Global Research

A significant overhaul of the current global food system is needed to meet the challenges of feeding a growing world population and many stress that this is only achievable by changing diets, food production and reducing food waste. 

How do we mitigate the ‘climate crisis’ while delivering productive, resilient, nutritious and sustainable food and farming?

A new paper in World Archaeology weighs into this debate, suggesting that looking to the past can offer important insights for future agricultural and food security strategies.

Inscribing memory

Archaeology, history and anthropology have been largely neglected in discussions on climate change and agricultural sustainability. However, our past contains a rich, diverse, and global dataset resulting from the successes and failures of numerous societies and their interactions with the environment.

This research provides an important source of information on food security and agricultural development over a much longer period than current studies allow and under a range of different challenges.

The memory of agriculture and food is carried by landscapes, seeds, animals, people, and technologies, as well as by oral traditions, languages, arts, rituals, culinary traditions, and unique forms of social organisation.

In many regions around the world landscapes and agricultural systems have developed often distinctive, ingenious practices that have stood the test of time in their robustness and resilience.

The value of understanding these cultural and environmental contexts is increasingly recognised by researchers, organisations and policy makers as important for addressing issues of agricultural sustainability.

Inherited systems 

An example of this is rice-fish farming practiced in Asia, where a sustainable symbiotic environment provides farmers with higher crop yields and an important source of protein.

This agricultural system has a long history with models of rice-fish farming dating back to the later Han Dynasty (25–220 AD), however, more recently these systems have been increasingly challenged.

Recognizing the vulnerability of these agricultural systems, FAO started an initiative for the conservation and sustainable management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) in 2002, which has allowed farmers to increase their income from marketing their products and tourism, while preserving their ancient traditions.

Understanding these traditions is important because cultural values are not always integrated within existing policy research and implementation, resulting in many interventions failing due to a lack of understanding of their cultural and historical contexts and poor reception by the very people and societies they are intended to benefit.

Agricultural resilience

The number of crops we grow for food is also presenting challenges for agricultural sustainability across the globe.

Of Earth’s estimated 400,000 plant species, 300,000 are edible, yet humans cultivate only around 150 species globally, and half of our plant-sourced protein and calories come from just three: maize, rice and wheat.

As large commercially valuable monoculture crops are grown in greater numbers around the world crop diversity is under threat.

Dr Philippa Ryan, a Research Fellow in Economic Botany at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, said: “Traditional forms of farming across many areas of the globe are rapidly changing or disappearing due to major social, political, economic and environmental changes.

“This not only poses problems for agricultural resilience but also cuts down on people’s ability to eat or afford foods that are culturally significant to them.”

If we continue to restrict the types of food we grow and its genetic variation we increase the risk of climate change, droughts, pests and diseases wiping out parts of our food supply. Think the Irish potato famine of the late 1840’s!

Cash crops

Ryan’s anthropological and archaeological work in northern Sudan on past and present crop choices highlights this point.

As ‘cash’ crops have moved in more traditional cereals, such as hulled barley (Hordeum vulgareL), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor(L.) Moench) and the pulse crops lablab (Dolichos lablabL.) and Lupinus albusL., became marginalised.

Yet, these native crops are more suited to the local environment, requiring less chemical fertilisers and being more arid and heat tolerant, and as the archaeology has shown, have supported people in the region for hundreds of years.

Experimental growing

Ancient management systems could also hold the key to providing small-scale farmers with relatively simple low-tech, low cost solutions.

In the mid-twentieth century, experimental crop growing in the Negev desert was able to survive extreme droughts, with little salinization of the soil, due to the implementation of Byzantine irrigation methods identified from the archaeology in the region.

The system also had a number of collection channels and underground cisterns that controlled flash floods, allowing silt to deposit and prevented erosion.

Adapting agriculture 

Plant breeders and researchers are also busy searching for sources of genetic diversity for our crops to make them more resilient to tough conditions, such as drought, flooding, high temperatures or poor soils.

One project is the Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: Collecting, Protecting and Preparing Crop Wild Relatives, launched in 2011.

Managed by the Global Crop Diversity Trust (Crop Trust) within the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew the project aims to preserve wild crop relatives, in order to store potential traits that could contribute to climate change adaptions in crops for the future.

For decades archaeologists have also studied the impact of climate change and disasters such as tsunamis, large-scale El Niño events and volcanic eruptions and are now able to map past climate variability, offer context for human-induced climate change, and even improve future climate predictions.

The complexity of our global food system means that we must increasingly look beyond our ‘traditional’ sources of information in order to respond to global challenges.

*

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 Kelly Reed is programme manager and researcher for the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food. She is also an archaeobotanist with interests in food systems, agricultural development, cultural adaptations to environmental change and global sustainability.

Featured image is from The Ecologist

Daesh terror group has been setting fire to the livelihoods of Iraqi farmers in Kirkuk, Salahaddin, Mosul, Al-Anbar and Diyala provinces, an Iraqi government official said Tuesday.

Iraqi Ministry of the Interior’s Civil Defense General Director Kadim Salman told Anadolu Agency (AA) that the terror group has burned 5,000 acres of agricultural land, usually late at night.

Salman said the government has formed crisis groups to prevent the burning of more crops.

He said the resources of civil defense directorates in the affected cities were insufficient, and the directorates had requested emergency support from the government. The government responded by providing them with vehicles and equipment to aid their efforts to prevent and quickly intervene in crop fires.

Efforts to quickly put out the fires have been successful in many areas, managing to save 11,000 acres of agricultural land from the flames, Salman said.

Salman said Daesh has been setting the fires to take revenge on local residents and farmers who did not support them against the Iraqi military as they lost power in the country.

He said Daesh is also attempting to cause wider damage by blasting power lines passing through the agricultural areas, noting that security forces have an important duty to prevent these attacks from happening.

Kirkuk Governor Rakan Said had previously told AA that the terror group tried to punish impoverished Iraqi citizens by burning their most important income source, the agricultural land.

In June 2014, Daesh took control of more than a third of Iraqi territory, particularly in northern Mosul and western Al-Anbar provinces. Iraqi security forces managed to recapture most Daesh-held territory by December 2017, at which time Baghdad declared that Daesh’s military presence in Iraq had been eradicated.

But the terrorists have adapted their tactics to insurgent-style attacks since they were defeated and driven out of areas they controlled for years. Although the threat of Daesh attacks in city centers has lessened, the terror group continues to carry out attacks in rural areas.

The Iraqi army continues to carry out frequent operations against Daesh “sleeper cells,” which it says remain active in certain parts of the country.

*

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 Flickr by Neil Palmer

An enduring memory of the 2016 Brexit campaign, so marked by the foppish-haired blusterer, Boris Johnson, was the claim that the European Union was hungrily drawing out from British coffers £350 million a week.  It was insufferable, unqualified and dishonest.  It was a claim reared in the atmosphere of outrageous deception marking the effort on all sides of the debate regarding Britain’s relationship with the EU.  But some deceptions have the ballast to go further than others. 

Rooted in the machinery of politics, such deceptions might have stayed there, deemed those natural outrages of a not so noble vocation. After all, political figures do make lying an art, if a very low one.  But Johnson has not been so fortunate.  A private prosecution has been launched against the aspiring Tory leader and possible replacement for Prime Minister Theresa May based on allegations he “repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership” with specific reference to the £350 million figure.  Marcus Ball, the initiator of the action and a Remain campaigner, had the heavy artillery £236,000 will bring, the very healthy result of crowdfunding.

Johnson’s legal team was quick to suggest that the whole matter was vexatious, an around about effort to question the legitimacy of the 2016 referendum result.  A source close to Johnson (and who might that be?) told the BBC that the case was a “politically motivated attempt to reverse Brexit.”  Adrian Darbishire QC, representing Johnson, was withering in describing the action as a political stunt intended to create mischief in an effort “to regulate the content and quality of political debate” using the criminal law.   

Such debate might well feature figures and claims, and Johnson, at best, could only be accused of using the £350m sum for no other purpose than “in the course of a contested political campaign.”  Such campaigns are bound to contain a range of claims duly “challenged, contradicted and criticised.” 

Ball’s legal representative, Lewis Power QC, took the broader view.  The proposed prosecution was not an attempt to “seek to prevent or delay Brexit”.  There was a larger principle at stake: “when politicians lie, democracy dies”.  Much to be said about that; but taken to its logical conclusion, no democracy can be said to be extant, let alone breathing, given how alive the lie industry is.    

Ball’s case, nonetheless, has an ethical sting to it, and seems to be one of whether lies have a meaningful role in politics.  Ball’s legal representative was adamant: “Lying on a national and international platform undermines public confidence in politics… and brings both public offices held by the (proposed) defendant into disrepute”.  The law offered a solution: “misconduct to such a degree requires criminal sanction.  There is no justification or excuse for such misconduct.”

In its purest sense, the case has the trimmings of Michel de Montaigne, that wonderful man of letters who, four centuries ago, thought the lie reprehensible.  In “On Liars”, he is curt and unforgiving.  “Lying is indeed an accursed vice.  We are men, and we have relations with one other only by speech.  If we recognised the horror and gravity of an untruth, we should more justifiably punish it with fire than any other crime.”   

In 1975, Adrienne Rich wrote with more poignancy than flames that,

“The possibilities that exist between two people, or among a group of people are a kind of alchemy.  They are the most interesting thing in life.  The liar is someone who keeps losing sight of these possibilities.”

Not quite as savage as Montaigne, but a similar point on value and relations bound by speech.  Certainly, when it comes to politics, Rich is clear that the loss of perspective the liar suffers is acute, being most “damaging to public life, human possibility, and our collective progress”.

Such instances may seem a bit high barred.  The politician is a creature of deception and dissimulation, and avoiding the compromising wet by keeping to high and dry moral ground may be a difficult thing.  Even Montaigne also offers a subtle exit, if not excuse, for one economic with the truth: he who has involuntary defects – a poor memory, for instance – should be treated kindly; those with intent to deceive – well, that’s something else entirely.  “Not without reason is it said that no one who is not conscious of having a sound memory should set up to be a liar.”

When Hannah Arendt turned her mind to the nature of lying in politics in 1971, seeking to understand the entire episode of the Pentagon Papers and their publication, a more complex view was advanced. 

“Truthfulness,” she laments, “has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings.”

But moral outrage alone, she insists, is insufficient when faced with deception.  When we confront what she describes as “factual truths”, we face the problem of compellability.  “Facts need testimony to be remembered and trustworthy witnesses to be established in order to find a secure dwelling place in the domain of human affairs.  From this, it follows that no factual statement can ever be beyond doubt.” Hence such generously distributed, and acceptable notions, as the £350m figure.

Whatever might have been busying the mind of District Judge Margot Coleman, she was sufficiently persuaded by Ball’s daring suggestion to take the matter further. In a written decision published on Wednesday, the judge ordered Johnson to attend Westminster Magistrate’s Court at a date not yet specified.  There, a decision will be made to assess whether the case has sufficiently nimble legs to get to the crown court.  “Having considered all the relevant factors, I am satisfied that this is a proper case to issue a summons as requested for the three offences [of misconduct in public office].”

Should the case against Johnson stick, it will ripple and trouble.  For private citizens to succeed in actions against politicians who lie would be astonishing, if not perplexing for practitioners of the political art.  Time to add Montaigne et al to the House of Commons reading list.

*

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

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]

On May 28, Kosovo Police’s Regional Operational Support Unit (ROSU) carried out mass raids in areas of compact settlement of ethnic Serbs in the northwestern part of the breakaway region. ROSU units, reportedly supported by over 70 vehicles, detained more than a dozen ethnic Serbs, mostly persons influential in the local community. Besides this, the ROSU briefly detained and beat a Russian member of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo.

The targeted area is 90 percent populated by Serbs, who refuse to be part of the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo.

ROSU actions faced resistance from the local population. According to the Kosovo side, at least two police officers were injured. Several media outlets also reported gunfire, but no details of the supposed live fire usage have appeared so far.

Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj justified the raids by claiming that they were a part of an “anti-smuggling and organized crime operation”. Serbia reacted to the escalation by putting its troops on full alert and publicly denouncing Pristina’s actions. On May 29, reports appeared that several units of the Serbian Army started deployment on the contact line.

During the Kosovo War in 1998-1999, NATO-backed Albanian forces, then known as the Kosovo Liberation Army, became known for mass crimes against the non-Albanian population. Ethnic Serbs, the majority of the population historically living in the area were forcefully displaced. The biggest remaining Serb community is located near the contact line between Kosovo and the area controlled by the Serbian government.

The Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the May 28 raids as provocation and said that Pristina’s main aim is “to intimidate and force out the non-Albanian population and forcibly establish control of the area.” The Russian side also pointed out that “perennial indulgence” given by the EU and the US is instigating Pristina’s aggressive actions.

The actions of the NATO-backed Kosovo administration and its forces consistently undermine de-escalation efforts and lead to the growth of tensions in the Balkans. For example, in December 2018, Kosovo’s Parliament overwhelmingly approved a decision to turn the Kosovo Security Force into fully-fledged armed forces. This decision was a flagrant violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 which allows only for multinational contingents under international control to be present on this territory. There is no guarantee that this force would not be used against the Serbian population. Another serious concern is that Kosovo remains a convenient area to recruit radicals returning from Syria and Iraq. According to reports, some of these radicals, even former ISIS members, are joining Kosovo forces.

The ongoing round of tensions put the Serbian government in a difficult situation. On the one hand, Serbia cannot ignore the actions of the NATO-backed Kosovo administration and needs to react at least symmetrically. On the other hand, the Serbian leadership understands that the US and NATO could use any direct actions by Serbia as a pretext for a new round of aggression against the country and its further dismantlement.

*

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

The U.S.Department of State is offering a grant of $75,000,000 to non-government-organizations to help it to further meddle in Syria.

The grant SFOP0005916 – Supporting Local Governance and Civil Society in Syria will go to “Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education”..

The task description is quite interesting as the NGOs which will eventually get the grant will have to commit to counter one of Syria’s military allies:

.

 

The above notice reads as follows:

The purpose of this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is to advance the following U.S. Government policy objectives in Syria:

• Ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and counter violent extremism, including other extremist groups in Syria;
• Achieve a political solution to the Syrian conflict under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254; and,
• End the presence of Iranian forces and proxies in Syria.

The Department of State’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Office of Assistance Coordination (NEA/AC) aims to advance these policy objectives by supporting the following assistance objectives:

• Strengthen responsive and credible governance and civil society entities to capably serve and represent communities liberated from ISIS.
• Advance a political solution to the Syrian conflict under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254; and,
• Counter extremism and disinformation perpetuated by Iranian forces, designated terrorist organizations, and other malign actors through support for local governance actors and civil society organizations.

The operational field for the grant is not only the Syrian northeast which U.S. troops currently occupy, but also the al-Qaeda infested Idleb governorate as well as all government controlled areas.

The related Funding Opportunity Description (available through the above link) does not explain what an NGO could do to advance the highlighted U.S. government goals.

Work on the three year project is supposed to start on January 1 2020. It must be applied for by August 2 2019.

*

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

South Africans voted overwhelmingly on May 8 for the ruling African National Congress (ANC), returning the party to government with a nearly 3-1 majority above the nearest runner up within the legislative structure.

Incumbent President Cyril Ramaphosa, a former trade union leader and co-founder of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), was sworn into office again on May 25 with thousands of cheering ANC members in attendance along with representatives of allied parties from across the continent and the world.

Since 1994 the party of former President Nelson Mandela has retained its position as the leading force in national politics.

Founded in 1912 as the South African Native National Congress, the ANC is the oldest liberation movement turned political party on the continent. With the country of 58 million people continuing to be the largest industrial state in Africa, the leading position of the ANC in any continent-wide reconstruction and development program is secured.

Results released by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) on the May 8 voting revealed that the ANC won 57.50% of the ballots cast. The closest party after the ANC was the Democratic Alliance (DA) which garnered 20.77% followed by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) gaining 10.77%.   There are 26.7 million registered voters in South Africa and 66 percent of the electorate turned out for the most recent election.

Although the ruling party achieved nearly five percent less votes than the previous national election in 2014 (62.15) its principal opposition within the National Assembly, the DA, also loss nearly two percent in the recent 2019 election, falling from 22.23% to 20.77%. The EFF gained four percentage points going from 6.35% in 2014 to 10.79%. Even with this increase by the EFF, it remains far behind both the ANC and DA in popular electoral support.

Other smaller parties such as the Inkhata Freedom (IFP), Freedom Front Plus (FFP) and the African Christian Democrats (ACDP) combined won less than three percent of the votes. The FFP, a far-right political party representing the minority Afrikaner population gained 1.48% over previous results in 2014.

The ANC also maintained its leadership in eight out of the nine provinces within South Africa. In the Western Cape, which has traditionally been dominated by the DA, saw the opposition party losing support from 59.38% to 55.45%. Although the DA will control the provincial legislative structures in the Western Cape, deep divisions and accusations of corruption has served to erode its support.

These results are reflective of the ongoing political support that the ANC has inside the country despite the myriad of economic and social problems plaguing the people. South Africa is challenged with the necessity of overcoming centuries of European encroachment beginning in the mid-17^th century.

Apartheid– the system of racial separation, economic exploitation and settler-colonialism–left the African people landless and without political representation. It would take a combined mass, worker and armed struggle to bring about the demise of the white minority rule resulting in the holding of the first non-racial democratic elections in 1994, bringing the ANC to power.

It was the repositioning of the party by President Ramaphosa who came into office in February 2018 after the resignation of former head-of-state and ANC leader Jacob Zuma amid allegations of corruption, which secured the party’s success in the latest poll. Zuma is facing potential prosecution.

However, no legal proceedings have taken place and Zuma maintains that he is not guilty of the allegations related to an arms deal which occurred many years ago prior to his ascendancy to the presidency. Recently Zuma filed a motion to dismiss the charges based upon lack of evidence.

Mandate for the Current Period

As South Africa faces monumental economic difficulties including an unemployment rate of 27%, a crumbling energy infrastructure which requires billions in investment and the imperative of land redistribution to correct the legacy of settler-colonialism, Ramaphosa must continue the mobilization of the people to tackle these issues. The economic crisis in South Africa is part and parcel of the broader regional and continental dependency within the world capitalist system.

The country must foster development strategies to cope with declining prices for export commodities in the mining, manufacturing and agricultural sectors. There are as well the deficiencies in the service sector where working and poor people have demonstrated against the lack of adequate transportation and educational facilities.

Ramaphosa in his inaugural address emphasized that:

“It is our shared will – and our shared responsibility – to build a society that knows neither privilege nor disadvantage. It is a society where those who have much are willing to share with those who have little. It is a society where every person, regardless of race or sex or circumstance, may experience the fundamental necessities of a decent, dignified life. Today, let us declare before the esteemed witnesses gathered here that such a South Africa is possible. Let us declare our shared determination that we shall end poverty in South Africa within a generation.” (See this)

A longtime pivotal ally of the ANC is the South African Communist Party (SACP). In conjuction with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the SACP campaigned alongside the ANC in the lead up to the May 8 elections.

In a statement issued by the SACP regarding the elections, the party said:

“As the working class, the overwhelming class majority, we need to unite and push radical structural transformation and ensure that the state implements it in order to address class inequalities, landlessness, unemployment, poverty, and social insecurity. It is crucial to widen democratization in all spheres of our society. Unless this is achieved particularly in the economy it will be difficult to address and ultimately resolve the consequences of capitalist exploitation of labor. The system must be rolled back successfully. Until then, our freedom will remain incomplete. The importance therefore of forging a progressive popular left front for the dual purpose of achieving the immediate interests and aims of the working class and securing its future cannot be overemphasized.” (See this)

Regional Dimensions of the ANC Mandate

South Africa is a leading force in the regional Southern African Development Community (SADC) which was formed in August 1992. SADC is designed to build greater cooperation between its 16 member-states which are Angola, Botswana, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

SADC Mauritius Summit

Considering the vast mineral, agricultural and energy resources in the SADC region, there is only one primary reason for its underdevelopment, which is imperialism. The SADC area remains the most politically stable within the continent where its organs related to defense, economic cooperation and integration meet on a regular basis setting guidelines and timetables for the implementation of resolutions passed at its annual summits.

The specter of climate change has come to the forefront of the SADC agenda in light of the devastating impact of cyclone Idai and Kenneth which caused tremendous damage in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe earlier in the year. Drought has been a major problem in the region affecting agricultural production and energy generation.

Examples set over the years by SADC portend much for the eventual unification of the African continent, a perquisite for its genuine development and sovereignty. As active participants in the African Union (AU), the lessons of the SADC region over the last three decades can make a monumental contribution to the enactment of the Agenda 2063, the AU program which seeks the creation of a single economic market, uniform currency, joint military commission and political integration. (See this)

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

All images in this article are from the author

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me.’” ― Philip K. Dick

Red pill or blue pill? You decide.

Twenty years after the Wachowskis’ iconic 1999 film, The Matrix, introduced us to a futuristic world in which humans exist in a computer-simulated non-reality powered by authoritarian machines—a world where the choice between existing in a denial-ridden virtual dream-state or facing up to the harsh, difficult realities of life comes down to a red pill or a blue pill—we stand at the precipice of a technologically-dominated matrix of our own making.

We are living the prequel to The Matrix with each passing day, falling further under the spell of technologically-driven virtual communities, virtual realities and virtual conveniences managed by artificially intelligent machines that are on a fast track to replacing us and eventually dominating every aspect of our lives.

Science fiction has become fact.

In The Matrix, computer programmer Thomas Anderson a.k.a. hacker Neo is wakened from a virtual slumber by Morpheus, a freedom fighter seeking to liberate humanity from a lifelong hibernation state imposed by hyper-advanced artificial intelligence machines that rely on humans as an organic power source. With their minds plugged into a perfectly crafted virtual reality, few humans ever realize they are living in a dream world.

Neo is given a choice: to wake up and join the resistance, or remain asleep and serve as fodder for the powers-that-be. “You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe,” Morpheus says to Neo in The Matrix. “You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

Most people opt for the red pill.

In our case, the red pill—a one-way ticket to a life sentence in an electronic concentration camp—has been honey-coated to hide the bitter aftertaste, sold to us in the name of expediency and delivered by way of blazingly fast Internet, cell phone signals that never drop a call, thermostats that keep us at the perfect temperature without our having to raise a finger, and entertainment that can be simultaneously streamed to our TVs, tablets and cell phones.

Yet we are not merely in thrall with these technologies that were intended to make our lives easier. We have become enslaved by them.

Look around you. Everywhere you turn, people are so addicted to their internet-connected screen devices—smart phones, tablets, computers, televisions—that they can go for hours at a time submerged in a virtual world where human interaction is filtered through the medium of technology.

This is not freedom.

This is not even progress.

This is technological tyranny and iron-fisted control delivered by way of the surveillance state, corporate giants such as Google and Facebook, and government spy agencies such as the National Security Agency.

We are living in a virtual world carefully crafted to resemble a representative government, while in reality we are little more than slaves in thrall to an authoritarian regime, with its constant surveillance, manufactured media spectacles, secret courts, inverted justice, and violent repression of dissent.

So consumed are we with availing ourselves of all the latest technologies that we have spared barely a thought for the ramifications of our heedless, headlong stumble towards a world in which our abject reliance on internet-connected gadgets and gizmos is grooming us for a future in which freedom is an illusion.

It’s not just freedom that hangs in the balance. Humanity itself is on the line.

Indeed, while most people are busily taking selfies, Google has been busily partnering with the NSA, the Pentagon, and other governmental agencies to develop a new “human” species.

Essentially, Google—a neural network that approximates a global brain—is fusing with the human mind in a phenomenon that is called “singularity.” Google will know the answer to your question before you have asked it, said transhumanist scientist Ray Kurzweil. “It will have read every email you will ever have written, every document, every idle thought you’ve ever tapped into a search-engine box. It will know you better than your intimate partner does. Better, perhaps, than even yourself.”

But here’s the catch: the NSA and all other government agencies will also know you better than yourself. As William Binney, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever emerge from the NSA said, “The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.”

Cue the dawning of the Age of the Internet of Things, in which internet-connected “things” will monitor your home, your health and your habits in order to keep your pantry stocked, your utilities regulated and your life under control and relatively worry-free.

The key word here is control.

In the not-too-distant future, “just about every device you have — and even products like chairs, that you don’t normally expect to see technology in — will be connected and talking to each other.”

By 2020, there will be 152 million cars connected to the Internet and 100 million Internet-connected bulbs and lamps. By 2021, it is estimated there will be 240 million wearable devices such as smartwatches, keeping users connected it real time to their phones, emails, text messages and the Internet. By 2022, there will be 1.1 billion smart meters installed in homes, reporting real-time usage to utility companies and other interested parties.

This “connected” industry—estimated to add more than $14 trillion to the economy by 2020—is about to be the next big thing in terms of societal transformations, right up there with the Industrial Revolution, a watershed moment in technology and culture.

Between driverless cars that completely lacking a steering wheel, accelerator, or brake pedal and smart pills embedded with computer chips, sensors, cameras and robots, we are poised to outpace the imaginations of science fiction writers such as Philip K. Dick and Isaac Asimov. (By the way, there is no such thing as a driverless car. Someone or something will be driving, but it won’t be you.)

The aim of these internet-connected devices, as Nest proclaims, is to make “your house a more thoughtful and conscious home.” For example, your car can signal ahead that you’re on your way home, while Hue lights can flash on and off to get your attention if Nest Protect senses something’s wrong. Your coffeemaker, relying on data from fitness and sleep sensors, will brew a stronger pot of coffee for you if you’ve had a restless night.

Internet-connected techno gadgets as smart light bulbs can discourage burglars by making your house look occupied, smart thermostats will regulate the temperature of your home based on your activities, and smart doorbells will let you see who is at your front door without leaving the comfort of your couch.

Nest, Google’s $3 billion acquisition, has been at the forefront of the “connected” industry, with such technologically savvy conveniences as a smart lock that tells your thermostat who is home, what temperatures they like, and when your home is unoccupied; a home phone service system that interacts with your connected devices to “learn when you come and go” and alert you if your kids don’t come home; and a sleep system that will monitor when you fall asleep, when you wake up, and keep the house noises and temperature in a sleep-conducive state.

It’s not just our homes that are being reordered and reimagined in this connected age: it’s our workplaces, our health systems, our government and our very bodies that are being plugged into a matrix over which we have no real control.

Moreover, given the speed and trajectory at which these technologies are developing, it won’t be long before these devices are operating entirely independent of their human creators, which poses a whole new set of worries.

As technology expert Nicholas Carr notes,

“As soon as you allow robots, or software programs, to act freely in the world, they’re going to run up against ethically fraught situations and face hard choices that can’t be resolved through statistical models. That will be true of self-driving cars, self-flying drones, and battlefield robots, just as it’s already true, on a lesser scale, with automated vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers.”

For instance, just as the robotic vacuum, Roomba, “makes no distinction between a dust bunny and an insect,” weaponized drones will be incapable of distinguishing between a fleeing criminal and someone merely jogging down a street.

For that matter, how do you defend yourself against a robotic cop—such as the Atlas android being developed by the Pentagon—that has been programmed to respond to any perceived threat with violence?

Unfortunately, in our race to the future, we have failed to consider what such dependence on technology might mean for our humanity, not to mention our freedoms.

Ingestible or implantable chips are a good example of how unprepared we are, morally and otherwise, to navigate this uncharted terrain. Hailed as revolutionary for their ability to access, analyze and manipulate your body from the inside, these smart pills can remind you to take your medication, search for cancer, and even send an alert to your doctor warning of an impending heart attack.

Sure, the technology could save lives, but is that all we need to know? Have we done our due diligence in dealing with the ramifications of giving the government and its cronies access to such intrusive programs? For example, asks reporter Ariana Eunjung Cha, “How will patients be assured that the technology won’t be used to compel them to take medications they don’t really want to take? Could what started as a voluntary experiment be turned into a compulsory government identification program that could erode civil liberties?”

Let me put it another way.

If you were shocked by Edward Snowden’s revelations about how NSA agents have used surveillance to spy on Americans’ phone calls, emails and text messages, can you imagine what unscrupulous government agents could do with access to your internet-connected car, home and medications?

All of those internet-connected gadgets we just have to have (Forbes refers to them as “(data) pipelines to our intimate bodily processes”)—the smart watches that can monitor our blood pressure and the smart phones that let us pay for purchases with our fingerprints and iris scans—are setting us up for a brave new world where there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Imagine what a SWAT team could do with the ability to access, monitor and control your internet-connected home: locking you in, turning off the lights, activating alarms, etc.

Thus far, the public response to concerns about government surveillance has amounted to a collective shrug.

After all, who cares if the government can track your whereabouts on your GPS-enabled device so long as it helps you find the fastest route from Point A to Point B? Who cares if the NSA is listening in on your phone calls and downloading your emails so long as you can get your phone calls and emails on the go and get lightning fast Internet on the fly? Who cares if the government can monitor your activities in your home by tapping into your internet-connected devices—thermostat, water, lights—so long as you can control those things with the flick of a finger, whether you’re across the house or across the country?

It’s hard to truly appreciate the intangible menace of technology-enabled government surveillance in the face of the all-too-tangible menace of police shootings of unarmed citizens, SWAT team raids, and government violence and corruption.

However, both dangers are just as lethal to our freedoms if left unchecked.

Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business is monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in virtually every way by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

Whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, will be listening in and tracking your behavior.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

In other words, there is no form of digital communication that the government cannot and does not monitor: phone calls, emails, text messages, tweets, Facebook posts, internet video chats, etc., are all accessible, trackable and downloadable by federal agents.

The government and its corporate partners-in-crime have been bypassing the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions for so long that this constitutional bulwark against warrantless searches and seizures has largely been rendered antiquated and irrelevant.

We are now in the final stage of the transition from a police state to a surveillance state.

Having already transformed local police into extensions of the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are in the process of turning the nation’s police officers into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone Stingray devices and so much more.

Add in the fusion centers and real-time crime centers, city-wide surveillance networks, data clouds conveniently hosted overseas by Amazon and Microsoft, drones equipped with thermal imaging cameras, and biometric databases, and you’ve got the makings of a world in which “privacy” is reserved exclusively for government agencies.

In other words, the surveillance state that came into being with the 9/11 attacks is alive and well and kicking privacy to shreds in America. Having been persuaded to trade freedom for a phantom promise of security, Americans now find themselves imprisoned in a virtual cage of cameras, wiretaps, sensors and watchful government eyes.

Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people.

And of course that doesn’t even begin to touch on the complicity of the corporate sector, which buys and sells us from cradle to grave, until we have no more data left to mine. Indeed, Facebook, Amazon and Google are among the government’s closest competitors when it comes to carrying out surveillance on Americans, monitoring the content of your emails, tracking your purchases and exploiting your social media posts.

“Few consumers understand what data are being shared, with whom, or how the information is being used,” reports the Los Angeles Times. “Most Americans emit a stream of personal digital exhaust — what they search for, what they buy, who they communicate with, where they are — that is captured and exploited in a largely unregulated fashion.”

It’s not just what we say, where we go and what we buy that is being tracked.

We’re being surveilled right down to our genes, thanks to a potent combination of hardware, software and data collection that scans our biometrics—our faces, irises, voices, genetics, even our gait—runs them through computer programs that can break the data down into unique “identifiers,” and then offers them up to the government and its corporate allies for their respective uses.

For instance, imagine what the NSA could do (and is likely already doing) with voiceprint technology, which has been likened to a fingerprint. Described as “the next frontline in the battle against overweening public surveillance,” the collection of voiceprints is a booming industry for governments and businesses alike. As The Guardian reports,

“voice biometrics could be used to pinpoint the location of individuals. There is already discussion about placing voice sensors in public spaces, and … multiple sensors could be triangulated to identify individuals and specify their location within very small areas.”

The NSA is merely one small part of a shadowy permanent government comprised of unelected bureaucrats who march in lockstep with profit-driven corporations that actually runs Washington, DC, and works to keep us under surveillance and, thus, under control. For example, Google openly works with the NSA, Amazon has built a massive $600 million intelligence database for CIA, and the telecommunications industry is making a fat profit by spying on us for the government.

In other words, Corporate America is making a hefty profit by aiding and abetting the government in its domestic surveillance efforts.

Control is the key here.

Total control over every aspect of our lives, right down to our inner thoughts, is the objective of any totalitarian regime.

George Orwell understood this. His masterpiece, 1984, portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. And people are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother, who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.”

Make no mistake: the Internet of Things is just Big Brother in a more appealing disguise.

Now there are still those who insist that they have nothing to hide from the surveillance state and nothing to fear from the police state because they have done nothing wrong. To those sanctimonious few, secure in their delusions, let this be a warning: the danger posed by the American police state applies equally to all of us, lawbreaker and law-abider alike.

In an age of too many laws, too many prisons, too many government spies, and too many corporations eager to make a fast buck at the expense of the American taxpayer, there is no safe place and no watertight alibi.

We are all guilty of some transgression or other.

Eventually, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we will all be made to suffer the same consequences in the electronic concentration camp that surrounds us.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Globes English

The 67^th Bilderberg Meeting is taking place in Montreux, Switzerland from 30 May – 2 June 2019, where the about 130 invitees – so far confirmed – from 23 countries, are staying at one of Switzerland’s most luxurious venues, the Montreux Palace hotel. About a quarter of the attendees are women.

The Bilderberg meetings started at the onset of the Cold War, as a discussion club of American and European leaders, a fortification against communism, in clear text, against the Soviet Union. The first event took place in 1954 at the Bilderberg hotel in the Dutch town of Oosterbeek. Ever since, meetings of the Bilderberg Group were held annually, in different locations in the western world, most of them, though, in North America.

It’s not a coincidence that the Bilderbergers meet in Switzerland. Switzerland is one of the Group’s favored host country outside the US. Switzerland hosted their gatherings at least five times before this upcoming Montreux event (1960 – Palace Hotel, Bürgenstock; 1970 – Grand Hotel Quellenhof, Bad Ragaz, St. Gallen; 1981 – Palace Hotel, Bürgenstock; 1995 – Palace Hotel, Bürgenstock; 2011 – Suvretta House, St. Moritz).

The conferences of the Bilderbergers are the most secretive events, managed by those who pull the strings behind world leaders – politicians, corporate CEOs, big finance, and other business execs – artists, and the who-is-who of the world elite. And we are talking of the western world. Other than about ten attendees from Turkey, Poland, Bulgaria and Estonia, participants are North Americans or Europeans. The rest of the world doesn’t count.

The Bilderbergers are strictly a western dominion. The farthest east they go is Turkey. It’s like the carrot to Erdogan, hoping to draw NATO Turkey back into the camp of the west. But how much longer? – Turkey, forever wavering between east and west, has more than one leg already in the east – eyeing entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – not exactly the eastern version of the Bilderbergers, because the SCO is an open forum for economic development policies and defense strategies, no secrets, no manipulation western style.

This year’s Bilderberg meeting will be chaired by Henri Castries, France,Chairman of the Paris-based Institut Montaigne, a non-profit thinktank working on public policy and social cohesion. Other prominent attendees include Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, and the driving force of these events and protégé of Rockefeller’s, former US Secretary of State (and war criminal), Henry Kissinger; France’s Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire; Mark Rutte, Dutch Prime Minister, from the far-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy; Ursula von der Leyen, Germany’s Defense Minister from the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU); – and, perhaps most noteworthy, Jared Kushner, personal advisor and son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, and intimate friend of Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

This means that Israel will be represented at the highest level. From Switzerland attending will be – among others – the current President, Ueli Maurer, who, it is rumored, will hold behind closed-doors talks with Mike Pompeo about Iran whom Switzerland is representing vis-à-vis Washington. The Presence of Kushner, Pompeo, secretive Iran talks – smells a rat.

The Bilderbergers are associated and its members are overlapping with those of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission and the London-based Chatham House which makes the rules for the meetings – and let’s not forget, the World Economic Forum, the infamous WEF that takes place every January in Davos, Switzerland. The WEF represents a relatively transparent window to the world, with, of course, also its secret, behind closed doors meetings, whereas the Bilderbergers are an all-round secret organization. The Bilderberg meetings – so they say – are informal talks, allowing the participants to freely use the information they receive. But they are not allowed to reveal the identity or the affiliation of the speakers, nor of any participant in the particular talks.

Switzerland, one of the most secretive countries in the world – the world of banking, the world of big finance, safe haven for international corporations which not only get away with low taxes, but also escape standards of ethics they otherwise may have to apply doing business, exploiting natural resources, in developing countries. They are privileged, just by being domiciled in Switzerland. The Helvetic Confederacy is a country run by the fiefs of western money, of the western FED-directed and debt-based pyramid monetary system, a Ponzi scheme that has survived for the last hundred years – led by the Rothschild banking clan an Co.

They are closely associated and control the western banking system’s gold bunker, the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) in Basle, also called the central bank of central banks. The BIS is intimately linked to Swiss finance. The BIS, located conveniently close to the German border, has also served as intermediary for the FED to finance Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union.

What better place for the Bilderbergers to concoct – not to say conspire – their vision of the world’s future?

It is no coincidence that Switzerland was spared from the destruction of both WWs. It’s the only OECD country, where laws are made directly by big-finance and big-business, i.e. where parliamentarians are sitting on the Boards of Directors of corporations and financial institutions, while making the laws for the people, a country where basic business and corporate ethics get short-shrifted and are overruled by flagrant conflicts of interest, a country where a white collar interest group makes the laws that suit big capital. Again, what better place for the Bilderbergers to meet?

Switzerland has become the epicenter of neoliberalism over the past 30 years or so – and is ideal for the behind the scene discussions and agreements, visions of New World Order strategies. The first item in this year’s Bilderberg meeting’s agenda is “A Stable Strategic Order”, a euphemism for One World Order or New World Order.

Other official agenda items include “The Future of Capitalism”, “Russia”, “China”, “Weaponizing Social Media”, “BREXIT”, “What’s Next for Europe”; “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” – and of course, not to be missed in conferences of such importance, “Climate Change”. – Imagine, with such a benign agenda, what will take place behind closed doors?

One of the permanent agenda items which is close to Rockefeller’s heart, the current thriving force behind the Bilderbergers, and is being propagated, by his disciple, Henry Kissinger, is the reduction of world population – so that the few on top may live better and longer with the world’s rapidly diminishing resources.

So – what are not agenda items, but might certainly enter the realm of population reduction, are, permanent “wars on terror” – that justify mass killings and the related horrendous, never-spoken about quantities CO2 and other greenhouse gases they emit; 5G (the 5^th Generation of deadly radiation) to facilitate our communication, meaning more effective surveillance, imposed artificial intelligence (AI), more efficient digitalization of money – and likely though delayed, but exponentially increasing cancer rates; Bayer-Monsanto’s poisonous GMOs and glyphosate products; artificially planted deadly epidemics, like Ebola; the US Air Force’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program(HAARP) for weaponizing climate change, bringing about famine and misery by droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other climatic calamities – and probably much more.

This is of course, only speculation, being deducted from the Master Goal of the Bilderbergers, i.e. population reduction.

But perhaps I’m totally wrong.

As everything is secret and most likely nothing of the behind the scene talks and decisions will penetrate into the media, only hear-say and, of course, conspiracy theories, it is well possible that the Bilderbergers are what they propagate to be – a peaceful, dialogue seeking group of people, who is committed to the values of democracy and freedom – and entrepreneurship.

And – hear-hear! – “Talking about the future of capitalism does not mean that we consider it to be the only possible system,” as organizer André Kudelski told the Swiss newspaper 24 Heures.

In that he is right. Capitalism is not the only viable system. In fact, it is THE system that is NOT viable, as it spreads injustice, inequality, crime and misery around the globe and, therefore, is certainly not sustainable. Yes, Bilderbergers, start thinking of an alternative, one that brings social justice, inclusion, equal opportunities and spreads wealth more evenly around the globe – one that brings PEACE, so that we all may live well, not wealthy, but well.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21^st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

This article was originally published in April 2017.

In the midst of complaining about the Islamist threat to Israel and the world, Bibi Netanyahu conveniently forgets that his own country enjoys a tacit alliance with ISIS in Syria.  It is an alliance of convenience to be sure and one that’s not boasted about by either party.  But is not terribly different from one than Israel enjoys with its other Muslim allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Bogie Yaalon served as defence minister in the current Israeli government till he had a falling out with Netanyahu in May 2016.  Now Yaalon plans to form his own party and run against his former boss.  Unfortunately for him, he’s not polling well and doesn’t appear to be much of a political threat.

So Yaalon enjoys the position of having little to lose.  He can speak more candidly than the average politician.  In this context, he spoke at length on security matters at a public event in Afula.  There is always much that I disagree with whenever I read Yaalon’s views.  For example, while warning in this video about the danger of favoring too heavily one side over the other in Syria, he essentially justifies Israel’s interventionist approach.  It largely has favored Assad’s Islamist opponents.  Nor do I much like, in another context, Yaalon’s choice of political allies–from Islamophobe blogger Pam Geller to Meir Kahane’s grandson.

But he did reveal Israel’s ties to ISIS in Syria. I’ve documented, along with other journalists, Israeli collaboration with al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaeda.  But no Israeli till now has admitted it has collaborated with ISIS as well.  Below Yaalon implicitly confirms this:

…Within Syria there are many factions: the regime, Iran, the Russians, and even al-Qaeda and ISIS.  In such circumstances, one must develop a responsible, carefully-balanced policy by which you protect your own interests on the one hand, and on the other hand you don’t intervene.  Because if Israel does intervene on behalf of one side, it will serve the interests of the other; which is why we’ve established red lines.  Anyone who violates our sovereignty will immediately feel the full weight of our power.  On most occasions, firing comes from regions under the control of the regime.  But once the firing came from ISIS positions–and it immediately apologized.

The attack he refers to was reported in Israeli media.  But ISIS’ apology was not.  It was suppressed most certainly because an ISIS’ apology would embarrass both Israel and the Islamists as it has now.

Some critics claim that an ISIS apology doesn’t signify an alliance or serious collaboration between the Islamist group and Israel.  To which I reply–when you bomb an ally you apologize.  When you bomb an enemy–you don’t.  What does that make ISIS to Israel? Further, when was the last time an Islsmist terror group  apologized for for firing bullets at Jews or Israelis?

UPDATE: RT reports that the specific incident involved the ISIS Shuhada al-Yarmouk “cell,” which had taken over a former UN observation post on the border.  The IDF Golani brigade which patrolled that sector believed this could signify an aggressive posture by ISIS which might threaten Israeli territory.  So the commander ordered a unit into the area, within Syrian territory, in order ambush the ISIS detachment.  When armed Islamists appeared to be moving in the direction of the border, the Golani troops opened fire.  In the ensuing battle, eight of the Islamists were killed.  The fact that the group later apologized to Israel indicates to me that the al-Yarmouk detachment had violated an understanding worked out by the two sides.

Mako is the first Hebrew-language news outlet to grasp the import of Yaalon’s statement, though it typically, for security-obsessed Israel, allowed for the fact it may’ve been a “slip of the tongue.”  When Mako asked for Yaalon to clarify his statement, he declined.  This is a further indication of the veracity of my reporting here.

Returning to ISIS, this is the same group which beheaded a Jewish-American who’d lived in Israel: Steven Sotloff.  The same ISIS which raped Yazidi women and threw gay men off buildings.  The same ISIS which has rampaged through the Middle East sowing havoc and rivers of blood wherever it goes.  The same ISIS which Netanyahu routinely excoriates as being the root of all evil in the world.  Like here, for example:

“Iran and the Islamic State want to destroy us, and a hatred for Jews is being directed towards the Jewish state today,” said Netanyahu, adding, “those who threaten to destroy us risk being destroyed themselves.”

It’s common knowledge that Israeli foreign policy going back to the days of Ben Gurion has been exceedingly opportunistic and amoral as exemplified in this infamous statement:

”Were I to know that all German Jewish children could be rescued by transferring them to England and only half by transfer to Palestine, I would opt for the latter, because our concern is not only the personal interest of these children, but the historic interest of the Jewish people.”

So I suppose one shouldn’t be surprised at this new development.  But still it does momentarily take one’s breath away to contemplate just how brutally cynical Israel’s motives and choices can often be.

*

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

Featured image is from Tikun Olam

Serbian President Vucic has had a lot of difficulty getting his people to support his efforts to “recognize” the breakaway NATO-occupied Province of Kosovo as “independent”, yet just a day after he told parliament that “we need to recognize that we have been defeated” and “we lost the territory”, the region’s special forces carried out a brazen provocation in the Serb-populated northern area and suspiciously proved his point.

Continuing The Ethnic Cleansing Campaign

War drums were beating once again in the Balkans on Tuesday (or so the Mainstream and Alternative Medias wanted people to think) after the Albanian self-professed “authorities” in the breakaway NATO-occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo carried out a brazen provocation in the Serb-populated northern frontier that Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova described as an “effort to intimidate and force out the non-Albanian population and forcibly establish control over the area”.

Deutsche Welle, screenshot, December 30, 2018

Heavily armed special forces arrested over a dozen Serbs on the pretext that they were supposedly involved in “organized crime” and even briefly detained a Russian national working for the UN Mission in Kosovo before releasing him, with the entire event showing that the “authorities” there are capable of acting with impunity despite officially being barred from carrying out those types of raids in that part of the region. Belgrade naturally condemned the incident and even dramatically put its troops on combat alert, though few believed that this stunt was sincere and that a liberation campaign was imminent, especially after what President Vucic told parliament just the day before.

Did Vucic Blow A Dog Whistle?

The Serbian leader is known for his extreme Europhilia and willingness to do whatever is necessary in order for his country to join the EU, which requires “normalizing” ties with Kosovo on the de-facto level of state-to-state relations that his critics fear would then eventually become de-jure with time. He’s faced vehement resistance to his efforts to comply with Brussels’ demands, which is why he boldly told elected officials the following on Monday:

“We need to recognize that we have been defeated…We lost the territory. I did not opt to continue with lies and deceit. I have told everyone: There is no Serbian (visible) authority in Kosovo except in hospitals and schools…We have two options – to normalize relations by reaching an agreement or to maintain a frozen conflict…We will ask people to say what they think about a possible compromise solution in a referendum.”

Right on time as if to confirm his claim about how Kosovo is lost, the Albanians carried out their provocation less than 24 hours afterwards, which seems to have been preplanned given its scale and audacity but nevertheless might have been pushed forward after Vucic’s (deliberate or unintentional) dog whistle, thus raising suspicions about what’s really going on. It can’t be proven that he coordinated this with Pristina, but that still won’t stop some people in the opposition from speculating that he did.

The “New Balkans”

Regardless of whether it was just a coincidence that the Albanians ordered their raid when they did or if there might be something more to the story that initially meets the eye, the bigger picture is that the Balkans are on the brink of yet another “Balkanization” after former British diplomat Timothy Less’ plan to partition the region along ethno-religious lines is gaining traction among all Great Powers, Russia included. That’s not to say that Russia necessarily thinks that this is the best solution, but just that it’s pretty much powerless to alter the course of events and might therefore have resigned itself to “going with the flow” in the hopes of guiding this process in the direction of its interests as much as is realistically possible, as explained in the author’s earlier piece this year about how “Russia’s Recognition Of ‘North Macedonia’ Is Part Of The ‘New Balkans’ Plan“. The Albanians are obviously eager to accelerate this process, but acting as aggressively as they did on Tuesday might actually make it more domestically difficult for Vucic to go along with their plan.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

A report based on morbidity data from Henry Ford Hospital and the Detroit Health Department from 2012 to 2017 tracked the trends between waterborne illnesses and year. The drastic increase in levels of waterborne diseases showed links between the lack of household water and access to sanitation caused by repeated water service interruptions and the risk of waterborne illness.

In 2017, the City of Detroit alone faced 171 cases of hepatitis A. This was more than all the rest of Wayne County with 142 cases, and topped any other county in Michigan. In total, over 500 cases were reported statewide in 2017, including 25 deaths.

Contamination worsens

After Detroit’s major flood spells, namely the devastating flood of August 11, 2014, which caused at least $1 billion in damage, residents waited years for compensation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), if they received it at all. When FEMA assistance was received, it often barely amounted to a third of total damages. Floods in subsequent years continued to damage Detroiters’ homes. Despite one district 4 resident’s own costs, amounting in the “tens of thousands,” the homeowner received far less than the average compensation amount of $4,000. Many homeowners sustained tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.

“Anything happens at my house, I have to pay out of pocket — and it usually is a large expense. Next summer, it’s like I just want to fill up the basement with concrete and not have a basement anymore.”

Meanwhile, toxic mold and fecal contamination of homes continues to go untreated, compounding the public health issues caused by shutoffs and home demolitions. Michele, a small business owner and urban gardener from the Jefferson-Chalmers neighborhood, described great concern dealing with a basement that “floods so much, I have to be concerned with mold.”

The issue started for her and many others she knows following the great rainstorms in 2014. She affirms the problem is only spreading, telling this reporter,

“Not only are people’s basements being flooded, but their streets are being flooded in areas where they never had it.”

Yet few in her East Side Detroit neighborhood, characterized by a high degree of home abandonment and situating a long-closed down school, are immune from shut offs and floods. Many of the young woman’s neighbors are elderly homeowners, unfortunately representing a high proportion of long time residents most negatively affected by the city’s history of economic tumult.

Elderly Detroiters Especially At Risk

Seniors are particularly burdened with the consequences of Detroit’s water woes. Detroit’s seniors represent a high proportion of homeowners in the city, and also tend to be much poorer, more likely to be disabled, and the caretaker of grandchildren or other extended family members in comparison to seniors nationwide.

In addition to the financial costs of Detroit’s infrastructure woes, elderly Detroiters, seniors are more at risk when fixed incomes and rising maintenance and utility costs wrap them in a tighter bind.

In addition to water shut offs, recurrent flooding has further endangered seniors’ health and wellbeing. Given the effects of major neighborhood floods, namely the summer floods of 2014 and 2016, seniors were especially neglected and/or undersupported.

Seniors cleaning up toxins, suffering from breathing ailments, and suffering from shut off water have been the unsettling theme of myriad reports since 2014.

A recent study, analyzing the reports of a number of Detroit seniors, confirmed the gravity of the consequences of this neglect.

In the study, an East side woman recounted futile attempts at receiving clean up assistance, despite the presence of black mold:

“I still do have some black mold left,” she said in a 2017 interview. “And then I had to find someone to clean up the black mold, and that’s another problem. Who cleans up black mold? I got in touch with [volunteers]  in 2014. I still haven’t had any help from them.”

Another resident, arguing that the city “hasn’t cleaned the first mess up,” before a subsequent major flood added another crisis in junction to a first one. Calling for long sought after city assistance in supporting his elderly neighbors, his sentiments echoed those of another elderly Detroiter on the city’s Northeasternmost side

I have people that can’t go anywhere…can’t leave their house,” he said. “[At least] I am the fortunate one because I have somewhere else to go to.”

Human toll of mass shutoffs

The mass water shutoffs, and later, the heaviest instances of Detroit neighborhood flooding began as the emergency manager sought to privatize or regionalize the water system as part of the 2013 Detroit bankruptcy. Since the bankruptcy, recurring flooding and drainage fees have compounded the issues of water shutoffs, expenses that comprise the bulk of rate increases. These drainage fees, newly tacked onto Detroiters’ already high water bills in July 2017, were allegedly to help “pay for sewage infrastructure,” facilities that, according to the city, would “reduce street flooding and basement backups.”

A significant reason for the increasing costs is the outdated combined sewage overflow system that mixes runoff and wastewater in large CSO reservoirs that overflow into the rivers when the system is turgid. During the 2014 storm, 10 billion gallons of sewage went into the river system. This design flaw caused a federal takeover via the 1977 Clean Water Act, with the mandate’s enforcement used to justify the tacked-on drainage fee.

Yet the drainage fees, which are separate from the rest of the bill, make up a disproportionately large addition to already over-inflated water bills. Urban farms, gardens and homes have still been affected by the fees, despite diverting water away from sewer systems, as proposed green infrastructure plans claim to do.

These fees ultimately represent an illegal charge on Detroit residents.

Public health crisis in effect

Because of limited access to water, as well as exposure to flooding, the issues with water and infrastructure caused by austerity in Detroit have led to a public health crisis similar to what was seen in Flint.

A study by the We the People of Detroit Community Research Collective and Henry Ford Health System documented that since 2015, the rate of water-borne contamination in Detroit has skyrocketed, with cases of campylobacter, shigellosis, giardiasis and other gastrointestinal infections seeing a drastic increase in 2016 and 2017, the highest rates observed since 2012.

The study documented a clear and positive relationship between the water shutoffs and waterborne diseases, with patients in Detroit suffering from waterborne diseases 1.48 times more likely to be living on a block where water shutoffs have occurred. The report, citing research from an April 2017 study by the Henry Ford Global Health Initiative, coincided with earlier findings that had projected a 1.55 times greater likelihood of diagnosis of a water-related illness for neighborhoods that have faced shutoffs. The report, citing the American Public Health Association, highlighted that shigellosis deaths occur in the greatest frequency among children–yet the disease, at best producing no major, chronic problems in healthy adults, will also manifest its symptoms more severely in seniors as well.

A number of community groups in Detroit, such as We the People and Detroit Jews for Justice-have mobilized community support and neighborhood assistance to seniors suffering from the effects of water austerity. Yet their patronage reveals a concerning gap of social support and service provision from municipal agencies, whose failure to respond to the needs of their poorest, yet most loyal residents in a city with one of the highest rates of poverty for both families and seniors.

*

This article was written with support by a fellowship from New America Media, the Gerontological Society of America and AARP.

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 president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, on Monday announced that ten boats with gasoline heading to the South American country were the object of sabotage, as part of the “persecution” resulting from the sanctions imposed by the US, against the Caribbean nation.

“The boat that brought gasoline last week, ten ships sabotaged us so that it did not reach the Venezuelan coasts,” Maduro said at a meeting with the political leadership of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) in Caracas .

Despite the incident, the South American president said that the problem with the ships “is in the process of being resolved”.

Boats with CLAP

The head of state also revealed the sabotage to the boats that brought food for the program of products with subsidized prices, known as CLAP (acronym of Local Committees for Supply and Production).

“The boats brought by the CLAP were sabotaged and did not leave the ports where they were going to leave,” he said.

Last Thursday, the Bolivarian leader guaranteed to the population of the South American country the continuity of CLAP, despite US threats to sanction the officials involved in the plan.

“Do whatever you want to do, Venezuela will continue with the CLAP, which stings and extends from the hand of the people, from the national production,” he said.

The president’s announcement came after the US envoy for Venezuela, Elliot Abrams, indicated that the US prepares new sanctions against Venezuelan officials who allegedly profited from CLAP.

Meeting this Monday with the PSUV political high command, Maduro said that these actions against Venezuela are part of the financial blockade promoted by Washington, which includes the withholding of resources in international banks to make it impossible to purchase medicines, supplies and food for the population.

“It is a torture to the economic body of the country,” he added.

*

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 Maritime Herald

This stage-managed drama is all about selling more arms to America’s Gulf allies in an attempt to undercut the strategic gains that Russia and China’s “military diplomacy” have recently made

***

The entire world is wondering whether the US will go to war with Iran after Trump urgently dispatched 1,500 more troops to the Mideast, but there’s really nothing to worry about since this is just a marketing stunt for selling more arms to America’s Gulf allies. The entire so-called “crisis” was caused by vague intelligence that supposedly came from Israel warning about Iran’s allegedly secret deployment of missiles in the region.

It also comes on the tail end of the nuclear deal’s ultimate unraveling after the Islamic Republic declared that it’ll return to enriching uranium in response to the US refusing to renew its oil sanctions waiver for the country’s main energy partners. This contextual backdrop was made all the more dramatic after the US accused Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of being behind the shadowy sabotage of oil tankers in the UAE earlier this month, sparking fears that this was either a false flag attack or a prelude to war.

The picture that was just painted is admittedly very concerning, but it’s nevertheless incomplete, and the full one should put most people’s fears to rest about the future. Hidden from plain sight is the fact that Russia and China’s exercise of “military diplomacy” over the past couple of years has been hugely successful in wooing the Gulf Kingdoms into purchasing their wares, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE (the world’s largest and seventh-largest arms customers according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) being foremost among them.

Saudi Arabia already bought so many state-of-the-art attack drones from China that it asked the People’s Republic to build a factory for them in the country. On top of that, Riyadh also purchased rocket launchers and other arms from Russia and is in talks with it for the S-400s too. As for the UAE, it’s officially been Russia’s strategic partner since last year and the two sides are naturally stepping up their military cooperation.

From an American strategic standpoint, this is extremely troublesome because its regional allies are becoming more independent in the military sphere, which will eventually translate to political and economic independence too with time. In order to avert the long-term scenario of “losing” the Gulf Kingdoms like could possibly happen if this trend is left unchecked, the US is resorting to a combination of anti-Iranian hysteria, its own “military diplomacy”, and sanctions threats.

Fearmongering about these countries’ prime nemesis is a surefire way to get their attention, after which Trump not only dispatched 1,500 troops in order to calm their false worries, but he even circumvented Congress in order to sell over $8 billion in arms to them that was being held up over concerns about their conduct in the War on Yemen. In case they still have a need for more weapons and consider purchasing them from Russia and/or China, they’ll soon have to contend with the threat of CAATSA sanctions after the promulgation of a new American policy for punishing those countries’ customers.

With this in mind, Trump’s latest decision to send more American troops to the region appears less like a purely military move and more like a marketing stunt to justify the arms sales that he just authorized without Congressional approval. He couldn’t have avoided intense criticism for this bold act of “military diplomacy” had there not been a supposedly urgent threat to explain it, ergo the drama that he stirred up about Iran.

While there are obvious reasons why intensifying military pressure on the Islamic Republic serves American interests, it can’t be overlooked that it also provided the pretext for executing this $8 billion arms sale that was really intended to undermine his country’s Russian and Chinese competitors. It’ll now be more difficult for them to profit off of this lucrative market and make strategic inroads into it after its largest customers’ military needs were mostly met. That’s not to say that there’s no future for their “military diplomacy” in this region, but just that it won’t be as easy to practice as it was before this sale was authorized.

In terms of the bigger picture, a very distinct pattern is now emerging whereby the US hypes up what it portrays as the “regional threats” from Russia, China, and Iran in order to get its allies to purchase more American arms, usually pairing these sales with some dramatic military deployments to its rivals’ part of the world in order to distract attention from these deals.

In none of these cases, however, does it seem that the US is seriously considering military action against any of those three potential targets, but is just chest-thumping in order to calm its allies’ false worries. By playing to its allies’ fears and manufacturing regional drama, the US is able to convince them to buy more of its arms instead of its rivals’, which serves the dual strategic purposes of undermining its competitors and preventing its partners from becoming too independent.

*

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 InfoRos.

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 InfoRos

There are few things in this world as divisive as Brexit, and few that are as uncertain as it too. Outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May made a major mess of what voters originally assumed would be a clear-cut process but which was later unnecessarily complicated by her in what some suspect was a deliberate ploy to sabotage it at the behest of her Brussels backers. Whether through sheer incompetence or possible subterfuge, May’s term in office is ending on a worrying note for Brexit, which might not even happen unless the country finally gets a leader bold enough to simply do what needs to be done and leave the EU without any deal at all.

In fact, the very idea of a deal being needed in the first place (the so-called “soft Brexit”) was never anything more than a ploy to keep the UK in the EU by excessively fearmongering about its alternative (the so-called “hard Brexit”) to the point that people finally decide to just give up on the Brexit dream and remain in the bloc. This outcome could be “legitimized” by holding a referendum on any prospective EU deal or even organizing another vote on Brexit itself after the public has been socially engineered for nearly the past three years to oppose what they originally wanted back in 2016.

That’s why it’s do or die for Brexit, with the UK’s next Prime Minister being the one who will either save it or kill it, and the current favorite to win the Conservatives’ upcoming leadership contest and assume that responsibility is none other than Boris Johnson. The outspoken politician is just as polarizing as Brexit itself, so there’s a sense that the stars are aligning in determining Brexit’s ultimate fate.

Boris said that he’ll ensure that Brexit succeeds with or without a deal, but the referendum’s mastermind Nigel Farage doubts that he’ll keep his word and wrote that he shouldn’t be trusted with overseeing such an important process. Still, it’s difficult at this point to imagine any other person replacing May at this point, so it’s all but certain that he’ll be the one to do so.

This raises the question of whether or not Farage is right since Boris might very well sell out to Brussels just like May did, though it’s interesting to note that the next possible Prime Minister has pro-Brexit Trump’s support and might therefore decide not to in the interests of strengthening ties with the US instead. In fact, if Boris reaches a trade deal with the US before the next Brexit deadline, he might be able to pass that off to the public as a suitable replacement for clinching one with the EU.

Analyzing this scenario even further, it must be said that it’s dependent on a specific sequence of events: Boris becoming the next Prime Minister, keeping his word about the UK leaving the EU by the next Brexit deadline, reaching trade and other deals with the US while failing to do so with the EU, and then executing his plan. There’s a lot that can happen in between each of these steps to prevent this outcome from materializing, but it nevertheless seems to be the “best-case” scenario that Brexit’s supporters can hope for.

Still, if Boris saves Brexit, then it might ultimately kill his political career if enough people have been socially engineered into opposing it by this point and decide to punish him by electing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn during the next national elections.

Once Brexit is a done deal, however, there isn’t going any going back, unless of course Boris agrees to a “soft Brexit” that doesn’t discount this possibility if Corbyn replaces him. It’s therefore of the utmost importance that Boris doesn’t sell out to Brussels otherwise Brexit might never happen at all and could even be reversed. In this historic moment of uncertainty, it’ll take real leadership to steer the country out of the abyss, and Boris wants the rest of the world to think that he’s the right person to tackle this herculean task.

*

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 InfoRos.

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.

“The internet was hardwired to be a surveillance tool from the start.  No matter what we use the network for today – dating, directions, encrypted chat, email, or just reading the news – it always had a dual-use nature rooted in intelligence gathering and war….[Surveillance Valleyshows] the ongoing overlap between the Internet and the military-industrial complex that spawned it a half century ago, and the close ties that exist between the US intelligence agencies and the antigovernment privacy movement that has sprung up in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks.” – Yasha Levine, Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet

“My Dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place.  If you wish to go anywhere, you must run twice as fast as that.” – Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Speed and panic go hand-in-hand in today’s fabricated world of engineered emergencies and digital alerts.  “We have no time” is today’s mantra – “We are running out of time” – and because this mood of urgency has come to grip most people’s minds, deep thinking about why this is so and who benefits is in short supply. I believe most people sense this to be true but don’t know how to extract themselves from the addictive nature of speed long enough to grasp how deeply they have been propagandized, and why.

A key turning point in the creation of this mood of an ongoing emergency and tense urgency was the naming of the attacks of September 11, 2001 as “9/11.”  “Quick, call 911” permeated deep into popular consciousness. The so-called “security” it elicited became a cloaked form of interminable terror.  The future editor of The New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced this emergency phone connection on the morning of September 12, 2001 in a New York Times op-ed piece, “America’s Emergency Line: 911.”  The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists.  His first sentence reads:

“An Israeli response to America’s aptly dated wake-up call might well be, ‘Now you know.’”

By referring to September 11 as 9/11, an endless national emergency became wedded to an endless war on terror aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another “ground zero” or holocaust.

Mentioning Israel (“America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world,” George W. Bush would tell the Israeli Knesset) so many times, Keller was not very subtly performing an act of legerdemain with multiple meanings.  By comparing the victims of the 11 September attacks to Israeli “victims,” he was implying, among other things, that the Israelis are innocent victims who are not involved in terrorism, but are terrorized by Palestinians, as Americans are terrorized by fanatical Muslims.

Palestinians/Al-Qaeda/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Syria versus Israel/United States.  Explicit and implicit parallels of the guilty and the innocent.  Keller tells us who the real killers are, as if he knew who was guilty and who was innocent.

His use of the term 9/11 pushes all the right buttons, evoking unending social fear and anxiety.  It is language as sorcery. It is propaganda at its best. Even well respected critics of the U.S. government’s explanation use this term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition. As George W. Bush would later put it, as he connected Saddam Hussein to “9/11” and pushed for the Iraq war, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”  All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended. Under Obama, it was Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Russia, and now Trump touts Iran as the great threat.  So many emergencies following fast upon each other are enough to make your head spin.

This sense of ongoing urgency and dread was joined to the fast growing (and getting faster by the day) internet and cell phone world that has come to dominate contemporary life.

Permanent busyness and speed – a state of on-edge nervousness and panic with digital alerts – are today’s norms.

The majority of people live “on” their phones with their constant beeps, and the digital media have fragmented our sense of time into perpetual presents that create historical amnesia and digital dementia.  In a so-called progressive world of consumer capitalism, the era of what the astute sociologist Zygmunt Bauman has called “liquid modernity,” time itself has become an online transaction, a liquid commodity that flows away faster than a scrolling screen.

We live in a use-by-date digital world in a state of suspended animation where “time is short” and we must hustle before our use-by date is past. The pace of private and public life has outrun most people’s ability to slow down long enough to realize a hidden hustler has taken them for a ride to Wonderland where the only wonder is that more people have not gone insane as they slip and slide away on the superhighway to nowhere.

John Berger, as only a sage artist would, noted this essential truth in his 1972 novel G.:

Every ruling minority needs to numb and, if possible, to kill the time sense of those whom it exploits. This is the authoritarian secret of all methods of imprisonment.

Today the vast majority of people, trapped by the manufactured illusion of speed, are in their cells, quickly texting and calling and checking to see if they’ve missed anything as time flies by.

Much is said about various types of environmental pollution, but the pollution of speed and its effects on mind and body are rarely mentioned, except to express gladness for more speed.  The rollout of 5G technology is a case in point. Mental and physical health concerns be damned.  Back in the 19^thcentury, when space and time were being first “conquered” by the camera, telegraph, and telephone, these inventions were described as flying machines.  Time flew, voices flew, images flew.  Soon the phonograph and film would capture and preserve the “living” voices and the moving images of the living and the dead. It was scientific spiritualism at its birth. Today’s comical research into downloading “consciousness” to conquer death by becoming machines is its latest manifestation.

That the clowns behind this speed culture are growing rich on this research at our elite universities that are funded by the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies doesn’t make people howl with sardonic laughter puzzles me.

Laughter’s good; it slows you down.  I just had a good laugh reading an article about scientists wondering why new research “suggests” that the universe may be a billion years younger than they thought.  I love their precision, don’t you?  My students, in their learned helplessness and desire to be told what to do, have often asked me how long their term papers should be, and when I tell them probably 37 1/2 words, they look at me with mouths agape.  What do you mean? one finally asks.  I tell them that writing 37 1/2 words is much faster than having to think slowly as you write, and when you have nothing left to say, to just stop.  A fast 37 1/2 words solves the thinking problem.  Maybe you can text me your paper, I often add, even though I don’t do texting.

On a more serious note, a lifelong student of speed (dromology), the brilliant French thinker Paul Virilio, has shown how speed and war have developed together and how totalitarianism is latent in technology. Few listen, just as they did not listen to Jacques Ellul, Lewis Mumford, Neil Postman, and others who warned of the direction technology was taking us. Nuclear weapons are the supreme technological “achievement,” of course, devices that can eliminate all space and time in a flash. They work fast.  Virilio says,

The speed of the new optoelectronic and electroacoustic milieu becomes the final void (the void of the quick), a vacuum that no longer depends on the interval between places or things and so on the world’s very extension, but on the interface of an instantaneous transmission of remote appearances, on a geographic and geometric retention in which all volume, all relief vanish.

As I write, I look down at my wristwatch lying on the desk and laugh.  My sister gave it to me after her husband died.  He had won it as a member of the Villanova track team that won the 4 man, 2-mile relay at the famous Coliseum Relays in Los Angeles in near world record time.  Young men whose bodies were in motion to move across terra firma as fast as possible. No drugs produced in a technological chemical factory to aid them. No gimmicks.  Just bodies in motion, unlike today.  It is an analog watch that must be wound every day when the sun rises.  But my brother-in-law never wound it because he never used it. He was saving it as a stashed-away memento in some sort of suspended time. I like it because it always runs a bit slow, unlike the Villanova flashes.  I like slow.

In a brilliant book written in 1999 before the hyper-speed era was fully underway – Speaking Into The Air: A History of the Idea of Communication – John Durham Peters, while not especially focusing on the issue of speed and technology as does Virilio, indirectly explores the fundamental issue that underlies technology and its control by the elites.  The problem with technology is that it is the use of a technique applied to physical things to control those who don’t control the machines. Today that is the Internet and digital technology, controlled by those Virilio calls “the global kinetic elites.” Many readers might remember the iconic line from the film Cool Hand Luke with Paul Newman: “What we have here is failure to communicate.”  That is our issue.  How to communicate, and to whom, and who controls our means and speed of communication. Speed kills genuine communication, which may be its point.

Here’s what Peters has to say about the new media of the 19^th century.

Media of transmission allow crosscuts through space, but recording media allow jump cuts through time. The sentence for death for sound, image, and experience had been commuted.  Speech and action could live beyond their human origins.  In short, recording media made the afterlife of the dead possible in a new way.  As Scientific American put it of the phonograph in 1877: ‘Speech has become, as it were, immortal. That ‘as it were’ is the dwelling place of ghosts.

Despite our advanced technology today, we still die, but we live faster, which is not to say better.  We live faster until modern medicine makes our dying slower.

Speed grants us the illusion of control, an illusionary sense of stop-time in the midst of techno-time, digital time, pointillistic time where so much is happening simultaneously across the internet and we “have” it at our fingertips.

Awash in cultural nostalgia that gives us a frisson of false comfort, we scroll the past as fast as we can.  In the small town where I live, urbanites come in droves for nostalgia and create hyper-gentrification.  I see them rapidly walking the country roads talking from their cells as bird song, rustling leaves, and lapping water passes them by, the technology serving as a shield from reality itself.

To realize that the Internet was developed as a weapon and has killed our sense of flesh and blood natural time to exploit us through speed should be obvious, though I suspect it isn’t.

The invention and control of the Internet by the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and their allies in Silicon Valley, as Yasha Levine chronicles in Surveillance Valley, is a fundamental problem that deserves focused attention.  However, who can slow down enough to focus?  As he says, “American military interests continue to dominate all parts of the network, even those that supposedly stand in opposition.”  This includes Tor and Signal, two encrypted mobile phone and internet services highly touted by journalists, political activists, and dissidents for their ability to make it impossible for governments to monitor communication.  Levine writes,

While Internet billionaires like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg slam government surveillance, talk up freedom, and embrace Snowden and crypto privacy culture, their companies still cut deals with the Pentagon, work with the NSA and CIA, and continue to track and profile people for profit.  It is the same old split-screen marketing trick: the public branding and the behind-the-scenes reality.

The Internet is, as he argues, an “old  cybernetic dream of a world where everyone is watched, predicted, and control.”  It is also where you are reading this, another article that will fast disappear from your mind as a stream of more urgent articles rush into print to push it aside.

We are homeless modern minds now, exiled from earth time, and if we don’t rediscover our way back to a slow contemplation of our fate and the ontological reality of human being itself, I’m afraid we are speeding into the void.

*

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.

It is astonishing how often one still hears well-informed, otherwise reasonable people say about Julian Assange: “But he ran away from Swedish rape charges by hiding in Ecuador’s embassy in London.”

That short sentence includes at least three factual errors. In fact, to repeat it, as so many people do, you would need to have been hiding under a rock for the past decade – or, amounting to much the same thing, been relying on the corporate media for your information about Assange, including from supposedly liberal outlets such as the Guardian and the BBC.

At the weekend, a Guardian editorial – the paper’s official voice and probably the segment most scrutinised by senior staff – made just such a false claim:

Then there is the rape charge that Mr Assange faced in Sweden and which led him to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place.

The fact that the Guardian, supposedly the British media’s chief defender of liberal values, can make this error-strewn statement after nearly a decade of Assange-related coverage is simply astounding. And that it can make such a statement days after the US finally admitted that it wants to lock up Assange for 175 years on bogus “espionage” charges – a hand anyone who wasn’t being wilfully blind always knew the US was preparing to play – is still more shocking.

Assange faces no charges in Sweden yet, let alone “rape charges”. As former UK ambassador Craig Murray recently explained, the Guardian has been misleading readers by falsely claiming that an attempt by a Swedish prosecutor to extradite Assange – even though the move has not received the Swedish judiciary’s approval – is the same as his arrest on rape charges. It isn’t.

Also, Assange did not seek sanctuary in the embassay to evade the Swedish investigation. No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape trial. The asylum was granted on political grounds. Ecuador rightly accepted Assange’s concerns that the US would seek his extradition and lock him out of sight for the rest of his life. 

Assange, of course, has been proven – yet again – decisively right by recent developments.

Trapped in herd-think

The fact that so many ordinary people keep making these basic errors has a very obvious explanation. It is because the corporate media keep making these errors.

These are is not the kind of mistakes that can be explained away as an example of what one journalist has termed the problem of “churnalism”: the fact that journalists, chasing breaking news in offices depleted of staff by budget cuts, are too overworked to cover stories properly. 

British journalists have had many years to get the facts straight. In an era of social media, journalists at the Guardian and the BBC have been bombarded by readers and activists with messages telling them how they are getting basic facts wrong in the Assange case. But the journalists keep doing it anyway. They are trapped in a herd-think entirely divorced from reality.

Rather than listen to experts, or common sense, these “journalists” keep regurgitating the talking points of the British security state, which are as good as identical to the talking points of the US security state.

What is so striking in the Assange coverage is the sheer number of legal anomalies in his case – and these have been accumulating relentlessly from the very start. Almost nothing in his case has gone according to the normal rules of legal procedure. And yet that very revealing fact is never noticed or commented on by the corporate media. You need to have a blind spot the size of Langley, Virginia, not to notice it.

If Assange wasn’t the head of Wikileaks, if he hadn’t embarrassed the most important western states and their leaders by divulging their secrets and crimes, if he hadn’t created a platform that allows whistleblowers to reveal the outrages committed by the western power establishment, if he hadn’t undermined that establishment’s control over information dissemination, none of the last 10 years would have followed the course it did. 

If Assange had not provided us with an information revolution that undermines the narrative matrix created to serve the US security state, two Swedish women – unhappy with Assange’s sexual etiquette – would have gotten exactly what they said in their witness statements they wanted: pressure from the Swedish authorites to make him take an HIV test to give them peace of mind.

He would have been allowed back to the UK (as he in fact was allowed to do by the Swedish prosecutor) and would have gotten on with developing and refining the Wikileaks project. That would have helped all of us to become more critically aware of how we are being manipulated – not only by our security services but also by the corporate media that so often act as their mouthpiece.

Which is precisely why that did not happen and why Assange has been under some form of detention since 2010. Since then, his ability to perform his role as exposer of serial high-level state crimes has been ever more impeded – to the point now that he may never be able to oversee and direct Wikileaks ever again.

His current situation – locked up in Belmarsh high-security prison, in solitary confinement and deprived of access to a computer and all meaningful contact with the outside world – is so far based solely on the fact that he committed a minor infraction, breaching his police bail. Such a violation, committed by anyone else, almost never incurs prosecution, let alone a lengthy jail sentence.

So here is a far from complete list – aided by the research of John Pilger, Craig Murray and Caitlin Johnstone – of some of the most glaring anomalies in Assange’s legal troubles. There are 17 of them below. Each might conceivably have been possible in isolation. But taken together they are overwhelming evidence that this was never about enforcing the law. From the start, Assange faced political persecution. 

No judicial authority 

In late summer 2010, neither of the two Swedish women alleged Assange had raped them when they made police statements. They went together to the police station after finding out that Assange had slept with them both only a matter of days apart and wanted him to be forced to take an HIV test. One of the women, SW, refused to sign the police statement when she understood the police were seeking an indictment for rape. The investigation relating to the second woman, AA, was for a sexual assault specific to Sweden. A condom produced by AA that she says Assange tore during sex was found to have neither her nor Assange’s DNA on it, undermining her credibility.

 Sweden’s strict laws protecting suspects during preliminary investigations were violated by the Swedish media to smear Assange as a rapist. In response, the Stockholm chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, took charge and quickly cancelled the investigation:

“I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” She later concluded: “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”

 The case was revived by another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, during which time Assange was questioned and spent more than a month in Sweden waiting for developments in the case. He was then told by prosecutors that he was free to leave for the UK, suggesting that any offence they believed he had committed was not considered serious enough to detain him in Sweden. Nonetheless, shortly afterwards, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals. 

The UK supreme court approved an extradition to Sweden based on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in 2010, despite the fact that it was not signed by a “judicial authority”, only by the Swedish prosecutor. The terms of the EAW agreement were amended by the UK government shortly after the Assange ruling to make sure such an abuse of legal procedure never occurred again. 

The UK supreme court also approved Assange’s extradition even though Swedish authorities refused to offer an assurance that he would not be extradited onwards to the US, where a grand jury was already formulating draconian charges in secret against him under the Espionage Act. The US similarly refused to give an assurance they would not seek his extradition.

In these circumstances, Assange fled to Ecuador’s embassy in London in summer 2012, seeking political asylum. That was after the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, blocked Assange’s chance to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Australia not only refused Assange, a citizen, any help during his long ordeal, but prime minister Julia Gillard even threatened to strip Assange of his citizenship, until it was pointed out that it would be illegal for Australia to do so.

Britain, meanwhile, not only surrounded the embassy with a large police force at great public expense, but William Hague, the foreign secretary, threatened to tear up the Vienna Convention, violating Ecuador’s diplomatic territory by sending UK police into the embassy to arrest Assange.

Six years of heel-dragging

Although Assange was still formally under investigation, Ny refused to come to London to interview him, despite similar interviews having been conducted by Swedish prosecutors 44 times in the UK in the period Assange was denied that right.

In 2016, international legal experts in the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which adjudicates on whether governments have complied with human rights obligations, ruled that Assange was being detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. Although both countries participated in the UN investigation, and had given the tribunal vocal support when other countries were found guilty of human rights violations, they steadfastly ignored its ruling in favour of Assange. UK Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond, flat-out lied in claiming the UN panel was “made up of lay people and not lawyers”. The tribunal comprises leading experts in international law, as is clear from their CVs. Nonetheless, the lie became Britain’s official response to the UN ruling. The British media performed no better. A Guardian editorial dismissed the verdict as nothing more than a “publicity stunt”.

Ny finally relented on interviewing Assange in November 2016, coming to London after six years of heel-dragging. However, she barred Assange’s lawyer from being present. That was a gross irregularity that Ny was due to be questioned about in May 2017 by a Stockholm judge. Apparently rather than face those questions, Ny decided to close the investigation against Assange the very same day. 

In fact, correspondence that was later revealed under a Freedom of Information request shows that the British prosecution service, the CPS, pressured the Swedish prosecutor not to come to the London to interview Assange through 2010 and 2011, thereby creating the embassy standoff.

Also, the CPS destroyed most of the incriminating correspondence to circumvent the FoI requests. The emails that surfaced did so only because some copies were accidentally overlooked in the destruction spree. Those emails were bad enough. They show that in 2013 Sweden had wanted to drop the case against Assange but had come under strong British pressure to continue the pretence of seeking his extradition. There are emails from the CPS stating, “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most revealing of all: “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.” 

It also emerged that Marianne Ny had deleted an email she received from the FBI.

Despite his interview with Ny taking place in late 2016, Assange was not subsequently charged in absentia – an option Sweden could have pursued if it had thought the evidence was strong enough. 

After Sweden dropped the investigation against Assange, his lawyers sought last year to get the British arrest warrant for his bail breach dropped. They had good grounds, both because the allegations over which he’d been bailed had been dropped by Sweden and because he had justifiable cause to seek asylum given the apparent US interest in extraditing him and locking him up for life for political crimes. His lawyers could also argue convincingly that the time he had spent in confinement, first under house arrest and then in the embassy, was more than equivalent to time, if any, that needed to be served for the bail infringement. However, the judge, Emma Arbuthnot, rejected the Assange team’s strong legal arguments. She was hardly a dispassionate observer. In fact, in a properly ordered world she should have recused herself, given that she is the wife of a government whip, who was also a business partner of a former head of MI6, Britain’s version of the CIA.

Assange’s legal rights were again flagrantly violated last week, with the collusion of Ecuador and the UK, when US prosecutors were allowed to seize Assange’s personal items from the embassy while his lawyers and UN officials were denied the right to be present. 

Information dark ages

Even now, as the US prepares its case to lock Assange away for the rest of his life, most are still refusing to join the dots. Chelsea Manning has been repeatedly jailed, and is now facing ruinous fines for every day she refuses to testify against Assange as the US desperately seeks to prop up its bogus espionage claims. In Medieval times, the authorities were more honest: they simply put people on the rack.

Back in 2017, when the rest of the media were still pretending this was all about Assange fleeing Swedish “justice”, John Pilger noted:

In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally. The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.” … 

According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. …

The US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty. …

In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.

*

Author’s note: All of this information was available to any journalist or newspaper  that cared to search it out and wished to publicise it. And yet not one corporate media outlet has done so over the past nine years. Instead they have shored up a series of preposterous US and UK state narratives designed to keep Assange behind bars and propel the rest of us back into the information dark ages.

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

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

Featured image is from Activist Post

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently announced that the growth of capacity additions to renewable power generation stalled in 2018, after nearly two decades of growth. Calling the new findings an “unexpected flattening of growth trends,” the IEA noted that this development raises serious questions about reaching climate targets. Net new capacity from solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, hydro, bioenergy, and other renewable power sources increased by about 180 Gigawatts (GW) in 2018, the same as the previous year. That’s roughly twice the annual installation of a decade ago. But, according to the IEA, it’s “only around 60% of the net additions needed each year to meet long-term climate goals.”

Why is this happening? We are constantly reminded that the costs of renewable capacity have fallen spectacularly in recent years. According to the latest estimates of annual “levelized cost of energy” (LCOE) from Lazard – the world’s largest investment company – the average cost of solar PV has dropped 88% since 2009, while that for wind has fallen 69%. This pattern of falling costs is often invoked to allay any concerns about lagging investment in renewable capacity, since every million dollars invested can buy significantly more installed capacity than just a few years ago.

Investment is Also Falling

But if a given amount of investment today can buy considerably more capacity than it could have in the recent past, then stalled growth in renewables must mean that investment, in real dollars, must also be falling. In fact, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) had already reported a drop in investment in mid-2018, to the lowest in four years. Six months later, with the publication of its annual Clean Energy Investment Trends in early 2019, BNEF reported an 8% decline in investment between 2017 and 2018 (from $362-billion to $332-billion). And this fall in investment has occurred during a period of extremely low interest rates. This is significant because the main contributor to the cost of renewables is not the actual technologies themselves, but the cost of borrowing money for projects – in other words, interest rates. So any future rise in rates would act as a significant further brake on investment levels.

The recent BNEF data confirm that, despite dramatic cost declines over the past decade, investment is indeed falling, and the IEA’s numbers show that, globally, deployment has essentially flatlined. This is happening at a time where both investment and deployment need to be rising steadily if the world is to have any chance of reaching the Paris targets.

But if we dig a little deeper into the recent data, we begin to see that the issue isn’t simply a flattening of global deployment, or a one-year fall in investment, but something much more worrying. As the BNEF chart below shows, if China’s investment in renewables is taken out of the picture, it becomes clear that investment for the “rest of the world” has not suffered a minor setback, but is actually falling to worryingly low levels – in what is already three consecutive years (and even that was following a small uptick after a previous fall, from the historic high in 2011):

We’ll return to China in a moment, but let’s make sure we understand this “rest of the world” performance first – because it will turn out to be important for understanding China.

Facing the Truth of “Poor Fundamentals”

Let’s get to the heart of the problem: We are told repeatedly that the falling costs of renewable generation capacity makes renewables “more competitive” with fossil fuels, and that each new record low auction result for solar or wind is a reason to celebrate. From the standpoint of private investment and profit making, however, falling auction prices are hardly a good thing. As governments have turned away from “come one, come all” feed-in-tariffs toward more competitive bidding regimes where the “winner takes all,” there are pressures to win the bid in order to secure a 20-year subsidy in the form of a “power purchase agreement” or PPA. The bidding process has driven down contract prices even faster than the real costs of building the projects have fallen (due to “learning by doing,” economies of scale, technological improvements, etc.). Investors then see diminishing profit margins and lose interest. (“Too bad about the planet but, hey, there are many other things to invest in.”) As one analyst writing for Risk Magazine puts it:

“At the end of the day investors aren’t just going to put their money on a good story, their main objective is to make money from these investments. A look at the renewable energy sector fundamentals analysis shows that the total rating of all listed renewable energy companies fundamentals is just 3.9 out of 10, a rating that signals the renewable energy sector has very poor fundamentals.”

Under the current policy approach, private project developers have avoided risk and expanded their market share through PPAs with government entities, or with utilities that are mandated to reach renewable energy targets. But the “guaranteed returns” that such PPAs ensure for investors often translate into higher electricity costs for users, which can quickly translate into “political risk” when electricity users start complaining about rising bills. Governments then phase out – often abruptly – the policies that made investment in renewables attractive in the first place. This is what happened in Europe where, once subsidies for renewables were scaled back, investment collapsed:

Because of falling auction prices, many people still assume that the market share of renewables will reach a “tipping point” once they become the “least cost option.” But because there is simply not enough profit in “low carbon solutions” like renewable power generation – at least, not without subsidies – renewables are unlikely to attract the levels of capital needed to achieve the Paris targets.

By now, the message should be clear: The insistence on private-sector-led investment in renewables, which we are told needs to be “unlocked” through various incentives – subsidies, feed-in-tariffs, guaranteed returns through PPAs, etc. – has proven to be a disastrous failure. This is the reason why renewables are “underperforming.” This is what must change if deployment is to reach the levels needed to meet the Paris targets.

From the perspective of mass deployment of publicly owned and controlled renewable energy, falling costs are good news. Where governments are able to fund infrastructure projects directly, they can do so; where they need to borrow, they can access financing at lower interest rates than private developers. In either case, the costs of installation can be recouped through managed retail electricity prices, without the need to generate an additional profit margin for climate-blind private investors looking to make handsome returns while avoiding risks. At the same time, the phasing-in of renewables can be coordinated in tandem with grid upgrading, development of storage technologies, digitalization and conservation.

But What about China?

We still need to understand what is happening with China, and why its investment has continued to grow while the rest of the world has lagged. China’s approach to tackling the energy transition has differed from that of many other countries, involving significantly more centrally driven planning and coordination. But it has still relied heavily on mechanisms like those that have been used in Europe, the USA and elsewhere: feed-in tariffs, power purchase agreements, etc. In fact, the country’s 13th “Five Year Plan” on energy development, released in March 2017, refers favorably to the German renewable energy development pathway as an example that shows the way forward. Given that, we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that China, like Germany, has seen a significant burst in capacity growth by using similar policy mechanisms.

But the story doesn’t stop there. Like Germany, China’s boom has produced significant overcapacity – beyond what can be successfully integrated into the system and put to use – as well as ballooning subsidy bills. Once we know that, we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that China’s investment in renewable capacity actually took a sharp turn downward in 2018. On June 1, 2018, in an effort to contain exploding subsidy bills and growing overcapacity, the country’s National Development and Reform Commission announced that, effective immediately, approvals for new projects had been “halted until further notice,” and tariffs for existing contracts would be lowered by 6.7 to 9 per cent (depending on the region). The announcement caught nearly everyone by surprise; it caused serious drops in share price values for Chinese solar companies, and various industry players and observers immediately slashed capacity growth forecasts for the year by as much as one-third. In fact, the fallout from the announcement was so severe that the government subsequently partially reversed course, and is now reviewing its subsidy policy regime.

So the trajectory of China’s investment and deployment in renewable energy seems likely to follow the same pattern as “the rest of the world” – it’s just starting a few years later. And another “green miracle” genie will quietly find its way back into the “business as usual” bottle. With the IPCC telling us we have just 12 years left to limit average warming to 1.5 degrees C, we might want to ask: How many wishes do we have left?

For those familiar with the analysis offered in TUED’s Working Papers and other publications the recent IEA and BNEF data will not have come as a big surprise. The problems with the profit- and investor-focused approach to power sector decarbonization were analyzed in detail in TUED’s Working Paper 10, Preparing a Public Pathway: Confronting the Investment Crisis in Renewable Energy (2017), and more recently in our discussion document for COP24, When “Green” Doesn’t “Grow”: Facing Up to the Failures of Profit-Driven Climate Policy.

We encourage you to use these papers to make the case for a decisive shift away from investor-focused policies, and toward reclaiming energy to public ownership and democratic control, toward public financing at “New Deal” levels to scale up deployment, and toward the restoration of energy planning and delivery as a “public good.”

We don’t need “more ambition.” We need a radically different approach to the transition.

*

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

Jamaica’s development project was largely influenced by Western expansionism and colonialism. Colonialism was predicated on the demand for extraction of resources and forced labour of African slaves in order to market the industrial products of metropolitan countries (McMichael, 2004 and Girvan, 2012). As a result of promoting private enterprise, enormous commercial profits have been generated from large scale plantation slavery during the 17th century in the English speaking Caribbean (Micholakov, 2009).

Other scholars have debated that the distinguishing feature of the plantation economy in the Caribbean was its dependence on staple production such as the sugar crop. In order to ensure economic efficiency and productivity of the estate, large numbers of labourers were required (Best, Levitt and Girvan, 2009, p.13). Prior to this postulation, Saint Lucian economist, Lewis (1954) in his seminal piece, ‘Economic Development and the Unlimited Supplies of Labour’ asserted that the demand for labour in countries of South can be attributed to the fact that developing countries had a relatively large population and there was a limited supply of labour in Western, industrialized countries.

The unlimited supplies of labour in the context of colonial Jamaica worked in the interests of the Western imperialists because unlimited supplies of labour would allow them to keep wages low while increasing their profits (Levitt, 2005). This has a negative impact on the working classes because there is no investment in their skills and knowledge and consequently, their standard of living has not improved significantly (Lewis, 1954).

Lewis’ scholarly contribution represents a radical departure from classical economists who have studied problems of capital accumulation and growth only in the Western, capitalist economies (Rhys, 1991). His knowledge also incorporated a historical approach to development. A historical approach to development analyzes the systemic connections between the First World and Third World and ways in which these relations result in not only underdevelopment of the Third World but also a lack of privileges and rights for workers in Third World countries ( Rhys, 1991, Munck 2002, McMichael and 2004).

The legacies of the plantation economy have been deeply embedded in the social and economic of Jamaican society. This is evident in the rigid social class and racial hierarchies in which the ownership of the means and modes of production have been controlled by a white minority with the support of the brown, middle class professionals. The majority was the black, working classes who were poor and had no access to property (Daniel, 1957 and Phillips, 1988). Although slavery was fully abolished in 1838, many workers were still actively engaged in sugar estate labour because colonial administrators were concerned about the profitability of the industry (Easton, 1962). The workers on these sugar estates were susceptible to deplorable working conditions and low wages. The low wages were not sufficient to take care of family needs and hence, they turned to subsistence production. Workers in Caribbean societies were never fully-proletarianized because of their marginal production and semi-proletarianization is a direct consequence of the plantation economy legacy (Frucht, 1967).

The emergence of the labour rebellions in the 1930s was set against the background that Jamaica’s affluence was built on cheap labour. There was also a  growing consciousness of unmet promises among the black, working class population have allowed them to challenge the structures of exploitation through active forms of resistance such as strikes, mob action and property damage (Phelps, 1960 and Collin, 2014). Historians such as Casimir (1992) and Conway (1997) have pointed out the 1930s Great Depression has had ripple effects on the Jamaican economy where mass unemployment, depressed wages, no social security protection and poor infrastructure have forced them to demand better working conditions and wages through protest. From a Marxist perspective, one can argue that workers in 1930s Jamaica had organized against capitalist exploitation because they are active agents in creating their own group solidarity and consciousness along common class lines (Cohen, 1991, p.83).

The working class struggle of black Jamaicans was also situated within an anti-colonial environment where they recognized that although, a law was passed by the Legislative Council to officially recognize trade unions in 1919, it did not stipulate or recognize the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining (Eaton, 1962, Nettleford, 1970 and Corbin, 2015). The largest and main trade unions are the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU) and the National Workers Unions (NWU). They emerged out of these island-wide labour riots to champion for rights that workers have been agitating for. These trade unions are closely affiliated with Jamaica’s two major political parties, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People’s National Party (PNP) and their respective founders, Sir Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley (Dunkley, 2011). Among the significant victories from the labour rebellions was the introduction of the first Minimum Wage Act, a Holiday with Pay law and special provisions to regulate working hours of workers (Bustamante Industrial Trade Union of Jamaica, 2019).

These were significant gains for Jamaica’s black working classes but the most influential victory of the trade union movement was its advocacy for Universal Adult Suffrage in 1944. This gave all Jamaicans ages 21 and over the right to vote (Nettleford, 2009). The right to vote is interpreted as an important victory for the trade union movement and the nation because democracy is the core existence of unions and unions are an instrumental force in defending democracy (Loreto, 2013, p.75). Universal Adult Suffrage was also an essential precursor to achieving a path of self-government in 1962 (Biddle and Stephens, 1989).

Manley’s Attempt to Create A Social Compact

In the post-independence era, Jamaica attained positive macro-economic indicators of development wherein its economic growth rate was between two per cent (2%) to (8%) from 1960-1973. This was due to the boom in the country’s bauxite industry and the injection of foreign direct investment from the North-American multi-national corporations (Downes, 2003). Amidst the promising macro-economic indicators of development, there were high levels of unemployment, poverty and inequality among majority of its citizens (Kamugisha, 2013).

Prime Minister Michael Manley was elected on the People’s National Party (PNP) democratic socialist platform in 1972 to advance the interests of poor and dispossessed Jamaicans through state regulation of the economy in order to reduce social inequities (Mars and Young, 2004). Social compact refers to gains in productivity resulting from a Fordist organizing principle to increase financial investments from profits as well as the purchasing power of labour (Ramasamy, 2005, p.8).

Manley did not actually achieve the social compact given the nature of Jamaica’s political system. His political philosophy and his social policies, however represented an effort to strengthen the role of trade unions in politics, protect the rights workers and to promote capital. Prior to a career in representational politics, Manley had developed his skills in communication and negotiation through organizing workers in the sugar and bauxite industry for better wages, better working conditions and most importantly, greater social dialogue between workers and their employers. His most outstanding achievement was organizing a successful workers’ strike at Jamaica Broadcasting Commission (JBC) against unfair dismissal of workers by management (Gray, 1991).

His commitment to strengthening the labour movement was evident in his political philosophy that in order to raise the standards of the population, government needed to invest more in skills upgrading, better access to education, technology and infrastructure (Hague and Fletcher, 2002). This is political philosophy is similar to recommendations that were made by Lewis (1954) in relation to labour’s role in the economic development of a developing country. One can also argue that underpinning this political philosophy is a structuralist view on the labour-development nexus. Structural and dependency scholars believe that organized labour should play an active role in politics and that state intervention can provide greater access to social services for the population (Green, 2008).

The government expenditure towards health care, education, housing and poverty alleviation for Jamaicans was at an average of thirty-two per cent (32%) from 1972-1976 (Boyd, 1986). Manley’s engagement with trade unions, particularly the National Workers Union (NWU) in the political process has led to the enactment of numerous labour laws such as the 1974 Employment Act, the 1975 Labour Relations and Disputes Act, the 1975 Equal Pay for Women Act and the 1979 Maternity Leave With Pay Law (Trade Unions of Jamaica, 2019). In addition to this, he encouraged the establishment of worker co-operatives and affording housing options through National Housing Trust to poor workers (Bogues, 2002).

Despite Manley’s remarkable track record of strengthening worker organization, he has been fiercely criticized for maintaining the flawed system of political unionism which suppressed any form of radical consciousness among workers. For example, he played a key role in expelling Leninist-Marxist activist, Stuart Hall from the union movement because he wanted to create a union that was independent of Jamaica’s two political parties. Furthermore, one of the motivations behind Manley’s entry into trade union activism was the fact that in order for the People’s National Party (PNP) to gain state power, it needed greater support from the National Workers Union (NWU).

The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) enjoyed its support from the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union which had dominated the island (Bogues, 2002 and Meeks, 2016). Other criticisms geared towards the Manley regime in Jamaica were the fact that there was no political compatibility between his democratic socialist philosophy and the British Westminster model of government. The British Westminster model is characterized by short electoral cycles and therefore, his objective to reduce social inequities through greater state intervention was both constrained and unsustainable (Levitt, 2005).

The attempt to create a social compact was eventually crumbled by external issues such as shocks to the domestic economy from the 1973 OPEC oil crisis as well as USA interventionism because of Manley’s anti-capitalist stance on development (Mars and Young, 2004). As a result of exorbitant inflation (26.9%) and debt levels, Jamaica entered its first agreement with the International Monetary Fund in 1977 (Bernal, 1984).

Manley was pressured to accept US $74 million in credit to cut back on its social programs and to de-value the Jamaican currency by forty per cent (40%) (Conway, 1997, p.8). Subsequently, he lost the 1980 General election and he was replaced by Edward Seaga from the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) who encouraged free market policies to stimulate export-oriented development and foreign direct investment (Harrigan, 1998 and Kamugisha, 2013). The results of the 1980 General election in Jamaica did not only represent a change in development models but also a shift in the ideological approaches to development (Thoburn and Morris, 2007). The shift in ideological approaches to development has had a severe impact on the freedoms that were won by Jamaica’s trade union movement and its working class.

“The effects of globalization and external conditionalities are a threat to the trade union movement. The splurge of trade union shut outs in free trade zones is beyond alarming. The quality of workers lives will be gravely affected if trade unions are weak”-  The Jamaica Gleaner, 2018

Capitalist globalization has been a destructive force to the rights of workers in Jamaica. Cutback in spending on social programs is evident in the fact that despite Jamaica’s goal to achieve universal social protection, the country has one of the lowest social protection coverage in Latin America and the Caribbean. Less than twelve (12%) of its estimated population (2. 8 million) has access to social security protection since 2004 (Lavigne and Vargas, 2013). The global restructuring process since 1980 and the 2008 Global Economic Crisis have eroded a permanent supply of jobs and as a result, there are growing cases of precarious and low waged forms of labour in the informal sector (Standing, 2011 and ILO, 2012). Approximately seventy per cent (70%) of Jamaicans are in the informal sector and this is not recorded in the official employment statistics of the island. The task to effectively organize workers in these sectors are even more tumultuous for the trade unions because these workers do not any standard access to representation security, social security, income security and job security (Standing, 2015 and ILO, 2017).

Furthermore, the trade union movement is unable to effectively garner a radical political agenda on behalf of the working class because of the limitations associated with ‘political unionism’ and internal antagonisms such as gender-divide, the age-divide and the emergence of technology in the work place. A case example of this central argument can be drawn from a discussion during the 2007 General Election in which the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) had promised to return to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to reduce the nation’s balance of debt payment problems. Among the proposed conditionalities were public sector transformation and wage free for public sector workers. The position of the National Workers Union (NWU) was that the proposed path of development would be harmful to workers.

On the other hand, the representative of Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU) which is aligned to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) only accused the representative of the National Workers Union (NWU) for selling himself short for political purposes (Jamaican Forum, 2007). This example illustrates that both union representatives have not offered any viable alternatives to the decision that has been proposed. The limitations of political unionism is seen where the infiltration of the ideologies of the patron political party can co-opt organized labour (Edie, 1984 and Stephens and Stephens, 1987). The decline of the trade union movement in Jamaica is also linked to internal challenges such as failure to identify appropriate strategies for a globalized world context, lack of interest on the part of younger members and women because of the age and gender politics that dominates the structure of the union movement. Additionally, there is limited labour education afforded to workers from less privileged backgrounds (Marsh, Phillips and Wedderburn 2014 and Marsh and Roberts, 2016).

Organizing in New Forms of Work – Women Workers in Jamaica’s Free Trade Zones

Free trade zones (FTZs) or export processing zones (EPZs), are instruments of export-oriented industrialization became prominent strategies of development for Third World countries to promote exports, industrialization and growth since the 1960s (Munck, 2002 and McMicheal, 2004). Free trade zones (FTZs) or export processing zones (EPZs) are industrial zones with special incentives to promote foreign investment. Materials undergo processing before they are re-exported (ILO, 2019). The nature and scope of free trade zones have evolved immensely and as a result, they specialize in business outsourcing and information technology (OECD, 2007). Jamaica established its first free trade zone, the Kingston Free Trade Zone in 1976 (OECD, 2007). Free trades zones in Jamaica, however, have become more popular since the 1980s because rapid export-oriented industrialization was a component of the nation’s structural adjustment obligations with the International Monetary Fund (Klak, 1996). Free trade zones have attracted thousands of employment opportunities and increased the generation of foreign direct investment from 1980-2000 in Jamaica (Steven, 1990 and Craigwell, 2006).

Majority (90%) of the workers in Jamaica’s traditional free trade zones are women and they are preferable to employers because of their perceived limited skills, limited education and submissiveness to authority (Elson and Pearson, 1981, Hernandez-Kelly, 1983, Mies, 1986, Milberg and Amengual, 2008 and Gunawardana, 2014). The emergence of free trade zones in developing countries like Jamaica reinforces the strengths of the New International Division of Labour (NIDL) thesis that was conceptualized by German scholars Frobel et. al (1980). They posited that the shift of manufacturing industries from the First World to the Third World would directly result into the “gendering of work” in the Global South (Munck, 2002). The “gendering of work” in free trade zones becomes problematic because regardless of the changes in the type of work in free trade zones, Jamaica’s model of development is largely defined by attraction of foreign capital through special incentives and an obsession with growth statistics (Panitch et al. 2004, Ghai, 2011 and Maruscke, 2017).

A pertinent problem associated with free trade zones is the fact that workers are subjected to low wages, long working hours, poor working conditions and a lack of freedom of association (Dunn, 2001 and Russell-Brown, 2003 and Carr and Chen, 2004). Trade unions in Jamaica, as agents of collective bargaining have been experiencing serious challenges to organize workers in new forms of work because there is a global decline of freedom of association. Foreign controlled companies have established their own worker councils to manage grievances between employers and employers but these councils lack voice mechanisms to negotiate on issues of better wages, improved working conditions and specific hours (Balz et al, 2010).

Freedom of association is prohibited in free trade zones because organized labour is seen as an inhibitor to the competitiveness and profitability of free trade zones and therefore, countries with weak trade unions are more attractive to foreign investors (Bacchus, 2005). It can be posited that there is not necessarily a weakened state under capitalist globalization but the state’s primary economic imperative is to be a greater facilitator of capital in order to stimulate growth (McMicheal, 2004 and Gray, 2008).

Limited or no trade union representation in Jamaica’s free trade zones have been highlighted in several case studies where owners of the zones have not only threatened to permanent black list women workers who organize through the help of trade unions. They have also been threatened to shift the zones to other countries that are investor friendly (Bolles, 1991, Dunn, 1994, Mullings, 1999 and Russell-Brown, 2003 and Harley, 2007). Other scholars have argued that trade unions cannot do much in terms of representing workers in free trade zones because trade unions become a mirror of the constrained context in which they are placed to operate. In addition, the physical demarcation and the entry permit requirements of free trade zones are major obstacles for trade unions to reach and organize women workers (Jauch, 2002 and Prieto and Quinteros, 2004).

The rights of women workers are at a greater risk because of the lack of trade union representation in free trade zones. Several reports have indicated that women workers in free trade zones have been forced to work over time without compensation. Women workers have also been affected by major health problems such as gastro-instestinal illnesses, headaches and dizziness. There are also cases of discrimination towards women workers who are pregnant. These workers do not receive maternity leave with pay and released immediately because they are considered as “natural wastage” to the company’s productivity (Safa, 1981, Prieto, 1997, Bailey and Ricketts, 2003, Barnes and Kazar, 2008, ICFTU, 2004 and ITUC, 2011). This is not only a blatant exploitation of worker’s rights but these actions illustrate that there is a disregard for national labour laws such as the 1979 Maternity Leave With Pay Act that was a landmark victory for the trade union movement and the working class, particularly women.

There is no other government administration after Manley that promoted and respected the rights of the poor and labouring class in Jamaica (Taylor, 2017). This is because for most of Jamaica’s development history, when respective political parties form government they all pursue a path of capitalist, neo-liberal development (Cumper, 1974, Biddle and Stephens, 1989 and Girvan, 2015).

The decline of a once vibrant trade union movement and its ability to articulate a radical political agenda on behalf of workers is further compromised by the repressive nature of the state towards organized labour through policy actions. Recently, the Ministry of Education has introduced a “muzzle plan” to silence political activism among teachers (Jamaica Observer, 2019). While there has been a follow-up response by pockets of union members of the Jamaica Teacher’s Association and other interest groups to challenge the policy’s infringement on worker’s and constitutional rights, there has not been any active form of collective resistance towards this policy. The consequence of capitalist globalization is the repressive nature of state towards organized labour which ultimately results in the de-politicization of the trade union movement (Webber, 2015 and Osazrow, 2017). The breaches to workers’ rights and limited trade union representation are not only restricted to countries with authoritarian regimes. Countries with a wide range of democratic freedoms also experience serious infringements to workers’ rights because the pursuit of development is constructed on exploitation of cheap labour (Gray, 2008 and Balz et al, 2010 and Rai and Benjamin, 2018).

Future Speculations?

Based on the current changes in the global economy and its impact on the situation of work in Jamaica along with the repressive nature of the state and other institutions towards organized labour, it can be predicted that the current state of decline in the trade union movement will persist.

*

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.

Tina Renier is currently pursuing a Masters in International Development at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada. Her area of specialization is labour and development.   

Sources

Bacchus, N. (2005). The Effects of Globalization on Women in Developing Countries. Pace University: United States of America.

Bailey, B and Ricketts, H. (2003). Gender Vulnerabilities in Caribbean Labour Markets and Decent Work Provisions. Social and Economic Studies, 52 (4). p.71.

Balz, M. et al. (2010). The Global State of Workers’ Rights: Free Labour in a Hostile World. Freedom House. New York: United States of America.

Barnes, W. and Kazar, J. (2008). The Exploitation of Pregnant Workers in Apparel Production. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 2 (3), pp. 285-293.

Bernal, R. (1984). IMF and Class Struggle in Jamaica, 1977-1980. Latin American Perspectives, 11 (3), pp. 53-82.

Best, L. Levitt, K. and Girvan, N. (2009). The Theory of the Plantation Economy: A Historical and Institutional Approach to Caribbean Economic Development. Kingston: Jamaica. University of the West Indies Press.

Biddle and Stephens, (1989). Dependent Development Foreign Policy: The Case of Jamaica. International Studies Quarterly, 33(4). pp. 411-434.

Bogues, A. (2002). Michael Manley: Equality and the Jamaican Labour Movement. Caribbean Quarterly, 48 (1), pp. 77-93.

Bolles, L. (1991). Surviving Manley and Seaga: Case Studies of Women’s Responses to Structural Adjustment Policies. Review of Radical Political Economics, 23 (3-4), pp. 20-36

Boyd, D. (1986). Macroeconomic Stabilization in Jamaica: The Lessons of Recent Experience. Overseas Development Institute. London.

Bustamante Industrial Trade Union. (2019). History. Retrieved from http://bitujamaica.org/bitu-history/

Carr, M. and Chen, M. (2004). Carr, M. and Chen, M. (2004). Globalization, Social Exclusion and Gender. International Labour Review, 143 (2), pp. 129-160.

Casimir, J. (1992). The Caribbean: One and Divisible. United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago: Chile.

Cohen, R. (1991). Contested Domains. Debates in International Labour Studies. London: United Kingdom. Zed Books Limited.

Collin, P. (2014). Freedom’s Children: The 1938 Labour Rebellion and the Birth of Modern Jamaica. Chapel Hill. University of North Carolina Press.

Conway, D. (1997). Pursuing an Appropriate Development model for Caribbean Small Islands:

Can Past Experiences help Subvert the Neo-liberal Agenda?. Latin American Studies

Association: XX International Congress. Indiana University.

Corbin, A. (2015). Caribbean Trade Unions: Changing Roles and Perspectives. University of the West Indies, Mona. Kingston: Jamaica.

Craigwell, R. (2006). Foreign Direct Investment and Employment in the English speaking and the Dutch-speaking Caribbean. Port-of-Spain: Trinidad and Tobago. ILO Sub-Regional Office

Cumper, G. (1974). Dependence, Development and the Sociology of Economic Thought. Social and Economic Studies, 23 (3), pp. 485-482.

Daniel, G. (1957). Labour and Nationalism in the British Caribbean. American Annals of Political and Social Science, 310, pp. 162-167.

Dunkley, D. A. (2011). Hegemony in Post-Independence Jamaica. Caribbean Quarterly, 57 (2), pp. 1-23.

Dunn, L. (1994). A sociological Analysis of Methods of Organizing used by women in Caribbean Free Trade Zones: Implications for development. PhD dissertation. London School of

Economics and Political Science: United Kingdom.

Dunn, L. (2001). Export Processing Zones: A Caribbean Development Dilemma. Development in Practice, 9 (5). pp.601-630.

Easton, G. (1962). Trade Union Development in Jamaica. Caribbean Quarterly, 8 (1), pp. 43-53.

Edie, C. (1984). Jamaican Political Processes: The Search of a Paradigm. Journal of Development Studies, 20 (4), pp. 248-270.

Elson, D. and Pearson, R. (1981). Nimble Fingers Make Cheap Workers: An Analysis of Women’s Employment in Third World Manufacturing. Feminist Review, 7, pp. 87-107

Frucht, R. (1967). A Caribbean Social Type: Neither “Peasant” nor “Proletariat”. Economic and Social Studies, 16 (3), pp. 295-300.

Ghai, G. (2011). The Use of Free Zones for the Promotion of Offshore Industry in Mercosur Countries: A Reasonable Choice? Integration and Trade Sector: Inter-American Development Bank. Policy Brief. No-PB-138.

Girvan, N. (2012). Colonialism and Neo-colonialism in the Caribbean: An Overview. Paper

prepared for IV International Seminar Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Saint Vincent

and the Grenadines.

Girvan, N. (2015). Assessing Westminster in the Caribbean: Then and Now. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 53 (1), pp. 95-107.

Gray, K. (2008). The Global Uprising of Labour? The Korean Labour Movement and Neoliberal Social Corporatism. Globalizations, 5 (3), pp. 483-499.

Gray, O. (1991). Radicalism and Social Change in Jamaica. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Green, B. (2008). Organizing for Defeat: The Relevance and Utility of the Trade Union As A Legitimate Question. Labour (Le Travail), 62, pp. 153-169.

Gunawardana, S. (2014). Reframing Employee Voice: A Case Study of Sri Lanka’s Export Processing Zones. Women, Employment and Society, 28 (3), pp. 452-465.

Hague, M. and Fletcher, R. (2002). Globalization, Labour Markets and Empowerment of the Global South: The Relevance of Michael Manley to Caribbean Workers in the 21st century. Caribbean Quarterly, 48 (1), pp. 12-30.

Harley, S. (2007). Women’s Labour in the Global Economy: Speaking in Multiple Voices. Rutgers University Press.

Harrigan, (1998). Effects of the IMF and the World Bank on Public Expenditure Accountability. Public Administration and Development, 18 (1), pp. 5- 22.

Hernandez-Kelly, P. (1983). For We are sold, I and My people: Women and Industry in Mexico’s Frontier. Albany, New York: Sony Press

International Confederation of Trade Unions. (2004). Behind the Brand Names: Working Conditions and Labour Rights in Export Processing Zones. Retrieved from https://www.nager-it.de/static/pdf/ICFTU_Cafod_EtAl_LR_CapResist04.pdf

International Trade Union Congress. (2011). Jamaica: Threat to Workers’ Rights. Retrieved from

International Labour Organization. (2012). Better Jobs For A Better Economy. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/wcmpsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/—public/documents/publications/wwcms_179453.pdf

International Labour Organization. (2017). Labour Overview in Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/caribbean/information-resources/publications/WCMS_614132/lang–en/index.htm

International Labour Organization. (2019). Export Processing Zones. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/actrav/areas/WCMS_DOC_ATR_ARE_EPZ_EN/lang–en/index.html

International Labour Organization. (2019). World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_670171/lang–en/index.html

Jamaica Forum (2007, August, 16). Top Trade Unions Clash Over Politics. Retrieved from https http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?t=8113/

Jamaica Gleaner. (2018, May, 24). Labour Climate Hostile Towards Union Growth. Retrieved from http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20180524/current-labour-climate-hostile-union-growth-patterson/

Jamaica Observer. (2019, Feb, 26). The Muzzle Plan. Retrieved from https:www.jamaicaobserver.com/ le-plan-education-ministry-wants-to-censor-politically-active-teachers-principals-school-board-members_158155?profile=1606

Jauch, H. (2002). Export Processing Zones and the Quest for Sustainable Development: A Southern Africa Perspective. Environment and Urbanization, 14 (1). pp. 1-12.

Kamugisha, A. (2013). Theories of the Post-Colonial State: Caribbean Political Thought.

Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers.

Klak, T. (1996). Distributional Impact of the Free Zone Component of Structural Adjustment: The Jamaican Experience. Growth and Change, 27 (3), pp. 352-387.

Lavigne, M. and Vargas, L.  (2013). Social Protection Systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: Jamaica. United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago: Chile.

Levitt, K. (2005). Reclaiming Development: Independent Thought and Caribbean Community. Kingston: Jamaica. Ian Randle Publishers.

Lewis, A. W. (1954). ). Economic Development with the Unlimited Supplies of Labour. The Manchester School, 22, pp. 139-191.

Loreta, N. (2013). From Demonized to Organized: Building a New Union Movement. Canada Centre for Policy Alternative. Ottawa: Canada. p.75.

Marsh, L. Phillips, M and Wedderburn, J. (2014). Gender and Trade Union Development in the Anglophone Caribbean. Caribbean Quarterly, 60 (3), pp. 39-57.

Marsh, L. and Roberts, D. (2016). Labour Education in the Caribbean: A Critical Evaluation of Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad. International Labour and Working Class History, 90, pp. 186-199.

Mars, P and Young, A. ( 2004). Caribbean Labour and Politics. The Legacies of Cheddi Jagan and Michael Manley. Michigan: United States of America

Maruschke, M. (2017). Zones of Re-territorialization: India’s Free Trade Zones in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Global History,a. Wayne State University Press.

McMicheal, P. (2004). Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meeks, B. (2016). Michael Manley and the Jamaican Democracy: 1972-1980: The Word is Love. New West Indian Guide, 90 (1), pp. 113-114.

Maruschke, M. (2017). Zones of Re-territorialization: India’s Free Trade Zones in Comparative Perspective 1947- 1980,  Journal. of Global History, 12, pp.  410-432.

Mikolav, J. (2009). The Caribbean Plantation: Panophic Slavery and Disciplinary Power. Department of Social and Political Thought. York University.

Milberg, W. and Amengual, M. (2008). Economic Development and Working Conditions in Economic Processing Zones. International Labour Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. pp. 12 and 34.

Munck, R. (2002). Globalization and Labour: The New Great Transformation. London: Zed Books.

Mullings, (1999). Sides of the Same Coin? Coping and Resistance Among Jamaica’s Data Entry Operators. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89 (2). pp. 290-311.

Nettleford, R. (2009). Micheal Manley and Caribbean Development: The Culture of Resistance. Caribbean Quarterly, 48 (1), pp. 1-4.

OECD. (2007). Export Processing Zones: Past and Future Role in Trade and Development. Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. Trade Policy Working Paper No. 53.

Oszarow, (2017). The Foot on Each Side of the Picket Line: The Contradictory Role of Labour Unions in South American Governance. Routledge. pp. 1-25.

Panitch, L. et al. (2004). The Globalization Decade: A Critical Reader. Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

Phelps, O. (1960). Rise of the Labour Movement in Jamaica. Social and Economic Studies, 9(4), pp.417-468.

Phillips, P. (1988). Race, Class and Nationalism: A Perspective of 20th century Social Movements in Jamaica. Caribbean Quarterly, 37 (3), pp. 97-124.

Prieto, N. (1997).  Beautiful Flowers of the Maquiladora: Life Histories of Women in Tijuana. University of Texas Press: United States of America

Prieto, N. and Quinteros, (2004). Never the Twain Shall Meet? Women’s Organizations and Trade Unions in the Maquiladora Industry in Central America. Development in Practice, 14 (2), pp. 149-159.

Ramasamy, P. (2005). Labour and Globalization: Towards a New Internationalism? Labour, Capital and Society, 38 (1-2), p. 8.

Rai, S, Benjamin, B. and Ruwanpwa, K. (2018). Decent Work and Economic growth: A Gendered Analysis. World Development, 113, pp. 368-380.

Russell-Brown, S. (2003). Labour Rights Are Human Rights: The Situation of Women Workers in Jamaica’s Export Processing Zones. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labour Law, 24 (1) p.185.

Safa, H. (1981). Runaway Shops and Female Employment: The Search for Cheap Labour., 7 (2), Development and the Sexual Division of Labour, 7 (2), pp. 418- 433

Shaw, J (2007). There is No Work in My Village: The Employment Decisions of Female Garment Workers in Sri Lanka. Sage Publications, 23 (1), pp. 37-58.

Standing, G. (2011). The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. New York, USA: Bloomsbury Press.

Standing, G. (2015). The ILO: An Agency for Globalization? Development and Change, 39 (3), p.355-356.

Stephens, H. and Stephens, H. (1987). The Transition to Mass Parties and Ideological Parties: The Jamaican Experience. Comparative Political Studies, 19 (4), pp. 443-483.

Stevens, C. (1990). African Caribbean and Pacific Export Diversification: Jamaica, Kenya and Ethiopia. Regents College: London. Overseas Development Institute. Working Paper Series 40

Taylor, O. (2017). Portia: Poor People’s Champion? Jamaica Gleaner. Retrieved from http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/focus/20170702/orville-taylor-portia-poor-peoples-champion

Thorburn, D. and Morris, D. (2007). Jamaica’s Foreign Policy: Making the Economic Development Link. Kingston: Jamaica. Caribbean Research Policy Institute.

Trade Unions of Jamaica. (2019). Labour Laws. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jtug.info/labour-laws/

The United States is still punishing Iran for the 1979 takeover of its ‘sacred’ premises, its embassy in Tehran. By contrast, when American authorities occupy another nation’s embassy there’s nothing but approval from the American public and silent acquiescence by others. I don’t know about you, but I heard no outcry, not even a quiet show of concern emanating from the diplomatic corridors of Washington or New York earlier this month around the violation of sovereign diplomatic property—that of Venezuela. That hush recalls a similar embassy breakin—the American assault on and occupation of the Iraqi embassy on Massachusetts Avenue in late 1990.

Anticipating the recent incursion, at least the Venezuelan administration was able to remove their files and to arrange with a brave team of American supporters, The Embassy Protection Collective, to occupy the building for as long as possible in order to attract some media attention to the threat and eventual (illegal) takeover of its property by U.S. law enforcement personnel. That handful of activists stood against not only a police force, but a menacing crowd of Venezuelan opposition supporters eager to assume control of the building in the name of U.S.-backed Venezuelan president-in-waiting Juan Guaido.

The 1990 assault on the Iraqi embassy went unnoticed and completely unprotested at any level. At that time, a public unfamiliar with Kuwait (and Iraq) was overwhelmed by terrifying media accounts of an unspeakable military aggression. Worldwide, emotions were swiftly roused by images of a new Hitler; Saddam Hussein was reframed as a menace to the entire world, his arsenal directed at Europe.

There wasn’t a whimper when Washington’s Iraq embassy was stormed and barricaded. It would remain empty and barred to any Iraqi presence for more than 12 years (until 2003 when the U.S. occupied Iraq and installed its chosen leaders in Baghdad).

The American assault proceeded at multiple levels, as with Venezuela, but more rapidly in Iraq’s case and with blanket global approval. Within a mere four days, after the August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait, an unprecedented international embargo, probably drawn up in anticipation of an Iraqi miscalculation and blunder — was imposed on the nation of 18 million. It was comprehensive, ruthlessly policed and internationally adhered to, lasting long after Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction were neutralized, after billions of dollars of Iraqi revenue from controlled oil sales were essentially stolen, after the country’s overseas holdings were impounded, after treasures were pillaged, after millions died or were stricken by embargo-related illnesses and starvation, after medicines were long unavailable, and after millions of its citizens fled in search of relief from that punishing siege.

Sound familiar? Today we hear how Venezuelans’ health and living standards have deteriorated, how unemployment is driving poverty, how American allies have frozen Venezuelan assets held in their banks, how millions of desperate citizens have emigrated, how Maduro is a tyrant, how his police are smothering dissent, how opposition is deepening — all endorsed by American media and members of Congress’ support for regime change.

Thus far, remarkably, Venezuela has resisted outside efforts to instigate a coup and impose its chosen leader. A few voices are calling for a negotiated settlement to the standoff, although Amnesty International is playing its part in demonizing the Maduro government. Recall how AI affirmed the story of Kuwaiti babies ripped from hospital incubators by Iraq’s occupying forces– a phony but effective ploy later exposed.

Iraqi people’s resistance to the murderous U.S. embargo was noble but the experience was nevertheless silently punishing—a war whose harmful ramifications continue today. It was a brutal siege worth remembering because of this, also because the deaths and suffering during that 13-year prelude to the invasion is not calculated into the Iraq war record. Neither are they included in U.S. war crimes and obfuscations by our media.

First, the 1990 embargo on Iraq was wholeheartedly sanctioned by the United Nations. Second, within a few months the U.S. led a massive bombing campaign to drive Iraqi troops from Kuwait and to bomb key infrastructure in the Iraqi capital and other population centers. That strategy smashed bridges and factories and the nationwide power grid, unleashing a plague of toxicity that would infect Iraq’s water, its soil and its air for decades—a plague that persists to the present. American-led bombing continued for years, theoretically aimed at an illegal ‘no-fly zone’ prohibiting flights in the north but effective nationwide, allowing allied jets (mainly U.S., British, and French) to terrorize the entire population. Well documented but little known were summer attacks by fighter jets loaded with incendiary bombs that set Iraq’s ripened wheat fields alight, destroying one of the people’s few domestic sources of food.

While the Bush Sr. administration designed and imposed the embargo, the succeeding Democratic Clinton presidency (1993-2001) strictly maintained it. So critics of the current policy against Venezuela who blame a pugilistic Trump administration need to recognize this is a tried and tested non-partisan American—Republican and Democrat—war policy.

Eventually—rather late, as is often the case— documents would provide details of that embargo war. My own reports joining voices of colleagues, notably John Pilger, Felicity Arbuthnot, Kathy Kelly, George Galloway and the International Action Center led by former attorney general Ramsey Clark, documented devastation wrought by the embargo.

It was only in 2012, after the U.S. invasion and occupation ended, when noble institutions like Harvard Press risked publishing The Invisible War: The United States and Iraq Sanctions, a study of that episode. Also belatedly (in 2010) came Cultural Cleansing in Iraq, a credible account of the pillaging of Iraq following the U.S. invasion.

What informs our consciousness of that distant war today? Accounts of ISIS atrocities and memoirs by retired American marines of their lost comrades.

*

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

Barbara Nimri Aziz is a New York based anthropologist and journalist. She is the author of “Tibetan Frontier Families” and numerous articles on Tibet and Nepal, has been working in Nepal in recent weeks. Find her work at www.RadioTahrir.org. She was a longtime producer at Pacifica-WBAI Radio in NY.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

China is not afraid of the US on trade issues. It is better for the trade war not to happen since it will hurt both sides. But if the trade war happens, China will win. It may be an unexpected outcome even for US President Donald Trump who, like other US elites, believes the US has advantages.

According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, goods traded between China and the US totaled around $659.8 billion last year. The US exported $120.3 billion but imported $539.5 billion. China makes $419.2 billion more than the US.

It would seem that China has more to lose in a trade war. But that is not how it works.

Goods the US sold to China through the intermediary trade were not included. And what the US does not mention is its services trade surplus of 40.5 billion against China.

China does not deny the trade deficit with the US. But China’s exports to the US are mostly (industrial) processing trade. Many of the commodities China produces belong to US enterprises.

For example, iPhones will be sold back to the US after they are produced by their original equipment manufacturers in Shenzhen and Zhengzhou. These are regarded as Chinese exports, but Chinese companies earn very little money from producing and processing them.

US President Donald Trump’s sanctioning of ZTE Corp was equivalent to a warning strike on a battlefield. In addition to the traditional tariff war, the US aimed to seize China by the throat by putting restrictions on China’s application of high-end chips.

Nevertheless, Trump realized later that the US would not dare to start a total trade war with China. US high-end chips are indeed the best in the world. Developing and producing such chips are very costly, so chipmakers have to sell them at a very high price to maintain high investment in research and development (R&D) and further create a virtuous circle in the industry. The Chinese market is the key.

The global sales of the chip market totaled $468.8 billion in 2018, of which China imported over $300 billion. If Trump totally blocks sales of high-end chips to China, a large number of US chip makers would have to face bankruptcy, which would bring huge damages to Wall Street as well.

In fact, a lack of high-end chips has almost no effect on China other than a mild slowdown in industrial upgrading. China can also seize this opportunity to develop its own high-end chips.

China has three trump cards to deal with the US on trade.

The first one is a total ban on the export of rare earths to the US.

Rare earths are the raw materials for non-ferrous metals, which are indispensible in chip-making. China’s rare-earth production accounts for a majority of the world’s total.

The US has its own rare-earth reserves but it would take years for the US to restore its own rare-earth industry to meet its needs for chip production. Even when the US finishes re-establishing the industry, China would have completed R&D on high-end chips and started to export its own products.

US national debt is the second card.

China holds more than $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds. China made a great contribution to stabilizing the US economy by buying US debt during the financial crisis in 2008. The US would be miserable if China hits it when it is down.

The third card would be American companies’ market in China.

US companies entered China at a very early time, right after China’s reform and opening-up.

They reaped large profits in the Chinese market, higher than Chinese companies earned in the US market.

The US is anxious and arrogant. The growing nationalist sentiment of the US could be beneficial to China.

China will only lose compradors rather than ordinary workers if the US fails to win the Chinese market.

China could be more open in some industries, including insurance, finance, and healthcare, and make more efforts in respecting intellectual property rights.

China must rationalize its behavior with internationally accepted norms, such as globalization, free trade, and multilateralism, whereas the US is on its way to anti-globalization, protectionism, and unilateralism. *

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.

Jin Canrong is Associate Dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China. [email protected]

Featured image is from Luo Xuan/Global Times

Congress, and particularly the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, seems determined to see the end of the Trump Administration before the 2020 vote. Although House Speaker Pelosi claims she is not seeking impeachment, she’s accusing the president of “covering up” something. However, she won’t say what until she can do more investigating.

But Trump’s opponents on both sides of the Congressional aisle don’t seem so enthusiastic about challenging the president when he actually does abuse his Constitutional authority to pursue a more aggressive policy overseas.

Late last week, for example, President Trump declared a national security “emergency” brought about by unspecified “Iranian malign activity” – a “loophole” allowing him to bypass Congressional review of some $8 billion in US weapons to be sold to Saudi Arabia.

Congress had been reluctant to approve yet more arms sales to Saudi Arabia after the President vetoed a bi-partisan House and Senate-approved bill requiring the US to end its military support for the Saudi war of aggression against Yemen.

What might this new Iran “emergency” be? As with the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Administration claims important secret intelligence — but of course we have to just trust them. From what we have heard from the Administration, it looks pretty flimsy. Rear Admiral Michael Gilday, the director of the Joint Staff, has outright claimed that the so-called “sabotage” of four container ships at port in the UAE is the doing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. But even Abu Dhabi didn’t claim Iranian involvement in the mysterious incident.

Could it have been a false flag?

Admiral Gilday also claims, without providing proof, that the recent firing of a small rocket in the general vicinity of the US Embassy in Iraq is the work of the Iranians. “We believe with a high degree of confidence that this [recent attacks] stems back to the leadership in Iran at the highest levels,” he said.

What would Iran gain by shooting off an insignificant rocket, exposing itself to US massive retaliation with no gain whatsoever? They don’t say.

The Trump Administration has been lacking any coherent foreign policy strategy for some time. It often seems the President is fighting more with his own appointees than with his opponents on Capitol Hill. As soon as he announces that ISIS is defeated and US troops must come home, his employees like National Security Advisor John Bolton “clarify” Trump’s statements to mean that troops are staying. Trump goes to Hanoi to cut a deal with North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un and Bolton shows up with a poison pill that blows up the deal.

Bolton announced plans for 120,000 US troops to the Middle East to help push the war on Iran he’s been hocking for 20 or so years. Then we heard it was 10,000. Then 1,500, of which 600 are already there.

Whether Trump is on board or not, his Administration is clearly dragging the US into conflict with Iran. While some Members remind the president that he does not have Constitutional authority to attack Iran without approval, that argument has not been very effective in deterring presidents thus far.

If Congress really wanted to rein in an out-of-control president, they have plenty of opportunity in his bogus “national emergency” declaration and his saber rattling toward Iran. But if asserting Constitutional authority means Congress acts to pull-back US militarism overseas, suddenly there is a great bipartisan silence. They’d rather impeach Trump over his rude Tweets than over his stomping on the Constitution.

*

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: DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos

At the UN Security Council meeting on May 28, 2019, Syria’s permanent representative Dr. Bashar Jaafari called upon  foreign military forces to withdraw from Syria? 

But who are these foreign military forces?

How to compel the United States and its allies to withdraw their mercenaries from Syria, who are invariably referred to by the Western media as “opposition forces”?

Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations Dr. Bashar Jaafari delivered one of his usual strong statements during the latest meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 28 May 2019.

He highlighted the hypocrisy and lies of the western P3: US, UK, and France, and called on the UN Security Council to carry out its duties as per the UN Charter, International Law, and the Security Council’s own resolutions.

Dr. Jaafari’s statement in Arabic, the video with English subtitles, and below it is the full transcript of his statement translated to English:

Transcript of the English translation of Dr. Jaafari’s statement at the UNSC 8535th meetings on 28 May 2018:

Thank you, Mr. President,

Allow me first to welcome the dear friend deputy of the Minister of Russian Federation Foreign Affairs to this session and to thank him for the valuable explanations he just presented.

Mr. President,

The English proverb says, and I quote: “Words may lie, but actions will always tell the truth”, and the truth which is no more hidden for everybody is that the suffering of the Syrian people is caused by the crimes of the multi-named terrorist organizations, and with different loyalties, and the foreign terrorist fighters in its ranks, in addition to the direct aggression crimes, the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the US-coalition and its tools, and its proxy militias, which it accompanied it with an economical barbarian terror.

And the truth which is no longer invisible to anyone is that the humanitarian matter has been used from the beginning by governments of member states in this Council, and outside this Council, as a tool to target my country, and to tarnish the efforts of the Syrian state’s institutions, attempting to distort its image and incite public opinion against it.

How can anyone believe that, in this way, what the governments of these countries claim in their mocking statements stems from the concern for the safety of the Syrian people?

How long will your Council remain incapable of upholding the principles of international law and the Charter and compel those aggressor States to cease and hold accountable their aggressive practices against my country?

Some colleagues pointed to the situation in Idlib. In my statement to you on 17 of this month, I explained the reality of the situation there under the control of the Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) terrorist organization.

By the way, the HTS (Al-Sham Liberation Organization) is the Nasra Front, and the Nasra Front is al-Qaeda in the Levant, and al-Qaeda in the Levant emanated from Al-Qaeda organization in Iraq and al-Qaeda Organization in Iraq emanated from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, meaning we are all talking about something called al-Qaeda, no matter how many names it takes, all are terrorist entities, so your honorable Council considers it.

So, in my statement dated 17 May, I explained the reality of the situation there under the control of the HTS terrorist organization and its associated entities over large areas of Idlib, its terrorist attacks on the safe neighboring areas and on the Syrian and Russian forces centers, all of which my colleague, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, has faithfully documented.

I am still waiting for your answers to the questions I posed to you, especially in terms of how would you behave yourself if you encounter similar circumstances by terrorist organizations controlling one of your cities and using them as a base to target other cities and undermine security and stability.

We have one question, the Ambassador of Belgium, in the name of the humanitarian pen carrier, asked five questions, we have one question, which I asked just now. This is the important question.

When will you realize, gentlemen, that the right we are exercising is the same right that you have exercised to deal with the terrorist attacks on the Bataclan Theater, the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris and the terrorist acts in Nice, London, Boston, Brussels and elsewhere?

Of course, those terrorists you encountered in your countries were not equipped with Turkish multi-rocket launchers and tanks, military hardware, advanced US communications technologies, or the mercenary media who promote them, including American Bilal Abdul-Karim, the correspondent for Nusra Front terrorist organization for the British Sky News and American CNN, Nor with Western chemical weapons experts, as is the case with the terrorists holding the civilians in Idlib.

The meeting which was organized two days ago by the Turkish intelligence and included representatives of the Nusra Front and the organizations of the Izzat Army, Ahrar al-Sham, Soquour Al-Sham, and Jaysh Al-Ahrar refutes all that has been propagandized over the past years regarding the so-called moderate Syrian opposition. It also unequivocally demonstrates, once again, the support provided by the terror-sponsoring governments to these armed terrorist organizations.

To confirm the words with a picture, this is the picture of the leaders of the terrorist organizations who met in Idlib two days ago under the auspices of the Turkish intelligence. The meeting is led by the head of the Nusra Front the terrorist Al-Jolani, along with other terrorist organizations sponsored by the Turkish government and some countries in this Council.

Nusra Front Commander Jolani Meets Commanders of FSA Moderate Rebels in Idlib, the meeting is organized by Recep Tayyip Erdogan

What is important is that some of those in the picture and sitting with Nusra Front, which controls 99% of Idlib, some of those attended Astana (meetings), some of them are obliged, they are obliged not to fight alongside Nusra Front against the Syrian state and its allies, and they are also obliged to respect the understandings of Astana, including the establishment of a low-escalation area.

This picture of those ‘moderate doves’ meeting in Idlib.

Mr. President,

How long will your Council ignore the suffering of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians from the areas where there are illegal foreign forces and its proxy militias?

Ignoring the suffering of these people proves once again the volume of lies and hypocrisy of some in dealing with humanitarian issues, and let me hastily point out the aspects of this suffering:

First, the continuation of the United States of America and its proxy Maghaweer Al-Thawra terrorist organization to detain thousands of civilians in the Rukban Camp in the occupied region of Al-Tanf, and prevent their exit and return to their home areas, and refusing to dismantle the camp.

We call on the Security Council to compel the United States to stop obstructing the joint Syrian-Russian efforts to end the suffering of the camp’s residents, which has, to date, enabled more than 12,000 people to leave it.

Here, I would like to register a reservation against what Mrs. Ursula said in her statement when she said that she was urging the Syrian authorities to allow the entry of a third convoy to al-Rukban Camp in Al-Tanf. This gives the impression that those who obstruct the entry of humanitarian convoys into Al-Tanf is the Syrian government. This is the impression given through the formulation of your words.

I want to correct this information for you: OCHA know and you know and the Secretary-General of the United Nations knows and the whole world knows and this council knows that the Syrian government has agreed to the first convoy while the US occupation authorities refused to allow entry of the first convoy for 40 days.

You know and OCHA knows and the Secretary-General knows and this Council knows that the Syrian government approved the second convoy while the United States of America, the occupying Power, refused to allow it for four months.

And you know and everyone knows and OCHA knows and the Secretary-General knows that, under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the occupying Power is responsible for the protection of civilians. The United States occupation Power of the Al-Tanf region, under the Geneva Conventions, is responsible for providing food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to those under its occupation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Fourthly, what are the US forces doing over a part of my country? What is OCHA’s position or the position of this Council? What is the American doing over part of my country?

Second, the situation in the al-Hol camp in the northeast of the country is no less bad than that in al-Rukban camp. The camp is under the control of a US proxy militia calling itself the Syrian Democratic Forces SDF. A militia that grew up in the shadow of the American coalition that provided members of the ISIS terrorist organization and joined them to its ranks. It committed, with the complete support of the American Coalition, many massacres, practices of oppression, detention and torture against the Syrians who demand their rights and the return of Syrian state institutions to exercise its role in their areas of presence.

We can not fail here to point out what the United States and SDF gangs are doing in stealing oil and smuggle artifacts and the Syrian national resources and smuggling it out and to try to stifle the Syrian economy and create crises that affect the Syrians in their daily lives.

Thirdly, we must put an end to the suffering of our people in the areas where the forces of the invading Turkish regime are illegally deployed. In this context, we call upon the Security Council to act decisively and immediately to stop the practices of the Turkish regime aimed at changing the identity and demographic character of these Syrian regions and preventing the Erdogan regime from compromising the unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. And put an end to his illusions in the revival of the era of the Ottoman Sultanate, which has passed without return.

I say this rather than hearing from my dear colleague the British ambassador, thanking the Turkish authorities for their humanitarian assistance in Idlib.

The Syrian Arab Republic reaffirms that the presence of any foreign military forces on its territory without its consent is aggression and occupation and will be dealt with on this basis.

Our vision is clear, we will spare no effort to rid our people in Idlib of the control of the terrorist organizations from which they are taking human shields, as well as to put an end to the repetitive attacks of these terrorist organizations on innocent civilians in the neighboring towns and cities.

We call upon all the concerned States to withdraw their citizens among the foreign terrorist fighters, who are estimated to number tens of thousands from my country immediately, to account for their crimes and to ensure that its are not repeated, rather than recycle these terrorists in order to continue their terrorism in other countries, such as Africa and elsewhere.

In this context, I would like to ask the representatives of Western countries in this Council: how can members of terrorist organizations and foreign terrorist fighters move to Libya, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Niger border with Algeria and others without the support and patronage of influential governments?

We have repeatedly warned against these countries’ attempts to invest in terrorism to undermine the security and stability of certain countries to serve their political agendas.

Our second question is: Have the United Nations Secretariat, which has a working partnership with 38 international organizations and institutions involved in countering terrorism, failed to identify the governments that support terrorism that has targeted my country for eight years? As if this was a very complex philosophical matter similar to the identification of the sex of angels.

We are determined to liberate all parts of our national territory from any illegitimate presence of foreign forces. This is a legitimate sovereign right in accordance with the principles of international law, the provisions of the Charter and the resolutions of this Council, and in accordance with the Astana understandings which have all affirmed the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Mr. President,

My country’s delegation reiterates its demand of OCHA to fulfill its responsibilities and to put the United Nations in the picture of the humanitarian and living suffering of the Syrians as a result of the unilateral coercive economic measures imposed by the United States of America, the European Union and other countries on my country, Syria, which have a negative impact on all areas of life of the Syrian citizen, Including medical threads used in surgeries. They are preventing the Syrian Ministry of Health from obtaining the medical threads used in surgical operations.

Ignoring this form of economic terrorism which complements the terror of terrorist organizations and their sponsors is unacceptable and should not be continued.

We again call upon OCHA to desist from including in its reports baseless allegations fabricated and promoted by hostile elements at the United Nations Office at the UN office in Turkish Gaziantep and at the OCHA (HQ) in fulfillment of the agenda of the United States and its allies.

In conclusion, Mr. President,

Some members of this Council, namely the United States, Britain, and France, continue to engage in the art of deceit and deception to implement the policies of their governments to dominate the world and return it to colonial, mandate and guardianship periods.

These countries continue to exploit the Council’s platform to protect terrorists and obstruct the progress of the Syrian army in the face of the terrorist organizations supported by these countries, including ordering White Helmets terrorists, the disinformation propaganda arm of the Nusra Front to fabricate alleged use of toxic chemicals, again, and accuse the Syrian government of responsibility, which is not strange to the two countries that fabricated the lie of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and similar to what happened when the Syrian army advanced in each of the Eastern Ghouta, Aleppo and other places, we see the issuance of statements by senior officials of the countries I have referred to and their ambassadors in this Council warn and threaten of the use of Chemical weapons, as if these officials and these ambassadors say to armed terrorist groups in Idlib that the only way to save you is only if chemical weapons are used. So, go ahead and use poisonous chemicals against civilians in Idlib.

And work on fabricating evidence and bring false witnesses, as usual, and manipulate the crime scene as you did before, and then we will be ready with our media and political capabilities to accuse the Syrian government and intervene to rescue you.

This is what happened before, and this should be prevented from recurring in the present and the future.

Thank you, Mr. President.

*

Author’s note: Please note that this is not the official translation of the statement, this is a personal effort to provide a better translation that matches the words of the Syrian ambassador and not the thoughts of the instant translator provided to him by the international organization. This is also not an academic translation as yours truly never studied English, and never worked in the translation field before, and is just volunteering to assist, so kindly ignore not so eloquent text.

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

During the lengthened Memorial Day weekend, Chicago police responded to 42 people shot, seven of whom died of their injuries.

The violence was slightly above average for this time of year, according to homicide data indexed by the Chicago Tribune.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot told reporters on Monday that the surge in violent crime over the weekend “is just an unacceptable state of affairs.”

“I certainly knew that before, but to see it graphically depicted is quite shocking and says that we’ve got a long way to go as a city,” she said. “This is not a law enforcement-only challenge. It’s a challenge for all of us in city government. It’s a challenge for us in communities to dig down deeper and ask ourselves what we can do to step up to stem the violence.“

Lightfoot stressed that gun violence is not how residents should resolve disputes.

“For those who think it is, we can give them no quarter, they can have no sanctuary in our city,” she said. “We’ve got to make sure we flood these areas with a lot more resources.”

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson also told reporters a new program to crack down on illegal guns had been implemented to curb gun violence.

The extended holiday weekend, combined with elevated temperatures, allowed more people to hit the streets, therefore some neighborhoods across Chicago transformed into warzones. Leading up to the weekend, Chicago police raided several trap houses and added addition shifts to patrols.

Since Friday afternoon, the shootings stretched from Roseland to West Rogers Park. The Tribune notes the epicenter of the violence was in the South and West sides of the city that are considered low-income areas.

As shown in the chart below, shootings and homicides ramped up into the holiday weekend and exploded on Sunday. From 5/26 through 5/28, three people were shot and killed, 21 people shot and wounded, and a total of 5 homicides.

However, the violence subsided on Monday due to inclement weather, which deterred people from congregating on city streets.

For the month, 40 people have been shot and killed, 175 people shot and wounded, and a total of 43 homicides.

Year to date, 174 people have been shot and killed, 720 people shot and wounded, and a total of 189 homicides.

Every 3 minutes and 57 seconds, someone in Chicago is shot. A person is murdered about ever 18.5 hours.

And according to HeyJackass!, an online crime statistic website, the current forecasts show about 200 homicides and an additional 950 shooting from now to Labor Day weekend.

*

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 Chicago Tribune

Trump said in Japan that he is not looking for regime change in Iran.

Trump said at a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister ABE Shinzo,

“We aren’t looking for regime change – I just want to make that clear. We are looking for no nuclear weapons. I really believe that Iran would like to make a deal, and I think that’s very smart of them, and I think that’s a possibility to happen. It has a chance to be a great country with the same leadership.”

Trump breached the treaty the US and other members of the UN Security Council signed with Iran in 2015, which aimed precisely at forestalling Iran from having nuclear weapons.

Editors and journalists and US politicians seem perpetually confused about the difference between a civilian nuclear enrichment program and a weapons program.

Iran has not had a weapons program since 2002, and that program was rudimentary. The cult-like People’s Jihadis (Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK) outed the program in that year, and the Iranian government mothballed it. The People’s Jihadis are a small fanatical Iranian dissident group once hosted by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, which has carried out large terrorist attacks.

So what Iran does have is a civilian enrichment program for producing fuel for its three nuclear reactors at Bushehr, built by Russia. These are light water reactors.

Uranium in nature comes mixed as U235 and U238. It is U235 that is volatile and useful as a fuel. But to run a reactor, the proportion of U235 in the uranium has be to increased to 3.5 percent. This is accomplished by putting the uranium in a centrifuge, gassifying it, and whirling it around so as to separate out the U235 from the U238.

This civilian nuclear enrichment for fuel is what Iran has been doing for the past 16 years. It is very different from making a bomb, which requires a whole set of other technologies.

Iran did enrich some uranium to 19.5 percent as fuel for a small medical reactor, to produce isotopes for treating cancer. That level is still considered LEU or Low enriched Uranium.

The problem with centrifuges is that they are potentially dual use. If you had enough centrifuges and could secretly keep feeding the ever more enriched uranium through them, you could eventually enrich to 95% to make a bomb.

You could also theoretically make a bomb with a heavy water reactor, and Iran had one planned at Arak.

So the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action closed off Iran’s avenue to a bomb in four ways:

1. It is restricted to 6,000 centrifuges, so few that it would take a very long time to enrich uranium with them to bomb grade.

2. It is subject to regular UN International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. These inspections involve sophisticated technology that can detect the signature of plutonium or HEU (High Enriched Uranium). The equipment cannot be fooled, since the signatures are powerful and stay around.

3. Iran was forced to brick in its planned heavy water reactor at Arak. It isn’t being built, though Iran is threatening to revive the project if it goes on being subjected to severe sanctions.

4. It had to cast its 19.5% enriched uranium stockpiles in a form that makes it impossible to further enrich them.

The CIA has never found any evidence since 2003 of Iran even wanting a nuclear weapons program, much less practically embarking on one. And the four restrictions of the JCPOA make it impossible to establish such a program as long as they are in place.

So if what Trump wanted was “no nukes,” then he already had that in the form of the JCPOA, which he has tried to destroy!

Destroying the JCPOA will simply remove the restrictions on Iran’s enrichment program, the opposite of what you would do if you don’t want them to have weapons.

Iran did not mothball 80% of its enrichment capacity out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it because they were promised an end to international sanctions. Instead, Trump has ratcheted up the sanctions far beyond where they were in 2014.

Iran was screwed over by the US– it gave up its only deterrence card to forestall a US invasion and regime change. And then once that was done, the US slapped back on the sanctions at an even more powerful level.

There is almost no incentive for Iran now to remain in the deal. For Trump to go around the world forbidding other countries (including Japan) to buy Iranian oil is, contrary to what he says, an attempt to overthrow the government, which has been heavily dependent for its revenues on oil exports.

I suspect Abe Shinzo [Japanese put their last names first] told Trump all this, and he is probably carrying a message from Trump to Tehran next month. In the meantime, the Iranian economy is deeply hurting and Iran has little reason to make yet another deal with someone who lightly reneged on 3 years of work on the last one.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook

Merkel is the most powerful and influential politician not only in Europe but in the world, today.

Yet she, herself, made arguably the greatest political and military error of the past 70 years by unilaterally agreeing to supply Israel’s tiny naval force with a fleet of German Dolphin-Class submarines that are now believed armed with cruise missiles tipped with 200kton nuclear warheads, and a range of 1500kms. They are assumed to be deployed in both the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. This huge arms transaction was subsidised by the German government and has given the Israeli state a ‘2nd strike capability’ which has dramatically altered the balance of power in Europe and the Middle East.

This act of military madness had helped drive the rise of the far Right not only in Germany itself but throughout Europe, the majority of EU states having no nuclear defence of their own and certainly no 2nd strike capability. In the event of a nuclear conflict against Europe, it does not need much imagination to calculate who will be ‘the last man standing’.

The state of Israel is the only undeclared nuclear weapon entity in the world and is probably the 4th most powerful after the US, Russia and France.  She has an estimated stockpile of up to 400 nuclear warheads which is greater than that of China, Pakistan or India and, of course, still refuses to be a party to the global nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or any of the international treaties (CWC/ BWC) that outlaw both chemical and biological weapons.

Chancellor Merkel is now nearly halfway through her fourth and final term as Chancellor and her legacy is profound.

Empowering Israel to be one of only four so-called nuclear triad states in the world with a 2nd strike capability i.e. with air, land and undersea nuclear capabilities, was probably the defining act of profound irresponsibility ever delivered by any European leader.

A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles.

The ramifications of such a voluntary act of irresponsibility could resonate around the world for more than a hundred years.  The most powerful politician in Europe for over the past decade will leave a continent of a half a billion people at the mercy of a small, troubled, nuclear-weaponised country in the Middle East with a population of less than nine million.

As Merkel prepares to leave office, she might reflect on the dangers that both NATO and the continent she has for so long dominated, now become so vulnerable to attack by foreign forces with both nuclear and chemical WMD.  Tragically, that one deliberate action that made a mockery of the (NPT) nuclear Non Proliferation Act, can never be reversed. That die is now well and truly cast.

*

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

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

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

It’s a David vs Goliath story. A former local newspaper reporter, Robert Stuart, is taking on the British Broadcasting Corporation. Stuart believes that a sensational video story about an alleged atrocity in Syria “was largely, if not entirely, staged.”  The BBC would like it all to just go away. But like David, Stuart will not back down or let it go.  It has been proposed that the BBC could settle the issue by releasing the raw footage from the event, but they refuse to do this. Why?

The Controversial Video

The video report in controversy is ‘Saving Syria’s Children‘. Scenes from it were first broadcast as a BBC news report on August 29, 2013 and again as a BBC Panorama special in September. ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ was produced by BBC reporter Ian Pannell with Darren Conway as camera operator and director.

The news report footage was taken in a town north of Aleppo city in a region controlled by the armed opposition. It purports to show the aftermath of a Syrian aerial attack using incendiary weapons, perhaps napalm, killing and burning dozens of youth.  The video shows the youth arriving and being treated at a nearby hospital where the BBC film team was coincidentally filming two British medical volunteers from a British medical relief organization.

The video had a strong impact. The incident was on August 26. The video was shown on the BBC three days later as the British Parliament was debating whether to support military action by the US against Syria. As it turned out, British parliament voted against supporting military action. But the video was effective in demonizing the Syrian government. After all, what kind of government attacks school children with napalm-like bombs?

The Context

‘Saving Syria’s Children’ was produced at a critical moment in the Syrian conflict. Just days before, on August 21,  there had been an alleged sarin gas attack against an opposition held area on the outskirts of Damascus. Western media was inundated with videos showing dead Syrian children amidst accusations the Syrian government had attacked civilians, killing up to 1400.  The Syrian government was assumed to be responsible and the attack said to be a clear violation of President Obama’s “red line” against chemical weapons.

This incident had the effect of increasing pressure for Western states or NATO to attack Syria. It would be for humanitarian reasons, rationalized by the “responsibility to protect”.

The assumption that ‘the regime’ did it has been challenged. Highly regarded American  journalists including the late Robert Parry and Seymour Hersh investigated and contradicted the mainstream media. They pointed to the crimes being committed by the armed opposition for political goals.  A report by two experts including a UN weapons inspector and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity also came to the conclusion that the Syrian government was not responsible and the attack  was actually by an armed opposition group with the goal of forcing NATO intervention.   

Why the Controversial Video is Suspicious

After seeing skeptical comments about ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ on an online discussion board, Robert Stuart looked at the video for himself. Like others, he thought the hospital sequences looked artificial, almost like scenes from a badly acted horror movie.

But unlike others, he decided to find out. Thus began his quest to ascertain the truth. Was the video real or was it staged?  Was it authentic or contrived propaganda?

Over almost six years his research has revealed many curious elements about the video including:

• Youth in the hospital video appear to act on cue.
• There is a six hour discrepancy in reports about when the incident occurred.
• One of the supposed victims, shown writhing in pain on a stretcher, is seen earlier walking unaided into the ambulance.
• The incident happened in an area controlled by a terror group associated with ISIS.
• One of the British medics is a former UK soldier involved in simulated injury training.
• The other British medic is daughter of a prominent figure in the Syrian opposition.
• In 2016 a local rebel commander testified that the alleged attack never happened. 

Support for Robert Stuart

Robert Stuart’s formal complaints to the BBC have been rebuffed. His challenges to those involved in the production have been ignored or stifled. Yet his quest has won support from some major journalistic and political figures.

Former Guardian columnist Jonathan Cook has written several articles on the story. He says,

“Stuart’s sustained research and questioning of the BBC, and the state broadcaster’s increasing evasions, have given rise to ever greater concerns about the footage. It looks suspiciously like one scene in particular, of people with horrific burns, was staged.”

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray has compared scenes in ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ with his own harrowing experience with burn victims. He says,

“The alleged footage of burn victims in hospital following a napalm attack bears no resemblance whatsoever to how victims, doctors and relatives actually behave in these circumstances.”

Film-maker Victor Lewis-Smith has done numerous projects for the BBC. When learning about Stuart’s research he asked for some explanations and suggested they could resolve the issue by releasing the raw video footage of the events. When they refused to do this, he publicly tore up his BBC contract.

Why it Matters

The BBC has a reputation for objectivity. If BBC management was deceived by the video, along with the public, they should have a strong interest in uncovering and correcting this. If there was an error, they should want to clarify, correct and ensure it is not repeated.

The BBC could go a long way toward resolving this issue by releasing raw footage of the scenes in ‘Saving Syria’s Children’.  Why have they refused to do this? In addition, they have actively removed youtube copies of ‘Saving Syria’s Children’. If they are proud of that production, why are they removing public copies of it?

Has the BBC produced and broadcast contrived or fake video reports in support of British government foreign policy of aggression against Syria? It is important that this question be answered to either restore public trust (if the videos are authentic) or to expose and correct misdeeds (if the videos are largely or entirely staged).

The issue at stake is not only the BBC; it is the manipulation of media to deceive the public into supporting elite-driven foreign policy. ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ is an important case study.

The Future

Robert Stuart is not quitting.  He hopes the next step will be a documentary film dramatically showing what he has discovered and further investigating important yet unexplored angles.

The highly experienced film producer Victor Lewis-Smith, who tore up his BBC contract, has stepped forward to help make this happen.

But to produce a high quality documentary including some travel takes funding. After devoting almost six  years to this effort, Robert Stuart’s resources are exhausted. The project needs support from concerned members of the public.

If you support Robert Stuart’s efforts, go to this crowdfunding website.  There you can learn more and contribute to this important effort to reveal whether the BBC video ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ showed true or staged events. Was the alleged “napalm” attack real or was it staged propaganda?  The project needs a large number of small donors and a few substantial ones to meet the June 7 deadline.

As actor and producer Keith Allen says,

“Please help us to reach the target so that we can discover the facts, examine the evidence, and present the truth about ‘Saving Syria’s Children’. I think it’s really important.”

*

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.

Susan Dirgham is editor of “Beloved Syria – Considering Syrian Perspectives”published in Australia.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in northern California.  He can be contacted via [email protected]

Alla presenza del Capo della Stato Sergio Mattarella, del ministro della Difesa Elisabetta Trenta, del ministro dello sviluppo economico Luigi di Maio, e delle massime autorità militari, è stata varata il 25 maggio nei Cantieri di Castellammare di Stabia (Napoli) la nave Trieste, costruita da Fincantieri.

È una unità anfibia multiruolo e multifunzione della Marina militare italiana, definita dalla Trenta «perfetta sintesi della capacità di innovazione tecnologica del Paese». Lunga 214 metri e con una velocità di 25 nodi (46 km/h), ha un ponte di volo lungo 230 metri per il decollo di elicotteri, caccia F-35B a decollo corto e atterraggio verticale e convertiplani V-22 Osprey.

Può trasportare nel suo ponte-garage veicoli blindati per 1200 metri lineari. Ha al suo interno un bacino allagabile, lungo 50 metri e largo 15, che permette alla nave di operare con i più moderni mezzi anfibi della Nato.

In termini tecnici, è una nave destinata a «proiettare e sostenere, in aree di crisi, la forza da sbarco della Marina militare e la capacità nazionale di proiezione dal mare della Difesa».

In termini pratici, è una nave da assalto anfibio che, avvicinandosi alle coste di un paese, lo attacca con caccia ed elicotteri armati di bombe e missili, quindi lo invade con un battaglione di 600 uomini trasportati, con i loro armamenti pesanti, da elicotteri e mezzi di sbarco.

In altre parole, è un sistema d’arma progettato non per la difesa ma per l’attacco in operazioni belliche condotte nel quadro della «proiezione di forze» Usa/Nato a grande distanza.

La decisione di costruire la Trieste fu presa nel 2014 dal governo Renzi, presentandola quale nave militare adibita principalmente ad «attività di soccorso umanitario». Il costo della nave, a carico non del Ministero della difesa ma del Ministero dello sviluppo economico, veniva quantificato in 844 milioni di euro, nel quadro di uno stanziamento di 5.427 milioni per la costruzione, oltre che della Trieste, di altre 9 navi da guerra. Tra queste, due unità navali ad altissima velocità per incursori delle forze speciali in «contesti operativi che richiedano discrezione», ossia in operazioni belliche segrete.

Al momento del varo, il costo della Trieste è stato indicato in 1.100 milioni di euro, oltre 250 in più della spesa preventivata. Il costo finale sarà molto più alto, poiché va aggiunto quello dei caccia F-35B e degli elicotteri imbarcati, più quello di altri armamenti e sistemi elettronici di cui sarà dotata la nave nei prossimi anni. L’innovazione tecnologica in campo militare – ha sottolineato la ministra della Difesa – «deve essere supportata dalla certezza dei finanziamenti».

Ossia da continui, crescenti finanziamenti con denaro pubblico anche da parte del Ministero dello sviluppo economico, ora guidato da Luigi Di Maio.

Alla cerimonia del varo, ha promesso agli operai altri investimenti: ci sono infatti da costruire altre navi da guerra. La cerimonia del varo ha assunto ulteriore significato quando l’ordinario militare, monsignor Santo Marcianò, ha esaltato il fatto che gli operai avevano affisso sulla prua della nave una grande croce, composta da immagini sacre alle quali sono devoti, tra cui quelle di Papa Wojtyła e Padre Pio. Monsignor Marcianò ha elogiato la «forza della fede» espressa dagli operai, che ha benedetto e ringraziato per «questo segno meraviglioso che avete messo sulla nave».

È stata così varata la grande nave da guerra portata a esempio della capacità di innovazione del nostro paese, pagata dal Ministero dello sviluppo economico con i nostri soldi sottratti a investimenti produttivi e spese sociali, benedetta col segno della Croce come all’epoca delle crociate e delle conquiste coloniali.

Manlio Dinucci

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.

.

.

*     *     *

The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

By The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, May 28, 2019

The Rockefellers are arguably the wealthiest and most powerful family in the history of the United States. For more than 100 years, they have shaped and directed America’s economic, financial, political, and public policy while simultaneously amassing one of the largest family empires in the modern era.

DHS Is Locking Immigrants in Solitary Confinement

By Naureen Shah, May 28, 2019

The stories become even more harrowing when we learn why ICE allegedly imposed solitary. NBC news reported reasons including: wearing a hand cast, sharing a consensual kiss, or needing a wheelchair. ICE reportedly put LGBTQ individuals and people with mental illness in solitary as “protective custody,” citing their own safety.

Turkish Dreams of a “Radical Islamic Annex” in Northern Syria Fade Away

By Steven Sahiounie, May 28, 2019

From the outset of the Syrian conflict, the men who carried weapons were all fighting to abolish the secular Syrian government, in order to form a new government which would be Radical Islam.

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

By Shane Quinn, May 28, 2019

On 30 August 1945, Major General Lauris Norstad dispatched a document to his superior, General Leslie Groves, outlining a total of 15 “key Soviet cities” to be struck with US atomic weapons, headed by the capital Moscow.

The Ever Dependable Bully on Embassy Row; Venezuela and Iraq Are No Longer Worlds Apart

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, May 28, 2019

The United States is still punishing Iran for the 1979 takeover of its ‘sacred’ premises, its embassy in Tehran. By contrast, when American authorities occupy another nation’s embassy there’s nothing but approval from the American public and silent acquiescence by others.

War is a Racket. Major General Smedley Butler

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 28, 2019

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

Palestinian Economic Development Under Zionist Settler Colonialism

By Dr. Zuhair Sabbagh, May 27, 2019

The following research article deals with the entanglement of some Palestinian capitalist interests and Zionist colonial interests inside the Israeli market and also inside the Zionist colonial settlements. It further explores the economic and political dimensions of the collaboration of a segment of the Palestinian “business elites” with the Zionist colonial project in the Palestinian colonized territories.

*

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 2019 edition of the exclusive Bilderberg Meeting will take place at the Hotel Montreux Palace in the Swiss town of Montreux from Thursday to Sunday.

***

It will feature Swiss Finance Minister Ueli Maurer, French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire, the head of Germany’s Christian Democrats, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, and Crédit-Suisse CEO Tidjane Thiam among others.

According to Swiss daily Tages Anzeiger, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will also be among the attendees, although he is not on the official guest list on the Bildberg website.

The Swiss paper reports that Pompeo is set to sit down with Ueli Maurer. The two are tipped to discuss the situation in Iran where Switzerland represents US interests.

However, the Swiss Finance Ministry told The Local on Tuesday that no meeting was envisaged between Pompeo and Maurer.

The yearly Bilderberg talk-fest, which dates back to 1954, features a guest list of around 130 people from Europe and North America including everyone from royals to business tycoons and academics.

A highly secretive affair without a fixed agenda, the Bilderberg Meeting is regular fodder for conspiracy theorists who believe its participants act as a secret world government.

However, organisers argue the private nature of the event gives attendees the chance to hold informal discussions about major issues.

Topics up for discussion this year include climate change and sustainability, Brexit, China, Russia, the future of capitalism and the weaponization of social media.

According to the official Bilderberg website, discussions are held under the Chatham House Rule, which means participants can use any information they receive during the meeting but cannot reveal its source.

This year will be the second time the Bilderberg meeting has been held in Switzerland. In 2011, it was held in St Moritz in the country’s southeast.

*

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 European elections were always going to be interesting if nothing else. We’ve put lots of stats together so you can see them in a different way.

One thing is for sure – this particular vote proved only one thing – the nation cannot decide on Brexit – and that, if anything, is the takeaway message. However, everyone has a different view and position, so here are some interesting numbers.

Here are the 2016 EU referendum results in Britain on a simple question of Leave or Remain:

• LEAVE 17,410,742 or 51.89%
• REMAIN 16,141,241 or 48.11%
• Total votes 33,577,342
• Registered voters 46,500,001
• Voter turnout 72,21%

What is surprising in last weeks European elections is that given the raised passions for one side or the other, voter turnout completely collapsed from the 72.2 per cent turnout at the original 2016 UK EU referendum but remained more or less stable for the last 4 EU elections.

The chart below shows the percentage of registered UK voters who actually voted at European Parliament elections from 1979–2019, and the average turnout across the European Union.

Chart by UK Political Info

Although the Brexit party have claimed a decisive victory – and to be fair, for a single party, it was – it depends on what you are looking for in the numbers. Given the political parties position on Brexit – this is how it turned by pro/anti-Brexit votes.

The chart below shows how the Brexit Party topped polls in every country or region apart from London, which was won by the Liberal Democrats; Scotland, which was won by the SNP; and Northern Ireland, where they did not stand.

From a mapping perspective – the result seems overwhelming.

Map – BBC UK Politics

There is another side of the story though

But the maps and numbers don’t tell the whole story. There are a number of ways of looking at this result.

From here, even after looking at the maps and basic numbers – the actual statistics demonstrate only one thing (depending on your view of course) – that there is no unambiguous majority for anything when it comes to Brexit.

It was the Tories worst election result since 1832.

It was Labour’s worse share of the vote in 100 years.

SNP has a 23% increase in the percentage of votes cast over the last EU election. The result is inevitable at some point – Scotland will be leaving the union if England leaves the EU, quite possibly irrespective of what Westminster ends up doing.

6,085,174 people signed the petition to revoke article 50 a few months ago. It took three weeks to reach 6 million. Politically and in the mainstream media, nobody took any notice. Last week, 5,248,533 people voted for the Brexit Party. For the mainstream media, this 6-week old party must be followed unquestioningly on TV screens and front pages.

In 2016 17.4m people voted for Brexit. In 2019 5.2m people voted for the Brexit Party.

In contrast – According to Electoral Calculus, if last week’s vote had been a general election, the result would be:

• Conservative: 0 seats
• Labour: 93 seats
• Lib: 31 seats
• Green: 1 seat
• SNP: 56 seats
• Plaid: 5 seats
• Brexit: 446 seats
• Brexit majority 242!

And finally ….

Whilst we all fixate on Brexit it should be noted that Child homelessness has surged by 80 per cent since the Conservatives came into government in 2010, with a new household now found to be homeless every five minutes, official figures show. It’s a rise of 33 per cent in the last four years. There has been a 267 per cent rise in children living in B&B between 2010 and 2018. The number of young people who have been in B&Bs for more than six weeks is up by 440 per cent in the same period

Unfortunately, whilst Brexit sucks the life out traditional politics, millions are suffering and rapidly rising child poverty is a legacy the entire nation should be ashamed of in modern Britain.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The Bilderberg Group will be meeting behind closed doors at the Hotel Montreux Palace, Montreux from the 30th of May to the 2nd of June, 2019.

The topics announced by the organizers for the 2019 Bilderberg meeting are:

1. A Stable Strategic Order
2. What Next for Europe?
3. Climate Change and Sustainability
4. China
5. Russia
6. The Future of Capitalism
7. Brexit
8. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
9. The Weaponisation of Social Media
10. The Importance of Space
11. Cyber Threats

***

The following review article by Stephen Lendman was originally published on Global Research in June 2009.

***

Daniel Estulin has investigated and researched the Bilderberg Group’s far-reaching influence on business and finance, global politics, war and peace, and control of the world’s resources and its money.

His book, “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” was published in 2005 and is now updated in a new 2009 edition. He states that in 1954, “the most powerful men in the world met for the first time” in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, “debated the future of the world,” and decided to meet annually in secret. They called themselves the Bilderberg Group with a membership representing a who’s who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada, and Western Europe with familiar names like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdoch, other heads of state, influential senators, congressmen and parliamentarians, Pentagon and NATO brass, members of European royalty, selected media figures, and invited others – some quietly by some accounts like Barack Obama and many of his top officials.

Always well represented are top figures from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, EU, and powerful central bankers from the Federal Reserve, the ECB’s Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England’s Mervyn King.

For over half a century, no agenda or discussion topics became public nor is any press coverage allowed. The few invited fourth estate attendees and their bosses are sworn to secrecy. Nonetheless, Estulin undertook “an investigative journey” that became his life’s work. He states:

“Slowly, one by one, I have penetrated the layers of secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg Group, but I could not have done this withot help of ‘conscientious objectors’ from inside, as well as outside, the Group’s membership.” As a result, he keeps their names confidential.

Whatever its early mission, the Group is now “a shadow world government….threaten(ing) to take away our right to direct our own destinies (by creating) a disturbing reality” very much harming the public’s welfare. In short, Bilderbergers want to supplant individual nation-state sovereignty with an all-powerful global government, corporate controlled, and check-mated by militarized enforcement.

“Imagine a private club where presidents, prime ministers, international bankers and generals rub shoulders, where gracious royal chaperones ensure everyone gets along, and where the people running the wars, markets, and Europe (and America) say what they never dare say in public.”

Early in its history, Bilderbergers decided “to create an ‘Aristocracy of purpose’ between Europe and the United States (to reach consensus to rule the world on matters of) policy, economics, and (overall) strategy.” NATO was essential for their plans – to ensure “perpetual war (and) nuclear blackmail” to be used as necessary. Then proceed to loot the planet, achieve fabulous wealth and power, and crush all challengers to keep it.

Along with military dominance, controlling the world’s money is crucial for with it comes absolute control as the powerful 19th century Rothschild family understood. As the patriarch Amschel Rothschild once said: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”

Bilderbergers comprise the world’s most exclusive club. No one buys their way in. Only the Group’s Steering Committee decides whom to invite, and in all cases participants are adherents to One World Order governance run by top power elites.

According to Steering Committee rules:

“the invited guests must come alone; no wives, girlfriends, husbands or boyfriends. Personal assistants (meaning security, bodyguards, CIA or other secret service protectors) cannot attend the conference and must eat in a separate hall. (Also) The guests are explicitly forbidden from giving interviews to journalists” or divulge anything that goes on in meetings.

Host governments provide overall security to keep away outsiders. One-third of attendees are political figures. The others are from industry, finance, academia, labor and communications.

Meeting procedure is by Chatham House Rules letting attendees freely express their views in a relaxed atmosphere knowing nothing said will be quoted or revealed to the public. Meetings “are always frank, but do not always conclude with consensus.”

Membership consists of annual attendees (around 80 of the world’s most powerful) and others only invited occasionally because of their knowledge or involvement in relevant topics. Those most valued are asked back, and some first-timers are chosen for their possible later usefulness.

Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended in 1991. “There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement….was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president,” and on January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect. Numerous other examples are similar, including who gets chosen for powerful government, military and other key positions.

Bilderberg Objectives

The Group’s grand design is for “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Their “wish list” includes:

— “one international identify (observing) one set of universal values;”

— centralized control of world populations by “mind control;” in other words, controlling world public opinion;

— a New World Order with no middle class, only “rulers and servants (serfs),” and, of course, no democracy;

— “a zero-growth society” without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;

— manufactured crises and perpetual wars;

— absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;

— “centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;” one size fits all globally;

— using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”

— expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;

— making NATO a world military;

— imposing a universal legal system; and

— a global “welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination.”

Secret Bilderberg Partners

In the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dominant. One of its 1921 founders, Edward Mandell House, was Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor and rumored at the time to be the nation’s real power from 1913 – 1921. On his watch, the Federal Reserve Act passed in December 1913 giving money creation power to bankers, and the 16th Amendment was ratified in February creating the federal income tax to provide a revenue stream to pay for government debt service.

From its beginnings, CFR was committed to “a one-world government based on a centralized global financing system….” Today, CFR has thousands of influential members (including important ones in the corporate media) but keeps a low public profile, especially regarding its real agenda.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a “front organization (for) the heart of the American Establishment.” It meets privately and only publishes what it wishes the public to know. Its members are only Americans.

The Trilateral Commission (discussed below) is a similar group that “brings together global power brokers.” Founded by David Rockefeller, he’s also a leading Bilderberger and CFR Chairman Emeritus, organizations he continues to finance and support.

Their past and current members reflect their power:

— nearly all presidential candidates of both parties;

— leading senators and congressmen;

— key members of the fourth estate and their bosses; and

— top officials of the FBI, CIA, NSA, defense establishment, and other leading government agencies, including state, commerce, the judiciary and treasury.

For its part, “CFR has served as a virtual employment agency for the federal government under both Democrats and Republicans.” Whoever occupies the White House, “CFR’s power and agenda” have been unchanged since its 1921 founding.

It advocates a global superstate with America and other nations sacrificing their sovereignty to a central power. CFR founder Paul Warburg was a member of Roosevelt’s “brain trust.” In 1950, his son, James, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”

Later at the 1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said:

“Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil….individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.”

CFR planned a New World Order before 1942, and the “UN began with a group of CFR members called the Informal Agenda Group.” They drafted the original UN proposal, presented it to Franklin Roosevelt who announced it publicly the next day. At its 1945 founding, CFR members comprised over 40 of the US delegates.

According to Professor G. William Domhoff, author of Who Rules America, the CFR operates in “small groups of about twenty-five, who bring together leaders from the six conspirator categories (industrialists, financiers, ideologues, military, professional specialists – lawyers, medical doctors, etc. – and organized labor) for detailed discussions of specific topics in the area of foreign affairs.” Domhoff added:

“The Council on Foreign Relations, while not financed by government, works so closely with it that it is difficult to distinguish Council action stimulated by government from autonomous actions. (Its) most important sources of income are leading corporations and major foundations.” The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations to name three, and they’re directed by key corporate officials.

Dominant Media Partners

Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 – 64 and 1966 – 79) explained the major media’s role: “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”

CBS and other media giants control everything we see, hear and read – through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, films, and large portions of the Internet. Their top officials and some journalists attend Bilderberg meetings – on condition they report nothing.

The Rockefeller family wields enormous power, even though its reigning patriarch, David, will be 94 on June 12 and surely near the end of his dominance. However, for years “the Rockefellers (led by David) gained great influence over the media. (With it) the family gained sway over public opinion. With the pulse of public opinion, they gained deep influence in politics. And with this politics of subtle corruption, they are taking control of the nation” and now aim for total world domination.

The Bilderberger-Rockefeller scheme is to make their views “so appealing (by camouflaging them) that they become public policy (and can) pressure world leaders into submitting to the ‘needs of the Masters of the Universe.’ ” The “free world press” is their instrument to disseminate “agreed-upon propaganda.”

CFR Cabinet Control

“The National Security Act of 1947 established the office of Secretary of Defense.” Since then, 14 DOD secretaries have been CFR members.

Since 1940, every Secretary of State, except James Byrnes, has been a CFR member and/or Trilateral Commission (TC) one.

For the past 80 years, “Virtually every key US National Security and Foreign Policy Advisor has been a CFR member.

Nearly all top generals and admirals have been CFR members.

Many presidential candidates were/are CFR members, including Herbert Hoover, Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (also a charter TC member), George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John McCain.

Numerous CIA directors were/are CFR members, including Richard Helmes, James Schlesinger, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deutsch, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, and Leon Panetta.

Many Treasury Secretaries were/are CFR members, including Douglas Dillon, George Schultz, William Simon, James Baker, Nicholas Brady, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, and Tim Geithner.

When presidents nominate Supreme Court candidates, the CFR’s “Special Group, Secret Team” or advisors vet them for acceptability. Presidents, in fact, are told who to appoint, including designees to the High Court and most lower ones.

Programming the Public Mind

According to sociologist Hadley Cantril in his 1967 book, The Human Dimension – Experiences in Policy Research:

Government “Psycho-political operations are propaganda campaigns designed to create perpetual tension and to manipulate different groups of people to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world.”

Canadian writer Ken Adachi (1929 – 1989) added:

“What most Americans believe to be ‘Public Opinion’ is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public.”

And noted Australian academic and activist Alex Carey (1922 – 1988) explained the three most important 20th century developments – “The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”

Web of Control

Numerous think tanks, foundations, the major media, and other key organizations are staffed with CFR members. Most of its life-members also belong to the TC and Bilderberg Group, operate secretly, and wield enormous power over US and world affairs.

The Rockefeller-Founded Trilateral Commission (TC)

On page 405 of his Memoirs, David Rockfeller wrote:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

In alliance with Bilderbergers, the TC also “plays a vital role in the New World Order’s scheme to use wealth, concentrated in the hands of the few, to exert world control.” TC members share common views and all relate to total unchallengeable global dominance.

Founded in 1973 and headquartered in Washington, its powerful US, EU and East Asian members seek its operative founding goal – a “New International Economic Order,” now simply a “New World Order” run by global elites from these three parts of the world with lesser members admitted from other countries.

According to TC’s web site, “each regional group has a chairman and deputy chairman, who all together constitute the leadership of the Committee. The Executive Committee draws together a further 36 individuals from the wider membership,” proportionately representing the US, EU, and East Asia in its early years, now enlarged to be broadly global.

Committee members meet several times annually to discuss and coordinate their work. The Executive Committee chooses members, and at any time around 350 belong for a three-year renewable period. Everyone is a consummate insider with expertise in business, finance, politics, the military, or the media, including past presidents, secretaries of state, international bankers, think tank and foundation executives, university presidents and selected academics, and former senators and congressmen, among others.

Although its annual reports are available for purchase, its inner workings, current goals, and operations are secret – with good reason. Its objectives harm the public so mustn’t be revealed. Trilaterals over Washington author Antony Sutton wrote:

“this group of private citizens is precisely organized in a manner that ensures its collective views have significant impact on public policy.”

In her book, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Holly Sklar wrote:

Powerful figures in America, Europe, and East Asia let “the rich….safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world – probably by discouraging protectionism, nationalism, or any response that would pit the elites of one against the elites of another,” in their common quest for global dominance.

Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski (TC’s co-founder) wrote in his Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technotronic Era:

“people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. (The Constitution is) inadequate….the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence….the fiction of sovereignty….is clearly no longer compatible with reality….”

TC today is now global with members from countries as diverse as Argentina, Ukraine, Israel, Jordan, Brazil, Turkey, China and Russia. In his Trilaterals Over America, Antony Sutton believes that TC’s aim is to collaborate with Bilderbergers and CFR in “establishing public policy objectives to be implemented by governments worldwide.” He added that “Trilateralists have rejected the US Constitution and the democratic political process.” In fact, TC was established to counter a “crisis in democracy” – too much of it that had to be contained.

An official TC report was fearful about “the increased popular participation in and control over established social, political, and economic institutions and especially a reaction against the concentration of power of Congress and of state and local government.”

To address this, media control was essential to exert “restraint on what newspapers may publish (and TV and radio broadcast).” Then according to Richard Gardner in the July 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs (a CFR publication):

CFR’s leadership must make “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece,” until the very notion disappears from public discourse.

Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateralist success depends on finding “a way to get us to surrender our liberties in the name of some common threat or crisis. The foundations, educational institutions, and research think tanks supported by (these organizations) oblige by financing so-called ‘studies’ which are then used to justify their every excess. The excuses vary, but the target is always individual liberty. Our liberty” and much more.

Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and CFR members want “an all-encompassing monopoly” – over government, money, industry, and property that’s “self-perpetuating and eternal.” In Confessions of a Monopolist (1906), Frederick C. Howe explained its workings in practice:

“The rules of big business: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you. So long as we see all international revolutionaries and all international capitalists as implacable enemies of one another, then we miss a crucial point….a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism is for their mutual benefit.”

In the Rockefeller File, Gary Allen wrote:

“By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the ‘public good’ and ‘public interest.’ “

David Rockefeller learned the same thing from his father, John D., Jr. who learned it from his father, John D. Sr. They hated competition and relentlessly strove to eliminate it – for David on a global scale through a New World Order.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Trilateralists and CFR members collaborated on the latter’s “1980 Project,” the largest ever CFR initiative to steer world events “toward a particular desirable future outcome (involving) the utter disintegration of the economy.” Why so is the question?

Because by the 1950s and 1960s, worldwide industrial growth meant more competition. It was also a model to be followed, and “had to be strangled in the cradle” or at least greatly contained. In America as well beginning in the 1980s. The result has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, shrinkage of the middle class, and plan for its eventual demise.

The North American Union (NAU)

The idea emerged during the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. David Rockefeller, George Schultz and Paul Volker told the president that Canada and America could be politically and economically merged over the next 15 years except for one problem – French-speaking Quebec. Their solution – elect a Bilderberg-friendly prime minister, separate Quebec from the other provinces, then make Canada America’s 51st state. It almost worked, but not quite when a 1995 secession referendum was defeated – 50.56% to 49.44%, but not the idea of merger.

At a March 23, 2005 Waco, Texas meeting, attended by George Bush, Mexico’s Vincente Fox, and Canada’s Paul Martin, the Security and and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched, also known as the North American Union (NAU). It was a secretive Independent Task Force of North America agreement – a group organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and CFR with the following aims:

— circumventing the legislatures of three countries and their constitutions;

— suppressing public knowledge or consideration; and

— proposing greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups formed to devise non-debatable, not voted on agreements to be binding and unchangeable.

In short – a corporate coup d’etat against the sovereignty of three nations enforced by hard line militarization to suppress opposition.

If enacted, it will create a borderless North America, corporate controlled, without barriers to trade or capital flows for business giants, mainly US ones and much more – America’s access to vital resources, especially oil and Canada’s fresh water.

Secretly, over 300 SPP initiatives were crafted to harmonize the continent’s policies on energy, food, drugs, security, immigration, manufacturing, the environment, and public health along with militarizing three nations for enforcement.

SPP represents another step toward the Bilderberg/Trilateralist/CFR goal for World Government, taking it one step at a time. A “United Europe” was another, the result of various treaties and economic agreements:

— the December 1951 six-nation European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC);

— the March 1957 six-nation Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC);

also the European Atomic Energy Commission (EAEC) by a second Treaty of Rome;

— the October 1957 European Court of Justice to settle regional trade disputes;

— the May 1960 seven-nation European Free Trade Association (EFTA);

— the July 1967 European Economic Community (EEC) merging the ECSC, EAEC and EEC together in one organization;

— the 1968 European Customs Union to abolish duties and establish uniform imports taxing among EEC nations;

— the 1978 European Currency Unit (ECU);

— the February 1986 Single European Act revision of the 1957 Treaty of Rome; it established the objective of forming a Common Market by December 31, 1992;

— the February 1992 Maastricht Treaty creating the EU on November 1, 1993; and

— the name euro was adopted in December 1995; it was introduced in January 1999 replacing the European Currency Unit (ECU); euros began circulating on January 2002; they’re now the official currency of 16 of the 27 EU states.

Over half a century, the above steps cost EU members their sovereignty “as some 70 to 80 per cent of the laws passed in Europe involve just rubber stamping of regulations already written by nameless bureaucrats in ‘working groups’ in Brussels or Luxembourg.”

The EU and NAU share common features:

— advocacy from a influential spokesperson;

— an economic and later political union;

— hard line security, and for Europe, ending wars on the continent between EU member states;

— establishment of a collective consciousness in place of nationalism;

— the blurring of borders and creation of a “supra-government,” a superstate;

— secretive arrangements to mask real objectives; and

— the creation of a common currency and eventual global one.

Steps Toward a North American Union

— the October 4, 1988 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the US and Canada, finalized the previous year;

— at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting, David Rockefeller got governor Bill Clinton’s support for NAFTA if he became president;

— on January 1, 1994, with no debate under “fast-track” rules, Congress approved WTO legislation;

— in December 1994 at the first Summit of the Americas, 34 Hemispheric leaders committed their nations to a Free Trade of the Americas agreement (FTAA) by 2005 – so far unachieved;

— on July 4, 2000, Mexican president Vincente Fox called for a North American common market in 20 years;

— on February 2001, the White House published a joint statement from George Bush and Vincente Fox called the “Guanajuato Proposal;” it was for a US-Canada-Mexico prosperity partnership (aka North American Union);

— in September 2001, Bush and Fox agreed to a “Partnership for Prosperity Initiative;”

— the September 11, 2001 attack gave cover to including “security” as part of a future partnership;

— on October 7, 2001, a CFA meeting highlighted “The Future of North American Integration in the Wake of Terrorist Attacks; for the first time, “security” became part of a future “partnership for prosperity;” also, Canada was to be included in a “North American” agreement;

— in 2002, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) was established in Montreal “to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region;”

— in January 2003, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE – composed of 150 top CEOs) launched the “North American Security and Prosperity Initiative” calling for continental integration;

— in April 2004, Canadian prime minister Paul Martin announced the nation’s first ever national security policy called Securing an Open Society;

— on October 15, 2004, CFR established an Independent Task Force on the Future of North America – for a future continental union;

— in March 2005, a CFR report titled Creating a North American Community called for continental integration by 2010 “to enhance, prosperity, and opportunity for all North Americans;” and

— on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas, America, Canada and Mexico leaders launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) – aka North American Union (NAU).

Secretive negotiations continue. Legislative debate is excluded, and public inclusion and debate are off the table. In May 2005, the CFR Independent Task Force on the Future of North America published a follow-up report titled Building a North American Community – proposing a borderless three-nation union by 2010.

In June and July 2005, the Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) passed the Senate and House establishing corporate-approved trade rules to further impoverish the region and move a step closer to continental integration.

In March 2006, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was created at the second SPP summit in Cancun, Mexico. Composed of 30 top North American CEOs, it serves as an official trilateral SPP working group.

Secret business and government meetings continue so there’s no way to confirm SPP’s current status or if Barack Obama is seamlessly continuing George Bush’s agenda. In an earlier article, this writer said:

SPP efforts paused during the Bush to Obama transition, but “deep integration” plans remain. Canada’s Fraser Institute proposed renaming the initiative the North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA) to disguise its real purpose. It said the “SPP brand” is tarnished so re-branding is essential – to fool the public until it’s too late to matter.

Bilderbergers, Trilaterists, and CFR leaders back it as another step toward global integration and won’t “stop until the entire world is unified under the auspices and the political umbrella of a One World Company, a nightmarish borderless world run by the world’s most powerful clique” – comprised of key elitist members of these dominant organizations.

In April 2007, the Transatlantic Economic Council was established between America and the EU to:

— create an “official international governmental body – by executive fiat;

— harmonize economic and regulatory objectives;

— move toward a Transatlantic Common Market; and

— a step closer to One World Government run by the world’s most powerful corporate interests.

Insights into the 2009 Bilderberg Group Meeting

From May 14 – 17, Bilderbergers held their annual meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece, and according to Daniel Estulin have dire plans for global economies.

According to his pre-meeting sources, they’re divided on two alternatives:

“Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty (or) an intense but shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”

Other agenda items included:

— “the future of the US dollar and US economy;”

— continued deception about green shoots signaling an end to recession and improving economy later in the year;

— suppressing the fact that bank stress tests were a sham and were designed for deception, not an accurate assessment of major banks’ health;

— projecting headlined US unemployment to hit 14% by year end – way above current forecasts and meaning the true number will be double, at minimum, with all uncounted categories included; and

— a final push to get the Lisbon Treaty passed for pan-European (EU) adoption of neoliberal rules, including greater privatizations, fewer worker rights and social benefits, open border trade favoring developed over emerging states, and greater militarization to suppress civil liberties and human rights.

After the meeting, Estulin got a 73-page report on what was discussed. He noted that “One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns….is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos (toward) their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.”

Estulin also noted some considerable disagreement between “hardliners” wanting a “dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression (versus others) who think that things have gone too far” so that “the fallout from the global economic cataclysm” can’t be known, may be greater than anticipated, and may harm Bilderberger interests. Also, “some European bankers (expressed great alarm over their own fate and called the current) high wire act ‘unsustainable.’ ”

There was a combination of agreement and fear that the situation remains dire and the worst of the crisis lies ahead, mainly because of America’s extreme debt level that must be resolved to produce a healthy, sustainable recovery.

Topics also included:

— establishing a Global Treasury Department and Global Central Bank, possibly partnered with or as part of the IMF;

— a global currency;

— destruction of the dollar through what longtime market analyst Bob Chapman calls “a stealth default on (US) debt by continuing to issue massive amounts of money and credit and in the process devaluing the dollar,” a process he calls “fraud;”

— a global legal system;

— exploiting the Swine Flu scare to create a WHO global department of health; and

— the overall goal of a global government and the end of national sovereignty.

In the past, Estulin’s sources proved accurate. Earlier, he predicted the housing crash and 2007 – 2008 financial market decline, preceded by the kind of financial crisis triggered by the Lehman Brothers collapse. Watch for further updates from him as new information leaks out on what the world’s power elites have planned going forward.

Estulin will be the featured guest on The Global Research News Hour Tuesday, June 2. He can be heard live or afterwards through the program archive.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre of Research for Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

From the beginning of his campaign for president, Donald Trump claimed that he was going to build a wall along the southern border. He said “nobody builds walls better than me.” He said the wall would be “big” and “beautiful.” He said someone else would pay for it. And he said it would be built so fast that “your head would spin.”

Last night, for the first time, a federal judge made clear to President Trump he couldn’t get his wall by illegally diverting taxpayer money.

The judge’s ruling comes in an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC). Together, the Sierra Club and SBCC represent the communities who live in, protect, and treasure the lands and communities along our southern border. For years, these communities have engaged in the democratic process and successfully persuaded their congressional representatives to deny President Trump funding to build his wall.

Our lawsuit centers on the question of whether the president abused his power to divert funds for a border wall Congress denied him. Unfortunately for President Trump, the Constitution is clear on the matter: only Congress has the power to decide how taxpayer funds are spent. And Congress, like border communities, said no to the President’s wall.

Congress didn’t bow to Trump’s pressure even after he caused the longest government shutdown in U.S. history over his demands for billions of dollars for his wall. Congress allocated only a fraction of the money that Trump demanded, and imposed restrictions on where and how quickly any border barriers could be built.

In a blatant abuse of power meant to circumvent Congress, President Trump declared a national emergency on February 15, 2019, and announced he would illegally divert $6.7 billion from military construction and other accounts for the border wall project.

From the beginning, the emergency was obviously a sham. Trump said as much himself when he declared the emergency, saying he “didn’t need to do this” but he’d prefer to build the wall “much faster.” He added that he declared a national emergency because he was “not happy” that Congress “skimped” on the wall by denying him the billions he demanded.

Despite this, the Trump administration tried to argue in court last Friday that Congress never actually “denied” President Trump the billions of dollars he is now trying to take from the military. The court rejected the administration’s argument, reminding the administration that “the reality is that Congress was presented with—and declined to grant—a $5.7 billion request for border barrier construction.”

The court’s ruling blocks the sections of wall that the Trump administration announced would be built with military pay and pension funds. It also invites us to ask the court to block additional projects as they are announced in the future. The judge emphasized the government’s commitment to inform the court immediately about future decisions to build.

It may be easy to ridicule President Trump’s desperation for a border wall — an absurd and xenophobic campaign promise for which he has only himself to blame. But as pointless and wasteful as it may be, Trump’s campaign promise now threatens to cause irreparable and real damage to our constitutional checks and balances, the rule of law, border communities, and the environment.

The wall is part of an exclusionary agenda that President Trump has targeted, over and over, at people of color. From his notorious Muslim Ban, to his efforts to eliminate protections for immigrants from Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, courts have found“evidence that President Trump harbors an animus against non-white, non-European” immigrants. Trump has repeatedly justified his wall by lying about border communities, falsely claiming that America needs a wall.

Border communities know firsthand that walls are dangerous and wasteful. They divide neighborhoods, worsen dangerous flooding, destroy lands and wildlife, and waste resources. As our clients explained to the court, “we are a community that is safe, that supports migrants, that works well together and supports one another, that is worthy of existence.”  What border communities truly need is infrastructure and investment, not militarization and isolation.

The court’s order is a vindication of border communities’ advocacy for themselves, and of our Constitution’s separation of powers. As the court wrote, “Congress’s ‘absolute’ control over federal expenditures—even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important—is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one.”

*

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.

Dror Ladin, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project

Featured image is from ACLU

In 2012, I visited the federal supermax prison ADX Florence in Colorado and spoke with men living in solitary confinement. I listened closely to their stories of anguish, but I could not understand how they survived it. They told me of the horror of being trapped in a small room, without access to fresh air or sunlight, for at least 22 hours a day—alone, afraid, and not knowing when it would end. I learned that people in solitary confinement talk to the walls, to themselves, to no one — sometimes they stop talking altogether.

Those are the types of horrors we now know that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is inflicting on immigrants, thanks to the courage of whistleblower Ellen Gallagher. This week, multiple news outlets reported government documents detailing 8,488 cases of solitary confinement. In half the cases, solitary lasted longer than 15 days — the point at which some of its psychological harms may become irreversible and it can amount to torture, as well as a violation of international standards outlined in the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules.

The stories become even more harrowing when we learn why ICE allegedly imposed solitary. NBC news reported reasons including: wearing a hand cast, sharing a consensual kiss, or needing a wheelchair. ICE reportedly put LGBTQ individuals and people with mental illness in solitary as “protective custody,” citing their own safety.

The reports are replete with allegations that, if true, suggest that ICE repeatedly violated its own 2014 directive on solitary confinement.

At the time, the ACLU welcomed that directive as a much-needed step forward, as it required that solitary confinement occur “only when necessary.” Except in disciplinary cases, the directive requires that solitary be imposed “for the briefest term and under the least restrictive conditions practicable.” Individuals may not be placed in solitary based solely on their physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity (among other bases). And solitary can only be imposed as a form of discipline after a panel determines the detainee “committed serious misconduct” and “when alternative dispositions would inadequately regulate detainee behavior.” Instead of following its directive, however, ICE “uses isolation as a go-to tool, rather than a last resort,” The Intercept concluded.

If  ICE has repeatedly flouted its own rules on solitary, it should come as no surprise. ICE and its peer agency, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), have egregious records of allowing officials to commit abuses and endanger lives, often with impunity.

This week 16-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vazquez died in CBP custody in Texas one day after being diagnosed with influenza. He reportedly had traveled there to reunite with family and support his siblings, including his brother with special needs. Only three days prior to his death, the ACLU Border Rights Center and ACLU of Texas wrote a complaint to the DHS Inspector General describing shocking conditions in CBP detention: Children and their parents forced to sleep outdoors through extreme heat and rain, in puddles of water, given only paper-thin Mylar sheets to shield them from the elements; Border Patrol agents ignoring or denying requests for medical care, including for infants and kids.

And yet the immigration detention machine churns on. This week ICE detention numbers spiked at 52,398 people—an apparent all-time high, and far above the level of 45,000 that Congress authorized earlier this year.

The Trump administration has asked Congress for billions more in enforcement funds for CBP and ICE. At a hearing this week, Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan warned that without more funds, it would be difficult for DHS to prevent “the children being put at risk.” He also asked for new legal authorities to detain families for longer.

Providing an abusive agency more money and authority so that it will stop committing abuses makes no sense. It’s like donating to a corrupt politician, in the hope that it will stop her from yielding to the temptation to be corrupt.

Immigration detention is expensive, inhumane and unnecessary. Instead of being hostage to the Trump administration’s ever-increasing demands, Congress should press the administration to reduce detention and revive alternatives such as the Family Case Management Program, in partnership with community-based organizations, for individuals who need case management support.

Congress should also pass the Dignity For Detained Immigrants Act, a landmark detention reform bill. One key provision: It requires the DHS Office of Inspector General to carry out unannounced inspections of every DHS detention site, and forces DHS to promptly investigate detainee deaths.

Policymakers should be knocking on the doors of every detention site in the nation. We know horrific things have gone on there. Unless they are exposed, and ICE and its contractors held accountable, it’s all too likely the abuses will continue.

*

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.

Naureen Shah, Senior Advocacy and Policy Counsel

Featured image is from ACLU

Russia’s dispatch of specialists to the Congo Republic (Congo-Brazzaville) in order to maintain military equipment completes Moscow’s plan of creating a corridor of influence across the continent from the Sudanese Red Sea coast to the Congolese Atlantic one via the Central African Republic, which therefore greatly increases the chances that it’ll ultimately succeed with its 21st-century grand strategy of becoming the supreme Afro-Eurasian “balancing” force in the New Cold War.

The “African Transversal”

Most observers missed it because it wasn’t given much media attention at the time, but Russia and the Congo Republic (Congo-Brazzaville, henceforth referred to simply as the Congo) signed an important deal last week for dispatching specialists to the African country in order to maintain the military equipment that Moscow sold it over the decades. While seemingly nothing more than a technical agreement, it actually completes Moscow’s plan of creating a corridor of influence across the continent (the “African Transversal”) from the Sudanese Red Sea coast to the Congolese Atlantic one via the Central African Republic (CAR) where a small contingent of Russian troops are reportedly working with Wagner’s mercenaries under UNSC approval in order to stabilize the war-torn but resource-rich country. Put another way, Russia is now much more powerfully positioned to succeed with its 21st-century grand strategy of becoming the supreme Afro-Eurasian “balancing” force in the New Cold War if it can successfully export its “Democratic Security” model of countering Hybrid Warfare to the rest of the continent.

Required Reading

The reader is probably unaware of what this all means since most people haven’t been following Russia’s “Pivot to Africa” over the past year and a half, which is why the reader is strongly encouraged to skim through the author’s following pieces in order to obtain a better understanding of the larger dynamics involved or at the very least read the one-sentence summaries below each of the articles:

• 16 January, 2018: “The Changing Foreign Policy Trajectories Of African States”

New Cold War pressure from the US and China is leading to the redivision of Africa into “spheres of influence” between the many competing Great Powers, which nevertheless provides Russia — which has been largely left out of this game until now — with the chance to carve out its own military-strategic niche there in order to complement the activities of its Chinese and Turkish partners and increase its overall value to each of them.

• 18 January, 2018: “Russia Might ‘Pivot To Africa’ With ‘Mercenaries’”

The reported involvement of the Wager private military company in CAR could enable Moscow to cost-effectively stabilize the country in exchange for lucrative extraction contracts, which could lead to the creation of an exportable model for securing China’s Silk Road investments in the continent and therefore increasing Russia’s strategic importance vis-a-vis its main Great Power partner.

• 7 May, 2018: “Russia’s Grand Strategy In Afro-Eurasia (And What Could Go Wrong)”

Russia aspires to become the supreme “balancing” force in 21s-century Afro-Eurasia through a combination of creative diplomatic and military interventions aimed at reversing the chaotic consequences of the US’ Hybrid Wars in the Eastern Hemisphere and facilitating political solutions to regional crises, but its main shortcoming is that it hasn’t properly explained its grand strategy to the international audience.

• 9 June, 2018: “Russia’s Making Some Smart Moves In The Central African Republic”

As Russia began to make progress in successfully stabilizing CAR, many opportunities have emerged for it to replicate some of its experiences from the Syrian intervention in order to sustain its strategic gains in the African state, further allowing it to perfect its new military-diplomatic model and increasing the odds of exporting it elsewhere.

• 2 August, 2018: “UN Update On Russia’s Military Mission In The Central African Republic”

A UN report released last summer provided some valuable authoritative information about the success that Russia’s military mission in CAR had up until that point, which also importantly touched upon some specific details of its deployment and a few of the challenges that still remain for bringing peace to the conflict-beleaguered country.

• 17 October, 2018: “The Chinese-Indian ‘Great Game’ In East Africa’”

China and India are poised to intensify their competition in East Africa through their Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) and Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) hemispheric integrational megaprojects, respectively, which while diminishing the prospects for a grand convergence between them that strengthens multipolarity, could nevertheless increase Russia’s irreplaceable “balancing” role between its two main Asian partners.

• 8 February, 2019: “The US Is More Africa Of Losing Africa To Russia Than To China”

US concerns about Russia’s growing influence in Africa are somewhat valid even if Moscow’s military activity there is officially misportrayed by the American authorities since the country’s geopolitical rival has proven itself more than capable of doing the hitherto politically impossible by stabilizing CAR, which makes Washington fear that Moscow will use what it learned to protect China’s African Silk Road investments from Hybrid War too.

• 14 March, 2019: “Has The World Been Ignoring An Almost Decade-Long ‘African Spring’?”

Unbeknownst to all but the closest observers, Africa has been experiencing an almost decade-long spree of non-electoral regime changes all across the continent, which has raised the alarm of “legacy” leaders in places such as the geo-pivotal Congo and therefore increased demand all across Africa for the “Democratic Security” model that Moscow’s perfecting in the CAR.

Taken together, the prevailing trend is that Russia has been so wildly successful in implementing its low-cost and low-commitment “Democratic Security” model in CAR that many other African countries are now more than eager to have Moscow share its priceless state-stabilization experiences with them in exchange for valuable extraction contracts, which could lead to Russia becoming the vanguard defender of their Silk Roads.

The Threat To Françafrique

Being better aware of Russia’s grand strategic aims in Africa, the reader can now appreciate the genius behind  Moscow’s latest military move in the Congo. This geo-pivotal country used to be a close Soviet ally during the Old Cold War years when it was ruled by a Marxist-Leninist government, and nowadays it’s at the center of several regional fault lines, something that its long-serving leader Denis Sassou-Nguesso made sure to remind Putin of during their face-to-face meeting last week. Going clockwise, the Congo abuts CAR, the perennially unstable Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the oil-rich Angolan exclave of Cabinda that’s occasionally hit by separatist violence, coup-threatened Gabon, and doubly Hybrid War-afflictedCameroon that’s currently suffering simultaneous Angolophone separatist and Boko Haram destabilizations. It’s likely with an eye to having Russia help stabilize this strategic space through its “Democratic Security” model that Sassou-Nguesso told Putin that his country can help Africa build a new regional security system.

Russia’s “African Transversal” through Sudan-CAR-Congo significantly cuts the continent into almost two equal halves of influence that roughly correspond to the Western sphere where French and EU interests are predominant and the Eastern one where Chinese and Indian one are poised to compete, therefore positioning Moscow right in the center the new “Scramble for Africa”. Not only that, but it also allows Russia to export its “Democratic Security” model to the states adjacent to its “African Transversal” in the French/EU and Chinese/Indian “spheres of influence” that are at the highest risk of internal conflict (e.g. Cameroon/Chad and the DRC/Ethiopia), further increasing its “balancing” importance for both of them. In addition, the new non-aligned movement (“Neo-NAM”) that Russia might be in the process of assembling to increase the odds of reaching a “New Detente” could very easily incorporate its growing number of African partners who are looking for a “third way” between the West and China in each respective “sphere of influence”.

In the African context, the Russian-led “Neo-NAM” would be more to France’s detriment than China’s because Paris’ neo-colonial policy of Françafrique stands the most to lose from the diversification of its partners’ Great Power patrons. It’s worthwhile keeping in mind that two of the three “African Transversal” countries are part of Françafrique and use the Paris-issued “Central African Franc” as their national currency, which could gradually change if Russia encourages CAR and the Congo to use rubles in bilateral extraction, military, and other contracts instead in order to strengthen its currency and increase the chances that its investments there will be recycled back into its own economy through the creation of a complex system of economic-strategic interdependence with time. That vision is still a far way’s off from hapening, but the fact remains that it’s credible enough of a scenario to make France afraid for the future of Françafrique if Russia’s “Democratic Security” gains in and around the “African Transversal” remain unchecked.

“Red October”

Like any globally assertive Great Power and following in its Soviet superpower’s footsteps, Russia wants to institutionalize its influence abroad and especially in Africa, which is why it’s hosting its first-ever all-inclusive Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi this October in order to solidify its newfound gains and diversify them across the board. Russia’s “Democratic Security” model laid the basis for its “Pivot to Africa” through the newly created “African Transversal” that it carved out through these means in connecting the Red Sea and Atlantic Ocean coasts through Sudan-CAR-Congo, and now it wants to build upon its strategic successes by comprehensively branching out into all other spheres. “Military diplomacy” simply won’t suffice for sustaining its strategic gains after the US announced that it’s considering sanctioning all of Russia’s military partners across the world, so Moscow needs to urgently diversify its partnerships with the continent’s many countries in order to incentivize them into resisting the US’ forthcoming pressure campaign.

It can foreseeably do this by combining its “Democratic Security” model with real-sector economic benefits such as infrastructure (and especially railway) investments, free trade deals, educational support, low-interest loans, and diplomatic support at the UN in order to create an attractive enough package to get them to reconsider going along with the US’ demands. Dealing with African countries on a bilateral basis in this respect is one thing, but entering into continental-wide Russian-African cooperation through the upcoming summit is something altogether qualitatively different, which can help overcome Russia’s soft power shortcomings touched upon in the previously mentioned piece about its grand strategy if it get its many current and prospective partners to better understand the role that it envisions itself playing in stabilizing their affairs throughout the course of the ongoing New Cold War.

The “African Transversal” is the staging point for expanding Russian influence throughout the rest of the continent in its French/EU and Chinese/Indian “spheres of influence”, with CAR’s impressive stabilization held up as the prime example of what a strategic partnership with Russia is capable of achieving. This is extremely attractive for the many countries confronting the threat of the “African Spring” spreading into their borders or uncontrollably continuing after it already succeeded there. The EU (apart from France) might also appreciate the effect that Russia’s “Democratic Security” model could have in preventing a Migrant Crisis 2.0 from exploding in West Africa, just like China might see the need to contract Russia’s services in order to protect its Silk Road and help the People’s Republic avoid what many believe will be its inevitable “mission creep” in this respect. It’s really only the US and France (which are one another’s “special partners“) that fear the spread of Russian influence throughout Africa, and those two could conceivably pose serious challenges to Moscow.

Concluding Thoughts

Russia’s “African Transversal” is complete after the military deal that it just sealed with the Congo, which therefore gives it the entire summer to solidify its strategic gains in the cross-continental tri-state space between that country, CAR, and Sudan prior to this October’s first-ever Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi. Just as importantly, the Congo is the second country that Russia is working very hard to “poach” from France’s  Françafrique neo-colonial “sphere of influence”, which certainly puts it at odds with Paris and its “special partners” in Washington but might enable Moscow to leverage these optics to its soft power advantage if it’s skillful enough to tap into the region’s ever-present decolonization hopes that were never met in practice after independence. Russia would therefore be wise to use the upcoming Sochi Summit to not only unveil a comprehensive continental-wide “balancing” strategy that diversifies away from its erstwhile “Democratic Security” dependence into the real-sector economic sphere, but to also channel its Soviet-era reputation of supporting decolonization and anti-imperialist processes in order to maximize the appeal of the Neo-NAM.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

From the day the war began in March 2011 in Deraa, the political ideology of Radical Islam has been center stage.  From the outset of the Syrian conflict, the men who carried weapons were all fighting to abolish the secular Syrian government, in order to form a new government which would be Radical Islam.  They saw their Christian neighbors as ‘heathens’ that needed to be slaughtered.  They were not interested in freedom or democracy; they were fighting to cleanse Syria of anyone who wasn’t like them. 

Erdogan, the Turkish leader, was tasked by his NATO co-signers with the job of being the transit point of international jihadists pouring in to bolster the failing Free Syrian Army (FSA), and the source of supplies and weapons for the NATO-backed ‘boots on the ground’, who hailed from the 4 corners of the globe.  Turkey benefited immensely from the flow of weapons, cash, chemicals, terrorists, and from the huge amount of humanitarian aid pouring in for Syrian refugees.

Erdogan didn’t have to worry about Turkish citizens complaining about Radical Islam, because his ruling AK Party was based on hard-core Islam and was in the process of turning secular Turkey into a Muslim Brotherhood safe haven, and he had a policy of silencing critics.

Erdogan developed a dream of annexing the Northern strip of Syria. His dream was about to be realized, but the Idliboffensive began recently, and his dream is turning into a nightmare.  He had supported the FSA and all the terrorists, whom he calls ‘rebels’, regardless that they are Al Qaeda affiliates, and many were associates of ISIS. He is now sending re-enforcements to Idlib, supplied with sophisticated weapons. However, the terrorists he commands are not using aircraft, except for drones.

A recently penned article by a pro-Erdogan media, carried a headline wondering if Turkey was going to lose Idlib; which gives an impression that the Turkish government felt they had a right to Idlib, and clearly describes how the Turkish President views the Syrian President.

The civilian population of Idlib is characterized by western media as being in fear of the Syrian and Russian military advancing.  The NATO nations at the UN are always invoking the name of the civilians of Idlib as if they were all of one mind, and all of them wanted to remain in the hands of the terrorists.

Selma (name changed for security concerns) spoke to her sister in Latakia and said “Every time we hear tanks, we are praying it is the Army coming to free us.  My kids and I have our white flags ready.  We might be lucky and get spared, or we might die in the battles, but regardless we will end up free.”  Selma’s sister re-told stories of suffering, deprivation and living under Islamic Law.

Selma recounted how in the past the FSA, supported by America, had been easier to live under, except they extorted money, and made a profit off of their power.  However, as the years wore on, the FSA became extinct and the foreign Jihadists were in control of everything.  They didn’t all speak Arabic and did not practice a recognizable religion, but some new fanatical cult which utilized fear to subjugate the civilians.  Every young girl or woman was a coveted sexual target.  Idlib was not part of Syria: it had become an Islamic State.

The Russian-Turkish agreement signed at Sochi in 2018 meant for Erdogan to physically remove the terrorists away from the civilians.  The agreement was never a ceasefire or a no-conflict zone.  It was a tool in order to ensure the unarmed civilians would not be harmed when the Russian forces and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) fought to eliminate the Al Qaeda linked terrorists.  In the end, it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, as Erdogan never made any attempt to remove terrorists, and instead built numerous out-posts inside Idlib, thus in effect annexing the territory to Turkey, and all with explicit coordination among the Al Qaeda aligned groups.

Presently, the Syrian Arab Army under the command of General Suhel Al-Hassan and his elite “Tiger Forces” are pushing forward in an attempt to regain Idlib, free the civilians, and exterminate the terrorists.  This crescendo was seen previously in Bab Amro, East Aleppo, and East Ghouta.

UN Security Council Resolution 2249 of 2015, “UN member states are called upon to eradicate the safe havens established over Syria/Iraq by ISIL (Islamic State/ISIS), the Al Nusra Front (Syria’s AQ franchise), and ‘all other entities associated with Al Qaeda.’” All eyes are on Idlib as the finale approaches.

*

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 InfoRos.

Featured image is from InfoRos

The time was 1917, and for anyone keen to impress us about any liberal feelings on the part of President Woodrow Wilson, the following should be said.  Having deemed the United States too proud to fight, he proceeded to commit the very same to the first global industrial conflict of its kind and overturn every reservation against backing the Franco-German alliance.  Initial constipation and weary restraint gave way to a full-blooded commitment against Kaiserism.

In doing so, the nasty instrument known as the Espionage Act of 1917 came into being, a product of disdain in the face of the First Amendment’s solemn words that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The Espionage Act, also known as 18 USC 793, has been a bother to a good number in the legal profession. It was, according to Charles P. Pierce, “the immortal gift of that half-nutty professor, Woodrow Wilson, and his truly awful attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer.”  Even then, Wilson was disappointed, given that the final document was somewhat more diluted from its initial concentrate featuring wide-ranging press censorship and the targeting of anarchists.

In the words of law academic Stephen Vladeck, the law “draws no distinction between the leaker, the recipient of the leak, or the 100^th person to redistribute, retransmit, or even retain the national defence information that by that point is already in the public domain.”

The overstretch with prosecuting Julian Assange is comprehensible, in so far as security concerns are a psychosis, a junkie’s fascination with secrecy.  Applied to Chelsea Manning in 2011, it led to the imposition of a 35-year sentence that was subsequently commuted.  The superseding indictment against Assange and WikiLeaks goes even further in in its inventive paranoia, seeking to implicate the publisher as instigator and, effectively, the entire process of distribution.  Seek, receive, and be damned.

While Assange will never fit neatly into any categories of obedience and observance, the crude scope, and motivation behind the use of the Espionage Act, remains.  The descriptions in the immediate aftermath of the law’s passage are worth nothing.  In October 1918, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette rose to proclaim that,

“Today and for weeks past honest and law-abiding citizens of this country are being terrorized and outraged in their rights by those sworn to uphold the laws and protect the rights of the people.”

The senator spoke of a state of unnecessarily wild and zealous policing.  Unlawful arrests had been perpetrated; people thrown into jail had been “held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged without even having been taken to court, because they have committed no crime.”

The Espionage Act was not used sparingly, becoming a weapon of choice to criminalise efforts to obstruct the war effort with mere words.  Elizabeth Baer and Charles Schenck were some of the first notable targets, accused of mailing some 15,000 anti-war flyers to potential conscripted recruits urging peaceful disobedience.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment was shorn in a palpable trimming of civil liberties. In its place was the modifying “clear and present danger” test, showing that the courts were, even more than Congress, keen to impute severe intentions on how broad the Espionage Act was meant to be.  (Indeed, most senators had to admit they had little clue on what the provisions of the Act actually meant.)

In the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Rather grimly, the judicial bench made the all too willing concession to the urges of the warring state.

“When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

Other socialist activists of the form and determination of Kate Richards O’Hare also fell foul of the law, being sentenced to five years for violating its provisions.  Socialist party members C.E. Ruthenberg, A. Wagenknecht and Charles Baker also faced prison terms for aiding and abetting those failing to register for the draft.

One of the most notorious victims of the Espionage Act was the leading founding member of the Socialist Party of America, Eugene V. Debs.  Debs found himself in prison as a result, having given a public speech inciting his audience to interfere with military recruitment whilst referring to the harsh fate of his fellow socialist activists.  His assessment of the situation was appropriately brave.  “I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets.”

On appeal, the US Supreme Court affirmed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by the persistently unsympathetic Justice Holmes, the harsh line it had taken in Schenck.  Debs’s sympathy for individuals opposing the draft and interfering with the recruitment process was punishable and beyond the scope of protection.  The speech, even if did mention socialism interspersed with a range of other observations, was “not protected by reason of its being part of a general program and expressions of a general and conscientious belief.”  Quibbling be thy name.

While the United States is currently not officially at war, it can hardly be said to be at peace.  Engaged in low, slow burning conflicts on several continents, the US imperium continues its warring peace endeavours with a certain insatiability.  The case against Assange is an attempt to internationalise the punishment of those who would dare publish, write or discuss matters at the heart of what Gore Vidal did title, with much sorrow, the National Security State.  But as Senator La Follette observed with steely warning, taking aim at the Espionage Act, “More than in times of peace it is necessary that the channels for free public discussion of governmental policies shall be open and unclogged.”

*

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 thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

It is not difficult to find repeating patterns in United States governance internationally and domestically. Here are just a few:

• Make decisions for other people, despite the lack of knowledge about them, or any lack of responsibility for making such decisions.
• Never try diplomacy, when war will do.
• Assure that all legislation benefits the rich white males.
• Support  pro-US “self-determination” around the world, unless people have the temerity to select a leader or form of government the U.S. views as unacceptable.

We will take a few moments to look at some examples of each. These are only a random sample; it would take volumes of books to adequately cover these topics.

• Making decisions the U.S. government has no business making:

No one should be surprised that groups composed of mainly men are passing abortion restrictions. People have wide and diverse views on abortion, to which they are all entitled. But there does seem to be something a bit odd about men having the final say. Shouldn’t women, the people who actually get pregnant, have a significant voice in abortion legislation?

But no, the paternalistic men who control Congress and most State Houses know best, even though what they say often makes no sense. Consider U.S. president Donald Trump proclaiming at a rally that women give birth, the baby is carefully wrapped in a blanket, while the child’s mother and her doctor determine whether or not to execute the baby. Fodder indeed for his rabid, right-wing, pseudo-Christian base, but without any connection to reality at all.

Let us look at a parallel situation, where decisions are made for people who have no input into them. The U.S. president is now ready, it seems, to reveal his ‘Deal of the Century’, to ‘resolve’ the main problem in the Middle East: Israel’s brutal and illegal occupation of Palestine. His arrogant and unqualified son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner, has conferred closely with Israel’s leaders in developing the plan, but no one from the U.S. has bothered to solicit input from anyone in Palestine. But no matter: like men regulating women’s bodies, the mighty U.S. knows what’s best for Palestine. No wonder every Middle East expert has already declared the as-yet unannounced ‘Deal’ dead on arrival.

• Never try diplomacy, when war will do.

Trump’s closest advisors are itching to invade Iran, something that even the bellicose president himself does not seem anxious to do. Could not diplomacy perhaps serve a role here? Trump expects his illegal and unjust sanctions to cause the Iranian government to come crawling to him (when pigs fly). Would not, perhaps, some positive gesture by the U.S. help things along? Iran has adhered strictly to the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), which the U.S. violated. Would it not be possible that, should the U.S. decide to honor that agreement, as Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, did, the U.S. could then approach the Iranian government and say that there are, perhaps, one or two additional points it would like to negotiate?

Prior to the start of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), it was said of President James Polk that he “held the niceties of diplomacy in contempt”. Could not the same be said about every U.S. president before and since? The concept of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one), is the U.S. government’s idea of ‘diplomacy’. Putting the words ‘gunboat’ and ‘diplomacy’ together is as ridiculous as linking ‘democracy’ and ‘Israel’. The pairing of those words simply makes no sense.

• Assure that all legislation benefits rich, white males.

Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, following the ‘landmark’ overhaul of the U.S. tax code, found himself ridiculed from coast to coast when he remarked that a teacher had told him that, with her new tax rate, she could now afford the $78.00  Costco membership (the teacher saw her take-home pay increase by $1.50 per week; the top 1% of wage earners received about 650 times that amount). That Ryan actually felt that that $1.50 weekly increase was something to crow about only shows how out of touch he was with the average U.S. citizen. And he is certainly not an anomaly. The tax law mainly benefits wealthy U.S. citizens who are overwhelmingly male and white.

• Dubious support for self-determination.

How many nations’ governments has the U.S. decided to overthrow because those countries elected socialist governments, or a form of government that in some way displeased the U.S.? In each of the cases listed below, the people of each of those countries established a government of their own choosing. The U.S., either covertly through supporting terrorists, or overtly by bombing and invading the country, and/or the use of sanctions (or some combination of all of these), destroyed the government, thus thwarting self-determination. We will just look from 1950 to the present:

• Albania
• Palestine
• Laos
• Ghana
• Indonesia
• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Brazil
• Chile
• Uruguay
• Cambodia
• Argentina
• El Salvador
• Nicaragua
• Yugoslavia
• Columbia
• Venezuela
• Syria
• Libya
• Yemen
• Iran
• Iraq
• Afghanistan
• Vietnam
• Lebanon
• Grenada
• Panama

The people of these countries selected governments that were in some way displeasing to the United States, and so, instead of their duly-elected leaders, the U.S. installed brutal dictators. So much for self-determination.

This is a long-established pattern. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress, and said, in part, the following: “The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.”[1] The following year, his legal counselor, David Hunter Miller, advised the president that “the rule of self-determination would prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.”[2] No, self-determination is only for those on whom the U.S. deigns to grant it.

President Donald Trump entered the White House with a promise to ‘Make America Great Again’. Where is this mythical greatness? A nation founded on genocide, built on slavery, and made powerful through brutal colonialism cannot return to a greatness it never had.

At this point, the best that can be hoped for is that, as other nations grow in military and economic power, the power and influence of the United States will decline. That will be advantageous for the entire planet.

 

*

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

Notes

[1] Michael S. Neiberg, The World War I Reader, (New York University Press, 2006),292.

[2] Ibid.

Featured image is from peterpilt.org

The Syrian government’s offensive in northwestern provinces of Hama and Lattakia that began almost a month ago fell short of expectations. Having briefly established control over a number of areas, the Syrian army units were forced to retreat due to fierce counter-attacks by the armed opposition factions. After that the campaign transformed into a prolonged stand-off framed by sporadic clashes and mutual shelling.

The robust defense of the opposition forces is rooted into two key factors. First, the armed factions that previously existed in a state of a permanent internal struggle managed to join their ranks and reinforced the front lines with additional troops. The attacks of the Syrian army are currently being repelled by fighters of the National Liberation Front (NLF) that is considered part of the moderate opposition, members of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS) and Uighur jihadists from Islamic Turkistan Party.

Second, the militants benefit from the use of advanced weapons, primarily ATGMs, that give them the capability to target armored vehicles from a distance and stall offensive actions of the government forces.

Since the beginning of the escalation the opposition launched dozens of ATGMs against the army units. It would appear that a lack of munitions is not a concern for them as an urgent weapons supply line was opened by Turkey.

Last week, a Turkish convoy carrying a large batch of weapons and munitions arrived at the NLF-held town of Jabal Al Zawieh. In an interview to Reuters the NLF spokesman Naji Mustafa did not deny that the group received Turkish weapons.

Besides ATGMs, the armed opposition factions were also supplied with Turkish-made Panthera F9 armored personnel carriers. Pictures posted on social media demonstrate that at least three vehicles are in possession of the opposition.

In addition to that, members of Turkey-backed factions that are normally based in northern Aleppo were recently redeployed to the front lines in northern Hama.

Despite any short-term gains, by providing the opposition forces with weapons on a large scale Turkey risks to harm its own interests in Syria.

Taking into account that during the last few years the HTS extremists have effectively established dominance over Idlib, it’s not hard to predict that Turkey-supplied weapons will end up in the group’s hands. These developments would not only hinder peaceful settlement of the situation in Idlib that Turkey is a part of, but also threaten Ankara’s ambitions of strengthening it’s influence in northern Syria. Such repercussions must come as another warning to the Turkish authorities who risk to witness internal turmoil due to their ill-advised actions abroad.

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.

Ahmad Al Khaled is a Syrian journalist who specializes in covering foreign involvement in the Syrian conflict.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.  

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

There’s no ambiguity about longstanding US policy toward the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution.

Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and their subordinates are more hostile toward the country than any of their predecessors. Their actions toward Iran speak for themselves.

They’re going all out to topple its government, so far short of war that’s unlikely in my judgment because of the world community opposition, but very much possible if other tactics fail.

Trump earlier warned Iran’s leadership, tweeting: “TIME FOR CHANGE.” Bolton earlier said “(o)ur goal should be regime change in Iran” — war his favored strategy.

His appointment as national security advisor was and remains a virtual declaration of war on the Islamic Republic. The same goes for Pompeo.

Earlier he said the strongest sanctions in history will stay imposed on the country unless it complies with outrageous US demands no responsible leadership would accept.

The Trump regime’s Iran Action Group (IAG), formed in August last year, is all about toppling its government — headed by State Department policy planning director Brian Hook, serving in the same capacity as Elliott Abrams on Venezuela.

Longstanding plans call for returning both countries to US client state status, along with gaining control over their huge energy reserves.

Something similar to the Iran Action group is in play against Venezuela. Tactics include sanctions aiming to crush their economies, wanting normal economic, financial, trade, and other relations with other countries undermined, along with efforts to destabilize them by orchestrating internal unrest — what color revolutions and old-fashioned coups are all about.

Bolton reportedly asked the Pentagon to prepare plans for war on Iran and Venezuela, his favored strategy against nations on his target list for regime change.

On the anniversary of Trump’s unlawful pullout from the JCPOA nuclear deal, Pompeo turned truth on its head, saying the action aims “to end Iran’s (nonexistent) destabilizing behavior and prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon” — it abhors, doesn’t seek, and wants eliminated everywhere.

On Monday during a visit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Tokyo, Trump turned truth on its head about his aims toward Iran, saying: “We are not looking for regime change. I just wanna make that clear,” adding he thinks “we’ll make a deal” with Tehran.

Islamic Republic ruling authorities rule out talks with Trump, on Sunday Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Abbas Araqchi, saying the following:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to establish balanced and constructive relations with all countries in the Persian Gulf region based on mutual respect and interests,” adding:

His government rejects direct or indirect talks with Trump regime officials. On the same day, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Moussav rejected “direct or indirect talks between Iran and the US.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called reports about Iran seeking to negotiate with Trump regime officials “mere lies,” adding:

“The actions that it is taking are aimed at defeating the Iranian nation,” wanting it returned to its pre-1979 revolution status.

Last week Rouhani said he “favor(s) negotiation and diplomacy, but do not approve of it under the current circumstances at all.”

On Saturday during a joint press conference with his Iraqi counterpart Mohamed Ali Alhakim in Baghdad, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said his government offered to sign nonaggression agreements other Persian Gulf region countries, adding:

The US is unlawfully “bullying other countries into compliance with its unilateral measures” against Iran. After meeting with Iraqi President  Barham Salih on Saturday, he said cooperation between both countries aim to prevent regional war that could jeopardize the region’s security and stability.

Iran seeks peace, stability, and mutual cooperation with other nations, its aims polar opposite how the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners operate.

As long as Trump regime hardliners continue waging economic, financial, and sanctions war on Iran, along with hostile rhetoric, saber-rattling, and wanting the JCPOA undermined, talks with its officials are futile, able to accomplish nothing.

*

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 Raialyoum

Dr Lissa Johnson is a clinical psychologist and columnist for the Australian news website New Matilda, with a background in media studies and sociology, and a PhD in the psychology of manipulating reality-perception. In an exclusive (electronic) interview with Eresh Omar Jamal of The Daily Star, Dr Johnson talks about a recent investigative series she wrote on the US government’s hunt for Julian Assange, how propaganda works, and the psychology that divides people and allows them to commit atrocities against “outgroup” members.

***

Eresh Omar Jamal: You recently wrote a detailed, five-part investigative series titled “the psychology of getting Julian Assange”. What inspired you to write it?

Dr Lissa Johnson: I began thinking about the series after attending a rally in Sydney in June 2018. A few months earlier, Ecuador had cut Assange off from the outside world and silenced him.

I expected to find large crowds at the rally, as Julian was in the news at the time, and a very well-known Australian journalist, John Pilger, was going to be speaking there. What I found when I arrived, however, was just a small gathering.

At the rally, Pilger gave a very powerful speech, in which he criticised the Australian media’s complicity in a long and vicious smear campaign against Assange. Afterwards, I was curious to see how the Australian media would report on Pilger’s speech, so I looked through mainstream publications for coverage of the rally. I expected to find biased and negative coverage, but what I found surprised me even more. I found nothing.

It was little wonder, then, that so few people attended. The Australian public didn’t even know that the rally had taken place.

This near-total media blackout struck me as extraordinarily co-ordinated and comprehensive. While making sense of this, I was also absorbing something that Pilger had said during the rally. He had placed the smear campaign against Assange in the context of a leaked 2008 document from the Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments branch of the US Defence Department. The document, Pilger explained, had outlined a plan to destroy the “trust” at WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”, all those years ago.

I came away thinking that a mission to destroy “trust” is a very psychological project for the Defence Department. As a psychologist, I could certainly see evidence of psychological knowledge all over the smear campaign against Assange. In fact, my PhD concerned the psychological processes by which one person influences another’s beliefs about reality, and it seemed to me that every effort had been made over the years to psychologically manipulate public perception, so as to not only destroy trust in WikiLeaks, but to turn reality-perception upside down—such that peace is bad, war is good, truth is dangerous, and censorship will set you free.

EOJ: How has psychology been used by the US and UK to persecute Assange and WikiLeaks?

DLJ: Psychological vulnerabilities in the human reality-processing system have been exploited over the last decade in order to push particular versions of “reality” concerning Assange and WikiLeaks, which depart starkly from the fully-informed, well-researched reality. In short, whereas WikiLeaks is a media organisation and Assange is an award-winning journalist (as confirmed by UK courts and tribunals), he has been cast as a terrorist and WikiLeaks an enemy of the state.

Similarly, whereas WikiLeaks, with its history of 100 percent accuracy, has exposed serious state-corporate crimes in the public interest, including civilian slaughter, it is the perpetrators of those crimes, with their long history of lies—particularly the Western national security state—that have been cast as trustworthy, noble and righteous.

Moreover, although covering up a crime is a crime, the cover-up of these crimes by silencing and imprisoning Assange, in violation of UN rulings and international law, is being cast as the legally upstanding position, with Assange as the criminal—for doing journalism.

In order to turn reality on its head in this way, a key psychological vulnerability exploited in the war on WikiLeaks has been the fact that human information processing is powered largely by emotion.

Even in terms of the neuroscience of cognition, emotion enters the decision stream well before conscious thought, and influences the kinds of reasoning and deliberation that people will entertain. The end result is that unless people are especially motivated to be accurate and factual, we are all susceptible to information and arguments that fit with our emotional states.

If we feel angry or disgusted about something or someone, for example, we are more likely to believe and accept damning rather than positive information about them. This all takes place on an unconscious level, outside our awareness, and plays a very powerful role in shaping our worldviews.

So, for opinion-shapers seeking to influence public perception of Assange, it is essential to manipulate the unconscious, automatic emotional associations with Julian. And one of the best ways to do that is to repeatedly pair a target with desired emotions, wiring an automatic emotional pathway in the brain, like water flowing down a gully on a hill.

In my articles, I wrote that a number of “news” stories about Assange have essentially served as vehicles by which to pair Assange’s name and face with negative emotions, such as anger, revulsion, resentment, suspicion and rage. This is the psychological equivalent of pinning an emotional bullseye to Julian Assange’s head, causing negative information—or misinformation—to stick.

Via the highly politicised Swedish investigation, for instance, Julian Assange has been repeatedly paired with the concept of rape, linking him to very visceral and raw emotions regarding rape and sexual assault, including anger, trauma, hatred and disgust.

This propagandistic function of the Swedish investigation has been facilitated by glaring irregularities in the investigation’s conduct. In fact, so poor has the conduct of the UK and Sweden been in this matter that the head of the Swedish Bar Association has called the handling of the Swedish investigation “deplorable”, adding that she fears that it has “damaged the reputation of the Swedish judicial system.”

Other tactics have been simply to pair Assange’s name with nasty personality traits, bad smells, poor hygiene and other emotive associations. Via Russiagate, spuriously linking him to both Donald Trump and Russia has also exploited the fear, shock and rage felt by many after the 2016 US election, pinning those feelings to Assange, and directing the lust for revenge his way.

All of these emotional tactics lay the psychological groundwork to plant narratives that are hostile to Assange and WikiLeaks, regardless of their factual inaccuracies and glaring omissions—and ultimately serve the same end: to foster a public mood that is supportive of, or at the very least indifferent to, the persecution of Assange.

They thereby facilitate the criminalisation of journalism, and trampling of free speech, via a host of dangerous legal precedents that are being set, as we speak, in Assange’s case.

The endgame of the entire endeavour has been to gain public consent to treat public interest journalism as public enemy number one, spelling death to numerous democratic freedoms, and government accountability.

EOJ: In your series, you mentioned the involvement of psychologists in wars waged by major western powers. Can you summarise that for us?

DLJ: The CIA and military do employ psychologists to undertake work of the highest “sensitivity” according to the US government’s own websites and promotional material, but the exact nature of much of that work is not publicly known.

Thanks partly to WikiLeaks and whistle-blowers, however, we do know that one function that psychologists have done for Western powers has been to design and implement a brutal torture programme. The programme was implemented both at the military prison Guantanamo Bay, and at secret CIA black sites around the world, as part of the “War on Terror”. The victims of this Bush-era torture programme, many of whom were innocent, were subjected to horrifically sadistic depravities under the direction of two licensed psychologists, with the knowledge and complicity of the American Psychological Association.

So heinous was the torture that torture expert and Associate Professor Dr Sandra Crosby reported, after examining one survivor, “In my many years of experience treating torture victims from around the world, [this patient] presents as one of the most severely traumatised individuals I have ever seen.”

Why would psychologists torture suspects in this way? To gather crucial intelligence to keep the world safe? Except that at the time it had been known since the 1980s that torture does not produce accurate intelligence. All that it can be relied on to produce is false confessions.

Which turned out to be useful in waging the Iraq War, as it happens.

According to former senior officials, a tortured false confession lurked behind Colin Powell’s infamous UN speech pressing for the Iraq War. So, directly or indirectly, psychologists played a part in fuelling the lies that manufactured consent for the illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq. Much to our profession’s shame.

Thanks in part to WikiLeaks, however, the American Psychological Association (APA) has since revised its ethical procedures regarding psychologists’ involvement in torture. Not many people know this, but in 2011, when WikiLeaks released the Guantanamo Files, a group of psychologists who had been lobbying for ethical reform at the APS used evidence in the Guantanamo Files to finally hold the APA accountable, and bring about ethical change.

EOJ: You also talked about the use of propaganda and how it’s designed to exploit basic human psychological vulnerabilities. Can you tell us about that and how it ties to wars that have happened since 9/11?

DLJ: Where war is concerned, pro-war propaganda seeks to manipulate reality-perception such that good people will support the killing, maiming and immiseration of other innocent human beings, usually for power and profit. To achieve this, emotions supporting war must be mobilised, typically revolving around fear and hate.

A key psychological vulnerability that is exploited to achieve this is the human tendency towards group-based, us-versus-them psychology. As a social species, human beings are wired to organise themselves and their perception of the world into groups: into their own social and cultural groups, or ingroups (us) and other social and cultural groups, or outgroups (them).

A wealth of research over decades has shown that people are, unfortunately, susceptible to all kinds of destructive motives and attitudes towards outgroup members, particularly under conditions of insecurity and threat.

Whether measured psychologically, physiologically or neurologically, for instance, human empathy is lower towards members of outgroups than ingroups. People are more willing to torture outgroup members, and tend to view outgroups as less human, such that members of other social groups are viewed as less capable of human experiences such as pain, heartbreak and suffering.

Fortunately for war propagandists, callousness towards outgroup members can skyrocket from disdain to murderous rage under conditions of fear and threat.

Since 9/11, under the rubric of “war on terror”, to facilitate war throughout the Middle East, Islam has been falsely and repeatedly paired with the concept of terrorism in Western media and political discourse. Social psychologists Kevin Durrheim and others wrote that “call to arms discourse [such as this]…justifies violence by contrasting a virtuous ‘us’ with a savage ‘other’.” They describe the whole process as mobilising populations for war by mobilising hate.

Another related psychological vulnerability that is exploited in order to mobilise populations for war is the tendency, well-documented in the West, towards system justification. System justification is the drive to view one’s own social, political and economic systems in an unrealistically favourable light, rendering Westerners, on average, susceptible to messages that minimise their society’s flaws and glorify the status quo.

This tendency is exploited in Western wars by depicting “our” violence as virtuous, “our” wars noble and “our” leaders’ motives good, no matter how many millions of innocent people they have slaughtered, nor how many countries they have destroyed.

A large research literature has shown that most people (in the West) will system-justify even when confronted with their society’s flaws, such as corruption, inequality and violence. In fact, most people studied tend to double-down and defend the system even more forcefully in the face of systemic flaws, to maintain their faith in the status quo.

EOJ: Are we all vulnerable to these propaganda techniques?

DLJ: Although we all possess common human vulnerabilities in reality-perception, some of us are more susceptible—or resistant—to propaganda than others. Individual differences on propaganda-susceptibility need to be better studied, but given that official state-corporate propaganda is typically system-justifying, lower levels of system-justification (i.e. being less defensive of the status quo) are likely to foster resistance to official propaganda. Similarly, a less group-based, us-versus-them view of the world is likely to protect against many pro-war propaganda techniques.

More generally, in psychological research, curiosity is a human quality that protects people against misinformation such as propaganda. Individuals who possess what researchers call “science curiosity” are likely to be more motivated to seek out additional information, interrogate claims, and pursue an accurate, fact-based position, whether or not it fits with their initial biases and assumptions.

EOJ: Recently, we saw Christians in Sri Lanka and Muslims in New Zealand being viciously attacked in their places of worship. What can you tell us about the mind-set of those who carry out such attacks and how they view the “other”?

DLJ: In these tragic attacks, the “other” is viewed through the prism of group-based rivalry described above, which can be a very dangerous and deadly psychological state, particularly under conditions of fear and threat. Even when strangers are divided into groups based on nothing other than coin tosses or the colour of their T-shirts, group members tend to view each other with hostility, judgement and dislike.

When such group-based animosity is intensified by fear, then the “other” can come to be viewed not simply as inferior but as sub-human. Many psychological studies show that provoking fear of outgroups causes people to view outgroup members in dehumanised terms, fostering support for, and indifference to, violence of all kinds.

In psychological research with US subjects, for instance, just a single news article mentioning 9/11, or warning of unspecified future Islamic fundamentalist attack, causes sufficient group-based fear to prompt forgiveness of US atrocities in Iraq. In the real world, a constant barrage of such fear-based news articles since 9/11 has dehumanised Muslims sufficiently that Western populations have looked the other way while their leaders have killed somewhere between one and two million innocent people since 2001.

The underlying tactic is to cause nations and religions to fear each other, fuelling dehumanisation and a fight-to-the-death mentality. In this psychological environment, individual perpetrators of group-based violence such as the New Zealand and Sri Lankan massacres have taken the whole ugly process a deadly step further, by perpetrating the violence themselves rather than leaving it to the state.

EOJ: What role has the media played here? And what role should it play—along with academics, politicians and others—so that a “clash of civilisation” type of scenario, which is increasingly arising because of growing tension between different groups, can be avoided?

DLJ: Since 9/11, the emotions aroused by that event have been exploited and channelled into the War on Terror, being used to brand Muslims in general as dangerous and bad. This has been achieved in Western mainstream media and political rhetoric by repeatedly and spuriously pairing Islam with violent extremism, pinning an emotional—and literal—bullseye on the heads of millions of innocent Middle Eastern human beings.

On the other hand, if the media genuinely wished to prevent a clash of civilisations, and promote peace rather than war, it would seek to foster a sense of common humanity across group boundaries—geographic, cultural, social, ethnic and religious.

In psychological research, such a mindset is called identification with all humanity or psychological sense of global community. People who adopt this psychological standpoint value ingroup and outgroup members equally, viewing themselves as part of a larger human group.

Studies have found that identification with all humanity is related to positive support for human rights and human dignity across group boundaries, and to reduced support for war and violence. In one study, for example, simply asking Americans and Palestinian citizens of Israel to think about the shared human consequences of global warming led to reduced support for violence and increased support for peace.

In another study, subtle differences in the wording of a news article influenced whether readers were willing to support the torture of Muslim prisoners using the methods of Abu Ghraib. When Muslims were subtly humanised in news reports, by describing them using human qualities such as “passion” or “ambition”, readers were less supportive of torture.

In short, if they chose, our media and public figures could easily play a powerful role in fostering identification with all humanity, humanising members of other social groups, and reducing racism, intergroup violence and war.

Frankly, however, I don’t see that happening any time soon in the mainstream media in the West. Western media, like Western politicians, are reliant on military dollars, and are very closely entwined with the military-industrial-complex.

The Western independent, alternative, reader-funded media sphere, however, is a different story. There are many independent outlets that do a wonderful job of cutting across war propaganda, promoting a psychological sense of global community, humanising across social groups and promoting peace. It is precisely these media outlets, however, that the US national security state is seeking to shut down, in part by criminalising national security reporting such as that of WikiLeaks.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Daily Star. Eresh Omar is a frequent contributor to Global Research

On Tuesday, the world’s third largest platinimum mining house, Lonmin, will like die, remembered as the exemplar of multinational corporate irresponsibility. As a people’s trial hosted by the Marikana Solidarity Network gets underway outside Carlton House Terrace in London, where Lonmin’s shareholders vote on a friendly takeover deal (albeit with extremely dubious characteristics), many critics are shaking their heads – and fists – at the extraordinary financial and political circumstances.

Starting in 1909, the London and Rhodesian Mining and Land Company was a backwater mining house until it became one of the world’s most predatory corporations. The critical shift was Lonrho’s growth away from its origins in what is now Harare, during the 1962-93 leadership of Roland Walter Fuhrhop, a German who renamed himself Tiny Rowland and emigrated to England and then Rhodesia.

By the early 1970s, an unprecedented internal rebellion of directors against its flamboyant leader led to court proceedings that revealed much about Lonrho’s modus operandi. As Brian Cloughly explained,

A British prime minister, Edward Heath, observed in 1973 that a businessman, a truly horrible savage called ‘Tiny’ Rowland, represented “the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism.” The description was fitting because Rowland was a perambulating piece of filth who had indulged in bribery, tax-dodging, and the general range of ingenious whizz-kid schemes designed to make viciously unscrupulous people rich and keep them that way.

The majority of that wealth was stripped from Southern Africa, especially an area two hours drive from Johannesburg, in Rustenburg’s Western Platinum mines. By the early 1970s, they had become the most consistent source of Rowland’s profits, in some years exceeding half the firm’s earnings. But by 2017 it became obvious that Lonmin’s ongoing bribery of political leaders (especially in Africa), and its attacks on labour, community (especially women) and the environment were self-destructive on two grounds:

• a legacy of hatred that spilled over into the political sphere, reaching to the very top of South African politics, and
• an exceptional devaluation of investor worth, for what had become the world’s third largest platinum corporation – after Implats and Anglo American – was suddenly (and to many, mercifully) swallowed by a young (five year old) Johannesburg-based mining house, SibanyeStillwater.

The price for all of Lonmin’s London Stock Exchange shares offered in December 2017 was a measly $383 million, which was at the time just a seventh of Sibanye’s share value at the time, and a tiny fraction (1.4 percent) of Lonmin’s $28.6 billion peak value a decade earlier.

But its owners were glad to accept even these few crumbs, and indeed the final package of Sibanye trade-in shares was increased in April 2019 as platinum prices rose 11 percent in the four prior months, shortly before shareholder approval would finalise the deal.

Yet as journalist Felix Njini pointed out at the time, “While Sibanye has boosted the share ratio it is offering to Lonmin investors, the value of the deal remains lower than when it was announced, after the company’s share price fell and it sold new equity earlier in April.”

During the 2007-17 crash, Lonmin, its management, and especially its main South African investor (and protector) Cyril Ramaphosa, together deserved their neo-Rowlandian reputations. They sought profits at any cost, even the irreparable soiling of their own nests.

To be sure, last Saturday Ramaphosa was sworn in as South Africa’s president, after his party won the May 8 election with a much reduced 58 percent of the national vote – gaining a tick from only 30 percent of those who were eligible as apathy and disgust reduced voter participation to an unprecedented level.

That tradition of profits-at-any-cost will continue in coming years under Sibanye’s notorious CEO Neil Froneman. Even in the crucial 2012-19 years when reform should have been possible, there continued to be excruciating attacks on Lonmin’s workers, the Marikana community and the surrounding ecological systems, of which the worst single incident was at the platinum mine two hours’ drive northwest of Johannesburg.

On August 15, 2012 Ramaphosa emailed a request to the police minister regarding a week-long wildcat strike at a Marikana mine of which he owned more than 9 percent: “The terrible events that have unfolded cannot be described as a labour dispute. They are plainly dastardly criminal and must be characterised as such … there needs to be concomitant action to address this situation.”

Ramaphosa was referring to 4000 desperately underpaid miners, and the violence they had suffered and meted out the prior week, during which six workers, two security guards and two policemen died in skirmishes. Neither Lonmin officials nor its board’s Transformation Committee leader Ramaphosa wanted to negotiate.

The main union then representing the platinum workers, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM, which was courageously led by Ramaphosa during the 1980s), sided with management. The day after his emails, strikers began to peacefully depart the hillside where they gathered for the nearby shantytowns, heading home for the weekend. They were blocked by barbed wire hastily assembled by police, and then 34 of the workers were shot dead, and 78 wounded.

The police acted not dissimilarly to those of the pre-1994 apartheid era, with a visceral hatred of the rebellious workers; class had simply replaced race in the calculus (since the police shooters were largely black, including most of their commanders). Ramaphosa’s role was especially unconscionable given his struggle history.

In the 2014 Emmy Award-winning film Miners Shot Down, director Rehad Desai reveals the class-loyalty U-turn. In 1987 in the midst of a legendary strike, Ramaphosa accused the “liberal bourgeoisie” of using “fascistic” methods. Thirty years later Ramaphosa had become the main local investor in Lonmin, and within five years was a “monster,” according to local activists. He played a familiar role described by the workers’ lawyer, Dali Mpofu:

At the heart of this was the toxic collusion between the SA Police Services and Lonmin at a direct level. At a much broader level it can be called a collusion between the State and capital… in the sordid history of the mining industry in this country.

Part of that history included the collaboration of so-called tribal chiefs who were corrupt and were used by those oppressive governments to turn the self-sufficient black African farmers into slave labour workers. Today we have a situation where those chiefs have been replaced by so-called Black Economic Empowerment partners of these mines and carrying on that torch of collusion.

Collusion resisted but not defeated

The post-massacre period provides many lessons about how Lonmin maintained its predatory approach and also how resistance was stymied, notwithstanding a crescendo of labour unrest culminating in a five-month strike across the platinum belt in 2014. Summing up the overall lack of improvement at Marikana three years after the massacre, photojournalist Greg Marinovich explained,

The miners’ salaries have, over the course of two long and deadly strikes, been substantially increased. And their lives have improved, albeit not to the level that Lonmin promised back in 2007, when Brad Mills told Business Daythe money would create “thriving” and “comfortably middle class” communities around Lonmin’s projects.

Police advance after shooting striking workers with live ammunition on 16 August 2012 (Source: South African History Online)

Given the horror of the massacre at Marikana, it is not surprising that the failure of the state, municipalities and Lonmin to provide dignified and reasonable living conditions has been sidelined. But it is this squalid environment and the cynical disregard by those with the power to change it that provoked the miners to risk death in the first place. And for the women here, who are mostly shut out of formal employment possibilities, life remains an unremitting grind, despite the World Bank’s tagline: “Working for a World Free of Poverty.”

Indeed although the Marikana Massacre’s impact on Ramaphosa, Lonmin and its victims was devastating, that incident alone did not immediately destroy the firm (for example, in the way the London public relations firm Bell Pottinger was quickly dismembered due to its South African mistakes in mid-2017).

Instead, the underlying dilemma that ultimately led to Lonmin’s death was the over-accumulation of minerals capital on the world scale, and the inability of Lonmin to keep its cost structure sufficiently low to avoid a takeover.

Froneman made clear that his main rationale in buying Lonmin was to consolidate the firm’s relatively cheaper smelting capacity at Marikana for use by other firms (although the return of electricity brownouts in 2018 and fast-rising tariffs quickly diluted this benefit). Closure of Lonmin mine shafts will accelerate, and the Social and Labour Plans will continue to be ignored.

Already in 2016, Lonmin’s workforce shrunk dramatically, from 40 000 to 33 000 employees, with another 8000 workers fired in 2018 and 4100 in mid-2019. Sibanye’s takeover plan projected the firing of a further 12 600 Lonmin workers within three years.

A subsequent price recovery of one metal, palladium (closely related to platinum, rising from $826/ounce in September 2018 to a March 2019 high of $1601/ounce), apparently slowed Lonmin’s retrenchment process, but Sibanye remained intent on Lonmin labour rationalisation.

In general, Froneman’s treatment of workers was seen as exceptionally careless even in a South African context, with 24 mining fatalities at Sibanye in 2018 alone. That year Froneman was awarded salary and benefits worth $3.8 million, even though the entire firm’s profits (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) were only $47 million.

But the troubles Froneman brought upon himself at Sibanye were prefigured by the Marikana Massacre. The labour movement witnessed an extraordinary upsurge of shopfloor militancy in the subsequent weeks, and the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu) emerged so strong from the NUM’s demise at Lonmin, that it waged a five-month strike across the platinum belt in 2014.

In the wake of the massacre, Lonmin was also the site of new frictions with two new advocacy groups from the surrounding community: Bapo Ba Mogale and the Mining Forum of South Africa. The two groups complained,

Lonmin has circumvented compliance willfully and purposefully, a practice they have mastered for years with intent to secure interests of capital at the expense of the disadvantaged and the poor. They have a proven track record of presiding and surviving on hopelessness, volatility, death, instability, poverty and violence.

The Massacre also humiliated a high-profile Lonmin financial supporter, the World Bank. The Bank’s 2007-12 celebration of Lonmin’s so-called “Strategic Community Investment” at Marikana attracted persistent complaints from a women’s community group, Sikhala Sonke (“We cry together”), supported by the Wits University Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS).

Another unnecessary casualty of Marikana was the possibility of an ambitious state-led mining policy, since who could trust a state led first by Jacob Zuma and then Ramaphosa, to safeguard workers, communities, women and environments. The then African National Congress (ANC) Youth League leader Julius Malema raised the demand for mining nationalisation at a 2011 conference, and as a result, a party disciplinary committee led by Ramaphosa expelled him and his comrades.

Malema subsequently founded the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party and won a growing share of the platinum belt’s support in subsequent elections, rising to a third of the voters residing in Marikana’s shacks and hostels in the 2019 election (one of the EFF members of parliament was a feisty Sikhala Sonke founder, Primrose Sonti). The massacre had shifted South African politics forever.

The state’s response was to distract and defer from the deepest problems unveiled by the massacre. Wrongdoing was investigated by the 2012-15 Farlam Commission set up by Zuma, but the outcome was widely condemned as inadequate. It is tempting to emphasise the negligence or malevolence of personalities:

• Judge Ian Farlam blamed maniacal police leadership.
• Lonmin chief executive Ian Farmer’s salary was 236 times higher than the typical rock drill operator.
• Farmer’s main executive replacement Barnard Mokwena was later unveiled as a State Security Agency operative.

In the structure-agency dialectic, it is these kinds of characters who make it easy to villainise Lonmin and the state. But even when structural forces are at work, central personalities can be targeted for blame.

Thus while Lonmin was intent on Illicit Financial Flows, it was due to Ramaphosa’s strong support as leader of the Incwala black empowerment partner firm. According to Lonmin’s lawyer, “Incwala for very many years refused to agree” to changing what became a $100 million outflow to the Bermuda tax haven justified as marketing expenses, even after Lonmin itself decided to end the tax-dodge.

The state did nothing to punish this; nor did it provide the reparations to massacred and injured mineworkers’ families that even Farlam recommended were due, for many years.

Perhaps the most blatant case of state-corporate collusion appeared in April 2019, when Amcu was threatened with deregistration by the South African Department of Labour, on grounds that it had not properly followed institutional procedures (such as regular conventions) that qualify it to be considered a trade union.

Sibanye’s Froneman had just humbled Amcu leader Joseph Mathunjwa in the gold sector strike, and as platinum negotiations got underway, even worse conflict was expected. Mathunjwa complained,

The registrar is inconsistent and unduly interfering in the affairs of Amcu. The inconsistency of the registrar when it comes to the deregistration of trade unions leaves a lot to be desired. There are numerous examples of trade unions and trade union federations who have contravened many prescriptions including financial submissions they were never deregistered or threatened with cancellation of registration. Instead he chooses to focus on Amcu. This is clearly a political agenda.

Even worse news for Amcu followed two weeks later, when a judge once known for his pro-worker ideological bias, Dennis Davis, ruled against the union’s last-gasp attempt to save jobs by halting Sibanye’s takeover, on grounds of Lonmin’s proximity to bankruptcy:

Notwithstanding transient fluctuations in the price of platinum group metals and currency fluctuations, Lonmin’s continued existence was in jeopardy and the number of job losses that Sibanye and Lonmin projected as a result of the merger was rational. At best, Lonmin would continue to “tread water”, that is, if it was not placed into business rescue, which, if it occurred, would hold significant risk for 32,000 jobs.

Within days, a reality check to Davis’ misplaced pity for Lonmin was offered by Business Day’sAnn Crotty:

In December 2017 Lonmin shareholders, shell-shocked by events dating from even before the Marikana massacre of August 2012, must have been tempted to heave a huge sigh of relief when Sibanye-Stillwater arrived on their doorstep with a share-exchange offer. As could be expected, given that the Sibanye-Stillwater team could smell fear and desperation from the Lonmin camp, the offer was cheeky.

It priced in all of Lonmin’s problems, many of which looked near fatal, but was remarkably snoep when it came to the assets, which include a state-of-the-art smelter and two refineries. Lonmin also has an assessed loss of $1.1bn, extremely valuable for a profit-generating entity. Lonmin has managed to survive through the depths of survived the platinum price weakness and now no longer requires rescuing.

Indeed Crotty quoted a leading mining analyst critical of the deal, concerned about Froneman’s underpayment to Lonmin’s shareholders, given how much the takeover target’s fortunes had improved over the prior eighteen months: “If anything, the all-share acquisition by Sibanye is increasingly looking like a disguised rights issue by Sibanye to shore up its strained balance sheet and covenant ratios.”

Sensing the unease, Froneman quickly authorised a minor increase in the price and Lonmin chief executive Ben Magara – legally bound to favour the Sibanye takeover – downplayed any expectation that the rising profits he had just registered now merited a rethink of the deal:“Our performance has been impacted by low morale and high management turnover, instability and uncertainty, due to the extended timeline to close the Sibanye-Stillwater transaction caused by Amcu.”

On May 24, one of the most important South African financiers, Standard Bank, warned shareholders that they were being sold out by $460 million (instead of $0.81/share, the price should be $2.43), “if assets such as the platinum producer’s suspended K4 project, spare processing capacity and a concentrator are factored in.” If more than 25 percent of the shareholders vote no, the merger will fail.

The South African state’s corruption-riddled Public Investment Commission, with 29 percent ownership and thus power to block the sale, has not stated how it will vote, so a high degree of tension looms in London before Tuesday’s meeting.

Resistance ebbs and flows, from the local to global and back

Against mining capital, the politicians and the state stood a variety of disparate organisations: Amcu, Sikhala Sonke and CALS, the church-based Bench Marks Foundation (which in 2017 had begun campaigning for divestment from Lonmin), a Johannesburg-based network of activists known as the Marikana Support Campaign, the EFF, and solidarity activists in Britain and Germany.

In addition to better wages and more community investment, their main post-massacre demands were that Lonmin and the government publicly apologise, pay survivors and widows reparations (civil suits of more than $70 million have been filed) and declare August 16 a national holiday with a monument at the site of the massacre.

Other concrete grievances were regularly expressed by the Marikana Support Campaign, such as: “No action has been taken against Lonmin directors despite a recommendation for them to be investigated for possible prosecution. President Zuma has sat on the findings of the Claasen Inquiry into Riah Phiyega. In the meantime she has ended her contract and maintained all her benefits.”

Zuma consistently refused to meet these demands, and instead promoted improvement of the living conditions of workers. Government failed to rapidly make mandated compensation payments to the workers and their families – for widows’ and children’s loss of support claims, and for 275 unlawful arrest and detention claims by surviving workers.

In addition, two other international solidarity campaigns continued to put pressure on Lonmin prior to its death. In London, there are regular picketing, film screenings and tours arranged by the Marikana Miners Solidarity Campaign, targeting Lonmin, its institutional owners and its financiers: “London-based asset management funds Investec, Majedie, Schroders, Standard Life and Legal & General who own 44 percent of the corporation. A consortium of banks including Lloyds, HSBC and RBS are Lonmin’s biggest lenders.”

Two important activist groups there are the London Mining Network and the student movement Decolonising Environment. And in Germany, the major platinum purchaser BASF – Lonmin’s largest single customer, dating back three decades – came under pressure from a “Plough Back the Fruits” campaign of solidarity activists demanding that BASF put pressure on Lonmin to improve workplace and community conditions.

The firm resisted this secondary pressure, but BASF was in 2017 finally compelled to admit, “We note that the development of living conditions for Lonmin workers is not progressing as quickly as one would expect or hope. This is due to the fact that the situation in South Africa is extremely multi-faced and cannot be solved in the short term by one institution alone.”In 2018, a book edited by German and Austrian campaigners,Business as Usual after Marikana, deepened the critique of Lonmin.

But so far, notwithstanding the impressive international solidarity, resolutions of the grievances have not been achieved by the disparate civil society strategies that followed Marikana. One was the demand for higher wages, which the workers were gradually winning. However, the R12 500/month initially demanded in mid-2011, when it amounted to $1985/month, had shrunk to just $870/month in mid-2019 due to currency devaluation (from R6.3/$ to R14,4/$ in that period). The R12 500 demand was only achieved in 2019, but inflation had eroded that sum by more than a third.

Another strategy was genuine community development, advocated most strongly by Sikhala Sonke women who, in part, attacked the World Bank for its failures, followed by further Bapo Ba Mogale community grievances. Lonmin management repeatedly claimed to have spent more than $35 million on community housing since 2012, though conceded it had not met the promise of 5500 worker-owned houses because of lack of demand.

Since none of these campaigns for improvements at the point of production (led by Amcu) or labour reproduction (led by Sikhala Sonke) have been satisfactorily achieved, whatcan be learned from these shortcomings?

The 2012-19 era provided dispiriting lessons in power relations thanks to the fragmented, single-issue nature of the attacks on Lonmin, most of which will continue to apply in the Sibanye era, as well as several that require more attention to the 2012 conjuncture for the sake of facilitating the demand for reparations.

To transcend the silo politics, the crucial strategic questions, are what solidarity opportunities for future campaigning might emerge both within the debt-ridden working class as it strives to survive on inadequate wages, and against the rump of Lonmin as captured by Sibanye, its purchasers (BASF and VW) and its bankers (especially the World Bank)?

Indeed, is nationalisation of the platinum reserves as well as the multinational corporate-owned mining infrastructure feasible – and desirable – in a pre-socialist, neoliberal-nationalist era in which the state continues to be run by Cyril Ramaphosa?

Fighting for a nationalised platinum sector 

To prevent the ‘reloading’ of Marikana’s various oppressions, as appears certain today, a much larger accounting of South Africa’s resource-cursed mining sector must be made.To recap, the period since 2012 revealed at least half a dozen underlying curses at Marikana, as well as across what is termed the “Minerals-Energy Complex”:

• political – the obedience of politicians like Ramaphosa and the state security apparatus to the predatory needs of multinational mining capital;
• economic – the tendency to overproduction intrinsic to the capitalist system, especially in times of a commodity super-cycle (2002-11) whose subsequent crash left Lonmin vastly over-exposed;
• financial – usurious microfinance borrowed by mineworkers (leading to extreme borrower desperation by the time of the August 2012 strikes), $150 million in dubious World Bank ‘development finance’ investment, and chaotic corporate investment given Lonmin’s share price debacle;
• gendered – especially the stressed reproduction of labour and community by women in Marikana’s wretched Nkaneng and Wonderkop shack settlements;
• environmental – extreme degradation within fast-growing peri-urban slums, nearby which minerals are dug and smelted using high-carbon processes that also pollute local water, soil and air; and
• labour-related – platinum rock drill operators’ inadequate wages and deplorable working and residential conditions, especially in comparison to mining executives’ ludicrously generous remuneration: the durability of apartheid-era migrancy, itself a condition dividing workers from the area’s traditional residents along familial, ethnic and (property-related) class lines; intra-union battles which split workers and generated some of the initial 2012 violence, followed by further violence in 2017 including within Amcu; and ongoing mass retrenchments due to a (failing) automation strategy.

In future months and years, can these forces find common cause? The underlying principles of Lonmin’s various opponents often seem worlds apart. According to Samantha Hargreaves of the Women in Mining NGO,

Narrow male-dominated trade union and worker interests mean that hope for a radical resolution lies in the struggles of women in places like Wonderkop. The challenge is linking these with (mainly male) worker struggles and environmentalist solidarity to challenge the extractivist model of development, the social, economic and environmental costs of which are principally borne by working-class and peasant women.

It may well be, in this context, that both shopfloor and grassroots forces require assistance from institutions with larger agendas, including political parties and even NGOs challenging the broader economic agenda of transnational corporations.

For example, in mid-2015, Lonmin’s tax avoidance was raised by AIDC director Brian Ashley (a leading Amcu advisor): “As the AIDC, we will pursue a campaign for the company’s licence to be revoked and for the state owned mining company to take over the company… We need to hold these huge corporations to account. You cannot have a company in a country that needs to be rebuilt sucking the resources dry.”

At the same time, the leftist EFF party also demanded mine nationalisation and in the case of the massacre punishment including both jail for Lonmin leaders and compensation: “The EFF will institute a process of reparations against Lonmin to demand reparations and payments of all the families of deceased mineworkers of R10 million (then $1.1 million) per family and R5 million ($0.55 million) per injured worker.”

Even the centre-right Democratic Alliance party announced that it also supported forcing Lonmin to compensate massacre victims’ families.

With Lonmin unable to continue as a going concern, much bigger questions about political strategy can be raised. To think creatively about the options for Lonmin (via Sibanye) not only requires a revived debate about whether or not to take away the firm’s mining license (which, indeed, was threatened by Pretoria in late 2016 due to Lonmin’s default on its Social and Labour Plan) or to nationalise it with – or preferably without (given such immense liabilities) – compensation to traditional overseas owners (as the EFF argue).

But setting aside the particular problems at Marikana, the disastrous recent period of mining capital’s over-accumulation and ruinous competition also compels much wider considerations on the need for new priorities that would radically change the corporate financing parameters now in place. These might include:

• developing a world platinum cartel centred in South Africa;
• establishing a genuinely green economic strategy to move the Minerals Energy Complex away from its traditional roots in coal, iron ore, manganese, gold and diamonds (and not simply to hydrogen fuel cells for individualised electric vehicle production);
• incorporating natural capital accounting into state (and corporate) decision-making so that the true costs and benefits of mining can finally be understood in full cost-accounting terms; and ultimately,
• ensuring a ‘just transition’ to low-carbon, post-extractivist economic activities that are especially friendly to women’s needs – within not just the sphere of production but also the reproduction of society, as the AIDC “Million Climate Jobs” campaign advocates.

These are the kinds of strategic questions that can be raised not only thanks to injustices that continue at Marikana, but also because the specific problems of microfinance, development finance and corporate finance confirm the power but also the overlapping, interlocking vulnerabilities associated with Lonmin’s historic abuse of people and planet (and Sibanye’s likely amplification of these).

However, the vulnerabilities even huge mining corporations face have generated mainly the kinds of fragmented campaigns for reform discussed above. As the limits of reformist strategies are reached in each of these, it is still possible for much greater unity to be established between disparate groups of mining capital’s victims.

Since these victims soon include investors representing South Africa’s large civil service as well as financiers, it will be up to the grassroots, shop-floor and environmental activists to ensure that an even more exploitative regime of extraction in the platinum belt does not emerge in coming years.

Moreover, so as to lessen vulnerability to volatile world capitalist markets, it is long overdue for South Africa (with 88 percent of world reserves) to join Russian and Zimbabwean authorities in a world platinum cartel, about which formal discussions began in 2013 amid the first round of platinum gluts.

In the process, a genuinely green strategy for the region should move the economy away from overdependence upon traditional coal, iron ore, manganese, gold and diamonds exports, and ensure a ‘Just Transition’ to post-‘extractivist’ economic activities in line with South Africa’s growing climate mitigation and adaptation imperatives. As Sikhala Sonke and allies point out, the latter should be especially friendly to women’s needs, within not just the sphere of production but also the reproduction of society.

As for the trade union that is most popular in Marikana, Amcu, Mathunjwa has eloquently explained the workers’ concerns in these terms:

Just surviving each day is a struggle that denies them the choice of engaging in issues of climate change and the ecological crisis caused by mining and the fossil fuel industry… If we leave it to the market, we will not get to the roots of the climate and environmental crisis and workers will be discarded in the existing mining and energy sectors…

We refuse to be made to act like ostriches. There is a climate and ecological crisis. We have a horrific jobs crisis. We need solutions to both. But we need a just transition where no worker loses his or her job without either being skilled and transferred to another industry or is compensated for the rest of their working life. As workers we will not bear the brunt of a crisis we had nothing to do with, except by virtue of the exploitation of our labour.

The consolidation of Ramaphosa’s power in the 2019 election – thanks to a 58 percent vote, four percent higher than his predecessor Zuma had managed in the 2016 election – and his promise that foreign direct investment would reach $100 billion within five years, together confirmed how difficult the terrain would be for subaltern forces in coming years.

In the internal fissures facing the ANC, there was no progressive option for Marikana, given how weak the trade union and Communist Party rump supporters had become, not to mention how ambivalent about the anti-Lonmin struggle they were given NUM’s 2012 defeat there and Amcu’s rise.

Froneman’s anticipated closure of platinum shafts at Lonmin Marikana operations (with the loss of 12 000 mineworker), and the shift of the big smelter there into a site for Sibanye’s cheaper operations to process their ore, will see the fading of any residual hope retained by workers and communities. Internecine violence between Amcu and NUM rose to new heights in early 2019 at Sibanye’s gold mines, but could get worse in the platinum fields, as the latter union seeks to reclaim its old ground, especially if the former is deregistered.

These are very similar tensions compared to the conditions that in mid-2012 confronted Marikana’s activists. They faced the loaded weapons of Lonmin and its police allies – and didn’t flinch. Will they do so again, now that Marikana’s rulers are reloading?

*

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.

Patrick Bond teaches political economy at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg; for a full account including references, contact [email protected]  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

After posting a video of a young recruit talking to the camera about how service allows him to better himself “as a man and a warrior”, the US Army tweeted, “How has serving impacted you?”

As of this writing, the post has over 5,300 responses. Most of them are heartbreaking.

“My daughter was raped while in the army,” said one responder. “They took her to the hospital where an all male staff tried to convince her to give the guy a break because it would ruin his life. She persisted. Wouldn’t back down. Did a tour in Iraq. Now suffers from PTSD.”

“I’ve had the same nightmare almost every night for the past 15 years,” said another.

Tweet after tweet after tweet, people used the opportunity that the Army had inadvertently given them to describe how they or their loved one had been chewed up and spit out by a war machine that never cared about them. This article exists solely to document a few of the things that have been posted in that space, partly to help spread public awareness and partly in case the thread gets deleted in the interests of “national security”. Here’s a sampling in no particular order:

How has serving impacted you?

— U.S. Army (@USArmy) May 23, 2019

“Someone I loved joined right out of high school even though I begged him not to. Few months after his deployment ended, we reconnected. One night, he told me he loved me and then shot himself in the head. If you’re gonna prey on kids for imperialism, at least treat their PTSD.”

~

“After I came back from overseas I couldn’t go into large crowds without a few beers in me. I have nerve damage in my right ear that since I didn’t want to look weak after I came back I lied to the VA rep. My dad was exposed to agent orange which destroyed his lungs, heart, liver and pancreas and eventually killing him five years ago. He was 49, exposed at a post not Vietnam, and will never meet my daughter my nephew. I still drink to much and I crowds are ok most days but I have to grocery shop at night and can’t work days because there is to many ppl.”

~

“The dad of my best friend when I was in high school had served in the army. He struggled with untreated PTSD & severe depression for 30 years, never told his family. Christmas eve of 2010, he went to their shed to grab the presents & shot himself in the head. That was the first funeral I attended where I was actually told the cause of death & the reasons surrounding it. I went home from the service, did some asking around, & found that most of the funerals I’ve attended before have been caused by untreated health issues from serving.”

~

“My dad was drafted into war and was exposed to agent orange. I was born w multiple physical/neurological disabilities that are linked back to that chemical. And my dad became an alcoholic with ptsd and a side of bipolar disorder.”

~

“i met this guy named christian who served in iraq. he was cool, had his own place with a pole in the living room. always had lit parties. my best friend at the time started dating him so we spent a weekend at his crib. after a party, 6am, he took out his laptop. he started showing us some pics of his time in the army. pics with a bunch of dudes. smiling, laughing. it was cool. i was drunk and didn’t care. he started showing us pics of some little kids. after a while, his eyes went completely fucking dark. i was like man, dude’s high af. he very calmly explained to us that all of those kids were dead ‘but that’s what war was. dead kids and nothing to show for it but a military discount’. christian killed himself 2 months later.”

~

“I didn’t serve but my dad did. In Vietnam. It eventually killed him, slowly, over a couple of decades. When the doctors were trying to put in a pacemaker to maybe extend his life a couple of years, his organs were so fucked from the Agent Orange, they disintegrated to the touch. He died when I was ten. He never saw me graduate high school. He never saw me get my first job or buy my first car. He wasn’t there. But hey! Y’all finally paid out 30k after another vet took the VA to the Supreme Court, so. You know. It was cool for him.”

~

“Chronic pain with a 0% disability rating (despite medical discharge) so no benefits, and anger issues that I cope with by picking fistfights with strangers.”

~

“My parents both served in the US Army and what they got was PTSD for both of them along with anxiety issues. Whenever we go out in public and sit down somewhere my dad has to have his back up against the wall just to feel a measure of comfort that no one is going to sneak up on him and kill him and and walking up behind either of them without announcing that you’re there is most likely going to either get you punch in the face or choked out.”

~

“Many of my friends served. All are on heavy antidepressant/anxiety meds, can’t make it through 4th of July or NYE, and have all dealt with heavy substance abuse problems before and after discharge. And that’s on top of one crippled left hand, crushed vertebra, and GSWs.”

~

“Left my talented and young brother a broken and disabled man who barely leaves the house. Left my mother hypervigilant & terrified due to the amount of sexual assault & rape covered up and looked over by COs. Friend joined right out if HS, bullet left him paralyzed neck down.”

~

“My cousin went to war twice and came back with a drug addiction that killed him. My other cousin could never get paid on time and when he left they tried to withhold his pay.”

~

“It’s given me a fractured spine, TBI, combat PTSD, burn pit exposure, and a broken body with no hope of getting better. Not even medically retired for a fractured spine. WTF.”

~

“Y’all killed my father by failing to provide proper treatments after multiple tours.”

~

“Everyone I know got free PTSD and chemical exposure and a long engagement in their efforts to have the US pay up for college tuition. Several lives ruined. No one came out better. Thank god my recruiter got a DUI on his way to get me or I would be dead or worse right now.”

~

“I have ptsd and still wake up crying at night. Also have a messed up leg that I probably will have to deal with the rest of my life. Depression. Anger issues.”

~

“My grandfather came back from Vietnam with severe PTSD, tried to drown it in alcohol, beat my father so badly and so often he still flinches when touched 50 years later. And I grew up with an emotionally scarred father with PTSD issues of his own because of it. Good times.”

~

“Hmmm. Let’s see. I lost friends, have 38 inches of scars, PTSD and a janky arm and hand that don’t work.”

~

“my grandpa served in vietnam from when he was 18–25. he’s 70 now and every night he still has nightmares where he stands up tugging at the curtains or banging on the walls screaming at the top of his lungs for someone to help him. he refuses to talk about his time and when you mention anything about the war to him his face goes white and he has a panic attack. he cries almost every day and night and had to spend 10 years in a psychiatric facility for suicidal ideations from what he saw there.”

~

“My best friend joined the Army straight out of high school because his family was poor & he wanted a college education. He served his time & then some. Just as he was ready to retire he was sent to Iraq. You guys sent him back in a box. It destroyed his children.”

~

“Well, my father got deployed to Iraq and came back a completely different person. Couldn’t even work the same job he had been working 20 years before that because of his anxiety and PTSD. He had nightmares, got easily violent and has terrible depression. But the army just handed him pills, now he is 100% disabled and is on a shit ton of medication. He has nightmares every night, paces the house barely sleeping, checking every room just to make sure everyone’s safe. He’s had multiple friends commit suicide.”

~

“Father’s a disabled Vietnam veteran who came home with severe PTSD and raging alcoholism. VA has continuously ignored him throughout the years and his medical needs and he receives very little compensation for all he’s gone through. Thanks so much!!”

~

“I was #USNavy, my husband was #USArmy, he served in Bosnia and Iraq and that nice, shy, funny guy was gone, replaced with a withdrawn, angry man…he committed suicide a few years later…when I’m thanked for my service, I just nod.”

~

“I’m permanently disabled because I trained through severe pain after being rejected from the clinic for ‘malingering.’ Turns out my pelvis was cracked and I ended up having to have hip surgery when I was 20 years old.”

~

“My brother went into the Army a fairly normal person, became a Ranger (Ft. Ord) & came out a sociopath. He spent the 1st 3 wks home in his room in the dark, only coming out at night when he thought we were asleep. He started doing crazy stuff. Haven’t seen him since 1993.”

~

“Recently attended the funeral for a west point grad with a 4yr old and a 7yr old daughter because he blew his face off to escape his ptsd but thats nothing new.”

~

“I don’t know anyone in my family who doesn’t suffer from ptsd due to serving. One is signed off sick due to it & thinks violence is ok. Another (navy) turned into a psycho & thought domestic violence was the answer to his wife disobeying his orders.”

~

“My dad served during vietnam, but after losing close friends and witnessing the killing of innocents by the U.S., he refused to redeploy. He has suffered from PTSD ever since. The bravest thing he did in the army was refuse to fight any longer, and I’m so proud of him for that.”

~

“My best friend from high school was denied his mental health treatment and forced to return to a third tour in Iraq, despite having such deep trauma that he could barely function. He took a handful of sleeping pills and shot himself in the head two weeks before deploying.”

~

“Bad back, hips, and knees. Lack of trust, especially when coming forward about sexual harassment. Detachment, out of fear of losing friends. Missed birthdays, weddings, graduations, and funerals. I get a special license plate tho.”

~

“My son died 10 months ago. He did 3 overseas tours. He came back with severe mental illness.”

~

“I’m still in and I’m in constant pain and they recommended a spinal fusion when I was 19. Y’all also won’t update my ERB so I can’t use the education benefits I messed myself up for.”

~

“My dad served two tours in middle east and his personality changes have affected my family forever. VA ‘counseling’ has a session limit and doesn’t send you to actual psychologists. Military service creates a mental health epidemic it is then woefully unequipped to deal with.”

~

“My best childhood friend lost his mind after his time in the marines and now he lives in a closet in his mons house and can barely hold a conversation with anyone. He only smokes weed and drinks cough syrup that he steals since he can’t hold a job.”

~

“After coming back from Afghanistan…..Matter fact I don’t even want to talk about it. Just knw that my PTSD, bad back, headaches, chronic pain, knee pain, and other things wishes I would have NEVER signed that contract. It was NOT worth the pain I’ll endure for the rest of life.”

~

“My cousin served and came back only to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and ptsd. There were nights that he would lock himself in the bathroom and stay in the corner because he saw bodies in the bathtub. While driving down the highway, he had another episode and drove himself into a cement barrier, engulfing his Jeep in flames and burning alive. My father served as well and would never once speak of what he witnessed and had to do. He said it’s not something that any one person should ever be proud of.”

~

“I was sexually assaulted by a service member at 17 when I visited my sister on her base, then again at 18. My friend got hooked on k2 and died after the va turned him away for mental health help. Another friend serving was exploited sexually by her co and she was blamed for it.”

~

“I spent ten years in the military. I worked 15 hour days to make sure my troops were taken care of. In return for my hard work I was rewarded with three military members raping me. I was never promoted to a rank that made a difference. And I have an attempt at suicide. Fuck you!”

~

“I actually didn’t get around to serving because I was sexually assaulted by three of my classmates during a military academy prep program. They went to the academies and are still active duty officers. I flamed out of the program and have PTSD.”

~

“My father’s successful military career taught him that he’s allowed to use violence to make people do what he wants because America gave him that power.”

~

“While I was busy framing ‘soliders and families first’ (lol) propaganda posters, my best friend went to ‘Iraqistan’ but he didn’t come back. He returned alive, to be sure, but he was no longer the fun, carefree, upbeat person he’d previously been.”

~

“My husband is a paraplegic and can’t control 3/4 of his body now. Me, I’ve got PTSD, an anxiety disorder, two messed up knees, depression, a bad back, tinnitus, and chronic insomnia. I wish both had never served.”

~

“This is one of the most heartbreaking threads I’ve ever read.”

~

“I am so sorry. The way we fail our service members hurts my heart. My grandfather served in the Korean War and had nightmares until his death at 91 years old. We must do better.”

~

“My Army story is that when I was in high school, recruiters were there ALL the time- at lunch, clubs, etc.- targeting the poor kids at school. I didn’t understand it until now. You chew people who have nothing at home up and spit them out.”

~

“I was thinking about enlisting until I saw this thread. Hard pass.”

~

“I hope to god that the Army has enough guts to read these and realize how badly our servicepeople are being treated. Thank you and god bless you to all of you in this thread, and your loved ones who are suffering too.”

~

There are many, many more.

This is a poem I wrote a while back called “Naughty Little Boys”:

That little boy’s mum is going to be so upset.
He hasn’t combed his hair,
and his clothes are filthy.
And what’s he gone and done with his legs?
Where are your legs, little boy?
Better go and find them before your mum sees you.
Those legs are very important to her.

They sent the little boys up into the sky
and over the ocean to go play soldiers.
They gave them toy guns
full of toy bullets,
and they screamed toy screams,
and bled toy blood,
and cried toy tears,
and had toy nightmares,
and called out for their mums
in the desert.

The man on the TV keeps calling them heroes.
Don’t call them that, TV man,
you’ll only encourage them.
These are little boys,
and they’re being very naughty.
They are worrying their mums sick
and it’s time for them to go home.

Find your legs, little boy,
and go be with your mum.
Find your hands and your face too;
she’ll miss those as well.
Find your mind and bring it back
from that dark, scary place.
You’re not there anymore.
You are home.
Stop screaming toy screams
and crying toy tears
and go tell your mum that you’ve had
a bad dream.

*

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.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonaut. Guerrilla poet. Utopia prepper.

All images in this article are from Medium

On May 26, units of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the Tiger Forces and the National Defense Forces launched a surprise attack on the town of Kafr Nabudah in northwestern Hama, which had been recently captured by Hayat Tahir al-Sham (the former branch of al-Qaeda in Syria) and its Turkish-backed allies.

The attack began in the morning after a series of airstrikes by Syrian and Russian warplanes. By the evening, government troops had established full control of the town killing at least 5 militants.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led forces seized Kafr Nabudah on May 22. Then, militants claimed that they had killed at least 50 pro-government fighters and captured several pieces of military equipment. Kafr Nabudah is the key strong point of militants in this area. The inability of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to keep it under its control create a threat to the western flank of militants deployed in Khan Shaykhun, Kafr Zita and nearby settlements.

SAA units seized seizing several weapons caches, including Grad rockets, tank rounds, artillery shells, mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and loads of ammunition of different calibers, in Kirkat. The SAA also discovered a underground tunnel leading to a fortified operations room in the town of Qalaat al-Madiq.

The SAA captured Kirkat and Qalaat al-Madiq earlier in May in the framework of its ongoing military operation in northern Hama.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, militant groups lost 350 fighters, five battle tanks, one infantry fighting vehicle, 27 pickup trucks, two vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) and three rocket launches since the start of the ongoing round of hostilities in northwestern Hama.

Clashes in the area are expected to continue. The SAA’s 7^th Division has recently sent reinforcements, including T-55 battle tanks, BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles, Shilka anti-aircraft vehicles and 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers, to the frontline. A source in the 7th Division told SouthFront that these reinforcements could participate in future military operations against Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham in the region. However, he declined to provide additional information.

The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham repelled another SAA attack on their positions south of Kbani in northern Lattakia. Media close to the TIP claimed that several soldiers were killed. According to sources in the 4^th Division, the SAA is seeing Kbani as a high priority target for offensive operations.

Turkey has resumed its weapon supplies to “mainstream Syrian rebels” to help them fend off the SAA advance in northern Hama, Reuters reported on May 25. According to the news agency, Turkey is supplied the militants with dozens of armored vehicles, Grad rocket launchers and anti-tank guided missiles, including US-made TOWs. Multiple Turkish-supplied armoured vehicles were also spotted on the frontline in northwestern Hama.

The de-escalation efforts in the so-called Idlib zone seem to be on the vicinity of full collapse.

*

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

The BBC recently aired a documentary titled One Day in Gaza, which concentrated on the terrible events of 14 May 2018, during the Great March of Return. 

Although more than 60 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead by Israeli army snipers that day and more than 2,000 injured, the documentary clearly and demonstrably leans towards the Israeli version of events, showing blatant disregard for the experiences and testimonies of the thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who participated that day.

To my undying regret, I took part in this programme – and for this reason, I feel I have a right to make clear exactly how and where the narrative of that day was twisted in the hands of those very skilful at rewriting Palestinian history.

An act of incitement

I do not write this lightly. To justify – even in a nuanced way that appears to give voice to both sides of events – the aggressor’s version of the story is an act of incitement. This is not about whether the film reflects voices and stories on both sides. It’s about how those stories are being told. In other words, it is the framing and the angle selected to tell that story.

The last 70 years of this conflict have shown the world very clearly that if Israel feels it can get away with one massacre, it will do it again. This is how the culture of impunity has been created. It is done with words and images. In this case, the BBC has been the loudspeaker, whether consciously or not.

The narrative of that terrible day, as portrayed in this documentary, is very clear, and largely uncontested by witnesses on both sides: A non-violent, civilian protest march was hijacked by Hamas and other groups that drove people to the fence – in some cases against their will – to be used as cannon fodder against a phalanx of Israeli snipers whose mission was to protect villagers, some living just a few hundred metres away.

Israeli commanders were portrayed as thoughtful and reluctant, torn between the duty to limit civilian casualties but to hold this thin wire fence, which we were told was only one centimetre thick.

This is a cynical travesty of the truth, as every Palestinian in Gaza knows. Instead of dwelling on the fact that these were non-violent protesters aiming to restore Palestinian dignity and end Israel’s suffocating siege, the film portrays a twisted reality, in which demonstrations were led by an ideological organisation that denies the existence of Israel.

The role of civil society activists

Even though the Great March of Return was the product of an agreement among all Palestinian national forces, the documentary highlights the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and some other Islamist figures, while neglecting the primary role played by civil society activists in Gaza.

One of the most damning scenes in the film comes when a Palestinian teenager declares his desire to chop off the head of an Israeli soldier. He describes other protesters, including one holding a rifle in an attempt to intimidate Israeli soldiers.

Another Palestinian youth claims that the protests were no longer non-violent, and that he wished to kill the soldiers and tear them apart.

Even when no biographical link to an armed group is found in the history of a shooting victim, the documentary damns him by association; one of his siblings, killed 16 years ago, was a member of the military wing of Hamas. How is that relevant to a victim shot in 2018?

The documentary does take the Israeli army to task on the case of Wassal al-Sheikh Khalil, the teenage girl whose death was recorded on camera. But even she is robbed of her innocence, called by Palestinian witnesses the “bank of stones” for her efforts to provide stones for the boys.

Kobi Heller, the commander of the Israeli army’s Southern Gaza Brigade, was given free rein to say that as the Great March of Return had been deemed a military operation, military means were justified in stopping it.

Human shields

The documentary alights on the testimony of a Palestinian woman who says women were human shields for the protesters, just as the Israeli army claimed. In normal parlance, human shields are unwilling hostages, used by ruthless gunmen who hide behind them, but these were willing ones.

This woman was acknowledging what neither the Israelis nor the BBC producers wanted to hear: that this uprising was popular. Despite the cost in lives, the marchers did not want it to end. That is why the march has continued for more than a year now.

The marchers, from all parts of society in Gaza, were defending their right to return home to the villages from which their fathers and grandfathers were expelled. This is a legitimate right, recognised by the international community. It’s not history. It is reality.

The mother of Mousa Abu Hassanein, the paramedic who was shot dead by snipers, declares that she was taken to a faraway place which lacked any kind of medical services. Being enraged by this terrible situation, she was informed that these are orders of the organisers of the marches.

The documentary juxtaposes brutish images of rage and aggression in Gaza with an interview with a peaceful, elderly Israeli woman. Living just a few hundred metres from the fence, relaxing with a glass of water in her kitchen, she expresses her fear of what could have happened if the protesters had broken through.

Is this the BBC’s idea of editorial balance? Where was the elderly Palestinian woman, wandering through the rubble of her house, still not repaired since the last Israeli assault on Gaza five years ago? Where were the pictures of all the fallen homes across Gaza that have never been rebuilt?

Instead, the people who did this to Gaza were portrayed as thoughtful, even concerned, about the lives of the people whom they have so comprehensively destroyed since 2007. A female intelligence officer, with her back to the camera, expressed the complexity of reconciling her concern for the citizens of Gaza with her aspiration to protect Israeli villages.

Sins of commission and omission

The documentary creates inevitable feelings of compassion for the “predicament” faced by every Israeli soldier who tried hard to avoid civilian casualties, but was tragically compelled to protect little-old-lady villagers from the brutish, barbaric, easily manipulated protesters who aimed to wipe Israel off the map.

These are the sins of commission. But what of the sins of omission? The documentary did not address the fact that for the vast majority of the day, Israeli soldiers were not exposed to danger and were not opening fire in self-defence.

One soldier was slightly injured and another was killed but outside protest sites, and shots were fired by an individual standing apart from one protest. No soldier or independent military analyst was brought to bear on this point.

I am not whitewashing these events, nor  do I attempt to justify everything that took place that day at the fence. But the film did not pay anything more than lip service to the essence of the Palestinian conflict – the struggle of a whole nation against displacement, massacres and occupation for 70 years. It did not recognise that the Great March of Return was yet another stage in the ongoing fight for Palestinian freedom.

The documentary did not show the reality of the prison that Gaza has become. One shot of the cattle market that exists at the Erez crossing would have been enough to convey the reality of this cage, where there is no freedom of movement, no economic growth, no future prospects – no hope.

Future crimes

Palestinians in Gaza are not robots, being moved around on a chessboard by the dark, unaccountable men from different Palestinian factions declared by the rest of the world as “terrorists”. The masses of Palestinians participating in the Great March of Return were screaming their hearts out, demanding to be heard.

I am not denying that some violations were committed in the course of that terrible day. Knowing Gaza, I would have been surprised if they had not been. But once again, Israel and the BBC have succeeded in fashioning a narrative that turns the aggressor into the victim.

The true victims of that shocking day were the ones trying to break their chains, calling out for their lives, and knocking on the doors of their prison.

During a visit to Chicago, I was interviewed by the BBC for more than two hours for this documentary. They asked for my permission to air the interview, and I approved, under one condition: that they not twist my words or take them out of context. The documentary proved these concerns were well-founded.

*

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.

Ahmed Abu Artema is a Palestinian journalist and peace activist. Born in Rafah, in 1984, Abu Artema is a refugee from Al Ramla village. He authored the book “Organized Chaos”.

Upon reading the Financial Times article, “Isis fighters struggle on return to Balkan states,” you might almost forget the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was and still is a hardcore terrorist organization guilty of some of the most heinous terrorism carried out in the 21st century.

The article begins, claiming:

In a village in the Kosovar countryside, Edona Berisha Demolli’s family have gathered to celebrate her return from Syria where she and her husband fled to six years ago to fight for Islamic militants Isis. 

“I am exhausted,” said Ms Demolli, as her relatives served guests slices of celebratory chocolate and vanilla cake and children played in the yard. “I thank God, the Kosovo state, and the US for bringing me home,” she said, referring to the pressure Washington put on countries to take their fighters back from camps across the Middle East and the logistical assistance they provided to that end.

The Financial Times would note that some 300 Bosnians joined ISIS and that Kosovo has set up barracks to accommodate returning fighters.

The article would end by quoting Besa Ismaili, a lecturer at Kosovo’s Faculty of Islamic Studies:

“You don’t have to approve of what they did, but you have to reach out to them to prevent further radicalisation, and their children need to develop a bond to the country.”

It is difficult to imagine how extremists who left their home country to fight alongside ISIS could be yet “further radicalized.”

We can suppose “further radicalization” might mean a second deployment in yet another of Washington’s proxy wars around the globe. It could be argued that returning fighters who receive assistance in reintegrating into society and escaping any real consequences for their actions will do very little to dissuade them or others in their community from doing it again.

Escaping Justice 

The Financial Times in its sympathetic narrative begets questions surrounding an inescapable truth regarding the central role the United States and its allies played in facilitating the transfer of foreign extremists to and from the battlefield in war-torn Syria.

The article specifically mentions (and through the words of a former extremist, thanks) the US for its logistical assistance in returning ISIS militants to their respective countries.

We can only imagine if terrorists invaded the United States, killed Americans, destroyed American infrastructure and fought against US troops, just how slighted Washington would feel if a foreign nation intervened and spirited these terrorists away, especially back to their countries of origin and beyond Washington’s ability to exact justice.

But that is precisely what the US has denied Damascus.

America’s Terrorist Foreign Legions 

The US aiding terrorists in their return to the Balkans will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the real rather than feigned relationship between Washington and Al Qaeda whom ISIS is merely a rebranded offshoot of.

In the 1990s as the US meddled in the Balkans, it provided weapons and aid to the so-called “Kosovo Liberation Army” (KLA), an analogue to the so-called “Free Syrian Army” in Syria today. Both were nothing more than public relations fronts. Behind it were regional Al Qaeda affiliates.

The Wall Street Journal in a forgotten 2001 article titled, “Al Qaeda’s Balkan Links,” would lay out the truth behind KLA:

By early 1998 the U.S. had already entered into its controversial relationship with the KLA to help fight off Serbian oppression of that province.

While in February the U.S. gave into KLA demands to remove it from the State Department’s terrorism list, the gesture amounted to little. That summer the CIA and CIA-modernized Albanian intelligence (SHIK) were engaged in one of the largest seizures of Islamic Jihad cells operating in Kosovo. 

Fearing terrorist reprisal from al Qaeda, the U.S. temporarily closed its embassy in Tirana and a trip to Albania by then Defense Secretary William Cohen was canceled out of fear of an assassination attempt. Meanwhile, Albanian separatism in Kosovo and Metohija was formally characterized as a “jihad” in October 1998 at an annual international Islamic conference in Pakistan. 

Nonetheless, the 25,000 strong KLA continued to receive official NATO/U.S. arms and training support and, at the talks in Rambouillet, France, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright shook hands with “freedom fighter” Hashim Thaci, a KLA leader. As this was taking place, Europol (the European Police Organization based in The Hague) was preparing a scathing report on the connection between the KLA and international drug gangs. Even Robert Gelbard, America’s special envoy to Bosnia, officially described the KLA as Islamic terrorists.

The US arming extremists through dubious “liberation fronts?” US diplomats’ lives being in danger from the very extremists their government is sponsoring? America’s own envoys describing the very people Washington is backing as “terrorists?” These are all now well-established, familiar themes seen repeating themselves again and again from Libya where a US consulate was in fact attacked and a US ambassador killed, to Syria where the “Free Syrian Army” turned out to be little more than window dressing for Al Qaeda and ISIS and now back to the Balkans where the US is already seeding the ground for future proxy wars.

Articles like those appearing in the Financial Times today or the Wall Street Journal years ago all but lay out the truth before the American public, but apparently more compelling is contemporary political rhetoric of “fighting terrorism” or backing “liberation fronts” on humanitarian grounds.

Behind the rhetoric, the US has recruited and armed terrorists to fight its wars everywhere from Afghanistan in the 1980s, to the Balkans in the 1990s, to southern Russia in the early 2000s, to Libya and Syria from 2011 onward. Even as the US poses as “victor” over ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it has spent its time ferrying fighters back to Europe where they can escape Iraqi and Syrian justice, recuperate, radicalize others in their community and be fully prepared for the next time Washington’s needs call upon 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.

Gunnar Ulson is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. Gunnar Ulson is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image is from NEO

If you want to understand what is really happening in the world today, a mid-ranking official named Ian Henderson is vastly more important to you than Theresa May. You will not, however, find anything about Henderson in the vast majority of corporate and state media outlets.

You may recall that, one month after the Skripal incident, there was allegedly a “chemical weapons attack” in the jihadist enclave of Douma, which led to air strikes against the Syrian government in support of the jihadist forces by US, British and French bombers and missiles. At the time, I argued that the Douma jihadist enclave was on the brink of falling (as indeed it proved) and there was no military advantage – and a massive international downside – for the Syrian Army in using chemical weapons. Such evidence for the attack that existed came from the jihadist allied and NATO funded White Helmets and related sources; and the veteran and extremely respected journalist Robert Fisk, first westerner to arrive on the scene, reported that no chemical attack had taken place.

The “Douma chemical weapon attack” was linked to the “Skripal chemical weapon attack” by the western media as evidence of Russian evil. Robert Fisk was subjected to massive media abuse and I was demonised by countless mainstream media journalists on social media, of which this is just one example of a great many.

In both the Skripal and the Douma case, it fell to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to provide the technical analysis. The OPCW is a multilateral body established by treaty, and has 193 member states. The only major chemical weapons owning powers which are not members and refuse the inspections regime are the pariah rogue states Israel and North Korea.

An OPCW fact finding mission visited Douma on April 21 and 25 2018 and was able to visit the sites, collect samples and interview witnesses. No weaponised chemicals were detected but traces of chlorine were found. Chlorine is not an uncommon chemical, so molecular traces of chlorine at a bombing site are not improbable. The interim report of the OPCW following the Fact Finding Mission was markedly sober and non-committal:

The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody.

The fact finding mission then returned to OPCW HQ, at which time the heavily politicised process took over within the secretariat and influenced by national delegations. 9 months later the final report was expressed in language of greater certainty, yet backed by no better objective evidence:

Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon on 7 April 2018 in Douma, the Syrian Arab Republic, the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM—witnesses’ testimonies, environmental and biomedical samples analysis results, toxicological and ballistic analyses from experts, additional digital information from witnesses—provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.

However the report noted it was unable to determine who had used the chlorine as a weapon. Attempts to spin this as a consequence of OPCW’s remit are nonsense – the OPCW exists precisely to police chemical weapons violations, and has never operated on the basis of violator anonymity.

Needless to say, NATO funded propaganda site Bellingcat had been from the start in the lead in proclaiming to the world the “evidence” that this was a chemical weapons attack by the Assad government, dropping simple chlorine cylinders as bombs. The original longer video footage of one of the videos on the Bellingcat site gives a fuller idea of the remarkable lack of damage to one gas cylinder which had smashed through the reinforced concrete roof and landed gently on the bed.

[I am sorry that I do not know how to extract that longer video from its tweet. You need to click on the above link then click on the link in the first tweet that warns you it is sensitive material – in fact there is nothing sensitive there, so don’t worry.]

Now we come to the essential Mr Ian Henderson. Mr Henderson was in charge of the engineering sub-group of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission. The engineers assessed that the story of the cylinders being dropped from the sky was improbable, and it was much more probable that they had simply been placed there manually. There are two major reasons they came to this conclusion.

At least one of the crater holes showed damage that indicated it had been caused by an explosive, not by the alleged blunt impact. The cylinders simply did not show enough damage to have come through the reinforced concrete slabs and particularly the damage which would have been caused by the rebar. Rebar is actually thicker steel than a gas cylinder and would have caused major deformation.

Yet – and this is why Ian Henderson is more important to your understanding of the world than Theresa May – the OPCW Fact Finding Mission reflected in their final report none of the findings of their own sub-group of university based engineers from two European universities, but instead produced something that is very close to the amateur propaganda “analysis” put out by Bellingcat. The implications of this fraud are mind-blowing.

The genuine experts’ findings were completely suppressed until they were leaked last week. And still then, this leak – which has the most profound ramifications – has in itself been almost completely suppressed by the mainstream media, except for those marginalised outliers who still manage to get a platform, Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens (a tiny platform in the case of Fisk).

Consider what this tells us. A fake chemical attack incident was used to justify military aggression against Syria by the USA, UK and France. The entire western mainstream media promoted the anti-Syrian and anti-Russian narrative to justify that attack. The supposedly neutral international watchdog, the OPCW, was manipulated by the NATO powers to produce a highly biased report that omits the findings of its own engineers. Which can only call into doubt the neutrality and reliability of the OPCW in its findings on the Skripals too.

There has been virtually no media reporting of the scandalous cover-up. This really does tell you a very great deal more about how the Western world works than the vicissitudes of the ludicrously over-promoted Theresa May and her tears of self pity.

Still more revealing is the reaction from the OPCW – which rather than acknowledge there is a major problem with the conclusions of its Douma report, has started a witch hunt for the whistleblower who leaked the Henderson report.

The Russian government claimed to have intelligence that indicated it was MI6 behind the faking of the Douma chemical attack. I have no means of knowing the truth of that, and am always sceptical of claims by all governments on intelligence matters, after a career observing government disinformation techniques from the inside. But the MI6 claim is consistent with the involvement of the MI6 originated White Helmets in this scam. and MI6 can always depend on their house journal The Guardian to push their narrative, as Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker does here in an article “justifying” the omission of the Henderson report by the OPCW. Whitaker argues that Henderson’s engineers had a minority view. Interestingly Whitaker’s article is not from the Guardian itself, which prefers to keep all news of the Henderson report from the public.

But Whitaker’s thesis cannot stand. On one level, of course we know that Henderson’s expert opinion did not prevail at the OPCW. Henderson and the truth lost out in the politicking. But at the very least, it would be essential for the OPCW report to reflect and note the strong contrary view among its experts, and the suppression of this essential information cannot possibly be justified. Whitaker’s attempt to do so is a disgrace.

Which leads me on to the Skripals.

I have noted before the news management technique of the security services, leaking out key facts in a managed way over long periods so as not to shock what public belief there is in the official Skripal story. Thus nine months passed before it was admitted that the first person who “coincidentally” came across the ill Skripals on the park bench, just happened to be the Chief Nurse of the British Army.

The inquest into the unfortunate Dawn Sturgess has now been postponed four times. The security services have now admitted – once again through the Guardian – that even if “Boshirov and Petrov” poisoned the Skripals, they cannot have been also responsible for the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess. This because the charity bin in which the perfume bottle was allegedly found is emptied regularly so the bottle could not have lain there for 16 weeks undiscovered, and because the package was sealed so could not have been used on the Skripals’ doorknob.

This Guardian article is bylined by the security services’ pet outlet, Luke Harding, and one other. The admissions are packaged in a bombastic sandwich about Russian GRU agents.

Every single one of these points – that “Boshirov and Petrov” have never been charged with the manslaughter of Sturgess, that the bottle was sealed so could not have been used at the Skripals’ house, and that it cannot have been in the charity bin that long – are points that I have repeatedly made, and for which I have suffered massive abuse, including – indeed primarily – from dozens of mainstream media journalists. Making precisely these points has seen me labelled as a mentally ill conspiracy theorist or paid Russian agent. Just like the Douma fabrication, it turns out there was indeed every reason to doubt, and now, beneath a veneer of anti-Russian nonsense, these facts are quietly admitted by anonymous “sources” to Harding. No wonder poor Dawn Sturgess keeps not getting an inquest.

Which brings us back full circle to the OPCW. In neither its report on the Salisbury poisoning nor its report on the Amesbury poisoning did the OPCW ever use the word Novichok. As an FCO source explained to me, the expert scientists in OPCW were desperate to signal that the Salisbury sample had not been for days on a doorknob collecting atmospheric dust, rain and material from hands and gloves, but all the politics of the OPCW leadership would allow them to slip in was the phrase “almost complete absence of impurities” as a clue – which the British government then spun as meaning “military grade” when it actually meant “not from a doorknob”.

Now we have seen irrefutable evidence of poor Ian Henderson in exactly the same position with the OPCW of having the actual scientific analysis blocked out of the official findings. That is extremely strong added evidence that my source was indeed telling the truth about the earlier suppression of the scientific evidence in the Skripal case.

Even the biased OPCW could not give any evidence of the Amesbury and Salisbury poisons being linked, concluding:

“Due to the unknown storage conditions of the small bottle found in the house of Mr Rowley and the fact that the environmental samples analysed in relation to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey were exposed to the environment and moisture, the impurity profiles of the samples available to the OPCW do not make it possible to draw conclusions as to whether the samples are from the same synthesis batch”

Which is strange, as the first sample had an “almost complete absence of impurities” and the second was straight out of the bottle. In fact beneath the doublespeak the OPCW are saying there is no evidence the two attacks were from the same source. Full stop.

I suppose I should now have reached the stage where nothing will shock me, but as a textbook example of the big lie technique, this BBC article is the BBC’s take on the report I just quoted – which remember does not even use the word Novichok.

When it comes to government narrative and the mainstream media, mass purveyor of fake news, scepticism is your friend. Remembering that is much more important to your life than the question of which Tory frontman is in No. 10.

For an analysis of the Henderson Report fiasco written to the highest academic standards, where you can find all the important links to original source material, read this superb work by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.

 

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty argues that UK Government policy has led to “systemic immiseration” of a significant part of the population – CommonSpace looks at the report’s 10 most important findings

***

1. Dickensian Britain

“It might seem to some observers that the Department of Work and Pensions has been tasked with designing a digital and sanitised version of the nineteenth century workhouse, made infamous by Charles Dickens, rather than seeking to respond creatively and compassionately to the real needs of those facing widespread economic insecurity in an age of deep and rapid transformation brought about by automation, zero-hour contracts and rapidly growing inequality.”

2. Employment is no escape from poverty

“Almost 60 per cent of those in poverty in the United Kingdom are in families where someone works, and a shocking 2.9 million people are in poverty in families where all adults work full-time. According to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, 10 per cent of workers over 16 are in insecure employment. And 10 years after the 2008 financial crisis, employees’ median real earnings are, remarkably, still below pre-crisis levels.”

3.  Eat or heat

“People said they had to choose either to eat or heat their homes. Children are showing up at school with empty stomachs, and schools are collecting food and sending it home because teachers know their students will otherwise go hungry. And 2.5 million people in the United Kingdom survive with incomes no more than 10 per cent above the poverty line –just one crisis away from falling into poverty.”

4. Homeless Britain

“In England, homelessness rose 60 per cent between 2011 and 2017 and rough sleeping rose 165 per cent from 2010 to 2018. The charity Shelter estimates that 320,000 people in Britain are now homeless, and recent research by Crisis suggests that 24,000 people are sleeping rough or on public transportation –more than twice government estimates. Almost 600 people died homeless in England and Wales in 2017 alone, a 24 per cent increase in the past five years.26There were 1.2 million people on the social housing waiting list in 2017, but less than 6,000 homes were built that year.”

5. The disappearing safety net

“The Special Rapporteur heard time and again about important public programmes being pared down, the loss of institutions that previously protected vulnerable people, social care services at a breaking point, and local government and devolved administrations stretched far too thin. Considering the significant resources available in the country and the sustained and widespread cuts to social support, which have resulted in significantly worse outcomes, the policies pursued since 2010 amount to retrogressive measures in clear violation of the country’s human rights obligations.”

6. Ideological, not economic

“The ideological rather than economic motivation for the cutbacks is demonstrated by the fact that the United Kingdom spends £78 billion per year to reduce or alleviate poverty, quite apart from the cost of benefits; £1 in every £5 spent on public services goes to repair what poverty has done to people’s lives.40Cuts to preventive services mean that needs go unmet and people in crisis are pushed toward services that cannot turn them away but cost far more, like emergency rooms and expensive temporary housing.”

7. Harm done by Universal Credit

“The Special Rapporteur heard countless stories of severe hardships suffered under UC. These reports are corroborated by an increasing body of research that suggests UC is being implemented in ways that negatively impact claimants’ mental health, finances and work prospects. Where UC has fully rolled out, food bank demand has increased, a link belatedly acknowledged by the Work and Pensions Secretary in February 2019.”

8. Sanctions regime

“One of the key features of UC involves the imposition of strict conditions enforced by draconian sanctions for even minor infringements. As the system grows older, some penalties will last years. The Special Rapporteur reviewed seemingly endless evidence illustrating the harsh and arbitrary nature of some sanctions, as well as the devastating effects of losing access to benefits for weeks or months at a time.”

9. Women and poverty

“Given the structural disadvantages faced by women, it is particularly disturbing that so many policy changes since 2010 have taken a greater toll on them. Changes to tax and benefit policies made since May 2010 will by 2021–2022 have reduced support for women far more than for men. Reductions in social care services translate to an increased burden on primary caregivers, who are disproportionately women. Under UC, single payments to an entire household, which are the default arrangement, can entrench problematic and often gendered interpersonal dynamics, including by giving control of payments to a financially or physically abusive partner.”

10. Scotland

“It is too soon to say whether these steps – and Scotland’s new powers of taxation – will make a difference for people in poverty. However, it is clear that there is still a real accountability gap which can and should be addressed. The Social Security (Scotland) Act of 2018 provides no redress for violations of the right to social security. But if the compelling recommendations made by the First Minister’s Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership are adopted, and if the Scottish Government acts swiftly on its commitment to incorporate the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scottish law, these steps will make a huge difference.”

*

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.

“See no Evil. Hear no Evil. Speak no Evil.” This maxim largely sums up Western media foreign policy reporting which diametrically opposes the truth, and serves as war propaganda to advance the interests of al Qaeda and the CIA Caliphate Project[1].

North Americans are not getting the truth, presumably because if they did, the oligarch class dictating its will on the masses through lies and deceptions, would be exposed.

Freedom of the Press in North America is largely dead. Foreign policy “reporters” who rise to the top serve Empire and its war lies.  Democracy is a Western illusion.

Janice Kortkamp and her husband Sid explore these themes in Syria Face To Face Episode 15. They expose the al Qaeda-supporting sources for Western media. They expose the truth about the war on Syria.

Bana Alabed[2], a terrorist-embedded 8 year old who calls for airstrikes and World War Three is exposed.  Bilal Abdul Kareem[3], a terrorist propaganda asset is exposed. The reality of Western disinformation sources is revealed and ridiculed, as it should be.

Bread and circuses, clowns and imposters, are keeping the masses distracted, as the Western-perpetrated holocaust festers and grows beneath the radar of fabricated public ignorance.

*

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.

Notes

[1] Mark Taliano, “NATO Is Endangering Us All.” Global Research, 8 May, 2019. (https://www.marktaliano.net/nato-is-endangering-us-all/) Accessed 27 May, 2019.

[2] Mark Taliano, “War Crimes and the Rights of Children in Syria and Iraq: On the Importance of Media Literacy in Times of Universal Deceit.” Global Research, 14 October, 2017. (https://www.marktaliano.net/war-crimes-and-the-rights-of-children-in-syria-and-iraq-on-the-importance-of-media-literacy-in-times-of-universal-deceit/?fbclid=IwAR33h5QKo9i7yZZVvUI_CEdcTIAI4G-C-UCftDZ3Au1UN_cluJx9ODKO2L8) Accessed 27 May, 2019.

[3] Robert Inlakesh,“Sky News Collaborates with Idlib Terrorists to Create Syria War Propaganda.” 21^stCentury Wire, 24 May, 2019. (https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/05/24/sky-news-collaborates-with-idlib-terrorists-to-create-syria-war-propaganda/?fbclid=IwAR127xCi-FbZ4eKxKlrML88mgMa17E3rAJu17Y_e93BFFLZbwz2FN2S7aLs) Accessed, 27 May, 2019.

Featured image is from TruePublica

---

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

Concentrations of antibiotics found in some of the world’s rivers exceed ‘safe’ levels by up to 300 times, the first ever global study has discovered.

Researchers looked for 14 commonly used antibiotics in rivers in 72 countries across six continents and found antibiotics at 65% of the sites monitored.

Metronidazole, which is used to treat bacterial infections including skin and mouth infections, exceeded safe levels by the biggest margin, with concentrations at one site in Bangladesh 300 times greater than the ‘safe’ level.

In the River Thames and one of its tributaries in London, the researchers detected a maximum total antibiotic concentration of 233 nanograms per litre (ng/l), whereas in Bangladesh the concentration was 170 times higher.

The most prevalent antibiotic was trimethoprim, which was detected at 307 of the 711 sites tested and is primarily used to treat urinary tract infections.

The research team compared the monitoring data with ‘safe’ levels recently established by the AMR Industry Alliance which, depending on the antibiotic, range from 20-32,000 ng/l.

Ciproflaxacin, which is used to treat a number of bacterial infections, was the compound that most frequently exceeded safe levels, surpassing the safety threshold in 51 places.

The team said that the ‘safe’ limits were most frequently exceeded in Asia and Africa, but sites in Europe, North America and South America also had levels of concern showing that antibiotic contamination was a “global problem.”

Sites where antibiotics exceeded ‘safe’ levels by the greatest degree were in Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana, Pakistan and Nigeria, while a site in Austria was ranked the highest of the European sites monitored.

The study revealed that high-risk sites were typically adjacent to wastewater treatment systems, waste or sewage dumps and in some areas of political turmoil, including the Israeli and Palestinian border.

The project, which was led by the University of York, was a huge logistical challenge—with 92 sampling kits flown out to partners across the world who were asked to take samples from locations along their local river system.

Samples were then frozen and couriered back to the University of York for testing. Some of the world’s most iconic rivers were sampled, including the Chao Phraya, Danube, Mekong, Seine, Thames, Tiber and Tigris.

Dr. John Wilkinson, from the Department of Environment and Geography, who co-ordinated the monitoring work said no other study had been done on this scale.

He said:

“Until now, the majority of environmental monitoring work for antibiotics has been done in Europe, N. America and China. Often on only a handful of antibiotics. We know very little about the scale of problem globally.

“Our study helps fill this key knowledge gap with data being generated for countries that had never been monitored before.”

Professor Alistair Boxall, Theme Leader of the York Environmental Sustainability Institute, said:

“The results are quite eye opening and worrying, demonstrating the widespread contamination of river systems around the world with antibiotic compounds.

“Many scientists and policy makers now recognise the role of the natural environment in the antimicrobial resistance problem. Our data show that antibiotic contamination of rivers could be an important contributor.”

“Solving the problem is going to be a mammoth challenge and will need investment in infrastructure for waste and wastewater treatment, tighter regulation and the cleaning up of already contaminated sites.”

The finds are due to be unveiled during two presentations at the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in Helsinki on 27 and 28 May.

*

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 Phys.org

So Trump has declared an “emergency” to circumvent Congressional oversight of arms shipments to other countries. By law Congress by law is given 30 days advance before before such sales are completed, and it can obstruct them. But a loophole in the Arms Control Act allows the president to authorize sales in an emergency.

One must ask what emergency causes the president to allow sale of $ 8 billion in arms manufactured by Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, and GE to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan. (Britain’s BAE and Europe’s Airbus will also profit handsomely from this decision.)

What emergency confronts any of these recipient countries? The murderous regime of Jared Kushner pal Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, savagely murders journalists who criticize it, crushes dissent in neighboring Bahrain, kidnaps the Lebanese prime minister, applies the strictest interpretations of Sharia law within the kingdom and wages war on Yemen, killing tens of thousands of civilians with U.S. support. Where’s the problem? Is the criminal Saudi effort in Yemen failing so badly the Saudis need more arms to kill more Yemenis to stave off defeat?

What is the emergency in the UAE? They are allied with the Saudis in the effort to crush the Houthis of Yemen, who because of their Shiite Islam in a generally Sunni region are both despised for religious reasons by Gulf monarchs, and consequently smeared with Iranian associations, not because substantial political and military ties exist between Iran and the Houthis (as they do between Lebanon’s Hizbollah and Iran) but because they hate Shiites in general. Perhaps in this emergency situation they need more U.S. bombs to drop the Arab world’s poorest, most miserable country?

What emergency does the Kingdom of Jordan face?

Presumably the State Department and Pentagon will suggest that “recent Iranian threats” to U.S. forces in the Middle East–which were justified as the Pentagon indicated that 120,000 troops would be sent, adjusted down to 10,000, then 1,200-1,500 for some reason (I suspect because the Pentagon balked at the larger figures, noting that there was in fact no new real Iranian threat to U.S. forces in the region)–constitute an “emergency” justifying the sales. (The British and Germans perceive no elevated threat from Iran and have pooh-poohed U.S. saber-rattling.) Fake news is being deployed to rationalize sending more forces to the region, thus ratcheting up tensions with an Iran that has in fact been cautiously defensive.

Trump himself may rationalize it as he always has: arms sales to Saudi Arabia create jobs! (Trump has repeatedly said that the $ 110 billion in arms deals he’s signed with Saudi Arabia means “500,000 jobs.” This is more Fake News; the number is a tiny fraction of that. But clearly Trump is a prime example of Marx’s dictum that “The soul of the capitalist is capital.” It’s not so much about creating jobs anyway but creating obscene profits from arms sales for the captains of the military-industrial complex.)

We can’t allow the hack-saw murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Istanbul consulate to affect our strong ties to the Saudi arms market! U.S. national security is at stake!

Kushner reportedly told MbS that this crisis about the Khashoggi murder in Oct. 2018 would “blow over.” (The prince has told intimates that he has Jared “in my pocket.” It appears that Jared supplied him with the names of Saudi dissidents, subsequently detained, in return for something.) Indeed, the cordial U.S.-Saudi relationship seems unaffected by the murder.

Meanwhile UNCHR, the UN Refugee Agency, has proclaimed a “Yemen Emergency”—which is to say, a real emergency in the real world. This is due principally to the U.S./U.K.-backed Saudi-led campaign to subdue Yemen and turn it into a Saudi satrapy. The civilian casualties, the refugee figures, the deaths from war-related famine alone are horrific. And the Saudis block aid.

We have an emergency in this country, this imperialist country–an urgent need to stop Trump, Pompeo and Bolton from starting another war-based-on-lies egged on by the beastly SbM and the murderous Binyamin Netanyahu, family friend of the Kushners. (Surely you know he once borrowed Jared’s bed in a sleepover at the Kusher home? They’re that close. Google search it. And then realize that the 38-year-old Kushner is Trump’s “senior advisor” on the Israel-Palestinian problem, facilitator of the corrupt Israeli-Saudi anti-Iranian alignment.)

Final thought: One real offense that should be truly impeachable is authorizing the sale of fighter jets and bombs used to kill children to a regime led by a prince U.S. intelligence services hold responsible for a journalist’s murder, sidelining Congress in doing so.

*

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.

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: [email protected]. 

On this Memorial Day weekend all Americans should look back to the great essay written in 1935 by Marine General Smedley Butler. He named it ‘War is a Racket’ and it still resonates nowadays perhaps even more powerfully. His essay should be required reading for all high school American History students. General Butler acknowledged that he became a ‘Gangster’ for the US corporate interests internationally.

Realizing that what we call ‘War’ is many times just an excuse for private business interests to A) make mega bucks from our tax dollars and B) to control the resources and markets of overseas nations, all under the protection of our flag. Has anything changed?

Don’t you who ‘know better’, as to this empire, just love it when you turn on the boob tube lately and see those Army, Marines and Navy commercials?

How about the one that shows soldiers in combat, aiming their weapons and wearing similar gear to what Art Carney wore as a sewer ‘denizen’ on The Honeymooners?

The narrator of the commercial says something to the effect of ‘Warriors wanted’.

The Navy has one that says: Around the world, around the clock, in defense of all we hold dear back home. America’s Navy’.

You drive in your car and see the license tags advertising one of the military branches. How about those bumper stickers saying “Proud Mom of a Marine” or “Proud Grandparent of a Marine” …

Usually right near a ‘Trump 2020’ sticker (Some of the car owners still have their ‘Bush/Cheney’ ones)?

You are watching a major league baseball game on the boob tube and all the players and coaches are wearing camouflage caps and uniforms. Didn’t you know that each Monday is ‘Military Monday’? The worst case scenario is when you tune in to watch any major sporting event. Way before the action begins they will have a giant flag draped across the field of play. Then as the national anthem is sung a color guard appears, dressed to the tees in full uniforms and carrying another flag. Well why not? We’re at War!

In this upcoming 2020 election cycle the overwhelming number of potential candidates, and of course the hypocrite Trump, stand in line to keep this obscene military spending alive and well… for whom? Not of course for the 300 million of us who cannot get the public services we need to live comfortably.

How can we, when over half of our federal taxes goes to some segment of what they label Defense Spending. Oh, they con us by calling most of it Discretionary Spending. It sure as hell does NOT go to the young men and women who serve in those overseas places that we had NO business ever being in! Yet, the phonies and hypocrites, and of course the fools who buy into this lie, lower their heads and give reverence to the ‘fallen heroes’. They were not heroes, in places like Vietnam all the way to the present day concerning our illegal and immoral actions in the Middle East.

Rather, they are Pawns in this empire’s geopolitical War Games!

Yes, many of our military personnel were and are brave and stalwart… but NOT those who sent them!

All those generals with the tons of fruit salad on their chests were not then (in Vietnam) or now considered heroes to this writer. If they had any real conscience they would have said NO to follow the pied pipers over the cliffs of reason!

*

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 Strategic Culture Foundation

As President Donald Trump, National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rattle their sabers, there is no evidence that Iran poses a threat to the United States. It was Trump who threatened genocide, tweeting, “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran.” The Pentagon is now considering sending 10,000 additional troops to the Gulf region for “defensive” purposes and not in response to a new threat by Iran. Threats to use military force — like the use of force itself — violate U.S. and international law.

Last week, Pompeo said U.S. intelligence had determined that Iranian-sponsored attacks on U.S. forces “were imminent.” The Trump administration asserted, “without evidence,” according to The New York Times, that new intelligence revealed Iran was sponsoring proxy groups to attack U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.

The Pentagon announced its intention to deploy a Patriot antimissile battery to the Middle East. Three days later, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said the United States would send up to 120,000 troops to the region if Iran attacks U.S. forces or speeds up work on nuclear weapons.

But on May 14, Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, a senior British military official and deputy commander of the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS, told reporters at the Pentagon that “there has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria.”

The U.S. and Israel Plan Regime Change in Iran

The Trump administration and its close ally Israel have long had their sights on regime change in Iran.

One year ago, Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program. In return, Iran received billions of dollars of relief from punishing sanctions.

Despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly confirmed that Iran was complying with its obligations under the agreement, Trump capitulated to pressure from Israel. The United States pulled out of the historic deal and re-imposed the harsh sanctions against Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took credit for convincing Trump to withdraw from the deal.

“I asked him to leave the JCPOA,” Netanyahu claimed. “It was me who made him to depart from the deal.”

Now Israel is fanning the flames of war. Prominent Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, national security reporter for Channel 13 in Israel, wrote at Axios that senior Israeli officials met with Bolton and his team in late April and gave them “information about possible Iranian plots against the U.S. or its allies in the Gulf.”

U.S. regime change in Iran would reprise the covert 1953 CIA coup that overthrew the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized British oil interests. The United States replaced Mosaddegh with the vicious Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran with an iron fist until he was overthrown in the 1979 Revolution and replaced with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocracy. But U.S. regime change in Iran would be overt this time.

The U.S., Not Iran, Is Acting Aggressively

The New York Times cites military and intelligence officials in the U.S. and Europe who maintain that during the past year, “most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington” where Bolton “has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.” Bolton “has repeatedly called for American military strikes against Tehran,” The New York Times reported.

Pompeo listed 12 demands Iran must meet to secure a new nuclear agreement. “Taken together, the demands would require a complete transformation by Iran’s government, and they hardened the perception that the administration is really seeking regime change,” according to The Associated Press.

The Pentagon has prepared plans for an air attack on Iran, veteran Middle East war correspondent Eric Margolis reported in July 2018. He wrote:

The Pentagon has planned a high-intensity air war against Iran that Israel and the Saudis might very well join. The plan calls for over 2,300 air strikes against Iranian strategic targets: airfields and naval bases, arms and petroleum, oil and lubricant depots, telecommunication nodes, radar, factories, military headquarters, ports, water works, airports, missile bases and units of the Revolutionary Guards.

Trump’s reckless withdrawal from the nuclear deal actually increases the chances Iran will develop a nuclear program. After complying with the JCPOA for a year after Trump pulled out of it, Iran is now threatening to resume high enrichment of uranium, which it had agreed to halt under the deal.

Trump’s threats to use military force in Iran and the use of force itself are illegal under the United Nations Charter and the War Powers Resolution.

The U.S. Violates the United Nations Charter

Ratified treaties are “the supreme law of the land” under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That means their provisions constitute U.S. law. The United Nations Charter, which the U.S. ratified in 1945, is therefore binding domestic law.

In Article 2, the Charter provides,

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The only exception to the Charter’s prohibition on the threat or use of force is when a country acts in self-defense or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

Countries may engage in individual or collective self-defense only in the face of an armed attack, under Article 51 of the Charter. Iran has not mounted an armed attack against the United States. Under the well-established Caroline case, there must exist “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

Pompeo’s claim that Iranian-sponsored attacks will “imminently” occur against U.S. forces remains unsubstantiated. Nothing in the Charter allows a U.N. member country to unilaterally decide to use military force unless it does so in self-defense. If the United States were to attack and/or invade Iran, it would be acting unlawfully and not in self-defense.

Violation of the War Powers Resolution

A U.S. attack on Iran would also violate the War Powers Resolution. Congress enacted that law to reclaim its constitutional authority to send U.S. troops into combat after the disastrous Vietnam War. The resolution allows the president to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities in only three situations:

First, when Congress has declared war, which it has not done since World War II. Second, in the event of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” which has not occurred. Third, when Congress has enacted “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). There is no AUMF or other congressional statute authorizing the use of military force in Iran.

After the September 11 attacks, Congress passed an AUMF, authorizing the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

Although the 2001 AUMF was tied to the 9/11 attacks, it has been misused to justify multiple military operations in several countries, many of them unrelated to 9/11.

The government of Iran has no ties to al-Qaeda, which engineered the 9/11 attacks. On May 21, a senior U.S. government official told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community has no evidence that al-Qaeda is allied with Iran in the Persian Gulf area. Thus, the 2001 AUMF cannot be used to legitimize a U.S. attack on Iran.

In 2002, Congress passed another AUMF, which authorized the president “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to — (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Once the U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq and eliminated the government of President Saddam Hussein, the 2002 AUMF license ended.

Moreover, Congress specifically provided in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, “Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran or North Korea.”

There are several bills pending in Congress that would require the president to comply with the War Powers Resolution, including a repeal of the 2001 AUMF. Measures such as these could enable Congress to clarify that the president cannot use military force except with congressional approval and only in legitimate self-defense. But on May 22, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted down a Democratic proposal that would require congressional approval for U.S. military force against Iran.

“A war with Iran would be an absolute disaster,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said in an online speech. “The United States Congress must do everything it can to prevent the Trump administration’s attempts to put us on the brink of a catastrophic and unconstitutional war with Iran that could lead to even more deaths than the Iraq War.”

There is no evidence that Iran poses a threat to the United States, yet the usual suspects in the Trump administration are trying to advance illegal military action. Indeed, it is Trump’s actions thus far that have posed the real threat to U.S. security. Iran is calling his bluff by considering whether to restart high enrichment of uranium.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez/Truthout

When it comes down to it, the question is what do we want for our schools?

The government of Doug Ford is actually quite clear about this. It wants to cut money from schools as well as their neighbourhoods, setting them back on their heels and making them more malleable for a government set on hollowing them out. It would like to force schools to privatize, charge more fees, perhaps even offer themselves up for businesses to sponsor them, much in the way that charter schools operate in the U.S. The Ford government has brought in so many changes, so quickly that parents, students and educators have had no time to react to them all.

History

There is nothing new about this. In 1997 the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris took over funding from all the school boards across the province and squeezed it hard with a funding formula that never worked. It would never take into account the varied needs of different schools in different areas with different populations and stresses upon them. According to a 2015 article Harris-era Hangovers  by Hugh Mackenzie, the TDSB has, in most years, faced yawning gaps between what it needs to run schools and programs and what it receives from the government. In 2012, he says that gap was $109 million; the next year there was a further $50 million and in 2014, another $30 million. Whether Liberal or Tory, the gap between what this board needs and what it gets has been pretty much constant.

The gap was so bad in 2002, that the TDSB trustees refused to cut $90 million from the budget that year. As a result, the province took over the board and appointed supervisor Paul Christie, who came in and made the cuts he was told to: millions of dollars from caretaking, staff development, vice-principals, supervisors, assistants, secretaries and many others. Yet, in the end, he couldn’t balance the TDSB’s budget for the Tories.

Now

The gap this year is $67.8 million.

What do we want for our schools?  Schools must have a meaningful curriculum with courses that reflect the widely varied interests of students and enable them to explore and ask questions, without the distractions of standardized tests like EQAO or learning outcomes. Students  need to be engaged, active learners and citizens no matter where they come from in the city or their background. Those who are having trouble coping in school must have the support of well-trained individuals like social workers, psychologists, speech and language pathologists and others who can develop sensible strategies to help. Their teachers require the support and advice of other educators who can help them develop their skills and understanding.

Schools must be democratic places with School and Community Councils gaining decision-making power along with the parents, educators and students who rely on them as the centre of their community. They must be free of racism and prejudice. The activities that go on in them need to reflect the backgrounds of the many people who attend them. The educators in them must further their children’s knowledge of the history and culture of Indigenous peoples so they can truly reconcile with them rather than paying lip service in the form of land dedications. To be truly democratic, all activities must be open to all children regardless of their ability to pay.

Schools have to be well-maintained and safe, providing roles for the many adults who tend to the buildings and the children in them. We need to recognize that the different adults who work or volunteer in their schools are as important as teachers in keeping students safe and in giving them a sense of community.

There is nothing radical about any of these ideas. They are reflected throughout the TDSB “budget drivers,” the guides for Board decisions that Director John Malloy referred to frequently last week as he proposed cut after cut to the budgets of 2019 through to 2021. It must have been a heart-wrenching task to dig the grave for public education deeper than ever.

This is a terrible budget and that is not denigrate the efforts of TDSB staff, but to recognize the strictures under which they worked. It comes at a time when there have already been deep cuts to schools. CUPE Local 4400  President John Weatherup fears for the safety of his members employed in helping needy kids who have already seen their support dwindle over the years. Outdoor education for urban children is placed further from their reach. Many staff who support educators will be gone. The efforts the Board has made to hire people who reflect the backgrounds of the kids they teach will be compromised.

I truly sympathize with trustees as they ponder the decisions they have to make about the coming budgets. They worry about explaining to constituents why their schools, already under stress will have less to work with in the coming years. They worry about losses to their local school budgets. They also wonder what to do about it. Do they say “No” to this budget – turn it down and face the inevitable? That could mean once again, a supervisor being appointed to take over their jobs and make the cuts Doug Ford wants. They fear a supervisor would make far worse cuts than the TDSB management has proposed.

Local OSSTF President Leslie Wolfe told School Magazine: “The worst of the damage of the cuts by the Progressive Conservative government is yet to come. At some point trustees may have to say ‘we can no longer do this.’ But I can understand why they wouldn’t want to risk the imposition of a supervisor this early in the term.”

As difficult as it is, I think trustees do need to say “No” to this budget. They were elected to support public education in Toronto – not stand by helplessly and watch as basic principles like equity, safety and quality teaching are sacrificed to the whims of a provincial government that won 40 percent of the vote in the last election, but acts like a dictatorship. They will lose their credibility as trustees if they go along with this budget. Their opposition to future  government budgets won’t be taken seriously.

Rejecting it could mean a TDSB under supervision and worse cuts. Those might come in future budgets anyway. But, those cuts would be Doug Ford’s alone – the man who says the province is broke, but turns down revenue. Doug Ford should be the person Ontarians turn to when they get sick because public health has been undermined, when their family members die from drug overdoses because he’s cut prevention centres, when they can’t find housing because he’s exempted new rental units from rent control, when their children can’t graduate from their high school because it can’t offer the courses they require, when they no longer get the help they need because the people who could give it to them have been let go, when the ceiling of their children’s school collapses – when schools become warehouses for those who can’t afford a private “choice” – a word of which this government is especially fond.

Doug Ford and his band of cheerleaders must bear the burden of what they have done in the short time they have occupied Queen’s Park. They can’t, as John Weatherup said, go “whistling by the graveyard” as others do their dirty work for them. As cities, boards of health, social advocates, unions and so many more people organize to oppose this government, so too must the trustees of the TDSB and say “No” to this budget.

*

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 School Magazine

Ignacio Ramonet, French author and journalist, former editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, sat recently with Nicolas Maduro.[i] Ramonet has known four Venezuelan presidents. In Miraflores, Caracus, seat of government, people converse, debate, talk on the phone and wait. All is normal.

Visitors, business folk, journalists, civil servants, ministers and their aides pass through the corridors.  Ramonet has not met Maduro since December. Since then, the US has attacked Venezuela more aggressively than in the country’s history.

Maduro is calm. He has shown himself to be a tranquil leader. No minister has left his government. No commanding general has deserted. No rupture has occurred in the civic-military alliance. Ramonet and Maduro discuss all this. Maduro says:

“Only dialogue can resolve the crisis. … Between Venezuelans of good will, we can find solutions without violence”.

Occasionally, precisely the unexpected creates imagination.  It happened to Leroy Jones in 1960. He went to Cuba and returned politicized. In his widely reprinted “Cuba Libre”, he credits a “thin crust of lie we cannot even detect in our thinking”.

He noticed it because of surprise. People were normal, tranquil, interesting, like Maduro.  Jones looked for explanations, not just for why Cubans were as they were, but why he’d expected otherwise. He discovered the “thin crust of lie”.

It’s not so thin.

It is who we are. Ionesco made this point in “Rhinoceros” (1959). When members of a French town become rhinoceroses, others are horrified. But as more become rhinos, villagers are seduced. Even the town’s philosopher wants to “move with the times”. Eventually, only one man, Berenger, remains human.  Berenger is now the monster.

He reassures himself: A “man’s not ugly to look at, not ugly at all!”’. But a few sentences later, he says, “I should have gone with them while there was still time”.

Berenger thinks rhinoceritis is “disgusting” but he might go with the rhinos because, after all, rhinoceritis is not as big a problem as identifying it as a problem, once everyone is a monster.

I was reminded of this listening to a debate on CBC radio about free speech in Canadian universities. One speaker defended hate speech, saying freedom shouldn’t be limited. A second said freedom should be restricted because hate speech is damaging. A third argued for proper scholarship: Say what you want but back it up.

They agreed on freedom. Different politics, different scholarly backgrounds, but the same view. It’s a false view, easily discredited if the question is raised. But it is not raised.

We’re supposed to believe freedom is living “from within” by which is meant from the conscious mind: the conglomeration of desires, values and life plans we associate with the self, or the sense of self.  Meanings come from “within”: the “inner voice”. Except it’s not “inner”. It is caused: by the outside.

We live in a dialectical, causal relationship with the world and that’s how we know it. It acts upon us. This was Marx’s view, roughly, and Lenin and Gramsci developed it further. And it happens to be the view defended by some philosophers of science in North America in the 21st century.

They study knowledge and rationality. They defend realism, the view that we can know the world beyond our beliefs, not absolutely, of course.

Victor Hugo was a realist. Jean Valjean would have liked not to see the truth, but he knew it was ““better to suffer, to bleed, to tear your skin off with your nails … [than to] never look openly, to squint”. He wrestled with an “implacable light [that] … dazzled him by force when all he wanted was to be blind”.

The meaning-from-within view doesn’t recognize that light.  The “inner voice” – being my self – is not something I can be “appalled and dazzled” by.  I create it. No “implacable light” is an “an immense difficulty in being”, as it was for Valjean, if ‘being” is meaningful only from “within”.

It is a comfortable view of how to know right from wrong.  We don’t.  Valjean wrestled with truth that tore him apart, tortured him and broke him: “his conscience, standing over him, fearsome, luminous, tranquil”. “Standing over him” is what we call tyranny, despotism: something other than freedom.

It’s convenient. We live in a world in which 40% of the world’s population uses 80% of the resources, and in which the 40% — for the most part – accept the situation.  We consider ourselves “lucky” or “privileged”.  But when resources are stolen, the owners are not “lucky” or “privileged”. They are bad.

That is, morally bad. It is lucky we don’t believe in the category.

Some do.  When I started reading philosophers from the South – those resisting imperialism and colonialism – I discovered they never asked whether there is truth about value, about humanness. They never doubted that we can know rhinoceritis for what it is because they did know it.

A PhD program at the University Havana, directed by the remarkable philosopher, Thalía Fung Riverón, studies ‘Political Science from the South’. It asks such questions: how to access the moral imagination that allows dehumanizing lies to be known and resisted.

Lenin said it must be “from below”, through those who’ve been colonized, imperialized, discarded.[ii]

A point is missed by some trying to understand Venezuela. It was made by Fidel Castro in 2005 at a conference entitled “Latin America in the 21st century: Universality and Originality”. Revolutionary ideas, to be revolutionary, need not be accepted by all, or even most. But they must be lived by some.

Their examples generate questions that make moral imagination possible. It’s why Maduro matters. His tranquil resistance, if explained, makes imaginable what was not previously imaginable: other ways to think about freedom and how to be human.

Ionesco said his play was about tyranny: of convention. A certain view of freedom is precisely that.

*

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.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] Cubadebate, 15 May 2019

[ii] E.g. Ciencia Política Enfoque Sur: Intromission en la participación política (Editorial Félix Varela, 2015)

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

Assange’s predicament and its broad implications for journalism and speech are evidently of little concern to Amnesty International, which wrote a letter to the Julian Assange Defence Committee (JADC) telling them that Amnesty is not actively working towards Assange’s defense.

***

Journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been hit with 17 Espionage Act charges by the United States. If convicted, Assange could be sentenced to up to 170 years in prison or even face the death penalty.

A conviction would also set a dangerous precedent for journalists in the U.S. who publish classified material. National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden wrote that “This case will decide the future of media.”

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.” Nonetheless, the prosecution of Assange continues undeterred.

Say what you want about Julian Assange but remember this: Wikileaks is about 10 years old. In that time, they have doled out more damage to empire through their publishing than possibly any newspaper in its entire history. That's why the US wants him in its prisons.

— Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) April 11, 2019

With so much at stake for reporters and with Assange’s life on the line, one would expect leading human-rights NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to be going to bat for Assange. Yet his predicament and its broad implications are evidently of little concern to Amnesty International, which wrote a letter to the Julian Assange Defence Committee (JADC) telling them that Amnesty is not actively working towards Assange’s defense.

Assange, Manning just plain old prisoners?

“According to Amnesty International, neither Assange nor [Chelsea] Manning are ‘prisoners of conscience,’” Laura Tiernan reports.

According to Wikipedia:

Prisoner of conscience is a term coined by Peter Benenson in a 28 May 1961 article for the London Observer newspaper. Most often associated with the human rights organisation Amnesty International, the term can refer to anyone imprisoned because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, or political views.”

Peter Benenson was the founder and leader of Amnesty International until a scandal regarding Amnesty’s direct cooperation with the U.K. Foreign Office and Colonial Office forced him to step down. MintPress News has covered the early days at Amnesty, when the NGO would receive “discreet support” from the U.K. government.

Another co-founder, Luis Kutner, informed for the FBI on Black Panther Deputy Chairman Fred Hampton — a move that got the young leader killed by the Bureau shortly afterwards.

Amnesty even called on the UN Security Council to send Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court as the push for regime change was heating up, and the same month NATO ultimately invaded the country. And now Amnesty has also toed the U.S. imperial line on Venezuela.

Major human rights organizations @hrw and @amnesty helped build political support for war on Libya and Syria. Now they’re declining to oppose the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen. https://t.co/zK1ro4D6lW Excellent reporting by @sarahlazare

— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) March 13, 2018

Maxine Walker of the JADC wrote to Amnesty:

[Assange’s] name appears not to have been mentioned in your material for World Press Freedom Day, an extraordinary omission given his current situation and that Julian Assange was awarded the 2009 Amnesty International U.K. Media Award for New Media.”

The U.K. government has ignored, indeed poured scorn, on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention 2015 ruling that ‘the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Assange is arbitrary and in contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’”

When Tiernan inquired of Amnesty why they do not consider not just Assange, but also Manning, a ‘Prisoner of Conscience,’ she writes:

[Amnesty’s] U.K. press officer contacted their U.S. office before explaining via email that ‘detention for not testifying before a grand jury is not itself illegal.’ And neither is chopping off heads in Saudi Arabia, which has not prevented AI from actively campaigning on that issue.”

Manning perfectly fits the definition of a political prisoner. She is currently jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury in its investigation of Assange. Even prior to receiving a subpoena in the case, Manning opposed grand jury processes on political grounds. “I can either go to jail or betray my principles,” Manning told reporters. “I would rather starve to death than change my opinion.”

*

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.

Alexander Rubinstein is a staff writer for MintPress News based in Washington, DC. He reports on police, prisons and protests in the United States and the United States’ policing of the world. He previously reported for RT and Sputnik News.

Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” has nothing to do with peace, nothing to do with resolving irreconcilable Israeli/Palestinian differences — everything to do with serving Israeli interests at their expense.

Throughout his tenure, Trump waged war on Palestinian rights, one-sidedly benefitting Israel at their expense.

During a Wednesday Security Council session on the Middle East, Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia addressed the issue of Palestinian rights.

He called for the “terminat(ion) (of) Israel’s occupation of Arab territories that began in 1967 and establish(ment) of an independent, viable and integral Palestinian State that would peacefully exist side-by-side with Israel, have safe and acknowledged borders, and have a capital in Eastern Jerusalem. At the same time, Western Jerusalem would be the capital of the State of Israel,” adding:

“We see no alternative to the two-state solution. We believe it is the only realistic prospect to put an end to the confrontation and reciprocal claims of Palestine and Israel.”

“Other concepts only mislead and obscure prospects to resume political process. We do not think that Palestinians will abandon their legitimate claims to obtain statehood, no matter what they might be promised in return. Attempts to impose a ready-made solution on the sides will fail.”

Trump regime hardliners have other ideas, polar opposite of  majority of world community nations.

The unacceptability of its no-peace/peace plan delayed its release. Its latest wrinkle is releasing it in stages, beginning with a so-called Peace to Prosperity conference in Manama, Bahrain on June 25 and 26.

The Saudis, UAE, and likely other officials from regional despotic regimes will attend the so-called “economic workshop” — a PR stunt to sell an unacceptable deal to Arab states and the world community.

It’s unclear if representatives from Western nations are coming. Participation will show complicity with the US/Israeli plot against fundamental Palestinian rights.

The two-day session is by invitation only, Palestinian officials not invited. According to an Orwellian White House statement:

“‘Peace to Prosperity (sic)’ will facilitate discussions on an ambitious, achievable vision and framework for a prosperous future for the Palestinian people and the region.”

The planned event is unrelated to the above statement. It’s all about unveiling part of the Trump regime’s sham proposal in segments, declared dead-before-arrival by Palestinian officials.

Its UN Riyad Mansour envoy called the plan a land grab scheme for Israel to steal all parts of Judea and Samaria not under its control, prelude to annexing its settlements and other Palestinian land it covets.

Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister Riad Malki categorically rejected what he called “not a peace plan, but rather conditions for surrender.”

PLO official Saeb Erekat said the Trump regime plan leaves core issues unaddressed, notably Palestinian statehood within pre-June 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as their exclusive capital, control over its borders, air, water and resources, the right of return for its diaspora population, and end of illegal Israeli occupation harshness.

Oslo left these and other major issues unresolved, delayed for later final status talks. Over a generation later, Palestinians are still waiting, betrayed time and again by US/Israeli complicity against them, the Trump regime taking Washington’s bad faith to an unprecedented level.

From inception decades earlier, the so-called peace process has been and remains a colossal hoax. Along with the US global war OF terror, not on it, it’s the greatest scam in modern times.

The Trump regime is perpetuating the deception, its scheme amounting to old wine in new bottles, pretending to offer Palestinians economic incentives, a neoliberal hoax similar to John Kerry’s no-peace/peace plan.

He proposed $4 billion in fantasy economic incentives. It was all about attracting exploitive private investments, benefitting Israeli and Western business interests exclusively, imposing greater neoliberal harshness on the Territories than already.

Reportedly, that’s a core element of Trump’s no-peace/deal of the century, its exploitive economic portion to be presented next month in Bahrain, a deceptive scheme no responsible leadership would accept.

According to Erekat, the Trump regime’s plan “is a non-starter for the Palestinians,” adding: “It should be for the rest of the world, as well.”

It’s all about demanding a Palestinian Versailles 2.0, a repeat of the Oslo sellout in Trump regime wrapping.

“There will be no economic prosperity in Palestine without the end of the occupation,” said Erekat, adding: “Notably, the Palestinian leadership was not consulted by any party on this meeting.”

Trump regime hardliners aren’t “seeking…peace. (They want) a Palestinian declaration of surrender,” Zionist ideologues Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt co-maestros of the grand deception.

They don’t give a hoot about Palestinian prosperity and other rights, notably its millions of refugees by cutting off UNRWA funding and slashing it to the PLO.

They support repressive Israeli apartheid, its illegal occupation and state terror, its militarized control over Palestinian lives and welfare, its slow-motion genocide against suffocating Gazans, its targeted assassinations and belligerence against Palestinians.

Trump’s self-styled “deal of the century” is a scheme only despotic regimes could love — one-sidedly serving Israeli interests, denying Palestinians their fundamental rights.

It bears repeating what I’ve stressed time and again. The US doesn’t negotiate. It demands other nations and people bend to its will — or face the force of its wrath.

*

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 PressTV

Julian Assange exposed U.S. war crimes, CIA spying capabilities, false flag cyber attacks and corruption within the Democratic Party and he’s the bad guy?

Trump’s Justice department has decided to charge Julian Assange with “17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday, a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues” according to The New York Times.

The article ‘Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues’ does mention the fact that charging Assange under the Espionage Act sets the precedent to criminalize investigative journalism that is “related to obtaining, and in some cases publishing, state secrets to be criminal, the officials sought to minimize the implications for press freedoms.” However, The New York Times has become the judge and jury and says that Assange is a fugitive trying to avoid Sweden’s justice system for an alleged sexual assault charge and that he is a useful tool for the Russians in regards to interfering in U.S. elections:

The charges are the latest twist in a career in which Mr. Assange has morphed from a crusader for radical transparency to fugitive from a Swedish sexual assault investigation, to tool of Russia’s election interference, to criminal defendant in the United States.

Mr. Assange vaulted to global fame nearly a decade ago as a champion of openness about what governments secretly do. But with this indictment, he has become the target for a case that could open the door to criminalizing activities that are crucial to American investigative journalists who write about national security matters.

The case has nothing to do with Russia’s election interference in 2016, when Mr. Assange’s organization published Democratic emails stolen by Russia as part of its covert efforts to help elect President Trump. Instead, it focuses on Mr. Assange’s role in the leak of hundreds of thousands of State Department cables and military files by the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning

According to the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, John Demers, he said that “Some say that Assange is a journalist and that he should be immune from prosecution for these actions,” and that “The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It is not and has never been the department’s policy to target them for reporting.” But Mr. Assange, was “no journalist.”

Demers has accused Assange of collaborating with Chelsea Manning to steal classified information when he said that “No responsible actor, journalist or otherwise, would purposefully publish the names of individuals he or she knew to be confidential human sources in a war zone, exposing them to the gravest of dangers.”

The New York Times admits that they can be charged for doing what Wikileaks has done in the near future under the Espionage Act:

Notably, The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government — the act that most of the charges addressed. While The Times did take steps to withhold the names of informants in the subset of the files it published, it is not clear how that is legally different from publishing other classified information

Assange’s lawyer, Barry J. Pollack said that his client was charged for a crime, but according to Pollack, Assange is guilty “for encouraging sources to provide him truthful information and for publishing that information.”

The New York Times also said that

“the United States has asked Britain to extradite Mr. Assange, who is fighting the move, and the filing of the new charges clears the way for British courts to weigh whether it would be lawful to transfer custody of him to a place where he will face Espionage Act charges.”

Britain will most likely extradite Assange to the U.S. since Britain is a close U.S. ally. The New York Times is sort of playing good cop, bad cop with the case of Julian Assange. They describe Assange as a fugitive who is avoiding Sweden’s sexual assault investigation to becoming a tool or a puppet for “Russia’s election interference” which is a joke, then they say that they can face the same charges as Wikileaks if they use the same tactics to obtain information. However, The New York Times and every other mainstream media outlet works for the U.S. government and are on the same page with the politicians as they shamefully and continuously discredit Assange. According to a report by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) titled ‘Media Cheer Assange’s Arrest’ said that the media demonized Assange after his arrest:

A Washington Post editorial (4/11/19) claimed Assange was “no free-press hero” and insisted the arrest was “long overdue.” Likewise, the Wall Street Journal (4/11/19) demanded “accountability” for Assange, saying, “His targets always seem to be democratic institutions or governments.”

Other coverage was more condemnatory still. The View’s Meghan McCain (4/11/19) declared she hoped Assange “rots in hell.” Saturday Night Live’s Colin Jost (4/13/19) said it was “so satisfying to see an Internet troll get dragged out into the sunlight.” But it was perhaps the National Review (4/12/19) that expressed the most enthusiastic approval of Assange’s arrest, condemning him for his “anti-Americanism, his antisemitism and his raw personal corruption” and for harming the US with his “vile spite”

Trump and the CIA

The CIA is Trump’s wet dream, I know it sounds nasty but it was obvious from the start when Trump made his first visit as President of the United States to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia and said “But I want to say that there is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community and the CIA than Donald Trump. There’s nobody.” Trump practically brown-nosed the CIA, and in doing so, the writing was on the wall to where the Trump-CIA relationship was going, that’s why Trump’s u-turn on Julian Assange’s arrest was not surprising and may I say, one of the most dishonest responses made by the president since the Obama and Bush years. Let’s remember during Trump’s campaign trail, it was reported that he mentioned Wikileaks more than 141 times until the day Assange was dragged out in handcuffs from the Ecuadorian embassy, and then Trump changed his tune when he was asked by the media about Assange’s arrest, and what was his response? “I know nothing about WikiLeaks.” Politicians from both sides of the aisle in Washington praised the arrest of Julian Assange especially Hillary Clinton who said Assange “has to answer for what he has done” according to The Guardian.

Trump’s entire administration wants Julian Assange and his Wikileaks organization to be permanently shut down including Trump’s advisor John Bolton who was exposed by Wikileaks when they released more than 800 files exposing his war crimes. Secretary of State and former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo is another war hawk neocon who wants Assange either dead or alive. Pompeo had called Julian Assange a “narcissist” who allegedly works hands in glove with Russia and that Assange depends on “the dirty work of others to make him famous.”

During a speech at The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) back in 2017, Pompeo said that “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” Pompeo said that the U.S. intelligence community (including the CIA) had already determined that Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU used WikiLeaks to release hacked information from the DNC. But the reality is that the hacked emails came from a source who faced a serious risk according to Assange and that source was Seth Rich who was shot and killed in an affluent neighborhood in Washington, D.C. in the summer of 2016 in an apparent robbery that “failed” according to Seth Rich’s father, Joel during an interview with a local TV station KMTV. In 2016, Assange was interviewed on a Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, and said that they were concerned about what happened to Seth Rich and were investigating the situation:

“We have to understand how high the stakes are in the US, and that our sources face serious risks. That’s why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity. We are investigating what happened with Seth Rich. We think it is a concerning situation. There is not a conclusion yet; we are not willing to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it. And more importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens”

 Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction for the murder of Seth Rich.

Robert Mueller is a Conspiracy Theorist

The New York Times published an article based on the Mueller Report regarding the murder of Seth Rich ‘Seth Rich Was Not Source of Leaked D.N.C. Emails, Mueller Report Confirms’ claiming that Seth Rich was not the source of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) leaked emails proving that they were undermining the Bernie Sander’s campaign. The emails were first published by DCLeaks and then by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 right before the 2016 Democratic National Convention. According to The New York Times:

The special counsel’s report confirmed this week that Seth Rich, a young Democratic National Committee employee whose unsolved killing became grist for a right-wing conspiracy theory, was not the source of thousands of internal D.N.C. emails that WikiLeaks released during the 2016 presidential race, officially debunking a notion that had persisted without support for years

The report also said that

“tucked amid hundreds of pages of the report’s main findings, the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took aim at WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, for falsely implying that Mr. Rich was somehow involved in the dissemination of the emails, an act that aided President Trump’s campaign.”

Mueller said that “WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing.” The report claims that WikiLeaks collaborated with the “true source of the leaked emails — Russian hackers — after Mr. Rich’s death.”

The New York Times also said that “The theory linking Mr. Rich to the email leak took root in conservative circles and was cited by prominent conservatives like Newt Gingrich and right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Alex Jones of Infowars.”

Mueller’s final statement regarding the murder of Seth Rich is just a diversion away from the truth and with Mueller’s help he can make it just go away, at least in the mainstream-media. The only people that can expose the truth regarding Seth Rich is Julian Assange and the Wikileaks organization. According to an nbcwashington.com article “The Mueller report says beginning in the summer of 2016 Julian Assange and WikiLeaks made statements about Rich falsely implying he leaked the stolen emails.” Last month, Vox.com published an article declaring that ‘The Seth Rich conspiracy theory needs to end now’ and falsely claimed that Assange knew that Seth Rich was not the source, because it was the Russians:

The report definitively disproved the notion that a Democratic National Committee staffer named Seth Rich was the source of leaked DNC documents later published by WikiLeaks, and that his July 2016 murder came as the result of his decision to leak those documents to WikiLeaks. This wasn’t true, although Trump associates like Jerome Corsi, Roger Stone, and countless others, have argued vehemently for years that it was. And WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange, knew it

The Trump-Russia collusion hoax has been on air since Trump took office more than 2 years ago. MSNBC who was a cheerleader for the removal of Trump was humiliated after the Mueller Report revealed that Trump did not collude with Russia in the 2016 Presidential elections to defeat Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost the election because of Clinton, not Assange, the Russians or anyone else. Clinton was and still is despised by most people within the U.S. especially when she tried to undermine the other hypocrite, Bernie Sanders (who would be another puppet of the deep state if he were to win the 2020 U.S. elections) and she was exposed. Clinton and the DNC’s plan to undermine the Sander’s campaign was to secure her nomination. Wikileaks embarrassed the DNC and forced them to make an apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters by saying “On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email” and that “These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” The Mueller report claims that the emails were allegedly stolen by hackers associated with Russian intelligence called Guccifer 2.0. In the summer of 2018, Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian military intelligence agents called Fancy Bear who were allegedly responsible for the attack. Fancy Bear was supposedly behind Guccifer 2.0 who claimed they were responsible, but then again, it’s all a lie.

Vault 7: The CIA’s ‘Global Covert Hacking System’

One of the biggest news stories involving Wikileaks and the release of more than 8,761 documents under ‘Year Zero’, exposing the CIA and its global operations. It was the first part of a series of leaks that Wikileaks called ‘Vault 7’ a network that was inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence based in Langley, Virginia that involves a “global covert hacking program,” including what Wikileaks describes as “weaponized exploits” used against such devices as “Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.” The CIA bypassed encryption codes on messaging services such as WhatsApp and other phones devices. WikiLeaks said that government hackers can hack Android phones that basically collects “audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.” There are various parts of Vault 7 such as ‘Dark Matter’ that exposed the CIA’s hacking capabilities including Apple’s iPhones and Macs. Weeping Angel is another hacking tool that was developed by the CIA and the U.K.’s very own MI5 used to penetrate smart TVs to gather intelligence. Once the program is installed in smart T.V.s with a USB stick, it enabled those same televisions’ with built-in microphones and sometimes even video cameras to record while the television is turned off. Then the recorded data is either stored into the television’s memory or sent to the CIA through the internet. There are several other programs exposed under the ‘Year Zero’ global covert hacking program, but one other program stands out the most is what the CIA uses to conduct “false flag” cyber-attacks that has portrayed Russia in the past as the aggressor. Regarding the CIA’s Remote Devices Branch’s UMBRAGE group, which is a subdivision of the center’s Remote Development Branch (RDB), and according to Wikileaks’s source, the program “collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques” that were stolen from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. Wikileaks said the following:

With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the “fingerprints” of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques

Kim Dotcom commented on the Wikileaks revelations when he tweeted that the “CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state. It turns DNC/Russia hack allegation by CIA into a JOKE.”Wired.com claimed that “Russian hacking deniers” were at an advantage in a 2017 article titled ‘WikiLeaks CIA Dump Gives Russian Hacking Deniers the Perfect Ammo’ and said that:

One nugget of particular interest to Trump supporters: a section titled “Umbrage” that details the CIA’s ability to impersonate cyber-attack techniques used by Russia and other nation states. In theory, that means the agency could have faked digital forensic fingerprints to make the Russians look guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee

The CIA’s ability to hack smart TV’s, Smartphone’s and encrypted messaging applications and we must add to the fact that the CIA also has the capability to conduct cyber-attacks under the UMBRAGE group and make them appear it came from a foreign power is as Orwellian as one can get, it also carries very serious geopolitical implications.

What is insane about the CIA’s UMBRAGE group is that according to Wikileaks, “With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the “fingerprints” of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.” In other words, the CIA could launch a malware attack that was originally developed by another country to intentionally “misdirect attribution” for the hack that would not be traced back to the CIA in any way. In 2017, CNN quoted the former CIA director James Woolsey as saying that “It’s often not foolproof to say who it is because it is possible and sometimes easy to hide your tracks,” he said. “There’s lots of tricks.” and he should know. “I think the Russians were in there, but it doesn’t mean other people weren’t, too,” Woolsey told CNN.

The CIA and the Persecution of Julian Assange 

When Julian Assange was arrested by British authorities, Wikileaks immediately released a statement on twitter mentioning the role of the CIA:

This man is a son, a father, a brother. He has won dozens of journalism awards. He’s been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanise, delegitimize and imprison him. #ProtectJulian

The arrest of Assange has sparked outrage and anger around the world. Assange is a hero to us all especially those in the alternative media. The mainstream-media, as we all know are based on conspiracy theories, fabrications and flat-out lies are celebrating the arrest of Assange. Perhaps, they are hoping to rebound after the ‘RussiaGate’ conspiracy theory hoax which backfired in their faces and since then, their viewership has completely collapsed.

Julian Assange will face a U.S. court if he is extradited. But rest assured, there will be those of us who will continue to speak out for Assange, and there will also be worldwide protests in coming months and years until Julian Assange is released from prison. There is hope because Assange has the truth on his side no matter what happens. If is imprisoned for life or god forbid executed at the behest of Washington and the CIA, Assange will become a Martyr. There will be many more people like Assange because the truth is like a virus to the establishment, and that’s why they want to destroy Wikileaks and the alternative media, but it’s too late, the truth is out and it will never be stopped. #ProtectJulian

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Silent Crow News. Timothy Alexander Guzman is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image is from SCN