Trump regime designated puppet/usurper in waiting Guaido is a serial law breaker.

He’s Trump regime front man for the ongoing coup attempt to topple democratically elected and reelected President Maduro, along with aiming to replace Bolivarian social democracy with US-controlled fascist tyranny.

Guaido openly called for toppling Maduro, the highest of high political crimes against a legitimate government. Urging support for the coup attempt from Venezuela’s military and most ordinary people fell flat.

He flouted a Supreme Court order, prohibiting him from traveling abroad. He illegally accepted foreign funding. By his own admission, he’s been involved in sabotage attacks on Venezuela’s electricity grid.

He betrayed his country and vast majority of its people. They want Bolivarian social democracy preserved and protected. He’s allied with US dark forces to eliminate it.

Polls show Venezuelans strongly oppose foreign intervention. They’re overwhelmingly against military force for regime change.

Guaido has been under investigation by Venezuela’s chief prosecutor’s office. So far, no warrant was issued for his arrest, no official charges made against him by ruling authorities. More on this below.

Last week, Maduro’s government banned him from holding office for 15 years for financial disclosure irregularities.

State comptroller Elvis Amoroso said he spent nearly $100,000 on 91 foreign trips, the amount way exceeding his income, funds illegally received from abroad and perhaps internal sources.

Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly was established by national referendum to revise or rewrite the nation’s Constitution, above all restore and maintain order, along with serving all Venezuelans equitably.

Article 349 of Venezuela’s constitution states no other power can “in any way impede the decisions of the National Constituent Assembly” – not the president, National Assembly legislators and Supreme Court justices.

On Monday, Venezuelan Chief Supreme Court Justice Maikel Moreno called on the Constituent Assembly to strip Guaido of parliamentary immunity for the above offenses, his statement saying:

The Supreme Court “orders to hand a certified copy of this decision to the head of the national Constituent Assembly in order to recall the parliamentary immunity of Juan Gerardo Guaido Marquez.”

“The court had previously banned Guaido from traveling abroad without the permission of the court. It is well known that he violated this ban.”

He’s been investigated for inciting rebellion against Venezuela’s legitimate government, along with promoting violence and receiving banned funding from abroad.

Enacted in 2010, Venezuela’s Defense of Political Sovereignty and National Self Determination Law prohibits political organizations and individuals from receiving foreign funding.

The law was enacted to protect the Bolivarian Republic from foreign interference through financial support from interests abroad.

It applies to political parties, other organizations involved in promoting political participation by individuals, as well as public officials and candidates running for office.

Penalties include fines of up to double the amount of illicit funds reached and exclusion from political involvement for up to eight years.

“52 US Code § 30121 – Contributions and donations by foreign nationals” prohibits US politicians, aspirants, parties and related organizations from receiving foreign funding or “other thing(s) of value” in connection with federal, state or local elections.

Short of ordering his arrest, President Maduro called for Guaido to “face justice” for involvement in the Trump regime’s coup plot.

A Final Comment

On Monday, unidentified armed figures in civilian clothes opened fire on an anti-government demonstration in Caracas’ Libertador district.

Two wounded individuals were hospitalized. Video images showed two gunmen, one with a rifle, the other with a pistol.

Venezuelan corporate media blamed what happened on Maduro. It had all the earmarks of US-orchestrated violence, similar to earlier incidents.

Much more of the same is likely ahead, part of the Trump regime’s plot to topple Maduro. So far, everything thrown at him and his government failed.

Support for Guaido is waning, evident by much smaller crowds turning out to hear him, according to eyewitnesses on the ground.

At times when searching for anti-government protests, they’re unable to find any ongoing, a positive sign, but by no means indicating Trump regime hardliners intend abandoning efforts to topple Maduro.

Polar opposite is true, further tough tactics ahead virtually sure 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.

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 Russians Are Not Coming!

April 2nd, 2019 by Eric Margolis

Not since the witchcraft hysteria of the Middle Ages have we seen such a display of human idiocy, credulity and absurdist behavior.  I refer, of course, to the two-year witch hunt directed against President Donald Trump which hopefully just concluded last week – provided that the Hillaryites, Democratic dopes and secret staters who fueled this mania don’t manage to keep the pot boiling.

This column has said from Day 1 that claims Trump was somehow a Russian agent were absurd in the extreme.  So too charges that Moscow had somehow rigged US elections.  Nonsense.  We know it’s the US that helps rig elections around the globe, not those bumbling Russians who can’t afford the big bribes such nefarious activity requires.

What Mueller found after he turned over the big rock was a bevy of slithering, slimy creatures, shyster lawyers, and sleazes that are normally part of New York’s land development industry.  No surprise at all that they surrounded developer Trump.  Son-in-law Jared Kushner hails from this same milieu. The Kushners are pajama-party buddies with Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Now that the Mueller investigation found no collusion between the Trump camp and the Kremlin, we Americans owe a great big apology to Vladimir Putin for all the slander he has suffered.  Too bad he can’t sue the legions of liars and propagandists who heaped abuse on him and, incidentally, pushed the US and Russia to the edge of war.

People who swallowed these absurdist claims really should question their own grasp of reality.  Those who believed that the evil Kremlin was manipulating votes in Alabama or Missouri would make good candidates for Scientology or the John Birch Society.

They were the simple fools.  Worse, were the propagandists who promoted the disgusting Steele dossier, a farrago of lies concocted by British intelligence and apparently promoted by the late John McCain and Trump-hating TV networks.  One senses Hillary Clinton’s hand in all this. Hell indeed hath no fury like a woman scorned.

It’s so laughably ironic that while the witch hunt sought a non-existent Kremlin master manipulator, the real foreign string-puller was sitting in the White House Oval office chortling away:  Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, behind him, the moneybags patron of Trump and Netanyahu, American billionaire gambling mogul, Sheldon Adelson, the godfather of Greater Israel.

The three amigos had just pulled off one of the most outrageous violations of international law by blessing Israel’s annexation of the highly strategic Golan Heights that Israel had seized in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.  This usurpation was so egregious that all 14 members of the UN Security Council condemned it.  Even usually wimpy Canada blasted the US.

Giving Golan to Israel means it has permanently secured new water sources from the Mount Hermon range, artillery and electronic intelligence positions overlooking Damascus, and the launching pad for new Israeli land expansion into Lebanon and Syria.  Israel is said to be preparing for a new war against Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.

In contrast to this cynical business over Golan, the Trump administration is still hitting Russia with heavy sanctions over Moscow’s re-occupation of Crimea, a strategic peninsula that was Russian for over 300 years.  So Israel can grab Golan but Russia must vacate Crimea.  The logic of sleazy politics.

We also learned last week that according to State Secretary Mike Pompeo, Trump might have been sent by us by God, like ancient Israel’s Queen Esther, to defend Israel from the wicked Persians.  Up to a quarter of Americans, and particularly Bible Belt voters, believe such crazy nonsense.  For them, Trump is a heroic Crusading Christian warrior.

This is as nutty as Trump being a Commie Manchurian candidate.  We seem to be living in an era of absurdity and medieval superstition.  No wonder so many nations around the globe fear us.  We too often look like militant Scientologists with nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, the cool, calm, collected Vladimir Putin remains in charge of the other side in spite of our best efforts to overthrow or provoke him.

*

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

Eric S. Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.

The volume of international transfers of major arms in 2014–18 was 7.8 per cent higher than in 2009–13 and 23 per cent higher than in 2004–2008, according to new data on arms transfers published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The five largest exporters in 2014–18 were the United States, Russia, France, Germany and China. Together, they accounted for 75 per cent of the total volume of arms exports in 2014–18. The flow of arms increased to the Middle East between 2009–13 and 2014–18, while there was a decrease in flows to all other regions.

The gap between the USA and other arms exporters widens

US arms exports grew by 29 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18, and the US share of total global exports rose from 30 per cent to 36 per cent. The gap between the top two arms-exporting states also increased: US exports of major arms were 75 per cent higher than Russia’s in 2014–18, while they were only 12 per cent higher in 2009–13. More than half (52 per cent) of US arms exports went to the Middle East in 2014–18.

‘The USA has further solidified its position as the world’s leading arms supplier,’ says Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘The USA exported arms to at least 98 countries in the past five years; these deliveries often included advanced weapons such as combat aircraft, short-range cruise and ballistic missiles, and large numbers of guided bombs.’

Arms exports by Russia decreased by 17 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18, in particular due to the reduction in arms imports by India and Venezuela. Between 2009–13 and 2014–18 France increased its arms exports by 43 per cent and Germany by 13 per cent. The combined arms exports of European Union member states accounted for 27 per cent of global arms exports in 2014–18.

Global arms trade: USA increases dominance; arms flows to the Middle East surge, says SIPRI

The trend in international transfers of major weapons, 1979—2018. Data and graphic: SIPRI

A small number of countries outside Europe and North America are large arms exporters. China was the fifth largest arms exporter in 2014–18. Whereas Chinese arms exports rose by 195 per cent between 2004–2008 and 2009–13, they increased by only 2.7 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18. Israeli, South Korean and Turkish arms exports increased substantially—60 per cent, 94 per cent and 170 per cent, respectively—between 2009–13 and 2014–18.

Middle Eastern arms imports almost double in the past five years

Arms imports by states in the Middle East increased by 87 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18 and accounted for 35 per cent of global arms imports in 2014–18. Saudi Arabia became the world’s largest arms importer in 2014–18, with an increase of 192 per cent compared with 2009–13. Arms imports by Egypt, the third largest arms importer in 2014–18, tripled (206 per cent) between 2009–13 and 2014–18. Arms imports by Israel (354 per cent), Qatar (225 per cent) and Iraq (139 per cent) also rose between 2009–13 and 2014–18. However, Syria’s arms imports fell by 87 per cent.

‘Weapons from the USA, the United Kingdom and France are in high demand in the Gulf region, where conflicts and tensions are rife,’ says Pieter D. Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Russia, France and Germany dramatically increased their arms sales to Egypt in the past five years.’

Asia and Oceania remains the largest importer region

States in Asia and Oceania received 40 per cent of global arms imports in 2014–18, but there was a decrease of 6.7 per cent compared with 2009–13. The top five arms importers in the region were India, Australia, China, South Korea and Viet Nam.

Australia became the world’s fourth largest arms importer in 2014–18 after its arms imports increased by 37 per cent compared with 2009–13. Indian arms imports decreased by 24 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18. Russia accounted for 58 per cent of India’s arms imports in 2014–18. Chinese arms imports decreased, but it was still the world’s sixth largest arms importer in 2014–18.

‘India has ordered a large number of major arms from foreign suppliers; however, deliveries are severely delayed in many cases,’ says Siemon T. Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘In contrast, Chinese arms imports decreased because China has been more successful in designing and producing its own modern weaponry.’

Other notable developments:

  • Between 2009–13 and 2014–18 arms imports decreased by states in the Americas (–36 per cent), in Europe (–13 per cent), and in Africa (–6.5 per cent).
  • Algeria accounted for 56 per cent of African imports of major arms in 2014–18. Most other states in Africa import very few major arms.
  • The top five arms importers in sub-Saharan Africa were Nigeria, Angola, Sudan, Cameroon and Senegal. Together, they accounted for 56 per cent of arms imports to the subregion.
  • Between 2009–13 and 2014–18 British arms exports increased by 5.9 per cent. In 2014–18 a total of 59 per cent of British arms exports went to the Middle East, the vast bulk of which was made up of deliveries of combat aircraft to Saudi Arabia and Oman.
  • Venezuelan arms imports fell by 83 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18.
  • China delivered major arms to 53 countries in 2014–18, compared with 41 in 2009–13 and 32 in 2004–2008. Pakistan was the main recipient (37 per cent) in 2014–18, as it has been for all five-year periods since 1991.

*

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

NATO Propaganda Promotes War, Military Spending

April 2nd, 2019 by Yves Engler

Third in a four-part series on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The first two installments of the series showed how NATO was set up to blunt the European left and to justify European/North American dominance across the globe. Recently, the alliance has intensified pressure on Canada to increase spending on the military and participate in more wars.

As its Cold War pretext fades further from view, NATO has become more belligerent. In 1999 Canadian fighter jets dropped 530 bombs in NATO’s illegal 78-day bombing of Serbia. During the 2000s tens of thousands of Canadian troops fought in a NATO war in Afghanistan. In 2011 a Canadian general led NATO’s attack on Libya in which seven CF-18 fighter jets and two Canadian naval vessels participated.

In a dangerous game of brinksmanship, NATO has massed troops and fighter jets on Russia’s border. Five hundred Canadian troops lead an alliance mission in Latvia while the US, Britain and Germany head missions in Poland, Lithuania and Estonia. Over the past decade Canadian naval vessels have almost constantly engaged in NATO patrols in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean.

In addition to spurring deployments and war, militarists use the alliance to boost socially and ecologically damaging military spending. “Canada’s defence spending questioned at NATO parliamentary meeting”, noted a November CBC headline while a National Post editorial bemoaned “Canada’s continuing failure to honour our pledge to NATO allies to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence.” In 2006 NATO countries adopted a pledge to put 2% of economic output into their military.

NATO has also been used to push weapons procurement. Calling for expanding the jet fleet, senior military officials told the Globe and Mail in 2017 that “Canada’s fighter fleet is not big enough to meet its NORAD and NATO obligations at the same time.” In a history of the first century of the navy Marc Milner describes a series of reports in the mid-1960s concluding that the Royal Canadian Navy was “too small to meet Canada’s NATO obligations” and should be expanded “to meet NATO and North American commitments.”

NATO has also been invoked to justify arming the US war machine. In 1967 the Prime Minister responded to calls by opponents of the war in Vietnam to end the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, the arrangement under which Canada sold the US weapons, with the claim that to do so would imperil NATO. Lester Pearson claimed this “would be  interpreted as a notice of withdrawal on our part from continental defense and even from the collective defence arrangements of the Atlantic alliance.”

In 2017 the Justin Trudeau government “hid behind Canada’s NATO membership”, according to NDP foreign critic Hélène Laverdière, when it opposed international efforts to ban nuclear weapons. At a time when he made a big display about “suffocating” the (nuclear) arms race Pierre Trudeau justified nuclear tipped cruise missiles testing in Canada. In 1983 the Prime Minister said, “having declared our support for the two track strategy, Canada should bear its fair share of the burden which that policy imposes on the NATO alliance.”

NATO is a nuclear weapons club. These monstrous bombs have been “a fundamental component” of the alliance’s military planning. Through NATO Canada has effectively committed to fighting a nuclear war if any country breached its boundaries. Additionally, the alliance does not restrict  its members from using nuclear weapons first.

NATO supports various militarist organizations in this country and operates a public diplomacy division. Founded in 1966 the NATO Association of Canada, formerly Atlantic Council of Canada, promotes the alliance. With an office in Toronto its staff and interns organize public events and publish different materials. A decade older than the NATO Association of Canada, the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association seeks “to increase knowledge of the concerns of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly among parliamentarians.”

A number of Canadian organizations receive NATO’s largess. Conference of Defense Associations conferences in Ottawa have received support from NATO while the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has held numerous joint symposiums with NATO. The annual Halifax International Security Forum, which brings together hundreds of academics and policymakers, is sponsored by NATO. In the late 1980s the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies had “agreements with NATO’s Information Service to conduct a national/regional speakers tour.”

In other words NATO spends money (which ultimately come from our taxes) to convince Canadians that wars and military spending are good for us.

*

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 military helicopter training facility, constructed by Russia’s Rosoboronexport, was revealed in Venezuela Friday, several days after Moscow deployed troops and equipment to the crisis-stricken South American country, reported TASS News.

“A modern helicopter training center was built under Rosoboronexport’s contract with Venezuelan state-owned defense manufacturer (CAVIM). Its opening ceremony took place on March 29,” Rosoboronexport said.

The statement added that the training facility had opened earlier in the week “with Russian and Venezuelan specialists participating.”

“At present, Russian helicopters supplied to Venezuela not only take part in operations against smugglers, but also successfully perform aerial survey of wildfires, take part in rescue and evacuation missions in areas hit by natural disasters and deliver humanitarian cargo to remote regions of the country,” Rosoboronexport added.

A source within Venezuela’s Army Aviation told TASS that the facility would make the training process more efficient for future helicopter pilots and crews.

Rosoboronexport will supply Russian-made Mi-35M multi-role combat attack helicopters for missions related to targeting illicit drug production facilities, the source said.

“One Mi-35M2 helicopter is capable of delivering a special group of five or six officers, providing fire support if necessary and evacuating the team after the task is fulfilled,” the source said.

The announcement came several days after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced the build-up of Russian troops and equipment in the country.

The Trump administration condemned President Maduro on Friday for what it said was his cozy relationship with Moscow.

President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton and U.S. special envoy for Venezuela Elliott Abrams said Russia’s presence in the country is extremely destabilizing for the Western Hemisphere.

“We strongly caution actors external to the western hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela, or elsewhere in the hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations,” the national security adviser said in a statement.

Russia responded over the weekend by indicating it had sent military personnel to the Latin American country based on a military-technical cooperation agreement from 2001.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said approximately 100 troops have been sent to the country “for as long as needed.”

Russia and China both support the Maduro regime. President Maduro has said,” American imperialists want to kill me.”

Moscow has recently accused Washington of engineering a violent coup in Venezuela in violation of the United Nations Charter.

*

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 Zero Hedge

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: What is your analysis of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and in Gaza?

Abdel Bari Atwan: The Palestinian political scene is in a state of paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the disastrous Oslo process. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is not in good health, so the stage is now set for the post-Abu Mazen period. But nobody has a roadmap for where to go. Abu Mazen is the last of the founding fathers, and his departure will cause the Fateh movement to fragment and lose influence, as happened to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) after the death of George Habash. So chaos and confusion prevail. I wouldn’t be surprised if people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip draw inspiration from the demonstrations in Sudan and Algeria.

MA: What about the Palestinians’ right of return to their lands stolen since 1948 and the deal of the century that removes the Palestinian right of return? Has the deal of the century been abandoned or is it still valid?

ABA: The ‘Deal of the Century’ cannot be pulled off. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi consigned it to an early death, as it plunged the deal’s broker into crisis. No Palestinian could accept it anyway. The Palestinian Revolution began in the refugee camps. It was all about the right of return. To abandon it would be to abandon the Palestinian cause. That right and others cannot be bought off with promises of investment or improved economic conditions, as the deal proposes. Palestine is not Northern Ireland.

MA: How do you explain that at the moment when in Europe and in the USA, we see rising a great critical movement of Israel, like the BDS which advocate different forms of boycott, Arab countries are normalizing their relations with the Zionist and criminal entity of Israel?

ABA: These moves towards normalization are not too worrying, as they are confined to the governments and do not extend to the peoples.The peoples reject normalization with Israel, as the cases of Jordan and Egypt show. It’s the same in every other Arab country. Israel is alarmed by BDS and how it may develop in future. This explains its frenetic efforts to brand all criticism and opposition anywhere in the world as anti-Semitic: it fears to become a pariah state and the only way it can avoid that is to criminalize and close down exposure and discussion of its behavior.

MA: What is your reading of the Warsaw conference of February 13 and 14, when we saw the alliance between Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, etc. and the Zionist and criminal entity Israel against Iran?

ABA: The Warsaw Conference was a one-man show, starring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was staged for his benefit, but I believe it was a failure. Its original purpose was to launch a new US-led alliance — a so-called ‘Arab Nato’ — that would act as the spearhead of an international coalition against Iran and include Israel as a member, probably informally at first. But the Gulf States that the US is trying to turn into allies of Israel are not representative of the Arab world as a whole. They account for less than 5% of the Arab population, and their own peoples overwhelmingly reject normalization with Israel. In recent years these states have been able to play a dominant role in the Arab world due to their oil wealth and their manipulation of political Islam. But political Islam has been changing in nature, and the importance of oil in the global energy picture has been declining, so their ‘golden age’ is drawing to a close.

MA: How did we get to the fact that some Arab countries come to betray and sell themselves to the Zionist and criminal entity of Israel?

ABA: It’s not new, and mainly it’s a matter of perceived self-preservation. Regimes see the goodwill of the US as vital, and Israel as the key to the US’ heart. They talk about a shared interest in confronting Iran but that shouldn’t be taken at face value. Israel talks up the Iranian threat as a way of trying to sideline the Palestinian cause, and the Gulf States do the same to bolster the rule of their regimes. This also entails the poisonous fuelling of Sunni-Shii sectarianism.

MA: I did an investigation a few years ago about the activities of the Israeli lobby in Congo. What is your reading of Israel’s strategic redeployment in Africa?

ABA: Africa is currently an arena of rivalry for influence and competing interests involving many countries – the US, China, Turkey, Israel, Russia, and others. Israel does not have much to offer Africa, other than political influence in Washington. It is eager to establish a presence and exert influence on the periphery of important Arab countries like Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt.These countries are all in a weakened state at present and preoccupied with internal problems. But they will eventually recover and their governments will awaken. Sub-Saharan Africa is their natural hinterland and they cannot be prized apart in the long term.

MA: The people of Yemen is experiencing a criminal war waged by Saudi Arabia and its allies in total silence. How do you explain this silence of the international community and the media?

Abdel Bari Atwan 1 48e65

ABA: The West turned a blind eye to the Yemen war when it was launched four years ago because of Saudi influence and interests. It gave Saudi Arabia a chance to resolve the conflict in its favor. But neither Saudi Arabia nor the West appreciated the nature of Yemen or its people into account. They should have heeded the advice of the kingdom’s founder, King Abdelaziz, who ordered his sons Faisal and Saud to withdraw when they tried to invade the country. The latest war on Yemen has had a catastrophic effect, but in military terms, it has been a failure. The international silence is now beginning to be broken, and I hope that continues.

MA: What is your reading of events happening in Venezuela? Do you think that the United States will come to a direct military intervention?

ABA: What is happening in Venezuela is a US-sponsored coup attempt and I believe it will fail.

MA: There is no longer any mention of the Khashoggi case, which showed the true face of the Saudi regime and raised a worldwide outcry. How do you explain that?

ABA: The Khashoggi case is closely linked to Trump’s fate. Trump’s opponents in the US seized on it as a stick with which to beat him, due to his close association with the current Saudi leadership. That’s why there was such an outcry over the killing, however horrific, on an individual, but no similar reaction to Saudi actions that caused thousands of deaths such as the war on Yemen (until recently) and the proxy intervention in Syria. It should not be any surprise, however, that US and Western interests ultimately prevailed over human rights concerns, in this case like so many others. The Israel Lobby has also played a part in suppressing the outcry.  But the affair will have a longer-term impact. It laid bare Saudi Arabia’s high-handedness and dominance in the region.

MA: How do you analyze the events taking place in Algeria against the fifth term of Bouteflika?

ABA: The protests were not so much against Bouteflika as against the ruling elite that was using him as a front and was too divided to agree on a replacement for him, long after he should have been allowed to retire. The powers-that-be made three mistaken assumptions: first, that the fifth term could be pushed through; second, that Algerians would rather have stability than democracy; and third, that the terrifying memory of the bloody decade of the 1990s would deter demonstrations or protests, for fear of repeating what happened in Syria or Libya. They seemed to think, perhaps based on Syria’s experience, that concessions are a slippery slope and not compromising pays off in the longer term. But now they have had to give at least the appearance of backing down due to the strength of popular feeling. The question now is what comes next: a measure of genuine but controlled reform as in Morocco or an Egyptian-style scenario where the army runs things behind a facade of pro-forma elections?

MA: Intelligence reports indicate a redeployment of Daesh to Libya. Can we end the terrorism of Daesh and Al Qaeda without really fighting the ideological matrix of these groups? Is it enough defeating these groups militarily?

ABA: Daesh is finished above ground in the Arab world. But it will continue to exist underground because the conditions that incubated still exist. In my view, the challenge is not so much to fight the ideology as to address those conditions. The ideology, or at least its adoption or acceptance in some places and by some people, is a product of these ‘failed-state’ conditions and the marginalization they cause. In many cases – Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen – they are a consequence, in whole or in part, of direct or indirect Western military intervention. Putting an end to these interventions would be a step to tackling the problem.

MA: Are we not witnessing the continuation of the Cold War between the US administration on one side and Russia and China on the other? How do you explain the need for the United States to have an enemy?

ABA: The US can’t sleep unless it has an enemy. It has become an obsession, though creating or talking up external enemies has always been a means of advancing the interests of domestic power elites.But the picture is changing. America is no longer rules the world in matters of war and peace. Its real power is not its military might but the US Dollar. Its abuse of its financial and commercial power has become so extensive that an international alliance is taking shape to deprive it of this weapon.

*

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

Abdel Bari Atwan is a Palestinian journalist born in 1950 in Deir al-Balah, a Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. He lived in a family of 11 children. After graduating from primary school in the refugee camp, he continued his studies in Jordan. He then studied journalism at Cairo University. After working for many Arab newspapers, he ran until 2013 al-Quds al-Arabi, a newspaper he founded in London in 1989 with other Palestinian expatriates. Today, he is the editor-in-chief of Rai al-Youm, an Arab world digital news and opinion website. He lives and works in London.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen is an independent Algerian journalist. He wrote in several Algerian newspapers such as Alger Républicain and in different sites of the alternative press.

All images in this article are from American Herald Tribune

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Palestinian Political Scene is in a State of Paralysis: “The People Reject Normalization with Israel”
  • Tags: , , ,

After every disaster, when a reporter asks the survivors about their experiences, some with the utmost honesty and astonishment answer: “We never thought it would happen to us.”

Americans are shocked to see that immigrant families, asylum seekers, babies being caged under a bridge in El Paso, Texas, in cold weather. Is this acceptable in the United States of America? The unfortunate reality is that the inhumane treatment (even temporarily) of the asylum seekers, (especially the children) has become a routine practice at detention centers for several years now.

However, most were conducted behind closed doors and out of plain site. Even after the anguishing stories of tortured teenagers in custody (such as sexual abuse, beating, long periods of confinement and in some instances keeping the children nude in a cold concrete cell) which were exposed by the people who either used to work in these centers or by the Human Right Activists and Progressive Attorneys who were in contact with these teens; the politicians – Democrats and Republicans – and their media only spent a few short days or hours talking about these abuses. By diverting the public attention to the other issues, the abused teens were generally left in the detention centers as they were found. However, today the bold and naked abuse against migrants’ families and caging them under a barbed wired bridge is done purposely in the public view to intimidate not just the immigrants but all dissent and democratic minded people.

Caging innocent people in cold weather with crying babies under a bridge in the richest country on earth simply is not a bad decision but a clear message to all working families by some fascist elements in the U.S. government. This fact is understandable when we look at the bigger picture. The forces in the U.S. who are advocating and implementing their fascistic ideology, know the solidarity between the immigrants and American working families are indissoluble. They know that soon or later with the economic downturn, all poor people (regardless of their backgrounds and social statues) will find themselves on the same side against the wealthy elites. The feud among the 1% that is played on the media every day is actually about what is the best way to control and pacify the working people.

They are afraid of a united and organized people. The fascistic minded President and his gang in the Congress, Judicial System, Law Enforcement and Military are propagating the POLICY OF FEAR here and abroad! Democrats are fearful of these policies that might backlash and undermine the whole system. That is why Mr. Trump calls the Democrats “weak”.

Under both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump administrations, the immigrant children were detained in cages. No one can deny this fact any longer. However, Mr. Trump is proud of his “Zero Tolerance” policy against immigrants or anybody else for that matter. He wants the world to see how the migrants’ families are suffering under a bridge in the cold nights. This is the essence of the FEAR DOCTRINE. At the same time that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) were placing asylum seekers families beneath the Paso del Norte International Bridge in El Paso, Texas; Mr. Trump in Michigan at a rally as part of his usual fear mongering speech against the immigrants said: “Hundreds of thousands of people … are invading … our country …. last month alone, more than 76 thousand illegal immigrants arrived at our borders … many of which are rough people … we have people that have criminal records … we apprehend them, we capture them … I.C.E., these are great American patriots. [cheers and applause]”. Of course, as always, he wrapped his fascistic talk in the American flag.

Wealthy people, including the current U.S. President should be the last people to complain about the invaders! It was the greed of the American Capitalists and plundering of the natural resources and wealth of the countries in the Latin America for centuries which caused the inevitable break-down of all arbitrary national boundaries.

That is the root of migration. The working people from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are seeking asylum in order to work and raise their families in peace. In fact in the 21st century, we have to recognize that they are the pioneers of our time, certainly not the invaders. The working people wherever they are or are forced to migrate; first and foremost they produce goods and contribute to their communities. On the other hand, “leaders” like Prime Minster May of UK / Netanyahu of Israel, President Macron of France /Poroshenko of Ukraine / Bouteflika of Algeria and of course Mr. Trump of the U.S. look like incompetent and useless politicians. They have nothing to offer except chaos, a group of people that look ridiculous in the world of politics.

The only miscalculation that the fascistic minded President Trump is not able to see is that the Fear Doctrine is effective only for a short time while the very people who are supposed to be fearful are rising up and are awakened by the 2016 election. That means the working families in the U.S. have the opportunity to get organized and unit for peace and prosperity for all by reaching to the history of the struggle of those who came before us, fought with their bodies and minds and left us with the most valuable heritage of unity and helpful guidelines.

End the Cruelty and Inhumane Treatment of Immigrants Families 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.

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fascistic Talks and Deeds Wrapped in the American Flag: “The Fear Doctrine”, Immigrant Families, Asylum Seekers, Babies Caged under a Bridge
  • Tags: ,

Russian-Chinese relations are excellent and the two Great Powers have never been closer to one another in history, but that doesn’t mean that their partnership is perfect and without its problems, as the Baikal water bottling scandal recently revealed.

A Sign Of Something Bigger?

Somewhat surprising news recently emerged from Russia after the authorities ruled that a Chinese-backed water bottling plant on the shores of Lake Baikal is illegal in response to an unprecedented social media awareness campaign that saw roughly one million people sign a petition against this project. Russian civil society is very different from the Western one, and it’s almost unprecedented that so many people in the country felt strongly enough to publicly voice their opposition to this foreign initiative that they fear (whether rightly or wrongly) will result in devastating environmental consequences in return for little to nothing of tangible benefit at all for the local communities there. Curiously enough, even Russian Prime Minister Medvedev publicly spoke about this issue during a recent question and answer session that he was involved in with VKontakte users, remarking that his use of social networks made him well aware of the public’s attitude towards this sooner than if he had relied on official channels.

Russia’s Underwhelming Progress On BRI

This interesting turn of events raises some questions about the true state of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership since it’s clear that it’s far from perfect and not without its problems, despite the “politically correct” narrative that Alt-Media regularly propagates about it. To be clear, there are no grounds for exaggerating the impact of this isolated event and speculating whether or not this might be the “beginning of the end” like some agenda-driven commentators might be tempted to do, though there are also no more grounds for pretending like this partnership is any different from any other strategic one anywhere else across the world either. As with all partnerships, this one also has its shortcomings and limitations, and it’s also sometimes affected by unforeseen circumstances such as possible corruption and the public’s intensely negative reaction to the aforesaid, which is more palpable and easily manifested in democratic systems like Russia’s than in non-democratic ones such as many of those in the “Global South”.

There’s no doubt that Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy envisions the country managing a Eurasian-wide “balancing” act greatly facilitated by its irreplaceable geographic location between Western Europe and East Asia astride the proposed Eurasian Land Bridge that might one day connect them both as one of China’s chief Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) megaprojects, but Moscow has thus far dragged its heels in this respect and has yet to make any tangible progress on this front. The “Power of Siberia” gas pipeline and two bridges across the Amur River are the only physical manifestations of Russia’s Silk Road future, being relatively small in comparison to the hefty investments that China has made in its neighboring global pivot state of Pakistan or even further afield in Africa. It’s therefore obvious that the state’s publicly proclaimed goal of embodying the geostrategic logic of Silk Road connectivity isn’t being implemented in practice, or at least not at the pace that the public would otherwise expect, prompting a much-needed explanation.

“What The US Really Wants From Russia”

Like the author wrote in his piece last year about “What The US Really Wants From Russia”, Washington is doing all that it can to pressure Moscow into scaling back its Silk Road cooperation with Beijing in exchange for a so-called “New Détente”, knowing that it can never realistically expect to get Russia to reverse its strategic relations with China (let alone turn the two into enemies like it did during the Old Cold War [India is supposed to fulfill that role this time around vis-à-vis China]) but can try to slow down the pace of their partnership instead. Whether connected to this strategy or not, it’s interesting that the Russian Finance Ministry is officially deliberating whether to divert funds from the Moscow-Kazan High-Speed Railway project that’s supposed to form part of the Eurasian Land Bridge upon completion and transfer them to the Novatek LNG project instead, as this basically aligns with the aforementioned paradigm.

Aware of this larger strategic context, it’s now possible to make more informed observations about the significance of the Baikal water bottling scandal and the possible consequences that it could have for Russian-Chinese relations. There’s no denying that the perception (keyword) of Chinese corruption, environmental degradation, and “neo-colonialism” is a powerful catalyst for Russian civil society in the Siberia and the Far East, where fears of these purportedly interconnected “three evils” are pervasive. Whether based on truth, lies, a manipulation of reality, or a combination of those three, it needs to be accepted that China suffers from serious reputational problems in that part of Russia that neither state’s authorities have been successful in fixing, which is why so many people signed the petition, protested, and even raised this issue to the level of the Prime Minister’s attention. In response, his government responsibly took action to investigate the claims and suspend the project for the time being.

There are those who might be inclined to seeing a more nefarious hand behind the latest events given Medvedev’s pro-Western and liberal proclivities that many might think would automatically make him predisposed to anti-Chinese policies and therefore function as the US’” useful (or willing) idiot” for “containing” China and ruining Russia’s Silk Road future, but that’s an entirely superficial reading of the situation in this instance because it overlooks the genuine opposition that the locals have to the water bottling project. It’s debatable whether their claims are legitimate or not, but denying the rapidity with which they were able to politically mobilize civil society in this far-flung but strategic borderland region would be the height of irresponsibility by the state. Furthermore, that interpretation over-exaggerates Medvedev’s influence and makes it seem like he’s directly defying President Putin, which isn’t the case at all. Rather, he seems to be Russia’s “bad cop” to China just like Putin is its “good cop”.

“Balancing” Between The “Good Cop” And “Bad Cop”

It shouldn’t be forgotten that Russia’s “balancing” strategy is complex and multifaceted, with the Eurasian Great Power harnessing all means of state power to influence its partners in pursuit of promoting supercontinental harmony, so it’s not amiss to suggest that Medevedev might have actually been encouraged by Putin to be the “bad cop” “laying down the law” in this respect while the President himself continues to be the “good cop” taking ties to the next level unabated. To be sure, even the “good cop” could do more to integrate Russia into the Silk Road, but considering how ultra-sensitive his people in the Siberian and Far East borderland regions are to all issues China-related (due to their fears of Chinese corruption, environmental degradation, and “neo-colonialism”), it makes sense in hindsight why he’s taking his time and not prioritizing this, to say nothing of the possible “balancing” act that he might be flirting with in regards to a “New Détente” with the US as previously explained.

Another important point is that Russia is currently trying to implement Putin’s “Great Society” socio-economic development program which prioritizes domestic infrastructure projects that would make the country more compatible with the Silk Road vision upon completion, so the case can be made that it’s better for Russia to take its time and not rush head-first into BRI until after it has the in-country capability to handle much larger capacities of trade on its own terms instead of disproportionately relying on Chinese foreign investment like Beijing’s many other partners do. This approach carries with it a touch of “Trumpist” protectionism but not enough to the point of derailing the Silk Road like the US hopes to do by weaponizing this strategy for use against China in other transit countries (most likely East African ones). It’s also not unprecedented by Russia either, considering that it recently decreed that only Russian-flagged ships can transport natural resources across the Northern Sea Route unless specific exceptions are made.

Concluding Thoughts

Returning back to the lead-in focus of this analysis, the Baikal water bottling scandal, it perfectly correlates with Russia’s real approach towards China, though it nevertheless comes off as surprising because Alt-Media misportrayed the true state of bilateral Silk Road affairs between them. The two Great Powers have never been closer to one another in history and the overall state of their relations is excellent, but Russia’s rhetoric of gloating about the West’s decline and glorifying China’s rise doesn’t always match up to reality as proven by the Kremlin’s reluctance to fully embrace BRI for domestic political reasons and out of strategic “balancing” calculations. These obstacles could be overcome if Russia and China guarantee tangible benefits to the local Siberian & Far East populations and succeed in more clearly articulating their shared Silk Road vision to one another, but groundbreaking progress probably won’t be made until after the “Great Society’s” completion at the end of Putin’s presidency.

*

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.

On August 2, 2018 an article in the Yomiuri shimbun broke the news that Tokyo Medical University has been systematically tampering with the scores of entrance exams to benefit male applicants. The news emerged in the course of an investigation into the university administration’s bribe of a high-ranking official at the Ministry of Education, Sano Futoshi.1* Officials at the university apparently boosted the entrance exam score of Sano’s son in exchange for his help in securing a grant to improve the university’s public image. Along with this case of cronyism, it came to light that the university routinely padded the scores of all male applicants except those who had been applying for four or more years. Apparently believing that women would not do as well in the medical profession, Tokyo Medical University systematically reduced their chances of admission for at least a decade. It seems that rising rates of successful female applicants prompted university officials to impose a system of automatically increasing male applicants’ scores to reduce the ratio of female students at their institution. The revelations prompted a government investigation of 81 schools, which revealed in December 2018 that at least nine other medical faculties engaged in similar practices.2

And yet, in 2013, the university began receiving a national grant to “support women.” Over three years, Tokyo Medical University was awarded over 80 million yen (about 720,000 USD) through this grant. Two university executives at the center of the admissions scandal – former chairman Usui Masahiko and former university president Suzuki Mamoru – played key roles in the Office to Promote Diversity, founded at the university in 2016. In Usui’s opening remarks at an event to celebrate the first anniversary of the Office in 2017, he called on the university staff to promote “diversity.”3 At the time, the school presented an increase in female admissions from 26.9% to 32.4% as evidence of its efforts, even as it was actively taking steps to deny admission to women with qualifying scores.4 That meant that the university was not only taking money from the government to promote female admissions but also taking money from individual female applicants whom it artificially failed (sitting a university entrance exam in Japan costs 40,000 to 60,000 yen, about 360 to 540 USD). A group of 24 women denied admission to Tokyo Medical University since 2006 have joined with a team of defense lawyers to build a legal case against the school, which includes a demand for compensation for these fees, and potentially for additional damages.5

The male officials and others that implemented systematic discrimination at Tokyo Medical University have framed their actions as a “necessary evil.” The key reason cited as a defense for Tokyo Medical University’s decision to depress female admissions was their concern that too many female doctors would result in too few doctors at their affiliated hospitals when women left their work for marriage or childbirth. In his testimony to the legal team currently investigating Tokyo Medical University’s discriminatory admissions process, Usui said that the university systematically depressed female applicants’ scores because “as women get older, their activities as doctors decrease.”6 This rhetoric echoed the sensationalistic “Coeds Ruin the Nation Theory” enunciated in the pages of the Japanese tabloids in the early 1960s. Then, Waseda University professor of literature Teruoka Yasutaka declared his desire to set quotas to limit the number of women admitted to humanities departments because women would waste their educations and ruin society.7 Now, male administrators at a number of medical universities secretly impose quotas fearing that too many women in the profession will ruin medicine.8

Tokyo Medical University’s administrators sought approval for their actions through appealing to legitimate concerns about a lack of medical professionals in Japan. But rather than lobbying to increase the quotas imposed by the Japan Medical Association on the number of doctors trained, or addressing many of the workplace issues facing overwhelmed and understaffed hospitals, these powerful administrators penalized individual women, holding them responsible for a multifaceted social problem that was not of their own making.9 On November 12, 2018, Education Minister Shibayama Masahiko noted that a government investigation had found evidence of gender bias in the admissions processes of multiple medical faculties.10 The results announced in December confirmed these suspicions, and the government has subsequently cut off subsidies to Tokyo Medical University and reduced those to Nihon University, Fukuoka University, Iwate Medical University, Juntendo University, Kanazawa Medical University, Kitasato University, and Showa University based on similar manipulations of entrance exams.11

A candlelight vigil held in front of Juntendo University on December 14, 2018 to protest the insitution’s discrimination against women in its entrance examination policies. Image courtesy of the Association to Support Victims of Entrance Exam Discrimination at Tokyo Medical University and Elsewhere (Source: APJJF)

This scandal is a case study related to several stubborn problems facing Japanese society today. It reflects how a more general context of gender discrimination threatens to impede solutions to the crises facing healthcare in Japan, and how recent efforts to counter discriminatory practices and encourage “diversity” lack accountability. This article addresses how the gender gap in the medical field points to deeper problems in the profession as a workplace, how recent research suggests that gender diversity may improve medical outcomes in terms of patient care, and how this entrance-exam scandal highlights the inadequacy and lack of accountability behind recent efforts to promote “diversity.”

Healthcare as Work

The conditions under which medical professionals labor in Japan are less than ideal. A study published in 2015 on the difficulties facing women in the medical profession found that it was not only women-specific issues, but also “poor working conditions involving long working hours” that result from “a chronic, nationwide medical workforce shortage” that negatively impacted female doctors’ physical and mental health.12 Indeed, the problems noted adversely affected men as well as women medical professionals. The stresses on the medical profession result from many factors, including government restrictions on the number of medical students, while female doctors face additional challenges. Women find their attention divided between their professional and their familial responsibilities because of longstanding assumptions about female domestic labor. Such social expectations hinder gender equality in many societies, but this is a particularly stubborn problem in Japan. The country consistently rates poorly in the Global Gender Gap Index. In 2018, Japan ranked 110 out of 149 countries in terms of gender parity, the lowest ranking of the Group of Seven industrialized nations.13 Anecdotal evidence about the entrance-exam interviews conducted at other medical universities suggests that prospective female students also face questions not only about their professional but also their personal goals, presumably because schools want to know if domestic commitments will interfere with their careers.14 Medical universities run hospitals, and they fear a staffing shortage if women – as they are often expected to do – leave the workplace to care for their families.

On the other hand, government policy depresses the number of doctors certified in order to control medical expenditures and prevent a possible surplus of doctors. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare restricts the number of physicians and imposes a medical student quota. Yet Japan’s problem is clearly a shortage of doctors. In response to severe shortages in 2007, the government increased the maximum medical school enrollment quota from 7,625 to 8,828. Shortages nevertheless persist. In terms of number of physicians per person, Japan has 2.4 per 1,000 people. This places it 27th out of 31 OECD countries surveyed, just behind the United States (2.6 doctors per 1,000 people) and on par with Poland and Mexico.15 At the same time, Japan currently vies with Israel for the lowest rate of medical graduates: 6.8 per 10,000 inhabitants in 2017.16 The specialties with the most severe shortages are obstetricians, pediatricians, emergency physicians, and surgeons. Even though current estimates predict that the number of physicians per 1,000 population will rise to 3.14 in 2035, corresponding rise in demand with Japan’s aging population’s medical needs have prompted calls for strategies to increase the number of doctors.17

A study conducted by Japanese researchers who examined trends from 1996 to 2006 to identify the primary causes of the shortage of surgeons in Japan concluded that many general surgeons at hospitals, both female and male, left their positions not to fulfill childcare responsibilities but for another job or another medical specialty in their 30s and 40s.18 This contributed to a general lack of hospital surgeons. The study noted that “poor working conditions facing hospital doctors” may account for this trend. Studies of doctors’ average working hours in Japan find a weekly median of 54.4 to 63.3 working hours. However, more hospital doctors in Japan work more than 60 hours per week than do workers in any other profession.19

Without expanding the number of physicians, it is difficult to maintain quality care standards while ensuring that women can take even the legally guaranteed maternity leave period of six weeks prior to the expected birth date and eight weeks after birth, let alone to support needs of medical professionals with childcare obligations. The most recent statistics published by the Japan Medical Association found that 50.1% of the medical facilities surveyed offered no childcare.20 Simply leaving the burden of understaffing to male and child-free female colleagues results in a culture of resentment when already heavy workloads become even more onerous if women take time away from work to have and take care of children. Because of this perceived inconvenience women may pose to co-workers when taking maternity leave, many of the physicians (65%) who participated in a survey after the Tokyo Medical University scandal broke responded that, although they did not necessarily approve of the university’s decision to actively tamper with scores, they understood the gendered logic in depressing the number of female applicants, since “it burdens others [in the workplace].”21

There is a gender gap in terms of working long hours in the medical profession, and this gap is used by some to justify depressing rates of female doctors to maintain staffing levels at hospitals. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Work found that 41 percent of male physicians and 28 percent of female physicians work 60 or more hours a week, and 11 percent of male physicians and 7 percent of female physicians work more than 80 hours a week. Among men in their 30s, 56.9 percent work over 60 hours a week.22

These long hours, however, are also linked to health problems among doctors. The government definition of karōshi [death from overwork] is the sudden death of an employee who works an average of 65 hours per week or more for more than four consecutive weeks, or for 60 hours or more for more than eight weeks. A recently published study of first-year residents at 250 training hospitals in Japan in 2011 found that residents working 80-99.9 hours per week had a 2.83-fold higher risk of developing depression than those working less than 60 hours a week, while those working 100 hours or more a week had a 6.96-fold higher risk. Of the 1,241 first-year residents surveyed by the study, 7.8 percent worked 100 hours or more a week, of which 45.5 percent displayed “clinically significant depressive symptoms” after three months.23 Another study conducted in 2004 found that residents in Japan worked a mean of 84.9 hours a week, and 16.4 percent worked more than 100 hours a week.24

Aside from sheer number of hours, doctors in Japan are often required to work extraordinarily long shifts. When working night duty, they may work a daytime shift on either end, sometimes working almost 36 consecutive hours at one go. In July 2015, when an obstetrics and gynecology resident physician in the Shinagawa Ward of Tokyo killed himself, a subsequent investigation of hospital records showed that he had logged 143 to 208 hours of overtime in the six months before his suicide, and the four monthly night shifts he worked sometimes contributed to 30-hour shifts.25

Of course these problems are not limited to the medical industry in Japan. In the United States, the conversation often focuses on “burnout” – emotional exhaustion and cynicism in one’s work. Studies have found that resident physicians in the United States, who also work long hours, reported rates of burnout symptoms (45.2% of the 3588 second-year resident physician respondents).26 Doctors in the United States have higher rates of suicide than any other profession.27 Critics of U.S. healthcare point out that Japan might serves as a potential model for the U.S., particularly considering how universal coverage and general affordability have benefited patients in Japan.28 But Japan also faces rising demand that will place more and more stresses on the system as it has existed so far, and on the doctors who work within that system.

There have been calls to reduce physicians’ workloads by distributing more tasks to nursing staff, but Japan’s aging society has created shortages in nurses as well. Even though Japan has a relatively large number of nurses – 9.06 per thousand residents, more than the 8.30 OECD average density – Japanese health care has faced a nursing shortage since the 1990s because of rapidly rising demand.29 Although demand for care workers is high, wages are relatively low for nurses and certified care workers, perhaps because it is also a feminized workforce, while extensive pre-employment training must be paid for privately. Fewer people see care work as an attractive career option. In 2007, only 16,696 people applied for 26,095 places at 419 training institutes for certified care workers.30 The government has agreements with Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam to accept foreign nurses, but the language and nursing training requirements set a high bar to clear; in 2016, among the participants in the “Indonesia-Japan collaboration on the enhancement of nursing competency through an in-service training” program, 104 of 209 (49.8%) who attempted the national exam to become a certified care worker passed, while only 65 of 447 (14.5%) who attempted the national nursing exam passed. These are both far below the national average pass rates of 72.1% for the certified care worker exam and 88.5% for the national nursing exam.31

There are only limited studies about burnout and job satisfaction among physicians in Japan, although both appear related to working conditions and seem to contribute to labor shortages at government hospitals and university hospitals.32 A 2007 found that burnout and poor mental health were directly related to job dissatisfaction and short sleeping time among doctors.33 Researchers examining physician retention at hospitals found a high correlation between frequent night duty shifts and a desire to change hospitals.34 The study found that almost 35 percent of the respondents to their survey wanted to change hospitals, and the rate was particularly high for physicians at government hospitals and university hospitals (44.3 percent and 41.5 percent respectively).35 While this study did not distinguish between male and female respondents, it did emphasize that the medical field needs to think about approaches that will allow it to retain its workforce and create a workplace in which doctors find their work satisfying in order to provide sustainable and high-quality health care.

The discussions coming out of the admissions gender discrimination scandals frame women as less committed to the workplace but does not cite the health hazards of overcommitment to the workplace. Gendered ideas about women’s responsibilities in the home and the current workplace demands in the medical field require women physicians with children to dramatically reduce their working hours. At the same time, in a work culture that encourages overwork, the demographic most vulnerable to accumulated workplace fatigue is actually male workers in their 30s and 40s. As Scott North has described in his study of death from overwork (karōshi), karōshi victims “come from all walks of life, all classes, and all occupational categories,” but are overwhelmingly male because of the gendered ideology linking masculinity and overwork.36 So a conversation about how to improve the conditions under which those in the medical profession labor is not just a conversation about improving women’s lives, although the discussion needs to include analyses of how women experience the squeeze between a workplace culture that demands long hours and societal expectations that they manage domestic and care obligations.

The pronounced M-curve in female doctors’ employment – a mid-career dip in rates of women working in the profession – is most often the result of life events like childbirth (responsible for 70 percent of female physicians’ decision to take leave) and child care (38.3 percent). According to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Work’s statistics, this means that the employment rates for women doctors reach a low of 73.4% percent twelve years after becoming certified (male doctors have an 89.9 percent employment rate twelve years after certification), then creeps up but does not match the rates of male physician employment until both are in their seventies and employment rates for both are on a downward slope. At this point, interestingly, employment rates for women overtake those for men, and there are 5-10 percent more female doctors still working in their late 70s and through to their 90s than there are male doctors. The M-curve for lifetime female employment is not dissimilar from a wider gendered tendency in employment in Japan. In the case of female doctors, however, 60.4 percent return to work within a year of taking leave.37

Source: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare38 

In short, many female doctors reduce working hours when they gave birth to children. However, the majority of female doctors who work while raising infants still work full-time – 76.5% in 2017 – somewhat lower than the 88.8% of working female doctors without children who work full-time. However, the most significant difference between the working hours of female doctors with and without children is in the hours indicated by “full time.” In 2017, of the female doctors with children ages 6-12, almost half (49.3%) worked under 40 hours a week, while only 4.7% worked 65 hours or more a week. Only about one-fifth of female doctors without children worked under 40 hours a week, while 27% of female doctors without children worked between 48 and 60 hours a week, 18% worked between 60 and 65 hours a week, and 22.6% of them worked 65 hours or more a week.39

Domestic labor in Japan is assumed to be women’s labor, and working women with children find that housework burdens them with a “second shift.” A 2012 study found that even female doctors without children spent more of their time on housework (15 hours a week) than male doctors with children (three hours a week). Unsurprisingly, female doctors with children did the most housework (36 hours a week including childcare). Adding up total work time – paid medical work and unpaid housework – demonstrates that female doctors worked the longest weeks on average, putting in over 70 hours at home and at work. While men without children worked longer hours outside the home, their paucity of housework and childcare responsibilities put their total work week at just a little over 50 hours on average.40 A recent study found that female medical students in Japan feel pressure to accommodate family responsibilities, and by the time they finish their clinical internships in their final year of medical school, their understanding is that they must choose to prioritize either family or medicine, whereas their male peers feel no similar conflict and pursue their careers based exclusively on their medical practice.41 Tokyo Medical University’s logic in reducing female admissions reflects a calculated strategy based on current gendered divisions of labor and a culture of overwork in which men can participate most fully in their professions because they participate so little in the household.

Reducing female medical school students in an effort to retain hospital physicians is not the solution to a medical industry under stress. When we think of women as a liability because of their theoretical future childbirth and care leave, we focus on only one aspect of bodies and when bodies can or cannot work. Perhaps more importantly, by defining the value of work in terms of full-time work that is inherently exhausting, with punishing hours and high levels of stress, we accept working conditions that are not healthy for any bodies, female or male. As Kyoko Tanebe put it in her editorial calling for an examination not only of gender discrimination but also of a health care funding crisis: “The current system relying on doctors who can withstand overwork is vulnerable, both as a system of labor and in terms of medical safety.”42

Quality of Health Care

Japan is certainly not the only society facing a “crisis in care” that is simultaneously a labor problem and a public health issue as well as an issue of gender discrimination. The resounding criticism of the handling of gender issues in the Japanese health care system from the Western media, in particular regarding this issue, has prompted different reactions in Japan; there are expressions of shame at Japan’s failure to properly implement “modern” global standards for gender equality, but there are also accusations of Western, particularly American, hypocrisy. After all, while this scandal provides a headline-worthy smoking gun of most certainly illegal systematic sexism, the United States’ global rankings for female participation in the medical field are only slightly better than those of Japan. Japan ranks last among the 34 member countries that make up the OECD for share of female doctors (20.3% in 2015). But the United States is fourth lowest (34.1% in 2015), well below the OECD average of 46.1%.43

This is a pressing issue for those concerned about the quality of medical care, since there is evidence that more women in the medical field makes for better medicine. A study of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries found that “elderly hospitalized patients treated by female internists have lower mortality and readmissions compared with those cared for by male internists.”44 This study estimated that, annually, “approximately 32,000 fewer patients would die if male physicians could achieve the same outcomes as female physicians.”45 Other studies have found that female doctors performed better than male doctors in the context of diabetes care.46

In an article in The Atlantic, Ed Yong introduced research showing that more US patients suffering from a heart attack, particularly female patients, die when treated by male doctors than by female doctors. It is uncertain why this is, but it suggests that female patients stand to gain most when they have access to female doctors, and that male physicians who work with female colleagues did better at treating female heart-attack sufferers. This is not to say that women are inherently more attuned to nurturing and care, but the findings do suggest, as the University of Chicago’s Vineet Arora noted, that a gender-diverse work environment is a plus and “that female physicians are an asset not just for their patients, but for their male colleagues, too.”47

The positive impact of gender diversity can also be found in medical research. A recent study that analyzed 1.5 million medical-research papers published between 2008 and 2015 found that female co-authorship increased the likelihood that research addressed gender differences. This is important because neglecting gender-related differences in disease and treatment outcomes affects health outcomes, sometimes with life-threatening consequences.48

Similarly, if crushing workloads are the expectation for all medical workers, that presents another issue for patient safety. Several studies have found a higher risk of medical error and also traffic accidents among medical staff who have been working long hours.49 Such studies expose the links between the quality of working conditions in the medical industry and the quality of healthcare.

The problems created by a shortage of hospital physicians and a maldistribution of those physicians in Japan are also particularly dangerous for some of the most medically vulnerable. One high-profile case, in which nine hospitals turned away a pregnant woman who suffered a miscarriage after the ambulance carrying her collided with a minivan on its way to a tenth hospital, prompted investigations about hospitals refusing to provide emergency care for pregnant women. A subsequent survey of 27 prefectures found that between 2004 and 2006, there had been 2,780 cases in which a pregnant woman had been denied admission by one or more hospitals. Of those, in at least 191 cases a pregnant woman transported by ambulance had been turned away by five or more hospitals because of a lack of specialist staff or beds.50

Gendered Stereotypes

As the points outlined above show, thinking about how to improve the healthcare industry in the future would benefit from thinking further about the healthcare industry as a workplace and about improving the overall quality of healthcare. This requires a deep questioning of gendered ideologies that assign women the roles of care and support, both in the home and in the hospital, while simultaneously dismissing women’s capabilities in what are considered more prestigious “specialist” positions. It would require recognition of women’s outstanding performance in significant areas of health care, as well as the burdens of discrimination under which they labor.

The consequences of gendered stereotypes are more serious than simply whether individual women entering the workforce can advance. Japan has the fourth-highest relative poverty rate among OECD countries, and the gender gap in wages and in full-time employment has created particularly vulnerable groups of women.51 Most single parents are mothers, and the poverty rate for working single-parent families is 56 percent. This is due in part to the gender wage gap, which is the highest in the OECD.52 The current public pension system offers generous benefits to married women and widows, but penalizes women who divorced or were never married, and hence are unable to access a pension based on a man’s “breadwinning” wages. A recent study noted that, since the 1980s, the marriage rate decreased and the divorce rate increased significantly, with the consequence that more and more elderly women will face the risk of poverty thus increasing poverty rates in general. Already in 2010, poverty rates for elderly women were almost double those of elderly men: 11.1% versus 6.1%. However, projections put the poverty rate of elderly women at 25% in the near future, more than double the predicted 10% for elderly men. For women who were never married or are divorced, the poverty rates are predicted to be 50%.53

The government-driven rhetoric of “creating a society in which women shine” does little to challenge a dominant narrative highlighting women’s unique relationship to care and femininity that perpetuates this kind of gendered and imbalanced poverty and precarity. In a September 2014 speech to the World Assembly for Women in Tokyo in which he outlined his vision for promoting women in the workplace, Prime Minister Abe Shinzō provided examples of the kinds of contributions he thought women could “bring to corporate management.” He cited examples of female employees who had suggested car doors that open wider to accommodate children, or had collaborated to design laptop computers that one can open without destroying a manicure. Abe concluded that “The most difficult part may be transforming the division of roles based on gender, something that is, unwittingly, firmly ingrained within us.”54 However, Abe’s own interpretation of that “certain perspective that only women can provide” – the woman’s touch – is precisely based on an ingrained stereotype of women’s abilities and women’s interests.

The admissions scandal at Tokyo Medical University also exposed the emptiness of various recent initiatives to promote greater gender diversity. As mentioned above, Tokyo Medical University received grant money to “promote women’s activities” and Suzuki Mamoru, then-president of the university and an initiator of the quotas on female admissions, publicly endorsed policies advocated by the Gender Equality Bureau Cabinet Office’s annual “General Assembly of Male Leaders.”55 The quotas Suzuki imposed sit uneasily alongside the “action plan” published on the Bureau’s homepage, which includes “disrupting the status quo” by taking “every chance to ask the questions below and advance changes in the mindset in the whole organization: Why are there no women? Why are women 30% or less? Why isn’t the ratio of men to women fifty-fifty (50:50)?” That he publicly subscribed to such initiatives while actively imposing a policy to cap female admissions at 30% required a powerful cynicism. Although he may have sympathized with the diversity ideal in the abstract sense, he sabotaged it in fulfilling his responsibility to train physicians.

It is in the gap between an often tone-deaf rhetoric at the level of the national gender equality initiatives and a complete lack of accountability in governance that this systematic gender discrimination persists. This story doesn’t seem limited to a few powerful men at one institution. Observers of the stubborn imbalance in acceptance rates between men and women to medical schools had already voiced suspicions that universities were controlling the student ratio. In an August 2017 report for the Japan Joint Association of Medical Professional Women, Kyoko Tanebe noted that the rates for female admissions to medical schools seemed artificially depressed over the last fifteen years in light of recent trends in other fields. So-called “cram schools” which prepare students for university admissions exams and obsessively track these statistics also observed similar gender gaps in the admissions rates at other schools. A representative from Ace Academy, a cram school for medical universities, noted the lopsided pass rate for young men and women at St. Marianna Medical University, Showa University, and Nihon University in the second round of entrance exams, which consist of interviews and written essays, in spite of general parity on earlier rounds of subject exams.56 Jutendo University was also suspected of rigging entrance exam results to favor male applicants.57 Others have called this depression of female acceptance rates to medical schools an open secret. The Ministry of Education’s nation-wide investigation into the admissions practices of 81 medical faculties confirmed these suspicions and found that several other medical faculties engaged in similarly suspect admissions’ practices, including Nihon University, Juntendo University, Showa University, Iwate Medical University, Kanazawa Medical University, Kitasato University, Kobe University, and Fukuoka University.58

Perhaps this scandal will offer an opening to debates about how to address long-standing gendered inequalities in the medical field and beyond. One hopes it will also initiate further debates about the social costs of such discrimination on the medical profession as a workplace and a place of care.

*

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

Our thanks to The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus for having brought this important article toour attention

Chelsea Szendi Schieder is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Economics at Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo, Japan. She writes contemporary histories about contentious politics for academic and general audiences. Her book on the gendered politics of the postwar student movement in Japan, entitled Co-Ed Revolution: The Female Student in the Japanese New Left, is forthcoming with Duke University Press.

Notes

Japanese names are written according to Japanese conventions, with last name first, except in cases in which the last names are published last in scholarly journals and English-language publications.

“Japan medical schools ‘rigged women’s results.’ (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46568975) BBC News (December 14, 2018) (accessed January 31, 2019).

‘Daibaashiti suishin honbu kaisetsu kinen, Tokyo Ika Daigaku danjo kyōdō sankaku sokushin seminaa’ ga 1-gatsu 11-nichi ni kaisai saremashita [‘Commemoration of the founding of the diversity promotion headquarters, Tokyo Medical University gender equality promotion seminar’ held on January 11th]” Tokyo Medical University website (January 13, 2017) (accessed August 10, 2018).

Tokyo Idai ni ‘josei katsuyaku’ hojo 8000 man en genten giwaku no jiki, kuni kara 3 nen de kōfu [Tokyo Medical University received a government grant of 800 million yen for three years to support “women’s activities,” a period in which it is suspected of reducing scores]Tokyo shimbun (August 4, 2018) (accessed August 6, 2018).

Women demand compensation from Tokyo Medical University over rigged entrance exams” The Japan Times (October 30, 2018) (Accessed November 2, 2018)

Chōsa hōkokusho [Inquiry report]” Gakkō hōjin Tokyo Ika Daigaku naibu chōsa iinkai [Tokyo Medical University, Inc. internal inquiry committee] (August 6, 2018) (accessed August 10, 2018).

Hara Kimi, “Joshi kyōiku no tenkai to shakai hendō [The development of women’s education and social change]” in Shakai hendō to kyōiku [Social change and education] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1976), 51–69; Nobuyuki Kuroda and Michiko Tanaka, Joshi gakusei [Women’ s education] (Tokyo: San’ichi Shobo, 1969), 158–161.

“Japan medical schools ‘rigged women’s results.’ (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46568975) BBC News (December 14, 2018) (accessed January 31, 2019).

Tokyo Idai no kokusai nintei torikeshi: hyōka kikō, nyūshi fusei de [Tokyo Medical University international certification canceled: citing evaluation mechanism, unfair entrance exams]Nikkei shimbun(November 22, 2018) (accessed December 4, 2018)

10 Fuksuu igakubu, nyūshi de danjo ni sa o settei daigakume wa meigen sezu [Multiple medical faculties established gender gaps in entrance exams, school names not announced]Asahi shimbun (October 12, 2018) (accessed December 4, 2018)

11 Government cuts off subsidies to Tokyo Medical Unviersity over entrance exam discrimination” The Japan Times (January 22, 2019) (Accessed January 30, 2019)

12 Kyoko Nomura, Yuki Yamazaki, Larry Gruppen, Saki Horie, Masumi Takeuchi, Jan Illing. “The difficulty of professional continuation among female doctors in Japan: a qualitative study of alumnae of 13 medical schools in Japan.” BMJ Open (2015), 5(3): 1-7.

13 Japan crawls up to 110th in global gender gap ranking but women’s participation still low Mainichi Japan (December 18, 2018) (Accessed January 30, 2019)

14 Tanaka Shino, Kinkozan Masako. “Tōkyō idai dake janai? Nyūshi de no danjo sabetsu. Ishira ga shōgen “idai zentai ni aru to makoto shiyaka ni uwasasareteita” [Not just Tokyo Medical University? Gender discrimination in entrance examinations. Doctors’ testimony: ‘There are plausible rumors that it happens at all medical universities’]Huffpost Japan (August 2, 2018) (Accessed January 30, 2019)

15 OECD (2018), Doctors (indicator). doi: 10.1787/4355e1ec-en (accessed on 20 November 2018)

16 OECD (2018), Medical graduates (indicator). doi: 10.1787/ac5bd5d3-en (accessed on 20 November 2018)

17 Koichiro Yuji, Seiya Imoto, Rui Yamaguchi, et al. “Forecasting Japan’s Physician Shortage in 2035 as the First Full-Fledged Aged Society” PLOS ONE (2012), 7(11).

18 Yasuhiro Mizuno, Hiroto Narimatsu, Yuko Kodama, Tomoko Matsumura, Masahiro Kami. “Mid-career changes in the occupation or specialty among general surgeons, from youth to middle age, have accelerated the shortage of general surgeons in Japan.” Surgery Today (2014) 44: 601-606.

19 Doctor’s suicide after monthly overtime exceeded 200 hours recognized as work-related” Japan Times (August 10, 2017) (accessed December 4, 2018)

20 Josei ishi no kinmu kankyō no genkyō ni kan-suru chōsa hikaku shōsai han [Investigation into present conditions of women doctors work environment: comparative detailed edition]” Nihon ishikai danjo kyōdō sankaku iinkai / Nihon ishikai josei ishi shien sentaa [Japan Medical Association gender equality plannning committee / Japan Medical Association women doctor support center] (June 2009) (accessed on 20 November 2018)

21 Ishi 65% ‘joshi genten rikai dekiru’ jinzai kaisha netto chōsa [65% of doctors: ‘understand reducing women’s scores’ on an HR recruitment agency’s online survey]Asahi shimbun (August 8, 2018) (Accessed August 30, 2018).

22 Josei ishi kyaria shien moderu fukyū suishin jigyō no seika to kongo no torikumi ni tsuite / shiryō 3 [On the results and future initiatives of the project to promulgate and promote career support for female doctors / document 3]” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (March 14, 2018) (accessed November 20, 2018)

23 Ryoko Ogawa, Emiko Seo, Takami Maeno, Makoto Ito, Masaru Sanuki, Tetsuhiro Maeno. “The relationship between long working hours and depression among first-year residents in Japan.” BMC Medical Education (2018) 18: 50.

24 Tetsuhiro Maeno, Asumi Nakamura, Takami Maeno, et al. “Shinrinshō kenshū seido ni okeru kenshūi no sutoresu [Resident stress in the new postgraduateclinical training system].” Igaku kyōiku [Medical Education]. (2008) 39(3): 175–82.

25 Doctor’s suicide after monthly overtime exceeded 200 hours recognized as work-related” Japan Times (August 10, 2017) (accessed December 4, 2018)

26 Liselotte Dyrbye, Sara Burke, Rachel Hardeman “Association of Clinical Specialty with Symptoms of Burnout and Career Choice Regret Among US Resident Physicians” JAMA 2018 320(11): 1114-1130.

27 Brendan Murphy, “AMA seeks more data on physician, medical student suicide” AMA Physician Health(November 13, 2018) (accessed December 3, 2018).

28 Tomoko Otake “Japan’s buckling healthcare system at a crossroads” The Japan Times (Feburary 19, 2017) (accessed December 4, 2018)

29 Sakamoto H., Rahman M, Nomura S, Okamoto E, Koike S, Yasunaga H et al. “Japan Health System Review” Asia Pacific Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Health Systems in Transition Series (Vol 8, No 1): 72, 86.

30 Ibid. 139.

31 Ibid., 90-91.

32 Makiko Ozaki, Seiji Bito, Shinji Matsumura “Developing a Japanese hospital physician satisfaction scale” International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance (2008) Vol. 21, Issue 5: 517-528.

33 Yasuharu Tokuda, Keiko Hayano, Makiko Ozaki, Seiji Bito, Haruo Yanai, Shunzo Koizumi “The Interrelationships between Working Conditions, Job Satisfaction, Burnout and Mental Health among Hospital Physicians in Japan: a Path Analysis” Industrial Health (2009) 47: 166-172.

34 Kato Ken, Kazunobu Yamauchi, Makoto Miyaji, et al “Factors relating to doctor’s desire to change hospitals in Japan.” International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. Vol. 25, No. 1 (2012): 19-40, 35.

35 Ibid., 27.

36 Scott North, “Karōshi Activism and Recent Trends in Japanese Civil Society” in Going to Court to Change Japan: Social Movements and the Law in Contemporary Japan. Ed. Patricia Steinhoff (Center for Japanese Studies, The University of Michigan: 2014): 45-72, p. 47.

37 Josei ishi kyaria shien moderu fukyū suishin jigyō no seika to kongo no torikumi ni tsuite / shiryō 3 [On the results and future initiatives of the project to promulgate and promote career support for female doctors / document 3]” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (March 14, 2018) (accessed November 20, 2018)

38 Josei ishi kyaria shien moderu fukyū suishin jigyō no seika to kongo no torikumi ni tsuite / shiryō 3 [On the results and future initiatives of the project to promulgate and promote career support for female doctors / document 3]” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (March 14, 2018) (accessed November 20, 2018)

39 “Josei ishi no kinmu kankyō no genkyō ni kan-suru chōsa hikaku shōsai han [Investigation into present conditions of women doctors work environment: comparative detailed edition]” (https://www.med.or.jp/joseiishi/2018hikakusyosai.pdf) Nihon ishikai danjo kyōdō sankaku iinkai / Nihon ishikai josei ishi shien sentaa [Japan Medical Association gender equality plannning committee / Japan Medical Association women doctor support center] (June 2009) (accessed on November 20, 2018)

40 Kosuke Yasukawa and Kyoko Nomura. “Ishi ni okeru seibetsu yakuwari bundan: shinryō jikan to kaji rōdō jikan no danjo kikaku [The division of labour by sex among Japanese physicians: comparison between men and women in time spent on clinical care a and time spent on housework]” Igaku kyōiku [Medical Education] (2012): 42: 315-319.

41 Aoki Hiroe, Hoshino Naoko, Kanda Asuka et al. “Danjo igakusei wa dono yōna kyaria ninshiki o yūshiteiru no ka? Intabyū chōsa kara miete kita mono [How do male and female medical students perceive their own career? Implications from a student viewpoint]” Nihon puraimari kea rengō gakkaishi [Journal for the Japanese Primary Care Association] (2016) 39(4): 191-204.

42 Kyoko Tanebe, “Japan’s medical school scandal must prompt health care funding debate,” Nikkei Asian Review. (August 17, 2018) (accessed August 31, 2018).

43 Women make up most of the health sector workers but they are under-represented in high-skilled jobs.” OECD (March 2017) (accessed November 20, 2018).

44 Yusuke Tsugawa, Anupam Jena, Jose Figueroa, John Orav, Daniel Blumenthal, Ashish Jha. “Comparison of Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates for Medicare Patients Treated by Male vs Female Physicians.” JAMA Internal Medicine (Feb. 2017) 117:2: 206-213.

45 Ibid., 212.

46 Kim C, McEven LN, Gerzoff BR, et al. “Is physician gender associated with the quality of diabetes care?” Diabetes Care. (2005) 28(7): 1594-1598; Berthold KH, Gouni-Berthold I, Bestehorn KP, Böhm M, Krone W. “Physician gender is associated with the quality of type 2 diabetes care.” J Intern Med. (2008) 264(4): 340-350.

47 Ed Yong, “Women more likely to survive heart attacks if treated by female doctors” The Atlantic (August 6, 2018) (accessed August 15, 2018)

48 “Gender Perspectives” Nature. Vol. 553 (4 January 2018), 119.

49 Ken Kato, et al “Factors relating to doctor’s desire to change hospitals in Japan.” International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. Vol. 25, No. 1 (2012): 19-40, 12.

50 191 multiple refusals of pregnant women found.” The Japan Times (Sept. 28, 2007) (Accessed Nov. 20, 2018) In the United States, the law requires all hospitals with emergency rooms to care for women in labor, although some rural facilities without obstetrics units violate this law. Julie Lasson-Fromowitz, “Despite law, hospitals turn away women in labor” Courier Journal (March 3, 2017) (Accessed March 1, 2019)

51 Relative poverty means that a household earns an income that is less than fifty percent of the average median incomes.

52 Alana Semuels, “Japan is no place for single mothers” The Atlantic (September 7, 2017) (accessed August 8, 2018).

53 Seiichi Inagaki. “Dynamic Microsimulation Model of Impoverishment Among Elderly Women in JapanFrontiers in Physics (March 14, 2018) (accessed September 10, 2018).

54 Abe Shinzō, “Opening Speech by H.E. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, at the Open Forum, World Assembly for Women in Tokyo” (presented at the World Assembly for Women, Tokyo, Japan, September 12, 2014).

55 There is not an equivalent group for “female leaders,” but the Gender Equality Bureau began holding events to train women for leadership in 2017. “Josei riidaa ikusei [Training female leaders]” Gender Equality Bureau Cabinet Office (accessed December 4, 2018).

56 Igakubu no josei sabetsu, tarōsei sabetsu mondai matome” Igakubu juken baiburu  October 18, 2018 (accessed December 4, 2018).

57 Jutendo and Showa universities’ medical faculties suspected of rigging entrance exam results based on gender” () Japan Times (October 14, 2018) (accessed December 3, 2018)

58 Yajima Daisuke and Doi Shinpei “Nichidai igakubu to kantō no shidai, futekisetsu nyūshi ka monkashōga shiteki [Ministry of Science and Education identifies inappropriate entrance exams at Nihon University’s medical faculty, private universities in the Kantō region]” Asahi shimbun digital (December 12, 2018) (Accessed January 31, 2019

It is now apparent with the release of the Mueller investigation findings, that the great storm that has embattled the US government and establishment since 2016 over supposed Russia-Trump collusion during the US elections, originates not from a genuine tangible source, but a constant stream of rhetoric  driven by partisan corporate media.  One certainty though is the Western narrative of Russia as a ‘malign influence’ will not go away. 

While America’s liberal establishment continues to rage at Trump, Europe allies, under the influence of Washington, maintain their aggressive stance towards Russia following the catastrophic US meddling in Ukraine in 2014 and the subsequent reunification of Crimea with Russia.  The question is how can the narrative of ‘malign Russian influence’ be kept going?  Mainstream media will continue its role in this,  but Western governments are also pouring resources into promulgating certain narratives while containing others.  This week, hackers released more documents from the UK government-funded project known as the Integrity Initiative, revealing British government plans to build an umbrella network of organisations across Europe to counter ‘Russian disinformation’.  The following is a look  at one of the EU projects already operating to ensure European populations do not stray from this constructed narrative that at times crosses over into real xenophobic racism, or Russophobia. While researching this phenomenon, it was impossible not to find some of the EU’s counter-propaganda material quite funny.

If we want to know the meaning of disinformation, the American think tank known as the National Endowment for Democracy which funds regime change in the service of US corporate interests, has its own definition, but it’s not important –  so long as we believe Russia or the Nazis invented the problem.  In fact, if we search the word ‘disinformation,’ a good number of the results tell us it originated in Russia and is the baby of Stalin or the KGB.  If we are not careful, we could end up thinking that dishonesty is an inherent characteristic of Russians, a view actually promoted by the former US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who, coincidentally was caught ‘wilfullylying to Congress.

The view of Russians being hard-wired for corruption was also promoted by the New York Times in an article published in February, The Putin I knew; the Putin I know, written by Franz J Sedelmeyer, exposing deep prejudice behind the corporate media’s shallow identity politics.

But this narrative fails to credit the CIA, which has spent decades crafting skills carrying out the most grotesque deceptions in history targeted abroad and at home.  To leave out the role of the CIA in disinformation must be the equivalent of writing an omelette recipe and leaving out the eggs. In fact, the CIA doesn’t just carry out disinformation campaigns, as Victor Marchetti, former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA described it:  the CIA manufactures history.  Not to recognise American intelligence services or government in the history of disinformation while painting Russia as its mother is to deprive America of the recognition it deserves for one of its most notable institutions.  Somewhat ironically, you can learn all about the history of disinformation from both Google and the National Endowment for Democracy which are two entities which have received financial support from the CIA.

What about the EU? Does Brussels think that Russia is an inherently dishonest nation? Are they aware that the CIA could be manufacturing Europe’s history this very moment?  Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) so concerned about disinformation might want to study the documented atrocities of the CIA, some of which were carried out in Europe. Perhaps they are not aware of the US intelligence services’ role  in the history of subterfuge in Europe:

…memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.

Paradoxically, given the probability rate of the CIA meddling in the EU, MEPs should consider putting out a public warning:

The CIA is the most likely source of disinformation in Europe today. It manufactures crises – and we’ve plenty of those.

But none of it.  Instead, the European Parliament is fixated on ensuring its populations fear Russia and are accepting of the narratives pushed on them.  The EU released a new report this month repeating the narratives it has been accumulating to justify increasing actions against Russia, particularly since 2014 following the reunification of Crimea. It has passed a resolution stating that Russia could no longer be considered a strategic partner of the EU:

While condemning the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea, as well as Russia’s continued violation of the territorial integrity of Georgia and Moldova, Members stressed that the EU cannot envisage a gradual return to business as usual until Russia fully implements the Minsk Agreement and restores the territorial integrity of Ukraine…

Members condemned Russia’s involvement in the Skripal case, and in disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks carried out by the Russian intelligence services aimed at destabilising public and private communications infrastructure and at increasing tensions within the EU and its Member States…

They are concerned about the relations between the Russian government and the extreme right-wing and populist nationalist parties and governments in the EU, such as in Hungary. They also recalled that the interference of Russian state actors in the referendum campaign on Brexit is currently under investigation by the UK authorities…

As Russia can no longer be considered a strategic partner in the current circumstances, Members believe that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should be reconsidered…

Ministry of Truth?

As well as the coordinated strategic isolation of Russia by the EU, members of the G7 have signed up to a Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) designed to:

see hostile states publicly ‘called out’ for their egregious behaviour – with coordinated international attribution of cyber and other attacks.

The agreement involves sharing intelligenceattribution of hostile activity and forming a common narrative and response, effectively a military-like propaganda coordination between the countries that can be applied for a chosen agenda.

To protect its version of history the EU has created mechanisms to fight off alternative realities, narratives, or truths – which ever word fits – claiming any fact or opinion contrary to those of the stated EU decree must be condemned as pro-Kremlin, pro-Russian, or ‘Putinist’, a derogatory depiction presently supported by the corporate media.  The EU claims these ‘alternative narratives’ are the product of a Russian disinformation campaign and has developed resources to ‘disprove’ that disinformation. These are the EU vanguards of truth set up and funded by the European Council in 2015: the European External Action Service East Stratcom Task Force or unaffectionately known here as Team East Stratcom.  A brief study of their work only leads to further concerns about who is manufacturing history, but also to the likely conclusion that Team East Stratcom is made up of media studies students who drink beer and watch RT all day.

Here’s how Team East Stratcom describes itself in a Q&A:

Does the team engage in counter-propaganda?

No. It …identifies and corrects disinformation

Counter-propaganda vs correct disinformation (you say tomatto, I say tomayto).

Julian King, the EU’s security commissioner, has described it as a counter-propaganda cell.  Come on Brussels, make up your mind.

What does Team East StratCom do, and what is the role of its website EUVDisinfo?

The Task Force reports on and analyses disinformation trends, explains and exposes disinformation narratives, and raises awareness of disinformation coming from Russian State, Russian sources and spread in the Eastern neighbourhood media space

RUSSIAN MEMES: Official EU conspiracy theory diagram explains how ‘Russian disinfo’ permeates mainstream western discourse (EU External Action 2017)

Firstly, who defines what is disinformation? Is it just assumed that any information emanating from a Russian media outlet is automatically disinformation?

Narratives and sources. Does this mean that any narrative which matches a Russian one is then classed as Russian in origin? If a Western alternative media outlet publishes a narrative which happens to match that of a Russian media outlet, does this then mean that the said alternative media outlet is ‘under Russian influence’, or ‘in league with the Kremlin’?  Could such a politicized method of labelling lead to potential McCarthyite targeting of independent journalists?

The Task Force does not target opinions and does not seek to “blacklist” anyone. It checks facts and identifies disinformation coming from Russian State, Russian language and Eastern Neighbourhood media. It focuses on the disinformation message, not the messenger.

Yet, individual journalists are identified in many of these so-called ‘disinformation cases’ and described as supporters of one leader or other on the EU’s list of bogeymen. Team East StratCom – there is no need to be shy about McCarthyism.   Certain mainstream media stalwarts of establishment narratives are more upfront about whom they do and do not want in the club, as Oliver Kamm of The Times has demonstrated:

For an agency already struggling with the concept of truth, Team East StratCom is not off to a great start.

So how does Team East StratCom protect EU narratives?  The European Council made it clear in 2015 they wanted to counter narratives about regime change in Ukraine and its consequences. In fact, about half of its ‘disinformation cases’ are about Ukraine:

Ukraine tops the EUvsDisinfo database as the most frequent target with 461 references among a total of 1,000 disinformation cases reported in the course of 2018.

So how does Team East StratCom counter propaganda… sorry… correct disinformation?  The following are a few case samples that help to illuminate their methodologies (although with a budget increase from €1.1 million in 2018 to €3 million in 2019,  it may find new and diverse ones):

Disinformation Example 1: Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe

Team East StratCom argues that undermining the credibility of Ukraine benefits Russia.  It reports that RT Deutsch described Ukraine as the most corrupt country in Europe.  It then tries to debunk this using Transparency International’s corruption perception index, a chart which is created and paid for by Western neoliberal governments – the same ones that help to keep corrupt governments in power so long as they provide opportunities to serve Western corporate interests.

Team East StratCom tries to disprove this case by drawing our attention away from corruption in Europe to corruption worldwide.  This puts 60 countries ahead of Ukraine.  That is sneaky Team East StratCom because, aside from Russia, which we must believe is the most corrupt country in Europe, Ukraine actually tops the list.  So why does the EU want to hide the extent of corruption in Ukraine and is it the only thing being hidden about the country?  According to Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova the West wants to stop the world from recognising Crimea as part of Russia’s territory.  In order to do this it must maintain a manufactured reality; the narrative of Ukraine being a victim of Russian aggression and in no way a liability due, at least in part, to the West’s meddling. This approach also entails downplaying any suggestion that the West planned and orchestrated a coup d’etat in Kiev in February 2014.

Disinformation Example 2: Far-right groups in Ukraine

This extract by Team East StratCom criticises the reporting of far-right groups in Ukraine:

Dehumanise, demoralise, make Ukraine the guilty party

Pro-Kremlin disinformation about Ukraine targets audiences in Russia, in Ukraine and in third countries, including the West.  Domestic audiences in Russia are e.g. faced with narratives which dehumanise Ukrainians and show the authorities in Kyiv as a cynical modern heir to 20th century Nazism. Such a strategy can turn Ukraine into an acceptable target of the Kremlin’s military aggression.

The involvement of far right groups in the run-up to and during 2014 Maidan events and since, has already been widely reported across much of the global mainstream media, for example, here, here, here, here and here, as well as in alternate media.  To suggest that this narrative is Russian disinformation is ludicrous. What’s more, the European Parliament have already recognised in 2012 the threat of the far-right parties like Svoboda and Pravi Sektor in Ukrainian politics:

Parliament goes on to express concern about the rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine, expressed in support for the Svoboda Party, which, as a result, is one of the two new parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada. It recalls that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views go against the EU’s fundamental values and principles and therefore appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party.

Team East StratCom, you are implying the EU dehumanised Ukraine! But then the EU did later drop its objection as members of the same racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic party gained positions in Ukraine’s government, so perhaps you will be forgiven. Perhaps sowing a little confusion of its own, is Brussels.

Disinformation Example 3: Russia is depicted as a ‘defender’ and a ‘peacekeeper’ and the West – as the villain.

Team East Stratcom likes using Twitter graphics as evidence when ‘disproving pro-Kremlin disinformation.’  Never mind history, reason and common sense – just bring out a nice Twitter graphic!  According to disinfo mavens, any spike in Twitter activity with the words ‘Russia’ ‘Moscow’ or ‘Putin’ in reference to Venezuela is proof of a ‘pro-Kremlin’ disinformation campaign, says Team East StratCom. Here is their graphical chart of Twitter traffic:


But Russia is an ally of Venezuela so why would this not be reflected on Twitter when there is a blatant attempt by a Western aggressor to impose its military and economic will on Venezuela? Such was the situation in February when the US tried to pressure the Venezuelan government into allowing in trucks, supposedly carrying humanitarian aid, into the country. Aid as a Trojan Horse for weapons has historical context, especially with regards to the US and its new special envoy to Venezuela, Elliot Abrams, a convicted war criminal who illicitly supplied weapons to death squads in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala on behalf of the Reagan presidency in the 1980s.  Now that he is special envoy to Venezuela, it is common sense to suspect foul play. Can such people really be seen as peacekeepers, Team East Stratcom? And using a Twitter graphic to divert attention from a flagrant coup attempt by an aggressive power is more than a little contemptible.  What’s more, a few days afterwards, one of those trucks carrying supplies was found to contain nails and other materials useful for making barricades:

And so to sum up the tactics used by Team East StratCom for ‘disproving pro-Kremlin disinformation’, based on the above cases alone, a list could include for starters:

  • Categorical denial of any wrongdoing by Western powers or NATO members
  • Label any information emanating from a Russia media outlet as ‘disinformation’ or ‘Kremlin propaganda’
  • Discredit alternate media journalists who stray from Official Washington/London/Brussels position
  • Diversion and distraction – dazzle the public with colourful Twitter graphics
  • Remove any key political, geopolitical context
  • Obscure or erase history
  • Use of online tools like the Corruption Index promoted by same Western governments that fund bloody imperialist wars
  • Use emotive, jingoistic themes
  • Associate perceived ideological opponents with leaders on Western bogeyman list
  • Repetition of pejorative terms and ad hominem smears such as ‘pro-Kremlin’ and’ ‘Putinist’ to create division
  • Infer that any dissenter in the West is a ‘traitor.’

But Team East StratCom can’t erase history or delete context or bore us half to death with those Twitter graphics and still expect to retain their credibility.

What’s more, given the Russia-Trump collusion narrative has been exposed as a hoax, Team East StratCom really ought to let that one go.

Anyone for a pint?

*

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 21st Century Wire.

Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit her Nina’s archive.

All images in this article are from 21st CW unless otherwise stated

Farcical Ukraine Presidential Election

April 1st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Ukraine is a Nazi-infested police state, a fantasy democracy, not the real thing, fundamental freedoms eliminated.

In February 2014, democratic governance was abolished, orchestrated by the Obama regime, resistance against repressive ruling authorities not tolerated.

On Sunday, round one of the farcical presidential election was held, 39 candidates on the ballot.

Three alone mattered – US-installed billionaire/oligarch incumbent Petro Poroshenko, convicted felon Yulia Timoshenko, and comedian/entertainer Vladimir Zelensky.

More on the candidates below. Sunday results were as follows: With more than half the votes counted as of early Monday morning, Zelensky leads with 30% support, Poroshenko with 16.5 (despite his single digit approval rating), and Timoshenko with 13%.

Source: BBC

Days ahead of the so-called “election,” Zelensky was expected to poll highest, Timoshenko second with a five-point lead over Poroshenko, other candidates with scant support.

Two days ahead of Sunday’s vote, a dubious poll showed Poroshenko in second place ahead of Timoshenko. If final tallies show him finishing second to Zelensky, they’ll meet in an April 21 runoff, Timoshenko and other candidates eliminated.

As president, he enjoys immunity from prosecution. If defeated in the runoff, he could be held accountable for corruption and other criminality.

Reportedly on Saturday, the day before yesterday’s vote, he ordered Ukrainian security services and police to patrol streets and seize control of polling stations on the pretext of “protect(ing) the elections.”

Most likely it was to avoid elimination in round-one voting. With single-digit support, it appeared likely. As things now stand, he survived at least until April 21.

During the late 2013/early 2014 Obama regime-orchestrated Maidan coup, he was Washington’s man in Kiev, involved in bankrolling US-supported putschists.

Nicknamed the “chocolate king,” his Roshen Confectionery Corporation is the world’s 18th largest producer of these products.

His other business interests include automotive, shipping, and media. Like other oligarchs in Ukraine and elsewhere, he amassed wealth the old-fashioned way by grand theft and other devious schemes.

Billionaire/mega-thief Timoshenko earlier was imprisoned  for embezzlement and serious “abuse of public office.”

Charges included illegally diverting $425 million meant for environmental projects into pension funds. A second case involved stealing around $130 million for personal use.

She headed United Energy Systems (UES). Her shady business practices earned her the nickname “gas princess.”

As US orchestrated 2004 Orange Revolution prime minister, she operated extrajudicially, scorning economic reform, along with furthering her presidential ambitions, a platform if gained for greater abuse of power and corruption.

Zelensky has close ties to Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. As appointed governor in eastern Ukraine, he oversaw the May 2, 2014 Odessa massacre, eliminating scores of coup opponents.

Kolomoyskyi and Poroshenko are bitter rivals. The incumbent accused him of supporting Zelensky “to take revenge against the” regime for nationalizing his Privatbank. 

Zelensky portrayed Ukraine’s president in a television series – now the frontrunner to assume the post after the April 21 runoff.

No matter who’s named Ukrainian president later this month, dirty business as usual will triumph like earlier in 2014.

It’s how things work in America, most other Western countries, Israel, and elsewhere. Powerful interests run things, elections farcical when held. Ordinary people have no say – for sure not in Ukraine.

Intermittent war in Donbass continues. No matter who’s anointed Ukrainian president, dark forces in Washington will control things, no breakthrough in Minsk peace talks with Kiev likely.

On Monday, Donetsk Peoples’ Republic operational command head Edward Basurin said “(t)here will be no dialogue with Zelensky,” adding: 

“I would like to remind you that he, along with his team Kvartal 95, visited the conflict zone, gave concerts, encouraged the Ukrainian servicemen-criminals to kill civilians. That is why there will be no dialogue with him. There will be also no breakthrough in the Minsk negotiating process.”

Basurin believes there’s a high probability that Poroshenko will order belligerence in Donbass ahead of the April 21 runoff, perhaps declaring martial law like earlier as a way to help him stay in power.

Separately, Timoshenko claimed the vote count her team tallied showed her finishing second with 16% support – ahead of Poroshenko.

She accused security forces of tampering with Sunday’s electoral process. For Life party candidate Yuriy Boyko made a similar accusation.

Ukraine’s Central Election Commission reported no serious irregularities on Sunday. The Interior Ministry said there were over 2,100 reports of violations, 39 criminal cases opened Sunday evening to investigate them.

Nothing in Ukraine is simple, its rule despotic, its electoral process deeply flawed. Moscow questioned its legitimacy, saying up to 10 million Ukrainian expats in Russia were denied the right to vote on Sunday.

They fled cross-border because of war on Donbass, forced conscription of military-aged men, economic hardships, out-of-control corruption, and despotic rule – clearly hostile to Poroshenko, why he disenfranchised them.

Given the disturbing state of things in Ukraine, no matter who serves as president, ordinary people in the country will be ill-served, exploited and abused.

*

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.

Imagine being emotionally blackmailed by your doctor to have your baby vaccinated with a lethal cocktail of 13 vaccines, which included two doses of the DTaP, three doses of the oral rotavirus vaccine and two doses of the polio vaccination. It sounds impossible, doesn’t it?

However, this is exactly what happened to Alisa Neathery when she took her six month-old unvaccinated baby to the doctor for the first time.

She told VacTruth:

“Prior to the shots being given, when the doctor was discussing the pros of getting vaccinated with me, he explained how he was from a village in Africa. That we were lucky in America to have the opportunity to receive vaccines because where he was from, the mothers had to have like 11 kids each, since most would die off from disease because they were not as fortunate to receive vaccines like we are here in America. He really pushed them on me hard. He spent a lot of time convincing me to give Bently the vaccines, but when it was done, we never saw the doctor again.”

According to Alisa, the doctor spent a long time deciding exactly which vaccinations Bently should receive and told Alisa that they shouldn’t give him too many. The doctor eventually decided on a total of 13 vaccinations, which Alisa now believes led to Bently’s death just five days later.

If this were not bad enough, the hospital then decided to blame Alisa for Bently’s death and called child protective services (CPS), who immediately removed her two year-old daughter from the home and gave her to the grandmother to care for her.

Fortunately, her daughter was returned a few months later.

Dr. Offit Says Babies Can Tolorate 10,000 Vaccines In One Day

In 2002, Dr. Paul Offit wrote a paper entitled Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System? In his paper, he explained to parents that an infant can theoretically tolerate as many as 10,000 vaccinations at any one time and that a neonate could develop the capacity to respond to foreign antigens before they are even born.

He wrote that:

“A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide), 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 103 B-cells per mL,3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 103 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 103 epitopes), and 5) approximately 107 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood, then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).”

And he continued by adding:

“Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be ‘used up.’” [1]

Dr. Offit used the words estimate and predict throughout his paper, which leads many to believe that this paper was based upon POSSIBLE outcomes and contained very little scientific fact.

Sadly, it appears that Dr. Offit’s words were taken seriously by Bently’s doctor when he decided to vaccinate this previously unvaccinated baby with a total of 13 vaccinations in one day, in what can only be described as a bid to catch up.

The vaccinations included:

  • Two doses of the DTaP – diptheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine
  • Hib – haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine
  • IPV- inactivated polio vaccine
  • Pneumococcal vaccine
  • Three doses of oral rotavirus vaccine

Bently was also given three other vaccinations, which appear to be unidentified on his vaccination card, plus the hepatitis B vaccine and oral polio vaccine.

Little Bently died in his mother’s arms just five days later.

Bently-Neathery-3

Alisa told VacTruth:

“My son Bently was almost 6 months old when I took him to the doctor for a visit and to begin his first round of vaccinations. I had decided to wait on his vaccinations until he was closer to the age when the sudden infant death (SIDS) rate lowers to begin him on the recommended vaccinations.

That day was April 5, 2012. He did have some congestion in his lungs. The doctor stated it was a slight congestion and that everything would be just fine. He was completely healthy and above his percentile for his age.

The doctor gave him 2 rounds of DTaP in one shot. I did not know this at the time. I didn’t find this out until after my son passed away and I went up to the doctor’s office to ask for his medical report from our visit. That particular injection was the worst for him.

As soon as they stabbed him with the needle, he let out a giant scream. After that, he was not the same. This injection actually happened to turn into a hard red knot on his leg where they stabbed him with DTaP. Even until he was laid to rest one month later, he still has the same hard red knot. I was never asked about why it was there.”

She continued by stating:

“He wouldn’t let me touch his leg. He screamed and cried constantly. I knew babies were fussy after vaccines, but this was excessive. His little vein in his head would bulge out when he cried. I didn’t know what to do. I had nothing telling me this was in any way unusual.

Within a few days he stopped making eye contact with us and he began to twitch and jerk. One side of his body began to slump slightly. If he was not being held, he would scream and cry constantly.

On April 10, 2012, my son appeared to be exceptionally well and he and my daughter played and watched TV while I cleaned the house. Around noon, my daughter laid down for a nap. Around 2 o’clock, my son began getting very sleepy. So he and I sat in our big chair and he fell asleep on my chest.

Two hours later, my husband came home from work and thought my son wasn’t moving. He woke me up saying the baby wasn’t breathing. All hell broke loose from that point on. Bently was pronounced dead at 5:35 pm. Five days after receiving his first and only round of vaccinations.”

This leaves many of us to question whether Bently’s doctor acted in the best interests of his patient or whether his actions were totally irresponsible and amounted to medical negligence.

Bently-Neathery-4

Mother Did Not Give Her Full Informed Consent

In recent weeks, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic was asked by activist parental groups in Texas and California to write an opinion in support of resisting the bills calling for abolishing all exemptions to vaccinations other than medical. [2]

In answer to their request, she wrote:

“Medical ethics demands that vaccination should be carried out with the participant’s full and informed consent. This necessitates an objective disclosure of the known or foreseeable vaccination benefits and risks. The way in which pediatric vaccines are often promoted by various health authorities indicates that such disclosure is rarely given from the basis of best available knowledge but rather, largely unproven and/or untenable assumptions on both, vaccine safety and effectiveness.”

Bently’s mother told VacTruth that she was never informed by her doctor exactly which vaccinations were going to be given to her son, nor was she informed of any risks associated with these vaccinations.

She told VacTruth that:

“The doctor asked me to bring him in each month after that April 5th visit to receive each round of shots in just a few months. He even stated that he didn’t want to give my sons little body too many. However the decision he made to give him 13 vaccines was completely excessive I believe.

Had I of known that’s what he was doing I would have refused. However he wasn’t completely forthcoming about what he was doing that day. As I said it wasn’t until I picked up his medical record a couple weeks later that I noticed the 3 separate sheets of paper with in his file stating what shots were ordered and I noticed that on each one it said DTaP twice.”

Many people may question the reason why Bently’s mother did not ask exactly which vaccinations her son was being given before her son was vaccinated, but she told VacTruth that she trusted her doctor and believed that he knew what he was doing.

Sadly, Alisa is one of thousands of parents trusting their doctors every day.

Many parents are unaware that every vaccination carries some risk of an adverse reaction and this is a fact that Dr. Tomljenovic made very clear in her letter to the members of the California Senate Committee. She wrote:

“All drugs are associated with some risks of adverse reactions. Because vaccines represent a special category of drugs which are by and large given to healthy individuals, and for prophylaxis against diseases to which an individual may never be exposed, the margin of tolerance for side effects is very narrow (in fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concurs with this point [1]) and careful assessment of risks versus benefits essential in deciding whether one should be vaccinated or not. Removing the parental rights to exemptions to childhood vaccinations will put vulnerable but otherwise healthy individuals at risk of serious adverse reactions to vaccinations. Such an outcome should be of concern since serious adverse reactions following routine vaccinations in children, including deaths, permanent neurological damage and disabling autoimmune and/or inflammatory conditions have been clearly described in the scientific literature [2-14]. Notably, cases of seizure attacks and deaths occurring as a result of routine vaccinations have occurred even in children and individuals without any relevant prior medical history [7, 15, 16] and in some cases a direct causal link was established between vaccination and the serious adverse reactions [16].”

In her letter, she referred to a paper written by Ken Tsumiyama et al. and stated that:

“It is further likely that an increasing number of individuals, regardless of their genetic background, will react adversely if exposures to compounds with immune adjuvant properties exceed a certain threshold. This concept has in fact been clearly demonstrated by Tsumiyama et al. [57] who in 2009 showed that repeated immunization with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune diseases.” [2]

Interested by this statement, I decided to research their paper, titled Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity, and discovered that Tsumiyama et al. had concluded:

“Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system’s self-organized criticality.” [3]

If they are correct, then their paper proves that Dr. Paul Offit is incorrect and that multiple vaccinations can overwhelm an infant’s immune system, causing a variety of adverse reactions and, in some cases, death.

In further reference to their paper, Dr. Tomlejenovic stated that:

“It is true that people are exposed constantly to infectious agent in the environment, however, there is a vast difference between natural exposure and that induced by vaccinations. The reason for this is that the immune response induced by vaccination is greatly amplified, owing to the addition of adjuvants with immune-stimulating properties.” [2] (emphasis added)

Her words make absolute perfect sense and parents should ask themselves whether or not their children are being over-vaccinated.

The Lasting Impact Of Bently’s Tragic Loss

I asked Alisa how she and her family have coped with the tragedy of losing a baby at such a young age, and if she had any words that she would like to share with other families. She said:

Bently-Neathery-2

“I wish he were still here! It kills me daily to see my daughter play ALONE. She shouldn’t have had to go through this kind of loss, none of us should. He was such a sweetheart. He adored his sister, father and I. All of that was stolen from us the day he received all those vaccines.

After that day, he was no longer the same. It completely ripped my entire family apart. Most of my family thought it must have been my fault because infants just don’t die like that, or so they thought.

All his short life he had been a healthy, happy and extremely content little boy. Ahead of his percentiles and then to just die … so, to my family, it must have been my fault somehow. They did not support my husband and I. We did nothing to deserve that and it’s all because some dangerous, ignorant doctor decided to ruin our lives and steal all the joy from us by killing our son.

I know without a doubt Bently WOULD STILL BE ALIVE if it weren’t for the vaccines and that damn doctor and the decisions he made that day. He caused my son to lose his life.

Since that day, my grandma, my mom and my husband’s mom have all died. They went to their graves being on bad terms with my husband and me. Again, something we can never get back, and we feel it’s all due to my son’s death being ruled as unexplained.

It was listed on his death certificate as ‘S.U.D.S. SUDDEN UNEXPLAINED UNEXPECTED DEATH SYNDROME.’ There has been no justice for my son whatsoever. We want answers, answers that we never got! All we have been left with is loss after loss after loss! That is not ok on any level! I will never vaccinate again, period! We cannot afford to lose any more.”

Conclusion

Deciding on whether to vaccinate your baby is never easy. In this case, Alisa decided to hold back on having her baby vaccinated until he was older. She was then emotionally blackmailed and forced into having her baby over-vaccinated with a massive cocktail of vaccines, by whom many would call an overzealous doctor.

She was not offered any information on the vaccinations being given to her baby, she was not given any paperwork and she was not offered any advice on any possible adverse reactions.

Alisa trusted her doctor to do the right thing and was let down in the worse possible way and believes that the doctor should be held accountable for the death of her son. She said:

“No one was ever held accountable for my son Bently’s death. That kills me every day.”

She is now bringing a case against her doctor.

If you would like to help Alisa and her family to get justice, please go to Baby Bently’s Support Campaign.

*

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

Sources

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full.html

http://parentsandcarersagainstinjustice.weebly.com/professional-papers.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795160/

All images in this article are from VacTruth.com

Al Skeilbiyyeh – on the 23rd March 2019 I entered the Syrian Christian town of Al Skeilbiyyeh. Between 4 and 5pm, at least four villages to the west of the town were attacked by Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS) forces embedded to the north of the villages.  HTS is a poorly disguised rebrand of Al Qaeda or Nusra Front in Syria and now controls the majority of Idleb province and terrorist-held areas of Northern Hama bordering Al Skeilbiyyeh. 

.


One of the child victims of the suspected chemical attack in Northern Hama, arriving at Al Skeilbiyyeh hospital. (Photo: local photographer)

The villages of al-Rasif, al-Aziziyyeh, al-Khandaq and al-Jayyid were hit by an estimated 5 mortars. 34 victims of a suspected chemical attack were brought to Al Skeilbiyyeh hospital after being treated at the scene of the attack. I spoke to pediatrician, Dr Modhesh Farha who informed me that three children were among the victims, one of whom was severely affected with breathing difficulties. By the time I arrived at the hospital at around 11pm, two of the children had been released back to their families.


One of the victims suffering with breathing difficulty – Sajiaa Abu Kahla, from the village of al-Khandaq (Photo: Vanessa Beeley) 

Medical staff and doctors told me that victims were washed at the scene of the attack before being brought to the hospital where doctors had administered oxygen, saline drips, antibiotics in some cases, and cortisone (steroids) for the shock. Symptoms described to me included – respiratory problems, sinus problems, skin blisters, damage to the cornea of the eyes and nausea. While I was speaking with doctors in front of one patient, she went into what appeared to be a toxic shock reaction (also confirmed by the doctor). The following video shows this moment – warning, it is distressing:

I spoke with some of the victims who were already starting to recover. They described the attack taking place between 4 and 5pm. They are used to regular mortar attacks from the extremist groups embedded in the surrounding countryside but this was the first time they had experienced what appears to have been a chemical attack. The nephew of one victim, Sajiaa Abu Kahla, from the village of al-Khandaq (see photo above), described his aunt struggling to breathe after inhaling the white “smoke” that was seen after the attack, he told me:

Smoke, white smoke, its color was white, it covered the land, this was in the village of al-Rasif”.

Another victim I spoke to, Nawfal Tawbar, described the same white smoke that hovered about one meter above the ground and was very thick and static. He told me that he had also had difficulty breathing, he reported a stinging in his sinuses. Tawbar also reported a strong smell of bleach from the smoke. This testimony was repeated almost without variation by all victims I manged to interview despite the chaos in the hospital as ambulances brought more patients for treatment. Tawbar’s interview is here:

We were told at the hospital that a Syrian/Russian team had been immediately despatched to collect soil samples etc and to ensure the area was safe for residents to return to once they had recovered sufficiently. HTS were being held responsible for the attack. To date, I am unaware if the OPCW has been mobilised to investigate this event. Previously, on 24th November 2018, so-called “moderate rebels” appeared to use chemical weapons in an attack on districts of western Aleppo, the OPCW has not produced a final report on this attack so far, despite having deployed the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) in December 2018 and January 2019.

As far as I am aware no colonial media outlet reported on this suspected chemical attack. A quick google search reveals two reports by SouthFront and AlMasdar News and local news agencies. There were no White Helmet theatrics to attract western media, no opportunity to further criminalise the Syrian government and its allies. The wrong kind of Syrians were affected by this attack – the villages and towns in this region are steadfast in their resistance against the U.S coalition campaign to destabilise Syria and to topple the Syrian government – their voices, their suffering does not serve the agenda of the NATO-aligned media.

Ongoing terrorist attacks

The towns of Al Skeilbiyyeh and Mhardeh, about 3o minutes apart, have been under sustained attack by the HTS-controlled extremist armed groups over the last few weeks. Despite a Russian/Turkish brokered ceasefire, the armed groups have systematically been targeting civilian and residential areas in both towns. In Mhardeh, the electrical power station is constantly under attack which has a detrimental effect on the whole country as it supplies electricity to an extensive area of Syria, including Damascus.

I had previously visited Al Skeilbiyyeh shortly after a particularly destructive series of attacks. Commander of the local, volunteer National Defence Forces, Nabel Alabdalla, told me that he believed the “rebels” were using a new, more destructive form of C4 explosive that was capable of causing much more widespread damage to entire neighbourhoods. Al Skeilbiyyeh had received more than 25 rockets/mortars over a three week period, invariably targeting schools, civilian homes and busy markets. Watch my full interview with Nabel just a few days after one of the attacks:

On September 7th 2018, the same armed groups supplied and promoted by the U.S coalition, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia had targeted Mhardeh with ground-launched cluster munitions. Two days later, the same munitions were used to target Al Skeilbiyyeh causing considerable damage to infrastructure but thankfully not claiming any lives.

In Mhardeh, 13 civilians were murdered in this attack, some dying later in hospital from the awful wounds they had sustained. Shadi Yousef Shehda lost his three children, his wife and his mother in the Mhardeh massacre. I met with Shadi over Christmas 2018 when he told me that he would never leave the “city of the sun”, Mhardeh, despite his unimaginable grief and loss.

Again, these attacks barely register in western media while the hysteria over retaliatory attacks by the Syrian Arab Army and allies is commonplace. Without these defensive measures by the SAA and Russia who knows how many more civilians would have lost their lives by now in the towns bordering terrorist-held northern Hama and Idleb. This threat to besieged Syrian towns appears to be of no consequence to media in the West.


One of the ground launched cluster munition rockets that targeted Al Skeilbiyyeh in September 2018. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

As one National Defence Forces soldier says in this video…. “the terrorists are cowards” – they will never face the soldiers of Al Skeilbiyyeh on the battlefield, they prefer to kill or maim the elderly, children, pregnant women – on 16th March 2019 three children were injured during one attack, one child later died from their wounds. Ayat Mahmoud, a young Palestinian woman from Damascus living in Al Skeilbiyyeh was also killed in this attack. She was pregnant, her child was due in one week. What did these children or an unborn child do that they should be targeted by western-sponsored terrorism in their own homes.

This shameful aspect of this externally fomented war is hidden from view by The Guardian, the BBC, CNN and Channel 4 and others, it is unreported and disappeared just as many of the terrorist atrocities have been conveniently ignored throughout the 8 year war that has been waged against the Syrian people.

The UK Foreign Office (UK FCO) has poured £ 2.8 billion into “humanitarian aid” for Syria. Aid that is supplied predominantly into areas controlled by HTS, including Idleb. On the 27th March 2019, Ambassador Jonathan Allen, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to UN, made a statement at the Security Council Briefing on Syria during which he proudly confirmed the expenditure of taxpayers money that has serious potential to be financing terrorism in Syria (emphasis added):

 At the Brussels Conference, the United Kingdom pledged £400 million – or $530 million. And indeed we have mobilised over £2.81 billion to the Syrian Crisis since 2012 – that’s over £3.7 billion. That’s our largest ever response

Allen makes no mention of the armed group attacks on the Syrian Christian communities in the region. Nor does he mention that the UK FCO intelligence asset, the White Helmets, are embedded with the armed groups (including HTS) in Madiq Citadel just 500m from the outskirts of Al Skeilbiyyeh town.

No reports have been issued by the White Helmets condemning the targeting of children and civilian areas by the armed groups, or the use of prohibited weapons including potential chemical weapons last weekend – meanwhile the UK FCO continues to claim that a primary role of the White Helmets is to document “war crimes”.  Apparently the White Helmets only report on alleged “war crimes” committed by the Syrian government, army or allies that coroborrate an aggressive UK FCO interventionist policy, and not on the daily crimes committed by the extremist armed groups against defenceless civilians.

Confronting terrorism with resistance and steadfastness


The newly restored bell-tower in Al Skeilbiyyeh. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

What enables these besieged towns to keep resisting and to weather the storm that has threatened them for more than 6 years since the armed groups consolidated in Northern Hama and Idleb?

According to Nabel Alabdalla, it is the steadfastness of the ordinary people, their refusal to abandon their land and their country. It is the belief in the “way of the martyr“, the ultimate sacrifice for their mother, Syria. The soldiers I have spoken to across Syria and their families genuinely believe that the greatest honour bestowed by God is that of dying for their country, dying to defend their families, their people and their way of life.


One of the volunteer NDF soldiers in Al Skeilbiyyeh. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

This belief in solidarity, unity, resistance and ultimate victory for the righteous forms the backbone of the fighting forces that have defended Syria for eight arduous and devastating years.


View from the Assumption of the Virgin Mary monastery that has been targeted many times by the terrorist groups less than 500m away. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The morning after the suspected chemical attack we all gathered at the church in Al Skeilbiyyeh. The chaos of the previous night was still fresh in our memories, soldiers had been deployed to guard the hospital in case HTS decided to target it. This was a new day. The day of blessing the newly rebuilt bell-tower that had been destroyed in a previous terrorist attack, a project personally undertaken by Nabel Alabdalla.


Nabel Alabdalla in Al Skeilbiyyeh with commander of Mhardeh NDF, Simon AlWakil. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The bell had been gifted to Al Skeilbiyyeh by the Russian Orthodox church almost 200 years ago. The church had been built around the bell. Now history came full circle as the bell was restored to its rightful place and a service was held to celebrate this momentous demonstration of resistance and to honour the martyrs whose bloodshed and sacrifice has made such events possible.


The Patriarch blesses the recently restored bell-tower in Al Skeilbiyyeh. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The service in the simple  church was a moving and powerful recognition of the “way of the martyr”, tears were shed quietly by the families, mothers and wives of the soldiers who have given their lives to protect their loved ones. As I witnessed the sharing and outpouring of grief and pride, I began to fully comprehend why this town will never kneel to hatred and violent extremism.


Elderly lady wearing the traditional headdress of Al Skeilbiyyeh. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

In front of me sat an elderly lady almost bent double, perhaps with arthritis. She wore the traditional headdress of Al Skeilbiyyeh. During the service, despite her physical discomfort, she rose when required and prostrated herself on the floor to pray. Her unwavering belief in prayer and the power of the protection of the Virgin Mary seemed to sustain her throughout the hour long service.

In front of her sat another elderly lady, her hair pulled back in a silver twist. She sat next to a young child wearing a black bow in her hair. Both were transfixed by the ceremony, old and young absorbed in the making of history and the dreams of a future without war.


During the service in Al Skeilbiyyeh church. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

After the service, we all entered the courtyard to witness the blessing of the bell-tower and to hear the bells being rung by the sons of martyrs, the honoured few who are given this privilege. The town’s brass band accompanied the bell-ringers filling the air with the sound of music that echoed across the valley towards the gatherings of armed groups, defying them to attack on this glorious Sunday morning.

The guns and mortars were silenced. Despite all the threats and the impotent extremist rage, the people of this town still stand proud and strong – “carrying the candles of peace and love in one hand and with the other hand on the trigger of the gun” as Nabel Alabdalla has often said.

The following video is a compilation of the bell-ringing. The passion demonstrated by the bell-ringers is indicative of the love these people have for their history, their culture, their town and their country. This is why this war will be won by Syrians (and allies) defending Syria and why the U.S Coalition of terror will never be victorious, there is no place in this secular society for ideological extremism and tyranny.

*

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

This article was originally published on 21st Century Wire.

Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist, photographer and associate editor at 21st Century Wire. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team. Please support her work at her Patreon account. 

Everyone knows the reality in Venezuela. Assistance is based on medical ethics: No patient is asked about political affiliation or payment. Doctors are trained in the values ​​of the Revolution, which speak for themselves, no inoculation is needed

***

The history of Cuban international collaboration is marked by adherence to ethical precepts established in our state’s conduct and positions. Our government does not interfere in the internal affairs of any country and respects national sovereignty and international law. The hundreds of thousands of compatriots who provide their services on five continents believe in, and abide by, these principles. Thus, strengthened by these beliefs, we work in the homeland of Bolívar and Chávez.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has welcomed the second largest number of internationalist Cubans, since January 1, 1959, surpassed only by the sister nation of Angola, which lived, worked, fought, and died with a great number of our sons and daughters. Venezuela is also the country in which Cuban collaborators participate in the widest range of sectors, including sports, culture, education, communications, agriculture, the food industry, science, energy, and transportation, among others.

With the popular victory and the arrival of Comandante Hugo Chávez Frías to the Presidency, the Bolivarian Revolution put human beings at the center of its work. For the first time, many marginalized and poor Venezuelans were treated like valued citizens, with access to social programs that the government implemented, backed by 73% of the GDP investment to benefit the majority.

Thus the social missions emerged, created and driven forward by Chávez as “the soul of the Revolution,” given their inclusive, popular, participative, democratic, human, solidary, and genuinely socialist nature.

Within this context, into the heart of the people and their revolution, came Cuban collaborators. Fidel delineated the fundamental principles of the cooperation: First of all: serve the Venezuelan people well, prepare those who will follow us, and care for our brigades. These premises have been, are, and will be what guides the Cuban presence in this sister country.

Misión Barrio Adentro Salud (Into the Neighborhood Health Mission) has had the greatest impact. Our collaborators are distributed in 24 states and 335 municipalities of the country. They live in all parishes and offer services in more than 1,500 facilities. They can be found on the steep hillsides, with the poor, and just as easily on the rolling hills where the rich and middle class bourgeois population lives.

Hearts in Venezuela

Everyone knows the reality in Venezuela; assistance is based on medical ethics.No one is asked about political affiliation or payment. They are people, patients, human beings … and that is enough to sensitize doctors trained in the values ​​of the Revolution, which speak for themselves, no inoculation is needed.

Examples abound in the daily work and at exceptional moments, such as those during the opposition thug violence (guarimbas) of 2017, or January 22-23 this year, and even more recently, on February 23, when those who suffered gunshots, blows, and even burns, both Chavistas and supporters of the opposition, were treated by Cubans at Comprehensive Diagnostic Centers, all with the same disposition and quality attention.

At these centers, after a clinical examination, the most direct, effective method of identifying an ailment, patients without distinction may undergo tests, receive treatment with medication, rehabilitation, or surgery, and, if necessary, specialized assistance in Cuba.

Supervision? Yes, it exists, but differs significantly in focus as compared to what the enemies of Cuba and Venezuela propose. As in any other part of the world, statistics are gathered, not in the mercantilist sense, but to evaluate the impact of treatment and preventative work on health and quality of life.

In the 18 years since Misión Barrio Adentro Salud was launched, 1.552 billion medical consultations have been provided, 1,473,317 lives saved, and 3,391,967 surgeries performed.

Among the 10,388 services offered are assistance to the disabled, orthodontics, ophthalmological treatments, and ongoing support for patients with chronic diseases like diabetes. In only ten years, 209,607 patients suffering from diabetic foot ulcers have been treated with HebertProt-P, a high-impact product of Cuban science, which has contributed to lowering amputations to 3% among those treated, while Venezuelan statistics show that 40 to 60% of patients who do not receive the Cuban product require amputation.

Something that distinguishes the work of the health system developed by the Bolivarian Revolution through the Barrio Adentro mission – first with Cuban doctors and now with the new generation of Venezuelan community doctors in the 13,617 popular clinics – is field work, door to door, with integrated teams and the participation of other community actors, not to seek votes or apply political pressure, but to practice social medicine, that which, from the soul, cures disease.

No Cuban Agents or Soldiers

Grateful Cubans remain in Venezuela, voluntarily and with a high sense of courage and revolutionary integrity. Those who fulfill a solidary duty remain united with Venezuelans in the face of aggression and threats from imperialism and its lackeys. Only those who came looking for the good life have abandoned the cause. There are no Cuban agents or soldiers on Bolivarian soil, only collaborators who value peace, love, and life, who teach and learn every day.

As in Cuba and through Mission Robinson – a name taken from the pseudonym of Simón Bolívar’s teacher – 3,095,546 Venezuelans have learned to read and write, using in this lofty cause Cuba’s “Yes, I can” method.

We can affirm with certainty that the Venezuelan people are now more cultured and freer; thinking, reasoning, and deciding their own future, thanks to the social missions of Venezuela and Cuba.

Constitutional President Nicolás Maduro Moros has strengthened the Hugo Chávez Frías Missions and Great Socialist Missions System, reaffirming that they constitute a source of social, economic, and political power. Shoulder to shoulder, for peace and love, Cubans will always accompany you.

In context:

  • No Cuban doctor denies service to a patient and much less risks the life of one to achieve political ends.
  • Cuban international medical collaboration has existed for over 55 years and has a presence in 124 countries, with more than 400,000 health workers providing services.
  • Since Cuban medical collaboration began in Venezuela, more than 140,000 health workers have participated, offering millions of medical consultations, while more than 24,000 Venezuelan community doctors have been trained.
  • The Barrio Adentro I and II missions have brought health to the people, altruistically, as characterizes our professionals.
  • Only those who support the coup from abroad would attempt to sully their honor.
  • Cuban collaboration in Venezuela is an expression of the solidarity defended by Fidel and Chávez.
  • More than 220,000 Cuban specialists from different sectors have served on Bolivarian soil over the years. This is the real Cuban army, not the one that coup leaders concoct.

*

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: President Díaz-Canel visits Venezuelan patients being treated by Cuban doctors. Photo: Estudio Revolución

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cuba’s International Collaboration Programme and Social Missions: Principles and Truths from Venezuela
  • Tags: ,

There is an inseparable connection between the pursuit of an ecological future and the pursuit of justice. We can have both or we will have neither. That needs to be our guide for the economic and ecological transformation to come.

Two underlying global dynamics are leading us toward self-destruction.

First, economic activity is relentlessly driving ecological damage through pollution, depletion, and habitat destruction. The result is the accelerating sixth global mass extinction of the Anthropocene. This is extraordinary.

A cataclysmic event with global geophysical consequences for the ecosphere is the result of self-conscious human action. In the past, periodic mass extinction were unleashed by forces like mass volcanism pouring gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, or the result of a huge meteor strike ending the age of dinosaurs killing most living creatures and leading to the extinction of 75% of all species.

The truth is that current human conduct is unsustainable. Unless substantially reformed, it will end as a consequence of ecological collapse and the great dying now underway. Mass death will be shared by humanity and not just by others, the insects and amphibians now vanishing globally at alarming rates. Mitigating the consequences of the great dying will require deliberate and quick action to eliminate fossil fuel pollution, to pursue a zero pollution, zero waste industrial ecology, to practice an ecological agriculture, forestry, aquaculture.

Second, is understanding that the practice of pollution, depletion, habitat destruction rests upon injustice, inequality, and enormous disparities of power between the few and the many. The world led by a billionaire class is incompatible with both the effective practice of democracy and an ecological turn. While some billionaires may harbor ecological sentiments, the existing market rules under which they have created and expand their wealth and power are based upon the practice of ecological pillage and inequality as usual.

Our central task is more than just installing solar panels and wind machines. The good news is that an ecological turn is both within our technical capabilities and can be guided by straightforward reforms of the price system and a legal mandate for fiduciary responsibility as the pursuit of ecological ends and justice. Our difficulties are largely political, and therefore amenable to democratic processes and insistent demands of millions, and soon to be billions, in the street.

Guiding the pursuit of profit or surpluses toward ecological ends, for a global market system to restore and protect the global ecosphere and the global commons of air, soil, ocean means first, comprehensive new ecological market rules that send clear price signals for sustainability where sustainable goods and services are cheaper gain market share and become more profitable, and second, a legally binding definition of fiduciary responsibility that the pursuit of economic growth results in ecological improvement in the context of social and ecological justice, for example, the replacement of fossil fuels with energy user owned renewables.

The social and economic context is a global convergence upon sustainable and just norms for all. The results are ecological sustainability, shared global prosperity, and building a global peace system that replaces a war system.

The rise of toxic nationalism, of Trumpism in the United States and similar excrescences globally are a reaction, in part, to the inequality and unfairness of business as usual. What is particularly pathetic in this expression of desperation is a willingness to embrace climate denial and polices of roll back of all ecological regulations as part of the relief promised by Trump et. al. whose message is wrapped in familiar racist tropes against dark skinned immigrants and the “danger” posed by desperate migrants seeking asylum.

The economics of efficiency and zero fuel cost renewables with falling capital costs and improving efficacy is leading by fits and starts toward a global renewable transformation. At the same time, the deepening and emergent consequences of climate change will lead to serious action. While elements of the Republican Party will continue to deny the reality of climate change, these policies have the same shelf life as denying gravity because falling down is unpleasant. Wild fire, floods, droughts, super storms, winter tornadoes, crop failures are making it clear that the clock is ticking louder and louder. The necessity to deal with the consequences of climate change before geophysical forces foreclose options is become clearer by the minute. The debate is now switching to what must be done, and how to do it.

Our key global challenge is to create the financial tools and market rules to encourage ecological economic growth in a way that supports social and ecological justice. We will have both ecological sustainability and social justice or we will have neither. That is the lens through which to scrutinize and pursue a Green New Deal and our future policies.

*

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

Roy Morrison builds Solar Farms. His next book (forthcoming) is EEG: Reversing Climate Change and Building an Ecological Civilization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Ecological Future and the Pursuit of Justice: The Key Challenge of Our Times

Britain’s Mother of All Crises

April 1st, 2019 by Rob Sewell

The Mother of Parliaments is now home to the mother of all crises. Brexit has tested the UK’s institutions and unwritten constitution to their limits. We are in uncharted waters – and in Theresa May’s case, in a rapidly sinking boat without a life vest.

The Maybot – inept, and stubborn as a mule – is determined to push through her hated Brexit deal. This is despite the fact that she has racked up the first and fourth largest defeats in parliamentary history.

But she had a big shock, not from Michel Barnier, but from the Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr Bercow used a precedent dating from 1604 to block her plans. As a result, the Tory leader is unlikely to be able to batter her opposition into submission by endlessly re-submitting her deal to a “meaningful vote”. Bercow has become yet another thorn in the side of May’s government amid Britain’s constitutional drama.

Government in name only

Faced with a hostile parliament, May demagogically appealed to the “people” to help her to resolve the crisis. “You’re tired of the infighting, you’re tired of the political games,” she said, blaming the parliamentarians. “I am on your side.”

But the Prime Minister’s speech backfired, alienating everyone – Leavers and Remainers alike. It is looking extremely unlikely she will ever get her deal through. She has well and truly flogged the proverbial dead horse.

Weary MPs have rubbed salt in the Tory leader’s wounds by voting to “take back control”, giving themselves a say in how to resolve the parliamentary paralysis. But it is not clear if this is even possible. The only clear majority in Parliament is against a no-deal Brexit. Yet this is the default option if the eventual deadline (whenever that may be) comes without reaching a majority for any other alternative.

Tory Brexiteers are fuming at the thought of seeing a “Brexit in name only” deal being passed. Meanwhile, with the Prime Minister and her party now deprived of any power, Britain is left with a government in name only.

The EU is also getting increasingly frustrated, fearing the worst. “This is a circus that is beyond comprehension,” said one senior EU diplomat working on Brexit. Another senior Brussels figure involved in talks likened it to “dealing with a failed state”. Faced with a broken prime minister with a last minute dodgy plan, what can the EU offer?

Sharpening the knives

Many of May’s own side are loudly and publicly calling for her to resign. The Tories are at each other’s throats, fiddling while Rome burns. The only thing that unites them is the feeling that the current Conservative party leader should go.

“I’m afraid it’s all over for the PM,” tweeted George Freeman, Tory MP. “She’s done her best. But across the country you can see the anger. Everyone feels betrayed. Government’s gridlocked. Trust in democracy collapsing. That can’t go on.”

Dominic Grieve, another Tory MP and former Attorney General, said in the Commons debate that he had “never felt more ashamed to be a member of the Conservative party”. He then predicted that if the government did not get a grip, “we will spiral down into oblivion – and the worst thing is, we will deserve it”.

Nigel Evans, a former deputy speaker, said that as far as May’s leadership was concerned, “trust is waning, ebbing away”. Her own MPs have accused her of betrayal. Her authority is in tatters.

But there is no time for a leadership contest before the new 12 April Brexit deadline. And who would even replace May? The potential candidates are a veritable rogues’ gallery.

Ruling class panicked

Faced with further defeats in the House of Commons, May’s government could see itself on the receiving end of a no-confidence vote. The whole crisis could end in the fall of the government and a general election.

Even the gutter press is panicking about such a possibility, with an editorial in The S** headed: “Brexiteer and Remainer Tories are close to giving power to Marxist Jeremy Corbyn.” The article states:

“We do not believe the Tories will win an election if panicked Remain MPs have halted Brexit, especially with Mrs May in office. They will be punished by Leavers they have failed and Remainers who have already jumped ship. Corbyn is one of Britain’s most reviled politicians, in a crowded field. But his party… could win by default if Tory voters don’t turn out… Tory MPs must wake up. This is not a parlour game. An election has never looked closer. Handing power to Corbyn will define your careers.”

They are terrified by the looming prospect of a Corbyn-led Labour government. Their analysis of a defeat for the Tories is correct. The Tories are deeply divided and in a state of disarray.

For a socialist Labour government!

Out of desperation, big business have thrown their weight (and significant sums of money) behind the call for a so-called ‘People’s Vote’ over Brexit, doing everything in their power to mobilise a mass crowd for the recent pro-EU march in London.

But a second referendum will do nothing to address the burning issues facing working-class communities across the country. Instead, it threatens to divide workers even further.

Instead of a ‘People’s Vote’ over Brexit, we need a ‘People’s Vote’ over this government. The Labour leadership should press a vote of no confidence in the Tory government, which is hanging by a thread. A mass campaign – with rallies and demonstrations across the country – should be organised to force a general election.

Britain is in the midst of a deep economic, political, social and constitutional crisis. The ruling class has lost control. There has never been a better time to clear out the Tories and bring to power a Labour government committed to bold socialist policies.

*

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

Hawks Clamoring to Attack Iran

April 1st, 2019 by Dr. Emile Nakhleh

As Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Saudi crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman clamor for a war against Iran, they seem to have conveniently forgotten the destruction and mayhem wrought by the American invasion of Iraq 16 years ago.

These war drummers are underestimating the potential negative consequences of the war and overestimating the Iranian people’s dislike of their theocratic regime. They, like the advocates of the Iraqi invasion in the winter of 2002 and early spring 2003, are confusing Iranians’ dislike of the ayatollahs with their potential embrace of a foreign invader.

On the eve of the Iraq war, former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the Vice President Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President David Addington all claimed that the Iraqi invasion aimed at liberating the country from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Removing Saddam from power, they maintained, would eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and bring stability, security, and democracy to Iraq.

As developments unfolded over the past 16 years, the “liberation” claims proved to be bogus. The invasion and the decision to de-Ba’athify Iraq and dissolve the Iraqi military created an environment conducive to sectarianism, insurgency, and terrorism. The vacuum that followed the regime collapse, the incompetence of the American administration in the “Green Zone,” and the pervasive corruption of the new Iraqi governing councils was quickly filled by pro-Iranian militias, al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic State. The promise of stability and security was replaced by chaos, bloodshed, and mayhem.

The massive destruction of Iraq and the horrendous human and material cost the American “liberation” caused for the country will be child’s play compared to what could happen if Trump and his Israeli and Saudi allies decide to attack Iran. Unlike Iraq—which the British cobbled together after World War One out of the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds under a minority Sunni rule—  Iran has been in existence for centuries with a vast territory and a huge population. If attacked, Iran has the capability to retaliate against its neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia. Its air and missile forces could quickly destroy the oil and gas facilities and the water and power grids on the Arab side of the Gulf. A war against Iran could easily spread to the Gulf and the Levant. The entire region could go up in flames.

Hubris and Ignorance

The Bush administration was not willing or interested in answering the “morning after” questions regarding the post-Saddam future of Iraq. Whenever I and others urged policy makers to consider the law of unintended consequences and what could go wrong in Iraq following the invasion, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld dismissed our concerns and arrogantly claimed that the U.S. military and civilian administration following the invasion would be able to control the situation in Iraq. Their hubris regarding America’s power and ignorance of Iraqi realities on the ground led to a total breakdown of Iraqi society following the demise of the Saddam regime.

The Trump administration seems to be equally arrogant and ignorant about Iran. It has displayed a similar disregard for strategic thinking about the future of Iran beyond the clerical regime. The Iranophobes within the administration seem to be more obsessed with Iran than the Bush administration was ever with Iraq.

Instead of relying on calm, expert-based analysis, Secretary of State Pompeo has made a series of trips to the region that have involved bullying, threats, and hilarious, if not tragic, mischaracterizations. In a recent conversation with Christian broadcasters in Jerusalem, Pompeo waxed eloquent about God’s presumed divine plan designating Trump as a possible savior of the “Jewish people,” Sunni Islam, Maronite Lebanon, Alawite Syria, and the rest of the world from the perceived modern-day Persian “Hamans.”

The American foreign policy process is in serious trouble if Pompeo truly believes that Trump could be the twenty-first-century version of Queen Esther or Hadassah and that this religious vision could chart the path to a grand strategy in the Middle East. When warped religious interpretations are offered as a substitute for rationally debated policy, whether by a radical Wahhabi Salafist, an evangelical Christian, or an ultra-Orthodox Jew, democratic governments should fear for their future. Invoking the divine as an inspiration or a justification for violence against another country, much as Osama bin Laden did on the eve of 9/11, is a rejection of rational discourse and a return to the barbarism of previous epochs.

Pompeo’s imagined “shuttle diplomacy” in the Middle East has been reduced to supporting Netanyahu’s upcoming election bid, threatening Hezbollah in Lebanon, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and lambasting any state that does business with Iran. His ambassador-designee to Saudi Arabia, John Abizaid, told Congress that the threat from Iran supersedes concerns for human rights in Arab autocracies.

Furthermore, Trump administration policy operatives, including John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani, have treated an Iranian group called the Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK as a legitimate alternative to the clerical regime in Iran. The MEK, however, is a terrorist cult that has received funding from all sorts of dubious sources and is often used as a tool by outside groups, states, and organizations, including intelligence services of regional and international state actors, to further an anti-Iran agenda.

Similarly, the Bush administration viewed Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré, and the organization he founded, the Iraqi National Congress, as the legitimate alternative to the Saddam regime in Iraq. Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld fully bought into Chalabi’s snake-oil sales. Chalabi was instrumental in instigating America’s invasion of Iraq at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Iraq has never recovered from that ill-fated, unnecessary war. Bolton and Giuliani are as susceptible to MEK’s claims as Cheney and Rumsfeld were to Chalabi’s.

For the sake of whipping up regional animus toward Iran and preparing the ground for a war against the “Persian menace,” Pompeo in effect has told Arab autocrats that so long as they keep mouthing anti-Iran rhetoric, Washington will ignore their despicable human rights record and the continued repression of their people. The thousands of political prisoners in Egyptian, Saudi, and Bahraini jails will have to wait for another day.

Arab regimes have become masters in the art of communicating with their American benefactors. During the Cold War, they received American aid as long as they brandished anti-Communist slogans. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and with the rise of terrorism, these same strongmen were happy to adopt an anti-terrorism rhetoric in order to continue receiving American military and economic aid. Their current anti-Iran public posture is the latest phase in their communication with Washington and is as equally profitable as the previous two phases.

When some regional politicians demurred about getting tough with Iran, as happened during Pompeo’s recent visit to Lebanon, he did not hesitate to threaten them with a panoply of economic sanctions. Vice President Mike Pence used similar language at the recent meeting in Warsaw to berate and even threaten America’s European allies if they dared to take a conciliatory posture toward Iran. The European reaction to Pence’s speech showed that his pathetic performance backfired. Pompeo’s Warsaw meeting ended in utter failure.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Managing Iran’s malign behavior through the Iran nuclear deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a stroke of diplomatic genius, which former Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz negotiated. The Obama administration placed Iran’s objectionable behavior in two baskets—a nuclear basket, which they addressed through the Iran deal, and a non-nuclear one, which the Obama administration was to address once the nuclear inspection became operational and Iran fully compliant. That approach would have worked: most experts judged Iran to be in compliance with the conditions of the nuclear deal. Unfortunately, President Trump decided not to recertify the agreement.

Trump’s decision contradicted the judgment of most nuclear and intelligence experts about Iran’s compliance. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for example, affirmed Iran’s compliance in more than a dozen of its successive quarterly reports and as recently as earlier this month.

In his open testimony to Congress in January, the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats stated that Iran continued to comply with the deal even after Trump announced his intention to scuttle it. Coats said, “We do not believe Iran is currently undertaking activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.” Iran was of course cheating in other areas, according to the DNI’s testimony, but not on the nuclear agreement.

In a statement issued April 25 of last year, over two dozen Israeli senior military and intelligence officials judged that it was “in Israel’s best interest that the United States maintains the nuclear agreement with Iran.” The Israeli statement went on to say that “The current deal is better than no deal” and that “Iran’s destructive regional policies and actions, its support for acts of terrorism, its presence in Syria, and its ballistic missiles program should be dealt with outside the framework of the agreement.” This was precisely the position of the Obama administration when it negotiated the deal in the first place.

The Path Forward

Fifty-plus retired American generals and diplomats, in a statement published earlier this month, urged the Trump administration to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and work on resolving outstanding concerns with Iran diplomatically. They advised against a war because they saw no good outcome. The statement did not seek to exonerate Iran’s destabilizing behavior and its involvement in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, or Lebanon. Nor did the retired senior leaders ignore Iran’s link to terrorism. The statement, however, pointed out, among other things, that the 2015 nuclear deal “put limitations on Iran’s nuclear program that provided assurances that it would not be used to develop weapons, improved American intelligence about potential future development and significantly improved the security of the United States and our allies.”

Additionally, the retired generals and diplomats emphasized that Iran is complying with the agreement and that, under the JCPOA, Iran is barred from engaging in nuclear weapons development program, which prevents it from producing a nuclear device. “Reentering the agreement and lifting the sanctions will greatly enhance United States’ ability to negotiate improvements and enable us to address concerns with the existing agreement.”

Coming from these military and policy realists, who are dedicated to the security of this country, Israel, and America’s allies, this advice is grounded in sane strategic analysis, not in theological whimsy.

*

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. Emile Nakhleh was a Senior Intelligence Service officer and Director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the Central Intelligence Agency. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Research Professor and Director of the Global and National Security Policy Institute at the University of New Mexico, and the author of A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations with the Muslim World and Bahrain: Political Development in a Modernizing State.

Featured image is from Shutterstock


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Empire of Chaos in Hybrid War Overdrive

April 1st, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

The Trump administration’s foreign policy may be easily deconstructed as a crossover between The Sopranos and late-night comedy, writes Pepe Escobar.

***

Is this the Age of Anxiety? The Age of Stupidity? The Age of Hybrid War? Or all of the above?

As right populism learns to use algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) and media convergence, the Empire of Chaos, in parallel, is unleashing all-out hybrid and semiotic war.

Dick Cheney’s Global War on Terror (GWOT) is back, metastasized as a hybrid mongrel.

But GWOT would not be GWOT without a Wild West scarecrow. Enter Hamza bin Laden, son of Osama. On the same day the State Department announced a $1 million bounty on his head, the so- called “UN Security Council IS and Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee” declared Hamza the next al-Qaeda leader.

Since January 2017, Hamza has been a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the State Department – on par with his deceased Dad, back in the early 2000s. The Beltway intel community “believes” Hamza resides “in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.”

Remember these are the same people who “believed” former Taliban leader Mullah Omar resided in Quetta, Baluchistan, when in fact he was safely ensconced only a few miles away from a massive U.S. military base in Zabul, Afghanistan.

Considering that Jabhat al-Nusra, or al-Qaeda in Syria, for all practical purposes, was defined as no more than “moderate rebels” by the Beltway intel community, it’s safe to infer that new scarecrow Hamza is also a “moderate”. And yet he’s more dangerous than vanished fake Caliph Abu Baqr al-Baghdadi. Talk about a masterful example of culture jamming.

Show Me The Big Picture

A hefty case can be made that the Empire of Chaos currently has no allies; it’s essentially surrounded by an assortment of vassals, puppets and comprador 5th columnist elites professing varied degrees of – sometimes reluctant – obedience.

The Trump administration’s foreign policy may be easily deconstructed as a crossover between The Sopranos and late-night comedy – as in the whole episode of designating State Department/CIA regime change, lab experiment Random Dude as President of Venezuela. Legendary cultural critic Walter Benjamin would have called it “the aestheticization of politics,” (turning politics into art), as he did about the Nazis, but this time it’s the Looney Tunes version.

To add to the conceptual confusion, despite countless “an offer you can’t refuse” antics unleashed by psychopaths of the John Bolton and Mike Pompeo variety, there’s this startling nugget. Former Iranian diplomat Amir Moussavi has revealed that Trump himself demanded to visit Tehran, and was duly rebuffed.

“Two European states, two Arab countries and one Southeast Asian state” were mediating a series of messages relayed by Trump and his son-in-law Jared “of Arabia” Kushner, according to Moussavi.

Is there a method to this madness? An attempt at a Grand Narrative would go something like this: ISIS/Daesh may have been sidelined – for now; they are not useful anymore, so the U.S. must fight the larger “evil”: Tehran. GWOT has been revived, and though Hamza bin Laden has been designated the new Caliph, GWOT has shifted to Iran.

When we mix this with the recent India-Pakistan scuffle, a wider message emerges. There was absolutely no interest by Prime Minister Imran Kahn, the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani intelligence, ISI, to launch an attack on India in Kashmir. Pakistan was about to run out of money and about to be bolstered by the U.S., via Saudi Arabia with $20 billion and an IMF loan.

At the same time, there were two almost simultaneous terrorist attacks launched from Pakistan – against Iran and against India in mid-February. There’s no smoking gun yet, but these attacks may have been manipulated by a foreign intelligence agency. The Cui Bono riddle is which state would profit immensely from a war between Pakistan and Iran and/or a war between Pakistan and India.

The bottom line: hiding in the shadow of plausible deniability – according to which what we understand as reality is nothing but pure perception – the Empire of Chaos will resort to the chaos of no-holds-barred hybrid war to avoid “losing” the Eurasian heartland.

Show Me How Many Hybrid Plans You Got

What applies to the heartland of course also applies to the backyard.

The case of Venezuela shows that the “all options on the table” scenario has been de facto aborted by Russia, outlined in an astonishing briefing by Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, and then subsequently detailed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj at a crucial RIC (part of BRICS) summit in China,Lavrov said,

“Russia keeps a close eye on brazen US attempts to create an artificial pretext for a military intervention in Venezuela… The actual implementation of these threats is pulling in military equipment and training [US] Special Forces.”

Lavrov explained how Washington was engaged in acquiring mortars and portable air defense systems “in an East European country, and mov(ing) them closer to Venezuela by an airline of a regime that is… rather absolutely obedient to Washington in the post-Soviet space.”

The U.S. attempt at regime change in Venezuela has been so far unsuccessful in several ways. Plan A – a classic color revolution -has miserably failed, in part because of a lack of decent local intelligence. Plan B was a soft version of humanitarian imperialism, with a resuscitation of the nefarious, Libya-tested responsibility to protect (R2P); it also failed, especially when the American tale that the Venezuelan government burnt humanitarian aid trucks at the border with Colombia was a lie, exposed by The New York Times, no less.

Plan C was a classic Hybrid War technique: a cyberattack, replete with a revival of Nitro Zeus, which shut down 80 percent of Venezuela’s electricity.

That plan had already been exposed by WikiLeaks, via a 2010 memo by a U.S.-funded, Belgrade-based color revolution scam that helped train self-proclaimed “President” Random Dude, when he was just known as Juan Guaidó. The leaked memo said that attacking the Venezuelan power grid would be a “watershed event” that “would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate.”

But even that was not enough.

That leaves Plan D – which is essentially to try to starve the Venezuelan population to death via viciously lethal additional sanctions. Sanctioned Syria and sanctioned Iran didn’t collapse. Even boasting myriad comprador elites aggregated in the Lima group, exceptionalists may have to come to grips with the fact that deploying the Monroe doctrine essentially to contain China’s influence in the young 21st century is no “cakewalk.”

Plan E—for extreme—would be U.S. military action, which Bolton won’t take off the table.

Show Me the Way to the Next War Game

So where do all these myriad weaponizations of chaos theory leave us? Nowhere, if they don’t follow the money. Local comprador elites must be lavishly rewarded, otherwise you’re stuck in hybrid swamp territory. That was the case in Brazil – and that’s why the most sophisticated hybrid war case history so far has been a success.

In 2013, Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks revealed how the NSA was spying on Brazilian energy giant Petrobras and the Dilma Rousseff government beginning in 2010. Afterwards, a complex, rolling judicial-business-political-financial-media coup ended up reaching its two main objectives; in 2016, with the impeachment of Rousseff, and in 2018, with Lula thrown in jail.

Now comes arguably the juiciest piece of the puzzle. Petrobras was supposed to pay $853 million to the U.S. Department of Justice for not going to trial for crimes it was being accused of in America. But then a dodgy deal was struck according to which the fine will be transferred to a Brazilian fund as long as Petrobras commits to relay confidential information about its businesses to the United States government.

Hybrid war against BRICS member Brazil worked like a charm, but trying it against nuclear superpower Russia is a completely different ball game. U.S. analysts, in another case of culture jamming, even accuse Russia itself of deploying hybrid war – a concept actually invented in the U.S. within a counter-terrorism context; applied during the occupation of Iraq and later metastasized across the color revolution spectrum; and featuring, among others, in an article co-authored by former Pentagon head James “Mad Dog” Mattis in 2005 when he was a mere lieutenant general.

At a recent conference about Russia’s military strategy, Chief of General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov stressed that the Russian armed forces must increase both their “classic” and “asymmetrical” potential. In the U.S. this is interpreted as subversion/propaganda hybrid war techniques as applied in Ukraine and in the largely debunked Russia-gate. Instead, Russian strategists refer to these techniques as “complex approach” and “new generation war”.

Santa Monica’s RAND Corporation still sticks to good ol’ hot war scenarios. They have been holding “Red on Blue” war games simulations since 1952 – modeling how the proverbial “existential threats” could use asymmetric strategies. The latest Red on Blue was not exactly swell. RAND analyst David Ochmanek famously said that with Blue representing the current U.S. military potential and Red representing Russia-China in a conventional war, “Blue gets its ass handed to it.”

None of this will convince Empire of Chaos functionary Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently told a Senate Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon will continue to refuse a “no first use” nuclear strategy. Aspiring Dr. Strangeloves actually believe the U.S. can start a nuclear war and get away with it.

Talk about the Age of Hybrid Stupidity going out with a bang.

*

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, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times. His latest book is “2030.” Follow him on Facebook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Empire of Chaos in Hybrid War Overdrive

Radical armed factions, including Al Qaeda off-shoot in Syria, are preparing a false flag chemical attack in Idlib, the last province under the control of the opposition forces, Russian Defense Ministry claimed. The preparations are supervised by French and Belgian intelligence and involve members of the notorious self-styled rescue group White Helmets, according to the Ministry.

Head of Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria Major General Viktor Kupchishin announced that a cargo of a poisonous substance, likely chlorine-based, has been already delivered to the villages of Khan Shaykhun and Kafr Zita located in southern Idlib. Another batch was sent to Maarat Misrin north of the eponymous provincial capital Idlib city. The substance was packed in canisters disguised as oxygen and natural gas tanks, Kuptchishin added.

Both Khan Shaykhun and Kafr Zita are close to an observation point established by the Turkish army, with the distance between the outpost and the villages less than 10 kilometers.

It is expected that the poisonous gas will be dispersed near the locations of military positions and warehouses of the armed factions that were recently hit by the Russian air strikes. Officers of French and Belgian intelligence who were covertly dispatched to the area have already filmed some of the strikes with the intention to present the footage as “proof” of Russia’s responsibility for the alleged attack.

Local residents were recruited to play the roles of chemical attack victims and received training in faking the symptoms of a choking agent poisoning. White Helmets members will be present in the area to “rescue” the victims and provide footage from the ground, while militants of Hayat Tahrir Al Sham, arguably the most powerful armed faction in Idlib and a former affiliate of Al Qaeda, will seal the area to secure the perimeter.

On an even more ominous note, the Russian general said that there is “a distinct possibility” that the perpetrators will subject a number of the local residents to exposure to chemical warfare agents to ensure casualties among them and make the footage more “authentic”.

This is not the first time Russia has issued warning of a false flag chemical attack by the opposition forces. Perhaps the most striking example of a similar plot is the attack that occurred in Douma city almost a year ago. Back then, the opposition blamed the Syrian Air Force for using chemical weapons against civilians and succeeded in pushing the US and allies to launch missile strikes at a number of Syrian army positions in Damascus and Homs provinces.

It would appear that due to systematic defeats suffered by the armed factions, the opposition has revived its attempts to play the “chemical card” at the approval of its foreign backers. Despite having been exposed multiple times, this tactic remains a valid threat to the fragile stability that is hesitantly returning to Syria.

*

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

Ahmad Al Khaled is Syrian journalist, Official Representative of Special Monitoring Mission to Syria.

Saturday, March 30, marked the 43rd anniversary of Land Day for Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories.

The anniversary is all about Palestinian resistance against Israeli theft of their land, displacing them for exclusive Jewish development and use.

It’s against the systematic transformation of historic Palestine into a state affording rights to Jews alone, Arabs treated like nonpersons, Israeli Arab citizens, 20% of the population, treated like fifth column threats.

March 30 was also the one-year anniversary of weekly Great March of Return demonstrations in Gaza against Israel’s illegal suffocating blockade, an act of war without declaring it.

Two million Gazans are held hostage by Israeli viciousness, the world community doing nothing to relieve their suffering, nothing to hold Israel accountable for high crimes too serious to ignore.

They include three premeditated wars of aggression on the Strip since December 2008, along with intermittent terror-bombings and cross-border incursions, civilians threatening no one harmed most.

Razan al-Najjar, the 21 year old Gaza medic killed by an Israeli sniper on June 1, treating an injured man, undated photo from Palestine Live on twitter.

On Saturday, Sabreen al-Najjar, mother of 21-year-old Razan al-Najjar, commemorated her daughter’s murder at the hands of an Israeli sniper – an angel of mercy paramedic, a victim of Gaza’s killing fields.

Dressed in white attire, identifying her as a first responder medic, she was lethally shot in the neck and back, an exploding dum dum bullet destroying her heart, killing her instantly.

“My daughter…Razan…was (lethally) shot by an Israeli sniper while wearing her white uniform and trying to rescue those injured protesting for their rights,” said Sabreen, adding:

“During Razan’s short life, she was confined to a densely populated, prison-like strip of land, surrounded by Israeli blockades and walls.”

“She witnessed three Israeli military aggressions that wounded and killed thousands of innocent Palestinians. For her and for all Palestinians, the Great Return March is our cry for justice.”

“As we stand together peacefully, every weekend, for the rights and freedoms freely given to others without hesitation, it’s the obligation of the international community to act and stop supplying Israel with the weapons that it used to kill Razan and so many others like her.”

“I call on organizations and states to implement our Palestinian call for a military embargo against Israel so that we can live in freedom and peace.”

Gaza-based BDS community organizer Abulrahman Abunahel said

“(f)or more than seven decades, Palestinian people have been struggling to return to their homes from which they were uprooted in the Nakba in 1948.”

“Israel denies us our right of return. On the first anniversary of the ongoing Great March of Return in Gaza, we reiterate the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions for Palestinian rights.”

“It is high time to fully isolate and prosecute the Israeli regime of settler-colonialism, occupation, and apartheid. The bloodshed in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine must be stopped.”

According to Gaza’s health ministry, Israeli soldiers killed 266 Palestinians, injuring over 30,000 others since Great Gazan March of Return demonstrations began one year ago.

On Saturday, Israeli snipers killed four Palestinians, injuring 316 others, including 86 children and 29 women, said Gaza’s health ministry – many seriously during all Great March of Return protests, including yesterday’s.

Razan and two other Palestinian medics were killed, 665 others wounded, and 112 ambulances damaged, Gaza’s health ministry explained.

At least two clearly identified journalists by their attire were killed, dozens of others wearing press IDs injured.

Israeli soldiers and other security forces routinely attack peaceful Palestinian demonstrators throughout the Territories with live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, toxic tear gas, and other repressive tactics.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned Israeli use of lethal force against peaceful protesters threatening no one – how its regimes confront all nonviolent demonstrations, falsely blaming Palestinians for high crimes committed against them.

Like ahead of all Great March of Return demonstrations, the IDF set up fortified positions on the Israeli side of the border, snipers positioned with orders to use live fire and other toughness against peaceful protesters.

Israeli media reported that the IDF deployed three brigades of combat troops and an artillery battalion along the Gaza border, along with 200 snipers.

PCHR:

“According to observations by (its) fieldworkers (on the ground in Gaza), Israeli forces…stationed in prone positions and in military jeeps along the fence with Israel continued to use excessive force against the (peaceful) demonstrators by opening fire and firing teargas canisters at them.”

As in previous weeks, tens of thousands of Gazans turned out on Saturday, including entire families. Threatening no one, Israeli soldiers fired on them for target practice, gunning down or otherwise injuring hundreds.

Reporting on what happened on Saturday, the NYT featured a photo of a Palestinian demonstrator using a sling shot to hurl a likely stone in the direction of Israeli forces, safely behind barricades, too far away to be harmed – instead of showing IDF snipers gunning down Palestinians in cold blood.

The Times turned truth on its head, calling Saturday events “mostly peaceful” – entirely so by Palestinians, nothing of the kind by IDF soldiers, attacking them unrestrained.

The photo published by the Times was unrelated to Saturday protests, showing black smoke from burning tires.

Haaretz reported the following:

“As part of understandings reached between Israel and the Palestinians through Egyptian mediation on Friday, Palestinians refrained from setting ablaze car tires at the protest sites.”

The Times (and other US media) falsely accused Gazans of hurling “dozens of homemade bombs” at Israeli soldiers. Nothing of the kind occurred. Demonstrators were entirely peaceful as during other Great March of Return protests.

The Times quoted IDF spokesman, Lt. Col Jonathan Conruus’ Big Lie, claiming

“(i)t’s clear that Hamas controls the level of violence (sic),” adding:

“When they want less violence (sic), we see that they can keep people back from the fence. And when they want more violence (sic), they get more violence (sic).”

The Times lied saying

“Israel made a point before Saturday of cautioning its soldiers against taking shots that might hit unintended targets.”

Fact: The Netanyahu regime and IDF consider civilians legitimate targets, including young children and women – 86 children and 29 women wounded by live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, and toxic tear gas on Saturday.

Many thousands of Gazans have been protesting weekly and other times against their virtual incarceration in the world’s largest open-air prison.

Though unable to change things, their courage against a brutal occupier got worldwide attention. With nothing to lose, they’re unlikely to quit as long as their suffering continues.

A Final Comment

On March 29, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)  explained major media calls to renounce violence is almost exclusively directed at Muslims, saying:

“A FAIR survey of the phrase “renounce violence” in the New York Times over the past 10 years shows that 95 percent of the time the demand is made of Muslim organizations, people or political parties, the most prominent being the Taliban and Hamas.”

“There are zero instances of anyone in the Times — whether reporters quoting officials or columnists — from March 28, 2009, to March 28, 2019, insisting or suggesting that the United States, Israel or any white-majority country ‘renounce violence.’ ”

The above information should surprise no one. The self-styled newspaper of record and other establishment media operate as virtual imperial press agents – supporting US-led NATO and Israeli wars of aggression, along with their other hostile actions against targeted nations and people.

*

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

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.

Virginian State Senator Richard H. Black has told the Syria Times e-newspaper that besides influencing Israeli elections, the United States is financially vested in controlling the occupied Syrian Golan because Halliburton, an American oil company, is actively engaged in exploring for oil and national gas under the auspices of the Israeli government.

He has asserted that this act is being done in clear violation of International law.

The Senator’s remarks came in response to a question on the reasons behind US President Donald Trump’s recognition of the occupied Syrian Golan as ‘Israeli territory’.

“President Trump recognized the occupied Golan as Israeli territory because of the upcoming Israeli parliamentary elections on April 9. The Trump administration has done everything in its power to shift the election’s outcome in favor of Netanyahu,” Sen. Black said.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu faces a wide variety of indictments of criminal corruption. These have increased in substance and seriousness over time. In response, the Trump administration has done everything in its power to bolster Netanyahu, viewing him as an ally in the Middle East. It has reversed several long-standing U.S. policies in order to favor Netanyahu against his opposition in the pending elections. The recognition of Jerusalem was a similar attempt to bolster Netanyahu’s political viability, in the face of his criminal corruption scandals,” he added.

The US lawmaker made it clear that although President Trump has power, under domestic law, to recognize the annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan, the President’s action is inconsistent with international law. Following the 1967 Israeli War, UN Resolution 242 called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories. In 1981, Israel enacted legislation to annex the Syrian Golan, but the United Nations adopted Resolution 497, which said that their action was null and void.

“The domestic law was established by a United States Supreme Court decision in 2015. Ironically, the decision of Zivotofsky v. Kerry recognized President Obama’s authority to disregard a federal statute requiring him to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem,” Sen. Black stated.

He referred to the fact that the Arab League condemned U.S. recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan, while the 28 countries of the European Union unanimously affirmed that the Golan is occupied territories, which are not a part of Israel.

“Turkey, Iran, and Russia have all expressed disapproval of the U.S. recognition,” the senator added, stressing that the recognition of Israeli control of the Golan will have little practical effect.

US is interfering in foreign elections today

Asked about benefits US can get from such move, the Senator replied:

“For the most part, President Trump’s objective is to influence the elections of a foreign state. Ironically, President Trump was just exonerated by the Special Counsel on claims that he colluded with Russia to influence his own Presidential election. While no one can seriously believe that President Trump did so, there is no doubt that the United States is forcefully engaged in distorting the outcome of elections in many foreign countries.”

He went on to say:

“There is great irony in the United States interfering in foreign elections today. We have just spent two years with the United States in turmoil, as Special Prosecutor Robert Muller worked to discover evidence that Russia had attempted to influence this country’s elections. If the United States views interference in its own elections as a serious matter, it has no business subverting the electoral processes of other nations. The United States should not reverse long-standing Mideast policies simply to prevent Israel from conducting honest elections, free from foreign influence.”

Peace

The senator concluded by saying:

“Peace will not come to the Middle East until its nations focus their efforts on developing their own nations and their domestic resources without seizing the lands and resources of their neighbors. Nations benefit by mutually agreed borders that are respected and not continually violated by airstrikes, outside support for terrorists, and sanctions which cause suffering among the poor.”

*

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

Featured image is from The Syria Times

Second in a four-part series on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The first installment  in this series discussed how NATO was set up partly to blunt the European Left. The other major factor driving the creation of NATO was a desire to bolster colonial authority and bring the world under a US geopolitical umbrella.

From the outset Canadian officials had an incredibly expansive definition of NATO’s supposed defensive character, which says an “attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies.” As part of the Parliamentary debate over NATO external minister Lester Pearson said: “

There is no better way of ensuring the security of the Pacific Ocean at this particular moment than by working out, between the great democratic powers, a security arrangement the effects of which will be felt all over the world, including the Pacific area.”

Two years later he said:

The defence of the Middle East is vital to the successful defence of Europe and north Atlantic area.”

In 1953 Pearson went even further:

There is now only a relatively small [5000 kilometre] geographical gap between southeast Asia and the area covered by the North Atlantic treaty, which goes to the eastern boundaries of Turkey.”

In one sense the popular portrayal of NATO as a defensive arrangement was apt. After Europe’s second Great War the colonial powers were economically weak while anti-colonial movements could increasingly garner outside support. The Soviets and Mao’s China, for instance, aided the Vietnamese. Similarly, Egypt supported Algerian nationalists and Angola benefited from highly altruistic Cuban backing. The international balance of forces had swung away from the colonial powers.

To maintain their colonies European powers increasingly depended on North American diplomatic and financial assistance. NATO passed numerous resolutions supporting European colonial authority. In the fall of 1951 Pearson responded to moves in Iran and Egypt to weaken British influence by telling Parliament:

The Middle  East is strategically far too important to the defence of the North Atlantic area to allow it to become a power vacuum or to pass into unfriendly hands.”

The next year Ottawa recognized the colonies of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos as “associated states” of France, according to an internal report, “to assist  a NATO colleague, sorely tried by foreign and domestic problems.” More significantly, Canada gave France hundreds of millions of dollars in military equipment through NATO’s Mutual Assistance Program. These weapons were mostly used to suppress the Vietnamese and Algerian independence movements. In 1953 Pearson told the House:

The assistance  we have given to France as a member of the NATO association may have helped her recently in the discharge of some of her obligations in Indo-China.”

Similarly, Canadian and US aid was used by the Dutch to maintain their dominance over Indonesia and West Papua New Guinea, by the Belgians in the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, by the Portuguese in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau and by the British in numerous places. Between 1950 and 1958 Ottawa donated a whopping $1,526,956,000 ($8 billion today) in ammunition, fighter jets, military training, etc. to European countries through the NATO Mutual Assistance Program.

The role NATO played in North American/European subjugation of the Global South made Asians and Africans wary of the organization. The Nigerian Labour Party’s 1964 pamphlet The NATO Conspiracy in Africa documents that organization’s military involvement on the continent from bases to naval agreements. In 1956 NATO established a Committee for Africa and in June 1959 NATO’s North Atlantic Council, the organization’s main political decision-making body, warned that the communists would take advantage of African independence to the detriment of Western political and economic interests.

The north Atlantic alliance was designed to maintain unity among the historic colonial powers — and the US — in the midst of a de-colonizing world. It was also meant to strengthen US influence around the world. In a history of the 1950-53 US-led Korean war David Bercuson writes that Canada’s external minister “agreed with [President] Truman, [Secretary of State] Dean Acheson, and other American leaders that the Korean conflict was NATO’s first true test, even if it was taking place half a world away.”

Designed to maintain internal unity among the leading capitalist powers, NATO was the military alliance of the post-WWII US-centered multilateral order, which included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, International Trade Organization (ITO) and the United Nations. (For its first two decades the UN was little more than an arm of the State Department.)

A growing capitalist power, Canada was well placed to benefit from US-centered multilateral imperialism. The Canadian elite’s business, cultural, familial and racial ties with their US counterparts meant their position and profits were likely to expand alongside Washington’s global position.

NATO bolstered colonial authority and helped bring the world under the US geopolitical umbrella, from which the Canadian elite hoped to benefit.

*

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

Featured image: National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, centre, and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance as Justin Trudeau holds a press conference at NATO headquarters. (Source: Yves Engler)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Defence of European Empires Was the Original NATO Goal
  • Tags: ,

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro landed in the Ben Gurion Airport on Sunday reciting the Hebrew phrase “Ani ohev et Israel”—‘I love Israel’ in English. Prime Minister Netanyahu welcomed the Brazilian leader to his first official visit to Israel.

During his four day visit to the country that has been waging a rocket strike campaign on the Gaza Strip over the past week, Bolsonaro will also meet with President Reuven Rivlin and visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. He is also set to visit the Home Front Command, the Israeli rescue mission that helped with rescue efforts in Brazil after the collapse of the Brumadinho Dam in January that left at least 206 people dead.

Bolsonaro will meet with representatives of the Brazilian community in Israel and the two are expected to discuss bi-lateral agreements.

At the Israeli airport Netanyahu praised the Brazilian leader for his “faith in our shared heritage” and his commitment to improving Israeli-Brazilian ties.

“When you entered your post in January, we opened a new era in Israel-Brazil relations,” said the prime minister. “On your first visit outside the American continents, you’re in Israel to bring our relations to a new high.”

Netanyahu went on:

“Just as I saw the great admiration for Israel and me in Brazil, I am sure you will meet admiration for Brazil and you in Israel. Israelis love Brazil – most of all the warmth and happiness of its people.”

According to Haaretz, the two will visit a technology innovation exhibition that includes self-driving cars and Bolsonaro may tour an Israeli drone factory whose machines have the capability to conduct facial recognition from high above the ground.

“Brazil is a large country with large potential. I am sure Brazil’s potential under your leadership will come to fruition – not just for Brazil, but for Israel-Brazil relations.”

As he stepped off the plane Sunday morning, Bolsonaro told Netanyahu:

“I’m excited to be here. We want to be like you, as is written in the Bible, said the right-wing Brazilian leader who was sworn-in last Jan. 1. “The friendship between our two countries is historic. We must take advantage of the potential of our relations,” he added.

Netanyahu is hoping the Bolsonaro visit will boost support from his domestic far-right factions so that they eventually get him re-elected in the nation’s upcoming Knesset, or parliamentary, ballots April 9. The prime minister’s popularity has slipped more as he’s being charged with corruption.

The Israeli leader also wants to convince Bolsonaro to follow through with his months-old promise to follow U.S. suite and move the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem. The move could further shut down a two-state agreement between Israel and Palestine for the time being.

Marco Bastos, a political analyst, told Haaretz that the move would please two of Bolsonaro’s major supporters: evangelicals and the Brazilian Jewish community.

“The new right in Brazil is trying to imitate the new right in the US. There’s no real strategic interest in moving the embassy,” Bastos said, citing Brazil’s long tradition of friendly relations with nearly all foreign countries.

The Israeli leader told reporters at the airport that Bolsonaro had arrived at a “tense time, therefore I instructed the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) to spread out fully around the Gaza Strip.”

Last week was the first time in several years that the Israeli reserve was called up to control the area at the border with the Gaza Strip and Israel.

Fighting between the IDF and Hamas escalated last Monday after a rocket hit a home near Tel Aviv that injured seven people. Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas for the act and Israel carried out a wave of retaliatory strikes, leaving five Palestinians wounded and killed at least one Palestinian medic at Great March of Return protests.

The Palestinian health ministry data shows that four Palestinian medics were killed in 2019 in the West Bank and Gaza by Israeli military fire while performing their jobs.

A U.N. report published on Feb. 28 found Israel has likely committed crimes against humanity in Gaza targeted children, health workers, and journalists at the Gaza protests.

“We are ready for every scenario and, if needed, for a broader campaign. We will do what is needed for Israel’s security,” Netanyahu said to his Brazilian counterpart.

*

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 VOA News

NATO and NATO member states, separately and together, destroy non-belligerent countries as policy. They destroy the rule of international law, they destroy socially uplifting economies, they destroy democratic political economies, they create millions of refugees, and their wars of aggression impose the death penalty on millions.

NATO committed these crimes against the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and beyond.

We in the West are responsible for this.  We are the brutal, globalizing dictators[1].

These imperial wars of aggression kill, brutalize, and diminish, men, women, and children. There is not anything humanitarian about NATO wars.  These wars have been, and are being, sold to gullible domestic populations by ubiquitous criminal war propaganda[2].

When Westerners enlist for the military, they are killing, and dying, and being crippled (mentally and physically), based upon war lies.

As NATO and its allies destroy sovereign states and their peoples, we are all diminished and impoverished. The political economies advanced by NATO are predatory and dictatorial. Prey countries become enslaved to imperial diktats. Increasingly, too, transnational agencies of imperialism – driven by publicly bailed-out monopoly “capitalism”, and failed neoliberal economic schemes[3]– impose “internal imperialism” on domestic populations. Countries such as Canada are losing their sovereignty and increasingly becoming “treatied substates”[4], subservient to failed, impoverishing, neoliberal economic ideologies and globalizing military alliances such as NATO.

Canada needs to break free from NATO’s impoverishing, imperial diktats.  We need a sovereign, independent foreign policy. It can be done, and it should be done. Article 13[5] of the NATO constitution provides us with the legal mechanism to do so.

See full text of North Atlantic Treaty here 

All we need is the political will for peace, justice, and sovereignty to make it happen.

Zafar Bangash at Canada Out of NATO Rally, Toronto, ON.  March 30, 2019.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Notes

[1] Mark Taliano, “Who are the ‘Brutal Dictators’?” Global Research, 28 February, 2019, (https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-are-the-brutal-dictators/5669959) Accessed 31 March, 2019.

[2] Mark Taliano, “Frayed Colonial Media Propaganda Transmission Lines. Fake Atrocities Used to Justify ‘Humanitarian War Crimes’.” Global Research, 16 February, 2019. ( https://www.globalresearch.ca/frayed-colonial-media-propaganda-transmission-lines-fake-atrocities-used-to-justify-humanitarian-war-crimes/5668769)        Accessed 31 March, 2019.

[3] Mark Taliano, “Why Canada Needs To Stop Embracing Corporatocracy.” Huffington Post, 10/06/2014. (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-taliano/canada-corporatocracy_b_4722414.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-neoliberalism) Accessed 31 March, 2019.

[4] Robin Mathews, “The Trans Pacific Partnership: Canada and Imperial Globalization – Part one.” American Herald Tribune, 20 May, 2016. (https://ahtribune.com/world/americas/916-ttp-canada.html) Accessed 31 March 2019.

[5] The North Atlantic Treaty/ Washington D.C. – 4 April 1949. (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm) Accessed, 31 March, 2019.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Extensive War Crimes: Break Away From NATO by Invoking Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty
  • Tags: ,

On our most recent episode of 9/11 Free Fall, host Andy Steele is joined by the leaders of AE911Truth and the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry to discuss our lawsuit filed this week against the FBI, which takes aim at the Bureau’s failure to include certain key evidence in its congressionally mandated 9/11 Review Commission Report from 2015.

This show is recommended listening for all those who wish to have a deeper understanding of this historic litigation and how it may play out in the next one to two years.

*

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 AE911truth

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9/11 Truth: Lawsuit to Force FBI Assessment of WTC Evidence

Bolton Torpedoed the Trump-Kim Hanoi Summit

April 1st, 2019 by Mike Whitney

An explosive report by Reuters confirms that John Bolton sabotaged the denuclearization talks between Kim Jong un and Donald Trump in Hanoi in February. According to a March 29 exclusive by journalists Lesley Wroughton and David Brunnstrom:

“Donald Trump handed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a piece of paper” demanding that Kim surrender all of his “nuclear weapons and bomb fuel to the United States.” Trump also added a number of unrelated demands including “fully dismantling” all “chemical and biological warfare program(s)…. and ballistic missiles, launchers, and associated facilities.” Trump surprised Kim by demanding complete, unilateral disarmament in exchange for a flimsy promise to lift economic sanctions sometime in the future. Naturally, Kim rejected the offer.

Here’s more from the same article:

“The document appeared to represent Bolton’s long-held and hardline “Libya model” of denuclearization that North Korea has rejected repeatedly….North Koreans rejected Bolton’s repeated demands for it to follow a denuclearization model under which components of Libya’s nuclear program were shipped to the United States in 2004.

Seven years after a denuclearization agreement was reached between the United States and Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the United States took part in a NATO-led military operation against his government and he was overthrown by rebels and killed” (“Exclusive: With a piece of paper, Trump called on Kim to hand over nuclear weapons”, Reuters)

Bolton presented Kim with an offer he knew Kim would reject, the same offer that led to the destruction of Libya and the savage murder of Gaddafi. Bolton wanted the talks to fail so he could push for tougher sanctions that would pave the way for regime change. That was his goal. Kim’s nuclear weapons were never the target, they were merely the pretext for intensifying the economic strangulation, the relentless belligerence and the threats of war.

But why would Trump agree to go along with this fraud? And why has Trump deployed more troops to Syria while green-lighting Israel to annex the Golan Heights?

Is there a connection between Trump’s (recent) foreign policy reversals and the termination of the Mueller investigation? Did Trump make a deal with his deep state antagonists to get Mueller off his back?

It’s hard to say, but there was no reason for Mueller to wrap up the investigation. The probe was doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Create a 4th branch of government that was empowered to hector, harass and indict anyone it chose in order to keep the administration on the defensive, derail any effort to normalize relations with Russia, and undermine the legitimacy and moral authority of the president. Why would Mueller give up all that if it wasn’t part of some undisclosed Grand Bargain?

He wouldn’t.

On a personal level, Trump trusts Kim which is why he probably wanted to cut a deal. An article in last week’s Korea’s Hankyoreh news supports this view. Check it out:

“During the North Korea-US summit in Hanoi last month, US President Donald Trump reportedly had a positive perspective on relaxing sanctions on North Korea provided that there was a “snapback” clause that would reinstate sanctions if the North failed to implement its agreement. North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui made this statement during a briefing to foreign diplomats in Pyongyang on Mar. 15, but her full remarks hadn’t been made public until now.

According to the text of Choe’s remarks released on Mar. 25, she said, “When we made a practical proposal in the talks, President Trump adopted the flexible position that an agreement would be possible if a clause was added stating that the sanctions could be reinstated if North Korea resumed nuclear activities after the sanctions were lifted.” But Choe went on to say that, “because of their continuing hostility and mistrust, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton created obstacles to the two leaders’ efforts to have constructive negotiations, and ultimately the summit didn’t produce meaningful results.”

. … According to Choe’s statement … the two leaders appear to have explored the possibility of trading Yongbyon’s shutdown for partial sanctions relief. … Choe’s remarks imply that the ultimate reason the summit concluded without an agreement was because of resistance from Pompeo and Bolton.” (“Trump responded positively to relaxing sanctions with “snapback clause” during Hanoi summit”, Hankyoreh News)

The Hankyoreh article corroborates much of what is stated in the Reuters piece. Both articles acknowledge that the nuclear talks were scuppered by Bolton.

The media has consistently misled its readers about what actually took place at Hanoi and who should ultimately be held responsible for its failure. According to CNN:

“Kim had demanded total sanctions relief upfront in exchange for only partial denuclearization, leaving the two sides at an impasse….(Wrong) Trump cast his decision to walk away as evidence that he will not accept a bad deal, (Wrong) but the abrupt conclusion of his much-ballyhooed second summit nonetheless amounted to the most stinging setback yet in his effort to achieve North Korea’s denuclearization through direct talks with its leader…. (Wrong, it wasn’t a setback, it was deliberate.)

More than anything, the failure to produce results during the second summit called into question the personality-driven diplomacy that has been at the core of Trump’s effort to end the North Korean nuclear threat.” (Wrong, again) (“Takeaways from the Trump-Kim Hanoi summit”, CNN)

None of this is true. The meetings didn’t fail because of Trump’s “personality-driven diplomacy”. They failed because Bolton deliberately blew them up. That’s what happened. As one would expect, virtually everything CNN tries to pass off as evenhanded, thoroughly-researched journalism is nothing more than misleading gobbledygook served up by political activists. (The dismal Hanoi coverage helps to show that the Trump-collusion fiction was not a “one off”, but a critical feature of media policy which aims to shape the news according to the political agenda of elites.)

But if the Trump administration is unwilling to honestly negotiate with the North, then how can Kim possibly move forward with his plan to establish peaceful relations with his friends in the South and his allies in the region?

The only way forward for Kim is to bypass the Trump administration altogether and strengthen relations with those who will help him achieve his strategic objectives. He must show that he is a trustworthy partner who is willing to continue along the path of denuclearization regardless of the obstacles and provocations created by the United States. He must continue to seek the input of leaders in Beijing, Moscow and Seoul and prove to them that he is unwaveringly committed to ridding the peninsula of its nuclear weapons in the interests of peace and security. Kim must welcomeinternational weapons inspectors to monitor the decommissioning of his nuclear arsenal and his nuclear enrichment plants. He must increase the frequency of his visits to Seoul where his public approval ratings have skyrocketed and where his efforts for peace and reunification are applauded by nearly 80% of the people. He must “promote his own denuclearization timetable” and present his case to the UN Security Council for review. He must convince the public that he will not backtrack on his ironclad commitment to dialogue, cooperation, economic integration and peace.

According to Hankyoreh News, Kim’ Jong un’s chief of staff and protocol officer made a secret trip to Moscow last week “fueling speculation that Kim Jong-un may be about to pay a visit to Russia.” At the same time, a senior national security official (Kim Hyun-chong) from South Korea visited Russia as well.

Can you see what’s going on? What these secret meetings suggest is that regional leaders are now developing a “post-Hanoi” strategy that will take into account Kim’s eagerness to cooperate and Washington’s obstinate rejection of any policy that does not further enhance its own vicious grip on power. The Trump team is no longer in the loop. Regional bigwigs are taking matters into their own hands and moving forward.

As we pointed out in an earlier piece, Kim is neither a firebrand nor ideological. He is a contemporary man who who wants to make his own mark on the world, lead his country into the modern era, and join the coalition of nations that are fast becoming the biggest trading block in history.

Here’s how author John Delury summed it up in a recent op-ed in the New York Times:

“Mr. Kim wants to be a great economic reformer…(He wants to) shift the regime’s focus, from security to prosperity….He wants North Korea to … catch up with and integrate into the region, and it’s in everyone’s interest to help him do so…”(“Kim Jong-un Has a Dream. The U.S. Should Help Him Realize It”, New York Times)

*

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.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

A new ‘Political Manifesto’ has demanded an indefinite moratorium on the environmental release of GMOs in India pending independent and rigorous biosafety risk assessment and regulation.

The documents states:

“GMO contamination of our seeds, our foundation seed stock, will change the structure of our food at the molecular level. Any harm or toxicity that there is will remain, without the possibility of remediation or reversibility.”

Signed by high-profile organisations and individuals, including farmer’s organisation Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU), the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, Aruna Rodrigues (Lead Petitioner: Supreme Court GMO PIL), Kavitha Kuruganti and Vandana Shiva as well as dozens of co-signatories, the manifesto demands the introduction of a biosafety protection act, which would prioritise India’s biosafety and biodiversity and implement the GMO moratorium, while preventing the import of any GMOs into India.

The manifesto also calls for a ban on the herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate as well as for national consultations and a parliamentary debate to formulate policy to establish and incentivize agroecological systems of farming as a means of avoiding ecosystems collapse. In addition, the document wants a pledge that farmers’ traditional knowledge and inherent seed freedom will remain secure and that there should be no patents on GMO seeds or plants.

The release of the manifesto coincides with the upcoming 2019 Indian general election, which begins in April.

The current Modi-led administration has presided over an accelerating push within official circles for GM agriculture. There has also been creeping illegal contamination of the nation’s food supply with GMOs. This might seem perplexing given that the ruling BJP stated in its last election manifesto: “GM foods will not be allowed without full scientific evaluation on the long-term effects on soil, production and biological impact on consumers.”

Readers are urged to read the five-page ‘Political Manifesto Demand With Regard to GMOs/LMOs‘. It sets out clear and cogent arguments for the moratorium and contains the list of signatories.

Five high-level reports: no to GMOs 

In India, five high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GM crops: the ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal (2010); the ‘Sopory Committee Report’ (2012); the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ (PSC) Report on GM crops (2012); the ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (2013); and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment and Forests (2017).

These reports conclude that GM crops are unsuitable for India and that existing proper biosafety and regulatory procedures are inadequate. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the TEC was scathing about the prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of GM crops. The PSC also arrived at similar conclusions.

However, the drive to get GM mustard commercialised (which would be India’s first officially-approved GM food crop) has been relentless. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has even pushed the process by giving it the nod, but the cultivation of GM mustard remains on hold in the Supreme Court due to a public interest litigation brought by lead petitioner Aruna Rodrigues.

Rodrigues argues that GM mustard is being undemocratically forced through with flawed tests (or no tests) and a lack of public scrutiny: in effect, there has been unremitting scientific fraud and outright regulatory delinquency. Moreover, this crop is also herbicide-tolerant (HT), which, as stated by the TEC, is wholly inappropriate for a country like India with its small biodiverse, multi-cropping farms.

GMOs in the food system

Despite official committees and reports advising against GMOs, they have already contaminated India’s food system. Back in 2005, for instance, biologist Pushpa Bhargava noted that unapproved varieties of several GM seeds were being sold to farmers. In 2008, Arun Shrivasatava wrote that illegal GM okra had been planted in India and poor farmers had been offered lucrative deals to plant ‘special seed’ of all sorts of vegetables.

In 2013, a group of scientists and NGOs protested in Kolkata and elsewhere against the introduction of transgenic brinjal in Bangladesh – a centre for origin and diversity of the vegetable – as it would give rise to contamination of the crop in India. In 2014, the West Bengal government said it had received information regarding “infiltration” of commercial seeds of GM Bt brinjal from Bangladesh.

In 2017, the illegal cultivation of a GM HT soybean was reported in Gujarat. Bhartiya Kisan Sangh, a national farmers organisation, claimed that Gujarat farmers had been cultivating the HT crop illegally. There are also reports of HT cotton (again illegally) growing in India.

A study by the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment found that due to lax enforcement, a deeply flawed labelling system and corporate deception, Indian supermarkets are inundated with GM foods. The results show the large-scale illegal presence and sale of GM processed foods in the country.

All of this is prompting calls for probes into the workings of the GEAC and other official bodies which have been asleep at the wheel or deliberately looking the other way. The latter could be the case given that senior figures in India misguidedly regard GM seeds (and their associated chemical inputs) as key to ‘modernising’ Indian agriculture.

Despite reasoned argument and debate against the cultivation of GM crops or the consumption of GM food in India, we are witnessing GMOs entering India anyhow. Rohit Parakh of India for Safe Food says that the government’s own data on the import of live seeds indicates that imports continue, including that of GM canola, GM sugar beet, GM papaya, GM squash and GM corn seeds (in addition to GM soybean) from countries such as the USA, with no approval from the GEAC.

In finishing let’s look at a warning from 10 years ago, when it was predicted that Bt brinjal would fail within 4-12 years if introduced in India. It seems that’s precisely what has happened to Bt cotton in the country. The last thing India needs is another ill thought out GMO experiment pushed through without proper independent assessments that consider health and environmental outcomes or the effects on farmers’ livelihoods and rural communities.

Indeed, a recent paper by Prof Andrew Paul Gutierrez concludes that extending implementation of GM technology to other crops in India will only mirror the disastrous implementation of Bt cotton, thereby tightening the economic noose on still more subsistence farmers for the sake of profits.

It is therefore a timely and much needed intervention by a coalition of groups and individuals to put forward a call for a moratorium on GMOs.

*

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

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “NO to GMO”: 2019 Indian General Election: Manifesto Demand for Indefinite Moratorium on GMOs
  • Tags: , ,

In a major blow to the Donald Trump administration’s oil and gas policy, on Friday a federal judge ruled the president’s order opening massive swathes of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans to oil and gas drilling operations illegal, the Washington Post reported.

According to the Post, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason’s decision impacts around 98 percent of the Arctic Ocean, but only “undersea canyons in the Atlantic, as opposed to the entire Eastern Seaboard” (roughly 5,937 square miles deemed important to wildlife including “marine mammals, deep-water corals, valuable fish populations and migratory whales”, the Associated Press wrote). The judge found that while the president has the power under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw leasing permits, that office cannot unilaterally grant permits without the approval of Congress.

“The wording of President Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawals indicates that he intended them to extend indefinitely, and therefore be revocable only by an act of Congress,” Gleason wrote. “… As a result, the previous three withdrawals issued on January 27, 2015 and December 20, 2016 will remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked by Congress.”

Per the AP, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that allowing presidents to designate land as protected against drilling but not revoke that status “is one-way ratchet that broadly authorizes any one President to limit the national potential for leasing, exploration, and development in the OCS for all time while simultaneously tying the hands of that same President and all future presidents, even if those limits prove unwise or contrary to the critical national priorities that OCSLA advances, including energy development and national security.”

Gleason also revoked a Department of the Interior land-swap deal that would have allowed small Alaskan town, King Cove, to build a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, the Post wrote. That reserve is home to rare birds and other wildlife and has long enjoyed wildlife protections, though locals said they needed to be able to construct a road through it for emergency medical evacuations. Per the Post, Gleason didn’t buy this logic:

Opponents counter that the federal government has provided millions in funding to give town residents alternative forms of transport, and warn that a road would fragment critical habitat. They also cite expert testimony that any road through the refuge would be impassable during snowstorms.

“Here, [former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s] failure to acknowledge the change in agency policy and his failure to provide a reasoned explanation for that change in policy are serious errors,” Gleason wrote.

Another federal judge ruled earlier in the week that the Trump administration failed to perform a serious analysis of environmental impacts when it approved two gas drilling operations in western Colorado, the paper added, while earlier in March another ruling halted a 300,000-acre gas and oil lease in Wyoming over a failure to consider its potential impact on the climate. According to the New York Times, the White House has lost about 40 environmental cases in federal courts under Trump.

“The statutes and the Supreme Court have been silent on the authority of a president to modify or reduce a predecessor’s protections of these public lands, waters and monuments,” Vermont Law School environmental law professor Patrick Parenteau told the Times. “But these decisions are showing that if a president wants to reverse a predecessor’s environmental policy, they have to give a cogent reason why. Just saying ‘energy dominance’ is not enough. Saying ‘I won the election’ is not enough.”

Industry officials, for their part, say that the Arctic and Atlantic ocean plans can proceed as the case works its way through the federal appeals process, the Post wrote. There’s also the possibility some of these cases will make it to the Supreme Court, which is dominated by a Republican majority and is likely to rule more in line with the White House’s wishes.

*

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 Judge Rules Trump Plans to Open Up Swathes of Arctic, Atlantic Oceans for Drilling Illegal

Unnecessary Expansions: The Australian War Memorial

April 1st, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

War is not merely a matter of sowing death, much of it needless; it entails preserving a rationale to perpetuate it.  The mistake often made about reading, consulting and listening to the harrowing tales of those who have perished in battle or those who survived them is to presume that these should not happen again.  Politicians, generals and strategists are all in the game: the dead are merely a reminder that more blood must be shed.  Weak, imprecise terms are thrown about by way of justification: they died so that we could be free.  Forget the bungling, the bad faith, the expediency.

One ample manifestation of this distasteful indulgence is the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.  This particular entity can hardly be said to be short of cash but was promised $498 million that would have gone to other starved national institutions.  Half a billion is hardly a pittance, and the war memorial complex has been preparing since the announcement was made last year.

The proposal is meant to address a few points, some structural, others specific to narrative.  (Wars are about stories, often distorted ones, especially when massaged by the State.)  Spatial issues have become significant; Australia remains busy fighting the wars of others, and so finds itself running out of commemorative room.  Officials feel that more should be made for a modern generation of fighters.

There is also push towards trendy digitisation, a pneumatic substitute that does wonders to hide rather than illuminate conflict; every site where Australians have fallen will have a display, termed Places of Pride.  A focus on Australia’s more recent involvements will also be a priority.  In the words of Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison,

“It means the Australian War Memorial will be able to display more of their collection and proudly tell the stories from recent years in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Solomon Islands and East Timor.”

For Australian War Memorial director, Brendan Nelson, Australian military deployments from the Boer War, the First and Second World Wars, the Korean conflict and Vietnam were “largely told” in crowded confines.

“Yet the service of 70,000 young Australians in the Middle East Area of operations of the past two decades currently covers only two percent of available space.”

No opposition was registered by Bill Shorten’s Labour Party to this excessive splurge.  Sniffing the prospects of a future government portfolio, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Amanda Rishworth stated her party’s unconditional approval of the bloated funding proposal to the defence forces.

“Whatever political arguments we have in the chambers on either side of this room, both parties are […] united in our respect for your service.”

To be sure, there have been various Australians irritated and outraged by the measure.  Last month, they decided, via The Honest History website, to add their signatures to a letter signed by 83 or so, 24 of which, for what it’s worth, have received the Order of Australia.  Thomas Keneally has been traditionally indignant at the proposed folly, as have other authors. But the opposition has not merely come from scribes and wordsmiths who might be accused of progressive tendencies.  There is an air of protesting officialdom about many of them.  Paul Barrett, former Department of Defence secretary, is a signatory, as is Brendon Kelson and Liam Hanna, former director and assistant directors of the AWM.

Nelson’s sins have been those of zeal wedded to money.  He, the signatories accuse, tout “the Memorial as telling ‘our story’” yet show “excessive veneration of the Anzac story”.  This denied “the richness of our history.”  There was also an element of plain old vandalism about the whole matter.  “His and his Council’s ambitions will destroy the Memorial’s character and entail the demolition of Anzac Hall, opened in 2001 and winner of the 2005 Sir Zelman Cowen Award for Public Architecture.”

The voices generally tread the line of fine logic.  ANU history academic Frank Bongiorno is unconvinced by the heralded role a ballooning war memorial is meant to have.

“The AWM is already a very large institution, and I don’t buy into a lot of the discussion about the AWM having a therapeutic role in relation to healing returned service personnel as a justification for this.  The notion you have to spend a half-a-billion to play that role appropriately and functionally just doesn’t seem plausible to me.”

Of the political parties, only the Greens have offered some measure of sense, though these do take aim at the more patriotic sensibilities of the war crazed.  Arms manufacturer sponsorship, for instance, should end; the Frontier Wars and the Tent Embassy should be commemorated and recognised.

While valuing the War Memorial, Senator Richard Di Natale suggested that the expansion “to showcase military hardware is deeply inappropriate, especially when our other National Institutions don’t have the funds to repair their leaky roofs.”  Australia’s National Institutions, reminded former Greens Senator and leader Christine Milne, spoke of the corrosion caused by the “efficiency dividends” principle to Australia’s National Institutions. The sacred will have an endless money pot.

Selling war and its merits has been the crass way states have done so for centuries and Australia’s inflated expenditure in the name of remembering the dead exceeds that of other states by some margin.  Memorials should be a reminder of loss and warning; they have become, instead, the means by which the apologetics for conflicts past, present and future can be promoted.  The redirection of funds to the AWM says much about the priorities of the Morrison government, supported, as it were, by the Labor opposition: the war complex needs feeding, even as the roof of the National Gallery of Australia leaks.

*

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]

For four years the Saudis (with US backup) have been bombing neighboring Yemen to force them to accept a Saudi-backed president that was overthrown.

Due to Saudi bombs and a total blockade, millions face starvation and tens of thousands of children have already died of starvation. It is the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the globe, yet the US Congress cannot muster the will to tell President Trump that he does not have authority to continue backing up Saudi aggression with US military power.

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?

Tune in to today’s Liberty Report:

*

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

Israeli Accountability Begins Now

April 1st, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

Recently returning to the U.S. on a flight from Venice, too-bored-to-read syndrome drove me to watch a movie. I chose “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which recently won an Academy Award for lead actor Rami Malek, who truly did turn in a memorable performance in a film that was otherwise plodding and predictable. As the credits were rolling, I noticed that the movie’s executive producer was none other than Arnon Milchan, an Israeli media billionaire who has spent most of his career in Hollywood. My immediate thought was, “Why is this scumbag still making movies in Hollywood? Why isn’t he in jail?”

Milchan earned my opprobrium the easy way, by spying for Israel to the detriment of the country that has made him rich and relatively famous, which is the United States of America. The Milchan tale is just one part of the successful effort by Israel to obtain the technology and raw materials for its secret nuclear arsenal. Preventing nuclear proliferation was a major objective of the U.S. government when in the early 1960s President John F. Kennedy learned from a CIA report that Tel Aviv was developing a nuclear weapon. He told the Israelis to terminate their program or risk losing American political and economic support but was killed before any steps were taken to end the project.

Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage.” The 2005 report stated that,

“Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry.”

The Mossad frequently uses so-called sayanim in its espionage, which means diaspora Jews that it recruits on the basis of a shared religion or concern for the security of Israel. The threat coming from Israeli embassy operatives inside the United States is such that the Department of Defense once warned that Jewish Americans would likely be the targets of intelligence approaches.

Israel accelerated its nuclear program after the death of Kennedy. By 1965, it had obtained the raw material for a bomb consisting of U.S. government-owned highly enriched weapons-grade uranium obtained from a company in Pennsylvania called NUMEC, which was founded in 1956 and owned by Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, head of the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America. NUMEC was a supplier of enriched uranium for government projects but it was also from the start a front for the Israeli nuclear program, with its chief funder David Lowenthal, a leading Zionist, traveling to Israel at least once a month where he would meet with an old friend, Meir Amit, who headed Israeli intelligence. NUMEC covered the shipment of enriched uranium to Israel by claiming the metal was “lost,” losses that totaled nearly 600 pounds, enough to produce dozens of weapons. Such was the importance of the operation that in 1968 NUMEC even received a private incognito visit from spymaster Rafi Eitan.

Also, there was physical evidence relating to the diversion of the uranium. Refined uranium has a technical signature that permits identification of its source. Traces of uranium from NUMEC were identified by Department of Energy inspectors in Israel in 1978. The Central Intelligence Agency has also looked into the diversion of enriched uranium from the NUMEC plant and has concluded that it was part of a broader program to obtain the technology and raw materials for a nuclear device for Israel.

With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the story. Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States and eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency Films. In a Nov. 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon. He worked for Israel’s Bureau of Science and Liaison Acquisition division of Mossad, referred to as the LAKAM spy agency.

Milchan, a long-time resident of the United States who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as evidenced by “Bohemian Rhapsody,” explained in his interview, “I did it for my country, and I’m proud of it.” He also said that “other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert affairs.” Among other successes, he obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons, the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California top-secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO’s president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the federal government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to interview them and ultimately did nothing about them.

I would like to think that the next time Milchan arrives at Los Angeles International Airport on business he will be met by federal marshals and FBI agents before being whisked off to some nice, quiet place for a chat. But don’t bet on it. Milchan is possibly no longer traveling regularly to the U.S., though he retains a residence in California, and his “confession” suggests that he believes himself to be bulletproof. He has also recently been involved in a bit of controversy in Israel itself, where the police have recommended that he be charged with bribery connected with the ongoing investigation of corruption by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Milchan, it seems, spent one million shekels ($250,000) on luxury items that he gave to Bibi as a reported quid pro quo to exempt his substantial income from taxes when he returned to Israel to live in 2013.

In an interesting additional element to that story, the police investigation determined that in 2014 Netanyahu approached then-Secretary of State John Kerry to intervene and arrange for a long-term American visa for Milchan, who was at the time dealing with difficulties relating to his U.S. status, possibly due to the 2013 admission that he had been spying. In any event, the visa was granted and Milchan continued to make more movies, and money, in Los Angeles.

The tragedy is that spying for Israel appears to be regarded as something like a victimless crime, but in the case of Milchan it was dead serious, involving as it did nuclear proliferation on behalf of a nation that might generously be described as aggressively paranoid. And note that Netanyahu, the very “statesman” who received 29 standing ovations from Congress, was also involved in the major Mossad operation to steal from the United States. In fact, even though the Israelis continue to rob America blind, it is extremely difficult to be punished for doing so.

Prosecutions for Israeli spying are so few because the Department of Justice is unwilling to pursue them, according to a retired FBI agent who claimed that hundreds of potential prosecutions were rejected for political reasons. The actual convictions involve crimes so egregious that they cannot be ignored or covered up, like conversations overheard at lunch, as when Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin provided intelligence on Iran to American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen, as well as to officials in the Israeli embassy. Franklin went briefly to jail and was recently reported to be waiting tables in West Virginia.

U.S. Navy analyst Jonathan Pollard, America’s most damaging spy of all time, stole enough top-secret codeword material to fill a room before he was arrested and convicted. He obtained Israeli citizenship while in prison and is now free on parole, living in New York City. Apart from that, nada!

Time to change all that. Milchan and others are not friends of the United States but quite the contrary, and deserve to be treated like any other spy. The American people should demand that the government begin to recognize that fact and act accordingly. Telling Hollywood that it is not good PR to keep allowing Israeli spy Milchan to make millions is a possibility, but sanctioning him to put him out of business would be an even better place to start.

*

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 American Free Press.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from American Free Press

The New Arab OTAN – Serving Who?

April 1st, 2019 by Margherita Furlan

“Iran is the main threat in the Middle East, and confronting the Islamic Republic is the key to achieving peace in the entire region”. As American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pronounced these words in Poland, on February 13, Iran was hit by a kamikaze attack: 42 Pasdaran dead in the Southeastern provinces of Sistan and Baluchistan. The attack was claimed by the Sunni jihadist group Jaish al-Adl, who decided to hit while the country celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The event was met by the almost total silence of our own media. “It is no coincidence if Iran was hit by terror on the day the Warsaw circus begins”– tweeted Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad JavadZarif –”especially when supporters of the same terrorists are applauding from the streets of Warsaw.”

To Zarif, the presence of the former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, did not go unnoticed, and was protested by the Mojahedin-e Khalqs in the streets of the Polish capital, during the “Conference for the Stabilization of the Middle East”, organised by the United States. Its stated purpose was to create a united front against Iran. American Vice President Mike Pence was present, as were Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Jared Kushner, senior advisor for Middle Eastern affairs and son-in-law of the tenant of the White House. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came as interim Minister of Defense and Foreign Affairs. At this summit, which assembled more than 50 countries, there were delegations led by Ministers from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, while Egypt and Tunisia sent deputy ministers. Leaving the absentees aside, Tehran can count on the support or neutrality of Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar, as well as that of Turkey, a non-Arab Sunni power.

Coinciding with the Polish summit, Turkish President RecepTayyip Erdogan was in Sochi with his counterparts from Iran and Russia, Hassan Rohani and Vladimir Putin, who gathered there for a new meeting of the Astana trio concerning Syria. On the other hand, after the defeat of Daesh in Syria, the United States and Israel do not accept the influence of the Shia red crescent and Russia, which now extends from the heart of Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. Could it be that the Warsaw Summit is aimed not only at Iran but also against Putin’s Russia and China?

Let’s work in order, and return for a moment to Warsaw. It is no coincidence that the United States chose this location – in the North and at the same time in the East – to talk about the Middle East. Washington has indeed promised Warsaw that it will increase the number of troops from “Fort Trump” to counter the announced danger of a Russian invasion (in reality announced only by NATO’s powerful communication apparatus). There is one condition – the Polish government must cancel the contracts it has already signed with the Chinese company Huawei for the development of the 5G network. Washington knows that whoever wins the communications war wins the world. Thus in Warsaw, while satisfying Bibi’s belligerent impulses, it is strengthening NATO along the border with Russia, which is now surrounded, and protects its now obsolete hegemony of the Celestial Empire that advances, and once again divides Europe.

East Asia is now the number one threat to Washington, but the investments that gravitate around the new Silk Road are rife in Brussels, which, in the midst of an economic and institutional crisis, is not willing to interrupt trade with Iran. Significant in Warsaw was the absence of the High Representative for Foreign Policy of the EU, Federica Mogherini, who is currently working on a new financial mechanism that circumvents US sanctions against Tehran. However, Italy, although exempt from US sanctions, has already frozen purchases of Iranian oil (perhaps with persistent hopes in the oil wells of Libya), and immediately responded to the US appeal by sending Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enzo MoaveroMilanesi to Warsaw.

Among the European countries, in addition to Italy, only the UK was present, sending Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt, who brought with him the scent of a “hard Brexit”. Other European countries attended, but with lower-profile delegations. On the other hand, the same Israeli military secret services – notes the Washington Post, which also highlights a further difference of approach within the American establishment – revealed on February 13 that Iran “has not violated the agreement on nuclear power”, confirming what was declared by American intelligence some days before.

It would therefore seem that this time, the very efficient Israeli intelligence services delayed in providing information to Netanyahu who tweeted on impulse: “What is important in this meeting – and it is not secret, because there are many – is that this is an open meeting with representatives of the main Arab countries, who are sitting together with Israel to advance the common interest: our war on Iran.” But then someone intervened to calm Bibi’s spasmodic frenzy and his tweet, and so with the same speed with which it was published, it disappeared into the dark underworld of the world wide web. In his speech in Warsaw, the Israeli Prime Minister thus limited himself to talking about the need to “fight Iran”, causing, amongst other results, the forthcoming opening of diplomatic relations by several Arab countries, including Yemen, Oman, and Bahrain. Jared Kushner’s Tcefoah plan, on hold for two years, has gone almost unnoticed: the once-divisive Palestinian question has become almost irrelevant.

From Warsaw, once known for the military alliance between the former Soviet bloc countries, the first steps of the new Arab NATO against Iran would seem to be moving forward. The plan, known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), should focus on the heavyweights of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The creation of a regional anti-missile defense shield, which the United States and the Gulf countries have discussed for years without results, would now be an achievable goal. Israel is responsible for guiding the plan. What can we expect? The worst.

*

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

Margherita Furlan is an independent journalist, co-founder of pandoratv.it. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, she deals in particular with the Middle East and NATO. For more information and media inquiries please go to http://margheritafurlan.com

Featured image is from Anadolu Agency/Fatemeh Bahrami


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

India probably thought that Russia would enthusiastically accept its entry into the “space super league” as Prime Minister Modi described it, but Moscow is actually pretty critical of New Delhi’s anti-satellite missile tests and urged it to join a Russian-Chinese multilateral mechanism for preventing the weaponization of space, something that it curiously announced around the same time as the Pakistan-Russia Consultative Group on Strategic Stability met in Islamabad and “agreed on the need for preserving multilateralism in the field of international security and disarmament”.

Indian Boasting Meets Russian “Balancing”

India’s anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test was heralded by Prime Minister Modi as an unprecedented achievement that catapulted his nation into the “space super league” of only four countries capable of pulling off this military feat, which he thought would boost his reelection prospects ahead of the upcoming onset of general elections that will continue into May. The Indian leader also intended to send a strong signal to China and Pakistan, one that he anticipated would be positively received by his American ally and passively accepted by his country’s Old Cold War-era Russian one, but while Washington is behaving as expected, Moscow is not. In fact, it can even be said that the Russian reaction took India off guard because New Delhi has yet to recognize the new reality of its relations with Moscow, which have undergone a drastic change since the Pulwama incident that accelerated previous trends.

Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy is to “balance” between the various forces of Afro-Eurasia in order to facilitate the emerging Multipolar World Order and maintain harmony in the Eastern Hemisphere, to which end it commenced a game-changing rapprochement with former rival Pakistan that’s since seen Moscow prioritize its relations with the global pivot state in order to “make up for lost time”. Russia announced its “Return to South Asia” by offering to mediate between Pakistan and India following the recent uptick in bilateral tensions between them, but while this was warmly welcomed by Islamabad, it was shot down by New Delhi whose Ambassador to Russia was later proven to have lied about the reason for rejecting this unprecedented diplomatic outreach. It’s therefore not for naught that Russia’s response to India’s ASAT test was “diplomatically critical” and nothing like what New Delhi anticipated.

Russia’s Carefully Worded Response

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a carefully worded statement about this a day after the test on 28 March, with the Google Translated version being shared below because an official English translation has yet to be published on their website at the time of writing:

“We drew attention to the anti-satellite weapon test conducted by India on March 27, as a result of which an Indian spacecraft in a low near-earth orbit was hit by a interceptor ballistic missile as a target. We note the non-directionality of this test against a specific country declared by the Indian leadership, as well as their confirmation of the immutability of the New Delhi foreign policy to prevent the deployment of weapons in outer space and thereby the development of an arms race in it.

 At the same time, we are compelled to state that this step of India in many respects was the result of the substantially degraded situation in the field of arms control. Russia has repeatedly warned that the destructive actions of the United States to undermine the entire architecture of international security and strategic stability, including the one-sided and unlimited expansion of the global US missile defense systems, as well as the reluctance to abandon plans for putting weapons into space, make other states think about improving their own similar potentials in the interests of strengthening their national security. We urge Washington to take a responsible position, think again and abandon the insane, and most importantly – absolutely unrealizable – the idea of ​​universal military domination. It is still possible to stop the arms race unfolding in various regions of the world. It is important to assist the responsible states in maintaining an adequate level of international security and stability.

 For our part, we intend to continue taking all the necessary steps to prevent an arms race in outer space. With the support of a solid group of like-minded people, the idea of ​​developing a multilateral legally binding instrument for keeping outer space peaceful based on the Russian-Chinese draft treaty on preventing the placement of weapons in outer space, the use of force or the threat of force against space objects, as well as a multilateral initiative – political obligations not to place weapons first in space. We offer our Indian partners to actively join these joint efforts of the international community.”

As can be seen, Russia hinted that India is a “rogue state” whose strategically destabilizing test was influenced by the US, which sent the signal that it would be acceptable for its ally to do this at the time that it did after recently pulling out of the INF Treaty and creating its so-called “Space Force”.

The Chinese & Pakistani Angles

Another important point to pay attention to is the last one where Russia urged India to join the multilateral mechanism that it proposed together with China to prevent the weaponization of space. It’s extremely unlikely that India will do this, however, seeing as how the whole point of this test was to send an aggressive signal to its Asian Great Power neighbor and “fellow” BRICS “frenemy”, though it’s not surprising that Russia would play the part of the Eurasian “balancer” by publicly suggesting that it join that framework. Although Russia’s intentions were positive in doing so and aimed at preserving peace in the supercontinent, India’s ruling Hindutva supremacists must have taken supreme offense at its suggestion because it implies that the two rising powers are equals unlike the BJP’s implied attitude towards its neighbor, especially in the hyper-jingoist run-up to the general elections.

Furthermore, it’s extremely curious that Russia’s statement came a day before the Pakistan-Russia Consultative Group on Strategic Stability met in Islamabad and “agreed on the need for preserving multilateralism in the field of international security and disarmament”, with this outcome once again showing that Islamabad is much more responsible of a regional actor that New Delhi is which has yet to signal any interest whatsoever in Moscow’s multilateral security proposal. Both the symbolism and timing of this development shouldn’t be dismissed as a mere coincidence since it undoubtedly sent a powerful political signal that the previous state of affairs has changed in South Asia and that Russia seems to have more in common with Pakistan nowadays than it does with India, with the first-mentioned aiming to unite Eurasia through its global pivot state grand strategy while the latter is trying to divide it through the US’ “Indo-Pacific” paradigm.

Concluding Thoughts

India’s present leadership has proven itself to be remarkably short-sighted in recent weeks when it comes to advancing the country’s strategic interests, having been both humiliated by Pakistan after its reckless response to the Pulwama incident and now “diplomatically criticized” by Russia following its irresponsible election gimmick of an ASAT test. Just like the latest events accelerated previous trends involving Russia’s position towards South Asia, so too have they also done the same for India’s one towards Eurasia, with it now being evident that New Delhi is siding more closely with Washington than with its notional BRICS “partners” in Moscow and especially Beijing. Given the clear pattern that’s visibly being established, it can be expected that India will continue to engage in strategically destabilizing unilateral action at the behest of its new American patron as it moves away from its erstwhile policy of “multi-alignment” and towards a new US-influenced model instead.

*

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 Russia’s Response to India’s ASAT Missile Test Wasn’t What New Delhi Expected

Venezuela’s crude oil production plummeted by 142,000 barrels per day in February, according to OPEC data, after the Trump administration recognized a parallel government in Venezuela on January 23 and imposed new sanctions on the country. For the six months prior to February, Venezuela’s crude oil production had fallen by an average of 20,500 barrels per day (see below).

“This shows that the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration in January had an immediate, very harsh impact on Venezuela’s economy, and on the general population, which depends on the export revenue from oil for essential imports including medicine, food, medical equipment, and other life-saving necessities,” said Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Venezuela's oil ouput was severel hit by the latest US sanctions (CEPR)

Venezuela’s oil ouput was severel hit by the latest US sanctions (CEPR)

The loss of this oil production would be expected to cost Venezuela more than $2.5 billion in oil revenues if it remained unchanged over the next year; however, the decline is expected to get much worse over the year, due to the US sanctions. Total imports of food and medicine last year were about $2.6 billion.

Weisbrot noted that US sanctions since President Trump’s executive order of August 2017 imposing a financial embargo had already rapidly accelerated the decline of oil production, wiping out many billions of dollars of foreign exchange, in addition to other negative impacts on the economy.

On the demand side, imports of Venezuelan oil by the United States fell to zero for the first time, in the week of March 15, according to the US Energy Information Administration. This was down from 112,000 the previous week.

In addition to the cutoff of US oil imports, there are a number of other deadly impacts of the Trump administration’s January announcements, Weisbrot noted. By recognizing a parallel government, Washington and its political allies automatically introduced a trade embargo on Venezuela in most of the markets for its oil. At the same time, Venezuela has been cut off from most of the dollar-based, as well as European, financial systems, further constricting its ability to even pay for the imports that it can afford with existing foreign exchange. This is because Venezuelan government accounts, including those of the Central Bank and of the Republic of Venezuela, have been declared by those governments who have allied with Washington to be the property of the parallel government that they have recognized, rather than the current government of Venezuela.

While the Venezuelan economy was already in bad shape before US sanctions began, due to a collapse in oil prices and mistakes in macroeconomic policy, the sanctions especially since August 2017 have prevented the government from taking measures that could get rid of hyperinflation and allow for an economic recovery from a long depression.

“The economic damage caused by the Trump administration’s January decisions will have a serious impact on the health, including mortality, of the general population of Venezuela,” Weisbrot said.

*

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 Palestinian Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip has reported, Saturday, that Israeli soldiers killed 266 Palestinians, and injured 30398 others, since the Great Return March processions started on March 30, 2018, which also marks Palestinian Land Day. Four Palestinians were killed, Saturday, and 316, including 86 children and 29 women, were injured.

The Health Ministry stated that the soldiers killed 266 Palestinians, including 50 children, six women and one elderly man, and injured 30398 others, including 16027 who were moved to various hospitals and medical centers.

It said that among the wounded are 3175 children and 1008 women, and added that 136 Palestinians suffered amputations; 122 in the lower limbs, and 14 in the upper limbs.

The Ministry also stated that the soldiers killed three medics, identified as Razan Najjar, 22, Mousa Jaber Abu Hassanein, 36, and Abdullah al-Qutati, 20, and injured 665 others, in addition to causing damage to 112 ambulances.

Among the slain Palestinians are two journalists, identified as Yasser Mortaja, and journalist Ahmad Abu Hussein, in the Gaza Strip, while the soldiers injured dozens of journalists.

The latest information does not include dozens of Palestinians who were killed and injured by the Israeli army after crossing the perimeter fence and were never returned to the Gaza Strip.

On Saturday, March 30, 2019, which marks Palestinian Land Day, and the first anniversary of the Great Return March in the Gaza Strip, the soldiers killed four Palestinians, identified as Mohammad Jihad Sa’ad (image on the right), 20, and Adham Nidal ‘Amara, 17, east of Gaza city, in addition to Tamer Hashem Abu al-Kheir, 17, and Bilal Mahmoud Najjar, 17, east of Khan Younis, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip.

It is worth mentioning that Mohammad Jihad Sa’ad was killed, east of Gaza city, on Friday morning, before the processions started.

316 Palestinians were injured by Israeli army fire, on the same day, and were rushed to several hospitals in the Gaza Strip; among them are 86 children and 29 women.

Five of the wounded suffered very critical wounds, 9 sufferedserious wounds, 121 were moderately injured, and 181 sustained minor injuries.

  • 64 Palestinians were shot with live fire.
  • 16 Palestinians were shot with rubber-coated steel bullets.
  • 13 Palestinians suffered wounds from shrapnel to several parts of the body.
  • 46 Palestinians suffered teargas inhalation.
  • 94 Palestinians were injured from gas bombs’ shrapnel.
  • 83 Palestinians suffered cuts and bruises.

Image below: Tamer Abu al-Kheir 

Injuries by body part:

  • 64 in the head or neck.
  • 55 in the upper body.
  • 16 in the chest and back.
  • 18 in the pelvis and abdomen.
  • 125 in the lower limbs.
  • 34 suffered effects of teargas inhalation.
  • 4 were injured in several parts of their bodies.

Injuries By Location:

  • 39 in northern Gaza.
  • 108 near Gaza city.
  • 73 in Central District.
  • 41 in Khan Younis, southern Gaza.
  • 55 in Rafah, southern Gaza.

Attacks against medical teams:

  • Three medics injured by army fire.
  • Three ambulances partially damage by army fire.
  • Seven journalists injured by army fire.

*

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 IMEMC News

On the eve of the first anniversary of the “Great March of Return” at the Gaza border, lawyers and jurists around the world are calling on the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

Today, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers presented a petition from the International Lawyers Campaign for the Investigation and Prosecution of Crimes Committed Against the Palestinian People to Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the ICC. The petition urges Bensouda to initiate a full investigation and prosecute violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law committed by Israeli officials in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The petition has garnered the support of tens of thousands of lawyers worldwide.

The petition condemns “the unimaginable atrocities that have been committed and continue to be committed by Israel against Palestinian civilians which deeply shock the conscience of humanity.”

It cites the well-established legal principle that victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law “have a right to a remedy and reparation.”

The petition denounces “the failure and refusal” of Israel to hold accountable “those suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian civilians,” which has resulted in “abandoning the rule of law and replacing it with widespread impunity for Israeli officials who have sanctioned and for Israeli individuals who have perpetrated such crimes.”

Israel Bombs Gaza Ahead of Great March of Return Anniversary

On March 25 and 26, in anticipation of the forthcoming election and the anniversary of the Great March of Return, Israel pummeled Gaza with dozens of airstrikes, instilling terror in 2 million Palestinians.

On Saturday, March 30, tens of thousands of Palestinians are planning to walk toward the Gaza border to commemorate the March 30, 2018, launch of the Great March of Return. For the past year, during the weekly protests, tens of thousands of Palestinians have demanded an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the right to return to their homeland. In response, Israeli forces have engaged in violent and illegal repression against demonstrators.

UN Commission Documents Crimes by Israeli Leaders

On March 18, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, convened by the UN Human Rights Council, issued a 252-page report of its findings on the Great March of Return demonstrations.

“We present this comprehensive report with an urgent plea to Israel to immediately ensure that the rules of engagement of their security forces are revised to comply with international legal standards…. The excessive force that took place on 30 March, 14 May and 12 October 2018 must not be repeated,” Commission Chair Santiago Canton told the Human Rights Council.

The Commission found “reasonable grounds to believe that during these weekly demonstrations, the Israeli Security Forces killed and gravely injured civilians who were neither participating directly in hostilities nor posing an imminent threat to life. Among those shot were children, paramedics, journalists, and persons with disabilities. 183 people were shot dead, another 6,106 were wounded with live ammunition.”

Unless acting in lawful self-defense, the Commission noted,

“intentionally killing a civilian not directly participating in hostilities is a war crime. Serious human rights violations were committed which may amount to crimes against humanity.”

The Commission concluded that the Israeli Security Forces’ “conduct also violated international humanitarian law, which permits civilians to be targeted only when they ‘directly participate in hostilities.’ This purposefully high threshold was not met by demonstrators’ conduct, in the view of the Commission, with one possible exception.”

Furthermore, the Commission stated,

“Targeting unarmed demonstrators purely on the basis of their current or former political views, or their current or former membership of an armed group — and not on their conduct at the time — is impermissible in the view of the Commission.”

The Commission recommended that the government of Israel:

  • Prohibit the use of lethal force against civilians who pose no imminent threat to life;
  • Make sure the rules of engagement don’t sanction lethal force against “main inciters” as a status. Ensure the rules only allow lethal force as a last resort, where the target poses an imminent threat to life or is participating directly in hostilities;
  • Do not allow targeting based solely on actual or alleged affiliation with a group rather than conduct;
  • Investigate all protest-related killings to determine whether war crimes or crimes against humanity have been committed with a view toward accountability;
  • Ensure prompt and effective remedies for those unlawfully killed or wounded; and
  • Immediately lift the blockade on Gaza.

The Commission’s report will be forwarded to the ICC.

Petition Seeks Accountability in International Court for Israeli Leaders

In the summer of 2014, Israeli forces killed 2,200 Palestinians, nearly one-quarter of them children and over 80 percent of them civilians, in an operation dubbed “Operation Protective Edge.”

The following January, Bensouda opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine. In a preliminary examination, the Office of the Prosecutor determines whether there is sufficient evidence of crimes of sufficient gravity falling within the ICC’s jurisdiction, whether there are genuine national proceedings, and whether opening an investigation would serve the interests of justice and of the victims.

The petition from the International Association of Democratic Lawyers urges Bensouda to take the next step — from a preliminary examination to a full investigation into Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people. In an investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor gathers evidence, identifies suspects, and asks ICC judges to issue an arrest warrant or a summons to appear.

On April 8, 2018, in light of Israeli actions during the Great March of Return, Bensouda stated that

“any new alleged crime committed in the context of the situation in Palestine may be subjected to my Office’s scrutiny. This applies to the events of the past weeks and to any future incident.”

She added,

“I am aware that the demonstrations in the Gaza Strip are planned to continue further. My Office will continue to closely watch the situation and will record any instance of incitement or resort to unlawful force.”

She added,

“Violence against civilians – in a situation such as the one prevailing in Gaza – could constitute crimes under the [ICC’s] Rome Statute.”

Bensouda noted,

“Any person who incites or engages in acts of violence including by ordering, requesting, encouraging or contributing in any other manner to the commission of crimes within ICC’s jurisdiction is liable to prosecution before the Court, with full respect for the principle of complementarity.”

“Complementarity” means the court will take jurisdiction only over people whose home country is unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute.

Israel has demonstrated its unwillingness to mount an impartial investigation into Operation Protective Edge. In August 2018, the Israeli military absolved itself of any wrongdoing in that operation.

The lawyers’ petition was inspired by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers’ previous international call for lawyers to support the campaign to free Nelson Mandela in the 1980s. Just as that campaign “proved to be for those living under Apartheid in South Africa,” the current petition “is an essential first step in securing equal justice under law” for the Palestinian people.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Syria — The West Destroyed Our Homes but Not Our Dreams

March 31st, 2019 by Sumaya AlEssmael

Time before the war, Syria was a peaceful place where we used to live at peace. Peace meant to us life. But now we lost life since we lost peace. My daughter, that little girl at that time of peace had had a dream of being a famous person. War has destroyed our castle of dreams. We found ourselves living dead, terrorism pervaded every single aspect of our life. We started to struggle in order to keep breathing in such an ocean of killing everywhere.

Many questions had raised in our minds, what did we do to all those western countries that made them support those terrorists who destroyed our country?? Why?? put yourselves in our shoes, would you accept that to your countries and your children. We didn’t lose just our little homes, we lost our big home Syria. War seems to be ended, but the fact is no, war never ends after war. Life is not the same, people are not the same, feelings are not the same. War, because of western support, destroyed Syrians from the inside. We suddenly found ourselves internally displaced have nothing but what we put on our bodies. We can rebuild the country, but can we make the dead people come back to life again ..no alas. And here is the tragedy.

We were a welcoming country. We never hurt any other country, then why?? Why did you do that to us??? It wasn’t easy for my children to experience such war and see rivers of blood in the street of our city Palmyra.

Days passed, then weeks, children started to lose temper and ability to stand all this. Many times my daughter Arwa fell unconscious. My daughter, who became 18 years old full of ambition and great expectations where to go??? What to do?? Arwa, my daughter, started studying architecture engineering. In spite of the bombs all the way long to her university going and coming back, she still has that insistence, she still has the same determination to be a famous person. Worked hard and now she is in the second semester of the fourth year. One more year Arwa will be graduated. What next. Her dream is still the same. Master then PHD. But where?? Who is going to help a girl with such glowing dream? If you can’t stop that absurd situation in Syria, at least give a help hand to people of Syria. Many students like to find better education out of Syria who is still suffering bad war effects. Most students are, like Arwa, looking for an opportunity of finding a university to continue study. Some must help, to make children regain their laugh and hopes. Help them to find an asylum. To give me the power to say; Arwa, wait, things will be better soon.

*

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

Sumaya AlEssmael is an English language teacher in Palmyra, Syria.

Venezuela Under Siege

March 31st, 2019 by Michael Welch

 “This opposition campaign has been one of what was called the other day in the media, circus. It’s PR stunts. It’s about media publicity. As ever, the opposition has not learned the fundamental key root to change that they want to see in Venezuela, which is connecting with ordinary Venezuelan people.”

Professor Julia Buxton (quoted in this week’s show.)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Nicolas Maduro can no longer claim to be the legitimate president of Venezuela.

This is a familiar refrain playing out in Venezuelan opposition circles. A tune that the heads of State of Canada, the United States, and the Lima Group of countries are dancing to. And one that began to crescendo when National Assembly member Juan Guaido declared himself Interim President in January.[1][2][3]

As if to provide backing vocals to this political tune, mainstream Western media have trumpeted the ‘economic and humanitarian crisis rocking the country” – a convenient cacophony drowning out any discourse around foreign interference via sanctions and clandestine operations.[4]

Those operations have shown signs of evolving in the past two months.

A convoy of aid trucks from Cucuta, Colombia attempted to cross the border into Venezuela on February 23rd urged on by Juan Guaido himself, front and centre like some philanthropic carnival barker. When the USAID trucks arrived at the border, major press organs like the New York Times reported that Venezuelan security forces set the trucks on fire. Thanks to independent journalists like Max Blumenthal, it is now well established that it was anti-Maduro protesters, not pro-Maduro forces who set the trucks on fire, clearly as a vulgar publicity stunt to sell regime change for ‘humanitarian’ reasons.[5]

In March, the country has experienced two major power outages, plunging most of the country into darkness for days at a time. Guaido and supporters of the opposition are blaming the outages on corruption and mismanagement. Meanwhile, the Maduro government is claiming the outages resulted from criminal attacks on the country’s electrical infrastructure by forces supporting the opposition.[6][7]

Venezuelan authorities have also arrested Guaido’s chief of staff Roberto Marrero and lawyer Juan Planchart, claiming their involvement in a plot to hire mercenaries to execute targeted killings and acts of sabotage, all in the interests of promoting regime change.[8]

The US has increased its sanctions. President Trump has demanded Russia abandon Venezuela, with his Vice President calling the delivery of military planes to the Bolivarian Republic “an unwelcome provocation.”[9]

With the prospect of a military conflict ramping up, the Global Research News Hour returns to the topic of Venezuela with analysis supplied by longtime Venezuela watcher and researcher Julia Buxton.

Professor Buxton’s exacting analysis incorporates an analysis of the roots of the political crisis in the country, including candid admissions of failures on the part of Maduro to adequately address ongoing economic challenges. She points to the shortcomings of the opposition as well as the background role of neoliberal Harvard University based Venezuelan ex-pat Ricardo Hausmann, as well as a new generation of activists, and intellectuals who cannot recall the pre-Chavez era. Maduro’s substantial dependence on the military comes under scrutiny in this week’s comprehensive interview. Professor Buxton also notes the country’s growing dependence on China, and how that relationship is threatening the aims of the Bolivarian revolution.

A presentation by Buxton to a group of Winnipeg based activists on March 25th, and a follow-up conversation at University of Winnipeg-based CKUW studio dominates this 60 minute program.

Julia Buxton is Professor of Comparative Politics at Central European University’s School of Public Policy, and Senior Research Associate at the Global Drug Policy Observatory, Swansea University. A specialist on Latin America and an expert on Venezuela, receiving her PhD from the London School of Economics, Buxton has thematic expertise on democratisation and transition processes, post conflict recovery, and conflict analysis, including conflict sensitive design and policy implementation, as well as gender and gender sensitive design. She has authored numerous books and articles on Venezuela in the Chavez period and on Latin America in general.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 254)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time. 

Notes

  1. Ana Vanessa Herrero and Ernesto Londoño (Jan. 15, 2019), ‘Venezuela Opposition Declares Maduro Illegitimate, and Urges Defections’, New  York Times; https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/world/americas/guaido-maduro-venezuela.html
  2.  https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2019/01/canada-rejects-the-maduro-regimes-illegitimate-mandate-in-venezuela.html
  3. https://sputniknews.com/us/201901121071414741-usa-venezuela-maduro-bolton/
  4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-is-the-cbc-lying-about-venezuela-trudeau-government-favors-us-intervention/5657040
  5. https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/
  6. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKCN1RB0MB
  7. https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14404
  8. https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14402
  9. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-pence-guaido-venezuela-1.5073588

China – and Macron’s U-Turn

March 31st, 2019 by Peter Koenig

Less than a week ago, President Macron was lambasting Italy for signing agreements with China in the context of their New Silk Road, alias President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in the same breath he was criticizing China for attempting to undermine Europe with new trade individual country deals under the pretext of BRI. However, Italy, also scolded by Brussels for her single-handed deals with China, was, in fact, the first G7 country for signing a number of contracts with China to use Italian ports under the BRI, making Italy also the first official EU partner of China’s BRI.

In his zeal of becoming Europe’s new king, Macron also called on all EU members not to go their own way with China, but to jointly negotiate with China “new deals” under the BRI. A joint EU to be strong and equal to the economic and trade behemoth, China. Indeed, solidarity is always ‘good’- but Europe is the last bit of Mother Earth’s territory that has ever shown any solidarity and cohesion among her neighbors and co-members of this illustrious non-union club, called the European Union.

Yet, surprise-surprise! On President Xi’s next stop, Paris, coming from Italy, Macron rolled out the red carpet for the Chinese President and, according to RT, went on to sign billions worth of new contracts with the Asian leader. If this looked like a Macron U-turn, it was a Macron U-turn. As an afterthought he invited German Chancellor, Madame Merkel and EU President Junker to Paris for a photo-Op under the Arc de Triomphe – just to make sure his about-face was not to be misinterpreted.

President Xi also signed a multi-billion-euro deal – may be as much as € 30billion – for some 300 passenger jets from Airbus. Though Airbus is a European venture, its main manufacturing plants are in France. This is an especially hard blow to Boeing, after the company’s 737 MAX disasters. Weakening Boeing is also weakening an important US military contractor.

As was to be expected, Washington didn’t like Italy’s moving closer to the East by signing several BRI contracts, and even less so, while the EU, represented by Jean-Claude Juncker, Angela Merkel, Germany and Emmanuel Macron, France, were welcoming President Xi today in Paris. Showing a little sympathy to friend Trump, Merkel observed to Reuters, “We, as Europeans, want to play an active part and that must lead to certain reciprocity and we are still wrangling over that a bit.” – Showing Washington that not all is lost will surely give the empire a grain of hope.

Exactly 6 years ago, President Xi Jinping launched the BRI, the most ambitious and largest economic development project in recent history. On President Xi’s second state visit to Germany in March 2014, he specifically offered Madame Merkel to become (at that time) the western most link for the BRI. But Madame Merkel just snubbed at the proposal and let it go. She was too close to Washington, and, who knows, maybe received marching orders from Obama and his handlers, to leave her fingers from tightening relations with China.

As the Chinese are not pushy, Mr. Xi went home and pursued this massive project further. Within the next 30 years at least, it will build multi-trillions of Chinese Yuans-worth of infrastructure, interconnected research and education centers, industrial development, facilitate cultural exchange – it will build bridges among people. The BRI is so important that the Chinese National Assembly decided in 2017 to incorporate it into the Chinese Constitution.

Today BRI spans the globe with some six land and maritime routes. More are under preparation. BRI is not to invade and take over the world, as the west would like you to believe. The New Silk Road is instead promoting a multi-polar world. It will pave the way towards a new world order, but not the one the Rothschilds &Co. are dreaming about, but one that promotes equal partnership and solidarity among countries.

It is amazing, the west was a sleep for 6 years, or didn’t want to see. Maybe the Washington driven war machine simply thought it will go away. But it didn’t and doesn’t. China has the world’s strongest economy according to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) indicators (that’s all that really counts), surpassing the US in 2017. With the BRI, and an ever-stronger currency, the Yuan, due to a stable and steadily growing distributive economy, and in a military and strategic alliance with Russia, China is literally unbeatable. Hence, as basically a last-ditch effort, Washington’s multiple attempts at trade wars. It’s a publicity stunt, to make the world believe the US is still calling the shots. In reality, the New Silk Road is most likely the vehicle to drive the United States warrior arrogance into the ground. Good riddance.

And let’s not forget, BRI is intimately linked with Russia, not only physically as in transport infrastructure, but also strategically for purposes of economic development of henceforth forgotten and neglected countries and regions. So far the esperando west has not even reacted to this “imminent threat”, as perceived by Washington, the Russian haters. If they would add Russia and China together as the new Silk Road front, they would pee in their pants – as they may realize their days of never-ending treachery and lies would soon end. Therefore, better that the Ostrich pulls only one eye out of the sand, blinking at China. Lying to themselves, and of course to their people, is just one more nail in the coffin of the west.

We may not be there yet, as war threats, and attempts at regime change from the neofascist Trump team are still very much “on the table”. But with Russia’s far superiority in military power, and the Chinese economic masters, this table may soon be symbolically blown apart, meaning, will the commanding and reigning elite living a lush and ego-centric lifestyle really want to run the risk of being out-nuked? – Because a new war will not just be played out in Europe, like the last two WWs; nor will New Zealand offer a safe haven for those elite and super rich, who have already secured their properties in this far-away land. – Don’t think so. They, the dark state elite, who pull the strings, rather live in safe a world and enjoy their bounties stolen over hundreds of years, as long as they last, even under a Russia-China and multipolar SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) sponsorship.

When that recognition dawns on western minds, that all that counts is economics – economics that may bring more equality, a better life and harmony among nations, and more prosperity for more people on this planet earth.

Did Mr. Macron and his European counterparts just see the light? Did he realize that being the king of vassal Europe is really meaningless and that it’s high time to jump the sinking boat? Only the near future will tell.

Another scenario is that China has long realized the futurelessness of the EU, and instead of banking their trade agreements with a potentially dead body, they approach country by country, Greece, Italy, France, Germany – who is next? – Because, even with the collapse of the European Union, the 28 countries must and will survive. So, trade agreements with each one of them individually have an infinitely higher value, than signing up with a block of unsolidary, uncoordinated, even in some cases hostile-to-each-other nations – with a fiat currency that is doomed, as it will never survive in such a non-union constellation – without even a Constitution pointing to a common vision.

Why the Europeans can’t see that for themselves, and run away from this disaster called Brussels, is a miracle for me. If a Martian would watch the human behavior on our Mother Earth from outer space, he, she or it would laugh no end at our abject schizophrenic behavior – but at the same time with tears of sadness, as humanity is hell-bent to self-destruct.

Well, Roi Macron will not let go, he is not (yet) allowed to let go. His paymasters, those that put him there, the Rothschild financial clan & Co. have not gotten enough out of him yet, in terms of milking Europe to the bones. How much more can Macron’s naïve pathological egocentricity still give? – By launching the military, the first time since 1948, with live ammunition against harmless, unarmed protesters, the Yellow Vests, his French co-patriots (although he is an Über-French, he is a wannabe European king), is maybe the last nail in Macron’s coffin – figuratively speaking.

As Tom Luongo so aptly describes,

“There are few people in this world more odious than French President Emmanuel Macron after his behavior this week. I’m sure there are child molesters who are worse. But as a man who is pivotal in the future of hundreds of millions of people, his decision to order the French military to quell the Yellow Vests protests with live ammunition is simply vile. Macron outed himself as the very symbol of what animates the globalist elite he represents. Disdain.”

Those black-hooded “protesters”, who plant the violence, burn down bank entrances, break windows and loot shops, are nothing less than paid agents-provocateur. You may have noticed, in the hundreds of demo-videos circulating on internet, the police leave them pretty much alone – orders from the Macron regime. Will the military be loyal to deceitful, despicable Macron, or to the nation, i.e. to the people? That remains the question, as fissures within the military are already noticeable.

So, Macron’s about-face, or U-Turn, after having scolded Italy for going it alone, instead of ’collectively’ with the EU, may be by orders of the financial monarchs who forced him with millions of false propaganda into the French Presidency – and who may now also see the light: Europe is no longer a viable bet.

*

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 21stCentury; 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.

Selected Articles: NATO Expansion Could Trigger Nuclear War

March 31st, 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.

*     *     *

DoD Orders $250 Million of Gas Masks – What Do They Know?

By Zero Hedge, March 31, 2019

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Avon Protection Systems Inc., Cadillac, Michigan, a $245,961,250 firm-fixed-price contract for production of M53A1 Chemical Biological Protective Mask systems, according to the DoD contract website.

Xi’s Visit Sets Tone for China-EU Relations

By Liu Caiyu and Yang Sheng, March 30, 2019

The outcome of Xi’s visit to Europe is “beyond expectations” and extremely “practical” in terms of deepening China-Europe relations. The visit sets the tone for the future of the relations, Chinese analysts noted on Wednesday.

The BRICS New Development Bank: Corruption-riddled Development Finance

By Prof. Patrick Bond, March 30, 2019

The BRICS New Development Bank is having its Annual General Meeting on 1-2 April, here in South Africa. There’s information about the meeting here, including public sessions. Critics meet to discuss the Bank on 31 March – 3 June in Cape Town and Johannesburg, especially to interrogate bank loans to South Africa.

Syria: Is US Fighting ISIS or Liquidating Assets?

By Tony Cartalucci, March 30, 2019

From US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memos dating back to 2012 noting efforts to create a “Salafist” [Islamic] “principality” [State] in eastern Syria precisely where ISIS rose and now clings to its “final stronghold,” to the obvious fact that ISIS’ fighting capacity was only possible through extensive state sponsorship – it was already clear that the US and its partners in regime change against Syria had been using terrorists including ISIS as proxy ground forces.

NATO’s Unrelenting Expansion Could Trigger a Major Nuclear War

By Shane Quinn, March 30, 2019

Less than two years ago Montenegro became the 29th state to join NATO, an American-led military alliance that has become a far-reaching intervention force since the USSR’s demise. The accession of mighty Montenegro to NATO must have set hearts fluttering across the Atlantic in Washington.

Pentagon Audit: Evidence Proving $21 Trillion Unaccounted For – Opening Statement

By David DeGraw, March 29, 2019

As you will see in detail throughout this series of reports, not only have trillions of taxpayer dollars been knowingly dumped into a shockingly unaccountable black hole, Congress is not even sure how much money has been appropriated and given out in the first place.

Welcome to Hell: Peruvian Mining City of La Rinconada

By Andre Vltchek, March 29, 2019

No one can agree how high above the sea level that La Rinconada really lies at: 5,300 meters or 5,200 meters? On the access road, a metal plate says 5,015. But who really cares? It is indisputably the highest settlement in the world; a gold mining town, a concentration of misery, a community of around 70,000 inhabitants, many of whom have been poisoned by mercury.

*

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 recent announcement by United States President Donald Trump that the US will recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights draws attention yet again to the double standards applied by NATO and its satraps including Australia to the issues of territorial integrity, the right to self-determination, and international law. Three cases illustrate the duplicity and double standards of the Western nations. They may be reviewed chronologically.

The Golan Heights form part of the sovereign territory of the state of Syria. It, along with the West Bank of Palestine (then part of Jordan) and the Gaza strip were seized by Israel at the conclusion of the Six Day War between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. Israel has remained in occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights ever since. It maintains a blockade on Gaza to the immense suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants.

It is well-established international law (Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949) that states may not continue to occupy territory seized as a result of war. On 22ndof November 1967 the United Nations Security Council in resolution 242 unanimously called on Israel to withdraw its forces from occupied territory. This was ignored by Israel, just as it has violated 32 United Nations resolutions since 1968, easily the single biggest offender (Turkey is second with 24 violations over the same time period).

In 1981 Israel passed the Golan Heights Law in which it purported to annex the Syrian Golan Heights. United Nations Security Council resolution 497 of 17th of December 1981 declared that purported annexation “null and void and without legal effect.”

That Israel continues to ignore its obligations under international law is not surprising. That the United States, other NATO countries, and Australia not only do not impose any sanctions on Israel for its continued violations, it does not even permit the discussion of such a possibility. Even to raise the issue invites immediate allegations of anti-Semitism and other absurdities from the immensely powerful Jewish lobby in most western states.

Trump’s announcement follows a similar declaration last year to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This is also not only a violation of international law, it is contrary to resolutions the United States itself has supported in the past (as with the Golan Heights).

Kosovo’s case is totally different but it raises a number of relevant points. Kosovo is ethnically and linguistically Albanian, although it formed part of the former Yugoslavia. There were strong elements within Kosovo that wanted independence from Yugoslavia.

That independence movement was supported by the United States. Between March and June 1999 the United States bombed Serbia to encourage the Serbs to withdraw their military forces from Kosovo. The bombing was without Security Council approval, was not within the provisions of the United Nations Charter, and was accordingly a gross violation of international law.

At the cessation of the bombing, on 10 June 1999, United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 gave Kosovo autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On the 17th February 2008 Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Yugoslavia. There was no referendum, but it is fair to say that the declaration was supported by the majority of Kosovans, especially those of Albanian ethnicity who comprised 88% of Kosovo’s population.

On 8 October 2008 the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the Kosovo declaration of Independence. Their decision was announced on 22nd July 2010. The court noted the lengthy history of unilateral declarations of independence since the 17th century, with most of them opposed by the parent state.

The court concluded that “international law contained no prohibition of declarations of independence” (paragraph 79) and that “the declaration of 17th February 2008 did not violate general international law” (paragraph 84).

The United States had a particular interest in Kosovo, including in particular being able to establish a substantial military base there (Camp Bond Steel). That base functions, inter alia, as a major transit point for Afghan heroin under the control of United States and Allied forces in Afghanistan.

No sanctions were applied to the United States for its illegal bombing of Syria, nor on Kosovo for its unilateral declaration of independence. The majority of the world’s countries now recognise Kosovo as a separate independent state.

Crimea was factually different again, but also contains several relevant points. Crimea had been part of the Russian Empire since 1783. On 18 February 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree transferring Crimea to Ukraine. There was no referendum of the Crimean people and had there been, the overwhelming likelihood is that the transfer would have been rejected.

The transfer seems to have been the brainchild of then Soviet leader Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian. The absence of democratic procedures is reinforced by the fact that the transfer was itself a violation of Soviet law.

In the following decades there was an uneasy relationship between the Crimeans and the Ukrainian government. Crimea enjoyed the status of being an “autonomous republic”. That uneasiness came to a head in February 2014 when the duly elected and internationally recognised government of Ukraine was overthrown in an American organized and financed coup d’état.

The new Ukrainian government was anti-Russian and frankly fascist in its orientation. Neither fact was acceptable to the Crimeans who, like the Albanians in Kosovo were overwhelmingly of one language, culture, ethnicity and identification with all things Russian.

A referendum was quickly organized (unlike Kosovo) and there was a voter turnout of 83.1%, of whom 95.5% voted in favour of reunification with Russia. The Russian Duma in turn voted to accept Crimea back into the Russian Federation.

The western media and politicians consistently use the term “annexation” to describe the reincorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation. The OED defines annexation as synonymous with “seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, takeover, appropriation and expropriation.” None of these terms accurately describes the sequence of events in Crimea.

There is no difference in international law between what Kosovo did with the approval of the International Court of Justice and what the Crimeans did. The latter was arguably much more democratic as it followed an overwhelming referendum result in support of departure from Ukraine and rejoining with Russia.

The consequences however, have been very different. Russia has been subject to endless vilification. The Russian state and many political and business leaders have been subjected to sanctions. One has only to ask: would this have happened if Crimea had voted to leave the Russian Federation and join Ukraine? The overwhelming probability is that Crimea would have been welcomed with open arms and its people applauded for making the ‘right’ choice.

Crimea is strategically significant, which is why the British fought Russians there in the Crimean war (1853-1856), and why a prime geopolitical objective of the US interference in Ukraine was to deprive the Russians of the naval base at Sevastopol.

The history of these three episodes (Golan, Kosovo and Crimea) exemplifies the double standards and hypocrisy that characterizes western geopolitics. Trump’s latest statements on the Golan Heights only reinforce the point.

*

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

James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Golan Heights, Kosovo and Crimea: A Case Study in Hypocrisy and Double Standards

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Avon Protection Systems Inc., Cadillac, Michigan, a $245,961,250 firm-fixed-price contract for production of M53A1 Chemical Biological Protective Mask systems, according to the DoD contract website.

The Army estimates M53A1 gas masks will start delivery in the second half of this financial year ending September. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, will oversee the purchase order.

Avon Protection Systems is a world leader and major supplier to the military, law enforcement, first responders, and industrial sectors globally.

The M53A1 was developed to counter multiple threats encountered on the modern battlefield. “It provides excellent protection against traditional chemical and biological warfare agents, select Toxic Industrial Materials (TIMs) and particulate matter including radioactive dust,” read the M53 brochure.

According to the company, the M53A1 protects soldiers from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks. Specifically, the mask protects against mustard, sarin, soman, and VX nerve agents.

The order comes one month after the U.S. government introduced science-based guidelines for how first responders decontaminate large numbers of Americans after a chemical-weapons attack.

The guidelines, published last month, are the first in the U.S. to be based on extensive research and testing.

“Terrorist threats and the use of chemical weapons in Syria have heightened awareness of the need for improved preparedness against chemical attacks,” said Gary Disbrow, deputy director of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which prepared the guidelines.

“First responders are supportive of the fact that it is evidence-based guidance, and not just, ‘We used this last time, and it seemed to work,’” he added.

With lightning speed, the Army and U.S. government have been actively preparing for a biological incident on the homeland. With threats harder to anticipate today, the act of preparation suggests some fears that an attack of some sort could be imminent.

*

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 Zero Hedge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on DoD Orders $250 Million of Gas Masks – What Do They Know?

Governments throughout the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are working feverishly to provide relief to millions of people affected by cyclone Idai, a category three-to-four storm which has severely impacted three states, Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe, with some damage extending as far away as South Africa and Madagascar.

During the early morning hours of March 14 storms and subsequent flooding destroyed homes, crops, businesses and public institutions bringing normal life to a halt while local and international rescue operations scrambled to provide temporary housing and medical assistance to the communities directly hit by the cyclone.

In the strategic port city of Biera in central Mozambique’s Sofala Province, it has been estimated that 90 percent of the infrastructure of the municipality was been destroyed. Although the port itself, a lifeline for the landlocked states of Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe, remains largely intact, with such destruction of surrounding areas, it is expected that the recovery process will take years.

Biera has experienced exponential growth over the last two decades. The population more than doubled since 1997 and the prospects for economic development were enhanced due to the discovery of vast amounts of natural gas resources off shore in the Indian Ocean.

The cyclone winds prompted continuous rains resulting in the overflowing of rivers causing flooding which wiped away everything in its path. Official accounts of the number of deaths stands at the time of this writing at approximately 750.

However, in Biera, hundreds of bodies were lying along the roads in a gruesome scene. The number of corpses poses challenges for identification, storage and burials. With the widespread flooding, returning the deceased to surviving relatives for burials will be almost impossible.

Due to the massive dislocation, injuries and deaths, it is not surprising that cases of the water borne disease cholera have surfaced. In Mozambique there were 139 confirmed cases as of March 29 with many more being anticipated.  Nearly a million doses of the cholera vaccine are being rushed into the region through the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) to avoid deaths which could extend into the thousands.

Cholera is contracted through contaminated water sources and if not treated could kill its victims within a matter of hours. In light of the conditions prevailing in the makeshift internally displaced persons camps, the disease could rapidly spread causing further social problems for Mozambique and the other affected SADC countries.

Southern African news website reports that:

“The provision of clean drinking water is a priority in effected areas with reports emerging that citizens of Beira, a city of 500,000 people, have taken to drinking the stagnant water that has gathered on the side of the road as relief efforts struggle to restore life in the region to normal. Hunger and water shortages have further increased the risk of Cholera infection as desperate people take to eating and drinking contaminated food and water. The United Nations estimates that 1.8 million people in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe are in need of aid, primarily food, clean drinking water and medical supplies. Mozambique President Filipe Nyusi has declared that all health care in the regions affected will be free until such time as the crisis has been warded off.”

In neighboring Zimbabwe, the government of President Emmerson Mnangagwa has taken a leading role in mobilizing aid to the damaged regions of the country. Most of the damage has taken place in Manicaland and Masvingo provinces with the towns of Chimanimani, Chipenge and Bikita bearing the brunt of the storm.

Zimbabwe cyclone Idai flooding in Manicaland during March of 2019

There have been over 100 people killed in the disaster in Zimbabwe while some 200,000 have been in the direct line of cyclone Idai on the border with Mozambique. The government in Harare reported on March 28 that $100 million is being allocated for aid and reconstruction of the damaged areas.

Malawi reports that 90,000 people were displaced by the cyclone. One aid organization based Ireland, Concern, reported that anywhere between 80 to 100 percent of the maize crop has been destroyed by the winds and flooding. (See this)

Economic Challenges within the SADC Region

All three states which were the epicenter of Idai are struggling against the broader political and economic forces imposed upon them by the Western industrialized countries. Mozambique, despite its natural resources and strategic location, was compelled in 2018 to renegotiate the terms of its financial obligations internationally. (See this)

A former Portuguese colony for five centuries, the people could only obtain their national independence through an armed struggle which lasted for a decade. In 1975, the oppressed nation gained its freedom under the leadership of the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), which remains in power today.

The country then served as a rear-base and frontline state supporting the liberation movements in contiguous Zimbabwe and South Africa. As a result, the FRELIMO government was targeted for regime-change where the settler-colony of Rhodesia and South Africa, both backed by imperialism, funded counter-revolutionary groups to undermine the independence and nation-building efforts beginning in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the imperialist-engineered civil war in the early 1990s, Mozambique has been emerging as a developing state. With the energy resource findings of recent years the hopes for an economic take off was promising. However, the decline in commodity prices since 2014, coupled with western-backed loans and other financial obligations, has slowed growth. Other challenges include the emergence last year of an “Islamist” armed group in the north which has engaged in infrastructural sabotage and murder against civilians. Consequently, the FRELIMO government must focus much-needed resources on defense and security concerns to repel the violent threats.

Zimbabwe, also won its independence by waging an armed revolutionary war from the mid-1960s until 1979, when a negotiated settlement with the European-settler regime, led to multi-party, non-racial elections in which the Zimbabwe African National Union, Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) became the dominant party in 1980, extending its rule now for nearly 40 years. After a radical land redistribution program transferred land from the British commercial farmers to millions of Africans in 2000, Britain, the European Union (EU) and the United States have maintained sanctions against the ZANU-PF party and government creating tremendous economic problems.

Malawi, which gained its independence by way of political mobilization from Britain in 1964, is one of the world’s poorest states largely dependent upon agricultural production of tobacco, tea and sugar for export. More than half the population lives below the poverty line. As a result of its dependency on external trade, the country has run large deficits hampering its capacity for long term social and economic planning.

Climate Change and the Need for Economic Independence

The warming of the planet including ocean waters is often blamed for the worsening impact of cyclones and other weather-related issues. In Mozambique, Biera, the fourth largest city, had taken precautions to guard against floods stemming from heavy rains.

According to an article by Cara Anna published in the Associated Press dispatches for March 29, it says:

“Long and narrow with a 2,400-kilometer (1,500-mile) Indian Ocean coastline, Mozambique is on the frontline of fighting climate change in Africa, where most nations have little infrastructure and funding to cope. Rapidly growing coastal cities like Beira are especially at risk. The mayor (Daviz Simango) called it unjust that African nations face some of the toughest challenges while contributing little to global warming. People in rich, industrialized nations produce much of the carbon dioxide and other gases that are warming the planet by burning the most coal, diesel, gasoline and jet fuel.” (See this)

Humanitarian agency Oxfam works in Malawi where Country Director, John Makina, noted:

“People have been left with nothing. They need help now and in the months and years ahead to rebuild their communities in a way, which equips them for a world where climate change means extreme weather events such as Idai happen more often. Idai is yet another deadly warning of the impact of unchecked climate change unless governments, particularly major emitters, fail to cut emissions fast.” (See this)

Malawi children displaced by cyclone Idai during March 2019

Therefore, continuing economic dependency and rapid climate change must be addressed as foreign policy issues which threaten the future development of Southern African states. This imperative requires continental collaboration between all African Union (AU) member-states along with mass organizations, religious institutions, trade unions and youth. These issues are political in that they require immediate attention and correction to insure that Africa reaches its full potential which will result in genuine independence and sustainability.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cyclone Idai Causes Devastation Compounding Economic Challenges in the Southern Africa Region
  • Tags: ,

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege in Gaza – also the 43rd anniversary of Land Day – Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network joins Palestinians and people around the world in encouraging all supporters of justice to join in solidarity actions at this critical timeLand Day has been marked since 1976 not only to highlight Palestinians’ connection to the land and their struggle to liberate it from ongoing colonialism, but also to remember the six Palestinians slain on 30 March of that year in Palestine ’48 as they protested against land theft and confiscation.

Palestinians in Gaza, 70 percent of them refugees denied their right to return home, marked Land Day in 2018 with a massive march, bringing tens of thousands and even more to the colonially-imposed “border” and its associated “fence.” They demanded not only an end to the suffocating siege under which they have suffered for over a decade, progressively intensifying and persisting through three devastating wars. They also brought to the forefront the core of the Palestinian struggle for liberation: the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands confiscated by Zionist colonization. It is a struggle that belongs not only to the Palestinians in Gaza, but to all Palestinians around the world, especially those in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and those Palestinians dispersed even further from their homeland.

For organizing in a mass, collective demonstration highlighting this most fundamental Palestinian right, these demonstrators have faced brutal repression and killing for nearly one year. Medics, journalists, children, elders and people with disabilities have been shot down in cold blood by Israeli occupation forces as they protested for their right. And despite the killing, they have persisted and remained, marching each Friday to claim their rights in an uprising that has inspired people around the world, and especially Palestinians, with a clear commitment to achieving their goals: return and liberation.

Indeed, the Israeli occupation state has repeatedly attempted to pressure Palestinians into stopping the marches, through continuing and intensified siege, military attack and brutal military might. Despite the impunity Israeli officials enjoy and the unparalleled support they receive from the U.S. government and other world powers, the reality of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity has perhaps never been so clear, as was recently affirmed in a new report by an independent commission of the UN Human Rights Council.

In the context of the fragmentation of Palestinians, the Great March of Return, on Land Day, has once again highlighted that the Palestinian struggle is one struggle – from Palestinian citizens of Israel in ’48 Palestine, to those in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, in Jordan, in the camps in Lebanon and Syria and everywhere around the world in exile and diaspora. To this number must also be added the nearly 6,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, who through continued struggle inside the prisons continue to confront the siege and isolation imposed upon them as well.

Palestinians killed by occupation forces in the Great March of Return, have – like those shot down in extrajudicial executions and assassinations in the West Bank – had their bodies imprisoned by the Israeli occupation in an attempt to extort political concessions from Palestinians. In addition, participants from the demonstrations have themselves been kidnapped and imprisoned inside Israeli jails. Palestinian refugees who continue to be denied their right to return to their homes and lands may enter Palestine ’48 only when shackled, bound, tortured and imprisoned by the colonizing power that has confiscated that land.

Every uprising and act of resistance inside Israeli prisons is part of the same struggle against siege and isolation that the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege represents. The Gaza Strip itself is often described as an “open-air prison,” the siege another form of colonial torture and isolation akin to that imposed on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The struggle to break the siege is a struggle to break all of the sieges encircling Palestinians, from the ever-intensifying racist campaigns of discrimination and exclusion in Palestine ’48, the ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem, the raids, killings and colonial settlements in the West Bank, the isolation of Palestinian refugees in the camps, the criminalization and repression of Palestinian activism worldwide.

Since 30 March 2018, the Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed that Israeli occupation forces have killed 266 people, including 50 children, six women and one elderly man. 30,398 people have been injured, 16,027 seriously enough to be hospitalized. The hospitalized Palestinians include 3,175 children and 1,008 women. During the demonstrations, 6,857 Palestinians have been shot with live bullets and another 844 with rubber-coated metal bullets. 1,503 were shot in the head and neck, 7,731 in the legs and 732 in the chest and back; 136 Palestinians have gone through amputations as a result. (This reflects another version of the infamous policy of Israeli commander “Captain Nidal” in shooting and disabling the Palestinian youth in Dheisheh and Aida refugee camps near Bethlehem.)

Medics Razan al-Najjar, Abdullah al-Qati and Musa Abu Hassanein were killed by occupation forces and 665 more were injured; 112 ambulances were damaged. Two journalists, Yaser Murtaja and Ahmed Abu Hussein, were killed and 347 more were wounded.

Despite this great price, Palestinians are continuing to march to break the siege, to win freedom for all, from the prisons to the camps to the streets, fields and shores of Gaza (where fishers and farmers risk death or imprisonment to ply their trade and support their families and communities.) They continue to march, most centrally, for their right to return home, for liberation for Palestine.

This weekend, we urge you to answer the calls for solidarity – to join the marches, events and demonstrations taking place around the world, to echo the calls of Palestinians from inside the prisons of the Israeli occupation and the open-air prison in Gaza for an end to the siege and for the right to return.

A list of events and activities is below. We know this list is not fully comprehensive, and we urge people to send their additional events and actions to us on Facebook or via email at [email protected]. Please join your local events and join in the uprising that Palestinians in Gaza have been leading for the past year – continuing over 100 years of anti-colonial Palestinian resistance.

*

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

Featured image is from IMEMC

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today called on the inspector general for the Department of the Interior to investigate Acting Secretary David Bernhardt’s role in blocking a scientific assessment showing the pesticide chlorpyrifos threatens the existence of nearly 1,400 protected species.

Bernhardt’s efforts to suppress the studies, which were completed in October 2017 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, were revealed in a document obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through the Freedom of Information Act. Those findings were highlighted in a New York Times investigation published this week.

“We welcome any effort to shed light on this disgraceful scandal,” said Brett Hartl, director of government affairs at the Center. “It’s disgusting that after pesticide companies asked for evidence of catastrophic harm to endangered species to be buried, Bernhardt gladly pulled out the shovels.”

The determination by Fish and Wildlife Service scientists that the insecticide jeopardizes 1,399 plants and animals on the endangered species list prompted no action by the Trump administration to curb its use. Instead the administration worked to undercut the findings and delay all further efforts to assess and reduce the impacts of pesticides on endangered species.

Wyden’s request comes a day after he questioned Bernhardt about the buried assessments during the acting secretary’s confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which Wyden is a senior member.

*

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 Boise State Public Radio

Xi’s Visit Sets Tone for China-EU Relations

March 30th, 2019 by Liu Caiyu

Chinese President Xi Jinping returned to Beijing on Wednesday after his visit to Europe, bringing a fruitful outcome and the visit assures the cooperative trend of China-EU relations, analysts noted.

The outcome of Xi’s visit to Europe is “beyond expectations” and extremely “practical” in terms of deepening China-Europe relations. The visit sets the tone for the future of the relations, Chinese analysts noted on Wednesday.

At the conclusion of Xi’s visit, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters in Paris that through the visit, the Chinese president has shown Europe and the world that China is standing on the right side of history, and will continue to promote China-EU relations, safeguard multilateralism and guide the reform of global governance, the Xinhua News Agency reported on Wednesday.

Xi’s visit to Europe injects new impetus in China-Europe relations, Geng Shuang, a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told a daily briefing on Wednesday.

“China always views Europe as a comprehensive strategic partner and an indispensable global power. Together with Europe, we will fulfill multilateralism, increase stability and certainty in the world and inject more positive energy and impetus for international cooperation,” Geng said.

Xi visited Italy, Monaco and France from March 21 to 26 and held “unprecedented” talks on building new global governance with the leaders of France, Germany and the EU in Paris.

During the visit, Italy became the first Group of Seven nation to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and also agreed to return 796 sets of Chinese cultural relics. China and France signed an agreement on future space cooperation in Paris, allowing France to fly its experiments on the Chang’e-6 mission.

The application of 5G in Monaco, which will become the first country in the world to be fully covered by a nationwide 5G mobile network, promotes China’s efforts in information infrastructure construction in Europe, analysts noted.

‘Icebreaker’

Overall, Xi’s visit to Europe was “fruitful” and the outcome “beyond expectations,” Ding Chun, director of the Center for European Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

In particular, Xi’s meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker not only reinforced bilateral ties but also sets the tone for the future of China-Europe relations, Ding said.

China and Europe are not “rivals” as the “EU-China: Strategic Outlook” issued by the European Commission described, but “partners,” Ding said.

From the articles and speeches Xi made, European leaders and people could feel the determination and sincerity that China has toward China-Europe relations and Xi’s charm in handling diplomatic matters, which is another prominent outcome of the visit, said Zhao Junjie, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of European Studies.

Xi’s visit to Italy brought BRI to a new level. The cooperation with Italy, as a major Europe nation, will be an icebreaker for the BRI to extend to the European continent, Zhao told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The BRI’s end point, either the maritime Silk Road or land Silk Road, is Europe, which cannot be replaced by other regions. But most European countries continue to hold a wait-and-see attitude, Zhao explained.

On March 23, Italy signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China to jointly advance the construction of the BRI.

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio said the deals were worth an initial 2.5 billion euros ($2.8 billion) but had a potential value of 20 billion, Reuters reported.

(From left) Chinese President Xi Jinping, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Italian Labour and Industry Minister Luigi Di Maio and Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at the signing ceremony in Rome on Saturday. Photo: AFP

(From left) Chinese President Xi Jinping, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Italian Labour and Industry Minister Luigi Di Maio and Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at the signing ceremony in Rome on Saturday. Photo: AFP

Under the framework, the BRI will be continuously enriched with trade deals and investments. Italy’s olive oil and agricultural tourism would be new growth points for bilateral ties and China might invest in the port city of Trieste, Zhao said.

Trieste could be a key point of the Belt and Road Initiative, especially 21st Century Maritime Silk Road in Europe, which can spread benefits to more regions like southern and western Europe, Zhao said.

Germany expressed its willingness to participate in the second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing in April, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

Some European countries remain concerned on issues like reciprocity, but EU members are open to learn about the initiative, so if they find the BRI truly mutually beneficial, their stance could be changed, Feng Zhongping, director of European Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times.

During Xi’s European visit, he also mentioned an increase in third-party market cooperation under the BRI project, which Zhao said would offer new opportunities for European nations interested in BRI to work with China in new markets.

Feng said that “some problems between China and the EU can’t be totally solved in one night, and issues like market access, transfer of technology and intellectual property still need to be addressed.”

After China passes its foreign investment law, European countries will find more opportunities and equal treatment in China, so this could be a positive sign, Feng noted.

*

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: Chinese President Xi Jinping (second from left), French President Emmanuel Macron (second from right), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (first from right) and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker attend the closing ceremony of a global governance forum co-hosted by China and France in Paris, France on Tuesday. Photo: Xinhua

Theresa May’s no-deal/deal went down by a 344 – 286 margin. Did her latest defeat signal three strikes and she’s out – her coup de grace of no return?

Britain has until April 12 to crash out of the EU with no deal or remain a bloc member, abandoning Brexit sine die, MPs strongly rejecting the former option.

Ahead of Friday’s vote, May offered to resign if MPs backed her no-deal/deal. As things now stand, she’ll likely either step down voluntarily or be pushed in the coming days, her tenure as prime minister since July 2016 pockmarked with failure.

Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn called for new elections, stressing Britain won’t leave the EU without an acceptable deal, adding if May refuses to accept that, she has to go.

She called the implications of her third defeat “grave,” saying Britain is scheduled to leave the EU on April 12, adding she’ll continue pressing for an “orderly Brexit” – a notion she opposed all along without admitting it publicly as prime minister.

Other MPs called Brexit dead, wanting Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty revoked, stating:

“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

“2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

“That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.”

“3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

“4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”

“A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”

“5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

In January 2017, Britain’s Supreme Court ruled against fast-tracking Brexit, saying “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliament authorizing that course.” It’s for MPs to decide, not the PM or UK voters.

So far, MPs rejected eight variations of May’s no-deal/deal this week. On Monday, they’ll vote perhaps for the last time on still another alternative.

Before Friday’s vote, House of Commons Speaker John Bercow ruled that May could not call for a third vote without substantially changing her plan.

She split her no-deal/deal apart. Friday’s vote was on a transition period post-Brexit if occurs. Omitted for a future vote was the hard part – a declaration on Britain’s relationship with the EU if it leaves the bloc.

Her strategy let her circumvent Bercow’s ruling, accomplishing nothing else. Losing for the third time likely drove the final stake into Brexit.

Only its obituary remains to be written, along with postmortems about nearly three wasted years of parliamentary debates and negotiations with Brussels.

May’s days as prime minister are numbered. She and Brexit are doomed – the latter long before Friday’s vote.

Note: If majority MPs have a change of heart on Monday, agreeing to accept May’s deal after all, perhaps with minor changes, it’ll still be a no-deal/deal.

It’ll amount to Britain pretending to leave the bloc – doing it in name only, not in fact.

No wonder, millions of Brits, a likely majority, are fed up with what’s gone on, wanting either a new referendum or revoking Article 50, abandoning Brexit altogether.

I’ve favored a hard Brexit all along, a clean break, walking away and not looking back. Disruption would likely be much less severe than Brexit opponents claim, along with being relatively short-term.

Britain is a leading European country. Others on the continent surely want current economic, financial, and trade relations maintained. It’s mutually beneficial to all European nations to have things this way.

A year post-hard Brexit if occurs, Britain’s relationship with EU member states would likely be much the same as 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.

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.

Saudi nuclear power ambitions are well known. For months, the Trump and Saudi regimes have been negotiating the sale of US nuclear technology to the kingdom.

Anti-nuclear expert Helen Caldicott explained that any country operating nuclear power plants “can theoretically manufacture 40 (nuclear) bombs a year” by producing plutonium, the fuel for nukes.

According to nuclear security expert Matthew Fuhrmann,

“(a)ny nuclear technology could be used for legitimate civilian things like producing electricity or making medical isotopes to treat cancer patients, but that same technology can give countries the ability to make nuclear weapons,” adding:

“You always want to think about what the possibilities might be, that a country may try and use things that were provided for peaceful purposes down the road towards military ends.”

The US intelligence community is concerned about whether Riyadh’s interest in nuclear power plants goes beyond wanting another energy source.

Israel is the region’s only nuclear armed and dangerous state, its open secret revealed long ago. Giving ruthlessly dangerous Saudi crown prince/de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) access to technology able to produce nuclear weapons would be madness.

Earlier he said if Iran “developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible” – knowing the Islamic Republic abhors these weapons, wanting them eliminated.

According to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Trump regime relations with the Saudis are “shrouded in secrecy,” Jared Kushner directly involved MBS. He once said he’s got Trump’s son-in-law “in his pocket.”

DLT, his children and Kushner prioritize wealth and power. Saudi Arabia is a super-wealthy family dictatorship masquerading as a nation state.

Trump has gone all-out to assure nothing interferes with US/Saudi business and political relations. He’s had longstanding business ties to the kingdom, including distress sales to royal family members when needing cash to meet debt obligations.

He pursues maximum Saudi revenues flowing to US corporate interests. The House Oversight and Reform Committee earlier said his regime is fast-tracking “the transfer of highly sensitive US nuclear technology” to the kingdom without required congressional review – in violation of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, US law regulating civilian and military uses of nuclear material.

The NEA prohibits the transfer of US technology to another country if there’s a risk it can be used to develop nukes. The NEA’s Section 123 states that nuclear technology transfers abroad are subject to congressional approval.

According to Reuters,

“US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorizations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of a document seen by (the news service) on Wednesday,” adding:

“Perry’s approvals, known as Part 810 authorizations, allow companies to do preliminary work on nuclear power ahead of any deal, but not ship equipment that would go into a plant, a source with knowledge of the agreements said on condition of anonymity.”

A Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) statement said

“each of the companies which received a specific authorization for (Saudi Arabia) have provided us written request that their authorization be withheld from public release.”

During House Energy and Commerce Committee testimony, Mike Pompeo was accused of attempting to circumvent congressional control over nuclear technology sales to foreign nations.

Senators Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio asked the Government Accountability Office to review Energy Department negotiations with the Saudis to determine if federal laws were violated.

Last week, Bush/Cheney envoy to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan said if the transfer of US nuclear technology to the kingdom “already occurred, or is being discussed, it’s likely in violation of the Atomic Energy Act section 123.”

It requires congressional approval for sales of nuclear technology to foreign governments – prohibiting use of the technology for development of nuclear weapons.

In dealing with a regime like the Saudis, its agreement to AEA section 123 won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. Like the US, NATO and Israel, the Saudis do whatever they please, defying rule of law principles.

The oil rich kingdom has no need for nuclear power as an energy source for its 33 million people. According to Fuhrmann, from its standpoint, it’s logical to believe the Saudis have a “strong strategic incentive to want nuclear weapons.”

The White House has been secretive about the kind of nuclear technology it seeks to sell the Saudis, noting it’s “highly sensitive,” the comment raising an obvious red flag.

As congressional approval is required for the sale or transfer of US nuclear technology to other countries, it’s up to its bipartisan leadership to block its sale to the Saudis.

*

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.

Following an aggressive public relations campaign in which union officials questioned GM’s loyalty to ‘Canadian taxpayers’, General Motors has apparently agreed to keep its Oshawa facility partially open. No official announcement has yet been made, but there are rumours of a revised plan to retain 600-700 workers by investing $100-million to stamp the cargo beds for pick-up trucks.

There are good reasons to be skeptical about both this rumour and this plan. But even if true, before a desperate workforce reluctantly accepts that ‘some jobs, however few, are better than nothing’, more ambitious thinking should be considered.

The Oshawa facility currently supports 5,700-6,000 jobs: GM directly employs 2,200 hourly workers and some 500 salaried workers, with other companies employing over 3,000 to supply components (some working right inside the Oshawa facility). The new proposal means cutting this total by upwards of 5,000 jobs or 85 per cent.

Thinking Bigger

A little over a generation ago, GM alone employed 23,000 hourly and office workers in the city. The steady decline to GM’s current numbers was accompanied, each step of the way, by the consolation that ‘well, at least some of the jobs remained’. The continuation of that fatalistic and dispiriting response will leave Oshawa – even if the rumours of the stamping plant are correct – at only 3 per cent of the earlier peak.

With this loss of jobs comes a damaging loss of productive capacity – the potential to apply workers’ collective skills to make socially useful products. In the mid-1980s GM Oshawa was the largest auto complex in North America, with three assembly plants turning out some 750,000 vehicles annually while also manufacturing its own axles, batteries, and radiators.

Tony Leah, a maintenance welder in Oshawa, notes that if the rumours of an expanded stamping plant come to pass, the expanded stamping capacity would still occupy only “a tiny piece of the remaining 9-10 million square foot Oshawa complex… all of the assembly process equipment, technology, and space – Body Plant, Chassis Plant, Paint Shop, Supplier Park – [will] remain empty.”

The Unifor leadership deserves credit for pushing GM off its original ‘non-negotiable’ declaration that a complete closure was a done deal. Yet it also shows the limits of its overall strategy. The concessions made during the last round of bargaining were to no avail but contributed to weakening workers’ confidence to resist. The enthusiasm for the security the new trade agreement with the USA and Mexico would bring was badly misplaced. The same goes for a campaign primarily focused on hiring a public relations firm and choosing the main tactic as boycotting GM vehicles from Mexico.

It was of course always a stretch to expect GM to reverse itself on so fundamental a strategic decision as ending vehicle assembly in Oshawa. This might well have been the case even with a massive mobilization of autoworkers and the community. That’s why posing possibilities beyond GM was so critical. The union’s refusal to explore broader opportunities, ones that reached beyond GM, reflected a disheartening failure of imagination, a failure that reinforced a steady lowering of expectations on the part of the union leadership, its members, and the community more generally.

The politicians have been worse. Provincially, the Doug Ford government – fresh from putting up billboards declaring Ontario ‘open for business’ and frantic to get the negative reality of Oshawa out of the spotlight – meekly repeated GM’s mantra of Oshawa being ‘a done deal’. The Federal government, with which the union leadership claimed a special relationship, was only a few rhetorical steps behind in trying to dampen hopes.

Is a stamping plant really the best we can aspire to? After all the lamentations about Canada’s over-dependence on resources, and the recurrent task forces on developing a manufacturing base, how can we let those facilities we already have – like the Oshawa complex – fade away with so little resistance and popular outrage? And more directly: If the stamping plant does materialize, why would we give up on the rest of this massive complex?

A Tale of Conflicting Perspectives

Let’s start with General Motors’ decision to leave. The Oshawa plant is split between cars and trucks. GM has been losing interest in producing cars in Canada and the USA because their profit margins are low. Better, from GM’s perspective, to build those cars – or when the transformation to electric vehicles occurs – in Mexico or China.

As for the highly profitable trucks, GM is trying to sell as many of these as it can before environmental limits put the brakes on such sales. But the model Oshawa got in exchange for concessions was an older one that some had already seen as having only a transitional lifespan of perhaps 18 months until the new models were geared up in other plants. In any case, for GM a half empty plant (i.e. after car production goes) is a liability. More profitable from where the corporation sits is rationalizing capacity across all its operations and reallocating Oshawa’s remaining production elsewhere.

According to business consultants, and readily confirmed by the corporation, the Oshawa facilities regularly ranked at or near the top of all of GM’s operations in terms of productivity and quality. In the end, however, this turned out to not matter all that much. There’s a lesson here of note for workers everywhere: there comes a point when we must think beyond putting all our hopes in private corporations with interests antagonistic to our own.

Where the union disappointed was in refusing to come to grips with the fact that GM was no longer the salvation for working people, and in consequently not exploring – even as a last resort – other options. It rested with GM’s Oshawa retirees to pose the crucial question of a reorientation that went beyond appealing to GM.

The retirees noted the centrality of the accumulated sweat of workers to GM’s accumulated profits. They pointed as well to the mind-numbing $11-billion contribution the Canadian public made to keeping GM alive during the financial crisis. They especially took into consideration GM’s loss of interest in the facility. This led to the straightforward moral and practical conclusion of placing the facility and its equipment in public hands, and the retirees passed a resolution to that effect. The hourly workers followed by passing a similar resolution at a subsequent membership meeting.

This response is to be commended, but those votes involved a small fraction of GM retirees and workers. And though the local leadership did not oppose the resolutions, neither did they give them any profile. No public statements were issued to broadcast the resolutions, and they weren’t even reported on the local’s website. The national union paid zero attention to the resolutions.

The dismissive reaction of the local and national leadership was no doubt made easier by the fact that in itself, ‘nationalization’ alone is not enough of an answer. Though the sentiment broke with the union’s public relations response, enthusiasm is difficult to generate without a plan for what might follow. What needed elaboration was what a nationalized facility like that in Oshawa might actually produce.

What do Canadians need, and do the workers in Oshawa have the capacities and skills to produce such equipment and goods? If not, can those abilities be developed? And what role should all levels of government have in bringing those needs and capacities together?

Imagining a Credible Alternative

If workers came together in a room and brainstormed about what they might produce with some external support, they would likely come up with a significant list, some suggestions being stronger than others. Why not make some of the things we currently import? Why can’t we make some of the products that government and para-government institutions like schools and hospitals purchase? Could, for example, a part of the Oshawa facility make products needed by our aging population – could it make wheel chairs, wheel mobility scooters, disability ramps, home lifts, accessibility beds, oxygen treatment equipment?

The environmental crisis in particular holds out the promise of all kinds of potential jobs. If we are to prevent or at least limit the looming environmental catastrophe, it is clear that everything about how we work, live, travel, and transport goods will have to be transformed. Everything. This ranges across the accelerated production of wind turbines and solar panels; energy saving lighting, heat pumps, small motors and generators for energy transmission; energy efficient doors and windows as well as modified appliances for every home and office; electric cars and electric fleets of utility vehicles.

The last example – fleets of electric utility vehicles – seems the most obvious alternative for an assembly plant. Public vehicles will inevitably have to be electrified or run on renewable energy resources, and this means a growing market for electric post office vans for mail and package delivery (as suggested by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers), hydro vehicles doing maintenance and repair work, minibuses to supplement public transit, the electric scooters mentioned above for seniors and people with disabilities, and electrified vehicles in agriculture, mining, and construction.

With the stamping plant confined to a small part of the plant, the assembly of fleets of electric utility vehicles could occupy the main part of the plant. This might even give the stamping plant additional work making stampings for the fleets. Particularly important, it would mean that the life of the complex would not end if GM suddenly (but not surprisingly) decided that it would rather close the stamping plant and sell the larger facility to developers looking to build condos. If, with the fleet vehicles and the (rumoured) stamping plant excess capacity still remained, the unutilized subsections of the plant could focus on addressing the miscellaneous aging and environmental-related products cited above, or other products workers might come up with.

Much of the needed equipment and skills already exist in the Oshawa plant. The components sector, especially where GM work is being lost, has the ability and flexibility to shift to supporting parts for these vehicles. Further high-tech support could be brought together from the tool and die industry, metal fabricating, aerospace (propulsion systems, materials), the Waterloo computer corridor, and Canada’s experienced engineering and construction firms (all the more so if scandal-ridden SNC-Lavalin were also made into a public enterprise!).

Moreover, an Oshawa complex converted to ‘green production’ and looking to the future might also include hiring hundreds of young engineers working on-site to consider what other needs and capacities might be developed. This would have the added advantage of contributing to building a national planning capacity to convert other threatened closings – of which there will be many – as well as generating new technologies and products which could help alleviate the environmental crisis.

From Ideas to Implementation

The indispensable condition for achieving the conversion of the GM Oshawa plant and keeping the jobs lies with the commitment of the Oshawa workers. No one else is as equipped to lead this fight and place an alternative on the agenda.

Moving to think bigger can be intimidating. But it seems criminal not to at least try and keep Oshawa alive. Furthermore, the history of the past few decades in auto and elsewhere convincingly shows that unless workers take a strong collective decision, things will keep getting worse.

If the workforce does organize itself around an alternative for the GM plant, the next step will be to rally other workers and potential allies. The recent teacher mobilizations in California provide an inspiration and a blueprint for building diversified community coalitions to limit corporate power and win support from the mayor and city council. With such support GM could be blocked from moving its equipment or selling the land (the build-out dates as of now seem to be the last quarter of this year), and the facility could instead be converted to a municipally-owned facility producing socially useful and environmentally-essential products.

This would clearly require substantial support from the provincial and federal governments to have their agencies purchase the Oshawa products and to fast-track the use of electric fleets. Both layers of government would also be critical to providing finance, developing needed skills, supporting a transport redevelopment agency to chart, facilitate, and monitor transport redesign, and developing a planning capacity that can address new closures next time they occur – and there will be no shortage of such ‘next times’ in auto and elsewhere.

Of course, Queen’s Park and Ottawa will not easily jump in. But facing a public campaign, the provincial government may be vulnerable to pressure given its promise of providing new manufacturing jobs and in the face of popular reaction to Ford’s massive cuts in jobs and services in health, education, and public transport. And the federal Liberals – weakened by the SNC-Lavalin scandal and with an election coming up – have offered a lot of rhetoric on both the environment and defending workers but have fallen far short of dramatic action on both counts.

It is unlikely that any such massive project would go forward without a feasibility study to show that all this is not just pie-in-the-sky. The crucial point is that addressing ‘feasibility’ is not a technical issue but a matter of struggling over the most basic principles that should govern our society. It cannot mean asking how much profit the facility would generate in competition with Mexico, China – or the USA and Europe for that matter. We have seen where such criteria take us. Rather, it demands another set of questions:

  • What are the wider social benefits of the products being produced (are the products socially useful; do they contribute to addressing the pressing environmental crisis)?
  • Can this project provide well-paying jobs with dignity for working people?
  • Can the workers involved do the job effectively and at high quality?
  • Does the project develop the future capacity of Canada to respond to future economic and social restructuring?

Conclusion

GM was bailed out on the assumption it would return the favour with sustained employment. It’s now the workers’ turn to be supported – in this case, however, with a social plan that benefits the entire community and not just a private corporation that can move on when the wind changes.

But first the Oshawa autoworkers must take a stand. They will need to put their own stamp on the remarkable resistance that has flowered elsewhere. Something historic is happening around the world – sometimes with dark and negative undercurrents, but at its best, inspiring and hopeful. Frustrations are overflowing over the loss of control over daily life, the growing inequalities and shrinking democracy, the perpetual insecurity, and the narrowing of hope across generations.

Fighting back has no guarantees, only possibilities worth considering and trying. Will Oshawa join this world-wide rebellion and find their own constructive way to say a loud ‘No!’ to the unrelenting lowering of expectations followed by a louder ‘Yes!’ to once again raising and creating new possibilities?

*

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 Gindin was research director of the Canadian Auto Workers from 1974–2000 and is now an adjunct professor at York University in Toronto. He is co-author (with Leo Panitch) of The Making of Global Capitalism (Verso).

Featured image is from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Workers’ Rights and Canada’s Auto Industry: GM Oshawa: Lowered Expectations, Unexplored Opportunities
  • Tags: ,

A recent series of Russian strikes on positions of militant groups in the Syrian province of Idlib has once again caused a wave of mainstream media reports regarding civilian casualties caused by Russian bombings. According to “local activists” quoted by media, the Idlib strikes led to tens of civilian casualties. There are no MSM reports about casualties among members of militant groups or destruction of their infrastructure.

Since the very start of the Russian military operation in Syria, Russia has been under fire over its usage of unguided weapons – missiles and bombs – as a main mean of engagement. The key idea repeated by Western diplomats, military officials and media in various formats is the following:

While the US-led coalition carries out pinpoint strikes with precision weaponry, the Russian Aerospace Forces employ indiscriminate strikes with unguided bombs, which are often being dropped from high altitudes.

Both the US and Russia accuse each other in causing civilian casualties and humanitarian crises in Syria on a constant basis. Besides this, Washington and its allies have a much wider understanding of the term “moderate opposition” than Moscow has ever had.

A significant difference can also be observed on the level of employed weapon systems and munitions.

A guided bomb or a “smart bomb” is the type of bombs with guidance and control systems. Some versions even have small rocket engines increasing their range and control over their flight.

Guided weapons cost much more than their unguided counterparts, but supposedly allow to put fewer air crews at risk, spent less ordnance and reduce collateral damage. The creation of precision-guided munitions resulted in the retroactive renaming of older bombs as unguided bombs or “dumb bombs”; with these “dumb bombs” actively being used by Russia.

In August 2017, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Lieutenant General Igor Makushev revealed that 50% of basic missions for wiping out militant facilities by airstrikes in Syria were performed by Su-24M bombers and Su-25SM attack aircraft. These aircrafts were designed to provide a fire support for ground forces and were using unguided weapons massively. Besides them, 250kg and 500kg unguided munitions were actively employed against infrastructure belonging to ISIS in eastern Syria by Tu-22M3 strategic bombers.

What mainstream media does not cover is that while the Russian Aerospace Forces massively used “dumb bombs”, the strikes themselves were “smart”. Russian warplanes employ specialized computer sub-system SVP-24 Gefest, which allows the use of unguided munitions as high-precision weapons.

Prior SVP-24 modernization of guidance systems were focused on the targets positioning. This is a road to the further increase the complexity and cost of employed weapons. The system incorporates a difference concept; it focused on the positioning of weapon carriers.

SVP-24 analyzes data of the GLONASS satellite navigation grouping on the mutual location of the aircraft and the target, takes into account the level of atmospheric pressure, air humidity, wind speed, the flight velocity, and some other factors to calculate the route, speed and altitude of dropping air-launched munitions, after which the warplane reaches a pre-determined position and conducts the strike in almost an automatic mode.

SVP-24 receives additional data from airborne early warning and control aircraft, like the A-50, other warplanes, and ground detection stations.

According to the Russian military, the usage of the SVP-24 ensured the efficiency of striking enemy installations with unguided bombs comparable with the accuracy of using smart bombs. The bombing accuracy is 4-7m from the altitude of 5-6km. Furthermore, aircraft with SVP-24 are capable of conducting strikes in free maneuver, out of the range of enemy’s local air defense.

Besides the obvious economic advantage of this approach, the SV-24 became one of the factors which allowed the Russian air group in Syria to increase the number of combat sorties per aircraft.

In one of the hottest years of the conflict – 2016, the Russians had about 70 aircraft deployed for operations (46-48 at Hmeimim and 32-36 from Admiral Kuznetsov). This group was conducting approximately 70-80 combat sorties per day. Therefore, one Russian combat aircraft was involved in at least one combat sortie per day.

At the same time, according to the Pentagon’s data, aircraft of the US-led coalition made about 19.68 combat sorties per day. Taking into account that the coalition had about 180 aircraft deployed for operations, one coalition aircraft was involved in 0.1 combat sortie per day.

These numbers lead to expected questions: Who was really fighting terrorists in Syria? And who was making money and perceiving its own political interests?

*

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: “Dumb Bombs”, Indiscriminate Strikes and Civilian Casualties in Syrian War

Translated from the Spanish by Global Research. 

“A confession from [America’s] puppet pointing to evidence,” said journalist Gustavo Villapol Wednesday, noting that the deputy of the National Assembly in contempt Juan Guaidó confessed to be behind the attacks perpetrated against the National Electric Service (SEN) that have affected the Venezuelan people since last March 7.  

“The gentleman, Deputy Guaidó, has told the world that they are behind this devious and terrorist attack against the Electric System,” he said during an interview on the Punto de Encuentro program broadcast by Venezolana de Televisión.

[These are the quotations from Guaido’s statements at the National Assembly, video below  13′ 11″ – 14′ 09″,  GR editor]

“And I repeat, the cessation of darkness will definitely come with the cessation of usurpation,” culminates the self-proclaimed Juan Guaidó (VTV Fotogram)

“There will be no solution to the electrical problem, there will be no water to the houses much less domestic gas”. the parliamentarian of Voluntad Popular stated verbatim.

“We will generate the necessary internal pressure to add up in this process of definitive cessation of the usurpation,” he is heard saying in the video broadcast from the floor of the Federal Legislative Palace.

“And I repeat, the cessation of darkness will definitely come with the cessation of usurpation,” culminated his TV intervention.
Journalist Gustavo Villapol described Guaidó as a symbolic expression of the new political-military doctrine that Donald Trump is trying to develop from the presidency of the United States (USA).

Original Spanish text below

Title: Guaido confesó estar detrás del sabotaje eléctrico

“A confesión de títere relevo de pruebas”, afirmó este miércoles el periodista Gustavo Villapol, al advertir que el diputado de la Asamblea Nacional en desacato Juan Guaidó confesó estar detrás de los atentados perpetrados contra el Servicio Eléctrico Nacional (SEN) que han afectado al pueblo venezolano desde el pasado 7 de marzo.

“El señorito diputado Guaidó ha expresado al mundo que ellos están detrás de este ataque artero y terrorista contra el Sistema Eléctrico”, dijo durante una entrevista en el programa Punto de Encuentro que transmite Venezolana de Televisión.

“Y lo repito, el cese de la oscuridad vendrá definitivamente con el cese de la usurpación”, culmina el autoproclamado Juan Guaidó (Fotograma VTV)

  • No habrá solución al problema eléctrico, no habrá agua a las casas mucho menos gas doméstico”. manifestó textualmente el parlamentario de Voluntad Popular.
  • Vamos a generar la presión interna necesaria para ir sumando en este proceso de cese definitivo de la usurpación”, se le oye decir en el video transmitido desde el hemiciclo del Palacio Federal Legislativo.
  • Y lo repito, el cese de la oscuridad vendrá definitivamente con el cese de la usurpación”, culminó su intervención en el audiovisual.

Villapol calificó a Guaidó como expresión simbólica de la nueva doctrina política-militar que está intentando desarrollar Donald Trump desde la presidencia de Estados Unidos (EE.UU.).

Access complete Spanish text 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Juan Guaidó Confesses Being Behind the Sabotage of Venezuela’s Electric System

Hundreds of migrants are being held by border agents in a fenced in encampment under a bridge in El Paso, leading to anger and accusations that the American government is holding people in “concentration camps.”

Images posted online by reporters and advocates painted a disturbing scene in the Texas city. Lines of migrants behind fencing, being processed by agents from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), walked into a camp area that appeared to be standing room only.

Reporters from The Washington Post caught pictures of crowds of migrants behind fencing.

The encampment, which is referred to by CBP as a “transitional shelter,” was set up in the last month according to reporting from Buzzfeed.

“The tent that is set up underneath the Paso Del Norte port of entry and adjacent to the Border Patrol’s Processing Facility is a transitional shelter,” a CBP spokesperson told the outlet. “Due to the large volume of apprehensions within the El Paso Station’s Area of Responsibility, the agency has undertaken additional measures to facilitate processing.”

Photos of the hundreds of people held at the site spread over social media on Wednesday. The publicity came alongside an appearance at El Paso by CBP commissioner Kevin McAleenan, who said that the border was “at its breaking point.”

“CBP is facing an unprecedented humanitarian and border security crisis all along our Southwest border,” said McAleenan, “and nowhere has that crisis manifested more acutely than here in El Paso.”

As a number of immigration advocates pointed out, that’s a hard sell in 2019 given the amount of border crossings two decades ago—crossings peaked at 1.6 million a year in 2000. The conditions in El Paso reminded some observers of the worst of humanity.

“This is a fucking concentration camp,” writer Lauren Hough said on Twitter. “We are running concentration camps.”

“It’s appalling,” said Women’s March communications director Sophie Ellman-Golan.

Meanwhile, according to reporting from The Texas Tribune, CBP pulled 750 agents from across Texas’s southern border’s ports of entry to El Paso to help with processing. There is no return date as yet for those agents, raising concerns that the border will become even more closed off in the near future.

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

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 BRICS New Development Bank is having its Annual General Meeting on 1-2 April, here in South Africa. There’s information about the meeting here, including public sessions. Critics meet to discuss the Bank on 31 March – 3 June in Cape Town and Johannesburg, especially to interrogate bank loans to South Africa.

The more we look at this institution, the more its rhetoric on sustainability and claims to offer an alternative approach to that of the Bretton Woods Institutions grate. The World Bank has a new leader, David Malpass, following a quite disastrous run by ex-leftist Jim Yong Kim (as predicted when he took up the post in 2012). With Malpass in the lead we can predict abundant hypocrisy when it comes to South African corruption, especially in Eskom and Transnet, as described in the attached files. To his credit, Malpass was honest, back in 2017:

Malpass: “They’re often corrupt in their lending practices, and they don’t get the benefit to the actual people in the countries. They get the benefit to the people who fly in on a first-class airplane ticket to give advice to the government officials in the country, that flow of money is large, but not so much the actual benefit to normal people within poor countries, and that’s what I’d like to see change.”

Rep. Maxine Waters:“Do you have an example of that?”

Malpass: “Well, for example, we have countries such as South Africa that are deteriorating rapidly as their government is unable to provide efficiency and effectiveness… South Africa is heavily indebted and not making progress and is not being well served by its relationships with international financial institutions.”

True! South Africans are pushing the Bank to write off its largest-ever loan now: Eskom’s Medupi, a $3.75bn corruption-riddled coal-fired power station, a garantuan white elephant. Last Sunday, a national tv town-hall show – The Big Debateexplored this question of lender liability.

Just as Donald Trump appointed the idiot Malpass with no BRICS opposition, Jair Bolsonaro will appoint the next BRICS Bank president.

The BRICS Bank is facing the same questions about Odious Debt in relation to the loan to Transnet, to expand the main Durban harbour. But BRICS NDB Compliance Officer Srinivas Yanamandra is in corruption-denial, as you see from correspondence which ended yesterday. He convicingly shows that the BRICS NDB cannot be reasoned with.

*

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

Professor Patrick Bond teaches political economy at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Even though we now know there is zero evidence Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, neocon talking heads are still babbling about the discredited conspiracy theory and working it into facile monologues. 

For instance, Samatha Vinograd, a “national security” analyst at Propaganda One, CNN. Ms. Vinograd is a former Obama NSC member and a former senior advisor to the president, a David E. Rockefeller Fellow at the Trilateral Commission, a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council where the Russian collusion nonsense is kept alive, and also a facilitator of fascist relationships—public-private (see “Economic Fascism” by DiLorenzo)—in service to the vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, Goldman Sachs. 

There is very little the US can do about Russia in its “backyard”—and it has no internationally recognized right to do so unless Russia directly threatens the United States, which it has not (unless we consider delivering humanitarian aid to starving Venezuelans an act of war, as the neocons do). 

Vinograd is not simply another attractive young talking head selling the establishment line on foreign policy. As noted above, she is a Trilateralist and a member of The Atlantic Council. This means what she tells us during this interview will more than likely be adopted in some form or other by the Trump administration, now fully neo-conized at the highest levels. 

It is important to note Vinograd’s opening remark combines a criticism of the president’s performance and also the debunked and discredited Russian election collusion op engineered by a petulant Hillary Clinton and the DNC to take down the duly elected president of the United States. 

It’s not that Vinograd doesn’t know about the Mueller investigation summary admitting the special inquisitor doesn’t have a case against Trump. Rather it is an attempt to move away from that reality and continue to target the New Hitler, Vladimir Putin. This is the new meal ticket for the military-industrial-surveillance complex now that the artificially manufactured Islamic State is almost “defeated” in Syria. The government long ago stopped promoting peace dividends. 

Now we have the ever-pugnacious John Bolton, neocon foreign policy demagogue and special national security adviser to the president. Bolton told Russia the US government and its owners lay claim to the Western Hemisphere. 

“We strongly caution actors external to the Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela,” said Bolton, “or elsewhere in the Hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations… We will consider such provocative actions as a direct threat to international peace and security in the region.”

Neocon John can only get away with saying this due to the lamentable fact most Americans are almost entirely clueless on the history of US intervention in Central and South America. If they knew anything about the coups, election rigging, paramilitary death squads, and and massive corruption they might think twice about what Bolton said. 

Bolton’s threat came two days after Trump said, “all options are on the table” in regard to Russia’s presence in Venezuela. In typical Trumpian fashion—somewhere between a mob boss and a festooned carnival barker—the president demanded Russia “get out” of Caracas. He made the remark in Washington during a meeting with Fabiana Rosales, the wife of Juan Guaido. 

Putin checkmated Trump and his neocons—for now. On March 25 Venezuela said, “self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaido and other opposition leaders were involved in a plot to carry out acts of terrorism employing foreign paramilitaries trained in Colombia,” according to sources at Venezuelananlysis.com. 

According to [Communications Minister Jorge Rodriguez], Venezuelan intelligence services uncovered plans to contract mercenaries from Colombia and Central America and bring them into Venezuela to execute targeted killings and acts of sabotage, adding that “at least half” of the armed groups managed to make their way into Venezuelan territory and are currently being sought.

If Venezuela’s intelligence is accurate, one the largest private banks in the country served as a paymaster for these mercenary terrorists. 

The [Whatsapp] screen captures [on the phone of Guaido’s arrested chief of staff, Roberto Marrero] also revealed details of alleged bank accounts through which payments to the paramilitary groups were supposed to be made. One of them was in Banesco’s Panama branch. Banesco is Venezuela’s largest private bank, and Rodriguez called on Banesco owner Ricardo Escotet to inform security services whether this account exists and what movements have been made.

President Trump is known for his impatience. He wants to do something now about Venezuela and its massive oil reserve, the largest in the world. Russia is in Caracas to foil any attempt to outright invade the country and provide assistance to track down mercenaries plotting to stage violence and terror attacks. 

The neoliberal masterminds with their neocon collaborators behind US foreign policy know going to war with Russia is not doable. They believe a “democratic revolution” in Venezuela from below—using the usual NED and subversion NGO partners—or short of that a violent coup attempt, are not possible if Russia stands in the way, as it did in Syria. 

For now, we will continue to hear neocons like Bolton and globalist insiders like Vinograd declaring Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine are still in force and represent the will of the American people, which is of course a wagonload of manure. 

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from South China Morning Post

Syria: Is US Fighting ISIS or Liquidating Assets?

March 30th, 2019 by Tony Cartalucci

That the “final stronghold” of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) resides in US occupied territory in Syria says it all.

From US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memos dating back to 2012 noting efforts to create a “Salafist” [Islamic] “principality” [State] in eastern Syria precisely where ISIS rose and now clings to its “final stronghold,” to the obvious fact that ISIS’ fighting capacity was only possible through extensive state sponsorship – it was already clear that the US and its partners in regime change against Syria had been using terrorists including ISIS as proxy ground forces.

Now the US claims it has cornered and is on the verge of defeating ISIS – despite the terrorist group having been cleared out of virtually every other corner of the nation by Syrian, Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces long ago.

In reality, the US is merely liquidating assets it had harbored, protected, armed, and funded throughout the 8 year proxy war until no longer politically feasible.

CNN in its article, “Thousands of ISIS troops surrender amid attack on final stronghold in Syria,” uncritically claims:

At its height, ISIS controlled huge swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq. The US-led coalition has been working for years to oust the group from cities and towns.

CNN omits entirely any mention of the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity and the fact that its supply lines led directly out of NATO-member Turkey and was overseen by US special forces and intelligence agencies.

CNN also omits that it wasn’t until the 2015 Russian military intervention when Russian air power attacked and cut ISIS supply lines that ISIS began suffering defeat across Syrian territory – first and foremost in territory being retaken by Syrian forces and its allies.

In territory illegally-occupied by the US, it appears that ISIS militants and other extremists were simply being shuffled around. In other cases, US forces attacked the Syrian military and their allies when attempting to cross into US-occupied territory in pursuit of ISIS forces. This game has carried on to the point of absurdity with the largest and most powerful military in the world only now creeping in last across the finish line of its own supposed battle against ISIS.

What Becomes of Surrendering and Fleeing ISIS Militants? 

CNN also claims:

More than 3,000 ISIS fighters have surrendered amid a pitched battle by US-backed forces to retake the last ISIS stronghold in Syria.   

The article also notes that many more may attempt to flee. The US has not made it clear what will happen with these fighters, or others “fleeing” from the supposed US-backed offensive. In certain cases, it seems Washington has singled interest in sending foreign fighters back to their countries of origin – which means many will simply be reintegrated into society where local intelligence agencies will keep tabs on them, use them for domestic distractions, or redeploy them to Washington’s next proxy war when required.

A recent Iraqi military deployment near the Syrian-Iraqi border consisting of Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) amid the ongoing US offensive in Syria indicates that at least Baghdad believes Washington’s “defeat” of ISIS is more likely another attempt to shuffle valuable proxy fighters around on the battlefield – and this time – back into Iraq and in particular, into Al Anbar governorate where the US still maintains a military presence and where they will continue receiving defacto US protection.

Al-Masdar News in an article titled, “Iraqi reinforcements deploy to Syrian border as ISIS terrorists attempt to escape Syria,” would note:

The Iraqi Armed Forces deployed a large number of military personnel to the Syrian border this week to block any Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh) from fleeing into Iraq.

 According to a new report, the Iraqi Army and Hashd Al-Sha’abi deployed these reinforcements to the Anbar-Deir Ezzor border after some Islamic State terrorists were suspected of sneaking into Iraq from eastern Syria.

It was the rise of ISIS inside Iraq and its crossing over into Syrian territory that set the pretext for the now ongoing US occupation of Syrian territory. The threat of ISIS “resurging” in Iraq also serves as an ongoing pretext for US forces still based there.

The rise of Iranian-backed militias throughout Iraq has become a potent counterweight to US-backed proxies attempting to take root there once again, and will make it infinitely more difficult for the US to repeat the scale and duration of the ISIS scourge the US visited upon the region.

The term “liquidate” in this context doesn’t necessarily mean destroying ISIS formations entirely – but instead simply moving them where they can be protected in Al Anbar and reconstituted to either continue serving as a pretext for US troops to remain in the region, or to fight in future proxies wars the US is planning in the wake of its current defeat in Syria.

While the Western media is attempting to hail this “final battle” as a victory for US forces – it is in actuality an indictment of America’s complicity in ISIS’ creation, proliferation across the region, and its longevity on the battlefield – suspiciously where US forces are operating.

The real story isn’t that the US is finally moving in on ISIS’ “last stronghold,” it’s that the US presided over the “last stronghold” for so long.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

Angles of Tolerance: Yusuf Islam in Christchurch

March 30th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Let’s not be too churlish about this; but then again, let us not be ignorant.  The singer once known as Cat Stevens (in pre-conversion state), and known as Yusuf Islam to others, made a considerable impression on the stage in Christchurch.  The slaughter of fifty at two mosques in the New Zealand city had made enough of an impression to lure the singer. 

Yusuf had worshipped at the Masjid Al Noor in December 2017, a pit stop as part of his 50th anniversary Peace Train tour.  On Friday, he performed at the National Remembrance Service in Hagley Park.  Assisted by double-bassist Bruce Lynch, he wowed the crowd.  To various New Zealand press outlets, he was in a mood to reflect, recalling a city “peaceful” and “orderly” with “nice people”.  Then came the trigger happy “monster”.  The response to the killings impressed him.  There was “this incredible backlash of kindness and love and unity which is obviously so powerful that it changes the whole picture from dark to light.”

The Ardern government had furnished him an exemplary case of emotional management and response. They had shone the light. 

“Things like [the reaction] don’t happen in many other places in the world.  Things happen but it stays dark.  The government rarely does anything of any importance in the aftermath.  Here the story is different.” 

He reflected on ignorance being the enemy; freedom of speech was to be valued “but truth, peace and harmony are kind of more valuable.” 

Tolerance, inclusiveness, love.  These words are often bandied about as part of a stage set but not always practiced.  Yusuf Islam supplies us a troubling example, and his dig at freedom of speech as being of secondary order of importance is important. His selection as part of the mourning and commemoration process might have been an oversight on the part of the organisers; if so, it was a grave one, suggesting that ignorance and grief are often two parts of the same distorting lenses.   

In 1989, on British television, the singer was posed a hypothetical by international lawyer and pundit Geoffrey Robertson QC.  A state sanctioned edict, or fatwa, had been issued by Iran’s supreme leader the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses.  All Muslims were to be encouraged in the endeavour; publishers were also be targets.  Even a novel, with an exploratory theme suggesting that the Prophet Mohammed might have stemmed from pagan tradition, was too much to stomach.  Rushdie was intentionally naughty, deploying terms long seen as taboo: Jahilia, alluding to Jahiliyyah, or “state of ignorance from guidance of God”; a brothel named Hijab; and Mahound, a pejorative variant of Mohammed.   

Did Rushdie deserve to die?  “Yes, yes,” came the unequivocal response from Yusuf.  Would you be his executioner?  “Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act – perhaps yes.”  Would you attend an effigy-burning protest against the author? “I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.”  Should Rushdie turn up at his doorstep, he “might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.”

Hard to forget, and Rushdie would grimly muse in 2010 on the appearance of Yusuf at Jon Stewart’s Rally for Sanity. “I have always liked Stewart and Colbert but what on earth was Cat Yusuf Stevens Islam doing on that stage?  If he’s a ‘good Muslim’ like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar then I’m the Great Pumpkin.  Happy Halloween.” 

People can mellow, and, with age, even shift their positions.  Defects can be revised; mistakes revisited.  Andrew Anthony of the Observer failed to note much in the way of change a decade or so after the singer expressed his faithful bloodlust.  “He told me in 1997, eight years after saying on TV that Rushdie should be lynched, that he was in favour of stoning women to death for adultery.  He also reconfirmed his position on Rushdie.”   

Yusuf had also dedicated himself to that unhealthy tendency latent in many monotheistic religions: proselytization.  The Islamia school in Brent, Anthony notes, was dedicated to “bring about the submission of the individual, the community and the world at large to Islam.”  Women were also to abide by their fair share of subjugation and heed submission in the enterprise.  Such is the way of that type of tolerance. 

In 2017 on News24, Yusuf continued what has been a systematic process of aversion and denial. (The faithful fanatic can wobble when needed.)  “I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini – and still don’t.”  Instead, he was happy to blame Rushdie, a sure sign about where guilt should lie. “The book [The Satanic Verses] itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.” 

The Robertson episode is ignored; instead, Yusuf finds fault with “a loaded question posed by a journalist, after a harmless biographical lecture I gave to students in Kingston University in 1989”.  The tendency to erase in the name of faith is all too evident here.

The lasting truth about those solemn, and for the most part heartfelt proceedings in Hagley Park, is that they were marked by a person who has little in the way of any problem with theocratic-sanctioned murder for the use of language.  By an author, a wordsmith, a thinker.  For an occasion supposedly staged to rebuke extremism, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern effectively shared the same stage with one of the more extreme creatures of fanaticism, one who embraces assassination as one of the more effective means of censorship.  As Rushdie himself would pen in a letter to the Telegraph in 2007, “Let’s have no more rubbish about how ‘green’ and innocent this man was.”

*

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

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

The Houthis captured 100 positions in the central Yemeni province of Dhale from the Saudi-led coalition and its proxies during a recent large-scale operation, Brig. Gen. Yahya Sari, a spokesman of the pro-Houthis wing of the Yemeni Armed Forces, announced in the late hours of March 28.

“Our forces succeed in a special military operation on the front of Dhale … As a result, more than 100 military positions were secured, more than 250 enemy personnel were injured and killed, while dozens others surrendered themselves,” Brig. Gen. Yahya Sari said.

The Nasah mount was among the positions, which were captured by the Houthis in the course of the attack that lasted for five days

The Houthis media wing released a short video of the attack showing two T-55 main battle tanks of Saudi-backed forces, which were destroyed by Houthi tank hunters. According to Brig. Gen. Yahya, the Yemeni group’s fighters destroyed dozens of other vehicles.

*

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: Houthis Kill or Injure 250 Saudi-backed Fighters, Capture 100 Positions in Large-scale Attack in Dhale
  • Tags: , ,

Why Canada Should Get Out of NATO

March 30th, 2019 by Canadian Peace Congress

Concerns are growing across this country about the disturbing tilt in Canadian foreign policy toward increasing militarization and aggression – about our participation in foreign wars and US-led ‘regime change’ operations abroad, and about burgeoning defence budgets and rearmament programs, while funding for vital services like education, healthcare and environmental protection are frozen and even cutback.

At the same time however, there is little or no debate at all about Canada’s continuing membership in the NATO military alliance. Neither the parties in parliament nor the mainstream media are prepared to seriously question our NATO status. And yet it is precisely our NATO membership – and the ‘obligations’ that entails – which is the mechanism driving increased military spending and preparations for more aggression and war.

As the NATO generals and their governments prepare to celebrate the 70th anniversary of this aggressive military alliance, it is high time that the peace forces across Canada, and their allies in the labour and people’s movements, put this issue back on the front burner, and begin to build up a grassroots campaign across the country to demand Canada’s withdrawal, and the dissolution of this dangerous military pact as a whole.

NATO’s long and sordid history

Ever since its founding in April 1949, NATO has served as the vehicle to spur the arms race in the name of ‘peace through strength’. In that very same year, the Truman Administration in the United States secretly developed “Operation Dropshot’ to launch a devastating ‘first-strike’ against the former Soviet Union to completely obliterate that country. Throughout the ‘cold war’ years, the U.S. and its NATO allies always maintained an overwhelming military superiority over the USSR and the Warsaw Pact – a fact that they cynically concealed from public view at the time, but now readily admit.

Following the 1991 dissolution of the USSR, NATO – which always professed itself as a ‘defensive shield’ – has instead expanded its military reach right up to the borders of the Russian Federation, throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East, and elsewhere around the globe. It led an illegal 78-day assault on Yugoslavia in 1999 which killed thousands and caused over $100 billion in damages. The imperialist war and occupation of Afghanistan, began in 2001, was undertaken under a NATO mandate. And the 2011 war on Libya – which was once again justified under the pretext of “humanitarian interventionism” – was likewise under the flag of NATO.

Canadian air and ground forces were directly involved in all of these acts of aggression, as part of our ‘commitment’ as a NATO member. And Canadian troops are also stationed in NATO base in Eastern Europe and are helping the pro-fascist regime in Ukraine.

In fact, NATO has now emerged as the primary military instrument of U.S. imperialist domination around the world. It recently recruited Colombia, and has invited Brazil – two of the most right-wing governments in Latin America – to be ‘global partners’, no doubt to increase pressures on the besieged Maduro government in Venezuela.

NATO’s Price Tag

The 2017 announcement  by the Trudeau government to raise the annual military budget to $32.7 billion – an increase of over 70% – by 2026, and to commit over $150 billion for the purchase of new warships and fighter jets, is directly connected to our NATO ‘commitment’ to increase annual defence spending to 2% of GDP.  U.S. President Trump has called on its NATO partners to further increase defence expenditure to 4% of national GDP, which would mean a staggering annual military expenditure of well over $80 billion for Canada.

Such vast allocations can only be met through massive increase in taxes, or debilitating cuts to social programs for Canadians, or a combination of both. Is this a price working people should be expected to pay – not for defending our shores, but rather to wage aggressive wars abroad?

NATO & Canadian Sovereignty

Every time peace activists raise demands to cut military spending, or to get Canda to sign the UN Treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, or to oppose Canadian arms deals with Saudi Arabia or support other peace initiatives, we are told the same thing by Ottawa and the military-corporate-complex it serves – that this would violate our ‘obligations’ under NATO.

That is why withdrawing from this aggressive military alliance is such a central and pressing priority if we are ever to win a truly sovereign and independent foreign policy based on peace and disarmament, not militarism and war. Of course, withdrawal would be only the first step in winning a fundamentally new program for Canada, but it is a necessary and vital step in that direction.

Canada’s membership in NATO is the ‘pink elephant in the room’ that everyone knows is there but no one wants to acknowledge. It’s time to change that!

*

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 Why Canada Should Get Out of NATO
  • Tags: ,

China-Italy Cooperation and the “Devil’s Alternative”

March 30th, 2019 by Francesco Maringiò

The complex Sino-American trade negotiation is going through a period that is not turbulent but is nevertheless marked by objective difficulties: too much distance separates the American warnings from the concessions that China is willing to make without penalizing its development and it becomes too difficult to contain the impact of the war on 5G (which is part of the negotiation but which also concerns other strategic aspects) in the United States and Europe. However difficult it may be, it cannot be excluded that an agreement is still possible. But there are many economists who observe how the “great deal” would put Europe in check, tightened in an alliance between the two superpowers and unable to carve out a role in international trade.

It is with this premise that the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Italy and China during the State visit of the Chinese President must be judged, which will officially begin on 22 p.v. with the meeting with the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella. Because faced with the real risk of failure of the negotiations there is an absolute need to build a sovereign foreign policy for the country and capable of protecting its economic and geo-strategic interests.

To do this, a framework agreement with China and the emerging economies is essential, otherwise the country will be subject to blackmail, which would further aggravate the already precarious condition of the Italian economy and the eurozone itself. In fact, faced with the possibility of Italy joining the club of the countries of the Belt and Road Initiative (BIS), the United States has set up a very strong strategy of blackmail. If Italy were to sign, it would expose itself, according to American sources, to commercial, economic and military cooperation and intelligence retaliation; if, on the other hand, it were to decide to withdraw the agreement with Beijing, the alternative would be, in any case, to maintain a framework of subordination with Washington, to be paid at a high price. The example of the war on the 5G is, from this point of view, paradigmatic: Italy is pushed to renounce the technological modernization through the Chinese infrastructures available today on the market, waiting for an American technology which does not yet exist and which, in the future, will certainly be more expensive than the Chinese one. The choice is clear: if you make the agreement you expose yourself to retaliation, if you delete the agreement you get nothing in return, if not the maintenance of the status quo based on unfair agreements and a relationship of absolute subordination. Tertium non datur.

For these reasons, the government’s decision to confirm the signing of the Memorandum certainly does not represent an exit strategy from the framework of Atlantic and NATO conditioning, but it does outline at least one way to create the conditions to attract the Chinese surplus in terms of direct investment in the short term and lay the foundations for a foreign policy that breaks with the blackmail that Washington and, for various reasons, Brussels are trying to impose on our country.

It is interesting to note that the “party against the memorandum”, which has enjoyed great media coverage and the political backing of the League in government and the Pd and Forza Italia for the opposition, has used almost exclusively the argument of the need not to cooperate with Beijing because it promotes a hegemonic project. They then argued that in any case we could not sign the memorandum, without first asking permission from our “landlord”, the U.S. (on the subject of hegemony …).

Who knows how they will comment today, after reading the letter that Xi Jinping has entrusted to the pages of the Corriere della Sera and which provides the key to interpretation of Chinese diplomacy and regions for his strong investment in our country. It is a text written from a very clear perspective: Italy and China are not called to agree on a series of economic and trade dossiers. Not only that, at least. The two countries are called upon to respect their long thousand-year history which, in the words of Xi Jinping, places them as “emblems of eastern and western civilization”, given that “they have written some of the most important and significant chapters in the history of human civilization”. Their relationship, even the Silk Road itself, is therefore not born today, but has its roots in the times of the Roman Empire, to then live special occasions that have made the history of relations between the two countries. Marco Polo arrived at the court of the Khan before Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas, Matteo Ricci became mandarin to win the trust of the Ming and Prospero Intorcetta translated Confucius into Latin and opened an important window of knowledge on Eastern philosophy throughout the West. It is to this story that the Chinese president refers when he speaks of the relations between his country and Italy, drawing heavily on the great history of Italy and citing, among others, Dante, Virgil, Moravia and Italian synology.

But the key passage of the Chinese President’s speech is probably the following: “Faced with the evolutions and challenges of the contemporary world, the two countries appeal to their precious and long experience and together imagine the interesting scenarios capable of creating a new model of international relations based on mutual respect, equality and justice and cooperation of mutual benefit, building a shared future of humanity”. The story of the “new world order with Chinese characteristics”, as it has been contemptuously defined by the opponents of the Italo-Chinese agreement, or the rhetoric of Beijing’s hegemony is shattered on the rocks of the strategic pact that China offers Italy, of building a new model of international relations that definitively closes the unilateralism in vogue after the collapse of the USSR and lays the foundations for cooperation between equals among the nations of the world. Equality, justice and cooperation are universal values that have their roots in the ideals of the French Revolution and that we certainly cannot ignore.

At the same time, those who continue to see China as their main enemy and write it in their own strategic documents (US and EU) and with the peace of their Italian representatives who would like the country to adopt an aggressive policy towards Beijing or in a privileged inter-European relationship (which does not exist, given the divergent interests that exist in the eurozone), or in a framework of Euro-Atlantic cooperation whose objective is the rupture of the Russian-Chinese axis and the co-optation of Moscow in a new iron curtain hostile to Beijing.

Italian politics has a crossroads before it: either it accepts the “devil’s alternative” and binds itself to the decline of this strategic vision, or it overturns the table and affirms the need for a policy based on cooperation and equal dignity among nations. The signing of the Memorandum is the first step to take the second road, but we are still at the initial skirmishes of an arm wrestling that will mark the near future.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China-Italy Cooperation and the “Devil’s Alternative”
  • Tags: , ,

Turkish-US relations have deteriorated in recent weeks, with Washington threatening reprisals if Ankara goes ahead with the purchase of the Russian-made S-400 air defence system.

Relations between the two countries have been in a downward spiral for some time—especially since Washington made the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Ankara considers a “terrorist organization” and threat to the Turkish state, its main proxy army in its regime-change war in Syria, then supported a failed July 2016 coup against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Differences have since expanded to include an array of Mideast and even global issues. Washington is particularly alarmed by Ankara’s attempts to offset pressure from its traditional western allies by forging closer ties with Russia and Iran.

Washington is adamant Turkey not finalize the purchase of the S-400, a long-range air and missile defence system, for $2.5 billion, claiming that its deployment would disrupt US-Turkish and Turkish-NATO military-security cooperation.

In testimony before a congressional committee Tuesday, the acting US defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, signalled that if Ankara proceeds with the S-400 purchase, Washington will block further shipments of F-35 fighter jets to Ankara and cut Turkish companies out of the F-35 project.

Asked if the Pentagon wants Turkey as an F-35 partner, Shanahan said,

“We absolutely do,” then added, “We need Turkey to buy the Patriot.” This was a reference to Washington’s offer to sell US-made Patriot missile batteries to Ankara for $3.5 billion in lieu of the S-400.

If Turkey deploys the S-400 it will run afoul of US sanctions against Russia. The 2017 Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act empowers the president to impose sweeping sanctions on any individual, organization or state that enters into a “significant transaction” with the defence or intelligence sectors of the Russian Federation. Washington could also seek to intensify pressure on Ankara by refusing to grant Turkey an extension of the “waiver” exempting it from the unilateral and patently illegal US embargo on Iranian energy exports. Turkey is heavily reliant on Iranian natural gas.

Senior Trump administration officials have raised the prospect of Turkey being excluded from NATO activities, citing interoperability concerns with the Russian-made missile system.

Erdogan has, nonetheless, repeatedly vowed that Turkey will buy and deploy the S-400. In his latest comments on the subject, made in an interview last Sunday with television broadcaster TGRT Haber, Erdogan declared that no matter what the United States says, Turkey will not reverse its position on the deal.

Erdogan’s rebuke to Washington came just two days after he issued a critical statement protesting the Trump administration’s decision to recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights. A Foreign Ministry statement subsequently declared, “This unfortunate decision… demonstrates that the US administration continues its approach to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution in the Middle East.”

The dispute over the S-400 is a flashpoint for deeper conflicts bound up with Turkey’s geopolitical and military-strategic orientation. A member of NATO since 1952 and a key Western ally during the Cold War, Turkey has been severely destabilised by American imperialism’s more than quarter-century of uninterrupted war. Bordering Syria and Iraq to the south and with significant economic and political interests in the nearby regions of the Balkans and North Africa, Ankara was directly impacted by the first Gulf War, the Western-backed carve-up of Yugoslavia and NATO’s bombardment of Serbia, the 2003 Iraq invasion, the 2011 air onslaught on Libya to topple Gaddafi, and the ongoing bloodbath in Syria.

The Turkish ruling elite, including under Erdogan and his AKP during their first decade in power, supported the succession of US wars and tried to advance its own interests through them. But the many shifts in US policy frequently cut across their interests and ambitions.

With Syria matters came to a head. Initially Erdogan enthusiastically supported the US fomented regime-change war in Syria and Ankara was a major co-sponsor of the Islamist militias that spearheaded the drive to overthrow Bashar al-Assad and his Baathist regime. But Turkey was incensed when, once those militias had been pushed back, the US forged an alliance with the YPG, a Syrian offshoot of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), against which Ankara has waged a brutal counter-insurgency war for over three decades. It was within this context that Turkey orchestrated a rapprochement with Russia and intensified cooperation with Iran.

For Turkey, rolling back the proto-state that the YPG has established in northern Syria remains the overriding goal of its Syria policy. Toward this end it has repeatedly sent forces into Syria, while maintaining a shaky alliance of convenience with Moscow and Tehran and cooperating with them in the so-called Astana Syrian “peace process.”

The Pentagon meanwhile continues to rely on the YPG to provide a base for its predatory operations in Syria, including by denying the Assad regime access to the country’s most important oil fields.

The American national security establishment has increasingly come to view Turkey as an obstacle to its goal of securing unbridled hegemony over the energy-rich and strategically critical Middle East. In a recent analysis published by the Arab Gulf States Institute, a Washington-based think tank, the authors argued that the Middle East is increasingly divided into three blocs: the Sunni Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia, an Iran-led alliance that includes Hezbollah, and a Turkish-led bloc. “Turkey’s role at the epicenter of a new Middle East alliance was consolidated by the 2017 boycott of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt. Qatar has relied on Turkey, which maintains a military base in that country, for support against the boycott,” they add.

Within this context, Turkey’s decision on the S-400 missile defence system is seen as having far-reaching consequences. In an editorial published earlier this month, the Financial Times, one of the principal mouthpieces of the US and European financial elites, argued, “Turkey can still reset its relations with the West.” After noting that Erdogan “took power in Turkey in 2003, offering stable civilian leadership, a new drive for EU membership and a business-friendly approach,” the Financial Times went on to complain: “In recent years, Mr. Erdogan has moved towards authoritarianism, alienating western allies and adopting questionable stewardship of the economy. Choosing to purchase Russian military hardware has raised further concerns.”

Erdogan has used the dispute with Washington over the S-400 to capitalise on popular hostility to US imperialism ahead of Turkey’s March 31 nationwide municipal elections. However, he has given little indication he plans to alter his stance towards Washington after the elections. On April 8, the Turkish president is due to travel to Moscow for one-on-one talks with Vladimir Putin.

At the same time, and clearly with a view to exploiting the growing rift between Europe and America, Erdogan has announced that Turkey will renew its bid to join the European Union next month.

Commentary in pro-government Turkish media indicate the anger within elite circles over Washington’s failure to accommodate what they perceive as their vital interests, and their fears that the country that has been Ankara’s principal military-security partner for decades can no longer be trusted. A common refrain is that if Turkey abandons the purchase of the S-400 and accepts Washington’s offer of the Patriot missiles, it could soon face additional US conditions, including making accommodations on Israel or Syria.

Turkish ruling circles also responded angrily to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s attendance at an energy summit involving Israel, Greece and Cyprus in Jerusalem March 20. Long-standing territorial disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean bound up with the Cyprus conflict, which pits a Turkish-recognised regime in the north of the island against the internationally-recognised Greek Cypriot government in Nicosia, have been compounded with the discovery of large natural gas resources under the sea floor.

That being said, Washington will undoubtedly bring tremendous pressure to bear on Ankara, including on the economic front. Just before Erdogan visits Moscow, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu will travel to a NATO foreign ministers meeting, where he is due to meet with Pompeo.

Any attempt by Turkey to move closer to Russia or China, which has invested heavily in Turkey over recent years and sought to win Ankara over to its Belt and Road Initiative, would be fraught with conflicts. Ankara’s disputes with the Western powers notwithstanding, the Turkish bourgeoisie still relies overwhelmingly on capital from Europe to invest in domestic projects, and the European Union remains far and away Turkey’s most important export destination.

As shown by last Friday’s 5 percent depreciation of the Turkish lira after Erdogan denounced Trump’s Golan decision and the crashing of the Turkish currency last August after the Trump administration doubled its tariffs on Turkey’s steel and aluminium exports, Turkey’s ruling elite is extremely vulnerable to pressure from the major imperialist powers.

*

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 US Threatens Turkey over Russian S-400 Air Defence Purchase
  • Tags: , ,