armed forces.

Of Aly himsef – the BBC would note:

He is also known for having briefly pursued a career as an actor – with credits including the little-known, but somewhat acclaimed film The Other Land – before liquidating his assets and moving to Spain.

Not mentioned is that “The Other Land” was jointly-produced and filmed in Spain. Involved in marketing the film was MAD Solutions – a firm linked to USAID, US-European government-funded nongovernmental organizations, Western media such as Forbes, as well as Arab production companies across the MENA region.

Among MAD’s partners includes the Ana Hunna Network – a German-based front posing as women’s rights advocates. The network is in turn made up of various US-European funded fronts including USAID-funded International Development Support and Consulting (IDSC).

MAD is also partnered with the Arab language satellite TV channel Alhurra which is based in the US and is funded directly by the US government (Arabic) via the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), formerly the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).

USAGM/BBG is also responsible for the US State Department’s global-spanning propaganda network including Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia.

While documented evidence of Mohammed Aly working directly for the US government or its allies in the Middle East is still forthcoming – it surely is no coincidence that he has become a “sudden” and “unexpected leader” of protests aimed at coercing Egypt back on a pro-Western footing, promoted by the Western media all while his obvious ties to agents of US influence are being covered up by those very agents themselves.

Aly’s role in a politically-charged film produced and promoted by pro-Western fronts – and a film jointly produced and filmed in Spain – is also no coincidence. The ties and networks that led him through that process are now hosting him as he begins his next performance as an influential protest leader.

While it is clear he is but the public face of a much more sinister effort by the militant and extremist Muslim Brotherhood to fill Egypt’s streets with growing chaos – the Western media has gone through great efforts to deny this.

DW – for example – in its article, “Muslim Brotherhood or el-Sissi rivals: Who is behind Egypt’s protests?,” would attempt to claim:

Once a major player in the 2011 revolution, the MB has since been labeled a “terror organization” by el-Sissi’s government, but observers say the allegations are a deflection as the organization is a spent force. 

“There’s very little or no indication that the Brotherhood within Egypt has any sort of capability to organize on such a scale,” David Butter, an associate fellow at Chatham House, told DW. 

“Social media activists from outside Egypt who applauded the action might be trying to take some credit, but nothing suggests the Brothers have any involvement at all,” Butter said.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a massive region-wide organization complete with political parties, armed wings, and of course immense state-sponsorship including from the United States, Western Europe, and the West’s partners particularly in the Persian Gulf and Turkey.

If the Muslim Brotherhood lacks “any sort of capability to organize on such a scale” inside of Egypt, who has more capability to do so?

The DW article suggests there may be a rift within Egypt’s ruling elite – but no evidence, names or even a theory is put forth as to who among Egypt’s elite might be involved or why.

Conversely, the substantial evidence indicating US interference and the Muslim Brotherhood’s role – together with the fact the US and its allies have not only repeatedly destabilized other nations around the globe through similar tactics – but have destabilized Egypt itself in 2011 through similar tactics – points the finger squarely at Washington and its allies.

An “Arab Spring” Reboot 

US-funded protests overthrew the Egyptian government led by Hosni Mubarak in 2011.

US-Turkish-Saudi nominee – Mohamed Morsi – rose to power and immediately set out to transform the large North African nation into an obedient servant of Western interests.

This included severing ties between Egypt and the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad while arming, funding, and recruiting militants being funneled onto the battlefield within Syria itself.

A 2013 Voice of America article titled, “Morsi Cuts Egypt’s Syria Ties, Backs No-fly Zone,” would report:

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi said he had cut all diplomatic ties with Damascus on Saturday and backed a no-fly zone over Syria, pitching the most populous Arab state more firmly against President Bashar al-Assad. 

Addressing a rally called by Sunni Muslim clerics in Cairo, the Sunni Islamist head of state also warned Assad’s ally, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite militia Hezbollah, to pull back from fighting in Syria.

Later in 2013, Egypt’s powerful military regrouped, managing to oust Morsi from office.

The subsequent government headed by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi incarcerated Morsi, restored ties with Syria, and began steering Egypt back toward a more neutral foreign policy.

Commentators have cited Egypt’s role in the US-led war in Yemen as evidence that el-Sisi’s government also serves US interests – but it should be noted that Egypt’s commitments were symbolic, short-lived, and a result of paying back Persian Gulf monarchies who financially bailed out Egypt’s flagging economy in the wake of 2011’s instability.

For a nation like Egypt whose foreign policy, economic ties, and relations have straddled East and West for decades, “choosing sides” is not a simple matter.

Egypt’s fragile economic, social, and political balance has been repeatedly targeted by Western interests both directly and through militant proxies armed and backed by Persian Gulf states following attempts by Cairo to rebuild ties with Russia or to build closer ties with China.

The presence of the so-called “Islamic State” – the same militant force serving as proxies in Washington’s war on Syria – in Egypt’s Sinai region serves as a constant source of pressure attempting to coerce Cairo to pivot Westward.

Recent protests are also aimed at adding to this pressure.

As to why Egypt is facing such pressure now – we need only look at Washington’s recent escalation with Iran. Egypt under Morsi sought to weaken Syria as part of Washington’s wider conflict with Iran. Efforts to coerce Egypt into joining the US-led war in Yemen was also aimed at eliminating Iranian allies and further isolating Iran itself.

Key to any US foreign policy victory over Iran will be the creation of a regional, united front against Tehran – with nations – willingly or not – enlisted to play a role however small in isolating and undermining Iranian stability internally, regionally, and globally.

Should protests pick up sufficient momentum in Egypt – the prospect of Washington introducing demands in exchange for momentary relief from street violence will undoubtedly follow.

In the days and weeks ahead – Egypt’s ability or inability to contain the protests and resist US efforts to drag Cairo into another round of regional violence and instability – will in turn help indicate the wider prospects of peace or war in the region as Washington struggles to reassert itself at any cost.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

First published by South Front and Global Research on August 6, 2019

By way of introduction, it should be noted that the US economy is showing many signs of a classical bubble, starting with the incredibly over-valued US stock market. Only slightly more than a decade ago, at the peak of the real estate bubble, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) barely managed to clear the 14,000 mark, before staging a spectacular plunge almost to 7,000. Since then DJIA nearly quadrupled in value, as of mid-July 2019 hovering at above the 27,000 mark. Since the US economy as a whole has not quadrupled during the same time interval, there is a clear dissociation between “Wall Street” and “Main Street” that will at some point inevitably lead to serious economic and political problems in the United States, to the point of considerably remaking its political landscape.  The proverbial $64,000 question, however, is when will the US financial house of cards come tumbling down the next time, and what will be the triggering event?

“Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain”

Politics is a factor in the management of the US financial system. The US Federal Reserve, though it is rarely perceived as having its finger on the scale of US presidential elections, played a role during the 2000 and 2008 presidential elections and its monetary policy decisions do impact day-to-day presidential approval ratings indirectly, through their influence on DJIA fluctuations. The Fed contributed to the financial bubble bursting by raising its lending rates on the eve of the election, and while its actions may be justified in terms of preventing an even bigger bubble, the timing of the raising of interest rates was such that it hurt the candidates of the incumbent parties (Al Gore in 2000, John McCain in 2008), thus facilitating a change of flag, as it were, in the White House.

The 2008 election was particularly indicative of the power wielded by the Fed. It is all-but-forgotten that Obama-Biden’s nominating convention was a dud, while that of McCain-Palin was a success that gave the GOP team such a bounce in the polls that they were leading their Democratic opponents in the polls and provoking panic in Obama’s camp. Had Lehman Brothers not been allowed to fail, thus triggering a global financial meltdown, the outcome of the election may well have been very different.  However, on the eve of the 2016 election the Fed was very gun-shy when it came to raising interest rates—had it been as aggressive as it was in 2008, its monetary policy would have once again caused the grossly overvalued US stock market to crater, thus sending Trump into the White House with a far broader margin of victory than what he actually enjoyed.

Four More Years?

Therefore the question should be framed in terms of whether Trump is long for this political world. Sturm und Drang emanating from the establishment media notwithstanding, it does appear as if Trump succeeded in appeasing enough of Washington’s power players, not the least of them being the “intelligence community”, to give himself a solid shot at a second term. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intimated as much when she announced, to the annoyance of a sizable portion of her caucus, that impeachment was off the table. Robert Mueller’s failure to deliver impeachable goods on Trump also suggests that the “intelligence community” no longer views its ostensible Commander-in-Chief as a threat to its institutional interests. The de-facto purge of Trump’s foreign policy apparatus followed by the installation of neocons such as Mike Pompeo at State, John Bolton at the NSC, and the reliable military-industrial complex lobbyist and functionary Mike Esper at the DOD, was probably enough to ensure smooth feathers ruffled by Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat.

Toward a Managed Economy

If the preference is, as it appears to be, to not sabotage Trump’s re-election bid by triggering an economic crisis, one should not expect a major crisis in the US economy within the next two years, or until the outcome of the 2020 election is decided. Observing the ups and downs of the DJIA since Trump took office, one is left with the impression that the US financial institutions are acting as if there existed an invisible “safety net” to catch them in the event of the onset of a “bear market” or even a proverbial “black swan” event that could trigger a US-wide or even global financial meltdown. Whenever one sees the DJIA drop by several hundred points in a single day, or even a thousand points within a few days, one can rest assured the drop will be followed by a spectacular rise in the following days. In a remarkable reversal of course, considering that the US economy is officially still “booming”, the Federal Reserve itself no longer seems willing to be interested in raising rates.

It does not mean that the US economy is entirely out of the woods. Certain sectors of it, for example retail, oil fracking, or even sub-prime auto loans, may suffer waves of bankruptcies. Those enterprises which are vulnerable to Chinese counter-tariffs, starting with the US agri-businesses, will also fare poorly. But if the situation gets too severe, one can expect the US Congress to vote in favor of subsidies, and the financial sector can count on the Federal Reserve to keep it afloat, so that the mounting bankruptcies are extremely unlikely to affect the “too big too fail” banks, not anymore than they did following the 2008 housing crisis.

The financial sector, in particular, is being treated as a de-facto US strategic asset. On the one hand, economic warfare being waged by the US Department of Treasury through its ever-expanding list of sanctioned entities is taking bread out of US banks’ mouths. This happens not only through the loss of actual business with the sanctioned entities but also due to the slowly progressing process of “de-dollarization” which in the long term could become an existential threat to the US status as the dominant center of global finance. But the US banks have met this situation with equanimity, indicating they are some form of compensation for their troubles.

The one threat to the stability of US economy that the US government or Fed might not be able to deal with are the consequences of the US trade war against the rest of the world. Should it trigger a financial crisis elsewhere, for example in the EU or China, then the US would find itself in a severe recession once again. However, both EU and China are developing their own capacity for dealing with US-induced economic shocks, in that respect following Russia’s example.

Disaster Capitalism on the Horizon?

This idyllic stagnation in the US is unlikely to continue forever. There are still a number of issues the US oligarchy needs tackled, first and foremost of them being the Medicare and Social Security entitlement programs.  With even frontrunner Democrats like Joe Biden proclaiming, on the presidential campaign trail, no less, that “Medicare is gone”, one should expect “entitlement reform” to be on the agenda of a future administration or perhaps even of Trump’s second term. To achieve that objective, a little controlled chaos following a financial meltdown and a recession to set Americans against one another along racial and generational lines, could be very useful. But it does not appear likely such a scenario will be enacted before 2021 at the earliest.

*

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

Trump is an imperial/corporate tool — hostile to ordinary people everywhere, notably malicious toward aliens of the wrong color from the wrong countries.

When it comes to healthcare, a fundamental human right, he’s for Americans having the best treatment money can buy — based on the ability to pay.

Spiraling healthcare costs in the US are double the annual per capita amount in other developed countries because Washington, under both right wings of the one-party state, is beholden to Big Pharma, insurers, and large hospital chains.

Obamacare made the dysfunctional US system worse, tens of millions of Americans left uninsured, most others underinsured.

Nearly half of US households are hard-pressed to pay for an unexpected $500 medical expense unless able to get loan help, either repaying it over time or not at all, according to a 2017 study.

Most insured Americans use all or most of their savings to pay medical expenses. A common way to cut costs is by skipping medications, an option jeopardizing health.

Others at times have to choose between paying rent or servicing mortgages or paying medical expenses, an untenable situation.

People of color and unwanted aliens from the wrong countries are the most mistreated and exploited US citizens and residents.

On October 4 by presidential proclamation, Trump suspended entry of unwanted aliens unable to pay for their own healthcare — part of his racist war on people of the wrong color from the wrong countries.

Because of exorbitant/spiraling insurance rates, high co-pays and deductibles, most US households can’t afford healthcare the way it should be for everyone — especially if dealing with expensive illnesses.

Doctors increasingly complain about costly and onerous bureaucratic red tape, taking valuable time away from treating patients, what practicing medicine is all about.

Days earlier, Dr. Michael Walls addressed the issue, saying the following:

“When I signed my letter of intent to medical school, I signed up to work with patients, not insurance companies.”

“I wanted to be part of a team of nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and respiratory therapists — working together to make sick people feel better.”

“I soon learned that medicine and health care are two different things.”

“Medicine is diagnosing and treating people. Health care is the bureaucracy that prevents physicians, nurses, and all other providers from practicing medicine to the best of their abilities.”

“(D)octors everywhere (complain about) being overwhelmed by paperwork and dealing with insurance companies.”

“I shouldn’t have to deal with it. And neither should anyone else trying to heal people.”

“I should be able to work with my patients to decide what’s best for them, not argue with the insurance company about why my patient needs a heart procedure.”

“I should be able to give my patients life-saving drugs without having to worry about whether they can afford them.”

“I should be able to practice…medicine,” free from being hamstrung by “a broken system.”

“This is why we need Medicare for All” — including for aliens from what Trump and other US dark forces consider the wrong countries.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), universal healthcare in America would save over $500 billion annually – by eliminating insurer middlemen and the bureaucratic nightmare created for physicians and hospitals.

Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy, amounting to nearly one-third of annual healthcare costs.

No one ever visited an insurer to receive treatment for what ails them. Eliminating them would be a major cost savings.

Universal healthcare, excluding these middlemen, could provide everyone in America with all vital services – including medical and dental; prescription drugs and medical supplies; mental health and reproductive care, vision and optical services, hospitalization and preventive care, along with longterm care for the elderly, infirm and disabled.

Tired and poor “huddled masses yearning to breathe free, (t)he wretched refuse…homeless, tempest-tost’ from faraway shores are unwelcome in Trump’s America.

Visas henceforth will be granted to privileged aliens from favored countries — the “lamp beside the (US) golden door” lifted to them alone.

Trump’s hostile proclamation is effective November 3, extending internal class warfare to foreign shores.

Privileged aliens from favored countries are welcome in Trump’s America, working class ones shunned.

“We the People of the United States” referred to in the Constitution’s preamble excludes them — along with ordinary Americans, ill-served so privileged ones can benefit.

*

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 Earth is living, and also creates life. Over 4 billion years the Earth has evolved a rich biodiversity — an abundance of different living organisms and ecosystems — that can meet all our needs and sustain life.

Through biodiversity and the living functions of the biosphere, the Earth regulates temperature and climate, and has created the conditions for our species to evolve. This is what NASA scientist James Lovelock found in working with Lynn Margulis, who was studying the processes by which living organisms produce and remove gases from the atmosphere. The Earth is a self-regulating living organism, and life on Earth creates conditions for life to be maintained and evolve.

The Gaia Hypothesis, born in the 1970s, was a scientific reawakening to the Living Earth. The Earth fossilized some living carbon, and transformed it into dead carbon, storing it underground. That is where we should have left it.

All the coal, petroleum and natural gas we are burning and extracting to run our contemporary oil-based economy was formed over 600 million years. We are burning up millions of years of nature’s work annually. This is why the carbon cycle is broken.

A few centuries of fossil fuel-based civilization have brought our very survival under threat by rupturing the Earth’s carbon cycle, disrupting key climate systems and self-regulatory capacity, and pushing diverse species to extinction at 1000 times the normal rate. The connection between biodiversity and climate change is intimate.

Extinction is a certainty if we continue a little longer on the fossil fuel path. A shift to a biodiversity-based civilization is now a survival imperative.

Take the example of food and agriculture systems. The Earth has roughly 300,000 edible plant species, but the contemporary global human community eats only 200 of them. And, according to the New Scientist, “half our plant-sourced protein and calories come from just three: maize, rice and wheat.” Meanwhile, only 10 percent of the soy that is grown is used as food for humans. The rest goes to produce biofuels and animal feed.

Our agriculture system is not primarily a food system, it is an industrial system, and it is not sustainable.

The Amazon rainforests are home to 10 percent of the Earth’s biodiversity. Now, the rich forests are being burned for the expansion of GMO soy crops.

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on land and climate highlights how the climate problem begins with what we do on land.

We have been repeatedly told that monocultures of crops with intensive chemical inputs of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are necessary for feeding the world.

While using 75 percent of the total land that is being used for agriculture, industrial agriculture based on fossil fuel-intensive, chemical-intensive monocultures produce only 30 percent of the food we eat, while small, biodiverse farms using 25 percent of the land provide 70 percent of the food. Industrial agriculture is responsible for 75 percent of the destruction of soil, water and biodiversity of the planet. At this rate, if the share of fossil fuel-based industrial agriculture and industrial food in our diet is increased to 40 percent, we will have a dead planet. There will be no life, no food, on a dead planet.

Besides the carbon dioxide directly emitted from fossil fuel agriculture, nitrous oxide is emitted from nitrogen fertilizers based on fossil fuels, and methane is emitted from factory farms and food waste.

The manufacture of synthetic fertilizer is highly energy-intensive. One kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of 2 liters of diesel. Energy used during fertilizer manufacture was equivalent to 191 billion liters of diesel in 2000 and is projected to rise to 277 billion in 2030. This is a major contributor to climate change, yet largely ignored. One kilogram of phosphate fertilizer requires half a liter of diesel.

Nitrous oxide is 300 times more disruptive for the climate than carbon dioxide. Nitrogen fertilizers are destabilizing the climate, creating dead zones in the oceans and desertifying the soils. In the planetary context, the erosion of biodiversity and the transgression of the nitrogen boundary are serious, though often-overlooked, crises.

Thus, regenerating the planet through biodiversity-based ecological processes has become a survival imperative for the human species and all beings. Central to the transition is a shift from fossil fuels and dead carbon, to living processes based on growing and recycling living carbon renewed and grown as biodiversity.

Organic farming — working with nature — takes excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, where it doesn’t belong, and puts it back in the soil where it belongs, through photosynthesis. It also increases the water-holding capacity of soil, contributing to resilience in times of more frequent droughts, floods and other climate extremes. Organic farming has the potential of sequestering 52 gigatons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the amount needed to be removed from the atmosphere to keep atmospheric carbon below 350 parts per million, and the average temperature increase of 2 degrees centigrade. We can bridge the emissions gap through ecological biodiversity-intensive agriculture, working with nature.

And the more biodiversity and biomass we grow, the more the plants sequester atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, and reduce both emissions and the stocks of pollutants in the air. Carbon is returned to the soil through plants.

The more we grow biodiversity and biomass on forests and farms, the more organic matter is available to return to the soil, thus reversing the trends toward desertification, which is already a major reason for the displacement and uprooting of people and the creation of refugees in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

Biodiversity-based agriculture is not just a climate solution, it is also a solution to hunger. Approximately 1 billion people are permanently hungry. Biodiversity-intensive, fossil-fuel-free, chemical-free systems produce more nutrition per acre and can feed more people using less land.

To repair the broken carbon cycle, we need to turn to seeds, to the soil and to the sun to increase the living carbon in the plants and in the soil. We need to remember that living carbon gives life, and dead fossil carbon is disrupting living processes. With our care and consciousness we can increase living carbon on the planet, and increase the well-being of all. On the other hand, the more we exploit and use dead carbon, and the more pollution we create, the less we have for the future. Dead carbon must be left underground. This is an ethical obligation and ecological imperative.

This is why the term “decarbonization,” which fails to make a distinction between living and dead carbon, is scientifically and ecologically inappropriate. If we decarbonized the economy, we would have no plants, which are living carbon. We would have no life on earth, which creates and is sustained by living carbon. A decarbonized planet would be a dead planet.

We need to recarbonize the world with biodiversity and living carbon. We need to leave dead carbon in the ground. We need to move from oil to soil. We need to urgently move from a fossil fuel-based system to a biodiversity-based ecological civilization. We can plant the seeds of hope, the seeds of the future.

This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 220 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist and eco feminist. She has fought for changes in the practice and paradigms of agriculture and food, and assisted grassroots organizations of the Green movement in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Ireland, Switzerland, and Austria with campaigns against genetic engineering.

Featured image is from Pixabay