Selected Articles: Preventing the Sale of Venezuelan Oil to Cuba

April 17th, 2019 by Global Research News

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

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

*     *     *

Julian Assange and the Agenda for Global War

By Prof. James Petras, April 17, 2019

Never has the mass media been so thoroughly discredited by official documents which directly contradict the official propaganda, mouthed by political leaders and parroted by ‘leading’ journalists.

The Price of Participating in Society Is the Sacrifice of Privacy and Self

By John Stanton, April 17, 2019

In what is arguably one of the most craven opportunistic moves by a business/media group to increase its circulation/profitability, on 10 April the New York Times (NYT) embarked on what it describes as its Privacy Project. 

Between Yes and No, Heaven and Earth with Albert Camus on a Spring Morning

By Edward Curtin, April 17, 2019

For a writer to fight injustice to the exclusion of creating beauty and living passionately contradicts the deepest desires of the human heart.  Albert Camus taught us this.

Preventing the Sale of Venezuelan Oil to Cuba: Killing Two Birds with a Stone

By Nino Pagliccia, April 17, 2019

Recent US sanctions have been directed at the heart of Venezuela’s economy: the oil industry, an industry that has also been crippled by the continued sabotages on the electric power grid of the country.

A Cathedral and a Mosque Engulfed in Fire; One Ravages the Past, the Other Threatens the Future

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, April 17, 2019

World leaders were quick to react to the tragedy of this fire.  News headlines around the world brought this disastrous incident to every living room around the globe and nations commiserated with the French. The inaudible sigh of relief was palpable when the structure was saved and with it, the history that laid within the walls. The past was not lost.

Annexation of West Bank May Provide Key to Unlocking Netanyahu’s Legal Troubles

By Jonathan Cook, April 17, 2019

The culmination of his dirty tricks campaign was an election-day stunt in which his Likud party broke regulations – and possibly the law – by arming 1,200 activists with hidden cameras, to film polling stations in communities belonging to Israel’s large Palestinian minority.

Permissible Influences: Israel and the Australian Elections

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, April 17, 2019

In Australia, anybody who either defends Palestinians against Israeli policy during their political career, especially prior or during an electoral campaign, or insists that Israeli policy falls well short of humanitarian standards, is deemed a rabid anti-Semite frothing with manifest hatred.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Preventing the Sale of Venezuelan Oil to Cuba

Bamiyan, Babylon, Palmyra, Notre-Dame

April 17th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

The Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed by an intolerant sect pretending to follow Islam. Buddhism all across Asia grieved. The West hardly paid attention.

The remaining ruins of Babylon, and the attached museum, were occupied, plundered and vandalized by a US Marine base during Shock and Awe in 2003. The West paid no attention.

Vast tracts of Palmyra – a legendary Silk Road oasis – were destroyed by another intolerant sect pretending to follow Islam with their backs covered by layers of Western “intelligence”. The West paid no attention.

Scores of Catholic and Orthodox churches in Syria were burnt to the ground by the same intolerant sect pretending to follow Islam with their backs sponsored and weaponized, among others, by the US, Britain and France. The West paid no attention whatsoever.

Notre-Dame, which in many ways can be construed as the Matrix of the West, is partially consumed by a theoretically blind fire.

Especially the roof; hundreds of oak beams, some dating back to the 13th century. Metaphorically, this could be interpreted as the burning of the roof over the West’s collective heads.

Bad karma? Finally?

Now back to the nitty-gritty.

Notre-Dame belongs to the French state, which had been paying little to no attention to a gothic jewel that traversed eight centuries.

Fragments of arcades, chimeras, reliefs, gargoyles were always falling to the ground and kept in an improvised deposit in the back of the cathedral.

Only last year Notre-Dame got a check for 2 million euros to restore the spire – which burned to the ground yesterday.

To restore the whole cathedral would have cost 150 million euros, according to the top world expert on Notre-Dame, who happens to be an American, Andrew Tallon.

Recently, the custodians of the cathedral and the French state were actually at war.

The French state was making at least 4 million euros a year, charging tourists to enter the Twin (Bell) Towers but putting back only 2 million euros for the maintenance of Notre-Dame.

The rector of Notre-Dame refused to charge for a ticket to enter the cathedral – as it happens, for example, at the Duomo in Milan.

Notre-Dame basically survives on donations – which pay the salaries of only 70 employees who need not only to supervise the masses of tourists but also to organize eight masses a day.

The French state’s proposal to minimize the ordeal; organize a beneficent lottery. That is; privatize what is a state commitment and obligation.

So yes: Sarkozy and Macron, their whole administrations, are directly and indirectly responsible for the fire.

Now comes the Notre-Dame of Billionaires.

Pinault (Gucci, St. Laurent) pledged 100 million euros from his personal fortune for the restoration. Arnault (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy) doubled down, pledging 200 million euros.

So why not privatize this damn fine piece of real estate – disaster capitalism-style? Welcome to Notre-Dame luxury condo, hotel and attached mall.

*

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

Pepe Escobar is correspondent-at-large at Asia Times. His latest book is 2030. Follow him on Facebook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bamiyan, Babylon, Palmyra, Notre-Dame

The Florence Declaration (original in Italian) is available in 14 languages including Chinese.

It was drafted by the Italian Committee No War- No NATO and the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal.

Three Years Ago. April 17, 2019

More than 600 participants from all over Italy and the EU attended this important venue.

The Western media has not covered the Florence event. Disinformation through Omission.

Below is the English-Chinese Version.

Scroll down for links to the translations. Forward the Florence Declaration worldwide.

The Florence Declaration, April 7, 2019

The risk of a vast war which, with the use of nuclear weapons, could mean the end of Humanity, is real and growing, even though it is not noticed by the general public, which is maintained in the ignorance of this imminent danger.

使用核武器可能意味着人类的终结的大规模战争的风险是真实的,并且在不断增长,即使公众没有注意到这一风险,但这种风险始终处于对这一迫在眉睫的危险的无知之中。

A strong engagement to find a way out of the war system is of vital importance. This raises the question of the affiliation of Italy and other European countries with NATO.

寻求摆脱战争制度的途径的强烈参与至关重要。这就提出了意大利和其他欧洲国家与北约的联系问题。

NATO is not an Alliance. It is an organisation under the command of the Pentagon, and its objective is the military control of Western and Eastern Europe.

北约不是一个联盟。它是一个由五角大楼指挥的组织,其目标是对西欧和东欧的军事控制。

US bases in the member countries of NATO serve to occupy these countries, by maintaining a permanent military presence which enables Washington to influence and control their policies and prevent genuine democratic choices.

美国在北约成员国的基地通过保持永久的军事存在来占领这些国家,使华盛顿能够影响和控制他们的政策,并阻止真正的民主选择。

NATO is a war machine which operates for the interests of the United States, with the complicity of the major European power groups which made them guilty of crimes against Humanity.

北约是一个为美国利益运作的战争机器,欧洲主要权力集团的同谋使他们犯下了反人类罪。

NATO’s war of aggression in 1999 against Yugoslavia paved the way for the globalization of military interventions, with wars against Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and other countries, in complete violation of the international law.

1999年北约对南斯拉夫的侵略战争为军事干预的全球化铺平了道路,对阿富汗、利比亚、叙利亚和其他国家的战争完全违反了国际法。

These wars are financed by the member countries, whose military budgets are increasing continually to the detriment of social expenditure, in order to support colossal military programmes like that of the US nuclear programme which costs US $ 1.2 trillion.

这些战争是由北约成员国资助的,这些成员国的军事预算不断增加,损害了社会支出,以支持像美国核计划那样的庞大军事计划,耗资1.2万亿美元。

In violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the USA is deploying nuclear weapons in five non-nuclear NATO States, under the false pretext of the ”Russian menace”. By doing so, they are risking the security of Europe.

违反《核不扩散条约》,美国以“俄罗斯威胁”为借口,在五个非核北约国家部署核武器。这样做会危及欧洲的安全。

To exit the war system which is causing more and more damage and exposing us to increasing dangers, we must leave NATO, affirming our rights as sovereign and neutral States.

为了退出造成越来越多破坏的战争体系,使我们面临越来越大的危险,我们必须离开北约,确认我们作为主权和中立国家的权利。

In this way, it becomes possible to contribute to the dismantling of NATO and all other military alliances, to the reconfiguration of the structures of the whole European region, to the formation of a multipolar world where the aspirations of the People for liberty and social justice may be realised.

这样,就有可能有助于拆除北约和所有其他军事联盟,重新配置整个欧洲区域的结构,形成一个多极世界,实现人民对自由和社会正义的愿望。

We propose the creation of a NATO EXIT International Front in all the European member countries of NATO, by building an organisational network at a grassroots level strong enough to support the very difficult struggle we must face in order to attain this objective, which is vital for our future.

我们提议在北约的所有欧洲成员国建立一个北约退出国际阵线,在基本层面建立一个组织网络,以支持我们为实现这一目标必须面对的非常困难的斗争,这对我们的未来至关重要。

***

The Florence Declaration has sofar been translated into 14 languages.

To read click the links below

中文, Chinese <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/chinese.html>

Dansk <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/dansk-firenze-deklarationen-for-en-nato.html>

Deutsch <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/deutsch.html>

English <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/english-declaration-of-florence-for.html>

Espanol <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/sp-declaracion-de-florencia-por-un.html>

Francais <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/francais-declaration-de-florence-pour.html>

Italiano <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/italiano-dichiarazione-di-firenze.html>

Nederlands <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/nederlands-declaratie-van-florence-voor.html>

Portugues <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/portugues-declaracao-de-florenca.html>

Romina <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/romina-declaratia-de-la-florenta.html>

Slovensky <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/slovensky-vyhlasenie-florencie-o.html>

Svenska <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/svenska-florens-deklarationen-for-en.html>

Turkce <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/turkce-natodan-ckmak-icin-bir.html>

русский, Russian <https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/blog-post_13.html>

Photos of the Florence Venue

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

 

Farcical Ukraine Runoff Presidential Election

April 17th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Ahead of the April 21 runoff, the winner is clear – imperial USA, controlling Ukraine as a vassal state no matter who’s “elected” president on Sunday.

According to a KIIS research poll published Tuesday, comedian/entertainer Vladimir Zelensky is favored over US-anointed incumbent Petro Poroshenko by a 72.2 – 25.2% margin.

A poll released last week by Reiting research had Zelensky ahead of Poroshenko by 61 – 24%. In March 31 round one voting with 39 candidates on the ballot, Zelensky lead runner-up Poroshenko by 30 – 16.5% – a near two-to-one margin.

The incumbent is overwhelmingly despised by most Ukrainians, his pre-election approval rating in single-digits. Suspected election-rigging got him finishing second to meet Zelensky in Sunday’s runoff.

Elections the way they should be would have the political newcomer winning by a landslide. In Nazi-infested Ukraine waging war on its own people in Donbass, its hugely corrupt authorities in cahoots with oligarchs, and Washington behind the scenes controlling things – anything on Sunday is possible.

Poroshenko is vulnerable. As president, he enjoys immunity from prosecution. If defeated in Sunday’s runoff, he could be held accountable for corruption and other criminality.

He may try anything to stay in office. Ahead of the March 31 vote, he ordered Ukrainian security services and police to patrol streets and seize control of polling stations on the phony pretext of “protect(ing) the elections.”

Brookings nonresident foreign policy senior fellow Steven Pifer put out a propaganda piece on Ukraine on what he called key things to know about Sunday’s election, saying:

“Ukraine pulled off the March 31 election with no major hitch. Voting and ballot-counting proceeded smoothly.”

He ignored accusations of election-rigging to assure Poroshenko survived to runoff voting.

He lied saying “(t)he fact that Ukraine held a free, competitive presidential election should come as no surprise.” Nothing in fascist Ukraine is free, fair and just.

He said “(b)arring a miracle, it will be president Zelensky” after Sunday’s election – true enough, provided the Trump regime wants things to turn out this way, he failed to explain.

Pifer lied claiming “Poroshenko deserves credit for overseeing some impressive reforms, and he has had to cope with a low-intensity war with Russia.”

He’s a US-anointed despot. Accusations of “Russian aggression” persist despite not a shred of evidence supporting them in Ukraine or anywhere else – a US/NATO/Israeli specialty, not how the Russian Federation operates.

Ukraine’s economy isn’t “under-performing.” It’s disastrous for its ordinary people, suffering hugely under despotic rule.

The NYT published a Reuters piece, saying Poroshenko showed up last Sunday in Kiev’s soccer stadium “(f)lanked by rock musicians wearing yellow overalls and black t-shirts with skulls on them,” adding:

He “rebooted his campaign after Zelenskiy won nearly twice as many votes as him in the first round of the election on March 31, reaching out especially to younger voters disillusioned with corruption,” war in Donbass, dismal economic conditions, and repression of regime critics.

Ahead of Sunday’s runoff, he called Zelensky “a buffoonish populist,” adding:

“First of all, some people are disappointed. And we should open their heart. We should knock on their doors. We should deliver the information that ‘look, we hear what you mean. We understand what you need.’ ”

“Don’t believe populists. Don’t believe in the simple decision to the complicated question. May I remind you, we are the country in a state of war” ordinary Ukrainians want ended.

Parents want their military-aged sons free from conscription. They don’t want them sent to fight fellow Ukrainians in the country’s southeast. They want decent jobs, a living wage, and governance serving everyone equitably.

They oppose fascist repression. Under a free, fair and open process, Poroshenko has no chance to win.

In Ukraine and countless other countries, what matters is who controls the electoral process and counts the votes, not who goes to polling stations to cast them.

Given possible election-rigging, Sunday’s outcome could go either way.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Venezuela: A Cocaine Super-Highway to the US?

April 17th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro is in the forefront of combatting illicit drugs. More on this below.

The US is the world’s leading facilitator of the illicit trade – working with drug cartels, notably through the CIA. Major US banks profit hugely from laundering dirty money.

In his book titled “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade,” Alfred McCoy documented CIA and US government complicity in drugs trafficking at the highest official levels.

It continues today in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, South and Central America, facilitating the global supply of illicit drugs.

Peter Dale Scott explained that

“(s)ince at least 1950, there has been a global CIA-drug connection operating more or less continuously” to this day.

“The global drug connection is not just a lateral connection between CIA field operatives and their drug-trafficking contacts.”

“It is more significantly a global financial complex of hot money uniting prominent business, financial and government, as well as underworld figures,” a sort of “indirect empire (operating alongside) existing government.”

America is one of numerous countries involved, the most harmful and disturbing because of its imperial power and global reach, influencing or affecting virtually everything worldwide.

The CIA relies on involvement in drugs trafficking for the significant amount of its revenues.

Heroin, cocaine, and other illicit drugs produce hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenues – a US government-supported bonanza, facilitated by corrupt officials, the CIA, organized crime, US and Western financial institutions, as well as other corporate interests.

Pre-9/11, Afghanistan under Taliban rule eradicated 94% of opium production, according to UN estimates, one of various reasons why Bush/Cheney launched naked aggression on the country in October 2001.

One objective was increasing opium production. Afghanistan was transformed into the world’s largest supplier – at one point producing more than total global demand, now accounting for at least most of it.

Disinformation, Big Lies, and fake news are what CNN does best – the most distrusted name in television news, a lying machine masquerading as a news organization, its operation a virtual conspiracy against truth-telling on vital issues.

On April 17, its propaganda piece on Venezuela falsely accused the country of “creat(ing) a cocaine super-highway to the US” – a bald-faced Big Lie, turning truth on its head claiming the following:

“Cocaine trafficking from Venezuela to the United States is soaring (sic)…(Unnamed) US and other regional officials say (sic) it’s Venezuela’s own military and political elite who are facilitating the passage of drugs in and out of the country on hundreds of tiny, unmarked planes (sic).”

Diosdado Cabello, the leader of Venezuela’s National Constituent Assembly and…Nicolas Maduro’s number two, was (sic) sanctioned in May 2018 for being ‘directly involved in narcotics trafficking activities’ ” – referring to Tareck El Aissami, Venezuelan executive vice president from January 2017 – mid-June 2018.

He’s currently Minister of Industries and National Production. Responding to fabricated charges, he said the following:

“When I headed the public security corps of my country, in 2008 — 2012, our fight against drug cartels achieved the greatest progress in our history and in the western hemisphere, both in terms of the transnational drug trafficking business and their logistics structures.”

“During those years, the Venezuelan anti-drug enforcement authorities under my leadership captured, arrested and brought 102 heads of criminal drug trafficking organizations not only to the Venezuelan justice but also to the justice of other countries where they were wanted.”

Bush/Cheney officials falsely accused Venezuela of non-cooperation against narco-trafficking the US supports worldwide.

Annually since then, Washington falsely claimed Venezuela hasn’t fulfilled its obligations under international narcotics agreements.

The Treasury Department sanctioned around two dozen Venezuelan nationals and over two dozen entities – falsely accusing them of narco-trafficking, including Vice President Aissami.

In response to false charges against him, he also wrote a public letter to US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, saying in part:

US “interest groups not only lack any evidence to demonstrate the extremely serious accusations against me, but they also have built a false-positive case in order to criminalize – through me – the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a country that is decidedly waging a war on transnational drug trafficking business.”

Dozens of “captured drug lords… were promptly deported to the USA (and) Colombia, in accordance with the requests made by the authorities of each country and in compliance with the international agreements on the fight against organized crime, facts formally acknowledged by the US and Colombian authorities.”

“…Venezuela has always been recognized by the United Nations as a territory free of drug production…(C)onnections between (the US) Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) (and) criminal drug organizations (are) very well documented…”

“The extraordinary progress made by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the fight against drug trafficking – which I directed in my capacity as head of the public security corps – was acknowledged by (the UN, and other) international organizations…”

Venezuelan efforts in combatting illicit drugs trafficking are recognized “in the archives of the Judicial bodies of the United States and Colombia, which also acknowledged the efforts that I headed against organized crime, which is unprecedented in our hemisphere.”

Venezuelan law mandates interdiction of drugs-trafficking aircraft in the nation’s airspace. Its efforts “destroyed, disabled or brought down over 100 aircraft belonging to the drugs transport structure from Colombia and neighboring countries illegally flying over our territory.”

“Venezuela is waging an all-out war against drugs because it is a cross-border crime against humanity…”

“Venezuela also fights drug cartels because our country and our people are victims of drug trafficking, particularly of the powerful Colombian illegal drug industry, the main supplier of the drugs that flood the streets of the United States and Europe” – facilitated by the nation’s narco-terrorist authorities at the highest levels.

“Today more drugs are brought into the United States than ever before, while a corrupt and legal powerful financial structure legitimizes and recycles dirty money from this international illegal activity, which deprives thousands of American young people of their life and future.”

The so-called US war on drugs is all about facilitating illicit trafficking, along with criminalizing and mass imprisoning ordinary Americans for possession of small amounts for their own use.

The US is ground zero for the illicit drugs trade. Venezuela is the hemisphere’s leader in combatting it.

Will false US charges of illicit drugs trafficking against Venezuela be used by the Trump regime as a pretext for military intervention to topple Maduro and eliminate the country’s social democracy?

Everything tried so far failed. While direct US military intervention is unlikely, put nothing past extremists in charge of Trump’s geopolitical agenda.

They’re hellbent to get another US imperial trophy, along with gaining control over Venezuelan world’s largest oil reserves and other valued resources.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

It’s seemingly inexplicable to many that one of the world’s top oil exporters won’t help its “ally” survive the ever-worsening fuel crisis, but upon closer consideration and after much-needed critical thinking, it becomes clear that Russia intends to politicize this crisis in order to compel Syria into undertaking further concessions related to the upcoming constitutional reform process and initiating Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” from the country, meaning that Moscow probably won’t “ride to the rescue” until Damascus finally promises to do what it’s wanted for over the past two years already.

The Elephant In The Room

The US’ strict anti-Iranian sanctions regime is responsible for causing a serious fuel crisis in Syria, with the popular Al-Masdar information outlet reporting that “thousands of cars in cities like Damascus, Latakia, and Aleppo are forced to wait several hours to fill up gas as the lines often stretch 3-5km long”. Neighboring Lebanon is temporarily assisting Syria with emergency fuel shipments in order to prevent the crisis in the war-torn state from worsening at precisely the point when most observers expected it to finally improve, but Beirut barely has enough oil to meet its own demands so this therefore doesn’t represent a sustainable solution to the crisis. As Syria struggles to survive and stave off the Color Revolution unrest that might “naturally” develop if its people continue to live in squalor and the price of everything spikes in response to shortage of fuel, the Alt-Media Community is busy condemning the US and its allies for their role in all of this while avoiding the elephant in the room of asking why the country’s oil-rich Russian “ally” isn’t helping it at this dire moment.

Exposing The Economic Excuse

It’s seemingly inexplicable that one of the world’s top oil exporters and most masterful perception management practitioners wouldn’t gift its “ally” emergency fuel shipments as a humanitarian gesture or at least sell it what it needs under a deferred payment plan, especially when considering that it’s owned all of the country’s oil and gas infrastructure since last year and regularly ships large amounts of oil to the country in order to meet the huge demands of its fuel-hungry Aerospace Forces there. On top of that, Russia even sells gas to its American adversary in spite of the sanctions that its customer imposed on this industry, proving that the “power of the dollar” is just as much of a Russian mantra as an American one, so it doesn’t make sense why it won’t do the same for its Syrian “ally” in exchange even if it’s through an oil-for-goods “barter agreement” like Russia has with Iran. Evidently, the Russian leadership is deliberately holding off on helping its Syrian “ally” for reasons that have nothing to do with economics but everything to do with politics.

(Anti-)Constitutional Demands

To explain, President Assad dealt his Russian counterpart an unprecedentedly humiliating diplomatic defeat when his government refused to implement the many controversial clauses of the Russian-written “draft constitution” that was first unveiled during the inaugural meeting of the Astana peace process back in January 2017, something that President Putin has never forgotten. Practically every one of the many growing differences between Russia and Syria can be traced back to that moment when Moscow caught Damascus completely off guard by presenting this surprise document to it at the same time as it gave this proposal to the so-called “rebels” that also attended the event, which was an unthinkable affront to Syria’s dignity and “face” even though it was “well-intended” and meant to revive the stalled peace process. Worse still, Russia then began “gently” seeking Iran’s “phased withdrawal” from the Arab Republic and entered into open collaboration with Syria’s hated Zionist foe to this end, resulting in the “nightmare scenario” of “Putinyahu’s Rusrael” emerging on Damascus’ doorstep and even becoming the most powerful military force within its own borders.

The Messenger

President Putin is so angry with President Assad ever since the September spy plane tragedy that he’s no longer on speaking terms with him anymore after talking to his counterpart only once nearly a full week after what happened, instead dispatching Defense Minister Shoigu to deliver a message to him recently when he could have just picked up the phone and called like he often does whenever he wants to talk with Erdogan or Netanyahu, both of whom it should be pointed out are Assad’s enemies. It can only be speculated what the latest message was about, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it included a “reminder” about President Putin’s insistence that his Syrian counterpart complies with the many constitutional changes that Russia “suggested” over two years ago and which are once again becoming relevant ahead of the commencement of the so-called “constitutional committee” that Moscow compelled Damascus to “compromise” on by agreeing to only have a 1/3 representation in.

“Diplomatic Blackmail”

Had Damascus agreed to Moscow’s speculative demands, then there’s no doubt that Russia would have already “rode to the rescue” by now and saved it from the current fuel crisis, but it’s very likely that Syria refused to give in to this “diplomatic blackmail” and that’s why Russia is “punishing” it by withholding much-needed supplies at this crucial time despite knowing that the exacerbation of this crisis could very well lead to Color Revolution unrest. Unlike what many might think, that scenario wouldn’t necessarily be detrimental to Russia’s strategic interests since it’s already “grooming” several members of the Syrian “opposition” like Jamil Qadri who often meet with high-level diplomats in Moscow and could possibly replace him “if need be”. Furthermore, “Russia’s Reshaping Syria’s ‘Deep State’ In Its Own Image” by actively “reforming” its armed forces in order to eliminate Iranian influence and replace it with its own, so it’s not far-fetched to imagine that Moscow has several ” back-up plans” if President Assad doesn’t do what President Putin wants.

Are The Saudis Pulling The Strings?

Another fact that deserves mentioning is that Russia currently controls the global oil market through the OPEC+ duopoly that it jointly manages with its new Saudi strategic partner, which it’s bidding to build 16 nuclear reactors for and just delivered state-of-the-art rocket launchers to. The aforementioned shipment also occurred right around the time that Russia’s UN Ambassador praised the Saudi-led coalition for “playing a very constructive role” in Yemen and just prior to the news that Russia replaced Venezuelan and Iranian crude on European markets as a result of Trumps sanctions regimes against both of the country’s “partners”. Given the ultra-lucrative cooperation that Russia currently has with Saudi Arabia and the growing closeness between these two Great Powers, it’s very possible that Russia intends to also replace Iranian crude on the Syrian market as part of its regional “balancing” strategy and is just waiting for the fuel crisis to become so unbearable that Damascus ditches Tehran and practically begs Moscow for oil at any price, possibly after promising to implement Russia’s “proposed” constitutional “reforms” and initiate Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” from the country.

Concluding Thoughts

The entire population of Syria is seriously suffering from the current fuel crisis that was caused by American sanctions but could easily be relieved through the support of the country’s oil-rich Russian “ally”, though Moscow is holding off on helping Damascus until the latter complies with the Great Power’s most important political demands such as implementing the Russian-written “draft constitution” and initiating Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” from the Arab Republic. The worsening crisis is making it more difficult for refugees to repatriate to their homeland from neighboring Lebanon and could also potentially result in a Color Revolution against President Assad, though Russia doesn’t seem to fazed by any of this because it already has several back-up plans that it could rely on in those scenarios in order to safeguard its strategic interests. After all, none other than Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov loudly proclaimed in 2016 that “Assad is not our ally” so it doesn’t matter to Moscow whether he remains in office or not. Alt-Media won’t admit it, but it looks like President Putin is no longer afraid of the “Assad must go” curse.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Isn’t Oil-Rich Russia Helping Its Syrian “Ally” Survive the Fuel Crisis?
  • Tags: , ,

For over a year now, the Israeli “Deal of the Century” for Palestine has been endorsed by the US establishment and is now echoing to the four corners of the world. The two novices in foreign policy, US President Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, manoeuvred by Israel from behind the scenes, are trying to promote it among Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, the three countries who are supposed to exchange territories to further Israel’s plans in Gaza and the West Bank. It remains improbable that the US and Israel can impose this plan that has taken shape under the watchful but impotent gaze of Europe and the Arab nations. 

Notwithstanding US-Arab-Israeli initial approval of this deal, the ultimate decision is in the hands of the Palestinian people. Although bickering and serious splits are omnipresent among the Palestinian leadership, all (including the President ad interim Mahmoud Abbas) have agreed to reject the Israeli-US deal. Thus, the “Deal of the Century” is expected to fall through because the Palestinians will never again make the mistake they made in 1948, and will hold on to their territory. They will not agree to exchange Palestine for parcels of land in Egypt and Jordan as written in the plan leaked by the same US establishment.

Palestinian officials said

“the Deal of the Century was launched by Israel in 1956 when, for nine days, Israel was committing genocidal massacres against Palestinian civilians and refugees in the Gaza strip and in particular in Khan Yunis and Rafah. The objective then was to push the Palestinian refugees toward an exodus so Israel could annex Gaza without refugees. The Palestinians who sought shelter in Gaza escaped the Israeli killing in 1948 from Akka, Haifa, Yafa, Safad, Gallilea, al-Led, al-Ramla, Nablus, al-Quds and Bir el-Sabe’. Today, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is trying to accomplish what David-Ben Gurion, the founder of the Zionist state and the first Prime Minister of this state, failed to achieve”.

“Today Netanyahu feels euphoric following the victory of the extreme right-wing parties in the last elections. Extremism in Israel dominates the Knesset. The classic right-wing party has a share in power but centrists like Labour went from 42 seats to 6 in the last legislative elections, its worst showing in its 71 year history. Thus, most of Israeli society has decided to vote for the extremism that is now overwhelming Israeli culture together with the armed forces. It is time for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to realise that Israel is not willing to give a state to the Palestinians and will always reject the right of return. No one today except President Abbas holds to the Oslo agreement (signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993 in Washington). Thus, it is time to reject every single article in the Oslo treaty and refuse any deal with Israel. President Abbas (Abu Mazen) believes in peaceful resistance and in “talking-resistance” at the United Nations and Europe, both of whom are impotent in the face of Israel’s plans and those of Trump. For this reason, we believe that armed resistance is the only way to get our state, because we reject any deal and any swap of territories”, said the source.

Several Arab states are promoting the Israeli “Deal of the Century”. Oil-rich countries, i.e. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, are trying to convince the Palestinians, Egyptians and the Jordanian leadership to swap territories to ease the deal and accommodate Israel.

Palestinian fleeing their homes across the Allenby bridge. The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakbah, literally "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"), occurred from December 1947 to January 1949 when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war. 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished.

According to well-informed sources, the “Deal of the Century” offers Egypt a sum between 65 and 100 billion dollars in exchange for offering part of Sinai (Sheikh Zuweid, Rafah and al-Aresh) to the Palestinian refugees in Gaza. In exchange, Jordan gives al-Baqoura and al-Ghamer to the Palestinians in the West Bank in exchange of “part C’. Amman would be offered around 50 to 60 billion dollars. Saudi Arabia is expected to offer Jordan a piece of Haql and Magna in exchange for the Egyptian islands of Tiran and Sanafir (the Saudis already paid for these Islands but an Egyptian court blocked the transfer of property). The Palestinians who remain in Palestine are expected, according to the deal, to receive tens of billions of dollars “to ease their life”. Also, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are supposed to receive a handsome quantity of billions of dollars to naturalise the Palestinian refugees on the condition they never return to Palestine.

The above details of the “Deal” confirm that it will not go through for many reasons: Lebanon and Syria will never agree to naturalise the Palestinian refugees. When young Palestinian teens living in Lebanon or Syria are asked where they come from, they immediately respond: “I am from Haifa, Yafa, Nablous, Quds, Safad…” They never say, even if they were born in Lebanon or Syria, that they belong to the country their parents or grandparents were forced to migrate to. They have never renounced their right to return and keep the key of their home hanging on the wall so as to never, ever forget where they belong.

Jordanian and Egyptian leaders will never dare offer territories to ease Israel’s plan because the population will revolt and regimes will fall. These and many more reasons lead to one conclusion: the “Deal of the Century” was dead even before it was born.

At the heart of US efforts to promote the deal is the economic strangulation of a few Middle Eastern countries – i.e. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Gaza – who are going through a serious economic crisis. US forces are occupying north-east Syria, an area rich in oil and gas and agriculture. US forces also block the main crossing between Syria and Iraq at al-Tanf in order to block trade and keep the area insecure for commerce between the two countries, with the goal of breaking the Syrian government’s back. The US establishment is also putting pressure on the Arab Gulf States and has succeeded in stopping them from restoring a normal relationship with Syria, to prevent their participation in the reconstruction of the country. Israel and the US believe this is the best way to force Syria to the negotiation table- but this is not going to happen either.

Lebanon is going through a severe economic crisis but will never accept to naturalise the Palestinians for many reasons. First, the Palestinian cause will remain alive so long as Israel rejects a Palestinian state that meets the aspiration of the Palestinian population. Second, naturalisation would unbalance the country’s demography and to the detriment of the Christians so that they eventually be marginalised in Lebanon.

Neither will Jordan ever exchange this territory, even for the billions of dollars the country is in need of. By taking the money the monarchy would lose the country.

Egypt rejected Trump’s characteristic attempt at blackmail to force acceptance of the “Deal of the Century”. US officials threatened Egypt in reference to its military deal with Russia; in reality these threats were meant to force Sisi’s hand into accepting the “Deal”.

All these Middle Eastern countries are aware that geography moves history and changes regimes. This “deal” is not new at all. It started in 1956 and over the years Israel has contrived to create the conditions for its acceptance. It is exactly what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice advocated in 2006 when she announced the creation of a “New Middle East”. To support this plan, the US invaded Iraq in 2003; Israel declared war on Hezbollah in 2006 and half of the world gathered – but failed – to change the regime in Syria by means of terrorist proxies. His recent election victory is motivating Netanyahu to take advantage of a totally obedient President in the White House, and push him to endorse his “deal of the Century”. The time is right, from Israel’s point of view, to push through the deal. This Israeli insistence is forcing its neighbours to the opposite conclusion: it is proof to the “Axis of the Resistance” that no solution is possible in the Middle East but through resistance.

Note: The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakbah, literally “disaster”, “catastrophe”, or “cataclysm”), occurred from December 1947 to January 1949 when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war. 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

Julian Assange and the Agenda for Global War

April 17th, 2019 by Prof. James Petras

Introduction

For almost a decade Washington has sought to silence, jail and eliminate the world’s most prominent investigative journalist, Julian Assange (JA) and his team of co-workers at WikiLeaks (WL).

Never has the mass media been so thoroughly discredited by official documents which directly contradict the official propaganda, mouthed by political leaders and parroted by ‘leading’ journalists.

Washington is particularly intent on capturing JA because his revelations have had a particularly powerful impact on the US public, political critics, the alternative media and human rights groups in turning them against US wars in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Latin America.

We will proceed by discussing what JAand WLaccomplished and why the particular ‘cutting edge’ of their reportage disturbed the government.

We will then discus the ‘ongoing’ conflicts and the failure of the White House to score a decisive victory, as factors which has led Washington to intensify its efforts to make JA an ‘example’ to other journalists – demanding that they should ‘shape up’ or pay the consequences including imprisonment.

Context for Whistleblowing

By the end of a decade of war, opposition to the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan had spread to sectors of the military and civilian establishment.  Documents were leaked and critics were encouraged to hand over reports revealing war crimes and the toll in human lives. WL, under Assange’s leadership, were the recipients of hundreds of thousands of documents which poured in from military analysts, contractors and civilian office holders disgusted by official and mass media lies which perpetrated and covered up war crimes.

As the wars dragged on, and new ones were launched in Libya and Syria and liberal Congress-members were impotent and unwilling to expose the Obama/Clinton regimes’ lies and the falsifications accompanying the murder of President Gaddafi,  WikiLeaks and JA publicized documents which revealed how the US planned , implemented and fabricated Humanitarian  Wars to ‘save people’ …by bombing them!

The major networks and prestigious press, following the official line, but WL documents discredited them..

The Pentagon, the CIA, the Presidency and their Congressional supporters panicked – as their covert activities came to light.

They resorted to several desperate moves all directed to silence free speech.  They accused the investigative journalists of ‘espionage’ – working for Russia or Islamic terrorists or simply being ‘traitors for cash’.

As WL message gained legitimacy, Washington turned to the judiciary in search of rulings to muzzle their critics.  Free speech was criminalized .But  WL continued .New and more critical whistleblowers came on the scene; Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, William Binney and others provided new devastating evidence of Washington’s gross distortions and fabrications regarding civilian deaths.

In the Pentagon’s eyes, Julian Assange was The Enemy because he refused to be bought or intimidated.  WL successfully aroused distrust of the mass media and distrust of the official war news’ spread among the public.

The Pentagon, the White House and the intelligence apparatus sought the ‘internal’ spies feeding documents to WL.  Julian Assange was targeted for arrest in the belief that ‘beheading’ the leader would intimidate other investigative journalists. JA fled for his life, and sought and received asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK.

After seven years of pressure the US succeeded in having the Ecuadorean President Lenin Moreno  violate his own country’s constitution and allow the British police to seize JS, jail and prepare him for extradition to Washington where the regime will find the appropriate judicial setting to condemn him to life imprisonment or… worse.

Conclusion

The war crimes committed by Washington are of such dimension that they have eroded the passive and submissive ethos of their public servants; having lost the trust, the government relies on threats, expulsions and criminal trials.

Investigative journalists are under pressure from the chorus of press prostitutes and face criminal trials.

Today Free speech means ‘free’ to follow the State.

Julian Assange’s upcoming trial is about more than free speech.  It is about Washington’s ability to pursue global wars, to apply illegal sanctions against independent countries and to recruit vassal states without opposition.  Washington, without public awareness, will be able to launch trade wars, and slander competitors with impunity.  Once whistleblowers are silenced and/or jailed anything goes.

In the present period  many journalists have lost their ability to speak truth to power, and young writers who seek outlets and role models, face the threat of censorship enforced by egregious punishment.  The White House seeks to convert the country into an echo chamber of lies for ‘humanitarian’ wars and ‘democratic’ coups.

Today the US government pursues a war against Venezuela.  Treasury  seizes its resources and wealth and State appoints its president in the name of ‘democratic values’.  The Trump regime is starving the Venezuelan people into submission in the name of a humanitarian mission, a ploy which is only contested by few journalists in the alternative media.

Washington is jailing JA to ensure that the crimes against Venezuela will continue with impunity.

*

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

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

Yellow Vests Struggle to Reinvent Democracy

April 17th, 2019 by Richard Greeman

Macron Cranks Up Propaganda and Repression

After five months of constant presence at traffic circles, toll-booths, and hazardous Saturday marches, the massive, self-organized social movement known as the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) has just held its second nationwide “Assembly of Assemblies.” Hundreds of autonomous Yellow Vest activist groups from all over France each chose two delegates (one woman, one man) to gather in the port city of St. Nazaire for a weekend of deliberation (April 5-7; Video April 6th).

After weeks of skirmishing with the municipal authorities, the local Yellow Vests were able to host 700 delegates at the St. Nazaire “House of the People,” and the three-day series of general meetings and working groups went off without a hitch in an atmosphere of good-fellowship. A sign on the wall proclaimed, “No one has the solution, but everybody has a piece of it.”

Their project: mobilize their “collective intelligence” to reorganize, strategize, and prolong their struggle. Their aim: to achieve the immediate goals of livable wages and retirements; restoration of social benefits and public services like schools, transportation, post offices, and hospitals; taxing the rich; ending fiscal fraud in order to pay for preserving the environment; and, most ambitious of all, reinventing democracy in the process. Their Declaration ends with the phrase “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I wonder if they know who coined it.

Yellow and Green Unite and Fight

Particular attention was paid to the issue of the environment, reaffirming the popular slogan “End of the week. End of the world. Same logic, same struggle” (it rhymes in French). The Assembly went further and called on “[a]ll persons who wish to put an end to the expropriation of the living to take up a conflictual stance against the present system in order to create, together, a new ecological, popular social movement.”

This shows growth from the original Yellow Vest uprising that began as a protest against a hike in taxes on diesel fuel imposed in the name of “saving the environment.” (Less well-known is the fact that only 17% of that tax was actually earmarked for the environment. In any case, President Emmanuel Macron rescinded it in an early attempt to pacify the movement.) Since then, the Yellow Vests have tentatively converged with environmental groups, whom many poor and working-class Yellow Vests can’t help seeing as bourgeois on bicycles wanting to be nice but unwilling to struggle directly against the establishment.

So their call for unity is also, in part, a challenge to the environmental movement: “Join us in the struggle for social equality and be ready to fight the whole system.” Brilliant! Who said an unstructured, autonomous movement of ordinary, not well-educated people could not come up with strategies and tactics? Psychologists explain that this “wisdom of crowds” emerges whenever people are on an equal footing and free of constraint.1 It grows through experience. And discussion. A dialectical process leading to its emergence. “No one has the solution, but everybody has a piece of it.” This was the basis of direct democracy in Athens, from which the Yellow Vests have also borrowed the idea of choosing representatives by lot.

Autonomy

The Assembly of Assemblies reaffirmed the Yellow Vest founding principle of keeping clear of political parties. And clear of leaders. To my mind, this is a genius stroke. Every popular mass movement I have participated in over the past 60 years has been co-opted (or crushed) by the establishment. Leaders set up an office, they try to raise money and gain access to power, and end up compromising; they treat the rank and file activists like a mailing list, and the power and dynamic of the mass movement melts away, like the Nuclear Freeze that once mobilized millions. For example, in the U.S., the Democratic Party lured them in. Here, in France, the Socialist Party swallowed SOS Racisme, the embryo of a much-needed French Civil Rights movement.

Instinctively, from the beginning, the Yellow Vests seem to have assimilated and put into practice the profound criticism of representative democracy that goes back to the 18th century and was applied during the Paris Commune in 1871. There, delegates were given limited mandates, subject to instant recall, regularly rotated, and paid workmen’s wages. The Communards also called on other cities to rise and link up as a federation. This is precisely the Yellow Vests’ modus operandi.

Europe

This critique of representation explains the Assembly’s attitude toward the upcoming elections for the European Parliament, which will play out as a rehearsal for the next legislative elections when parties will be competing seriously for votes. The fear of being manipulated for political purposes is strong. Last month, Yellow Vests at a Paris demonstration recognized a Yellow Vest who had just declared her candidacy to great media fanfare, apparently in the name of the Yellow Vests. They were furious and yelled at her until she withdrew, shaken. Ugly, but a necessary example to anyone else who would rather be a politician than a Yellow Vest (without resigning first).

As far as Europe is concerned, the Assembly, far from calling for a Frexit, reached out to social movements in the other countries of the European Union in a call to come together and struggle against its neoliberal policies. The Assembly saw no point in voting in this sham election. As everyone knows, the European Parliament has no power or even visibility. It’s not even in Brussels, where the important decisions are made by representatives of the German banks and multi-national corporations. Moreover, it limits the deficit spending of its member countries, thus making it illegal for France to finance the social services and environmental reconstruction the people are demanding.

Restructuring and Reflection

Last weekend’s Assembly of Assemblies coincided with Act 21 of the Yellow Vests’ long struggle to occupy public spaces and freely proclaim their hopes and angers, but it brought out only 23,400 people (government count) across France, the lowest number so far. Small wonder after five straight months of bloody repression. The police were, as usual, out in force, and they stopped and frisked 14,919 people, according to the Paris Prefecture. After twenty-one weekly battles, many of us are too tired, too scared, and/or too old to continue “running with the bulls” through the streets, dodging gas canisters.

“We thought we were off for a sprint. In fact, we were involved in a marathon, and we need to prepare ourselves,” admitted one speaker. We realize we need to vary our tactics, refine our goals, and organize our democratic structures better for the movement to last, and last weekend’s Assembly attempted to face this challenge, starting with three weeks of discussion and a number of new approaches.

Among the new tactics was a call for a huge nationwide protest against the increasing repression being imposed by the Macron government, the liberation of all those in jail, whether Yellow Vests or in other “criminalized” struggles, referring directly to the oppressed North African and immigrant communities in France whose 2005 youth rising was brutally put down. “[The violent repression] we are experiencing today has been for decades the daily experience in the popular quarters [ghetto-like suburbs]” and concludes: “Now authoritarianism is being generalized to the whole society.”

Macron’s Response: Propaganda and Violent Repression

In contrast to these deliberations, last weekend the Macron government delivered the results of its official “Great Debate,” a publicity stunt organized by his government at a cost of €12-million to showcase the President articulately answering questions from selected audience of mayors and local notables in towns and villages across the country. In all, Macron logged 92 hours of speaking.

France’s elected monarch concocted this “Debate,” whose limits were set in advance – taxing the rich and the corporations was off the table – as his “answer” to the Yellow Vests’ demand for participatory democracy. The results were unsurprising: the French want “lower taxes, no cuts to services” (New York Times April 9). Asked if the “Great Debate” was a “success for Macron and his government,” only 6% of those polled by BFM-TV answered “yes.” Another poll revealed that 35% of French people still approve of the Yellow Vests (down from 70% last December), while only 29% approve of Macron.

PR aside, the Macron government’s real answer to public opposition posed by the Yellow Vests has been brutally stark: slander, violent repression, and strict new laws limiting the right to demonstrate – a right enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights and the French Constitution. Macron and his ministers have publicly denounced the Yellow Vests as “anti-Semites,” “fascists,” “a hateful mob,” and a violent conspiracy of “40 – 50,000” terrorists “of the extreme left and extreme right,” out to destroy French institutions.

This vicious caricature, echoed endlessly by the media and reinforced by scary images of violence and vandalism against the symbols of wealth and power in Paris, is designed to dehumanize the protesters, otherwise easily recognizable as poor provincials who are tired of being ignored. Thus demonized, the Yellow Vests’ actual demands for dignity and justice can be ignored. As a threat to France, they must be repressed by any means necessary.

Since November 2018, when the Yellow Vest movement suddenly sprang up 300,000 strong, the government has unleashed unprecedented police brutality, using military grade weapons against unarmed demonstrators, resulting in hundreds of serious injuries (including blindings, loss of limbs, and broken faces). Although invisible on French mainstream media (government subsidized and corporate owned), this French government violence has been repeatedly condemned by human rights panels in France and the European Union, as well as by Michelle Bachelet, former President of Chile and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Government Violence at Last Exposed

On Saturday March 23, as President Macron was visiting the Riviera, 73-year-old Geneviève Legay, local spokesperson for ATTAC (the 20-year-old international NGO that proposes taxing financial transactions for social purposes) joined the Yellow Vest demonstration at Nice to speak out against this repression. Interviewed on local TV carrying a rainbow peace flag, she declared, “We are here to say we have the right to demonstrate … We will leave this square when we choose. And if they use force… Then we’ll see. I’m not afraid. I’m 73 years old, what could happen to me? I’m fighting for my grandchildren. Against tax havens, and all the money the banks are laundering, against fossil energy.”

Moments later, Police Commander Souchi ordered his heavily armed riot police to charge the peaceful group in which Geneviève Legay was standing, and she found herself on the ground, surrounded by riot cops, bleeding profusely, with a cracked skull and broken ribs. She is still in the hospital with serious injuries.

On Monday, the Public Prosecutor and President Macron categorically denied that she had had any contact with the police, and the President, interviewed by the local paper, made a hypocritical apology, “wishing her a speedy recovery and hoping that she might learn some sagesse (literally “wisdom” but typically applied to children in the sense of learning to “behave”).

According to the President of France, as a fragile elderly person, Mme Legay should have known better than to go out to the square in the first place, and so, had got herself trampled in the crowd. (The haughty Macron, like the arrogant Trump, seems to enjoy adding insult to injury.) But, as her TV interview makes clear, Geneviève Legay knew very well she was risking her life to defend the democratic freedom to demonstrate and foresaw such an attack moments before it was ordered by police Commander Souchi.

Indeed, videos taken on the spot and the testimony of street-medics and other eyewitnesses (including policemen) told a different story. Apparently, a policeman wielding a shield hit her in the head and knocked her down, whereupon he and other cops straddled her and dragged her away bleeding, refusing to allow street-medics to attend her. They may also have kicked her when she was down, which would explain her cracked ribs.

Later, police entered her hospital room, where Mme Legay was alone (her daughters having been barred without explanation). They repeatedly tried to get Mme Legay to admit that a “cameraman” had pushed her down, but when she repeated that it was a policeman, they stopped taking notes.

Meanwhile, videos of the attack were all over the Internet, and the independent subscriber-supported news site Médiapart gathered eyewitness evidence and presented it to the Public Prosecutor, who on March 29 was obliged to reverse himself and affirm police involvement.

Then, on April 8, Médiapart exposed the deliberate official cover-up of this attack. It turns out that the person placed in charge of the investigation, Hélène P, one of the policewoman who had pressured Mme Legay in her hospital room to declare that she had been pushed down by a “cameraman,” was none other than the common-law wife of Commander Souchi, who had shouted the order to “Charge! Charge!” at the peaceful group in which Mme Legay was standing.

This scandal has finally broken official silence on French police brutality, after five months of violent, indiscriminate attacks on Yellow Vests – visible on YouTube but not on TV. Even the death, during a housing demonstration in Marseille, of Zaineb Redouane, an 80-year-old woman who was killed on December 4 at her upstairs window when shot directly in the face with tear-gas grenade, went unacknowledged. (She was only an Algerian.)

Macron’s Lies and Cover-ups

Thus, the President of the Republic was caught outrightly lying to cover up police brutality. Not as strange as one might think, given the scandal that has clung to him like a tick since last summer, also uncovered by Médiapart, the Benalla Affair – named for Macron’s Security Chief, who last year was captured on a video wearing a borrowed riot police uniform, viciously clubbing a demonstrator lying on the ground – apparently for the fun of it. It then emerged that Macron’s protégé and left-hand man Benalla was also involved in a variety of international intrigues and scams that continue to tarnish Macron’s Mister Clean image in France as new evidence emerges.

Nonetheless, Macron, a former Socialist, is still seen internationally as a progressive, democratic leader, efficiently modernizing France’s archaic “exception” to neoliberal dogma, and basically a friend to human rights. The extraordinary violence of his regime has remained hidden behind a smokescreen of demonization of the Yellow Vests and de facto censorship by the mainstream media. Even the liberal New York Review of Books, which in the 1960s printed a diagram of a Molotov cocktail on its front page, has clung to this line, placing the blame for “violence” on the protestors. So before leaving this subject, let’s look at some unpleasant statistics and then examine the role of the Black Block of so-called casseurs (“trashers”) in sustaining this image.

Whose Violence?

The official narrative is that the Yellow Vests have been attacking the forces of order, and indeed, they are often seen on TV throwing tear gas canisters back at the police. Interior Minister Castener has been categorical:

“I know of no policeman who has attacked the Yellow Vests.”

Here are the statistics.

No policemen have been reported as seriously injured during the five months of weekly clashes with the Yellow Vests. On the other hand, the latest official Interior Ministry figures list 2,200 wounded demonstrators, 10 eyes permanently put out, 8,700 arrests, 1,796 convictions, 1,428 teargas canisters fired, 4,942 dispersion grenades fired, and 13,460 Flashballs (LBDs) fired.

Flashballs, manufactured in Switzerland, are listed as “sub-lethal military weapons,” but when they cross the French border, they magically become “crowd-control devices”. They are extremely powerful and accurate at 50 yards, and the number of head wounds indicate that they have been deliberately aimed at demonstrators’ heads, as have been tear-gas canisters and grenades.

Médiapart’s list counts 606 demonstrators wounded, including one death, 5 hands ripped off, 23 blinded in one eye, 236 head wounds (including jaws ripped off), and 103 attacks on journalists. Among the wounded, 464 were demonstrators, 39 minors, 22 bystanders, 61 journalists, and 20 medics.

What About the Violent Vandals?

Concerning the Black Block and other casseurs (“trashers”), they are certainly guilty of property damage on a fairly significant scale but have, as far as I know, not wounded, blinded, or crippled any human beings. That, to me (but apparently not to the French media), is a significant difference. I have never eaten at Fouquet’s restaurant, and I’m sure they have insurance.

My problem with the Black Block at Yellow Vest demonstrations is that they never get arrested or struck by flashballs. Go on YouTube, and you can see dozens of videos of masked, black-clad guys with crowbars smashing banks and trashing stores in plain sight. No one ever stops them. Why?

A certain number of casseurs have been spotted (and videoed) as police provocateurs, infiltrating the demonstrations, smashing stuff, and then being exfiltrated through police lines. This is an old French police tactic designed to spoil the image of a demonstration and justify violent repression, but the whole truth is that Europe is full of angry young men, self-styled anarchists, deeply invested in fighting the establishment by smashing its symbols. They come in from all over Europe.

So, the cops leave them alone and concentrate on their main mission: brutalizing the crowds of ordinary demonstrators to scare them off and stifle dissent. Moreover, the Black Block folks are more likely to kick the shit out of the cops who try to stop them than are high-school kids, parents with children, and old folks like me and Geneviève. I’d like the Black Block much more if they would fight the cops themselves instead of using us as human shields while expressing their quite understandable rage while we get gassed and shot at.

“Libertycidal” Legislation

The new “anti-casseurs” laws that Macron is pushing through the legislature will legalize and set in stone for the future the repressive practices used against the Yellow Vests, making them permanently available to his successors (for example, Marine Le Pen). They have nothing to do with actual casseurs (who are obviously breaking existing laws and need only to be apprehended under those laws) and everything to do with making it nearly impossible for ecologists, trade-unionists, or Yellow Vests to demonstrate.

For example, if you are a small-town Yellow Vest and take the train to Paris on a Saturday, you are likely to be stopped several times between the station and the Champs-Élysées. If you have in your backpack Vaseline, eye drops, ski goggles, a bicycle helmet, a face-scarf or, God forbid, a gas mask, you can be arrested, brought to summary trial, and convicted the very same day for being part of a “group organized for the purpose of destroying public order and obstructing the forces of order.”

Of course, if you insist on a real trial with lawyers and everything, they will gladly hold you over in jail, but if you’re not at work on Monday, you’ll lose your job, and meanwhile, who is minding the kids? And if you eventually do get to demonstrate and the demonstration leads to property damage, you may also be made legally and financially responsible. As well, you may be placed on a list of dangerous people and barred at the whim of the local Prefect from demonstrating again.

The chilling prospect of turning these absurd police-state practices into law is what brought pacifists like Geneviève Legay out into the streets with the Yellow Vests. Interviewed in the hospital, where she is still in pain and recovering slowly from multiple injuries, she declared,

“Today I am determined to carry on the fight. It is ever more necessary to do so when you see the anti-democratic drift of this government […] The Yellow Vests support me, and I will continue supporting them. I am not going to stop fighting to defend our rights, as I have for 50 years, and to struggle against State repression whatever form it may take.”

The Cat Is Out of the Bag

She will not be alone. The League for the Rights of Man and more than 50 other civil liberties groups, religious associations, trade unions, civic associations and far-left parties have just called for a massive national demonstration for the right to demonstrate along with the Yellow Vests on Saturday, April 13. I hope it will be massive.

The choice of Saturday is significant as an act of solidarity with the Yellow Vests, who alone have been defending the public’s right to assemble in public places, and this, at considerable personal risk. For 22 weeks, the Yellow Vests have been acting out this basic democratic right through their principled refusal to beg the police for special permission for citizens to gather in a public square or parade through the streets. Imagine “Occupy Wall Street” happening all around the country, in cities and on traffic circles, on a weekly basis. All alone, the Yellow Vests have sustained thousands of injuries and thousands of arrests through this weekly act of civil disobedience, proclaiming the right to the city. Now, at last, they have recognition and allies.2

This new convergence of other groups, along with the new perspectives flowing from the Yellow Vests’ Assembly of Assemblies, may mark a new phase in their long and lonely struggle against Macron’s harsh, anti-democratic, neoliberal regime in its implacable drive to wipe out the relative advantages in living standards, social services, and personal liberties won by previous generations of French people: in 1936 (the general strike), 1945 (the Liberation), and 1968 (the general strike and student uprising). Indeed, since 1789 (the year of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which enshrines the people’s right to demonstrate grievances).

P.S. Meanwhile, the Algerian people, having suffered a century of French colonial rule, a long and bloody war for independence, and more than 60 years of corrupt police-state rule, are carrying on a similar struggle for dignity and democracy, filling the streets once a week (but on Friday, not Saturday) in so-far peaceful massive demonstrations. (The Montpellier Yellow Vests immediately voted their support.) The irony is that the Algerian police have held back on violence, whereas here in France, the level of state repression against the Yellow Vests reminds me of the oppressive atmosphere of police repression I experienced as a student in Paris during the Algerian War.

P. P.S. In my next report from Montpellier, I will try to relate, as a participant-observer, what it’s like inside the Yellow Vests. Meanwhile, don’t hesitate to send me any questions you may have about this under-reported but much-maligned autonomous popular movement.

*

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

Richard Greeman has been active since 1957 in civil rights, anti-war, anti-nuke, environmental and labour struggles in the U.S., Latin America, France (where he has been a longtime resident) and Russia (where he helped found the Praxis Research and Education Center in 1997). He maintains a blog at richardgreeman.org.

Notes

1. See James Surowiecki: The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, Doubleday, 2004.

2. Typical of the Yellow Vests’ sense of autonomy, our Montpellier/Peyrou group, although happy to join the Oct. 13 demonstration (which has received an actual permit), reserves the right to break off from the official group, march around where they please, and return when they choose. You can only ‘have’ a right if you use it. During Act 21, after chasing around town with the cops on their heels, they ended up on the main square and spontaneously formed a very long line and began dancing an improvised Medieval danse to the rhythm of drums, flutes, and noise makers.

All images in this article are from The Bullet

Ottawa imposed sanctions on 43 Venezuelan officials Wednesday, according to a statement by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

While the statement did not specify the names of those targeted, Freeland indicated that they were “high-ranking officials” or “governors.”

“Canada is committed to supporting the peaceful restoration of constitutional democracy in Venezuela,” she added.

Previous Canadian sanctions had targeted a total of 70 Venezuelan officials.

The measures by the Trudeau government come on the heels of successive rounds of sanctions imposed against Caracas by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). After sanctioning Venezuela’s oil, mining and banking sectors, Washington has recently gone after vessels and cargo companies involved in Venezuelan oil shipments. The latest round targeted four shipping companies and nine vessels on Friday.

Sanctions occupied the limelight ata Lima Group summit held in Santiago, Chile, on Monday. The meeting, which was not attended by Mexico, ended with a joint statement by participating countries. While the declaration rejected “any threat or course of action leading to a military intervention,” it did call on the international community to continue imposing sanctions against Venezuela. The statement additionally calls for an “International Conference for Democracy,” to be held in Lima at a later date.

US-led sanctions have met growing international opposition, with many experts warning that the measures are exacerbating the Caribbean country’s current crisis by depriving the cash-strapped Venezuelan state of resources and imposing hurdles on transactions such as food and medicine imports. UN Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy has criticized the use of sanctions to promote regime change, while former UN Expert Alfred de Zayas likened sanctions to “medieval sieges,” meant to bring countries “to their knees.”

The latest sanctions coincided with a South American trip by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who visited Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Colombia in the past week. Venezuela was one of the main topics on the agenda, as well as Chinese investments in Latin America.

Pompeo’s last stop was the Colombian town of Cucuta, right on the border with Venezuela, where he met Colombian President Ivan Duque and Venezuelan opposition leaders such as Julio Borges. Borges is wanted by Venezuelan judicial authorities for his alleged involvement in the drone assassination attempt against President Maduro on August 4, 2018.

Speaking in Cucuta on Sunday, Pompeo vowed to use “every economic and political means at our disposal,” including sanctions, to hold the “regime” accountable.

“You watch the political and diplomatic noose tighten around Maduro’s neck,” he told reporters before going back to the US.

Pompeo’s trip also featured warnings against Cuba, Russia and China for their support for the Maduro government. The secretary of state warned Havana and Moscow that there would be a “cost” for supporting Maduro, while also criticizing China’s presence in Latin America throughout the trip, calling it “nefarious.”

Beijing rebuked Pompeo’s comments on Monday, with Chinese Ambassador to Chile Xu Bu telling a local newspaper that Pompeo had “lost his mind.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lu Kang blasted Pompeo’s “groundless allegations,” adding that “the US has long been treating Latin America as its backyard, where it would resort to willful use of pressure, threat or even subversion.”

Meanwhile, both Chavismo and the opposition staged mobilizations during the weekend.

Self-proclaimed “Interim president” Juan Guaido held a three day tour of the country’s northwest, holding rallies in the states of Falcón and Zulia. Guaido asked his followers to be “confident,” while also pledging that the end of the “usurpation” was just days away.

“You are not alone in this struggle, the international community is behind you and we are not going to lose,” he told a crowd in Punto Fijo.

Western states such as Zulia, home to Venezuela’s second largest city, Maracaibo, have been particularly hard hit by the recent electricity crisis, taking days to see power restored following nationwide blackouts and only having a few hours of service at a time.

Venezuela’s electric grid has been plagued by under-investment and lack of maintenance, problems which have been compounded by US sanctions. States such as Zulia had plans to install thermoelectric plants so as to reduce the dependence on the Guri Dam, the country’s main electricity generator, but sanctions have ground plans to a halt, particularly through shortages of fuel necessary to activate the plants.

Chavismo held a march on April 13 to commemorate the defeat of the 2002 coup (@PartidoPSUV)

Chavismo held a march on April 13 to commemorate the defeat of the 2002 coup (@PartidoPSUV)

For its part, Chavismo held a rally in Caracas on Saturday to commemorate the defeat of the 2002 coup which removed Chavez from power for 47 hours. The coup was led by opposition figures such as Leopoldo Lopez and Henrique Capriles, placing business leader Pedro Carmona as interim president, before a massive popular response brought Chavez back to power.

The date also marks the anniversary of the Bolivarian Militia, a popular defense organization created in 2009 and which has a reported 2 million members.

In his speech, Maduro pointed out that many of those who led the coup are high-profile opposition figures today, while also drawing parallels between Carmona’s swearing in and Juan Guaido’s self-proclamation on January 23.

*

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

Julian Assange Wins 2019 EU Journalism Award

April 17th, 2019 by Telesur

Julian Assange has been awarded the 2019 European United Left-Nordic Green Left Award for Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information, WikiLeaks informed Tuesday.

The award is given to individuals “uncovering the truth and exposing it to the public” and to honor “individuals or groups who have been intimidated and/or persecuted” for such actions. Thus recognizing Assange’s work through WikiLeaks.

The prize is sponsored by European left-wing parliamentarians, who devised it in 2018 in honor of assassinated Maltese journalist Daphne Galizia. Nobel Peace prize winner (1976), Mairead Maguire, received it on Assange’s behalf at an event in the European Parliament in France.

Assange is a multi-award winning journalist, with more than 15 international recognitions for his work. The most outstanding awards are the 2008 New Media Award from The Economist, 2010 Time Person of the Year (Reader’s Choice), 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award, among others. Something his defense has repeatedly explained since by being a publisher and journalist, U.S. imprisonment would mean the violation of fundamental freedom of expression rights.

“The warning is explicit towards journalists. What happened to the founder and editor of WikiLeaks can happen to you in a newspaper, you in a TV studio, you on the radio, you running a podcast,” said award-winning journalist John Pilger writing in an op-ed for teleSUR.

On April 11, Assange’s even-year asylum was abruptly removed and then arrested by British police. Immediately the U.S. charged him with “computer hacking conspiracy,” over an allegation he conspired with former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to break into a classified government computer.

Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno even tried to minimize the actions by saying he was “miserable hacker.” Now his defense is fighting an extradition request to face the U.S. justice system, even though Ecuadorean officials have assured this will not happen.

*

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 Wired

5G: The Dominoes Are Starting to Fall

April 17th, 2019 by Claire Edwards

Long-time United Nations staff member Claire Edwards summarizes worldwide developments in the 5G situation. While still far from a victory claim, there is much to be hopeful about as millions around the world deepen involvement and take a stand for our shared future.

***

How do you stop the rollout of a 12 trillion dollar technology promoted by one of the most profitable industries on the planet and bulldozed through by the EU, FCC and the whole UN, most notably its WiFi enablers, WHO and ITU?

Many people have said it’s impossible. But even as the Trump administration attempts to ram through 5G in the United States, the dominoes are indeed falling around the world, as cities and entire nations are coming to their senses and putting the brakes on 5G.

Lawmakers hitting the brakes on 5G:

Overcoming the roadblocks

For me, it has always seemed an information problem. If the public simply understood the existential threat posed by adopting a military weapon as a communications technology, they would not accept it.

The challenge of informing people is twofold. The name “5G” is deceptive, implying a simple upgrade from the current 4G or fourth generation wireless. [And many WiFi routers now display “5G” as a mode option, but it means “5GHz” in that context, not actual “5G” — an industry ploy to normalize the term’s acceptance through intentional obfuscation. -Ed.]

This ruse cleverly disguises the reality that 5G means densification, with each individual, visible antenna being replaced by thousands of tiny antennas menacing people, animals and nature from every nook and cranny on Earth and from 20,000 or more satellites with lethal, laser-like beams hitting their unwitting targets millions of times a day like silent bullets.

The second difficulty is the tight control of the media. Hardly a whisper of negativity about 5G penetrates the public sphere, while its claimed benefits are constantly touted in puff pieces in newspapers and in numerous promotional videos.

Yet in the space of only a year since we first heard about the impending catastrophe that is 5G, the message has spread virally through the alternative and social media.

5G deserves the bad rap

Since US Senator Blumenthal dealt a major blow to the telecommunications industry by definitively establishing that no safety studies have been done, the bad news on 5G just keeps on coming. At least 21 US cities have passed ordinances restricting “small cell” installation, and many are charging “recertification fees” to make it unprofitable for the wireless industry.

And the UK-based microwave weapons expert Barrie Trower reports that 17 mystery countries are taking steps to avoid getting 5G.

While the EU eagerly promotes the rollout of 5G, a new EU report admits that 5G is a massive experiment, lamenting that:

“[T]he problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world … concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G.”

The EU report goes on to set out the dangers:

“Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.”

Meanwhile, a court in France has recognized electrohypersensitivity (EHS) as an occupational disease that can be developed also from exposure to levels of radiation that are considered to be safe by the government.

No one wants 5G but the telcos

5G is beginning to look like an unwanted orphan. Everyone who hears the truth about it shuns it like the plague. Even most of its proponents clearly have no love for it.

In his Palm Beach neighborhood, President Trump and his fellow billionaires are not having any of it. None of the EU institutions in Brussels are having it (European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Council and the European Parliament). And its very enablers, the UN and its WHO and ITU are not going to be having it in Geneva, either.

Watch for moratoria being declared in Washington, D.C., home to the FCC; and Munich, nearby home to ICNIRP. Either would be an obvious indicator that the game is rigged.

But one wonders how the 5G movers and shakers will avoid the satellites, which the 5G literature boasts as being intended to “blanket” the Earth. Perhaps the satellite beams will avoid the areas where they live. Or perhaps not. Unless this insane 5G satellite plan is stopped, they, too, might wake up to find themselves as much guinea pigs as the rest of us in this massive biological experiment.

While well over ten thousand peer-reviewed scientific studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation provide a clear perspective on the unprecedented risk of 5G, the rhetoric from the corporate media would have you believe that it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. One thing we can agree on: if we were to allow 5G to go ahead, it would make history. What a pity, then, that it would leave no one standing to celebrate it.

The tide is turning in our favour because people like you, dear reader, are becoming educated and involved. You are sharing information and speaking with leaders. Thanks to your willingness to stand up for life and love, we will succeed in this great battle of our time.

*

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

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.

Sources

Washington Post: 5G is about to get a big boost from Trump and the FCC. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/12/g-is-about-get-big-boost-trump-fcc/?utm_term=.c9e453858d1a

EDN Network: 5G: The twelve trillion dollar technology. 3 May 2017. https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4458362/5G–The-twelve-trillion-dollar-technology.

Digital Survivor: Portland Officials Attempt to Block 5G. 26 March 2019. https://digitalsurvivor.uk/2019/03/26/portland-officials-attempt-to-block-5g/

Oasi Sana: “Provoca danni al corpo!” Firenze frena sul 5G e applica il Principio di Precauzione. Approvata con voto (quasi) unanime la mozione in difesa della salute. 5 April 2019. https://oasisana.com/2019/04/05/provoca-danni-al-corpo-firenze-frena-sul-5g-e-applica-il-principio-di-precauzione-approvata-con-voto-quasi-unanime-la-mozione-in-difesa-della-salute-notizia-esclusiva-oasi-sana/

Terra Nuova.it: Un Municipio di Roma vota contro il 5G: cosa farà la Giunta? (A municipality of Rome votes against 5G: What will the City Council do?) www.terranuova.it/News/Attualita/Un-Municipio-di-Roma-vota-contro-il-5G-cosa-fara-la-Giunta

Vedomosti: Минобороны отказалось передавать операторам частоты для 5G (Ministry of Defence refusing to transfer frequencies for 5G to operators). 28 March 2019. https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2019/03/28/797714-minoboroni-otkazalos-peredavat-5g

Brussels Times: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now. 1 April 2019. http://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/14753/radiation-concerns-halt-brussels-5g-for-now

Telecom Paper: Germans petition Parliament to stop 5G auction on health grounds. 8 April 2019. https://www.telecompaper.com/news/ germans-petition-parliament-to-stop-5g-auction-on-health-grounds–1287962

Algemeen Dagblad: Kamer wil eerst stralingsonderzoek, dan pas 5G-netwerk. 4 April 2019. https://www.ad.nl/tech/kamer-wil-eerst-stralingsonderzoek-dan-pas-5g-netwerk~ab567cd6/

Zero5G: San Francisco Chronicle: California Supreme Court Sides with Cities in Small Cell Faceoff. 5 April 2019. https://zero5g.com/2019/california-supreme-court-sides-with-cities-in-small-cell-faceoff/

Take Back Your Power: 5G: Vaud (Switzerland) Adopts Resolution for a Moratorium. 9 April 2019. https://takebackyourpower.net/5g-vaud-switzerland-adopts-moratorium/

Le Temps: Genève adopte une motion pour un moratoire sur la 5G. 11 April 2019. https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/geneve-adopte-une-motion-un-moratoire-5g

US Department of Defense: Active Denial Technology. Non-Lethal Weapons Program. https://jnlwp.defense.gov/Press-Room/Fact-Sheets/Article-View-Fact-sheets/Article/577989/active-denial-technology/. Published May 11, 2016.

Wireless Industry Confesses “No Studies Show 5G is Safe”. US Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at Senate Hearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekNC0J3xx1w

EH Trust: USA City Ordinances To Limit And Control Wireless Facilities Small Cells In Rights Of Ways. https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless-facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of-ways/

5G Gigantic health hazard – Barrie Trower & Sir Julian Rose. Video. 14 December 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLVIbPtNrVo.

European Parliament: 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. April 2019. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

Zero5G: French court Recognizes EHS as an Occupational Disease. 2 April 2019. https://zero5g.com/2019/french-court-recognizes-ehs-as-an-occupational-disease/

Activist Post: Are Palm Beach and Trump’s Estate Exempt from Legislation Forcing 5G Small Cell Tower Installation Everywhere Else? 27 December 2018. https://www.activistpost.com/2018/12/are-palm-beach-and-trumps-estate-exempt-from-legislation-forcing-5g-small-cell-tower-installation-everywhere-else.html

Featured image is from TBYP

A lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s approval of Alton Coal’s mine expansion near Bryce Canyon National Park was filed today by Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and WildEarth Guardians. The organizations filed a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to the recent approval of the expanded mine, which would extract millions of tons of coal and exacerbate climate change impacts including air pollution and other threats.

In August of 2018, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved an environmental report that allows Alton to expand its mine onto 2,114 acres of public land to extract more than 30 million tons of coal. The complaint argues that BLM failed to analyze the impacts of mercury pollution from burning coal, did not consider the enormous social costs of increased carbon emissions, and refused to take a broader, more cumulative look at the climate impacts of this project as is required under NEPA.

“The Trump Administration has repeatedly put corporate interests ahead of the American people and the safety of our health and environment. It’s disappointing, but not surprising, to see the Trump Administration approve this mine expansion without accounting for all the pollution impacts,” Nathaniel Shoaff, Senior Attorney at the Sierra Club said. “Our organizations remain strongly committed to protecting the climate, environment, and cultural resources in southern Utah.”

In addition to the pollution and climate impacts, this coal mine expansion threatens the natural resources and visitor experience at nearby iconic Bryce Canyon National Park. Even further, the BLM itself acknowledges that the expansion is likely to have a negative effect on North America’s southernmost population of Greater Sage Grouse.

“There are a host of reasons why allowing an enormous new strip mine on the doorstep of a national park is a terrible idea – and the vast amount of greenhouse gases and other air pollution that would result from burning the coal is certainly one of them,” said Ann Alexander, a Senior Attorney at NRDC. “The law requires that BLM lay out for the public the very real costs of that pollution which they have disregarded .”

“The approval of this coal mine expansion also comes at a time when Utahns are demanding a shift toward a new clean energy economy. Salt Lake City, Moab, Park City and Summit County all committed to 100% clean energy goals, and the state’s rooftop solar industry continues to boom. The Trump Administration ignored these factors as well as the more than 280,000 public comments filed in opposition to the proposal,” said Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program Director at WildEarth Guardians.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Administration Ignores Environmental Impacts of Mining 30 Million Tons of Coal Near Bryce Canyon National Park
  • Tags:

US President Donald Trump has vetoed a congressional resolution that sought to end US involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, the White House has said.

“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump said in the veto message.

The resolution, which had passed the House of Representatives and Senate, sought to end US military involvement in the war in Yemen that had not received prior authorisation from Congress.

That restriction falls under the US War Powers Act of 1973, which seeks to rein in where and when US forces are involved in military conflicts.

Neither the 247-175 tally in the Democratic-majority House nor the 54-46 vote in the Republican-led Senate would be enough to override the veto, which would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers.

Trump had repeatedly threatened to veto the resolution in the past, calling it “flawed” legislation.

US Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate who championed the legislation, said he was “disappointed, but not surprised” by Trump’s move.

Representative Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman and another proponent of the resolution, also expressed disappointment.

“From a president elected on the promise of putting a stop to our endless wars, this veto is a painful missed opportunity,” he said.

UAE praises decision

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is part of the Saudi-led coalition fighting Houthi rebels in Yemen, praised Trump’s decision.

“President Trump’s assertion of support to the Arab Coalition in Yemen is a positive signal,” UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash said on Twitter early on Wednesday.

Other backers of the measure said the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen has worsened the humanitarian crisis there, harshly criticising Riyadh for killing civilians.

The conflict has left tens of thousands of people dead, caused outbreaks of preventable diseases and brought the already impoverished country to the verge of famine.

The US military provides intelligence and logistics support to Saudi forces, and until recently was also assisting with the mid-air refuelling of Saudi jets.

Saudi Arabia launched the military campaign in Yemen in 2015 to root out the Houthis, who had taken over the capital, Sanaa, and ousted the internationally recognised and Saudi-backed government of President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.

Experts say that without US backing, Saudi Arabia would be forced to end its war effort in Yemen.

*

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

In what is arguably one of the most craven opportunistic moves by a business/media group to increase its circulation/profitability, on 10 April the New York Times (NYT) embarked on what it describes as its Privacy Project. 

A day later on 11 April, no doubt with the NYT’s foreknowledge of what was to come thanks to an unofficial US government tip, Ecuador revoked Julian Assange’s (Wikileaks founder) asylum in its UK Embassy and fed him to the British Police dogs eagerly awaiting to arrest him and dump him in jail.

In May 2017 I wrote that Assange was doomed from the get-go to be arrested and handed over to the US Government and that it would only be a matter of time before Edward Snowden befell a similar fate.

Chelsea Manning’s leaked information made WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, a household name. It also made them permanent enemies of the US State. In 2010, Assange released a video that he called Collateral Murder. The video shows an airstrike in which Iraqi journalists are killed. Other releases based on Manning’s leak were known as the Afghan Diary and Iraq War Logs. The diplomatic cables exposed some of the silly machinations of the US State Department and the over classification of documents. 

Meanwhile, mainstream media (MSM) outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post feasted on the leaks and gave them prominent coverage daily, even as they excoriated Assange and his merry band of leakers. The MSM believes that WikiLeaks is not “real” journalism even as they used the classified material Assange provided to bolster their subscription numbers. Aren’t they accessories to Assange’s crime? Apparently they are not.

Assange has been living for the past five years under diplomatic protection in the Embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom. He has been accused of rape in Sweden and, if he leaves the embassy, would be arrested by UK authorities and, ultimately, end up in the USA. To make matters worse, now he is a target of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director.

Pompeo once praised WikiLeaks. Whatever data he has seen that made him go ballistic can’t be good for Assange, obviously. [Former] Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions over at the Justice Department has hinted that an arrest warrant is in the works.

He will never get a get out of jail card and is trapped in Ecuador’s Embassy in London. The trip from the UK to Sweden to the USA would be swift if he capitulates. ‘It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: A non-state, hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,’ [then] CIA director Mike Pompeo said at a May event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. ‘Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value and he relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous: He’s a fraud.’ 

Assange continues to dig a hole for himself with the CIA Vault leaks even as he enlightens us all, apparently, about the machinations of governments around the world.

Hello Clipper

The New York Times Privacy Project’s mission statement is essentially a rehash of a privacy and encryption issue that began on 16 April 1993 over the National Security Agency’s proposal to embed a Clipper Chip in the nation’s communications networks and nascent Internet/World Wide Web (WWW). The chip would have allowed NSA and US Law Enforcement Agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation to easily access foreign and domestic public communications. The proposal was the brainchild of President Bill Clinton’s administration but a wide awake American public and anti-Clipper Chip groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposed the technology and by 1996 the US government gave up on the technology.

Screengrab from The New York Times

There is grave doubt whether the American public or pro-Assange interest groups have the voice and staying power of those like the EFF that a couple of decades ago opposed the Clipper Chip.

According to the New York Times project mission statement,

The boundaries of privacy are in dispute, and its future is in doubt. Citizens, politicians and business leaders are asking if societies are making the wisest tradeoffs. The Times is embarking on this months long project to explore the technology and where it’s taking us, and to convene debate about how it can best help realize human potential.”

Privacy in Dispute? Convene a debate? You’re Kidding!

Only those in cryogenic freeze or in solitary confinement for the past couple of decades would not know that privacy is already dead, a quaint relic from a time long since past. In today’s world, the price of participating in society is the sacrifice of privacy and self. It is not so much that technology is the culprit, it’s that a networked world, whether through stories told around a campfire that are passed on in an oral tradition, or instantly via Facebook/Twitter, appears to be a necessary human craving. Wanting to belong to something or some group, to be able to identify with an ideology or fad is apparently irresistible.

What do you really have to trade with your fellow human beings other than your deepest secrets, knowledge and individuality?

Humans are merrily merging with machines or rather the software and interfaces that allow textual and vision immersion, and the light speed acquisition of knowledge that the networked world provides. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution be damned. Who needs it? The government or marketplace will always find a workaround to that relic of a bygone era.

All of this seems preordained by some Universal Machine God. We bow our heads whilst on the mobile device. The Internet/WWW is a sort of public confessional where there is no mediating priest to talk to God for you. It is straight talk with the Public God who dispenses likes or dislikes like the number of prayers a priest tells you to recite to regain a clean soul. And the Internet/WWW is a vengeful God with a long memory. Past sins from youth, or once though well hidden, find their way onto the network with punishment meted out by a hash tag with a name linked to it. 

Sickness of the Future

The NYT Privacy Project, or even my musings here, are not necessary to understand future diseases at work right now in 2019. For a better description of that we can turn to a short story written by Chinese Sci-Fi writer Chen Qiufan titled “A History of Future Illnesses.” The story is located in the book Broken Stars, Contemporary Chinese Science Fiction in Translation (Ken Liu translator).

Technology allows ritual to become an indivisible part of everyday life. Its implanted into you and becomes part of your genetic heritage to be passed on to your children and they children multiplying and mutating, more vigorous that its host. You cannot control the impulse to refresh the page. Information explosion brings anxiety but can fill your husk of a soul. Every fifteen seconds you move the mouse, open your social networking profile, browse the comments, retweet and reblog, close the page, and do it all over again fifteen seconds later. You cant stop. 

You no longer talk to people in real life. Air has lost its role as the medium for transmitting voice. You sit in a ring, your eyes glued to the latest mobile device in your hand as though worshiping the talisman of some ancient god. Your thoughts now flow into virtual platforms at the tips of your fingers. You are auguring, laughing flustering joking. But reality around you is a silent desert. 

You cannot free yourself from the control of artificial environments. Ritual is omnipresent. It is no longer restricted to sacrifice, sermon, mass, concert, or game performed on a central stage where the classical unities hold. Ritual itself is evolving, turning into distributed cloud computing, evenly spread out to every nook and cranny of your daily life. Sensors know everything and regulate the temperature, humidity, air currents and light around you; adjust your heart rate, hormonal balance, sexual arousal, mood. Artificial intelligence is a god: your think it is there for your welfare bringing you new opportunities, but you’ve become the egg in the incubator, the marionette attached to wires. Every second of every minute of every day, you are the sacrifice that completes the unending grand ritual. You are the ritual.

Radical thinkers obsess wove how to withdraw from all this. The power of ritual comes from repetition, not its content. Day after day, the repetition of poses and movements gradually seeps into the depth of consciousness like a hard drive’s read-write-head repeatedly tracing the patterns of an idea, until the idea becomes indistinguishable from free will itself…Romantic love is ritual’s most loyal consumer along with patriotism. The radicals try to imitate the Luddites of old [but]…the only thing that can be done is nothing.”

*

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

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer. Reach him at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Price of Participating in Society Is the Sacrifice of Privacy and Self

“To give up beauty and the sensual happiness that comes with it and devote one’s self exclusively to unhappiness requires a nobility I lack.  However, after all, nothing is true that compels us to make it exclusive. Isolated beauty ends in grimaces, solitary justice in oppression.

Anyone who seeks to serve the one to the exclusion of the other serves no one, not even himself, and in the end is doubly the servant of injustice.  A day comes when, because we have been inflexible, nothing amazes us anymore, everything is known, and our life is spent in starting again. 

It is a time of exile, dry lives, dead souls.  To come back to life, we need grace, a homeland, or to forget ourselves.  On certain mornings, as we turn a corner, an exquisite dew falls on our heart and then vanishes.  But the freshness lingers, and this, always, is what the heart needs.  I had to come back once again.” – Albert Camus, “Return to Tipasa”

For a writer to fight injustice to the exclusion of creating beauty and living passionately contradicts the deepest desires of the human heart.  Albert Camus taught us this.  The love of life must inform the rebel’s resistance to injustice.  “It seems to me that the writer must be fully aware of the dramas of his time,” he writes, “and that he must take sides every time he can and knows how to do so.”  But his refusal, his no, does not imply a renunciation but an affirmation, a yes, to the joy and grandeur of life that is everyone’s birthright.

This is the difficult way of true art – the rebel writer’s way – the tension that the writer must live with as he shuttles back and forth between one’s heart’s desires and his commitment to resist evil. What is the point of fighting for a better world if one does not live as if that world were here now, and one’s living and writing were the revelation of that reality.  Camus somewhere said something to the effect that it is not your writings that I like, it is your writing.  He knew that we are always on the way, and our wayfaring should prefigure the enigma of our arrivals.

It is spring as I write and I am thinking of Camus when that exquisite dew fell on his heart that early morning. No doubt Albert felt a bit of heaven.  I’m feeling it now.  Spring, the time of the resurrection of the living dead.  All around new life bursts and blooms in wild array. A mountain stream races down the hillside, shouting its joy that the earth’s new warmth has freed it at last from its frozen sleep.  In the trees all around the birds have returned and sing exultantly of their homecoming.  Almost before our eyes the flowers push their way up to the light.  They have had enough of the underground, hungrily seeking the sun.  It is a beautiful dawn, and I can smell it.  I feel as though I have awoken from a long and deep sleep.  The morning star welcomed me. The sun rose majestically. And across my window three early flies jitterbug in the first light.  The whole earth is conspiring to explode with life and it is asking for our assent.

But dare the living-dead awaken?  Shall we say yes to this paradise?

“This day you will be with me in paradise.”  That’s what a man, convicted of crimes against the state and dying fast, once said.  Like most memorable statements, it is open to various interpretations.  But suppose, instead of offering one, we assume the existence of paradise, and ask a question that lurks unspoken and forbidden in every heart.

For there are some questions so obvious that we refuse to ask them for fear of having to answer.  To be asked such questions seems an impertinence, an insult to our intelligence, and an assault on our integrity.   Don’t be ridiculous, we think, though we don’t laugh.  Isn’t it obvious, we vaguely mutter, secretly knowing it is nothing of the sort.  We are caught off-guard, something we don’t do to ourselves.  Even our dreams escape us.  We prefer to live in the clouds.

But let’s be daring for once.  Let’s put aside all our usual lies and evasions and not be afraid of the truth.  Let’s ask ourselves a few very simple and annoying questions, the kind children ask their tongue-tied parents, and let’s not squirm away from answering.

What images of death do we live with?

Or, to put it another way, if you believe in life after death, what image of heaven do you entertain?  Not what do you think heaven is, but what do you desire it to be?  If you object and say you don’t believe in life after death, the question is still valid.  For we are, of course , here playing a game of the imagination.  You need only make believe, for the hell of it, that there is life after death. Or life before.

What would you like it to be?  Imagine.  What would you like this life to be?  Maybe that’s the real question.

The trouble with being born, of course, is that we are guaranteed to die and be aware of it most of our lives.  When it comes to dying, we have no choice; death is our fate and against it freedom is a meaningless word.  Living is another matter, though it is not something we generally give much thought, for we can choose not to live when breath is still ours. We are free to wait lovingly for annihilation by patiently enduring our lives, or we can commit quick suicide.

We don’t have to live, but we must die.  In our bitterness we may curse the fact that we find ourselves alive in the world; we didn’t ask for it.  This is obviously true and equally meaningless. Once we find ourselves alive, death is our destiny, like it or not.  Whether life is a living hell for us or just a dull plod through the years – a “hanging in there,” in those unconsciously evocative words – we hold in our hearts, however buried, images of what we would like life to be like if it were eternal.

That is, we all live with images of paradise, no matter how beclouded or unarticulated they may be.

Now, as I wander out in the early morning lulled by birdsong, I wonder what these images consist of.  What, in our hearts’ desires, do we yearn to become?  What heavens do we wish to inhabit?

For we are now in the school of imagination, what John Keats called the vale of soul-making, and must, like children everywhere, answer the following: Imagine paradise, on earth or in heaven, and describe it in as few or as many words as you wish.  For future reference, learn your answer by heart.

Camus wrote,

Yes, nothing prevents me from dreaming, in the very hour of exile, since at least I know this, with sure and certain knowledge: a man’s work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the details of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened.

Yes, to open our hearts.  It is naïve, but not stupid.  It is disturbing.  It is surely easy to hide behind the word mystery, or cynically to reply that the world is what it is, a far cry from paradise, nor will it ever be, here or in some supposed hereafter, any different.  The former is the believer’s dodge, the latter the skeptical “realist’s” way of begging the question.  Both are phony.

Only as we become as little children can we enter into the kingdom of heavenly imagination, and it is the fear of ridicule, our own and others,’ that bars the gate.  It is obvious that what happens after death is a mystery.  Why we come and why we go is something that we’ll never know, all beliefs to the contrary.  We live by pure faith, though, as Thoreau noted, we are determined not to live by faith if we can avoid it.  Which we can’t, ultimately.  Knowledge fails.  And anyway, what we know and what we want are not the same thing.  The images of paradise we hold don’t illuminate death in the slightest; they do, however, enlighten our lives.  After all, it is living that is within our power.  We live in possibility.  If we wish to pursue the ideal images of our heart’s desires, we must first make manifest what they are.

What do you want?  I know it is not easy living with a deep but dark longing.  Perhaps it is the fear of disappointment that keeps us in the dark.  Why, when the whole earth rises toward the light, do we shrink back in fear?  Does beauty crush us?

I remember leaving my mother’s house to go to the hospital where my dear father had just died. It was 5:30 AM on the first of May. Stepping outside, the birdsong and flowering bushes illuminated by the rising sun staggered me. How could this be: life and death in one hour, one moment. Where now was my father as his son walked through a garden of delight?  Where was that man whom I had kissed a few hours before?

What do I want?

Albert, you wondered too when you created your alter-ego Jacques Cormery in your novel, The First Man, and placed him at his father’s gravesite.  It was just a novel, as they say, but you were there and said,

All that was left was this anguished heart, eager to live, rebelling against the deadly order of the world that had been with him for forty years, and still struggling against the wall that separated him from the secret of all life, wanting to go farther, to go beyond, and to discover, discover before dying, discover at last in order to be, just once to be, for a single second, but forever.

Just once and one time only.  Isn’t that it?  No reruns. No playbacks.  One life.  Eternal.

Then what?

Perhaps our greatest fear is to passionately want something from life and death, “to go beyond” with Albert, to ask for something independent of society’s and others’ wishes, and to dare intuit it into existence. Society drones: Don’t dare feel it, don’t dare say it, don’t ask for too much.  Narrow it all down, life is much too much, narrow it all down.

Sometimes I think that because so many people have meekly accepted this dictum that they are unconsciously in love with death, assuming that all their problems and the anguish of being placed between yes and no, heaven and earth will then cease.  Oftentimes I think that we are living in the age of nihilism that Nietzsche predicted long ago, a time in which the will to nothingness is most clearly expressed in the sterile pursuit and embrace of things, a “paradise” of consumer goods at the expense of livingness.

“I cling like a miser to the freedom that disappears as soon as there is an excess of things,” writes Camus, grasping in a few words a key link between a just and unjust world where most people are subjected to violence and degradation at the hands of the wealthy and powerful who seek to devour the earth.

Ah, but here we are walking in the spring sunshine, the time for resurrection and for truth.  The whole earth is rising beneath our feet. We can feel it.  The trees are budding forth and leaving toward the stars. We can see them. We can smell the earth warming in the rising sun.  Perhaps like Camus, the spring smells seize us by the throat, and we find ourselves delirious with love and desire as “the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves,” as we wander through a reborn world.

So why don’t we say what we truly want?  Can we even imagine it?  Or is what we want so pathetic – more things, more money, anything to boost our egos and impress others, improve our appearances, elevate our social standing – that to admit it reveals the hollowness of our lives?  Are our desires so vague and culturally constricted that they must be repressed lest they make us realize how spiritually dead we are when all around us resurrection calls us to awaken to new life?

Suppose rather than hiding behind the lies and evasions that we use to divorce ourselves from the tree of life, we dare to speak from the indivisible root of truth and desire, or true desire, the eternal tree.  For to live truly and to die is to create out of that planting a full flowering, an exposed existence rooted in the earth and reaching to the stars.  Then, heaven will be our destiny, for it will proceed from our passions and usher in a glorious spring.

And yet, as Camus knew, our little imaginary heavens can lull us to sleep when world events call to us to rise up and say no.  Yes, but no, too.  Desire needs will to renew the world.  The lover who luxuriates in the spring sap rising must be a rebel.  “But the true life is present in the heart of this dichotomy….Life is this dichotomy itself,” he tells us.

To live authentically is to live between yes and no.

Dostoevsky, who shared with Camus the belief that we must rebel to save the world, had Karamazov rightly say that if all are not saved, what good is the salvation of only one?

To which he added: “Life is a paradise and we are all in paradise, but we refuse to see it.”

So it seems on this morning in spring as resurrection fills the air.  And even though this feeling will fade, Camus is right that its freshness will linger, an exquisite reminder of why we must rebel joyously.

You are right, Albert, “We must simultaneously serve suffering and beauty.”

*

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Between Yes and No, Heaven and Earth with Albert Camus on a Spring Morning

Julian Assange’s Victory

April 17th, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

Throughout history, dark and reactionary forces have always attempted to control the world; by violence, by deceit, by kidnapping and perverting the mainstream narrative, or by spreading fear among the masses.

Consistently, brave and honest individuals have been standing up, exposing lies, confronting the brutality and depravity. Some have fought against insane and corrupt rulers by using swords or guns; others have chosen words as their weapons.

Many were cut down; most of them were. New comrades rose up; new banners of resistance were unveiled.

To resist is to dream of a better world. And to dream is to live.

The bravest of the brave never fought for just their own countries and cultures; they fought for the entire humanity. They were and they are what one could easily define as “intuitive internationalists”.

Julian Assange, an Australian computer expert, thinker and humanist, had chosen a new and mostly untested form of combat: he unleashed an entire battalion of letters and words, hundreds of thousands of documents, against the Western empire. He penetrated databases which have been storing the evidence of the most atrocious crimes the West has been committing for years and decades. Toxic secrets were exposed; truths revealed. To those who have been suffering in silence, both face and dignity were finally returned.

Julian Assange was a ‘commander’ of a small team of dedicated experts and activists. I met some of them, and was tremendously impressed. But no matter how small in numbers, this team has been managing to change the world, or at least to give the Western public an opportunity to know, and consequently to act.

After WikiLeaks, no one in New York, Berlin, London or Paris has any right to say “we did not know”. If they do not know now, it is because they have decided not to know, opportunistically and cynically.

Julian Assange and his comrades published all that the West was doing to the Afghan people, as well as to those suffering from neo-colonialism and imperialism all over the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America.

What is it that the critics of Wikileaks are holding against Mr. Assange? That the snitches and the agents of the Western empire got ‘exposed’? Is the world expected to feel pity for them? Are tens of millions of victims supposed to be forgotten just so that the members of the Western intelligence services and their lackeys could feel safe and protected?

*

A few days before this essay went to print, Julian Assange was cynically betrayed by a country which used to be governed by a socialist administration, and which gave him political asylum and citizenship, both. Its current ruler, Lenin Moreno, will be judged extremely harshly by history: he’ll be remembered as a man who began dismantling the socialist structure of Ecuador, and who then literally sold (to the twisted British and US judiciary systems) a man who has already sacrificed more than his life for the truth as well as for survival of our planet.

As the Metropolitan Police dragged Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London into a van, the entire world could catch a glimpse of the naked essence of the Western regime; the regime in action – oppressive, gangrenous, murderous and vindictive.

But we should not forget: the regime is not doing it because it is confident and strong. It is actually terrified. It is in panic. It is losing. And it is murdering, wherever it feels ‘vulnerable’, which is, all over the world.

Why? Because the millions, on all continents, are waking up, ready to face Western terror, ready to fight it, if there is no other way.

It is because they now know the truth. It is because the reality cannot be hidden; the brutality of Western global dictates is something that no one can deny any longer. Thanks to the new media in countries that have managed to free themselves from Western influence. And of course, thanks to heroes like Julian Assange, and his comrades.

*

Julian Assange has not fallen. He was stabbed, betrayed. But he is here, he is alive, with us; with the millions of those who support him, admire him, and are grateful to him for his honesty, courage and integrity.

He confronted the entire Empire; the most powerful, evil, destructive and brutal force on earth. And he managed to damage its secret organizations, consequently spoiling some of the plans, therefore saving lives.

All this can be considered a victory. Not the final victory, but a victory nevertheless.

By arresting Assange, the empire showed its weakness. By dragging him from the embassy into a police van, it has admitted that it already has begun sewing its own funeral gown.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

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

Recent US sanctions have been directed at the heart of Venezuela’s economy: the oil industry, an industry that has also been crippled by the continued sabotages on the electric power grid of the country.

But when you think that enough suffering has been imposed on the people of Venezuela with all sorts of warfare actions taken out from the toolbox of a full scale Hybrid War, the US government strikes again with another hit. This time by preventing the sale of Venezuelan oil to Cuba, which amounts to killing the two proverbial birds with one stone.

That is precisely the intention of the latest US sanctions against Venezuela targeting 34 oil tankers dedicated to transporting crude from Venezuela to Cuba. The measures against the Venezuelan cargo vessels owned by state-run oil company PDVSA are doubly illegal since they are also extraterritorial affecting two other firms: the Liberia-based Ballito Shipping Incorporated and the Greece-based ProPer In Management Incorporated.

Venezuela has been the main supplier of crude to the island based on a joint economic agreement that guarantees preferential prices of oil to Cuba in exchange for medical and educational services to Venezuela.

Cuba has been subjected to almost 60 years of relentless cruel economic and financial blockade by the US. At the beginning of this year, not coincidentally, the State Department issued a statement saying it would suspend Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act for 45 days only (starting on February 1) in order to conduct “a careful review”. After a further extension of 30 more days, John Bulton is expected to announce Trump’s full application of Title III with no exceptions, and no more waivers.

So far successive US presidents suspended the lawsuit provisions for up to six months. This has been done since the beginning and Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump himself have signed this provision every six months as allowed by the law.

Title III is the most insidious piece of the Helms-Burton Act, which allows US citizens who had properties nationalized by the revolutionary State of Cuba – including Cuban-Americans who were not US citizens at the time of nationalization – to file a suit in the United States against persons that may be “trafficking” in those properties.

The threat of US lawsuits that have a definite extraterritorial clout is an obvious deterrent for international companies from doing business in Cuba.

The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodriguez, has categorically rejected the US action highlighting the fact that the activation of Title III is a blatant act of extraterritoriality against other countries that may suddenly be sued by US courts.

Cuba’s Granma newspaper wrote, Cubans

would be forced to return, reimburse or pay U.S. claimants for the house in which they live, the area on which their communities are built, the arable land where they cultivate produce, the school where their children are educated, the hospital or polyclinic where they receive medical assistance.

Russia has condemned it for violating international law. All Cuban nationalizations were and are legal under international law.

The US will likely apply Title III selectively trying to hit those governments that are not friendly, and spare Canada and European countries, for instance. Implementation will be centered on antagonist countries like Russia, China, and Venezuela.

Cuba is being targeted for its socialism aside for being a friend of Venezuela. The US timing is interesting because Cuba has just had a referendum where almost 87% of Cuban voters voted “YES” on a new constitution, which represents a very strong majority.

During the popular debates from mid-August to mid-November of 2018, it was the people who decided to be closer to socialism and even to include the ideal of communism in the new constitution, which had been deleted in the draft.

However, we have to understand that this renewed attack on Cuba is really aimed at Venezuela.

The call to apply sanctions on the Venezuelan crude to Cuba came from Juan Guaidó, the unconstitutionally self-appointed president, saying that the revenues from the sale of oil is financing Cuban intelligence operations in Venezuela.

Of course he is only repeating the lines supplied by US Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, who said that Cuba and Venezuela are running an “oil-for-repression scheme”.

This comes from the same US government that has appointed Elliott Abrams as US special envoy to Venezuela. Abrams was convicted for his involvement in the Iran-Contras scandal in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. The scandal involved the illegal arms sale to Iran to finance the Contras rebel group to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Elliott Abrams is now in charge of overthrowing the Bolivarian government in Venezuela. He has already made a failed attempt trying to force “humanitarian aid” into Venezuela from Colombia last February. I am sure that as we write he is devising means to introduce arms into Venezuela.

Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza stated that Venezuela would continue ensuring that Cuba receives the oil that it needs.

We will always fulfill Venezuelan promises and, of course, the commitments to brothers and sisters like Cuban and Venezuelan people”, he said. He added, “We are experts at guerrilla operationsEven when the conventional power of capitalism attacks you, you have to know how to respond by unconventional avenues, always respecting international law. We are experts.”

The attacks to force a regime change in Venezuela are numerous and illegal amounting to a hybrid war involving

  • economic boycotts
  • financial sanctions
  • illegal confiscation of billions of dollars deposited in international banks
  • cyber attacks
  • sabotage on the electric power grid carried out by mercenaries and terrorist groups.

This is a reminder of what we have seen in Cuba.

To be sure, the US is behind all of this but the Canadian government is not only complicit, it is an active participant with its own sanctions, as recently as a few days ago on 43 Venezuelan officials including Jorge Arreaza, and by inciting some Latin American countries to betray Venezuela.

Venezuela is resisting and continues its Bolivarian process to build a socialist society based on self-government with participation of all Venezuelans as protagonists.

On the face of such blatant abuses that may be considered as crimes against humanity, we ask:

Does the Trump administration know that the revenues from the sale of Venezuelan oil are used to provide food and medicines, and other life supporting services to Venezuelans?  I am not going out on a limb when I say they do, but they don’t care.

Does the Trump administration know that Cuba needs Venezuelan oil to run its industries and support the infrastructure that provide food and medicines, and other life supporting services to Cubans? Of course they know. The US has sabotaged Cuba with one of the longest and most cruel economic and financial blockades for almost 60 years.

We must conclude that the US government is not just innocently killing two birds with a stone. The US government is criminally harming millions of people in two countries in the cruelest way cutting off their livelihood with unilateral coercing measures.

*

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

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Caracas Chronicles

African American physicians began arriving in post Reconstruction era Augusta, Georgia during the mid-1880s. Initially these black physicians were offered work at the city’s only African American public hospital, but as racial prejudices hardened, they were barred from practicing at public hospitals, thus limiting their access to continuing education, denying career advancement, and creating an environment of discrimination and exploitation. However, black physicians persevered and played a critical role in developing cultural change within the field of medicine through racial solidarity and institutional development.   

In Segregated Doctoring, author Leslie J. Pollard, Sr. highlights the origins of the African American medical practice in Augusta within the confines of legalized segregation and racial tension in the South. Pollard says,

“I think the book serves as a corrective to the neglected story of black physicians in Augusta, and it is my hope that it becomes an important addition to scholarly literature that explores the city’s rich medical history.”

*

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

Leslie J. Pollard Sr. was the Callaway Professor of History at Paine College in Augusta, Georgia. His works include “Complaint to the Lord: Historical Perspectives on the African American Elderly” published by Susquehanna University Press in 1996 and Growing up Country, a fictional account of a rural black family during the Jim Crow period.


Segregated Doctoring by Leslie J. Pollard, Sr.

Genre: Non-fiction 

ISBN: 978-1-64111-162-1 

308 pages

Publication Date: Available now on Amazon

Price: $27.95

Click here to order.

.

The world reacted with shock to the fire that engulfed the Notre Dame Cathedral. A symbol of Paris,  this 13th Century architectural marvel is home to precious historical religious relics and artwork; made even more famous throughout the world  by Victor Hugo’s famous novel, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.

World leaders were quick to react to the tragedy of this fire.  News headlines around the world brought this disastrous incident to every living room around the globe and nations commiserated with the French. The inaudible sigh of relief was palpable when the structure was saved and with it, the history that laid within the walls. The past was not lost.

But another fire may well stop the future. Concurrent with the fire that ravaged Notre Dame, another historical place of worship, the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem fell victim to a fire of an unknown origin. The Mosque which was completed in 705 CE, is the third holiest site in Islam. But its fate is not shared by Moslems alone – it touches us all.

The world can be forgiven for their ignorance of this tragedy – and the importance of al Aqsa. The media simply dismissed it, as it does with all things that must be kept from the general public. This is not the first fire that was left unmentioned by mainstream media (MSM). A previous fire set to the Mosque by a zealous Australian Christian in 1969 failed to capture headlines. Indeed, the threats to al Aqsa Mosque have accelerated over the years to a point of no return. Given that the fate of this Mosque holds the fate of us all, how can the media be forgiven for their deafening silence?

In 2006, the Israeli government began work on an exact replica of the Hurva synagogue on its original site. The rebuilding of the Hurva is designed to usher in the rebuilding of the Third Temple. Rabbis were tailored for the special kind of garments they would be wearing in a “rebuilt temple” – the ‘end of time’. But the Mosque still stands in the way of building the Third Temple – for now.[i]

It took four years to complete the work on Hurva. When presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised AIPAC an undivided Jerusalem in 2008, the building of the Hurva synagogue was well on the way – which signaled continued future attacks on the al-Aqsa Mosque to make way for construction of the Third Temple.

In 2009, Israeli news headlines reassured Israelis that “Netanyahu would build the Third Temple”. Soon after, in 2010, JTA reported that “Our Land of Israel” party had put posters on 200 city buses in Jerusalem showing an artist’s rendition of the Third Temple on the al-Aqsa Mosque site with the slogan, “May the Temple be built in our lifetime.”

Donald Trump deliverance on Obama’s promise has made these fanatics more hopeful. How could they not be with Senator Broxon telling a cheering crowd

“Now, I don’t know about you, but when I heard about Jerusalem — where the King of Kings where our soon coming King is coming back to Jerusalem, it is because President Trump declared Jerusalem to be capital of Israel”.

And how do we ignore Benjamin Netanyahu taking ownership of Jerusalem stating that the Bible, the holy book for Jews and Christians, had justified it. Should we then be surprised that rabbis sent a letter of gratitude to Trump, praising him for “fulfilling prophecies”.

In March, as Israeli elections were approaching, it was reported that “The Israeli Third Temple” party had gained traction. And while the mainstream media can ignore the latest fire that broke out at the al Aqsa mosque on April 15, can we afford to ignore the blazing headlines of the same day: “END OF THE WORLD: Jerusalem third temple ‘fulfills Biblical prophecy’ of the end times” and other Israeli news ushering in the building of the Third Temple and the ‘end of times’?

Some may take comfort in the fact that this is all sheer madness, but one cannot ignore the insanity of which we were warned of by Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army who in 1999 reported his findings in the “Counterproliferation papers, Future Warfare Series No. 2, USAF Counterproliferation Center”.  This fascinating report, among other things, sounded the alarm over the probability of Gush Emunim, a right- wing religious organization, or others, hijacking a nuclear device to “liberate” the Temple Mount for the building of the third temple.  This is powerful insanity with insane powers enabling it.

Is the world ready to embrace this madness and accept this fate at this juncture? Are 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.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy. 

Note

[i] Tom Mountain.  Preparing for the Third TempleJewish Advocate.  Boston:Aug 22, 2008.  Vol. 199,  Iss. 34,  p. 9 (1 pp.)

Featured image is from Gulf News

After winning the Israeli election with a slim majority, in a campaign that grew more sordid and vilifying by the day, Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to begin his fifth term as Israeli prime minister.

The culmination of his dirty tricks campaign was an election-day stunt in which his Likud party broke regulations – and possibly the law – by arming 1,200 activists with hidden cameras, to film polling stations in communities belonging to Israel’s large Palestinian minority.

Netanyahu justified the move by saying it would ensure the election was “kosher”. Yet again, Israel’s prime minister made it clear that the country’s 1.7 million Palestinian citizens were unwelcome interlopers in what he regards as an exclusively Jewish political process.

The PR firm behind the stunt admitted another motive. The goal was for the cameras to be quickly discovered by police and thereby scare the one in five citizens who are Palestinian into staying home. A low turnout by Palestinian voters in Israel would ensure a stronger parliamentary majority for Netanyahu’s coalition.

In fact, slightly less than half of the minority cast a ballot, although the reason was probably as much down to their exasperation at a series of ever more right-wing Netanyahu governments as it was a fear of surveillance at polling stations.

When coalition negotiations this week are complete, Netanyahu is likely to head the most ultra-nationalist government in Israel’s history – one even more extreme than his last one.

His coalition, comprising settler factions and religious fundamentalists, will even include a party hosting political refugees from the previously outlawed Kach party – anti-Arab racists banned in the US as a terror organisation.

The official opposition will be the Blue and White party led by a group of hawkish former generals – assuming Netanyahu doesn’t try to lure former army chief of staff Benny Gantz into a national unity government of the right.

In Washington, Netanyahu can rely on the full-throated support of Donald Trump’s administration.

In other words, Netanyahu will face no serious domestic or international obstacles as he implements the agenda of the right. He will entrench control over the last fragments of what was once assumed to be an emerging Palestinian state and he will step up attacks on the rights of Israel’s Palestinian citizens, in line with the Nation-State Basic Law he passed last summer.

The biggest trouble facing Netanyahu once he forms a new government will not be political but legal.

During the election campaign, Israel’s attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, announced that Netanyahu would soon be indicted on a series of corruption charges.

The delay is largely a formality, giving the prime minister a final chance to defend himself at a special hearing. In the meantime, Netanyahu hopes he can find a way to ride out the charges.

One option is simply to drag out any trial, insisting it be deferred indefinitely on the grounds that he needs to focus on pressing matters of state. At the same time, he can rile up supporters and intimidate the judiciary by claiming that the courts are trying to overturn the will of the people.

The other option is to arm-twist his coalition partners into agreeing a retroactive immunity law making it impossible for prosecutors to indict the prime minister while in office. Some of his coalition partners are already on board.

How he might achieve this feat is through an “annexation for immunity” deal. In other words, Netanyahu gives the far-right and the settlers what they want – annexation of parts or all of the West Bank – and in return, they back immunity legislation.

That was why Netanyahu made an unexpected statement in favour of annexation shortly before polling.

Asked about the pressure for annexation from his coalition partners, he told the media:

“We will move to the next stage. I am going to extend [Israeli] sovereignty and I don’t distinguish between settlement blocs and the isolated settlements.”

Netanyahu has previously rejected formally annexing the West Bank, but not on moral or ideological grounds.

He demurred largely because annexation would bring him grief in western capitals and risk provoking a Palestinian civil rights struggle that might attract global sympathy. In any case, he regards such a step as unnecessary, given that Israel has already annexed the West Bank in all but name.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu would prefer to stay out of the dock. And of late, the stars have been aligning in favour of some kind of annexation.

The world is losing interest in the Palestinian cause, given that it has been presented as intractable by western leaders and there are battles closer to home for many of them.

Trump has shown he will sanction just about any Israeli violation of Palestinian rights if it panders to his Christian evangelical base. And the US president has set a useful precedent for Netanayhu in recently recognising Israel’s illegal annexation of the occupied Golan Heights. The principle of victor-takes-all has been established in Washington.

The question, therefore, is increasingly not whether, but what kind of, annexation Netanyahu plans.

It will most likely be done in stages and not referred to as annexation but rather, “extending Israeli sovereignty”. Large settlements close to Jerusalem such as Maale Adumim and the Gush Etzion bloc might be first.

But ultimately, Netanyahu’s political allies want most of Area C, the two-thirds of the West Bank designated in the Oslo accords as under temporary Israeli control.

This is the most prized territory, including water aquifers and agricultural land. And better still for the Israelis, after decades of administrative ethnic cleansing, it has few Palestinians left there.

Trump was shameless in helping Netanyahu during the election campaign and there is no reason to believe he will get tougher now. His so-called peace plan, if it is finally unveiled after the election, as promised, might make annexation of parts of the West Bank its centrepiece, dressed up as a solution to final-status issues.

Was the Golan Heights debacle a warm-up act, laying the groundwork for an even more audacious move from Trump to save Netanyahu’s skin? We may find out soon enough.

*

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

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

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

Permissible Influences: Israel and the Australian Elections

April 17th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

So much hullabaloo; so much pent-up anger and, let’s face it, so much opportunity for the political classes of Australia.  The theme since 2016 is electoral interference; the object: whichever power so happens to afford an opportunity to gather support against.  Demonising the Chinese has been a specialty of Australian politics since the first members of the middle kingdom began eyeing prospects in the antipodes.  When Chinese residents did well on the gold fields, challenged Australian legislatures insisted on punitive reactions, hoping to the curb the wicked success of the Yellow Race.  Chinese-made furniture in Victoria needed the special tag of being made by Chinese.  The result in the nineteenth century was predictable: sales of Chinese-made products in the state grew.

Now, the terrors are somewhat more refined.  There is Huawei with capacities that make Australian 5G technologies look like pygmy newborns taking their first steps.  There are pokes and prods from the People’s Republic of China seeking to influence policy making with varying degrees of subtlety.  (Hardly shocking given that other mightily righteous states, including the United States, are very prone, and have done, the same thing.)     

All in all, interference in the electoral process of another country can come in all manner of forms.  What matters is whether they are tolerated or not.  The hectoring quality of interference from a small, undeclared nuclear state that insists on living, and exploiting, the shadow of the Holocaust, that unspeakable fate that befell the rich Jewish communities of Europe during the Second World War, is singular.  The unspeakable has proven to be politically useful for Israel, enabling a disproportionate influence to be exerted in the political affairs of other states.

In Australia, anybody who either defends Palestinians against Israeli policy during their political career, especially prior or during an electoral campaign, or insists that Israeli policy falls well short of humanitarian standards, is deemed a rabid anti-Semite frothing with manifest hatred.  To limit criticism of questionable policies, its best to simply limit the terms used: avoid, for instance, a reference to “Israeli policy”, or “atrocities”, or “settlements”.  Never mention “lobby” in the same sentence as “Israel”.  Importantly, the strategy here is to conflate Jews and the expanse of their history and experience with the hard edged, often harsh features of Israeli policy, thereby meaning that any criticism of policy implies a libel on the Jewish people.  Devious, that. 

As Australia now moves into another federal election of characteristic, lowbrow tedium, a few sparks are starting to show in that regard.  Interest has piqued towards certain members of the Australian Labor Party, targeted for expressing unscripted and inappropriate views favourable to Palestinians.  Again, anything favourable towards a Palestinian state or critical of Israel’s approach to it is singled out for special treatment. 

Curtin candidate Melissa Parke, deemed by ALP leader Bill Shorten a “star” in the running, became a casualty for remembering “vividly” how the IDF forced a pregnant Palestinian refugee “to drink a bottle of bleach”, an effort that apparently “burnt out all her throat and insides”.  She also likened Israel’s settlements to China’s efforts in the South China Sea.  The comments were made to pro-Palestine Labor activists at the United Voices headquarters in Perth. 

The defensive response is always on cue: the IDF is accountable; the IDF is “transparent”.  As the WA Liberal Party’s Policy Committee Chairman Sherry Sufi explains,

“Israel is a country with the rule of law. It has sent its Presidents and Prime Ministers to jail.” 

He cannot believe that an Israeli soldier could engage in the conduct alleged by Parke and “get away with it”.  The niggling problem disappears because it could never happen.

Fremantle MP Josh Wilson also caught the eye of the permanently indignant Israeli lobby.  At a December event organised by the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network, featuring seven other Labor MPs, Wilson described the checkpoints peppering Gaza as “a series of chokeholds that squeeze Palestinians”.  The squeezing took place “on movement and time and dignity and peace of mind”, humiliating, delaying and discomforting Palestinians in the process.  The outcome?  “They are going to turn Palestine into Swiss cheese and that is what is happening.”

Senator Sue Lines, demonstrating how something is truly afoot in Australia’s western state, has done the unpardonable in mentioning the unmentionable: that the Israel lobby has influence in Australia.  In an address to WA Labor Friends of Palestine in March, Senator Lines lamented the tardiness of Labor policy towards the Israel-Palestine issue. 

“Not so much for those of us who are supporters of Palestine, but because the Israeli lobby is so powerful within the party and outside the party and it really does impact on the sort of movement we’ve been able to make in our policy.” 

The Labor leader has had to spring into action to douse any electorally damaging flames.  Shorten, on a visit to the seat of La Trobe in Melbourne, assured gathered journalists that Wilson and Senator Lines had “reconfirmed” their support for the official pro-Israeli Labor line.  Zionist Federation president Jeremy Liebler could rest easy:

“Good on Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen for swiftly clarifying that Ms Parke’s views are inconsistent with Labor’s approach to Israel, and I’m confident the party leadership will issue a similar response to Josh Wilson and Sue Lines.” 

Ignoring the substance of Senator Lines’ remarks, Liebler put it down to hostility against the Jewish community “having a dialogue with the Labor Party”.  Again, never mention the lobby.   

Much of this, sadly, comes down to keeping up, and in, with the voters.  Crude calculations figure.  Votes from Palestinians and their supporters are insignificant and few; votes from Jewish voters, highly prized.  The inner-city Melbourne seat of Macnamara, held by Labor, is of interest, given its slim margin and the retiring, pro-Israeli Labor MP, Michael Danby.  To that end, negative comments on Israel are not so much niggles in electoral strategy as bombs waiting to go off.

Israel’s Ambassador Mark Sofer has started to engage in what can only be regarded as standard electoral meddling.  Those not on script on the Israeli message needed to be called out as ignoramuses who do not understand that they are hurting the cause of Palestinians.

“The obsession with demonising Israel, which thankfully is the domain of the few, does not at all help the Palestinians and serves only to hamper possible rapprochement in the Middle East.”

Shorten has preferred to treat the Israeli ambassador with care, insisting that he will keep Labor contrarians in line. 

“For the sake of clarity, the Israeli ambassador representing the Australian government said they could work with both sides of politics.” 

Such talk is not so much diplomatic as capitulating.  Come May 18, Australia’s meek approach to the Middle East peace process is bound to be affirmed, with Israel unimpeachably dominant.

*

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]

By April 16, the Libyan National Army (LNA) advance on Tripoli has appeared to be dragged into a trench war on the approach to the southern gate of the city. Militias loyal to the Government of National Accord (GNA) have stopped the LNA advance in the area of Ain Zara and prevented LNA units from cutting off the Tripoli-Misrata highway heading along the coast. These GNA successes predetermined the tactical posture in the area.

Another important success was achieved by the GNA on April 14 when its forces shot down a MiG-21 jet of the LNA Air Force over Ain Zara with a MANPAD. The pilot ejected, but remains missing. The downed MiG-21 jet became a first confirmed and the second claimed downed jet since the start of the LNA advance on Tripoli on April 4. On April 10, the LNA announced that it had downed a L-39 jet of the GNA Air Force. However, there is sill no comprehensive evidence to confirm this.

At the same time, multiple counter-attacks by GNA forces have not allowed it to restore control over Tripoli International Airport. The main clashes are taking place south of it, in the town of al-Swani.

The LNA has been continuing to deploy reinforcements, including various military equipment, to the frontline near Tripoli. This move demonstrates that the LNA leadership is set to continue its military efforts in the area.

On April 14, the LNA leader, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar visited Cairo and met with Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Following the meeting, the al-Sisis office released a statement

“the president affirmed Egypt’s support in efforts to fight terrorism and extremist militias to achieve security and stability for Libyan citizens throughout the country.”

While the statement did not mention Tripoli directly, Egypt, one of the main LNA backers, de-facto declared its support to the LNA advance.

Additionally, an Egyptian spy plane conducted a reconnaissance flight over the city of Misrata. Misrata’s militias, most of them radicals, are actively supporting pro-GNA forces. An airbase south of the city is hosting most of GNA air force warplanes that carry out strikes on LNA units.

Some sources speculated that the data collected by Egypt may be shared with the LNA in order to increase an efficiency of its operations.

So far, pro-GNA militias have demonstrated that they are capable of resting the LNA advance near Tripoli if they unite their forces. However, if the battle is getting protracted, some pro-GNA groups may find that their participation in the ongoing clashes endanger their business efforts in their core areas of influence. This would create conditions for fragmentation of the pro-GNA force deployed near 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

“Cursed be that mortal inter-indebtedness which will not do away with ledgers. I would be free as air; and I’m down in the whole world’s books. I am so rich… and yet I owe for the flesh in the tongue I brag with” (Moby Dick, chapter cviii).

In standard rationalistic approaches to animal ethics (often employed by animal rights and welfare advocates), moral consideration is incrementally extended out from an established human ‘moral club’ to grant moral status to ‘others’. Typically, this strategy consists of basing our ethical obligation to animals on certain morally relevant similarities. In that case, the inclusion of non-human animals in the ethical sphere involves a twofold operation: first, we must identify the characteristics that make human animals worthy of moral consideration (e.g., rationality, language, desires, beliefs, etc.); second, they must then show that (at least some) nonhuman animals possess the requisite characteristics.

However, the very attempt to satisfy this demand already presupposes the implicit attitude of non-affiliation. It is precisely this assumption that seems open to dispute – for it fails to appreciate our actual experience since we do not, generally, consider ourselves discreet, solipsistic objects whose original problem is to figure out how to reconnect to the world. It ignores the fact that we begin always already caught up in the experience of being a lived body thoroughly involved in a complex web of ecological and social interrelationships with other living bodies and people. Further, it neglects that we are “entirely a part of the animate world whose life swells within and unfolds all around us,” as the philosopher David Abrams observes. It involves, in other words, a denial of human animality and our ecological embeddedness.

I suggest that we should question the presupposition that humans can and should attempt to define criteria for the moral consideration of the non-human (or more-than-human) world. In what follows, I argue that we would do better to adopt a position of genuine ethical openness; which means acknowledging that we can never settle our attitude to the other – that “my knowledge of others may be overthrown” as Stanley Cavell puts it, and “even that it ought to be.” I suggest that we should be skeptical of drawing up criteria for something’s being worthy of moral consideration. Instead of ensuring that nothing is capable of disturbing our ‘good conscience’, the interanimal ethics I propose recognizes our fallibility, as well as the limits of our knowledge and understanding. In short, it recommends that we remain wary of our natural complacency, as well as malleable and receptive to the other who might address us from anywhere, at any time.

A brief story from my childhood offers a good starting point:  When I was about five years old, I and another boy decided one day that we were going to find and kill a bird. My family had a house in a St. Louis suburb; so, my friend and I gathered what arms we could find – a wooden stick, a boomerang that belonged to my older brother – and went into the backyard to find our target. After a few unsuccessful attempts we managed to sufficiently wing a small one so that it lay helpless but still alive on the ground. We then set upon it. I remember only two things about what followed: first, the bird’s screeching out in pain and terror; and second, my sudden apprehension of horror and shame, which led to a good deal of sobbing.

In his Totality and Infinity, Emmanuel Levinas observes that,

“Morality begins when freedom, instead of being justified by itself, feels itself to be arbitrary and violent… freedom discovers itself murderous in its very exercise.”

To be sure, in a Levinasian moment of shame I discovered my freedom (and my embodiment) as murderous and arbitrary – I was startled, quite literally, by the voice (and, indeed, the face) of the other, in this case a defenseless bird. The point is that there was also a moment of carnal empathy, unbidden and completely unforeseen, in which the bird’s cries were my cries, its terror was my terror. I knew instantly – though not cognitively or discursively, but rather in my body – that I had intruded upon and violated something which had interests of its own. What horrified me was not that I had broken a moral norm or principle: what horrified me was that I had broken a body, a lived body with its own integrity – an integrity that I had not been aware of until I crushed it.

In that light, I propose we rethink the ethical in terms of human-animal intertwining, in terms of how ‘we echo through one another, such that “the relation between the human and animality is not a hierarchical relation, but lateral.” This involves recognizing that there is no human order as such in isolation from the semiotic networks – networks of meaning – that connects us inextricably to other living things. Consider, for example, Moby Dick. A whale has eaten Captain Ahab’s leg; and Ahab has the ship carpenter fashion a prosthesis out of a whalebone. “Oh. Life! Here I am, proud as a Greek God, and yet standing debtor to this blockhead for a bone to stand on! Cursed be that mortal inter-indebtedness which will not do away with ledgers.” For one thing, Ahab’s mutilated body reminds him that without others, he is just as helpless as an infant, unable to walk or talk (“I owe for the flesh in the tongue I brag with”). But more to the point, his flesh is part of the whale’s flesh, and the whale’s bone is a part of his body, attached to his body – so that he is indeed indebted to the whale and vice versa. “Ahab… becomes Moby Dick, he enters into a zone of proximity [zone de voisinage] where he can no longer be distinguished from Moby Dick, and strikes himself in striking the whale” (Deleuze). Similarly, I struck myself in striking that bird.

By suspending the standard rationalistic approaches to animal ethics, in which moral consideration is incrementally extended out from some pre-established human moral core, we are afforded the opportunity to ground ethics in a non-dual and forward-thinking ontological model. In contrast to the inherently hierarchical relation between the human and animal, I propose that a ‘laterality’ becomes recognizable in our carnal empathy and web-like intertwining with animals.

Returning inter-animal ethics to its ontological foundation, this concept was used to describe an existential condition that is shared between humans and other animals. Animals, like ourselves, have interests – and all semiotic agents, even the simplest, are able to distinguish between what they need and what is harmful (or unimportant) to them. As Kalevi Kull observes: “Everything alive has needs per se, not so the lifeless nor the dead.” I claim moreover that we are not justified in regarding animals as merely striving to continue in their existence – but rather, the animal is intrinsically a striving towards ontological expansion and self-expression, or what Kurt Goldstein calls “self-actualization” and “creativeness”.

Nature is the inexhaustible proliferation of creations: an infinitely creative force expressing itself with infinitely differentiated results. There is still a tendency to view genuine creativity as the special province of mankind; but there is an argument to be made that true creativity could not arise in the middle of a universe in which creativity did not already exist. So, unless we are prepared to accept that the creativity of human beings is itself an illusion, then arguably “the world, contrary to the classical physical image, was creative even before human creativity appeared…” This may mean, among other things, that there is no sharp division between nature and culture, ‘no kingdom within a kingdom,’ which is not to deny those aspects of human culture that make it unique – rather, it is to say that there is no aspect of human culture which is not at least pre-figured in the animal world.

Indeed, structures of performance and spectatorship, music and dance, painting, architecture, courtship, camaraderie, ritual and mourning – all find expression and meaning in non-human worlds. As our knowledge of living Nature deepens, we may find that those aspects of ourselves, which we take to be most distinctly human, may in fact be regarded as ‘an extension and refinement of animal abilities.’

In closing, it seems incumbent on us to view living entities ‘within the widest of intellectual and spiritual horizons.’ This means viewing and treating the animal as a living whole, an irreducible way of being-in-the-world that cannot be grasped through the physio-chemical description of life alone. It also means acknowledging that our humanity implies an already existing continuity with the non-human, that we inhabit a shared meaningful world with other living things, which itself is constitutive of our humanity.

*

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

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Morality and Animal Rights: What Is “Ethical Interanimality”?
  • Tags: ,

The Truth about Venezuela: Speaking events April 18-29

April 16th, 2019 by Global Research News

Mainstream media is spreading lies and half truths about the crisis in Venezuela. Canadians are not immune to this influence. Recently Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland announced more sanctions against the Maduro government on the grounds that he is “depriving Venezuelans of their most basic rights and needs” and that “Canada is committed to supporting the peaceful restoration of constitutional democracy in Venezuela.”

Global Research wishes to bring to the attention of our readers the following events in the following Canadian cities in late April, featuring speakers who bring first hand accounts of the situation on the ground in recent weeks.

Montreal, Quebec

The Trudeau Doctrine: Canada Spearheads Attempted Regime Change in Venezuela

Thursday April 18th | 19:00h

School of Community and Public Affairs

2149 Mackay Street (just south of Sherbrooke)

In tandem with Trump’s revived ‘Monroe Doctrine’, the Trudeau government is moving aggressively to carve out an imperial role for Canada in Latin America. Venezuela’s Bolivarian regime of Nicolas Maduro is the first target.

Come hear:

Yves Engler – solidarity activist and author of several critical analyses of Canadian foreign policy.

Dimitri Lascaris – Montreal-based lawyer, journalist and human rights advocate recently returned from fact-finding mission in Venezuela.

Sponsored by Socialist Action – [email protected] 514 804 7645

Winnipeg, Manitoba

The West’s War with Venezuela: Why Canada is Wrong

Wednesday April 24th | 7-9pm

Room 1L13

University of Winnipeg (near Ellice Avenue Entrance)

Free event. Donations welcome.

Mainstream media present a distorted picture of the situation in Venezuela. Come and hear different perspectives on this evolving situation which has the potential to destabilize the entire hemisphere. Find out why Canada is wrong to be supporting the overthrow of the Venezuelan government. Please share this post and invite your friends.

Speakers: Dimitri Lascaris, Ralph Jean-Paul, Yves Engler, Bill Blaikie, Leah Gazan, Radhika Desai, Ajit Singh, Basia Sokal

Sponsored by Venezuela Peace Committee, Geopolitical Economy Research Group, CKUW 95.9FM

Toronto, Ontario

The Truth about Venezuela: Eva Bartlett Reports on Venezuela

Thursday April 25th | 7-9pm

A Different Booklist Cultural Centre

777 Bathurst St.

Charge $10

Why is Canada involved in attempting to overthrow the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro? Who is Juan Guaido? Who is the Lima Group?

Free-lance Canadian journalist and human rights activist Eva Bartlett has spent years covering conflict zones in the Middle East and reporting the truth from the ground. Over the last few weeks she has been in Venezuela and will give an eyewitness report on the actual situation there and answer the many questions we may have.

Co-sponsors: A Different Booklist, UNIFOR National Chair in Social Justice and Democracy, Caribean Solidarity Network

Hamilton, Ontario

The Truth about Venezuela: Eva Bartlett Reports on Venezuela

New Vision United Church, 24 Main West,

Monday April 29th | 7pm

Free Admission, refreshments.

La strategia del caos guidato

April 16th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Tutti contro tutti: è l’immagine mediatica del caos che si allarga a macchia l’olio sulla sponda sud del Mediterraneo, dalla Libia alla Siria. Una situazione di fronte alla quale perfino Washington sembra impotente. In realtà Washington non è l’apprendista stregone incapace di controllare le forze messe in moto. È il centro motore di una strategia – quella del caos – che, demolendo interi Stati, provoca una reazione a catena di conflitti da utilizzare secondo l’antico metodo del «divide et impera».

Usciti vincitori dalla guerra fredda nel 1991, gli USA si sono autonominati «il solo Stato con una forza, una portata e un’influenza in ogni dimensione – politica, economica e militare – realmente globali», proponendosi di «impedire che qualsiasi potenza ostile domini una regione – l’Europa Occidentale, l’Asia Orientale, il territorio dell’ex Unione Sovietica e l’Asia Sud-Occidentale (il Medioriente) – le cui risorse sarebbero sufficienti a generare una potenza globale». Da allora gli USA e la NATO sotto loro comando hanno frammentato o demolito con la guerra, uno dopo l’altro, gli Stati ritenuti di ostacolo al piano di dominio globale – Iraq, Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libia, Siria e altri – mentre altri ancora (tra cui l’Iran e il Venezuela) sono nel mirino.

Nella stessa strategia rientra il colpo di stato in Ucraina sotto regia USA/NATO, al fine di provocare in Europa una nuova guerra fredda per isolare la Russia e rafforzare l’influenza degli Stati Uniti in Europa.

Mentre si concentra l’attenzione politico-mediatica sul conflitto in Libia, si lascia in ombra lo scenario  sempre più minaccioso della escalation NATO contro la Russia. Il meeting dei 29 ministri degli Esteri, convocato il 4 aprile a Washington per celebrare i 70 anni della NATO, ha ribadito, senza alcuna prova, che «la Russia viola il Trattato INF schierando in Europa nuovi missili a capacità nucleare».

Una settimana dopo, l’11 aprile, la NATO ha annunciato che questa estate sarà effettuato «l’aggiornamento» del sistema USA Aegis di «difesa missilistica» schierato a Deveselu in Romania, assicurando che ciò «non fornirà alcuna capacità offensiva al sistema». Tale sistema, installato in Romania e Polonia, e a bordo di navi, può invece lanciare non solo missili intercettori ma anche missili nucleari.

Mosca ha avvertito che, se gli USA schiereranno in Europa missili nucleari, la Russia schiererà sul proprio territorio analoghi missili puntati sulle basi europee. Aumenta di conseguenza la spesa NATO per la «difesa»: i bilanci militari degli alleati europei e del Canada cresceranno nel 2020 di 100 miliardi di dollari.

I ministri degli Esteri NATO, riuniti a Washington il 4 aprile, si sono impegnati in particolare ad «affrontare le azioni aggressive della Russia nella regione del Mar Nero», stabilendo «nuove misure di appoggio ai nostri stretti partner, Georgia e Ucraina». Il giorno dopo, decine di navi e cacciabombardieri di Stati uniti, Canada, Grecia, Olanda, Turchia, Romania e Bulgaria hanno iniziato nel Mar Nero una esercitazione NATO  di guerra  aeronavale a ridosso delle acque territoriali russe, servendosi dei porti di Odessa (Ucraina) e Poti (Georgia).

Contemporaneamente oltre 50 cacciabombardieri di Stati Uniti, Germania, Gran Bretagna, Francia e  Olanda, decollando da un aeroporto olandese e riforniti in volo,  si esercitavano a «missioni aeree offensive di attacco a obiettivi su terra o in mare». Cacciabombardieri Eurofighter italiani saranno invece inviati dalla NATO a pattugliare di nuovo la regione baltica contro la «minaccia» degli aerei russi.

La corda è sempre più tesa e può rompersi (o essere rotta) in qualsiasi momento, trascinandoci in un caos ben più pericoloso di quello libico.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 15 Aprile, 2019

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on La strategia del caos guidato

70 Anni della Nato: Di Guerra in Guerra. Dichiarazione di Firenze

April 16th, 2019 by Comité No Guerra no Nato

Il rischio di una grande guerra che, con l’uso delle armi nucleari potrebbe segnare la fine dell’Umanità, è reale e sta aumentando, anche se non è percepito dall’opinione pubblica tenuta all’oscuro dell’incombente pericolo.

È di vitale importanza il massimo impegno per uscire dal sistema di guerra. Ciò pone la questione dell’appartenenza dell’Italia e di altri paesi europei alla NATO.

La NATO non è una alleanza. È una organizzazione sotto comando del Pentagono, il cui scopo è il controlo militare dell’Europa Occidentale e Orientale.

Le basi USA nei paesi membri della NATO servono a occupare tali paesi, mantenendovi una presenza militare permanente che permette a Washington di influenzare e controllare la loro politica e impedire reali scelte democratiche.

La NATO è una macchina da guerra che opera per gli interessi degli Stati uniti, con la complicità dei maggiori gruppi europei di potere, macchiandosi di crimini contro l’umanità.

La guerra di aggressione condotta dalla NATO nel 1999 contro la Jugoslavia ha aperto la via alla globalizzazione degli interventi militari, con le guerra contro l’Afghanistan, la Libia, la Siria e altri paesi, in completa violazione del diritto internazionale.

Tali guerre vengono finanziate dai paesi membri, i cui bilanci militari sono in continua crescita a scapito delle spese sociali, per sostenere colossali programmi miiitari come quello nucleare statunitense da 1.200 miliardi di dollari.

Gli USA, violando il Trattato di Non-Proliferazione, schierano armi nucleari in 5 Stati non-nucleari della NATO, con la falsa motivazione della «minaccia russa». Mettono in tal modo in gioco la sicurezza dell’Europa.

Per uscire dal sistema di guerra che ci danneggia sempre più e ci espone al pericolo imminente di una grande guerra, si deve uscire dalla NATO, affermando il diritto di essere Stati sovrani e neutrali.

È possibile in tal modo contribuire allo smantellamento della NATO e di ogni altra alleanza militare, alla riconfigurazione degli assetti dell’intera regione europea, alla formazione di un mondo multipolare in cui si realizzino le aspirazioni dei popoli alla libertà e alla giustizia sociale.

Proponiamo la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO, costruendo una rete organizzativa a livello di base capace di sostenere la durissima lotta per conseguire tale obiettivo vitale per il nostro futuro.

Comitato No Guerra No Nato/Global Research, 

Firenze (Italia), 07:04:2019

VIDÉO EN ITALIEN :

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on 70 Anni della Nato: Di Guerra in Guerra. Dichiarazione di Firenze

Humanitarian Crisis in Venezuela? What Crisis?

April 16th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Will the Trump regime order military action against Venezuela on the phony pretexts of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect (R2P)?

Though highly unlikely, we’ve seen it many times before – “humanitarian” naked aggression, raping and destroying nations for their own good, “liberating” them from fundamental freedoms, looting their resources for “economic development” – the right thing to do?

One nation attacking another threatening no one is the highest of high crimes – a fundamental Nuremberg Tribunal principle affirmed by Chief Justice Robert Jackson, a US Supreme Court Justice.

Calling Nazi war crimes “the supreme international crime against peace,” he stressed the following in his opening remarks, saying:

“The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.”

He called aggressive war “the greatest menace of our times.”

International law defines crimes against peace as “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.”

All US post-WW II wars fall under this definition. If the Trump intervenes in Venezuela militarily, another US highest of high crimes will be added to its historical record already blood-drenched.

Countless millions of corpses attest to America’s barbarity, a nation hellbent for world conquest and domination no matter the human cost, operating by its own rules exclusively, fundamental international, constitutional, and US statute laws long ago abandoned.

Nazi war criminals were hanged for their crimes. America’s remain free to commit greater ones, raping humanity because who’ll stop them, Venezuela one of many prizes they covet.

There’s nothing remotely legal about US war on the country by other means – done to harm, not help ordinary Venezuelans.

R2P and humanitarian intervention are unrelated to legally binding principles under international humanitarian law. R2P initially came from a 2001  International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report titled “A Responsibility to Protect.”

It focused on the responsibility of states to protect their citizens, recognizing that when unable to, the world community should help, according to principles of international humanitarian law.

At a 2005 World Summit gathering of heads of state, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing – a non-legally binding action.

A 2009 report to the UN General Assembly cited three elements of R2P, notably that the world community should recognize and protect the sovereignty of member states.

It should focus on the crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

It should recognize that nations bear primary responsibility for protecting the rights, welfare and security of its citizens.

R2P is a principle. It’s not legally binding under international law. The same goes for humanitarian intervention – justifiable only when requested by a sitting government, not otherwise.

Intervening without it is extrajudicial. So are unilaterally imposed sanctions by one country on others.

On his GrayZone website, Max Blumenthal headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Away from the public eye, the (hawkish) Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank hosted a top-level, off-the-record meeting to explore US military options against Venezuela,” explaining:

Held on April 10, a secret discussion focused on “Assessing the Use of Military Force in Venezuela.”

Involved were “some of the most influential advisors on (Trump’s) Venezuela policy. They included current and former State Department, National Intelligence Council, and National Security Council officials, along with Admiral Kurt Tidd, who was until recently the commander of US SOUTHCOM.”

Senior Colombian, Brazilian, and imposter Guaido representatives attended. Convening the meeting was clearly over frustration by Trump regime hardliners for failing to topple Maduro and eliminate Venezuelan social democracy after nearly three months of trying.

War by other means hasn’t been able to co-opt Venezuela’s military, gain popular support, or transform imposter Guaido into a national hero – just the opposite.

Military intervention requires easy to invent pretexts. Opposition by regional and world community nations, the UN, and vast majority of Venezuelans wanting US hands off their country are major obstacles not overcome.

The April 10 meeting aimed to try finding a way to counter or circumvent these obstacles, not easily accomplished.

Despite considerable economic and financial harm to Venezuela caused by US war by other means, humanitarian crisis conditions in the country don’t exist.

In November and December 2018, UN Human Rights Council Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order Alfred-Maurice de Zayas visited Venezuela for 10 days, saying the following:

“There (is) no humanitarian crisis (in Venezuela), nothing to compare with Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, the Central African Republic, etc. But indeed there” are shortages of goods – not food with grocery shelves well stocked and subsidized food for the country’s poor.”

“The situation has gotten much worse since Dec. 2017 because of Trump’s sanctions and the economic and financial blockade.”

“(A)t no point when I was walking the streets of Venezuela that I felt threatened or saw violence and did not consider the country was experiencing a humanitarian crisis – but I do see human rights being used more and more to destroy human rights with the complicity of the mainstream media.”

“(A)t no no time since my report to the human rights council at the UN have I been approached by any” Western media to discuss “what is really happening.”

“What is particularly Machiavellian is the cause of an economic crisis that threatens to become a humanitarian crisis – that’s what the US has done through the financial blockade and then goes on to say they are going to offer humanitarian help.”

“(S)o-called president-in-waiting…Guaido is merely the jockey…riding (the US) Trojan horse.” Resolving Venezuela’s economic hard times is simple. Lift US sanctions. End the “financial blockade.”

“Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns…Twenty-first century sanctions attempt to bring down not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees.”

“The key to the solution of the (situation in Venezuela) is dialogue and mediation…There is nothing more undemocratic than a coup d’etat, and nothing more corrosive to the rule of law and to international stability when foreign governments meddle in the internal affairs of other states…”

“Only the Venezuelans have a right to decide, not the United States, not the United Kingdom…We do not want a repetition of the Pinochet putsch in 1973.”

“What is urgent is to help the Venezuelan people through international solidarity – genuine humanitarian aid and a lifting of the financial blockade so that Venezuela can buy and sell like any other country in the world. Its problems can be solved with good faith and common sense.”

De Zayas explained that because his truth-telling diverges from the official narrative, “I don’t exist,” he said. His report to the UN was “filed away” and ignored.

Dartmouth College anthropology graduate student Christopher Helali visited Venezuela for nine days in March. Commenting on his firsthand experience, he said the following:

“My first day completely debunked the stories about the so-called ‘humanitarian crisis’ in Venezuela. No, the people were not eating trash, rats, jaguars or resorting to cannibalism,” adding:

“(T)here was food everywhere…Street vendors sold everything from fruits and vegetables to meats and cheeses. Local markets had a wide variety of produce, processed meats, cheeses and beverages.”

“Things were much worse before Chavez. For the poor, there was nothing,” journalist Fernanda Barreto told Helali.

Human rights lawyer Christina Bracho explained that children were brutally exploited before Chavez, adding:

“After the revolution, Chavez gave these kids the chance to have an education, which all children deserve.”

“The US and Europeans hate Venezuela because we are trying to build a different world. They don’t want us to exist as an example of possible alternatives to their system.”

Helali was introduced to two Venezuelan generals. They welcomed him to their country.

“I was shocked,” he said. “They invited me to eat with them, so we sat down and purchased a traditional dessert.”

They had no weapons, guards or other protection. “The people are our protection,” said General A. Monroy M. Ordinary people greeted and saluted them.

In barrios Helali visited, people had communes to defend the revolution they cherish.

“The government provides individuals and families with subsidized food that addresses essential dietary and nutritional needs,” Helali explained.

Included are “beans, rice, spaghetti, oil, eggs, chicken, beef, corn flower, salt, sugar, lentils and powdered milk.”

Western reports about ill-nourished, starving Venezuelans losing weight are bald-faced Big Lies. “(T)he reality on the ground is quite different, Helali stressed, adding:

“The Venezuela I saw was…teeming with people, many carrying bags in and out of shops and eating at the restaurants.”

“Venezuela has taught me about the resilience and dedication of a people fighting for their dignity, independence and sovereignty against the United States.”

Ordinary Venezuelans want US dirty hands kept off their country. The nation’s military and millions of volunteer militia members want Bolivarian social democracy the way it should be preserved and protected.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The dramatic arrest of Julian Assange, hauled bodily from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, will be touted as an example of ‘rules-based’ politics, and yet his ‘crime’ is to have revealed the underside of modern democracy.

The problem is no longer how political leaders come to power, but their growing tendency to adopt criminal behavior, closing their eyes to similar abuse by their people. Two hundred years ago, when asked by a citizen what the Constitutional Convention had come up with, Benjamin Franklin responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.” That warning appears to have been behind the ever-increasing American tendency to commit crimes and pursue suspects.

The country has been mired in legal battles decades before the election of Donald Trump. After being indicted for conspiracy to cover up the break-in of the Democratic Headquarters in Washington’s Watergate building by his ‘plumbers’ searching for embarrassing information on his Democratic opponents, President Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment. His Vice-President, Spiro Agnew also resigned over suspicion of criminal conspiracy, bribery, extortion and tax fraud. Did the nineteen seventies mark a turning point? Ronald Reagan’s ‘Morning in America’ didn’t quite make it through the nineties: Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair with a White House intern, the long drawn out process mocked by Europeans, who knew that presidents are no different from other men when it came to sex. The Senate found him not guilty, and he remained in office long enough to attack communist Serbia, his affair with Monica Lewinsky well surpassed by Donald Trump’s hush money.

This may be the point at which the United States went from being a rogue nation bent on exploiting the rest of the world under the guise of democracy, to a mafia state.

In the two plus years since Trump was sworn into office, the media has devoted itself almost entirely to reporting each twist and turn of the investigation into whether he was was being manipulated by an ‘adversary’. or ‘enemy’, (depending on the moment) for political reasons. Finding the idea that the real estate king was flattering Vladimir Putin in order to build a tower in Moscow less credible, (aside from the part about him offering a penthouse to President Putin, in standard you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours fashion) they cannot conceive that an American president should prefer deals to war. Hillary, after all, made no secret of her intention to take out Putin

According to the Wolfowitz security doctrine drafted in the late nineties, before GWB became president, and never supersededin order to maintain US world hegemony no nation is to be permitted to challenge America’s hegemony. Trump’s insistence on friendship with Russia, together with his flagrant disregard for decorum, has taken the gangsterism that began with Al Capone’s men shooting their opponents from the running boards of Ford Model T’s to a whole new level.

Invoking legal decisions going back hundreds of years, while manipulating the accumulated ‘swamp’ of rules and regulations, the President has been able to place sycophants in key positions, preventing Congress and the Courts from fulfilling their role as ‘checks and balances’ on his power. Freaking out the security community, Trump hired his daughter and son-in-law as full-time consultants in the White House, although neither of them could pass an FBI background investigation. In the ultimate act of defiance, having pretexted audits to avoid releasing his tax returns before the election, as all candidates have done, the president continues to do so, his men in the the justice and revenue departments protecting him, as he — and the press (sic!) —. knew they would. The Attorney General, known for having opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted before being nominated, is seen side-stepping congress’s questions about whether, when, and how much of the report on Trump-Russia relations will be released to the public.

In turn, as he implied to that same committee, J Edgar Hoover’s FBI has acquired power Putin’s FSB can only dream of, that of spying on the president.

While the political class is obsessed with Trump’s relations with Russia, it is much less interested in the extraordinary amounts of money that his acolytes accumulated during the course of their careers. The fact that Paul Manafort, who was briefly Trump’s campaign manager, was known to have previously worked for the ‘pro-Russian’ President of Ukraine (whom the US took down in 2014), is of much greater significance than the fact that he accumulated a small fortune while doing so. No one has yet come up with a plausible explanation as to why he was sentenced to a mere few years in jail for tax evasion.

For the Beltway, what counts is that the president seeks to imitate foreign authoritarian’ rulers: Besides the Russian President, there is Turkey’s Erdogan, who broke with NATO after seventy years to buy Russian military hardware; Dutertre, who cleanses the Philippines of drugs by killing dealers, and most recently the elected president of Venezuela, disavowed for being unable to run the county in the face of US cyber attacks, to be replaced by a self-anointed, American backed ‘acting president’.

The ability to act without having to secure the permission of others is the hallmark of both dictators and authoritarians; however their motivations differ. Dictators are usually after wealth, while revolutionaries, from Lenin and Mao to Castro and Chavez, broke with their class in order to impose policies that benefit the majority of their people.

In defense of authoritarians, if they knew about it, most Americans would be glad that Vladimir Putin didnt need permission from the Duma to rescue killer whales being held in appalling conditions by unscrupulous merchants. The same is true of his determination to avoid nuclear war, which is at the heart of the foreign policy that even a mafioso would support.

*

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

Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years. She can be reached at Otherjones. Especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”. 

Featured image is from NEO

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the Qods Force

April 16th, 2019 by Dr. Dennis M. Nilsen

When the Islamic Revolution occurred in February 1979 with the return to Iran of the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a political earthquake in the Middle East very visibly began.  Until this year, the Iranians had only experienced the rule of an emperor, shah (شاه) in Persian, and with the advent of the guardianship of the jurist (velayat-e faqih) established by Khomeini, the 2,500-year imperial tradition of Persian came to an end.

The Revolution was the culmination of opposition to the progressive modernization and centralization of the country under the last shah, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi (1941-1979).  The shah succeeded his father Reza Shah in 1941 and ruled uninterruptedly until 1953, when after a brief exile, he was brought back by means of a coup planned and orchestrated by the British and Americans, a coup known as Operation Ajax by the West and the 28 Mordad coup d’état by the Iranians.  Following his installment, his rule became more and more subject to the Americans, to the point where he relied solely upon them for military equipment and even drew closer to the Israelis, something which the religious authorities repeatedly condemned.  The damn broke in 1979 in a flood of support for the returning Ayatollah, and this led quickly to a movement to depose the Shah and his entire government.

The Ayatollah Khomeini instituted a form of government called the velayat-e faqih, or guardianship of the jurist, a form which he quite openly declared to be a preparation for the return of the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi.  The purpose of the Iranian government now became clearly religious and eschatological, the very opposite of the secular purpose of serving as a Cold War American ally in the Middle East to maintain a military parity against Soviet Union which Muhammad Pahlavi saw as befitting the country.  Ayatollah Khomeini removed his country from such earthly concerns and directed its whole purpose towards preparing for the Return of the Mahdi, thus reinstituting a clear moral order for the state.

As with the Turks, the Shah’s military was dedicated to the secular form of government and was a key foundation in maintaining the Shah’s rule.  Hence, with the success of the Revolution, Khomeini and the new leadership decided that for that very reason it could not be trusted.  Many officers, if they could not leave the country, were either imprisoned, dismissed from their posts, or in the worst cases executed by revolutionary tribunals.  However, because the country could not do away entirely with its military force, Khomeini decided to create a force dedicated to the new movement, to counter any remaining secular tendencies in the armed forces as well as residual opposition to the new order, and to further protect the ideological purity of the government.  This organization was named the Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Eslami, the Corps of Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC).  Founded in May 1979 as a consolidation of the various paramilitary bodies which had formed upon Khomeini’s return, it soon became organized along military lines during the long and hard-fought Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), called the Holy Defense by the Iranians.

Although Khomeini very vocally directed both the Artesh and the Sepah to abstain from any organized and direct involvement in politics in his last testament, Article 150 of the IRI Constitution names the Sepah collectively as “the guardian of the Revolution and its achievements”.  This splendidly vague phrase invited a debate within Iranian politics after the death of Khomeini, with reformers and moderate elements – including the Ayatollah’s son Hassan Khomeini and the present president Hassan Rouhani – rejecting politicization; Conservatives and Principalists favor a close collaboration.  Active members of the IRGC do not sit in the Majlis, but many former members do, especially since the 2004 election when the Principalist factions actively sought ought veterans to run for Majlis seats.  Although the Sepah do not claim any one party as its own, an example of strong indirect influence is the Resistance Front of Islamic Iran, founded in 2011 by Mohsen Rezaee, a former intelligence officer and former head of the Sepah.  The party strongly professes adherence to the velayat-e faqih form of government and is in the umbrella alliance of other Principalist parties called the Principalists Grand Coalition.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013) joined the Sepah in 1985 during the War of Holy Defense, and created his first cabinet almost exclusively from IRGC members; his two administrations marked a strong upswing in the influence the Sepah has exercised since the end of the War of Holy Defense.  Since the election of Rouhani in 2013, their influence has lessened although the president has made public expressions of support for the Sepah; although he is a critic of their involvement in politics, he does realize their power as a body and of certain individual former members.

Economically, the Sepah is arguably the largest owner of interests in the Iranian economic, through either direct holdings or through subsidiaries.  After the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the IRGC sought to expand its influence in the economy partly to aid its many veterans in obtaining employment, partly to maintain the high level of influence which it had attained during the war.  The Sepah collectively has a great presence in the defense, engineering, construction, aerospace and automotive industries.  In addition, they exert control over several bonyads, charitable foundations directed by high-level Shiite clerics: two very important bonyads with clear Sepah links are the Mostazafan Foundation of the Islamic Revolution (بنیاد مستضعفان انقلاب اسلامی‎) and the Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs (بنیاد شهید و امور ایثارگران‎).

In terms of manpower, the Sepah counts between 120,000 and 125,000 active members, divided between the Ground Forces, the Aerospace Force, the Navy and the Qods Force.  Overall control of the Sepah is exercised by Ayatollah Khamenei, but direct command is held by Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari.  The Ground Forces, commanded by Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, numbers, as far as can be known, 100,000 men and are divided between 32 provincial commands and the Tehran City Command.  They can best be described as mobile armored infantry, as the Sepah utilizes armored personnel carriers and has little or no tanks.  The provincial commanders have command over the local Basij paramilitary units as well.  The Aerospace Forces, commanded by Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, possess an inventory of attack and transport fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, but their mainstay is their arsenal of missile forces, a collection of thousands of short- and intermediate-range rockets which the Iranian Government continues to develop as a regional and national deterrent to possible Israeli or American attacks.  Thus, the Aerospace Forces are tasked with a political task of great importance.  The Sepah Navy, commanded by Commodore Alireza Tangsiri, is tasked with maintaining defense of the shoreline and territorial waters of Iran in the Persian Gulf; it performs this with a large number of high-speed coastal patrol boats and an arsenal of anti-ship missiles.  Lastly, the Organization for Mobilization of the Oppressed (سازمان بسیج مستضعفین) – known as the Basij – acts as a paramilitary force to complement the regular military organization of the Sepah.  Officially it counts 11.2 million members, with 600,000 available at any one time for service, and engages in the suppression of internal dissent, aids the police in law enforcement, and also provides social services and organizes religious activities.  It has branches in nearly every facet of Iranian public life, and is the chief means whereby the revolutionary government educates society about the political ideals and goals of the velayat-e faqih.  It is currently commanded by Brigadier General Gholamhossein Gheybparvar.

The remaining element of the Sepah is the least understood but also the one which continues to appear with the greatest frequency in the Western press, due largely to the ongoing Syrian rebellion: the Qods Force.  The Qods Force is the corps within the Sepah which engages in irregular and clandestine warfare outside the borders of the Islamic Republic, and is tasked with both direct military action and with advising and supplying its allies’ militaries.  Its commander, Major General Qassem Soleimani, is by far the most well-known officer of the Sepah, and he shares the same rank as Sepah commander General Jafari, an indication of the importance of the Qods Force to the Iranian Government.

The Qods Force carries the mission of ensuring the geopolitical (i.e. territorial) security of the Islamic Republic by pushing the front line of confrontation with the Zionist enemy as far from its borders as possible.  Further, it also serves the purpose of recalling by its name and its operational efforts against the Israelis the Shia eschatology which is built around the capture of Jerusalem by the Muslims as a preparation for the return of the Twelfth Imam, Mohammad al-Mahdi, whom the Iranians believe is currently in the last days of his Great Occultation.  This latter purpose remains largely unknown in the West except to those who pay close attention to the oppositional religious ideologies which serve as foundational beliefs for Israel and Iran.  Jerusalem plays a central part here, and a further explanation is needed.

All Jews reject Jesus Christ as their Messiah, and many see in the successful formation and defense of the State of Israel as a prelude to his appearance; further, although this is not widely discussed in Israeli society, it is believed that upon his coming, he will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, thereby permitting the reestablishment of temple sacrifice and the fulfilment once again of the Law of Moses.  The question of who controls Jerusalem thus holds a central importance to religious Jews.  Further, the recent victory in the Knesset elections of Benjamin Netanyahu, whose position as prime minister depends upon the Ultra-Orthodox parties, means that we will probably see a move to officially annex East Jerusalem as well as all Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Likewise, Jerusalem holds great significance for Muslims because of the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, the place of the Ascent of Muhammad.  According to the Book of al-Jafr, which the Shia attribute to the Sixth Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, Jerusalem must come under Muslim control as a precursor to the return of the Twelfth Imam, Mohammad al-Mahdi.  The Ayatollah Khomeini saw in the establishment of his political velayat-e faqih the only true Muslim government in the world, and believed because of its success in the face of Western opposition that this heralded the coming of the Mahdi.  Therefore, he preached the spread of the Islamic Revolution to all Muslim societies in general, but specifically directed attention to Jerusalem, which he viewed, as do all Muslims, as being under unjust occupation by their Jewish enemy.  The control of both the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock – both of which stand on top of the foundations of the Second Temple – are a particular scandal to them.  Hence, there is no surprise that both General Mohammad Ali Jafari and his deputy Brigadier General Mohammad Salami have stated in clear terms that Jerusalem is the object of the Islamic Republic’s jihad and that the war in Syria has begun the end times.

On the battlefield level, the Qods Force operates mostly at the level of advising foreign militaries on the use of irregular tactics.  They have most prominently helped form and direct the popular mobilization units (PMUs) in Iraq which successfully turned back the Islamic State when the American-formed and supplied Iraqi Army disintegrated.  In Syria, they have aided President Bashar al-Assad’s Army in forming similar units to keep order in areas recently cleared of Salafi rebels.  Oddly enough, much of what they do was developed by the Soviet military theorist Alexander Svechin, in which he called the ‘Operative Art’ of irregular warfare: whereas the American approach to the war has failed, the Iranian – and also Russian – approach has been, in agreement with Svechin, ‘suitable, feasible and at an acceptable cost’.

The Sepah continues to be the shield of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and will assuredly be both the nemesis and strategic foil of the Israelis and the Americans for many years to come.

*

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 South Front

Libya and the Scramble for Africa

April 16th, 2019 by Christopher Black

North Africa is in turmoil again and the cause of it can be found in the plots of the Europeans and Americans to break nations states into pieces in order to control the oil and gas producing areas of the region and in the plots of against each other. In Libya the CIA trained General Haftar has begun yet another offensive against the weak UN imposed government based in Tripoli, the Government of National Accord, whose forces are weak, which has little support among the people and which has not succeeded in restoring any of the public services, from electric power and water supply to transportation to medical, education, or other administrative systems that existed under the government of the Jamarahiya Republic destroyed by the NATO aggression of 2011. Haftar, who was sent in to Libya in 2011 from Langley, Virginia to join in the US aggression against his own country, is backed by Egypt which wants stability on its border with Libya as well as France, Saudi Arabia and Russia which see him, connected to the CIA as he is, to be the only man with the ability to unite the country under one government, for ill or for good.

Haftar’s offensive against Tripoli which seems to have bogged down or slowed down in the past few days, it is difficult to determine which, also worries the Americans, or so they claim. They express fears that it could lead to a wider conflict, another civil war in Libya. Laughably, the Americans, who destroyed the country, claim that only they can stop the violence and bring heaven to the hell they have created.

The American intrigues are exposed by their official position opposing Haftar’s offensive while US forces, whose presence was not widely known, made very public announcements that they were withdrawing in face of Haftar’s attacks. This can only be understood as meaning they are getting out of his way so he can conduct his attack. Where they will withdraw to has not been revealed, nor the real reason for their presence in Libya in the first place. The American Africa Command stated,

Due to increased unrest in Libya, a contingent of U.S. forces supporting U.S. Africa Command temporarily relocated in response to security conditions on the ground,”

The command did not elaborate on the size of the troop contingent or where they were moved to,

“We will continue to monitor conditions on the ground and assess the feasibility for renewed U.S. military presence, as appropriate.”

The American pretext for having occupation forces in Libya is claimed to be a campaign to dislodge Islamic State elements in the country and to “maintained a special operations mission inside Libya that assists the government in counterterrorism efforts’ which is the language they use to justify all their illegal occupations of foreign countries.

Yet, as the US does nothing to oppose the offensive, it continues to state it supports the government Haftar is attacking in Tripoli and continues to claim that Haftar’s actions could strengthen Islamic State in Libya. Just how Islamic State got from Iraq and Syria to Libya is a question to be asked, as is their presence in Afghanistan. The answer is that it is composed of the remnants of the forces sent in to Libya by the US and its allies to attack Ghaddafi as well as locals recruited in Libya that the US sent into to Syria to attack the government there. Their defeat by the combined forces of the Syrian Army, Iran, and Russia, the defeat of the US war against Syria, forced them to return Libya, or be sent to Afghanistan to further destabilise the situation there. Now it is claimed by the US and its Libyan puppets that certain armed groups are ISIS affiliates, but whatever the reality, once again the claim gives the Americans another pretext to keep their bayonets at the throats of the Libyan people.

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and its production is important in keeping prices low especially when the US is trying to shut down shipments of Iranian and Venezuelan oil to world markets. Haftar was successful last year in securing control of oil facilities in the central and southern regions of the country and for increasing output there as well as securing port facilities on the Mediterranean so it can be shipped to world markets. Nevertheless, the UN, that is the Security Council of which the US is a member of course, has asked the US to put stronger pressure on Haftar to support the weak government in Tripoli, a strange game, which, of course the US has not done. Instead the US got Haftar to agree to the establishment of a CIA base in Benghazi, a city which Haftar controls.

It is claimed that Libyans see Haftar as a needed strongman capable of bringing the order the Tripoli government so far has been unable to provide, but it is really the US and EU and Russia that see him as such each for their own reasons. So now, 8 years after NATO thugs labelled Ghaddafi a strongman and dictator and then murdered him, the sane actors are calling for their strongman to take power, to be their dictator, and as for the Libyan people and the people that want the Jamarihiya back, well, who cares about them.

There are conflicting reports as to whether Haftar’s forces have captured Tripoli airport and the US seems to have doubts whether the man they flew in from Langley to help overthrow the Libyan Republic in 2011 can do the job. His army depends on support from local militias, which lack discipline and are notorious for war crimes and though Haftar claims to be against Islamists is supported by Salafist groups. On the other hand, like all the unsavoury characters working for the USA he is no democrat. He stated that Libya is not ready for democracy, echoing the US propaganda that Libya is a “failed state” instead of a NATO destroyed state, and, if the USA has its way Libya never will be a democracy, at least not the socialist democracy that was destroyed by NATO bombs and missiles.

But to cover themselves, the New York Times, the mouthpiece of the US state, editorialised that sanctions should be placed on Haftar for “subverting a peaceful settlement of Libya’s problems and violating Security Council resolutions supporting the rump government he is attacking.” One has to wonder how loudly the writers laugh among themselves when they write this stuff since they were one of the big voices calling for the NATO attack on Libya and for Ghaddafi’s murder in 2011; for using war instead of peace. As for UN resolutions, since when has the United States adhered to them when it didn’t want to? They might as well call for sanctions on themselves.

Meanwhile there is unrest in Algeria, unrest in Sudan and everywhere we see the dirty games of the French, British, Americans Italians, resurrecting the scramble for control of Africa’s resources that first took place in the 19th century. We have seen what their wars have brought to Africans from Rwanda to Congo, from Mozambique to Angola. There were the “colour” uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, and now, in Algeria, there are protests against the ruling National Liberation Front (FLN) and claims of corruption and failure to deal with unemployment and rising prices. The protestors in Algeria are demanding that all the old heroes of the fight for liberation against the French in the 1950’s and 60’s be swept away. The army and political leaders have acceded to the demands. The president, Bouteflika, has stepped down, more opposition parties have formed and new elections scheduled for July. However the army chief of staff warned that foreign actors are behind the protests, meaning France and the USA, and that the problems of Algeria cannot be solved by violence and the destruction of the independence they fought for all those years ago.

But with the forces of the US Africa Command and the French Foreign Legion positioned in a belt across the Sahel from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, and with Chines forces entering Somali and Russian elements also becoming active and the British playing games in their former colonies, we can expect nothing but more turmoil and violence as these nations fight against the peoples of the Africa and fight among themselves for the spoils of war as the scramble for Africa is renewed.

*

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

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from NEO

No War No NATO: Support the Anti-War Movement

April 16th, 2019 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

April 7th, 2019 marked the adoption of the Florence Declaration, drafted by Italy’s Anti-war Committee and the Centre for Research on Globalization during the Florence No War No NATO Conference.

The declaration states that

The risk of a vast war which, with the use of nuclear weapons, could mean the end of Humanity, is real and growing, even though it is not noticed by the general public, which is maintained in the ignorance of this imminent danger.

A strong engagement to find a way out of the war system is of vital importance. This raises the question of the affiliation of Italy and other European countries with NATO.

The declaration is an example of one of the ways we are trying to work towards peace. As is often the case though, there is more money to be made striving for war than there is striving for peace. To continue on this path, we will need your help. Can you support us in the struggle to end wars? If so, please make a donation or become a member now!

Click to donate:

DONATIONS BY POST:

To donate by post, kindly send a cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
P.O. Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest
Montreal, QC
CANADA  H2Y 4A7

Payment by check is accepted in US or Canadian dollars, GBP & EUR.


Global Research Annual Membership – $95.00/year

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewal (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of “Voices from Syria” by Mark Taliano, as well as a FREE copy of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall.

 

Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewals (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, as well as a copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Sustainer Member – $200/per year

Help support Global Research with an annual membership payment of $200.00. Each Sustainer Member will receive any two books of their choice from our Online Store, as well as a FREE copy of  “The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

Thank you for supporting independent media!

Read The Florence Declaration in its entirety here.

Assange Used Ecuadorian Embassy for Spying? Lenin Moreno

April 16th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Unacceptable actions need a veneer of plausibility to make them appear justifiable, no matter how outrageous they are in the cold light of day.

The US unjustifiably justifies naked aggression and other hostile actions on the phony pretexts of humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect (R2P), and democracy building – notions the imperial state and its partners abhor.

In cahoots with the US and UK, hardline Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno invented phony reasons to rescind Assange’s citizenship and asylum status – agreeing to hand him over to UK authorities for extradition to the US, flagrantly violating international law.

Moreno lied claiming Assange hacked his private accounts and phones. He lied saying

“(i)n WikiLeaks we have seen evidence of spying (sic), intervention in private conversations on phones (sic), including photos of my bedroom, of what I eat, of how my wife and daughters and friends dance (sic).”

He lied calling his country’s (London embassy)…a center of spying (sic),” adding:

“(F)rom our territory and with the permission of authorities of the previous government, facilities have been provided within the Ecuadorian embassy in London to interfere in processes of other states (sic).”

He lied saying

Assange “maintained constant improper hygienic behavior throughout his stay, which affected his own health and affected the internal climate at the diplomatic mission.”

He lied claiming

“Assange’s attitude was absolutely reprehensible and outrageous (sic) after all the protection provided by the Ecuadorian state for almost seven years,” adding:

“He mistreated our officials in the Ecuadorian embassy in London (sic), abused the patience of Ecuadorians (sic). He developed an aggressive campaign against Ecuador (sic) and started to make legal threats against those who were helping him (sic).”

He lied saying his actions against Assange were not in cahoots with the US and UK. He lied claiming

“(i)t is a fallacy that there will be debt relief in exchange for Assange (sic).”

Former Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino under former President Rafael Correa explained that Assange’s arrest “is part of Lenin Moreno’s agreement with the IMF,” adding he accepted Trump regime conditions for financial help to his country.

They included colluding with the US on Venezuela, rejecting Latin American economic integration Washington opposes, and expelling Assange from his London embassy – in exchange for what Patino called a “miserable ($4.2 billion) loan from the (loan shark of last resort) International Monetary Fund” no responsible leader would have anything to do with.

Moreno lied accusing Correa of spying on him by planting a hidden camera in the wall of his presidential office.

Following Assange’s arrest, Correa called Moreno “the greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history…his action “a crime humanity will never forget” or forgive.

He betrayed majority Ecuadorians, breaking virtually every promise made while campaigning, why most people in the country despise him.

Only 17% of the people trust him. Nearly three-fourths of Ecuadorians disapprove of how he’s governing.

Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson called Moreno’s accusations against him “outrageous,” lying to unjustifiably justify his “unlawful and extraordinary act.”

Assange is now detained in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison, Britain’s Gitmo, likely in punishing solitary confinement to harm him more grievously than already.

Britain is mistreating an international hero like a dangerous criminal, the worst to come when extradited to police state USA.

It’ll be challenged by his lawyers in UK courts. If unsuccessful, his case will likely be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights or European Court of Justice, the highest EU court.

If extradited to the US, he’ll likely face torture and abuse, mistreatment similar to what Chelsea Manning endured for nearly seven years, more of the same ongoing for invoking her constitutional rights to stay silent.

Once in US custody, further charges against Assange are virtually certain under the long ago outdated Espionage Act.

What’s going on against him, Manning, and countless other US political prisoners is what tyranny is all about, how the US, UK and their imperial partners operate – by their own extrajudicial rules exclusively.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The liberal world order, which lasted from the end of World War 2 until today, is rapidly collapsing. The center of gravity is shifting from west to east where China and India are experiencing explosive growth and where a revitalized Russia has restored its former stature as a credible global superpower. These developments, coupled with America’s imperial overreach and chronic economic stagnation, have severely hampered US ability to shape events or to successfully pursue its own strategic objectives. As Washington’s grip on global affairs continues to loosen and more countries reject the western development model, the current order will progressively weaken clearing the way for a multipolar world badly in need of a new security architecture. Western elites, who are unable to accept this new dynamic, continue to issue frenzied statements expressing their fear of a future in which the United States no longer dictates global policy.

At the 2019 Munich Security Conference, Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger, underscored many of these same themes. Here’s an excerpt from his presentation:

Image result for wolfgang ischinger

“The whole liberal world order appears to be falling apart – nothing is as it once was… Not only do war and violence play a more prominent role again: a new great power confrontation looms at the horizon. In contrast to the early 1990s, liberal democracy and the principle of open markets are no longer uncontested….

In this international environment, the risk of an inter-state war between great and middle powers has clearly increased….What we had been observing in many places around the world was a dramatic increase in brinkmanship, that is, highly risky actions on the abyss – the abyss of war….

No matter where you look, there are countless conflicts and crises…the core pieces of the international order are breaking apart, without it being clear whether anyone can pick them up – or even wants to. (“Who will pick up the pieces?”, Munich Security Conference)

Ischinger is not alone in his desperation nor are his feelings limited to elites and intellectuals. By now, most people are familiar with the demonstrations that have rocked Paris, the political cage-match that is tearing apart England (Brexit), the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing groups that have sprung up across Europe, and the surprising rejection of the front-runner candidate in the 2016 presidential elections in the US. Everywhere the establishment and their neoliberal policies are being rejected by the masses of working people who have only recently begun to wreak havoc on a system that has ignored them for more than 30 years. Trump’s public approval ratings have improved, not because he has “drained the swamp” as he promised, but because he is still seen as a Washington outsider despised by the political class, the foreign policy establishment and the media. His credibility rests on the fact that he is hated by the coalition of elites who working people now regard as their sworn enemy.

The president of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, summed up his views on the “weakening of the liberal world order” in an article that appeared on the CFR’s website. Here’s what he said:

Image result for richard haass

“Attempts to build global frameworks are failing. Protectionism is on the rise; the latest round of global trade talks never came to fruition. ….At the same time, great power rivalry is returning…

There are several reasons why all this is happening, and why now. The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants. Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions….

But the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the U.S. Under President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war….America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.” (“Liberal World Order, R.I.P.”, Richard Haass, CFR)

What Haass is saying is that the cure for globalisation is more globalization, that the greatest threat to the liberal world order is preventing the behemoth corporations from getting more of what they want; more self-aggrandizing trade agreements, more offshoring of businesses, more outsourcing of jobs, more labor arbitrage, and more privatization of public assets and critical resources. Trade liberalization is not liberalization, it does not strengthen democracy or create an environment where human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law are respected. It’s a policy that focuses almost-exclusively on the free movement of capital in order to enrich wealthy shareholders and fatten the bottom line. The sporadic uprisings around the world– Brexit, yellow vests, emergent right wing groups– can all trace their roots back to these one-sided, corporate-friendly trade deals that have precipitated the steady slide in living standards, the shrinking of incomes, and the curtailing of crucial benefits for the great mass of working people across the US and Europe. President Trump is not responsible for the outbreak of populism and social unrest, he is merely an expression of the peoples rage. Trump’s presidential triumph was a clear rejection of the thoroughly-rigged elitist system that continues to transfer the bulk of the nation’s wealth to tiniest layer of people at the top.

Haass’s critique illustrates the level of denial among elites who are now gripped by fear of an uncertain future.

As we noted earlier, the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, which is the one incontrovertible fact that cannot be denied. Washington’s brief unipolar moment –following the breakup of the Soviet Union in December, 1991 — has already passed and new centers of industrial and financial power are gaining pace and gradually overtaking the US in areas that are vital to America’s primacy. This rapidly changing economic environment is accompanied by widespread social discontent, seething class-based resentment, and ever-more radical forms of political expression. The liberal order is collapsing, not because the values espoused in the 60s and 70s have lost their appeal, but because inequality is widening, the political system has become unresponsive to the demands of the people, and because US can no longer arbitrarily impose its will on the world.

Globalization has fueled the rise of populism, it has helped to exacerbate ethnic and racial tensions, and it is largely responsible for the hollowing out of America’s industrial core. Haass’s antidote would only throw more gas on the fire and hasten the day when liberals and conservatives form into rival camps and join in a bloody battle to the end. Someone has to stop the madness before the country descends into a second Civil War.

What Haass fails to discuss, is Washington’s perverse reliance on force to preserve the liberal world order, after all, it’s not like the US assumed its current dominant role by merely competing more effectively in global markets. Oh, no. Behind the silk glove lies the iron fist, which has been used in over 50 regime change operations since the end of WW2. The US has over 800 military bases scattered across the planet and has laid to waste one country after the other in successive interventions, invasions and occupations for as long as anyone can remember. This penchant for violence has been sharply criticized by other members of the United Nations, but only Russia has had the courage to openly oppose Washington where it really counts, on the battlefield.

Russia is presently engaged in military operations that have either prevented Washington from achieving its strategic objectives (like Ukraine) or rolled back Washington’s proxy-war in Syria. Naturally, liberal elites like Haass feel threatened by these developments since they are accustomed to a situation in which ‘the world is their oyster’. But, alas, oysters have been removed from the menu, and the United States is going to have to make the adjustment or risk a third world war.

What Russian President Vladimir Putin objects to, is Washington’s unilateralism, the cavalier breaking of international law to pursue its own imperial ambitions. Ironically, Putin has become the greatest defender of the international system and, in particular, the United Nations which is a point he drove home in his presentation at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 28, 2015, just two days before Russian warplanes began their bombing missions in Syria. Here’s part of what he said:

Image result for putin UNGA 70

“The United Nations is unique in terms of legitimacy, representation and universality….We consider any attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. It may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, leaving no rules except the rule of force. The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly sovereign nations we will have colonies controlled from outside.”(Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly)

Putin’s speech, followed by the launching of the Russian operation in Syria, was a clear warning to the foreign policy establishment that they would no longer be allowed to topple governments and destroy countries with impunity. Just as Putin was willing to put Russian military personnel at risk in Syria, so too, he will probably put them at risk in Venezuela, Lebanon, Ukraine and other locations where they might be needed. And while Russia does not have anywhere near the raw power of the US military, Putin seems to be saying that he will put his troops in the line of fire to defend international law and the sovereignty of nations. Here’s Putin again:

“We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way….

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. … Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention indiscriminately destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done?” (Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly)

Here Putin openly challenges the concept of a ‘liberal world order’ which in fact is a sobriquet used to conceal Washington’s relentless plundering of the planet. There’s nothing liberal about toppling regimes and plunging millions of people into anarchy, poverty and desperation. Putin is simply trying to communicate to US leaders that the world is changing, that nations in Asia are gaining strength and momentum, and that Washington will have to abandon the idea that any constraint on its behavior is a threat to its national security interests.

Former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, appears to agree on this point and suggests that the US begin to rethink its approach to foreign policy now that the world has fundamentally changed and other countries are demanding a bigger place at the table.

What most people don’t realize about Brzezinski, is that he dramatically changed his views on global hegemony a few years after he published his 1997 masterpiece The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative. In his 2012 book, Strategic Vision, Brzezinski recommended a more thoughtful and cooperative approach that would ease America’s unavoidable transition (decline?) without creating a power vacuum that could lead to global chaos. Here’s a short excerpt from an article he wrote in 2016 for the American Interest titled “Toward a Global Realignment”:

“The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene….That era is now ending….As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture….The United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.

America can only be effective in dealing with the current Middle Eastern violence if it forges a coalition that involves, in varying degrees, also Russia and China….

A constructive U.S. policy must be patiently guided by a long-range vision. It must seek outcomes that promote the gradual realization in Russia… that its only place as an influential world power is ultimately within Europe. China’s increasing role in the Middle East should reflect the reciprocal American and Chinese realization that a growing U.S.-PRC partnership in coping with the Middle Eastern crisis is an historically significant test of their ability to shape and enhance together wider global stability.

The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility.

Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now…. And that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.” (“Toward a Global Realignment”, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

This strikes me as a particularly well-reasoned and insightful article. It shows that Brzezinski understood that the world had changed, that power had shifted eastward, and that the only path forward for America was cooperation, accommodation, integration and partnership. Tragically, there is no base of support for these ideas on Capital Hill, the White House or among the U.S. foreign policy establishment. The entire political class and their allies in the media unanimously support a policy of belligerence, confrontation and war. The United States will not prevail in a confrontation with Russia and China any more than it will be able to turn back the clock to the post war era when America, the Superpower, reigned supreme. Confrontation will only accelerate the pace of US decline and the final collapse of the liberal world order.

*

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

Indignation has no limits! Arresting Julian Assange is murdering the truth, murdering Human Rights – and eliminating freedom of speech, let alone freedom of the media. The latter has been a farce since a while, but what happened on 11 April and in preparation of 11 April – the storming by UK police of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London – to drag Julian Assange from his “room” rather a cell – within the Embassy – was the pinnacle of abuse and of atrocity on humanity. Julian Assange has been basically for almost 7 years under house arrest in the Ecuadorian Embassy, especially during the last two years, after Lenin Moreno, the new right-wing, Washington shoe-in, became Ecuador’s new President, another Latin American neoliberal leader.

Moreno’s predecessor, Rafael Correa, granted Julian Assange not only asylum, but also Ecuadorian citizenship. Correa admired Assange’s courage to inform the world of the war crimes and atrocities committed by the United States. Correa’s successor, Moreno, at the instruction of Washington’s, deprived Julian Assange of any rights as a human being under asylum in a foreign country which the Ecuadorian embassy represents. He was no longer allowed to receive visits, nor access to internet, and was confined to a small room; Julian lived under de facto house arrest. As a last straw – Moreno took Assange’s passport away. Similar instructions from Washington were ignored by President Correa. President Correa’s unsubmissiveness is among the reasons why Washington didn’t allow Correa to run for another term, even though a vast majority of the people supported him. “Permission” by Washington to run for a high public office, like the presidency, is a must, enforced by serious threats.

But equally shameful, abjectly shameful – and it is not said enough, is Australian’s silence. Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. Yet, the Australian government, also a total vassal of the faltering and morally corrupt empire, let a citizen of theirs being exposed to horrendous injustice, pain, being most likely being extradited to the US, where he can expect no justice, but may possibly be tortured and killed. Several American lawmakers have already called out for Assange’s execution, even extra-judiciary execution, if everything else fails. That is totally in the cards. Just think of Obama’s and Trump’s (vamped up) extra-judiciary drone killings. Nobody says beep; it’s the new normal. The west looks on and keeps enjoying its comfort zone -of “no hear, no see, no talk”. – What a life!

Citizens of Australia – where are you? You have more ethics and moral than your government, than bending to this cowardice of silence and consenting a crime. Stand up! Cry out to free Assange – Julian’s freedom is YOUR Freedom.

That’s what the west masters best. Entertaining cowards, who know about the truth, who know that Julian Assange’s arrest is wrong, is a fraud, is the ultimate farce and assault on TRUTH, on freedom of speech. It is the final abuse of Human Rights.

Stand up, people! – There is no doubt that Lenin Moreno, the new Washington implant in Ecuador, is not only a coward but a criminal in terms of human rights abuse. He knows that Julian Assange faces extradition to the US, torture and possibly the dead penalty. He knows as he made a deal with Washington to get Assange eventually back to the US to stand trial – and very possibly being tortured. Chelsea Manning, an intelligent analyst in Iraq at the time, is said having supplied Wikileaks the bulk of information, the TRUTH about a criminal US regime, about its war crimes, is currently also in jail, certainly not by coincidence. The two will serve the world as examples – you better behave, and do not interfere with our attempts whatever criminal form it may take, to take over the world, to reach in the shortest time now, world hegemony.

Crimes on humanity, like those committed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, Pakistan – and the list goes on – are part of the plan to subdue humanity and eventually Planet Earth – to the will and whims of empire, helas, a falling empire, that thrives for the benefit and greed of a few weapons and financial oligarchs, hence, the speed with which empire now operates. When you eventually succumb to human justice, to nature’s justice, a justice way above that fake, servile, mad-made justice – then you know it, and then – destroy whatever you can before, so that nobody can survive. It’s akin to a wild animal before dying – lashing out around itself – to bring down whatever it can before biting the dust.

Our western world is becoming ever so more honest – showing its true face – namely abject inhumanity, the criminality runs down the western face like tears of joy – albeit tears of blood. Who even dares still using the terms of freedom, democracy, freedom of speech? Believe me, there are still people in this world of comfort, of no-care-for-the-next – that trust life in the west is heaven of justice of democracy. Never mind that justice is trampled with boots and guns and bombs – if that’s not enough – fly in NATO, the all destructive force, run by the Pentagon and subscribed to by 27 European countries – out of 29; the others being the United States and Canada. Doesn’t that say a lot? – Well, it’s in our hands to change it.

As Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson, so adroitly puts it:

“The hand of ‘democracy’ squeezing the throat of freedom”.

Wikileaks editor, Kristinn Hrafnsson, warns,

No journalist will be safe from extradition to the US for doing his job,” adding that Julian Assange is facing “political persecution” for “doing his job as a journalist”. She vowed to fight his extradition to the US.

Bolivian President, Evo Morales says:

“We strongly condemn the detention of Julian Assange and the violation of freedom of speech. Our solidarity is with this brother who is persecuted by the US government for bringing to light its human rights violations, murders of civilians and diplomatic espionage.”

Then you have – don’t laugh, it’s serious – US Vice-president Pence and Foreign Secretary Pompeo, who are saying that Assange and Manning colluded with Russia, Assange is a Putin agent, “that’s why we ask for extradition to the US”.

Julian Assange is a hero, a hero for the rest of those of us who are not willing to submit and to bend down in front of the powers that cannot stand opposition and cannot tolerate humanity’s thrive for individual and societal freedom, cannot stand the sovereignty of nations – unless their “sovereignty” is totally compromised and submissive to the empires fist, boots and bombs.

That’s the case of the European Union. The EU, and all associated nations, is run by the Pentagon via NATO. The EU could have said “stop” to the arrest of Assange on their, EU territory. The people of the EU should just take this as another example how Brussels is a mere and miserable vassal of Washington’s, unable to defend their sovereignty, the right of their citizens, and the right of those that defend freedom of speech, a nominal, albeit farcical, priority of the EU. Nobody interfered, with this abject and blood thirsty arrest in the morning of 11 April. Brussels was silent. No surprise there, but again, a huge deception of the rulers (sic) of Europe.

Is it a coincidence that 11 April was also the day of another Washington initiated murderous act? – On 11 April 2002, 17 years ago, Washington conspired and orchestrated directly, live, via video, the coup attempt in Caracas against Venezuela’s democratically and overwhelmingly elected President Hugo Chavez. The coup failed, as Chavez then – and as President Maduro today – had and have the massive support of the people and the military. On 13 April, at the forceful request of the people, the “golpistas” had to assume their failure and President Chavez returned from his two-day exile on La Orchila island, a military base, where he was flown by helicopter.

British police, fully subject to the Masters of Terror, what Europe under the Washington-Pentagon regime has become – followed their order to arrest Julian even with some joy – when one watches the faces and gesticulations of the vicious arrest of those brutes that dragged Assange out of the Embassy into a waiting police van, to be driven off to a court hearing.

But what a court hearing! Resembling a Kangaroo court of any third-rate dictator, the assigned district judge, Michael Snow, proceeded without a jury for about 15 minutes to declare Assange guilty of “crimes” dictated by Washington. Assange had no chance to protest, other than twice he said “not guilty” and asked why the accusation was changed in the middle of the proceedings.

Assange’s crime is having divulged US war crimes like the indiscriminate shooting of civilians – a video that traveled a million times around the world for the people to see what ice cold heartless murderers the US is composed of – all tolerated and actually encouraged by the Pentagon, the US Presidency – and, naturally, the dark forces that hold the strings that move the puppets.

These are crimes that should have been – and still should be judged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague. But, of course, the ICC won’t touch them. They have recently made a lukewarm attempt to accuse some Afghan and US soldiers of war crimes, but stopped when the Trump-Pompeo-Bolton team called out threats to the court, if they dare touch an American citizen.

That’s the way justice works in our western world. Disrespect for human rights, for human lives for the rights and independence of other people on the globe from Asia, to Africa to Latin America has been – and still is – a historic truth. Europe turned their colonies into slavery. Why would they behave differently now? Sadly, the human condition of Europeans, of the West – after all, North Americans are nothing but transplanted Europeans – has not changed. Does it take a total demise for people to come to their senses?

In recent years, this impunity has turned into a bold, flagrant openly demonstrated crime for all eyes to see, eyes that still have some iota of conscience left. Haven’t you noticed, People of the west, of the comfortable west? It’s high time to react. If you don’t, you will be next, that is as sure as day follows night. The hegemon will not stop to protect you in your comfort zone. Comes the time, you are no longer needed, once all your resources – including your drinking water – are under full control of a few corporate oligarchs.

People, like Julian Assange, were and still are offering their life to stop this criminal murderous advancement of the greedy few that aim to control this world, those aiming at “Full Spectrum Dominance”, so well spelled out in the PNAC – Plan for a New American Century.

Defending Julian Assange, not letting him be extradited to the “paradise of assassins”, the United States of America, is an act of self-defense – self-defense for the world that still values its freedom, its right to sovereign ruling and liberty of expression.

If you let extradition of Julian to the US happen, People of Europe, you will kill the media as you know it, and even if you know only mainstream media – they will be gone too, as there comes the moment when they – the Anglozion-media corporations, do no longer represent the interests of your comfort zone. -Then it is too late.

You, British police, you, People of the UK, People of Europe, people, who are supposed to lead the EU, stand up for Julian Assange. Stand up for justice. Stand up for freedom of speech. Stand up for your own interests, the interests of your countries, the people, the interests and right to a free and sovereign life – stand up! Leave your cloths of naked ‘vassalism’ behind.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

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

Decriminalizing the Drug War?

April 16th, 2019 by Prof Alfred McCoy

We live in a time of change, when people are questioning old assumptions and seeking new directions. In the ongoing debate over health care, social justice, and border security, there is, however, one overlooked issue that should be at the top of everyone’s agenda, from Democratic Socialists to libertarian Republicans: America’s longest war. No, not the one in Afghanistan. I mean the drug war.

For more than a century, the U.S. has worked through the U.N. (and its predecessor, the League of Nations) to build a harsh global drug prohibition regime — grounded in draconian laws, enforced by pervasive policing, and punished with mass incarceration. For the past half-century, the U.S. has also waged its own “war on drugs” that has complicated its foreign policy, compromised its electoral democracy, and contributed to social inequality. Perhaps the time has finally come to assess the damage that drug war has caused and consider alternatives.

Even though I first made my mark with a 1972 book that the CIA tried to suppress on the heroin trade in Southeast Asia, it’s taken me most of my life to grasp all the complex ways this country’s drug war, from Afghanistan to Colombia, the Mexican border to inner-city Chicago, has shaped American society. Last summer, a French director doing a documentary interviewed me for seven hours about the history of illicit narcotics. As we moved from the seventeenth century to the present and from Asia to America, I found myself trying to answer the same relentless question: What had 50 years of observation actually drilled into me, beyond some random facts, about the character of the illicit traffic in drugs?

At the broadest level, the past half-century turns out to have taught me that drugs aren’t just drugs, drug dealers aren’t just “pushers,” and drug users aren’t just “junkies” (that is, outcasts of no consequence). Illicit drugs are major global commodities that continue to influence U.S. politics, both national and international. And our drug wars create profitable covert netherworlds in which those very drugs flourish and become even more profitable. Indeed, the U.N. once estimated that the transnational traffic, which supplied drugs to 4.2% of the world’s adult population, was a $400 billion industry, the equivalent of 8% of global trade.

In ways that few seem to understand, illicit drugs have had a profound influence on modern America, shaping our international politics, national elections, and domestic social relations. Yet a feeling that illicit drugs belong to a marginalized demimonde has made U.S. drug policy the sole property of law enforcement and not health care, education, or urban development.

During this process of reflection, I’ve returned to three conversations I had back in 1971 when I was a 26-year-old graduate student researching that first book of mine, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. In the course of an 18-month odyssey around the globe, I met three men, deeply involved in the drug wars, whose words I was then too young to fully absorb.

Image result for Lucien Conein

The first was Lucien Conein, a “legendary” CIA operative whose covert career ranged from parachuting into North Vietnam in 1945 to train communist guerrillas with Ho Chi Minh to organizing the CIA coup that killed South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. In the course of our interview at his modest home near CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, he laid out just how the Agency’s operatives, like so many Corsican gangsters, practiced the “clandestine arts” of conducting complex operations beyond the bounds of civil society and how such “arts” were, in fact, the heart and soul of both covert operations and the drug trade.

Second came Colonel Roger Trinquier, whose life in a French drug netherworld extended from commanding paratroopers in the opium-growing highlands of Vietnam during the First Indochina War of the early 1950s to serving as deputy to General Jacques Massu in his campaign of murder and torture in the Battle of Algiers in 1957. During an interview in his elegant Paris apartment, Trinquier explained how he helped fund his own paratroop operations through Indochina’s illicit opium traffic. Emerging from that interview, I felt almost overwhelmed by the aura of Nietzschean omnipotence that Trinquier had clearly gained from his many years in this shadowy realm of drugs and death.

My last mentor on the subject of drugs was Tom Tripodi, a covert operative who had trained Cuban exiles in Florida for the CIA’s 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and then, in the late 1970s, penetrated mafia networks in Sicily for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. In 1971, he appeared at my front door in New Haven, Connecticut, identified himself as a senior agent for the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Narcotics, and insisted that the Bureau was worried about my future book. Rather tentatively, I showed him just a few draft pages of my manuscript for The Politics of Heroin and he promptly offered to help me make it as accurate as possible. During later visits, I would hand him chapters and he would sit in a rocking chair, shirt sleeves rolled up, revolver in his shoulder holster, scribbling corrections and telling remarkable stories about the drug trade — like the time his Bureau found that French intelligence was protecting the Corsican syndicates smuggling heroin into New York City. Far more important, though, through him I grasped how ad hoc alliances between criminal traffickers and the CIA regularly helped both the Agency and the drug trade prosper.

Image below: Colonel Roger Trinquier

Image result for Colonel Roger Trinquier

Looking back, I can now see how those veteran operatives were each describing to me a clandestine political domain, a covert netherworld in which government agents, military men, and drug traders were freed from the shackles of civil society and empowered to form secret armies, overthrow governments, and even, perhaps, kill a foreign president.

At its core, this netherworld was then and remains today an invisible political realm inhabited by criminal actors and practitioners of Conein’s “clandestine arts.” Offering some sense of the scale of this social milieu, in 1997 the United Nations reported that transnational crime syndicates had 3.3 million members worldwide who trafficked in drugs, arms, humans, and endangered species. Meanwhile, during the Cold War, all the major powers — Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States — deployed expanded clandestine services worldwide, making covert operations a central facet of geopolitical power. The end of the Cold War has in no way changed this reality.

For over a century now, states and empires have used their expanding powers for moral prohibition campaigns that have periodically transformed alcohol, gambling, tobacco, and, above all, drugs into an illicit commerce that generates sufficient cash to sustain covert netherworlds.

Drugs and U.S. Foreign Policy

The influence of illicit drugs on U.S. foreign policy was evident between 1979 and 2019 in the abysmal failure of its never-ending wars in Afghanistan. Over a period of 40 years, two U.S. interventions there fostered all the conditions for just such a covert netherworld. While mobilizing Islamic fundamentalists to fight the Soviet occupation of that country in the 1980s, the CIA tolerated opium trafficking by its Afghan mujahedeen allies, while arming them for a guerrilla war that would ravage the countryside, destroying conventional agriculture and herding.

In the decade after superpower intervention ended in 1989, a devastating civil war and then Taliban rule only increased the country’s dependence upon drugs, raising opium production from 250 tons in 1979 to 4,600 tons by 1999. This 20-fold increase transformed Afghanistan from a diverse agricultural economy into a country with the world’s first opium monocrop — that is, a land thoroughly dependent on illicit drugs for exports, employment, and taxes. Demonstrating that dependence, in 2000 when the Taliban banned opium in a bid for diplomatic recognition and cut production to just 185 tons, the rural economy imploded and their regime collapsed as the first U.S. bombs fell in October 2001.

To say the least, the U.S. invasion and occupation of 2001-2002 failed to effectively deal with the drug situation in the country. As a start, to capture the Taliban-controlled capital, Kabul, the CIA had mobilized Northern Alliance leaders who had long dominated the drug trade in northeast Afghanistan, as well as Pashtun warlords active as drug smugglers in the southeastern part of the country. In the process, they created a post-war politics ideal for the expansion of opium cultivation.

Even though output surged in the first three years of the U.S. occupation, Washington remained uninterested, resisting anything that might weaken military operations against the Taliban guerrillas. Testifying to this policy’s failure, the U.N.’s Afghanistan Opium Survey 2007 reported that the harvest that year reached a record 8,200 tons, generating 53% of the country’s gross domestic product, while accounting for 93% of the world’s illicit narcotics supply.

When a single commodity represents over half of a nation’s economy, everyone — officials, rebels, merchants, and traffickers — is directly or indirectly implicated. In 2016, the New York Times reported that both Taliban rebels and provincial officials opposing them were locked in a struggle for control of the lucrative drug traffic in Helmand Province, the source of nearly half the country’s opium. A year later, the harvest reached a record 9,000 tons, which, according to the U.S. command, provided 60% of the Taliban’s funding. Desperate to cut that funding, American commanders dispatched F-22 fighters and B-52 bombers to destroy the insurgency’s heroin laboratories in Helmand — doing inconsequential damage to a handful of crude labs and revealing the impotence of even the most powerful weaponry against the social power of the covert drug netherworld.

With unchecked opium production sustaining Taliban resistance for the past 17 years and capable of doing so for another 17, the only U.S. exit strategy now seems to be restoring those rebels to power in a coalition government — a policy tantamount to conceding defeat in its longest military intervention and least successful drug war.

High Priests of Prohibition

For the past half-century, the ever-failing U.S. drug war has found a compliant handmaiden at the U.N., whose dubious role when it comes to drug policy stands in stark contrast to its positive work on issues like climate change and peace-keeping.

Image result for Antonio Maria Costa

In 1997, the director of U.N. drug control, Dr. Pino Arlacchi, proclaimed a 10-year program to eradicate all illicit opium and coca cultivation from the face of the planet, starting in Afghanistan. A decade later, his successor, Antonio Maria Costa (image on the right), glossing over that failure, announced in the U.N.’s World Drug Report 2007 that “drug control is working and the world drug problem is being contained.” While U.N. leaders were making such grandiloquent promises about drug prohibition, the world’s illicit opium production was, in fact, rising 10-fold from just 1,200 tons in 1971, the year the U.S. drug war officially started, to a record 10,500 tons by 2017.

This gap between triumphal rhetoric and dismal reality cries out for an explanation. That 10-fold increase in illicit opium supply is the result of a market dynamic I’ve termed “the stimulus of prohibition.” At the most basic level, prohibition is the necessary precondition for the global narcotics trade, creating both local drug lords and transnational syndicates that control this vast commerce. Prohibition, of course, guarantees the existence and well-being of such criminal syndicates which, to evade interdiction, constantly shift and build up their smuggling routes, hierarchies, and mechanisms, encouraging a worldwide proliferation of trafficking and consumption, while ensuring that the drug netherworld will only grow.

In seeking to prohibit addictive drugs, U.S. and U.N. drug warriors act as if mobilizing for forceful repression could actually reduce drug trafficking, thanks to the imagined inelasticity of, or limits on, the global narcotics supply. In practice, however, when suppression reduces the opium supply from one area (Burma or Thailand), the global price just rises, spurring traders and growers to sell off stocks, old growers to plant more, and new areas (Colombia) to enter production. In addition, such repression usually only increases consumption. If drug seizures, for instance, raise the street price, then addicted consumers will maintain their habit by cutting other expenses (food, rent) or raising their income by dealing drugs to new users and so expanding the trade.

Instead of reducing the traffic, the drug war has actually helped stimulate that 10-fold increase in global opium production and a parallel surge in U.S. heroin users from just 68,000 in 1970 to 886,000 in 2017.

By attacking supply and failing to treat demand, the U.N.-U.S. drug war has been pursuing a “solution” to drugs that defies the immutable law of supply and demand. As a result, Washington’s drug war has, in the past 50 years, gone from defeat to debacle.

The Domestic Influence of Illicit Drugs

That drug war has, however, incredible staying power. It has persisted despite decades of failure because of an underlying partisan logic. In 1973, while President Richard Nixon was still fighting his drug war in Turkey and Thailand, New York’s Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, enacted the notorious “Rockefeller Drug Laws.” Those included mandatory penalties of 15 years to life for the possession of just four ounces of narcotics.

As the police swept inner-city streets for low-level offenders, annual prison sentences in New York State for drug crimes surged from only 470 in 1970 to a peak of 8,500 in 1999, with African-Americans representing 90% of those incarcerated. By then, New York’s state prisons held a previously unimaginable 73,000 people. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, dusted off Rockefeller’s anti-drug campaign for intensified domestic enforcement, calling for a “national crusade” against drugs and winning draconian federal penalties for personal drug use and small-scale dealing.

For the previous 50 years, the U.S. prison population had remained remarkably stable at just 110 prisoners per 100,000 people. The new drug war, however, doubled those prisoners from 370,000 in 1981 to 713,000 in 1989. Driven by Reagan-era drug laws and parallel state legislation, prison inmates soared to 2.3 million by 2008, raising the country’s incarceration rate to an extraordinary 751 prisoners per 100,000 population. And 51% of those in federal penitentiaries were there for drug offenses.

Such mass incarceration has led as well to significant disenfranchisement, starting a trend that would, by 2012, deny the vote to nearly six million people, including 8% of all African-American voting-age adults, a liberal constituency that had gone overwhelmingly Democratic for more than half a century. In addition, this carceral regime concentrated its prison populations, including guards and other prison workers, in conservative rural districts of the country, creating something akin to latter-day “rotten boroughs” for the Republican Party.

Take, for example, New York’s 21st Congressional District, which covers the Adirondacks and the state’s heavily forested northern panhandle. It’s home to 14 state prisons, including some 16,000 inmates, 5,000 employees, and their 8,000 family members — making them collectively the district’s largest employer and a defining political presence. Add in the 13,000 or so troops in nearby Fort Drum and you have a reliably conservative bloc of 26,000 voters (and 16,000 non-voters), or the largest political force in a district where only 240,000 residents actually vote. Not surprisingly, the incumbent Republican congresswoman survived the 2018 blue wave to win handily with 56% of the vote. (So never say that the drug war had no effect.)

So successful were Reagan Republicans in framing this partisan drug policy as a moral imperative that two of his liberal Democratic successors, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, avoided any serious reform of it. Instead of systemic change, Obama offered clemency to about 1,700 convicts, an insignificant handful among the hundreds of thousands still locked up for non-violent drug offenses.

While partisan paralysis at the federal level has blocked change, the separate states, forced to bear the rising costs of incarceration, have slowly begun reducing prison populations. In a November 2018 ballot measure, for instance, Florida — where the 2000 presidential election was decided by just 537 ballots — voted to restore electoral rights to the state’s 1.4 million felons, including 400,000 African-Americans. No sooner did that plebiscite pass, however, than Florida’s Republican legislators desperately tried to claw backthat defeat by requiring that the same felons pay fines and court costs before returning to the electoral rolls.

Not only does the drug war influence U.S. politics in all sorts of negative ways but it has reshaped American society — and not for the better, either. The surprising role of illicit drug distribution in ordering life inside some of the country’s major cities has been illuminated in a careful study by a University of Chicago researcher who gained access to the financial records of a drug gang inside Chicago’s impoverished Southside housing projects.  He found that, in 2005, the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, known as GD, had about 120 bosses who employed 5,300 young men, largely as street dealers, and had another 20,000 members aspiring to those very jobs. While the boss of each of the gang’s hundred crews earned about $100,000 annually, his three officers made just $7.00 an hour, his 50 street dealers only $3.30 an hour, and their hundreds of other members served as unpaid apprentices, vying for entry-level slots when street dealers were killed, a fate which one in four regularly suffered.

So what does all this mean? In an impoverished inner city with very limited job opportunities, this drug gang provided high-mortality employment on a par with the minimum wage (then $5.15 a hour) that their peers in more affluent neighborhoods earned from much safer work at McDonald’s. Moreover, with some 25,000 members in Southside Chicago, GD was providing social order for young men in the volatile 16-to-30 age cohort — minimizing random violence, reducing petty crime, and helping Chicago maintain its gloss as a world-class business center. Until there is sufficient education and employment in the nation’s cities, the illicit drug market will continue to fill the void with work that carries a high cost in violence, addiction, imprisonment, and more generally blighted lives.

The End of Drug Prohibition

As the global prohibition effort enters its second century, we are witnessing two countervailing trends. The very idea of a prohibition regime has reached a crescendo of dead-end violence not just in Afghanistan but recently in Southeast Asia, demonstrating the failure of the drug war’s repression strategy. In 2003, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra launched a campaign against methamphetamine abuse that prompted his police to carry out 2,275 extrajudicial killings in just three months. Carrying that coercive logic to its ultimate conclusion, on his first day as Philippine president in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte ordered an attack on drug trafficking that has since yielded 1.3 million surrenders by dealers and users, 86,000 arrests, and some 20,000 bodies dumped on city streets across the country. Yet drug use remains deeply rooted in the slums of both Bangkok and Manila.

On the other side of history’s ledger, the harm-reduction movement led by medical practitioners and community activists worldwide is slowly working to unravel the global prohibition regime. With a 1996 ballot measure, California voters, for instance, started a trend by legalizing medical marijuana sales. By 2018, Oklahoma had become the 30th state to legalize medical cannabis. Following initiatives by Colorado and Washington in 2012, eight more states to date have decriminalized the recreational use of cannabis, long the most widespread of all illicit drugs.

Hit by a surge of heroin abuse during the 1980s, Portugal’s government first reacted with repression that, as everywhere else on the planet, did little to stanch rising drug abuse, crime, and infection. Gradually, a network of medical professionals across the country adopted harm-reduction measures that would provide a striking record of proven success. After two decades of this ad hoc trial, in 2001 Portugal decriminalized the possession of all illegal drugs, replacing incarceration with counseling and producing a sustained drop in HIV and hepatitis infections.

Projecting this experience into the future, it seems likely that harm-reduction measures will be adopted progressively at local and national levels around the globe, while various endless and unsuccessful wars on drugs are curtailed or abandoned. Perhaps someday a caucus of Republican legislators in some oak-paneled Washington conference room and a choir of U.N. bureaucrats in their glass-towered Vienna headquarters will remain the only apostles preaching the discredited gospel of drug prohibition.

*

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

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and most recently In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books).

Defending Julian Assange; Defending the Truth

April 16th, 2019 by Robert J. Burrowes

On 11 April 2019, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange was dragged from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by UK police and arrested for breaching a bail condition. See ‘Arrest update – SW1’. Upon arrival at a London police station, Julian was ‘further arrested’ on behalf of the United States government to satisfy an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the UK Extradition Act. See ‘UPDATE: Arrest of Julian Assange’.

Following a brief court hearing in which the extraordinary prejudice of the district judge was on clear display – see ‘Chelsea and Julian Are in Jail. History Trembles’– Julian is now imprisoned in south London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a preliminary extradition hearing on 2 May and the US must produce its case for requesting Julian’s extradition from the UK by 12 June but, as Nicholas Weaver reports, Julian could be in UK custody for years as the extradition is contested in court. See ‘The Wikileaks Case Is Just Beginning’.

Prior to his arrest, Julian had been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012, having been granted citizenship of Ecuador and asylum by that country because many people were well aware of the risk he faced if he was tried in a kangaroo court in the United States. This asylum, to which Julian was entitled under long-standing provisions of international law, had been granted by previous Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, who clearly understood this law (and the moral principles on which it is based).

As a result of his recent arrest however, Julian is under threat of extradition to the United States so that he can face criminal prosecution/persecution – see the US indictment of Julian Assange or ‘Read the Julian Assange indictment’– for his role in exposing the truth about US war crimes in Afghanistan (the Afghan War Diary) and Iraq (the Iraq War Logs), as did The Guardian and The New York Times, by publishing leaked evidence of these crimes – including the ‘Collateral Murder’ video – as well as publishing evidence of widespread government corruption on the WikiLeaks website. It was this threat of persecution by US authorities that led Julian to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the first place.

However, since the election in Ecuador on 24 May 2017 of the criminal and cowardly president Lenín Moreno, Julian’s asylum has been under threat and the conditions of his stay in the Embassy have rapidly deteriorated. This is because Moreno has been anxious to divert public attention from the spotlight of corruption currently shining directly on him – see ‘Ecuador National Assembly to Start Corruption Probe of Moreno’– and to secure the loans offered as bribes by US officials while capitulating to US government pressure to illegally terminate Julian’s political asylum. See‘Ecuador Bowed to US Pressure, Violated Law – Assange’s Associate’ and ‘WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Arrested, Activists Rally to Stop US Extradition’.

Of course, the criminal and cowardly nature of Moreno’s action is highlighted by the fact that the decision of the Ecuadorian government to terminate Julian’s asylum was done in violation of article 79 of Ecuador’s constitution which forbids extradition of its own citizens. See ‘Republic of Ecuador Constitution of 2008’. As Moreno’s predecessor, Rafael Correa noted simply in one Facebook post: ‘Moreno is a corrupt man’. See ‘Facebook Removes Page of Ecuador’s Former President on Same Day as Assange’s Arrest’.

Unfortunately, as further evidence of its function as an elite agent, rather than facilitating free speech, Facebook promptly ‘unpublished’ Correa’s Facebook page. Clearly, Moreno’s corruption is not a subject that Facebook wants advertised. See ‘Facebook Removes Page of Ecuador’s Former President on Same Day as Assange’s Arrest’. Still, it should be pointed out, Twitter’s function as an elite agent is no different. See ‘Twitter Restricts Account of Julian Assange’s Mother’.

Naturally enough, despite elite efforts to control the narrative, many people and organizations around the world have been outraged at the treatment of Julian (as well as other truthful journalists and whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, who has recently been imprisoned yet again, and Edward Snowden) who act courageously on the basis that the public has a right to know about the criminality of their governments as well as to know the truth generally.

As long ago as 5 February 2016, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) at the United Nations issued a statement in which they ‘called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation’ noting that its opinions are ‘legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)’. See Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds.

Moreover, in recent days, UN officials have spoken openly of their serious concern if Julian’s asylum was illegally revoked. See ‘UN expert on privacy plans to visit Julian Assange’ and ‘Two UN Rapporteurs Are Concerned About Julian Assange’s Situation’.

And just recently, on 11 April 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union issued its response to Julian’s arrest, noting that ‘Criminally prosecuting a publisher for the publication of truthful information would be a first in American history, and unconstitutional.’ The report added that ‘Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest.’ See ACLU Comment on Julian Assange Arrest’.

So once extradited, would Julian have any chance of defending himself with the truth? As US attorney Bill Simpich explains, Julian will be prevented from presenting the essential elements of his defense because ‘The [US] government doesn’t want a fair fight. In a fair fight, the government will lose.’ See ‘The Julian Assange Case: Revealing War Crimes Is Not a Crime’.

More bluntly, Jonathan Turley points out:

‘[T]he Justice Department is likely to move aggressively to strip Assange of his core defenses. Through what is called a motion in limine, the government will ask the court to declare that the disclosure of intelligence controversies is immaterial. This would leave Assange with only the ability to challenge whether he helped with passwords and little or no opportunity to present evidence of his motivations or the threat to privacy.

‘The key to prosecuting Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government concealed attacks and huge civilian losses, the type of disclosures that were made in the famous Pentagon Papers case. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program.’ See ‘Julian Assange Will Be Punished for Embarrassing the DC Establishment’.

Hence, while the Ecuadorian, British and US governments are flagrantly violating the law in persecuting Julian, it is being left to individuals and civil society organizations to defend him and many are mobilizing to do so already.

As a result, people have signed petitions – see Don’t extradite Assange!’ and Block Extradition & Prosecution of Julian Assange for First Amendment-Protected Journalism’ – some have participated in demonstrations at UK embassies and consulates around the world – see, for example, ‘Protesters Call on UK to #FreeAssange Outside British Embassy in DC’– and others have engaged in other acts of solidarity as suggested, for example, by Julian’s mother Christine or on the website ‘Defend WikiLeaks’ and in this article: ‘Julian Assange Arrested, Take Action Now’.=

Given the importance of defending our access to accurate information about our world, rather than the propaganda marketed as ‘news’ by the corporate media, it is worth reflecting on how best we can do this and, in doing so, defend people like Julian and Chelsea (who play such a vital role in giving us access to the truth in particular contexts) at the same time.

Hence, because of my own longstanding interest in developing thoughtfully-designed nonviolent strategies in our struggle to make our world one of peace, justice and ecological sustainability, let me suggest a strategic way forward that will honor the courage of Julian and Chelsea by maximizing the impact of their truth-telling on the longer-term struggles just mentioned while also taking separate action to provide some additional pressure to assist them in the short and medium terms.

In order to design this strategy well, let us first analyze the issue of why those who tell the truth are persecuted. If we do not understand, precisely, why this happens, we cannot respond powerfully.

Accurate Strategic Analysis Depends on Knowing the Truth

If we are to understand, accurately, the context and structural dimensions of a conflict (that is, the ‘big picture’ in which it is contained) so that we can identify and analyze the underlying drivers of the conflict in order to develop a coherent strategy to address these drivers, then the very first prerequisite is that we have truthful information. Without this truthful information, activists have zero prospect of accurately understanding and analyzing what is happening in the world (such as in relation to war and the climate catastrophe, for example).

Because the global elite is highly aware of the importance of the truth, it goes to enormous effort to make it difficult, if not impossible, to access the truth, particularly in certain critical contexts. And there are some classic historical examples, among many others, where not knowing the truth has allowed elites to inflict monumental atrocities in our name while crippling efforts to strategically mobilize opposition to these atrocities.

The most obvious examples of this phenomenon include ‘false flag’ attacks such as those conducted by US authorities and their allies on 9/11 as the prelude to launching their ‘war on terror’ which has caused immeasurable damage to, if not virtually destroyed, entire countries across west Asia and north Africa. If the truth about those behind the 9/11 attacks had been immediately available, rather than still ‘dribbling out’  nearly 20 years later, then it would have been far easier to mobilize resistance to the US-led wars on other countries and to campaign, strategically, for the profound changes needed to ensure that our world is spared the scourge of such atrocities in future. To access the definitive account of the overwhelming evidence in relation to 9/11 as a false flag attack, see 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigationwhich is reviewed in ‘The Fakest Fake News: The U.S. Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory’. For a long but incomplete list of false flag attacks, see ‘The Ever-Growing List of ADMITTED False Flag Attacks’.

So if we ask the question ‘Who played the primary role in deceiving us about 9/11 and molding the desired public response?’, the answer is that it was some key government, corporate, military and bureaucratic spokespeople and, particularly, the corporate media projecting the words of these official spokespeople far and wide. But if we ask the question ‘Who was controlling these spokespeople and the corporate media?’ the answer is ‘the global elite’.

This is because a primary function of the global elite, which it has long understood, is to create (using individuals employed within its think tanks as well as compliant academics) and maintain (through education systems, the entertainment industry and the corporate media) the dominant narrative in society so that the information available to the public is the information that the elite needs to shape public perception in favor of elite interests, such as perpetual war and chronic over-consumption, which ensure perpetuation of elite power, profit and privilege.

Hence, as you can see, people like Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning and organizations like WikiLeaks represent a fundamental threat to elite power, profit and privilege precisely because their truth-telling functionally undermines the elite narrative, for example, that our ‘enemy’ is a bunch of terrorists somewhere rather than the global elite itself.

While the false flag examples offered above highlight how suppression of the truth disempowers activists and populations thus helping to minimize any effective mobilization in response, there are also a great many examples where the truth was critical to informing and helping to mobilize activists to resist injustice, in one form or another. For example, Kevin Zeese superbly illustrates the crucial importance of WikiLeaks in facilitating awareness of the truth during the uprisings in 2011 across north Africa and west Asia. See ‘Julian Assange: At the Forefront of 21st Century Journalism’.

In essence then, it is individuals like Julian and Chelsea, rather than the sycophantic editors, reporters and journalists working for the corporate media, who give us the information we need to know so that we can better understand how our dysfunctional and violent world works and campaign effectively to change it.

And so they are enemies of the elite who must be silenced and discredited, legally or otherwise.

If you would like to read other accounts by individuals who astutely warn us of the deeper implications of what is happening to Julian, see the recent articles by Chris Hedges The Martyrdom of Julian Assange’ and John Pilger The Assange Arrest Is a Warning from History’.

So what do we do?

Well, I believe we honor individuals like Julian and Chelsea by using the truths they reveal to us to develop and implement thoughtfully-designed nonviolent strategies to make our world one of peace, justice and ecological sustainability. This is why they risk paying (and are now paying) such a high personal price to get us the truth that must inform these struggles. But we can also assist courageous individuals like Julian and Chelsea in the short-term too. So let me also add to the suggestions made by others mentioned above.

If we are to make the most use of the truth that Julian and Chelsea have risked (and paid) so much to get to us, then we must campaign strategically. By doing this, as I just mentioned, we truly honor their efforts and sacrifice. So, for example, if you want to campaign to end the elite’s wars and destruction of our climate from which it profits so enormously, then consider doing it strategically. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. This site identifies, among other key elements of strategy, the two strategic aims and the basic list of strategic goals necessary to achieve these outcomes. See ‘Campaign Strategic Aims’.

Irrespective of whether or not you are keen on campaigning in this way, there is a fifteen-year strategy for tackling all elements of our environmental crisis in The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth.

If you would like to tackle the problem at its core, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’ so that your children grow up with the conscience and courage of Julian and Chelsea. Unfortunately, individuals of their conscience and courage are incredibly rare in our world: not a powerful place to start in tackling a global elite that is utterly insane.

‘Insane?’ you might ask. Remember this: the global elite and many of its political, corporate, bureaucratic, military and academic agents, spend their time planning and implementing strategies to kill people (using military violence and economic exploitation) to make a profit. Do you really believe that this is something that a sane person would spend their time doing? I know you have been inundated with propaganda throughout your life to make you accept (or ignore) the violence in our world without question but pause and ponder it now: is it really sane? Are we not capable, as a species, of organizing our world to achieve peace, justice and ecological sustainability? See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ with a lot more detail in Why Violence?’ and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

Moreover, individuals who are not incredibly psychologically damaged do not manipulate elite institutions – such as the legal system: see ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’ – to persecute powerful individuals like Julian and Chelsea. The conscience and courage of Julian and Chelsea are readily recognized by those who are not psychologically damaged: they are qualities of exceptional individuals whom we should honor.

If you would like to join the worldwide movement to end all violence, you are welcome to sign the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

But we do not need to confine our acts of solidarity with Julian and Chelsea to those regarding strategies for profound change or the others mentioned above either. If you want to act powerfully in their support, consider the following five options as well and do as many as you can:

  1. Boycott The Guardian and The New York Times (because they were two of the original outlets that published material sourced from WikiLeaks but now hypocritically engage in the persecution of Julian and Chelsea). And suggest to others that they also boycott these media outlets.
  2. Boycott all media outlets (anywhere in the world) that advocate or support the arrest, trial and/or imprisonment of Julian and/or Chelsea. And suggest to others that they boycott these media outlets too. If you want the truth about our world, get it from news outlets like the one you are reading now.
  3. Boycott Facebook. And suggest to others that they boycott this medium too.
  4. Boycott Twitter. And suggest to others that they boycott this medium too.
  5. Write letters of solidarity to Julian and Chelsea. Tell them what you are doing to make best use of the truths they have revealed.

Given elite control of all political, economic, commercial, legal, social and media institutions of any consequence in our world, it will not be easy to liberate Julian (and, perhaps, even Chelsea) in the short term. UK and US elites may even conspire to secretly put Julian on a rendition flight to the US or simply be content with a protracted legal struggle which distracts many of us from the issues that Julian and Chelsea so courageously put in the spotlight.

For that reason, while we struggle to liberate them we can also struggle to liberate the vast number of other people who suffer the elite’s military violence and economic exploitation so that the efforts of Julian and Chelsea are not in vain.

*

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. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Snopes.com

The modern UN Refugee Convention is now so flea-bitten it’s been put out to the garbage tip of history.  At least the enthusiastic fleas think so, given their conduct as political representatives across a range of parliaments keen on barbed wired borders and impenetrable defences.  Across Europe, the issue of refugees arriving by sea – in this case, the Mediterranean – has become a matter of games and deflection. Lacking any coherence whatsoever, the approach to certain, designated arrivals is to push them on to the next port in fits of cruel deflection, hoping that the next recipient will give in.  Such conduct demonstrates how states have adopted notions of penalisation and discrimination against the arrival who seeks sanctuary, positions severely in breach of international humanitarian law.

Australia remains the undisputed pioneer in this, at least in the last two decades.  Incapable of establishing a decent environmental policy, hostage to the gunpoint of the mining lobby, and suspicious of enshrined rights, its backwater parliamentarians have been dazzling with other efforts: finding a suitably bestial policy to repel maritime arrivals, for instance.  Boats have been towed back to Indonesia, a country which many of its representatives grudgingly do business with.  People smugglers, the very same ones demonised as “scum” by Australian politicians, have been paid when and where necessary.  A veil of secrecy has been cast with suffocating effect across the operations of the Royal Australian Navy, and criminal provisions have been passed punishing any whistle-blower who dares disclose the nature of operations in the detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island.

Countries hugging the Mediterranean are also attempting to make a dash up the premier league of refugee cruelty.  In January, Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Salvini bellowed in disdain that rescue ships heading to Italy were provocations.

“No one will disembark in Italy.”

This has been accentuated by a change in funding policy.  The European Union has distanced itself from the anti-smuggling Operation Sophia, which ran for four years and involved the rescue of thousands of refugees with the use of EU vessels.  Any united front on the part of EU states has effectively collapsed.

Vessels are now being refused docking rights as a matter of course.  Sixty-two migrants on the German rescue ship Alan Kurdi found themselves being refused and moved on.  Having been rescued on April 3 near Libya, the vessel owned by the German non-governmental organisation Sea-Eye faced a rhetoric, and approach, long favoured in the isolated Australian capital of Canberra.  Those attempting to enter the ports of Malta and Italy were initially refused.  To permit them entry would be tantamount to encouraging human trafficking.

It took 10 days of torment before an agreement was struck: the individuals in question would be allowed to reach Valetta in Malta.  As with everything else, political representatives saw a chance to make hay.  Malta’s Prime Minister Joseph Muscat claimed a victory in ending the stand-off, scolding conservatives who believed in abortion.

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  We are speaking about the same human life, and I can no longer take the hypocrisy in people who have these double standards.”

There was a twist, suggesting that the government could still be selective.  The crew of the Alan Kurdi were refused entry, thereby revealing that Malta was happy to spare the refugee but punish the rescuer.

“We condemn,” a dissatisfied Sea-Eye chairman Gorden Isler claimed, “the abuse of state power and the illegal restriction of our crew members’ freedom, who risked their own health to save lives.”

Captain Werner Czerwinski has proceeded to head to Spain with the express purpose of finding a harbour.  The impediments on its movement have been costly, meaning that it will be unable to embark on its next mission to the central part of the Mediterranean.

A statement from the Maltese government revealed the parcelling scheme: four countries would be involved, divvying out the human misery.

“Through the coordination of the European Commission, with the cooperation of Malta, the migrants on board the NGO vessel Alan Kurdi will be redistributed among four EU states: Germany, France, Portugal and Luxembourg.”

Hardly a stellar outcome, and certainly an ad hoc outcome that bodes ill for any consistency.

“These negotiations,” went a joint statement from Sea-Eye with a host of other rescue organisations, “are illegitimate and unsustainable practices that violate international law, fundamental principles of human rights and disregard the dignity of the rescued.”

The law of the sea, international law more generally speaking, and human rights law, had been flouted in not permitting an immediate disembarkation “at the nearest place of safety.”

The entire system of responding to refugees has become a toxic spread.  Organisations dedicated to the venture of saving potential victims of drowning have been designated a problem as grave as the people they assist.  Those wishing to help are imperilled by the very process of assistance which should be protected by the right to asylum.  There are bureaucratic issues on which waters the refugees might be found in.  Drownings have been inevitable, showing that red tape can be a lethal affair.

In various perverse instances, the rescuers can themselves find themselves facing investigations for actually providing needed assistance.  Miguel Rodan, a Spanish firefighter who found himself helping distressed refugees in June 2017, was duly informed that he, along with his fellow rescuers, were being investigated by officials of the Italian government that they might have been responsible for “facilitating illegal immigration”.

The looming tragedy here is that more numbers are bound to find their way into the waters of the Mediterranean, given the rapid escalation of hostilities in a crippled Libya.  Assessments vary depending on which panicked account is consulted, but a figure of 800,000 migrants has been floated.  The assault on Tripoli by Khalifa Hafter has the potential, according to Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj of the UN-recognised government, to become a “new Syria”, a “war of aggression that will spread its cancer through the Mediterranean, Italy and Europe.”  The language is crudely apt: refugees as a cancerous spread; Europe’s response, a chemotherapeutic, if inconsistent harsh counter.

*

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]

While the world watched in horror at Paris’ historic Notre Dame Cathedral erupting in flames Monday, the fire is only the latest in a series of incidents that have left social media awash in images of heavily damaged churches.

France has been hit with a string of fires at Catholic churches, some of which occurred alongside desecration of sacred objects and acts of vandalism. While the fire at Notre Dame appears to be an accident connected to renovations of the church, the image of the famous spire engulfed in flames is a hard hit on the historically deeply Catholic France, as well as Catholics all over who have seen their religion reeling from devastating scandals, cover-ups and attacks.

While Notre Dame is undoubtedly the most well-known landmark to be affected, Paris’ second largest church, Saint-Sulpice, briefly burst into flames on March 17, the fire damaging doors and stained glass windows on the building’s exterior. Police later reported that the incident had not been an accident.

“The images of flames in Saint Sulpice church this weekend are one more example of the violence committed against Catholics,” said Philippe Gosselin and Annie Genevard of France’s National Assembly, tying the incident into a wider trend of attacks on Catholic places of worship.

February saw a series of such attacks across France. In one incident, a cross of human excrement was smeared on the wall of the Notre Dame des Enfants in Nimes, the vandals also looting the church and spreading consecrated wafers in the garbage.

The same month, the altar at Saint-Alain Cathedral in Lavaur was set on fire, while statues and crosses were smashed throughout the premises. Two teenagers were later arrested in relation to the incident.

In another incident on February 4, a statue of the Virgin Mary was found smashed on the ground at St. Nicholas Catholic Church in Houilles, Yvelines. Just days later, the Eucharist was scattered and the altar cloth soiled at Church of Notre Dame de Dijon.

The attacks come at a time when the Church is hurting for sympathy, enwrapped in child sex abuse scandals that have left even the pope declaring “all out battle” on criminal clergy.

*

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 USA Today

EXCLUSIVE: Away from the public eye, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank hosted a top-level, off-the-record meeting to explore US military options against Venezuela.

***

The Washington, DC-based think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a private roundtable on April 10 called “Assessing the Use of Military Force in Venezuela.” A list of attendees was provided to The Grayzone and two participants confirmed the meeting took place. They refused to offer any further detail, however.

Among the roughly 40 figures invited to the off-the-record event to discuss potential US military action against Caracas were some of the most influential advisors on President Donald Trump’s Venezuela policy. They included current and former State Department, National Intelligence Council, and National Security Council officials, along with Admiral Kurt Tidd, who was until recently the commander of US SOUTHCOM.

Senior officials from the Colombian and Brazilian embassies like Colombian General Juan Pablo Amaya, as well as top DC representatives from Venezuelan coup leader Juan Guaido’s shadow government, also participated in the meeting.

On January 23, following backroom maneuvers, the United States openly initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela’s elected government by recognizing National Assembly president Juan Guaido as the country’s “interim president.”

Since then, Venezuela has endured a series of provocations and the steady escalation of punishing economic sanctions. President Nicolas Maduro has accused the US of attacks on the Simon Bolivar hydroelectric plant at the Guri dam, which have led to country-wide blackouts openly celebrated by top Trump officials.

In a March 5 call with Russian pranksters posing as the president of the Swiss Federation, US special envoy for Venezuela Elliot Abrams ruled out military action against Venezuela, revealing that he had only held out the threat to “make the Venezuelan military nervous.”

Since then, however, Guaido has failed to mobilize the national protest wave the Trump administration had anticipated, and the Venezuelan military has demonstrated unwavering loyalty to Maduro. In Washington, the sense of urgency has risen with each passing day.

‘We Talked About Military Options in Venezuela’

The CSIS meeting on “Assessing the Use of Military Force in Venezuela” suggests that the Trump administration is exploring military options more seriously than before, possibly out of frustration with the fact that every other weapon in its arsenal has failed to bring down Maduro.

On April 10, I obtained a check-in list containing the names of those invited to the meeting. It was apparently incorrectly dated as April 20, but had taken place earlier that day, at 3 PM.

I confirmed that the meeting had taken place with Sarah Baumunk, a research associate at CSIS’s Americas Program who was listed as a participant.

“We talked about military… uh… military options in Venezuela. That was earlier this week though,” Baumunk told me, when The Grayzone asked her about the meeting that was wrongly listed for April 20.

When The Grayzone asked if the event took place on April 10, Baumunk appeared to grow nervous.

“I’m sorry, why are you asking these questions? Can I help you?” she replied.

After I asked again about the meeting, Baumunk cut off the conversation.

“I’m sorry I don’t feel comfortable answering these questions,” she stated before hanging up.

The Grayzone received additional confirmation of the meeting from Santiago Herdoiza, a research associate at Hills & Company, who was also listed as an attendee.

“I’m sorry, that was a closed meeting. Good evening,” Herdoiza commented when asked for details on the event.

A Who’s Who of Trump Administration Coup Advisors

The CSIS check-in list not only confirms that the Trump administration and its outside advisors are mulling options for a military assault on Venezuela; it also outlines the cast of characters involved in crafting the regime change operation against the country.

Few of these figures are well known by the public, yet many have played an influential role in US plans to destabilize Venezuela.

The complete check-in list can be viewed at the end of this article. Below are profiles of some of the more notable figures and organizations involved in the private meeting. (Names of attendees are in bold).

Admiral Kurt Tidd, Former Commander of US SOUTHCOM: From 2015-18, Tidd was the commander of the US Naval Forces Southern Command, overseeing operations in Central and South America. Last October, Tidd complained,

“My Twitter feed is made up of about 50 percent of people accusing me of planning and plotting the invasion of Venezuela, and the other 50 percent imploring me to plan and plot the invasion of Venezuela.”

Given his participation in the CSIS meeting on attacking Venezuela, his accusers might have had a point.

On February 20, Tidd’s successor, Admiral Craig Faller, threatened Venezuela’s military and urged it to turn on Maduro in support of the US-backed coup attempt.

Ambassador William Brownfield: Appointed as US ambassador to Venezuela under George W. Bush, promoted to assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs by Barack Obama, and now a CSIS senior advisor, Brownfield has been at the center of psychological warfare operations against Venezuela. According to McClatchy, Brownfield helped devise a scheme in 2017 to generate suspicion within Maduro’s inner circle by sanctioning all of his key advisors except one: Diosdado Cabello, the president of the Constituent Assembly once seen by the US as a potential rival to Maduro. The idea was to create the suspicion that Cabello was a CIA asset, and “mess with the Chavez mentality.”

Brownfield advised Trump’s National Security Council,

“Don’t just hit everyone because you can. Hit the right people and then maybe get others to just be scared and wonder when they’ll get hit.”

Mark Feierstein, a NSC official at the time who now works as a senior associate at CSIS and attended its April 10 meeting, was reportedly involved in the plot. However, the plan fell apart as soon as the US sanctioned Cabello under pressure from Sen. Marco Rubio.

Fernando Cutz and Juan Cruz, former National Security Council officials at the Cohen Group: Cutz collaborated closely with Brownfield on the plan to generate rifts in Maduro’s inner circle. Born in Brazil, Cutz is a career USAID foreign service officer who worked on Cuban policy under Obama and entered the Trump NSC under its former director, Gen. H.R. McMaster. Cutz is credited by the Wall Street Journal with presenting Trump with his initial platter of options for destabilizing Venezuela, starting with “a financial strike at Venezuela’s oil exports.” Cutz’s colleague at the Cohen Group, Juan Cruz, was Trump’s former Latin America director. In March 2018, Cruz became the first US official to openly call for the Venezuelan military to disobey Maduro and implement a coup.

Pedro Burelli, BV Advisors: A former JP Morgan executive and ex-director of Venezuela’s national oil company PDVSA, Burelli allegedly helped foot the $52,000 bill for a series of meetings in Mexico in 2010 where Guaido and his associates plotted to bring down then-President Hugo Chavez through street chaos. In an interview with The Grayzone, Burelli called the Mexico meetings “a legitimate activity,” though he refused to confirm his participation. Today, he makes no secret of his desire for Maduro’s removal by force, tweeting images of jailed Panamanian President Manuel Noriega and the murdered Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi to suggest preferred outcomes for Venezuela’s president.

Roger Noriega, American Enterprise Institute: A veteran of the Iran-Contra scandals and regime change operations from Haiti to Cuba, where he plotted to sabotage US efforts at rapproachment – “stability is the enemy and chaos is the friend,” he said – Noriega has been at the center of Washington’s efforts to impose its will on Venezuela. Last November, Noriega recommended that Trump appoint Ambassador Brownfield to lead contingency plans for a military invasion of the country.

Carlos Vecchio and Francisco Marquez, Guaido’s shadow embassy in Washington: Installed as the symbolic ambassador of the Guaido coup regime in Washington DC, Vecchio currently oversees no consular facilities and has no diplomatic authority. He is wanted in Venezuela on arson charges and was photographed posing with a young man who brutally beheaded a woman named Liliana Hergueta. Marquez is associated with Vision Democratica, a DC-based lobbying outfit which employs another Venezuelan opposition member who attended the CSIS meeting on military force, Carlos Figueroa.

Sergio Guzman, Bernardo Rico, and Karin McFarland, USAID: The US Agency for International Aid and Development (USAID) has been the leading edge of the Trump administration’s attempts to undermine Venezuela’s government. After ramping up its activities in Venezuela in 2007, USAID began contributing between $45-50 million per year to Venezuelan opposition political, media, and civil society groups. On February 23, USAID director Mark Green presided over a deliberately provocative attempt to ram aid shipments by truck across the Colombian border and into Venezuela. The humanitarian interventionist spectacle backfired badly, resulting in opposition hooligans setting fire to the aid shipments with molotov cocktails. (Green falsely accused Maduro’s forces of burning the aid.) This February, USAID rolled out plans for a “Red Team…to train aid workers as special forces” capable of “executing a mix of offensive, defensive, and stability operations in extremis conditions.”

Emiliana Duarte, Caracas Chronicles and advisor to Maria Corina Machado: Duarte’s name was crossed off the CSIS check-in list, indicating that she was invited to the private meeting on military options but did not attend. She is a staff writer for Caracas Chronicles, a leading English language publication echoing the political line of Venezuela’s opposition. Duarte has also contributed to the New York Times, most recently in February, when she argued that the US-backed coup attempt was, in fact, “Venezuela’s very normal revolution.” Nowhere in Duarte’s writing has she acknowledged that she is serving as an advisor to Maria Corina Machado, a close ally of Sen. Marco Rubio and one of the most extreme figures among Venezuela’s opposition. In 2014, a series of emails were leaked allegedly revealing Machado’s role in an alleged assassination plot. “I think it is time to gather efforts; make the necessary calls, and obtain financing to annihilate Maduro and the rest will fall apart,” Machado wrote in one email.

Santiago Herdoiza, Hills & Company: While Herdoiza appears to occupy a low level position, he works at a high powered international strategy firm founded by former George W. Bush administration officials. The firm works on behalf of clients like Chevron, Boeing, and Bechtel to “eliminate barriers to market access and profitability.” In some cases, the firm says it has been able to persuade governments to lower tariffs and drop opposition to free trade deals. Through its participation in the private CSIS meeting, Hills & Company seems to have signaled that it is willing to also entertain the use of military force to open up markets for its clients.

David Smolansky, OAS coordinator for Venezuelan migrants: Once a leader of Guaido’s US-backed Popular Will party, Smolansky took sanctuary in Washington and began working for regime change in 2017. Following the US recognition of Guaido as “interim president,” Smolansky was appointed by OAS President Luis Almagro as coordinator for Venezuelan migrants. While it is unknown what advice Smolansky offered at CSIS regarding a military assault on his country, there is a near-consensus in Washington that an attack would massively exacerbate the migration crisis. A war on Venezuela “would be prolonged, it would be ugly, there would be massive casualties,” Rebecca Chavez, a fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, declared in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in March. (Chavez’s boss, Michael Shifter, was a participant in the CSIS meeting on use of force).

The complete list of attendees for the private CSIS event on US military options against Venezuela:

*

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

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican GomorrahGoliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

All images in this article are from The Grayzone

Trump Dances to Israel’s Tune

April 16th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

So newly reelected Israeli monster-in-chief Benjamin Netanyahu has boasted, with a grin, that America’s President Donald J. Trump followed through on his proposal to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist group. Bibi was smiling because the timing of the move, one day before the Israeli election, strongly suggests it was done to assist him against what had become a very strong opposition challenge. That Trump likely colluded with Netanyahu to blatantly interfere in the election has apparently bothered no one in Israel or in the tame American media.

The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute Israel for war crimes, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, removing the word “occupation” from the State Department’s assessments of human rights infringements on the West Bank, eliminating relief funding for Palestinian refugees, leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council because it was too critical of Israel, and looking the other way as Israel declared itself a state only for Jews. Washington also ignored the bombing of hospitals, schools and water treatment infrastructure in Gaza while Israeli army snipers were shooting unarmed demonstrators demanding their freedom.

The labeling of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group is particularly disturbing as it means that the United States military by virtue of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) now has a mandate to attack the IRGC wherever it appears, including in Syria or even in the waterway the Straits of Hormuz, where the guard has regular patrols in small boats. It is a de facto declaration of war and it comes on top of a number of deliberate provocations directed against Iran starting with the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) one year ago, which led to the unilateral imposition of harsh sanctions directed against the Iranian economy to bring about a popular uprising as well as regularly repeated false claims that Iran is the leading “state sponsor of terrorism.” Next month, the U.S. will begin enforcing a unilaterally declared worldwide sanction on any and all Iranian oil sales.

Netanyahu pledged to annex Israeli settlements on the largely Palestinian West Bank if elected, which is undoubtedly a move cleared in advance with the Trump team of foreign policy sociopaths as it de facto puts an end to any delusional speculation over a possible two-state negotiated solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will also lead to a massive upsurge in violence as the Palestinians object, which is neither a concern for the White House or Netanyahu, as they are assuming that it can be suppressed by overwhelming force directed against an almost completely unarmed civilian population.

And Trump will no doubt expect Bibi to return the favor when he is running for reelection in 2020 by encouraging American Jews who care about Israel to support the Republicans. Trump is focused on his own electability and is absolutely shameless about his betrayal of actual American interests in the Middle East, possibly because he has no inkling of the actual damage that he is doing. His speech last week before the casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson-hosted Jewish Republican Coalition Annual Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas was a disgusting pander to a group that includes many key players who have little or no concern for what happens to the United States as long as Israel flourishes. The only good news that came out of the meeting was that Adelson himself appears to be “gravely ill.”

Trump at times appeared to be speaking to what he thought was a group of Israelis, referring to “your prime minister” when mentioning Benjamin Netanyahu and several times describing Israel as “yours,” suggesting that deep down he understands that many American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the United States. At another point, Trump declared that

“The Democrats have even allowed the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party and their country,” apparently part of a White House plan to keep playing that card to turn American Jews and their political donations in a Republican direction before elections in 2020.

Trump also told the Republican Coalition audience how he came to a decision on recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He described how

“he’d been speaking to his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, as well as U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman and his Israel adviser, Jason Greenblatt, over the phone about an unrelated issue when he suddenly brought up the Golan Heights.”

Trump shared how

“I said, ‘Fellows, do me a favor. Give me a little history, quick. Want to go fast. I got a lot of things I’m working on: China, North Korea. Give me a quickie.’ After the advisers filled him in, Trump said he asked Friedman: ‘David, what do you think about me recognizing Israel and the Golan Heights?’ Friedman, apparently surprised by the suggestion, reacted like a ‘wonderful, beautiful baby,’ Trump said, and asked if he would ‘really … do that.’ ‘Yeah, I think I’m doing it right now. Let’s write something up,’ Trump said he responded, prompting applause and cheers from his audience in Las Vegas. ‘We make fast decisions and we make good decisions.’”

Putting the Trump story about the Golan Heights in some kind of context is not really that difficult. He wanted an answer to please Netanyahu and he went to three Orthodox Jews who support the illegal Israeli settlements and have also individually contributed financially to their growth so he was expecting the response that he got. That he was establishing a precedent by his moves on Jerusalem and the Golan apparently did not occur to him as his administration prides itself on having a foreign policy vision that extends no longer than the beginning of next week, which is why he hired Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. And then there is always the doleful Stephen Miller lurking in the background as well as the three musketeers of Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman for really serious questions relating to why acceding to the wishes of parasite state Israel should continue to be the apparent number one priority of the government of the United States.

Donald Trump neither poses nor answers the question why he feels compelled to fulfill all of the campaign pledges he made to the Jewish community, which by and large did not vote for him, while failing to carry out the promises made to those who actually did support him. The absurd Jewish Republican Coalition narrative about how Trump gave Israel the Golan Heights should have resulted in a flood of opprobrium in the U.S. media about his profound ignorance and fundamental hypocrisy, but there was largely silence.

The nonsense going on in Las Vegas in front of a lot of fat cats who regard the United States as little more than a cash cow that they control as well as in the White House itself unfortunately has real world consequences. America is being led by the nose by a well-entrenched and powerful group of Israeli loyalists and this will not end well. The U.S. doesn’t even have a Middle Eastern foreign policy anymore – it has a “to do” list handed by Netanyahu to whomever is president. The fact that the current man in charge in Washington is either so ignorant or so deluded as to allow the process to escalate until the U.S. is drawn into yet more catastrophic wars is beyond regrettable. U.S. foreign policy should not depend on the perceptions of Kushner and company. It should be based on real, tangible American interests, not those of Israel. Someone should explain that to the president.

*

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].

It’s misleading to assert that Assad “won” the war even though he still remains in office as the country’s democratically elected and legitimate leader since Putin compelled him to “compromise” on several important issues after the Liberation of Aleppo and accept a political reality completely at odds with what one would otherwise expect from a “victor”.

The Superficial “Victory”

One of the most fashionable things to say in Alt-Media is that Assad “won” the war just because he still remains in office as the Arab Republic’s democratically elected and legitimate leader, which is in and of itself a major accomplishment when considering that dozens of countries were conspiring for years to violently overthrow him through the Hybrid War of Terror on Syria but deliberately downplays the contemporary political reality that’s completely at odds with what one would otherwise expect from a “victor”. Putin compelled Assad to “compromise” on several important issues after the Liberation of Aleppo in exchange for remaining in office, which would have been much more difficult for the Syrian leader to do had his main foreign foes not cut deals with Russia to have this happen, though of course in exchange for something that suits their interests at the Mideast country’s partial expense. For better or for worse, and whether out of “pragmatic necessity” or “needless concessions”, this is the current situation as it objective exists in Syria today.

Everything Changed After Aleppo

The Liberation of Aleppo was a monumental moment in the country’s conflict that was largely made possible through the game-changing support of the Russian Aerospace Forces, freeing what had been Syria’s most populous city up until the start of the war and symbolically returning one of the cradles of the so-called “revolution” to government control. It was after this milestone that the world expected the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah allies to sweep through the rest of the country and put a swift end to the war, though that wasn’t what happened at all. In fact, almost immediately after the Liberation of Aleppo, Russia convened the first-ever round of the Astana peace talks together with Turkey and Iran and sought to freeze the battle lines, even presenting a so-called “draft constitution” that it wrote for Syria in order to facilitate peace talks instead of continuing the conflict. As proof of its intent to end the war right then and there, Russia implemented so-called “de-escalation zones” across the country that put an end to most hostilities.

“Balancing” And Bartering In The Syrian Bazaar

All of this was surprising for the Syrian leadership, which believed (whether naively or not) that Russia would broaden its original anti-terrorist mandate in order to help it liberate the rest of the country from other armed “opposition” forces that Moscow didn’t officially recognize as terrorists, but there’s no doubt now that Damascus couldn’t have been more wrong. Far from helping Assad regain control over the rest of the country after Aleppo, Putin put a quick end to the kinetic phase of the conflict by brokering a variety of deals with all regional powers as part of Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy to become the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia and especially the tri-continental pivot space of the Mideast. The details of what was agreed upon behind the scenes could only have been speculated at that time, but are obvious in hindsight given all that’s happened in the country over nearly the past two and a half years since Aleppo was freed. There’s no question that Assad was compelled to “compromise”, whether willingly or against his will, with the following actors as will now be explained.

“Putinyahu’s Rusrael”

The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged in September 2018 after the spy plane tragedy that it allowed “Israel” to bomb Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria over 200 times in the preceding 18 months alone, with the attacks still continuing to this day and as recently as just last week. Putin also announced the creation of a so-called “working party” with “Israel” to seek the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria after his second-most recent meeting with Netanyahu, with the Russian Ambassador to the UN even telling Saudi media the other week that even Iran “should leave when Syria is stabilized”. Relatedly, Russia also carved out a 140-kilometer anti-Iranian buffer zone beyond the occupied Golan Heights at Tel Aviv’s behest last summer and Putin just helped Netanyahu win reelection through the last-minute photo-op of returning 20 “IDF” remains a few days before the vote. Since then, rumors have been swirling that Russia also recently delivered notorious Mossad spy Eli Cohen’s remains too. Altogether, it’s now impossible for anyone to credibly deny the existence of “Putinyahu’s Rusrael“.

America & The Kurds

US-backed Kurdish-led forces currently occupy the northeastern agriculturally and energy-rich one-third of Syria beyond the Euphrates and there are no indications that they’re going to surrender their self-professed autonomy to the centralized Syrian state anytime soon, not least because of the continued presence of US troops there in spite of Trump’s promised “withdrawal”. The American forces act as a “tripwire” preventing the SAA from crossing the river and reasserting its sovereignty over this strategic space, and the Disaster at Deir ez-Zor in February of last year proved that the US will use overwhelming force to crush any hostile elements that dare to cross the so-called “deconfliction line” that it agreed to create with Russia. Contrary to what’s regularly implied by Alt-Media, Russia has absolutely no political will to militarily confront the US and risk World War III, hence why it agreed to this informal “partition” of Syria in the first place that it hopes to codify into law through the “draft constitution” that it wrote for its “ally”. Therefore, Russia’s deal-making ensured that Syria lost not only the Golan, but probably also the Northeast as well.

Turkey’s “Sphere Of Influence”

That’s not all that Damascus lost as a result of the “balancing” that Russia has done in Syria since the start of its anti-terrorist intervention there because it seems increasingly impossible that it’ll reclaim control over Idlib and the other Turkish-occupied areas of the country too. To be clear, it would probably be just as impossible for the SAA to do so had Russia not intervened in the first place, but the fact remains that Turkey’s conventional operations there and ongoing presence in several borderland regions were tacitly approved by Russia, not out of some “devious plot” to slice up Syria but — just like with the American case — because it lacked the political will to enter into World War III-style brinkmanship with a NATO country and thought it much more pragmatic to strike a series of unofficial deals instead. Russia understands Turkey’s national security interests in countering Kurdish militants and securing its own “Israeli”-like buffer zone in Syria, hence why it’s helped expand its “sphere of influence” and actually formalize part of it through the “de-escalation zones”.

“Rebels” & “Decentralization”

Damascus was already experimenting with amnesty programs prior to the Russian intervention but these picked up pace after Moscow’s anti-terrorist campaign began, with Syria’s top military partner offering all armed groups in the country the possibility of being recognized as “rebels” who could theoretically participate in the fledgling peace process so long as they disowned internationally recognized terrorist groups like Daesh, with many of them did. This led to several of the most notorious non-“terrorist” groups being invited to the Astana peace process, which eventually led to the decision to create a so-called “constitutional committee” of 150 total members, with only 1/3 (50) of them being from the government while the remaining 2/3 (50 & 50) will be from the “opposition” and “civil society”. Damascus is therefore being treated far from the diplomatic “victor” and is actually equal to the civil society forces that didn’t even fight in the war at all. The end result, as Russia envisages it, is the approval of most of the clauses in its “draft constitution”, specifically “decentralization” in order to legitimize the “spheres of influence” that it’s brokered for others in Syria.

“With Friends Like These…”

The aforementioned deal-making details are entirely factual but extremely unpopular to talk about in Alt-Media, especially among the most zealous “wishful thinking” “Putinists” who remain bizarrely convinced that this is all part of some “5D chess” “master plan” that will ultimately see the Russian leader unleash a hail of fire and brimstone on all of Syria’s enemies as he “gloriously” liberates the country and deals a “deathblow” to the “New World Order”. Many of these voices seriously think that they’re “helping” Syria by “covering” for the deals that Putin brokered with the exact same “New World Order” that he’s supposed to be “fighting”, but they’re actually the worst sort of “friends” that Damascus could ever ask for because they’ve prevented the world from seeing the objective reality of the country’s current political situation. While there are undoubtedly those who will argue that Russia is the “friend” that Syria should be most worried about, Damascus has yet to criticize Moscow for “overstepping”, suggesting that Assad (begrudgingly?) agrees with what Putin is doing as the “most pragmatic solution” possible.

Concluding Thoughts

Bearing in mind what was revealed and reviewed in this analysis, it’s inaccurate for anyone to assert that Assad “won” the war because, apart from remaining in office as his people’s democratically elected and legitimate leader (which is a remarkable feat in and of itself), he was actually compelled by Putin to “compromise” on many fronts and with each of his country’s sworn enemies. Russia’s “balancing” role provides Syria the “diplomatic distance” to claim “plausible deniability” and maintain a degree of “strategic ambiguity” that its media surrogates spin according to the situation to suggest whether it truly supports what its “ally” is supposedly doing on its “behalf” or not depending on whichever narrative is thought to be most beneficial for it at any given time. That said, this is probably due more to “pragmatic necessity” on Syria’s part because it’s technically powerless to oppose Russia even if it think that its “ally” is brokering “needless concessions” at its expense in order to bolster its own regional diplomatic standing, which reinforces the argument that Assad definitely didn’t “win” the war like his Alt-Media “friends” swear he did.

*

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.

The Guardian reported it as – Far-right terrorist Thomas Mair jailed for life for Jo Cox murder. “The judge said Mair would have to serve a whole-life sentence due to the “exceptional seriousness” of the offence: a murder committed to advance a cause associated with Nazism.”

Jo Cox killed in ‘brutal, cowardly’ and politically motivated murder, trial hears” – goes another headline.

But was Jo Cox murdered due to the political motivation of a right-wing extremist? Was it a desire to elevate the significance of so-called ‘right-wing extremism’ which impelled the Crown Court to treat the case as political from the start?

Peter Hitchens, the conservative columnist and ‘reformed Thatcherite’ thinks differently on this sensitive matter. He has said time and time again that many of the so-called terrorist murders reported in Britain, such as that of Fusilier Lee Rigby, the Manchester Arena bombing and many others have something else rooted deeply in their actions. Hitchens asserts that there is a correlation between the use of cannabis and other psychotropic drugs dished out to those with behavioural problems – and severe, irreversible mental illness, especially in the young.

And as Hitchens ominously says –

Certainly, the security services and politicians are increasingly inclined to claim that they guard us against this (right-wing extremist) menace.”

Hitchens has written endlessly on the subject and is proven right almost every time something awful like the killing of Jo Cox happens.

As members of the public, we should not be fearing right-wing extremism in quite the same way the state would have us believe and in this – Hitchens is on the mark.

In America, there is a much bigger problem with drugs – both legal and illegal and we can look here for examples on a bigger scale for evidence.

Leaving aside illegal drugs, here are some facts and their correlations of prescription drugs to mass killings.

Up to October 2017, there were 1,531 cases of psychiatric drug-induced homicides reported to the US FDA; 65 high profile cases of mass shootings/murder have been committed by individuals under the influence of these drugs. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights gave many examples in their report, such as:

  • Washington, DC: Aaron Alexis, a Navy contractor, opened fire inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard, killing 12 and wounding eight others. Alexis had received prescriptions in August 2013 for the antidepressant Trazodone.
  • Newtown, Connecticut: In the third deadliest mass shooting by an individual in American history, Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adult staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School before committing suicide. Refusing to release Lanza’s medical records at the time of the shooting, Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kwanashie said that identifying the antidepressants Lanza was on would, “cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”
  • Snohomish County, Washington: A 15-year-old girl went to Snohomish High School where police alleged that she stabbed a girl approximately 25 times, then stabbed another who tried to help her injured friend. Before the attack, the girl had been taking psychotropic drugs.

The list of examples goes on and on and the link above provides much evidence of this growing problem. In the meantime, here is Hitchens latest on the subject, most particularly on the killing of Jo Cox.

Peter Hitchens: A tragedy twisted into a bogus ‘terror plot’

We are told by some police functionary that 10,000 officers are ‘on standby’ in case of unrest. We are told that there is a ‘febrile’ atmosphere.

Image on the right: Jo Cox

Image result for jo cox

And about every ten minutes, we are reminded of the supposed political assassination of the Labour MP Jo Cox, allegedly by a ‘Right-wing extremist’.

Well, if it’s so febrile, it’s odd that the turnout at Thursday’s Newport West by-election was only about half what it was in 2017. I think weariness, rather than rage, is the most common feeling.

But can we once and for all stop making the absurd claim that Jo Cox’s killer, Thomas Mair, was a serious political actor? First, his killing of a much-loved mother of a young family predictably achieved more or less the exact opposite of what he supposedly intended – and he would have grasped this in a second had he been in a normal state of mind.

In fact, his abnormality is the most striking thing about him, despite the fact that it was almost wholly ignored by the police and the courts. News reports from the time repeatedly quoted Mair’s brother Scott as saying that the killer had a history of psychiatric problems.

His half-brother confirmed this, saying Mair would clean himself with Brillo pads and had obsessive-compulsive disorder. OCD is often treated with powerful mind-altering drugs, yet I know of no attempt to establish if Mair had been prescribed such drugs.

But there is evidence he had been. He had told a local newspaper in 2010 how volunteering at a park near his home had helped his mental health, saying: ‘It has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world.’

Just before his crime, he walked into the Wellbeing Centre in Birstall and asked for help. He said his medication for depression wasn’t working and ‘seemed agitated and treading from side to side’.

After he was caught and charged, his lawyer oddly said he would not bring his medical history into the case. Why not? Plainly Mair is a danger to others and his action was a terrible one. But why does authority ignore such vital facts? Does the Government want to believe, and to spread the idea, that there is some organised Right-wing terror plot?

Please question these claims.

You can read more on the same subject at Peter Hitchens Blog 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.

Featured image is from TP

Julian Assange’s Life Is in Danger

April 16th, 2019 by Eric London

Following Thursday’s arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in London, the governments of the US, Britain and Ecuador are engaged in a conspiracy to facilitate the whistleblower’s extraordinary rendition to the US. Julian Assange’s life and liberty are in imminent danger. It is necessary to mobilize all supporters of free speech to prevent him from falling into the hands of the American government.

Over 40 years ago, a Rand Corporation analyst Daniel Ellsberg provided the Washington Post with evidence regarding the US government’s illegal activity in the Vietnam War. Yesterday, Ellsberg issued the following statement:

It’s a very serious assault on the First Amendment. A clear attempt to rescind the freedom of the press…This is the first indictment of a journalist and editor or publisher, Julian Assange. And if it’s successful it will not be the last. This is clearly a part of President Trump’s war on the press, what he calls the enemy of the state. And if he succeeds in putting Julian Assange in prison, where I think he’ll be for life, if he goes there at all, probably the first charge against him is only a few years. But that’s probably just the first of many.

The official pretext being used to extradite Assange is a transparent lie. In a previously-sealed indictment made public Thursday, the US Department of Justice charged Assange only with violating a federal law against conspiring to break passwords to government computers.

The fact that the crime carries only a five-year sentence and does not fall under the Espionage Act provides all involved parties with a cover for handing Assange over to the Americans. In particular, the US-UK extradition treaty excludes transfer for “political offenses,” including espionage. Citing the Justice Department document, the British government will claim in the courts that Assange’s extradition will not be prevented by this exclusion.

The Ecuadorean government, moreover, claims it could revoke Assange’s asylum because the indictment shows he will not face the threat of the death penalty.

In fact, once Assange is in the hands of the United States, he will quickly confront a series of additional charges, including espionage. The efforts to downplay the threat to freedom of the press and understate the charge against Assange are aimed at sowing complacency in the population and distracting from the core free speech issues at stake.

The language of the indictment itself makes clear that the government is targeting Assange for political reasons, despite the official charge at its conclusion. It asserts:

“The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to facilitate [Chelsea] Manning’s acquisition and transmission of classified information related to the national defense of the United States so that WikiLeaks could publicly disseminate the information on its website.”

The indictment notes that the information WikiLeaks released to the public included “approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 US Department of State cables. Many of these records were classified pursuant to ‘Order No. 13526,'” signed by Barack Obama in 2009. The indictment claims these releases “reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.”

This language mirrors the text of the Espionage Act, which bars releasing information “relating to the national defense.” The Espionage Act criminalizes anyone who “communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered or transmitted” such information.

Based on the language of the indictment, both Assange and Manning could face criminal prosecution under this law. By announcing that Assange is being prosecuted based explicitly on Manning’s activity, the government is demonstrating her future is at risk as well. In fact, the first two words of the indictment are “Chelsea Manning.”

This language also confirms last year’s “inadvertent” release by prosecutors of documents arguing Assange should be extradited because there are “charges”—plural—against him. Prosecutors convened a secret grand jury to investigate Assange at least as far back as 2011, and the US government sought warrants to spy on WikiLeaks employees based on allegations of “espionage” in 2012.

Only the complicit or the naïve could accept that a secret grand jury spent over eight years to charge Assange with just one count of password manipulation.

The response of leading political figures in the US, as well as their previous statements, makes clear that the ruling elite is eager to seize Assange and lock him up for life—if not impose worse punishments.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted,

“I hope he will soon be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government.”

Democratic Senator Mark Warner called Assange

“a direct participant in Russian efforts to weaken the West and undermine American security.” He continued, “I hope British courts will quickly transfer him to US custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves.”

Prosecuting Assange on the basis of the unfounded allegations of “meddling” would involve charges of espionage.

Like a dungeonmaster who has been handed his latest victim, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin declared,

“He is our property and we can get the facts and the truth from him.”

On the basis of this statement, Assange is being transferred to the US for the purpose of interrogation—which would fall under the category of extraordinary rendition, not extradition.

Assange has also faced open death threats in the press and from the government over the past several years. Rightwing radio personality Rush Limbaugh called for Assange to receive “a bullet to the brain.” Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly told Assange: “We’re going to hang you.” Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said, “Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism and should be treated as an enemy combatant.” Democratic Vice President Joe Biden called Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” Democratic operative Bob Beckel said, “this guy’s a traitor” and the US should “illegally shoot the son of a b***h.”

Another function of the indictment is to provide the corrupt and lying media with a cover for applauding Assange’s arrest. The New York Times and Washington Post have played a particularly criminal role in downplaying the indictment by claiming that the use of a lesser charge means prosecuting Assange poses no threat to free speech.

In an editorial board statement yesterday, the New York Times wrote:

“The government charged Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, not with publishing classified government information, but with stealing it, skirting—for now—critical First Amendment questions.”

The single count against Assange, the Times wrote, means the arrest does not pose “a direct challenge to the distinction between a journalist exposing abuse of power through leaked materials—something traditional newspapers like the Times do all the time—and a foreign agent seeking to undermine the security of the United States through theft or subterfuge… The administration has begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime.”

The Washington Post’s editorial is titled, “Julian Assange is not a free-press hero. And he is long overdue for personal accountability.”

The Post wrote,

“Mr. Assange’s case could conclude as a victory for the rule of law, not the defeat for civil liberties of which his defenders mistakenly warn.” The Post labeled concerns over Assange’s safety as “pro-WikiLeaks propaganda.”

The fact that the indictment does not charge Assange with violating the Espionage Act proves he “had no legitimate fears for his life, either at the hands of CIA assassins or, via extradition, the US death penalty.”

The Post explained that

“Britain should not fear that sending him for trial on that hacking count would endanger freedom of the press” because Assange is “unethical” and not a “real journalist,” because he “dumped material into the public domain without any effort independently to verify its factuality or give named individuals an opportunity to comment.”

Who are the New York Times and the Washington Post to lecture about “real journalism”? These statements expose the Times and the Post as nothing but government propaganda organs.

The Times is synonymous with peddling the Bush administration’s false claim of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, and the Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire CEO of Amazon, which recently reached a $600 million service contract with the Pentagon.

The conspiracy against Assange underscores the collapse of any constituency in the political establishment and corporate media for the defense of democratic rights. If Ellsberg approached the Post today with photocopies of Pentagon-commissioned Rand reports on the war, the Post would call the FBI and have him arrested for threatening “national security.”

The Times and the Post may convince their affluent readers that Assange aided Russia by publishing evidence showing Hillary Clinton received hundreds of thousands of dollars secretly telling audiences of bankers and CEOs she would represent their interests if elected president. Meanwhile, the Democrats have made common cause with the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies responsible for the crimes Assange has revealed. The rightwing character of the Democrats’ opposition to Trump is exposed by the fact that they support his administration’s attacks on Assange.

The defense of Julian Assange, along with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, is now a central political question that confronts the working class. Attitudes toward these whistleblowers break down largely upon class lines. As the ruling class cracks down on free speech and freedom of the press, class conflict is intensifying across the world.

The Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site make the broadest appeal to all those who are serious about defending democratic rights to join the fight to defend Assange, Manning and Snowden. Workers and youth internationally must mobilize immediately to defend these class war prisoners. Their lives depend on it.

The fight for Assange’s freedom is the spearhead of the political struggle in defense of democratic rights, against imperialist militarism and capitalism. Only to the extent that the power of the working class can be harnessed can a defense of these whistleblowers be mounted.

As Socialist Equality Party (Australia) National Committee member Nick Beams said at Friday’s emergency rally in Sydney,

“The attack on democracy is a symptom of a profound disease. There is no defense of democracy without tackling the problem at its source, that is, the profit system of global capitalism, a system in crisis, that has played out its historic role and now has to tear up, trample, defile even the democratic rights that it once stood for. We have to begin, as part of this struggle, the fight for a socialist perspective. Only then can the world be cleansed of all the horrors that capitalism is conjuring up.”

*

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 Wired

This article was first published by GR on September 18, 2017

Barely a few months ago (August 2018), Trump was calling for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Why? 

It was presented to public opinion as part of America’s “Global War on Terrorism”, going after the bad guys.   

And now Trump is calling for the withdrawal of US troops. Will it take place? 

Why were US-NATO troops sent to Afghanistan on October 7, 2001?

The official story is that Afghanistan was a “State sponsor” of Al Qaeda (led by Osama bin Laden) which had attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

Below is the BBC report (December 21, 2018) echoing the official narrative, following Trump’s announcement that some 7000 US troops will be leaving Afghanistan.

screenshot of BBC report, December 21, 2018

The above statement by the BBC December 21, 2018) is a lie.

Reported by the Guardian, (October 14, 2001) the Afghan government had offered to extradite Bin Laden to a third country.

In fact there were negotiations on his extradition in mid to late September 2001 extending into the first week of US-NATO bombings in October 2001. Bush refused to negotiate.

The invasion of Afghanistan had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon  months prior to 9/11.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. The September 11 attacks were used as a pretext and a justification to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

Moreover, military analysts were instructed not to reveal the fact that you do not plan a large scale theater war thousands of miles away in a matter of 28 days. Impossible. (from September 12- October 7, 2001)

The forbidden truth (known and dcoumented) is that Osama bin Laden was an US intelligence asset and that his precise whereabouts prior and in the immediate wake of 9/11 were known to the US government.

Under NATO’s doctrine of collective security (Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty), a foreign power and state sponsor of terrorism namely Afghanistan had attacked America, despite the fact that the Taliban government had offered to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S. if a formal request were to be submitted.

This alleged attack by Afghanistan was used to mobilize NATO member states to participate in the invasion. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty states that “an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of its members”. The invasion and occupation was waged on the grounds of “self-defense” against Afghanistan, which had attacked America on September 11, 2001.

The invasion and occupation was part of America’s imperial design. The 9/11 attacks allegedly by Al Qaeda (which is a creation of  the CIA) was used to justify the invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan.

Today, there is an ongoing resistance to US military occupation which is led by Taliban forces.

In all likelihood, US military presence will prevail despite Trump’s orders to repatriate several thousand troops.

Michel Chossudovsky, December 22, 2018

***

Unknown to the broader public, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium, a multibillion dollar industry which feeds America’s illegal heroin market. 

These mineral reserves include huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium, which is a strategic raw material used in the production of high tech batteries for laptops, cell phones and electric cars.

The implication of Trump’s resolve is to plunder and steal Afghanistan’s mineral riches to finance the “reconstruction” of a country destroyed by the US and its allies after 16 years of war, i.e  “War reparations” paid to the aggressor nation?  

Screenshot: The Independent.

An internal 2007 Pentagon memo, quoted by the New York Times suggests that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.” (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010, see also Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010).

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment…

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said… “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines. (New York Times, op. cit.)

What this 2007 report does not mention is that this resource base has been known to both Russia (Soviet Union) and China going back to the 1970s.

While the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani has called upon President Donald Trump to promote US. investments in mining, including lithium, China is in the forefront in developing projects in mining and energy as well as pipeline projects and transport corridors.

China is a major trading and investment partner with Afghanistan (alongside Russia and Iran), which potentially encroaches upon US economic and strategic interests in Central Asia

China’s intent is to eventually integrate land transportation through the historical Wakhan Corridor which links Afghanistan to China’s Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region (see map below).

Afghanistan’s estimated $3 trillion worth of unexploited minerals, Chinese companies have acquired rights to extract vast quantities of copper and coal and snapped up the first oil exploration concessions granted to foreigners in decades. China is also eyeing extensive deposits of lithium, uses of which range from batteries to nuclear components.

The Chinese are also investing in hydropower, agriculture and construction. A direct road link to China across the remote 76-kilometer border between the two countries is in progress. (New Delhi Times, July 18, 2015)

Afghanistan has extensive oil reserves which are being explored by China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

Source Mining News, August 2010

“War is Good for Business” 

The US military bases are there to assert US control over Afghanistan’s mineral wealth. According to Foreign Affairs, there are more U.S. military forces deployed there [Afghanistan] than to any other active combat zone”, the official mandate of  which is “to go after” the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS as part of the “Global war on Terrorism”.

Why so many military bases? Why the additional forces sent in by Trump?

The unspoken objective of US military presence in Afghanistan is to keep the Chinese out, i.e hinder China from establishing trade and investments relations with Afghanistan.

More generally, the establishment of military bases in Afghanistan on China’s Western border is part of a broader process of military encirclement of the People’s Republic of China.–i.e naval deployments in the South China sea, military facilities in Guam, South Korea, Okinawa, Jeju Island, etc. (see 2011 map below)

Pivot to Asia

Under the Afghan-US security pact,  established under Obama’s Asian pivot, Washington and its NATO partners have established a permanent military presence in Afghanistan, with military facilities located close to China’s Western frontier.  The pact was intended to allow the US to maintain their nine permanent military bases, strategically located on the borders of China, Pakistan and Iran as well as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

US military presence, however, has not prevented the expansion of trade and investment relations between China and Afghanistan. A strategic partnership agreement was signed between Kabul and Beijing in 2012. Afghanistan has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Moreover, neighboring Pakistan –which is now a full member of the SCO–, has established close bilateral relations with China. And now Donald Trump  is threatening Pakistan, which for many years has been the target of  America’s “undeclared drone war”.

In other words, a shift in geopolitical alignments has taken place which favors the integration of Afghanistan alongside Pakistan into the Eurasian trade, investment and energy axis.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and China are cooperating in oil and gas pipeline projects. The SCO of which Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are full members is providing a geopolitical platform for the integration of Afghanistan into the Eurasian energy and transport corridors.

China is eventually intent upon integrating Afghanistan into the transport network of Western China as part of the Belt and Road initiative.

Moreover, China’s state owned mining giant, Metallurgical Corporation of China Limited (MCC) “has already managed to take control of the huge copper deposit Mes Aynak, which lies in an area controlled by the Taliban.  Already in 2010, Washington feared “that resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth which would upset the United States”… After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more” (Mining.com)

China and the Battle for Lithium

Chinese mining conglomerates are now competing for strategic control of the global Lithium market, which until recently was controlled by the “Big Three” conglomerates including Albemarle’s Rockwood Lithium (North Carolina), The Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile and FMC Corporation, (Philadelphia) which operates in Argentina. While the Big Three dominate the market, China now accounts for a large share of global lithium production, categorized as the fourth-largest lithium-producing country behind Australia, Chile and Argentina. Meanwhile China’s Tianqi Group has taken control of Australia’s largest lithium mine, called Greenbushes. Tianqi now owns a 51-percent stake in Talison Lithium, in partnership with North Carolina’s Albemarle.

This thrust in lithium production is related to China’s rapid development of the electric car industry:

China is now “The Center Of Lithium Universe”. China is already the largest market for electric cars. BYD, Chinese company backed by Warren Buffett, is the largest EV manufacturer in the world and Chinese companies are producing the largest amount of lithium chemicals for the batteries. There are 25 companies, which are making 51 models of electric cars in China now. This year we will see over 500,000 EVs sold in China. It took GM 7 years to sell 100,000 Chevy Volts from 2009. BYD will sell 100,000 EVs this year alone! (Mining.com, November 2016 report)

The size of the reserves of Lithium in Afghanistan have not been firmly established.

Analysts believe that these reserves which are yet to be exploited will not have a significant impact on the global lithium market.

  • Posted in Archives, English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on More American Troops to Afghanistan, To Keep the Chinese Out? Lithium and the Battle for Afghanistan’s Mineral Riches

An International Criminal Lawyer has underscored that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has fallen under the influence of those who fund it mainly the EU, and US and private corporations who donate to it and who are very willing to use the court when it suits their interests.

Mr. Christopher Black told the Syria Times e-newspaper that the US will not recognize the court, nevertheless it attempts to use it through certain personnel placed in key positions to do its bidding.

“The Americans and British, for example, are putting pressure on the ICC to investigate and charge the Syrian government with war crimes.

This effort is fronted by certain lawyers pretending to represent Syrian refugees, but the lawyers all work for US and UK intelligence and NATO,” he said.

The veteran lawyer went on to say:

“one of the US lawyers involved is Stephen Rapp who was once in charge of prosecutions at the Rwanda tribunal where he engaged in some corrupt practices, then became head of the Hariri tribunal which had the objective of making propaganda against Syria, then became the US roving ambassador for war crimes. Now he is acting on US government’s orders.”

He affirmed that US, EU and other NATO countries do not want the ICC to be used against them but they are very willing to use it to suit their interests.

“The USA did sign up to the Rome Treaty but withdrew its signature under President Bush because the Americans see themselves as the exceptional people, subject to no laws but their own, at the same time that they try to dictate to the world what the law should be,” Mr. Black added.

He made it clear that there are of course many atrocities that have been committed by American forces in all their wars and will be in the future but they do not want to be judged in a world court, have their officer and leaders put on trial, their national reputation disgraced.

“They [American forces] also view war crimes tribunals as only suitable for those who have defeated, as propaganda show trials to justify their wars and portray the defeated enemy as criminals. But they will never tolerate the same treatment for themselves because they see themselves in their arrogance above all others and subject to no one’s judgement,” the lawyer stated.

He underscored that the ICC is not accountable to any higher body.

“For this reason, Russia and China and I suspect Syria have not joined it.  All national courts are part of a governmental system. Court decisions can be challenged at appeal levels and even to the government in certain cases. But there is no world government for the ICC to report to or where its decisions can be challenged.  So it has fallen under the influence of those that fund it mainly the EU, and US and private corporations who donate to it.”

The chance of the US or close allies being charged is zero

In response to a question about who will judge American, Israeli atrocities and their allies for their war crimes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, the lawyer said:

“No one will judge them except the peoples of those countries. There are no means possible to bring them to justice before an international body with the present world power structure. However, each country that has suffered under their aggression can lay their own charges, have their own trials, even in absentia, and show the world the crimes that they committed.”

He indicated that the Americans have made it very clear they will not permit their people to be arrested by the ICC or their allies.

“As we saw this week with Afghanistan, when they don’t want to be investigated, the ICC will back off and will drop its investigations. They even have a law permitting them (a US law) to physically release any of their people even if they were arrested. So the chance of the US or close allies such as Israel being charged is zero.”

The lawyer asserted that the ICC is dominated by EU and US and other NATO countries such as Canada.

“Many of the staff are people that used to work under NATO -US command at the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals which were in name UN tribunals but were in fact controlled by the USA. Key staff they can rely on to do what they want are placed in key positions,” he said.

Mr. Black concluded by saying:

“Once again, the only people who can hold them accountable are the people of the nations they have attacked.”

*

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

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

April 15th, 2019 by Richard Galustian

Introductory Note by Richard Galustian

This link to an Australian TV documentary proves, to anyone with a brain watching it, that the rape charges in Sweden against Julian Assange are a total construct of ‘the US Government’; a lie; a conspiracy to ensnare Assange and get the Swedish Government to allow his extradition to the US. 

There is no doubt whatsoever of the injustice and persecution of Assange by the world’s only hyper power, America, because Assange published details of US war crimes and corruption.

Its that simple!

Being forced to seek refuge in an Embassy in London is a disgrace for Britain, a Country with a long tradition of fair play and justice.

If, after watching this documentary, you believe anything else, you are easy pliable fodder for manipulation by what has become, totalitarian States. It means you never read and understood the writings of Aldous Huxley or George Orwell. It means you are ‘a sheeple’. If you can’t see through the fog of disinformation and propaganda, you have no idea of the concept of freedom.

Click image below to view video (link)

For the avoidance of doubt, when I talk of ‘evil empires’ I refer to the ‘elites’ specifically in America and its allies. The ‘Deep States’ in such countries, that really control, in secret, such countries; which is not necessarily their governments, and certainly not the citizens of those countries. At the core of this evil, no other word can be used, is the Military/Security Industrial Complex that US President Eisenhower warned all Americans about back in 1960.

All decent ethical people around the world MUST now stand up to the Orwellian bureaucrats, politicians, many corrupt themselves, and main stream media, the so called journalists, really lackeys, who are controlled by ‘Deep State America and their counterparts amongst US Allies’.

People must take to the streets for Assange’s rights if necessary.

The fate of Assange, if extradited to America, could one day be our fate.

Tomorrow it could be me …or 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.

President Putin bestowed Russia’s highest civilian award of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called onto Prime Minister Modi right after the beginning of India’s month-long electoral process in order to boost his bid for re-election in a similar manner as he just did for “Israel’s” Bibi after he gifted the latter 20 “IDF” remains that his forces dug for him in Syria at Tel Aviv’s behest.

Putin’s Diplomatic Intervention

Russia really wants Modi to win reelection, and it’s not shy about making its preference known to the rest of the world after President Putin just bestowed his country’s highest civilian award of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called onto the Indian Prime Minister right after the beginning of the South Asian state’s month-long electoral process. This was clearly done with the intent of signaling Russia’s approval for the incumbent just like when President Putin recently gifted “Israeli” Prime Minister Netanyahu (“Bibi”) 20 “IDF” remains that his forces dug up for him in Syria at Tel Aviv’s behest. While it’s obvious that the establishment of “Putinyahu’s Rusrael” was the motivation behind this unprecedented outreach to Moscow’s main Mideast partner, it’s less clear what’s driving President Putin to so actively seek Modi’s reelection as well.

Saving “Brother” Bibi

To be clear, the Russian leader’s actions don’t qualify as “meddling” even though they’re clearly intended to boost the incumbents’ electoral prospects because they’re done overtly at the Head of State level instead of in the clandestine manner that the Mainstream Media has conditioned the global masses to imagine whenever they come across that buzzword. There’s no doubt that President Putin’s last-minute diplomatic intervention made all the difference in getting Netanyahu reelected, but nobody in “Israel” is seriously accusing their Prime Minister of being a “Russian puppet”. In fact, those that voted for him because of the enormous favor that Russia did for “Israel” in returning the “IDF” remains did so precisely because they want the incumbent to continue strengthening bilateral relations and indefinitely perpetuate the existence of “Putinyahu’s Rusrael”.

Russia’s Cash Cow

Something similar might very well take place in India as well, though for different reasons. There isn’t any similar far-reaching geopolitical design behind President Putin’s awarding of Russia’s highest state honor to Modi because all that the two leaders seem to be interested in is continuing their multibillion-dollar transactional business interests related to the military-industrial complex and nuclear energy industry. These deals are more important to Russia than ever before because they function as much-needed sanctions relief, while the Indian side receives high-level technologies and know-how even if it’s in the process of gradually diversifying its wares away from Russia and towards its new Western partners of the US, France, and “Israel” instead. Even so, such a shift won’t be be completed for at least another decade, and Russia knows that five more years of Modi would guarantee a lot more business for half that period.

Confusing The “Chattering Class”

Indian pundits are very confused, however, since Pakistangate has come to define the election thus far after PM Khan said that Modi’s reelection might offer the best prospects for peace in Kashmir. The reactionary narrative was then spun by some of the “chattering class” that the BJP and its coalition allies, not Congress and theirs, are “Pakistan’s prime choice”, though now there’s little question that none other than President Putin himself also wants the incumbent to win too, so much so that he even timed his award for precisely right after India’s month-long electoral process began. It’s taboo for any party to openly attack Russia and what it stands for, yet there’s no avoiding that “Putin’s choice” is the same as “Pakistan’s choice”, and that the Russian leader was actually following in the footsteps of the Pakistani one by indirectly endorsing Modi.

Words vs. Actions

Manipulative forces in the media might allege that this is further proof of what some of them have ridiculously claimed is a global Ruso-Pakistani plot to wage Hybrid War on the entire world, but in reality, it’s actually just proof of the pragmatism of those two Great Powers’ leaders. President Putin simply wants to cut more multibillion-dollar deals during Modi’s possible second term in office while PM Khan wisely expects right-wing resistance to any possible deal on Kashmir to be less if Modi is in power instead of the left-leaning Congress. The difference, however, is that PM Khan only stated his opinion and didn’t go into the realm of actions, whereas President Putin went out of his way to award Russia’s highest honor to Modi at a very strategic moment meant to win him votes by evoking the nostalgia of “Rusi-Hindi Bhai Bhai”.

From Pakiphobia To Russophobia?

Therefore, anyone alleging Pakistani “meddling” in India’s election is compelled to say the same about its Russian variant seeing as how President Putin did much more to help Modi win reelection than PM Khan did. This isn’t to argue that either of them were “meddling”, but just to point out the double standards in reporting that have now caused the Indian “chattering class” to enter into a state of cognitive dissonance and become unsure of what story to spin. Continuing to attack Pakistan for a much milder version of what Russia did would also implicate Moscow by innuendo, yet Pakistan is such an obsession for so many during this election that it’s almost impossible for Indians to stop talking about it. As such, it’ll be interesting to see whether the Pakiphobia dies down or if it morphs into Russophobia by the end of the election.

*

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.

The rise of the far right is a worldwide phenomenon, rooted in the nefarious effects of neoliberal globalization which have pushed the world into mass unemployment and enormous inequalities. I consider it to be a late political effect of the global financial crisis that hit the world at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

It is not an easy task to explain the phenomenon of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and to understand the groups that support him, both within and outside government. It’s difficult, for anyone, to draw a truly complete and sober analysis of what we have experienced. This essay is not based on in-depth research but on collective reflections and debates. I intend to pose some key questions and try to identify some clues to answer them.

  1. Despite its innumerable concessions to the bourgeoisie,1 why was the Workers Party (PT) attacked by the right-wing forces, creating space for the emergence of “Bolsonarism”?

First of all, the effects of the 2008 economic crises were felt quite late, but they were profound in Brazil. Low commodity prices and economic slowdown had a perverse effect on employment levels. The GDP dropped 7.2 per cent between 2015-2016, and unemployment reached 12% during the 2018 election year. The economic crisis also generated a political crisis, which led to massive street demonstrations in June 2013, and it recently turned into an ideological crisis.

On the “bourgeois side”, the crisis revealed its deeply anti-social and truculent character. The modest gains that the poor had made in terms of social rights during the PT governments (yearly increases in the minimum salary, access to higher education, racial and social quotas, labour rights for domestic workers, income transfer programs, resources for the poor North and Northeast regions, etc.), were forcefully repudiated by upper classes in large urban centers and by the rural bourgeoisie linked to agribusiness. It was not acceptable, in their view, that Afro-descendants, Indigenous or Northeastern working-class individuals and families could sit side by side with white Southern upper-middle class students in a university classroom or travelers on an airplane. The difference between ‘us and them’ had gotten blurred in social spaces, even though the material-economic differences were still very deep.

The ideological crisis is not limited to the upper social classes; it is even more evident among the middle and lower-middle classes. These classes had enjoyed high levels of consumption, access to university and formal employment during the best moments of the PT era (2002 – 2016). However, with the economic crisis, these social strata lost their material gains, and today, they make up a mass of unemployed and precarious workers who suffer from low quality public services.

This mass of workers without rights (typified by Uber drivers or informal cosmetics saleswomen) channeled their feelings of anger and rancor toward the PT (anti-petismo). Among this precarious working class, conservative values – anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ and anti-communist – were strengthened and reinforced by the proselytism of evangelical Pentecostal churches and the diffusion of ‘fake news’.

In addition to all this, traditional political parties, even right-wing parties, are experiencing a crisis of representation. The first signs of this crisis became evident during the protests of June 2013, which, along with claims for basic rights to transportation, health and education, brought out anti- political party sentiments or, in a more general way, an ‘anti-politics’ stance. The diffuse notion that ‘politics implies corruption’ has become very widespread. The inefficiencies of politics were to be solved through merit and personal efforts, the idea of ​​’meritocracy’.

This crisis of representation deepened after the 2014 general elections, and it penetrated the impeachment process of Dilma Rousseff in 2016. Precarious workers do not identify themselves as ‘working class’, let alone identify with the ‘Workers Party’. Eventually, these ‘workers without rights’ identified themselves ideologically with Jair Bolsonaro, who has managed to occupy the ‘empty space’ of politics. The ‘anti-politics’ feelings disseminated among the popular masses were then filled with an over-politicization based on hatred. Bolsonaro presented himself as a charismatic leader who would liberate them from ‘all ills’ and resolve the nation’s problems as the leader who came from the ‘people’, a simple person who shared their language, tastes and culture. By communicating through social media, Bolsonaro generates a sense of closeness to his supporters.

Source: The Bullet

A second aspect that the ‘Bolsonaro phenomenon’ reveals to us are the limitations of class conciliation. In different parts of the world, the moderate left and social-democratic parties in government, on many occasions, have shared this illusion of the possibility of class conciliation. In the case of the PT, it was possible to respond to the interests of the different social classes up to a certain point and under particular economic conditions that allowed for the expansion of public spending. But in the long run, and with the impact of the economic crisis, class conciliation did not hold up. Historically, the balance will always weigh to one side, and in Brazil, it turned against the PT itself.

Without being able to maintain a conciliation of interests, neither could the Brazilian state during the last PT years sustain cohesion between the different factions of the ruling class. This is a third aspect of the current situation that has to be considered. The creation of large national monopolies that benefitted certain sectors to the detriment of others (for example, credit from the national development bank, BNDES, was given to some construction conglomerates), the government’s attempts to artificially stabilize energy and gas prices, the regulation of oil and gas exploitation at the Pre-Sal coast,2 etc., were among the policies that showed excessive (from a market perspective) state intervention in the economy, leading to contradictions between different factions of the bourgeoisie.

These contradictions are the central challenge for the sustainability of Bolsonaro’s government: does it or does it not have the capacity to organize the interests of different factions of capital and represent them as the interests of the entire nation. All this points to the one who is in charge of this task, the Minister of the Economy, Paulo Guedes (discussed below). Proposed pension reform and labour reform would be cohesive bourgeois projects against the interests of the workers.

  1. Who makes up Bolsonaro’s social base?

The election of Bolsonaro and many parliamentarians linked to religious groups reveals the growth in the political power of evangelical Pentecostal churches. This growth had been evident in municipal and regional elections for decades, but it reached its highest level in the last election. The churches provide a solid social base for conservatism in the urban peripheries where they did grassroots work during the campaign. There are reports of cults where a pastor promoted Bolsonaro and his allies directly, distributing campaign pamphlets together with church pamphlets against abortion, etc. On the day that he won the election, Bolsonaro began his speech with a prayer led by an evangelical pastor, live on national television. For the left, the question now is how to rebuild the work at the grassroots and re-establish a dialogue with the poor in the favelas and in the peripheries, and in the churches, to counter reactionary groups.

Another fundamental support base for Bolsonaro is provided by the petty bourgeoisie, including the commercial and the retail sector, as well as liberal professionals, such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. These are sectors that are directly affected by high taxes and the costs of labour and social security rights. There are some significant examples, like the mobilization and protests of Brazilian doctors against the PT social program ‘More Doctors’, which had been bringing Cuban doctors to work in remote, under-served areas of Brazil, and the 2018 truckers’ strike against rising fuel prices, which had the effect of stopping deliveries and crating supply shortages throughout the country. There have also been several demonstrations calling for “military intervention.”

In addition, there were some grotesque episodes that involved different segments of the petty bourgeoisie during the electoral campaign: Luciano Hang, owner of Havan department stores, called a meeting with his employees during which he tried to coerce them into voting for Bolsonaro with the threat of closing stores; a businessman promised free lunch at a churrascaria for employees if Bolsonaro won; the owner of a house of prostitution offered a “free beer” on the day after the election if the results were positive for his candidate.

In the countryside, Bolsonaro had broad support from large agricultural producers and the agribusiness sector. In addition to their economic and ideological affinity (support for the liberalization of weapons and the criminalization of peasant movements), this sector also has a cultural affinity with Bolsonaro, exemplified by the support of national country music stars for Bolsonaro. In this regard, there was also a regional division, with the South and Central-West agricultural provinces leading in the votes for Bolsonaro, while provinces in the Northeast, and partially in the North, voted mostly for PT.

In urban areas and big cities, the middle classes and precarious workers, as already mentioned, formed a mass base that had improved its consumption power during the PT years but lost employment and purchasing power in the crisis and was forced to migrate to the informal market. They became a strong base of support for Bolsonaro, driven by ‘anti-PT’ ideology.

The financial sector and large corporations expressed support for Bolsonaro only at the end of his campaign. Other ‘outsider’ names for the presidency had been tested but didn’t succeed. Bolsonaro’s frightening method of doing politics with inflamed speeches of hatred and violence3 was countered by his sponsorship of an ultra-liberal economist, Paulo Guedes. Guedes had graduated from the University of Chicago and, as he presented incisive arguments for privatization, cutting public expenditure and shrinking state bureaucracy, he gained support in the upper bourgeoisie. As a newspaper article pointed out, Wall Street would have preferred PSDB candidate Geraldo Alckmin, but Paulo Guedes would guarantee, in the eyes of international financial markets, the necessary reforms and privatization of the last state-owned companies, such as Petrobras. In this sense, a Bolsonaro government would be the first truly – and contradictorily – liberal government in Brazil.

Bolsonaro and his group managed to combine, in a peculiar way, ultra-conservatism in political and social values with ultra-liberalism in economic terms. It is certain that this combination was present, for example, in the Bush administration since 2001 in the USA. In Latin America, Pinochet pursued economic ultra-liberalism in the 1970s. In Brazil, however, it is unprecedented, especially in light of the participation of the military in Bolsonaro’s coalition, which has been, traditionally, nationalistic with regard to the economy.

  1. How did Bolsonaro succeed despite the irrationality of his discourse and all the international pressure? What were the principal means for his victory?

First, the mobilization of fear was fundamental: fear of communism, fear of feminism, fear of weakening ‘traditional family values’, fear of urban violence, fear of land invasions, fear of losing jobs … all fueled by class, race, and gender resentments.

The alleged threats were operationalized by non-traditional ways of doing politics and campaigning, the same ones used for Brexit and in the election of Donald Trump, but adapted to Brazilian conditions. Central to the strategy was the diffusion of fake news via Whatsapp, which has become the most capillary form of communication in Brazilian society today.

The spread of fake news did not create, but it increased exponentially the more conservative values to be found in the bosom of Brazilian society. During the past year, we have experienced extreme levels of stigmatization and demonization of feminists, fueled by conservative values regarding the traditional family; an environment of violence and murder of LGBTQs (445 murders with homophobic motivation in 2017); and a vague and confused idea that Brazil was heading toward communism, generating a strong anti-communist ideology. It has reached the point of glorifying the torturers within the Brazilian civil-military dictatorship (1964-1982/88) and creating a present threat of ‘communist dictatorship’ emanating from the PT. For us on the Left, the question remains: how did we not see all this coming, to react in a timely manner and confront the massive dissemination of fake news in Whatsapp groups among our families and friends.

Second, Bolsonaro and his groups have succeeded in channeling the anti-corruption ethos and the demand for ‘change’ to their advantage. The so-called ‘Car Wash Operation’ scandal revealed corruption schemes among construction companies and the state oil company Petrobras. Public officials and the PT were directly implicated. The Judiciary assumed a mediating and political role that is unprecedented in the country’s political history. Less known are the international linkages of the scandal, especially to U.S. interests whose role still needs to be clarified, specifically the interests of oil multinationals to end Petrobras special rights over the exploitation of the oil reserves of the ‘Pre-Sal’ region. These were all openly discussed issues4 that led to jailing of national PT figures and to a moral defeat of the entire Left.

The arrest of Lula da Silva marks the culmination of that defeat. Lula’s imprisonment is eminently political, given the speed with which his condemnation and imprisonment were carried out. Moreover, there is a lack of solid evidence against him, since his trial was based on allegations of other politicians and businessmen already in jail. With Lula leading the polls, there was a slimmer chance for Bolsonaro to actually win. Once Lula was prohibited from running, election results in favor of Bolsonaro were almost a given.

It is in this context that Bolsonaro sought to convince the Brazilian electorate that he would be a new kind of political leader who would build a government with people of proven technical merit in their companies and in public institutions. He claimed he would end the practice of appointments based on political-ideological affinities. Obviously, this has not happened. Instead, one ideology has been replaced by another. Again, Bolsonaro has managed to occupy the empty space in politics.

  1. How is the Bolsonaro government formed, under what pillars and groups?

The restructuring of the Brazilian state began with substantive changes in its institutional and bureaucratic structure. A ‘super-ministry’ of the Economy was created, resulting from the merger of the Ministries of Finance, Planning, Industry and Trade, and Labour. All are now under the command of an ultra-liberal figure, Paulo Guedes. Within this super-ministry, a number of new councils, committees and secretariats have been set up, following the new economic line. These include the ‘Secretariat of De-bureaucratization’ and the ‘Secretariat of De-nationalization and De-investment’. Their agenda includes plans for privatization of state-owned enterprises, pension reform, deepening of labour reform, greater trade liberalization and access to Indigenous land for mining corporations.

At the same time, many of the State institutions created by the PT government and linked to social and labour sectors have been dismantled. These include the Labour Ministry, Ministry of the Cities and Urban Planning, the National Council of Food and Nutrition Security, Ministry of Culture, the agency for Indigenous issues FUNAI and the Ministry of Agrarian Development.

These changes in the institutional materiality of the state were accompanied by many new appointments to public offices. Far from following electoral promises of appointment based on technical merit, the new appointees were chosen on political and ideological grounds. Two main groups are central to the occupation of state posts. First, representatives of the military were spread in all ministries, occupying one-third of the high-ranking positions, either as ministers or in other key posts. Among the ministries headed by military appointees are Defense, Mines and Energy, Science and Technology, and Infrastructure and Institutional Security, as well as the vice-presidency.

The other main group, in apparent dispute with the military sector, is made up of representatives of the ultra-conservative ideology linked to Olavo de Carvalho, a proto-philosopher who resides in the U.S. Carvalho gives courses online, is linked to Steve Bannon and is highly influential among Bolsonoro supporters. Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, is playing the role of articulator for this group, as he was designated by Bannon as the principal leader of ‘The Movement’ of the far-right in Latin America. The strong influence of Bannon and Olavo de Carvalho became evident after Bolsonaro’s visit to the USA.

Two of Carvalho’s former students were named as heads of two key ministries: Education and Foreign Affairs. In Education, ultra-conservative followers of Carvalho and representatives of Pentecostal churches aim to combat ‘gender ideology’ and ‘Marxist indoctrination’ in schools and universities. The Minister of Education has recently declared that school history textbooks will be revised to tell ‘the truth’ about the 1964 Coup E’tat and the subsequent 21 years of military dictatorship, arguing that it was supported by a broad social movement and succeeded in freeing Brazil from communism. In Foreign Affairs, they defend patriotism against multilateral negotiations (as in the case of climate change or migration), but the limit of this patriotism is in direct alignment with Trump and Israel. Ideologically, they intend to combat what they call ‘cultural Marxism’ and ‘globalism’.

Despite the apparent dispute of ‘Military vs. Olavistas’, both groups within the government are united in the ultra-liberal economic agenda, despite the military’s past nationalism. Evidence is provided by the concession of the Alcântara base for U.S. military use, the sale of Embraer to Boeing and the support for the pension reform.

  1. What are the government’s main projects as presented to date?

The first major agenda item is the pension reform. Its pillars are the higher minimum age for retirement and increases in social security contributions. The big argument has been the ‘end of privileges’, with reference to the benefits of public versus private sector employees. What is really involved is a reduction in the role of the state as the guarantor of pensions, an increase in overexploitation of the labour force (40 years of contributions to social security as prerequisite for receiving a full pension) and the introduction of capitalization, which means insurance company participation even for the poorest. According to the head of the Congress, “everyone can work until they’re 80 years old.” This shows total insensitivity and class blindness, since the average life expectancy in Brazil is 70 years.

Two other projects in the economic area will also have a devastating impact. One is the possibility of untying the budget from the constitutional spending clauses on education and health. Currently, the Brazilian constitution stipulates that 18% of the national budget be spent on education and 13% on health. If the government succeeds in eliminating these clauses, Brazil’s Congress will decide how the budget is allocated, without any obligation to these sectors.

Another economic project with potentially devastating effects is the new labour regime. It would allow workers and employers to negotiate bilaterally, without considering collective bargaining. Workers would lose collective rights to negotiate working conditions. In addition to undermining the bargaining power of unions, this project perversely poses the choice between maintaining guaranteed rights or having one’s own job. The so-called “green and yellow labour card” would be an alternative to the formal (blue) labour card with collectively bargained constitutional rights.

Another major project is the public security program. A change in legislation has already taken place to permit the carrying of weapons, and the security program aims to target organized crime groups. The project signals a growing criminalization of social movements and heightened anti-terrorism measures. In the countryside, violence against activists and militants of social movements led to the murder of 57 activists in 2017. On the other hand, the project also mentions the fight against paramilitary forces, called militias, in urban centers. Yet, one of Bolsonaro’s sons, Flavio, when he was a deputy in the state of Rio de Janeiro, hiredfor his office two members of the militia group accused of being involved in the murder of Marielle Franco. Beyond this, one of the two men arrested for murdering Marielle was found in his house in the same condominium where Bolsonaro lives in Rio. The relationship of Bolsonaro and his family to the paramilitary groups needs to be investigated, but there is no sign of this being done by former judge Moro and his team in the Ministry of Justice.

The ultra-conservative agenda on gender, feminism and LGBT rights is being implemented by the Ministry of Women, Family and Human Rights (formerly Human Rights Secretariat). This Ministry is led by a representative of a Pentecostal church and will have strong impact on education, health and social rights.

Finally, it is worth mentioning an exponential increase in the use of agrochemicals in Brazilian agriculture. This impacts directly on food quality and the health of the population. There is a reinforcement of rural settlements policies that changes land that facilitates private property titling, and further attacks on Indigenous peoples and quilombolas (historic Afro-Brazilian settlements) with the termination of Indigenous land demarcations and titling.

  1. What are the contradictions among these different groups? What contradictory effects might their different agendas have?

Although the above-mentioned projects make up an ultra-conservative field, they often do not fit well together. There is no cohesion among the groups in the state structure under Bolsonaro. Different projects are not organized into one single front, and Bolsonaro may well prove himself incapable of organizing the interests of the different class factions that are now disputing his government.

On the external front, groups linked to Olavo de Carvalho want to align Brazil closely with the U.S. and Trump. This was confirmed during the recent visit to Washington. The Alcantara base, in the state of Maranhão in the Amazon region, was opened to the U.S. military. Americans and Canadians will be exempt from visas to enter the country. Brazil wants to integrate into the OECD, to the detriment of alliances with countries of the South. Together with other conservative governments, Bolsonaro has dissolved the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).

This leading foreign policy group stands side by side with the U.S. in containing China’s economic expansion in Latin America and the world. However, China is Brazil’s main trade partner, accounting for 25% of Brazil’s total international trade. Sales to China became deeply concentrated in exports of agricultural and mineral commodities during the PT era, and in the last months, 90% of Brazil’s soy exports went to China due to restrictions on U.S. soy in the Chinese market. In this sense, ideological impulses clash with economic ones, and Brazil stands in the middle of the U.S.-China trade war.

With regard to the Venezuelan crisis, the ultra-conservative wing was restrained from direct intervention by the military groups within the government, which resisted the impulses of the ultras out of concerns for regional destabilization.

The evangelical Pentecostal groups are demanding that Brazil move its Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, with strong support by groups linked to Olavo de Carvalho. Arab countries, however, are the main importers of chicken meat produced by Brazilian agribusiness. The announcement about moving the Embassy generated reactions in the Arab world, including threats to cut imports, and the move did not go ahead. Instead, Bolsonaro announced the opening of a commercial office in Jerusalem.

Additionally, agribusiness corporate interests and their protectionist bias against the entry of foreign competitors, and against changes in import tariffs, clashed with the liberal bias of the Ministry of Economy, which sought to eliminate milk import tariffs. The Ministry had to retreat under agribusiness pressure.

Finally, the package of public security measures was sent to the National Congress, but its president has resisted a vote on them, prioritizing the pension reform instead. This has created tensions between the Legislative and Executive Branches, in the figure of the Minister of Justice, who was head of the Car Wash Operation, thus implying tensions also with the Judiciary Branch. The financial sector, which had high expectations of rapid action on pension reform, was disappointed as the reform was given less priority in comparison to other issues, such as Bolsonaro’s foreign agenda. The stock market has dropped as journalists comment on how market agents “cannot understand the direction of the government.”

The election of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil impacts on all of the Latin American region. Just as Lula’s election in 2002 influenced the start of the ‘pink tide’ period at the beginning of the century, today, the far-right in Chile, Uruguay and Venezuela (to name a few) becomes stronger because of the political turn that Brazil has taken since the impeachment of Rousseff in 2016. To be sure, the sustainability of the Bolsonaro government will depend on its capacity to organize the interests of different factions of the bourgeoisie and to present these as representative of the interests of the entire nation. He has not been capable of doing this so far. The international crisis scenario and popular struggles could destabilize his government even more. Bolsonaro and his allies were united in their determination to overthrow the PT but lost (or never had) control over the boat’s direction.

*

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

Ana Garcia is Professor of International Relations at the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro and a researcher at PACS.

Notes

1. Such as high interest rates and different benefits to the financial sector, large public credits to private monopolies, moderate (yet important) social policies that had the effect of social appeasement, among others.

2. Enormous oil reserves underneath the sea on the coast of Brazil.

3. Guedes was not known in the Brazilian mainstream until very recently. According to Joana Salem and Rejane Hoeveler in an article at Le Monde Diplomatique Brasil, he graduated in Chicago in 1978, but his thesis was never published and didn’t receive much attention. He started teaching at the University of Chile in 1980 under the Pinochet dictatorship. It was exactly in the 1980s that Pinochet started the pension reform in Chile, forcing Chilean workers to deposit 10% of their salaries in private pension funds. Today, 30 years later, 90% of Chileans do not receive a full minimum salary when they retire. About one thousand Chilean elderly committed suicide in the last five years. Symptomatically, this is the first and major project conducted by Guedes as Minister of Economy. In the case of Chile and in the project of pension reform presented to the Brazilian congress by Guedes, the military is excluded. Cf. Brasil, novo laboratório da extrema direita.

4. One of the first measures under the government of Michel Temer, after the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff was completed in August 2017, was to change the regulatory framework for the exploration of the Pre Sal areas, breaking with Petrobras’s obligatory participation, and opening more space for Exxon or Shell (explicitly quoted by Temer) to have more participation in the coming auctions. Cf. Com regras mais claras, leilão do pré-sal cria expectativa positiva na economia.

Overnight on April 13, warplanes of the Israeli Air Force delivered strikes on targets near the town of Masyaf in the Syrian province of Homs from Lebanese airspace.

According to the Syrian version of the events, most of Israeli missiles were intercepted, but the rest of them destroyed several buildings and injured at least 20 people, including 3 service members. Fragments of at least one Israeli missile were found near the Lebanese border.

The College of Management, the Scientific Research center and the Accounting School were among the targets inside Masyaf itself.

Israeli strikes also hit the nearby town of Umm Haratayn where, according to released photos, they destroyed a Maysalun heavy artillery rocket launcher. Maysalun is a Syrian-made variant of the Iranian Zelzal-2 unguided long-range artillery rocket. The rocket has a range of 210km and a heavy high-explosive warhead. Israeli sources had accused Iran and Syria of upgrading these rockets with guidance systems, thus converting them into precision-guided rockets.

It is important to note that the Israeli strikes took place near positions of launched of the S-300 air defense system delivered by Russia to the Syrian military. The system was not employed and likely remains not operational.

ISIS has drastically increased attacks on pro-government forces in the al-Mayadin-Deir Ezzor-al-Sukhna triangle. During the past few weeks, at least two convoys of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and pro-government militias came under attacks there. Various sources say that from 7 to 15 pro-government fighters were killed in these attacks.

On April 12, the Russian Aerospace Forces even delivered strikes on supposed ISIS targets near the town of Huribishah. In March, the SAA and its allies conducted a security operation against ISIS in the areas of Huribishah and Kobajjep, but these limited efforts were not enough to get rid of ISIS terrorists. Some sources even speculate that ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is hiding in the central Syrian desert.

The situation around the Idlib de-escalation zone remains unchanged. Ceasefire violations and artillery duels erupt across the entire contact line between the so-called opposition and the SAA on a constant basis.

On April 12, Kommersant daily reported citing informed sources that Gen Col Andrey Serdykov has become a commander of the Russian military group in Syria. One his key tasks, according to the report, is to set conditions for launching joint Russian-Turkish patrols along the demilitarized zone and to put an end to the ceasefire violations. Local sources say that this goal remains unrealistic while radical militants armed with heavy weapons remains deployed in the formally declared demilitarized zone.

On the eastern bank of the Euphrates, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are conducting a wide-scale security operation in an attempt to track and eliminate remaining ISIS cells.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Israel Strikes ‘Iranian Targets’ in Homs. Only Syrian Missile Launcher Found to be Destroyed
  • Tags: , , ,

Video: The Business of Cancer

April 15th, 2019 by Sonia Poulton

Important documentary

Journalist and Broadcaster Sonia Poulton explores cancer in the UK.

She talks with scientists, surgeons, doctors, politicians, academics, campaigners, industry insiders, authors and those on the frontline: the patients, themselves.

.

*

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

Selected Articles: Why Venezuela Has Not Been Defeated

April 15th, 2019 by Global Research News

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

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

*     *     *

The Fake Charge Against Julian Assange Proves that the US Government Has No Integrity

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 15, 2019

Let’s be sure that we understand that Assange is not charged with anything related to Russia or Russiagate or even with breaking a law. Assange is charged with being in a conspiracy with Manning “to commit computer intrusion.”

Trump Warns ICC Against Followup on American and Israeli War Crimes

By IMEMC, April 15, 2019

US President Donald Trump has warned the International Criminal Court (ICC) of “swift and vigorous response” if the Hague-based tribunal investigates Americans and Israelis for war crimes.

The Prosecution of Julian Assange Is a Threat to Journalists Everywhere

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, April 15, 2019

The arrest of Julian Assange not only puts the free press in the United States at risk, it puts any reporters who expose US crimes anywhere in the world at risk.

What is Fascism? Can the “Fascist Germ” Rise to Epidemic Levels in the USA Today?

By Prof. Anthony A. Gabb, April 15, 2019

To consider the possibility of the rise of fascism in the United State of America (USA) today, this essay examines the success of fascism in Italy and Germany, where hard times gave rise to labor militancy that morphed into an existential communist threat. But the absence of a revolutionary workers’ party created an opening for reformists and corporate interests to disrupt workers from taking power.

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

By F. William Engdahl, April 15, 2019

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage.

A Marriage of Conscience: Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning

By Edward Curtin, April 15, 2019

No one should have been surprised by this despicable spectacle carried out in the noonday light for all to see, for the British government has not served as America’s jailer for the past seven years for no reason.

Nicolas Maduro Moros

Why Venezuela Has Not Been Defeated

By Prof. James Petras, April 15, 2019

Over the past half-decade, a small army of US analysts, politicians, academics and media pundits have been predicting the imminent fall, overthrow, defeat and replacement of the Venezuelan government. They have been wrong on all counts, in each and every attempt to foist a US client regime.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Why Venezuela Has Not Been Defeated

Donald Trump mentioned WikiLeaks 141 times in his final month of campaigning during the 2016 US Presidential elections.

Watch the video below from MNSBC.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Trump Says WikiLeaks 141 Times on the Campaign Trail
  • Tags: ,

Let’s be sure that we understand that Assange is not charged with anything related to Russia or Russiagate or even with breaking a law. Assange is charged with being in a conspiracy with Manning “to commit computer intrusion.” The charge is not that Assange succeeded in hacking a government computer and obtaining classified information. It merely says that Assange discussed the possibility with Manning and had an intention to hack a computer. Most likely, even this noncrime is an invention of prosecutors instructed to indict Assange in the absence of any evidence. It is all that they could come up with.

It is impossible to respect the indictment. It is the product of evil, and the evil indictment is a direct assault on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Those who have brought this false charge have violated their oath to protect the Constitution from enemies abroad and at home. It is the enemies at home that we have to be concerned about as it is these enemies who have power over us.

If the US government had any evidence that Assange actually hacked a government computer, he would be charged with that. But as there is no evidence of an actual crime, the corrupt American prosecutors and a stupid and manipulated grand jury rolled out the conspiracy charge. A conspiracy is when a couple of people planned a bank robbery but didn’t do it. It other words, they thought about it and talked about it. Therefore, a conspiracy existed although nothing really happened. Prosecutors and courts have corrupted the actual law to the point that a person can be arrested for considering a crime. In other words, “thought crimes” already exist. They are called “conspiracies.” Now that they have machines that they claim can read our minds, if you think about murdering someone, you can be arrested for “conspiracy to commit murder.”

Another example is when two or more people talk about getting some narcotics and having a high evening but instead watch a movie and go to bed. They could be charged with “conspiracy to obtain illegal narcotics.” This is the type of charge for which Assange faces extradition to Washington.

Why? The answer is that the criminal, petty, and vindictive U.S. government wants to (1) get revenge on Assange for publishing documents leaked to him, allegedly by Manning—but we don’t have any proof of that either other than a coerced admission from a tortured person—that reveal US war crimes and deception of allies, and (2) to shut down the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so that the government’s crimes can never again be revealed by journalists. This is Washington’s way of solving the whistleblower problem.

The charge against Assange has nothing to do with the leak of the emails that revealed how Hillary stole the Democratic presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders. Computer experts such as William Binney have proven that the Democratic emails were downloaded on a thumb drive, not hacked over the internet. Most likely the DNC employee who leaked the incriminating emails is the young man who was mysteriously shot down in the street in an unsolved murder that Hillary and the DNC most certainly do not want solved.

The British government, a vassal of Washington, arrested Assange inside the Ecuadoran embassy in London on the pretext that he was wanted for skipping bail.

This arrest is the end result of the British, in compliance with Washington’s orders, seizing Assange in response to a request from a Swedish prosecutor who was put up to renewing the investigation of Assange and requested Assange’s extradition to Sweden for questioning.

According to law, extradition requires a formal charge or indictment against the person whose extradition is requested. It is outside the law to extradite people for questioning. The extradition request was doubly troubling as Assange while in Sweden had already been questioned by prosecutors who found that there was no case against Assange. No charges were ever filed against him, and the investigation was closed.

The presstitute media and crazed feminists have lied through their teeth for years that Assange used his political asylum to escape rape charges. Even non-prestitute media, such as Russian English language media, have repeated this disinformation.

There were never any rape charges against Assange. What happened is this. Two Swedish women took Assange into their beds in their homes and had consensual sex with him. No condom was used. The women or one of them wanted Assange to take a test so she could be reassured that he had no disease that could be sexually transmitted. Assange foolishly refused. The woman went to the police to see if Assange could be coerced to take the test. Out of this came the investigation that was closed without charges. Assange was free to leave Sweden.

He foolishly went to the UK, Washington’s prime puppet state. Once there Washington prevailed on a female Swedish prosecutor to reopen questioning of Assange.

No real reason was ever given for the female Swedish prosecutor to reopen the questioning. One possible reason is Washington’s money. It was clear to Assange’s lawyers that the extradition request was a trick to get him back in Swedish hands so that he could be handed over to Washington. Assange fought the extradition, but a corrupt British court to comply with Washingon ruled that Assange could be extradited for questioning even though there were no changes against him. This ruling shocked everyone who thought British judges had integrity.

Seeing what was coming, Assange sought and was granted political asylum by Ecuador and fled his British house arrest to the Ecuadoran embassy in London.

Eventually the Swedish feminist prosecutor who attempted to reopen the investigation of Assange consented to question him in the embassy with the result that she closed her investigation. This ended all excuses for the UK to hold Assange for Sweden. As there was no charge, Assange was not guilty of violating bail. Without a charge there is no bail. That is the way the law used to be before the corrupted British courts pissed all over the law and dishonored British justice.

The US and UK governments refused to honor Assange’s political asylum, just as the Soviet government refused to honor the political asylum that the United States gave to Hungarian Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty, who ended up living in the US embassy in Hungary for 15 years. At least the Soviets had more integrity than to arrest the Cardinal inside the US embassy. But the British are devoid of integrity. The only concern of the British government is to obey Washington. They all hope for the sixty million pounds that is Tony Blair’s reward for supporting Washington’s Iraq invasion.

As both the US and UK governments are more corrupt than the Soviet government was and refuse to abide by international law, Assange was their prisoner in the embassy. He was safe there as long as Rafael Correa was president of Ecuador. But when Correa refused popular demand to let the Constitution be changed so that he could serve another term, Washington got its creep installed, Lenin Moreno, who sold Assange to Washington for an IMF loan.

To be sure you understand, as you have been filled with lies about Assange for almost a decade, he raped no one. He was never charged with raping anyone. He has broken no law. He is a journalist who did nothing but what the New York Times did when the paper published the leaked Pentagon Papers and published some of the same leaked documents for which Assange has been arrested for publishing. He is being framed up on a false nonsense charge because the US government in order to protect its own criminality is moving to destroy the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

They will succeed in destroying the First Amendment.

Who is there to stop them?

Not presstitutes. They hate Julian Assange for showing them up and doing the job of a journalist while they lie 24/7 as a propaganda ministry for the ruling establishment. If life were based on breathing integrity from the presstitute media, we would all be already dead.

Not the Republicans or the conservatives. Their patriotism causes them to hate Assange because “he embarrassed the U.S. government.” The Republicans are as mindless and unaware of their participation in the murder of the First Amendment as the presstitutes and Democrats. For example, Republican Senator Richard Burr, sent to the Senate by insouciant North Carolinians, expressed his total brainwashing by alleging, ignorantly, that Assange and WikiLeaks have “effectively acted as an arm of the Russian intelligence services for years.” The brainwashed Republican Senator from Nebraska, Ben Sasse, called Assange “a wicked tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services” who “deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.”

This extraordinary level of ignorance and pre-trial accusations by US Senators prejudice Assange’s trial so severly that if America had honest judges the case would be dismissed on the grounds that an unbiased jury cannot be formed.

Not the Democrats. The Hillary clique are having orgasms over the prospect that Assange will end up like Gaddafi. The brainwashed Democratic Senator from Virginia, Mark Warner, showed his total ignorance of what is transpiring in front of his blind eyes when the fool said of Assange:

“what he’s really become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the West and a dedicated accomplice in efforts to undermine American security.”

Not the liberal/progressive/left. In thrall to Identity Politics, our “conscience class” want Assange flayed alive. He is a white male responsible for slavery, for rape, for discrimination against women, blacks, homosexuals and alternative genders. The liberal/progressive/left’s attitude is: If we can’t get him for these reasons, let them get him for being a Russian spy.

Perhaps the most absurd charge comes from Veterans Today which describes Assange as “king of the Deep State, European Freemasonry and marriage with Zionism” and alleges that Wikileaks was created to launder Mossad disinformation and enjoys the protection of the Rothschild family.

All are too stupid and full of hate to realize that with Julian Assange goes the First Amendment.

One wonders what the idiot Atlanticist Integrationists in Russia are thinking as they advocate sacrificing Russian sovereignty in order to be part of the West. Why do they want to be part of a cruel, inhumane empire that has no concern for truth, justice, and human life? Is it the money that the Atlanticist Integrationists want, invitations to speak at American universities? How can anyone be so stupid as to want to be part of a criminal orgnization?

What the West needs is someone to stamp it out. The West is evil beyond the meaning of the word.

How do those of us who love our country defend it when our government invades on the basis of transparent lies other countries for the sake of profit, when our government commits high treason by attacking the US Constitution, and when our government punishes truth and those who reveal truth?

Think about the rising crimes committed by US governments since the Clinton regime against the U.S. Constitution, international law, and America’s reputation. Clinton violated Washington’s promise to Russia that NATO would not be moved to Russia’s border and committed war crimes by illegally bombing Serbia and murdering 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions. The NATO vassals participated in the crimes. George W. Bush illegally invaded and bombed countries, repealed habias corpus and asserted the power to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial or conviction. Obama destroyed Libya, tried to destroy Syria, overthrew the democratically elected presidents of Honduras and Ukraine, and murdered US citizens without due process of law. The Trump regime is busy at work murdering the First Amendment and overthrowing the democratically elected president of Venezuela.

It is extraordinary that the world accepts the extraterritoriality of US law. There is no basis for the absurd claim that the US serves as the legislative body for the entire world.

Washington announces that it has selected the president of Venezuela, a Washington puppet who not only was not elected by the Venezuelan people but has never been a candidate in a presidential election, and the announcement that Washington has chosen the president of Venezuela becomes the basis for overthrowing a democratic government. The mythical “Western Democracies” line up behind the lie in order to aid Washington in plundering a country.

This is “Western democracy” as it really is. We should be very ashamed that we, the people, permitted the United States government to degenerate into criminality and barbarity.

*

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.

Why the Assange Allegation Is a Stitch-up

April 15th, 2019 by Craig Murray

I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no genuine investigation are and no charges. Read this and you will know why.

The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.

The original post with all the links functioning and some 2,000 comments is here.

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. Before ever meeting Assange, she had been expelled from Cuba by its government as a suspected CIA agent. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship.

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

Image result for Anna Ardin

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:

‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.

Or

Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”

At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.

The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.

Conclusion

I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

*

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

Last December, TruePublica broke the news that the mainstream media had either misunderstood or blatantly misquoted a very particular study about the real cost of Brexit. The most accurate of reports of that study in the MSM stated that –“Theresa May’s Brexit deal is expected to cost the UK economy as much as £100bn over the next decade compared with remaining in the EU, according to one of the country’s leading economic thinktanks.”

One of TruePublica’s readers spotted the difference between what was said by the media and what was actually said by the economists. He contacted the author of the study.

Arno Hantzsche, co-author of the original the National Institute of Economic and Social Research  (NIESR) report, stated in a tweet to the reader:

“the 3.9% figure is the difference in annual GDP relative to Remain reached in 2030 (this difference is building up over the years prior to 2030). We have calculated the cumulative “cost” (i.e. adding up annual differences over 12 years) which is £770bn by 2030, £30bn of which accrue between 2019-20. Hope that clarifies things.

TruePublica then challenged separately the second co-author Amit Kara for confirmation, who said:

There is no contradiction. The cumulative loss over 12 years is £770bn. If you had asked Arno what was the loss in the 12th year, he would have said to you £100bn.”

The MSM understood this as a loss to the economy of £100bn by 2030, not £770bn by 2030 – with 2030 itself losing £100bn.

Another point to remember here is the prediction by the NIESR that losses to the economy would be £30billion by year-ending 2019. That figure has already been surpassed and is now sits at £40billion. It is, therefore, safe to say the authors have been somewhat conservative in their calculations.

No ‘Brexit dividend’ as economic growth falters

In June last year, The Centre for European Reform (CER) said that the performance of the economy, compared with what it would have been if the 2016 referendum had gone the other way and that it was significant.

The government’s argument that there would be a “Brexit dividend”, out of which it would help to fund a large increase in spending on the NHS, was at best – just plain nonsense. CER said the cost was calculated at a loss to the British economy of £440 million a week. Over the course of one year, that loss was estimated then to be £23 billion.

In August, the Bank of England confirmed that the economy had lost tangible economic growth as a direct result of Brexit. That report more or less confirmed the CER report two months earlier.

By February, the latest statistics by the Bank of England were being reported as more data became available. Bank of England economist Jan Vlieghe stated that since the vote, Britain has lost 2 per cent of GDP “relative to a scenario where there had been no significant domestic economic events” – equating to a total of around £80bn over the past two years.

£23 billion was now £40 billion a year loss to the economy. But even if the £440 million a week or £23 billion a year losses to the economy were actually true and confirmed, the economy would have lost (since mid-2016) £64 billion by now.

To put the lower and much more conservative sum of £64 billion in perspective. The NHS is short of about 30,000 nursing and medical staff (not including 11,000 doctors). £64bn pays for all 30,000 at average wages today for the next 91 years. Or, 20,000 police officers could be recruited and paid for, for the next 160 years. Another 36 state-of-the-art, fully equipped hospitals could be paid for. In other words, this waste of money is costing lives – and huge sums to the economy.

But the truth is this. Every time the economy is measured, it is taking a hit as a direct result of the Brexit limbo crisis and each report that emerges is worse than the last making the future yet more uncertain. And the vast majority of these reports do not include the one-off costs of managing Brexit.

One-off costs and red tape

For instance, now that the threat of a no-deal Brexit has reduced, the government have stood down a team of 6,000 people whose job it was to measure the ‘battle rhythm’ of riots and protests on the streets of Britain. The cost of that single operation is now confirmed at £1.5 billion. Another £4.2 billion has been allocated to managing government departments – a third of which, has already been spent. Other costs will be police and military preparations, stockpiling and the like – of which there is no data available.

Just the red tape of Brexit will cost the economy dearly. The direct impacts that will result from new tariff and non-tariff barriers that could be imposed on trade between the UK and EU27 are estimated to be around £27 billion for UK firms. Even if a new customs agreement was made – the equivalent of agreeing on an EU customs union – would still cost UK businesses £17 billion.

The Institute for Government also admits that the real cost of Brexit is not only unknown but that it may not be known for years. Its report also admits that other significant effects of Brexit have not been considered.

Last month, the City of London was reported to have moved £1 trillion (yes – a trillion) of financial assets to Europe in anticipation of any kind of Brexit. The FT venomously spat out in its article:

“Good news, Brexiters! There are now even fewer members of the “metropolitan liberal elite” to frustrate your dream of a sovereign nation of unemployed van drivers spending £350m a week in Wetherspoons.”

The article cited a report that stated that the loss of 7,000 city workers will be a loss of £600 million in taxes alone. The FT continued with its angry rant – “Who needs any of that when you’ve got root vegetables — and vacant City window boxes to grow even more?”

Opinions

In May of last year, only 16 per cent of Leave voters thought the economy would be worse off after Brexit and incredibly 42 per cent thought the economy would be better. Barely nine months later, after all the political infighting and negative news from business leaders, economists and government-related experts alike – the shift is dramatic and it can be translated a bit like this.

The margin of those who believe the decision was “wrong” to leave the EU is now eight to 10 percentage points — much larger than the margin in favour of Leave back in 2016. In other words, one way of putting this is that if the question was not Leave or Remain – but will the economy be Better or Worse as a result of leaving – approximately 57 per cent would vote to Remain, a huge swing from the original 48.1 per cent originally. The suggestion here is that given a second referendum, many would indeed change their minds and vote to remain.

There are of course a lot of polls, studies and reports to say anything depending on what Brexit stance you have. However, the translation of all this must surely be – are we better off or worse off by voting to leave the EU. And by far, the data confirms the same as each quarter performance is reported – everyone is worse off now and will be much worse off in years to come if the trend continues.

In fact, the average household is now known to be losing almost £2,000 worth of resources (mainly lower private consumption, but also lost public spending and investment). This number is broadly consistent with estimates the governor of the Bank of England gave in May.

Leaving Britain

Here’s a reasonably up to date list of household known companies that have issued warnings of complete relocation, announced plans to cut UK jobs or beefed up their European operations since the June 2016 referendum.

Jaguar LandRover, Airbus, Nissan, Honda, Michelin, Schaeffler, Aviva, Dyson, Panasonic, P&O, Phillips, Rolls Royce, Sony, Toyota, Unilever, Ford. Then there is the financial industry who have already moved a £trillion in financial assets. They include – HSBC, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, UBS and Lloyds of London.

Some of these companies are using Brexit as an excuse for downsizing their operations, some because they want better tax advantages elsewhere or access to markets in different regions, like Asia for instance. However, these announcements are dangerous to the economy as it will have an impact on inward investment decisions by other firms. And then comes the really bad news.

A measure of Britain’s economic fall

The collapse of inward investment in Britain really ought to be a wake-up call. It is indicative of the confidence of capital and the indications of 2018 and leading into 2019 is truly alarming. The last time (FT paywall) inward investment collapsed at the same rate as three quarters in a row, which has now happened – was in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and dot com crash.

Infrastructure project spending has literally ground to a complete stop. Non-residential building expenditure is in reverse at -12 per cent last year compared to 2016 and dramatically fallen behind its EU peers of France, Germany and Italy.

How about this for a set of statistics to sober up those who still believe that leaving the EU is a good thing at this moment in time.

  • Foreign direct investment into the U.K. has fallen by almost 20 per cent since the EU referendum in 2016.
  • Since the vote, the U.K. has experienced its sharpest decline in overseas investment since records began.
  • Germany overtook the U.K. last year to become the European country receiving the most foreign investment.

Propagandists of Brexit

The same characters keep popping up and lying about what is really happening. We know that the £350 million for the NHS on a bus claim was a lie. We know that ‘taking back control’ has led to the opposite. In fact, we know that many of the most powerful claims made by the official Leave campaign were lies and we know they broke the law on campaigning. But it doesn’t stop the propaganda.

Boris Johnson said in January this year that a No-Deal option was the preferred choice of voters in his weekly column in the Telegraph. This was a lie.

The Telegraph was then forced to correct their column of disinformation and eventually wrote –

“In fact, no poll clearly showed that a no-deal Brexit was more popular than the other options. This correction is being published following a complaint upheld by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.”

The Telegraph said in its defence that Johnson was “entitled to make sweeping generalisations based on his opinions”. These ‘sweeping generalisations’ are nothing more than ‘fake news’ – the scourge of the modern political environment we find ourselves in today and the Telegraph should hang its head in shame for such blatant lies and deceptions.

But did this stop Brexiteers poster-boy Jacob Rees-Mogg, the radical right-wing Conservative MP leading the ERG group, who said just last week that – “The country wants ‘no deal’…No deal’ is consistently the preferred option of the British public.”

This is still a blatant lie.

John Redwood MP – of the same mould said one day earlier -“The polling evidence shows that people now think No-Deal is the least bad option… The public accepts, by a majority now, that the best option is just to leave and offer them a free trade deal.

This is a lie too.

FullFact UK said in response to these claims:

“We aren’t aware of any poll showing that, in John Redwood’s words to Channel 4 News, “most of the public” (in other words, more than 50%) support a no deal exit.”

What’s next?

The facts about Brexit and its effects on the economy are, of course, yet to fully be seen. Don’t forget that the economy is performing dramatically less than the 0.7 per cent expected for Q1 2019 at 0.2 per cent. Britain is now lagging well behind almost all of the EU members states effectively moving from the No1 position of performance to the bottom. The effects of a protracted Brexit negotiation will continue to drag on the economy as more and more companies make plans to leave the UK and inward investment continues its moment of collapse. Even if Brexit was cancelled – it will take years to recover lost ground because many companies will not spend the resources to return unless there is a significant reason to so do.

So far, Britain has signed less than 15 per cent of the replacement value of losing the EU as a full trading partner. It will take at least a decade to match it if ever it does, which is unlikely. Liam Fox promised in October 2017 that he would have dozens of trade deals in the bag by April 2019. By January this year, he blamed all other countries for not signing trade deals with Britain.

The writing is on the wall for Britain. The economic damage being done is calamitous. This will eventually translate into social harms because tax receipts will fall meaning either continued austerity or ramping up the national debt. This, in turn, will likely cause social cohesion to fracture far more so than now. This statement is not alarmist – because it is already happening and gathering pace. One only has to look at recent street protests, mass marches, massive petitions, the huge rise of racism and acts of violence against both people and property – all in the name of Brexit.

The facts, the statistics and evidence of a downward spiral are there in plain sight as there are almost no indicators pointing in the opposite direction. Wages are again stagnating, employment numbers are falsified to mask the truth, economic investment is in a nosedive, infrastructure investment has flatlined, investment risk is rising and GDP is falling.

From purely an economic point of view – there are no short or medium term upsides to Brexit. As for the long-term – put a finger in the wind and take a guess because no-one knows and no-one can predict what may be in 20 years from now.

*

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

America Just Declared War on Iran and Nobody Blinked

April 15th, 2019 by Scott Ritter

It is no longer a question of if Americans will die in a conflict with Iran, but when.

The United States has long been engaged in a secret shadow war with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), dating back to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

This conflict took the lives of hundreds of American troops and hundreds more IRGC members. The Iranian opposition to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the inability of the U.S. to militarily defeat Iranian forces inside Iraq, was just one reason that the Obama administration decided to withdraw American troops in 2011.

Since that time, a tenuous truce has existed between the U.S. military in the region and the IRGC. Even when American troops were re-deployed to Iraq in 2014 to help defeat the Islamic State (ISIS), they did so in concert with IRGC who were fighting alongside Iraqi Shiite militias. American forces inside Syria likewise avoided direct conflict with the IRGC, which was aiding the Syrian military.

But now, the Trump administration has made the decision to designate the IRGC a terrorist organization. This little reported move will have large consequences, shredding the prior truce and putting the lives of thousands of U.S. service members at risk.

“Today, I am formally announcing my Administration’s plan to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including its Qods Force, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” the president announced on April 8. The designation will take effect on April 15.

Trump further noted,

“This designation will be the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as an FTO,” adding, “This action sends a clear message to Tehran that its support for terrorism has serious consequences. We will continue to increase financial pressure and raise the costs on the Iranian regime for its support of terrorist activity until it abandons its malign and outlaw behavior.”

The Quds Force, a unit within the IRGC that specializes in operations outside Iran, has long been viewed as a terrorist organization by the United States. The IRGC as an entity, however, operates as an integral part of the Iranian government. As such, the U.S. has deliberately avoided classifying it as a terrorist organization out of concerns that doing so would hobble diplomatic efforts with Iran and even destabilize the greater Middle East.

Given the fact Washington is currently engaged in a global “war” on terrorism, this designation—which places the IRGC on the same footing as ISIS and al-Qaeda—means that the U.S. is in effect at war with Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif responded to the designation on Monday. He recommended in a letter to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that—given the ongoing overt and covert support of U.S. military forces in the region for groups that have been involved in terrorist acts against Iran—the Supreme National Security Council should designate U.S. Central Command as terrorists.

The Iranians have long assessed that U.S. intelligence services and Special Operations forces have used militant Iranian opposition organizations as proxies in a bloody, undeclared war to undermine the legitimacy of the Iranian government and harm the IRGC. For example, last February, a Baluch separatist group, Jaish al-Adl, claimed credit for the bombing of a bus carrying IRGC soldiers, which killed nearly 30 people. The IRGC claims that the group received its instructions, training, and equipment from U.S. personnel operating out of Afghanistan.

Likewise, in September 2018, a group calling itself the “Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz” launched an attack on an IRGC parade in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, killing scores. Iranian state media put the blame for this attack squarely on the U.S. and its Gulf allies, remarking, “The attack comes after a U.S.-backed campaign to stir up unrest in Iranian cities fell flat. The effort, known as the Hot Summer Project, sought to whip up public anger over water and electricity shortages in the face of a protracted drought.” Foreign Minister Zarif likewise blamed the United States and Gulf states. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been foursquare behind the U.S. in trying to thwart Iranian influence in the region, the four-year war in Yemen being the most catastrophic example of how far they will go to achieve that goal.

Then-U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley adamantly denied that the U.S. had anything to do with the September attack.

Zarif’s recommendation to designate Central Command as terrorists was echoed by Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the head of the Iranian parliament’s national security committee. The IRGC also made its position clear regarding the FTO designation.

“If the Americans take such a stubborn measure and endanger our national security we will put in place counter-measures in line with the police of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the IRGC’s commander-in-chief, declared.

He further noted that if this happened, U.S. forces would no longer be safe in the region.

The impetus behind Trump’s decision is clear—he wants to support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu himself acknowledged as much in a tweet:

“Thank you, my dear friend President Donald Trump, for deciding to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Thank you for answering another one of my important requests, which serves the interests of our country and the countries of the region.”

The other request referred to by Netanyahu was the decision made in May 2018 to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. Since that time, the U.S. has found itself increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, especially Europe, which has opted to remain a part of the agreement, which it notes that Iran continues to fully comply with. The decision to designate the IRGC as a terrorist group is viewed by many as a mechanism for increasing pressure on Iran by expanding the scope and scale of economic sanctions against entities doing business with the IRGC. The timing of the announcement is seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections in Israel, where Netanyahu is struggling in a bid for reelection.

But another reason might be lingering resentment within certain American circles over the role played by the IRGC in fomenting resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

“In Iraq, I can announce today, based on declassified U.S. military reports, that Iran is responsible for the deaths of at least 608 American service members. This accounts for 17 percent of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011,” declared Brian Hook, the U.S. Representative for Iran, in a briefing this week.

Left unsaid was that during that same time, the U.S., through the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), was engaged in its own undeclared war with Iran on Iraqi soil. Far from being the fallout of unilateral Iranian acts of terrorism, the U.S. combat deaths referred to by Hook were part and parcel of a conflict waged in the shadows that only ended with the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 2011.

Given this direct link between American and Iranian aggression in Iraq, there can be no doubt that the Trump administration understands that by designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization, it has placed the lives of thousands of American personnel still serving in the Middle East at risk. There are currently between 1,000 and 1,500 U.S. troops inside Syria, and they are surrounded by IRGC-affiliated forces and militias. And more than 5,000 U.S. troops are stationed inside Iraq, where the IRGC controls powerful Shiite militias as well as significant portions of the Iraqi military.

There can be no doubt that if the U.S. acts kinetically against the IRGC, Americans will die. That this policy has been implemented in support of the re-election campaign of an Israeli prime minister, in furtherance of an effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear deal that was likewise implemented at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu, means these brave men and women will not have died in the service of their country. They will have perished as pawns of a policy conceived in Tel Aviv that places the political fortunes of a foreign politician above the lives of our heroes.

*

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

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

Featured image: IRGC Naval Exercise in the general area of Strait of Hormuz, Persian Gulf., 2015. sayyed shahab-o- din vajedi/Creative Commons


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

WWIII Scenario

US President Donald Trump has warned the International Criminal Court (ICC) of “swift and vigorous response” if the Hague-based tribunal investigates Americans and Israelis for war crimes.

Trump issued the warning on Friday, after ICC judges rejected a request by the court’s prosecutor to probe atrocities committed by US forces in Afghanistan.

Trump hailed the unusual ruling as a “major international victory,” claiming that the Americans and Israelis should be immune from ICC prosecution.

“Since the creation of the ICC, the United States has consistently declined to join the court because of its broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers; the threat it poses to American national sovereignty; and other deficiencies that render it illegitimate,” he said.

“Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response,” he added.

Amnesty International denounced the ICC’s decision as a “shocking abandonment of victims” that would “weaken the court’s already questionable credibility.”

Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director at Amnesty International, stressed that the ruling would be seen as a “craven capitulation to Washington’s bullying.”

Last month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US would withdraw or revoke visas for ICC staff who prosecute American troops in Afghanistan, as well as their allied personnel, including Israelis.

He also warned about potential economic sanctions “if the ICC does not change its course.”

US National Security Adviser John Bolton had also threatened to revoke the visas of ICC personnel if the court pursued charges against members of the US military over crimes in Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, the US revoked ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s visa as part of a crackdown on the ICC.

The ICC has been examining abuses committed by all parties in the Afghan war for more than a decade.

In November 2017, Bensouda sought authorization to open an inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, including in states where the CIA held prisoners.

The ICC is also investigating Israeli atrocities in the West Bank and Gaza, including the demolition of Palestinian property and eviction of the Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem al-Quds.

Neither the US nor Israel are ICC members.

The United States has revoked the entry visa of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bensouda, who is looking into the US military’s possible war crimes in Afghanistan.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced, last month, that the United States would withdraw or deny visas for the ICC personnel probing the war crimes allegations against American forces.

United Nations human rights experts denounced Washington’s “improper interference” in the work of the court, which has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

The US denial of visa to the ICC prosecutor also drew criticism from within the European Union.

“We can confirm that the U.S. authorities have revoked the prosecutor’s visa for entry into the US,” Bensouda’s office told the Reuters news agency in an e-mail, on Thursday.

Last month, the US secretary of state also declared that Washington was ready to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the world body failed to change its course.

The United States has refused to cooperate with international investigators over their probe into possible war crimes of US military personnel in Afghanistan, claiming they violate US sovereignty.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has previously rebuked and questioned the International Criminal Court. One of National Security Adviser John Bolton’s first speeches was about the ICC, condemning its investigation into US personnel.

The US invaded Afghanistan, in October of 2001, and overthrew a Taliban regime in power at the time. But, US forces have remained bogged down, there, through the presidencies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and, now, Donald Trump.

Obama announced, in 2013, that he was pulling out all US troops from the Arab country. However, the US troops returned to Iraq a year later, under the pretext of fighting the Daesh (ISIS) terrorist group.

Trump had also pledged, during his election campaign, to end the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, he has changed his mind, since entering office, and prolonged the US military presence in both countries.

The ICC has repeatedly highlighted alleged abuses of detainees, by American troops between 2003 and 2005, that it believes have not been adequately addressed by the US government.

Washington insists that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over American citizens because the US never ratified the Rome Statute that established the court in the first place, PNN reports.

*

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 arrest of Julian Assange not only puts the free press in the United States at risk, it puts any reporters who expose US crimes anywhere in the world at risk. As Pepe Escobar wrote

Let’s cut to the chase. Julian Assange is not a US citizen, he’s an Australian. WikiLeaks is not a US-based media organization. If the US government gets Assange extradited, prosecuted and incarcerated, it will legitimize its right to go after anyone, anyhow, anywhere, anytime.”

The Assange prosecution requires us to build a global movement to not only free Julian Assange, but to protect the world from the crimes and corruption of the United States and other governments. The reality is that Freedom of Press for the 21st Century is on trial.

There are many opportunities for a movement to impact the outcome of this process and to free Julian Assange.  The extradition process includes political decisions by both the UK and US governments. Courts are impacted by public opinion. If courts are convinced this case is about political issues, extradition could be rejected.

Next Steps, Next Opportunities

Last week’s arrest begins the next phase of Assange’s defense as well as the defense of our right to know what governments do in our name. It may seem like this is now a matter only for the courts, but in fact, the prosecution of Assange is political. The extradition case is not a hacking case, as the US is trying to present it, it is a prosecution about exposing war crimes, corporate corruption of US foreign policy and other violations of law by the United States and its allies. The government is trying to change the subject to avoid the facts that Assange exposed.

In fact, the indictment does not even allege hacking. As Glenn Greenwald writes:

“the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity.”

Assange lawyer Barry Pollack described why journalists everywhere are threatened:

“The factual allegations … boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”

The extradition process is likely to last months, most likely more than a year. The Assange case could go into 2020 or beyond. Issues that could prevent extradition include Assange’s health conditions, human rights concerns, and whether there is a political motivation behind the US request. Not only can Assange appeal through the UK courts, but he may also appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

While we should not limit our mobilizations to legal filings, hearings, appeals and administrative decisions, those are all opportunities to educate and mobilize people. The next court date on the extradition will be a preliminary hearing on May 2 where Assange will appear by video link.  Next, the United States must produce its case for requesting the extradition of Julian Assange from Britain by June 12.

These are just initial steps. Lawfare reports,

“It may be years before Assange sees the inside of a US courtroom. The initial Swedish request to extradite Assange from the U.K. came in November 2010. Assange successfully slowed the process until June 2012.”

Lauri Love byline.JPG

Lawfare also points to the case of Lauri Love (image on the right), who faced extradition for hacking US government computers. It took three years for the extradition case, and then Love raised health issues that would be impacted by a long sentence and  two years later, he won on appeal with the court ruling it would be “oppressive to his physical and mental condition.” Assange has also developed health issues over the last seven years of living in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Then, there is the case of another British hacker, Gary McKinnon (image below left) who was indicted in 2002. The extradition proceedings dragged on for a decade. In the end, then-Home Secretary Theresa May withdrew the extradition order because of McKinnon’s diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome and depression:

“Mr. McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr. McKinnon’s human rights.”

That’s right, in one case the court ruled against extradition due to health issues, and the other, Theresa May (yes, the current prime minister) withdrew the extradition due to health reasons. Beyond health, there are other issues that could be persuasive in Assange’s case.

Image result for Gary McKinnon

Someone cannot be extradited from the United Kingdom if the extradition is for “political purposes.” The US Department of Justice has tried to avoid the obvious politics of Assange’s case by alleging in the indictment that it is a hacking case. In reality, and everyone knows this reality, Assange is being prosecuted because he exposed war crimes including the wanton killing of journalists and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the violation of human rights in Guantanamo Bay and the corruption of US foreign policy by transnational corporations. These are the big elephants in the room that the United States is trying to hide.

The US prison system is seen around the world as inhumane. The UN Committee against Torture issued a report strongly criticizing the US prisons on a number of issues, among them torture and the extensive use of solitary confinement. The US uses long-term solitary more than any other country in the world, on any given day, at least 80,000 people are held in solitary confinement in the US. Political prisoners have been held in long-term solitary confinement as demonstrated by the imprisonment of black liberation activists who were held in solitary for decades. And whistleblowers have been held in solitary as was Chelsea Manning during her prosecution, including her most recent incarceration for refusing to testify before the grand jury investigating Assange. The European Court of Human Rights has prevented extradition to the US from the UK in a case involving an alleged terrorist because of inhumane prison conditions.

The US put forward a flimsy indictment that even on its face did not prove the allegation of assisting Manning with the password to access secret documents. The US put forward this weak and relatively mild charge probably to make extradition easier. They sought to avoid the political issue, which could have stopped the extradition. But, they are skirting extradition law with this approach, and if they hit Assange with a superseding indictment when he is extradited, it would be a violation of the doctrine of specialty, which means a person can only face trial for offenses presented to justify that extradition.

The Politics of the Assange Prosecution

The reality of the Assange prosecution being about his journalism is obvious to all. Those in the media making the claim that this is about hacking, know they are stretching the truth in order to side with the US government. People should know media that make this claim cannot be trusted to report the truth.

The editor of White House Watch, Dan Froomkin, pulls the thin veil off of this lie writing:

“Julian has been charged with conspiracy to commit journalism. The free press has not ducked a bullet here; it’s taken one to the chest.”

The Assange prosecution is about the criminalization of journalism. The Committee to Protect Journalists writes, the indictment would “criminalize normal journalistic activities.” This obvious truth will become more evident as the case proceeds and the movement educates the public and mobilizes support to free Assange.

Already, in USA Today, Jonathan Turley clarified what the prosecution is really about:

“WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be punished for embarrassing the DC establishment.”

The “embarrassment” really is committing crimes that in an effective international judicial system would result in prosecution of US officials and members of the US military who committed them. And in a US justice system that sought justice, there would have been prosecutions of members of the military for torture and of lawyers providing legal cover for these actions.

The US election season is upon us and this presents opportunities for mobilization and making Assange’s case an election issue. One presidential candidate seeking the Democratic nomination, Tulsi Gabbard, has already come out against extradition. More candidates need to be urged to oppose extradition.

Candidates can be pressured from outside the Democratic Party as well. Green candidate, Howie Hawkins already wrote that he opposes extradition and urges people to defend Freedom of the Press. Hawkins is in the exploratory phase of a potential campaign. The Green Party has also published a statement that “unequivocally condemns the arrest of Julian Assange and calls for his immediate release.”

President Trump has kept his options open. Trump said in the Oval Office, that he “knows nothing” about the prosecution and “It’s not my thing.” Sean Hannity, a Trump media cheerleader has offered to let Assange host his show and reach his 15 million viewers. Assange is a wedge issue that divides Trump loyalists.

If the movement does its job and builds a national consensus against the prosecution of a publisher for reporting the truth, Trump may side with those in his voting base that are against extradition; and the leading Democratic candidates may also come out against prosecution and stand for freedom of the press that reports crimes of the US government.

In the United Kingdom, politics are in flux as well. While the next election is scheduled for 2022, the government is ever closer to being forced to hold an election as it is trapped in a Brexit quandary and showing its inability to govern. Jeremy Corbyn has already said,

“The extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government.”

Diane Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary, said Assange should not be extradited:

“It is this whistleblowing into illegal wars, mass murder, murder of civilians and corruption on a grand scale, that has put Julian Assange in the crosshairs of the US administration.”

In the end, a new government could end the extradition as the Home Secretary can choose to reject the extradition.

There are also international politics impacted by the Assange prosecution. Assange’s lawyer Jen Robinson said,

“extradition will set a very dangerous precedent for all media organizations and journalists around the world.” This precedent means that any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the United States for having published truthful information about the United States.”

The US is seeking to prosecute a foreign reporter, working from a foreign country about US war crimes. What would happen if a US reporter wrote about crimes in a foreign country? Could that country prosecute a US journalist? That is the precedent the US is setting. And, how hypocritical for the US to seek to prosecute a foreign journalist in the same week that the US celebrated evading an investigation by the International Criminal Court of alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan.

Free Assange protest outside of British Embassy in Washington DC from News2Share.com

Free Assange Campaign Will Be A Global Campaign For The Right To Know

At least five times, the UN, through various committees and special rapporteurs, has called on Assange not to be prosecuted or extradited to the United States. A campaign to stop the prosecution of Assange will build into a global movement because the US has created chaos and havoc around the world, and has killed more than a million people this century and made many millions into refugees.

The people of the world are impacted by the actions of the United States and they have a right to know what the US is doing. The people of the US are told we live in a democracy, but there can be no democracy when the people are not allowed to know what the government is doing in our name.

Protests occurred immediately on the day Assange was arrested and continued this weekend. We have started a campaign to Free Assange. As people understand the dramatic implications of this prosecution, protests will grow. Daniel Ellsberg described this unprecedented prosecution as a threat to the future of the republic and said it was time “to join ranks here now to expose and resist the wrongful–and in this country unconstitutional–abuse of our laws to silence journalists.”

In court, Assange showed his defiance of the national security state, which seeks to destroy him, by sitting calmly in the dock, reading Gore Vidal’s ‘History of the National Security State’ and holding it up obviously to give everyone in court a view.  We must be in solidarity with that defiance and build the campaign that is needed to free Julian Assange.

*

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

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Abshir’s

Just over a week ago Abshir, from Somalia, was transferred from Samos to a mainland refugee camp at Nea Kavala in northern Greece. He was part of around 350 refugees taken that day from Samos as part of the Government’s attempt to ease pressure on the massively overcrowded camp in Vathi. All of them left on the ferry to Athens and in Abshir’s case with some others, he was bussed north. In all a journey of nearly 24 hours. No food or drink provided.

Abshir was very nervous about this move. He did not want to leave Samos. After 5 months this shy gay young man from Somalia was at last feeling more comfortable. UNHCR had recognised that it was not safe for Abshir, on account of his sexuality, to stay in the camp which led to the Greek NGO, Arsis, funded by the UNHCR, to provide him with a single room in a modern shared apartment. It was not five star but it was a million times better than the tent he had in the jungle around the camp. He had access to a shower, washing machine, kitchen, wi fi; he had his room and he was warm and dry. As he grew in confidence he made some close friends and started Greek language classes, again funded by UNHCR. He was also making plans to create a small business.

If Abshir refused to move he would lose his monthly UNCHR allowance and his accommodation. Without any family support or other sources of regular income he felt he had no choice. So his focus shifted to finding out what he could expect when he got to Nea Kavala and to ensure that his case papers were transferred. Basically he was told that he need have no worry and that he would continue to receive the appropriate care although he would be need to be patient as they had many people arriving in Nea Kavala, especially from the frontier islands of Kos, Lesvos and Samos.

Since arriving in Nea Kavala Abshir has been living in a tent. He has one blanket. Most nights he is cold. He sleeps on the floor.

Image on the right: Abshir’s Tent

The tent sits on stones so the floor is uncomfortable. It has no electricity, no furniture, no wi fi access, no cooking facilities. The meals are basic and he can’t eat them as they give him a bad stomach pain. Hours are spent in lines – for food, for the showers, for the toilet. The water is heated by solar panels so in the early mornings the water is cold. This is when Abshir showers as there is no line. The laundry is overwhelmed and gives priority to established residents. He tells me that even if could find a way to wash his clothes he would have to sit and watch them. There is so much hardship in the camp that nothing is secure. Already he has had milk and bread and some money taken from his tent. Many people are very hungry he said. The only consolation is that he is alone in the tent, but he has been told that this could change at any time as new refugees arrive.

The camp which is home to over 700 refugees is isolated. The few facilities on offer are provided by a Danish NGO which is UNHCR funded. UNHCR and the Asylum Service have no permanent presence in the camp. Neither do any lawyers. So when they make their twice weekly visits they are overwhelmed. Absher has met with the lawyers who told him that he would have to wait. They did tell him however, that his papers had not yet arrived.

There is a supermarket around 20 minutes walk from the camp and the nearest town 45 minutes on foot.

Image below: Nea Kavala Camp

Abshir is not alone in finding the camp a bad place to be. On April 10th an asylum lawyer came to meet all those who were recently transferred with Abshir from Samos and to give them some sense of what they could expect with respect to the asylum process. They were told that they would need to be patient as their papers had not yet arrived from Samos. This came as no surprise to Abshir but what was more noticeable was that of the 350 who came together from Samos less than a 100 were at the meeting. According to Abshir, there was so much anger and disgust at the conditions in the camp – sleeping in tents, cold, terrible food, no electricity, its isolation and more – that those who could were leaving.

Heading for the border, or to Athens, or to Thessaloniki, leaving behind those such as families who could not move so easily. And this is what they told the asylum lawyer when he asked why there were so few of them at the meeting. There was much anger in particular over the cutting of their UNHCR allowances from 140 to 90 euros a month on account that they were now being fed in the camp and no longer were responsible for their own food. The lawyer’s response was that he had nothing to say about the conditions they were complaining of as he was only responsible for the asylum process. But he urged them to be patient and not to demonstrate because if they did the police would certainly come in and jail them.

One can only wonder how many of these 350 would have boarded the ferry in Vathi at the beginning of April if they knew what was waiting for them?

A little over a week ago Abshir had his own room in the town centre of Vathi……..

Saad’s

Image on the right: Saad’s Living Room

At the same time as Abshir was being moved from Samos, Saad was moved from his apartment in Athens. In both instances they were given no choice. In Saad’s case he was moved by Praksis, a Greek NGO funded by UNHCR to provide housing for vulnerable refugees.

Alongside Saad there were two other refugees each with their own room. Most importantly, the apartment had a decent sized sitting room where Saad’s friends would meet to talk, to smoke shisha and to pass the time. There was also a balcony and all the bedrooms were furnished with wardrobes and cupboards. And over 18 months they had made the place into a comfortable home adding rugs, chairs, couches (most of them from the street) and pictures and photos on the walls.

Now Saad and his co tenants are in an apartment with just 2 rooms, no sitting area, no balcony, and no furniture. It is in poor condition.One of them has created a tent in the lobby and now sleeps there so Saad has his own room. Currently he has a bed and 12 boxes and bags with his belongings. Nothing else. Praksis told him that they can give them nothing more and that they should be happy not to be living out on the streets.

Saad and his co-tenants are furious with Praksis both with respect to what they have done and how they have done it. They say they can do nothing but Saad refuses to accept this and plans to appeal directly to UNHCR. As he said, at the end of the day he may get nowhere but he is determined that they should at least realise what they have done is inhumane, cruel and unacceptable.

Image below: Saad’s bedroom

Saad has been with Praksis long enough to know how to contact them. This is not a common experience for refugees as most of the agencies involved in the lives of refugees have developed a range of practices and mechanisms which make direct contact with someone who might know something about your case almost impossible. This was why Abshir was so concerned to ensure that information about his case should be transferred to Nea Kavala as he knew that once away from Samos, all the contacts he had made there would no longer be available to him and he would have to start afresh in the new camp. He has no named contact person and there is no continuity in his case management. This is the most common experience for all the refugees here.

Neither Saad or Abshir were given any clear reason for why they had to move. Neither were asked about how they felt and above all no choice. In Saad’s case the Praksis workers knew that the 3 refugees hated what they were given and that all are very angry. But no alternative is offered nor is there any attempt to work together to find a better place. It’s Praksis or nothing. As it stands at the time of writing, Praksis has now agreed to look for a more suitable apartment for the three of them but none of them is expecting much.

Living Space and Survival

Many issues are highlighted in these two stories.

Firstly, the powerlessness of the refugees over where and how they live. Their needs and voices are simply ignored. Refugees are given little or no notice whether it is moving house or moving off an island. Abshir and Saad had 5 days notice. As I write, the minster for migration is on Samos for a few days and he has just announced that when he leaves at the end of the week he will be taking hundreds of refugees with him on a Greek navy boat. I wonder if the refugees affected have been told yet? ( 494 refugees, all classed as vulnerable, were taken by a Navy ship to Athens on April 13th.) The casual way in which the agencies act in moving refugees without any negotiation or discussion; a complete disregard of their needs and circumstances reveals (once more) the fundamental lack of solidarity and respect for refugees.

Secondly, there is no sign that the authorities grasp or understand the critical importance of place (home, locality,) for refugees as they wait for the asylum system to process their applications. In Saad’s case, he has been in Greece since October 2016 and in Athens for over 2 years waiting for his final interview in June this year. As with thousands of other refugees his ability to survive these months where his life is virtually stopped has been down to his friends. In Saad’s case his apartment became part of a network of places where friends could meet and in many cases find a bed in an emergency. His home has been crucial to his well-being. This has now been taken away from him.

Abshir has his asylum interview scheduled for January 2021. As far as he knows he could be in Nea Kavala camp for 2 years.

Thirdly, these stories challenge the widely held view that refugees are better off being moved to the mainland from the camps on the frontier islands. It would seem that many assume that the conditions there would [must] be better than Samos.

There are simply no reservations to the mantra of de-congest the frontier islands of refugees. It is a mantra shared across the political spectrum and voiced by virtually every refugee agency/NGO in Greece. Here on Samos no questions are asked about where and what happens to the refugees who are moved. Of course no one asks the refugees what they think.

But there is no innocence to de-congestion. The authorities and the NGOs know very well that what awaits many of the refugees on the mainland will mark no improvement in their lives and may very well be worse than what they have left behind on the islands. But they say nothing to those leaving and do what they can to stop people from refusing to leave.

There is also a madness to de-congestion. In the week Abshir left with 350 refugees for Athens – heralded on Samos for relieving the pressure on the camp – a similar number of new refugees arrived. It is like watching a child trying to empty a bath whilst the water continues to pour in.

The camp in Vathi is an outrage. No argument. But then you are drinking tea with a 34 year old refugee from Gaza who has beautifully painted and fitted out the recently opened Banana House, a new refugee space, in Vathi. In the process of drinking tea he shows the photos of his tent in the jungle around the camp. It is amazing. From the outside it looks as desperate as all the other tents and shelters clustered amongst the olive trees. But! Inside his home made cabin under the trees he has created a place of wonder and comfort. It has a floor, carpets, store cupboards on the wall, a fire place, and a small kitchen area. He lives there with his wife and daughter. The man is a genius. There are many others maybe not as talented but who have created some comfort in such extreme conditions. They and not the authorities have done this. It is theirs. For many, their resilience as refugees rests on these kinds of activities and the spaces they create for living, meeting and talking; passing time as best they can as they wait. All these factors make arbitrary removals highly disruptive and damaging.

Without doubt after being detained on Samos being moved to the mainland carries more than the scent of a new freedom. For some their detention on Samos has been for up to 2 years and all have been on Samos for months. So it is with some hope they leave the island for the mainland.

But the way in which these movements of refugees – big and small- are managed makes them problematic and flawed. When it suits, major NGOs amongst others will draw attention to the trauma of refugees and in particular the psychological damage to refugees from being corralled in disgusting camps as on Samos. But what of their compliance in the cruelties such as moving people from their homes without notice or discussion. Silence. Where in this one part of the refugee experience in Greece does one get a clear sense that refugees are human beings with all our individual and paradoxical dimensions? Nowhere. Watching the refugees who are being moved off on the ferries is like watching sheep being herded. It is dehumanising.

Sometimes small individual stories take us to much bigger issues and in so doing reveal much especially illustrating the impact of macro policy and ideology on lived daily experiences. Abshir and Saad’s stories are such examples. For as they share their experiences we see just how pernicious and damaging is the European insistence of placing deterrence at the very centre of its refugee practices at least with respect to the kinds of refugees that come to islands like Samos. (It does not apply to those with wealth and who are offered ‘golden’ visas and the like.) As we see every day on Samos, deterrence allows no space for humanity; for dignity and respect. Deterrence does not allow for compassion and care. It is the very opposite of solidarity. And for the refugees the consequences are lethal at worst and distress at best.

(With thanks to Abshir and Saad. Your photos are great too!)

*

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 Samos Chronicles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moving Stories: From Poverty to Despair, Refugees Moved from Greece’s Samos Island to the Mainland
  • Tags: , ,