Global Research

The Facts

There is widespread media misreporting about allegations made against Julian Assange in Sweden in 2010. Here are the facts:

First, Assange was always willing to answer any questions from the Swedish authorities and repeatedly offered to do so, over six years. The widespread media assertion that Assange “evaded” Swedish questioning is false. It was the Swedish prosecutor who for years refused to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy: they only did so, in November 2016, after the Swedish courts forced the prosecutor to travel to London. Sweden dropped the investigation six months later, in May 2017.

Second, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid onward extradition to the US – not to avoid extradition to Sweden or to refuse to face the Swedish allegations. Assange would have accepted extradition to Sweden had it provided an assurance against onward extradition to the US (as Amnesty International also urged at the time) – but both Sweden and the UK refused to provide an assurance that he would not be extradited to the US.

Third, Sweden wanted to drop its arrest warrant for Assange in 2013. It was the British government that insisted that the case against him continue. This is confirmed in emails released under a tribunal challenge following a Freedom of Information Act request. UK prosecutors admitted to deleting key emails and engaged in elaborate attempts to keep correspondence from the public record. Indeed, the lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service advised the Swedes in January 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange. An interview at that time could have prevented the long-running embassy standoff.

Fourth, despite widespread false reporting, Assange was never charged with anything related to the Swedish allegations. These only reached the level of a “preliminary investigation”. The Swedish prosecution questioned Assange on two separate occasions, in 2010 and 2016. He has consistentlyprofessed his innocence.

Fifth, almost entirely omitted from current media reporting is that the initial Swedish preliminary investigation in 2010 was dropped after the chief prosecutor of Stockholm concluded that “the evidence did not disclose any evidence of rape” and that “no crime at all” had been committed. Text messages between the two women, which were later revealed, do not complain of rape. Rather, they show that the women “did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him” and that they “only wanted him to take a test”. One wrote that “it was the police who made up the charges” and told a friend that she felt that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.

Sixth, Assange left Sweden after the prosecutor told him that he was free to leave as he was not wanted for questioning. Assange had stayed in Sweden for five weeks. After he left, Interpol bizarrely issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals – raising concerns that this was not just about sexual accusations.

Seventh, Sweden’s investigation is now entirely closed. It was shelved for six years during the period 2010-2016 while the Swedish prosecutor refused to question Assange in London. Sweden’s Court of Appeal ruled that that the prosecutor had breached her duty because a preliminary investigation either has to be open and active leading to a charge, or closed—there is no intermediate phase. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also concluded that the prosecutor’s inaction had resulted in Sweden and the UK violating international obligations.

Eighth, there was no technical impediment for the prosecutor to proceed to charge Assange after he was questioned in the Ecuadorian embassy. In early 2017, Assange’s lawyers asked a Swedish court to force the prosecutor to either charge Assange or drop the arrest warrant. The prosecutor closed the investigation in May 2017 without attempting to charge him.

Since his arrest on 11 April 2019, there has been considerable political pressure on Sweden to reopen the investigation. Theoretically any closed investigation can be reopened until the statute of limitations expires—August 2020 in this case. Such calls serve to displace the critical issue of Assange’s impending US extradition over WikiLeaks publications (whether from UK or Sweden). They also obfuscate critical facts, such as the fact that the UK and Swedish authorities had actively prevented Assange from responding to the allegations, which is contrary to basic principles of due process.

It is critical to note that the re-opened Swedish allegations in September 2010 occurred after WikiLeaks published the Iraq “Collateral Murder” video in April 2010 and the Afghanistan war logs in July 2010. In fact, US grand jury proceedings already began against Assange in June 2010 and by July, the US was publicly describing WikiLeaks as a “very real and potential threat”. The Intercept’s Charles Glass has reported that “Sources in Swedish intelligence told me at the time that they believed the U.S. had encouraged Sweden to pursue the case.” Other reports from just days before the Swedish allegations were initiated show that the U.S. State Department was encouraging allied statesto initiate prosecutions against Assange. To ignore all this, as much media reporting does, is to ignore vital further context.

In December 2018, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, together with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, reiterated their finding from 2016 and urged Assange’s freedom to be restored. UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture are currently investigation Assange’s case.

*

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

This article was first crossposted in May 2013.

In February the Guardian and BBC Arabic unveiled a documentary exploring the role of retired Colonel James Steele in the recruitment, training and initial deployments of the CIA advised and funded Special Police Commandos in Iraq.

Israel has arrested more than 50,000 Palestinian children since it began its occupation of the West Bank more than 50 years ago, new research has revealed.

According to data released by the Palestinian Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, more than 50,000 arrest cases among Palestinian minors were documented in the occupied West Bank since 1967, including 16,655 cases of child arrests since the Second Intifada which broke out in 2000.

Head of research in the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, Abdel Nasser Farawneh released the figures whilst speaking in the two-day fifth European conference on Palestinian prisoners.

The conference took place in Brussels on Saturday and addresses Israel’s systematic use of prisons as a part of its brutal occupation of Palestine.

Farawneh added arrests of children are part of Israel’s methodical policy to diminish any chance Palestinian children may have of living a normal childhood.

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. More than 600,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

All Israeli settlements across the occupied West Bank are classed as illegal under international law, particularly Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which asserts that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

Israeli forces and settlers routinely attack Palestinians in the occupied territories, demolishing their homes, poisoning their livestock and vandalising their properties.

*

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

Featured image is by Nurphoto

Twenty years have passed since the U.S.-orchestrated NATO attack on Yugoslavia. As the United States readied its forces for war in 1999, it organized a peace conference that was ostensibly intended to resolve differences between the Yugoslav government and secessionist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo on the future status of the province. A different scenario was being played out behind the scenes, however. U.S. officials wanted war and deliberately set up the process to fail, which they planned to use as a pretext for war.

The talks opened on February 6, 1999, in Rambouillet, France. Officially, the negotiations were led by a Contact Group comprised of U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Christopher Hill, European Union envoy Wolfgang Petritsch, and Russian diplomat Boris Mayorsky. All decisions were supposed to be jointly agreed upon by all three members of the Contact Group. In actual practice, the U.S. ran the show all the way and routinely bypassed Petritsch and Mayorsky on essential matters.

Ibrahim Rugova, an ethnic Albanian activist who advocated nonviolence, was expected to play a major role in the Albanian secessionist delegation. Joining him at Rambouillet was Fehmi Agani, a fellow member of Rugova’s Democratic League of Kosovo.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright regularly sidelined Rugova, however, preferring to rely on delegation members from the hardline Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which had routinely murdered Serbs, Roma, and Albanians in Kosovo who worked for the government or opposed separatism. Only a few months before the conference, KLA spokesman Bardhyl Mahmuti spelled out his organization’s vision of a future Kosovo as separate and ethnically pure:

“The independence of Kosovo is the only solution…We cannot live together. That is excluded.” [i]

Source: Independent Balkan News Agency

Rugova had at one time engaged in fairly productive talks with Yugoslav officials, and his willingness to negotiate was no doubt precisely the reason Albright relegated him to a background role. Yugoslav Minister of Information Milan Komnenić accompanied the Yugoslav delegation to Rambouillet. He recalls,

“With Rugova and Fehmi Agani it was possible to talk; they were flexible. In Rambouillet, [KLA leader Hashim] Thaçi appears instead of Rugova. A beast.” [ii]

There was no love between Thaçi and Rugova, whose party members were the targets of threats and assassination attempts at the hands of the KLA. Rugova himself would survive an assassination attempt six years later.

The composition of the Yugoslav delegation reflected its position that many ethnic groups resided in Kosovo, and any agreement arrived at should take into account the interests of all parties. All of Kosovo’s major ethnic groups were represented in the delegation. Faik Jashari, one of the Albanian members in the Yugoslav delegation, was president of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative and an official in the Provisional Executive Council, which was Yugoslavia’s government in Kosovo. Jashari observed that Albright was startled when she saw the composition of the Yugoslav delegation, apparently because it went against the U.S. propaganda narrative. [iii] Throughout the talks, Albright displayed a dismissive attitude towards the delegation’s Albanian, Roma, Egyptian, Goran, Turkish, and Slavic Muslim members.

U.S. mediators habitually referred to the Yugoslav delegation as “the Serbs,” even though they constituted a minority of the members. The Americans persisted in trying to cast events in Kosovo as a simplistic binary relationship of Serb versus Albanian, disregarding the presence of other ethnic groups in the province, and ignoring the fact that while some ethnic Albanians favored separation, others wished to remain in multiethnic Yugoslavia.

After arriving at Rambouillet, the secessionist Albanian delegation informed U.S. diplomats that it did not want to meet with the Yugoslav side. Aside from a brief ceremonial meeting, there was no direct contact between the two groups. The Yugoslav and Albanian delegations were placed on two different floors to eliminate nearly all contact. U.S. mediators Richard Holbrooke and Christopher Hill ran from one delegation to the other, conveying notes and verbal messages between the two sides but mostly trying to coerce the Yugoslav delegation. [iv]

Luan Koka, a Roma member of the Yugoslav delegation, noted that the U.S. was operating an electronic jamming device.

“We knew exactly when Madeleine Albright was coming. Connections on our mobile phones were breaking up and going crazy.” [v]

It is probable that the U.S. was also operating electronic listening equipment and that U.S. mediators knew everything the delegations were saying in private.

Albright, Jashari said, would not listen to anyone.

“She had her task, and she saw only that task. You couldn’t say anything to her. She didn’t want to talk with us and didn’t want to listen to our arguments.” [vi]

One day it was Koka’s birthday, and the Yugoslav delegation wanted to encourage a more relaxed atmosphere with U.S. mediators, inviting them to a cocktail party to mark the occasion.

“It was a slightly more pleasant atmosphere, and I was singing,” Koka recalled. “I remember Madeleine Albright saying: ‘I really like partisan songs. But if you don’t accept this, the bombs will fall.’” [vii]

According to delegation member Nikola Šainović,

“Madeleine Albright told us all the time: ‘If the Yugoslav delegation does not accept what we offer, you will be bombed.’” Šainović added, “We agreed in Rambouillet to any form of autonomy for Kosovo,” but sovereignty remained the red line. [viii]

From the beginning of the conference, U.S. mediator Christopher Hill “decided that what we really needed was an Albanian approval of a document, and a Serb refusal. If both refused, there could be no further action by NATO or any other organization for that matter.” [ix] It was not peace that the U.S. team was seeking, but war.

As the conference progressed, U.S. negotiators were faced with an alarming problem, in that the Yugoslav delegation had accepted all of the Contact Group’s fundamental political principles for an agreement, balking only at a NATO presence in Kosovo. On the other hand, the secessionist delegation rejected the Contact Group’s political principles. Something had to be done to reverse this pattern.

On the second day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the Yugoslav delegation with the framework text of a provisional agreement for peace and self-rule in Kosovo, but it was missing some of the annexes. The Yugoslavs requested a copy of the complete document. As delegation head Ratko Marković pointed out,

“Any objections to the text of the agreement could be made only after an insight into the text as a whole had been obtained.”

Nearly one week passed before the group received one of the missing annexes. That came on the day the conference had originally been set to end. The deadline was extended, and two days later a second missing annex was provided to the Yugoslav delegation.[x]

When the Yugoslavs next met with the Contact Group, they were assured that all elements of the text had now been given to them. Several more days passed and at 7:00 PM on February 22, the penultimate day of the conference, the Contact Group presented three new annexes, which the Yugoslavs had never seen before. According to Marković, “Russian Ambassador Boris Mayorsky informed our delegation that Annexes 2 and 7 had not been discussed or approved by the Contact Group and that they were not the texts drafted by the Contact Group but by certain Contact Group members, while Annex 5 was discussed, but no decision was made on it at the Contact Group meeting.” The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept the new annexes, as their introduction had violated the process whereby all proposals had to be agreed upon by the three Contact Group members. [xi]

At 9:30 AM on February 23, the final day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the full text of the proposal, containing yet more provisions that were being communicated for the first time. The accompanying note identified the package as the definitive text while adding that Russia did not support two of the articles. The letter demanded the Yugoslav delegation’s decision by 1:00 PM that same day.[xii] There was barely time enough to carefully read the text, let alone negotiate. In essence, it was an ultimatum.

Quite intentionally, U.S. mediators included provisions in the final version of the text that no sovereign nation could be expected to accept. Neoliberal economic interests are always front and center when U.S. officials are involved, and they surely were not unaware of Kosovo’s abundant reserves of mineral resources, ripe for exploitation. The first point in Article 1 of the Economic Issues section of the text states:

“The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles.”

Western investors were favored with a provision stating that authorities shall “ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources.” [xiii] One may wonder what these stipulations had to do with peace negotiations, but then the talks had far more to do with U.S. interests than anything to do with the needs of the people in the region.

The document called for a Western-led Joint Commission including local representatives to monitor and coordinate the implementation of the plan. However, if commission members failed to reach consensus on a matter, the Western-appointed Chair would have the power to impose his decision unilaterally. [xiv] Local representatives would serve as little more than window-dressing for Western dictate, as they could adopt no measure that went against the Chair’s wishes.

The Chair of the Implementation Mission was authorized to “recommend” the “removal and appointment of officials and the curtailment of operations of existing institutions in Kosovo.” If the Chair’s command was not obeyed “in the time requested, the Joint Commission may decide to take the recommended action,” and since the Chair had the authority to impose his will on the Joint Commission, there was no check on his power. He could remove elected and appointed officials at will and replace them with handpicked lackeys. The Chair was also authorized to order the “curtailment of operations of existing institutions.” [xv]Any organization that failed to bend to U.S. demands could be shut down.

Chapter 7 of the plan called for the parties to “invite NATO to constitute and lead a military force” in Kosovo. [xvi]The choice of words was interesting. In language reminiscent of gangsters, Yugoslavia was told to “invite” NATO to take over the province of Kosovo or suffer the consequences.

Yugoslavia was required “to provide, at no cost, the use of all facilities and services required” by NATO. [xvii]Within six months, Yugoslavia would have to withdraw all of its military forces from Kosovo, other than a small number of border guards. [xviii]

The plan granted NATO “unrestricted use of the entire electromagnetic spectrum” to “communicate.” Although the document indicated NATO would make “reasonable efforts to coordinate,” there were no constraints on its power. [xix] Yugoslav officials, “upon simple request,” would be required to grant NATO “all telecommunication services, including broadcast services…free of cost.” [xx]NATO could take over any radio and television facilities and transmission wavelengths it chose, knocking local stations off the air.

The plan did not restrict NATO’s presence to Kosovo. It granted NATO, with its “vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia].” [xxi] NATO would be “granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tools, or charges.” [xxii]

The agreement guaranteed that NATO would have “complete and unimpeded freedom of movement by ground, air, and water into and throughout Kosovo.” Furthermore, NATO personnel could not be held “liable for any damages to public or private property.” [xxiii] NATO as a whole would also be “immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal,” regardless of its actions anywhere on the territory of Yugoslavia. [xxiv]Nor could NATO personnel be arrested, detained, or investigated. [xxv]

Acceptance of the plan would have brought NATO troops swarming throughout Yugoslavia and interfering in every institution.

There were several other objectionable elements in the plan, but one that stood out was the call for an “international” (meaning, Western-led) meeting to be held after three years “to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo.”[xxvi] It was no mystery to the Yugoslav delegation what conclusion Western officials would arrive at in that meeting. The intent was clearly to redraw Yugoslavia’s borders to further break apart the nation.

U.S. officials knew the Yugoslav delegation could not possibly accept such a plan.

“We deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept,” Madeleine Albright confided to a group of journalists, “because they needed a little bombing.” [xxvii]

At a meeting in Belgrade on March 5, the Yugoslav delegation issued a statement which declared:

“A great deceit was looming, orchestrated by the United States. They demanded that the agreement be signed, even though much of this agreement, that is, over 56 pages, had never been discussed, either within the Contact Group or during the negotiations.” [xxviii]

Serbian President Milan Milutinović announced at a press conference that in Rambouillet the Yugoslav delegation had “proposed solutions meeting the demands of the Contact Group for broad autonomy within Serbia, advocating full equality of all national communities.” But “agreement was not what they were after.” Instead, Western officials engaged in “open aggression,” and this was a game “about troops and troops alone.” [xxix]

While U.S. officials were working assiduously to avoid a peaceful resolution, they needed the Albanians to agree to the plan so that they could accuse the Yugoslav delegation of being the stumbling block to peace. U.S. mainstream media could be counted on to unquestioningly repeat the government’s line and overlook who the real architects of failure were. U.S. officials knew the media would act in their customary role as cheerleaders for war, which indeed, they did.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook revealed the nature of the message Western officials were conveying to the Albanian delegation when he said,

“We are certainly saying to the Kosovo Albanians that if you don’t sign up to these texts, it’s extremely difficult to see how NATO could then take action against Belgrade.” [xxx]

Western officials were practically begging the secessionists to sign the plan. According to inside sources, the Americans assured the Albanian delegation that disarmament of the KLA would be merely symbolic and that it could keep the bulk of its weaponry so long as it was concealed. [xxxi]

Albright spent hours trying to convince Thaçi to change his mind, telling him:

“If you say yes and the Serbs say no, NATO will strike and go on striking until the Serb forces are out and NATO can go in. You will have security. And you will be able to govern yourselves.” [xxxii]

That was a clear enough signal that the intent was to rip the province away from Yugoslavia and create an artificial state. Despite such assurances, Thaçi feared the wrath of fellow KLA members if he were to sign a document that did not explicitly call for separation. When U.S. negotiators asked Thaçi why he would not sign, he responded:

“If I agree to this, I will go home and they will kill me.” [xxxiii]

This was not hyperbole. The KLA had threatened and murdered a great many Albanians who in its eyes fell short of full-throated support for its policy of violent secession and ethnic exclusion.

Even NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who flew in from Belgium, was unable to change Thaçi’s mind. [xxxiv] U.S. officials were exasperated with the Albanian delegation, and its recalcitrance threatened to capsize plans for war.

“Rambouillet was supposed to be about putting the screws to Belgrade,” a senior U.S. official said. “But it went off the rails because of the miscalculation we made about the Albanians.” [xxxv]

On the last day at Rambouillet, it was agreed that the Albanian delegation would return to Kosovo for discussions with fellow KLA leaders on the need to sign the document. In the days that followed, Western officials paid repeated visits to Kosovo to encourage the Albanians to sign.

So-called “negotiations” reconvened in Paris on March 15. Upon its arrival, the Yugoslav delegation objected that it was “incomprehensible” that “no direct talks between the two delegations had been facilitated.” In response to the Yugoslavs’ proposal for modifications to the plan, the Contact Group informed them that no changes would be accepted. The document must be accepted as a whole. [xxxvi]

The Yugoslav position, delegation head Ratko Marković maintained, was that “first one needs to determine what is to be implemented, and only then to determine the methods of implementation.” [xxxvii]The delegation asked the Americans what there was to talk about regarding implementation “when there was no agreement because the Albanians did not accept anything.” U.S. officials responded that the Yugoslav delegation “cannot negotiate,” adding that it would only be allowed to make grammatical changes to the text. [xxxviii]

From the U.S. perspective, the presence of the Yugoslav delegation in Paris was irrelevant other than to maintain the pretense that negotiations were taking place. Not permitted to negotiate, there was little the Yugoslavs could do but await the inevitable result, which soon came. The moment U.S. officials obtained the Albanian delegation’s signatures to the plan on March 18, they aborted the Paris Conference. There was no reason to continue engaging with the Yugoslav delegation, as the U.S. had what it needed: a pretext for war.

On the day after the U.S. pulled the plug on the Paris talks, Milan Milutinović held a press conference in the Yugoslav embassy, condemning the Paris meeting as “a kind of show,” which was meant “to deceive public opinion in the whole world.” [xxxix]

While the United States and its NATO allies prepared for war, Yugoslavia was making last-ditch efforts to stave off attack, including reaching out to intermediaries. Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros Pangalos contacted Madeleine Albright and told her that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević had offered to engage in further negotiations. But Albright told him that the decision to bomb had already been made. “In fact,” Pangalos reported, “she told me to ‘desist, you’re just being a nuisance.’” [xl] In a final act of desperation to save the people from bombing, Milutinović contacted Christopher Hill and made an extraordinary offer: Yugoslavia would join NATO if the United States would allow Yugoslavia to remain whole, including the province of Kosovo. Hill responded that this was not a topic for discussion and he would not talk about it. [xli]

Madeleine Albright got her war, which brought death, destruction, and misery to Yugoslavia. But NATO had a new role, and the United States further extended its hegemony over the Balkans.

In the years following the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO was intent on redefining its mission. The absence of the socialist bloc presented NATO not only with the need to construct a new rationale for existence but also with the opportunity to expand Western domination over other nations.

Bosnia offered the first opportunity for NATO to begin its transformation, as it took part in a war that presented no threat to member nations.

Bombing Yugoslavia was meant to solidify the new role for NATO as an offensive military force, acting on behalf of U.S. imperial interests. Since that time, NATO has attacked Libya, and engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of nations in Africa. Despite NATO’s claim that it is “committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes,” the record shows otherwise.

*

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

Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute associate and on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute. He is a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for Voice of the People, and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language. He is also a member of the Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific. His website is https://gregoryelich.org. Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich

Notes

[i] “Albanian Rebels Say Kosovo Independence Vital,” Reuters, October 27, 1998.

[ii] “Recollections of Failed Negotiations in Rambouillet: Could the Bombing Have Been Avoided?” Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[iii] Interview with Faik Jashari and other Kosovo Albanians, by delegation that included author, Belgrade, August 9, 1999.

[iv] Bogoljub Janićević, “Preparing for Bombing in Rambouillet,” Večernje Novosti, March 19, 2018.

[v] “Recollections of Failed Negotiations in Rambouillet: Could the Bombing Have Been Avoided?” Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[vi] Interview with Faik Jashari and other Kosovo Albanians, by delegation that included author, Belgrade, August 9, 1999.

[vii] “Recollections of Failed Negotiations in Rambouillet: Could the Bombing Have Been Avoided?” Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[viii] “Nikola Šainović for Courier Reveals the Secret of the Last Paper from Rambouillet,” Socialist Party of Serbia, February 12, 2019.

[ix] Christopher Hill, Outpost: Life on the Frontlines of American Diplomacy, a Memoir, Simon and Schuster, 2014, p 149.

[x] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[xi] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[xii] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[xiii] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 4a, Article I, February 23, 1999.

[xiv] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 5, Article I, section 3, February 23, 1999.

[xv] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 5, Article IV, section 5, February 23, 1999.

[xvi] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article I, section 1a, February 23, 1999.

[xvii] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article I, section 1c, February 23, 1999.

[xviii] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article IV, section 2, February 23, 1999.

[xix] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article VIII, section 5b, February 23, 1999.

[xx] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article VIII, section 5b, February 23, 1999.

[xxi] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 8, February 23, 1999.

[xxii] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 11, February 23, 1999.

[xxiii] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 15, February 23, 1999.

[xxiv] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 6, February 23, 1999.

[xxv] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 7, February 23, 1999.

[xxvi] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 8, Article I, section 3, February 23, 1999.

[xxvii] “Albright: They Need a Little Bombing,” Workers World News Service, June 10, 1999.

George Kenney, “Rolling Thunder: the Rerun,” The Nation, June 14, 1999. In the Nation article, the quote is attributed to “a senior State Department official.” In the Workers World report, further detail is provided: “On the Pacifica program ‘Democracy Now’ on June 2, Kenney confirmed that the high official was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.”

[xxviii] Broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, 9:15 AM, March 23, 1999.

[xxix] Transcript, Press Conference by Milan Milutinović, Tanjug, February 23, 1999.

[xxx] “Cook Warns Kosovo Albanians Over Air Strikes,” Reuters, February 21, 1999.

[xxxi] Peter Dejaegher, “Serbs Feel Cheated,” De Standaard (Groot-Bijgaarden), March 31, 1999.

[xxxii] Madeleine Albright, Madam Secretary, Harper Collins, 2013, p 406.

[xxxiii] Christopher Hill, Outpost: Life on the Frontlines of American Diplomacy, a Memoir, Simon and Schuster, 2014, p 153.

[xxxiv] Jane Perlez, “Talks on Kosovo Near Breakdown; Deadline is Tuesday,” New York Times, February 23, 1999.

[xxxv] R. Jeffrey Smith, “Albanian Intransigence Stymied Accord,” Washington Post, February 24, 1999.

[xxxvi] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[xxxvii] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[xxxviii] “Nikola Šainović for Courier Reveals the Secret of the Last Paper from Rambouillet,” Socialist Party of Serbia, February 12, 2019.

[xxxix] “Press Conference Held by the President of Serbia,” Politika, March 19, 1999.

[xl] “Ex-Minister Claims ‘Meddling’ in Kosovo Prompted Sacking,” Athens News, December 1, 2001.

[xli] S.J. Matić, R. Dragović, “20 Years Since the Start of Negotiations in Rambouillet: Occupation Has Been Avoided,” Večernje Novosti, February 6, 2019.

“We welcome the positive role of Russia, China, and any other country in the Afghan peace process”, a U.S. State Department official said on Friday, an unexpected announcement considering the increased trade tensions between the U.S. and China after Washington’s unilateral imposition of hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of tariffs on Chinese imports.

Some might be struggling to make sense of why President Donald Trump would condemn China on trade while one of his diplomats praised it for its role in the Afghan peace process that very same week, but this just proves that pragmatic cooperation between the two countries is still possible in areas of shared interest despite disagreements elsewhere and that the official’s words should therefore be interpreted as sincere.

China has been participating in the Afghan peace process for quite a few years already, but the latest round has been the most successful thus far. Out of all the main parties taking part in this process, China is the only one that’s totally neutral because it doesn’t have a history of military-political involvement in the country.

The first China-Afghanistan-Pakistan foreign ministers’ dialogue was convened in Beijing, December 26, 2017. /CGTN Photo

This uniquely positions China to mediate between all the relevant players and contribute to shaping a constructive long-term outcome for sustaining peace in the conflict-torn country if an agreement is ever reached between the warring sides. Only China has the capability to rebuild Afghanistan, and it can put its experience with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to use in constructing much-needed roads, railways, schools, hospitals, and power plants there once the war ends.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the root causes of terrorism can be traced back to economic factors that somehow or another contributed to an individual’s radicalization, so rectifying socio-economic disparities by bringing fair and even development to Afghanistan’s people should in theory reduce terrorism in the long run.

Providing jobs and respectable livelihoods to its citizens can give them opportunities that they’ve never had before, improving their lives and therefore making all of them stakeholders in enthusiastically upholding whatever peace might eventually be reached. This in turn could strengthen national reconciliation by creating a community of shared destiny within the country prior to incorporating this national community into the wider one presently being formed along the Silk Roads.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani receives U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad at the ‍Presidential Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, February 18, 2019.  /VCG Photo

Although the current American administration generally views relations with China as a zero-sum game, it seems that Afghanistan might be a notable exception to this pattern, suggesting that the U.S. might be more flexible on its stance when it concerns security-related issues (and especially those dealing with terrorism) than economic ones.

There’s a certain logic to this observation because President Trump is a successful businessman who earned his fortune in the hyper-competitive market of New York real estate, which naturally inclines him to see economic issues through a zero-sum prism. His military, however, has learned the hard way that anti-terrorist and nation-building campaigns must embrace win-win principles if they’re ever to be successful.

Keeping these concepts in mind, it makes sense why the State Department official welcomed the positive role that China is playing in the Afghan peace process in spite of the prevailing trade tensions between the two countries.

The U.S. seemingly understands the need for multilateral win-win cooperation in bringing peace to Afghanistan, but also more importantly in sustaining whatever deal might be reached seeing as how only China is capable of funding the war-torn country’s reconstruction and development projects.

Integrating the strategically positioned state into the Belt and Road Initiative would go a long way towards ensuring that its people have a bright future and are less vulnerable to the pernicious sway of terrorist propaganda, which therefore serves the entire world’s interests and is understandably worthy of universal praise.

*

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

This article was originally published on CGTN.

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 SCF

GR Editor’s Note

This incisive list of countries by the late William Blum was first published in 2013. 

In relation to recent developments in Ukraine, Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth recalling the history of US sponsored military coups and “soft coups” aka regime changes.

This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military coups, acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, covert ops in support of regime change.

Needless to say, while “US-Gate” is not an issue, this list in nonetheless revealing.

The legacy of William Blum lives

Michel Chossudovsky, March 20, 2022

*      *      *

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

• China 1949 to early 1960s
• Albania 1949-53
• East Germany 1950s
• Iran 1953 *
• Guatemala 1954 *
• Costa Rica mid-1950s
• Syria 1956-7
• Egypt 1957
• Indonesia 1957-8
• British Guiana 1953-64 *
• Iraq 1963 *
• North Vietnam 1945-73
• Cambodia 1955-70 *
• Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
• Ecuador 1960-63 *
• Congo 1960 *
• France 1965
• Brazil 1962-64 *
• Dominican Republic 1963 *
• Cuba 1959 to present
• Bolivia 1964 *
• Indonesia 1965 *
• Ghana 1966 *
• Chile 1964-73 *
• Greece 1967 *
• Costa Rica 1970-71
• Bolivia 1971 *
• Australia 1973-75 *
• Angola 1975, 1980s
• Zaire 1975
• Portugal 1974-76 *
• Jamaica 1976-80 *
• Seychelles 1979-81
• Chad 1981-82 *
• Grenada 1983 *
• South Yemen 1982-84
• Suriname 1982-84
• Fiji 1987 *
• Libya 1980s
• Nicaragua 1981-90 *
• Panama 1989 *
• Bulgaria 1990 *
• Albania 1991 *
• Iraq 1991
• Afghanistan 1980s *
• Somalia 1993
• Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
• Ecuador 2000 *
• Afghanistan 2001 *
• Venezuela 2002 *
• Iraq 2003 *
• Haiti 2004 *
• Somalia 2007 to present
• Libya 2011*
• Syria 2012

Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?

A: Because there’s no American embassy there.

Global Research Editor’s note: To this list published in February 2013, we must add Ukraine, where Viktor Yanukovych was successfully ousted in February 2014.

John Bolton has gotten away with a dangerous deception. The national security adviser’s announcement Sunday that the Pentagon has deployed air and naval forces to the Middle East, which he combined with a threat to Iran, points to a new maneuver to prepare the ground for an incident that could justify a retaliatory attack against Iran.

Bolton presented his threat and the deployments as a response to alleged intelligence about a possible Iranian attack on U.S. targets in the Middle East. But what has emerged indicates that the alleged intelligence does not actually reflect any dramatic new information or analysis from the U.S. intelligence community. Instead, it has all the hallmarks of a highly political case concocted by Bolton.

Further underscoring the deceptive character of Bolton’s maneuver is evidence that senior Israeli national security officials played a key role in creating the alleged intelligence rationale for the case.

The new initiative follows an audacious ruse carried out last fall by Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, detailed in Truthdig in February, to cast the firing of a few mortar rounds in the vicinity of the U.S. embassy and a consulate in Iraq as evidence of an effort by Tehran to harm U.S. diplomats. Bolton exploited that opportunity to press Pentagon officials to provide retaliatory military options, which they did, reluctantly.

Bolton and Pompeo thus established a policy that the Trump administration would hold Iran responsible for any incident involving forces supported by Iran that could be portrayed as an attack on either U.S. personnel or “interests.”

Bolton’s one-paragraph statement on Sunday considerably broadened that policy. It repeated the previously stated principle that the United States will respond to any alleged attack, whether by Iranian forces or by what the administration calls “proxy” forces. But it added yet another major point to Trump administration policy: “a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force [emphasis added].”

That language represents an obvious move by Bolton to create potential options for U.S. retaliation against Iran for a real or alleged attack by “proxy forces” on Israeli or Saudi forces or “interests.” Such a commitment to go to war with Iran over incidents related to Israeli or Saudi conflicts should be the subject of a major debate in the press and in Congress. Thus far, it has somehow escaped notice.

Significantly, on a flight to Finland on Sunday, Pompeo repeated the threat he made last September to respond to any attack by “proxy forces” on U.S. “interests.” He made no reference to possible attacks against “allies.”

Bolton and his staff claimed to the news media that what he characterizes as “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” are based on “intelligence.” Media reports about Bolton’s claim suggest, however, that his dramatic warning is not based on either U.S. intelligence reporting or analysis.

Citing “U.S. officials,” The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the alleged intelligence “showed that Iran drew up plans to target U.S. forces in Iraq and possibly Syria, to orchestrate attacks in the Bab el-Mandeb strait near Yemen through proxies and in the Personal Gulf with its own armed drones.”

But in the very next paragraph, the report quotes an official saying it is “unclear whether the new intelligence indicated operations Tehran planned to carry out imminently or contingency preparations in the case U.S.-Iran tensions erupted into hostilities.”

A Defense Department source said the intelligence showed “a change in behavior that could be interpreted to foreshadow an attack on American forces or interests,” according to The New York Times’ story on the matter. But the source didn’t actually say that any emerging intelligence had led to such a conclusion or even that any U.S. intelligence official has come to that conclusion.

The timing of the alleged new intelligence also suggests that Bolton’s claim is false. “As recently as last week there were no obvious sign of a new threat,” The Wall Street Journal reported. The New York Times similarly reported that “several Defense officials” said “as recently as last Friday they have had not seen reason to change the American military’s posture in the region.”

Normally, it would require intelligence from either a highly credible source within the Iranian government or an intercept of a sensitive communication from Iran to justify this kind of accusation. But no news outlet has brought word that any such spectacular new intelligence has found its way to the White House or the Pentagon.

The Journal’s report revealed, moreover, that Bolton has only a “fresh intelligence assessment” rather than any new intelligence report. That “assessment” is clearly not a product of the intelligence community, which would have taken at least several days to arrive at such a fundamental reinterpretation of Iranian intentions. The mysterious new “assessment” was evidently unknown outside Bolton’s office before Bolton swung into action last weekend.

We now know, in fact, that the sources behind Bolton’s claim were Israel’s national security adviser and intelligence agency. Axios published a report Monday by leading Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, who covers national security for Israel’s Channel 13, revealing that a delegation of senior Israeli officials had given Bolton “information” about “possible Iranian plots against the U.S. or its allies in the Gulf” two weeks earlier.

The Israeli delegation, led by national security adviser Meir Ben Shabbat, met with Bolton and other unnamed officials in the White House, according to Ravid, to discuss possible Iranian plans. Bolton himself tweeted on April 15 about his meeting with Shabbat:

Great meeting with Israeli National Security Advisor Meir Ben-Shabbat today. The close United States-Israel strategic partnership reflects the tremendous strength of the ties between our governments and the citizens of our two allied countries. pic.twitter.com/yEMQaFpHVx

— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) April 15, 2019

Israeli officials told Ravid that they understood that “intelligence, gathered by the Mossad intelligence agency, was part of the reason for Bolton’s announcement.” What Ravid’s official sources told him reveals, however, that what the Israelis provided to Bolton was not really new intelligence at all.; it consisted of several scenarios for what the Iranians might be planning, according to one Israeli official.

“It is still unclear to us what the Iranians are trying to do and how they are planning to do it,” the Israeli official told Ravid, “but it is clear to us that the Iranian temperature is on the rise as a result of the growing U.S. pressure campaign against them, and that they are considering retaliating against U.S. interests in the Gulf.”

That revelation explains the lack of evidence of either genuine U.S. intelligence reporting or proper assessment to support Bolton’s statement.

Bolton is an old hand at using allegedly damning intelligence on Iran to advance a plan of aggressive U.S. war. In 2003-04, he leaked satellite photographs of specific sites in Iran’s Parchin military complex to the press, claiming those images provided evidence of covert Iranian nuclear weapons-related experiments—even though they showed nothing of the sort. He then tried to pressure International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to insist on an inspection of the sites. When ElBaradei finally relented, he found nothing in that inspection to support Bolton’s claim.

Bolton’s deceptive maneuver has the effect of increasing the range of contingencies that would trigger a U.S. strike on Iran and represent a major advance toward his long-declared intention to attack it. More alarmingly, however, some media outlets have reported his claims without any serious questioning.

Given the violent struggles in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Israel itself, Bolton and the Netanyahu government will be able to portray an incident as an attack by Shiite militias, the Houthis or Hamas on Israeli, Saudi or U.S. “interests,” just as Bolton and Pompeo did last fall. That, in turn, would offer an opportunity for urging Trump to approve a strike against one or more Iranian military targets.

Even more alarming is that both acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and new CENTCOM commander Gen. Kenneth McKenzie have signed up for the Bolton initiative. That means that the Pentagon and military leaders can no longer be counted on to oppose such a war, as they did in 2007, when Vice President Dick Cheney pushed unsuccessfully for a plan to retaliate against a future Iraqi militia attack on U.S. troops in Iraq.

The United States is in danger of falling for yet another war ruse as malignant as those that led Congress and the mainstream media to accept the invasion of Iraq or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

*

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

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist, historian and author who has covered U.S. wars and interventions in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Syria since 2004 and was the 2012 winner of the Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. His most recent book is “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare” (Just World Books, 2014).

Featured image is from Medium

There’s no doubt that India is one of the most geostrategically positioned countries in the world today and that its tilt one way or the other in the New Cold War could have major hemispheric reverberations for this global competition. That’s why the South Asian state has emerged as an object of intense rivalry between Russia and the US, with both Great Powers doing their utmost to get notionally “non-aligned” India to take their “side”.

The tug-of-war between the two is rapidly climaxing, however, after the US threw down the gauntlet and reportedly issued an ultimatum to India. The “Hindustan Times” published a piece headlined “US offers to sell THAAD defence system to India as alternative to Russian S-400s” detailing the offer that America made to its new “Major Defense Partner”. According to the outlet, the US is ready to impose CAATSA secondary sanctions against India if it honors its S-400 deal with Moscow, though seeing as how the country genuinely needs to procure new air defense systems, the US is willing to sell it THAADs instead.

Quite clearly, India’s choice one way or the other will greatly determine its geostrategic disposition in the New Cold War, but the odds don’t seem to be in Russia’s favor. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the international authority on the global arms industry, reported that Russia’s arms exports to India dropped 42% between 2009-2018 and were replaced by Western wares from the US, Israel, and France instead.

Moreover, India recently agreed to abide by the US’ unilateral anti-Iranian sanctions by discontinuing its purchase of oil from the country after Washington refused to renew its previous sanctions waiver to New Delhi. This will have catastrophic consequences for Iran because it will exacerbate the economic component of the ongoing Hybrid War against it by depriving the Islamic Republic of what had hitherto been its second-largest customer, and it also strongly suggests that India might bend to America’s will on the S-400s, too.

Simply put, Indo-American trade is much larger than its Indo-Russo counterpart, so Washington naturally wields much more leverage over New Delhi than Moscow does and isn’t afraid to weaponize it in pursuit of its grand strategic ends. That’s why it looks likely that Prime Minister Modi will bow down to Trump on trade if he wins re-election, at least judging by the comments made by the US Commerce Secretary during his recent trip to the country, in which case it should be assumed to be a fait accompli that India would also submit to American pressure on its S-400 deal as well.

Should that scenario come to pass, then it would surely have consequences not only for Russia, but for the whole of Eurasia as well. It’s difficult to imagine that the US would allow India to continue with its trans-Iranian North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) to Russia under those conditions, so threatening to impose secondary sanctions against it for non-compliance with America’s unilateral ones could deal serious economic damage to the Iranian economy if India bends on that issue too.

In addition, the US’ so-called “Indo-Pacific” concept clearly intends to use India to “contain” China, something that was noted by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and Sri Lankan Ambassador to Russia Dayan Jayatilleka. The US appreciates India’s stalwart refusal to join China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) just as much as it does its geostrategic location as a South Asian beachhead into Eurasia, which is yet another major commonality between these two countries and further explains why New Delhi has been wandering westward over the past half-decade since the start of the New Cold War.

As such, it appears very likely that the “Battle for India” will be won by the US instead of Russia, but the New Cold War would nevertheless be far from over since Moscow can just ramp up its relations with the global pivot state of Pakistan and focus on forming the Multipolar Trilateral between it, Islamabad, and their shared strategic partners in Beijing in order to counteract the strategic gains that America might make in South Asia through  India.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

On April 30, 2019, the Bolivarian Revolution defeated the latest in a series of attempted U.S.-orchestrated coups d’états since the inaugural one on January 23, when Guaidó was recognized as President by Washington.

One of the main pretexts being used for the U.S. intervention is that the May 2018 presidential elections were supposedly steeped in electoral irregularities and therefore deficient. Thus, Maduro was, according to this false narrative, not elected democratically.

However, in a twist of irony, it is the very U.S. interventionist activities – ongoing and supported by the Lima Group – that resulted in the ratification of Maduro as President. Since January 23, Venezuelans in the millions have marched and demonstrated innumerable times all across the country in support of Maduro as President and the Bolivarian Revolution he embodies. The detractors may scoff at this manifestation of political expression as not conforming to the acceptable norms of democracy, let alone electoral procedures.

However, millions of Venezuelans have continuously – for close to three months – voted with their feet and their voices. Can this experience replace actual voting in a ballot box? obviously, it cannot replace the formality. Nonetheless, the ongoing “voting in the streets and workplaces” is even more meaningful than a simple deposit in a ballot box. In fact, on May 4 the Venezuelans armed forces “went to the polls” once again to ratify what they voted for in May 2018.

It is only poetic justice that Maduro has strengthened his position as the legitimate President despite, or rather as a result of, the U.S. Maduro and the government know this; so does the U.S. However, the U.S. cannot afford to admit it, as it challenges the U.S.-centric view that people do not want socialism and revolution, which is supposedly forced upon the people despite their will.

In addition to an electoral procedure serving as an excuse for U.S. intervention, the charge that Maduro and the government are “authoritarian” at best, or a dictatorship, irrespective of how he was elected also serves as a pretext. Why has the U.S. not been able to overthrow the Maduro government? Is it because it is a dictatorship? No, if it were indeed a dictatorship, it would be relatively easy for the U.S. to win over the people, with a dose of naïveté, to free themselves from their “oppressors.”

The U.S. could not succeed because of the civic–military union. Despite all the attempts, including the latest one on April 30, it remains not only fully intact, but its consciousness, patriotism and military strength have all been strengthened.

The fact that the already broad armed alliance is continuously sinking its roots yet further into the communities that are arming themselves (at their own request) makes what would normally be applauded as democratization seen as another proof of dictatorship.

The U.S. is pitted against this force. Can the U.S. and its puppet offer democracy? Its stated goal is to convert Venezuela into an economic and political satellite of the U.S. In the face of this, the civic–military alliance and the Maduro government are the guarantee of democracy for the majority of Venezuelans.

Thus, in yet another twist of irony, the very government that has been dubbed a dictatorship, as a result of U.S. policy, is on a daily basis acting – and more importantly, being seen by millions of Venezuelans – as the instrument of democracy for Venezuela, and not the antithesis of it.

This consciousness is worth its eight in gold, and it is omnipresent in society, including the military. The U.S. claims it wants democracy for Venezuela, but the majority of Venezuelans are increasingly gripping on to their own government as the instrument for maintaining – and seemingly strengthening – democracy. Virtue is rewarded while infamy is punished. Moreover, the way the situation is evolving, the U.S. is destined to be punished time and time again, as it is blinded by its own self-serving, preconceived views on democracy.

The Bolivarian Revolution’s resistance to the ongoing U.S.-led economic and political war is going to be one of the most heroic chapters in post-World War II Latin American history. Today, millions of Venezuelans are writing history.

It is this very outcome that the critics of the Trump policy fear. Their only difference with Trump is their claim that his economic/political (and potential military) intervention is “counterproductive.” What does that mean? They fear what they call “polarization.” This is a liberal code word for the strengthening of Chavismo, which strikes fear in the hearts and minds of the “left” opposition.

The Bolivarian Revolution metes out poetic justice against all the accusations against it. It is turning the tables on history and on its accusers, all the while increasingly winning the support of people worldwide. This includes the people in the U.S. itself and in one of its main allies, Canada.

On the other hand, the U.S. government is increasingly isolated. It is lashing out like a mad dog and swinging widely, such as on Cuba, and in the process even further isolating itself on an international scale.

*

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

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. As a journalist, he collaborates with many websites in North America, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. Twitter and Facebook. His website is www.arnoldaugust.com

Featured image: Caracas, May 4, 2019 (Credit: Twitter Account of Nicolás Maduro)

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki on Thursday voiced opposition to US President Donald Trump‘s so-called ‘Deal of the Century‘, saying the terms amount to “surrender” for Palestinians.

“This is not a peace plan but rather conditions for surrender and there is no amount of money that can make it acceptable,” al-Maliki said, addressing a UN Security Council meeting.

The Palestinians cut off contacts with the Trump administration after it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in December 2017 and have accused the United States of taking a strongly pro-Israel stance.

“We cannot afford not to engage with any peace efforts,” said Maliki, but he added that the US efforts could not be characterized “nor can qualify, as peace efforts, unfortunately.”

European powers along with Russia and China fear the US plan will ditch the two-state solution to the conflict that provides for a Palestinian state to be established as part of a final settlement.

The Palestinian Authority position of a two-state solution is supported by the UN and almost all of its 193 member-states.

The long-awaited US peace plan was crafted over two years by a team led by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt.

It is widely expected to impose Israel’s positions on the Palestinians, without addressing key final status issues such as Jerusalem, illegal settlements, and borders – or ending the occupation.

The peace plan won’t be released before the Muslim holy month of Ramadan ends during the first week of June, and perhaps not even then.

“It seems that the American position has been totally taken by the Israeli position and right now the US administration has no independent position,” al-Maliki added.

Israel seized control of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and has militarily occupied the Palestinian territories ever since.

Successive Israeli governments have built illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, with the number of Israeli settlers estimated at over 650,000.

*

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

Today, 187 countries took a major step forward in curbing the plastic waste crisis by adding plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that controls the movement of hazardous waste from one country to another. The amendmentsrequire exporters to obtain the consent of receiving countries before shipping most contaminated, mixed, or unrecyclable plastic waste, providing an important tool for countries in the Global South to stop the dumping of unwanted plastic waste into their country.

After China banned imports of most plastic waste in 2018, developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, have received a huge influx of contaminated and mixed plastic wastes that are difficult or even impossible to recycle. Norway’s proposed amendments to the Basel Convention provides countries the right to refuse unwanted or unmanageable plastic waste.

The decision reflects a growing recognition around the world of the toxic impacts of plastic and the plastic waste trade. The majority of countries expressed their support for the proposal and over one million people globally signed two public petitions from Avaaz and SumOfUs. Yet even amidst this overwhelming support, there were a few vocal outliers who opposed listing plastic under Annex II of the Basel Convention. These included the United States, the largest exporter of plastic waste in the world; the American Chemistry Council, a prominent petrochemical industry lobbying group; and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, a business association largely comprised of waste brokers. As the United States is not a party to the Basel Convention, it will be banned from trading plastic waste with developing countries that are Basel Parties but not part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

David Azoulay, Environmental Health Director, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):

“Today’s decision demonstrates that countries are finally catching up with the urgency and magnitude of the plastic pollution issue and shows what ambitious international leadership looks like. Plastic pollution in general and plastic waste in particular remain a major threat to people and the planet, but we are encouraged by the decision of the Basel Convention as we look to the future bold decisions that will be needed to tackle plastic pollution at its roots, starting with reducing production.”
Contact: David Azoulay, +41 78 75 78 756, [email protected]

Von Hernandez, Global Coordinator, Break Free from Plastic:

“This is a crucial first step towards stopping the use of developing countries as a dumping ground for the world’s plastic waste, especially those coming from rich nations. Countries at the receiving end of mixed and unsorted plastic waste from foreign sources now have the right to refuse these problematic shipments, in turn compelling source countries to ensure exports of clean, recyclable plastics only. Recycling will not be enough, however.  Ultimately, production of plastics has to be significantly curtailed to effectively resolve the plastic pollution crisis.”
Contact: Von Hernandez, +63 9175263050, vonhernandez (Skype)

Martin Bourque, Executive Director, Ecology Center:

“Recycling is supposed to be part of the solution, this legislation will help prevent it from being a source of pollution. False claims by the plastic industry about plastic recycling resulted in a complete disaster for communities and ecosystems around the globe. This legislation raises the bar for plastic recycling which is good for people and the planet, and will help restore consumer confidence that recycling is still the right thing to do.”
Contact: Martin Bourque, [email protected]

Mageswari Sangaralingam, Research Officer, Friends of the Earth Malaysia:

“Controls on the plastic waste trade are much needed now to curb dumping of waste in the Global South. The inclusion of prior informed consent is a step towards addressing the issues of the plastic waste trade and pollution crisis. Recycling is not enough, we need to break free from plastic.”
Contact: Mageswari Sangaralingam, +60128782706, [email protected]

Dr Tadesse Amera, CoChair, International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) (Ethiopia):

“Africa knows a lot about waste dumping due to our experience with e-waste. This decision will help prevent the continent from becoming the next target of plastic waste dumping after Asia closes its doors.”
Contact: Tadesse Amera, +251911243030 (phone/whatsapp), [email protected]

Prigi Arisandi, Founder, Ecoton (Indonesia):

“We hope these Convention amendments will reduce marine litter — but on the ground in Indonesia we will continue monitoring the waste trade, and pushing our government to properly manage imported plastics. We call on exporting countries to respect their obligation not to dump their rubbish in Global South countries and our government to strictly enforce restrictions and strengthen our custom controls.”
Contact: Prigi Arisandi, +62 8175033042, [email protected]

Yuyun Ismawati, Co-founder, BaliFokus/Nexus3 Foundation:

“This amendment could be a game changer and force every country to set a higher standard of responsible plastic waste management. Toxic plastics disposed by rich communities in other countries will no longer become the burden of poor communities.”
Contact: Yuyun Ismawati, +447583768707, [email protected]

Sirine Rached, Global Policy Advocate, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA):

“It’s only fair that countries should have the right to refuse plastic pollution shipped to their borders. China had raised the ambition, arguing for countries to have the right to refuse virtually all plastic waste imports, but the final result was a compromise. Since the onslaught of plastic dumping will continue for a year until the measures come into effect, GAIA calls on countries to protect themselves from global plastic waste dumping by banning dirty plastic imports in national law. Countries can tackle the plastic pollution problem while protecting the climate, by focusing on reducing plastics and shifting to Zero Waste systems free from dirty technologies like incineration or plastic-to-fuel.”
Contact: Sirine Rached, +33 6 76 90 02 80, [email protected]

Jim Puckett, Executive Director, Basel Action Network (BAN):

“Today we have taken a major first step to stem the tide of plastic waste now flowing from the rich developed countries to developing countries in Africa and Asia, all in the name of “recycling,” but causing massive and harmful pollution, both on land and in the sea. A true circular economy was never meant to circulate pollution around the globe. It can only be achieved by eliminating negative externalities and not just pushing them off to developing countries.”
Contact: Jim Puckett, [email protected]

Tim Grabiel, Senior Lawyer, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA):

“The Basel amendments are a critical pillar of an emerging global architecture to address plastic pollution. Other international bodies must now do their part, including ambitious measures under the IMO and ultimately a new legally binding UN treaty. The EU was a vocal and active supporter of the Basel amendments, proposing to increase ambition so that only the cleanest of clean plastic waste would not be subject to notification. The EU is not only leading by example but taking its Plastics Strategy to the international level.”
Contact: Tim Grabiel, +33 6 32 76 77 04, [email protected]

*

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

Featured image is from breakfreefromplastic

Trump destroyed his chance at being a successful president by the stupid appointments he has made.  At the moment he is being set up by his national security advisor John Bolton and Israel for a war with Iran.

Using the same format of lies that was used against Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Venezuela, Bolton has accused Iran of “troubling and escalatory indications” of a forthcoming Iranian attack on American forces in the Middle East.  To help protect against the attack, Bolton has ordered Patriot missile batteries, an aircraft carrier strike group, and a bomber strike force to the region.

Even the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, pointed out that Bolton failed to identify the “troubling and escalatory” Iranian actions. (See this) No one else has seen any sign of them.

The reason for the Patriot missiles is not to deter Iran from an attack, but to prevent successful Iranian response to an attack on Iran.

This is the likely situation:  The deal between the Washington Ziocons and Netanyahu is that either Israel will attack an American ship or whatever is selected, and it will be blamed on Iran, thus forcing Trump to “defend America” and retaliate, or Israel using American disguise will attack Iran, thus provoking a response from Iran.  

Iran is already on hair trigger from having been provoked excessively by Washington withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear agreement, reimposing sanctions, and making endless false accusations against Iran, as Washington has done against Russia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Yemen.  It wouldn’t take much more to set off Iranian emotions.  

Trump is clearly set-up.  If Bolton and Netanyahu want the US at war with Iran, it is their call.

And they do want the US at war with Iran.  Iran and Syria back Hezbollah, and Hezbollah prevents Israel’s annexation of southern Lebanon, which Israel has twice tried only to have its army, which is not good for anything except killing unarmed women and children in Gaza, quickly defeated by Hezbollah.  Thus, eliminating support for Hezbollah is a high priority for Israel and its neoconservative allies in Washington.

The neoconservatives have an additionall reason for delivering chaos to Iran.  If Bolton can produce a situation in Iran like the one the US created in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, American-supplied jihadists can be infiltrated into Muslin provinces in the Russian Federation as punishment for Russia’s independent stance in world affairs.

The stakes for Russia are higher in Iran than in Syria.  Russia can stand aside only at huge cost to itself.

China also has an interest.  Until the Russian energy pipeline to China is completed, China needs Iranian oil.  Disruption of Iran by chaos is a way of throttling China by reducing China’s energy supply.

The war that Bolton and Netanyahu are preparing to spring on Trump is likely to be much larger than they think.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from FAIR

Visiting Central Asia had been on my bucket list for quite a while. So when I finally got the chance to head to Kazakhstan, I decided to take a pit-stop on my way there. This is how I got to Tashkent, the capital city of Uzbekistan, and also the most populous city in former-Soviet Central Asia.

So what was Tashkent like? Considering the fact that it is a popular tourist destination, both from scenic and historical points of view, a lot has already been written about its various monuments and attractions. As such, I’d rather stick to my own observations about the city in this travelogue.

Uzbeks, in general, are very helpful people. They’d go out of the way to help you with directions, advice and anything else that you might ask for. Ask any passerby for a direction, chances are high they won’t understand your language. But, they’d be quick to open up the translate app in their phone, and ask you to speak to its voice input.

Compare this with the shrug and “I don’t know” behavior that’s the norm in many parts of the world. 🙂

Speaking of Friendliness…

“Welcome to Uzbekistan!”

Said the immigration guy as he stamped my passport. This was the first in a list of many “wait, what!” moments that I was soon to have there. Traveling in various countries, be it the Gulf, far-eastern Europe or even India, I’ve never come across an immigration or passport control official who ‘welcomes’ visitors. Can’t blame them; customer satisfaction is not part of their job. But it was pleasantly surprising to hear that coming from an immigration official.

This was not a one-off incident though. On my way out of Tashkent, at the departures area, I accidentally dropped a small envelope from my laptop bag while checking-in for my flight. Over an hour later, when I was at the lounge, I found the check-in guy looking around for me — “Sir, you forgot this paper!”

Tashkent: The City and Tourism

During my visit, the Novruz decorations were still intact around Tashkent. Generally speaking, Tashkent is an oddly “green” city — keeping in mind it is the capital of the country and the seat of almost everything important over there, the number of trees is fairly high. It was easy for me to walk around the city and not feel tired, all thanks to the clean air and consistently pleasant April weather.

Tourism has a big role to play in the Uzbek economy. The country contains various historic sites, and is the birthplace of Tamerlane as well as the first Mughal Emperor Babur. More importantly, Tashkent itself lies on the historic Silk Route.

All of this has prompted the government to focus heavily on tourism. There is an electronic visa system that works only for tourist visas. Plus, you can easily grab a “tourists’ flyer” from any hotel’s lounge in the city. Such flyers contain a good deal of info related to important places to visit, things to do, etc.

These flyers were identical across all of Tashkent. This made me curious, and yes, my guess was correct — the government has, by and large, attempted its best to streamline the tourism sector. Unlike Georgia, there are no unregulated drawing-room based hotels in Tashkent. There are a decent set of rules and regulations in place, with fairly stringent requirements for hotel and tour operators, including background checks and site visits.

Talk to any local, and they’d tell you that things were not the same half a decade ago. But over the course of the past few years, the Uzbek government has attempted to curb down corruption and regulate virtually every aspect associated with the tourism industry. This has improved Uzbekistan’s reputation as a “safe tourist destination”. Back in the day, Uzbekistan used to be a closed enigma. Now, more and more tourists are flocking to Tashkent, Samarkand, Bukhara and elsewhere.

The Police and Security Checks

The abundant number of policemen on the streets of Tashkent is something that no visitor can fail to notice. Having read a large array of negative remarks about police in Central Asia, I had my apprehensions. However, the folks in uniform mostly keep to themselves and almost always greet you with a smile. Personally, my experience was the exact opposite of the online reviews — the locals did remark that problems arise when visitors take too many liberties (read: get drunk and forget their way back).

That said, there are innumerable security checks at every public place, such as airports and train stations. And they love stamping things! Successfully entered from Gate A? Stamp on paper! Went upstairs to the lounge? Stamp on paper!

Make sure you carry all the tickets and booking receipts in printed format. Repeat: keep everything on paper!

Picturize this: I dislike carrying papers, and keep everything on my phone. The guy at the security desk was all geared up with the stamp in his hand. He was expecting to be handed a paper that he can place the stamp on, but instead got the phone from me. He gave me the confused glare of the century.

Wanna Go Back in Time?

The infrastructure is well developed, albeit most of it is from the Soviet era. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find something that does not bear a mark of its Soviet legacy. For instance, I stayed at Wyndham Hotel Tashkent. A great hotel with friendly staff and really fast internet (oh, and terrific breakfast).

However, this particular Wyndham was nothing like the ones that you might find in Bahrain or UAE. There were no ergonomic adjustable chairs and no modern energy saving lamps. The furniture, though in perfect shape and squeaky clean, almost shouted at me — “I’m older than you!”

The table reminded me of my grandfather’s study table, and the wooden chair had a good deal of ornamental work. Let’s put it this way — if you were to remove the flatscreen TV, the room would absolutely belong to the set of a 1980s sitcom.

There is a high speed train that runs from Tashkent to Bukhara via Samarkand — Afrosiyab High Speed Rail (operating speed: 250 km/h). Since the number of tourists is fairly large almost all round the year, tickets are often sold out in advance.

With that said, there is one very visible problem that visitors might face in Tashkent. The country, by and large, is a predominantly cash economy. Virtually all transactions happen in cash, and it is not very easy to find an ATM either. More often than not, most of the roadside ATMs do not work.

I generally travel with a very negligible amount of cash, and rely heavily on cards. Naturally, I did not have enough cash to go by, and the ATMs around the city weren’t really in the mood to be of any help. Thankfully, Wyndham Tashkent had a working ATM that dispelled USD (not the local currency). So one can withdraw USD and convert it at an exchange for Uzbek Som.

So here is a pro-tip: if you’re ever visiting Tashkent anytime soon, make sure you carry a responsibly decent amount of cash. Perchance you find yourself running out of cash, try the ATMs at hotels or banks — those are more likely to be working.

Conclusion

Visiting Tashkent was a unique and memorable experience.

Even more unique was flying with Uzbekistan Airways, an airline that is a mixed bag of emotions. On one hand, their Business Lounge wi-fi refuses to work unless you provide a local Uzbek number for authentication (yes, goodluck with your international roaming SIM card!). On the other hand, their airplanes are in good shape (read: brand new) and the flight experience is very pleasant.

Similarly, booking a ticket is a mess, with no web check-in, and no mobile-friendly website. But the billing and refund process is a breeze should you wish to cancel — they’d even refund 100% of the cost of some tickets. I can write on and on about Uzbekistan Airways, so perhaps this is something that deserves an article of its own for a later date.

It’s a pity I did not have time to visit Samarkand and Bukhara. Perhaps, some other time…

*

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

Sufyan bin Uzayr is a writer, educator, traveler and analyst with a special focus on current affairs. His op-eds often expose the atrocities being committed against the minorities, such as the Rohingya people of Myanmar or the ethnic tensions in South Sudan and CAR. Sufyan bin Uzayr is a published author and an experienced web developer. Read his blog at www.politicalperiscope.com

The United States Army has established a long history of war crimes, beginning with the genocide of native peoples in the North America, through those committed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, more recently.

Usually, the U.S. government, the armed forces, and the press are able to cover up the atrocities committed. To cite a few examples from the war in Iraq, on November 19, 2005, U.S. troops entered the town of Haditha, killing individuals indiscriminately. Aws Fahmi, a witness to the massacre, saw Marines murder members of three families, and heard his neighbor beg in English for his life and those of his loved ones, including his daughters, 14, 10, five, three and one years of age.

Nine-year-old Eman Walid Abdul-Hameed recounted that the Marines broke into his home around 7:00 am, saying that they “entered the bedroom where my father was praying and shot him. They went into my grandmother’s bedroom and killed her without a thought. They threw a grenade under my grandfather’s bed.”

The attack lasted five hours and the Marines killed a total of 24 civilians.

On November 13, 2006, U.S. troops opened tank fire on the Al-Dhubat neighborhood of Ramadi and killed some 35 people, all civilians. Haji Jassim, 60, told Inter Press Service that residents “were not allowed to go near the houses to rescue the wounded, so many bled to death.”

In November of 2004, U.S. forces began Operation Phantom Fury against the city of Fallujah. Over ten days, they destroyed the city and killed thousands of people, using white phosphorus munitions prohibited by international treaties.

A video of the operation, recorded by NBC correspondent Kevin Sites, shows several wounded Iraqis in a mosque, guarded by Marines. The detainees had been interrogated and were left on the ground overnight. A Marine pointed to a wounded man lying on the floor and said: “He’s not dead, just pretending”. The soldier raises his rifle and shoots him in the head. Another Marine shouts: “Well, he’s dead now.” The execution of a prisoner, especially a wounded one, is a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.

The United States deployed troops in Afghanistan in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 Twin Towers attack, reaching 100,000 soldiers. Several international organizations have denounced the actions of U.S. military forces and the CIA in that country, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in The Hague, which has processed hundreds of allegations of torture and assassinations of civilians.

According to information available, Gambian jurist Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the ICC, stated that members of the armed forces inflicted “torture, cruel treatment, and offenses against the dignity of persons, in Afghan territory,” acts that qualify, according to International Law, as war crimes.

The response of the United States was not long in coming: The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, was denied a visa, preventing him from entering the United States.

Washington has not ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding text and has taken the position that its soldiers will not be tried by international organizations.

John Bolton, National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump, stressed in a speech at the Federalist Society, a conservative Washington forum,

“We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own.”

Last March, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated his intention to refuse entry to ICC officials to investigate U.S. personnel in relation to Afghanistan. The Court is not directly affiliated to the United Nations, but the chief prosecutor informs the General Assembly of its activities.

Under this pressure, the ICC declined to investigate the allegations of atrocities committed by the U.S. in that country and President Trump praised the decision:

“This is a great international victory, not only for these patriots, but also for the rule of law.”

For her part, the prosecutor insisted that there is “a reasonable basis to believe” that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed in Afghanistan, and that all parties must be investigated, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the CIA.

*

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

Featured image is from Oxfam International

National Security Advisor John Bolton’s announcement this week that the U.S. is deploying a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region seemed perfectly framed to put America on a war footing with Iran. And it is.

Claiming that the decision was made in response to “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings,” Bolton declared that “the United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime.” But, he added, “we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.”

It took the Defense Department a full day to respond to Bolton’s statement, with acting Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan finally tweeting that the

“announced deployment of the @CVN_72 and a @USAirForce bomber task force to the @CENTCOM area of responsibility…represents a prudent repositioning of assets in response to indications of a credible threat by Iranian regime forces.”

Shanahan followed with another tweet:

“We call on the Iranian regime to cease all provocation. We will hold the Iranian regime accountable for any attack on US forces or our interests.”

The USS Abraham Lincoln battle group had deployed a month ago from its Norfolk, Virginia, home port and was recently engaged in maneuvers in the Mediterranean Sea. The Pentagon acknowledged that the Abraham Lincoln was scheduled to support CENTCOM during its deployment, but that its arrival was being “accelerated” due to intelligence indicating an imminent Iranian threat.

The fact that Bolton chose to repurpose routine deployments of U.S. military forces into the Middle East as an emergency response to an unspecified threat from Iran is in and of itself a curiosity. Bolton is an advisor to the president, a non-statutory (i.e., not confirmed by the Senate) member of the White House staff who is not in the military chain of command and lacks any command authority.

While Shanahan followed up indicating that the orders for the deployments had been authorized by him the day of Bolton’s announcement, this simply isn’t the case—they were authorized well prior to Bolton’s statement. The fact that the White House announced the deployment of U.S. military forces in response to allegations of an emerging threat in the Middle East, as opposed to by the Pentagon, reflects the political and operational roots of the current crisis.

“U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM, the U.S. unified military command responsible for the Middle East] continues to track a number of credible threat streams emanating from the regime in Iran throughout the CENTCOM area of responsibility,” a CENTCOM spokesman noted after Shanahan’s tweet.

This threat was deemed serious enough for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel a long-planned visit with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. Pompeo instead made a secret trip to Baghdad, where, according to reports, he met with Iraq’s political and national security leadership to discuss the emerging threat from Iran.

In a statement made to reporters on his way to Baghdad, Pompeo declared that

“it is absolutely the case that we have seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and it is equally the case that we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests.” He added, “If these actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy—a militia group, Hezbollah—we will hold the Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”

But the reality is that the deployment of American military forces and the diversion of the secretary of state to Baghdad is little more than grand theater. This is being done in support of a policy dictated by Israeli intelligence and passed to Bolton during a meeting on April 16, 2019 at the White House, where, according to Bolton, they discussed “Iranian malign activity and other destabilizing actors in the Middle East and around the world.”

The intelligence, derived from analysis conducted by the Mossad, consisted of “scenarios” regarding what Iran “might” be planning. According to an Israeli official, “It is still unclear to us what the Iranians are trying to do and how they are planning to do it, but it is clear to us that the Iranian temperature is on the rise as a result of the growing U.S. pressure campaign against them, and they are considering retaliating against U.S. interests in the Gulf.”

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has derided Bolton’s statements as directed by what he derisively termed the “B-team,” which includes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed. Zarif accuses Bolton, in concert with the rest of the “B-team,” of trying to push President Trump “into a confrontation he doesn’t want.”

The precise nature of the supposed Iranian threat hasn’t been officially articulated by either the White House or the Pentagon. CENTCOM had nebulously noted that “recent and clear indications that Iranian and Iranian proxy forces were making preparations to possibly attack US forces in the region,” and added that the threats were both maritime and on land.

However, CNN, citing unnamed Pentagon officials, has reported that specific intelligence that Iran was moving short-range ballistic missiles by boat into the Persian Gulf, combined with other indicators, is what triggered the military deployment, and that additional deployments of American forces, including Patriot PAC-3 surface-to-air missiles, was being considered. “It’s not clear if Iran could launch the missiles from the boats or if they are transporting them to be used by Iranian forces on land,” CNN reported.

This statement is facially absurd. Iran possesses a well-known family of short-range ballistic missiles derived from an indigenously produced copy of the Frog-7, a Russian-made short-range artillery rocket. This weapon, known as the Zelzal-2, has been exported to Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, where it has been used against Syrian rebels, Saudi-backed opponents of the Houthis, and Israel. The Zelzal-2, lacking a guidance and control system, is not a short-range ballistic missile, but rather an unguided rocket projectile. Iran does, however, possess two derivatives of the Zelzal-2—the Fateh-110 and the Zulfiquar—which meet the technical definition of a short-range ballistic missile.

The Fateh-110 has been exported to Hezbollah, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq. In September 2018, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired seven Fateh-110 missiles against Iranian Kurdish opposition forces based in northern Iraq. An even more advanced derivative of the Zelzal-2, known as the Zulfiqar, has recently entered service; in June 2017 and in October 2018, the IRGC fired Zulfiqar surface-to-surface ballistic missiles against ISIS targets located inside Syria.

These missiles are real, and they do pose an active and ongoing threat to American forces deployed in the Middle East. But they are not designed to be operated aboard a ship. Iran has already been accused of supplying Houthi rebel forces with short- and medium-range ballistic missiles via maritime supply routes. A continuation of this activity should hardly trigger a crisis requiring the emergency deployment of U.S. forces. Likewise, Iran has provided short-range ballistic missiles to both Syria and Hezbollah using an existing air bridge between Tehran and Damascus.

Finally, Iran has transferred short-range ballistic missiles to the Iraqi popular militias, Shiite groups affiliated with the IRGC. All this activity has taken place over the course of the past few years and, except for the Houthis, none have required missiles to be sent via sea.

The threat being promulgated by Bolton, CENTCOM, Pompeo, and the media ignores the reality that Iran has been preparing to strike American military forces in the Middle East for years as part of its efforts towards self-defense. Iran’s short-range ballistic missile capability is part of a larger missile threat that could, at a moment’s notice, blanket U.S. bases in the region with high explosives. Dispatching the Abraham Lincoln battle group and a B-52 task force to the Middle East is an act of theatrical bravado that will do nothing to change that. Iran’s missile force is, for the most part, mobile.

The American experience in the Gulf War, and Saudi Arabia’s experience in Yemen, should underscore the reality that mobile relocatable targets such as Iran’s missile arsenal are virtually impossible to interdict through airpower.

By purposefully escalating tensions with Iran using manufactured intelligence about an all too real threat, Bolton is setting the country up for a war it is not prepared to fight and most likely cannot win. This point is driven home by the fact that Mike Pompeo has been recalled from his trip to participate in a National Security Council meeting where the Pentagon will lay out in stark detail the realities of a military conflict with Iran, including the high costs. (Hopefully, they’ll emphasize that Iran would win such a war simply by not losing—all they’d have to do is ride out any American attack.)

That Israel is behind the scenes supplying the intelligence and motivation makes Bolton’s actions even more questionable. It shows that it is John Bolton, not Iran, who poses the greatest threat to American national security today.

*

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

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Dealbreaker: Donald Trump and the Unmaking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (2018) by Clarity Press.

Featured image: Iranian Army in 2016. (Creative Commons/Wikimedia)

After the water was suddenly shut off in the Venezuelan embassy in the United States located in Washington, D.C. Saturday morning, CODEPINK activists are being stopped by local police from bringing in food to those inside.

Electricity inside the building was shut off despite all bills being up to date May 8. CODEPINK co-founder, Medea Benjamin, tweeted Saturday morning the water had also just been shut off.

“BREAKING NEWS: The US govt turned off water at Venezuela Embassy this morning to try to force the #EmbassyProtctionCollective to leave. No lights, no water, little food. Come show support. 1pm 1099 30th St NW DC. Join us in saying No Coup. No US Intervention #HandsOffVenezeula” tweeted the human rights leader whose organization also advocates to free Palestine.​​

Benjamin added in a followup tweet:

“Now the US govt has turned off the water in the Venezuela Embassy to smoke us out. No lights, no water, little food. This is how Big Brother tries to crush other countries as well. We remain firm. Send love to #embassyprotectioncollective #HandsOffVenezeula.”

Venezuelans calling for a US military invasion should study a little history first. US invasions bring death, destruction and mayhem in their wake—often for decades. Negotiations, not war!!!

— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) May 11, 2019

The group had already planned a rally outside the embassy in continued support of Maduro and to denounce the U.S.’s continued threats to use military force to overthrow the president.

By Saturday afternoon, teleSUR correspondent in the U.S., Alina R. Duarte, tweeted video of D.C. police and opposition protesters blocking Venezuelan government supporters from bringing food to those who have been inside for weeks and are running out of food and provisions.

The police openly working with the Venezuelan opposition blocking the access of food to the Embassy.

La policía abiertamente trabajando con la oposición venezolana bloqueando el acceso de comida a la Embajada.#EmbassyProtectionCollective #CPEV pic.twitter.com/ijKUZ6Lz3w

— Alina R. Duarte (@AlinaTelesur) May 11, 2019

Pro-Guiado protesters outside of the embassy became violent this week when they injured pro-Maduro supporters. One human rights leader was arrested by local police for throwing bread into the windows of the building for the activists inside.

The embassy building’s electricity was shut off Wednesday without explanation. Carlos Vecchio, a part of the U.S. envoy that has several times tried to overthrow President Nicolas Maduro and install Guaido, described the move as “a small victory.”

*

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

Featured image: The CODEPINK coalition outside the Venezuelan embassy located in Washington, D.C. May 10, 2019 | Photo: @medeabenjamin

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released a set of proposed changes that would dramatically reduce protections for the nation’s most endangered plants and animals from pesticides known to harm them. The proposals ignore the real-world, science-based assessments of pesticides’ harms, instead relying on arbitrary industry-created models.

The EPA proposals would, for example, gut protections for endangered plants that are pollinated by butterflies and other insects by ignoring the fact that animals routinely move back and forth between agricultural areas and places where endangered species live.

Today’s proposals follow intensive efforts by Interior secretary David Bernhardt to halt federal work on protecting wildlife from pesticides.

“The federal government’s own science indicates this disgraceful proposal could drive endangered butterflies, birds and hundreds of other species to extinction,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The pesticide industry asked Trump to kill protections from harmful pesticides, and Interior chief Bernhardt and the EPA’s pesticide office are quickly pulling the trigger.”

The proposed change comes over a year after a draft biological opinion that was scuttled by the Trump administration found that the loss of pollinators from the insecticide chlorpyrifos would put hundreds of endangered species on a path to extinction.

Today’s so-called “refinements” will make it easier for the EPA to claim that pesticides have no effects on endangered species, allowing pesticides to remain on the market without common-sense restrictions on their use to protect endangered species.

The proposal disregards the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and ignores the mandate of the Endangered Species Act to give imperiled wildlife and plants the benefit of the doubt when evaluating the range of impacts caused by exposure to pesticides. Records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that the refinements were driven by political-level appointees at the EPA, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce and the White House.

From 2013 to 2017 career scientists at the EPA and federal wildlife agencies worked to implement the recommendations of the National Academy of Science assessing the impacts of pesticides. This collaborative and transparent process was developed with hundreds of hours of stakeholder input. By 2017 the scientists were in the final stages of completing their first-ever nationwide consultations on the impacts of three pesticides to protected species.

Documents obtained by the Center through the Freedom of Information Act showed that one of the pesticides, chlorpyrifos, jeopardizes the continued existence of 1,399 endangered plants and animals.

When then acting Interior secretary David Bernhardt was briefed on the results of those assessments in October 2017, he halted the release of the analysis. This unprecedented effort to scuttle endangered species consultations has spurred the EPA and wildlife agencies to attempt to justify their failure to release the analysis and take urgently needed action to save endangered animals like the San Joaquin kit fox from extinction.

The inspector general for the Department of the Interior announced last month it will open an investigation of Bernhardt’s role in blocking the release of the scientific assessments. Bernhardt’s efforts to suppress the assessments — revealed in the documents obtained by the Center — were highlighted in a New York Times investigation published last month.

“The EPA’s proposal was created specifically to prevent endangered species from getting the protection they need from toxic pesticides,” said Burd. “This sham promotes the pesticide industry’s financial interests above saving endangered species, ignores the National Academy of Sciences recommendation and trashes years of work by career scientists to protect endangered wildlife from chlorpyrifos and other dangerous pesticides.”

The EPA “refinements” were developed without transparency or any stakeholder feedback. Just four days prior to this document’s release, the Center was forced to sue the EPA, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and Council on Environmental Quality over their failure to produce records on the activities of a new interagency working group on pesticides and the Endangered Species Act.

The Center has also had to sue the EPA to obtain records on secret meetings between the agency and CropLife America — the pesticide industry lobbying arm — during the development of the revised methods.

“This disgusting proposal was crafted by political servants of the pesticide industry, the American Chemistry Council, the Koch brothers, American Petroleum Industry and Americans for Tax Reform,” said Burd. “They are truly the A-Team of selling out our nation’s natural environment to the highest bidder.”

Bios on participants of the interagency working group on pesticides and the Endangered Species Act, including their prior affiliations, are available upon request.

*

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

The above title was influenced from Joseph Sargent’s 1974 classic The Taking of the Pelham 123. In the film (remade again in 2009, and not bad actually) gunmen hijack a NYC subway train and hold the passengers of one car as hostages, demanding a one million dollar ransom (lots of moolah for 45 years ago). If the city of NY does not comply, they start executing them one by one. Well, it looks to me that we passengers on Choo Choo America have really been hijacked, along with our flag, our economy and our national honor… and they didn’t even have to use guns!

There is a Deep State operating in what is now Amerika, and it was always there in force, especially during the 20th and now 21st century.

No, this is not the so called Deep State that the Trump people keep parroting as their enemy. You see, Trump was and is handled by this Deep State.

If they did not want this Reality Television/Real Estate buffoon to obtain office, he never could have. Of course, since this Deep State owns and controls our phony Two Party/One Party system, anyone who obtains high office must be approved by this cabal. As far as the actual voting, we serfs are allowed  to choose between TweedleDum and TweedleDee.

The most recent exception was when Junior Bush was both elected and re-elected. He had been ordained to be the boy emperor by this Deep State while Cheney pulled the puppet strings for them. Therefore, it was fixed by this Deep State to assure his election (check out what went on in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004). Looking back at this most recent presidential horserace in 2016, most likely the Deep State would have preferred Ms. Hillary to fulfill their Neo Con visions… especially via a new Cold War with the Russkies. Yet, they knew they had ‘the Donald’ just where they wanted him as well.  Of course, once Trump got into the White House this same Deep State made sure he was surrounded by their Neo Con goons to fulfill their plans… and he does!

You can forget about all that Russian meddling etc. The real crux of the matter is about what the Deep State thrives on: Money and Economic Power. You see, when the owners of our nation had their monopoly with a strong US dollar being used as a petrodollar, and our ‘jackbooted’ control of the majority of what many term ‘The Third World’, all was copacetic.

With the emergence of China as the new primary economic power, and Russia in much better financial shape than us, something had to be done. With these two countries making strides in Africa (the source of the greatest mineral resources anywhere), the Middle East, Eurasia and of course even in our once ‘Monroe Doctrined’ Latin America, “This means war!” the Deep State shouted from their private clubs, think tanks and embedded Congress & Media.

Looking back to see how this always plays out, why do you think the Bush/Cheney Cabal made war on Iraq? The excuse was WMDs , which intelligence said there weren’t any, but the main thrusts were twofold:

A) Saddam was going to start trading his oil in Eurodollars instead of US dollars and

B) the Deep State needed to stop the Chinese and Russkies from getting too popular in that region.

It was ALL about keeping US influence Numero Uno in the Middle East…and of course our desire to NOT have Iraqi oil sold directly to our economic enemies. You can now say the same about Venezuela, one of the two largest sources of Oil in the world. The ‘regime change’ rhetoric is not so much about Socialism, but more so about OIL, and of course maintaining US power in that hemisphere.

This formula for control is so easy for this Deep State. As long as our nation continues to allow money to legally flow into electoral politics, nothing will change. It is a proven and sad fact that the candidate who spends the most money usually gets the suckers to vote that way. This is why the Two Party/One Party system, owned by the Deep State, has thrived for so long.

They have the means to get money funneled to their candidates, so that 3rd party types have little or NO chance. Period!

If one ‘Follows da money’ one sees how much their benefactor, this Deep State, controls everything. They use the media they own and the politicians they own (via campaign coffers) and their Military Industrial Empire chugs along on railroad tracks that were supposed to be owned by We the People. Alas, WE are the hostages ready to be executed through a myriad of means formulated by that Less than 1%. So few of our fellow citizens say but a word about all this. Ignorance is not bliss and Silence is not golden!  They allow tyranny!

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is the 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].

On May 1 the Washington Post published an article entitled “Venezuela’s opposition put together a serious plan. For now it appears to have failed.”^[1] By doing so it has presented its readers with a gripping fairy tale. 

The fairy tale

The “hero” is self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido, who assumes the guise of a mild mannered United States agent. He battles to “restore” democracy from the clutches of demonized elected President Nicolas Maduro. True to his heroic character, Juan fights a battle for the “American Way” by peacefully seeking an assumption of power.  His well thought out plan is contingent on persuading the ruling President Maduro to fly to Cuba. Along the way, Guaido convinces some top military and civilian aids to join him.

His plan is validated with a blessing from his benevolent benefactor, the Trump administration. Out of concern for Venezuela’s well-being, US President Trump and his advisors are monitoring Guiado’s efforts closely. Unfortunately, they can’t yet reach an agreement about how to best help Juan. While committed to the cause, Trump is a bit reluctant to use his military forces directly.  Nevertheless, some men on his staff are unabashed about saying that use of the military remains an option. The keenest one to rattle his saber is impetuous John Bolton, whose eagerness for war is apparently making Donald nervous. As a compromise, for the time being, the US therefore opts to impose sanctions and helps “run back-end logistics for aid deliveries to Colombia for the Venezuelan people, and a U.S. navy hospital ship sailed to neighbouring Colombia to aid Venezuelan refugees.”

Throughout the story, Guaido’s claim to the presidency is never disputed.  How could it be? He is the heroic champion for democracy. As proof, the story points out that he has the backing of the National Assembly and over 50 nations.   What more proof is needed?

As the tale progresses, the reader is led to believe that had his plan succeeded the story would have had a happy ending. Big bad Maduro would have been allowed to leave in peace. Our hero Juan would have assumed power through a successful coup and thereby restored democracy. Venezuela would have once again have the United States as its friend, and everyone would have lived happily ever after.

Maduro and Putin

Alas, this happy ending was not to be.  Juan’s enthusiasm got the better of him.  He prematurely attempted his coup for democracy, named “Operation Liberty”, resulted in failure.  Instead of supporting heroic Juan, the Venezuelan military rallied behind their constitutionally elected president. The dream of an American Venezuela was not to be.

Sadly, the story ends with the allegation that Maduro would have abandoned ship had he not been talked out of it. Who could be blamed for undermining such an otherwise flawless plan? The Russians, of course. Hasn’t this been the mantra that has been repeatedly chanted by the mainstream media? Nefarious Russia, despite its abandonment of communism, has been looking for every means possible to undermine Western values – meddling in elections^[2], hacking into computers^[3].

Lessons

This fairy tale teaches some important lessons:

1. In order to restore democracy, a coup is needed to overthrow the existing democracy.

2. A hero is someone who seeks the help of outside forces, with the expectation that they use military force against his country, if needed, to assure his ascent to power.

3. When providing humanitarian assistance, it is necessary to first impose crippling economic sanctions to necessitate the need for aid.

4. Recognition of a self-proclaimed president by over fifty outside nations is more important than the plebiscite of the constituent citizens of his country, as well as the majority of United Nations members who have either rejected his claim or remained neutral on endorsing him.

5. If all else fails, blame the Russians.

Viewing Venezuela without the fairy tale lens

Unfortunately, like all fairy tales, this article is based on typecast characters who bear little resemblance to the real world. What would have given this account credibility as fact rather than fiction would have been the inclusion of the glaring omissions that would have given it a balanced perspective.

Several facts that have been reported in mainstream or alternate news sources, were apparently deemed neither relevant nor newsworthy for this article.   As was repeatedly aired on TV news networks, Juan Guaido swore himself in as president.^[4]  Is this the type of democratic process that is worthy of endorsement?

There is no evidence that Maduro ever considered abandoning his post or engaged in secret negotiations with Guiado.  Maduro denied this.  Nevertheless, the article accepts the allegations by Guaido as facts.  Moreover, the possibility that his efforts to remain in power could be interpreted as patriotism is never considered. Instead, he is presented as someone whose decisions are made in consultation with Russian advisers, which has been denied.  This is in stark contrast with Guiado who has had photo ops with US Vice President Mike Pence^[5], (image right, Guaido meets Pence, February 2019) and is quite open about plotting the overthrow of his government through consultation with the US.

Given Venezuela’s economic hardships, and vocal opposition, why does Maduro still have a loyal military, as well as large public demonstrations by supporters? To answer these questions would require another article detailing the numerous programs that he and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, implemented to prioritize the needs of the poor.^[6]

To its credit, the Washington Post includes in this article an online video showing demonstrations by both supporters of Maduro and opposition supporters of Guaido.  At first glance, one would consider this to be evidence of balanced reporting, but a closer look tells a different story. More video time is allotted to the opposition, giving one man the opportunity to voice a litany of grievances against Maduro focused on Venezuela’s economic hardships. These grievances are neither questioned nor contested, and no mention is made of the role that US sanctions^[7] have played in promoting these hardships.

In most Western democracies, if anyone were to plot a coup, as Guaido openly professes, he would probably be deemed guilty of treason and terrorism. This blatant indictment is never pointed out.  Nor has it been asked why has Guaido not yet been arrested and is allowed to roam the streets and speak freely, especially if Maduro is a dictator?

The aims of the US are presented as humanitarian. If that were so, then why wasn’t its “humanitarian aid” convoy endorsed by the Red Cross^[8]? Conveniently, John Bolton’s statement about how beneficial it would be for the US to have US companies controlling Venezuelan oil is omitted.^[9]

Fact or fiction, as events unfold in Venezuela, we are seeing the struggle of a sovereign nation fighting to resolve its internal disputes.  If international law prevails, it would be allowed to do so without outside interference.^[10]  If that happens, then it might not have the happy ending that mainstream media are rooting for. Nevertheless, it would be a resolution that would have been decided by the Venezuelan people.

*

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

The author, Gerrard Bonello, is a retired Vice Principal who currently resides in Mississauga, Ontario. Prior to his career as a school administrator, he was a school teacher of art in high school, and special education in elementary school.  During his teaching career he was active in the OECTA teachers unions in the secondary panel executive and on various committees. In the late 1980’s he was a founding member of the Toronto “Teachers Against Apartheid”.

Notes

Unlike a regular corporation, the corporations that manufacture and sell weapons to their government are virtually 100% dependent upon their government and its military allies, for their own success; their markets are only those governments, not individuals (such as is the case for normal corporations). Consequently, either their government will control them, and those firms won’t have any effective control over their own markets, or else those firms will, themselves, control their government, and thereby effectively control their markets, via the government’s foreign policies — not only via expanding its military alliances (those firms’ foreign markets), but via its designating ‘enemy’ nations that it and its ‘allies’ (those arms-producers’ foreign markets) can then use those weapons against.

In countries such as the United States, arms-producers are benefiting and controlled by the country’s billionaires, instead of (as in Russia, for example) benefiting and controlled by the government. These totally profit-driven arms-producers need to have market-nations that are called ‘allied’ governments, but they also need to have some target-nations that are called ‘enemy’ governments, so as to ‘justify’ more arms-production by these firms, against which to use these weapons. Only in nations where arms-producers are privately instead of publicly controlled are the government’s foreign polices predominantly controlled by the country’s arms-producers. That’s the way it is in America.

The main ‘ally’ of the US is the Saud family, who own the government of Saudi Arabia. As a recent debate-brief said,

“The US has been the world’s leading exporter in weapons since 1990 and the biggest customer is Saudi Arabia. The US sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide, and in 2017, cleared $18 billion dollars with Saudi Arabia alone.”

Under Trump, those sales are set to soar, because on 20 May 2017 “US $350 Billion Arms-Sale to Sauds Cements US-Jihadist Alliance” — notwithstanding now the slaughter in Yemen and the slaughter of Jamal Khashoggi. Yet, Trump talks up his ‘humanitarian’ concerns for the people of Venezuela as ‘justification’ for his possibly invading Venezuela, and America’s military is preparing to do that.

The main and central ‘enemy’ of the US is Russia’s government; and all of the other ‘enemies’ of America (the spokes of America’s ‘enemy’ wheel) are led by people — such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, Bashar al-Assad, Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, and Nicolas Maduro — who are friendly toward Russia. The objective here is to force other nations to join America’s anti-Russia alliances or else to face the consequences of a likely invasion or coup by America to overthrow and replace those leaders. Therefore, America targets all nations that are/were friendly toward Russia, such as pre-2003 Iraq, and such as pre-2011 Libya, and such as Syria, and such as pre-1973 Chile, and such as post-1979 Iran — all of America’s various target-nations, which are the authorized targets for America and its ‘allies’ to invade or otherwise regime-change (change from being a target, to becoming instead a new market).

In order for privately controlled arms-producers to thrive, there is just as much of a need for ‘allies’ as for ’targets’, because without targets, there can be no authorized markets, since every weapon is useless if it has no authorized target against which it may be used. There consequently needs to be at least one ‘enemy’ for any country whose arms-production is privately instead of publicly controlled. Both ‘allies’ and ‘enemies’ are needed, in order for America’s arms-makers to continue flourishing.

By contrast, in Russia, where each of the arms-producers is majority-controlled by the government instead of by private investors, each arms-producer exists only in order to defend the nation, there is no need for any ‘enemy’ nations, and the best situation for such a government is to the contrary: to have as many allies, or buyers of its country’s weapons, as possible (so that it will be as safe as possible), and as few nations as possible that are enemies. For such a country, there’s no benefit in having any enemies. America has publicly been against Russia ever since the end of World War II, and privately and secretly remains against Russia even after the Cold War ended on Russia’s side in 1991. Whereas the billionaires who control America’s arms-makers profit from this military competition against Russia, the controlling interest in all of Russia’s arms-makers is Russia’s government, which simply suffers the expense of that competition and would greatly prefer to end that competition. It’s just a drain on Russia’s treasury. The profit-motive isn’t driving the arms-producers in countries that control their own arms-makers. The government leads the nation there, basically because the nation’s billionaires — even if they are minority stockholders of the armaments-firms — don’t. And the reason the billionaires don’t is that the arms-producers in Russia are controlled by the government, not by any private investors.

Consequently, in countries that socialize arms-production, ‘humanitarian’ excuses don’t need to be invented in order to create new ‘enemies’. Instead, the goal is for the number of enemies to be reduced, so that the nation itself will be safer. Their arms-producers don’t need constantly to generate (by lobbying, media-propaganda, etc.) authorized targets (‘enemies’ such as Iraq, Syria, etc.), because such a nation, as this, has designed its system to be driven for protecting the public’s safety, and not for any investors’ profits. If an armaments-firm, in such a nation, goes out-of-business, that’s entirely okay, so long as that nation’s safety isn’t being reduced by ending the firm. The international policy of such a country is totally different from that of a country in which arms-makers’ profits, and not the entire nation’s welfare, is in the driver’s seat regarding all foreign policies.

If arms-makers are being driven for profits, then target-nations are needed in order to expand profits so as to serve their investors. Such a country is run actually for its investors, not for its public. But if the arms-makers are being driven to serve the government instead of to serve private investors, the government is controlling the armament-firms. The nation’s safety is the objective in such a land, because increasing profits for private investors in its weapons-firms is not the company’s objective. Any profits to such investors, are then irrelevant to the government. It’s truly sink-or-swim, for each of such a nation’s arms-makers — not socialism-for-the-rich, and capitalism (actually fascism) for the poor, such as is the case in the United States.

In a nation such as the United States, the constant need for new wars is being constantly driven by investors’ needs for expanding both markets and targets. And — since in the arms-making business, all of the markets are one’s own government, plus all of its allied governments (no significant consumer-business whatsoever, which is why such firms are fundamentally different from the firms in all other types of fields) — the government needs to serve its armaments-firms, because those firms are totally dependent upon the government, and upon its international diplomacy (to increase the sales of its armaments, and thereby to serve the billionaires who control the armaments-firms). So: the government there naturally becomes an extension of its major “contractors” or armaments-firms. The politicians know this, though they don’t want to talk publicly about it, because they don’t want the voters to know who is actually in the driver’s seat. They know whom they are actually serving, which is the billionaires who control the armaments-firms. So: those politicians, whatever they might say in public (“America shouldn’t be the policeman for the world,” etc.), always actually vote to invade (Iraq, Syria, etc.), and to approve the first stage of any war, which is economic sanctions (such as against Russia itself, or Iran, or Iraq, or Syria, or Venezuela, etc.), and it’s always allegedly being done “to serve God, mother and country” at home, and “to expand freedom and protect human rights in that dictatorially ruled country” abroad. This is basically the marketing campaign for the owners of the armaments firms. The winning politicians in such countries are the ones that those billionaires support. In such a country, it’s almost impossible for any politician who is competing for a national office to succeed who isn’t being funded by those billionaires. And, the billionaires’ ‘news’-media support only such candidates. That’s why there’s almost no possibility for an honest person to be elected (or appointed( to any national public office in the United States.

If a nation’s sole reason for producing weapons is in order to protect the public — a public purpose — then there is no reason for the government to lie so as to demonize foreign leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Salvador Allende, Viktor Yanukovych, and Nicolas Maduro. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with how bad (or good) the demonized leader actually is.

Why does the US government demonize those people, while simultaneously serving (if not actually installing) barbaric dictators such as King Saud, Augusto Pinochet, Castillo Armas, and the Shah? The publicly stated reasons are always ‘humanitarian’ (when not ‘national defense’ — and often, as in 2003 Iraq — both at once). The alleged purpose is to ‘bring democracy to the people there’, and to ‘protect human rights, which are being violated’ by ‘the dictator’ — but it’s actually in order to make suckers out of their country’s own population, so as to serve the billionaires whose income can’t be boosted in any other way than to turn ‘enemies’ (targets) into ‘allies’ (markets) — to conquer those ‘enemies’. This is just a marketing campaign, and the voters are not the consumers of these products, but they are instead merely the gulls who have to be fooled in order for those profits to keep rolling in, to the (usually) offshore accounts of those billionaires. This is not the type of socialism in which the government controls the economy, but instead the type of economy in which the economy — actually the billionaires who control the armaments-firms — control the government. This is why it’s “socialism for the rich and capitalism for everybody else.” (The term “fascism” can be used for that.)

This is the New America. And here is the New America Foundation, which is one of the many ‘non-profit’ PR arms of this new America. (That one represents mainly Democratic Party billionaires. Here is one that instead represents mainly Republican Party billionaires.) These are taxpayer-subsidized public relations agencies for their businesses. These individuals are exceptionally gifted businesspeople, because they deeply understand how to fool the public, and they understand that the public never learns and so history just keeps repeating itself, such as in 1953 Iran, and then in 1954 Guatemala, and 1973 Chile, and 2003 Iraq, and 2019 Venezuela, and so many others, ad nauseum. And it goes on and on, for decades if not forever.

*

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

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

When governments criminalize truth-telling, on the phony pretext of protecting national security, tyranny replaces freedom.

Revealing vital information in the public interest by whistleblowers and independent investigative journalists deserves high praise, not prosecution.

The 1989 US Whistleblower Protection Act protects federal employees who report misconduct — crimes of war and against humanity the highest of high wrongdoing.

By law, federal agencies (including the executive branch and Congress) are prohibited from retaliating against whistleblowers.

They’re obligated to report law or regulatory violations, gross mismanagement, waste, fraud and/or abuse, as well as actions endangering public health or safety.

The Office of Special Council is empowered to investigate whistleblower complaints. The Merit Systems Protection Board adjudicates them.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the only judicial body authorized to hear whistleblower case appeals.

Since the Whistleblower Protection Act’s 1994 revisions, it ruled on over 200 cases — only three times in favor of whistleblowers, the deck stacked against them, US law failing to protect them.

The 2012 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) failed to protect government employees from reprisal for disclosing official misconduct, revealing it to co-workers or supervisors, or disclosing policy decision consequences — any or all of the above in relation to their jobs or duties.

The Obama regime prosecuted more whistleblowers and leakers involved in exposing US wrongdoing than all his predecessors combined, reportedly nine targeted individuals.

His Justice Department and the FBI illegally spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records and by other means, subpoenaing them and other reporters to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

Trump is heading toward matching or exceeding his war on truth-telling — notably by his actions against Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

Former US air force/National Security intelligence officer Daniel Everett Hale is his regime’s latest target.

On Thursday, he was wrongfully arrested, detained, and indicted on five counts, four under the long-ago outdated 1917 Espionage Act — for revealing secret information “to a reporter” about illegal (Pentagon/CIA) drone wars US authorities want suppressed, part of the US war OF terror, not on it.

Reportedly, he passed on classified documents to Intercept reporter Jeremy Scahill. In 2015, he published a series of articles called “The Drone Papers.”

Based on material obtained from an anonymous source he hasn’t publicly identified, he said around 90% of deaths by drones were not individuals targeted.

Hale was arraigned in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, located in Nashville. He faces up to 10 years imprisonment on each of five counts against him, potentially a maximum 50-year sentence.

He’s scheduled to appear in US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division on May 17 — the same court involved in persecuting Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange. He’s the sixth whistleblower targeted by Trump regime.

Enacted shortly after US entry into WW I, the Espionage Act was all about prosecuting individuals involved in inciting insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny in the military, or obstructing recruitment.

A year after enactment, provisions were added, criminalizing government criticism or opposition to military conscription.

Offenses included publishing “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.”

Despite congressional repeal of these provisions post-war, related to revealing information US authorities want suppressed, they’re used at the government’s discretion against targeted individuals — on the phony pretext of protecting national security.

Since 1945, the Espionage Act has been used 12 times to prosecute individuals for revealing information the US wants suppressed, Daniel Everett Hale the latest indictee, Julian Assange likely next once in US hands.

Used in all US wars of aggression, drones largely kill civilians, few so-called “high-value targets.” Operations are conducted secretly in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and other US war theaters, transparency and accountability absent.

By executive order in March, Trump banned disclosure of civilian deaths by drones — rescinding a DNI rule to produce annual reports of civilian deaths by drones outside of official war theaters.

At the time, a White House National Security Council statement dismissively said the order removes “superfluous reporting requirements” that “distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission.”

The order was and remains all about suppressing US crimes of war and against humanity.

According to UK-based Reprieve, reporting on the US “secret assassinations program,” drone strikes greatly increased under Trump in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, adding:

“…America’s illegal drone war has expanded (greatly) across the globe, (Trump) increas(ing) and widen(ing) drone strikes…systematically weaken(ing) safeguards.”

“(E)ven individuals not considered to pose a ‘continuing and imminent threat’ can be targeted for death without trial” under a secret assassination program – murder by drones, conventional warplanes, and/or special forces operations.

“The CIA’s own leaked documents concede that the US often does not know who it is killing, and that militant leaders’ account for just 2% of drone-related deaths.”

US wars in multiple theaters are flagrantly illegal. So are its other hostile actions — in all cases against nations threatening no one.

It’s what naked aggression is all about, the favored strategy by US ruling authorities to advance the nation’s imperium.

Their rage for global dominance risks eventual nuclear war against Russia or other nations — able to kill us all if launched.

*

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.

I was wearing a hipster-establishment wide tie and cranking across the Interstate toward Lake Morey. Something between fear and early onset dementia had drawn me more than 100 miles to the Governor’s Conference on Older Workers. Actually, it was the “invitation” from my boss, who ran work and training programs across Vermont under contracts with the U.S. Department of Labor.

Half conscious, I pit-stopped in Manchester for coffee and news; gas shortage paranoia and the latest Washington Looney Tunes. Today the newsmaker was James McCord, competing for headlines with John Dean. The former White House counsel had secrets to tell, but the ex-wire man was threatening to sue. It was June 12, 1973, deep into the Watergate era, I was 26 years old, and getting prepared to spend a day deciphering the cliches of bureaucrats and businessman.

“Did you come for the same thing I did?” Walter shouted as he shuffled across the parking lot, his backdrop a paunchy foursome and the 18th green, tucked away a few miles from the highway. Chic. He repeated the welcome. “So, did you come for the same thing?”

“What?”

“The girls!” He elbowed me and winked, eyebrows edging toward receding hair. Sly devil. Walter was definitely an older worker. And a State Legislator. Despite the casual sexism, my first impulse was to grin. I settled instead for a return jab and headed quickly toward the Inn.

Once inside, I momentarily gaped at all the video equipment, before remembering that the state’s governor would attend. Only the second Democrat elected in a century, Vermont’s big fish, Tom Salmon, was heading toward this very spot.

I had tried to plan for everything, all the necessary gear and attire, and a mindset meant to camouflage how out of place I felt. But I’d messed up. Crossing my legs I stared down at two sneakered feet. The conference shoes were back in the car and I was trapped at the plenary session in ragged, torn white tennis shoes.

Most people were still hugging the back of the auditorium, downing their first drinks of the day. The cash bar here opened early. They hadn’t noticed me yet, so I made a run for the exit and retrieved a pair of black boots. Slightly scuffed, but they made me feel more secure.

What’s the point? Back in those days the dress code in places like the “home of the Vermont Open” was shifting slowly toward “mod,” especially since Salmon’s election, but it was still pretty formal. My tie was a safe choice, wide with a little flash. Similar touches were visible in a field of mostly grey suits. But sneakers? Not yet acceptable for official government or corporate work.

On a porch two veteran bureaucrats were shooting the breeze as they gazed at the lake on a warm late Spring day. One worked for the state, the other was a Fed. I stopped for a talk.

“I wish I could do that,” the Fed sighed. He nodded toward the young people on a beach below. Several of them were about my age, old enough for bank accounts and debts. Before his companion could ask what exotic things the “kids” were doing, the Fed explained. “You know, just take a few days and (sigh) do what I want.”

He savored the words. Then followed up with the news that I had already missed the best show the night before. Apparently, the fireworks were wondrous to behold. As I recalled later in an article for The Vermont Freeman, my mind wandered for a moment to a strange fantasy; balding men — from both public and private sectors — spacing out on the hotel light show, and baying at the moon as they hunted down female “assistants” through the underbrush. Weird things were happening in the Age of Aquarius.

Tom Salmon shares with a group as Greg takes notes.

“The best way to tell a person’s age is not to.” This was the slogan for thought from the Commissioner of Employment Security, who issued the official welcome along with some quick tips and vital statistics. She explained, for example, that older workers are a good employer bet for several reasons — work habits, experience, productivity and dependability, plus their low absenteeism and high retention.

Next was the Coordinator of the National Council on Aging, who reminded us that “whether we like it or not, we get one day older each day we live.” Heavy. The rest of her talk was peppered with stats and logic apparently lifted from Reader’s Digest.

With more than 90 million people in the workforce, we learned, 45 percent were over 45 years of age. “Baby boom is now baby bust,” she claimed. “People 25 to 35 years old are not producing.” What America needed was 2.5 children per family, but only 2.0 were being produced. Noting that a third of all US citizens were over 55, she concluded with the upbeat announcement that the “youth revolution” was over.

Since those 1973 stats, the US workforce has almost doubled. However, the percent of people in it who are over 45 has actually stayed about the same. On the other hand, the birthrate has continued to drop, while the number of people over 65 has grown from 35 to 50 million in the last 20 years. They currently account for about 29 percent of the population.

According to a spokesmen for Vermont’s Apprenticeship Council, what the country needed in the 1970s was more manufacturing jobs for proud, dependable older employees, along with a reduction in the eligibility age for Social Security and, oddly enough, a lower minimum wage for students. The last suggestion took me by surprise.

“Wisdom, experience and productivity is being robbed from the economy,” the speaker warned. Nevertheless, “We WILL be blessed with clean air, clean water and lower noise levels. That doesn’t yet include rock bands. But we can hope.”

In the midst of such bad jokes and relentless pandering it was hard to keep my negativity in check. Making matters worse, a television in the room where I was writing my notes provided a jarring counterpoint. The coverage that day dealt with all manner of dirty tricks. Specifically, Gordon Strachan was tracing the White House-Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) approach to disciplining disloyal members of the Republican Party. Apparently, Nixon wanted to help “sympathetic” Democrats (a few still existed) while denying financial support to any Republican who defied the administration. This sounded a lot like President Trump.

But it wasn’t the news of the day or the talking points being hammered home at the conference that made me the most uncomfortable. It was how the real concerns of the elderly were being sidestepped and exploited to score points or secure funding.

It was too late for second thoughts, however. Everyone was standing for applause as Governor Salmon swept down the aisle. Grey suit, naturally, with wing-like lapels, red striped tie and healthy tan. Plus a flash of teeth that momentarily blinded me.

“I notice some younger types,” said the chief executive with a brief glance in my direction. It felt like an ominous start.

Salmon had reached “the ripe old age of 40,” he announced, while 49 percent of Vermonters were 25 years of age or younger. “The concerns of the young are a different proposition,” he concluded. The remark was perplexing. Maybe he was just trying to identify with his audience.

Charging on, Salmon mentioned a “fascinating article” he had read just that morning “between bumps and grinds.” That must have been a reference to the drive over. The story in Natural History was called “A New Age for the Aging.” But that’s all we heard about it, although his tone did indicate that the “new age” would be a good one.

Over the next five minutes he transitioned from generalizations to anecdotes. Salmon talked about jogging, the billions spent on cosmetics and “the proliferation of books on diet.” Then he asked rhetorically, “How many of us have given up smoking? How many have advised that others give up smoking? All of these things indicate that, indeed, we are intensely aware of the process — getting along in years, growing old.”

Despite the platitudes, the performance was impressive. More than 150 people were happily digesting big scoops of Salmon’s random thoughts. There were few hard facts in the mix. What he offered mostly were feelings and jokes. Yet most of the audience was with him; the rest were at least trying to follow his train of thought. After all, it was his conference.

“Take a gander at the facts,” he instructed, right hand shooting out at some supporting data that was invisible to the rest of us. “If only we could double the post-training years, people could put back from their vast pool of resources twice as much.” It was reasonable, on the surface. But the argument reminded me of a line from the film comedy, The Heartbreak Kid: “It’s time people stopped taking things out of this country and started putting things back in,” says the witless hero.

To be fair, Governor Salmon was wandering toward a point. “A fundamental goal of this society is to extend the span of healthy years,” he eventually explained. So, the basic idea was that the able-bodied elderly could be putting more back into the economy. But the way he expressed it left me unconvinced. There were also obligatory references to the environment, the issue that had turned the election in Salmon’s favor the previous November, and warnings about the decline in industrial jobs as service employment increased.

Finally, he offered a candid admission: “We’re not doing anywhere near enough.” Yet you had to wonder, about what? Biological research? Industrial jobs? Jogging? It was hard to tell, and he was becoming distracted. Leafing through his notes, Salmon mumbled several times, “We haven’t done enough…”

After a moment, however, he recovered and shifted back into comedy club mode. “I had the pleasure of seeing Danny Thomas last week at Lake Tahoe at a governor’s conference,” Salmon recalled. At one point Thomas had asked a question: “Did you ever hear about a group of widowers touring Italy on a bus?”

Get it? Widowers. You see, husbands usually die first. Hilarious.

We had reached the finale. The governor’s role, he explained, was “to serve as a catalyst for discussion and ideas.” But then he added a disclaimer. “We don’t want to give the impression we have a neat package plan.” No risk there. And some future shock. Salmon had just read Alvin Toffler’s book on the subject and summarized its point as follows: “Human beings are unable to accept too much change too fast.”

He also linked the idea that “we aren’t doing nearly enough” to another assertion, that “we’ve made modest beginnings.” The point? Apparently that, although we aren’t doing enough, we must also be wary of doing too much.

Edging away from the podium, Salmon assured everyone that he looked forward to more dialogue… but regretted that he had to leave. His exit line was another joke, this one unattributed: “I don’t have to leave, but I can’t stay here.”

The punchline hung in the air just long enough for the governor to glide out the door. What all of it suggested to me was simple: a good-looking young man with a deep voice and a first-rate tailor can move into some very high places.

At this point I had to ask: Why had I bothered to attend? Desperate for friends, or seeking tennis partners? Then I remembered — job security. But also had a more serious thought. Fear of aging was being manipulated, here and elsewhere, to promote a preoccupation with age. Related to that, one of the speakers had noted that the Older Americans Act was the only piece of social legislation that Nixon had signed. It was all that remained of President Johnson’s “war on poverty.”

After the morning session I walked past the bar. As usual it was packed. Passing on alcohol for the moment, I returned to my car for a private joint. Floating back to the lunch line my wide tie felt big enough to trip me.

Swim-suited teens sat in the canopied walkway between the parking lot and the lounge. “Every sha na na na, every wo oh oh oh, still shines,” they sang. “Every shing a ling a ling, that we started to sing, so fine.” The Carpenter’s nostalgic tune fit in well. Forward into the past.

I bought a beer and found a perch at the periphery of the action. The participants were mostly identified by name tags. Deals were definitely being made. The morning’s boredom had given way to the expectation of nailing down some funding.

A bit later, noticing a corner table surrounded by the low hum of lunchtime patter, I nabbed a seat. A man from GE was trading small talk with my boss and a younger management type. The manager was proto-Nixon, tightly wound, committed, and eager to make connections.

GE started the ball rolling. “Where do I know you from? Do you belong to the Elks?”

“No. Rotary,” said Nixon. As it turned out, they had even more common ground.

GE then turned to me and asked, “What do you get out of this?”

“All foreplay,” I whispered. “No action.”

Nixon zeroed in on my boss. “You with OEO?” He asked.

“Sponsored by them.”

A sly smile. “How’s funding look?”

“OEO looks dim, very dim,” he admitted. “But we DOL contractors have been expanded. Matter of fact, I got a call yesterday asking how much money I can use.”

Nixon recoiled, his lips narrowing to a slit. “I see,” he grumbled. This wasn’t what he expected, especially with the government trumpeting de-funding and Nixon promising smaller budgets and staff reductions.

“You always wonder,” my boss pressed, “what you would say to that kind of question. The real question, though, is whether you can use the money effectively.

“I see. Of course.” Nixon took a drag from his cigarette and turned to me, a missing piece of the puzzle, some young guy with longish hair making notes about who-knew what. “I don’t believe we’ve met.”

I smiled sheepishly and nodded down the side of the table lined with bureaucrats. “I’m with them,” I said.

Nixon was finding this slice of real life hard to swallow. But my boss explained that the main issue concerning what were then called “Manpower” programs was who would control the purse strings. Governors were the most likely candidates; states’ rights usually translated into governors’ discretion. And governors responded strongly in those days to at least two known stimuli — federal cash and weekends at Lake Tahoe.

Somewhere between lunch and the afternoon panel discussions I lost the thread of the day. Only phrases penetrated the fog of conference talk. Later, as I headed back along the Interstate, I passed a road crew. Young men were strung along a roadside ditch, sweating in the afternoon heat. It made me wonder, just what will be the future of young people like these in the new age of the aging?

The goal, as outlined during the conference, was to extend the years of productivity. Retirement was once the light at the end of the tunnel, a safety net and reward for decades of service. But the new reward was apparently another job. The logic was that normal people, “responsible citizens,” want to work as long as possible, no matter whether it is on an assembly line or at the side of the road. Given the national epidemic of boredom and depression, that didn’t make much sense.

Nevertheless, the prevailing assumption was that healthy people are “hooked in,” busy, off the street, and not concerned about changing the system. So, productive people are happy people, and older people, at least according to the experts at Lake Morey, could be the happiest of all. This was reinforced often through anecdotes and innuendo, a dubious notion that could only be asserted with confidence from a podium.

The reward for a lifetime of work used to be retirement, and maybe also a gold watch. In the future it may become a part-time job. But one ingredient still seems to be missing — a meaning for it all.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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: Greg Guma/Maverick Media.

All images in this article are from the author

High profile journalists have been jabbering about whether or not Julian Assange is really one of them. If “journalist” is understood to mean “propagandist for the ruling class,” then he most certainly is not.

However, if we go by the more common, less restrictive definitions, anyone who compiles and transmits information to a willing audience is a journalist. Some are good, most are awful, even evil, but Julian Assange is historic. Saying he’s not a journalist is like saying Charles Darwin wasn’t a biologist, Albert Einstein wasn’t a physicist, LeBron James can’t play basketball, and by the way, Galileo was wrong. The earth’s flat after all and we’re the center of the universe.

Assange is a genius who could have joined the club of tech billionaires, but instead he looked at global injustice with the mind of a systems analyst, then founded Wikileaks and the transparency movement. They put corporations and government, including the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, and all the other intel agencies on notice that they could no longer count on operating in secret. State and corporate scandals had been uncovered before, but there had never been anything like Wikileaks. It guaranteed sources anonymity if they used its dropbox secure technology, and it has never busted a source. It has published well over 10 million documents and never had to retract even one. Its decentralized technical infrastructure protects it from attack, and that strikes terror in the twisted psyches of Mike Pompeo and his inner circle of spies, murderers, and thieves without borders. If a global movement can free Julian Assange, with the full force of the national security state coming at him, it’ll be a game changer, perhaps even as historic as Wikileaks itself.

On the other hand, prosecuting and convicting Assange for the crime of possessing and publishing classified material would establish a precedent for convicting any journalist, media outlet, or citizen who publishes, republishes, cites, quotes, or even tweets classified material. There’s a growing list of classified Wikileaks that I could go to prison for quoting even though they’re not the ones that have shocked the world like the “Collateral Murder” video of US soldiers shooting Iraqi civilians from an Apache Helicopter as though they were playing video games.

One is “ETHNICITY IN RWANDA – – -WHO GOVERNS THE COUNTRY?” This is a cable generated in Rwanda on July 5, 2008. It doesn’t identify the sender, only the location it was sent from—Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. It could have been written and sent by one of many US officials: the US ambassador, a member of his staff, and/or any member of CIA, DIA, or other spooks in the region. The recipient is the US State Department, but no one in particular.

Whoever wrote this described Rwanda as an apartheid state exclusively ruled by an ethnic Tutsi elite headed by Rwandan President Paul Kagame. Most of all an English-speaking Tutsi elite who grew up in Uganda and joined Kagame in invading Rwanda from Uganda on October 1, 1990. The ninety days known as the Rwandan Genocide were not an isolated bloodbath, but the end of four-year war that began on that date. During that war Kagame’s army massacred Hutu civilians on a scale equivalent to or greater than the Tutsi massacres depicted in the movie Hotel Rwanda.

Ethnic reconciliation is one of the most boldfaced lies about Rwanda. For years we’ve been told that President Kagame was Rwanda’s savior, that he swept down out of nowhere to stop the genocide and ended the country’s long history of bitter Hutu and Tutsi competition. This US diplomatic cable from Kigali turns the reconciliation myth on its head, and the US State Department, including its higher-ups, know that. They’ve promoted the lie and lauded the criminal president for the last 25 years anyway. US elites put him in power, and he’s their man in Africa. He helps secure access to the trillions of dollars worth of strategic and critical mineral wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, at staggering human cost. At the same time, 38% of Rwandan children, a majority of them Hutus, are stunted by malnutrition.

Rwanda’s brutal ethnic apartheid could lead to another bloodbath, and if it does, there’ll be blood all over US officials’ and elites’ hands. They know that’s what it is, and they’ve backed it up and exploited it for the last 25 years.

The Global Intelligence Files

In February 2012, Wikileaks began publishing the Global Intelligence Files, 5 million emails leaked from Stratfor, an intel-for-hire outfit based in Texas.

In the introduction to this release, Wikileaks writes that ”they reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Dow Chemical Company, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques, and psychological methods. For example: ‘…Control means financial, sexual or psychological control.’ – CEO George Friedman to Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla on 6 December 2011.”

There are emails about how Stratfor corrupted the press from Reuters to the Kiev Post.

There’s one email in which the Stratfor founder and CEO says he’d like to assassinate Julian Assange.

There’s another, also written by a Stratfor exec, that says there’s a secret indictment of Assange in a federal court in Virginia. We all know that now but that was back in February 2012.

There is a lot more about what Stratfor would like to do to Assange, but, moving on, there’s one about how to exploit an Israeli spy providing information on the medical condition of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez back in 2011.

There’s another about a Stratfor subdivision called StratCap, whose goal is to use Stratfor’s information and analysis to trade in a range of global financial instruments, including government bonds, currencies, etc. It says that in 2011, a Goldman Sachs exec invested over $4 million in this scam and joined Stratfor’s board of directors.

There’s also one about Stratfor staff’s revolving door with government offices. Stratfor’s Vice-President for Intelligence, Fred Burton, was formerly a special agent with the US State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service and was their Deputy Chief of the counterterrorism division.

There’s one I take particular interest in headlined “Re: DISCUSSION – RWANDA/SOUTH AFRICA – Rwandans are cold ass mofos.” This describes the exploits of President Kagame’s assassination squads in Europe and Africa. Since I’ve been following their trail for the past ten years, I know more details than there are in the doc, so I wrote that one up under the headline “US Intel: Rwandans Are Cold Ass Mofos.”

Cold as these Rwandan mofos are, they couldn’t be colder than those trying to get their hands on Assange. They want to wreak vengeance on his body and mind, maybe even damage his outsized brain, and make a spine-chilling, blood-curdling example of him. So we’ve got to throw all we’ve got at stopping them.

*

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

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Is it possible Senator Tom Cotton ghostwrites fairy tales on his days off from Congress? Cotton and his neocon buddies are pretty good at making things up. 

For instance:

.

.

Europe must not give in to Tehran’s nuclear blackmail as the ayatollahs threaten to renew their rush toward the bomb. UK, Germany, & France ought to walk away from their financial backchannels w/ Iran & join us in imposing maximum pressure on the regime.https://t.co/3IqHudWJnV

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 8, 2019

But you really don’t get the full impact unless you read the unabridged statement posted May 8 on his Senate webpage. 

Europe must not give in to Tehran’s nuclear blackmail as the ayatollahs threaten to renew their rush toward the bomb. The United Kingdom, Germany, and France ought to walk away from their financial backchannels with Iran and join the United States in imposing maximum pressure on the regime. The United States will remain steadfast in its approach until Iran abandons its nuclear and missile programs and support for terrorism.

Nuclear blackmail.

This is the central theme of the fairy tale. Iran is making progress on a nuclear weapon. But like a lot of things the neocons claim, there isn’t a whole lot of evidence Iran is anywhere near developing a nuclear bomb, or even that it wants one.

The JCPOA is an agreement in part allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify Iran’s compliance. It also allowed the IAEA “wider access to, and information on, Iran’s nuclear program and implements a more robust verification system.” 

But, of course, we can’t have that. 

The idea Iran is ruled by irrational religious fanatics determined to attack the Great Satan America and especially the Zionist state of Israel. It’s taken as uncontested fact these wild-eyed mullahs will nuke both if they can successfully cobble together an atomic bomb.

This idea must be implanted in the head of the average American through all-pervasive propaganda fed into social media, television, radio, and the internet at large. 

Most Americans really don’t have a handle on what is happening. The illusion they believe is delivered in controlled fashion by corporate propaganda media network news, talk radio, countless videos on the internet, and above all social media.

Can you blame them?

It’s difficult enough making ends meet in this economy. It is managed by a financial elite and jimmy-rigged by a Federal Reserve and its monetary policies. Much wealth has gone to the crony capitalists, their industries are insrumental to the functioning of a national security state.

The so-called one percent is in fact more like the 0.01 percent. The average Joe and Jane are steadily losing ground in a dwindling and cannabilized middle class gutted by inflation, the offshoring and robotizing of employment, taxation, and ever-increasing government mandates, fees, fines, and revenue generation by militarized police at the local level.

The parasite is about to kill the host. 

Economic disaster is now casting a portentous shadow. But what is the main concern in a neocon-ized WH? 

Iran. Venezuela. 

Saving Israel (from itself and its superannuated racist ideology). 

Forcing a “peace deal” scribbled out by a Zionist and friend of Netanyahu who supports illegal settlers and their often violent response to Palestinians. 

North Korea. Kim started up his missile program again.

Is this a third front for Trump and his Crusade Against the Oil and Commie Evildoers? 

The national debt is an asteroid ready to hit America. No, it’s not as popular as the other asteroid, the one NASA says might get us like the one that killed off the dinosaurs. It’s like a Hollywood movie, another gripping disaster flick. 

But the debt—what we owe the banks and other countries—is very rarely talked about, and certainly not made into a mini-series. 

Instead, we get fairy tales, official lies and fabrications. 

We’re stuck with war (again) and the tab for that and everything else the financial elite have us on the hook for, including having us foot a gambling debt in the billions.

But even that was a ruse designed to funnel more money up into the maw of an insatiable and criminal uber-wealthy leviathan. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The relentless push by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers has opened a promising new front over the past year thanks to the volunteer efforts of more than 40 engineers.

In May of 2018, AE911Truth launched a bold initiative called Project Due Diligence (PDD) aimed at engaging and educating the nation’s civil and structural engineers. The project is spearheaded by AE911Truth board member Roland Angle, CE, who has made it his mission to galvanize America’s engineering community to restore the professional and scientific credibility it lost after 9/11.

Image on the right: Civil engineer Roland Angle speaks at the first presentation of Project Due Diligence in April 2018 at the Marines’ Memorial Association in San Francisco.

Angle is a civil engineer who was trained in the use of explosives while in the U.S. Army Special Forces (see his bio with those of other key volunteers below). He has joined other AE911Truth members to create a PowerPoint presentation called, “A Critique of the NIST WTC Building Failure Reports and the Progressive Collapse Theory.” The presentation outlines the many errors, omissions, and false premises contained in the official reports, which were published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and endorsed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

The PDD presentation also cites major errors in Zdeněk Bažant’s “Progressive Collapse Theory,” which he submitted to the ASCE just two days after 9/11 and was published in their Journal of Engineering Mechanics just a few months later. AE911Truth takes the position that the ASCE leadership performed unethically from the start of the official investigations. In addition to failing to protest the illegal removal of debris (i.e., physical evidence) from the WTC crime scene, the ASCE continues to suppress scientific challenges to the data and methodology used by both the Bažant and NIST analyses, which misrepresent the building collapse mechanisms.

Angle and his team maintain that it is the professional duty of engineers to become familiar with the official reports endorsed by the profession’s most publicly visible organization (ASCE) and to assess the merit of any challenges to those reports. It is incumbent upon engineers, they argue, to carefully review all discourse on these catastrophic building failures in order to ensure public safety and uphold U.S. engineering standards.

PDD’s outreach constitutes a novel attempt to build a self-expanding contact network. The program currently has 42 volunteers (who are civil, structural or mechanical engineers recruited from among AE911Truth petition signers). Their immediate goal is to reach out to the 160 local branches of the ASCE. They have already begun to expand the effort to include other engineering organizations and the general public.

The presentation process is efficient and flexible

Presentations are anchored by the PDD slideshow, first used by Angle in a video address at the Marines’ Memorial Association in San Francisco. Presenters receive a flash drive containing the video as well as the original PowerPoint slides. Presenters can show the video or use the slides with their own narration.

The original video is 78 minutes long but may be divided into two parts. Part one is devoted to problems with NIST’s Building 7 analysis. It makes heavy use of preliminary findings released by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, who is completing his study, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7” at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Part two uses data that refutes the official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction. Faulty premises in Bažant’s analysis are also examined because that theory was later cited in the NIST report as an explanation for the towers’ total collapse, which NIST did not attempt to explain, instead only carrying its analysis up to the point where it says the buildings were poised to collapse.

The presentation remains dynamic and can be updated as needed. The presentation sessions, which include open discussion, offer an opportunity to:

• gauge engineers’ familiarity with the NIST reports
• elucidate points challenging the findings in those reports
• encourage participants to honor their duty to examine these points
• promote a climate of scientific debate without political or emotional overtones
• increase participants’ confidence to discuss 9/11 issues
• motivate participants to take a position on the existing reports
• inspire participants to act on their convictions

Versions of the presentation more suitable for the general public are also being developed.

PDD results inspire optimism

More than 10 presentations have already taken place, and positive audience feedback has predominated. To date, 100 percent of attending engineers have indicated their approval of the presentation. Most were not previously familiar with the NIST reports and seemed to appreciate what they learned from the presentation. PDD’s engineers hope that this positive feedback will supersede overt attempts by the ASCE national leadership to prevent their presentations from being given at ASCE branches.

Overlapping the ASCE outreach is a second wave directed at other engineering organizations. A primary target is the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). PDD’s engineers have encountered little resistance from this organization and believe this was due to the NSPE not being part of the original investigations.

In addition to presentations at local ASCE and NSPE branches, presentations have been held during the ASCE’s Forensic Engineering 8^th Congress in November of 2018 and the ASCE’s Structures Congress in April 2019. Advertised during the day at each conference, the presentations were made at nearby hotels in the evening. Each was attended by a dozen and half a dozen Congress participants, respectively, as well as several local AE911Truth petition signers.

Dr. Oswald Rendon-Herrero spoke at the November 30th PDD presentation in Austin, TX. He is a professor emeritus of civil engineering at Mississippi State University, was one of the original founders of the ASCE’s Forensic Engineering Congress, held every three years, and he was co-chair of the Forensic Engineering 2nd Congress in 2000.

Attendees of the November 30th PDD presentation in Austin, TX, gather for drinks and conversation.

Roland Angle and PDD engineer Larry Cooper mingle with attendees of the April 25th PDD presentation in Orlando.

Who are the volunteers for Project Due Diligence?

Here are several of the original members of the group, who bring their own expertise and experience to the project:

Roland Angle, CE, is a civil engineer with a Bachelor of Science degree from UC Berkeley. He has 50 years of experience in the design and testing of blast-hardened missile launch facilities and in the design of U.S. Naval explosive’s containers, harbor terminal facilities, earth foundation systems, and hydraulic systems. He has owned three construction companies and has taught high school engineering-related subjects.

Lynn Affleck, PE, has a BS in civil engineering from the University of Utah and first worked as a structural engineering specialist, designing heavy structures for the petrochemical industry. He went on to establish his own engineering business, which he operated for 21 years. He returned to engineering with a new consulting firm for which he continues to work part-time.

Jeffrey Bishop has a BS in civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Since graduating in 2010, his work has focused on designing architectural building envelopes for high-rise structures and industrial projects.

Charles Coleman, PE, has a BS in civil engineering from San Diego State University and did civil engineering graduate studies at Uppsala University in Sweden. He worked as a surveyor with the California Aqueduct Project, and then went on to a 42-year career in structural steel design involving the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline as well as working on construction projects in Saudi Arabia. He has worked for the Alaska Department of Transportation and done private consulting. He also has piloted large Boeing jets for American Airlines. He was flying 757s and 767s for AA’s International Division at the time of 9/11. In fact, he had served as captain on two of the jets that were alleged to have been hijacked: AA11, which is alleged to have flown into the WTC North Tower; and AA77, which is alleged to have hit the Pentagon.

Larry Cooper, PE, has a BS in civil engineering from the University of Wisconsin and an MS in structural engineering from the University of Illinois. He has 40 years’ experience as a consulting engineer involved in structural design and construction of major wastewater treatment facilities as well as highway and railway bridges. His first consultancy led him to become involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the late 1960s, and he became affiliated with an organization called Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East.

Bill Graham, PE, received a BS in mechanical engineering and a BA in environmental studies from the State University of New York at Stony Brook, an MS in civil engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and a master of management degree from Northwestern University. He has more than 40 years of experience in engineering studies, design and construction, working with government and industrial clients in chemical, civil, and environmental spheres.

Michael Herzig has a BS in civil engineering from the University of Colorado at Boulder and has retired with 42 years of experience in public works. He was employed for 11 years by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, where he did street, drainage, and wastewater system design, as well as construction management. He also supervised operations in their hydraulic research laboratory and performed failure analysis in the wake of various environmental disasters. He supervised engineers for the City of Fort Collins, CO, working on transportation facility design and plan review. This experience included analysis of reinforced concrete and steel bridges.

Gene Johnson has a BS in mechanical engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and more than 30 years of construction and mining experience. He designed and used heavy machinery in open pit mining operations and is familiar with the use of explosives.

Dan May received a BS in civil engineering from Marquette University and began his career doing construction management. He moved on to the field of employee safety in industrial plants where he gained considerable experience in root cause analysis following workplace accidents. He has an understanding of forensic engineering investigations. Dan also has an MBA and does product development work.

Kathy McGrade has a BS in materials engineering from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and has done related graduate studies at Stanford University. She began her career working for various start-up companies, including Starstruck, where she developed satellite-delivery rockets; and Metcal, where she worked with shape-memory alloy materials.

Zaida Owre, PE, has a BS in civil engineering from UC Berkeley. She is retired after more than 20 years working for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Alameda County Public Works Agency in California.

Fred Schaejbe, PE, has a BS in civil engineering from Tufts University and received a scholarship to the University of Illinois to obtain his MS in structural engineering. For 21 years he worked in structural design and project management involving steel structures for offshore drilling operations and production platforms for the oil and gas industries. After moving to Wisconsin, he devoted another 24 years to civil engineering projects.

John Schuler, PE, has BS and MS degrees in civil engineering from Lehigh University and the University of Alaska, respectively. He has 27 years’ experience with geotechnical and transportation projects, including 15 years with the Virginia Department of Transportation.

Ibrahim Soudy, Ph.D., PE, received his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral degrees in structural engineering from the University of Alberta. He has more than 30 years of academic and practical experience in the design and evaluation of bridges, buildings, and offshore marine and materials-handling structures in structural engineering projects.

Tony Szamboti has a BS in mechanical engineering from Villanova University. He has decades of experience in the aerospace and communications industries and has designed many types of structures for use in dynamic environments.

*

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

All images in this article are from ae911truth.org

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 Gwadar Terrorist Attack Exposed the International Media’s Double Standards

By Andrew Korybko, May 12, 2019

The BBC reported that the “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA) claimed responsibility for the attack and quoted the terrorist organization as “saying it had targeted Chinese and other foreign investors”.

The 5G Revolution: Millions of “Human Guinea Pigs” in Big Telecom’s Global Experiment

By Michael Welch and Chris Cook, May 12, 2019

On April 3, Verizon flipped the switch in the US cities of Chicago and Minneapolis, making the telecom company the first carrier in the world to make the 5G network accessible to properly equipped devices.

The Zionist Idea Has Never Been More Terrifying than It Is Today

By Rima Najjar, May 11, 2019

To Palestinians, the intersection between Judaism and Zionism has always been considered the most dangerous aspect of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state in Palestine today.

Al Baghdadi: The US Couldn’t Wish for a Greater Ally

By Tony Cartalucci, May 11, 2019

The goal had been to further isolate the Syrian government in aid of Washington’s ultimate goal of overthrowing Damascus. When growing numbers of extremists failed to do this, the US then used the presence of ISIS as a pretext for a revised version of the direct military intervention Russia had thwarted just a year earlier.

Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 11, 2019

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality.

Why the U.S. Labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a Terrorist Organization

By Prof. Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, May 10, 2019

Considering the fact that between 25 and 30 percent of the Iranian economy is owned and/or operated by the Revolutionary Guards, sanctioning of the organization’s economic activities,especially its foreign trade, is bound to further depress Iran’s economy and, hence, its people’s living conditions.

The Western American Empire Plays the War Card

By Comitato No Nato, May 10, 2019

A vast arc of growing tensions and conflicts extends from East Asia to Central Asia, from the Middle East to Europe, from Africa to Latin America.

Why Does Trump Like Communist Vietnam? Because It’s Capitalist.

By Mark Karlin, May 09, 2019

In 2019, the evolution of Vietnam toward capitalism, praised by the Trump administration, is not without irony. A ruinous and brutal U.S. war against North Vietnam and its Viet Cong supporters in the south ended with the U.S. withdrawal of military troops in 1973, followed by a complete end to the conflict in 1975.

*

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

Featured image is from Iranian Presidency/Anadolu Agency

It has been an uninspiring election, punctuated by occasional moments of madness on the part of various candidates.  Their sin was to be incautious in their previous use of social media, a form of communication that reveals everything and nothing about a person.  In a political sense, the erring tweet and the injudicious remark on an online forum have laid waste to incipient political careers and ambitions.

This is a far cry from the supposedly mighty role the use of social media was meant to have in participatory politics.  Now, the chickens have come home to roost in various unexpected ways.  Social media outlets are condemned for being platforms for misinformation and manipulation (the horror!) and tech giants are given daily tongue lashings by politicians and representatives for not being online Bobbies. 

Paradoxically, these are the same critics who have been more than happy to embrace such media to access voters at virtually no cost.  As President Donald J. Trump once explained on his use of Twitter,

“I like it because I can get my point of view out there, and my point of view is very important to a lot of people that are looking at me.” 

Various surges in the polls by presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders in 2016 were occasioned by a conspicuous and aggressive presence on social media relative to his rival, Hillary Clinton.  In Britain, the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the position of Labour leader was very much boosted by a dedicated social media following.

Social media in this Australian federal election has done quite the opposite: rather than advancing profiles and improving visibility for the candidate, mistakes have been noted, and previous misbehaviour drawn out as grave errors of judgment.  Bad speech has been picked up and prosecuted by the machine men and women of various parties.  Resignations have been encouraged, and, in some cases, forced.

This instances have provided marvelous distractions from policy, fitting for those who do not have any.

“The offensive remarks,” noted The New York Times, “have forced at least six candidates for Parliament to quit, while many more linger like zombies – most of them from the conservative governing coalition and other parties on the right.”

The range of comments, for all the unsavoury nature, would not have seemed out of place in previous elections.  Susan Harris-Rimmer, a law academic at Griffith University, expressed amazement “that these people are being asked to resign, because a lot of this stuff would have been seen as normal a few years ago.”  It was “a bit of a sign of success that they’re being forced to leave.”  Harris-Rimmer ignores that obvious point that such individuals do not leave so much as retreat to the party undergrowth.

Has Australian politics suddenly become righteous?  A sense of proportion is in order, and social media is precisely the medium that distorts it.  Rage is magnified, as are errors.  Idiotic behaviour, probably mandatory for a teenager, is rendered immutable if it touches on rape humour or sexual observation.  Luke Creasey, an urchin-looking Labor candidate running in Melbourne, expressed contrition at doing so but ultimately fell on his sword.  He acknowledged making “those awful comments many years ago and they in no way reflect the views I hold today,” claimed Creasey in a statement.  He understood “, especially as a member of the LGBTIQ community, that we need to be careful about what we share or like on social media.” 

Others have been somewhat fresher in their sins.  Jessica Whelan, formerly a Liberal candidate running in the seat of Lyons, came undone with the airing of various social media posts in the Tasmanian parliament.  In 2017, Whelan’s response to a woman regarding public housing waiting lists was piquant:

“Given that your profile states that you went to college at ‘never lose hope in Allah’… I hope you’re not bloody on our housing waiting list.” 

Another, addressed to a Facebook video purportedly showing American Muslim and non-Muslim women praying together, was similarly direct. 

“Round them up Donald, cut their clitorises off and sell them to Muslims in Muslim countries and cancel their passports.  You’ll make a mint.”

Jeremy Hearn, also of the Liberal Party, was binned for anti-Muslim remarks made in 2018.  Those sinister warriors of Allah (“people of bad character”), he said pointedly, had been insinuating themselves into the landscape, concealing their true intentions in wishing to overthrow the Australian government. 

Not to be outdone, Peter Killin, another Liberal candidate, resigned after attacking his own colleague and member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, in a comments thread of a blog post by Christian conservative blogger Bill Muehlenberg.  While contesting the seat of Wills in Melbourne’s inner-north, Killin made no secret of the fact that he was against the pre-selection of Wilson for Goldstein, who had won by “one lousy vote” in 2016.  “Many of us will recall [Wilson] was the openly homosexual who proposed to his boyfriend in parliment [sic].”

One of the last hold outs – and there are no doubt a few more lurking – was Gurpal Singh, Liberal candidate for Scullin.  What eventually pushed him?  Not remarks made in 2017 equating same-sex marriage with paedophilic tendencies.  It took Facebook comments to an SBS article written in 2018 expressing disagreement with an allegation of rape made by a Punjabi woman against her husband. 

“Based on new information that has come to light,” explained a Liberal party spokesman, “Mr Gurpal Singh has been asked to resign as candidate for Scullin.”  

Singh called it “shameful that a married woman suffering family violence can go to such extent” having “skimmed her lover, husband and father of her two children for all these years.”

Perversely, in an era characterised by episodic Twitter deluges by a US President, many bruising and scornful of political correctness, Australian politics shows a far more regulated concern for the red mist of online commentary.  The social media scrubbers within the parties have gotten busy.  Tweet and be damned; share, and face the consequences.  In Creasey’s own warning, “this is a really important lesson for young people that your social media footprint will follow you.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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]

Most of the international media is referring to Saturday’s attack on the Pearl Continental hotel in Gwadar as being committed by either “gunmen” or “militants” instead of the actual terrorists that the perpetrators are after the BBC reported that they chose their target in order to kill Chinese and other foreign investors, therefore exposing a common double standard whereby “politically convenient” terrorist attacks are simply reframed as “shootings” or “militancy” while “politically inconvenient” acts of resistance are smeared as “terrorism”.

Several terrorists tried storming into the Pearl Continental hotel in CPEC’s terminal port of Gwadar Saturday afternoon, but a large-scale tragedy was thankfully averted after the security services managed to evacuate most of the guests. The BBC reported that the “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA) claimed responsibility for the attack and quoted the terrorist organization as “saying it had targeted Chinese and other foreign investors”. This incident is a blatant act of terrorism just like the much more devastating ones that were carried out against several hotels and churches in Sri Lanka last month, but the international media is resorting to its tried-and-tested double standards after most of them described the perpetrators as “gunmen” or “militants” instead of the actual terrorists that they are.

This is because the terrorist attacks are “politically convenient” for the US and India, with these two allies collectively commanding impressive influence across the world’s media space, because it targeted Chinese civilians and infrastructure as part of the ongoing Hybrid War on CPEC. The evident purpose was to deter further investments and visits by foreign businessmen to this strategically significant port in the global pivot state of Pakistan, as well as to trigger an overreaction by the security services against local Baloch which could then be basis upon upon which a Xinjiang-like fake news campaign alleging “concentration camps” and “cultural cleansing” can be carried out prior to the possible imposition of sanctions for “humanitarian reasons”. Of course, this would also be executed in parallel with the Hybrid War on Hybrid War in Pakistan pretending that the country has no terrorist threats whatsoever and that all forms of opposition to the state — including taking up arms and targeting civilians — are “legitimate”, especially if they’re being led by minority Pashtuns or Baloch.

On the opposite side of the coin, “politically inconvenient” acts of resistance such as what the Kashmiris and Palestinians are doing against their Indian and “Israeli” occupiers (who not coincidentally have recently become military-strategic partners and are both allied with the US) are smeared as “terrorism” even if they only target soldiers and paramilitary units. Another double standard is that international media is usually pleading for the world’s leading economies to invest in underdeveloped “Global South” regions, yet these same information outlets are now lending “legitimacy” to the BLA’s terrorist crusade against China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investments in Pakistani Balochistan because it serves the US’ grand strategic purposes. Having said that, even the most casual information consumer must sense that they’re being manipulated after the world condemned last month’s terrorist attacks on Sri Lankan hotels but is now silent about the latest one Pakistan’s PC Gwadar.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

 “If you are one of the millions who seek faster downloads of movies, games and virtual pornography, a solution is at hand, that is, if you do not mind volunteering your living body in a giant uncontrolled experiment on the human population.”

– Dr. Devra Davis, President of the Environmental Health Trust [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Welcome to the brave new world of 5G.

The long-running trade talks between the U.S. and China seem to have unfortunately fizzled out, but while American commentators are busy blaming Beijing for their apparent failure, the fact of the matter is that President Donald Trump‘s team had the wrong approach to them from the get-go and should, therefore, take responsibility for ruining them. The American economy has different underlying fundamentals from the Chinese one and accordingly has certain structural advantages over its many competitors, which is why Washington was pushing for Beijing to drastically lower its tariffs and allow an influx of imports from the U.S. 

What President Trump’s team didn’t account for, however, is China’s historical reluctance to do so after being exploited by the imperialist powers that disguised their hegemonic operations under cover of “free trade”. In fact, the infamous U.S.-led “Open Door Policy” only made matters worse for China during that period, yet that’s precisely what the U.S. was seemingly trying to replicate this time around through its trade talk demands.

It should be objectively acknowledged that China’s economy is slowly but surely opening up to the rest of the world, but this is a gradual process that must be carried out with the utmost care in order to avoid inadvertently destabilizing the country. Artificially accelerating this process like the U.S. wants to do could carry with it very serious consequences for China, hence the reluctance to agree to the American demands and the reason why China reportedly tried to renegotiate the terms of their deal.

A group photo of the Chinese and U.S. trade negotiators at Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China, February 15, 2019. /VCG Photo 

If the U.S. intentions were purely economic and solely predicated on rectifying the trade deficit between the two, then it would have been more understanding of the Chinese position, but its leader has instead resorted to publicly spewing insults against his counterparts on social media in what appears to be a fit of rage all because they wanted to ensure that there wouldn’t be any unforeseen consequences to their economy if they complied with the proposed terms that were laid out in the deal that they were negotiating at that time.

President Trump’s dramatic reaction also speaks to the U.S. another mistake in that it failed to account for the concept of “face” in Chinese culture. Publicly insulting China’s high-level representatives was intended to humiliate the entire country and also created a toxic negotiating environment that made it extremely unlikely that any deal would ultimately be reached.

One would be forgiven for suspecting that this might have partially been the point all along and that those tweets could have been a Machiavellian tactic to doom the talks so that their failure could then be misleadingly placed squarely on China’s shoulders by the army of American commentators that have suddenly assembled to blame Beijing for what happened.

U.S. President Donald Trump signs Section 201 actions in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 23, 2018. /VCG Photo

Speaking of distrust, it can’t be forgotten that President Trump’s economic team was negotiating with China in parallel with his military one provocatively sailing through the Taiwan Strait and clinching arms deals with the province, which were very unfriendly moves that made China question the real U.S. motives.

The possible success of a comprehensive trade deal between China and the U.S. could have laid the basis for a larger one regulating their relations and reducing the odds that their strategic competition with one another could one day lead to conflict, which is why it’s such a pity that everything apparently fell through at the very last minute. Even so, it’s not China’s fault for what happened because the U.S. took the totally wrong approach to the negotiations from the get-go.

It was highly unlikely that the Chinese would agree to another “Open Door Policy” considering that this could have very easily favored the U.S. at their expense, and there was close to no chance of the negotiations continuing in good faith after President Trump publicly insulted the Chinese trade team in parallel with the Pentagon’s provocative interactions with Taiwan. As such, the world needs to recognize that the responsibility for the failed trade talks rests with the U.S. alone and that no deal can ever be reached until the Americans change their positions and take China’s legitimate interests into account.

*

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

This article was originally published on CGTN.

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:  Chinese Vice Premier Liu He‍ (C) waves as he departs the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 9, 2019. /VCG Photo

On this seventy-first annual commemoration of Palestine’s Jewish-state Nakba, let’s resolve not to continue to oversimplify things.

Whether you believe the American rabbi and historian Arthur Hertzberg’s assessment of the Zionist idea as “unprecedented … an essential dialogue between the Jew and the nations of the earth”, rather than a matter between Jews and God, or you believe the assessment of Ass’ad Razzouk, researcher and contributor to the PLO Research Center’s 1970 Arabic translation of Hertzberg’s book, that Zionism, at its heart, emerged naturally from Jewish religious sources and is thoroughly influenced and motivated by traditional Jewish religious ideas, both conscious and unconscious, the fact remains that there exists a complex picture of the relationship between Judaism and Zionism.

To Palestinians, the intersection between Judaism and Zionism has always been considered the most dangerous aspect of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state in Palestine today.

The focus today among the international activist community advocating for Palestine is on Zionism’s modern European political and ideological roots, a focus that represents Zionism as no different from any other form of European colonialism, as a settler-colonial movement foreign to the Middle East.

This “narrative”, if you will, has made great inroads in concentrating international attention, especially through the human rights formulations of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. But I believe, by itself, such a theoretical framework for the Palestinian decades-long struggle for justice and liberation is insufficient to effect change, not only because of the ongoing complicity of Western powers in the Nakba, but also because, by itself, this narrative cannot sufficiently move the hearts and minds of Israelis and Jews worldwide.

Only a resurgence of the progressive and developed principles of Reform Judaism, as expressed in a series of rabbinical conferences in German lands in the 1840s and in the U.S. in the second half of the 19th century, will have the necessary ideological power to defeat Zionism.

Upon the partitioning of Palestine and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state, Herzl’s expectation that rabbis would devote their energies in the service of Zionism came to fruition; Zionism has long gained the great masses of religious Jews around the world and “redirected their love of Zion from its spiritual and longing sense and its traditional supplicatory character” to political Zionism, as Ass’ad Razzouk expressed it in his book al-Dawla wa-l-Din (Religion and the State).

The Reform Judaism movement, a modern historical development of Judaism, arose early in the 19th century, in reaction to changing conditions in Europe that overthrew oppressive medieval laws against Jews. The movement, among whose requirements was the repudiation or disavowal of Jewish nationalist aspirations, aimed to accommodate the beliefs and religious practices of Judaism to the new liberal and enlightened age in Europe and in the U.S.

Reform Judaism addresses both the Zionist idea of the historical inevitability of a Jewish state resulting from antisemitism and other external factors, as well as the messianic idea resulting from religion and religious texts — the book of Exodus and the belief in the advent of the messiah. Reform Judaism disrupts the conception, so useful to Israel, that Zionism is heir to a long uninterrupted Jewish history. It also opens up the door for the universal application of the supposed values of modern (i.e., political) Zionism — namely, individual liberty, national freedom, economic and social justice, i.e., the door for the Palestinian people that Zionism slammed shut against them in their own homeland.

Many Jews (as well as Evangelical Christians) understand Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a wonderful, almost miraculous restoration of Jewish sovereignty over ancient religious sites. To Reform Jews worldwide who had been shaken out of their optimistic, universalist stance after the Holocaust, the war of 1967 also brought Israel close to home to Canadian, American (and other) Jews around the world, through “ethnic pride”.  The Naksa, as Palestinians call the war, fed the “Jewish identity” side of Reform Judaism, destabilizing the balance this reform movement was trying to uphold, at its inception, in the “interplay between universalism and particularism”, an interplay that, to Palestinians, means having one’s cake and eating it too.

Reform Judaism has now reached its 200th anniversary. Can the Reform movement, not Zionism, finally satisfy Jewish religious and identity needs in a way that swings the interplay between the universal and particular in Palestinians’ favor? In ‘History of Reform Judaism and a Look Ahead: In Search of Belonging’, Rabbi Lawrence A. Englander (Canadian) writes:

Two hundred years ago, one’s personal identity was essentially defined through one or two primary groups to which one belonged-usually country and religion. Today, identity is more fractionalized and complex, determined by such factors as country, language, gender, profession, socioeconomic status-and religion. Each of these components make up our identity like pieces of a pie.

The PLO charter declares Judaism as a religion and not “nationalism”, and describes Jews as “citizens of the states to which they belong … not a single people with a separate identity.” These definitions of Judaism and Jews play an important role in the rhetorical battle against Zionism. In the 1964 and 1968 PLO National Charters, the words Muslim or Islam don’t appear.

Palestinian nationalism is universalist in nature, encompassing both Muslims and Christians — as well as indigenized Jews pre-1948. And even though the multiplicity of religions within a single national movement does not abolish concerns or religious communal interests from the national agenda, such concerns can be addressed rationally within the context of one secular and democratic state. The Palestinian will for national liberation is not disconnected from religious impulses. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are explicitly religious and function as a response to the judaization of Jerusalem, in particular.

The Palestinian understanding of Zionism as a movement at the heart of which lies religious, messianic interests and myths (as documented and argued prolifically by the PLO Research Center in Beirut) has long been silenced or attacked in scholarly debate and blurred by contemporary politics as going against the secularist claims of Zionist leaders, but it provides us with an important insight. Ignoring it or refusing to engage in it dismisses a vital context of the Palestinian struggle and forms an insurmountable obstacle to the formation of a secular democratic state in all of Palestine, the only remaining viable solution to Israel’s aggression on the Palestinian people.

Christians who now embrace Zionism (some as a result of funds and gifts received from Zionists) abdicate true Christian values, as do Jews who call for Jewish nationalism on a secular (political) or religious basis and embrace a mythical “birthright” in Palestine.

*

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

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

“If you are really going to be free, you have to overcome the love of wealth and the fear of death.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. as quoted by Andrew Young in the documentary “King in the Wilderness”

Most people on this earth live on the edge of an abyss. Life is a daily struggle to stay alive, to acquire enough to eat and drink, rudimentary health care, housing, and protection from murderous government forces, their various death-squads, and their economic vultures.  The gap between the rich and poor, while always great, has grown even more obscenely vast, and lies at the core of what so many face daily. Their perilous conditions are sustained by imperial nations, led by the United States, who, together with its minions, buy and bribe and butcher overtly and covertly all around the world. The love of wealth and the fear of death drive these power-mad marauders and divert the gazes of their citizens from the slaughter.  It’s an old story.

If you are reading this, I am probably not telling you anything new.  You know this, as do I, as I sit safely behind a screened-in table on a beautiful spring day in the hills of western Massachusetts.  I have had some soup and bread for lunch and there are no bombers overhead or death-squads cruising the roads here.  While my family and I live a simple life, compared to the world’s poor and persecuted, we are privileged.  One does not have to be rich to be privileged.  The advantages granted to those like me who can securely sit and pen words about the fate of the poor and persecuted victims of my country’s endless violence weighs heavy on my conscience, as they have done since I was young.

I am ashamed to say that in the early morning of May 1, as I lay in bed musing, I thought I would like to stay in bed all day, a depressed feeling that I had never had before. Discouragement enveloped me: I was being forced out of my teaching job; I felt that my dissident writing and teaching made no difference in a world where injustice and violence are endemic and without end; and the forces of evil seemed to be triumphing everywhere. Self-pity mixed with an angry sadness that disgusted me. I disgusted myself.  So I jumped out of bed and prepared to go and teach some of my last classes.  But I was lost in gloom as I drove along the winding roads.

When I arrived at the college and checked my mail, there was a package waiting for me.  It was a review copy of the poet Carolyn Forché’s startling new memoir (What You Have Heard Is True: A Memoir of Witness and Resistance) about her youthful transformative experiences in El Salvador in the late 1970s as U.S. trained and supported death-squads brutally murdered poor peasants and priests, and guerrilla resistance was growing prior to the outbreak of civil war.  I opened the book to the epigraph, which reads:

Hope also nourishes us.  Not the hope of fools.  The other kind.  Hope, when everything is clear.

Awareness.

The quotation is from the Salvadorian writer Manlio Argueta, whose deeply moving novel, One Day of Life (1980), banned by the Salvadorian government, takes the readerthrough one terrifying and bloodstained day in the life of peasants struggling to stay aliveasthey aretortured and slaughtered with impunity.  We hear the voices of the poor tell a story of the growth of conscience (“God is conscience. And conscience is we, the ones forgotten now, the poor.”), the discovery of rights, and the awareness of exploitation.  Despite the terrifying evil that pervades this book – now considered one of the greatest Latin American novels of the 20th century – there is a luminous spirit of hope and resistance that miraculously prevails that is passed on from person to person despite death, torture, and immense suffering.  Argueta fulfills the words of the tortured Jose to Lupe: “Don’t worry, if those of us with understanding failed to act, we would all be in real trouble.”

I remembered that I had reviewed this book in the early 1980s at a time when 100 or more very poor campesinos were being murdered every week, a few years after Archbishop Oscar Romero, the courageous defender of the poor who spoke out against the killers, had been gunned down while saying Mass.  The Roman Catholic Church has subsequently declared him a saint.

Yet decades later, despite the extraordinary efforts of awakened souls like Carolyn Forché, it still seems true that Americans can’t visualize, no less believe in or care about, the death and suffering their government is inflicting on innocent people all around the world.  Today’s screen culture – I Phone therefore I Am – while seemingly allowing for the visualization of the suffering of the world’s poor, has rendered all reality more abstract and unreal, while inducing a collective hallucination sustained by media and machines that divorces us from flesh and blood, our own and others. All the disembodied data that is daily disgorged through these screens seems to me to have rendered the world disincarnate through the metastasizing of a digital dementia tied to death denial.

I think of Galway Kinnell’s poem, “The Fundamental Project of Technology”:

To de-animalize human mentality, to purge it of obsolete,

Evolutionary characteristics, in particular of death,

Which foreknowledge terrorizes the content of skulls with,

Is the fundamental project of technology; however,

pseudologica fantastica’s mechanisms require:

to establish deathlessness it is necessary to eliminate those who die;

a task attempted when a white light flashed.

Awareness?  I sit here looking through the screen that encloses the little porch where my table rests.  MLK’s words reverberate in my mind as I watch a grey fox slink across the grass in search of prey.  What is it about the love of money and the fear of death that so cripples people’s care and compassion?  I know I don’t want to see that fox seize a screaming rabbit and worry (to kill by biting and shaking the throat; strangle) it to death.  Unlike Forché, I have not physically seen the dead and mutilated bodies of Salvadorian victims of death squads, nor been threatened by them, as she was.  Nevertheless, thanks to her and others like Manlio Argueta, I have seen them in my imagination and heard the screams, and they have haunted me.  Ghosts.

But why are some so haunted and others not?

The foreknowledge that terrorizes the contents of skulls, as Kinnell puts it – our ultimate powerlessness – overwhelms humans from childhood unless they can find a way forward that discovers power in powerlessness.  When one’s “well-being” is dependent on the death of others, as is the case for most Americans and others in the so-called first world, people tend to repress the terror of death by building various types of culturally induced defenses that allow them to shakily believe they are in control of life and death.

One’s natural impotence is then hidden within what Ernest Becker called “the vital lie of character,” and in what, by extension, is the lie of American character that rests on money and military might.  One lives within the manageable cultural world that helps blot out existential awareness by offering various social games, agreed forms of “madness” that narcotize. One learns to adjust, to use all sorts of techniques to blot out the awareness that each of us is essentially exposed and mortal, flesh and blood.

The aim is clearly to cut life down to manageable proportions, domesticate terror, and learn to think we are captains of our fate.  Inevitably, however, not all these social “tricks” work equally well.  Life’s terrors have a way of breaking through to dim awareness, and therefore more drastic measures are needed.  So after having lived the cultural lie uncritically, one tries to blot out awareness itself.  If shopping to forget doesn’t work, if obsessive work doesn’t do it, one turns to drugs or drink, anything to forget, anything to assuage our fears, anything to deny our need for courage.  Anything to help us refuse the truth that our lives are built on the blood of others.

The ineluctable reality of uncertainty is our fate. I have always known that, but I forget.  I have also long known that we live by faith of one kind or another, and whatever name we give it, it is by faith we enter into the holy mystery of existence.  We are carried forward by the spirit that binds us in solidarity to all human struggles for freedom and dignity, for bread and justice. The day I wished to stay in bed and wallow in self-pity and depression came as a shock to me.  It revealed to me my hubris, my sense of self-importance, as if my efforts were not just a drop in the sea, seeds scattered that may or may not take root.  I was afraid to accept possible defeat, despite my best efforts.  I was afraid of death and lacked courage.  Like those I criticize for turning their faces away from the suffering faces of America’s victims, I lost my courage that morning in bed. And hope.

But later that day I would awaken and see through the screen of my self-importance when I leafed through Carolyn Forché’s book and chanced upon her quoting Fr. Romero’s words:

“We must hope without hoping.  We must hope when we have no hope.”

Then her poem “Ourselves or Nothing” bubbled up in memory:

There is a cyclone fence between

Ourselves and the slaughter and behind it

We hover in a calm protected world like

Netted fish, exactly like netted fish.

It is either the beginning or the end

Of the world, and the choice is ourselves or nothing.

Priest and poet reminding us to fight lucidly on.  Hope when everything is clear.  Awareness.

*

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.

The blockade of the Gaza Strip is the ongoing land, air, and sea blockade of essential food, medical and building supplies imposed by Israel in 2007 under the pretext of arms-control but which, in reality, is in order to try to force regime change. This is the criminal action that has deprived a population of nearly 2 million of their electricity, power and basic needs of existence for more than 12 years in addition to heavily restricting the free movement of civilians and goods.

Furthermore, there is the illegal settlement of over 600,000 Israeli citizens in the Occupied Territories that is, in effect, supported by British arms and military exports notwithstanding the violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 that clearly states that such settlements ‘Have No Legal Validity and Constitute a Flagrant Violation of International Law.’

Gaza, of course, has no Army, no Air Force and no Navy, only civilian protestors and militants who fire homemade rockets into the land of their nuclear-armed oppressors who then bravely retaliate by indiscriminately bombing a defenceless civilian population. The IDF, heavily-armed with American and British equipment, attack targets in Gaza leaving the wounded to die as they themselves return in their brand new F-35 US-made warplanes to drink coffee and eat hummus at home with their wives and families.

This then is the Middle East of 2019, controlled by the Netanyahu government, supported by US President Trump that advocates a Greater Israel with all Palestinian indigenous people ethnically cleansed to leave a single Jewish-only state extending from the Mediterranean to the far side of the River Jordan.

Five million indigenous Palestinian Arabs would then become stateless in their own land in a travesty of justice reminiscent of the bygone colonial times of the British Imperial Empire when Cecil Rhodes strode about Africa planting a British flag in the soil and claiming entire countries and their populations as the subjects and chattels of the British Crown. And now the world watches as Messrs Trump and Netanyahu continue to violate the command of the United Nations Security Council, with impunity.

*

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

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

Featured image: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

The apartheid regime we know as “Israel” was built on the very ruins of Palestine and imposed a brutal regime on those who still live in their country. Millions of Palestinians still languish in refugee camps in and around Palestine, yet Israel and its allies around the world celebrate “Israeli independence.”

***

Nakba Day — the day when Palestinians commemorate the destruction of their country and the mass killing and forced eviction of their people — is coming up, and with each passing day, another disturbing story unfolds.

Perhaps the most disturbing story so far is the plan to present Palestine with a new name, “New Palestine.” This, according to a rumored leak, is what Donald Trump and Jared Kushner are going to present to an anticipating world as part of the so-called “Deal of the Century.”

Also according to the leak, aside from a demand for Palestinians to accept a new name as part of the “Deal of the Century” — forgoing the name “Palestine,” which has been used to describe their land since the Bronze Age — the Palestinian people will have to accept that their heritage and their history will be erased and their land will be taken away for good. In other words, what Palestinians are going to receive, according to the leak, is a new name but no country, and they will be expected to accept this or else they will be denied access to foreign aid, not only from the U.S. but other countries as well.

From elections to Gaza to Independence Day

Things move fast on the Israeli side of occupied Palestine. Israel recently held elections, then — within a few weeks and before a new government was even formed — Israel lashed out with a deadly attack on Gaza. Then, Israel recognized a few solemn days, the first one Holocaust Remembrance Day and the second, a day to commemorate Israeli soldiers who had fallen in battle. Then Israelis were off to celebrate “Israeli Independence.”

On the Palestinian side, no sooner does one tragedy end than a second one follows, no time for the fresh blood on the ground to dry before more is spilled. The lovely face of 16-year-old Fatima Hijazi, shot by an Israeli sniper, is still fresh in people’s hearts when more, even younger casualties are reported. Palestinians go from mourning to mourning with no end in sight.

Over the past several years, a new phenomenon has risen, a joint memorial service where Israelis and Palestinians join together to commemorate their fallen loved ones. While the idea of such an event may seem appealing to some, the moral equivalency it tries to create between the victims of the violence and those who lost their lives while perpetuating the violence is troubling. However, in the political climate that now exists among Israelis, this is considered progressive. While this event was permitted to proceed, right-wing gangs came by to protest the initiative and lashed out with obscenities at the participants: “Sons of whores, may God take all of you stinking lefties! Death to Arabs!” and on and on.

Celebrating independence

A custom that can only be described as insensitive, if not outright cruel, and which has been in place since Palestine was destroyed, is the celebration of Israeli independence. Just as Israeli elections were held on the day that Palestinians commemorate the massacre at Deir Yassin, Israel callously celebrates a day of independence at the same time as Palestinians mourn the loss of their country.

The apartheid regime we know as “Israel” was built on the very ruins of Palestine and imposed a brutal regime on those who still live in their country. Millions of Palestinians still languish in refugee camps in and around Palestine, yet Israel and its allies around the world celebrate.

Israelis are not the indigenous people of Palestine. What we know today as “Israelis” are people who came to colonize mostly during the time of the British Mandate in Palestine, and they did so largely with the assistance of the British government. The British mandate over Palestine, which was, in reality, an occupation of the country, facilitated the creation of the Zionist apartheid regime in Palestine. The Jews who came to colonize and settle in Palestine were never oppressed or occupied; in fact, they were privileged. The Jewish settlements in Palestine had services like running water and electricity long before many of the Palestinian communities did, and they were assisted by the British in every possible way.

The biblical Zionist narrative

The name “New Palestine” becomes even more absurd in light of the fact that the name Palestine was, “first documented in the late Bronze Age, about 3,200 years ago.” Furthermore, according to a new book by historian Nur Masalha, “the name Palestine is the conventional name used between 450 B.C. and 1948 A.D. to describe the geographical region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.” These quotes are from Masalha’s Palestine, A Four Thousand Year History, published by Zed Books in 2018.

Masalha — professor of history at the London University School of Oriental and African Studies, or SOAS — takes on the difficult task of seriously, scientifically, and one may add successfully, challenging the prevailing narrative regarding Palestine. This is clearly no simple feat but it is one in which the historian Masalha succeeds in a manner that is both admirable and convincing.

Unfortunately, odds are neither Jared Kushner or Benjamin Netanyahu — the two men who are most likely to be behind the “New Palestine” and the “Deal of the Century” — will ever read this important history book. Revealing, as it does, aspects of Palestinian history that Zionists would prefer remain in the dark, Masalha’s book is essential reading. Until the history of Palestine is told and the cruel reality in which Palestinians live today is exposed, Palestine will never be free.

*

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

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”

Featured image is from PressTV

After the redacted Mueller report was made public, Donald Trump tweeted, “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION.” But when the House Judiciary Committee asked to see Mueller’s full report, Trump said no way.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to check and balance the executive branch. That includes the power to issue and enforce subpoenas. In the 1927 Teapot Dome scandal case about government corruption, the Supreme Court held that Congress’s “power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” Justice Willis Van Devanter wrote for the unanimous Court that when the Constitution was adopted, “the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate — indeed, was treated as inhering in it.”

Yet Trump has defied nearly all of the nine subpoenas and requests for testimony and/or documents that House committees have issued.

Barr Refuses to Produce the Unredacted Mueller Report

On April 19, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler issued a subpoena ordering Attorney General William Barr to produce the unredacted Mueller report and evidence undergirding it by May 1.

Instead, Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd sent a letter to Nadler on May 1, stating that Barr was refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena.

On May 8, Boyd notified Nadler that

“the President has asserted a protective assertion of executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials.”

Trump has not actually asserted executive privilege yet. A protective assertion means he is reserving the right to assert it in the future after reviewing the requested materials.

“[A] formal executive privilege claim requires scrutiny of the precise documents and information withheld to determine whether 1) that material fits within a component of executive privilege and 2) Congress’s need for the information is not sufficiently weighty to overcome the privilege,” Jonathan Shaub wrote at Lawfare.

Barr claimed that the judiciary committee had “not allowed sufficient time” for Trump to decide whether to make a “conclusive assertion” of executive privilege.

After Barr’s refusal to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to produce the unredacted Mueller report and supporting documentation, the committee voted to issue a contempt citation against Barr on May 9.

Now the full House of Representatives will decide whether to hold Barr in contempt of Congress. In the likely event that occurs, there are four possible avenues to enforce the congressional contempt citation.

First, the House could ask the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to initiate a criminal prosecution of Barr. But the U.S. attorney answers to Barr, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, making it less likely that the U.S. attorney would actually pursue the prosecution.

Second, the House could order the sergeant-at-arms to take Barr into custody until he complies with the subpoena. There is a jail in the congressional building. This procedure, known as the power of “inherent contempt,” was last used in 1935.

Third, the House could file a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena. However, this type of suit could take years. And, as Adam Liptak noted in The New York Times, even if the House were to prevail, it “is not clear that the Trump administration would comply with any eventual court order.”

Fourth, if the House convenes an impeachment proceeding, it would bolster the chances of receiving testimony and documents.

“Judges have repeatedly ruled that Congress has a greater claim to sensitive government documents and personal information when it can point to an ongoing legal matter, instead of just a congressional investigation or legislative debate. And impeachment would give lawmakers that legal matter,” Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein wrote at Politico.

Trump Defies All Subpoenas

Of the nine subpoenas and requests that House committees have issued, Trump is resisting nearly all of them.

Trump declared to reporters outside the White House, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas.”

Even John Yoo, author of the most egregious torture memos and champion of the “unitary executive” theory of presidential power, said:

The thing that’s unusual is the blanket refusal. It would be extraordinary if the president actually were to try to stop all congressional testimony on subpoenaed issues. That would actually be unprecedented if it were a complete ban…. He’s treating Congress like they’re the Chinese or a local labor union working on a Trump building.

On May 2, the day after his withering appearance at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Barr refused to appear at a scheduled hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Then, on May 9, the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for Barr to produce the unredacted Mueller report and underlying documentation.

After the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify and produce documents, Trump asserted executive privilege to prevent McGahn from testifying.

Meanwhile, both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary have subpoenaed Robert Mueller to testify before them. The 10 Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to committee chair Lindsey Graham, asking that the committee hold a hearing with Mueller. They listed 60 unanswered questions they wish to ask Mueller.

Barr said he had no objection to Mueller testifying. Trump then tweeted, “Bob Mueller should not testify.” A few days later, however, Trump stated, “I’m going to leave that up to our very great attorney general. He’ll make a decision on that.”

What About Impeachment?

Nearly 800 former federal prosecutors, both Republicans and Democrats, signed a statement saying that if it weren’t for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president can’t be indicted, Trump would be charged with multiple felonies. They wrote,

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”

Ten million people have signed a petition calling for the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings.

The Democratic-controlled House would have the votes to impeach Trump. The case would then move to the Senate for trial, where two-thirds of the senators must agree to convict Trump and remove him from office. That is nearly impossible, as the Republicans control the Senate.

And so, even if Trump were to be impeached, he would be acquitted in the Senate and Trump would claim victory. Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate garnered sympathy for the president. Although there is strong sentiment for impeachment, the procedure is politically risky for Democrats. However, it is possible that televised evidence of Trump’s crimes could turn GOP senators against him, as happened during the Watergate hearings.

James Reston Jr. wrote in The New York Times about the “power of the televised [Watergate] hearings of the House Judiciary Committee” in 1974. “Far from being politically divisive, they proved a dignified and appropriate response to egregious presidential misconduct — enough to persuade seven out of the committee’s 17 Republicans to vote in favor of at least one of the articles of impeachment.”

The articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included obstruction of justice, abuse of power and refusal to comply with eight congressional subpoenas regarding the Watergate scandal.

Will Trump follow a Nixon-like path, with television — ironically — becoming the site of his downfall? Or will he manage to strong-arm his way to legal impunity?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

US State Department head Mike Pompeo has suffered a public meltdown, reacting forcefully that the constitutional government of Venezuela actually arrested a key member of the upper house of parliament (AN) – Edgar Zambrano – who was actively engaged in the treasonous coup, and openly called for the military to violate their sworn oaths. Pompeo reached out to world media, announcing that the Venezuelan courts moves were an “Unacceptable and illegal step”

Mike Pompeo denounced the detention by Venezuelan authorities of the now-former Vice-Speaker of the National Assembly, Edgar Zambrano. In a statement released last night, Pompeo describes as them as “arbitrary” and “unacceptable and illegal act” the arrest of the politician , first vice president of the National Assembly of Venezuela, which took place this Wednesday night in Caracas, at the hands of SEBIN agents.

Despite Pompeo’s public tantrum, widely viewed as hypocritical, there are no signs that Venezuelan authorities are prepared to release an accused coup-planner and traitor on his own recognizance.

According to witnesses, bodies of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN) arrived at the main headquarters of the Acción Democrática party, to which Zambrano belongs. The deputy was in his vehicle, who refused to steo outside. It was then that SEBIN officials pulled the deputy’s car with a crane, and in a raucous scene, he was arrested by SEBIN while in his car, taken by tow-truck. It should be noted that Diosdado Cabello confirmed the arrest of Zambrano on the same Wednesday night.

Days before, the Constituent National Assembly (ANC) – the legislative body in Venezuela comparable to the house of commons or the house of representatives – authorized legislation which the executive branch and courts approved, which removed the immunity from criminal charges for key members of the opposition who can be demonstrated to be conspiring with foreign powers against the constitutional order, which were previously enjoyed by members of both houses.

FRN reported yesterday Zambrano was arrested by national intelligence officers of Venezuela as one of the main organizers of the attempted coup d’etat on April 30. The head of the National Assembly, the leader of the opposition, Juan Guaido, announced his arrest.

Earlier, Guaido acknowledged the failure of the coup attempt, which he says occurred due to the refusal of the military to go over to the side of the self-proclaimed president.

The crimes committed by Zambrano are: “treason to the homeland, conspiracy, instigation to the insurrection, civil rebellion, conspiracy to commit a crime, usurpation of functions, public instigation to the disobedience of the laws and continued hatred, planned and sanctioned in articles 128, 132, 143, 145, 163, 213, 285, all of the Criminal Code, respectively and Association, provided for and sanctioned in article 37 of the Organic Law Against Organized Crime and Terrorist Financing “.

Likewise, the National Constituent Assembly (ANC) of Venezuela approved on May 7 to revoke parliamentary immunity to eight deputies of the National Assembly (AN), an instance that has been in contempt since 2016, for their participation in the coup attempt. Among them, the first vice president of the AN, Edgar Zambrano.

The other seven opposition deputies, whose parliamentary immunity was raided are: Herry Ramos, Luis Florido, Richard Blanco, Marianela Magallanes, Américo De Grazia, Andres Velazques and José Calzadilla.

*

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

General Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, one of the masterminds behind the coup attempt of April 30, had been recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States for more than a year, the president said.

President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro also revealed new details Friday about those responsible for the attempted coup this past April 30, supported and directed by the United States.

He specifically referred to the participation of the former director of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (Sebin) General Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, who was expelled and demoted along with 54 other rebels.

The president indicated that after the investigations they were able to verify “that General Manuel Ricardo Cristopher had been recruited by the CIA more than a year ago. This Venezuelan justice will come sooner rather than later!”

Also, the president also revealed that he was alerted to Cristopher Figuera’s intentions a week before he acted on them. In fact, on April 30, he was meant to be replaced by the Chief General Gustavo Gonzalez Lopez.

“It was General Padrino Lopez, Maikel Moreno and General Hernandez Dala who warned me of the strange behavior of this General who would be dismissed from office and arrested on Tuesday, 30 April at 9 am,” he said during a graduation speech at the 16th Victor’s Parade of the “Mision Ribas” in the halls of Miraflores Palace.

@NicolasMaduro revela que fue el GJ @vladimirpadrinol, el General Hernández Dalas y Maikel Moreno quienes una semana antes le advirtieron sobre el golpe de estado, y el General Cristopher ya iba a ser sustituido "lo íbamos a detener el #30A, el plan ya estaba develado"

— Madelein Garcia (@madeleintlSUR) May 10, 2019

*

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

Featured image: Maduro giving a speech at an event at the Miraflores Presidential Palace | Photo: @PresidencialVen

U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was released from jail Thursday after being held for 62 days—including a month in solitary confinement—for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury, but she could be imprisoned again as soon as next week if she refuses to comply with a second subpoena to appear before a different grand jury.

Manning’s release came after the expiration of the term of the grand jury. According to Manning’s legal team, the whistleblower was served with another subpoena prior to her release on Thursday.

“This means she is expected to appear before a different grand jury, on Thursday, May 16, 2019, just one week from her release today,” Manning’s lawyers said in a statement. “It is therefore conceivable that she will once again be held in contempt of court, and be returned to the custody of the Alexandria Detention Center, possibly as soon as next Thursday, May 16.”

Manning’s legal team said she will continue to refuse to cooperate with a process that she has called an effort to “entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.”

“Chelsea will continue to refuse to answer questions, and will use every available legal defense to prove to District Judge Trenga that she has just cause for her refusal to give testimony,” said Manning’s lawyers.

** Feds released Chelsea a few hours ago after Grand Jury expired – @EDVAnews prosecutors subpoenaed her to appear a 2nd time for a different grand jury – but for same questions – on May 16th – official statement from her pending https://t.co/BkXDxnrLmZ

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) May 10, 2019

Indeed, she’s already been subpoenaed to appear in court May 16th. There’s hardly any reason to think it will go differently.

So far, she’s done 62 days in jail on this matter. She may have just over a week of freedom before doing it all over again.https://t.co/4L0VjsDewA

— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) May 10, 2019

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison in 2013 for leaking classified U.S. government documents to WikiLeaks. Former President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence in 2017.

Attempts to compel Manning to testify before a secret grand jury come as WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange is fighting attempts to extradite him to the United States after he was forcibly expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in London last month and arrested by U.K. authorities.

Advocacy groups and legal experts warned that efforts by the U.S. government to extradite and prosecute Assange pose a grave threat to freedom of the press.

“Prosecutors appear to be pressing for Manning’s testimony in order to bolster their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,” Politico reported last month.

But Manning has remained firm in her refusal to testify.

“I don’t have anything to contribute to this, or any other grand jury,” Manning said in a statement last month. “While I miss home, they can continue to hold me in jail, with all the harmful consequences that brings. I will not give up.”

*

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

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

The effort Justin Trudeau is putting into overthrowing Venezuela’s government is remarkable.

During the past 12 days the prime minister has raised the issue separately with the leaders of the EU, Spain, Japan and Cuba.On Tuesday Trudeau had a phone conversation with European Council President Donald Tusk focused almost entirely on Venezuela, according to the communiqué.

“Prime Minister Trudeau reiterated his support for Interim President Juan Guaidó”, it noted.

The next day Trudeau talked to Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez about ousting president Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela is the only subject mentioned in the official release about the call.

Venezuela was also on the agenda during Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Ottawa on April 28. The post meeting release noted,

“during the visit, Prime Minister Abe announced Japan’s endorsement of the Ottawa Declaration on Venezuela.”

Produced at an early February meeting of the “Lima Group” of governments opposed to Maduro, the “Ottawa Declaration” called on Venezuela’s armed forces “to demonstrate their loyalty to the interim president” and remove the elected president.

On May 3 Trudeau called Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel to pressure him to join Ottawa’s effort to oust Maduro. The release noted,

“the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Lima Group, underscored the desire to see free and fair elections and the constitution upheld in Venezuela.”

Four days later foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland added to the diplomatic pressure on Havana. She told reporters,

“Cuba needs to not be part of the problem in Venezuela, but become part of the solution.”

Freeland was highly active after Guaidó, Leopoldo Lopez and others sought to stoke a military uprising in Caracas on April 30. Hours into the early morning effort Freeland tweeted,

“watching events today in Venezuela very closely. The safety and security of Juan Guaido and Leopoldo López must be guaranteed. Venezuelans who peacefully support Interim President Guaido must do so without fear of intimidation or violence.”

She followed that up with a statement to the press noting,

“Venezuelans are in the streets today demonstrating their desire for a return to democracy even in the face of a violent crackdown. Canada commends their courage and we call on the Maduro regime to step aside now.”

Then Freeland put out a video calling on Venezuelans to rise up and requested an emergency video conference meeting of the Lima Group. Later that evening the coalition issued a statement labeling the attempted putsch an effort “to restore democracy” and demanded the military “cease being instruments of the illegitimate regime for the oppression of the Venezuelan people.”

Canada commends the courage of Venezuelans demonstrating their desire for a return to democracy. It is time for the Maduro regime to step aside and allow for a peaceful end to this crisis. pic.twitter.com/qRMlOash7p

— Chrystia Freeland (@cafreeland) May 2, 2019

Three days later Freeland attended an emergency meeting of the Lima Group in Peru. The coalition released a communique after that get together accusing Maduro’s government of protecting “terrorist groups” in Colombia.

At another Lima Group meeting in Chile on April 15 Freeland announced the fourth round of Canadian sanctions against Venezuelan officials. Forty-three individuals were added to the list of 70 leaders Canada had already sanctioned. CBC reported that the latest round of (illegal) sanctions were designed to “punish Venezuelan judges who rubber-stamped Maduro’s moves” and “lower-ranking police officials who took prominent roles in suppressing the attempt by Venezuela’s opposition to bring humanitarian aid into the country on February 23.”

The Venezuelan government responded to Canadian sanctions by denouncing Ottawa’s “alliance with war criminals that have declared their intention to destroy the Venezuelan economy to inflict suffering on the people and loot the country’s riches.” A recent Center for Economic and Policy Research report gives credence to this perspective. Written by Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot, “Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela” concluded that 40,000 Venezuelans may have died over the past two years as a result of US sanctions.

The Liberals want us to believe their campaign to oust Venezuela’s government is motivated by support for democracy and human rights. Yet in recent weeks the Trudeau government has deepened ties to repressive Middle East monarchies, gutted its promise to rein in international abuses by Canadian mining companies’ and justified Israeli violence against those living in the open-air prison known as the Gaza Strip.

Last month members of Mouvement Québécois pour la Paix interrupted a speech by Freeland at the University of Montréal to criticize Canada’s policy towards Venezuela. Activists should be disrupting Freeland and other Liberal MPs public events across the country to demand an end to their effort to overthrow the government of Venezuela.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

You cannot bottle him, export him or use him as a precedent for anything.  His calm, even tempered disposition is the stuff of bafflement and bemusement, and yet, after his tenure at one of Europe’s most known football clubs, Jürgen Klopp, football’s everyman (the “normal one”, he insists) will be the model to emulate.   

Klopp has been saddled with the reputation of encouraging “heavy metal” football, marked by whirlwind bursts of vigour and aggressive strumming.  Arsène Wenger, who long reigned at Arsenal, was more inclined to soft instrumental and orchestral show, all caress and flow. 

“He,” reflected Klopp, “likes having the ball, playing football, passes.  It’s like an orchestra.  But it’s a silent song. I like heavy metal more.  I always want it loud.”   

The jaw dropping victory over Barcelona in the semi-finals of the Champions League will be retrospectively touched up and reconsidered for years to come.  There will be notations on the Klopp method of bursting deficits – the second-leg victory over Dortmund in the Europa League after the German side was leading 3-1 being one such example.  Struggling to come up with an analysis, writers have suggested that the Klopp method, in contrast to the Van Gaal-Guardiola school of coaching, thrives on a loss of control rather than its assertion, a blessed release over miring constipation.  When that happens, his side gets its boots dirty, mucking in and making the necessary, combative tackles.

While the officials, specialists and tacticians plump the dossiers of planning, the achievement on the field resists it.  This is humanity’s great perversion and genius: the hope that nature and circumstance can be tamed; the feeling that the unpredictable will somehow fall within the realm of the measurable. But on the field, the odds vary, and speak to potential chaos.  When facing a three goal deficit on a return leg against a team with such luminaries as Lionel Messi and Luis Suárez, they are magnified. 

Klopp remains touching in this regard.  Battle plans can be seen as successful in the aftermath, or they can result in failure.  He was clear before taking the field against Barcelona in Anfield that the likelihood of victory was slim, but equally clear that he believed in the men.  Faith can be a strong stimulant.  As the German claimed while coaching Mainz,

“I don’t believe in a football god, only God.  I believe that everything happens for a reason.” 

The players, in turn, believe in him.  The loyalty he seems to draw from his men is singular, derived from a familial philosophy that links the team in a bond that demand unqualified commitment.  He, observed Pepijn Lijnders, Klopp’s assistant, in an interview with De Volksrant, “creates a family.  We always say: 30 percent tactic, 70 percent teambuilding.” 

More than even God’s wily ways is the Anfield supporter, that rare species of zealot capable of knowing the moment to bellow and holler, to hector and terrify.  Threats are magnified to the visiting side; the team’s talents are duly inflated.  Main host of The Anfield Wrap podcast Neil Atkinson put it this way: “Anfield crowds know when to scream at you”.  Wenger does not disagree, calling Anfield “the most heated stadium in Europe in a return game.” 

Against Barcelona, Liverpool’s heavy metal proved devastating even absent the drumming of Mohamed Salah and Roberto Firmino, a true rebuke to the “tika-tika” play which insists on possession as a prelude to execution.  “Fighting football, not serenity football,” reasoned Klopp, “is what I like.”  At a certain point, Liverpool’s opponents were stunned to a point of being mere automata, fought to a hypnotised standstill.  Messi, star at the Camp Nou, rarely shone.  Suárez suggested that his side “looked like schoolboys” once the fourth goal found its mark.  “We will have to be ready for all the criticism that is going to rain down on us now.”  

It began with Divock Origi in the seventh minute.  Then another burst in the second-half, this time from substitute Georginio Wijnaldum, with two goals in quick succession wiping out the deficit.  (“I was really angry at the manager that he put me on the bench,” surmised an agitated Wijnaldum, “but I had to do something to help the team when I came on.”)  Eleven minutes from full time came Origi’s coup de grâce.

The ever combative now ex-manager of Manchester United José Mourinho, in trying to understand Liverpool’s victory, put it down to one force: “I would say that for me, this has one name: Jürgen.”  Such a feat was “not about tactics” or “philosophy” but “heart and soul, and a fantastic empathy he created with this group of players.”  Rather sweetly, another factor was suggested: “I said if it’s possible, Anfield is one of the places to make the impossible be possible.”  As Klopp reflects on the work of those he termed “fucking mentality giants”, few would disagree.  

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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]

It can be readily demonstrated that the proffered U.S. justifications for labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization are no more than hare-brained excuses designed to put further pressure on the Iranian people in pursuit of its long-standing policy of regime change from within. Indeed, it can reasonably be argued that, in light of the fact the U.S. has repeatedly terrorized many peoples and nations in various parts of the world, its designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization represents an ironic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Considering the fact that between 25 and 30 percent of the Iranian economy is owned and/or operated by the Revolutionary Guards, sanctioning of the organization’s economic activities, especially its foreign trade, is bound to further depress Iran’s economy and, hence, its people’s living conditions.

Combined with the economic mismanagement of President Rouhani’s administration, the U.S. economic war on Iran has provided fertile grounds for discontent and anger among the masses of the Iranian people who suffer from the crushing impact of U.S. sanctions, on the one hand, and the Rouhani government’s economic mismanagement, on the other.

In pursuit of its long-standing strategy to bring Iran back into the orbit of its client states in the region, the U.S. has consistently employed two destabilizing tactics. The first is to exert enough pressure on Iran to force its rulers to submit to its will and stop resisting its geopolitical designs in the region. This is called “behavior change without regime change.” The second tactic, applied in case of the failure of the first, is to wield enough economic pressure on the Iranian people to incite them to rebellion in pursuit of regime change from inside.

With varying degrees, this “regime-changing” scheme has been in the works ever since the 1979 revolution that ended the rule of the compliant U.S. ally Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran. So far, it has not succeeded. Whether it would succeed in the future or not, depends largely on the continued support of the Iranian people of their country’s ruling powers. That support, in turn, depends mainly on how soon and how effective an uplifting economic reform can be brought about in Iran—an economic overhaul that would improve the living conditions of the people and, thus, earn their support for the ruling circles.

It is crucially important that, in this context, the ruling powers in Iran draw an instructive lesson from the tragic demise of the Soviet Union: military power alone is not enough to withstand the unrelenting imperialist assault; equally (or more) important is an economically-satisfied and, therefore, supportive population.

Iran’s own experience of the 8-year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq can also be instructive in this regard. Because of the extensive social safety-net, or welfare, programs of the time, and because of a strong sense among the Iranian people that the relatively uncorrupted revolutionary government of the time served their interest, they wholeheartedly threw their support behind the government, thereby preserving the unity and sovereignty of Iran against Saddam’s aggression and his powerful backers.

The ruling circles of Iran cannot and should not take that exemplary support for granted; they have to earn it. That strong support and the legendary sacrifices of the time in terms of blood and treasure have in recent years been dwindled; but it can be restored if the widespread waste, embezzlement and misuse of national resources is curtailed, the living conditions of citizens are improved, and people’s faith in the ruling powers is reinstated.

Contrary to U.S. claims that designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards would disrupt their activities and weaken their power, the designation is bound to further strengthen the power and influence of the Guards, as they would logically try to redouble their efforts to maximize their readiness capabilities in the face of U.S. threats. Such a defensive reaction to aggressive actions of U.S. imperialism is both logical and universal: it is not just Iran or its Revolutionary Guards but any other country or military force that is threatened by an aggressive foreign power is bound to reinforce its defensive capabilities. Indeed, this explains why U.S. wars of choice and militarism have led to globalization of militarism. Like Iran, many countries ill-afford to divert their precious financial resource from social to military spending. But they are often forced to do so in order to preserve their sovereignty in the face of persistent imperialistic aggressions.

Sadly, this vicious circle of persistent imperialist aggression, the defensive military spending of the targeted nations, and the consequent globalization of militarism, fits well with the nefarious interests of the U.S. military-industrial-security-intelligence complex—as well as with the interests of major banks and financial conglomerates that finance war and military spending. The wicked interests of this complex lie with the invention and/or creation of enemies and, therefore, with persistent wars and military adventures; as this would justify continued escalation of the Pentagon budget, on the one hand, and continued escalation of the sale of military hardware, on the other.

The heavy-handed policy of the United States toward Iran can be better understood in light of this overall imperialistic strategy. The essence of that strategy is control and “management” of social, economic and military affairs of peoples and/or nations of the world. Practical implication of this strategy is that the U.S. cannot countenance socio-economic structures that are at variance with its own model of capitalism. These “undesirable” structures would include not only non-capitalist or centrally-planned economies of the Soviet type but, indeed, any economic model that, like the Social-Democratic economies in Europe, encompass social safety-net (or welfare) programs in favor of the poor and working people.

This policy of safeguarding unbridled capitalist system on a global scale was succinctly described by the late U.S. president Harry Truman. Calling any socio-economic policy in favor of the people undue “regimentation,” President Truman declared (in a 1947 speech at Baylor University) that “regimented economies” were the enemy of free enterprise, and “unless we act, and act decisively,” those regimented economies would become “the pattern of the next century.” To fend off that danger, Truman urged that “the whole world should adopt the American system.” The system of free enterprise, he went on, “could survive in America only if it becomes a world system.”

This explains why, for example, the U.S. is determined to torpedo the socio-economic policies and structures of countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. The capitalist rulers of the United States view such humane, people-centered economic policies inimical to their profit-oriented neoliberal policies of austerity economics—the economics of the survival of the fittest.

It also explains why U.S. imperialism has since WW II overthrown many “undesirable” governments around the world. Some of these governments were ousted overtly by direct military means, such as the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, the overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, the overthrow of the government of Brazilian President Joao Goulart in 1964, the overthrow of the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973, and many more. Others were toppled by covert operations or fake elections such as the color-coded revolutions of recent years (The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, The Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and more).

It further explains the colossal rise of the U.S. military machine to an unprecedented extent—to the extent that currently it has close to nine hundred military bases around the globe. The gigantic expansion of the military apparatus has, in turn, led to an internally driven, self-expanding dynamics of its own—a process that is driven by the impulse of an ever expanding accumulation of military capital, the notorious military-industrial complex. This is why it can reasonably be argued that U.S. wars, hot or cold, and military adventures are often economic rewards for the beneficiaries of militarism: the military-industrial complex, as well as the big banks that lend money for wars and aggressions. It can also reasonably be argued that profitability imperatives often drive the beneficiaries of war dividends to invent or manufacture enemies and instigate wars and military adventures in order to maximize their nefarious profits.

As long as the Soviet Union existed, the “threat” of communism readily served the purpose of constantly escalating the military budget. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, however, beneficiaries of war dividends have had to discover new “threats to U.S. national interests,” or the interests of its allies, in order to reap the lion’s share of national resource, as well as to extract financial resources from countries that are threatened or coerced to buy U.S. armaments. It is not surprising, then, that the fall of the Soviet Union has given birth to all kinds of “boogeymen” that are invented as substitutes for the “communist threat” of the Soviet era. These perceived, instigated, or manufactured bogeys include global terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, and more. Provocative actions and destabilizing policies of the United States against Iran, especially the brutal economic war against that country, can better be understood in light of this background.

All this is a clear vindication of the late President Dwight Eisenhower’s prescient warning that the “military-industrial-complex [may] cause military spending to be driven not by national security needs but by a network of weapons makers, lobbyists and elected officials.”

Military expenditures are ultimately deductions from non-military social spending. Again, as President Eisenhower put it:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Viewed in this light, battlefield victories or defeats of U.S. military adventures here and there are secondary to the overriding goal of inflating war dividends by maintaining permanent war, or threat of war. From the standpoint of beneficiaries of war dividends, the mere persistence or protraction of wars and international tensions are, in and of themselves, deemed victory—not necessarily the battlefield military victory in the traditional sense of war.

Thus, for example, U.S. military operations in Syria may not succeed in accomplishing their stated goal of overthrowing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Likewise, its operations in Afghanistan may not succeed in uprooting the Taliban. But to beneficiaries of war dividends such less-than successful military operations are not necessarily defeats or failures. The mere fact of continued war and geopolitical turbulence in those countries (and elsewhere) bring economic gain for these beneficiaries and is, therefore, tantamount to success from their point of view. Of course, this judgment does not apply to military professionals, especially the lower rank personnel who serve as cannon fodder for the heinous interests of the beneficiaries of war dividends. This explains why those who benefit from war and militarism prefer war to peace—hence the aptly sardonic title of the late Gore Vidal’s 2002 book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace; or the similarly ironic term “war is peace,” coined by the late George Orwell in his 1948 dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four.

*

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

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

Title: Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis: Parasitic Finance Capital (Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy)

Author: Ismael Hossein-Zadeh

Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (April 14, 2014)

ISBN-10: 0415638062

ISBN-13: 978-0415638067

Click here to order.

.

.

.

As long as the US was onboard, Iran nuclear deal signatories Britain, France, and Germany supported its implementation and provisions — no longer after Trump’s withdrawal.

Their rhetoric says one thing, their actions another. In response to Iran giving EU JCPOA signatories 60 days to fulfill their pledged commitments to the deal, a joint statement by their leaders May, Macron and Merkel said the following:

“Together, we emphasize our continuing commitment to the JCPOA. This agreement remains important for our shared security.”

“We urge all sides to remain committed to its full implementation and to act in a spirit of responsibility.”

Expressing “regret and concern” over the Trump regime’s pullout, the leaders failed to denounce the unlawful move.

Nor did they refuse to go along with illegal US sanctions or affirm that normal diplomatic, economic, financial, and trade relations with Iran will continue — with them and other EU countries, their obligation under JCPOA provisions.

Iran’s patience wore thin. Its Wednesday announced partial pullback from its JCPOA commitments came after waiting a full year in vain for EU signatories to fulfill their obligations under the deal.

Their leaders “encourage(d) Iran to show restraint,” what it’s done for the past year and continues doing.

“Iran must continue to meet its…obligations under the deal,” they stressed — despite the Trump regime’s pullout and their failure to fulfill their own commitments.

Saying they’ll continue to pursue normal relations with Iran is belied by their actions doing the opposite.

On Wednesday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Abbas Araqchi said the following:

“We have not left the JCPOA so far, but we have put such a move on our agenda and that would happen step-by-step” unless EU signatories fulfill their commitments, what they failed to do so far.

“No country can accuse Iran of breaching or leaving the nuclear deal,” Araqchi added. The nuclear watchdog IAEA affirmed its full compliance numerous times.

If Britain, France and Germany continue to delay, equivocate, and fail to fulfill their obligations, Iran will no longer feel obligated to remain committed to the deal’s provisions.

Adopted by Security Council members unanimously, it’s binding international law, all nations required to observe its provisions.

If Iran, Russia and China alone adhere fully to them, not EU signatories after the Trump regime’s pullout, the deal is effectively null and void. Maintaining enforcement requires full compliance.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said his government will partially suspend its JCPOA commitments if EU signatories fail to fulfill their own in 60 days, “especially in the banking and oil sectors,” he stressed.

On Thursday, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini rejected Iran’s 30-day deadline. A joint statement by her, along with foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany expressed “great concern” about Tehran’s Wednesday announcement, saying the following:

“We reject any ultimatums and we will assess Iran’s compliance on the basis of Iran’s performance regarding its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA and the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons),” adding:

“In this respect, we recall the key role of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) monitoring and verification of the implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related commitments.”

“We strongly urge Iran to continue to implement its commitments under the JCPOA in full as it has done until now and to refrain from any escalatory steps.”

The statement said nothing about failure of EU signatories to fulfill their JCPOA obligations — why Iran made its Wednesday announcement, suspending some of its voluntary commitments, relating to enrichment and storage of uranium and heavy water, its legal right under articles 26 and 36 of the deal, saying:

It’s ready to engage cooperatively with EU nations to ensure full mutual compliance with JCPOA provisions — “seek(ing) to bring the deal back on track.”

On Thursday, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said Tehran reserves the legal right to “totally or partially” suspend its commitment if other signatories fail to uphold its provisions, adding:

His government’s goal is for full compliance with JCPOA provisions by all its signatories. Trump pulled out. EU countries failed to uphold their end of the deal.

On Wednesday at a joint press conference with his UK counterpart Jeremy Hunt, Mike Pompeo slammed Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

He lied saying Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction aims to gain “leverage” over Europe, vowing to keep trying to undermine it.

He falsely blamed Iran for US war in Yemen, begun by Bush/Cheney, continued by Obama, greatly escalated by the Trump regime in cahoots with the Saudis and UAE, NATO countries and Israel involved.

He called China “a new kind of challenge,” a nation contesting US economic supremacy, surpassing it on a purchase-price basis, what a basket of goods costs in both countries, on track toward likely surpassing the US on a GDP basis years from now, what Washington wants prevented.

He falsely accused China of “want(ing) to divide Western alliances through bits and bytes, not bullets and bombs.”

He and other Trump regime officials are pressuring EU countries against granting Chinese tech giant Huawei access to their 5G networks, falsely claiming it’ll help Beijing spy on them.

He slammed Iran, repeating the long ago discredited US litany of Big Lies about its government. “I urge the United Kingdom to stand with us to rein in (Tehran’s) bloodletting and lawlessness (sic), not soothe the ayatollahs, angry at our decision to pull out of a nuclear deal,” he roared.

Separately, he warned that the special US/UK relationship depends on Britain fully backing the Trump regime against Iran.

He lied saying intelligence (received from Israel’s Mossad) indicated that Iranian forces or its proxies intend targeting US regional troops.

Acting US war secretary Patrick Shanahan turned truth on its head, claiming the Islamic Republic poses “a credible threat” to US regional forces and interests.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) spokesman Keivan Khosravi called the Trump regime’s hostile rhetoric and deployments of a carrier task force along with nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the region “psychological warfare.”

Iran seeks cooperative relations with other countries, threatening none. The Islamic Republic and Venezuela are on the US target list for regime change.

Will the Trump regime attack one or both countries? What’s unlikely is possible, waging either direct or proxy war — with likely congressional support if DJT goes this far.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The psychic problems facing the Democrats continue to bite, and with their foiled efforts to see the full, unredacted report of the Mueller Report, they look distracted, confused and bitter.  In politics, the sense of vengeance and retribution has a place, but without some restorative balance, cripples the actor.  The Democrats can point to numerous contenders for the presidential election, but these are either going to peter out or result in public acts of self-harm before an awful realisation sets in: that Donald J. Trump may well win a second term.

Leaving aside that troubling, and mind racking thought for the holy initiates of the Tweedle Dum Party there is a serious danger of a condition so enervating it risks submerging it.  Experience, according to the classicist Gilbert Murray, should dull the edges of all our dogmas, but Muellerisation is a powerful condition. It may well be irresistible, and any survivors struggling to make it to the shoreline risk being dragged in by the tide, drowning in their angst about the monster in the White House and his all-inculpating Russian connection. In the meantime, the party can make good its duty to avoid anything remotely resembling policy.

The Democrats must have the document and more, pure and whole.  The point here is a vain hope that something, somewhere hidden will have the weapon they can use against Trump.  But the obvious point in all of this, one pointed out by Glenn Greenwald, is one of degree: if there was evidence of Kremlin collusion (and the extent of it) suggested by some Democrats, Mueller would most certainly have had it by now. If he had not shown it “he would most almost be guilty of treason.” 

The latest target of this entire endeavour is the Attorney General William Barr, adding yet another episode to the Mueller bonanza.  The House Judiciary Committee took aim at the AG, drafting a resolution finding him in contempt of Congress for not complying with the subpoena to provide the full, unredacted version of the report and linked materials.

The subpoena itself is broad; the smell of sheer desperation that something, somewhere, will blow smoke or emit an incriminating odour is palpable.  In addition to seeking the “complete and unredacted version” of the Mueller report, it also demands “all summaries, exhibits, indices, tables of contents or other tables or figures, appendices, supplements, addenda, or any other attachments” and, “All documents obtained and investigative materials created by the Special Counsel’s office.” 

Trump, as he always does, went on to spoil their efforts, formally asserting protective executive privilege on Barr’s advice.  The warning had been made in a Tuesday letter to the chairman, Jerry Nadler, from Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd.  

“In face of the Committee’s threatened contempt vote, the Attorney General will be compelled to request that the President invoke executive privilege with respect to the materials subject to this subpoena.”

With the committee not being particular responsive, Barr’s advice to President Trump followed in his May 8 letter. 

“In cases such as this where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, the President may make a protective assertion of privilege to protect the interests of the Executive Branch pending a final determination whether to assert privilege.”   

What strikes Barr as relevant is broad brush nature of the claim, a grab-for-all in demanding “all of the Special Counsel’s investigative files, which consists of millions of pages of classified and unclassified documents bearing upon more than two dozen criminal cases and investigations, many of which are ongoing.” Details embedded in such material cover “law enforcement information, information about sensitive intelligence sources and methods, and grand-jury information that the Department is prohibited from disclosing by law.”

Such a protective assertion of privilege has precedent.  President Bill Clinton did so, on advice from then Attorney General Janet Reno, in 1996 in what is officially titled Protective Assertion of Executive Privilege White House Counsel’s Office Documents, 20 Op., O.L.C. 1 (1996).  Nor is it, explain the legal boffins, a “conclusive”, actual assertion.  In the hair-splitting world of jurisprudence, this is merely “protective”, ensuring, in the words of Boyd’s letter, “the President’s ability to make a final decision whether to assert privilege following a full review of these materials.”   In this Alice in Wonderful linguistic tangle, the president is effectively asserting executive privilege in order to determine whether he needs to assert executive privilege. 

The legal fraternity, pouring over the details of this battle, have much to work through.  While Barr’s reasoning is, on the face of it, orthodox, not all redacted material falls within the protection granted by executive privilege.  Using redactions to protect privacy, according to Tennessee Assistant Solicitor General Jonathan Shaub, is an awkward fit.  “In particular, grand jury material has never itself been considered a component of executive privilege.”  

The House Judiciary committee, refusing to surprise, duly voted along party lines to hear contempt proceedings against Barr.  Attempting to fan the flames of drama, Nadler called such conduct on the part of attorney general the solid basis for a “constitutional crisis” affected by a “lawless administration”, ignoring the enormously broad scope of the initial subpoena.

The Mueller Report, and all that is incidental to it, has ceased being a matter of evidence, but an issue of manic principle.   The premise is already coined; what matters is finding the appropriate evidence to justify the claim, wherever it may be.  That claim, as we all know, is not merely Trump-Russia collusion but a Manchurian Candidate styled fantasy that risks turning the Democrat effort come 2020 into a Disneyland escapade.  Nothing would warm that master in distraction Trump more than such a development.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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 Rantt Media

The Following text is Section 14 of 16

The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War,

by the Italian Committee No War No NATO

*

Documentation presented at the International Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO, Florence, April 7, 2019

In the course of the next two weeks, Global Research will publish the 16 sections of this important document, which will also be available as an E-book.

*
Contents 

1. NATO is born from the Bomb
2. In the post-Cold War, NATO is renewed
3. NATO demolishes the Yugoslav state
4. NATO expands eastward to Russia
5. US and NATO attack Afghanistan and Iraq
6. NATO demolishes the Libyan state
7. The US/NATO war to demolish Syria
8. Israel and the Emirates in NATO
9. The US/NATO orchestration of the coup in Ukraine
10. US/NATO escalation in Europe
11. Italy, the aircraft carrier on the war front
12. US and NATO reject the UN treaty and deploy new nuclear weapons in Europe
13. US and NATO sink the INF Treaty
14. The Western American Empire plays the war card
15. The US/NATO planetary war system
16. Exiting the war system of NATO

***

1. A vast arc of growing tensions and conflicts extends from East Asia to Central Asia, from the Middle East to Europe, from Africa to Latin America. The “hot spots” along this intercontinental arc – the Korean Peninsula, the South China Sea, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Libya, Venezuela and others – have different histories and geopolitical characteristics, with specific internal socio-economic factors, but they are at the same time linked to a single factor: the strategy with which the United States of America seeks to maintain their position as the dominant superpower.

2. The United States is still the leading economic power in the world, above all thanks to the capital and the mechanisms with which it dominates the global financial market, to the multinationals with which they exploit human and material resources of every continent, to the high technologies and to the relative patents in their possession, to the pervasive role of their multimedia groups that influence the opinions and tastes of billions of users on a planetary scale.

3. Their supremacy is however jeopardized by the emergence of new state and social subjects. What is being questioned by Russia, China and other countries is not only the exorbitant power of the petrodollar (reserve currency from the sale of oil), but the hegemony of the dollar itself. Its value is determined not by real US economic capacity, but by the fact that it constitutes almost two-thirds of world currency reserves and the currency with which the price of oil, gold and other raw materials is established on global markets. in general of the goods.

4. This allows the Federal Reserve, the Central Bank (which is a private bank), to print thousands of billions of dollars with which the colossal US public debt is financed – about 23 trillion dollars – through the purchase of bonds and other securities issued by the Treasury. In this context, the decision taken by Venezuela in 2017 to release the price of oil from the dollar and tie it to that of the Chinese yuan causes a shock that causes the entire imperial palace founded on the dollar to shake. If the example of Venezuela spread, if the dollar ceased to be the dominant currency of international trade and foreign exchange reserves, an immense amount of dollars would be placed on the market bringing down the value of the US currency.

5. Washington looks with growing concern above all at the Russian-Chinese partnership: the interchange between the two countries is in strong growth; at the same time, Russian-Chinese cooperation agreements on energy, agriculture, aeronautics, space and infrastructure are on the rise. The supply of Russian gas to China through the new Sila Sibiri gas pipeline, starting in 2019, opens the way to Russian energy exports to the East while the US tries to block the way to the West towards Europe.

6. In the Middle East, in addition to the military intervention blocking the US / NATO plan to demolish the Syrian state, Russia uses economic instruments, stipulating in 2017 agreements with Iran for the construction of railway and energy infrastructure, including a pipeline between Iran and India strongly opposed by the USA. Washington responds with a move previously agreed with Israel: President Trump violently attacks Iran, accusing him of violating “the spirit” of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with Group 5 + 1 (US, Britain, France, Germany , China and Russia). Despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency itself guarantees that Iran is abiding by the agreement and is not attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons, the issue is artificially reopened by initiating a dangerous process with unpredictable results. The Washington attack is directed not only against Iran, but against Russia which is reaffirming its presence in the Middle East.

7. “Moscow – writes the New York Times in October 2017 – tries, through the giant state oil company Rosneft, to gain influence in places where the United States has stumbled. The biggest bet is Venezuela. In three years Russia and Rosneft have provided Caracas with financial assistance for 10 billion dollars, helping Venezuela avoid default. Russia increasingly uses oil as a tool, spreads its influence in the world and challenges the interests of the United States “.

8. A growing challenge to US interests comes simultaneously from China. The world’s leading exporter of goods, it rose, as a gross national income, to second place in the world after the United States and recorded economic growth rates higher than those in the United States. The most ambitious project, launched by China in 2013 and shared by Russia, is that of a new Silk Road: a road and rail network between China and Europe through Central and Western Asia and through Russia, roughly along the route of the ancient Silk Road. The project, already under construction, foresees, together with the terrestrial one, a sea route through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. For road and railway infrastructures, which should cross and connect over 60 countries, investments of over 1,000 billion dollars are expected. The project, which does not include military components, is not simply economic. If it were realized according to the original idea, it would reshape the geopolitical architecture of the entire Eurasia, creating on the basis of mutual convenience a new network of economic and political relations between the states of the continent.

9. The drive to remodel the global economic order does not only come from large state actors, such as China and Russia, which want a world that is no longer unipolar but multipolar. It comes, in multiple forms and degrees of awareness, from immense social subjects, billions of human beings who, on every continent, suffer the consequences of the current global economic order. An economic globalization centered on the search for maximum profit which, while on the one hand cuts down borders so that capital and production can circulate freely, on the other it sets up other borders, invisible but no less concrete, which exclude the majority of the world population from the benefits of that economic growth built with human and material resources around the world. This system creates a growing polarization between wealth and poverty in the world. Over 85% of global wealth (in terms of money and property) is concentrated in the hands of 8% of the world’s adult population. The remaining 92% owns just 14% of global wealth. Over 3 and a half billion people, representing almost three quarters of the global adult population, have a total of less than 2.5% of global wealth.

10. Over 2 billion people in Africa, Asia and Latin America, especially in rural areas, live in poverty or at least in conditions of severe economic hardship. Among these, about one billion are in extreme poverty, that is, in a social condition characterized by chronic malnutrition, disastrous housing and hygiene situation, high incidence of infectious and parasitic diseases, high mortality above all in children, short average life span, illiteracy, lack of decision-making power, dependency, marginalization, vulnerability and constant insecurity. From the villages of sub-Saharan Africa to the Asian and Latin American slums, the poor experience the same drama caused by the same underlying causes.

11. This is the global economic order that the United States seeks by all means to preserve and control. The strategic aim pursued by Washington is clear: to remove any state or political / social movement that could damage the fundamental political, economic and military interests of the United States of America, endangering their supremacy. In this strategy they are supported by the European powers of NATO and others, such as Israel and Japan, which, despite having contrasts of interest with the US, are under US leadership when it comes to defending the economic and political order dominated by ‘West. Not having the economic strength to do so, the United States and its allies increasingly play the card of war.

12. In addition to the wars properly called, Washington increasingly leads “unconventional wars” through “covert operations”, that is to say secret. The Intelligence Community is formed by 17 federal organizations. In addition to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) there is the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), but every sector of the Armed Forces – army, air force, navy, corps of marines – has its own secret service. The State Department and the Homeland Security Department have it. Among these services, in fierce competition with each other to grab political support and federal funds, the NSA, the National Security Agency, specializing in telephone and IT interceptions, through which they are not only spied upon, plays a primary role. the enemies but also the friends of the United States, as confirmed by the “datagate” aroused by the revelations of the former contractor Edward Snowden.

13. The field actions are carried out by the USSOCOM, the Special Forces Command, which has tens of thousands of commandos from the four sectors of the armed forces. As emerges from a Washington Post inquiry, special operations forces are deployed in 75 countries. The USSOCOM employs private military companies at the same time. In the area of the US Central Command, which also includes Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon’s contractors number over 150,000. Added to those assumed by other departments and allied armies, the number of which is unknown, but certainly high. All belong to the private shadow army, which joins the official one.

14. To this is added the “humanitarian army” formed by all those “non-governmental organizations” which, endowed with huge means, are used by the CIA and the State Department for internal destabilization actions in the name of “defense of rights of citizens ». In the same picture is the action of the Bilderberg group – which the magistrate Ferdinando Imposimato denounced as “one of the leaders of the strategy of tension and massacres” in Italy – and that of the Open Society of the “investor and philanthropist George Soros”, creator of the «Color revolutions».

15. The United States – which since 1945 has caused 20-30 million deaths with their wars and coups (more than hundreds of millions caused by the indirect effects of such actions) – are willing to do anything to preserve military superiority on which they base their empire, which is crumbling with the emergence of a multipolar world. Within the framework of this strategy, political decisions are taken first of all in the “deep state”, an underground center of real power held by economic, financial and military oligarchies.

*

Sections 15-16 of the 70 Years of NATO, From War to War, forthcoming on Global Research

This text was translated from the Italian document which was distributed to participants at the April 7 Conference. It does not include sources and references.

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

Featured image is from NewsFocus

Renewable energy deployment stalled out last year, raising alarm bells about the pace of the clean energy transition.

In 2018, total deployment of renewable energy stood at about 180 gigawatts (GW), which was the same as the previous year. It was the first time since 2001 that capacity failed to increase year-on-year, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Adding 180 GW of clean energy is a massive total, but still falls short of what is needed to clean up the electricity sector. It equates to roughly 60 percent of what is needed each year in order to meet long-term climate goals, the IEA said. The agency said that the world needs to add about 300 GW of renewable energy each year through 2030 in order to meet the targets laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Worse, last year, CO2 emissions from energy rose 1.7 percent, setting another record high at 33 Gigatonnes. So, while emissions need to decline sharply, they haven’t even flattened out yet. Renewable energy continues to grow, but so does demand for oil and gas.

“The world cannot afford to press “pause” on the expansion of renewables and governments need to act quickly to correct this situation and enable a faster flow of new projects,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director, said in a statement.

“Thanks to rapidly declining costs, the competitiveness of renewables is no longer heavily tied to financial incentives. What they mainly need are stable policies supported by a long-term vision but also a focus on integrating renewables into power systems in a cost-effective and optimal way. Stop-and-go policies are particularly harmful to markets and jobs,” Birol added.

For the last four years, growth of wind had slowed, but the gap was made up by faster growth from solar. The difference in 2018 was that solar’s exponential growth flattened out. The reason for that lies in China, where the government pared back incentives on solar in order to cut expenditures and cope with grid integration challenges, the IEA said. Still, China added 44 GW of solar last year, the most by far out of any other country and nearly half of the 97 GW global total. But that was down from 53 GW that China installed in 2017.

Costs continue to fall, making renewable energy the cheapest option in many markets, which should ensure strong growth going forward. In the U.S., wind and solar are now cheaper than operating existing coal plants in much of the country. In fact, in April, renewable energy surpassed coal in terms of electricity generation for the first time, accounting for 24 percent of the total, compared to coal’s 20 percent market share.

But, despite the momentum, the transition is not fast enough. A new UN report finds that the world is facing a mass die-off of biodiversity, with as many as one million plant and animal species at risk of extinction. Also, the world is on track to blow through its carbon budget within 12 years.

Because of this urgency, a wave of new policies supporting a faster roll out of electric vehicles and renewable energy is inevitable. At the state level, renewable energy mandates are proliferating. In the Democratic primary for president, candidates are trying to outdo each other in terms of ambition on clean energy and climate change. For instance, what was once considered an extreme position, such as banning oil and gas drilling on public lands, has now become a mainstream position in the Democratic Party, at least for the candidates running for president.

Another example of the shifting Overton window came in late April when former Texas Congressman and presidential contender Beto O’Rourke recently called for $5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years in an effort to cut emissions to zero by 2050. It’s ambitious by any measure, but faced some pushback for not going far enough, which says a lot about the growing concern about climate change. In fact, climate change ranked as the top issue for Democratic voters, according to a recent poll.

The oil and gas industry has enjoyed a golden era under the Trump administration, but it may only be temporary.

*

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

Nick Cunningham is a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate change, energy policy and geopolitics. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.

Russia, most of the countries of the former Soviet Union, and Israel all celebrate the end of World War II on 9 May, with this year’s commemoration in Moscow being the 74th in history. This solemn day marks the victory of freedom over fascism and is practically regarded as sacred for the survivors and their descendants.

It serves as a reminder to the world of the evils of fascism and the horrible consequences that have befallen tens of millions of civilians at the hands of a genocidal ethnonationalist supremacist ideology. There are serious concerns that these terrifying ideas that were thought to have been defeated once and for all are experiencing a revival in modern-day Europe, which makes this year’s Victory Day events more relevant than ever.

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a ceremony marking the 74th anniversary of World War II victory in Europe at the Arc de Triomphe, Paris, May 9, 2019. /VCG Photo

Having said that, it should be acknowledged that World War II did not end in Europe but in Asia a few months afterward. In fact, that global conflict also began there too, but this is not commonly recognized because of the Western-centric historical worldview.

Imperial Japan followed its own variation of Hitler’s fascist ideology that preached the ethno-nationalist supremacy of the Japanese people. It was used to justify their country’s aggressive wars of conquest in East and Southeast Asia in pursuit of the so-called “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere,” their version of Hitler’s Third Reich. Just like their European ally, the Imperial Japanese committed unspeakable acts of genocide during this time.

The Nanjing Massacre is the most well-known of these atrocities among the non-Chinese individuals who are interested in this historical period, but countless others were carried out that have yet to be universally condemned for the acts of evil that they were.

One prominent example is the inhumane biological and chemical weapons experiments that were conducted by the Japanese on Chinese and other victims through the secret “Unit 731” project. Most of the world has never heard about these crimes against humanity, but hopefully, that will one day change and they come to recognize them for what they obviously are. In any case, at least the victims are commemorated by China.

The communists had yet to succeed in their hard-fought revolution by the time that the Japanese finally surrendered on 15 August, but their brave anti-imperialist resistance is acknowledged as being a key factor behind the empire’s eventual defeat. Communist freedom fighters seriously complicated Japan’s occupation of China and the illegal carving out of several puppet states that followed, bleeding the aggressors to the point where they had to deploy millions of troops to the mainland to quell unrest which therefore made them comparatively more vulnerable along the other fronts that the USSR and the U.S. later attacked them from.

Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Mamayev Kurgan Memorial in Volgograd during an event to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the battle of Stalingrad in World War II, Russia, February 2, 2018. /VCG Photo 

Another important point to make in connection with the global victory over fascism is that it could not have happened without the communists in both the USSR and China. Their people’s ideological dedication to the cause inspired them to resist in the most dramatic ways and to continue fighting even after it seemed at times that all hope was lost, which in the Chinese case ultimately contributed to the communist party’s victory at the end of the civil war a few years later. While most of the world united in their opposition to fascism and many countries’ citizens lost their lives because of it, the Soviet Union and China suffered the most from this ideological scourge in terms human casualties, which is why it is important to pay homage to their victims and never forget their sacrifices.

It then brings the article back to its lead-in news event, the Victory Day commemorations in Russia. The Chinese and all other anti-fascist people stand in solidarity with their Russian comrades-in-arms who valiantly fought to defeat this wretched ideology. But in the meantime, it is important to remind the world that the destructive flames of fascism were not fully extinguished on 9 May but were finally put out once and for all more than three months later on August 15 with the Empire of Japan’s unilateral surrender.

That said, it is equally important to ensure that fascism never rises again anywhere in the world – be it in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere – and that all instances of this possibly happening are universally condemned in the strongest way possible whenever they occur.

*

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

This article was originally published on CGTN.

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.

One year after the US unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (known also as JCPOA- Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action), the US is flexing its muscles by announcing an already previously scheduled departure of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group as a measure to frighten Iran and force it to the negotiation table. Iran responded by showing a video that included several US Navy in the Persian Gulf as potential targets to its forces. Both messages clearly aim to avoid a war. This is why Iran is expected to refer back to resolutions 26, 36 and 37 to send a warning to the UN to rectify the violation of the deal by the US or else Tehran will be in its legal position to “cease performing its commitments in whole or in part”. This is what President Hassan Rouhani is expected to announce tomorrow Wednesday the 8^thof May, according to Iranian official sources, who expect Iran to stay in the deal for now.

“Iran doesn’t want to trigger a hostile reaction from the United Nations and its European allies, so that they do not join the US in imposing sanctions as they did in 2011. This is why Iran will remain as a signature member of the JCPOA. Today, those who praised and signed the nuclear deal are standing, if only verbally, against the US unilateral withdrawal from the deal and its imposition of one-sided sanctions”, said the official source to me.

Iran is expected to abide by the article 26, calling upon the US administration, the President and the Congress to “refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions… re-introduce or re-impose sanctions specific in Annex II”. According to article 26, US failure to respect the deal will offer Iran “ground to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part”.

Source: author

Iran is expected to invoke Article 36 that states “if Iran believed that any of the EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution…that will have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period is extended by consensus”. Therefore, the Iranians responsible are not expected to go to a military war against the US but to adopt a gradual legal step before using its right to break its commitments, partially or fully.

According to Iranian sources, those in Iran calling for “an immediate and complete withdrawal from the JCPOA failed to convince the majority of decision-makers to adopt a radical approach, unless the UN and Europe (United Kingdom, France and Germany) were to fail to lift the sanctions on Iran and do nothing to support Iranian export of oil and import of needed technology and goods. Iran would then have the option of disregarding concerns related to Arak Nuclear Complex heavy water production plant to produce and reprocess weapons-grade plutonium and to restart unrestricted enrichment”.

It is clear that Iran doesn’t want to close the Strait of Hormuz, as much as it is clear that the US is not looking for a military confrontation with Iran. The US Navy, as a normal procedure, is still in regular contact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stationed at the entrance of the Hormuz Strait, even if the IRGC is on the US terrorism list.

Source: author

The US administration would have preferred to support a Middle Eastern country willing to declare war on Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is not Yemen and has destructive fire power sufficient to dissuade any regional country from attacking it. Thus, a war with a slim chance of a favourable outcome for the West is not expected despite the rise of tensions in the Persian Gulf.

The US is failing to intimidate Iran and force it to the negotiation table. The US demands, composed of 12 points, are and will remain impossible for Iran to meet or to come close to. Iran will never withdraw from Syria unless on the request of President Bashar al-Assad, and is not in a position to cease its supports to its partners in the Middle East unless the constitution is amended. And last, Iran considers its missile production a defensive strategy against any possible aggression. This strategy reflects Iran’s experience during the Iraq-Iran war in 1980’s, when Iran was much less well equipped than it is today.

Notwithstanding overwhelming US military capabilities, the US administration is sending signals of weakness to its regional allies and to Iran. Tehran’s challenges to the US are also watched carefully by the Gulf countries who will think carefully before confronting Iran any time in the future.

President Hassan Rouhani has rejected Trump’s request for a meeting eight times. The US administration will, without any doubt, fail to bring Iran to the negotiation table by sending the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and seems incapable of imposing zero oil export on Iran. The Middle East is boiling and miscalculations can be expected. Nevertheless, it is more about a show of force than about the possibility of war.

*

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

In its latest budget request, the Trump administration is asking for a near-record $750 billion for the Pentagon and related defense activities, an astonishing figure by any measure. If passed by Congress, it will, in fact, be one of the largest military budgets in American history, topping peak levels reached during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. And keep one thing in mind: that $750 billion represents only part of the actual annual cost of our national security state.

There are at least 10 separate pots of money dedicated to fighting wars, preparing for yet more wars, and dealing with the consequences of wars already fought. So the next time a president, a general, a secretary of defense, or a hawkish member of Congress insists that the U.S. military is woefully underfunded, think twice. A careful look at U.S. defense expenditures offers a healthy corrective to such wildly inaccurate claims.

Now, let’s take a brief dollar-by-dollar tour of the U.S. national security state of 2019, tallying the sums up as we go, and see just where we finally land (or perhaps the word should be “soar”), financially speaking.

The Pentagon’s “Base” Budget: The Pentagon’s regular, or “base,” budget is slated to be $544.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2020, a healthy sum but only a modest down payment on total military spending.

As you might imagine, that base budget provides basic operating funds for the Department of Defense, much of which will actually be squandered on preparations for ongoing wars never authorized by Congress, overpriced weapons systems that aren’t actually needed, or outright waste, an expansive category that includes everything from cost overruns to unnecessary bureaucracy. That $544.5 billion is the amount publicly reported by the Pentagon for its essential expenses and includes as well $9.6 billion in mandatory spending that goes toward items like military retirement.

Among those basic expenses, let’s start with waste, a category even the biggest boosters of Pentagon spending can’t defend. The Pentagon’s own Defense Business Board found that cutting unnecessary overhead, including a bloated bureaucracy and a startlingly large shadow workforce of private contractors, would save $125 billion over five years. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the board’s proposal has done little to quiet calls for more money. Instead, from the highest reaches of the Pentagon (and the president himself) came a proposal to create a Space Force, a sixth military service that’s all but guaranteed to further bloat its bureaucracy and duplicate work already being done by the other services. Even Pentagon planners estimate that the future Space Force will cost $13 billion over the next five years (and that’s undoubtedly a low-ball figure).

In addition, the Defense Department employs an army of private contractors — more than 600,000 of them — many doing jobs that could be done far more cheaply by civilian government employees. Cutting the private contractor work force by 15% to a mere half-million people would promptly save more than $20 billion per year. And don’t forget the cost overruns on major weapons programs like the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent — the Pentagon’s unwieldy name for the Air Force’s new intercontinental ballistic missile — and routine overpayments for even minor spare parts (like $8,000 for a helicopter gear worth less than $500, a markup of more than 1,500%).

Then there are the overpriced weapons systems the military can’t even afford to operate like the $13-billion aircraft carrier, 200 nuclear bombers at $564 million a pop, and the F-35 combat aircraft, the most expensive weapons system in history, at a price tag of at least $1.4 trillion over the lifetime of the program. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has found — and the Government Accountability Office recently substantiated — that, despite years of work and staggering costs, the F-35 may never perform as advertised.

And don’t forget the Pentagon’s recent push for long-range strike weapons and new reconnaissance systems designed for future wars with a nuclear-armed Russia or China, the kind of conflicts that could easily escalate into World War III, where such weaponry would be beside the point. Imagine if any of that money were devoted to figuring out how to prevent such conflicts, rather than hatching yet more schemes for how to fight them.

Base Budget total: $554.1 billion

The War Budget: As if its regular budget weren’t enough, the Pentagon also maintains its very own slush fund, formally known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO. In theory, the fund is meant to pay for the war on terror — that is, the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and elsewhere across the Middle East and Africa. In practice, it does that and so much more.

After a fight over shutting down the government led to the formation of a bipartisan commission on deficit reduction — known as Simpson-Bowles after its co-chairs, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson — Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. It officially put caps on both military and domestic spending that were supposed to save a total of $2 trillion over 10 years. Half of that figure was to come from the Pentagon, as well as from nuclear weapons spending at the Department of Energy. As it happened, though, there was a huge loophole: that war budget was exempt from the caps. The Pentagon promptly began to put tens of billions of dollars into it for pet projects that had nothing whatsoever to do with current wars (and the process has never stopped). The level of abuse of this fund remained largely secret for years, with the Pentagon admitting only in 2016 that just half of the money in the OCO went to actual wars, prompting critics and numerous members of Congress — including then-Congressman Mick Mulvaney, now President Trump’s latest chief of staff — to dub it a “slush fund.”

This year’s budget proposal supersizes the slush in that fund to a figure that would likely be considered absurd if it weren’t part of the Pentagon budget. Of the nearly $174 billion proposed for the war budget and “emergency” funding, only a little more than $25 billion is meant to directly pay for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The rest will be set aside for what’s termed “enduring” activities that would continue even if those wars ended, or to pay for routine Pentagon activities that couldn’t be funded within the constraints of the budget caps. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to work to alter this arrangement. Even if the House leadership were to have its way, however, most of its reductions in the war budget would be offset by lifting caps on the regular Pentagon budget by corresponding amounts. (It’s worth noting that President Trump’s budget calls for someday eliminating the slush fund.)

The 2020 OCO also includes $9.2 billion in “emergency” spending for building Trump’s beloved wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, among other things. Talk about a slush fund! There is no emergency, of course. The executive branch is just seizing taxpayer dollars that Congress refused to provide. Even supporters of the president’s wall should be troubled by this money grab. As 36 former Republican members of Congress recently argued, “What powers are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also be used by presidents whose policies you abhor.” Of all of Trump’s “security”-related proposals, this is undoubtedly the most likely to be eliminated, or at least scaled back, given the congressional Democrats against it.

War Budget total: $173.8 billion

Running tally: $727.9 billion

The Department of Energy/Nuclear Budget: It may surprise you to know that work on the deadliest weapons in the U.S. arsenal, nuclear warheads, is housed in the Department of Energy (DOE), not the Pentagon. The DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration runs a nationwide research, development, and production network for nuclear warheads and naval nuclear reactors that stretches from Livermore, California, to Albuquerque and Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Kansas City, Missouri, to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to Savannah River, South Carolina. Its laboratories also have a long history of program mismanagement, with some projects coming in at nearly eight times the initial estimates.

Nuclear Budget total: $24.8 billion

Running tally: $752.7 billion

“Defense Related Activities”: This category covers the $9 billion that annually goes to agencies other than the Pentagon, the bulk of it to the FBI for homeland security-related activities.

Defense Related Activities total: $9 billion

Running tally: $761.7 billion

The five categories outlined above make up the budget of what’s officially known as “national defense.” Under the Budget Control Act, this spending should have been capped at $630 billion. The $761.7 billion proposed for the 2020 budget is, however, only the beginning of the story.

The Veterans Affairs Budget: The wars of this century have created a new generation of veterans. In all, over 2.7 million U.S. military personnel have cycled through the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Many of them remain in need of substantial support to deal with the physical and mental wounds of war. As a result, the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has gone through the roof, more than tripling in this century to a proposed $216 billion. And this massive figure may not even prove enough to provide the necessary services.

More than 6,900 U.S. military personnel have died in Washington’s post-9/11 wars, with more than 30,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. These casualties are, however, just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of thousands of returning troops suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), illnesses created by exposure to toxic burn pits, or traumatic brain injuries. The U.S. government is committed to providing care for these veterans for the rest of their lives. An analysis by the Costs of War Project at Brown University has determined that obligations to veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars alone will total more than $1 trillion in the years to come. This cost of war is rarely considered when leaders in Washington decide to send U.S. troops into combat.

Veterans Affairs total: $216 billion

Running tally: $977.7 billion

The Homeland Security Budget: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a mega-agency created after the 9/11 attacks. At the time, it swallowed 22 then-existing government organizations, creating a massive department that currently has nearly a quarter of a million employees. Agencies that are now part of DHS include the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Secret Service, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

While some of DHS’s activities — such as airport security and defense against the smuggling of a nuclear weapon or “dirty bomb” into our midst — have a clear security rationale, many others do not. ICE — America’s deportation force — has done far more to cause suffering among innocent people than to thwart criminals or terrorists. Other questionable DHS activities include grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them buy military-grade equipment.

Homeland Security total: $69.2 billion

Running tally: $1.0469 trillion

The International Affairs Budget: This includes the budgets of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Diplomacy is one of the most effective ways to make the United States and the world more secure, but it has been under assault in the Trump years. The Fiscal Year 2020 budget calls for a one-third cut in international affairs spending, leaving it at about one-fifteenth of the amount allocated for the Pentagon and related agencies grouped under the category of “national defense.” And that doesn’t even account for the fact that more than 10% of the international affairs budget supports military aid efforts, most notably the $5.4 billion Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. The bulk of FMF goes to Israel and Egypt, but in all over a dozen countries receive funding under it, including Jordan, Lebanon, Djibouti, Tunisia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

International Affairs total: $51 billion

Running tally: $1.0979 trillion     

The Intelligence Budget: The United States has 17 separate intelligence agencies. In addition to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the FBI, mentioned above, they are the CIA; the National Security Agency; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Treasury Department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis; the Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command; the Office of Naval Intelligence; Marine Corps Intelligence; and Coast Guard Intelligence. And then there’s that 17th one, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, set up to coordinate the activities of the other 16.

We know remarkably little about the nature of the nation’s intelligence spending, other than its supposed total, released in a report every year. By now, it’s more than $80 billion. The bulk of this funding, including for the CIA and NSA, is believed to be hidden under obscure line items in the Pentagon budget. Since intelligence spending is not a separate funding stream, it’s not counted in our tally below (though, for all we know, some of it should be).

Intelligence Budget total: $80 billion

Running tally (still): $1.0979 trillion

Defense Share of Interest on the National Debt: The interest on the national debt is well on its way to becoming one of the most expensive items in the federal budget. Within a decade, it is projected to exceed the Pentagon’s regular budget in size. For now, of the more than $500 billion in interest taxpayers fork over to service the government’s debt each year, about $156 billion can be attributed to Pentagon spending.

Defense Share of National Debt total: $156.3 billion

Final tally: $1.2542 trillion

So, our final annual tally for war, preparations for war, and the impact of war comes to more than $1.25 trillion — more than double the Pentagon’s base budget. If the average taxpayer were aware that this amount was being spent in the name of national defense — with much of it wasted, misguided, or simply counterproductive — it might be far harder for the national security state to consume ever-growing sums with minimal public pushback. For now, however, the gravy train is running full speed ahead and its main beneficiaries — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and their cohorts — are laughing all the way to the bank.

*

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

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Mandy Smithberger, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight.

Featured image is from NationofChange

The United States is moving dangerously forward in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to provoke a war with Iran, apparently based on threat intelligence provided by Israel. The claims made by National Security Advisor John Bolton and by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that there is solid evidence of Iran’s intention to attack US forces in the Persian Gulf region is almost certainly a fabrication, possibly deliberately contrived by Bolton and company in collaboration with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It will be used to justify sending bombers and additional naval air resources to confront any possible moves by Tehran to maintain its oil exports, which were blocked by Washington last week. If the US Navy tries to board ships carrying Iranian oil it will undoubtedly, and justifiably, provoke a violent response from Iran, which is precisely what Bolton, Pompeo and Netanyahu are seeking.

It would be difficult to find in the history books another example of a war fought for no reason whatsoever. As ignorant as President Donald Trump and his triumvirate or psychotics Bolton, Pompeo and Elliott Abrams are, even they surely know that Iran poses no threat to the United States. If they believe at all that a war is necessary, they no doubt base their judgment on the perception that the United States must maintain its number one position in the world by occasionally attacking and defeating someone to serve as an example of what might happen if one defies Washington. Understanding that, the Iranians would be wise to avoid confrontation until the sages in the White House move on to some easier target, which at the moment would appear to be Venezuela.

The influence of Israel over US foreign policy is undeniable, with Washington now declaring that it will “review ties” with other nations that are considered to be unfriendly to the Jewish state. For observers who might also believe that Israel and its allies in the US are the driving force behind America’s belligerency in the Middle East, there are possibly some other games that are in play, all involving Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of merry cutthroats. It is becoming increasingly apparent that foreign politicians have realized that the easiest way to gain Washington’s favor is to do something that will please Israel. In practical terms, the door to Capitol Hill and the White House is opened through the good offices of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Israel is desperate to confirm its legitimacy in international fora, where it has few friends in spite of an intensive lobbying campaign. It seeks to have countries that do not have an embassy in Israel to take steps to establish one, and it also wants more nations that do already have an embassy in Tel Aviv to move to Jerusalem, building on the White House’s decision taken last year to do just that. Not surprisingly, nations and political leaders who are on the make and want American support have drawn the correct conclusions and pander to Israel as a first step.

One only has to cite the example of Venezuela. Juan Guaido, the candidate favored by Washington for regime change, has undoubtedly a lot of things on his plate but he has proven willing to make some time to say what Benjamin Netanyahu wants to hear, as reported by the Israeli media. The Times of Israel describes how

“Venezuela’s self-proclaimed leader Juan Guaido is working to re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel and isn’t ruling out placing his country’s embassy in Jerusalem, according to an interview with an Israeli newspaper published Tuesday.”

One would think that Guaido would consider his interview sufficient, but he has also taken the pandering process one step farther, reportedly displaying huge video images of the flags of both Israel and the United States at his rallies.

This deference to Israel’s interests produced an almost immediate positive result with Netanyahu recognizing him as the legitimate Venezuelan head of state, followed by an echo chamber of effusive congratulations from US (sic) Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who praised the Jewish state for “standing with the people of Venezuela and the forces of freedom and democracy.” Donald Trump’s esteemed special envoy for international negotiations, Jason Greenblatt, also joined in, praising the Israeli government for its “courageous stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan people.”

A similar bonding took place regarding Brazil, where hard right conservative leader Jair Bolsonaro was recently elected president. Netanyahu attended the Bolsonaro inauguration last December and the two men benefit from strong support from Christian Evangelicals. Bolsonaro repaid the favor by promising that Israel would be his first foreign trip. In the event he went to Washington first, but the state visit to Israel took place in April, just before that country’s elections, in a bid to demonstrate international support for Netanyahu.

Brazilian Jews constitute a wealthy and powerful community which reacted positively to Bolsonaro’s pledges to fight corruption and high crime rates while also repairing a struggling economy. They also appreciated his stance on Israel. He committed to moving the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, though he has backpedaled a bit on that pledge. And he also promised to shut the Palestinian embassy in the capital Brasilia. He famously asked and answered his own question,

“Is Palestine a country? Palestine is not a country, so there should be no embassy here. You do not negotiate with terrorists.”

Bolsonaro’s pro-Israel anti-Venezuela credentials also endeared him to Donald Trump on a visit to Washington in mid-March which was described by the media as a “love fest.” The Brazilian leader’s visits to Israel and the US as well as Guaido’s promises to Israel reveal that the foreign policies of Tel Aviv and Washington have become inextricably intertwined, with supplicant nations and politicians wisely seeking to do homage to both regimes to gain favor. It is a development that would shock the Founding Fathers, most particularly George Washington, who warned against entangling alliances, and it means that American interests will be seen through an Israeli prism, a reality that has already produced very bad results.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

Before Donald Trump’s February summit with Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam, The Washington Post ran an article headlined, “The US wants North Korea to follow the ‘miracle’ of Vietnam’s path.”

“In light of the once-unimaginable prosperity and partnership we have with Vietnam today, I have a message for Chairman Kim Jong Un: President Trump believes your country can replicate this path,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, as quoted in The Post article.

In 2019, the evolution of Vietnam toward capitalism, praised by the Trump administration, is not without irony. A ruinous and brutal U.S. war against North Vietnam and its Viet Cong supporters in the south ended with the U.S. withdrawal of military troops in 1973, followed by a complete end to the conflict in 1975.

Indeed, it was a little under 45 years ago that the U.S. military departed Vietnam with more than 58,000 soldiers dead and its tail between its legs. In the end, the North Vietnamese forces had won a decisive victory against the United States and the South Vietnamese army (the Army of the Republic of Vietnam). The North and South Vietnamese combatants lost nearly 1.5 million soldiers and at least 2 million civilians. According to The Balance, “Vietnam was the most heavily bombed country in history.”

Nearly three times more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than the U.S. used in World War II. In addition, 20 million gallons of herbicides were used to clear plants and trees in an effort to try and expose the Viet Cong. There was also the widespread use of the toxic Agent Orange, napalm and other deadly chemicals. The legacy that the U.S. left behind in Vietnam was gruesome and full of atrocities.

Image on the right: Until his death in 1969 Ho Chi Minh, the communist leader of Vietnam, led a war against the French and then the US. His nation became a victor against both powers despite having almost no advanced weaponry at his military’s disposal.

The bloody combat could have been avoided. Following World War II, Ho Chi Minh had written to President Harry Truman, seeking his support to prevent the French from returning to govern Vietnam as a colony. Truman ignored Minh’s appeal and even began supporting the French military struggle for control in 1950. When the French were routed in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu, the country was divided into North and South Vietnam by an international agreement. It did not take long for the U.S. to begin supporting a puppet “democratic” government in the South, leading to a full-fledged conflict with North Vietnam in the ’60s.

After the war with the U.S. and South Vietnam was over, North and South Vietnam became one unified communist state.

The United States justified the conflict as a means to stop the spread of communism during the Cold War. Vietnam historically had an often antagonistic relationship with China, however, so, U.S. leaders’ fear of the Chinese Communist Party controlling Vietnam along with the Soviet Union was a toothless Cold War fear. Indeed, that fear became a moot point when in the late 1980s, the Vietnam Communist Party began to turn from socialism and government-owned industries to betting its economic future on neoliberal capitalism.

Vietnam’s shift to capitalism, which now is in full swing, came partly as a result of several factors. Firstly, the nation was economically devastated by the war with the U.S. — particularly the bombing of infrastructure and agricultural fields. Compounding this obstacle, the nation had traditionally been reliant on subsistence agricultural production, which hampered industrialization of the nation. Furthermore, the U.S. embargo against Vietnam was not officially lifted until 1994. In addition, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the movement of China toward state capitalism, Vietnam followed suit.

John Battelle wrote about Vietnam’s neighbor in a recent commentary, “The End of Democratic Capitalism,” in Medium: “It’s now inarguable that the most muscular version of capitalism worldwide is the brand currently practiced by the Chinese state. Let’s call it autocratic capitalism  — for it is a market-driven economic system where the market is controlled by an autocratic state.”

Battelle adds “Growth is capitalism’s most sacred goal, and the Chinese know it.” So, apparently, do the single-party rulers of Vietnam.

From Adidas and North Face to Pizza Hut and McDonald’s, Vietnam has become a rapidly expanding consumer market for global corporation branded products.

As USA Today states in a 2015 article, “Vietnam … may actually be one of the most pro-capitalist countries on Earth. Almost all Vietnamese people — 95% of them — now support capitalism, according to the Pew Research Center, which polled nearly 45 nations late last year on economic issues.” In the United States, by contrast, Pew found that only 70 percent thought a “free market” system was ideal.

As early as 1993, U.S. multinational corporations began seeking out investments in Vietnam. A February 3, 1993, New York Times article noted, “Almost 18 years after United States diplomats fled Saigon before the advancing communist troops, American capitalists are trickling back, hoping to employ their former enemies and ready the country for a corporate invasion.”

Although the U.S. lags behind Asian nations, such as South Korea, China and Japan, in investment in Vietnam, its presence is visible throughout the country, whether it be in Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald outlets, Coca-Cola or other Western and Asian name brands and corporations. At the center of Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) stands the opulent Park Hyatt Hotel, a sprawling symbol of gilded capitalism. Room rates there begin at $350 a night. Indeed, Vietnam is so eager to seek U.S. capital investment that it has downplayed the catastrophic war by only sparingly reminding citizens and tourists that it ever occurred.

For example, in Ho Chi Minh City the former Exhibition House for U.S. and Puppet Crimes first had its name changed to the Exhibition House for Crimes and War Aggression and then in 1995 to the euphemistic War Remnants Museum. There one can see the destruction and massive death caused by the U.S. and French when they failed to recolonize Vietnam after WWII, but the tone is muted. Smaller museums (including the “Hanoi Hilton,” where John McCain was imprisoned) and war sites are scattered around the country. They often appear to be relics from a long time ago.

There are occasional outdoor displays in Vietnam of U.S. military equipment left behind in the rush to end the war. They are few in number and some have the appearance of junkyards. There is little signage that even identifies the hardware with the destructive conflict with the U.S. The majority of Vietnamese people were born after the war, and the state has its eyes on becoming a “developed nation,” not on looking backward.

The move to an energized capitalism is now overseen by Nguyen Phu Trong, who last autumn assumed the dual roles of Communist Party secretary and president of Vietnam. If any animosity remains toward the U.S., it was hard to find it, as I traveled from Hanoi to Ho Chi Minh City this past December, in a nation that now values individual economic competition and gain over socialist principles. A Pew 2017 poll found that 84 percent of Vietnamese citizens had a positive view of the U.S.

The state still controls many areas of the economy, such as much of the land use and investment in a variety of ventures, including the lucrative area of tourism. Indeed, up to one-third of the Vietnamese economy is still state owned. The country, however, joined the World Trade Organization in 2007, in return for capital and trading opportunities, and all but surrendered its economic adherence to communism.

Primarily due to the influx of foreign capital, Vietnam has been experiencing a 6 percent to 7 percent gross domestic growth in the past few years. Many of the more than 90 million Vietnamese citizens are rising to the middle class, but, as in the U.S., only a few are rising to the top income tier – and many are left eking out a barely livable existence.

Those who work for well-paying foreign companies and enjoy larger salaries – and those in the booming tourist industry – have created a market for global products. The “haves” have become ardent consumers. Vietnam Briefing found “a survey conducted by Nielsen concluded that Vietnam ranks third in the world in terms of fondness for branded goods.”

Many expensive brands have a presence in Vietnam. They include, according to Vietnam Briefing, Louis Vuitton, Dior, Burberry, Ermenegildo Zegna, Bulgari and Hermes. The Briefing notes that “the Hermes boutique in Hanoi, opened in 2008, increased its profits gradually by 20 to 30 percent each year.”

Although the primary means of transportation in Vietnam is motorbikes, dealers for luxury cars have also opened. The ownership of automobiles is rising, particularly in Ho Chi Minh City.

Most financial analysts who specialize in Vietnam put the poverty rate in 2018 at about 10 percent (down from about 85 percent in 1993), but that is a relative figure in a nation where the average worker’s salary is somewhere just below $2200.

Vietnam’s recent financial growth is not solving the country’s economic disparities. In fact, it is increasing them. In Vietnam what is evident is the inevitable result of soaring capitalism: income inequality. What is happening there is one more example of how economic injustice is built into capitalism even in a nation whose government is nominally communist.

Indeed, a 2017 analysis by Oxfam warns of signs that Vietnam is moving toward an increasingly inequitable society. It does not help, the report finds, that the tax system in Vietnam is generally regressive. This means that Vietnamese citizens are subject to many flat taxes and fees, regardless of income. Since 2009, corporate taxes have been reduced from 28 to 20 percent. And, the report notes, “tax avoidance and evasion are also letting the richest multinationals off the hook and sucking money out of the budget.” Therefore, the tax burden disproportionately relies on lower income earners, many of them rural farmers and members of Indigenous populations.

As the number of wealthy rise in Vietnam on the back of capitalism, inequality also is increasing. The rural poor still come to cities and towns to sell produce, for example, often by carrying baskets suspended from a wooden strip on their shoulders.

The Oxfam study flatly states, “Economic inequality in Vietnam is growing by any measure. World Bank data shows that income inequality in Vietnam has increased in the last two decades, and more importantly, the richest are taking a disproportionate share of income.”

Oxfam notes that advancement opportunities for those in the lower economic strata are hampered by barriers such as tuition for secondary education and charges for essential supplies for primary school, such as textbooks. As another example of disparity, Oxfam explains that Vietnam’s health system is more accessible to the wealthy. Many of the costs normally absorbed by a socialist state are being offloaded to individuals, many of them of limited means.

As the UN confirmed as early as 2008, the glaring injustice of Vietnam’s rush to capitalism is the economic division it is creating among the nation’s citizens: “According to statistics … 29.9 percent of the gross national income is held by rich people, who account for just 10 percent of the population.” The concentration of money among the wealthy and upper middle class has only increased since that time, as the Oxfam report concluded.

Meanwhile, the nominally communist government severely limits free speech. As Foreign Policy notes, Vietnam wants to curry the favor of Western politicians and global corporations, but not to open up the nation into a forum for democracy. That is just fine with the U.S., especially with Donald Trump.

What is important to the U.S. government is nations directing their economies to global capitalism. That they evolve into democratic societies, despite bipartisan platitudinous claims to the contrary, is of secondary and minimal priority to D.C. policy makers.

In fact, single-party governments that adopt capitalistic economic systems are more stable as far as corporations and investors are concerned. Therefore, multinational corporations may prefer a “communist” Vietnam or China to nations that allow an unpredictable democratic process.

Conveniently overlooked by the U.S. government’s glee at the explosion of global capitalism in Vietnam is the alleged corruption of the Vietnamese government. A 2015 Guardian article stated, “Transparency International last year reported that Vietnam is perceived to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world, doing worse than 118 others and scoring only 31 out of a possible 100 good points on its index.”

It is hardly a new development that the U.S. government downplays economic inequity and corruption in governments that it supports. Why would the U.S. government be concerned about economic injustice in Vietnam when it fosters it at home? As for the tolerance of corruption, look no further than the Trump White House.

Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, six years before the North Vietnamese army took control of South Vietnam. By the late 1980s, five-year collectivization plans — and the other factors cited earlier in this article — had failed to improve the economy. As a result, Vietnam has embarked on a path that makes it a member of the global neoliberal community, which ensures that inequity and corruption will continue to persist there.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Mark Karlin founded BuzzFlash.com in May 2000. He wrote daily commentaries for Truthout for eight years and was a senior member of the staff. He recently spent a month traversing Vietnam. Follow him on Twitter: @MarkDKarlin.

All images in this article are from the author except for the featured which is an Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Recent reports suggest that Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, together with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, are “doing everything possible to instigate a war with Iran”. Will they succeed?

Bolton-Pompeo are involved in deliberate acts of provocation. The Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is currently en route to the Persian Gulf  “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime…”  

This is not the first time that threats of this nature have been formulated. War on Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for the past 16 years.  Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S. “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003.

Without dispelling the dangers of the reckless Bolton-Pompeo initiative, a large scale US-NATO-Israel military operation directed against Iran from a strategic and geopolitical standpoint at this juncture is unlikely.

Why?

A shift in military alliances between “Great Powers” is unfolding, which is exceedingly more complex than that  pertaining to World War I. (i.e  the confrontation between “The Triple Entente” and “the Triple Alliance”).

Today, the structure of military alliances is in jeopardy much to the detriment of Washington.

You cannot successfully wage war on Iran when Turkey, your ally and NATO heavy weight is “sleeping with the enemy”. 

While Turkey is officially a member of NATO as well as a firm ally of the US, president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been developing “friendly relations” with two of America’s arch-enemies, namely Iran and Russia.

Needless to say NATO is in crisis. Moreover, US and Turkey supported proxy forces are fighting one another in Northern Syria. 

There is also a Turkey-Israel military-intelligence alliance which dates back to the Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA) signed with the government Tansu Çiller in 1993-94. This alliance which had been designed by the Clinton administration is no longer functional.  

The strategic bilateral US-Israel relationship as well as the US-Turkey alliance coupled with the Israel-Turkey military and intelligence cooperation agreement as well as the Israel-NATO agreement (2003), were the foundations of the US-Israel-Turkey “Triple alliance” or what the Brookings Institute called the US-Turkey- Israel Triangle.

This US sponsored triangular structure of alliances is dead and defunct, much to the detriment of Washington’s interests in the Middle East.

What is now unfolding is a new Triple Entente between Turkey, Iran and Russia

The Netanyahu-Putin “Love Relationship”

But there is another element which is absolutely crucial: Israel is also sleeping with the enemy. Netanyahu and Putin have developed over the years an informal and friendly relationship. They consult one another frequently on key political and strategic issues.

While the Netanyahu-Putin relationship is not a formal alliance, it nonetheless serves the interests of both Russia and Israel. “Putin has a friend in Bibi Netanyahu, and maybe even a soulmate”. According to Reuters, “Vladimir Putin is the closest thing to a friend Israel has ever had in Moscow”.

Turkey, NATO Exit

Contemporary developments point to a historical shift in the structure of military alliances which is contributing to weakening US hegemony in the Middle East as well as creating an unspoken crisis within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Waging US-NATO-Israel war on Iran with or without Turkey?

Turkey is NATO’s heavy weight, it is the only NATO member state which is (largely) situated in the Middle East bordering onto Iran.

In early April, Secretary State Mike Pompeo met up with his counterpart Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu  in Ankara. The Pompeo-Cavusoglu confrontation made the headlines, In turn, Vice President Pence openly threatened the Turkish government:

Vice President Mike Pence warned Turkey against going ahead with the purchase of the Russian-made [S-400] missile system, hours after the Turkish foreign minister said the acquisition was “a done deal” … Pence said the weapons purchase could “threaten the very cohesion of this alliance... We’ve also made it clear that we’ll not stand idly by while NATO allies purchase weapons from our adversaries,“ Pence said. (CNN, April 3, 2019)

Mike Pence is right: The cohesion of NATO is at stake. And Turkey cannot be trusted as an ally of the US.

Turkey’s NATO-Exit? It is almost a done deal.

And if Turkey exits NATO, other countries might follow suit.Something which Washington would want to avoid.

In the course of the month of April (following Pompeo’s diplomatic blunder in Ankara) Turkey and Iran have strengthened their bilateral relations.

Pompeo’s counterpart Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has retorted: “We do not accept unilateral sanctions and impositions on how we build our relationship with our neighbors.” (quoted in Al Monitor, April 29, 2019)

US, NATO, Israel Military logistics are integrated, and Turkey is still (officially) part of NATO.

The evolving structure of military alliances (and cross-cutting coalitions) including the crisis within NATO does not favour the launching  of a large scale military operation against Iran. One assumes that Bolton-Pompeo are fully aware of this issue. Or are they?

Turkey is a NATO Member State which is sleeping with enemy. Given It’s relationship with Russia and Iran, from a logistical point of view the practice of coordinated US-NATO military planning is in jeopardy.

This does not exclude the conduct of other forms of warfare including economic sanctions, sabotage, Bolton-style spontaneous acts of provocation, covert support of terrorist organizations, etc.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 09, 2019

Is Turkey Sleeping with the Enemy? The Russia -Turkey -Iran “Triple Entente”

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 10, 2018

Sleeping with the enemy:  “Our relations are not good with Turkey” says Trump.

US-Turkey military cooperation (including US air force bases in Turkey) dates back to the Cold War. Today Turkey is now sleeping with both Iran and Russia. 

Trump’s response takes the form of both military threats and economic sanctions coupled with financial manipulation of foreign exchange markets directed against Turkey’s Lira.

And their  currency “slides rapidly downwards against our very strong dollar”, says Trump.

Turkey has developed an alliance of convenience with Iran. And Iran in turn is now supported by a powerful China-Russia block, which includes military cooperation, strategic pipelines as well extensive trade and investment agreements.

But there is more than meets the eye.

While the US and Israel have for many years contemplated military action (including the preemptive use of nuclear weapons) against Iran, this military agenda –which relied on a longstanding military-intelligence alliance between Israel and Turkey– is currently in jeopardy. And so is Ankara’s  bilateral military alliance with Washington.

The Israel-Turkey alliance which dates back to the Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA) signed under Turkey’s  Tansu Çiller government in 1993-94 included:

…A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding led to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) “joint committees” to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed “to cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries’ military capabilities.”

“Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to gather electronic intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange, Israel assisted in the equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror warfare along the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders.” (see Michel Chossudovsky, 2004)

The SSA agreement was a carefully designed instrument of US foreign policy which set the stage for a firm and close Israel-Turkey relationship in military and intelligence cooperation, joint military exercises, weapons production and training.

Image on the left: Erdogan and Ariel Sharon (2004)

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”,  dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrated and coordinated military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ….

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

In 2006,  shortly before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, the US and Turkey signed a “Shared Vision” (which committed Turkey to supporting Israel). The agreement was:

“characterized by strong bonds of friendship, alliance, mutual trust and unity of vision. We share the same set of values and ideals in our regional and global objectives: the promotion of peace, democracy, freedom and prosperity.”

The bilateral US-Israel and US-Turkey alliance coupled with the Israel-Turkey military and intelligence cooperation agreement as well as the Israel-NATO agreement (2003), constitute the foundations of the US-Israel-Turkey “Triple alliance” or what the Brookings Institute calls the US-Turkey- Israel Triangle.

This triangular structure of alliances is dead much to the detriment of Washington.

In turn,  Turkey wants to acquire Russia’s S-400 air defense system at a cost of 2 billion dollars. In practice, this would mean that Turkey would opt  out of the integrated US-NATO air defense system (which also includes the participation of Israel). In practice this also means that Turkey has “unofficially” chosen NATO-Exit.

Image on the right: Rouhani, Putin, Erdogan

What is unfolding is the building of  a new Triple Entente between Turkey, Iran and Russia. 

At this stage, this Triple Entente goes beyond an “alliance of convenience”. It constitutes a major restructuring of both military and economic alliances.

Who Benefits from Trump’s Foreign Policy Statements? Short-Selling Major Currencies. Insider Trade?

On a related matter, the Trump administration is involved in acts of manipulation on foreign exchange markets with the full support of Wall Street.

What is the consequence of Trump’s statements?

Trigger the collapse of the Turkish Lira, which constitutes a de facto act of financial warfare directed against Turkey.

Those who had advanced knowledge of  Trump’s statements (“inside information”) are making multibillion dollar profits on the foreign exchange markets. (This is an issue for further investigation)

An earlier statement by Trump regarding sanctions directed Russia was conducive to a significant decline in the Russian Ruble.

After two years of denial, evasion and procrastination, this government has finally accepted ultimate responsibility for the atrocity of multiple deaths in Grenfell Tower, North Kensington, West London on 14th June 2017.

The government-controlled fire-regulations to which all buildings in UK have to conform, were such that they allowed the application of fire-accelerant materials to be used on the exterior cladding of residential and other buildings with the result that over 160 high rise tower blocks housing thousands of people still today remain a public safety risk as a result of grossly deficient fire regulations affecting public safety.

The materials used incorporated polymer foams that have been known for decades to be highly dangerous in case of fire in that not only are they fire- accelerants but that they also emit deadly hydrogen-cyanide gas (HCN) which can kill in seconds. All this has been documented for many years worldwide yet the government chose not to prohibit its use. That would appear to be a prima facie case of criminal negligence.

That the same government has today said it will, under public pressure, now fund the remedial work to those 160 buildings still affected, is a belated, overdue admission of negligence. However no one has been prosecuted to date.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

Britain is denying millions of Venezuelans food and healthcare by blocking access to the South American country’s gold deposits at the Bank of England, says Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza.

Speaking during a visit to Moscow, the Russian capital, Arreaza said Monday that the Bank of England had confiscated over $1.5 billion in Venezuelan overseas gold deposits and refused to return it even though the Latin American country was grappling with food shortages and deteriorating healthcare services.

“In the Bank of England, there are 1359 million euros ($1.52 billion) in Venezuelan gold blocked,” Arreaza told a press conference, noting that the money was for “the health of the people, to feed the people, for production in Venezuela”.

The Venezuelan FM said the Bank of England was only one of the European and international financial institutions that had “confiscated” a total of 5 billion euros in Venezuelan deposits upon an order by US President Donald Trump.

The Trump administration has announced sanctions against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and blocked the assets of its officials across the world in a bid to channel them to Juan Guaido, the country’s self-proclaimed interim president who has been trying to oust Maduro since his re-election in January.

“These are resources of the Venezuelan people for their food, for their health, for their public services, for their housing, for their infrastructure, it’s criminal what the United States is doing,” said Arreaza.

“When a housewife can’t get a product or it’s more expensive, it’s thanks to the blockade; when a child can’t be operated on, it’s thanks to the blockade,” he added.

London has already expressed support for Guaido.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said in late January that tightening economic pressure against Venezuelan “kleptocrats” could force Maduro to accept opposition calls for early elections.

“Targeted sanctions against the kleptocrats who have enriched themselves on the back of the rest of the population who are very poor, that is something I think can be effective,” Hunt said ahead of Brexit meeting with counterparts in the European Union (EU).

Maduro had tried to withdraw the gold in January but the Bank of England rejected the request after extensive lobbying by the US. Guaido has since asked for the funds to be diverted to him instead. According to British media, however, the assets still remain frozen.

Arreaza said Caracas was not sitting idly by and had been seeking help from allies such as China and Russia to create “alternative routes … to bypass the American blockade.”

Russia and China have sent humanitarian aid for Venezuelan people.

Maduro has blamed US sanctions for his country’s woes. Venezuela’s GDP has fallen by around 50 percent since he took over from the late Hugo Chavez in 2013.

Back in March, Maduro accused Washington of using cyberwarfare to cripple the country’s power grid and cause nationwide blackouts that lasted for days.

*

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

US secretary of state Mike Pompeo made a surprise four-hour visit to Baghdad on Tuesday in connection to the panic he is trying to trump up, along with US national security adviser and Sheldon Adelson plant John Bolton about Iran supposedly planning to attack US troops in the Middle East.

For his part, Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said in remarks to the press that Iraq will undertake to ensure the safety of the some 5,000 US troops in Iraq, who are helping the Iraqi army mop up ISIL remnants.

At the same time, Abdul Mahdi insisted that Iraq would not participate in any economic boycott of any country, which is to say that he declined to cooperate with the Trump administration’s attempts to squeeze Iran.

Iraqi sources said after the visit was over that Bolton offered to give Iraq a temporary waiver with regard to its trade ties with Iran. He may as well, since he is unlikely to get much cooperation from Shiite-ruled Iraq in the blockade on Iran.

The Trump administration has imposed an international financial blockade on Iran trade, which has no UN backing or basis in international law. Iran is in compliance with its obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal, according to UN inspectors. In contrast, the United States has breached that treaty by its blockade.

Tuesday night I watched Iranian president Hassan Rouhani give a speech in which he said that the 2015 nuclear deal is on life support, and that while Iran is not withdrawing from it, it will cease observing some self-limits it had imposed beyond the strict letter of the treaty. Iran will no longer limit enrichment of uranium to 3.67 percent (what is needed to make fuel for generating electricity). It has to be enriched to 95% for a bomb, but every increase above 3.67 percent is a tiny step toward the latter, and concerning to the world community. Rouhani said that Iran may also renovate the heavy water reactor at Arak. Heavy water reactors are much easier to use to make fissile material than light water reactors. I’m confused by this statement, since I thought bricking in the Arak proposed reactor was one of the four cardinal points of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Rouhani’s plans are foolish, since they just give ammunition to the US War Party, even though they are not steps toward a bomb.

The only two countries in the greater Middle East who actually have nuclear weapons are Israel and Pakistan. Iran does not, and apparently has never intended to develop such weapons, in part on religious grounds.

Pompeo and Bolton have not only claimed credit for sending a US aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf but they have also sent four B-52 bombers to al-Udeid Air Force Base in Qatar, in hopes of spooking the Iranians into doing something rash so that they can rally the gullible American public to a war on Iran. Qatar has correct relations with Iran, and this move puts Doha in a difficult position. Iran came to Qatar’s aid in 2017 when the Saudis imposed a blockade on it, at a time when Trump was tweeting lies about Qatar and siding with the Saudis.

US intelligence sources leaked to the US press such as The Daily Beast that Bolton and Pompeo are hysterically hyping the intel, which is not as specific or threatening as they are making it out to be.

The practice in journalism is to be cautious about calling people liars, since we cannot know what is in their heads, and what they say may be incorrect but a sincerely held belief. I think George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of that crew used the reluctance of journalists to call them out as liars to political advantage, and it may have helped Bush win a second term.

So let me be clear. Mike Pompeo and John Bolton are known, serial, dedicated liars. Bolton helped lie the US into the Iraq War. Pompeo assiduously lied about the Benghazi affair. Nothing they say about Iran should be given any credence whatsoever.

The American security establishment has seldom actually understood the relationship of Iran to Iraq’s Shiites. For the 8.5 years the Pentagon occupied Iraq, mostly in the Bush era, US government personnel were absolutely convinced that Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr was a cat’s paw for Iran. But the al-Sadrs think of themselves as arch Iraqi nationalists and Muqtada’s father had contested the top clerical post in Iraq with the Iranian Ali Sistani. Muqtada’s followers, poor Iraqis of the cities and the south, deeply resent Iranian influence in Iraq.

On the other hand, al-Sadr is a staunch anti-imperialist, who has said that if the US ever attacked Iran, his followers would defend it. In fact, al-Sadr is upset about the US pressure on Iraq to stop doing business with Iran, and said in late April that if Iraq was going to be put in the middle of Washington and Tehran, it was better that the US embassy be closed and the US kicked out of Iraq.

Muqtada al-Sadr threatens #US embassy in #Iraq saying it must be closed to stop US interference in Iraq or else it will be a target again by the “resistance”. pic.twitter.com/mbZJbPmFRr

— العنــــود (@A_140_) April 27, 2019

Iraq does billions of dollars in trade with Iran and depends on that country for electricity in some provinces.

Al-Sadr’s Sairoun Party has 54 seats in the 329-seat parliament and was a power broker who helped ease the current prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, into power.

Bush’s illegal war of aggression on Iraq is the gift that keeps on giving to the US fascists, since there are ways in which it now sets up Iran for similar treatment. I heard a congressman speaking on tv who had served in Iraq estimate that one-fifth of US troops killed in Iraq were killed by Iran or Iran proxies. That is such a bullshit statistic. There were never any Iranian troops in Iraq in that period, and many US troops who were killed by Shiite militias were killed by Sadrists or radical offshoots of Sadrism, which is to say, by Shiite Iraq nationalists who also disliked Iran (one group burned down the Iranian consulate in Basra). The US military also had this mysterious theory that Iraqi Sunnis could not use shaped charges against US tanks, and tended to count all shaped charge attacks as Iranian, even in al-Anbar province where there are no Shiites to speak of. The US invaded Iraq on the theory that its Sunni-dominated government was 2 years from having a nuclear weapon, but Iraqi Sunnis can’t get up a shaped charge, a technology that goes back to WW II?

Besides, no US troops would have been killed at all if the then president had not given them an illegal order to go occupy somebody else’s country. Using the fact that they faced resistance to this neocolonialism to stage more neocolonialism is fiendishly clever.

The Americans also assumed that Iraqi Shiites voted for fundamentalist parties because of Iranian influence on the elections, but the Da’wa (Islamic Call Party), which generally did well, was a longstanding Iraqi Shiite party representing the professional middle class and which rejected Khomeinism. Iraqis had their own reasons for voting as the did.

Ironically, the Shiite militia that the US generally got along with was the Badr Corps, which is more or less a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

It was pro-Iran Iraqi Shiite militias, helped by small numbers of advisers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, who did a lot of heavy lifting in defeating ISIL after the US-built Iraqi army collapsed, and it seems clear that despite denials on both sides, the US occasionally gave them air support. But Iran would have a right to be annoyed with the US for policies that led to the rise of ISIL on its borders in the first place.

Bolton and Pompeo and Trump don’t actually know anything about the Middle East nor do they care about the welfare of its people. Bolton and Pompeo are warmongers and like the idea of bullying Iran, and they are also closely tied to the fascist Likud Party in Israel, which has been plumping for a war on Iran for decades. Pompeo is in the back pocket of the Koch brothers Big Oil lobby, which would benefit from higher prices if there is trouble with Iran.

*

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

More than 99.9 percent of people commenting on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reauthorize sodium cyanide in wildlife-killing devices called M-44s support a ban on these “cyanide bombs,” according to an analysis released today.

Cyanide bombs inhumanely and indiscriminately kill thousands of animals every year. The analysis of public comments was done by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Environmental Law Center.

Earlier this year, the EPA issued a proposed interim decision renewing sodium cyanide registration for use in M-44s and opened a public comment period. More than 22,400 people submitted comments.

Of those, just 10 submissions asked the EPA to renew its registration of M-44s.

“Cyanide traps are indiscriminate killers that can’t be used safely by anyone, anywhere,” said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re fighting for a permanent nationwide ban, which is the only way to protect people, pets and imperiled wildlife from this poison.”

EPA’s registration authorizes use of the deadly devices by Wildlife Services — a secretive wildlife-killing program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture — as well as by state agencies in South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and Texas.

The devices spray deadly sodium cyanide into the mouths of unsuspecting coyotes, foxes and other carnivores lured by smelly bait. Anything or anyone that pulls on the baited M-44 device can be killed or severely injured by the deadly spray.

M-44s temporarily blinded a child and killed three family dogs in two incidents in Idaho and Wyoming in 2017. A wolf was also accidentally killed by an M-44 set in Oregon that year. In response, Idaho instituted an ongoing moratorium on M-44 use on public lands, and Oregon this week passed legislation banning them in the state.

“It is far past time to eliminate these cruel killing devices altogether,” said Kelly Nokes, Shared Earth wildlife attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center. “M-44s are an inhumane relic of the past and an unnecessary safety risk that have no place on our public landscape in 2019. We call on EPA to revoke its registration of this poison and protect the American public from these barbaric sodium cyanide bombs once and for all.”

According to Wildlife Services’ own data, M-44s killed 13,232 animals, mostly coyotes and foxes, in 2017. Of these, more than 200 deaths were nontarget animals, including a wolf, family dogs, opossums, raccoons, ravens and skunks. These numbers are likely a significant undercount of the true death toll, as Wildlife Services is notorious for poor data collection and an entrenched “shoot, shovel, shut up” mentality.

Background

A bipartisan group of federal lawmakers last week introduced legislation, H.R. 2471 and S. 1301, to ban M-44s nationwide.

In response to a 2017 lawsuit brought by the Center and its allies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to analyze impacts of M-44s on endangered wildlife by the end of 2021. Another 2017 lawsuit by the wildlife advocates prompted Wildlife Services in Colorado to temporarily halt the use of M-44s while it completes a new environmental analysis on its wildlife-killing program.

In November, EPA denied a 2017 petition authored by the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians that asked for a nationwide ban on M-44s.

*

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

Featured image: Coyote pup photo by Tom Koerner, USFWS.