Global Research

La conferenza internazionale di membri di organizzazioni senza scopo di lucro (non governative) tenutasi nell’aprile di quest’anno a Firenze, in Italia, potrebbe rimanere al di fuori dal orizzonte di personalità politiche e governative, nonché dei rappresentanti dei media, se non fosse per una serie di circostanze molto significative ad essa connesse.

La prima e più importante caratteristica distintiva del presente forum si è manifestata attraverso il motto non standard “No alla guerra, no alla NATO” sotto cui si è tenuta. I suoi partecipanti hanno sollevato in modo estremamente deciso la questione della prevenzione di qualsiasi scontro militare nel continente europeo e nel mondo nel suo complesso, sia con l’uso di armi nucleari che convenzionali.

Al forum è stato lanciato un appello: creare un movimento di forze sociali e politiche in Europa, che, come l’ampio movimento civile antinucleare negli anni ’80 del secolo scorso, contribuisca ad eliminare la minaccia missilistica nucleare, poiché il suo livello è diventato chiaramente alto negli ultimi anni, anche in questa questa parte del globo terrestre.

In particolare nel continente europeo, in aggiunta alle armi nucleari statunitensi ivi schierate sin dagli anni ’50 del secolo scorso, il Pentagono ha iniziato negli ultimi anni ad inviare nel suo spazio aereo aerei strategici pesanti, in grado di trasportare sia missili di crociera che bombe con testate nucleari.

La seconda particolarità dell’evento è stata quella di avere un carattere molto rappresentativo: oltre 500 persone vi hanno preso parte, il che ha portato gli organizzatori a noleggiare l’Odeon, uno dei cinema centrali della città, per otto ore. L’interesse è stato ovviamente grande.

Alla conferenza hanno preso parte persone da quasi tutti i paesi europei, compresi i paesi membri dell’Alleanza del Nord Atlantico. Al fine di informare i partecipanti all’incontro riguardo alla situazione relativa all’ulteriore complicazione del processo di controllo degli armamenti, in particolare di quelli nucleari, sono stati invitati in qualità di relatori principali dell’evento noti esperti che si occupano di tali questioni. Tra i relatori c’erano anche specialisti che studiano le conseguenze negative dell’allocazione da parte dei paesi leader nella NATO di spese militari chiaramente eccessive che impediscono l’attuazione di programmi per lo sviluppo socio-economico dei suoi stati membri e della comunità europea nel suo insieme.

In occasione del 70 ° anniversario della creazione della NATO, gli organizzatori della conferenza hanno preparato e mostrato un film documentario “70 anni della NATO: guerra alla guerra”, che critica la politica militare ed i preparativi militari dell’alleanza della “solidarietà transatlantica”, le sue enormi spese militari ed i tentativi di interferenze politiche e di altro genere negli affari di Stati sovrani al fine di rovesciarne i legittimi organi di potere ed amministrazione.

Il film mostra gli interventi degli Stati Uniti e di altri stati, membri di questo blocco militare, negli affari della Serbia, della Siria e di altri paesi, e vengono presentate le prove dell’interferenza di Washington negli affari interni dell’Ucraina attraverso l’organizzazione di colpo di stato nel 2014. Sono criticate il dispiegamento di armi nucleari e sistemi anti-missilistici statunitensi in Europa. Viene sollevata la questione della chiusura di tutte le basi militari statunitensi non solo in Italia, ma anche in altri paesi europei. Nel film è stato pronunciato lo slogan: “Per uscire dalle guerre, bisonga uscire dalla NATO”.

All’evento, la parte russa ha presentato una nuova monografia intitolata “L’evoluzione delle armi nucleari strategiche e tattiche statunitensi e le caratteristiche del loro uso nel XXI secolo” (Mosca 2019, pp. 1086). Inoltre ha analizzato la situazione allarmante nel campo del controllo degli armamenti dovuta agli Stati Uniti, che hanno mostrato e continuano a tenere atteggiamenti negativi nei confronti dei 12 trattati internazionali vigenti in questo settore. Ciò è provato dal fatto che gli USA hanno unilateralmente ripudiato alcuni di essi (in particolare il Trattato ABM), o hanno rifiutato di ratificarne altri (ad esempio, il Trattato di divieto totale per i test nucleari), o hanno violato le loro disposizioni (ad esempio il Trattato DSSMD sull’eliminazione dei missili a medio e breve raggio), o addirittura si sono rifiutati di discutere nel merito alcuni di essi nelle sedi di negoziazione internazionale (ad esempio, il progetto di Trattato sulla sicurezza europea).

E’ stato notato con particolare attenzione che metà di tali trattati e accordi sono direttamente collegati alle armi nucleari, vale a dire: il Trattato sulla riduzione delle armi strategiche offensive (Trattato START-3), il Trattato sull’eliminazione dei missili a raggio intermedio e corto, il Trattato di non proliferazione delle armi nucleari, l’Accordo sul nucleare iraniano, il Trattato sulla messa al bando totale degli esperimenti nucleari e l’Accordo sul plutonio di grado militare.

Particolare attenzione da parte russa è stata rivolta alle ripetute violazioni da parte di Washington del DSSMD, quando per verificare l’efficacia del sistema di difesa anti-missilistica sono stati utilizzati missili bersaglio vietati da questo trattato.

Dai documenti ufficiali del Congresso e dal Dipartimento della Difesa degli Stati Uniti segue che negli ultimi due decenni, prendendo in considerazione l’uso dei predetti missili bersaglio nel corso di prove, il Pentagono ha violato questo trattato 117 volte. La comunicazione di questo dato ad un pubblico così vasto alla Conferenza fiorentina non è stato né sarà senza impatto ed attenzione, soprattutto in considerazione del fatto che la Russia non ha mai violato questo trattato e non è stata la prima ad annunciarne il ripudio.

Nella “Dichiarazione di Firenze”, documento conclusivo ed approvato, è stato rilevato che la NATO è un’organizzazione sotto il comando del Pentagono e che il suo obiettivo è quello di assicurare il controllo dell’Europa occidentale e orientale, che le basi militari statunitensi negli Stati membri di questa unione militare servono ad occupare questi paesi. Mantenere una presenza militare americana permanente consente a Washington di influenzare e controllare le politiche dei paesi europei e di altri paesi.

Il documento finale, che è stato poi tradotto in 15 lingue, viene notato che l’Alleanza è una macchina militare che lavora per gli interessi degli Stati Uniti con la complicità dei principali gruppi di potere europei e che si è macchiata di crimini contro l’umanità. In questo contesto sono stati menzionati la guerra aggressiva scatenata dalla NATO nel 1999 contro la Jugoslavia, così come gli interventi militari del blocco, compiuti in piena violazione della legge internazionale, contro l’Afghanistan, la Libia, la Siria ed alcuni altri stati.

Nella dichiarazione si constata che, in violazione del Trattato di non proliferazione delle armi nucleari, gli Stati Uniti stanno schierando armi nucleari in cinque stati NATO non nucleari con il falso pretesto dell’esistenza di una “minaccia russa”, e che ciò mette a rischio la sicurezza nel continente europeo.

Naturalmente, per passare dalla dichiarazione adottata a Firenze circa la necessità di sciogliere un’alleanza militare come la NATO e rafforzare il regime di controllo degli armamenti, all’ottenimento di risultati concreti in queste aree, saranno necessari molti sforzi organizzativi, politici, informativi e di altro genere da parte dei sostenitori della stabilità globale complessiva e della politica al di fuori di alleanze. Sembra che il processo di creazione di un movimento specifico contro la guerra e allo stesso tempo con orientamento anti-NATO sia iniziato e che possa essere promosso.

Vladimir Kozin

Traduzione: D. M.

Vladimir Kozin è uno dei massimi esperti del Centro per gli studi politico-militari del MGIMO del Ministero degli Esteri russo

A Conferência Internacional dos membros de organizações sem fins lucrativos (não-governamentais), realizada em Abril deste ano, em Florença, Itália, poderia permanecer fora do horizonte das personalidades políticas e governamentais, bem como dos representantes da comunicação mediática, se não fosse uma série de circunstâncias muito significativas ligadas a ela.

A primeira e mais importante característica distintiva deste fórum, manifestou-se através do lema não habitual “NÃO à guerra, NÃO à NATO”, sob o qual foi realizada. Os participantes levantaram a questão de prevenir qualquer confronto militar no continente europeu e no mundo como um todo, tanto através do uso de armas nucleares como convencionais.

Foi lançado no fórum o seguinte apelo: criar um movimento de forças sociais e políticas na Europa que, à semelhança do grande movimento civil anti nuclear da década de 80, contribua para a eliminação da ameaça dos mísseis nucleares, pois que, nos últimos anos, o seu nível se tornou nitidamente elevado também nesta parte do globo terrestre.

Em particular, no continente europeu, juntamente com as armas nucleares dos EUA instaladas ali desde os anos 50, o Pentágono começou a enviar para o seu espaço aéreo, nos anos mais recentes, aviões estratégicos pesados capazes de transportar tanto mísseis de cruzeiro como bombas com ogivas nucleares.

A segunda particularidade do evento foi ter um caráter muito representativo: mais de 500 pessoas participaram nele, o que levou os organizadores a alugar o Odeon, um dos cinemas centrais da cidade, durante oito horas. Obviamente, o interesse foi elevado.

Participaram na conferência pessoas de quase todos os países europeus, incluindo cidadãos dos países membros da Aliança do Atlântico Norte. A fim de informar os participantes da reunião sobre a situação relativa à complicação adicional do processo de controlo de armas, em particular de armas nucleares, foram convidados na qualidade de oradores principais do evento, especialistas que lidam com essas questões. Entre os oradores também houve especialistas que estudam as consequências negativas da atribuição de despesas militares claramente excessivas aos países líderes da NATO, as quais impedem a elaboração de programas de desenvolvimento social e económico dos seus Estados membros e da comunidade europeia, no seu conjunto.

Por ocasião do 70º aniversário da criação da NATO, os organizadores da conferência prepararam e mostraram um documentário “Os 70 anos da NATO: de guerra em guerra”, que critica a política militar e os preparativos militares da aliança de “solidariedade transatlântica”, as suas enormes despesas militares e as tentativas de interferências políticas e de outro género, nos assuntos dos Estados soberanos, a fim de derrubar os órgãos legítimos do poder e da administração.

O filme mostra as intervenções dos Estados Unidos e de outros Estados, membros desse bloco militar, nos assuntos da Sérvia, da Síria e de outros países, e são apresentadas provas da interferência de Washington nos assuntos internos da Ucrânia através da organização de um golpe de Estado, em 2014. É criticada a instalação, na Europa, de armas nucleares e sistemas antimíssil dos EUA. É levantada a questão do encerramento de todas as bases militares dos EUA não só em Itália, mas também noutros países europeus. No filme, foi pronunciado o slogan: “Para sair das guerras, é necessário sair da NATO”.

No evento, o representante russo apresentou uma nova monografia intitulada ***”A evolução das armas nucleares estratégicas e táticas dos EUA e as características do seu uso no século XXI” (Moscovo, 2019, p. 1086). Também analisou a situação alarmante no campo do controlo de armas devido aos Estados Unidos, que mostraram e continuam a manter atitudes negativas em relação aos 12 tratados internacionais em vigor neste sector. Este caso é evidenciado pelo facto dos EUA terem repudiado unilateralmente alguns deles (em particular o Tratado ABM), ou recusado ratificar outros (por exemplo, o Tratado de Proibição Total de Ensaios Nucleares), ou violado as suas disposições (por exemplo, o Tratado INF sobre a eliminação de mísseis de médio e curto alcance), ou até mesmo se recusarem a discutir alguns deles em espaços de negociação internacional (por exemplo, o projecto do Tratado sobre Segurança Europeia).

Observou, com particular atenção, que metade desses tratados e acordos estão directamente ligados às armas nucleares, a saber: o Tratado sobre a Redução de Armas Ofensivas Estratégicas (Tratado START), o Tratado sobre a Eliminação de Mísseis de Alcance Intermédio e Curto, o Tratadode Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares, o Acordo Nuclear Iraniano, o Tratado sobre a Proibição Total de Ensaios Nucleares e o Acordo do Plutónio de Uso Militar .

Foi dada atenção especial da parte russa às repetidas violações do Tratado INF por parte de Washington quando, para verificar a eficácia do sistema de defesa antimíssil, foram utilizados mísseis alvo que são proibidos por este tratado.

A partir dos documentos oficiais do Congresso e do Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos, segue-se que, nas últimas duas décadas, tomando em consideração o uso dos mísseis alvo supracitados durante os ensaios, o Pentágono violou este tratado 117 vezes. A comunicação deste dado a um público tão vasto na Conferência de Florença não ficou nem ficará sem impacto e atenção, sobretudo, tendo em consideração o facto de que a Rússia nunca violou este Tratado INF e não foi a primeira a anunciar o seu repúdio.

Na “Declaração de Florença”, um documento conclusivo e aprovado, foi salientado que a NATO é uma organização sob o comando do Pentágono e que seu objectivo é garantir o controlo da Europa Ocidental e Oriental, que as bases militares dos EUA nos Estados membros dessa união militar, servem para ocupar esses países. A manutenção de uma presença militar permanente dos EUA permite que Washington influencie e controle as políticas dos países europeus e de outros países.

O documento final, que mais tarde foi traduzido em **15 idiomas, indica que a Aliança é uma máquina militar que trabalha para os interesses dos Estados Unidos com a cumplicidade dos principais grupos de poder europeus e é culpada de crimes contra a Humanidade. Neste contexto, foi mencionada a guerra agressiva desencadeada pela NATO, em 1999, contra a Jugoslávia, bem como as intervenções militares do bloco, realizadas em total violação do Direito Internacional, contra o Afeganistão, a Líbia, a Síria e mais alguns Estados.

Na declaração constata-se que, violando o Tratado de Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares, os Estados Unidos estão a instalar armas nucleares em cinco países não-nucleares da NATO, sob o falso pretexto da existência de uma “ameaça russa”, o que coloca em risco a segurança no continente europeu.

Naturalmente, da declaração adoptada em Florença sobre a necessidade de dissolver uma aliança militar como a NATO e fortalecer o regime de controlo de armamentos, até serem alcançados resultados específicos nessas áreas, muitos esforços organizacionais, políticos, informativos e outros serão exigidos dos defensores da política de não-bloco e de saída da aliança. Afigura-se que o processo de criação de um movimento específico contra a guerra e, ao mesmo tempo, com orientação anti NATO começou e pode ser activado.

Vladimir Kozin

Vladimir Kozin é um dos principais especialistas do Centro de Estudos Político-Militares do MGIMO do Ministério das Relações Exteriores da Rússia

** De momento, disponível em 17 línguas.

*** A evolução das armas nucleares estratégicas e tácticas dos EUA e as características do seu uso no século XXI: 
Monografia/V. Kozin. –  Editora Sabashnikovs. 2019. – 1086 p., Com ilustrações

(ISBN 975 −5-82420-163-5).

A monografia  explora de maneira abrangente a perspectiva da evolução das armas nucleares estratégicas e táticas dos EUA no séc. XXI em estreita conexão com as suas estratégias nucleares modernas e outras estratégias (segurança nacional, defesa nacional e antimísseis) adoptadas durante o período do Presidente Donald Trump. Uma ênfase considerável é colocada na identificação de características da modernização das armas ofensivas estratégicas americanas e das armas nucleares tácticas, incluindo a tríade nuclear estratégica qualitativamente nova, que existirá em quase todo o século. Nesse sentido, o ensaio histórico relacionado a questões seleccionadas é mínimo. Os problemas que as futuras negociações para reduzir as armas ofensivas estratégicas e as armas nucleares táticas podem enfrentar no contexto do fortalecimento do sistema de defesa antimíssil global e as forças de propósitos gerais dos EUA estão sendo consideradas. As características da violação pelo lado americano do Tratado START-3 e da eliminação do Tratado do INF. São analisadas diversas propostas sobre a limitação de armas ofensivas estratégicas e armas nucleares tácticas apresentadas por especialistas estrangeiros. É investigada a posição de Washington sobre a possibilidade de construir um mundo livre de armas nucleares em escala global.

A monografia destina-se a profissionais envolvidos no desenvolvimento de armas nucleares ofensivas e tácticas estratégicas dos EUA, no contexto da segurança global e da estabilidade estratégica, bem como àqueles que estudam as questões de controlo de armas e as relações russo-americanas em geral.

Die Gefahr eines gewaltigen Krieges, der durch den Einsatz von Atomwaffen das Ende der Menschheit bedeuten könnte, ist real und wächst, auch wenn sie von der Öffentlichkeit, die in Unkenntnis über diese unmittelbare Gefahr gehalten wird, nicht wahrgenommen wird.

Ein starkes Engagement, um einen Weg aus dem Kriegssystem zu finden, ist von entscheidender Bedeutung. Dies wirft die Frage nach der Zugehörigkeit Italiens und anderer europäischer Länder zur NATO auf.

Die NATO ist kein Bündnis. Sie ist eine Organisation unter dem Kommando des Pentagons, und ihr Ziel ist die militärische Kontrolle West- und Osteuropas.

US-Basen in den Mitgliedsländern der NATO dienen der Besetzung dieser Länder, indem sie eine ständige militärische Präsenz unterhalten, die es Washington ermöglicht, ihre Politik zu beeinflussen und zu kontrollieren und echte demokratische Entscheidungen zu verhindern.

Die NATO ist eine Kriegsmaschine, die im Interesse der Vereinigten Staaten operiert, unter Mitwirkung der großen europäischen Machtgruppen, die sie der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit schuldig gemacht haben.

Der Angriffskrieg der NATO im Jahr 1999 gegen Jugoslawien ebnete den Weg für die Globalisierung militärischer Interventionen, wobei Kriege gegen Afghanistan, Libyen, Syrien und andere Länder unter vollkommener Verletzung des Völkerrechts geführt wurden.

Diese Kriege werden von den Mitgliedstaaten finanziert, deren Militärhaushalte auf Kosten der Sozialausgaben ständig steigen, um kolossale Militärprogramme, wie das US-Atomprogramm, zu unterstützen, das 1,2 Billionen US-Dollar kostet.

Unter Verstoß gegen den Atomwaffensperrvertrag stationieren die USA unter dem falschen Vorwand der “russischen Bedrohung” Atomwaffen in fünf nicht-nuklearen NATO-Staaten. Auf diese Weise riskieren sie die Sicherheit Europas.

Um das Kriegssystem zu verlassen, das immer mehr Schaden anrichtet und uns immer größeren Gefahren aussetzt, müssen wir die NATO verlassen und unsere Rechte als souveräne und neutrale Staaten bekräftigen.

Auf diese Weise wird es möglich, zum Abbau der NATO und aller anderen militärischen Bündnisse, zur Neugestaltung der Strukturen der gesamten europäischen Region und zur Schaffung einer multipolaren Welt beizutragen, in der die Wünsche des Volkes nach Freiheit und sozialer Gerechtigkeit verwirklicht werden können.

Wir schlagen die Schaffung einer INTERNATIONALEN NATO-AUSTRITTS-FRONT in allen europäischen Mitgliedsländern der NATO vor, indem wir ein Organisationsnetzwerk aufbauen, das auf der fundamentalen Ebene stark genug ist, um die sehr schwierigen Bemühungen zu unterstützen, denen wir uns gegenübersehen, um dieses für unsere Zukunft lebenswichtige Ziel zu erreichen.

COMITATO NO GUERRA NO NATO/GLOBAL RESEARCH,

Firenze (Italia), 07:04:2019

Cerca de 5.000 crianças e 212 adolescentes participaram, ontem em Pisa, no “Dia da Solidariedade” em memória do Major Nicola Ciardelli, da Brigada Folgore, que foi morto em 27 de Abril de 2006, num “terrível atentado” em Nassirya, durante a “missão de paz” Antiga Babilónia.

O Dia, promovido todos os anos pela Associação Nicola Ciardelli Onlus criada pela família, tornou-se, graças ao apoio decisivo do Município (primeiro liderado pelo PD, hoje pela Liga) o laboratório de uma grande operação – na qual colabora um vasto conjunto de autoridades e associações – “sensibilizar os jovens estudantes para a importância do compromisso de cada um em construir um futuro de Paz e Solidariedade”. O exemplo a seguir é “o compromisso generoso de Nicola a favor das populações dilaceradas pelo conflito, encontradas na ocasião das numerosas missões em que participou”, durante as quais “experimentou, em primeira mão, a devastação das guerras e o sofrimento daqueles que eles são forçados a suportá-las, sobretudo, as crianças”.

Ø  No entanto, ninguém  contou às 5.000 crianças e adolescentes a verdadeira história da guerra devastadora, desencadeada em 2003, pelos Estados Unidos contra o Iraque, um país já sujeito a um embargo que causou um milhão e meio de mortes em dez anos, das quais cerca de meio milhão eram crianças.

Ø  Ninguém lhes explicou que, para justificar a guerra, acusando o Iraque de possuir armas de destruição em massa, foram fabricadas “provas”, que, mais tarde, se demonstraram ser falsas.

Ø  Ninguém lhes disse que, para esmagar a resistência, o Iraque foi sujeito a ferro e fogo, usando todos os meios: desde bombas de fósforo contra o povo de Falluja, até à tortura na prisão de Abu Ghraib.

Nesta guerra – definida hoje pelo Ministério da Defesa italiano –  “Operação Iraqi Freedom, conduzida pelos USA, para derrubar o regime de Saddam Hussein, no âmbito da luta internacional contra o terrorismo” – participou o contingente italiano Antica Babilonia. A Conselheira política dos seus comandantes, entre 2005 e 2006, era a actual Ministra da Defesa, Elisabetta Trenta (Cinco Estrelas). Fazia parte dessa mesma Operação, o185°Reggimento paracadutisti Folgore ricognizione acquisizione obiettivi, Departamento de Forças Especiais em que era oficial, Nicola Ciardelli.

O Regimento – documenta o Ministério da Defesa – “opera, infiltrando destacamentos operacionais para além das linhas inimigas, em acções directas que envolvem o recrutamento de alvos à distância, utilizando o armamento fornecido e todas as plataformas de fogo terrestres, aéreas e navais”. Por outras palavras, uma vez identificado o “alvo humano”, ele é eliminado directamente por atiradores seleccionados ou, indirectamente, por um ponteiro a laser que guia a bomba lançada por um caça. Isto não foi dito às 5.000 crianças e adolescentes que, no auge do Dia, aplaudiram os Paraquedistas do Folgore que desciam do céu na Ponte di Mezzo, parecendo aos seus olhos, heróis de banda desenhada que defendem os bons dos maus.

O sucedido em Pisa não é um caso isolado. Os militares americanos da base de Sigonella – relata Antonio Mazzeo – estão cada vez mais presentes nas escolas sicilianas, onde ensinam inglês, ginástica e algo mais. Em Sigonella, onde um padre levou as crianças para uma “visita de estudo, e nas bases em Puglia, são realizados para os alunos do ensino médio “estágios escola e trabalho”. Casos semelhantes são registados noutras regiões.

Está em curso uma verdadeira operação de aliciação militar das mentes das gerações mais jovens (e não apenas destas). Será que há professores, estudantes e pais dispostos a opor-se a ela, organizando-se afim de, contra a cultura da guerra, promover a cultura da paz?

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo em italiano :

Operazione conquista delle menti

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Circa 5.000 bambini e ragazzi di 212 classi hanno partecipato, ieri a Pisa, alla «Giornata della Solidarietà» in ricordo del maggiore Nicola Ciardelli della Brigata Folgore, rimasto ucciso il 27 aprile 2006 in un «terribile attentato» a Nassirya, durante la «missione di pace» Antica Babilonia.

La Giornata, promossa ogni anno dalla Associazione Nicola Ciardelli Onlus creata dalla famiglia, è divenuta, grazie al determinante sostegno del Comune (prima guidato dal PD, oggi dalla Lega) il laboratorio di una grande operazione – cui collabora un vasto arco di enti e associazioni  – per «sensibilizzare i giovani studenti sull’importanza dell’impegno di ognuno verso la costruzione di un futuro di Pace e Solidarietà». L’esempio da seguire è «l’impegno profuso da Nicola a favore delle popolazioni dilaniate dai conflitti, incontrate in occasione delle numerose missioni cui aveva partecipato», durante le quali aveva «toccato con mano la devastazione delle guerre e le sofferenze di coloro che sono costretti a subirle, primi tra tutti i bambini».

Ø  Nessuno però ha raccontato ai 5.000 bambini e ragazzi  la vera storia della devastante guerra scatenata nel 2003 dagli Stati uniti contro l’Iraq, paese già sottoposto a un embargo che aveva provocato in dieci anni un milione e mezzo di morti, di cui circa mezzo milione tra i bambini.

Ø  Nessuno gli ha spiegato che, per giustificare la guerra accusando l’Iraq di possedere armi di distruzione di massa, vennero fabbricate «prove», risultate poi false.

Ø  Nessuno gli ha detto che, per stroncare la resistenza, l’Iraq venne messo a ferro e fuoco, usando ogni mezzo: dalle bombe al fosforo contro la popolazione di Falluja alle torture nella prigione di Abu Ghraib.

A questa guerra – definita oggi dal ministero italiano della Difesa «Operazione Iraqi Freedom guidata dagli USA per il rovesciamento del regime di Saddam Hussein, nel quadro della lotta internazionale al terrorismo» – partecipò il contingente italiano Antica Babilonia. Consigliere politico dei suoi comandanti, tra il 2005 e il 2006, era l’attuale ministra dela Difesa Elisabetta Trenta (Cinque Stelle). Ne faceva parte il 185° Reggimento paracadutisti Folgore ricognizione acquisizione obiettivi, reparto di forze speciali in cui era ufficiale Nicola Ciardelli.

Il Reggimento – documenta il ministero della Difesa  – «opera infiltrando distaccamenti operativi oltre le linee nemiche, in azioni dirette che prevedono l’ingaggio di obiettivi a distanza sfruttando l’armamento in dotazione e tutte le piattaforme di fuoco terrestri, aeree e navali». In altre parole, una volta individuato il «bersaglio» umano, esso viene eliminato direttamente da tiratori scelti o, indirettamente, con un puntatore laser che guida la bomba lanciata da un caccia. Questo non è stato raccontato ai 5.000 bambini e ragazzi che, al culmine della Giornata, hanno applaudito i parà della Folgore che scendevano dal cielo sul Ponte di mezzo, apparendo ai loro occhi come eroi dei fumetti che difendono i buoni dai cattivi.

Quello di Pisa non è un caso isolato. I militari USA della base di Sigonella – riporta Antonio Mazzeo  – sono sempre più presenti nelle scuole siciliane dove tengono corsi di inglese, di ginnastica e altri. A Sigonella, dove un parroco ha portato i bambini in «visita di istruzione», e nelle basi in Puglia si svolgono per gli studenti delle superiori stage di «alternanza scuola-lavoro». Casi analoghi si registrano in altre regioni.

È in corso una vera e propria operazione di conquista militare delle menti delle giovani generazioni (e non solo di queste). Ci sono insegnanti, studenti e genitori disponibii a contrastarla, organizzandosi per far avanzare, contro quella della guerra, la cultura della pace?

My corner of New York’s Catskill Mountains is shortly due to explode in green. Today however, it’s brown, beige, russet and auburn: a wrapping of spindly trunks with naked branches cascading uphill draws my eyes to the horizon. I wait. My neighbors wait. Landscapers and gardeners wait. We wait to plant even a few pansies; we wait before replacing our glass doors with screening. Big Tim waits before detaching his truck plow so we too keep our snow shovels handy.

Impatiently, in search of soft loam, I strike into a plot in front of the house. Not far beneath dry white grass and pallid corn stubble, the steel of the spade meets resistance—not rock but still frozen earth not far below the surface.

Other warnings of change are undeniable however. First there’s the smell of the air itself – not fragrant yet still inviting; new sounds floating through the atmosphere invite me to ease open a window early in the morning.

Male merganser ducks arrive and stake out their territory along the riverbank. Small creatures lodged under bark or found other moist crevices during their metamorphosing months stir. I slap at two insects as they fly past me eager to flee the stale winter air of the house. Though they’ll soon encounter predators gathered in nearby branches.

With snow and ice finally gone, we really don’t want more precipitation, even if it’s spring rain. Sun is enough, we feel. But it’s not up to us, is it? We should not forget how millions of living things evolved to this point, their descendants surviving this winter, to awaken only if saturated by tomorrows’ downpours. Indeed, rains are forecast to arrive on schedule. They’ll soften the dark loam and soak into it to loosen that ice underground.

In the cities, rain may be welcomed to wash off their smelly, gritty streets. Here, while it may nourish the soil, rain creates acres and miles of mud: heavy slosh that spatters cars, ruts driveways, sticks to shoes and reaches across hallway floors.

A few days ago when I ventured northward deeper into Delaware County, I was surprised—somewhat envious too – to survey fields of bright green grass already sprouting across treeless meadows and still unplowed garden farms. Covetousness gives way to the reassurance of winter’s end. Our valley on the south side of the watershed will soon have its turn.

On this drive through the hills my very first recognition of spring is not in green but in red; hillsides covered by naked trees are tinged in burgundy. Hmmm, these are not fruit trees but green-leaf trees, I remark to my companion. Then I’m reminded how those red buds are just protective sleeves; soon all will give way to tender green pushing from within.

Be patient. Nothing is definitive at this point; but it’s there, inside that burgundy mist. In days, if not hours, the green will strike out. If we miss the burgundy signal of spring we may detect it in a new morning light. I fantasize that this change of light is actually the rising energy of photosynthesis, of green creeping out of those billions of buds high on the hillside, across the meadows, lining the riverbank, through a sparse orchard, around corn-stubbled fields.

It doesn’t matter if we fail to notice the shift from burgundy to tender green. That green will thoroughly capture us and hold us for many months.

In Iraq, spring, always brief, has lingered this year because of good rains. “Merciful rain” is how Iraqis greet whatever precipitation blesses their land. This, after two hard and worrisome years of drought. My friend in Kerbala reports that his garden remains in bloom today, long past what he’d expected. Iraq’s northern wheat fields are high and dense too, thanks to heavy winter rains; we’ll have a normal harvest before summer’s pitiless heat descends. Across the border, after a long and painful arid period, Syria’s northern wheat basket is once more readying to feed its parched and forlorn inhabitants. Colleagues in both nations talk with pleasure and gratitude of extended and abundant rains this winter.

It’s hard not to be mollified by the return of spring here, and by good rains across the Levant. How could these cycles possibly be so distorted by massive global shifts threatening our entire planet? Well, they can. And the sight of the changeover of seasons can impress on us just how vulnerable everything is. Trained people are systematically measuring water temperatures on which so many creatures and plants depend. How populations are decreasing and shifting and how habitations are disrupted at alarming rates are unarguable.

Better accept spring not as a familiar visitor but as a newborn in need of very special care. Take nothing for granted—neither spring’s green nor political liberties.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

The new battle for Tripoli entered its fourth week. Since April 4, when Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar officially announced its Operation Flood of Dignity, the Libyan National Army (LNA) has reached Ayn Zara, but has not been able to capture it and reach the city itself.

At the same time, the LNA has gained control of Tripoli International Airport and several nearby areas thus creating a foothold for further advances there.

Forces loyal to the Government of National Accord (GNA) have prevented the LNA from entering the Tripoli and launches several counter-attacks in the airport area and other parts of the frontline. However, they appear to have not enough resources to push the LNA back from the Tripoli countryside.

In this situation, the LNA leadership decided to re-shape its efforts and focused its military activities in the area southeast of Tripoli. LNA units have captured the village of Zatarnah and advanced on the villages of Laftah and Khallet al-Kahili. The goal of this effort is to cut off the road linking GNA forces in Tripoli with their allies in Misrata.

Both sides claim that they conduct successful operations inflicting large casualties to their enemies. However, in fact, the intensity of clashes at the most of the frontline as well as airstrikes by GNA and LNA warplanes remains relatively small. The main reason is the lack of resources, which had been drawn by years of chaos erupted in Libya after the fall of Gaddafi’s government.

In recent series of clashes, the LNA captured two battle tanks and a self-propelled artillery gun. Pro-GNA sources claimed that GNA forces had killed up to a dozen of LNA fighters.

Local sources continue speculating that the LNA may launch an offensive on the city of Sirte. In the first days of Operation Flood of Dignity, LNA units made several advances in the nearby area, but no large offensive actions were undertaken.

Over the past week, there have been reports that the LNA has been deploying reinforcements to the Sirte frontline in an attempt to exploit the GNA focus on the battle for Tripoli. Nonetheless, it’s unlikely that the LNA itself is able to deploy enough forces to carry out two major offensive operations in northern Libya simultaneously.

In the coming week, the LNA will likely continue its slow push south and southeast of Tripoli aiming to shorten the frontline where it’s possible to cut off logistical lines of GNA forces. In the event of success, it will gain real chances to capture Tripoli.

*

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

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

While the crazed and corrupt people who comprise the Democratic Party and US print and TV media continue to insist that Russiagate is real, a very real threat is emerging in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The threat arises from the fact that Washington has taught each country to have no trust in America’s veracity. The governments of the four countries have learned that everything Washington says is a lie.

Moreover, the countries have learned that Washington does not accept their sovereignty and objects to their existence. Each of the four countries has experienced sanctions designed to overthrow their governments or cause them to submit to Washington’s will.

Russia long ago saw through Washington’s disingenuous claim that the missile ring that Washington has arrayed around Russia is defensive and directed against (non-existent) Iranian missiles. Putin has said many times that the “defensive” missiles can easily and quickly be converted into nuclear armed offensive missiles that leave Russia no response time. I have always been amazed at the utter stupidity of the Polish and Romanian governments for accepting these American missiles. No doubt the Polish and Romanian officials were paid handsome bribes, but money is no good to a dead person. You can bet your life that the Russians are not going to permit such operable weapons to be on Russian borders during a time of high tensions that exists today between the West and Russia.

Not content with this reckless provocation of Russia, the dumbshxxts that comprise the US government have announced a program to put weapons in space that can neutralize Russia and China’s nuclear deterrent. This reckless and irresponsible plan did not go unnoticed in Russia. Lieutenant General Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Operative Command, declared last week that Washington’s “on-start interception” program reveals that Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia and China. You can bet your life that Russia and China are not going to sit there and wait for Washington’s attack, expecially as Russia has coming into deployment hypersonic missiles incapable of interception by any known or deployed means.

What Washington and its corrupt European vassals are doing is preparing the grave for the Western world.

In the US self-interested political propaganda has succeeded in crowding out all attention to real issues, such as mass displacement of jobs by robotics, global warming whatever the cause, and the rising risk of nuclear war. When the rest of the world looks at the West, it sees an insane asylum in which the two greatest threats to American national security are said to be Venezuela and a Russian agent in the Oval Office.

It is impossible for anyone to take a country this silly seriously. Consequently, American power is collapsing, to everyone else’s relief. Even Washington’s well paid puppets in Germany, Britain, and France are showing signs of independence that have not been seen since the days of Charles DeGaulle.

The Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and North Koreans know that they are dealing with fools, and they are not going to take any chances. They know that no agreement with America means anything and that Washington speaks only with a forked tongue.

Washington is going to be increasingly frustrated abroad as willingness to cooperate with the insane asylum vanishes. The consequence will be increasing tyranny at home.

*

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 Vox

Professor Claudia von Werlhof wrote to Greta Thunberg. In this letter Von Werlhof tells that the disruption of the global climate is not due to CO2.

Following questions arose from this letter for Silvia Terribili, who asked von Werlhof to give an interview for her radio show Onda Italiana on salto.nl, April 9th.

Here you find the Radio Interview:

.

1. Where can we find scientific evidence for this, since the mainstream information tells us every day that the climate disruption is due to CO2?
2. Some 30 years ago concerned environmentalists already asked for a drastic reduction of air pollutants, especially transboundary air pollutants like SOx, NOx, and toxic aerosols. The narrative today has changed completely. We only seem to be concerned about global warming. What does this mean? That air pollutants are not dangerous anymore?
3. Some 30 years ago we already warned that the protective ozone layer had been reduced. Nowadays we do not seem to care anymore for ozone depletion in the stratosphere. How could this be explained?
4. It seems that computer models predicting catastrophic global warming in the coming years are parameterized. The risks of framing the outcome of these mathematic models is high. What can you say about this?
5. Two thirds of the Earth are covered by oceans, why do not we measure the temperature of oceans in order to understand the so called global warming? Is the temperature of the Pacific Ocean really much warmer today than before the industrial Revolution? We know that all climate on Earth depends on the behavior of oceans, especially the Pacific. How can we prove with scientific evidence that the pollution caused by industrialized countries is much more effective on a global scale than the behavior of oceans?
6. You have been studying the works of Rosalie Bertell. What are the most important findings and statements of her?
7. Climate engineering is a potential climate weapon that can be used on a global scale. Why is Europe not concerned at all about this risk? Why is public debate on this issue practically not existent?
8. What are ionospheric heaters ? What do we know about the experiments that are been conducted and directing a huge bundle of energy in the ionosphere at 60 km altitude? Why is public debate on this issue completely absent? What is Europe doing in order to monitor these kinds of dangerous experiments being carried out on our continent?
9. May 23 to 26th The European Elections are coming. What can we do, as concerned Europeans, to put climate engineering and all related risks on the electoral agenda, because we expect European institutions to protect 300 million citizens from the risks of these extremely dangerous technologies.

*

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 interview was originally published on Onda Italiana. This is republished from PBME.

Claudia von Werlhof is Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Last week’s US GDP for the 1st quarter 2019 preliminary report (2 more revisions coming) registered a surprising 3.2% annual growth rate. It was forecast by all the major US bank research departments and independent macroeconomic forecasters to come in well below 2%. Some banks forecast as low as 1.1%. So why the big difference?

One reason may be the problems with government data collection in the first quarter with the government shutdown that threw data collection into a turmoil. First preliminary issue of GDP stats are typically adjusted significantly in the second revision, coming in future weeks. (The third revision, months later, often is little changed).

There are many problems with GDP accuracy reflecting the real trends and real GDP that many economists have discussed at length elsewhere. My major critique is the redefinition in 2013 that added at least 0.3% (and $500b a year) to GDP totals by simply redefining what constituted investment. Another chronic problem is how the price index, the GDP Deflator as it’s called, grossly underestimates inflation and thus the price adjustment to get the 3.2% ‘real’ GDP figure reported. In this latest report, the Deflator estimated inflation of only 1.9%. If actual inflation were higher, which it is, the 3.2% would be much lower, which it should. There are many other problems with GDP, such as the government including in their calculation totals the ‘rent’ that 50 million homeowners with mortgages reputedly ‘pay to themselves’.

Apart from these definitional issues and data collection problems in the first quarter, underlying the 3.2% are some red flags revealing that the 3.2% is the consequence of temporary factors, like Trump’s trade war, which is about to come to an end next month with the conclusion of the US-China trade negotiations. How does the trade war boost GDP temporarily?

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Two ways at least. First, it pushes corporations to build up inventories artificially to get the cost of materials and semi-finished goods before the tariffs begin to hit. Second, trade disputes initially result in lower imports while negotiations are underway. In the latest US GDP analysis reported last week, lower imports resulted in what’s called higher ‘net exports’ (i.e. the difference between imports and exports). Net exports contribute to GDP. The US economy could be slowing in terms of output and exports, but if imports decline faster it appears that ‘net exports’ are rising and therefore so too is GDP from trade.

Looking behind the 1st quarter numbers it is clear that the 3.2% is largely due to excessive rising business inventories and rising net exports contributions to GDP.

Net exports contributed 1.03% to the 3.2% and inventories another 0.65% to the 3.2%. That is, over half.  Even the Wall St. Journal reported that without these temporary contributions (both will abate in future months sharply), US GDP in the quarter would have been only 1.3%. (And less if adjusted more accurately for inflation and if the 2013 phony redefinitions were also ‘backed out’).

US GDP in reality probably grew around the 1.1% forecasted by the research departments of the big US banks.

This analysis is supported by the fact that around 75% of the US economy and GDP is due to business investment and household consumption typically. And both consumption and investment are by far the primary sources of GDP. (The rest is from government spending and ‘net exports).

Consumer spending (68% of GDP) rose only by 1.2% last quarter and thereby contributed only 0.82% of the 3.2%. That’s only one fourth of the 3.2%, when consumption, given its size in the economy, should contribute 68%!

Durable manufactured goods collapsed by -5.3% and autos sales are in freefall. And all this during tax refund season which otherwise boosts spending. (Thus confirming middle class refunds due to Trump tax cuts have been sharply reduced due to Trump’s 2018 tax act).

Similarly private business investment contributed only a tepid 0.27% of the 3.2%, well below its average for GDP share.

Business investment is composed of building structures (including housing), private equipment, software and the nebulously defined ‘intellectual property’, and of course the business inventories previously mentioned. The structures and equipment categories are by far the largest categories of business investment. However, in the first quarter 2019, structures declined by -0.8%, housing by -2.8% and equipment investment rose only a statistically insignificant 0.2%.

This poor contribution of business investment contributing only 2.7% to GDP, when the long term historical average is about 8-10% normally, is all the more interesting given that Trump projected a 30% boost to GDP is his business-investor-multinational corporate heavy 2018 tax cuts were passed. 2.7% is a long way off 30%! The tax cuts for business didn’t flow into real investment, in other words. (They went instead into stock buybacks, dividend payments, and mergers and acquisitions of competitors). And they compressed household consumer spending to boot.

Since Trump’s tax cuts, there’s been virtually no increase in the rate of Gross private domestic investment in the US. It’s held steady at around 5% of GDP on average since mid-2017. Within that 5%, housing and business equipment contributions have been falling, while IP (hard to estimate) and inventories have been rising.

In short, both Consumer spending and core business investment contributions to US GDP have been slowing, and that’s true within the recent 1^st quarter US 3.2% GDP.

In other words, 1st quarter GDP rose  due to the short term, and temporary contributions to inventories and net exports–both driven artificially by Trump’s trade wars.

The only other major contribution to first quarter GDP is, of course, Trump war spending which rose by 4.1% in 1st quarter GDP. (Conversely, nondefense spending was reduced -5.9% in the first quarter GDP).

Going forward in 2019, no doubt war spending will continue to increase, but business inventories and household consumption will continue to weaken. Meanwhile, business investment on structures, housing, and equipment and household consumption will continue to remain weak at best.

Trump is betting on his 2020 re-election and preventing the next recession now knocking at the US and global economy door. He will keep defense spending growing by hundreds of billions of dollars. He’ll hope that concluding his trade wars will give the economy a temporary boost. And he’ll up the pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates before year end.

Summing up, beneath the surface of the US economy the major categories of US GDP–business structures, housing, business equipment, and household consumer spending (especially on durables and autos)–will continue to weaken. Whether war spending, the Fed, and trade deals can offset these more fundamental weakening forces remains to be seen.

Bottom line, therefore, the 3.2% GDP is no harbinger of a growing economy. Quite the contrary. It is artificial and due to temporary forces that are likely about to change. It all depends on further war spending, browbeating the Fed into further submission to lower rates, and what happens with the trade negotiations.

*

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

Jack is author of the forthcoming book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, Summer 2019, and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, March 2019. He blogs at jackrasmus.com, tweets at @drjackrasmus, and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network on Fridays, 2pm eastern time.

President Putin’s proposal to make it easier for all Ukrainians to receive Russian citizenship represents a bold effort to court his country’s civilizationally similar neighbors as “replacement migrants” and will lead to a competition with Russia’s historical rival Poland for this valuable “human resource”.

Population Trends

It’s no secret that Russia has had serious problems maintaining its population levels ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and last year actually saw its first drop in a decade. This process is occurring concurrently with a surge in birthrates among the country’s Muslim minority and leading to the likelihood that approximately one-third of its inhabitants will follow Islam within the next 15 years, according to Russia’s grand mufti.

Moscow is well aware of the socio-political challenges that this profound demographic shift might entail, especially if its controversial Article 282 proves insufficient for preemptively dealing with the dangerous rise of far-right ultra-nationalist ideas that might eventually inspire Christchurch-like terrorist attacks that seek to provoke a destabilizing so-called “Clash of Civilizations” within its borders. No matter how visionary President Putin’s 2012 manifesto on ethnicity and immigration is, it’s impossible for it to be perfectly applied in practice so it should therefore be taken for granted that some security incidents will eventually happen.

Trouble Looming?

The UN predicted last year that Russia’s population will shrink by 11 million before 2050, which is one of the reasons why Prime Minister Medvedev warned earlier this month about the need to prevent a demographic collapse similar to the one that happened in the 1990s. The other implied one might also have to do with the fact that this expected population loss that will presumably be led by the country’s ageing titular nationality of Orthodox Russian Slavs will result in an even larger percentage of its citizens being Muslim by that point, which could possibly accentuate the socio-political challenges that are usually associated with this sort of demographic transition in majority-Christian countries. Although President Putin implemented a policy to give generous subsidies to women who give birth to two or more children, he probably realizes that it won’t be as successful as needed to maintain both the country’s population levels and its existing religious balance, hence why he’s now proactively trying to court Ukrainians as “replacement migrants”.

“Civilizationally Similar Replacement Migrants”

These neighboring people are “civilizationally similar” to Russians in that they’re mostly Orthodox Slavs who speak a related language, and their possible large-scale migration to the country could theoretically balance the surging birthrates of Russia’s Muslim population and offset its predicted overall population decline. This was probably one of the reasons why President Putin just passed a decree making it much easier for the people of Donbass to obtain Russian citizenship and then soon thereafter declared that this policy might be extended to include all of Ukraine’s over 40 million people. There were slightly less than 2 million Ukrainians living in Russia nearly a decade ago as recorded by the country’s census at the time, which is roughly equal to how many have moved to Poland since the 2014 EuroMaidan coup in search of work, where most of them presently have no path to citizenship and many are now reportedly considering moving to Germany or other Western European countries.

Poland vs. Russia

Nevertheless, Poland’s population is also afflicted with similar problems as Russia’s own in the sense that it also suffers from the natural decline that many developed economies do, so Ukrainians could conceivably also function as “civilizationally similar” “replacement migrants” for Warsaw just as they could for Moscow, meaning that these two historic rivals might end up competing with one another for this valuable “human resource”. Unlike in times past, this competition won’t be waged by military means and take place in the geopolitical realm, but will be a battle of soft power with an outcome that will ultimately be determined by which of the two countries provides more appealing economic prospects for the “new arrivals”. While Russia has the geographically expansive Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union, Poland has the promising Warsaw-led “Three Seas Initiative” that comes with the added benefit of EU membership.

Concluding Thoughts

It’s difficult to predict whether the Ukrainians that are living in Poland would relocate to Russia in response to President Putin’s citizenship proposal or if a new batch of their countrymen that are still living in their homeland will move there instead, but what’s clear is that Moscow is now competing with Warsaw to woo Ukrainians as “civilizationally similar” “replacement migrants” to offset its natural population decline and maintain its existing religious balance that’s poised to dramatically change in the coming years following a surge in Muslim birthrates. Unlike Merkel and her implicit policy of “replacement migration” from the “Global South”, President Putin would prefer to court Ukrainians from the former Soviet Union, but in both cases each leader seems to have resigned themselves to the fact that their country’s demographic problems won’t be solved without a large-scale influx of immigrants.

*

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.

Earlier this year, Luke Murry, national security adviser for Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, revealed that the National Security Agency had been averse over the last six months to using the phone surveillance program that hoovers information from millions of US phone calls and text messages.  This was hardly a comforting point; the issue spoke as much to competence as it did to any broader issue of warrantless surveillance of the good people in Freedom’s land.  Vast, cumbersome, and generally self-defeating, the essence of such programs is paranoid inefficiency.  Put it down to “technical issues”, suggested Murry.

The Call Details Records (CDR) program, hostile to liberties in its warrantless nature, has been a fixture of the US security landscape since 2001, when that nasty piece of legislation known as the USA PATRIOT ACT found its way onto the statue books.  The program was given legal approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court pursuant to Section 215 of that dastardly piece of penmanship.

The extent of its operation was unveiled in dramatic fashion by Edward Snowden to media outlets in 2013, the surveillance system specific to gathering the metadata of domestic phone calls, a mosaic of caller, recipient and time of contact, has been the subject of scrutiny.  There are numerous others, but this one came in for special attention.

As Elliot Harmer of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains,

“While these records don’t contain the actual contents of telephone calls, they do include phone numbers and call times and length – more than enough information to prove the NSA with a clear picture of our social relationships, interests and affiliations.”

Murry was by no means the first to take issue with its effect and effectiveness.  There is a growing library of stocked criticism against such bulk storage systems both from the perspective of feasibility and effect, and the broader ethical and legal issues of surveillance and civil liberties.  The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, published in December 2013, recommended,

“that Congress should end such storage and transition to a system in which such metadata is held privately for the government to query when necessary for national security purposes.”

Hardly a sentiment sympathetic to privacy, but one that went some way in questioning the bulk storage of telephony metadata.  Besides, according to members of the Review Group, the whole appearance of it seemed an affront to defenders of privacy.  “In our view, the current storage by the government of bulk metadata creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty.”  Leave it, instead, to “private providers or by a private third party” to deal with such matters.  The abuse might continue, but at least, in a good American tradition, it would be privatised.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) also considered the scope of such a system in its 2014 report, deeming it unduly “broad” and incompatible with broader issues of proportionality.  “If Section 215’s relevance requirement is to serve any meaningful function, however, relevance cannot be premised on the government’s desire to use a tool whose very operation depends on collecting information without limit.  We believe that a tool designed to capture all records of a particular type is simply incompatible with a statue requiring reasonable grounds to believe that ‘the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation’.”

In 2015, Congress had a minor change of heart with the USA Freedom Act, which mandated phone companies to keep collected telephony data that might be relevant for law enforcement authorities in terrorism investigations.  This had the effect of reducing the records kept – from billions per day to a few hundred million in a year.  Even then, the process proved erratic.  In 2016, the NSA accessed 151 million call logs, though the returns were miserly: court orders for a mere 42 targets.  The following year was even less impressive from the standpoint of efficient prosecution: 534 million records for a pittance of 40 suspects.

Even then, the NSA remained cagey about the extent of the CDR program, giving it room for fanciful prevarications.  It has refused to, for instance, supply unique identifiers in an annual transparency report required by the Office of the Inspector General over the course of three years.  Its reasons for that are charming.

“As of the date of this report [2017], the government does not have the technical ability to isolate the number of unique identifiers within records received from providers.”

In May 2018, the Agency gave the game away by admitting that it has overstretched itself in its surveillance remit.  Section 215 of the Patriot Act as amended by the USA Freedom Act of 2015 was effectively misused to collect records the NSA had no authority to gather.  The following month, the Agency revealed that hundreds of millions of collected call records would vanish into the ether due to “technical irregularities”.  These deletions were considered reprehensible enough for Senators Ron Wyden (D-Or) and Rand Paul (R-Ky) to request an investigation from the Inspector General of the NSA, Robert P. Storch.

While the NSA is using its own singular and constipated way of reconsidering a program more conducive to causing headaches than granting relief, its fate lies with the White House.  Till then, opinion amongst US lawmakers remains mixed.  The NSA remains, for some, a jewel in the national security crown, one which must shine, however dully.  Let them be, however competent.

  “If we have technical problems or challenges that the NSA has to take into account, that’s okay,” claims Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “It’s not something we easily shelve.”

*

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]

The Following text is Section 5 of

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. The United States attacked and invaded Afghanistan in 2001 with the official motivation being to hunt down Osama bin Laden, who was targeted as the instigator of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. (The official version of what took place on 9/11 does not stand up to the technical-scientific investigations carried out by independent experts.) Osama bin Laden was a well-known figure in Washington. He belonged to a wealthy Saudi family and actively collaborated with the CIA from 1979 to 1989 when it trained and armed through the ISI (the Pakistani secret service) over 100,000 mujahidin for the war against the Soviet Union. The Soviet troops fell into the “Afghan trap” (as Zbigniew Brzezinski later defined it, stating that the training and arming of the mujahidin began in July 1979, five months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan).

2. This opened a new phase in the international situation. The President of the United States was authorized to conduct a “Global War on Terrorism”, in which there were no geographical borders, conducted against an enemy who could be identified from time to time not only in as a terrorist or a presumed terrorist, but in anyone who opposed US policy and interests. President Bush described the perfect image of an enemy, interchangeable and lasting. as “an obscure enemy, hiding in the dark corners of the Earth”.

3. The real purpose of US military intervention in Afghanistan was the occupation of this area of primary strategic importance. Afghanistan is at the crossroads of the Middle East, Central Asia, South and East. In this area (in the Gulf and in the Caspian), there are large oil reserves. There are three major powers – China, Russia and India – whose strength is growing and influencing global assets. As the Pentagon had warned in the report of 30 September 2001, “there is the possibility that a military rival with a formidable resource base will emerge in Asia”.

4. In the period before 11 September 2001, there were strong signs of a rapprochement between China and Russia in Asia. Washington viewed this as a challenge to US interests at the critical moment when the United States sought to fill the void that the disintegration of the USSR had left in Central Asia. Afghanistan is in a key geostrategic position for the control of this area.

5. The war began in October 2001 with the bombing carried out by the US and British air forces. At this point, the UN Security Council authorized the establishment of the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), whose command was entrusted in succession to Great Britain, Turkey, Germany and the Netherlands. But suddenly, in August 2003, NATO announced that it had “assumed the role of ISAF leadership force with a UN mandate”. It was a real coup. No resolution passed by the Security Council authorizes NATO to assume the leadership or command of the ISAF. Only in Resolution 1659 of February 2006 did the Security Council state that it “recognizes NATO’s continued engagement in directing the ISAF”. The ISAF mission was thus inserted into the Pentagon chain of command. The Italian military assigned to the ISAF was included in the same chain of command.

6. After Afghanistan, Iraq is the country that has been subjected to a strict embargo since 1991, which caused a million and a half deaths in ten years, of which about half a million were children. In 2002, President Bush listed Iraq in first place among the countries that belong to the “axis of evil”. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the UN Security Council “evidence” gathered by the CIA, which subsequently turned out to be false, on the alleged existence of a large arsenal of chemical and biological weapons in possession of Iraq, and on its alleged ability to build nuclear weapons in a short time. Because the Security Council refused to authorize the war, the Bush administration simply bypassed it.

7. The war began in March 2003 with the aerial bombing of Baghdad and other centers by the US and British air forces and with a land attack carried out by the Marines entering Iraq from Kuwait. In April, US troops occupied Baghdad. The operation, called “Iraqi Freedom”, was presented as “a preventive war” and “an export of democracy”. The US and allied occupation forces – including the Italian forces involved in the “Ancient Babylon” operation – encountered resistance they did not expect to find. In order to cut it off, Iraq was put on fire by over a million and a half soldiers that the Pentagon supplemented with hundreds of thousands of military contractors, using every means from phosphorus bombs to the people of Fallujah to torture in Abu Ghraib prison.

8. NATO actually participated in the war with its own structures and forces. In 2004, the “NATO Training Mission” was established in order to “help Iraq to create efficient armed forces”. In 2000, special courses were held in Alliance countries and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and policemen were trained. At the same time, NATO sent instructors and advisers, including Italians, to “help Iraq to create its own democratic and durable security sector” and “establish a long-term NATO partnership with Iraq”.

*

Sections 6-16 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.

The infamous Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq was revealed to be the centre of an extensive network run by the US military after the coalition’s invasion of the country in 2003. Abuse and torture of largely innocent civilian Iraqi detainees at the hands of American soldiers were common. The full extent of what went on there was leaked to a shocked world on 28 April 2004, a year after the invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

What: The torture of detainees at the US-run Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq

Where: Abu Ghraib, Iraq

When: 28th April, 2004

What happened?

Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, America set about implementing its administration across the defeated nation, which included the running of a vast network of prison complexes housing civilians and those suspected of participating in the Iraqi insurgency. One of those prisons was in Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of the capital Baghdad, which had been notorious for torture and poor living conditions in the Saddam Hussein era. It was demolished during the invasion and then renovated by the US coalition forces in 2003.

Janis Karpinski, a US Army Reserve Brigadier General, was put in charge of military prisons across Iraq including Abu Ghraib, in her position as commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade. Despite being a seasoned operations and intelligence officer who had served in the 1991 Gulf War and in the Special Forces, Karpinski had no experience in running a prison system or in handling prisoners; importantly, nor did most of the soldiers under her command.

Over the course of the following year, the US administration of Abu Ghraib used a number of brutal torture and interrogation techniques, particularly in October and November 2003. The situation began to change, however, on 31 January 2004, when Major General Antonio M Taguba was appointed to conduct a formal investigation into the mishandling of the prison and the atrocities committed against the detainees. On 3 March, the Taguba Report was completed, and charges were subsequently filed against six soldiers found to be complicit in the crimes.

Abu Ghraib torture victim [file photo]

The actual facts and details of the torture, however, were not made public until 28 April 2004, when US Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld briefed congress on the report, and CBS broadcast photographs of the abuse of Abu Ghraib detainees on its “60 Minutes 2” show. What was revealed was the extent to which torture and abuse had been perpetrated by American soldiers. Even more shocking was the fact that the vast majority – 70 to 90 per cent – of those held in Abu Ghraib were innocent civilians who were detained mistakenly, according to the International Red Cross.

Examples of the interrogation techniques used by soldiers on detainees included “breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomising a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.”

All of the abuse and torture that was documented – which was found to be systematic, intentional, and illegal – was perpetrated by the soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, which was attached to a battalion which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.

The legacy of Abu Ghraib

Over the course of the next few months, during which investigations continued to discover further atrocities and their perpetrators in Abu Ghraib, more soldiers and high-ranking officers were charged. There were some vestiges of justice following the revelations, such as the release of over five hundred detainees in the last ten days of May 2004; the sentencing of some of those complicit in the abuses; and the 75 per cent decline in reported cases of prisoner abuse and deaths after it came to light.

US soldiers during the 2003 invasion in Baghdad, Iraq [DVIDSHUB/Flickr]

The legacy of Abu Ghraib, however, did not fade. There were those within the Bush administration who still found ways to use international law to justify the atrocities and the interrogation methods used. On 11 May 2004, for example, Rumsfeld told members of the Senate Appropriations defence subcommittee that the methods had been authorised and confirmed by Pentagon lawyers as being in accordance with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of detainees. Moreover, on 8 June, the Washington Post obtained a memo written in 2002 showing that the US Justice Department advised the White House that torturing suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists detained abroad “may be justified” as international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted for the war on terror.

This war on terror, which was the primary cause or casus belli of the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent atrocities that followed, is ongoing with regional and worldwide reverberations. The revelation of the atrocities committed in Abu Ghraib showed the world the injustice perpetuated by the apparently unending war on terror; that will forever be the tragic legacy of the Iraqi prison complex.

*

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

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Chris Walls on Fox News Sunday that he believes President Trump’s own advisers as well as Middle East allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel are “dragging the United States into a conflict” with Iran.

It comes just days after Zarif made similar statements about the possibility of US and Iranian ships clashing in the Persian Gulf, warning that a false flag “accident” scenario could “lure” Trump into war — something which he thinks Trump himself doesn’t want to see happen. It appears Tehran’s new strategy as it reels from the sanctions squeeze on oil and Trump ending the crude export waiver program is to try and delicately peel Trump away from the American ‘deep state’.

Zarif specifically named National Security Advisor John Bolton, Israel, Saudi Arabia, along with close Saudi ally the United Arab Emirates, all as seeking to escalate tensions leading toward a regime change war on Iran.

Wallace asked if they’re “all trying to exercise regime change?” according to Fox, and Zarif responded, “at least, at least.” Iran’s top diplomat explained:

“They have all shown an interest in dragging the United States into a conflict. I do not believe that President Trump wants to do that, I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war. But I believe President Trump’s intention to put pressure, the policy of maximum pressure on Iran in order to bring Iran to its knees so that we would succumb to pressure, is doomed to failure.”

Iranian Foreign Minister says 4 key leaders are trying to drag Trump into a conflict with Iran pic.twitter.com/lIAWviy88z

— FoxNewsSunday (@FoxNewsSunday) April 28, 2019

Interestingly, it appears Zarif is attempting a direct appeal to Trump and the generally non-interventionist “bring the troops home” stance he campaigned on in 2016.

Tehran’s leaders could be hoping for a Kim Jong Un style approach to Trump. Trump’s North Korea opening over the past year was marked by a series of off the cuff personal appeals and communications that led to one-on-one dialogue and thawing of tensions.

Middle East historian and analyst Asad Abukhalil noted “the media blitz by Zarif is clear in its intention: the Iranian regime has decided to negotiate with Trump – with Trump and not with his team. They think that they can split the administration.” Professor Abukhalil concluded, however, that “The calculation is not irrational but Trump does not see Iran like he sees North Korea.”

.@AmbJohnBolton responds to Chris' interview with the Foreign Minister of Iran #FNS #SundayMorning pic.twitter.com/EqNp2e6B5T

— FoxNewsSunday (@FoxNewsSunday) April 28, 2019

Soon after the Zarif interviewed aired Sunday morning, John Bolton appeared on Fox to dismiss what he called Iran’s “carefully prepared propaganda script”.

He slammed Zarif for attempting to “sow disinformation in the American body politic” — in an acknowledgement of Iran’s apparent new strategy to try and split Trump from the “deep state” agenda on 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.

Featured image is from FOX

The year 2019 has seen a significant increase in the number of Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who have had to demolish their own home, or part of it, after having built it without a permit. The residents elect this path in order to avoid paying the city thousands of dollars they would have been billed, had municipal authorities carried out the demolition. Fifteen residential homes were demolished by their owners in East Jerusalem from the beginning of the year until 31 March 2019, along with parts of two other homes, a store, and a car repair shop. The demolitions left 69 people, 40 of them minors, homeless.

The prevalence of construction without permits in East Jerusalem is a direct result of the policies pursued by all Israeli authorities, which have deliberately created an acute construction crisis for the city’s Palestinian population, while Jewish neighborhoods enjoy massive development and substantial funding. As part of this policy, Israel has expropriated more than a third of the land it annexed from the West Bank and has built 11 neighborhoods exclusively for Jews (under international law, the status of these neighborhoods is the same as the Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank).

When it comes to the Palestinian population, Israel has done the opposite – canceling all Jordanian master plans for the annexed area. It was not until the 1980s that the Jerusalem Municipality drew up master plans for all Palestinian neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city, plans that were chiefly designed to limit construction in these neighborhoods. The most striking feature of these plans was the designation of huge swathes of land as “open scenic areas” where development is forbidden. In 2014, these “scenic areas” made up about 30% of the land in Palestinian neighborhoods. Only some 15% of the land area in East Jerusalem (about 8.5% of Jerusalem’s municipal jurisdiction) is zoned for residential use by Palestinians under these plans, although they currently account for some 40% of the city’s population. Another measure Israel has employed to limit the amount of land available to Palestinians is declaring national parks where construction and urban development are almost entirely forbidden.

Given this reality, Palestinians have no choice but to build without permits. The Jerusalem Municipality estimates that 15,000 to 20,000 homes have been built without a permit in East Jerusalem in the past few years. Thousands of Palestinians in the city are living under constant threat to their homes and businesses; in many cases, the authorities follow through on this threat or force residents to demolish the structures themselves. From 2004 through March 2019, the Jerusalem Municipality demolished 830 residential units, and 120 more were demolished by their owners on the municipality’s orders. As a result, the municipality deliberately left 2,927 people homeless, 1,574 of them minors.

Israel does not see the residents of East Jerusalem as human beings with equal rights, but as people it strives to remove from their homes, as they are an obstacle to Judaizing the city. To that end, Israel employs various measures, all illegal: deliberately denying Palestinians construction for residential and other purposes, issuing demolition orders for structures built without a permit for lack of choice, and demolishing dozens of such structures a year. Israel has implemented this policy, designed to clear parts of the city of Palestinians, since occupying the West Bank and annexing East Jerusalem and the surrounding villages.

From January to March this year, B’Tselem field researcher ‘Amer ‘Aruri collected testimonies from Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who had to demolish their own homes. Their stories, along with excerpts from their testimonies, follow:

The apartment of Jamil Masalhah’s son, after he began the demolition. Photo by Amer Aruri, B’Tselem, 16 February 2019

The Masalmeh family, Silwan, 22 January 2019

The Masalmeh family has lived in the Wadi Hilweh neighborhood of Silwan since 1936. Jamil Masalmeh, 58, a husband and father of 13, married his wife in 1985 and has been living with her in his now deceased parents’ home ever since. In 1999, he added a porch to the house, but the municipality demolished it in 2005 on the grounds that it was built without a permit.

About five years ago, Masalmeh built a small unit on top of the house for his son, Adam, who got married soon after. Adam is now 28 and has a four-year-old son. Shortly after construction was completed, the family were issued a demolition order for the one-bedroom unit. They ignored it and never appealed to the authorities. On 15 January 2019, the family received another demolition order issued by the municipality, requiring them to demolish the unit themselves or pay the city for the cost of having it demolished – about 80,000 NIS (roughly 22,300 USD). On 22 January 2019, Jamil Masalmeh and his son set to work on the demolition, which they have not yet completed.

Settlement point next to the Masalhah family’s home. Photo by ‘Amer’ Aruri, B’Tselem, 16 February 2019

In a testimony he gave on 16 February 2019, Jamil Masalmeh (image below right) described being forced to demolish his son’s home:

A few years ago, I built a small, 55-square-meter apartment with cinder blocks and wood, for my son Adam to live in after marriage. He’s now married and they had a boy, four years ago.

Of course, the municipality issued a demolition order for the unit. That was about four years ago. On 15 January 2019, we got a new order saying we had to demolish the unit or they would do it, in which case we’d have to pay for the cost, about 80,000 NIS (roughly 22,300 USD).

On 22 January 2019, I demolished the roof of the unit and Adam and his wife moved in with us. I haven’t finished the demolition yet. I have to take down the walls, too, before the municipality comes and does it itself. Otherwise I’ll have to pay them back for it. I’m waiting for my sons to have time to help me, so I don’t have to hire help and spend more money. I’ve suffered enough financial damage and mental harm from this affair.

Adam works in construction and doesn’t make a lot of money. He now lives with us in the house, but we only have three bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen and a living room. I gave the living room to him, his wife and their son, and the house has become small. There are currently ten of us living in the house, including three minors. I don’t know how long we can endure this and how long Adam and his family can handle living in one room and sharing the bathroom and the kitchen with us. I try to help him as much as I can, but there’s only so much anyone can take.

A relative of ‘Amer Abu Hussein’s helps demolish the rooms. Photo by the family

The Abu Hussein family, Jabal al-Mukabber, 2 February 2019:

In 1996, three brothers – Mahmoud, Naser and Najib Abu Hussein – built three houses on a plot of land they had inherited from their father. The military installed the a-Sawahrah a-Sharqiyah checkpoint about three kilometers away. That year, after construction was finished, the brothers received a demolition order issued by the Ministry of Interior. They contacted a lawyer, who was able to have the order stayed if they paid a 35,000 NIS fine (roughly 9,750 USD) for each home and launched proceedings to have the construction legalized. After a year-long legal battle, the case was handed over to the Jerusalem Municipality, which announced that the land was a designated green space and not zoned for construction. The three homes are still under threat of demolition.

Between 2016 and 2018, ‘Ammar (33) and Khaled (23) Abu Hussein, Mahmoud’s married sons, built two homes next to their parents’ house. When construction was finished, in 2018, they received demolition orders. The demolition was suspended due to legal action taken by the family, but in January 2019, the municipality issued a new demolition order for the two homes. On 2 February 2019, the sons had to demolish their own homes to avoid paying the city 80,000 NIS (roughly 22,300 USD) for the cost of the demolition.

In a testimony he gave on 14 February 2019, ‘Ammar Abu Hussein described how he and his brothers had to demolish their own homes:

In 2013, I got married and rented an apartment in Jabal al-Mukabber. I couldn’t build on top of my parents’ house because it’s under a demolition order and I didn’t want to take the risk. For six months, I paid 1,600 NIS (around 440 USD) a month in rent, and then I decided that it was better to build a small apartment on the roof of my parents’ home after all, which I did.

In 2016, my brother Khaled and I started building two units near our parents’ home. It took us two years to build them. We worked day and night and saved money, until we finished building in 2018.

It was very sad when that year, 2018, we got stop-work orders for both units from the Jerusalem Municipality. We contacted a lawyer who started a legal proceeding and managed to delay the demolition a few times, until, in January 2019, we got a new demolition order for our two units. They gave us a week to carry out the demolition ourselves. Since the threat of demolition was looming over us, I left the unit with my family and we moved into a rented place in Jabal al-Mukabber.

The bulldozer that the family rented demolishing the rooms. Photo by the family

On Monday, 2 February 2019, my brothers and I started demolishing the two apartments. We started with hand tools, and then switched to a bulldozer. The demolition cost us 12,000 NIS (roughly 3,350 USD). If the city had done it, we would have paid 80,000 NIS (roughly 22,300 USD), so we preferred to do it ourselves and save the money.

I know I wasted 150,000 NIS (almost 42,000 USD) taking a chance and building on land defined as a green zone. I’m still paying back the debt for building costs. But the problem isn’t with me, it’s the city’s policy, which offers no housing solutions for young couples. Why don’t they make master plans for Palestinian neighborhoods? Why do they force residents to build without permits?

The ruins of the Edkedek family’s home. Photo by Amer Aruri, B’Tselem, 16 Geb 2019

The Edkedek family, Ras al-‘Amud, 4 February 2019

The six members of the Edkedek family have been living in a rented home in the neighborhood of Ras al-‘Amud for about twenty years. In the 1990s, the family purchased building rights on the roof of another family’s home, also in Ras al-‘Amud, as well as a patch of land in that family’s yard. In December 2018, they built two apartments on the roof – one for the parents and children and the other for one son, Maamun, 27, who is about to get married. The family also built a storage room on the land it purchased in the yard. But before they were able to move into their new apartments, they received a demolition order from the municipality.

Maamun Edkedek hired laborers and began the demolition on 4 February 2019. He demolished the apartment intended for his parents first, and was planning to continue the work, but on 12 February 2019, city bulldozers came and demolished his intended apartment and the storage room.

In a testimony he gave on 16 February 2019, Maamun Edkedek, 27, an unmarried bakery employee, described what happened:

Image below: The apartments after Maamum Edkedek started demolishing them.

On 4 February 2019, I started demolishing the apartments with laborers. We used hand tools because the units were built on top of the neighbors’ house. We worked carefully to avoid damaging their house, and it took us about eight days just to demolish my parents’ apartment. Then, on 12 February 2019, city workers suddenly came with bulldozers and wanted to demolish my apartment and the storage room.

I told them I’d finished demolishing one apartment and that I was going to demolish the other one and the storage room. I explained that I was worried about using a bulldozer because the apartment is on the second floor and I didn’t want to cause damage to the neighbors on the first floor. They didn’t listen, and the city bulldozer started demolishing my apartment and the storage room.

All that’s left of the two apartments and the storage room is a pile of rubble. Each apartment was 80 square meters in size, and the storage room was about 60 square meters. We lost about 250,000 NIS (nearly 70,000 USD).

I’m getting married soon. Even though I’m not doing well emotionally, I won’t put the wedding off. I’ve started looking for a rental and it’s not easy, because apartments in Jerusalem are expensive. I’m a laborer and my income is limited. I’m worried that I’ll have to pay the city for the cost of the demolition, because I didn’t demolish everything in time.

The Subuh family, a-Shayah (Ras al-‘Amud), 5 February 2019

Mustafa Subuh, 55, a married father of five, purchased a 500-square-meter plot of land in the neighborhood of a-Shayah in the 1990s. He built a house on it covering 80 square meters. Soon after, he built a one-bedroom apartment on the plot. The apartment is home to his daughter Zeinab and her three children, aged 1 to 7. Her husband, a resident of Hebron, stays with them on the weekends. Over the years, Mustafa added two rooms and a bathroom to his own house.

Eight years ago, the family received their first demolition order, for Zeinab’s apartment and for the additions to the main house. Subuh hired a lawyer and submitted an application for a building permit along with plans, but the application was rejected. Several court hearings were held over the years regarding the demolition order. In the last hearing, the court issued a stay to the demolition until 13 March 2019. Nevertheless, in early February, a city official came to the family’s home and told them that if they did not demolish the house immediately themselves, the city would do it, and they would have to pay for the cost – 150,00 NIS (nearly 42,000 USD).

On 5 February 2019, Mustafa Subuh demolished the additions to his house and his daughter’s one-bedroom apartment. On 12 February, a city official came to make sure the demolition had been carried out. He gave Mustafa Subuh a new demolition order for the original house and the garage underneath it.

Mustafa Subuh standing on the ruins of the apartment he built for his daughter and her children. Photo by Amer Aruri, B’Tselem

In a testimony he gave on 13 February 2019, Mustafa Subuh talked about his family is now facing homelessness:

Seven years ago, my daughter Zeinab moved into a new apartment I built for her behind our house. Since then, she and her husband have had three children. Her husband, a resident of Hebron, visits on the weekends.

The first demolition order came eight years ago, citing construction without a permit. I hired a lawyer and he managed to delay the demolition. I also contacted an engineer who drew up a plan, in order to apply for a building permit. The plan was rejected.

My lawyer told me he’d managed to delay the demolition until 13 March 2019, but suddenly, at the beginning of February, a city official came and demanded that I demolish my own home. He said that otherwise, city bulldozers would come to demolish it and I’d have to pay the cost.

On 5 February 2019, I started demolishing the addition by hand. I demolished the other apartment, where my daughter Zeinab lives, with a bulldozer.

Now I’ve received another demolition order, and I’m going through the worst time of my life. I already demolished the addition and my daughter’s home on my own. Now, I have to demolish what’s left of my house, too. For eight years, I paid the city totaling 68,000 NIS (nearly 19,000 USD) worth of fines, and that’s on top of the money I paid the lawyer and the engineer, which amounted to tens of thousands of shekels. The demolition I did myself cost me 35,000 NIS (around 9,800 USD), because I had to rent a bulldozer and hire laborers. Where exactly does the city want us to live?

In a testimony she gave on 26 February 2019, Zeinab Subuh described having to watch her house be demolished:

One day, the difficult moment I’ve been dreading all these years arrived. My father told me we had no choice but to demolish the two apartments ourselves. I felt deep pain and despair. I looked at my children and felt very sad. I thought to myself, what does the future hold for them? I felt like a failure, because I wasn’t able to give my family shelter and security.

On the day of the demolition, I stood with the children watching it. My mother asked me to go into their house so the children wouldn’t see their home being demolished. But I stayed there, to watch and to mourn for the house. I hugged my children and wept.

Now we live with my parents in the old house. Rent in Jerusalem is at least 2,500 NIS (around 700 USD), which is what I make every month at my job delivering papers. My husband also has a low income. There are five people living in my parents’ home already. With us, that makes nine people in a very small house. It’s very crowded.

The concrete slabs remaining after Husam Al-Abasi had to demolish part of his home. Photo by Amer Aruri, B’Tselem, 9 march 2019

The al-‘Abasi family, Ras al-‘Amud, 2 March 2019

Husam al-‘Abasi, 31, is a married father of one and a construction worker. In 2013, before he got married, he began building an apartment for himself on top of his father’s home, but had to stop the construction for financial reasons. He got married in 2015, but because of the high cost of housing, he and his wife moved in with his parents.

In 2016, after Husam’s wife became pregnant, the couple decided to finish the apartment Husam had started on his parents’ rooftop and expand it. They moved into the new home that year. In January 2019, a city official came and told the family they would have to demolish the apartment, otherwise the city would demolish it and charge them the cost – 80,000 NIS (roughly 22,300 USD). On 2 March 2019, Husam demolished his home.

In 2016, after Husam’s wife became pregnant, the couple decided to finish the apartment Husam had started on his parents’ rooftop and expand it. They moved into the new home that year. In January 2019, a city official came and told the family they would have to demolish the apartment, otherwise the city would demolish it and charge them the cost – 80,000 NIS (roughly 22,300 USD). On 2 March 2019, Husam demolished his home.

In a testimony he gave on 9 March 2019, Husam al-‘Abasi described demolishing his own home:

A month ago, an official from the Jerusalem Municipality came and gave me a demolition order for the addition I’d built. I’d built the original part of the house without a permit, too, because the city doesn’t give building permits in Palestinian neighborhoods.

On 2 March 2019, I had to demolish the house myself. If the city had done it, I’d have had to pay 80,000 NIS (roughly 22,300 USD) for the cost of the demolition.

I demolished my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Rafif’s room, the living room, the bathroom and the balcony. Now I’m living in the old part of the house that I started building in 2013. It has one room, a kitchen and a bathroom.

I did lose about 150,000 NIS (almost 42,000 USD), but the emotional damage is worse. This experience will always haunt me, every time I look at the destroyed part of my home.

The Ja’abis (Shafita) family, Jabal al-Mukabber, 9 March 2019

Ilham and S’adeh, 35 and 38 respectively, have seven children between the ages of four and 18. For 18 years, they lived in various rental homes in East Jerusalem. In late 2017, Ilham’s brothers bought a plot of land in Jabal al-Mukabber so she and her family could build a home there.

The family moved into its new home in March 2018, but soon received an order from the Jerusalem Municipality to demolish it by 10 March 2019. A month before the deadline, a city official came to the house and told the family that if they did not demolish the house by the deadline, the city would carry out the demolition and they would have to pay the cost – 50,000 NIS (around 14,000 USD). On 9 March 2019, Ilham’s brothers came with a bulldozer and demolished the house.

Husam AL-abasi with his daughter, rafif the ruin of the Ja’abis family’s home. Photo by Amer Aruri, B’Tselem, 9 March 2019

In a testimony she gave on 9 March 2019, Ilham Ja’abis described losing her home:

This morning, 9 March 2019, my brothers came with a bulldozer and demolished the house. In the meantime, my husband, children and I have moved into a 70-square-meter rented house. It’s a temporary solution until we find a bigger place.

We lost more than 200,000 NIS (around 5,600 USD), on top of what we paid for the land. The city says it’s a green space and we’re not allowed to build there. My children don’t understand why our house was demolished and we had to move. They keep insisting we go back to the old house.

The house was destroyed along with my dream – to live in a house that of I own, not a rental. We’re all in despair. Tonight will be my first night away from our home, in a rented house. It pains me and makes me sad.

*

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

If you have read a recent New York Times op-ed entitled “Care about Gaza? Blame Hamas” written by none other than the White House “special representative for international negotiations” Jason Greenblatt you would understand that the misery being experienced by Palestinians in Gaza is all their own fault. Greenblatt, who is Jewish of the Orthodox persuasion, just happens to be a strong supporter of Israel’s settlements, which he claims are “not an obstacle to peace.” He is very upset because some naysayers are actually putting some of the blame for the human catastrophe in Gaza on Israel, which we Americans all know is our best friend in the whole world and our most loyal ally. If that were not so, the New York Times and those fine people in Congress and the White House would surely inform us otherwise. And anyway, what are a few lies and war crimes between friends?

Greenblatt, who knows nothing about foreign policy and diplomacy apart from advising Donald Trump on Israel while serving as the Trump Organization chief legal officer, is supposed to be working hard with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner negotiating “deal of the century” peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Betting is that the arrangement on offer in June will consist of American acquiescence in Israel declaring sovereignty over nearly all of land that the Arabs still hold on the West Bank with the remaining local population being bribed heavily to either move to Jordan or stay in designated non-Jewish sectors and stop complaining.

Jason Greenblatt is a perfect example of the type of “dual” loyalist who cannot appreciate that his overriding religious and ethnic allegiances are incompatible with genuine loyalty to the United States. Willingness to subordinate actual American interests to a those of a foreign nation means that he and others like him are contributing to the decline and fall of the country he was born in and which has made him wealthy. If he had any real integrity, when presented by Trump with the opportunity to benefit Israel at the expense of the United States he should have declined the offer knowing that he would inevitably be biased, making it impossible for him to fairly consider either American interests or those of the Palestinians.

Greenblatt knows that whatever lies he tells it will not matter in the least because no one will ever hold him accountable and it is all done for a great cause, which is Israel, to include anything that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants. And what could be better than to hold down a job that pays in the neighborhood of $200,000 a year plus a full benefits package for doing nothing but “creating facts on the ground” for the country that one loves best?

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

The Greenblatt op-ed includes some really choice “analysis” that does not correspond with the reality of what is going on in what remains of Palestine. He begins immediately with a heavy dose of Israeli propaganda, asserting that “Hamas has left Gaza in shambles,” before providing a partially accurate but morally neutral assessment of the sorry state of the enclave: “Life there is difficult, sad and abnormal. Only buildings with generators actually maintain steady power. The lack of power affects everything from preserving fresh food to treating sewage. If a person in Gaza falls ill, he is likely to find trained medical professionals unable to help because of the lack of equipment and medicines. The people there — even the talented and educated — can’t find jobs. The store shelves are empty. The shoreline, which in many other places in the Mediterranean would be filled with beach resorts, is covered in the raw sewage and debris from successive wars. The cost of conflict is seen in all aspects of life in Gaza.”

The dismal picture of conditions in Gaza, largely true, does not admit to any Israeli role in the suffering, or, at least, Greenblatt is blind to it. Israel controls both the land border and the seafront. It manages the enclave as if it were an outdoor concentration camp and military free-fire zone for its 2 million Arab inhabitants. Lack of electricity is caused by Israeli bombing of power plants, which also make it impossible to treat sewage. Proliferating sewage appears to be a preferred weapon for Israelis as settlers on the West Bank are also fond of letting it flow onto Palestinians farms and villages.

Food in Gaza is limited only to what can be grown locally or to what the Israelis allow in. Likewise medicines are only available when Israel permits. Gazans cannot leave without Israeli permission and on the seafront, fisherman who are brave enough to go out are frequently shot dead by Israeli gunboats if they go too far.

Israel bombs hospitals, schools and places of worship indiscriminately, always claiming that they are being used by terrorists even when United Nations observers are on site and declare that the allegations are palpably untrue. And then there are isolated incidents, to include the deliberate murder by naval gunfire of four young boys innocently playing soccer on a beach and the killing by missiles of nine other children who were watching television. An American military attache stationed in Israel once observer soldiers on the Israel side engaging in target practice by shooting at women hanging out their laundry on the Gaza side of the fence and Israeli snipers have proudly worn t-shirts showing a graphic of a pregnant Arab woman in a gunsight with the text “two for one” underneath.

Currently, protests by unarmed Gazans along the Israel-Gaza fence have resulted in 260 Palestinian deaths, mostly by Israeli sniper fire. Nearly 7,000 others have been shot and wounded. Those killed include 32 medical workers and 50 children. Twenty-one children have had their limbs amputated and many more have been permanently disabled.

Thousands more Palestinians have died from Israeli bombs, rockets and artillery shelling since 2009. In 2014 alone, more than 2,000 Gazans were killed and more than 10,000 were wounded, including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled. More than 7,000 homes were destroyed. The grossly disproportionate carnage in Gaza initiated by Israel was so outrageous that even many Americans began to wake up to what their tax dollars were buying. After 2014’s death toll, support for Israel began to wane. Currently 51% of Americans view the Israeli government unfavorably in spite of relentless pro-Israel propaganda by the U.S. media.

Jason Greenblatt goes on to claim that

“The Arabs in Israel generally live normal lives and, in many cases, thrive. In fact, Arab citizens of Israel live freely compared with Arabs in many other countries in the region… Why are others moving forward while Gaza sinks further into despair and disrepair? Because Hamas, the de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip, has made choices… Hamas is to blame for Gaza’s situation.”

Greenblatt is wrong about the claimed happy lot of Palestinians living in Israel. Israel has recently declared itself a Jewish State. In practice, there are more than fifty laws and regulations that make Christians and Muslims second class citizens. Churches and Mosques are regularly vandalized and Christian and Muslim holy sites are regularly destroyed by the authorities while a prominent Rabbi has recently declared in the wake of Sri Lanka that proposals that all churches should be destroyed inside Israel should be considered but are “complicated.” Arab Israelis cannot get building permits, their schools are underfunded and they are discriminated against or ignored in nearly all their interactions with the government. Local communities can declare themselves Arab-free zones and they can refuse to sell houses to Palestinians.

The fundamental problem with Greenblatt and others like him is that they have a very selective moral compass and choose not to recognize apartheid even when it is right in front of them. Israel is a fundamentally racist occupying power with a colonial-settler mindset, which sees the Arabs as ignorant savages that have to be ideally removed, but if not, restrained by forced or even killed if necessary. And, like all purveyors of war crimes, the Israelis and their diaspora cheerleaders blame the victims for their plight. Greenblatt will have an excuse for any atrocity committed by Israel. The Israel Defense Force is shooting Palestinians individually now but if it starts doing them in groups he would no doubt come up with a good rationalization justifying the practice.

Israel is a Middle Eastern superpower, heavily armed and unconcerned over the consequences for starting wars and killing Arabs. To argue as Greenblatt does that there is some kind of “fighting” going on with Hamas “instigating” wars against Israel is ludicrous given the disparity in power between the two sides. It is largely retaliatory Hamas homemade bottle rockets, which kill or injure very few, against fighter jets, snipers and artillery barrages that kill thousands. And the really sad part for Americans is that the United States is deeply complicit in what goes on, sending “special representatives” like Greenblatt into the region on the taxpayer’s dime to argue Israel’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 originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

.

.

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Sri Lanka: US-Saudi Terror Targets China’s Allies

By Tony Cartalucci, April 29, 2019

As predicted, the Sri Lankan Easter Day blasts which killed hundreds and injured hundreds more – have been connected to the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).  At face value – devastating and disruptive terrorist attacks visited upon Sri Lanka – a nation that has recently and decisively pivoted from West to East and is now a major partner of Beijing’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative – is suspiciously coincidental.

NATO Expands Eastward to Russia

By Comitato No Nato, April 29, 2019

In 1990, on the eve of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, US Secretary of State James Bakerassured USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev that “NATO will not extend by a single inch to the east”. But in twenty years, after having demolished the Yugoslavian Federation, NATO extended from 16 to 30 countries, expanding more and more eastwards to Russia.

Decadent “Western Community of Values”. Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, April 29, 2019

The average age of those being trafficked is 13. But the average means there are children younger than 13. That means 8-, 9-, 10-year-old. Every year, the girls being bought and sold gets younger and younger. Every two minutes, a child is exploited in the sex industry.

Foreign Intrusion: Easter Sunday attack in Sri Lanka by ISIS and Who Else?

By Shenali D Waduge, April 29, 2019

Whatever foreign involvement it is without a doubt the fault of the Sri Lankan Govt who not only had intel warnings but had appeals and requests for action against Islamic extremists by the Sri Lankan Muslim community itself. All of which had been ignored or not taken seriously.

Where the Silk Roads Meet the Mighty Mekong

By Pepe Escobar, April 29, 2019

The new naga will take the form of Made in China high-speed trains – for passengers of course, but mostly for cargo – crossing the Mekong back and forth and crucially bypassing the Maritime Silk Road along the South China Sea.     

The Otto Warmbier Scandal Is All About Challenging Trump’s Credibility

By Andrew Korybko, April 29, 2019

The Washington Post’s surprise revelation that Trump agreed to pay North Korea $2 million in exchange for releasing imprisoned student Otto Warmbier is intended to challenge his credibility by drawing “politically uncomfortable” comparisons between him and his predecessor.

The Malignant Nature of the Mueller Report and 2020 Election

By Massoud Nayeri, April 29, 2019

The publication of the Mueller report more than anything else confirmed that the working people in America are facing deeply divided and antagonistic “leadership” in Washington.

US Navy SEAL Officers Attempted to Cover Up Evidence of War Crimes

By Josh Varlin, April 29, 2019

Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, a US Navy SEAL awaiting a court-martial for war crimes charges, was systematically protected by his SEAL superiors for a year, a Navy investigation report covered by the New York Times reveals. Gallagher’s trial begins May 28 for premeditated murder, attempted murder, obstruction of justice and other crimes related to war crimes in Iraq, and there is an ongoing investigation into similar actions in Afghanistan.

*

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

Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, a US Navy SEAL awaiting a court-martial for war crimes charges, was systematically protected by his SEAL superiors for a year, a Navy investigation report covered by the New York Times reveals. Gallagher’s trial begins May 28 for premeditated murder, attempted murder, obstruction of justice and other crimes related to war crimes in Iraq, and there is an ongoing investigation into similar actions in Afghanistan.

The war crimes described in the 439-page report and the subsequent cover-up by Gallagher’s superiors highlight the toleration and promotion of deranged and fascistic elements within the military. The SEALs, which stands for Sea, Air and Land Teams, are the US Navy’s special operations force. They are closely tied to the Central Intelligence Agency, going back to SEAL-CIA operations during the Vietnam War and CIA recruitment from the SEALs today.

The central allegation against Gallagher, who also goes by the nickname “Blade,” is that he murdered a captive Iraqi teenager while deployed to Mosul. SEALs told investigators that on May 4, 2017, Gallagher heard that an Islamic State fighter had been wounded and was in custody. According to the Times, “Chief Gallagher responded over the radio with words to the effect of ‘he’s mine.’”

“A medic was treating the youth on the ground when Chief Gallagher walked up without a word and stabbed the wounded teenager several times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him, two SEAL witnesses said.”

Gallagher then gathered SEALs for a gruesome reenlistment ceremony over the teenager’s body, complete with an American flag and photos.

That night or the next day, SEALs reported the incident to Gallagher’s immediate superior, a troop chief, as well as Lieutenant Jacob Portier, the platoon commander. Portier has been charged separately for allegedly covering up the stabbing because he lied to his own superior, Lieutenant Commander Robert Breisch, who asked if there was “anything criminal” associated with the reenlistment ceremony.

SEALs also describe Gallagher shooting his sniper rifle “about ten times as often as other snipers,” including shooting a young girl and an unarmed old man (both incidents have two witnesses). A message in a Mosul sniper nest read,

“Eddie G puts the laughter in Manslaughter.”

The Times describes how “one senior SEAL” alleged that Gallagher “routinely parked an armored truck on a Tigris River bridge and emptied the truck’s heavy machine gun into neighborhoods on the other side with no discernible targets.”

One SEAL told investigators that other snipers “began shooting warning shots at any civilians they saw on the battlefield so that the civilians would run away and [Gallagher] could not kill them.”

A separate investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is looking into Gallagher allegedly killing a goat herder in Afghanistan in 2010.

Gallagher’s alleged crimes—with most of those publicly cited in the press backed up by multiple witnesses and photo or video documentation—are an indictment of the American military. The SEALs have such a reputation for brutality, including against their own members, that Rear Admiral Collin Green, the SEAL’s top commander, “ordered a 90-day review of the force’s culture and training,” according to the Times.

Despite beginning in January, any findings or conclusions of the review have not been made public.

However, there is much more involved here than one war criminal. When SEALs attempted to report Gallagher’s actions, they were warned against it. Breisch and Master Chief Petty Officer Brian Alazzawi met with seven SEALs in March 2018, during which Breisch told SEALs

“that while the SEALs were free to report the killings, the Navy might not look kindly on rank-and-file team members making allegations against a chief. Their careers could be sidetracked, he said,” according to the Times.

Alazzawi, perhaps saying more than he intended, warned SEALs that their allegations would have a wide “frag [fragmentation] radius” and could implicate many other SEALs.

One of the seven rank-and-file SEALs who attended the meeting described the message from Breisch and Alazzawi as “Stop talking about it.”

A few days after this meeting, Gallagher was awarded a medal for his conduct in Iraq.

It took another month for the SEALs to force their commanding officers to report Gallagher’s war crimes, including the stabbing of the teenager and the shooting of two unarmed civilians, to NCIS. The SEALs had threatened to go up the chain of command or directly to the press.

Either through being told by Breisch or Alazzawi or through some other means, Gallagher himself found out about the March 2018 meeting and set about turning other SEALs against those who had told officers about his crimes. He texted another SEAL chief, “I just got word these guys went crying to the wrong person.”

To a different SEAL, he texted:

“The only thing we can do as good team guys is pass the word on those traitors. They are not brothers at all.”

After the internal cover-up failed, various reactionaries have lined up to defend Gallagher. Fox News has given extensive air time to Gallagher’s wife and brother. A letter calling for Gallagher to be freed pending trial was signed by 40 Republican members of Congress.

President Donald Trump, clearly seeking to mobilize fascistic elements in his base, tweeted,

“In honor of his past service to our Country, Navy Seal #EddieGallagher will soon be moved to less restrictive confinement while he awaits his day in court. Process should move quickly!”

The individual crimes committed as part of the wars and occupations of American imperialism are the product of the more fundamental crime, the launching of the wars themselves. The architects of these crimes, including George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have gone unpunished after ordering aggressive military action in contravention of international law and the Nuremberg principles. The only person who faced charges related to the CIA’s torture program has been whistleblower John Kiriakou.

*

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 publication of the Mueller report more than anything else confirmed that the working people in America are facing deeply divided and antagonistic “leadership” in Washington. The consequence of the 1% family feud over the Mueller report will be disastrous. The Malignant Nature of the Mueller report has inflamed the enmity among Republican and Democrats to a new level. In this fight if President Trump is impeached or if Democrats are defeated, no matter the outcome, the country as a whole will suffer. No one should expect a period of reconciliation between these two hostile camps. Each side is preparing to “lawfully” purge each other to be the dominant ruling power. The hardworking people in the U.S. have no interest in this fight.

Mr. Mueller was appointed to serve as a Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice to investigate the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. But the investigation was based on a false narrative aimed at undermining the “unexpected” result of 2016 Presidential election.

The Democratic Party establishment to this day has been successful in selling this fictitious story that Russia (by meddling in the last election) has already impacted the “democratic” process of election in America! The truth is that the U.S. government has a long history of election meddling in the different sovereign countries.

It is ironic that Russia was one of these countries that U.S. intervened in their domestic political affair in 1990’s. It was the money and expertise of the American advisors that guaranteed the presidency of Boris Yeltsin – who was despised by Russian people and had no chance to win the 1996 presidential election in Russia. President Bill Clinton the grantor of Mr. Yeltsin presidency in Russia, on many occasions with affection praised him as the “father of Russian democracy”!

Now the same people, who were behind the meddling in Russian election, are “shocked” about the foreign power meddling in the U.S. election! They cry that the “Russian operatives” have already “corrupted our election”.

Nobody can describe this fabricated story better than Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Like an old general standing on the hill, Mrs. Clinton in her article in the Washington Post on April 24th proclaimed a winning strategy and drew a road map to defeat Russia and Mr. Trump. She writes, rather than making a “false choice” of “immediate impeachment or nothing”, “there’s a better way … to respond to Russia’s ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack — and how to hold President Trump accountable for obstructing the investigation and possibly breaking the law…”.

Mrs. Clinton assures us as “a young staff attorney on the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate impeachment inquiry in 1974, as well as first lady” she knows what she is talking about. Mrs. Clinton’s message to the Congress is to “hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment.” She ends her article by “warning” us “about the future”, that “the Russians will interfere again in 2020, and possibly other adversaries, such as China or North Korea, will as well. This is an urgent threat.” Of course according to Mrs. Clinton, this threat is urgent because “He [President Trump] will likely redouble his efforts to advance Putin’s agenda.”

But fascistic minded President Trump is far more dangerous for his hurtful policies against working people and immigrants than unsubstantiated Mrs. Clinton’s claim against him. It is like charging a bank robber not for his crime of stealing money but for smoking cigarette in the “No Smoking Area” of the lobby while robbing the bank! Democrats don’t challenge Mr. Trump on many issues such as the tax cut for the rich and top wealthiest companies, increasing the military budget without any rationale or justification, deregulation and anti-environmental policies or barbaric treatment of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants.

The Democratic Party, in most cases is a partner in crime. Even when President Trump vetoes the resolution calling to end U.S. support in Yemen war, no one talks about this veto which in fact is a war crime in itself, considering that today Yemen is a country that is facing the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

History matters; Nixon’s obstruction of justice, abuse of power happened in an era that the anti-war movement was the main headache for the 1%. Today, in the absence of mass anti-war movement, the majority of people don’t see any benefit to getting involved in the 1% infighting.

For the working people, the fundamental lesson of the Mueller report is to find their own independent path to solve the issues of healthcare, education, immigration and job security. The news in America, day in day out revolves around the “pundits” personal interpretation of Mueller report. Basically, the “journalists” pro and anti Trump, resuscitate and recycle their boring narratives about the Mueller report over and over, meanwhile behaving as entertainers wasting time on spreading gossips but never have time to cover the teachers, students and workers demonstrations who are either on strike or on the street demanding for decent living wages and better working conditions.

The politicians and their media want us to believe in their alternative reality. In their fake world everything they say is true and possible. The DNC establishment overnight makes former Vice President Joe Biden the sole hero who can defeat President Trump.

The new star among other 19 nominees suddenly becomes the frontrunner and wins 6.3 million dollars as soon as he steps in the Democratic nomination casino! Naturally the news of Mr. Biden’s entry in the 2020 presidential race made the RNC establishment a little nervous. They immediately issue a statement and dismiss Mr. “sleepy” Biden as a loser and reluctantly had to embrace their unpredictable President even tighter. The 2020 presidential race spins around the Mueller report axis, but what is needed is a comprehensive program to improve people’s living conditions and a peaceful course in foreign affairs.

In the absence of a conscious leadership of working people, the far-right politicians and fascists in the different countries are securing their position in their governments.

In Europe, the British are defining the “boundaries of the law” by arresting over a 1000 peaceful environmental activists while keeping Julian Assange in the infamous GITMO like prison on fabricated charges without any right of visitation. President Macron of France sees the solutions against the protestors in bullets aimed at the eyes of the resilient French “yellow vest” activists.

In the Middle East, Mr. Netanyahu prefers that his brutal soldiers aim at the legs of the Palestinian protesters. In Saudi Arabia, instead of injuring the demonstrators, they behead them. In the U.S. the out of control ICE agents are competing with the out-law militia groups in terrorizing the immigrants in the South.

The “leaders” of the powerful military countries in the West, while facing internal problems do not hesitate to create chaos in other countries for their benefits. These days they are excited in igniting a new bloody civil war in Libya. They are discussing how to suffocate sovereign nations like Iran and Venezuela with imposing more sanctions in order to “change regimes” in these countries. The working people around the world are isolated without any true ally. It is needless to say that Russia and China – like good unprincipled business people (sharks) – are maneuvering through the troubled territories around the world to gain a little more capital.

However, regardless of these depressing facts, the working people around the world are rising up against the inequality and injustice with an extraordinary energy. People of Sudan and Algeria are pioneering the second unofficial “Arab Spring”. The global force of working people is seeking meaningful changes and can no longer tolerate being threatened and marginalized by the right-wing and fascist minorities in the powerful military countries.

These facts indicate that in today’s political environment, there are no “national” crisis that could be resolved by “national” solutions. Working people are facing an International crisis. Their problems from Bangkok to Boston or London to Lahore are intertwined. The capitalist system has already universalized the injury to the environment and people’s lives beyond geographical boundaries. Considering the world economy is showing signs of recession – with the warning of new unforeseen Economic shocks; the 1% incompetency and insecurity is taking all countries to the edge of a nuclear war. Only a universal unity for peace beyond the national borders can save our planet, consequently our families and the future of our children.

Toward a Global Union for Peace!

*

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

If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?

Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.

So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?

Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.

What is the point of demanding Assange be extradited to Sweden when there is no extradition request from Sweden? What is the point in demanding he face justice in Sweden when there are no charges? Where are the charges from Sweden?

The answer to that is silence.

Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA. And now they don’t need it, so Sweden has quietly gone away. All the false left who were taken in by the security services playing upon a feminist mantra should take a very hard look at themselves. They should also consider this.

If you seriously put forward that in allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty, you are handing an awesome power to the state to lock people up without proper defence. The state will abuse that awesome power and fit people up. The Assange case shows us just that. And it is not the only case, currently, as everyone in Scotland should realise.

But there is more. If you believe that any sexual accusation against a person should be believed and automatically and immediately end their societal respectability, you are giving power to state and society to exclude dissidents and critics from political discourse by a simple act of accusation. That power will be used and abused by the security services.

In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. I quite agree that if true, it would amount to sexual assault. But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA. So tell me again – we must always believe the accuser?

For once, I agree with the Blairites that should a warrant arrive from Sweden that Swedish request should be prioritised for extradition over the US request, not least because rape is much the more serious crime. As the only reason Julian Assange ever claimed asylum was that he saw the Swedish allegations as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the US, I would also say that should a warrant from Sweden arrive he should now voluntarily go without further legal resistance, the US extradition point being overtaken.

But do not hold your breath. No warrant is going to come. The states that coordinated so carefully his arrest and detention, timed with the Muellergate release and the demented Ecuadorean government lies about faeces on walls, don’t need the Swedish angle now.

I ask again. Where is the warrant from Sweden? Are there still people who cannot see the Swedish allegations for the CIA ruse that they always were?

*

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 Taoiseach (prime minister) of the Republic of Ireland Leo Varadkar and Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom both showed up on Wednesday in Belfast in Northern Ireland for the funeral of a young woman called Lyra McKee. So did the president of the Republic of Ireland, Michael Higgins, and UK opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn. It is quite possible that none of them had even heard of her a week ago.

She was a promising young journalist, already well known in the small world of Northern Ireland for her political journalism and her LGBT activism. She was killed a week ago by a New IRA terrorist while covering a riot in Derry, the British province’s second city. It was a mistake, of course: The terrorist was probably trying to kill one of the police officers who were standing nearby.

The funeral was held in Belfast’s main Protestant cathedral, St. Anne’s, although McKee had grown up Catholic. Both Catholic and Protestant clergy conducted the funeral service, in a joint rejection of the sectarian violence that is creeping out into the open again in Northern Ireland. That is why the prime ministers and other high dignitaries were there too, but it may be too late.

Lyra McKee described herself as a “ceasefire baby”. She was only eight years old when the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, ending 30 years of “The Troubles”, a terrorist civil war between Protestant and Catholic extremists that killed over 3,000 people in a province whose population is less than 2 million. But the war was not actually about religion.

The Protestants were loyal to Britain, and resentful about losing the absolute dominance they once enjoyed in Northern Ireland. The Catholics were “nationalists” who looked forward to the day when they would be the majority in Northern Ireland, thanks to a higher birth rate, and then to the great day when all of Ireland will be united and the “Prods” of the North are reduced to a tiny and helpless minority.

They fought each other to a standstill, and in 1998 they signed the Good Friday Agreement, which created a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland and put an end to the killing. Most people realised it was a truce, not a final peace settlement, but many hoped that given enough time, it could grow into something more. Generational turnover has solved a lot of the world’s problems.

In the meantime, the deal allowed a generation of young people, like McKee, to grow up in a relatively peaceful place. It might still be a place with a hopeful future today if the English had not voted to leave the European Union three years ago in the “Brexit” referendum. I say “English” deliberately, because both the Scots and the Northern Irish voted for the United Kingdom to stay in the EU.

The problem with Brexit is that the Good Friday Deal depends on a completely open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. In fact, an invisible border: no police, no checkpoints and little visual evidence that it even exists. That, plus the right to have an Irish passport instead of a British one if they chose, was what persuaded the North’s Catholic nationalists to settle for a draw in the war.

Everybody in Ireland saw the problem with Brexit: If the UK withdraws fully from the EU, no customs union, no “single market”, then the “hard” border will have to reappear in Ireland. The more extreme nationalists will see that as a betrayal, and the guns will come out again. But the insular idiots promoting Brexit in England were not even aware of the problem.

They are aware of it now. The Republic of Ireland remains a member of the EU, and it got the other members to insist that protecting the “soft” border must be part of the British withdrawal agreement.

Last November, Theresa May signed that agreement, which says that all of the United Kingdom must stay in the customs union until some UK-EU trade agreement is signed that still allows free movement of goods, and people, across an invisible border.

That could be a long time from now, or even never, in which case the UK never really leaves the EU. It just loses any say in the EU’s policies. So the outraged British parliament has spent the last two months rejecting not only the withdrawal agreement May signed, but every other proposal for leaving, or staying, that has been put before it. Pathetic, really.

Meanwhile, the first terrorist attacks are getting started again in Northern Ireland. The “dissidents” who formed the Real IRA in 2012 are nationalists who never accepted the truce. They have been waiting for an opportunity to reopen the revolutionary liberation war that they imagine was betrayed by the Good Friday Agreement, and Brexit is giving it to them.

There was a car bomb outside the courthouse in Derry in January, and last week the New IRA tried to kill a police officer and shot Lyra McKee instead. As Will Francis, her literary agent, said (quoting William Faulkner): “The past isn’t dead. It’s not even past.”

*

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 RTE

It was a bad enough look for Boeing when reporters uncovered the company’s decision to make some safety features optional on its 737 MAX 8s. Worse still that this decision was only made public after the deadly crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 just minutes after takeoff on March 10 – the second deadly crash involving the plane in six months, which spurred regulators around the world to ground the planes, erasing billions of dollars of Boeing market cap.

But a report in the Wall Street Journal published on Sunday that neither Southwest Airlines nor the FAA (Boeing’s primary federal regulator) were aware that a safety feature intended to alert pilots to a potentially malfunctioning ‘angle of attack’ sensor – in other words, a feature that might have prevented both the crash of ET302 and the Oct. 29 crash of a 737 owned by Lion Air – had been disabled on the new 737s is simply staggering.

Not only did Boeing disable the alerts, which would notify pilots when the two sensors on the new 737 MAX 8s were reporting dramatically different data, and make them part of a new ‘premium’ package of safety features, but the manufacturer somehow neglected to tell the airline and its regulator that the alerts had been disabled. The result was that Southwest never updated its safety manuals for pilots to reflect the fact that the alerts had been disabled.

This is particularly egregious because the 737 MAX 8s featured the new MCAS anti-stall software which could be inadvertently triggered by erroneous data being reported by a malfunctioning sensor. Indeed, the preliminary findings from the investigation of the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 found that the misfire of the MCAS system effectively doomed all 157 people on board that day.

Pilots at Southwest and regulators at the FAA didn’t learn that the alerts had been disabled until after the crash of the Lion Air flight, more than a year after the new jets had gone into service.

Plane maker Boeing Co. didn’t tell Southwest Airlines Co. when the carrier began flying 737 MAX jets in 2017 that a standard safety feature, found on earlier models and designed to warn pilots about malfunctioning sensors, had been deactivated.

Federal Aviation Administration safety inspectors and supervisors responsible for monitoring Southwest, the largest MAX customer, were also unaware of the change, according to government and industry officials.

Boeing had turned off the alerts which, in previous versions of the 737, informed pilots if a sensor known as an “angle-of-attack vane” was transmitting errant data about the pitch of a plane’s nose. In the MAX, which featured a new automated stall-prevention system called MCAS, Boeing made those alerts optional; they would be operative only if carriers bought additional safety features.

Southwest’s cockpit crews and management didn’t know about the change for more than a year after the planes went into service. They and most other airlines operating the MAX globally learned about it only after the fatal Lion Air crash last year led to scrutiny of the plane’s revised design. The FAA office’s lack of knowledge about Boeing’s move hasn’t been previously reported.

“Southwest’s own manuals were wrong” about the status of the alerts, said Southwest pilots union president, Jon Weaks. Since Boeing hadn’t communicated the modification to the carrier, the manuals still reflected incorrect information.

Perhaps most stunning of all, once the FAA and Southwest learned that the feature had been disabled, it set off a furor at the FAA that nearly pushed it to recommend that all 737 MAX 8s be grounded until the alerts had been turned back on. If the regulator had followed through, it’s possible that the crash of ET302 might have been averted.

As predicted, the Sri Lankan Easter Day blasts which killed hundreds and injured hundreds more – have been connected to the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).

US Ambassador to Sri Lanka – Alaina Teplitz – would openly claim foreign groups were most likely behind the attacks. Reuters in an article titled, “Foreign groups likely behind Sri Lanka attacks, U.S. ambassador says,” would report:

The scale and sophistication of the Easter Sunday attacks on churches and hotels in Sri Lanka suggested the involvement of an external group such as Islamic State, the U.S. ambassador said on Wednesday as the death toll jumped to 359.

ISIS itself would also later claim responsibility for the attacks. The Washington Post in an article titled, “Sri Lankan Easter bombings, claimed by ISIS, show the group maintains influence even though its caliphate is gone,” would claim:

On Tuesday, video emerged of the suspected ringleader of the attacks and seven followers, their faces obscured by scarves, swearing allegiance to the Islamic State and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The Islamic State also issued a formal communique asserting responsibility for the attacks, which it said targeted Christians and “coalition countries.”

Absent from US diplomatic statements and Western media reports is any mention of ISIS’ inception, its state sponsors, and even admissions by Western intelligence agencies themselves of Washington and its allies’ role in the terrorist organization’s rise.

At face value – devastating and disruptive terrorist attacks visited upon Sri Lanka – a nation that has recently and decisively pivoted from West to East and is now a major partner of Beijing’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative – is suspiciously coincidental.

Examining the West’s decades of using terrorism – particularly terrorism fuelled by Saudi Wahhabism – and the inception of ISIS itself – leaves Washington and its partners as the prime suspects behind Sri Lanka’s tragic terrorist attack – with its motivation strikingly similar to what prompted the US-Saudi aided rise and use of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda throughout the Cold War.

DIA Admitted West Sought “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria 

When US-engineered regime change stalled in Syria between 2011-2012, it became clear more drastic and open measures would be required. This included not only the Western media mobilizing a massive propaganda campaign to account for the increasingly overt role terrorist organizations were playing among supposed “moderate rebel” formations – but also in the sudden appearance, rise, and overwhelming force of the “Islamic State.”

Source: NEO

It was in a leaked 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo (PDF) – however – that revealed it was the US and its allies’ deliberate intent to create what it called a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria. The memo would explicitly state that (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

On clarifying who these supporting powers were, the DIA memo would state:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

The “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) would indeed be created precisely in eastern Syria as US policymakers and their allies had set out to do. It would be branded as the “Islamic State” and be used first to wage a more muscular proxy war against Damascus, and when that failed, to invite US military forces to intervene in the conflict directly.

Since then, ISIS has been used as a convenient and even predictable element amid Washington’s various gambits as it struggles globally to maintain its unipolar world order.

Washington’s “Salafist Principality” vs China 

In Asia where Washington’s self-proclaimed primacy has waned in recent years as China rises, traditional “allies” like the Philippines have begun to seek bilateral ties with Beijing negating Washington’s supposed role in underwriting what it calls its “free, open, and rules-based“ order in the Indo-Pacific region.

In 2016, Manila sought to have US troops removed from its territory.

An October 2016 article by the Independent titled, “Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte orders US forces out of country, cutting 65 years of military ties,” would report:

The president of the Philippines has promised to dismantle the nation’s 65-year military alliance with the United States, warning Washington not to treat the nation “like a doormat”. 

Rodrigo Duterte has ordered 28 annual military exercises with US forces to be halted and an ongoing US-Philippines amphibious beach landing exercise to be the last in his six-year presidency. 

“This year would be the last,” said Mr Duterte, referring to military exercises involving the US in a speech on Friday in southern Davao city.

The Independent would also report (emphasis added):

“For as long as I am there, do not treat us like a doormat because you’ll be sorry for it. I will not speak with you. I can always go to China.”

The following year, beginning in May 2017, ISIS terrorists suddenly appeared, overrunning the city of Marawi. The US used the “serendipitous” development to not only insert US military forces into the fighting – the NYT reported, but has since used the threat of ISIS’ resurgence in the Philippines as a pretext to pressure Manila in maintaining a permanent US military presence in the Southeast Asian state.

US government-funded propaganda outlet “Rappler” would report in a 2019 article titled, “[ANALYSIS] Despite Duterte rhetoric, US military gains forward base in PH,” that:

The United States has gained a forward base for its Pacific Air Force in the Philippines despite President Rodrigo Duterte’s rhetoric against the country’s oldest security ally and former colonial master and his pivot to China.

And despite the “terror” pretext Washington has used to cling to its military holdings in the Philippines, Rappler itself admits that the true goal is confronting China:

The forward deployment of US air assets in the Philippines is important in light of the increasing tension between Washington and Beijing in the disputed South China Sea, a strategic waterway where about $3 trillion of seaborne goods pass every year and where China has constructed man-made islands and begun installing military structures, including possible missile sites.

US-Saudi backed extremism in another Southeast Asian state – Myanmar – has created a growing conflict in Rakhine state where China is attempting to build another major leg of its OBOR initiative.

In neighboring Thailand – another pivotal OBOR partner – similar US-Saudi led efforts to sow ethnoreligious tensions and create a vector for ISIS-style terrorism are underway.

Even in China itself – the threat of ISIS militants returning from Syria and expanding an already looming US-Saudi backed extremist threat in Xinjiang – plays into Washington’s wider efforts to sabotage OBOR and contain China’s regional and global rise.

The recent blasts in Sri Lanka and ISIS’ now supposed “interest” in the South Asian state follows massive inroads made by China in including the nation in its OBOR initiative. Highways, railways, and ports developed with China’s assistance have transformed Sri Lanka into a strategically valuable partner for Beijing, and yet another example to the world of Washington’s waning influence not only in Indo-Pacific – but globally.

The US went as far as creating ISIS in the first place in a desperate bid to rescue its failed regime change campaign in Syria. It and its partners in Riyadh are now the prime suspects behind ISIS’ coincidental arrival on the shores of a newly established and major OBOR partner.

ISIS is the New Al Qaeda

If the US using extremism to fight its major power rivals sounds familiar – that’s because the US and its Saudi partners used Al Qaeda in precisely the same way throughout the Cold War vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.

Al Qaeda’s precursor – the Muslim Brotherhood – took part in a failed attempt to overthrow Syria – then a Soviet ally – in the early 1980s. Many of the fighters that took part in the failed uprising fled to Afghanistan and participated in the US-Saudi backed war against the Soviet Union there.

The virulent perversion of the Islamic faith that serves as the ideological bedrock of groups like Al Qaeda and now ISIS – Wahhabism – is admittedly a political tool used by Riyadh in the aid of Washington’s decades-spanning geopolitical ambitions.

In a 2018 Washington Post article titled, “Saudi prince denies Kushner is ‘in his pocket’,” it was admitted (emphasis added):

Asked about the Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism, the austere faith that is dominant in the kingdom and that some have accused of being a source of global terrorism, Mohammed said that investments in mosques and madrassas overseas were rooted in the Cold War, when allies asked Saudi Arabia to use its resources to prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.

Thus it is all but admitted that the US and Saudi Arabia used extremism as a geopolitical tool to hinder the Soviet Union and both protect and expand Western hegemony globally.

It is admitted that the US and its partners sought the creation of ISIS – its sudden appearance everywhere China is attempting to do business fits the now documented and admitted pattern of Washington’s use of extremism to fight and coerce wherever its standing armies cannot afford to intervene and a degree of “plausible deniability” is desired.

When terrorism strikes – as in any sort of criminal investigation – the first question that must be asked is “cui bono?” To whose benefit? The US played a central role in deliberately creating ISIS. If ISIS is indeed behind the attack on Sri Lanka, then it is by extension an act of terror carried out by Washington.

Destabilizing Sri Lanka – a critical South Asian partner of Beijing and its OBOR initiative – with terrorism and ethnoreligious conflict, serves only the interests of China’s overt global opponent – Washington – as well as elements within India’s ruling elite and intelligence agencies.

The US is both arsonist and self-appointed fireman. And until this racket is fully and repeatedly exposed – until after each terrorist attack the US is put forth as the primary suspect and made to pay a high political price for its use of global terrorism – this game of arson-firefighting will continue at the cost of innocent lives, national development, and global peace and stability.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

5G From Space

In November of 2018, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorised the rocket company SpaceX, owned by the entrepreneur Elon Musk, to launch a fleet of 7,518 satellites to complete SpaceX’s ambitious scheme to provide global satellite broadband services to every corner of the Earth.

The satellites will operate at a height of approximately 210 miles, and irradiate the Earth with extremely high frequencies between 37.5 GHz and 42 GHz. This fleet will be in addition to a smaller SpaceX fleet of 4,425 satellites, already authorised earlier in the year by the FCC, which will orbit the Earth at a height of approximately 750 miles and is set to bathe us in frequencies between 12 GHz and 30 GHz. The grand total of SpaceX satellites is thus projected to reach just under 12,000.

There are at present approximately two thousand fully functioning satellites orbiting the Earth. Some beam down commercial GPS (or “SatNav”), some provide TV, some provide mobile phone services, and some bounce radar back and forth to produce images for meteorologists and military surveillance. The Earth is thus already comprehensively irradiated from outer space.

But the new SpaceX fleets will constitute a massive increase in the number of satellites in the skies above us, and a correspondingly massive increase in the radiation reaching the Earth from them. The SpaceX satellite fleet is, however, just one of several that are due to be launched in the next few years, all serving the same purpose of providing global broadband services. Other companies, including Boeing, One Web and Spire Global are each launching their own smaller fleets, bringing the total number of projected new broadband satellites to around 20,000 – every one of them dedicated to irradiating the Earth at similar frequencies (fig. 1). ¹

Why is there this sudden flurry of activity? The new satellite fleets are contributing to a concerted global effort to “upgrade” the electromagnetic environment of the Earth. The upgrade is commonly referred to as 5G, or fifth generation wireless network. It has become customary in tech circles to talk about the introduction of 5G as involving the creation of a new global “electronic ecosystem”. It amounts to geo-engineering on a scale never before attempted. While this is being sold to the public as an enhancement of the quality of video streaming for media and entertainment, what is really driving it is the creation of the conditions within which electronic or “artificial” intelligence will be able to assume an ever greater presence in our lives.

In a previous article for New View, (“Radiation, Robot Bees and 5G”, New View, 85, Autumn 2017), I described how the introduction of 5G will require hundreds of thousands of new mini mobile phone masts (also referred to as “base stations”) in urban centres throughout the UK, and literally millions of new masts in cities throughout the rest of the world, all emitting radiation at frequencies and at power levels far higher than those to which we are presently subjected.

These new masts are much smaller than the masts we currently see beside our motorways and on top of buildings. They will be discreetly attached to the side of shops and offices or secured to lampposts. The 20,000 satellites are a necessary supplement to this land-based effort, for they will guarantee that rural areas, lakes, mountains, forests, oceans and wildernesses, where there are neither buildings nor lampposts, will all be incorporated into the new electronic infrastructure. Not one inch of the globe will be free of radiation.

Given the scale of the project, it is surprising how few people are aware of the enormity of what is now just beginning to unfold all around us. Very few people have even heard about the 20,000 new satellites that are due to transform the planet into a so-called “smart planet”, irradiating us night and day. In the national media, we do not hear voices questioning the wisdom, let alone the ethics, of geo-engineering a new global electromagnetic environment.

Instead, there is a blithe acceptance that technology must continue to progress, and the presence in our lives of increasingly “smart” machines and gadgets that each year become cleverer and more capable is an inevitable part of this progress. And who doesn’t want progress? Almost everyone loves their sleek and seductively designed phones, pads and virtual assistants, and regards them as an indispensible part of their lives.

But the question we should ask is whether we also want increasingly intense exposure of the natural environment and all living creatures, including ourselves, to more and more electromagnetic radiation. Is it likely that this does not entail any adverse health consequences, as both government and industry claim? If the electromagnetic waves that connect our smartphones to the Internet travel through brick, stone and cement, then what happens when these same waves encounter our bodies?

Be assured that they do not just bounce off us! They travel into the human body. The degree to which they are absorbed can be precisely measured in what is called the Specific Absorption Rate, expressed in Watts per kilogram of biological tissue. When we fill our houses with Wi Fi, we are irradiating our bodies continuously. When we hold a smartphone to our ear, electromagnetic waves irradiate our brains (fig.2). Do we really believe this could be completely harmless?

Waves and Frequencies

At present, mobile phones, smartphones, tablets, most Wi Fi and so on all operate at under 3 GHz in what is called the “microwave” region of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you could see and measure their wavelengths, you would find that they are many centimetres (or inches) long. A smartphone operating at 800 MHz, for example, sends and receives signals with wavelengths of 37.5 centimetres (just under 15 inches). Operating at 1.9 GHz, the wavelengths are 16 centimetres (just over 6 inches). Wi Fi uses the 2.4 GHz frequency band with 12 centimetre wavelengths (just under 5 inches long).

The introduction of 5G will entail the use of considerably higher frequencies than these, with correspondingly shorter wavelengths. Above 30 GHz, wavelengths are just millimetres rather than centimetres long. The millimetre waveband (from 30 GHz to 300 GHz) is referred to as Extremely High Frequency, and its wavelengths are between 10 millimetres and 1 millimetre in length.³ Up to the present time, Extremely High Frequency electromagnetic radiation has not been widely propagated, and its introduction marks a significant step change in the kind of electromagnetic energy that will become present in the natural environment (fig.3).

The reason why millimetre waves are to be used for 5G is that much larger bands of spectrum are available in the Extremely High Frequencies than at lower frequencies. This means that there can be much broader “bandwidth”. Broader bandwidth means that larger quantities of data can be transferred and the speed of transfer of the data will be significantly faster.

One of the effects of this is that it reduces what is called “latency”, or time-lag, in the system, so it improves the quality of video streaming. But in so doing, it also enables a greater seamlessness between the data accessible from virtual sources and our perceptions of objects in the real world, as is required, for example, in Augmented Reality applications. Greater seamlessness means that we more effortlessly inhabit the natural and the electronic worlds as if they were a single reality.

One of the technical problems of using frequencies in the millimetre region of the spectrum is that, because the waves carrying the data are so tiny, being only millimetres long, they are less able to pass through physical barriers, like walls and trees, than are the longer waves of lower frequencies. This is why it is necessary to have so many more new phone masts or “base stations”. They will need to be spaced at 100 metres apart in cities because beyond this distance their signals weaken and are therefore less able to penetrate buildings, and connect with the devices inside. As well as being more closely spaced, the 5G base stations will operate at much higher power than current phone masts, in order to ensure that the signals are sufficiently strong.

Because the wavelengths are so much smaller, the antennas transmitting and receiving them will also be much smaller than those of current phone masts and electronic devices. A single 5G transmitter/receiver will have a large number of tiny antennas, grouped together in one unit. An array of just over a thousand such antennas measures only four square inches, so will easily fit into a small base station on a lamppost, while the smartphone in your pocket will probably have sixteen (fig.4).

Both 5G satellites and 5G land-based masts will use a system called the “phased array”. In the phased array, groups of antennas are co-ordinated to radiate pulses in a specific direction and in a specified time sequence. This allows a concentrated beam of radio waves to be exactly aimed at designated targets, to enable signals to be sent or received. Because the beams are concentrated in this way, this adds to their power, which means they are able more easily to penetrate buildings.

But it also means that any living creature that gets in the way of such a concentrated beam will be subjected to a powerful dose of extremely high frequency radiant electricity. A study published earlier this year demonstrated that certain insects, because of their small body-size, are particularly vulnerable to the millimetre waves of the higher frequencies to be utilised by 5G (fig. 5).⁵ Other studies have shown that bacteria and plants are also vulnerable, and so also (as one might expect) are the skin and the eyes of animals including, of course, human beings.⁶

As well as its ability to concentrate power in focused beams, phased array technology has a further complicating factor. Either side of the main beam, the time intervals between the pulses are different from the time intervals between those of the main beam, but they may overlap each other in such a way as to produce extremely rapid changes in the electromagnetic field. This can have a particularly detrimental effect on living organisms, because instead of the radiation decaying when it is absorbed into living tissue, it can be re-radiated within the body.

The moving charges streaming into the body effectively become antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the organism. These re-radiated waves are known as Brillouin precursors, named after the French physicist Leon Brillouin, who first described them in 1914. Research suggests that they can have a significant and highly detrimental impact on living cells.⁸

The Un-reassuring Assurances of Government and Industry

The Government body charged with protecting public health, Public Health England, advises us that there is no convincing evidence that Radio Frequency radiation (which radio, television, mobile phones, smartphones and 5G all use) has any adverse health effects on either adults or children.

This advice is based on the recommendations of a supposedly independent body called AGNIR (Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation), which produced a report in 2012 on the safety of Radio Frequency radiation. The report stated that there was a lack of “convincing” and “conclusive” evidence for any adverse health effects.⁹ It was like giving a blank cheque to the telecommunications industry to move on into the higher frequencies, without any heed for the consequences.

It turns out that far from being independent, AGNIR has a high proportion of members with blatant conflicts of interests, and their report distorted or simply left out of account evidence that should have compelled them to reach the opposite conclusion to the one they arrived at. In a forensic analysis of the report, the environmental health researcher, Sarah Starkey, makes it clear that only a wilful disregard of the available scientific evidence could explain its internal contradictions and apparent incompetence.¹⁰

And yet it is the basis of current UK Government policy, allowing government to roll out 5G without so much as even a nod towards the need for prior health and safety assessment.¹¹Health and safety simply do not feature in Government thinking, despite a veritable mountain of literally thousands of research papers demonstrating adverse health effects, which continues to grow at the rate of roughly 350 per year, on average practically one every day.¹²

One of the reasons for ignoring this evidence in the hell-for-leather dash to create the 5G electronic ecosystem is the conviction in government circles that, unless we introduce it immediately, we will be “left behind” and our economic growth and competitiveness will be put at risk. There is simply no time to consider the possible health consequences.

The National Infrastructure Commission, whose 2016 report, Connected Future, forms the basis of current Government policy, pushed this panicky vision of the UK falling behind other nations and urged the government to ensure that the new digital infrastructure is fully in place by 2025.¹³ The NIC report repeatedly points out that the rewards of the “connected future” are to be measured in billions of pounds worth of revenue.

The mind-boggling amounts involved are well exemplified in a recent estimate that the global media industry alone stands to gain $1.3 trillion from 5G by 2025, not least because 5G will “unlock the potential of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)”.¹⁴ The irony that the “connected” future is one in which dizzying profits stand to be made from technologies that disconnect us more and more from the real world is entirely missed.

The sums involved are sufficient to explain why the telecoms industry has for the last twenty-five years done its utmost to ensure that research into the health effects of wireless technologies produce negative or inconclusive results. Since 1993, the industry has financed a large number of studies, saving governments a great deal of expense and at the same time preserving the convenient illusion that the jury is still out on whether exposure to Radio Frequency radiation causes harm.

Earlier this year, The Guardian published an article citing research which showed that while 67% of independently funded studies found a biological effect of exposure to Radio Frequency radiation, only 28% of industry-funded studies did. Industry-funded studies are almost two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects.¹⁵ The authors of the Guardian article explain that the telecoms industry doesn’t need to win the scientific argument about safety, but simply keep the argument running indefinitely by producing studies with results that fail to verify, or even better contradict, the research that does find adverse health effects.

One of the most notorious is the mammoth, industry-funded “Interphone Study”, which managed to conclude that holding a mobile phone to the head actually protects the user from brain tumours! This study, which is full of contradictions and suffers from grievous design flaws, is often quoted as the most authoritative to date, while it has in fact been thoroughly discredited.¹⁶

Nevertheless, the impression is maintained that there is no scientific consensus, and so there are not sufficient grounds for action to be taken. Needless to say, this suits Government just as much as it suits industry.

Beyond the health effects there is another level altogether of what the roll out of 5G actually entails. Read Dr. Naydler’s full article.

*

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

Originally posted in New View, 90 (January – March 2019), pp.33-40 as “5G: The Final Assault”.

Notes

1 One of the best sources for this information is the website of the Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space (GUARDS) at www.stopglobalwifi.org, and the related Cellular Phone Task Force website at www.cellphonetaskforce.org. Both organisations are informed and inspired by the tireless research and campaigning of Arthur Firstenberg, to whom this article is greatly indebted.

2 Source: ISEE/ISEA Conference: Environmental Epidemiology and Exposure. Paris, 5/9/2006.

3 The rule is: the higher the frequency at which the wave oscillates, the shorter the wavelength will be.

4 Source: Qualcomm. July, 2018.

5 Arno Thielens et al., “Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz”, Nature, 8: 3924 (2018):
“The insects show a maximum in absorbed radio frequency power at wavelengths that are comparable to their body size… The studied insects that are smaller than 1cm show a peak in absorption at frequencies (above 6 GHz), which are currently not often used for telecommunication, but are planned to be used in the next generation of wireless communication systems.”

6 Cindy Russell, “A 5G Wireless Future”, The Bulletin (January/February, 2017, pp.20-23 reviews the research, and lists a large number of adverse health effects of millimetre wave electromagnetic radiation including arrythmia, antibiotic resistance, cataracts, compromised immune system, etc.

7 Source: Arno Thielens et al., “Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz”, Nature, 8: 3924 (2018), fig.4.

8 Kurt Oughstun, interview on “Brillouin Precursors”, Microwave News, 22, 2 (2002), p.10. According to Oughstun, a professor of electrical engineering and mathematics at the University of Vermont,
“A single Brillouin precursor can open small channels through the cell membrane because, as it passes through the membrane, it can induce a significant change in electrostatic potential across that membrane.”
See also Arthur Firstenberg “5G – From Blankets to Bullets” January 17th, 2018), at www.cellphonetaskforce.org.

9 Report of the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation, Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (2012).

10 Sarah J. Starkey, “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation”, Review of Environmental Health, 31:4 (2016), pp.493-503.

11 The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and H. M. Treasury, Next Generation Mobile Technologies: A 5G Strategy for the UK, March, 2017, which sets out the government’s strategy for the roll out of 5G, does not mention health and safety precautions.

12 One of the best sources for this mountain of research is The BioInitiative Report (2012), which helpfully gathers it into manageable sections, and is regularly updated. It can be accessed online at http://www.bioinitiative.org. According to the Report, between 2007 and 2012, approximately 1800 new studies demonstrated adverse health effects, i.e. on average 350 per year.

13 National Infrastructure Report, Connected Future (December, 2016), p.11. The authors argue that only by so doing could the UK “take full advantage of technologies such as artificial intelligence and augmented reality.” The report is available at www. nic.org.

14 Ovum, “5G Economics of Entertainment Report” (October, 2018). The report was commissioned by Intel, and a summary is available at www.newsroom.intel.com.

15 Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, “The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones”, TheGuardian, 14th July, 2018. The blatant funding bias was first exposed in 2006 by Louis Slesin, “’Radiation Research’ and the Cult of Negative Results”, Microwave News, 26.4 (July, 2006), pp.1-5. A good summary of the problem is given in “Bias and Confounding in EMF Science”, on the Powerwatch website: www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/bias.asp.

16 The Interphone Study is devastatingly critiqued in L. Lloyd Morgan et al., Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern (2009), available online at www. electromagnetichealth.org.

Back in July 2011, David Cameron made a speech about transparency. He told the electorate of Britain that a new dawn of government transparency had arrived and the release of official data would change the way government delivered public services.

“In so many ways, information is a national asset, and it’s time it was shared,” he said. “So today, we are making new commitments to transparency. What we’re proposing is something entirely different. Our aim is to provide similar information on performance right across the public services”

Cameron spoke eloquently about this “revolution in transparency” and the ‘profound impact” it would have. What he didn’t say was that the government were also using an architecture of illegal surveillance tools as well. He didn’t say that the security services were taking images of you and your family (16 per cent of which were naked images or compromising in nature). He forgot to mention that every website you visited, every message you sent, every person you made contact with was logged and stored. His convenient amnesia included forgetting to mention operations Tempora, Echelon, Optic Nerve and other illegal mass surveillance systems. Or that the government was recording what news or other information subscriptions you paid, how and who you spent your money with, what sexual orientation you may be and any other personal information the state has no business knowing about.

Two years later the Edward Snowden revelations blew the lies of his government wide open. Now we had some real transparency. David Cameron then demonstrated his real passion for transparency by warning and threatening journalists that “if they don’t demonstrate some social responsibility it will be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act.” The state then forced their way into the offices of The Guardian and its henchmen from the security services destroyed the Snowden files and evidence it brought to light.

This state intervention into our lives has now extended to creating a biometric database, linked to a health database. To all intents, this represents nothing less than a national digital ID card system. National ID cards have been roundly rejected by the electorate and by parliament in the past – but that has not stopped this most secretive of governments.

All manner of government agencies, the people employed by them and the third party companies that design these systems – have access to your most private data. Tens of thousands of largely unknown people, many from foreign states have access (as the software is often designed by foreign companies).

After the unearthing of Theresa May’s racist project of illegally and immorally ejecting black people from Britain in the Windrush Scandal – is it any surprise the government is secretly building a new surveillance architecture to sniff out any possibility of an immigrant not being quite good enough for Britain. Other than national security, and immigration is not an issue of national security, the only reason why the state does things in secret is that the electorate would not endorse their actions – or that they are illegal in the first place.

Secret establishment of new database

In January this year, an inspection report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) revealed Home Office ambitions to:

“establish a system that obtains and shares an individual’s immigration status in real time with authorised users, providing proof of entitlement to a range of public and private services, such as work, rented accommodation, healthcare and benefits.”

It took this report to confirm that the Home Office is indeed building a massive hostile environment database, known internally as the “Status Checking Project”.

When, in autumn 2018, the Data Protection Bill included a sweeping immigration control exemption that would allow more or less any controller to set aside a person’s data protection rights for immigration control purposes, Liberty, the human rights organisation were keen to find out exactly what the Government intended it to be used for. As Liberty briefed at the time, referencing a draft policy document leaked to the Guardian:

“this exemption could ostensibly be used to facilitate the sharing of personal data of any individual interacting with public services … amounting in effect to a digital ID card.”

So there you have it. But Ministers remained curiously silent about the Status Checking Project. They insisted that the exemption would be used for tracking children of undocumented parents through their school records, or concealing the source of tip-offs to immigration enforcement (both things that can be done through existing crime-related exemptions to data protection law). The closest we had come before the ICIBI report to a public reference is a euphemistic mention of “new digital checking services” in the Immigration White Paper.

The report also suggests that the system will be available to police in the future, despite ongoing concerns that overlap between policing and immigration enforcement is undermining public safety.

Quietly entrenching the hostile environment

Liberty writes –

“The secrecy surrounding the so-called Status Checking Project is astonishing given that it has potentially huge human rights implications, both if it works, and if it doesn’t.

It’s one thing to send a text to someone telling them to leave the country, as happened in 2012, when the Home Office contracted Capita to send 39,000 texts to apparently undocumented migrants, some of whom were not, leading to a deluge of complaints. It’s another thing entirely to communicate a person’s status to landlords, employers, NHS providers, banks, police, and who knows who else, locking them out of the goods and services essential to a dignified life and the exercise of their fundamental rights.

That’s what happens when the Home Office gets it ‘right’. And that in itself is a serious problem. But the Home Office is also very likely to get things wrong. Its hostile environment data-sharing schemes already run with an alarming error rate. Ten per cent of bank account refusals sampled during one inspection were found to have been made in error. In 2015, the DVLA was forced to reinstate more than 250 wrongly-revoked licences. And the Home Office has repeatedly refused to clean up its database on undocumented migrants, despite the National Audit Office and the ICIBI recommending that it does so.”

The Windrush scandal exposed the devastating human impact of the hostile environment, as well as the Kafkaesque nightmare faced by people wrongly accused of being in the UK unlawfully. But it was not produced by a mere lack of documentation on the part of Commonwealth citizens. It was the product of a series of policy and legislative decisions that progressively stripped rights from a group of people who came to the UK as citizens and implemented a hostile environment despite warnings that those people might be locked out of essential services. In some cases, evidence that would have been useful to Windrush citizens was destroyed, and extensive evidence that they provided was ignored on the grounds that it did not cover a few years out of decades.

Windrush proves the credentials of this government when it comes to discrimination. Illegal state surveillance proves the credentials of this government when it comes to the mass invasion of the state into our privacy. Now add both into the architecture of state control. What you start to see is a government willing to break all the rules, laws, ethics and all morality to pinpoint people, groups, communities, dissidents, protestors, organisations – in fact, anything it doesn’t like and then deal with it in its own mendacious way.

This is all leading to one place and one place only. Behave according to the state (not necessarily by the laws of the land), or be punished by it.

Who gave the state the mandate to build a £multi-billion system to surveil our lives down to the tiniest detail? No-one did. The state did that all on its own. The building of this new database is yet another instalment of a state out of control. You might want to ask yourself if you’re happy with where this is all going.

*

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 TP

Unless action is taken swiftly — and Israel with its anti-Arab, anti-Islamic policies is forced to stop — the world risks losing the most iconic symbol of Jerusalem, and one of the oldest and most beautiful religious structures ever created.

***

There is a story about the Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, the Muslim leader who conquered Jerusalem in 637 C.E. It is said that upon entering the city he asked to see the site of the temple built by King Solomon, but could find no one who knew where it was. According to the story, he then came across a poor Jewish beggar sitting in the street. The beggar told the Kalifa that he could take him to the site where the temple once stood. When they arrived at the site Umar realized that the site had been used as the city trash dump. He then went down on his knees and, together with the Jewish beggar, cleaned the site and vowed to build a sanctuary that would for all eternity protect the holy site.

This sanctuary is the Dome of the Rock and with its golden dome it has become the most iconic symbol of Jerusalem. Today, Zionists in Israel plan to destroy it and replace it with what amounts to no more than a slaughterhouse where Jewish fanatics will sacrifice animals in rituals whose time has long past.

The Zionist system of takeovers

If we observe what is happening at the Haram Al-Sharif — the Holy Sanctuary in Jerusalem, where the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock are situated — and compare it to the history of Zionist takeovers of land, towns, neighborhoods and homes elsewhere in Palestine, the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that Israel is intending to push Palestinians and Muslims out and allow more Zionist zealots in. In case it is not abundantly clear at the outset, all people should treat this issue with the gravest concern.

From the earliest days of the Zionist takeover of Palestine, the method employed to take over land has been to send young zealots to confront the Arab population, while the establishment maintains a pretense that this is just a prank by youthful enthusiasts. Then the Zionist establishment allows these young zealots to create what they call “facts on the ground;” and then, gradually, services like water, electricity, roads, and of course security are provided, until this “youthful prank” becomes a Zionist settlement.

This was true in the pre-1948 years; then, after 1967, this system was revived, initially with settlements like the ones in Hebron and Sebastia. Today the system is used to take over areas that are slightly more controversial and in which the state officially does not want to get involved. These are what Israel calls “illegal outposts” — which eventually become “legal,” and then full-fledged settlements.

According to Peace Now: “Under Netanyahu’s government, we have seen intensive activity to restore the widespread phenomenon of illegal outposts deep inside the West Bank.”

Peace Now goes on to say:

The history of the settlements shows that many times an agricultural farm is actually the basis of the establishment of a whole new settlement. At the beginning, the settlers receive an approval to farm the land, then to build a house, and then, with or without an approval, they establish a neighborhood.”

Haram Al-Sharif

Knesset member Yehuda Glick is an Israeli politician who made the building of a Jewish temple in place of the Islamic monuments that have existed in Jerusalem for over a thousand years his life’s mission. According to Glick, 30 years ago when zealots like himself began to enter the compound — which they call “Har Habayit,” or the Temple Mount — there were about a hundred who went. In 2018 there were some 30,000 and this year they expect 50,000 Jewish zealots to enter the compound.

In an interview with an Israeli television program about the Temple Mount faithful, “Rabbi” Yoel Elitzur, another zealot leader of this group, states: “We will advance one step at a time, we will do what they allow us and we will advance. This has proven itself.”

“You mean a slow confiscation?” the reporter asked him. “Yes.”

The Israeli provocations into the Haram Al-Sharif are very well organized and documented. They are done in coordination with the Israeli security forces and are more like a march of force than an innocent tour. From time to time the boys who give the tours and who go to the sanctuary to create a provocation will drop to the ground and prostrate themselves and get arrested. In a tweet by “Hozrim La’Har” (Returning to the Mount), one can see young men doing this on video.

יהודים צדיקים שהשתחוו בהר לכבוד הרגל.
מוזמנים לעלות לרגל למקום הקדוש ביותר לעם היהודי! pic.twitter.com/rpeXzYhYCR

— חוזרים להר (@CozrimLahar) April 22, 2019

It is not only about access

Over the years there has been a growing movement of messianic Jewish fanatics who have been holding seminars and practice sessions on how to build the temple and how to conduct animal sacrifices. Priests dressed in costume and all the paraphernalia required are present and hundreds of participants attend the events, which are growing in popularity. Classes and camps for children are also held so as to educate a new generation of Israelis who will want to eliminate all signs of Muslims from Jerusalem, a city that has been Muslim and tolerant of other religions for over a thousand years. Having listened to interviews with members of the Temple Mount Faithful, it seems they have an obsession with burning a red cow and slaughtering young goats and then covering the place with blood pouring from the ritual slaughter. A practice hardly compatible with the quiet spirituality one finds at the Holy Sanctuary today.

A still from the documentary, Roni Kuban and the Temple Mount Faithful

Ne’emani Har Ha’bait, or the Temple Mount Faithful, have been financing these events and for the past eight years have been financing an architect in order to make this maniacal, destructive hallucination into a reality. The architect, Yoram Ginzburg, is an Israeli secular Jew who seems to be as enthusiastic about this vision as are all the others. His plan includes creation of a “Greater Jerusalem” that includes the cities of Ramallah and Al-Bire in the north and Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala in the south. “As for the Arabs” who live in these areas, he offers what he calls “two interesting options:” one is expulsion, or, as he calls it, “Evacuation-Compensation;” and the other mass conversion — that all the Palestinians will convert to Judaism. Non-Jews may remain as long as they are loyal to this “Jewish project.”

Yoram Ginzburg with heads of “Temple Mount Faithful” discussing plans for the third Jewish temple

A serious threat

Jared Kushner’s Deal of the Century is one in which Israel takes all and Palestinians are denied any rights. The Neo-Nazi thugs like Betsalel Smutritch and Michael Ben-Ari, with whom Netanyahu made a pact prior to the April 2019 elections, seem likely to be his coalition partners. Under these circumstances, the dream that the “Temple Mount” loyalists hope to see materialize no longer seems far-fetched.

The history of the past seven decades shows that the masters of the land — the most vicious, violent and racist elements within Israel — always get their way. Unless action is taken swiftly — and Israel with its anti-Arab, anti-Islamic policies is forced to stop — the world risks losing the most iconic symbol of Jerusalem, and one of the oldest and most beautiful religious structures ever created.

*

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 Wikipedia

The Washington Post’s surprise revelation that Trump agreed to pay North Korea $2 million in exchange for releasing imprisoned student Otto Warmbier is intended to challenge his credibility by drawing “politically uncomfortable” comparisons between him and his predecessor.

***

The Washington Post published a surprise revelation late last week alleging that Trump agreed to a North Korean demand that the US pay $2 million in “hospital bills” in exchange for releasing imprisoned student Otto Warmbier, a claim that the American leader promptly denied. In his tweet, Trump wrote that

“No money was paid to North Korea for Otto Warmbier, not two Million Dollars, not anything else. This is not the Obama Administration that paid 1.8 Billion Dollars for four hostages, or gave five terroist hostages plus, who soon went back to battle, for traitor Sgt. Bergdahl!”

His rebuke was obviously meant to preemptively contradict any comparisons between him and his predecessor that his political foes might attempt to draw in an effort to challenge his credibility by exposing his attacks against the Obama Administration for those two aforementioned events as the height of hypocrisy.

This is relevant in the current domestic political context because former Vice President Joe Biden just announced that he’ll be running as the Democrats’ candidate for president so it’s predictable that Trump will try to tie him to all of the many Obama-era scandals such as the two that he touched upon in his tweet. That might be more difficult to do nowadays after the Washington Post’s revelation in spite of Trump and National security Advisor Bolton‘s insistence that no money was ever paid even though Special Representative for North Korea Joseph Yun signed a document promising to do so after receiving authorization from the American leader himself. It’s therefore unclear exactly what transpired during that time nearly two years ago, but another question that naturally arises is about the timing of this very report. It’s unlikely that the Washington Post knew about this from the get-go but held onto the story until now, so it must have just been tipped off about it fairly recently.

Trump’s many “deep state” enemies are actively working to undermine his foreign policy, but it’s strange that not one of them leaked this scandalous detail to the media earlier when the revelation could have ruined his two summits with Chairman Kim. It could very well be that the sources didn’t come across this information until now, but that still doesn’t answer the question of why the original holder(s) of this knowledge didn’t share it with those individuals until now. One possible explanation could be that it it was carelessly revealed during casual conversation while another might be that the individual(s) was triggered to do so for one reason or another, perhaps pertaining to the Hanoi Summit’s failure or some other matter. Either way, the political consequences of this report are that it casts doubt on Trump’s much-touted negotiating prowess and also makes Kim lose “face” after he met with his American counterpart despite supposedly not having received any money for Warmbier’s release.

Altogether, the combined effect is that Trump might have more difficulty discrediting Biden for the Obama era’s many scandals just like he might also have difficulty restarting the North Korean nuclear talks. The Mainstream Media also has another scandal to harp on about after Russiagate was exposed as a hoax driven by a shadowy cabal of coup plotters inside the country’s permanent bureaucracy, therefore giving Trump’s enemies an opportunity to distract Americans with this the juicy narrative that he might have swallowed his principles and cut a deal with a “dictator” despite accusing Obama of doing the same thing vis-a-vis Iran. Only time will tell whether this scandal has the same staying power as Russiagate or if it’ll just fizzle out like practically every other one surrounding the Trump Administration, but it’s nevertheless interesting to think about its timing and possible overall political implications.

*

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

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

The Following text is Section 4 of

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. In 1990, on the eve of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, US Secretary of State James Baker assured USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev that “NATO will not extend by a single inch to the east”. But in twenty years, after having demolished the Yugoslavian Federation, NATO extended from 16 to 30 countries, expanding more and more eastwards to Russia.

2. In 1999, it incorporated the first three countries of the former Warsaw Pact: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. In 2004, it extended to other countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (formerly part of the USSR); Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia (formerly part of the Warsaw Pact); Slovenia (formerly part of the Yugoslavian Federation). In 2009, it incorporated Albania (formerly a member of the Warsaw Pact) and Croatia (formerly part of the Yugoslavian Federation) and, in 2017, Montenegro; in 2019, it signed the protocol of accession of Northern Macedonia as the 30th member. Three other countries – Bosnia and Herzegovina (formerly part of the Yugoslavian Federation), Georgia and Ukraine (formerly part of the USSR) – are currently candidates for entry into NATO.

3. So Washington ties these countries not so much to the Alliance as directly to the US, strengthening its influence within the European Union. Of the ten Central and Eastern European countries entering NATO between 1999 and 2004, seven entered the European Union between 2004 and 2007. As the European Union expands to the East, the United States is effectively extending its control over Europe through NATO. Clearly, Washington’s strategic plan is revealed: to use the expansion of NATO to the East as a means of establishing relations of force even more favorable to the United States and, thus, further isolate the “old Europe” that could one day become autonomous.

4. Besides these, the expansion of NATO to the East has other implications. Incorporating not only the countries of the former Warsaw Pact but also the three Baltic republics that were once part of the USSR, NATO has reached the borders of the Russian Federation. Despite Washington’s assurances of its peaceful intentions, this constitutes a threat, even nuclear, to Russia.

*

Sections 5-16 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.

Birds are, quite literally, the proverbial “canary in the coal mine.” How birds fare in the world indicates how all wildlife and habitat, and by extension human populations, will fare. It is not just poetry that led Rachel Carson to title her seminal work, Silent Spring. All the past administrations for which we have worked have struck a balance and worked diligently and in good faith with industries that had significant impacts on birds, such as oil and gas, coal, electric utilities, commercial fishing, communications, transportation, national defense, and others to reasonably address unintended take. It can be done. In fact, it has been done. Successes in applying this law to minimize the incidental killing of birds are numerous. – Letter of January 10, 2018, from 17 former government conservation professionals objecting to Department of Interior memorandum unilaterally voiding century-old law

One of the ways American politics works these days is to ignore the rule of law while putting on a great fake show of legal probity. The example here is the Trump administration’s secret reversal of migratory bird protection law, later imposed on the nation by its own authoritarian fiat, making law without the participation of Congress or any other government agency. The administration’s procedure effectively reduces due process of law to the arbitrary ruling of one person. This seems patently unconstitutional on its face, since the Constitution (Article II, section 3) requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

The bilateral 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty was signed by the United States and Canada, then still part of Great Britain. The Bird Treaty was one of the earliest environmental protection laws, incorporated by Congress into US law in 1918 as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703ff). For a hundred years, administrations of both parties have faithfully executed the act to protect migratory birds from a host of evolving threats from industries to whom the life or death of birds was inconsequential. These industries became increasingly resentful toward government intrusion on their profits for the sake of wild birds, of all things.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) enforced migratory bird law on behalf of the Interior Department in bipartisan fashion across all administrations since the 1970s, from Nixon through Obama.

Image on the right: Shortly after leaving the Port of Valdez, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef. The picture below was taken 3 days after the vessel grounded, just before a storm arrived.

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker wreck in Alaska killed some 300,000 birds. The Exxon oil company settled criminal misdemeanor charges brought by the US under the migratory bird act, paying $125 million in fines and restitution (part of Exxon’s overall liability of about $1 billion in other legal actions). At the time, Exxon’s fine was the largest ever imposed for an environmental crime. As of July 2013, Exxon still had not paid $92 million of the settlement. In October 2015, the US abandoned its claim against Exxon. The Alaskan coast remains polluted by Exxon oil.

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and 87-day oil gusher killed 11 people and hundreds of thousands of birds in the Gulf of Mexico. BP (British Petroleum) settled criminal misdemeanor charges brought by the US under the migratory bird act, paying $100 million in fines (part of BP’s overall liability of more than $20 billion in other legal actions). In 2012, BP pleaded guilty to manslaughter (among 14 felony counts) and paid $4 billion in criminal fines and penalties. The BP oil spill (over 3 million gallons) was 20 times larger than Exxon’s.

The penalties generated by these two events, Exxon and BP, represent 97 percent of the total revenue generated by the migratory bird law for the Fish and Wildlife Service, according to the Washington Post. As of March 2017, the US Fish and Wildlife Service  website stated misleadingly:

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations.

The FSW misstated the law, which includes the word “kill” among its illegalities. The law (16 US Code 703) is titled: “Taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds unlawful.” The law states in relevant, unambiguous part:

Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to … kill … any migratory bird….

Until 2017, administrations of both parties understood the law to apply equally to any migratory bird killing without a permit, regardless of whether the killing was intentional or unintentional. The Exxon and BP mass bird kills were presumably unintentional. Neither Exxon nor BP challenged that long-established understanding of the law under which they were charged and accepted guilt.

Before 2017, efforts to weaken or repeal the migratory bird law had been ineffective. Congress made changes in migratory bird law on numerous occasions, including in 1960, 1986, 1998, 2002, and 2003, without once changing the law’s clear prohibition against killing migratory birds, intentionally or not.

In 1986, in response to a Sixth Circuit federal court ruling, Congress required that any felony charged under the law required an element of intent by the wrongdoer. Congress, as it had before, left misdemeanors to be prosecuted without intent, under strict liability. In other words, if you kill migratory birds then you’re liable, whether you intended to or not.

In 2002, Congress explicitly carved out an exception to migratory bird law, allowing the US military to kill birds unintentionally, but only during military readiness activities.” Other military activities that killed migratory birds, intentionally or not, were still prohibited. The legislation directed Fish and Wildlife to issue regulations under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which FWS did in 2007. In 2015, Republicans in the House introduced bills to reduce the scope and the financial penalties of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Neither bill became law.

In December 2011, the American Bird Conservancy petitioned Fish and Wildlife to undertake the rulemaking process to create regulations under the authority of the migratory bird act that would regulate the impacts of industrial wind power projects on migratory birds. In March 2012, FWS responded, agreeing with the conservancy’s analysis of its authority under the law to regulate unintentional bird kills by windmills. But FWS denied the conservancy’s request for regulation on the basis that FWS was still working with the wind industry on voluntary guidelines.

The American Bird Conservancy renewed its call for regulation in 2015. On May 26, FWS issued a notice of intent to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act) in support of regulating unintentional bird kills by windmills, and invited public input in the process.

On January 10, 2017, in the waning days of the Obama administration, the Interior Department’s solicitor (agency lawyer) issued a memorandum now deleted from the department’s website. The memorandum, Opinion M-37041, was titled “Incidental Take Prohibited Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” referring to unintentional bird kills by industrial and commercial operations, specifically including windmills. This memorandum of 30 pages confirmed the department’s policy over preceding decades. Solicitor Hilary Tompkins pointed out that, regarding some disputed words in the law:

… even if the traditional common-law meaning of “take” introduces some ambiguity as to whether that term applies to incidental take, “kill” is unambiguous.

In other words, the government’s consistent reading of the law is that killing migratory birds, regardless of intent, is nevertheless illegal. It is incumbent on industrial and commercial actors to anticipate obvious dangers and take actions to mitigate them. Otherwise, they risk prosecution by the government.

The incoming Trump administration didn’t see it that way. Trump and many of his supporters were generally anti-regulation, almost any regulation. One billionaire Trump supporter, Harold Hamm (image on the left), founder and CEO of the oil company Continental Resources, had characterized regulation as “death by a thousand cuts.” In 2015, Hamm leaned on the University of Oklahoma to dismiss scientists studying the connection between oil fracking and more frequent earthquakes.

In 2011, Hamm had his own unpleasant encounter with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Continental and several other oil companies operating in North Dakota were charged with killing birds by failing to put protective netting over oil waste pools. That allowed birds to fly in, get oil-soaked, and die. Continental was charged with killing one phoebe.  Hamm was outraged and challenged the charges in US District Court in North Dakota. In January 2012, Judge Daniel Hovland granted the oil companies’ motion and dismissed the charges, ruling that the migratory bird law of 1918 was too vague to justify the indictments, even though the law had been enforced this way for decades.  The judge wrote, in part, ultimately relying on mind-reading the intent of the 1918 Congress:

All parties involved in this dispute have acted in good faith, and there is case law which supports the legal arguments both sides have presented. Nevertheless, the criminalization of lawful, commercial activity which may indirectly injure or kill migratory birds is not warranted under the Migratory Bird Treat Act as it is currently written.

This Court believes that it is highly unlikely that Congress ever intended to impose criminal liability on the acts or omissions of persons involved in lawful commercial activity which may indirectly cause the death of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

This is an apt expression of the mindset of many members of the incoming Trump administration, especially the political appointees at the Interior Department. It’s not as though there’s no reasonable argument to be had here. Indicting a company on the basis of a single dead phoebe seems ludicrous, but the danger of unprotected waste oil pits is real. The rule of law provides numerous avenues for addressing such competing interests. The Trump administration demonstrated no interest in following anything like the rule of law in any substantive way.

On February 6, 2017, shortly after taking office, the Trump administration suspended the Interior Department’s January memorandum supporting decades of precedent in enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. What happened next was ugly, as described in a lawsuit filed by the National Audubon Society in May 2018:

Representatives of the oil and gas industry, among others, then lobbied DOI [Interior Dept.]  to issue a new directive that would eviscerate any obligation to take migratory bird impacts into consideration when engaging in various industrial activities. For example, on August 31, 2017, the Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and natural gas companies, sent Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke a letter complaining that the “implementation and enforcement of incidental take of migratory birds (including nests and their habitat) … is inhibiting oil and natural gas development.” The letter urged Secretary Zinke to issue “guidance that [the] MBTA [Migratory Bird Treaty Act] does not give FWS the authority to regulate incidental take for [sic] migratory birds.”

On November 3, 2017, the Director of Government Relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America wrote to the Deputy Director of DOI’s Office of External Affairs with the subject line “MBTA” asking, “Any word on the solicitor’s opinion yet?”

Within the Interior Department, the review of the migratory bird law was proceeding in private.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 relating to rule making (5 USC 553) requires the rule making agency to make public announcement of and provide for public comment on any rule before adopting it: “the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments….” Without explaining why, the Trump administration ignored this federal law. The only interested persons known to be involved in the process were lobbyists for oil, gas, and other industries.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 contemplates public knowledge of and participation in environmental policy decisions. A November 2017 federal court decision in Montana addressed the failure of the Obama administration to conduct a proper environmental impact statement before approving the TransCanada pipeline:

No agency possesses discretion whether to comply with procedural requirements such as NEPA. The relevant information provided by a NEPA analysis needs to be available to the public and the people who play a role in the decision-making process. This process includes the President.

The environmental policy act requires that for all “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” the federal agency taking the action must prepare an environmental impact statement that analyzes the “impact of the proposed action,” and “alternatives to the proposed action.” (42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)) The Trump Interior Department did not undertake an environmental impact statement relating to migratory bird law and it did not explain its inaction.

The environmental policy act also allows an agency to prepare an environmental assessment to determine the need for an environmental impact statement. The Trump Interior Department did not undertake an environmental assessment relating to migratory bird law and it did not explain its inaction.

On December 22, 2017, without prior notice, the Interior Department’s solicitor Daniel Jorjani issued a memorandum, M-37050, holding that “the Migrant Bird Treaty Act does not prohibit incidental take,” meaning that oil companies and others can kill migratory birds without limit as long as they didn’t intend to do so. Jorjani’s memo took effect immediately, with force of law, permanently replacing the January memo that had restated settled law regarding migratory birds. Smithsonian.com had a December 27 story with a ho-hum attitude, although it did include oil industry lies about lax enforcement against windmills that kill birds.

Effectively, Jorjani determined that black is white. He did it in secret with industry and bureaucratic co-conspirators. There is no evidence that he acted in good faith and there is no further review possible of his memo within the executive branch. He reversed a hundred years of evolving environmental policy protecting migratory birds. He did it with one fell fascist swipe of the pen.

This blatantly undemocratic manner of law-making was largely ignored at the time and has been ever since, with occasional quiet and polite demurrers. There were limited, minor media reports, but no objection from Congress over its usurped authority.

On January 10, 2018, less than three weeks after the decision was made public, 17 former government conservation professionals wrote the letter quoted at the top of this piece. They are “very concerned” by Jorjani’s memo and beseech Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to modify the memo. They write:

This is a new, contrived legal standard that creates a huge loophole in the MBTA [Migratory Bird Treaty Act], allowing companies to engage in activities that routinely kill migratory birds so long as they were not intending that their operations would “render an animal subject to human control.” Indeed, as your solicitor’s opinion necessarily acknowledged, several district and circuit courts have soundly rejected the narrow reading of the law that your Department is now embracing….

The MBTA can and has been successfully used to reduce gross negligence by companies that simply do not recognize the value of birds to society or the practical means to minimize harm. Your new interpretation needlessly undermines a history of great progress, undermines the effectiveness of the migratory bird treaties, and diminishes U.S. leadership.

There is no record that the ethically-challenged Zinke responded before he left office under a cloud. But there is no record of anyone else at the Interior Department responding either. After a few months of stonewalling silence, the department issued a memo on April 11, 2018, offering “Guidance on the recent M-Opinion [37050] affecting the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” addressing “what changes to prior practice should be made” to conform to the 180-degree reversal of department policy. The Washington Post covered this superficially, as if it were both recent and unimportant. The memo asserts, without apparent irony, that:

The mission of the Service is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Migratory bird conservation remains an integral part of our mission.

This dishonest assertion seems designed to blur reality. It states that the National Environmental Policy Act should be followed, even though it was ignored in creating the memo it purports to explain. In the real world, the changes that the Interior Department has made amount to an abdication of any significant responsibility for migratory birds. The Fish and Wildlife Service is no longer enforcing any law against industrial bird kills. The Fish and Wildlife Service is no longer investigating or even keeping records on industrial bird kills. Elizabeth Shogren reports that FWS “saved about $2.5 million by not filling ten positions primarily related to investigating violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” After a century of some protection by the US government, migratory birds are on their own.

Canada has indicated that it will continue to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty as best it can. It’s not clear what Mexico, Japan, and Russia are doing about American treaty violations. It’s not clear whether the Trump administration has bothered to inform any other governments of its reversal of the treaty’s lawful requirements.

On May 24, 2018, four plaintiffs – the National  Audubon Society, the American Bird Conservancy, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Defenders of Wildlife – filed suit against the Interior Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and solicitor Jorjani. The plaintiffs’ 35-page filing in US District Court for the Southern District of New York challenges Jorjani’s 2017 memo as “unlawful and arbitrary and capricious.” The complaint argues that:

For decades Defendants [US government agencies] have construed the MBTA [Migratory Bird Treaty Act], consistent with its plain language, as protecting migratory bird populations from foreseeable “incidental” killing or “take” caused by major industrial activities that are not specifically directed at migratory birds but nevertheless kill them in large numbers. This interpretation has helped to conserve migratory birds for decades in keeping with the purpose of the MBTA and the international treaties the Act implements.

The plaintiffs ask the court to reinstate the January 2017 solicitor’s opinion that restated the settled law of the past century. They also ask the court to vacate Jorjani’s December 2017 memo as well as the April 2018 memo issuing “guidelines.” The government has moved to dismiss the case. Federal judge Valerie Caproni has not yet ruled on the government’s motion. The judge was appointed by President Obama in 2013, before which she was General Counsel of the FBI under Robert Mueller.  There have been no hearings on the merits of the case.

On September 5, 2018, the attorneys general for eight states filed suit against the same Defendants – Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Jorjani. Led by Barbara Underwood of New York, the other states were California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon. The states’ 26-page complaint asks the court to declare “that the Jorjani opinion is arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law” and to vacate the opinion, which would restore the Solicitor’s memo of January 2017 restating a century of settled law. The states argue in part that:

The Jorjani opinion is inconsistent with the Act’s text and purposes, is contrary to defendants’ previous longstanding interpretation of the Act and decades of consistent application of that interpretation, drastically limits the scope of the Act, subjects migratory birds to increased likelihood of death or injury from industrial and other human activities that immediately take or kill or are foreseeably likely to take or kill migratory birds, and harms the States’ sovereign, ecological, and economic interests in robust federal protections of migratory birds.

This case is also before Judge Valerie Caproni. There have been no hearings and none are scheduled. The only pending motion is for Dianna Shin of New Jersey to appear pro hac vice.

On April 11, the Senate voted 56-41 to confirm David Bernhardt, a career lawyer/lobbyist for the oil industry and their ilk, as Secretary of the Interior. While he served as deputy secretary, Bernhardt was deeply involved in gutting the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as reported by Elizabeth Shogren of Reveal (and not much of anyone else). Solicitor Jorjani’s email October 27, 2017, confirms that Bernhardt “has been plugged in since Day 1” in gutting the migratory bird law. Bernhardt was unanimously confirmed by Republican senators with their longstanding antipathy to environmental laws. They were joined by three other corrupt senators, Democrats-in-name-only Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

On April 15, the inspector general of the Interior Department opened an investigation into ethics complaints against Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. The investigation was requested by eight Senate Democrats and four government watchdog groups.

This is about more than just corrupt Democratic senators, this is about more than notoriously corrupt Republican senators, this is about more than just a US cabinet agency engaging in a secret process that reverses a hundred years of legal precedent, this is about more than the failure of mainstream media to cover blatantly unlawful government, this is about more than the failure of the court system to respond in timely fashion to contempt for law, this is about more than the failure of Democrats generally and Democratic presidential candidates in particular to notice the raw success of the Trump administration carrying off the impeachable offense of failing to take care that the law be faithfully executed.

This is about the institutional triumph of American fascism.

*

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: Reader Supported News.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Featured image is from Sierra Club

Actually I thought I was sufficiently informed by the books of my friend Manfred Paulus about the shameful excesses of human trafficking and sex slavery. But his meritorious lifelong research is mainly related to Germany and Europe. An article by the American constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead in “Global Research” of 24 April 2019 “The Essence of Evil: Sex with Children Has Become Big Bussiness in America” shows that the sex trade – especially the purchase and sale of young girls  – has become “Big Business” in America. This buying and selling has become the fastest growing organized crime business and the second most important good after drugs and weapons. This is America’s dirty little secret. This decadent “Western Value Society” will one day perish like the decadent Roman Empire.

“Battlefield America. The war against the American people”

I recommend to every reader of these lines – especially parents and educators – to read the shocking state report of American society here in order to form their own opinion. In the following I quote from the report. Whitehead portrays a frighteningly decadent nation. Already in 2015 he published a book entitled “Battlefield America. The War on the American People”. It is estimated that there are 100,000 to 150,000 under-aged child sex workers in the U.S.

The average age of those being trafficked is 13. But the average means there are children younger than 13. That means 8-, 9-, 10-year-old. Every year, the girls being bought and sold gets younger and younger. Every two minutes, a child is exploited in the sex industry. According to USA Today, adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States. They are ordinary people from all walks of life, including men in socially respected professions such as doctors and pastors. On average, a child might be raped by 6.000 men during a five-year period of servitude. It’s happening everywhere, right under our nose, in suburbs, cities and towns across the nation.

For those trafficked, it’s a nightmare from beginning to the end.

These girls aren’t volunteering to be sex slaves. Some of these children are forcefully abducted or lured by force. Many are runaways or throwaways, others are sold to the system by relatives and acquaintances. In most cases, they have no choice. Social media makes it all too easy for pimps to find girls. They look on MySpace, Facebook, and other social networks. They and their assistants cruise malls, high schools and middle schools. They pick them up at bus stops. Foster homes and youth shelters have also become prime targets for traffickers. It is a “trading of flesh”.

For the victims of human trafficking, it’s a nightmare from beginning to the end. A living nightmare of endless rape, forced drugging, degradation, threats, disease, pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages, torture, pain, and always the constant fear of being killed. They were frequently beaten to keep them off-balance and obedient. Every night they would have to meet a certain quota. Sometimes they were videotaped while being forced to have sex with adults or one another. In a so-called “damage group”, the clients can hit them or do anything they want to.

The Result of a Decadent Western Civilization

“The Essence of Evil“ is what Whitehead calls his article. In the text he asks the question: “Where did this appetite for young girls come from?” And he answers:

“Look around you. Young girls have been sexualized for years now in music videos, on billboards, in television ads, and in clothing stores. Marketers have created a demand for young flesh and a ready supply of over-sexualized children”.

Whitehead then quotes from a report in the U.S. magazine “Newsweek”. There, a certain Jessica Bennett writes:

“Latex, corsets and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high school. (…) It’s the ‘pornification of a generation’, (…) sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives.”

Whitehead says:

“Culture is grooming these young people to be preyed upon by sexual predator. And then we wonder why our young women are being preyed on, trafficked and abused?“

Because of the growing demand for sexual slavery and an endless supply of girls and women eligible for abduction, this problem will not go away in the near future, Whitehead thinks.

So what can you do?

Whitehead answers the self-imposed question: “So what can you do? with a series of detailed practical recommendations. I quote some that I have translated:

“Educate yourselves and your children about this growing menace in our communities.

Stop feeding the monster: Sex trafficking is part of a larger continuum in America that runs the gamut from homelessness, poverty, and self-esteem issues to sexualized television, the glorification of a pimp/ho culture—what is often referred to as the pornification of America—and a billion dollar sex industry built on the back of pornography, music, entertainment, etc.

This epidemic is largely one of our own making, especially in a corporate age where the value placed on human life takes a backseat to profit. It is estimated that the porn industry brings in more money than Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Yahoo. Call on your city councils, elected officials and police departments to make the battle against sex trafficking a top priority, more so even than the so-called war on terror and drugs and the militarization of law enforcement. (…) 

That so many women and children continue to be victimized, brutalized and treated like human cargo is due to three things: one, a consumer demand that is increasingly lucrative for everyone involved—except the victims; two, a level of corruption so invasive on both a local and international scale that there is little hope of working through established channels for change; and three, an eerie silence from individuals who fail to speak out against such atrocities.

But the truth is that we are all guilty of contributing to this human suffering. The traffickers are guilty. The consumers are guilty. The corrupt law enforcement officials are guilty. The women’s groups who do nothing are guilty. The foreign peacekeepers and aid workers who contribute to the demand for sex slaves are guilty. Most of all, every individual who does not raise a hue and cry over the atrocities being committed against women and children in almost every nation around the globe—including the United States—is guilty.

*

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. Rudolf Hänsel is a psychologist and educationalist.

The small wooden boats slowly make their way down the brown waters of the Mekong at sunset. Flowing meditation – just enjoying the silence, watching the river flow. Then, suddenly, in the distance, an apparition – a row of cement Ts.

Like a high-tech divinity, the 21^st century irrupts across the immemorial Mekong, which in Laos is appropriately named Mae Nam Khong or the Mother of Waters.

Welcome to the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor, one of the key planks of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).     

The apparition on the Mekong is an under-construction bridge, part of the 420 km-long, US$6 billion worth high-speed railway connecting Kunming, in Yunnan province, to the Lao capital Vientiane and then, further on down the road, bound to unite mainland Southeast Asia all the way to Singapore.

Spiritual beginnings

It’s tempting to regard the bridge as a post-modern naga. In the inestimable The Enduring Sacred Landscape of the Naga, published by Mekong Press, Lao scholars Mayoury and Pheuiphanh Ngaosrivathana track the literally fantastic world of animated beings in the Mekong basin – totemized reptiles such as the serpent, or ngu, the salt-water crocodile (ngeuak) and supernatural beings such as the naga.

These tutelary spirits, controllers of water and rainfall, local proprietors of the soil and guardians of its fertility, wealth and welfare – these are the autochthonous spirits tamed by Buddhism collectively known as naga. Worship of the naga – in rituals, festivals, daily life – has shaped the lives and life cycles of Mekong populations for millennia.

The new naga will take the form of Made in China high-speed trains – for passengers of course, but mostly for cargo – crossing the Mekong back and forth and crucially bypassing the Maritime Silk Road along the South China Sea.     

The numbers by the Lao Ministry of Public Works and Transport are impressive – the Kunming-Vientiane high-speed railway, started in 2016 and to be completed in 2021, features 72 tunnels, 170 bridges and will have trains speeding along at 160 km an hour.

The China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor is one of the six main BRI corridors identified back in March 2015. These are BRI’s land arteries – the backbone of an intricate, integrated continental landmass featuring multiple layers of transportation, telecom, energy infrastructure, financial, trade, political and economic projects and agreements. 

The Lao mini-boom

Northern Laos, a maze of mountains, jungles and a few rivers, for a long time was virtually isolated until the opening of borders with Vietnam and China led to immense economic and demographic transformations – with traditional rice-based agriculture giving way to speculative commercial agriculture.

Laos is landlocked between powerful neighbors China and Thailand.

A North-South economic corridor has been the favored strategy by both China and Thailand to develop commerce, tourism and investments in Laos. Mountain people minorities linked to Chinese culture such as the Chin Haw, Akha, Yao and Hmong, who speak Lao and know Lao culture, were cast as the perfect intermediaries and partners.

Especially in the BRI era, connections with China, both in the formal and informal economy, are now overtaking connections with Thailand. Vientiane – not exactly a transparent government – has encouraged Chinese investments of extremely dubious value in luxury hotels, malls and casinos in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) along the Chinese border.   

At the same time, Chinese companies have been pouring billions of dollars into the productive development of these SEZs, as well as in dams, mines and rubber plantations.

Railway on track

There’s a sort of mini-boom now in the three northern Lao provinces of Luang Namtha, Oudomxay and Luang Prabang. More than 7,000 Lao people are working on the Kunming-Vientiane railway, most of them residents who live nearby.

But that still pales compared to the more than 40,000 Chinese working for six Chinese contractors, in six different segments, duly supervised by Huang Difu, chairman of the Laos-China Railway Company and general manager of China Railway International.

The railway will be 70% financed by Beijing, the remaining 30% for Vientiane – roughly $840 million – are supported by a low-interest Chinese loan of $500 million. A Lao bauxite mine plus three potash mines secure the Chinese loan.

Kunming-Vientiane is a stark example of how BRI projects usually face a maze of political and financial hurdles. The original design, from 2011, predates the New Silk Roads, which were launched in 2013. Much of the problems have to do with the toxic land for development equation – a situation not much different in Cambodia and Myanmar.   

In Luang Prabang, I was told of countless cases of villagers forced to leave their homes and who are still waiting for fair compensation from Vientiane. In Laos there are a dizzying 242 different categories of compensation – spanning everything from mango trees five years of age or older, to hardwood and teak trees less than one year old, not to mention crucial land in main transportation hubs.

In fact, the former royal capital – a fragile jewel that must be preserved from the mass tourism hordes at all costs – receives more attention from the EU and Asean, not to mention Unesco, than from the bureaucrats in Vientiane.

 An aerial view of the Unesco heritage town of Luang Prabang in Laos. Photo: iStock

All these worries at least disappear every single morning at the binthabat, or rice-collecting ritual, when rows of Buddhist monks are offered rice in their earthen bowls by rows of women on their knees. 

The Silk (jungle) road

In Global South terms, Laos is booming. In mainland Southeast Asia, the Chinese strategy is mostly focused on Laos and Thailand. Beijing expects that the lure of those cross-border SEZs is able to convince skeptical Vietnam and Myanmar of Chinese “flexibility.”

Much more than interest rates on Chinese loans – which in fact are small – the red alert on BRI-related projects in Laos concerns the environmental impact, and the fact that Laos is a poor, landlocked transit nation, it may be paying in the future a disproportionate social and environmental cost for projects that mainly benefit the Chinese economy. 

A sharp contrast is offered by Ock Pop Tok, or East meets West in Lao, an indigenous model of fair trade, sustainable business, socially conscious enterprise founded by a Lao and an Englishwoman in 2000, managed by women, and for the benefit of Lao women.

Ock Pop Tok started with five weavers and now links to more than 500 in villages across Laos. Textile production in Laos carries an immensely significant cultural value. Technical and esoteric knowledge has been transmitted from generation to generation in each village specific to a subgroup, a powerful sign of strong cultural identity. 

Silk has been cultivated in Laos for more than 1,000 years. Ock Pop Tok managed to assemble master weavers using techniques practiced by the Tai Kadai ethnic group since 800 BC, when they left Yunnan.

Everything, of course, is bio – natural dyes, handmade. I could not resist an absolutely stunning silk prayer flag weaved by Meng. Support for this added-value artisan knowledge translates into rural populations staying in their communities instead of betting on a usually troublesome urban exodus.

Ock Pop Tok also promotes Hmong artisans. Hmongs are animists who came from Tibet and Mongolia by the early 19^th century. There are more than 49 ethnic groups in Laos. Westerners classify them by language – Mon, Khmer, Sino-Tibetan, Tai, Kadai – while in Laos they are recognized by where they live – on the plains, in plateaus or high in the mountains. 

It’s this extremely complex, fragile, social and environmental system that from 2021 will have to learn to coexist with the era of the high-speed naga. 

*

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

Millions of tonnes of sardines, anchovies, mackerel, herring, krill and other species are caught and ground into fishmeal and fish oil, known as FMFO. This is fed to salmon caged in hundreds of farms along the west coast.

Now an 80-page report by campaign groups, Changing Markets Foundation and Compassion in World Farming, warns that growing dependence on FMFO is threatening human food security, putting marine wildlife at risk and harming animal welfare.

The report, however, has been attacked by the international FMFO industry as “unbalanced”, “biased” and “inaccurate”. The industry insists that the majority of FMFO is “responsibly sourced”.

The new report says that almost a fifth of the world’s total catch of wild fish is currently processed into FMFO, most of which is used to feed farmed fish. The global fishmeal market was worth approximately £4.6 billion in 2017.

Pressures to catch more are likely to increase as the fish farm industry expands. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation has predicted that global production of farmed fish will reach 109 million tonnes by 2030, and provide 60 per cent of the world’s fish consumption.

The fish farming industry argues that it has the potential to deliver affordable, healthy protein. This can be done, it says, with little carbon pollution while reducing the overexploitation of wild fish for human consumption.

But the industry is failing to deliver on these promises, the report claims.

“Grinding wild fish into FMFO to feed a growing aquaculture industry raises concerns of overfishing, poor animal welfare and disruption of aquatic food webs,” it concludes.

“It also undermines food security, as less fish is available for direct human consumption. Given the rapid growth of the sector, it is clear that the aquaculture industry’s business-as-usual approach is pushing marine resources beyond planetary boundaries and disregarding the welfare of hundreds of billions of sentient animals.”

Campaigners are calling for salmon companies working in Scotland to mend their ways.

“The farming of carnivorous fish such as salmon is putting huge pressure on wild fish stocks and poses a threat to food security in some of the world’s poorest countries,” Natasha Hurley from the Changing Markets Foundation told The Ferret.

“As one of the biggest global producers of farmed salmon, the Scottish aquaculture sector is playing a big part in this. We urge Scottish companies to do the responsible thing and take swift action to phase out the use of wild-caught fish in feed.”

This was possible, she insisted.

“We are calling on aquafeed producers to switch to sustainable alternatives that do not give rise to other ecological problems.”

According to the report, up to 45 mostly Chinese-owned fishmeal factories have been built along the West African coast from Senegal to Mauritania in recent years. This has led to more than half the fish in the region being over-exploited, it says.

Compassion in World Farming argued that there had been a “huge impact” on animal welfare.

“As industrial aquaculture grows, the number of animals suffering in these intensive farming systems multiplies and brings in another hidden layer,” said the group’s head of fish policy, Dr Krzysztof Wojtas.

“Most people are not aware of the additional suffering of hundreds of billions of small fish that die horribly on huge industrial fishing vessels in order to fuel these underwater factory farms. The industry must urgently address this crisis.”

The Scottish salmon farmed industry accepted that it needed more alternatives to wild-caught fish.

“Scottish salmon farming produces a nutritious food and a valuable source of essential Omega 3 fatty acids,” said the chief executive of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, Julie Hesketh-Laird.

“As a sector, we are committed to the use of fish feed made from responsibly sourced ingredients from strictly managed or certified fisheries to support healthy salmon growth and provide human health benefits.”

She added:

“We agree with the authors of the report that the search for fish-free aquafeed products needs to be scaled up and reinforced across the sector.

“We wish to work with those with an interest in the sustainability of feeds, alongside the sector’s feed producers, to bolster the ongoing work into the use of novel and other sustainable raw materials like seafood trimmings and certified soy as replacements for marine-sourced ingredients.”

IFFO, the international trade organisation that represents the fishmeal and fish oil industry, issued a detailed statement criticising the new report. It pointed out that a study by the independent Sustainable Fisheries Partnership in 2018 had concluded that 91 per cent of FMFO stocks studied were “reasonably-well managed, or better”.

“IFFO is disappointed to read an inaccurate document which ignores the facts and realities of the fishmeal and fish oil sector,” said IFFO director general, Petter Martin Johannessen.

“The majority of wild-caught fish is responsibly sourced and is an essential resource in support of global protein production. Moreover the use of trimmings and byproduct from seafood processing represents at least 33 per cent of total world fishmeal production, that would otherwise predominantly go to landfill.”

He added:

“IFFO rebuts the allegations contained in this report and provides a full analysis on its website.”

IFFO technical director, Neil Auchterlonie, described the new report as “unbalanced”. The authors had “sided with some of the most uninformed players” in the community of non-governmental organisations, he said.

“Changing Markets Foundation appear to be well resourced, producing a glossy document and running a campaign via social media. Given the weakness of their arguments, they perhaps should have spent more of that resource on determining the facts and realities of the fishmeal and fish oil sector, rather than developing their own biased narrative.”

*

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

Demonstrating solidarity with the embattled Bolivarian republic of Venezuela is today’s litmus test of anti-imperialism.

As African/Black internationalists, we stand in the tradition of our people’s historic anti-war and anti-imperialist positions. We understand that when our folks are clear, they don’t accept the smoke-and-mirrors stunts that call themselves the “interim president” or the “most trusted name in news.”

Some of our folks based in the Washington, D.C., area have stepped up to support the Embassy Protection Collective over the past few days. Though the threat of arrest looms, the collective has been able to remain in the building. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations stipulates the U.S. government is prohibited from entering, searching and seizing items from another country’s building. That, as well as protection provided by city tenancy laws, have been communicated to the U.S. Department of State.

BAP member Vanessa Beck held it down at a rally Thursday in front of the Venezuelan embassy, representing Black, working-class internationalists who oppose U.S. gangsterism abroad.

Yesterday, we showed up again—this time for a spontaneous rally. BAP member Jacqueline Luqman spoke about the solidarity our people have for an oppressed country struggling for self-determination. Watch her talk.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in his imperial arrogance, gloated recently that while he was CIA Director, agency members lied, cheated and stole. If that wasn’t revealing enough, he added the CIA represented “the glory of the American experiment.” The Resistance and the Democratic Party have aligned themselves with the national security state, for they view it as opposition to Trump. But in this regard, they are just as dangerous. We’re not fooled. U.S. security agencies, just like the military, regularly subvert and overthrow Black and Brown countries targeted for regime change.

“The Secretary of State’s candid remarks remind us that U.S. foreign policy is intended to punish those targeted as enemies, keep friends as vassal states, and disregard international law,” writes BAP Coordinating Committee member Margaret Kimberley in Black Agenda Report.

The U.S. military, in addition to killing innocent Black and Brown people, is the world’s largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined. The military is accelerating climate change and has left a toxic legacy across the world and on sovereign nations inside the United States. For a U.S. state committed to upholding white supremacy, Black and Brown lives are disposable, as is our very environment. This is why we say the war on African/Black people domestically is connected to the war on Black and Brown people abroad.

BAP member organization Pan-African Community Action (PACA) has been in Cuba over the past week with the 14th May Day International Brigade to commemorate International Workers’ Day alongside internationalist delegations from 32 countries.

BAP is proud to endorse the May Day on Wall Street rally and march happening in New York City.

*

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

First published by Natural News and Global Research in February 2015

Parents concerned about their vaccinated children potentially contracting measles from unvaccinated children may want to consider the fact that the bigger health threat is technically the vaccine, not the disease itself. Comparative data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reveal that nobody has died from measles in more than 10 years, while at least 108 deaths reported in VAERS during the same time frame have been linked to measles vaccines.

Many of our older readers probably remember a time when measles wasn’t viewed with the obscene level of paranoid hysterics being witnessed today. Like chickenpox, measles was a common childhood infection that, after running its typically mild course, imparted lifelong immunity in those who contracted it. The risk of serious complications or death from measles has always been overwhelmingly minimal, in other words, with previous generations viewing it as something of a rite of passage.

Fast forward to today and all rationality and common sense has gone out the window on this issue. The media is reporting a few isolated cases of measles as if it were the black plague, calling for those who don’t vaccinate their children to be ostracized from their communities or even jailed for “putting others at unnecessary risk.” But where are the facts in all this unsubstantiated mania, which unfairly tags the unvaccinated as dangerous lepers?

Once again, the media is discarding factual reporting in favor of mindless sensationalism, attributing an alleged measles resurgence — even this claim is specious — to the unvaccinated. Whether or not this claim is actually true pales in importance compared to the fact that measles really isn’t much of a threat in the first place. The measles vaccine, on the other hand, is a whole different story.

“There have been no measles deaths reported in the U.S. since 2003,” the Associate Press reported based off statements made by Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Meanwhile, VAERS, which captures only a very small percentage of the actual number of injuries and deaths associated with measles vaccines, reports at least 108 deaths associated with measles vaccines since 2003. Of these, a shocking 96 deaths were reported in conjunction with MMR, which is now the preferred vaccine for measles immunization.

Measles deaths were virtually nonexistent prior to introduction of vaccine, which is now triggering outbreaks

Some will try to argue that measles deaths are essentially nonexistent now because of measles vaccines, the first of which was introduced in 1963. But this argument holds no water — U.S. measles mortality data shows that deaths from measles rapidly declined in the years leading up to when the first vaccine was introduced, validating the success of improved sanitation and better nutrition in making measles a non-problem.

This plotted graph from HealthSentinel.com visually illustrates this:

“What you may not have heard, is that by 1963, the death rate from measles in the United States had already dropped by approximately 98%,” explains the International Medical Council on Vaccination (IMCV).

Not long after it was introduced, the first measles vaccine was actually found to manifest worse symptoms of measles in vaccinated patients than if they hadn’t gotten the vaccine at all. The vaccine also suppressed the normal rash and fever associated with measles, obstructing the normal immune response and ultimately leading to future health problems for vaccinated individuals once they reached adulthood.

“[W]hereas natural measles exposure generally left the person with reliable lifelong immunity, measles vaccines leave the individual with waning immunity,” adds IMCV. “This dynamic of waning immunity means we will probably see measles epidemics even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Sources:

http://vaccineimpact.com

http://www.healthsentinel.com

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Our objective at Global Research is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our more than 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. 

*     *     *

Genetically Modified Bt Brinjal Aubergine Illegally Growing in India: Who Is Really Pulling the Strings?

By Colin Todhunter, April 28, 2019

In February 2010, the Indian government placed an indefinite moratorium on the commercial release of Bt brinjal. (Genetically Modified Aubergine or EggPlant) Prior to this decision, numerous independent scientists from India and abroad had pointed out safety concerns regarding Bt brinjal based on data and reports in the biosafety dossier that Mahyco, the crop developer, had submitted to the regulators.

Genetically Modified Babies. The Genetic Editing of Human Life is “Big Business”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 28, 2019

Last November, He Jiankui, a Chinese biology professor at Southern University of Science and Technology (SUST) in Shenzhen (Guangdong Province) announced that he and his team had createdthe World’s first “genetically edited babies”: twin babies Lula and Nana.

Canada and the Propaganda War on Venezuela

By Michael Welch, Yves Engler, Dimitri Lascaris, and Eva Bartlett, April 27, 2019

Mainstream media, pundits, and popular television comedy show hosts like John Oliver are only too happy to uncritically echo these interpretations of the plight of the Venezuelan people. More to the point, they appear to be presenting as fact an embellishment of the difficulties facing ordinary and poor Venezuelans.

Glyphosate Worse than We Could Imagine. “It’s Everywhere”

By F. William Engdahl, April 27, 2019

Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

The 2020 Presidential Race: Is Mayor Pete Buttigieg the Real Deal?

By Renee Parsons, April 26, 2019

It seems totally implausible that the 2020 Presidential race has already reached a near fever pitch as the previously obscure Mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg has taken third place in the latest polls leaving at least five US Senators in the dust – just as he delivered a well-aimed arrow with doubts that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders can beat President Trump in a general election citing that “people were refreshed by the novelty of that boldness” in 2016 but those ideas ‘are now less exciting.’

The Alarming Rise of Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi MPs Since the 2014 “Pro-democracy Revolution”

By Shane Quinn, April 26, 2019

Bereza is a member of fascist-infiltrated party, People’s Front, which counts among its prominent MPs the neo-Nazi Andriy Parubiy, Chairman of the Ukrainian parliament since April 2016. In the early 1990s, Parubiy co-founded the far-right Social-National Party of Ukraine with fellow extremist Oleh Tyahnybok, that later became known as the Svoboda (Freedom) party.

NATO Demolishes Yugoslavia

By Comitato No Nato, April 26, 2019

The “new strategic concept” of NATO was put into practice in the Balkans, where the crisis of the Yugoslav Federation, due to the contrasts between the power groups and the centrifugal thrusts of the republics, had reached the breaking point.

*

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 world is still reeling in horror from the deadly Sri Lanka bombings that may have been the work of Islamic State madmen. Poor Sri Lanka has suffered so much after three decades of civil war and communal strife. We weep for this beautiful and once gentle nation.

But behind the horror in Sri Lanka, a huge crisis was building up of which the world has so far taken insufficient notice: renewed tensions in the oil-producing Gulf. This is the latest attempt by the United States to crush Iran’s independent-minded government and return it to American tutelage.

The Trump administration has demanded that the principal importers of 1.2 billion barrels of Iranian oil halt purchases almost immediately. This imperial diktat includes China, South Korea, Turkey, India and Japan. The comprehensive embargo is very close to an all-out act of war. In 1941, America’s cut-off of oil to Japan provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The oil embargo not only violates international law, it sets the US on a collision course with some of its most important allies and vassal states. Brazen threats against Iran by Trump’s two main enforcers, National Security advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have reinforced America’s unfortunate image as an imperial power that threatens war against disobedient satraps and independent-minded nations.

Iran, a proud, ancient nation of 80 million, has become, with Turkey, the most effective opposition to America’s imperial domination of the Mideast and a key supporter of Palestinian rights and statehood. This has put Iran on a collision course with Israel and its influential American supporters, notably the Evangelical hard right which somehow believes that Jesus will only return to earth after Israel expands its border and mankind is destroyed.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration, which has now become indistinguishable from Israel’s hard-line far right ruling coalition, has declared virtual war against Iran.

To benefit Israel, the White House cancelled a $20 billion order from Iran for Boeing aircraft, embargoed trade with Iran, reneged on the internationally backed nuclear deal with Tehran, cut off all aid to Palestinians, and keeps sustaining the savage Saudi/Emirati war against Yemen that has caused mass starvation and epidemics.

Trump has just unilaterally approved Israel’s illegal seizure of Syria’s Golan Heights, an act worthy of the 1916 Sykes-Picot treaty dividing up the Ottoman Mideast between Britain and France. US threats against Venezuela and Cuba grow louder.

Washington plans to use its naval forces massed around Iran to interdict Tehran’s oil exports. Two US aircraft carriers are now on station within striking range of Iran. I went to sea on one, the ‘Abraham Lincoln.’

China faces dire trade punishments for dealing with Iran. Welcome back to 19th century gunboat diplomacy. Even Washington’s European allies may be scourged for buying Iranian oil.

Iran, which has faced similar threats in the past, is digging in and threatens to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz if its oil exports are interdicted. Twenty percent of the world’s oil passes through the Strait. At its narrowest point, this strategic passage is only 21 miles (34 km) wide.

Iran could seriously interfere with oil tankers in the Strait, using armed speedboats, mines and land-based, Chinese-made missiles. Equally important, insurance rates for tankers would skyrocket. Add all this together, and Trump & Co.’s warlike actions will cause the price of gasoline to surge, just as America’s busy summer driving season is getting underway.

America’s satraps Saudi Arabia (which just cut off the heads of 37 of its subjects) and sidekick the Emirates have promised to make up oil shortfalls, but neighbor Iran’s special forces may have very different ideas. Look for missiles and commando attacks on Saudi oil installations.

Adding to this dangerous mess, Beijing may slow down or even abort its trade talks with Washington, which are of vital importance to the US economy. US markets have already factored in a deal being made.

Trump’s irrational quest to crush Iran could very well turn the rest of the world against Washington. But Trump & Co. don’t seem to care. Someone must tell Trump’s out of control administration to stop trying to overthrow governments it does not like around the globe and promoting itself as the Second Coming of Christ.

“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.” Verily.

*

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 Duran

While Justin Trudeau’s government embraces repressive Middle East monarchies, they want us to believe their campaign to oust Venezuela’s government is motivated by support for democracy and human rights.

On a tour of the Middle East last week Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan met his United Arab Emirates counterpart Mohammed bin Ahmed Al Bowardi in Abu Dhabi. According to Emirates News Agency, Canadian and UAE officials discussed “cooperation  in the military and defence sectors” at a time when the oil rich nation plays a key role in the horrendous violence in Yemen.

The Trudeau government is promoting arm sales to the UAE and other regional monarchies. With support from “15 trade commissioners and representatives from the Government of Ontario, National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, and the Canadian Commercial Corporation”, 50 Canadian arms companies flogged their wares at the Abu Dhabi-based International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) in February. To help the arms companies move their wares, Commander of the Bahrain-based Combined Task Force 150, Commodore Darren Garnier, led a Canadian military delegation to IDEX.

During his recent tour Sajjan met King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein in Jordan. He discussed military cooperation with a monarch known for prosecuting individuals for “extending one’s tongue” (having a big mouth) against the King. At the end of March, Trudeau phoned King Abdullah II.

On April 9 the Canadian and Jordanian armed forces broke ground on a road project along the Jordanian-Syrian border. During a ceremony for the Canadian-funded initiative Commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command, Lieutenant General Michael Rouleau, said:

“this important road rehabilitation project is a tangible example of the close relationship between Jordan and Canada. It will help keep the people of Jordan safe by allowing the Jordanian armed forces to deter, monitor and interdict incursions along the northern border with Syria, which will help to enhance security in Jordan and in the region.”

On his Middle East tour Sajjan also met Kuwait’s Prime Minister and Defence Minister Sheikh Nasser Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah who is part of a family that has ruled for 250 years. According to the Kuwait News Agency, Canada’s defence minister “stressed deep relations between Kuwait and Canada and pointed out mutual willingness to bolster and consolidate bilateral ties.”

Earlier in the month finance minister Bill Morneau and Parliamentary Secretary Omar Alghabra participated in the inaugural Kuwait and Canada Investment Forum. At the time Alghabra wrote,

“let’s celebrate and continue our efforts to grow the relationship between Canada and Kuwait in investments, trade and defence.”

Military ties with Kuwait are important because the Canadian forces have a small base there. In December the Canadian Navy took command of Combined Task Force 150 from their Saudi counterparts. Canada also has a small number of troops in the monarchies of Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar.

Last month Canada’s Ambassador to Qatar Stefanie McCollum boasted of growing relations between the countries, claiming “our values structures are very similar.” In an interview with Al Bawaba the Canadian diplomat also said Ottawa is seeking to deepen business ties with the natural gas rich monarchy and that the two countries are in the final stage of signing a defence cooperation agreement.

Notwithstanding the diplomatic spat last summer, the Trudeau government has mostly continued business as usual with the most powerful and repressive monarchy in the region. Recently foreign minister Chrystia Freeland looked the other way when Saudi student Mohammed Zuraibi Alzoabi fled Canada — presumably with help from the embassy — to avoid sexual assault charges in Cape Breton. While Freeland told reporters that Global Affairs was investigating the matter, Halifax Chronicle Herald journalist Aaron Beswick’s Access to Information request suggests they didn’t even bother contacting the Saudi embassy concerning the matter.

According to an access request by PhD researcher Anthony Fenton, Freeland phoned new Saudi foreign minister Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al-Assaf in January. In briefing notes for the (unannounced) discussion Freeland was encouraged to tell her counterpart (under the headline “points to register” regarding Yemen):

“Appreciate the hard work and heavy lifting by the Saudis and encourage ongoing efforts in this regard.”

Despite their devastating war in Yemen and dismembering of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the consulate in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia continues to receive large shipments of Canadian weaponry. 2018 was a record year for Canadian rifle and armoured vehicle sales to the Saudis. $17.64 million in rifles were exported to the kingdom last year and another $1.896 million worth of guns were delivered in February. In the first month of this year Canada exported $367 million worth of “tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles” to the Saudis.

As Fenton has documented in detail on his highly informative Twitter handle, armoured vehicles made by Canadian company Streit Group in the UAE have been repeatedly videoed in Yemen. Equipment from three other Canadian armoured vehicle makers – Terradyne, IAG Guardian and General Dynamics – was found with Saudi-backed forces in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition used Canadian-made rifles as well.

On Tuesday the Saudis beheaded 37 mostly minority Shiites. Ottawa waited 48 hours — after many other countries criticized the mass execution — to release a “muted” statement. The Trudeau government has stayed mum on the Saudi’s recent effort to derail pro-democracy demonstrations in Sudan and Algeria as well as Riyadh’s funding for Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar’s bid to seize Tripoli by force.

The close and friendly relationships between the Trudeau government and repressive Middle East monarchies demonstrates how little the Liberals care about democracy abroad and illustrates the hypocrisy of Canada’s claims that its efforts to oust Venezuela’s government is all about supporting human rights and democracy.

*

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: Canada’s Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan was on a tour of the Middle East last week. (Source: Yves Engler)

As Notre Dame burned, as the flames leapt from its roof of ancient timbers, many of us watched in grim horror. Hour after hour, on screen after screen, channel after channel, you could see that 850-year-old cathedral, a visiting spot for 13 million people annually, being gutted, its roof timbers flaring into the evening sky, its steeple collapsing in a ball of fire.

It was dramatic and deeply disturbing — and, of course, unwilling to be left out of any headline-making event, President Trump promptly tweeted his advice to the French authorities: “Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!” No matter that water from such planes would probably have taken the cathedral’s towers down and endangered lives as well — “the equivalent,” according to a French fire chief, “of dropping three tons of concrete at 250 kilometers per hour [on] the ancient monument.”

Still, who could doubt that watching such a monument to the human endeavor being transformed into a shell of its former self was a reminder that everything human is mortal; that, whether in a single lifetime or 850 years, even the most ancient of our artifacts, like those in Iraq and Syria recently, will sooner or later be scourged by the equivalent of (or even quite literally by) fire and sword; that nothing truly lasts, even the most seemingly permanent of things like, until now, Notre Dame?

That cathedral in flames, unlike so much else in our moment (including you-know-who in his every waking moment), deserved the front-and-center media attention it got. Historically speaking, it was a burning event of the first order. Still, it’s strange that the most unnerving, deeply terrifying burning underway today, not of that ancient place of worship that lived with humanity for so many tumultuous centuries but of the planet itself, remains largely in the background.

When the cathedral in which Napoleon briefly crowned himself emperor seemed likely to collapse, it was certifiably an event of headline importance. When, however, the cathedral (if you care to think of it that way) in which humanity has been nurtured all these tens of thousands of years, on which we spread, developed, and became what we are today — I mean, of course, the planet itself — is in danger of an unprecedented sort from fires we continue to set, that’s hardly news at all. It’s largely relegated to the back pages of our attention, lost any day of the week to headlines about a disturbed, suicidal young woman obsessed with the Columbine school massacre or an attorney general obsessed with protecting the president.

And let’s not kid ourselves, this planet of ours is beginning to burn — and not just last week or month either. It’s been smoldering for decades now. Last summer, for instance, amid global heat records (Ouargla, Algeria, 124 degrees Fahrenheit; Hong Kong, over 91 degrees Fahrenheit for 16 straight days; Nawabsha, Pakistan, 122 degrees Fahrenheit; Oslo, Norway, over 86 degrees Fahrenheit for 16 consecutive days; Los Angeles, 108 degrees Fahrenheit), wildfires raged inside the Arctic Circle. This March, in case you hadn’t noticed — and why would you, since it’s gotten so little attention? — the temperature in Alaska was, on average, 20 degrees (yes, that is not a misprint) above normal and typical ice roads between villages and towns across parts of that state were melting and collapsing with deaths ensuing.

Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, ice is melting at a rate startling to scientists. If the process accelerates, global sea levels could rise far faster than expected, beginning to drown coastal cities like Miami, New York, and Shanghai more quickly than previously imagined. Meanwhile, globally, the wildfire season is lengthening. Fearsome fires are on the rise, as are droughts, and that’s just to begin to paint a picture of a heating planet and its ever more extreme weather systems and storms, of (if you care to think of it that way) a Whole Earth version of Notre Dame.

The Arsonists Arrive

As was true with Notre Dame, when it comes to the planet, there were fire alarms before an actual blaze was fully noted. Take, for example, the advisory panel of scientists reporting to President Lyndon Johnson on the phenomenon of global warming back in 1965. They would, in fact, predict with remarkable accuracy how our world was going to change for the worse by this twenty-first-century moment. (And Johnson, in turn, would bring the subject upofficially for perhaps the first time in a Special Message to Congress on February 5, 1965, 54 years before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal proposal.) As that panel wrote at the time, “Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years…” In other words, the alarm was first sounded more than half a century ago.

When it comes to climate change, however, as the smoke began to appear and, in our own moment, the first flames began to leap — after all, the last four years have been the hottest on record and, despite the growth of ever less expensive alternative energy sources, carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere are still rising, not falling — no firemen arrived (just children). There were essentially no adults to put out the blaze. Yes, there was the Paris climate accord but it was largely an agreement in principle without enforcement power of any genuine sort.

In fact, across significant parts of the planet, those who appeared weren’t firefighters at all, but fire feeders who will likely prove to be the ultimate arsonists of human history. In a way, it’s been an extraordinary performance. Leaders who vied for, or actually gained, power not only refused to recognize the existence of climate change but were quite literally eager to aid and abet the phenomenon. This is true, for instance, of the new president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who came to power prepared to turn the already endangered carbon sink of the Amazon rain forest into a playground for corporate and agricultural destroyers. It is similarly true in Europe, where right-wing populist movements have begun to successfully opposegestures toward dealing with climate change, gaining both attention and votes in the process. In Poland, for instance, just such a party led by President Andrzej Duda has come to power and the promotion of coal production has become the order of the day.

And none of that compared to developments in the richest, most powerful country of all, the one that historically has put more greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere than any other. On taking office, Donald Trump appointed more climate-change deniers to his cabinet than might have previously seemed possible and swore fealty to “American energy dominance,” while working to kneecap the development of alternative energy systems.  He and his men tried to open new areas to oil and gas drilling, while in every way imaginable striving to remove what limits there had been on Big Energy, so that it could release its carbon emissions into the atmosphere unimpeded. And as the planetary cathedral began to burn, the president set the mood for the moment (at least for his vaunted “base”) by tweetingsuch things as “It’s really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!” or, on alternative energy, “You would be doing wind, windmills, and if it doesn’t if it doesn’t blow you can forget about television for that night… Darling, I want to watch television. I’m sorry, the wind isn’t blowing.”

Among those who will someday be considered the greatest criminals in history, don’t forget the Big Energy CEOs who, knowing the truth about climate change from their own hired scientists, did everything they could to increase global doubts by funding climate-denying groups, while continuing to be among the most profitable companies around. They even hedged their bets by, among other things, investing in alternative energy and using it to more effectively drill for oil and natural gas.

Meanwhile, of course, the planet that had proven such a comfortable home for humanity was visibly going down. No, climate change won’t actually destroy the Earth itself, just the conditions under which humanity (and so many other species) thrived on it. Sooner or later, if the global temperature is indeed allowed to rise a catastrophic seven degrees Fahrenheit or four degrees Celsius, as an environmental impact statement from the Trump administration suggested it would by 2100, parts of the planet could become uninhabitable, hundreds of millions of human beings could be set in desperate motion, and the weather could intensify in ways that might be nearly unbearable for human habitation. Just read David Wallace-Wells’s The Uninhabitable Earth, if you doubt me.

This isn’t even contestable information anymore and yet it’s perfectly possible that Donald Trump could be elected to a second term in 2020. It’s perfectly possible that more right-wing populist movements could sweep into power in Europe. It’s perfectly possible that Vladimir Putin’s version of great powerdom — a sagging Russian petro-state — could continue on its present globally warming path well into the future.

Understand this: Trump, Bolsonaro, Duda, Putin, and the others are just part of human history. Sooner or later, they will be gone. Climate change, however, is not part of human history (whatever it may do to civilization as we know it). Its effects could, in human terms, last for almost unimaginable periods of time. It operates on a different time scale entirely, which means that, unlike the tragedies and nightmares of human history, it is not just a passing matter.

Of course, the planet will survive, as will some life forms (as would be true even if humanity were to succumb to that other possible path to an apocalypse, a nuclear holocaust resulting in “nuclear winter”).  But that should be considered small consolation indeed.

Putting the Planet on a Suicide Watch

Consider global warming a story for the ages, one that should put Notre Dame’s near-destruction after almost nine centuries in grim perspective. And yet the planetary version of burning, which should be humanity’s crisis of all crises, has been met with a general lack of media attention, reflecting a lack of just about every other kind of attention in our world (except by those outraged children who know that they are going to inherit a degraded world and are increasingly making their displeasure about it felt).

To take just one example of that lack of obvious attention, the response of the mega-wealthy to the burning of Notre Dame was an almost instantaneous burst of giving. The euro equivalent of nearly a billion dollars was raised more or less overnight from the wealthiest of French families and other .01%ers. Remind me of the equivalent for climate change as the planet’s spire threatens to come down?

As for arsonists like Donald Trump and the matter of collusion, there’s not even a question mark on the subject. In the United States, such collusion with the destroyers of human life on Planet Earth is written all over their actions. It’s beyond evident in the appointment of former oil and gas lobbyists and fellow travelers to positions of power. Will there, however, be the equivalent of a Mueller investigation? Will the president be howling “witch hunt” again? Not a chance. When it comes to Donald Trump and climate change, there will be neither a Mueller Report, nor the need for a classic Barr defense. And yet collusion — hell, yeah! The evidence is beyond overwhelming.

We are, of course, talking about nothing short of the ultimate crime, but on any given day of our lives, you’d hardly notice that it was underway. Even for an old man like me, it’s a terrifying thing to watch humanity make a decision, however inchoate, to essentially commit suicide. In effect, there is now a suicide watch on Planet Earth. Let’s hope the kids can make a difference.

*

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

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He runs TomDispatch.com and is a fellow of the Type Media Center. His sixth and latest book is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).

Featured image is from Sky News

The “Independent Group” of MPs has now launched itself as a political party under the name “Change UK.”

Given its support for capitalism, corporate power, Nato and Trident, a more accurate name might be “Keep Things Pretty Much The Same UK.”

The group likes to be described as “moderate” and “centrist.” It says something about the state of British politics that its views are considered moderate.

When it comes to issues of peace and war, almost all of its members have consistently voted in favour of the more militaristic of any two options placed in front of them.

Of Change UK’s 11 MPs, four were in Parliament at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003: Ann Coffey, Make Gapes, Chris Leslie and Joan Ryan. They all voted for it.

Ryan was a teller for the “Ayes.” Gapes later described the establishment of the Chilcot inquiry into the war as a waste of public money, attributing it to “hysterical” prejudice against Tony Blair.

In 2011, Parliament was again asked to vote for a new war, this time in Libya. Ryan had lost her seat in 2010 (she re-entered Parliament in 2015) and Heidi Allen was not elected until 2015.

But the other nine MPs who were later to become Change UK willingly followed David Cameron and Nick Clegg in voting to bomb Libya.

There was a success for the peace movement two years later, when the Commons voted against bombing Syria after the Labour leadership accepted pressure from the public and party membership to resist yet another call to war.

To be fair to the Labour MPs who later joined Change UK, they all joined Ed Miliband in voting against immediate bombing, with the exception of Angela Smith, who abstained.

Of the Tories who later signed up for Change UK, Anna Soubry voted for bombing Syria in 2013, but Sarah Wollaston deserves some credit for resisting the Tory leadership and voting against (and Allen was not yet an MP).

However, in November 2014, all nine of the then MPs who were later to form Change UK voted for yet more bombing of Iraq, supposedly against Isis (in practice meaning areas controlled by Isis, full of innocent civilians).

In 2015, Allen was elected to Parliament for the first time, while Ryan returned after a five-year absence. They were therefore able to join their future Change UK colleagues in December that year in voting to bomb Syria.

Gavin Shuker deserves credit for being the only future Change UK MP to vote against bombing Syria at this point.

On July 18 2016, the Commons debated the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system. In the course of the debate, Theresa May was asked if she would use Trident to kill hundreds of thousands of people. May replied that she would if she “had to.”

The Prime Minister did not explain in what conceivable situation she would “have to” kill hundreds of thousands of people (the figure is an underestimate — Trident would kill millions). But all future Change UK MPs joined her in the division lobby.

The only exception was Chuka Umunna, who was absent but made his support for Trident renewal clear.

Parliament’s next major vote on military action should have been in April 2018, when May sent the RAF to bomb Syria again. But May displayed contempt for Parliament by not even asking them to vote on the bombing (she could well have lost such a vote, given that opinion polls showed only around a quarter of the British public supported it).

In short, nearly all Change UK MPs have always voted for the more militaristic of any two options (unless their party policy is against it, as with then Labour MPs in 2013).

The only two exceptions I can find are Wollaston, on Syria in 2013, and Shuker, on Syria in 2015. If I have missed any evidence that goes against this conclusion, please let me know and I will be happy to apologise and make a correction.

Allen claims that Change UK is the “natural home” of Remain voters. There have been calls for a united “pro-Remain” slate in the European elections.

It is vital that none of us — whatever our views on the EU — fall for the idea that Brexit is the only issue that matters.

Left-wing, pro-peace Remainers and left-wing, pro-peace Leavers need to work together.

Thankfully, pro-Remain parties on the left, such as the Greens and Plaid Cyrmu, have rejected any idea of an alliance with Change UK.

Then again, it seems unlikely that Change UK would want an alliance with anyone on the left or with parties that are anti-Trident and anti-Nato.

Militarism should be seen as a key political issue in Britain. It is a class issue. The poorest people are targeted for military recruitment. They are brutalised through military training before being sent to kill other poor people elsewhere in the world and are then often dumped back into poverty in Britain when they return.

This is all done in the interests of ministers, generals, arms dealers and other members of the ruling class.

This is sustained by the everyday militarism that has seen the introduction of initiatives such as Armed Forces Day and the ploughing of £50 million of public money into expanding cadet forces in state schools — just as other youth services are being cut.

This is before we even think about the indirect fuelling of war through the arms trade and the supply of military training to regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

After years of being called an “extremist,” Martin Luther King decided to accept the description. The issue, he said, is not whether we are extreme or moderate, but what we are extreme or moderate about.

I suggest we should be willing to be extremists for peace. While Change UK are constantly described as moderates, their voting record makes clear that they are extremists for 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.

Symon Hill works for the Peace Pledge Union, which includes members of several parties and none, and both Leave and Remain voters. This article is written in a personal capacity.

Featured image is from Morning Star

There is great speculation about the “Deal of the Century” for the Middle East, about which very little is known. What is known is that the Trump administration formulated the plan basically through bilateral talks with the Israeli government, as the Palestinian Authority has refused to talk to the Trump administration since the relocation of the U.S. embassy from occupied Jaffa (Tel Aviv) to occupied Jerusalem. 

The release of the plan has been delayed: first until after the Israeli election and now until sometime in the summer. None of the individuals tasked with formulating the plan have expertise in the Middle East, although in Washington, D.C., strong advocacy on behalf of the Israeli occupation often counts as a substitute.

This plan will be the latest attempt by a U.S. administration to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict — once and for all.  There was the Nixon administration’s famous Rogers’ Plan (named after Secretary of State William Rogers, who later resigned after complaining about National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s usurpation of his authority).

Before the Nixon administration, President John F. Kennedy also tried to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict only to be rebuffed by strong Zionist figures within the Democratic Party.

The origins of U.S. intervention were initially clear: that the U.S. would push for a deal based on UN Security Council Resolution  242, which calls on Israel to withdraw from “territories” it occupied in the 1967 war in return for Arab recognition and acceptance of the Israeli occupation state within the 1948 occupation. But Kissinger attached a secret appendix to the Sinai II agreement in 1975 (between Egypt and Israel) in which he pledged to boycott and ostracize the PLO, which all Arabs accepted as the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people.  This exclusion of Palestinian political representation was consistent with UNSC 242, which did not mention the word “Palestinian” once, although it made a passing reference to the “refugee problem.”

Zionist Influence

And while the management of the American-led “peace process” was, during the early decades, handled by Middle East experts (known then as “Arabists,”) strong Zionist influences in successive U.S. administrations and houses of Congress marginalized their influence and slowed down the progress of the “process” — in terms of U.S. pressure on Israel.

But the American-led “peace process” lived on for decades, not as a testimony of U.S. interest in peace in the Middle East, nor as evidence of American interest in solving the Palestinian problem, but as a way to provide Israeli occupation and aggression with a cloak of international legitimacy and to give Palestinians the illusion of “progress.”

With the Reagan administration a change occurred in the management of the “peace process;” it was taken from the Arabists and given to ardent Zionists who had no background in the Middle East. (Dennis Ross, for example, never studied the Middle East and was in fact a Soviet expert in the 1980s, before he was put in charge of the “peace process.”)

 Ross, at right, in 2010, with Dan Shapiro, NSC senior director for the Middle East. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at left. (White House/Pete Souza)

The “peace process” underwent major transformations over the years, largely to accommodate Israeli needs and preferences.  The Rogers’ Plan started as a response to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s emphasis on a “comprehensive and just” peace, which clearly precluded separate deals between Israel and any Arab state. It was this which prevented King Hussein of Jordan from reaching a separate deal with Israel.

Nevertheless, President Jimmy Carter brokered the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel (which basically committed the U.S. to provide the Egyptian despot, President Anwar Sadat and his successors, with an annual large bribe to maintain peace with Israel despite the disapproval of the Egyptian people).  With Camp David, the “peace process” was splintered into separate “peace” deals.

The U.S. official ban on contact with the PLO was removed in the Reagan administration when Yasser Arafat agreed to read a statement faxed to him — word-for-word — by the U.S. Department of State.  The PLO was allowed into the “peace process” but only on conditions set by Israel: that the agenda would be set by U.S. and Israel and not by any Arab party.

Initially, the U.S. worked for decades to sidestep PLO participation by anointing the Jordanian king (who is remembered by the Palestinians for the massacres of Black September in 1970) as the representative of both Jordan and the Palestinian people. But the Intifada in 1987 finally convinced the U.S. that the Palestinians are determined to insist on their self-determination.  And during the George W. Bush administration the idea of a Palestinian state was finally formally advocated by the U.S. but only within boundaries set by Israel.

No Mystery 

The new “Deal of the Century” is not a mystery.  We can read the writing on the wall and on the ground in Palestine.  The U.S. is working on a formula that does not necessarily operate on the assumption that the creation of a Palestinian state is a prerequisite for peace.  Furthermore, the U.S. plans to reduce the size of the Palestinian territory which would be theoretically managed by the Palestinian people.  The Palestinians have historically insisted on liberating 100 percent of their homeland, i.e. historic Palestine in which the Palestinians have enjoyed a majority for many centuries, and in which the Jews — as a small minority — were considered part of the local native population.

But the Zionist forces — through terrorism and through Western indulgences — persuaded Western powers that Palestinian rights to 1948 Palestine (what became declared by force as “Israel” in 1948) should never be acknowledged.

With that principle, Western powers worked to convince Palestinians to confine their national aspirations to no more than 45 percent (in the UN Partition plan of 1947) and then to no more than 22 percent since 1967. With the U.S. entry into direct negotiations with Palestinian representatives since the Madrid Conference of 1991 (disguised as non-PLO), the Palestinians were told that they can have a homeland over most —but not all — the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem. But the American stance was not categorical because it always left it to Israel to decide on how much of the 22 percent of Palestine should the Palestinians have control over, and under which juridical conditions.

Sadat, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledge applause during joint session of Congress during which President Jimmy Carter announced the Camp David Accords, Sept. 18, 1978. (Warren Leffler via Wikimedia Commons)

President Bill Clinton, in the famous Camp David negotiations, wanted the Palestinians to accept 91 percent of the 22 percent of Palestine, while sovereignty over the “holy sanctuary” would be shared between Israelis and Palestinians, with the Israelis having control over the land and what is underneath it (which Palestinians consider a threat to the very foundations of Al-Aqsa).  Camp David fell and Clinton — typical of him — blamed the Palestinians after having promised Yasser Arafat that he would not blame the Palestinians if the talks did not bear fruits.

What will emerge out of the “Deal of the Century” is even less than what the Palestinians have been offered before — and which they rejected.  The Palestinians will probably be promised Gaza and Area A (under the Oslo agreement, which basically covers areas that the Palestinians — only in theory—control), and East Jerusalem will be part of a united capital for Israel while the Palestinians will be allowed to name areas outside of Jerusalem as their own “East Jerusalem.”

The Israelis will continue, of course, to maintain control of air, land and sea over all Palestinian areas, and the Israeli occupation army will continue to decide who can enter and who can exit Palestinian areas.  And Israeli settlements will be untouched by any of the terms of the “deal.”

Sovereignty over those small Palestinian areas won’t be considered as the U.S. and Israel both have recently reneged on previous promises of statehood. Instead, the plan will revert to what Israel’s Menachem Begin called “autonomy” (under the Camp David negotiations), according to which the Palestinians will exercise limited municipal management of their areas (trash collection, postal service, sewage, etc).

But it is quite clear that the Palestinians who had rejected such plans in a previous century won’t agree to them now, especially that the octogenarian Mahmoud Abbas (who is already despised and detested by his people for his corruption and fealty to the occupation) won’t dare agree to what Arafat before him had rejected.

But Trump and his team assume that an infusion of foreign aid and new business in Palestinian areas would serve as a compensation to the Palestinians for the loss of their homeland.   But that assumption is based on a false premise: that people live by bread alone.

*

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

As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the “Historical Dictionary of Lebanon” (1998), “Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism (2002), and “The Battle for Saudi Arabia” (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhalil

Featured image:  Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir with Nixon and Kissinger in 1973, Oval Office. (Oliver Atkins, via Wikimedia Commons)

On Friday, 26 April 2019, in excessive use of force against peaceful protesters on the 56^th Friday of the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege, Israeli forces wounded 110 civilians, including 37 children, 3 women, 4 paramedics, and a journalist, in the eastern Gaza Strip.  Two of those wounded sustained serious wounds.

According to observations by PCHR’s fieldworkers, the Israeli forces who stationed in prone positions and in military jeeps along the fence with Israel continued to use excessive force against the protesters by firing bullets and tear gas canisters at them.  As a result, dozens of the protesters were hit with bullets and teargas canisters without posing any imminent threat or danger to the life of soldiers.

During this week, Israeli forces have escalated their attacks against the medical personnel in the field, wounding 4 members of them. This indicates that there is an Israeli systematic policy to target the medical personnel and obstruct their humanitarian work that is guaranteed under the rules of the international humanitarian law.

On Friday, 26 April 2019, the incidents were as follows:

At approximately 16:00, thousands of civilians, including women, children and entire families, started swarming to the five encampments established by the Supreme National Authority of Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege adjacent to the border fence with Israel in eastern Gaza Strip cities.

Hundreds of protesters, including children and women,  gathered adjacent to the border fence with Israel in front of each encampment and its vicinity tens  and hundreds of meters away from the fence. The protesters chanted slogans, raised flags, and in very limited incidents attempted to approach the border fence and throw stones at the Israeli forces.

Although the protesters gathered in areas open to the Israeli snipers stationed on the top of the sand berms and military watchtowers and inside and behind the military jeeps, the Israeli forces fired live and rubber bullets in addition to a barrage of tear gas canisters. The Israeli shooting, which continued at around 19:00, resulted in the injury of 110 civilians, including 37 children, 3 women, 4 paramedics, and a journalist.

Ninty-five of those wounded were hit with live bullets and shrapnel, 43 were directly hit with tear gas canisters and 8 were hit with rubber bullets. In addition, dozens of civilians suffered tear gas inhalation and seizures due to tear gas canisters that were fired by the Israeli forces from the military jeeps and riffles in the eastern Gaza Strip.

The following table shows the number of civilian casualties due to the Israeli forces’ suppression of the Great March of Return since its beginning on 30 March:

PCHR reiterates Palestinians’ right to peaceful assembly to confront Israel and its forces’ denial of the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination, right to return and right to end the occupation of the Palestinian territory.

PCHR stresses that the Israeli forces should stop using excessive force and respond to the legitimate demands of the demonstrators, particularly lifting the closure which is the real solution to end the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

PCHR reiterates the reported published in February by the UN Commission of Inquiry which emphasizes what came by PCHR and other Palestinian and international human rights organizations.  The report at the time concluded that the Israeli violations may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

PCHR emphasizes that continuously targeting civilians, who exercise their right to peaceful assembly or while carrying out their humanitarian duty, is a serious violation of the rules of international law, international humanitarian law, the ICC Rome Statute and Fourth Geneva Convention.

Thus, PCHR reiterates its call upon the ICC Prosecutor to open an official investigation in these crimes and to prosecute and hold accountable all those applying or involved in issuing orders within the Israeli Forces at the security and political echelons.

PCHR also emphasizes that the High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention should fulfill their obligation under Article 1; i.e., to respect and ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances and their obligations under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

PCHR calls upon Switzerland, in its capacity as the Depository State for the Convention, to demand the High Contracting Parties to convene a meeting and ensure Israel’s respect for this Convention, noting that these grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions regarding the guarantee of Palestinian civilians’ right to protection in the occupied territories.

*

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 IMEMC

Last November, He Jiankui, a Chinese biology professor at Southern University of Science and Technology (SUST) in Shenzhen (Guangdong Province) announced that he and his team had created the World’s first “genetically edited babies”: twin babies Lula and Nana.

Dr. He Jiankui, used the CRISPR technology “to alter the embryos of seven couples [allegedly] to make them resistant to HIV”.  He Jiankui made his announcement at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing held at the University of Hong Kong.  

Dr. He claims to have used CRISP “to tweak the DNA of human embryos during in vitro fertilization”. 

The broad implications of this experiment are far-reaching. The genetic editing of human life forms including embryos has a bearing on the future of humanity.

It opens up the pandora’s box of genetic engineering applied to human beings.

It undermines the “reproduction of real life”. Potentially, it destroys humanity.

Screenshot Source Nature News Carl Zimmer, Click image to enlarge

The experiment raises important scientific and ethical issues. Human embryos are not commodities.

The Chinese government immediately opened an investigation, Dr He Jiankui was fired by his University in January 2019.

Corporate Interests: Genetic Editing is “Big Business”

Despite government regulations and ethical issues, there are powerful corporate interests involved in the development and patenting of genetic editing of life forms including Dr. He’s findings on “genetically modified babies”.

While Dr. He’s University based lab biology project at SUST has been closed down, he nonetheless remains Chairman and  major stakeholder of the Shenzhen based Direct Genomics Biotechnology, “a genome sequencing” firm, with extensive financial resources.  Direct Genomics received at least US$43 million in funding from both Chinese and international investors:

The ability to precisely edit the genome of a living cell holds enormous potential to accelerate life science research, improve biotechnology, and even treat human disease.

While the Broad Institute owns the intellectual technology, CRISPR-Cas9 was invented by a Chinese American scientist Dr. Feng Zhang based at the Broad Institute and MIT.

MIT Prof. Feng Zhang responding to Dr He’s controversial announcement calls for “a moratorium on implantation of edited [human] embryos …until we have come up with a thoughtful set of safety requirements first.”

This statement represents the interests of the Broad Institute. According to Feng Zhang’s colleague Professor David Liu (also on behalf of the Broad Institute):

“[Dr He’s] reported use of CRISPR nuclease to edit CCR5 in human embryos, resulting in live births, … [constitutes] a serious breach of ethics … Foremost, that edited human babies were generated without the full engagement of independent scientific and ethics experts, relevant regulatory institutions, and governing bodies is appalling.” (emphasis added)

These statements are tantamount to “crocodile tears”. Failing effective government regulation (e.g. by the Trump administration), the ethical considerations will eventually be scrapped or bypassed.

“Moratorium” rather than “Abolition” of a potentially dangerous technology is the talking point: “We have a legal moratorium on that here,” said U.S. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb… The potential applications are also relatively dangerous if they get into the hands of people who don’t have good judgment or have ill intent.” (Bloomberg SFGate,  November 27, 2018)

A moratorium on behalf of those who own the CRISPR patent does not foreclose the development and marketing for profit of genetic editing of human embryos. Money is the driving force. The Moratorium will eventually be lifted. Potentially, what is at stake is a multi-billion dollar undertaking.

In all likelihood, there will be a battle for the intellectual property rights pertaining to CRISPR-Cas9 technology, involving both US and Chinese corporate interests.

 While the Broad Institute was granted ownership of the CRISPR-Cas9 patent by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, less than 3 months prior to Dr. He’s announcement in Hong Kong, the ownership of CRISP is actively contested. The University of California at Berkeley is also involved in the fight for patent ownership against the Cambridge based Broad Institute. (Wired, September 11, 2018).

*

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

“I have ground zero information on everything that happens there. And trust me, what the Canadian public, and the American public and the international community are watching is a huge Hollywood show.”

– Venezuelan in Canada, from an interview with Eva Bartlett

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The US and Canada have long sought regime change in Venezuela.

In order to enable this agenda, the political leadership of the two countries have been drowning their populations with propaganda. According to the standard account, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has undemocratically ceased power, and is oppressing his own people. President Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez are singularly to blame for a devastating economic situation forcing millions to flee the once prosperous South American nation. [1]

Mainstream media, pundits, and popular television comedy show hosts like John Oliver are only too happy to uncritically echo these interpretations of the plight of the Venezuelan people. More to the point, they appear to be presenting as fact an embellishment of the difficulties facing ordinary and poor Venezuelans.

Among standard talking points: people across the nation are taking to the streets to oppose Maduro’s rule, leading to violent reprisals by the government and crackdowns on dissident media. Maduro’s mismanagement of the economy has led to empty grocery store shelves. President Maduro, back in February, authorized the destruction of aid entering the country from neighbouring Columbia. Maduro’s presidency is illegitimate and the opposition National Assembly’s recognition of Juan Guaidó as interim President is constitutionally valid.

Audiences in the U.S. and Canada are led to believe the people of Venezuela overwhelmingly oppose Maduro’s ‘grip’ on power, but are helpless to challenge his ‘authoritarian’ rule.

As with ‘humanitarian wars’ Western nations have sanctioned over the last two decades, even liberal critics of their nations’ interventionist policies feel the need to express their position with a disclaimer of sorts along the lines of ‘He may be a bad guy, but…’

Aggressive foreign policy toward Venezuela or any other country requires at least tacit support from domestic populations in nominally democratic countries like Canada, hence the need by Western leaders to control the foreign policy narrative. This is why it is necessary for the broader public to ascertain the actual facts on the ground, and confront the assertions providing a pretext for foreign interference, particularly military intervention, in another country’s internal affairs.

This week, the Global Research News Hour takes on conventional messaging on the Venezuela situation with three provocative interview guests.

In the first half hour, frequent guest Yves Engler joins us to share some insights into Canada’s actual interests in Venezuela as well as provide background on a specific Canadian think tank, known as the Canadian International Council, which is acting to shape Canadian policy in an imperialistic direction. Excerpts of a recent talk by former Canadian Ambassador to Venezuela, Ben Rowswell are incorporated into this discussion.

In the second half hour, two Canadian journalists, Eva Bartlett and Dimitri Lascaris, talk about what they saw and experienced in Venezuela during their recent visits to the country. They also help us make sense of social and mainstream media distortion of the realities on the ground.

Yves Engler is one of Canada’s foremost Canadian foreign policy critics and dissidents. He is the author of nine books on Canadian foreign policy including The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy (2009), and his most recent, Left, Right: Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada. His articles have appeared at rabble.ca, canadiandimension.com, and on his own site yvesengler.com.

Dimitri Lascaris is a lawyer, activist, and journalist. A former partner with Siskinds LLP, Lascaris was once named one of Canada’s most influential lawyers by Canadian Lawyer Magazine. He is currently a correspondent and Board member of The Real News Network and the Chair of the Board of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine. She is a recipient of the International Journalism Award for International Reporting. Eva recently returned from a visit to Venezuela. She will be speaking in Hamilton on Monday April 29th.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 257)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

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

Notes:

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-363198772.html

The following research article is an attempt to analyze the reasons behind the increasing drift of right-wing politics in Israeli parliamentary elections in the last two decades. It also evaluates the impact of national insecurity and scaremongering on the political behavior of Israeli Jewish voters. Finally, the article explores the possibility of the demise of rightwing predominance in Israeli parliamentary elections.

New Parties, Splits, and Mergers

It has been observed by political analysts that prior to Israel’s parliamentary elections, a number of election developments erupt, such as the formation of new and small parties, including parties formed by ex-military generals, and splits in some of the large parties. This process will be followed by the merger of small parties in order to produce larger election lists and blocs.

The helpful factor that makes these developments possible is the existence of a number of common denominators among Israeli political parties. With the exception of the Israeli Communist Party and the Arab political parties in Israel, Israeli ‘Jewish’ parties share a number of  common denominators such as the Zionist ideology, the drift for right wing politics, the rejection of the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, the denial of Arab issues in their political agendas, the support for the establishment of colonial settlements on Palestinian indigenous lands, and objection to vacate existing colonial settlements. All these denominators create loose boundaries among Zionist parties and allow Israeli politicians to cross them.

No Palestinian Partner

It was the Zionist Left[1] that espoused, in 1996, the political solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Prime Minister Yitshaq Rabin proposed the “Oslo Agreement” as a negotiated solution with the PLO that was led by Yasser Arataf’s and dominated by Fateh right-wing faction.

Palestinian-Israeli negotiations did not go well due to Israel’s insistence to expand colonial settlements inside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. After the failure of the Camp David negotiations between Ehud Bark and Yasser Arafat in 2000, Barak who desired to offer an imposed and therefore, unacceptable conditions on Arafat, concluded that there is “no Palestinian partner” to negotiate with.

Soon after, the situation deteriorated and the Palestinians responded with violent operations that targeted Israeli civilians. The Israeli right, led by the Likud, blamed the Zionist Left for the deteriorating situation and manipulated the insecurity of the Israeli electorate who in turn chose in 2001 the hawkish right-wing general Eric Sharon as their “protector”. This right-wing campaign was certainly assisted by the “no Palestinian partner” slogan that was propagated by the Zionist Left.

Threats and National Insecurity

To begin with, the impact of psychological perceptions in societies creates dynamic political pressures of their own that are bound to affect the political behavior of electorates. This development became clear within the Israeli Jewish society during the period that extended from the First Intifada in the 1987 to the last Israeli parliamentary election in 2019.

Any threat, real or imaginary, posed by the ongoing resistance of the indigenous Palestinian population, is bound to be perceived by the Israeli settlers, as harmful and causing panic and insecurity to their national well-being. Therefore, such a threat must be neutralized by the use of military force. The frightened Israeli public is inclined to seek help for this task from Israeli hawkish leaders who claim to have a suitable solution.

Consequently, these hawkish leaders, who usually are right-wing Zionist ultra nationalists, do sense the fears and the insecurity of the public. They capitalize on them in their political narratives and successfully manipulate them in their election propaganda, so as to increase their supporters and voters.

Ultimately, the insecurity of the settlers will be articulated politically by a movement to more right-wing positions. The hardening of settler’s nationalist positions will drive them to support right-wing politicians, who are recently more hawkish and racist. The more the Israeli Jewish public feels insecure, the more they express right-wing positions.

Scaremongering in political speeches

The election propaganda of the present Israeli parties was based on the employment of security fears by the majority of Israeli parties.[2] For example, Likud leader Benyamin Netanyahu, who is  entangled in three corruption scandals that could lead to his indictment, concentrated his election propaganda campaign on a number of basic factors such as fear of Israeli citizens from the: “Irani danger”, Hizballah rockets, and the rockets of Palestinian resistance. During the last few years, Netanyahu repeated in his speeches and interviews “information” about the horror that could emanate from Iran claiming that “Iran is attempting to secure a nuclear bomb and intends to use it to annihilate the Jewish people of Israel.”[3]

Moreover, Netanyahu concentrated in his election propaganda on his right-wing political and ideological positions, using his charisma as a media tool. His Likud party decided that during the previous and recent election campaigns, it did not need to publish a political, social and economic agenda. His “I believe” was a sufficient agenda for the electorate.

The rest of the right-wing politicians and ideologues use the socio-psychological impact of this panic to back up their political positions and to increase their supporters during election campaigns. They succeeded in employing the “… scaremongering security agendas to curry favor with the Israeli public…”[4]

An attempted explanation for expansion of right-wing electorate

In her analysis of the right-wing drift upward of Israeli electorate, Dahlia Scheindlin wrote that:

“… Seismic shifts during the Second Intifada led to a migration of left-wingers to the self-defined political center. They added to that camp but also replaced some centrists who migrated right, causing the percentage of Jewish right-wingers to drift upward over the decade…”[5]

She added that as a result:

 “… the portion of all Israelis who call themselves right wing stands at around 46 percent — among the Jewish population,” while the “… number of self-defined centrists is roughly one-quarter, and the portion of left-wingers is stable at about one-fifth.”[6]

Moreover, when it comes to Israeli youth, the percentage of those identifying themselves as right wing, is much higher. In their analysis of why the Israeli electorate is right wing, both Laura Adkins and Ben Sales wrote that:

“According to the 2018 Israeli Democracy Index (an annual study by the Israeli Democracy Institute, a nonpartisan Israeli think tank), approximately 64 percent of Israeli Jews aged 18-34 identify as right wing, compared to 47 percent of those 35 and older…”[7]

These potential young Israeli voters create a suitable hotbed for Israeli right-wing parties. With the help of an acquiescent Israeli media, they get constantly bombarded by right wing Israeli politicians who openly voice out racist, segregationist, anti-democratic, and pro-ethnic cleansing declarations.

Deterioration of Political Speech

In addition to the panic speech, the Israeli right wing parties employed racist positions in their propaganda. They used outright racist incitement against Arab Palestinian citizens, the indigenous Palestinians of the colonized territories and against foreign workers and African asylum seekers.

In their “Israeli Election Guide 2019”, the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) published a collection of these declarations. The following are few examples of declarations by high-ranking government officials of the Likud-led coalition government.[8]

• Miri Regev, Minister of Culture and Sports, is known for fueling racism and violence against Palestinians and other non-Jews. In 2012, she helped incite a wave of anti-African violence, including assaults and arson attacks, targeting people from countries like Sudan and Eritrea, telling an angry mob that asylum seekers “are a cancer in our body.” The same year, she told an interviewer, “I’m happy to be a fascist”;
• Ayelet Shaked, a New Right co-leader and outgoing Minister of Justice produced an ad showing her spraying on perfume called “fascism”;
• Oren Hazan, former Likud Knesset member, released an ad depicting himself shooting and killing a leader of a political party that represents Palestinian citizens of Israel;
• Eli Ben-Dahan, Deputy Minister of Defense. In 2013, then-Deputy Minister for Religious Affairs Ben-Dahan declared, “[Palestinians] are beasts, they are not human”;
• Bezalel Smotrich, a notorious racist and extremist, Jewish Home member. Smotrich lives in an illegal settlement on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank. He supports a shoot to kill policy for Palestinians, including children, who throw stones at their Israeli occupiers. In 2015, he claimed that the arson attack by Jewish extremists that killed three members of the Dawabsha family, including an 18-month-old baby, was not an act of terrorism;
• Avigdor Lieberman: Former Minister of Defence is an immigrant and former nightclub bouncer from Moldova in the former Soviet Union.  Currently, he lives in one of the colonial settlements in the West Bank. In 1999, Lieberman founded his party Yisrael Beiteinu which is a secular, ultranationalist right-wing party. It espouses hardline, racist policies towards Palestinian citizens of Israel. In March 2015, Lieberman called for Palestinian citizens of Israel who do not support the Jewish character of the state and its policies to be beheaded, declaring: “Those who are with us deserve everything, but those who are against us deserve to have their heads chopped off with an axe”.

General Benny Gantz, used three videos for his election campaign. His first video shows the General “…bragging about how much killing and destruction he committed in Gaza…” The video displays on screen that during his military service General Benny Gantz destroyed “6,231 targets” and killed “1,364 terrorists”. The video’s title included the words “Parts of Gaza were returned to the stone ages.” While the second video “… displays a kill-counter on screen racking up bodies until the number 1,364 is reached. In the background Palestinians are seen conducting funerals”.[9]

Israeli activist and author Miko Peled, who is living in Britain, commented on Gantz’s new ads by saying that it would be “hard to imagine a more violent neo-fascist campaign than this one, by the new kid in Israel’s elections, war criminal general Benny Gantz.”[10]

In her analysis of the degree of racist hatred by Israeli political candidates, Elizabeth Tsurkov wrote in Forward, a progressive Jewish magazine, that “a disturbing new trend has emerged in the political ads of the Israeli elections. Campaign ads seem to be competing over which candidate has killed the most Palestinians.”[11]

When a number of Israeli right wing politicians adopt in their election advertisement: incitement for racism and violence, dehumanization of Palestinians and Africans, glorification for murder of Palestinians, segregationist positions, and fascistic tendencies, they are bound to provide a certain legitimacy for this inevitable hawkish world view. At the same time their speech of hatred will actually convert brutality into an accepted and legitimate ideology.

Ultimately, the impact of this rotten political speech will be detrimental for Israeli youth because it will create for them a right-wing frame of mind and will encourage the development of a right wing culture based on intolerance for others and the glorification of killing and destruction. This in turn will help in bringing more voters for the right-wing parties.

Conducive Political Environment

After years of incitement by Israeli right wing politicians, Israeli society became a conducive political environment provided by the dominant ideology of settler colonialism which is known as Political Zionism. This right-wing ideology becomes more extreme whence fear dominates the consciousness of the average Israeli Jewish citizen who feels the weakness of the Zionist state as a result of defeat in two consecutive wars in Lebanon (the 2000 and 2006 wars) and due to challenges that could come from Syria, Lebanon and Iran and as a result of the present internal challenges that could come from Palestinian resistance. The panic stricken Jewish voters will finally seek tough rightwing protectors as a solution for their psychological dire need.

The Employment of Racism in Election Campaign

The coalition right wing parties succeeded in legislating numerous racist laws in the Israeli parliament. According to the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU), an Israeli think tank,

“There are more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second or third class citizens in their own homeland.”[12] Moreover, “In recent years, the right has made it all too easy to brand its entire camp as racist, nationalist, populist and fascist…”[13]

Therefore, it could be ascertained that the present Israeli coalition government is the most extreme right-wing government in Israel’s history.

As a result, the measure of Israeli patriotism became a combination of three factors: the level of racist hatred towards the indigenous Palestinian population, the level of brutality of the Zionist leaders and the total destruction caused to Palestinian property and cities.

The state of racist hatred, scaremongering campaign and level of brutal violence are all reflective symptoms of the settler colonial nature of the Israeli Zionist state.

The Replacement of Vital Issues

It is noticeable that most election agendas of Israeli political parties dealt with political and security-related issues, but ignored to tackle the vital issues of Israeli society such as: health, education, housing, economy, standard of living, and unemployment. The political narrative, especially the election propaganda, focused on scaremongering, racist hatred, security-related issues, and colonial violence. These issues usually create psychological pressures on the collective consciousness of the Israeli citizen. It pushes the citizens to solidify and get along with these issues. Zionist leaders have succeeded in making them appear as components of the Israeli national consensus.

According to a survey conducted by Israeli Television Chanel 13, it appeared that the election propaganda of most Israeli parties concentrated on the following issues: 28 percent on personal issues of the contenders, 16 percent on security issues and 10 percent on issues smearing the other contender. The survey added that 50 percent of election propaganda dealt with non-sense. While the issue of health, education, economy, and housing did not take any attention.[14]

These pressuring psychological impact aim at driving the consciousness of the Israeli citizen away from the real, vital and burning issues that affect their way of living. Currently, the Israeli citizen suffers from: deteriorating health services, especially at government hospitals, costly education and housing services, financial and institutional corruption, and an increasing level of social violence.

Those Israelis who have adopted the rightwing frame of mind are in solidarity with their parties. They are ready to identify with the ideology of their leaders to the point where they are willing to ignore their financial corruption, provided that they feel protected and secure. For example, Netanyahu has been accused by the Attorney General on three cases of corruption, but went on in his election campaign. He has not been charged yet but will be put to trial after he manages to establish a new coalition government. Apparently, the accusation of corruption did not harm his image nor reputation as a tough and hawkish right-wing leader.

External Support and Rising Criticism

In addition to local internal support by a significant portion of Israeli pro-rightwing voters, Israeli rightwing governments have enjoyed the support of most of the European governments, the American administration, especially that of the rightwing Donald Trump, and the support of a number of reactionary Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman.

Israeli rightwing governments have received huge military and economic assistance from Western countries, especially the various American administrations. Outright political support was provided to Israeli rightwing governments, especially at the United Nations. This questionable assistance was given even when Israeli rightwing governments blatantly violated both international law and human rights. Israeli violations were, mostly, not condemned but encouraged. War crimes were and still being committed by the Israeli army and by Zionist settlers against the indigenous Palestinian civilians, yet, no Israeli war criminal was brought to justice at the International Court of Justice.

Moreover, Israeli rightwing governments have been supported for years by the dominant Western media, capitalist think tanks, a significant part of Western academics and intellectuals, and a great portion of world public opinion. In turn, Israeli policies towards the indigenous Palestinian people have been defended as necessary acts of “defense” in face of Arab “terrorism”.

The totality of this varied support for the policies of Israeli rightwing governments provided Israel with a protective shield and sanctioned its internal and external policies that violate international law and contravene human rights. It also prevented the United Nations and the International Court of Justice from making Israel become accountable for its war crimes.

However, Israel is a settler colonialist entity that was created both by British imperialism and Political Zionism inside Palestine, which was populated by the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. In his evaluation of the impact of the colonization process on Israeli society Bashir Abu-Manneh, wrote that:

Israeli society is not merely a society of immigrants; it is one of settlers. This society, including its working class, was shaped through a process of colonization…. The permanent conflict between settlers’ society and the indigenous, displaced Palestinian Arabs has never stopped and it has shaped the very structure of Israeli sociology, politics, and economics.[15]

Justification of Zionist crimes and harsh policies towards the indigenous Palestinians needed a reasoning, an ideological tool, an enemy and scaremongering. The creation of an enemy for Zionist Israel has been a strategic asset of both rightwing and leftwing Zionism. This asset has been elaborated by both Bill and Kathleen Christison, who wrote a research article, in which they put the following reasoning for both the creation and employment of the ‘enemy’ in Zionist political speech.

Indeed, the most pernicious aspect of a political philosophy like Zionism that masquerades as democratic is that it requires an enemy in order to survive and, where an enemy does not already exist, it requires that one be created. In order to justify racist repression and dispossession, particularly in a system purporting to be democratic, those being repressed and displaced must be portrayed as murderous and predatory. And in order to keep its own population in line, to prevent a humane people from objecting to their own government’s repressive policies, it requires that fear be instilled in the population: fear of “the other,” fear of the terrorist, fear of the Jew-hater. The Jews of Israel must always be made to believe that they are the preyed-upon. This justifies having forced these enemies to leave, it justifies discriminating against those who remained, it justifies denying democratic rights to those who later came under Israel’s control in the occupied territories.[16]

Due to the fact that Israel is a product of ongoing settler colonialism, a process of rightwing political socialization is still thriving and crystallizing among the Jewish settler society. This process was affected by US-Israeli relationship, which in turn was  consolidated since 1967. Bashir Abu-Manneh reflected on that relationship by writing the following description.

… The United States has been determining major economic and political outcomes in the Middle East since at least 1967, with Israel continuing to play a crucial role in their realization. In Israel-Palestine, this has meant that force and colonial peace have alternated as main instruments of policy, with the main objective being a constant: Jewish supremacy in Palestine—as much land as possible, as few Palestinians as possible. The United States has exploited this Zionist imperative for its own interests in the region, and has fostered a militarized and fundamentalist Israel in the process. This reality can be gauged in Israel’s most recent parliamentary elections…[17]

James Petras described Jewish solidarity with Israel, among the educated strata, as in fact, being a choice to “…embrace an ‘ethno-religious’ Supremacist dogma, which binds them to an apartheid, militarist state and ideology ready to drag the world into a global war.”[18]

However, a new phenomenon is on the rise among Diaspora Jewry. Young Jews are increasingly becoming critical of and disenchanted with Israeli policies. The increasing weight of this phenomenon and the accumulated world public pressure, are bound to affect Israeli policies towards the indigenous Palestinians. According to the evaluation of James Petras,

Jews, especially young Jews, are increasingly repelled by Israel’s crimes against humanity. The next step for them (and for us) is to criticize, demystify and stand up to the toxic supremacist ideology linking the powerful domestic Zionist power configuration and its political clones with Israel.[19]

All settler colonial societies exhibit rightwing tendencies because of espousing ultra nationalist ideologies. During the conflict with the indigenous population, colonial settlers develop a racist frame of mind and a narrow minded world view. The more inhuman crimes the settlers perpetuate, the more extreme rightwing positions they adopt.

The Trump administration announced today that it will waive dozens of environmental laws to speed construction of 18- to 30-foot-tall border walls across 80 miles of borderlands in Arizona and New Mexico. The bollard-style barriers will block the natural migrations of wildlife, damage ecosystems and harm border communities.

The three waivers sweep aside dozens of laws that protect clean air, clean water, public lands and endangered wildlife. They cover plans to build 46 miles of new wall in New Mexico, 6.5 miles of new wall along the Colorado River south of Yuma, and 27.5 miles of replacement wall southeast of Yuma. These are the first wall-construction projects using military funds authorized by Trump’s emergency declaration.

“It’s bad enough that Trump’s bulldozing the borderlands for a senseless wall, but now he’s stealing money from the military to do it,” said Laiken Jordahl, borderlands campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The only thing permanent about Trump’s wall will be its destruction of wildlife and wild places. It will do nothing to stop asylum seekers or drug smugglers. Waiving these laws is an affront to borderland communities, and we’ll continue to challenge it in court.”

The waivers, which will take effect Wednesday, bring the number of waivers issued by the Trump administration under the REAL ID Act to nine.

The New Mexico wall will cut through the remote Chihuahuan Desert and sever a known migratory corridor for Mexican gray wolves, among the rarest mammals on the continent. The New Mexico area is also home to the endangered Aplomado falcon, as well as kit foxes, bighorn sheep and ringtails.

The Yuma wall will block people and wildlife from accessing the Lower Colorado River. It will also harm habitat for endangered birds including yellow-billed cuckoos, southwestern willow flycatchers and Yuma clapper rails.

Map of border wall waivers by Kara Clauser, Center for Biological Diversity.

The waivers are being issued during open comment periods where the public is invited to weigh in with concerns. Comments remain open until May 8. Construction contracts already have been issued for these projects.

The Center and allies have sued to challenge Trump’s emergency declaration to fund border walls. The Center also has sued the administration to challenge border-wall construction in the Rio Grande Valley and near the Santa Teresa Port of Entry in New Mexico. The Center’s first border-related lawsuit ― filed in 2017 in U.S. District Court in Tucson with U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva ― seeks to require the Trump administration to do a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of its border-enforcement program. All of these suits are pending.

A 2017 study by the Center identified more than 90 endangered or threatened species that would be threatened by wall construction along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

Beyond jeopardizing wildlife, endangered species and public lands, the U.S.-Mexico border wall is part of a larger strategy of ongoing border militarization that damages human rights, civil liberties, native lands, local businesses and international relations. The border wall impedes the natural migrations of people and wildlife that are essential to healthy diversity.

The waivers cast aside these laws:

1. The National Environmental Policy Act
2. The Endangered Species Act
3. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
4. The National Historic Preservation Act
5. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act
6. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act
7. The Clean Air Act
8. The Archeological Resources Protection Act
9. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
10. The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988
11. The National Trails System Act
12. The Safe Drinking Water Act
13. The Noise Control Act
14. The Solid Waste Disposal Act
15. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
16. The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
17. The Antiquities Act
18. The Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act
19. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
20. The Farmland Protection Policy Act
21. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
22. The National Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
23. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
24. The Wild Horse and Burro Act
25. The Administrative Procedure Act
26. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
27. The Eagle Protection Act
28. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
29. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act
30. The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999
31. The Sikes Act
32. The Reclamation Project Act of 1939

*

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

I think that I have something of a head-start over others, including many Americans, so far as the Democratic presidential aspirant Pete Buttigieg is concerned. As one who takes note of a wide range of figures on what is termed the ‘alternative media’, I am quite familiar with the philosophy and the views of E. Michael Jones, a Catholic conservative, who is a long-term resident of South Bend Indiana, which is Buttigeig’s hometown.

Jones has been absolutely scathing about Buttigieg’s persona, as well as his record as mayor. And even if one removes the fact that Buttigieg’s homosexuality is a central reason for Jones’ hostility, there is a coalescence of analysis between the right-wing Jones and the left-wing humourist Jimmy Dore, who is an astute commentator on America’s domestic politics as well as on geopolitical issues.

To Dore, Buttigieg’s image of a down-to-earth, sleeves-rolled-up operator is one sign of a guy who is “trying too hard”. In fact, noted Dore in a recent episode of his youtube show, “he’s trying too hard to make it look like he’s not trying.” But while Dore’s analysis is based on what he can garner from Buttigieg’s performance in the media now that he is in the national spotlight, Jones has over the last few years incessantly spoken in detail about Buttegieg’s record as mayor, during which time he has succeeded in alienating large sections of the population of South Bend.

Buttigieg’s formula of “practical leadership guided by progressive values” has been subjected to devastating criticism by those familiar with his 9-year mayoral record in South Bend.

One example relates to Buttigieg’s decision to phase out the city’s trash collecting regime for cost-cutting purposes. Previously, a two-man team would drive down residential alleys to retrieve refuse bins, but the new design trucks cannot fit through most alleys which means that residents have to put out their garbage in the front of their homes, a situation which has led to bouts of odour infestation and a ‘rough’ looking appearance on collection days. Buttigieg’s decision was not a practical one, given the lack of diligence in researching the replacement trucks. And although more modern in appearance and facility, the laying off of many refuse collectors -many of whom were from minority backgrounds- added to the city’s unemployment figures.

Buttigieg’s decision to sack South Bend’s popular black police chief Darryl Boykins, is also viewed as a disastrous move. It was a move which he has admitted was his “first serious mistake as mayor”. His claims to have been “troubled” by Barack Obama’s clemency for Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning, who exposed US war crimes, as well as his praise of Israeli security measures as being “moving” and “clear-eyed”, despite the fact that he was on a visit to the country last May when Israeli Defence Force snipers were shooting unarmed Palestinian protesters, do little to convince observers that he can genuinely be called a progressive. Indeed, there is little of the vocabulary or deeds associated with progressive politics in Buttigieg such as relates to social justice and employee rights.

Buttigeig has also been called out for his tendency to narcissism. A measure of his self-obsessed persona can be garnered from the fact that his book Shortest Way Home devoted more words to his recollection of his playing piano on “Rhapsody in Blue” with the South Bend Symphony Orchestra than on the issue of social poverty.

The marketing of American political aspirants has become more sophisticated from the time when strategizing his son John’s campaign for the White House, Joe Kennedy Snr. said “we’re going to sell Jack like soap flakes”. Becoming president not only involves utilising the modern innovations of Madison Avenue, it also entails brokering deals with the establishment who have ensured that whoever is elected as the latest saviour of the nation is nonetheless a captive of their overarching policies. No objective observer, for instance, can fail to note the fundamental continuum by Donald Trump of a foreign policy followed by Barack Obama who carried on from where George W. Bush left off.

To get straight to the point: ‘Mayor Pete’ is a creature of the oligarchs; a so-called ‘progressive’ who is really a hardline conservative on many issues. A man who is being moulded and sold to America by a number of the people who were behind the meteoric rise of a certain senator named Barack Obama.

It will be useful to bear this in mind were Pete Buttigieg to defy the odds by becoming president of the United States.

*

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: Adeyinka Makinde.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

President Putin left nothing to doubt when he proudly proclaimed that Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union regional integration organization that it leads are strategically merging with China and its Belt & Road Initiative, with this process having unprecedentedly far-reaching strategic consequences for the supercontinent and 21st-century geopolitics as a whole.

This year’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) Forum is a monumental event bringing together several dozen heads of state and providing a platform for the international community to better understand this world-changing vision. President Putin gave an important speech during this event that can be summarized as his proud proclamation that Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAU) regional integration organization that it leads are strategically merging with China and its BRI. There’s no doubt that this process will have unprecedentedly far-reaching strategic consequences for the supercontinent and 21st-century geopolitics as a whole, which is why his entire address deserves to be analyzed in full. What therefore follows is the transcript of his speech interspersed with brief interpretations of the text in order to help the reader appreciate just how significant of an event this was and what his words might mean for the future of Russian grand strategy:

Passage:

“President Xi Jinping, Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank my good friend President of China Xi Jinping for inviting me to attend the second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to be here in such a large representative group and to meet with each other, to discuss current issues of global development and principles of cooperation.

I have listened with great interest – as I am sure many other people in this hall have – about the principles and goals of China’s development, that is, how the People’s Republic of China, the world’s largest economy today in terms of purchasing power parity, is planning to develop and build relationships with its partners. This is of fundamental importance both for Russia and, I am sure, for many of our colleagues who have gathered here in Beijing today.”

Interpretation:

When China talks, the world listens.

Passage:

“It is obvious that the implementation of this ambitious project, Belt and Road, promoted by our Chinese colleagues, is aimed at strengthening the constructive cooperation of the Eurasian states. Its truly unifying goal is to ensure harmonious and sustainable economic development and economic growth throughout the Eurasian space.

Russia has emphasised on numerous occasions that PRC President’s Belt and Road initiative rimes with Russia’s idea to establish a Greater Eurasian Partnership, a project designed to ‘integrate integration frameworks’, and therefore to promote a closer alignment of various bilateral and multilateral integration processes that are currently underway in Eurasia.”

Interpretation:

China’s Silk Road vision of Eurasian integration is complementary to Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership, with the key concept being that both Great Powers are now ready to “integrate (their) integration frameworks”, which confirms what the Russian Ambassador to China said earlier this month and strongly implies Moscow’s unstated but de-facto participation in BRI’s flagship project of CPEC, too.

Passage:

“Russia is ready to undertake efforts for creating a transparent and enabling environment in order to promote cooperation across Eurasia.

It is important that we come up with effective ways of responding to the risks of a fragmented global political, economic and technological landscape and growing protectionism, with illegitimate unilateral restrictions imposed bypassing the UN Security Council or, even worse, trade wars as its most dangerous expressions.

It is our firm belief that only by working together can we counter urgent challenges such as decelerating economic growth, the deepening prosperity gap among nations as well as technological backwardness.”

Interpretation:

Only multilateral economic cooperation such as the sort proposed by China’s BRI and Russia’s EAU (to say nothing of these integration projects’ impending merger) can counteract the systemically destabilizing consequences of the US’ “trade war” and the “Trumpist” worldview that inspired it.

Passage:

“Let me repeat what I have said on numerous occasions: these negative trends feed terrorism, extremism and illegal migration flows, causing old regional conflicts to resurface and new ones to emerge.”

Interpretation:

Russian President Putin, Chinese President Xi, and Prime Minister Khan of the global pivot state of Pakistan are all on the same page regarding the fact that the source of many security threats can be traced back to economic problems, hence the interest that the new Multipolar Trilateral has in pursuing the integration of the EAU, BRI, and CPEC.

Passage:

“I strongly believe that Eurasia can become a role model in devising a meaningful and positive agenda for overcoming these and other urgent international problems. Peoples of various cultures, religions and traditions have inhabited the vast Eurasian space for millennia.

Of course, there were wars and conflicts throughout the continent’s history, but sooner or later they subsided, while common sense and the natural aspiration of the people to peace and communication always triumphed at the end of the day.”

Interpretation:

Despite its diversity, Eurasia won’t be the scene of a destabilizing so-called “Clash of Civilizations” that shadowy forces are actively trying to spark, but rather the platform for a Convergence of Civilizations that will stabilize the supercontinent following the integration of the aforementioned integration frameworks (EAU, BRI, CPEC).

Passage:

“Russia is interested in the closest cooperation with all Eurasian partners on the basis of unshakable principles of respect for the sovereignty, rights and legitimate interests of each state. It is on these principles that we are building the Eurasian Economic Union, with our partners – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Soon, on May 29, the EAEU will have been in existence for five years. Over this period, a common market has been created, and conditions are being created to ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour.

Common markets have been formed, as well as a common digital space.

In his remarks just now, President Xi Jinping spoke about linking his initiatives with similar ones and with other associations that are forming in our vast space. This absolutely fits into our plans. The EAEU states are actively working to strengthen industrial and technological cooperation, to build efficient transport and logistics chains. And we, too, together with our Chinese friends, with all our partners, will talk more during our meetings today and tomorrow, we will continue coordinating this work, work of a global nature.”

Interpretation:

The Russian-led EAU is the core of Moscow’s supercontinental integration strategy, and it perfectly dovetails with China’s BRI.

Passage:

“We also continue pursuing the policy of harmonising our monetary and fiscal policies. At the same time, the Eurasian Economic Union strives for the widest possible cooperation with all interested countries and associations. I am primarily referring to the People’s Republic of China, the country we consider to be our key supporter, our natural partner in the integrated development of the continent.

The five EAEU member states have unanimously supported the idea of pairing the EAEU development and the Chinese Silk Road Economic Belt project. The agreements reached in this regard are being successfully implemented. In the coming months, the Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation between the EAEU and China will enter into force.”

Interpretation:

The EAU will continue harmonizing its economic strategy with China, Russia’s key supporter and natural partner in jointly integrating Eurasia, with more cooperation agreements to be forthcoming.

Passage:

“The Eurasian Union is committed to liberalising economic ties with its other partners as well, and has already signed a free trade agreement with Vietnam and a provisional agreement with Iran paving the way to the creation of a free trade area. The preparation of similar instruments with Singapore and Serbia is nearing completion, and talks are underway with Israel, Egypt and India.

We cooperate actively with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

We undoubtedly stand for expanding business ties with the European Union, our long-standing and traditional partner, in a constructive and equitable manner. Even if there are currently some differences between us, they cannot and should not cast a shadow on our shared responsibility for the future of Europe and all of Eurasia.”

Interpretation:

Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership vision is truly all-encompassing and seeks to spread multipolarity into every corner of the supercontinent, even doing what most observers had hitherto thought to be politically impossible by connecting Iran and its hated “Israeli” foe together through the same multilateral trade framework of the EAU.

Passage:

“Let me emphasise that the Great Eurasian Partnership and Belt and Road concepts are both rooted in the principles and values that everyone understands: the natural aspiration of nations to live in peace and harmony, benefit from free access to the latest scientific achievements and innovative development, while preserving their culture and unique spiritual identity. In other words, we are united by our strategic, long-term interests.

I strongly believe that the comprehensive approach that underpins both concepts will help us further enhance economic cooperation within the continent, develop shared transport and energy infrastructure and promote digital technology. This way, integration will serve the interests of our peoples and all Eurasian nations to the fullest extent.”

Interpretation:

“Win-win” isn’t high-sounding rhetoric exclusive to the Chinese, but is a credible Eurasian-wide vision that can ultimately improve the living standards of the supercontinent’s many people if it’s successfully pursued by all nations in full coordination with one another.

Passage:

“Once again, I would like to thank our partners, our Chinese friends for this initiative. Thank you for your attention.”

Interpretation:

No one should ever forget that while the vision of “win-win” is completely inclusive, it wouldn’t be possible to seriously implement in practice had it not been for China’s BRI, therefore making the People’s Republic the core of this paradigm-changing 21st-century process that’s poised to irreversibly revolutionize global geopolitics.

Read the full speech of President Putin here.

*

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 Oriental Review.

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.

All images in this article are from Oriental Review

Values, values and more values.  Another dreary dish added to the smorgasbord of Democratic hopefuls for the White House.  This one is a bit cured and worn, smoked by history.  Biden, having performed the role of Vice President for Barack Obama and senator for Delaware, is making his third attempt to not so much gallop as crawl into the US executive.

That said, there was initial promise, a teaser sent out to media outlets that the venue of his launch on Wednesday would be Charlottesville, Virginia.  Memories of August 2017, with the death of protestor Heather Heyer at the white-supremacist riot, hung heavy. “That’s daring,” thought Joan Walsh at first blush, writing in The Nation.  “Maybe he’s going to run a campaign that’s in step with the new, multiracial, progressive Democratic Party.”  Not so, as Walsh and the rest of the campaign watchers found out.  First came the video launch on Thursday.  Then it was Pittsburgh. Unions; blue-collar focused.

His video was far from impressive.   For one, it did the inexplicable by actually giving a platform for the very individuals he wished to condemn: far right, torch-bearing yahoos which he associated with the vile history of 1930s Europe.  Then he did what many a US politician has done: thrown in good lashings of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence.  Taking such a moral high ground suggests that he has little intention of winning Trump supporters so much as seducing them; they remain, in Democratic-speak, that thatched “basket of deplorables”. (Biden’s own words referred to President Donald Trump’s “very fine people”.)

Another term of Trump, he warns, “will forever and fundamentally alter the character of the nation.”  This is undue flattery, given that the inexorable decline of the US Republic was well and truly fast-tracked by Biden’s own legislative record across a range of social policies, one that left the ground rich for Trump’s debut.

Then comes the more insidious element to the Biden campaign.  To woo the unions, he will have to tantalise and deceive by enlisting the bidding of corporate America.  He will throw in references to the spirit of D-Day and Iwo Jima while embracing, warmly, the robbing titans on Wall Street.  For Biden, USA Inc. is a political home from which he can speak to distant, blue-collar folk who are less people than electoral units.  In his 2008 campaign, he gave a prototypic example, fed by Washington lobbyists and PACs nourished by the likes of T-Mobile, eBay and Bank of America.

His love affair with credit and its agents is known and, if not, should be run on incessant loop through the advertising campaigns of his opponents.   MBNA, a financial services company with Delaware origins, has been particularly keen to oil the wheels of Biden’s efforts. In 2008, the company had already been supplying largesse to the then Senator for two decades.  Mutual back scratching extended to Biden’s son, Hunter, gaining a position at MBNA and becoming a lobbyist for the company.  But that was not all.

As is a matter of legislative record, Biden threw in his lot with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.  He was one of the first Democrats to the plate in supporting it, and added his vote four times through the course of its final passage in March 2005.  The bill made it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection, a measure cheered on by those in the financial services industry concerned that profits were being eaten into.

David Wade, a spokesman for then Senator Barack Obama suggested that the level of enthusiasm shown by the Delaware senator for the bill was constructive, designed to blunt its sharper edges in the name of accommodation.  (Obama, for his part, did oppose the legislative measure.)

“Senator Biden took on entrenched interests and succeeded in improving the bill for low-income workers, women and children.”

But Wade did not stop there, adding a few more fictional baubles to his sale:

“Senator Biden has a 35-year record fighting for people against powerful interests, whether it’s drug companies, oil companies or insurance companies.”

Such obfuscation did not trick The New York Times.  His voting record was more than amenable to those “entrenched” interests he had supposedly battled with avid courage; Biden “joined Republicans to defeat attempts by his Democratic colleagues, including Mr Obama, to soften the bill’s impact on those same constituencies.”  In one instance, Biden, along with five other Democrats, voted against a proposal mandating credit companies to more effectively warn consumers about paying only the minimum due each month.  Protections for those forced into bankruptcy by being deep in medical debt, and even those in the military, were also deemed unnecessary.

The tradition is set to continue.  On Thursday, Biden kept company at a fundraiser in with Comcast Senior Executive Vice President David Cohen and health insurance executive Daniel Hilferty.  Within twenty-four hours, he had netted $6.3 million in contributions, $700,000 of which came from the Philadelphia fundraiser.

His appearance as a contender for the Democratic nomination stirred rival Senator Elizabeth Warren to tell those attending an event in Iowa that, “Joe Biden was on the side of the credit card companies.”  Her 2014 autobiography broadened that claim.  Split in the Senate, “Democratic powerhouse Joe Biden” and a few other Democrats were keen to back the bill.  “Never mind that the country was sunk in an ugly recession and millions of families were struggling – the banking industry pressed forward and Congress obliged.”

Biden’s entry into a race that now chokes with some 20 Democratic contenders is unlikely to put President Trump off his stroke.  It is another sign that the Democrats will, when the time comes, consume themselves in acts of self-mutilation and saturnalia, something they have become rather adept at doing.  With Biden weakening the progressive line, the likes of Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders have herculean feats to perform.

*

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]

Soon after deep insider and favored water carrier for the financial elite, Joe Biden, announced his candidacy the corporate propaganda media ramped up its support and floated a meme that Trump is petrified of a Biden challenge next year. 

“Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump by 8 percentage points in a hypothetical 2020 general election matchup, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll,” The Hill Reported in the days prior to Biden’s announcement. 

The state and its propaganda media love corporate news polls and they hope this one will convince Americans to vote establishment once again.

Trump has privately expressed concern to advisers that Biden could beat him: report https://t.co/Ya8s8lg828 pic.twitter.com/sgD9gfLZE3

— The Hill (@thehill) April 26, 2019

Biden likes to portray himself as an Average Joe—remember “Lunch Bucket Joe”?—a commoner sharing the trials and tribulations of the masses, never mind his vote to make it more difficult for average Americans, victims of a predatory elite, to file bankruptcy. His presidential campaign team is rife with corporate lobbyists. Joe is a favorite of credit card and insurance companies. 

Back in the day, Biden admitted he is a whore for corporate interests. 

Democrats suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome will vote for anybody the DNC throws out into the rigged political arena, even an admitted ring kisser like Joe who is now crawling to corporations and big donors to finance his campaign. 

Due to DNC shenanigans—similar to those used against Bernie Sanders—insider Joe masquerading as Mr. Normal may end up being the Democrat nominee. First, however, competition in a crowded field needs to be swept clean. Bernie, Elizabeth, Kamala, Beto, and Mayor Pete, to name a few, need to be marginalized. 

It’s not likely, however, that any of these people will make it to the White House in 2020. 

Trump will be re-elected, not because he promised anything he is able to actually deliver, but as a protest vote against the establishment, never mind Trump is following through on the neoliberal agenda, in particular in regard to forever war. He has put his own personal spin on the imperial presidency. 

It doesn’t matter who wins in November, 2020. The “swamp” will once again be triumphant, the financial class will continue its rape and pillage of the economy, and the wars will go on indefinitely, or at least until the economic house of cards collapses and the state shows its real face. 

*

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 Chinese government has invited its Syrian counterpart to the global summit for the Chinese flagship Belt and Road initiative taking place in Beijing April 25 through April 27 among 120 countries.

Syria’s invitation, attendance, and contribution in the mega development being an essential part in West Asia is a clear indication that the Chinese government does not weigh the unilateral sanctions and blockade the regimes of Donald Trump and his EU lackeys and Gulfies satellite fiefdoms impose on the Arab Republic.

Belt and Road is China’s strategic 3 decades infrastructure investment project with countries along the ancient Chinese Silk Road, and beyond, engaging all the countries in its route economically away from political pressures and dominance and to the best of the nations involved, and the rest of the world.

The junta leading the USA have done their best to complete what their predecessor regime of Barack Obama started in destroying and dividing Syria including the direct bombing of Syrian strategic military assets multiple times unashamedly aiding ISIS and other terrorists against the Syrian state, and when their attempts to control Syria were defeated they resorted to the collective punishment of the Syrian people, a crime against humanity.

“The Chinese invitation to Syria to attend the Belt and Road Summit is a significant challenge to the sanctions imposed by the United States of America against Syria,” political and media advisor to the Syrian presidency Bouthaina Shaaban stated.

Mrs. Shaaban added:

“The Silk Road will not be a Silk Road if it doesn’t go through Syria, Iraq, and Iran, where Syria has a special place in this summit is an essential part of the historic Silk Road, and because of its sacrifices in combating terrorism is being appreciated by the people of China and all the people in the world that believe in peace, love, and humanity.”

Mrs. Shaaban speaking to Lebanese news channel al-Mayadeen clarified that what the United States of America is doing will have dangerous repercussions on the USA where it detains women and children in the Rukban Concentration Camp, and protects terrorists in the al-Tanf area, occupying Syrian territories.

“The Turks must leave the Syrian territories, and we will not give up any inch of the Syrian land”, Mrs. Shaaban told al-Mayadeen, adding: “The regime of Erdogan (in Turkey) has not abided by the agreement with regards to Idlib” which was agreed upon in the Astana talks.”

The Syrian presidency advisor reminded that ‘Erdogan regime is responsible for smuggling all the terrorists who came into Syria.’

Mrs. Shaaban meets Mr. Xiaodong in Beijing (Source: Syria News)

“China will not change its policies towards Syria, it didn’t and will never change” China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Chen Xiaodong reiterated to Mrs. Shaaban during a meeting on the sidelines of the Belt and Road Summit in Beijing – as quoted by SANA.

Mr. Xiaodong noted China’s desire and seriousness in contributing in the rebuilding process in Syria and confirmed the Chinese government always encourages Chinese corporations to invest in Syria.

*

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

Whenever, in ordinary circumstances, the subject of violence comes up, most people throw up their hands in horror and comment along the lines that it is ‘in our genes’, ‘nothing can be done about it’ or other words that reflect the powerlessness that most people feel around violence.

It is true that violence is virtually ubiquitous, has a near-infinite variety of manifestations and, at its most grotesque (as nuclear war or run-away climate catastrophe), even threatens human extinction in the near-term.

Nevertheless, anyone who pays attention to the subject of violence in any detail soon discovers that plenty of people are interested in tackling this problem, even if it is ‘impossible’. Moreover, of course, at least some people recognize that while we must tackle each manifestation of violence, understanding the cause of violence is imperative if we are to successfully tackle its many manifestations at their source. To do all of this effectively, however, is a team effort. And hopefully, one day, this team will include all of us.

In the meantime, let me start by telling you a little about some of the people who are already working to end violence by tackling one or more of its many manifestations. These individuals are part of a worldwide network set up to focus on ending violence – ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ – and they have signed a pledge to do so.

Concerned about US government threats to Iran and Venezuela, several Charter signatories were part of one or both recent peace delegations to Iran and Venezuela respectively. These delegations were designed to open more lines of communication and to demonstrate solidarity with those who do not submit to US hegemony.

The 28-member US peace delegation to Iran from 25 February to 6 March 2019 included long-term nonviolent activists Margaret Flowers, Kevin Zeese and David Hartsough. Unfortunately for David, author of Waging Peace: Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist and director of Peaceworkers, his trip didn’t go as planned. If you would like to read a compelling account of his time in Iran with some wonderful Iranians, while learning something about what it means to be on the wrong end of US sanctions, you will find it here: ‘An American Casualty of U.S. Economic Sanctions on Iran’. Glad you got the lifesaving medical treatment from our Iranian friends that you needed David, despite the sanctions! And it is a tragedy that Iran has recently suffered even more, as a result of the devastating floods that have hit the country, with the sanctions cruelly denying them vital emergency assistance. See ‘Stop the ongoing U.S. economic terrorism against Iran and help its people!’

People gather at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, DC to prevent takeover by the opposition. (Source: Popular Resistance)

In relation to Venezuela, a 13-member peace and solidarity delegation from North America landed in Caracas, Venezuela on the weekend of 9-10 March 2019. The delegation included leaders of antiwar groups from the US and Canada and, once again, Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers of ‘Popular Resistance’ and ‘Clearing the Fog’ podcasts. You can read an account of this delegation’s findings in Kevin and Margaret’s highly informative report ‘Venezuela: US Imperialism Is Based On Lies And Threats’.

Another initiative to support Venezuelans was outlined in the article ‘A Nonviolent Strategy to Defeat a US Military Invasion of Venezuela’.

Traveling widely to witness and demonstrate solidarity with those on the receiving end of US military violence, another long-term nonviolent activist, Kathy Kelly, recently wrote an article pointing out that ‘Every War Is a War against Children’ in which she evocatively documented examples of what this means for those children living in the war zones we call Yemen and Afghanistan. In an earlier article, Kathy questioned the morality of those corporations – such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and Raytheon – that profit from the killing their weapons inflict. See ‘Can We Divest from Weapons Dealers?’

Environmental journalist Robert Hunziker continues to fearlessly research and truthfully document the ongoing assaults that humans are inflicting on Earth’s biosphere. In his most recent article ‘The Blue Ocean Event and Collapsing Ecosystems’, Robert straightforwardly explains the content of a recent interview of Dr. Peter Wadhams, the world’s leading Arctic scientist. Robert notes that

‘Currently, the Arctic is heating up about 4 times faster than the rest of the planet… the temp difference between the Arctic and the tropics is dropping precipitously… thus, driving the jet streams less… creating meandering jet streams… in turn, producing extreme weather events throughout the Northern Hemisphere, especially in mid-latitudes where most of the world’s food is grown.’

Robert also notes that the study of ancient ice cores by a team from the British Antarctic Survey, University of Cambridge and University of Birmingham found ‘major reductions in sea ice in the Arctic’ which will crank up (via temperature amplification as a result of no Arctic sea ice) Greenland regional temperatures ‘by 16°C in less than a decade’ with horrific implications for life on Earth. Thank you, Robert, for reporting what the corporate media won’t touch and even many activists find too terrifying to seriously contemplate.

In Chile, Pía Figueroa continues her heavy involvement in efforts to network those committed to peace and nonviolence and to develop media channels that report the truth. Pía reports that

‘Pressenza International Press Agency’, which celebrated its tenth anniversary last November ‘in more than 40 places of the world’, continues to advance its contribution ‘with a journalism focused on peace and nonviolence, to a world in which all human beings have a place and their rights are fully respected, in a framework of disarmed and demilitarized societies, capable of re-establishing the ecological balance through governments of real and participatory democracy.’

Since attending the Media Forum organized in the city of Chongqing, China, by CCTV+ and CGTN, in October last year, Pía has been busy organizing the upcoming Latin-American Humanist Forum in Santiago with the objective of ‘Building Convergences’, as its slogan points out. It will be held on 10-12 May with the participation of many grassroots and social organizations involved in more than twenty networks of nonviolent action and inspired by the European Humanist Forum that took place in Madrid, Spain, in May 2018.

Anwar A. Khan was born into ‘a liberal Muslim family in Bangladesh’. As a 16-year-old college student, he participated in the ‘Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, which resulted in horrendous loss of life, genocide against Bangladesh’s intelligentsia and systematic rapes.’ This experience taught him the nature of the US establishment as he was ‘on the battle field along with so many friends of mine and Indian soldiers to fight back the obnoxious nexus of the Pakistani military regime and the Whitehouse establishment’ to create Bangladesh. Khan Bhai went on to complete a post-graduate education, before embarking on a 43-year (so far) business career, involving many different levels of corporate engagement and which took him to many countries of the world, including Venezuela in 2010 where he met both Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro.

He also writes regularly in his spare time and recently wrote an article highlighting the adverse impact of the lack of infrastructure under which many impoverished countries suffer, given the way in which the global economy functions to exploit them. In the article, he describes an inferno that started on the night of 20 February 2019 in a building at Chawkbazar, a 300-year-old Dhaka neighbourhood, ‘where chemicals for making deodorants and other household uses were illegally stored’. The fire ‘quickly spread to four nearby buildings where many people were trapped. Hundreds of firefighters rushed to the scene but traffic jams in the narrow streets held them up. It took almost 12 hours to bring the fire under control….’ The horrific inferno claimed about 100 lives and more were injured. For the full account, see ‘After Nimtali, now Chawkbazar inferno hell, a crisis of humanity’.

Commenting on the current project that she is organizing with friends, Lori Lightning outlines the rationale behind ‘Bear Bones Parenting’:

‘There’s no course or exam to pass to become a parent, and most try to figure this out once a parent, and usually in an exhausted overwhelmed state. Bedtimes, meals, chores, and healthy open communication all become a task without a trusted framework in place.

‘Based on 51 years of combined wisdom as educators, counselors, health practitioners, moms, step moms and foster moms, Bear Bones Parenting offers an intuitive formula to demystify the basics of parenting and a workbook with tools for reflection and wellness practices to take you actively through day to day living no matter where you are at in your life. You dedicate 15 minutes a day and in trade stop being overwhelmed. A “do it yourself” workbook filled with tools to turn life into what you envision for yourself and your family.

‘Our cast of puppets help to inspire playful reflection on our children’s temperaments and our own. Eventual creation of short videos will be easily accessible for busy parents and provide some examples of how things typically play out with temperaments and inspiration of the Bear way, which is curious, intuitive, firm and loving.

‘We hope that BBP can help reduce parental stress and frustration so there is time to connect in joy and curiosity with our children and foster their independence.’

For more information, you can contact Lori at this email address: <[email protected]>

Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh is volunteer Director of The Palestine Institute for Biodiversity and Sustainability (PIBS) and the Palestine Museum of Natural History (PMNH) but he is also actively engaged in the Palestinian struggle for liberation from Israeli occupation. As he evocatively noted in a recent Easter reflection:

‘This is the tenth Easter I celebrate after returning to Palestine in 2008. When we native Christian Palestinians have a few moments to meditate and reflect in this season, we reflect that some 2.5 billion human beings believe in a message that originated with a Palestinian baby born in a manger here and was crucified for being the first revolutionary Palestinian to push for caring for the sick and the poor.

‘We reflect on the real message of Jesus, a message of love and coexistence. The harsh reality on the ground reminds us of our responsibility to shape a better future.

‘We are hopeful because we take a long view of history. Some 150,000 years ago, humans migrated from Africa using Palestine as the passage way to Western Asia and then the rest of the world. 12,000 years ago, this area became the center of development for agriculture (the Fertile Crescent). This was where we humans first domesticated animals like goats and donkeys and plants like wheat, barley, chickpeas, and lentils. This transformation allowed our ancestors time to evolve what we now call “civilization”. Hence, the first writings, the first music, and art, and the first thoughts of deities. From our Aramaic alphabet came the Latin, Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew alphabets. Aramaic was the language of Jesus and much of our current Palestinian Arabic is still Aramaic words.’

Mazin continues to travel regularly, lecturing about initiatives of the museum but also about the political reality in Palestine. If you would like to volunteer to assist the museum’s projects, or to donate money, books, natural history items or anything else that would be useful, you are welcome to contact Mazin and his colleagues at [email protected].

Finally, we are deeply saddened to report the passing of Tom Shea, a long-time stalwart in the struggle for a better world and one of the original team of individuals who launched ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ on 11 November 2011. We include below the testament of his great friend and fellow nonviolent activist, Leonard Eiger:

‘For Tom Shea, Peace WAS the Way

‘My dear friend and fellow Ground Zero member Tom Shea passed away peacefully in the early morning hours of April 3rd surrounded by his family.

‘Earlier in his life Tom had been a Jesuit, a high school teacher, and had started an alternative high school and Jesuit Volunteer Corp: Midwest. He had also been involved in social justice issues on the national level with the Jesuits. Ground Zero member Bernie Meyer remembers Tom with great fondness, from being a student at St. Ignatius High School in Cleveland where Tom was teaching, to resisting together at Ground Zero many years later.

‘Tom was 47 when he left Cleveland for Traverse City, Michigan in 1977. There he met his partner Darylene, and they were inseparable from then on. Together, they participated in the Nuclear Freeze movement, and were part of the Michigan Peace Team. They traveled to New York for the second Conference on Disarmament in 1982. They protested both the first Gulf War and the war in Iraq. They also engaged in war tax resistance.

‘At Darylene’s suggestion, they attended a course in conflict mediation in the early ‘80s at a time when there was little written on the subject. That experience led them to a course taught by Quakers at Swarthmore College in 1986. In 1990 Tom and Darylene founded the five-county Conflict Resolution Service in Northern Michigan and trained the first group of volunteer mediators. Their mission was to promote peace and civility in the community through the use of mediator guided dialogue. In the early days of the program, volunteers met in church basements and around kitchen tables to train, role play and share experiences. They would travel to the homes of people needing mediation, focusing on resolving family and neighborhood conflicts.

‘Tom and Darylene moved to Snoqualmie, Washington in 2007 to spend more time with Darylene’s children. Tom got involved in community issues and continued his war tax resistance work. You could find him every April 15th, in front of the local post office, offering tax resistance information.

‘I was still leading a social justice ministry at the Snoqualmie United Methodist Church when one day Tom called the church office and asked who was doing social justice work in the area. We connected immediately due to common work and friends. Soon, Tom and I were making the pilgrimage together across the water to Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, and the rest (as they say) is history.

‘I have spent countless hours with Tom and Darylene, discussing world affairs and working together on strategies and tactics for our work with Ground Zero. Tom and Darylene have been inseparable as both life partners and co-conspirators for peace. Tom once said that Darylene is like a Jesuit herself: “Jesuits are taken as very scholarly people and she’s very scholarly.”

‘In addition to working on media and communications for Ground Zero, and planning vigils and nonviolent direct actions at the Bangor Trident nuclear submarine base, Tom put himself on the line many times, often entering the roadway blocking traffic, both on the County and Federal sides, symbolically closing the base and risking arrest. Tom also created street theatre scripts that have been used during vigils at the submarine base to entertain and educate people.

‘Robert Burrowes, who cofounded ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’, said that“Tom was one of the true legends in my life. A long-standing symbol of, and nonviolent fighter for, everything that could be in our world.” When all is said and done, Tom’s life can be summed up by A.J Muste: “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.”

‘We will be scattering some of Tom’s ashes (per his wishes) at Ground Zero Center during our August Hiroshima-Nagasaki weekend of remembrance and action.

‘I invite you to honor Tom’s memory by supporting the work of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee. There are many ways we can engage in war tax resistance in the context of a broad range of nonviolent strategies for social change.’

While diminished by the passing of Tom, the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action continues ‘to explore the meaning and practice of nonviolence from a perspective of deep spiritual reflection, providing a means for witnessing to and resisting all nuclear weapons, especially Trident. We seek to go to the root of violence and injustice in our world and experience the transforming power of love through nonviolent direct action.’ You can read about their ongoing efforts on their website, Ground Zero, which also features a ‘Current Action Alert: Stop the “Low-Yield” Trident Warhead!’

Each of the individuals mentioned above is part of the ongoing and steadily expanding effort to end the violence in our world. They refuse to accept that violence cannot be ended, and each has chosen to focus on working to end one or more manifestations of violence, according to their particular interests. If you would like to join these people, you are welcome to sign the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

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

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

If your preference is addressing the climate and environmental catastrophes systematically, consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

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

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

It may be that ending human violence is impossible, as many believe. But there are a great number of people around the world who do not accept this and who are struggling, relentlessly, to end violence before it ends us. What about 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.

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

Featured image: Activists gather in front of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, DC in March, 2019.

The first eight months of WWII with no fighting – was called The Phoney War. Using millimetre waves as a fifth-generation or 5G wireless communications technology is a phoney war of another kind.

***

This phoney war is also silent, but this time shots are being fired – in the form of laser-like beams of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from banks of thousands of tiny antennas^[1] – and almost no one in the firing line knows that they are being silently, seriously and irreparably injured.

In the first instance, 5G is likely to make people electro-hypersensitive (EHS).^[2] Perhaps it was sitting in front of two big computer screens for many of the 18 years I worked at the UN that made me EHS. When the UN Office at Vienna installed powerful WiFi and cellphone access points – designed to serve large, public areas – in narrow, metal-walled corridors throughout the Vienna International Centre in December 2015, I was ill continuously for seven months.

I did my best for two and a half years to alert the UN staff union, administration and medical service to the danger to the health of UN staff of EMR from these access points, but was ignored. That’s why, in May 2018, I took the issue to the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres [transcript]. He is a physicist and electrical engineer and lectured on telecommunications signals early in his career, yet asserted that he knew nothing about this. He undertook to ask the World Health Organization to look into it, but seven months later those public access points remain in place. I received no replies to my many follow-up emails.

As a result, I welcomed the opportunity to join the effort to publish an International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space because it was clear to me that, despite there having been 43 earlier scientific appeals, very few people understood the dangers of EMR. My experience as an editor could help ensure that a new 5G appeal, including the issue of beaming 5G from space, was clear, comprehensive, explanatory, and accessible to the non-scientist. The International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space is fully referenced, citing over a hundred scientific papers among the tens of thousands on the biological effects of EMR published over the last 80 years.^[3]

Having spent years editing UN documents dealing with space, I know that outer space is hotly contested geopolitically and any untoward event involving a military satellite risks triggering a catastrophic response.^[4] Space law is so inadequate – just one example is the complexity of space liability law ^[5],[6] – that we could really call the Earth orbits a new Wild West. China caused international consternation in 2007 when it demonstrated an anti-satellite weapon by destroying its own satellite. Space debris is the main concern among space-faring nations, with a so-called Kessler syndrome positing a cascade of space debris that could make the Earth orbits unusable for a thousand years.^[7] Does launching 20,000+ commercial 5G satellites in such circumstances sound rational to you?

I live in Vienna, Austria, where the 5G rollout is suddenly upon us. Within the last five weeks, pre-5G has been officially announced at Vienna airport and 5G at the Rathausplatz, the main square in Vienna, which attracts tens of thousands of visitors to its Christmas market each December and skating rink each January, which are special treats for children. Along with birds and insects, children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies.^[8]

Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic symptoms of EMR poisoning:^[9] nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs. Other biological effects such as tumours and dementia usually take longer to manifest, but in the case of 5G, which has never been tested for health or safety, who knows?^[10]

Seemingly overnight a forest of 5G infrastructure has sprouted in Austria. In the space of three weeks one friend has gone from robust health to fleeing this country, where she has lived for 30 years. Each person experiences EMR differently. For her, it was extreme torture so she and I spent her last two nights in Austria sleeping in the woods. Interestingly, as she drove across southern Germany, she suffered torture even worse than in Austria, while in northern Germany she had no symptoms at all and felt completely normal, which suggests that there has been as yet no 5G rollout there.

There are no legal limits on exposure to EMR. Conveniently for the telecommunications industry, there are only non-legally enforceable guidelines such as those produced by the grandly named International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which turns out to be like the Wizard of Oz, just a tiny little NGO in Germany that appoints its own members, none of whom is a medical doctor or environmental expert.^[11]

Like the Wizard of Oz, ICNIRP seems to have magical powers. Its prestidigitation makes non-thermal (non-heating) effects of EMR exposure disappear into thin air, for taking into account the tens of thousands of research studies demonstrating the biological effects of EMR would invalidate its so-called safety guidelines.^[12]It has bewitched the International Telecommunication Union, part of the UN family, into recognising these guidelines.^[13] And one little email sent to ICNIRP in October 2018 to submit Professor Martin Pall’s comments on ICNIRP’s new draft guidelines conjured up an immediate explosion of interest in the sender’s online presence – which had hitherto attracted none – from companies and individuals worldwide, one country’s immigration authorities, the office of the Austrian Chancellor (head of government), a firm of lawyers in Vienna and even Interpol!^[14],[15]

I hope that people read and share our Stop 5G Space Appeal to wake up themselves and others quickly and use it to take action themselves to stop 5G. Even eight short months of this 5G Phoney War could spell catastrophe for all life on Earth. Elon Musk is set to launch the first 4,425 5G satellites in June 2019 and “blanket” the Earth with 5G, in breach of countless international treaties. This could initiate the last great extinction, courtesy of the multi-trillion-US-dollar 5G, the biggest biological experiment and most heinous manifestation of hubris and greed in human history.[10]

People’s first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror.

We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action. We may have already lost 80 per cent of our insects to EMR in the last 20 years.^[16] Our trees risk being cut down by the millions in order to ensure continuous 5G signalling for self-driving cars, buses and trains.^[17] Are we going to stand by and see ourselves and our children irradiated, our food systems decimated, our natural surroundings destroyed?

Our newspapers are now casually popularising the meme that human extinction would be a good thing,^[18],[19] but when the question becomes not rhetorical but real, when it’s your life, your child, your community, your environment that is under immediate threat, can you really subscribe to such a suggestion? If you don’t, please sign the Stop 5G Appeal and get active in contacting everyone you can think of who has the power to stop 5G, especially Elon Musk^[20] and the CEOs of all the other companies planning to launch 5G satellites, starting in just 20 weeks from now. Life on Earth needs your help now.

The transcript of my exchange with the UN Secretary-General of 14 May 2018 follows:

Staff member: Mr. Secretary-General

UN staff have repeatedly been told that they are the most important resource of this Organization.

Since December 2015, the staff here at the Vienna International Centre have been exposed to off-the-scale electromagnetic radiation from WiFi and mobile phone boosters installed on very low ceilings throughout the buildings. Current public exposure levels are at least one quintillion times (that’s 18 zeros) above natural background radiation according to Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

The highly dangerous biological effects of EMFs have been documented by thousands of studies since 1932 indicating that we may be facing a global health catastrophe orders of magnitude worse than those caused by tobacco and asbestos.

Mr. Secretary-General, on the basis of the Precautionary Principle, I urge you to have these EMF-emitting devices removed immediately and to call a halt to any rollout of 5G at UN duty stations, because it is designed to deliver concentrated and focused electromagnetic radiation in excess of 100 times current levels in the same way as do directed energy weapons.

In line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to “Protect, Respect and Remedy”, 5G technologies MUST be subjected to an independent health and safety assessment before they are launched anywhere in the world.

There is currently an international appeal (https://www.emfscientist.org/index. php/emf-scientist-appeal) signed by 237 EMF scientists from 41 nations urging the UN and particularly the WHO to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development.

Mr. Secretary-General, we have a unique opportunity here at the UN Office at Vienna. Since our medical records are digitised, you have the possibility of releasing data on a closed population exposed to off-the-scale levels of electromagnetic radiation to establish if there have already been abnormal health consequences for the UN staff here in the last 28 months.

I urge you to do so and stop any 5G rollout in these buildings immediately.

Thank you.

UN Secretary-General: Sorry, because you are talking to someone who is a little bit ignorant on these things. You’re talking about the WiFi systems?

Staff member: On the ceilings of these buildings, WiFi boosters and cell phone boosters were installed without consultation, without information to staff in December 2015. Now, if you understand electromagnetic radiation, the signal is – if you cannot get a signal from your mobile phone, the signal goes to maximum strength and that then bounces off metal walls affecting the body multiple times at maximum exposure levels. So the situation here is extremely dangerous. I have heard anecdotally of many people who have had health problems. I don’t know if they are related but the Precautionary Principle would dictate that we use our medical records to look into this and that we remove these dangerous devices immediately. Thank you.

UN Secretary-General: Well, I’m worried because I put those devices in my house.[Laughter & applause]

Staff member: Not a good idea!

UN Secretary-General: This I will have to – I confess my ignorance on this but I’m going to raise this with WHO [World Health Organization] – which I think is the organisation that might be able to deal with it properly for them to put someone – their staff or organisations to work on that because I must confess I was not aware of that danger – [humorously] to the extent that I put those things in the rooms of my house – in the ceiling.

Staff member: I would suggest that everybody start looking into this issue and particularly into 5G, which 237 scientists from 41 countries consider a threat that is far worse than the tobacco and asbestos threats of the past.

UN Secretary-General: Well, maybe I have learned something completely new. I hope it will be very useful to me but I confess it is the first time I hear about it.

*

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

Claire Edwards, BA Hons, MA, worked for the United Nations as Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing from 1999 to 2017. Claire warned the Secretary-General about the dangers of 5G during a meeting with UN staff in May 2018, calling for a halt to its rollout at UN duty stations.  She part-authored, designed, administered the 30 language versions, and edited the entirety of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (www.5gspaceappeal.org) and vigorously campaigned to promote it throughout 2019. In January 2020, she severed connection with the Appeal when its administrator, Arthur Firstenberg, joined forces with a third-party group, stop5ginternational, which brought itself into disrepute at its foundation by associating with the Club of Rome/Club of Budapest eugenicist movement. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Delos, Peter. “The Way to a New Phased Array Radar Architecture.” TechTime: Electronics & Technology News. January 15, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://techtime.news/2018/01/ 15/analog-devices-phased-array-radar/. “Although there is a lot of discussion of massive MIMO and automotive radar, it should not be forgotten that most of the recent radar development and beamforming R&D has been in the defense industry, and it is now being adapted for commercial applications. While phased array and beamforming moved from R&D efforts to reality in the 2000s, a new wave of defense focused arrays are now expected, enabled by industrial technology offering solutions that were previously cost prohibitive.”

[2] “Electrosensitive Testimonials.” We Are The Evidence. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019.http://wearetheevidence.org/adults-who-developed-electro-sensitivity/. “WATE intends to expose the suppressed epidemic of sickness, suffering and human rights crisis created by wireless technology radiation; elevate the voice of those injured; defend and secure their rights and compel society and governments to take corrective actions and inform the public of the harm.”

[3] Glaser, Lt. Z. “Cumulated Index to the Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency Radiation: Report, Supplements (no. 1-9).” BEMS Newsletter B-1 through B-464 (1984). Accessed January 1, 2019. http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Zory-Glasers-index.pdf. Lt. Zorach Glaser, PhD, catalogued 5,083 studies, books and conference reports for the US Navy through 1981.

[4] “Space Sustainability: A Practical Guide.” Secure World Foundation, 2014, 21. Accessed January 1, 2019.https://swfound.org/media/206289/swf_space_sustainability-a_practical_guide_2018__1.pdf.

“However, as more countries integrate space into their national military capabilities and rely on space-based information for national security, there is an increased chance that any interference (either actual or perceived) with satellites could spark or escalate tensions and conflict in space or on Earth. This is made all the more difficult by the challenge of determining the exact cause of a satellite malfunction: whether it was due to a space weather event, impact by space debris, unintentional interference, or deliberate act of aggression.”

[5] “Space Law: Liability for Space Debris.” Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019.https://www.aviationdisasterlaw.com/liability-for-space-debris/. “Filing a lawsuit against SpaceX for space debris is a little different than one against the commercial industry or state-sponsored launch. Since SpaceX is a private company, injured parties can file claims directly against the establishment in accord with the state’s personal injury laws. For the claim to be successful, the plaintiff will have to prove that SpaceX was negligent in some way that caused the space debris collision. Space law is notoriously complex, making it very difficult for injured parties to recover for [sic] their damages in California.”

[6]Von Der Dunk, Frans G. “Liability versus Responsibility in Space Law: Misconception or Misconstruction?” University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law: Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications 21 (1992). Accessed January 1, 2019. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/21/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/

[7]Kessler, D. J., P. M. Landry, B. G. Cour-Palais, and R. E. Taylor. “Aerospace: Collision Avoidance in Space: Proliferating Payloads and Space Debris Prompt Action to Prevent Accidents.” IEEE Spectrum 17, no. 6 (1980): 37-41.

[8] Morgan, L. Lloyd, Santosh Kesari, and Devra Lee Davis. “Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences.” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2, no. 4 (December 2014): 197-204. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583. Highlights: (1) Children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults. (2) MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen. (3) The fetus is in greater danger than children from exposure to MWR. (4) The legal exposure limits have remained unchanged for decades. (5) Cellphone manuals warnings and the 20 cm rule for tablets/laptops violate the “normal operating position” regulation.

[9]Electro Hypersensitivity: Talking to Your Doctor. PDF. Canadian Initiative to Stop Wireless, Electric, and Electromagnetic Pollution. http://weepinitiative.org/talkingtoyourdoctor.pdf.

[10]FCC Chairman on 5G: “We won’t study it, regulate it, have standards for it.” Youtube. June 20, 2016. Accessed January 1, 2019. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwgwe01SIMc. Notes in video: Ultra-high frequency radiation (24 to 100 GHz or more); aimed and amplified signals; massive deployment of towers; worth billions; no standards, no testing; sharing with satellite and military operations; all areas (including rural areas) to be saturated with radiation; all local deployments to be fast-tracked; everything to be microchipped.

[11] Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD. “Is ICNIRP Reliable Enough to Dictate Meaning of Science to the Governmental Risk Regulators?” Between a Rock and a Hard Place(blog), April 8, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019.https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/type/gallery/. “The major problems of ICNIRP are: (1) it is a “private club” where members elect new members without need to justify selection; (2) lack of accountability before anyone; (3) lack of transparency of their activities; (4) complete lack of supervision of its activities; (5) skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members of the Main Commission and all of the other scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission.”

[12] Matthes, Rüdiger. “EMF Safety Guidelines: The ICNIRP View.” International Telecommunications Union Workshop on Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, May 9, 2013. Accessed January 1, 2019.https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/climatechange/emf-1305/Documents/Presentations/s2part1p1-Rued igerMatthes.pdf.

[13] ITU Telecommunication Development Sector Study Group 2: Session on Modern Policies, Guidelines, Regulations and Assessments of Human Exposure to RF-EMF. Session 1: Recent Activities on Human Exposure to RF-EMF in ITU and ICNIRP, Geneva, Switzerland. October 10, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019.www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Study-Groups/2018-2021/Pages/ meetings/session-Q7-2-oct18.aspx. “Session 1 will discuss some of the recent activities held in ITU and describe the latest updates to the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines.”

[14] Martin L. Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University. Response to 2018 ICNIRP Draft Guidelines and Appendices on Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 KHz to 300 GHz). October 8, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019.www.5gexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FINAL-Martin-L-Pall-Response-to-2018-Draft-Guidelines-8.10.18.pdf.

[15] Cooperation Agreement Between The International Criminal Police Organization Interpol and The International Telecommunication Union. Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-18) Dubai 29 October–16 November 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019. https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/18/pp/c/S18-PP-C-0047!!MSW-E.docx. “2. In implementing the Agreement, each Party shall act within their respective areas of competence. More specifically, the implementation of the Agreement by ITU shall not exceed beyond its mandate pertaining to building confidence and security in the use of ICTs, in accordance to Plenipotentiary Conference Resolution 130 (Rev. Busan, 2014) and to its role on child online protection in accordance to Plenipotentiary Conference Resolution 179 (Rev. Busan, 2014), whereas the implementation of the Agreement by INTERPOL shall not exceed its mandate as defined by article 2 of its Constitution which include activities pertaining to cybercrime and online child exploitation”. (emphasis added)

[16] Hallmann C.A., M. Sorg and E. Jongejans. “More than 75 per cent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas.” PLOS One 12, no. 10 (2017): e0185809.http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809&type=printable. Accessed January 1, 2019.

[17] Laville, Sandra. “Millions of Trees at Risk in Secretive Network Rail Felling Programme.” The Guardian, April 29, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/ apr/29/millions-of-trees-at-risk-in-secretive-network-rail-felling-programme.

[18] May, Todd. “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?” The New York Times, December 17, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/opinion/human-extinction-climate-change.html.

[19] Davis, Nicola. “Falling total fertility rate should be welcomed, population expert says: figures showing declining birth rates are ‘cause for celebration’, not alarm.” The Guardian, December 26, 2018. Accessed January 3, 2019. www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/falling-total-fertility-rate-should-be-welcomed-population-expert-says.

[20] “Planet Earth: Worldwide 5G Radiation from Orbit?” Letter from Claus Scheingraber, Roland Wolff and others to Elon Musk. June 18, 2018. Brunnthal, Germany. “… We are sure that your satellite project is already at an advanced stage. But even if much money has been invested, one should consider that it is only a matter of time until the fact of damaging health potential of mobile communications – and especially of 5G-mobile communication – can no longer we overlooked. Therefore we emphatically recommend not to implement the satellite project.” (Letter in German) (Letter in English)

Featured image is from TruePublica

First posted on Global Research on February 14, 2019

Mobile and wireless technologies are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. Most U.S. adults own smartphones, a growing proportion are “smartphone-only” Internet users and over a fourth report being online “almost constantly.” As for children, a 2014 survey of high-income nations reported that almost seven in ten children used a mobile phone, and two-thirds of those had a smartphone, usually by age 10. As described by Nielsen, it is now as common to see “a kid with a smartphone in their hand” as it was to see “a kid playing with a yo-yo in the years before the digital age.”

The enthusiasm with which the public has embraced each new mobile and wireless technology—most of which have never undergone any appropriate safety testing or standards development—suggests that consumers rarely stop to consider the health implications of the infrastructure shoring up their ability to browse, stream and download anytime and “on the go.” Consumers are not entirely to blame for their lack of awareness—it is not easy to disentangle the technologies’ health risks in the face of the telecommunications industry’s steady and calculated disinformation efforts and a captured Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that “follows the script of fabulously wealthy, bullying, billion-dollar beneficiaries of wireless.”

… powerful 5G (fifth-generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of mandatory irradiation—without prior study of the potential health impact or any assurance of safety.

Now, however, a global 5G “frenzy” is upon us and is coming into full force. The rollout of “blazing fast” 5G technology will “dramatically increase the number of transmitters sending signals to cellphones and a host of new Internet-enabled devices.” The time is ripe for greater grassroots awareness of the undisclosed tradeoffs between convenience and 5G’s potentially catastrophic health effects. Far from a simple “next-gen” upgrade, powerful 5G (fifth-generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of what retired U.S. government physicist Dr. Ronald Powell calls “mandatory irradiation”—without “prior study of the potential health impact” or any assurance of safety. Considering that young people (with their smaller body mass and developing brains) are particularly vulnerable to radiation, the Environmental Health Trust has termed 5G “the next great unknown experiment on our children”—and the entire human population.

Early warnings

In fact, the “giant uncontrolled experiment” on children and adults has already begun, despite an urgent international appeal by tens of thousands of scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens calling for a halt to 5G deployment. In 2018, telecom carriers in the U.S. and Europe began rolling out 5G technology in dozens of cities. Focusing (for now) on “dense urban and high-traffic areas” in the U.S., AT&T began positioning its 5G infrastructure in major cities in eight states, and Verizon started offering 5G home broadband service in “select neighborhoods” in a handful of cities.

… health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations.

For the most part, health concerns have ranked as a tiny footnote in the midst of the massive hoopla about 5G’s speed and capacity, although trade magazines admit that there may be “some objections” to 5G due to “concerns over potential health risks.” In both Europe and the U.S., however, individuals living and working in proximity to newly installed 5G towers and antennas are telling a different story. Many have immediately started experiencing health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations.

In response to complaints from fire fighters subjected to 5G antennas, the International Association of Fire Fighters has gone on record as opposing “the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity…is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”

A United Nations whistleblower recently drew attention to 5G’s dramatic impact on health in a widely circulated series of comments about 5G’s “seemingly overnight” rollout in Vienna, Austria. Describing 5G as a “silent war,” she commented:

“…Children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies. Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic symptoms of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] poisoning: nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs.”

Above and below

One of the novel dangers introduced by 5G technology is its reliance on high-frequency millimeter waves (MMWs), a bountiful and not previously commercialized portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While 5G’s enthusiasts are quick to promise support for literally billions of devices, there is one catch—the shorter millimeter wavelengths cannot travel as far as the lower frequencies used for earlier generations of mobile technology. Thus, while there were about 300,000 wireless antennas on U.S. cell towers and buildings as of 2016 (a doubling since 2002), 5G will require “exponentially more”—millions of small cell towers every 500 feet “on every street corner.”

Organizations concerned about the health hazards of wireless radiation note that “Right now, you don’t have to live next to a cell tower….but once they have these [5G] cell antennas everywhere, you won’t be able to [move away].” Unfortunately, the “nowhere to hide” aspects of 5G are even more serious, because ground-based 5G systems will be supplemented by satellite-based systems. In March, 2018, the FCC approved the initial launch of over 4,400 low-Earth-orbit 5G communication satellites, to be followed by thousands more over the next two years—with the eventual result being 11 times more satellites orbiting the Earth than currently. The satellites will send “tightly focused beams of intense microwave radiation at each specific 5G device that is on the Earth,” while each device then sends “a beam of radiation back to the satellite.”

In practical terms, this means that in crowded locations such as airports, individuals’ bodies “will be penetrated by numerous beams of radiation as they walk or as other people walk around them with their 5G smartphones.” But even in the home environment, “5G technology [will] blast through walls and cribs,” making a mockery of “the notion that ‘your home is your castle’ in which you are supposed to be safe.”

More than skin-deep

Scientists, doctors and experts from around the world have issued repeated warnings about 5G’s risks, drawing on published research on MMWs as well as thousands of studies showing the harms caused by other mobile and wireless technologies.

In this context, industry and government claims that 5G technology is safe are completely disingenuous. In fact, the health effects of MMWs are already quite familiar to the U.S. military and defense agencies around the world. The U.S. has at its disposal non-lethal crowd control weapon systems (euphemistically named Active Denial Systems) that use millimeter waves to penetrate the skin of targeted individuals, “instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.” In research commissioned by the U.S. Army “to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them,” they discovered that targets “feel like [their] body is on fire.” Researchers also have warned that “the same parts of the human skin that allow us to sweat also respond to 5G radiation much like an antenna that can receive signals.”

Moratorium urgently needed

When the FCC endorsed the transition to 5G in 2016, then-Chairman Tom Wheeler (a former telecom industry lobbyist) vowed “to allow new [5G] technologies and innovations to evolve and flourish without needlessly prescriptive regulations.” Thus, even though 5G represented a radical shift in technology, the FCC proposed no further safety studies, instead continuing to rely on its “outdated, excessively permissive, and thus widely criticized, radiation-exposure guidelines that…are based primarily on a 30-year-old analysis…many years before the emergence of most of the digital wireless technology in use today.” A recent government study by the National Toxicology Program—which determined that cell phone radiation causes cancer—deemed the three-decade-old guidelines “unprotective.”

The UN whistleblower states,

“People’s first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror. We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action.”

Some of the actions that people have taken include signing the International Appeal;

-learning about the multiple reasons to be concerned about 5G radiation and telling others;

-talking to legislators about why rushing legislation that streamlines the deployment of 5G small cells is a bad idea (and also raising the awareness of legislators and state utility commissions about the risks of smart meters); and changing their relationship to their devices, including using wired rather than wireless Internet connections (or turning off WiFi routers at night) and adopting other simple steps.

5G promises to create an even “denser soup of electrosmog,” with incalculable health effects. In fact, any sane person who examines the evidence must concur with the authors and over 40,000 signatories of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, who agree that the rush to blanket the planet with 5G “constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.”

*

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 CHD

The recent, tragic Easter attack in the South Asian state of Sri Lanka – killing and injuring hundreds – follows a now unfortunately all too familiar formula.

The New York Times has reported in its article, “What We Know and Don’t Know About the Sri Lanka Attacks,” that:

The authorities in Sri Lanka said a little-known radical Islamist group, the National Thowheeth Jama’ath, [believed to have ties to the Islamic State] carried out the attacks, with help from international militants.

It is also reported that these extremists received assistance for the large-scale attack from foreign sponsors. The attack has put Sri Lanka on the map for many in the general public for the first time – but for all the wrong reasons.

Countering OBOR: Divide and Destroy 

Sri Lanka has recently and decisively pivoted toward Beijing as a major partner of the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative. This is despite Washington’s best efforts to prevent it from doing so.

Consequently, extremists fuelled by Washington’s “clash of civilizations” have helped set the stage for growing violence between Sir Lanka’s majority Buddhists and its minority Muslim communities. The resulting violence serves as a medium for US coercion, destabilization, and intervention aimed at undermining Sri Lanka’s unity as a nation, and thus its viability as a partner for China.

A nearly identical ploy has been used in nearby Myanmar where US-backed Buddhist extremists battle against US-Saudi-Qatari backed extremism rising from the ranks of the nation’s Muslim Rohingya minority.

The resulting violence and growing humanitarian crisis – without coincidence – is unfolding in Myanmar’s Rakhine state – precisely where China is attempting to build another leg of its region-spanning OBOR initiative.

Sri Lanka has signed on to OBOR in a big way, with major rail, port, airport, and highway projects all moving forward with Beijing’s support. Sri Lanka is also considered by Western policymakers as one of several among China’s strategic “String of Pearls,” strong points where China can secure maritime routes through waters traditionally dominated by the United States.

These projects are derided across the Western media with headlines like the New York Times’ article, “How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port” and France24’s article, “In Sri Lanka, the new Chinese Silk Road is a disappointment” – characterizing Washington’s growing opposition to China’s expanding influence across Asia – a region Washington has long presumed primacy over.

Washington’s ability to compete with China regarding regional development is nonexistent. Instead, the US has tried to tempt nations like Sri Lanka with military aid.

AFP in an article titled, “US gives Sri Lankan military US$39 million, countering China’s investments in strategic island,” would claim:

The US funding for Sri Lanka is part of a US$300 million package Washington is setting aside for South and Southeast Asia to ensure a “free, open, and rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region”.

This “free, open, and rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region,” is how the US regularly refers to US primacy in Asia throughout policy papers, diplomatic statements, and even political speeches.

It is obvious that “military aid” can in no way compete with massive investments by China aimed at spurring national development through tangible infrastructure projects.

America’s inability to compete openly and on equal economic footing has given way to political interference and even the use of violence.

Sri Lanka’s Crisis Linked to US-Driven Crisis in Myanmar 

In Myanmar, the US is documented to have supported ethnic violence for years. The US all but installed current “State Counsellor” Aung San Suu Kyi into power along with her political party – the National League for Democracy (NLD) lined top to bottom with US State Department-funded “activists.“

Despite the liberal facade constructed by the Western media around Suu Kyi, her political party, and factions supporting both – rampant bigotry and racism pervades all three.

Simultaneously, US-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have worked to co-opt and wield Rohingya communities as an equal but opposing political weapon while US-allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar have begun radicalizing and arming factions within Rohingya communities to carry out armed violence across Rakhine state.

The resulting conflagration affords the US and its partners a pretext to intervene on an ever expanding scale – giving Washington access to and leverage over Myanmar to counter Beijing’s growing influence.

And in precisely the same way the US has inserted itself into the heart of Myanmar’s political affairs – it is attempting to do so again in other Asian nations – including now Sri Lanka.

Articles from across the Western media including the UK Independent’s 2018 article titled, “Violent Buddhist extremists are targeting Muslims in Sri Lanka,” even establish direct links between Myanmar’s and Sri Lanka’s growing conflicts.
The article would admit (emphasis added):

Currently, Sri Lanka’s most active Buddhist extremist group is Bodu Bala Sena (Buddhist power force, or BBS). BBS entered politics in 2012 with a Buddhist-nationalist ideology and agenda, its leaders claiming that Sri Lankans had become immoral and turned away from Buddhism. And whom does it blame? Sri Lankan Muslims.

BBS’s rhetoric takes its cue from other populist anti-Muslim movements around the globe, claiming that Muslims are “taking over” the country thanks to a high birth rate. It also accuses Muslim organisations of funding international terrorism with money from Halal-certified food industries. These aren’t just empty words; in 2014, one of their anti-Muslim protest rallies in the southern town of Aluthgama ended with the death of four Muslims.

BBS also has links to Myanmar’s extremist 969 movement. Led by nationalist monk Ashin Wirathu, who calls himself the “Burmese Bin Laden”, it is notorious for its hardline rhetoric against the Rohingya Muslim community.

The West’s use of “Islamophobia” to sell its serial wars of aggression and to divide nations around the globe is a classic example of “divide and conquer.

While the West no longer possesses any real means to “conquer” the nations it is now targeting – it does possess the capacity to use resulting divisions to destroy them. If the US cannot hold primacy over Asia – no one will. It is a “War on Peace” waged under the guise of a “War on Terrorism.”

Sri Lanka appears to be but the latest victim of Washington’s now trademark “slash and burn” foreign policy – where it is fueling conflict to consume political orders that oppose its interests, and building upon the ashes ones that do serve them instead.

In the coming days, weeks, and months – not only will more information emerge linking the recent attacks in Sri Lanka to Washington, Riyadh, and Doha’s global network of terrorism – but additional pressure will also be mounted upon Sri Lanka to divest from Beijing and pivot back toward the West.

In reality – Sri Lanka’s violence is an artificial construct carried out by a tiny minority of extremists on either side of an equally artificial ethnoreligious divide. The nation and the region must unite in purpose – as peace and stability benefit them all – while chaos benefits only a handful of waning interests from afar.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO