Farcical Upcoming Ukraine Presidential Election

February 24th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

 

No matter who comes out on top as president in the March 31 “election,” ordinary Ukrainians lose, along with any chance for regional peace – ruled out by Washington.

Over 40 candidates are running for president. Few among them have any chance to become puppet leader.

The country’s process combines travesty, tragedy, and farce, an illusion of what democratic elections are supposed to be, tolerated nowhere by the US, Ukraine part of its colonial empire, along with nearly all European, Latin, and Central American countries.

Candidates include US-installed sitting president Petro Porochenko. He’s a neoliberal, belligerent billionaire. Taking orders from Washington, he’s been waging intermittent war without mercy on Donbass Ukrainians. He entered politics for power and greater wealth, along with wanting to avoid prosecution for criminality.

As long as they’re part of the dirty system in bed with Washington, Ukrainian pols have immunity. In the months ahead of the US February 2014 coup, Poroshenko helped bankroll Kiev putschists.

His business interests include food, automotive, shipping, and media. Bodgan Corporation is a leading Ukrainian car and bus manufacturer.

Roshen Confectionery Corporation earned Poroshenko the “chocolate king” nickname.

It’s the world’s 18th largest confectionery producer.

Kanal English language television channels feature state-sponsored propaganda and other worthless programming.

Leninska Kuznya shipyard produces river ships, industrial ones, small fishing vessels, self-propelled barges, related products and various military equipment.

Poroshenko’s single-digit approval rating assures him no chance for “reelection” if conducted legitimately.

Days earlier, Tass cited Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko, saying the following:

“Ukraine’s five leading polling companies are cooperating with” Poroshenko. Presidential polls “do not reflect the real picture, showing only general trends and the degree of protest voting rather than support for a certain candidate.”

They artificially increased “Poroshenko’s (dismal) approval rating” at the expense of his chief rival Yulia Timoshenko. More on her below. Saintly she’s not, far from it!

Bondarenko believes Poroshenko will artificially “take the lead in the polls a few weeks before the election, so these ratings are also used to justify future manipulations by” his regime.

Ukrainian Institute for Policy Analysis and Management director Ruslan Bortnik explained that “about 20%-30% of the population vote for the winner of the polls,” real ratings suppressed, state approved fake ones alone published.

Approval ratings will likely artificially change in the run-up to March 31. Comedian/entertainer Vladimir Zelensky currently leads other aspirants with about 20% voter support.

According to Bortnik, mostly young Ukrainians “under age of 25…unlikely to go to the polling stations” back him. “Zelensky is a convenient choice for those who do not know who to vote for.”

Under a free, fair and open process, along with Bortnik’s assessment aside, Zelensky should be best positioned to replace Poroshenko as Ukrainian president, Timoshenko finishing second, followed by the current incumbent and former vice prime minister Yuri Boiko.

Others in the race include Security Service chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, State Fiscal Service head/accused embezzler Roman Nasirov, accused sex offender Volodymyr Petrov, and dozens of others with no chance of winning.

If the Trump regime wants Poroshenko retained as its man in Kiev, he’ll most likely be re-anointed to serve US imperial interests in Central Europe.

Otherwise, billionaire Timoshenko most likely will replace him. Earlier she 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.

Ukrainian governance has no legitimacy, serving Western and its own interests at the expense of ordinary people and peace.

No matter who’s named Ukrainian president after the March “election,” dirty business as usual will triumph like earlier in 2014

It’s how things work in America. Money-controlled elections are farcical, mocking what democracy is supposed to be. One party rule with two extremist right wings runs things. The war party wins every time.

A Final Comment

According to a Ukrainian Strana news service investigation, Poroshenko intends trying to rig his reelection, his only chance to stay in office, the publication saying:

“Members of the Poroshenko election team expect that the scheme will allow the incumbent president to receive additional seven to ten percent of the vote, provided that voter turnout will reach 60%,”

adding:

“This will make it possible for Poroshenko to reach the runoff election. A thing to note is that the Setka scheme will be financed by the budget, that is, by taxpayers.”

Whatever the outcome, the possibility of a legitimate process is virtually nil, the nation run by US-installed fascist extremists.

*

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 United States will help the people of Nicaragua and Cuba to resist “non-democratic regimes” in their countries, Mike Pompeo has said. His comments come as Washington steps up calls for a new government in Venezuela.

The secretary of state responded in the affirmative when asked during an interview with Telemundo if the US would “help” people living in “non-democratic regimes” in South America.

“Yes, President Trump’s administration has done so and will continue to do so. Not just in Venezuela but certainly in Nicaragua and Cuba,” Pompeo said, adding that the Washington is “working diligently to achieve good outcomes for those people.

He stated that the US would help the people of these countries to rise up against the “yoke of authoritarianism” and “achieve a better political situation.”

“The people need to lead those efforts. I’m convinced that they’re determined to do it as well. The American people will support them,” said Pompeo.

His comments come on the heels of an incendiary tweet from National Security Advisor John Bolton, who wrote that Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega’s “days are numbered” and that “the Nicaraguan people will soon be free.”

In the meantime, Washington has increased its pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who so far has successfully weathered a “coup” attempt led by self-proclaimed interim president Juan Guaido. The US-backed opposition leader has entered into a showdown with Caracas over US “humanitarian aid” stashed in Colombia and Brazil. Maduro has refused to allow the opposition to deliver the cargo and has sealed the borders with neighboring states. The decision was followed by reports that Venezuelan security forces killed several civilians near the border with Brazil. Caracas has strongly denied the allegations.

*

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

Shannon Is Becoming a Bit Like Home for the US Military

February 24th, 2019 by Shannonwatch

At Shannon today (23rd Feb), one United States of America executive Boeing C40C, number 09-0540 and one lame-duck Omni Air US troop carrier N207AX being protected for the past 5 days by a joint Garda and Irish Army patrols while it undergoes some repairs. 

Yes, Ireland’s police and defence forces are watching over a US troop carrier at Shannon.

The Omni Air plane arrived on 18 Feb from Colorado Springs. The city is home to both Army and Air Force bases. There are six military installations there; five of them border the city, to the north, south and east, and Schriever Air Force Baseis located east of the city in El Paso County.

One of these, Peterson Air Force Base shares an airfield with the adjacent Colorado Springs Municipal Airport. It is home to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Air Force Space Command headquarters, and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) headquarters.

Shannon must also be feeling a bit like home to many US military personnel. They spend quite a lot of time there.

*

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

All images in this article are from Shannonwatch

I was sitting in my apartment in Caracas, Venezuela, reading the online edition of Time magazine (5/19/16), which carried a report that there was not even something as basic as aspirin to be found anywhere in Venezuela: “Basic medicines like aspirin are nowhere to be found.”

I walked out of the apartment to the nearest pharmacy, four blocks away, where I found plenty of aspirin, as well as acetaminophen (generic Tylenol) and ibuprofen (generic Advil), in a well-stocked pharmacy with a knowledgeable professional staff that would be the envy of any US drugstore.

A few days after the Time story, CNBC (6/22/16) carried a claim that there was no acetaminophen to be found anywhere, either: “Basic things like Tylenol aren’t even available.” That must have taken the Pfizer Corporation by surprise, since it was their Venezuelan subsidiary, Pfizer Venezuela SA, which produced the acetaminophen I purchased. (Neither Time writer Ian Bremer nor CNBC commentator Richard Washington was in Venezuela, and there was no evidence offered that either of them had ever been there.)

I purchased all three products, plus cough syrup and other over-the-counter medications, because I doubted that anyone in the United States would believe me if I couldn’t produce the medications in their packages.

Unrelenting drumbeat of lies

In fact, I myself wouldn’t have believed anyone who made such claims without being able to produce the proof, so intense and unrelenting has been the drumbeat of lies. When the Youth Orchestra of Venezuela gave a concert in New York in early 2016, before I moved to Caracas, I went there thinking, “Gee, I hope that the members of the orchestra are all well-dressed and well-fed.” Yes, of course they were all well-dressed and well-fed!

When I mentioned this in a talk at the University of Vermont, a student told me that he’d had the same feeling when he was following the Pan American soccer championship. He wondered if the Venezuelan players would be able to play, because they’d be so weakened from lack of food. In fact, he said, the Venezuelan team played superbly, and went much further in the competition than expected, since Venezuela has historically been a baseball country, unlike its soccer-obsessed neighbors Brazil and Colombia.

Hard as it may be for followers of the US media to believe, Venezuela is a country where people play sports, go to work, go to classes, go to the beach, go to restaurants and attend concerts. They publish and read newspapers of all political stripes, from right to center-right, to center, to center-left, to left. They produce and watch programs on television, on TV channels that are also of all political stripes.

CNN was ridiculed recently (Redacted Tonight, 2/1/19) when it carried a report on Venezuela, “in the socialist utopia that now leaves virtually every stomach empty,” followed immediately with a cut to a demonstration by the right-wing opposition, where everybody appeared to be quite well-fed.

But surely that’s because most of the anti-government demonstrators were upper-middle class, a viewer might think. The proletarians at pro-government demonstrations must be suffering severe hunger.

Not if one consults photos of the massive pro-government demonstration on February 2, where people seemed to be doing pretty well. This is in spite of the Trump administration’s extreme economic squeeze on the country, reminiscent of the “make the economy scream” strategy used by the Nixon administration and the CIA against the democratic government of President Salvador Allende in Chile, as well as many other democratically elected governments.

Rival demonstrations

That demonstration showed considerable support for the government of President Nicolás Maduro and widespread rejection of Donald Trump’s choice for president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. Guaidó, who proclaimed himself to be president of the country and was recognized minutes later by Trump, even though a public opinion poll showed that 81 percent of Venezuelans had never heard of him, comes from the ultra-right faction in Venezuelan politics.

The pro-Maduro demonstration suggested, not surprisingly, that Guaidó had failed to win much popular support outside the wealthy and upper-middle class. But Guaidó couldn’t even win support from many of them. The day before rival rallies February 2, Henrique Capriles, the leader of a less extreme right-wing faction, gave an interview to the AFP that appeared in Últimas Noticias (2/1/19), the most widely read newspaper in Venezuela. In it, Capriles said that most of the opposition had not supported Guaidó’s self-proclamation as president. That may explain the surprisingly weak turnout at Guaidó’s demonstration, held in the wealthiest district of Caracas, and obviously outshone by the pro-government demonstration on the city’s main boulevard.

The New York Times did not show pictures of that pro-government demonstration, limiting itself to a claim by unnamed “experts” (2/2/19) that the pro-government demonstration was smaller than the anti-government one.

Readers can look at the photos of the rival demonstrations and judge for themselves. Both groups did their best to pull out their faithful, knowing how much is riding on a show of popular support. The stridently right-wing opposition paper El Nacional (2/3/19) carried a photo of the right-wing opposition demonstration:

El Nacional Front Page

If that was the best photo it could find, it was remarkably unimpressive compared to the photos in the left-wing papers CCS (2/2/19)….

CCS Article on Maduro speaking to crowd

…and Correo del Orinoco  (2/3/19), which were only too happy to publish pictures of the pro-government event:

Correo del Orinoco front page

Unlikely humanitarian

A huge anti-government demonstration was supposed to make possible a coup d’état, a maneuver the CIA has used repeatedly—in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964 and many more, straight through to Honduras in 2009 and Ukraine in 2015. The turnout at the Trump administration’s demonstration was disappointing, and the coup d’état never occurred. The result is that Trump has expressed a sudden interest in getting food and medicine to Venezuelans (FAIR.org, 2/9/19).

Trump, who let thousands die in Puerto Rico and put small children in cages on the Mexican border, seems to be an unlikely champion of humanitarian aid to Latin Americans, but the corporate media have straight-facedly pretended to believe it.

Most have suppressed reports that the Red Cross and the UN are providing aid to Venezuela in cooperation with the Venezuelan government, and have protested against US “aid” that is obviously a political and military ploy.

The corporate media have continued to peddle the Trump-as-humanitarian-champion line, even after it was revealed that a US plane was caught smuggling weapons into Venezuela, and even after Trump named Iran/Contra criminal Elliott Abrams to head up Venezuelan operations. Abrams was in charge of the State Department Human Rights Office during the 1980s, when weapons to US-backed terrorists in Nicaragua were shipped in US planes disguised as “humanitarian” relief.

Canada’s CBC (2/15/19) at least had the honesty to acknowledge that it had been had in swallowing a lie from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the Venezuelan government had blockaded a bridge between Colombia and Venezuela to prevent aid shipments. The newly built bridge has not yet been opened: it has never been open, apparently because of hostile relations between the two countries, but the non-opening long predates the US government’s alleged food and medicine shipments.

The absurdity of $20 million of US food and medicine aid to a country of 30 million, when US authorities have stolen $30 billion from Venezuela in oil revenue, and take $30 million every day, needs no comment.

‘Failed state’

The campaign of disinformation and outright lies about Venezuela was kicked off in 2016 by the Financial Times. Ironically, it chose the 14th anniversary of the 2002 failed coup d’etat against President Hugo Chávez—April 11, 2016—to claim that Venezuela was in “chaos” and “civil war,” and that Venezuela was a “failed state.” As with the Time and CNBC reports, the Financial Times reporter was not in Venezuela, and there was no evidence in the report that he had ever been there.

I asked right-wing friends in Venezuela whether they agreed with the Financial Times claims. “Well, no, of course not,” said one, stating the obvious, “there is no chaos and no civil war. But Venezuela is a failed state, since it has not been able to provide for all the medical needs of the population.” By that standard, every country in Latin America is a failed state, and obviously the United States too.

The New York Times has run stories (5/15/16, 10/1/16) claiming that conditions in Venezuelan hospitals are horrendous. The reports enraged Colombians in New York, who have noted that a patient can die on the doorstep of a Colombian public hospital if the patient has no insurance. In Venezuela, in contrast, patients are treated for free.

One Colombian resident in New York said that his mother had recently returned to Bogotá after several years in the United States, and had not had time to obtain medical insurance. She fell ill, and went to a public hospital. The hospital left her in the waiting room for four hours, then sent her to a second hospital. The second hospital did the same, leaving her for four hours and then sending her to a third hospital. The third hospital was preparing to send her to a fourth when she protested that she was bleeding internally and was feeling weak.

“I’m sorry, Señora, if you don’t have medical insurance, no public hospital in this country will look at you,” said the woman at the desk. “Your only hope is to go to a private hospital, but be prepared to pay a great deal of money up front.” Luckily, she had a wealthy friend, who took her to a private hospital, and paid a great deal of money up front.

Such conditions in Colombia and other neoliberal states go unmentioned in the US corporate media, which have treated the Colombian government, long a right-wing murder-squad regime, as a US ally (Extra!, 2/09).

Well, OK, but are the reports of conditions in Venezuelan hospitals true or grossly exaggerated? “They are much better than they were ten years ago,” said a friend who works in a Caracas hospital. In fact, he said, ten years before, the hospital where he worked did not exist, and new hospitals are now being opened. One was dedicated recently in the town of El Furrial, and another was opened in El Vigia, as reported by the centrist newspaper Últimas Noticias (3/3/17, 4/27/18).  The government has also greatly expanded others, like a burn center in Caracas and three new operating rooms at the hospital in Villa Cura.

Meanwhile, the government is inaugurating a new high-speed train line, The Dream of Hugo Chávez, in March (Correo del Orinoco, 2/6/19). Since the US media have never allowed reporting on any accomplishments in the years since  Chávez took office in 1999, but only any alleged, exaggerated or, as noted, completely invented shortcomings, readers have to consult an alternative history. Here is one offered by a Venezuelan on YouTube (3/31/11): “Por Culpa de Chávez” (“It’s Chávez’s Fault”). Depicting new hospitals, transit lines, housing, factories and so on built under Chavismo, it might help many understand why the Maduro government continues to enjoy such strong backing from so many people.

Economic warfare

This is not to minimize Venezuela’s problems. The country was hit, like other oil-producing countries, and as it was in the 1980s and ’90s, by the collapse of oil prices. That failed to bring down the government, so now the Trump administration has created an artificial crisis by using extreme economic warfare to deprive the country of foreign exchange needed to import basic necessities.  The Trump measures seem designed to prevent any economic recovery.

Like any country at war (and the Trump administration has placed Venezuela under wartime conditions, and is threatening immediate invasion), there have been shortages, and products that can mostly be found on the black market. This should surprise no one: During World War II in the US, a cornucopia of a country not seriously threatened with invasion, there was strict rationing of products like sugar, coffee and rubber.

The Venezuelan government has made food, medicine and pharmaceuticals available at extremely low prices, but much of the merchandise has made its way to the black market, or over the border to Colombia, depriving Venezuelans of supplies and ruining Colombian producers. The government recently abandoned some of the heavy price subsidies, which resulted initially in higher prices. Over the past few weeks, prices have been coming down as supplies stayed in Venezuela, especially as the government gained greater control over the Colombian border to prevent smuggling.

There has never been a serious discussion of any of this in the US corporate media, much less any discussion of the campaign of lies or the Trump administration warfare. There has been no comparison with conditions in the 1980s and ’90s, when Venezuela’s neoliberal government imposed IMF economic recipes, resulting in a popular rebellion, the bloody 1989 Caracazo, when wholesale government repression took the lives of hundreds (according to the government at the time) or thousands (according to government critics), and martial law took the lives of many more.

Efforts by the right-wing opposition to provoke a similar uprising, and another Caracazo that could justify a foreign “humanitarian intervention,” have failed repeatedly. So the US administration and corporate media simply resort to the most extreme lying about Latin America that has been seen since the Reagan administration wars of the 1980s.

*

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 FAIR

CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan has broken ranks and admitted that journalists have lost their objectivity and become “political activists.” 

During an appearance on the Mike Drop podcast with retired Navy SEAL Mike Ritland, Logan admitted that “the media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” adding that it was nearly impossible for viewers to decipher if they were being told the truth at any given time.

85% of journalists are registered Democrats,” Logan said. “How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage? When they simplify it all [and] there’s no grey. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not. Something’s wrong. For example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative. … That’s a distortion of the way things go in real life.”

“There’s no grey. It’s all one way,” said Logan.

Logan says that the heavy bias has warped people’s ability to know what’s really true.

“When you turn on your computer, or you walk past the TV, or you see a newspaper headline in the grocery store If they’re all saying the same thing, the weight of that convinces you that it’s true,” said Logan. “You don’t question it, because everyone is saying it.”

She also admitted that journalists today are more or less lobbyists for liberal interests, adding that the weight of the liberal media machine overwhelms “the other side” unless people actively seek outlets such as Breitbart.

Noting recent comments by former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, Logan said

“Although the media has historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense — or at least the effort — to be objective, today. … We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”

Logan said that MSM reports using anonymous or single government sources are bunk.

That’s not journalism, it’s horseshit,” she said – demanding more accountability.

“Responsibility for fake news begins with us.”

Watch the entire interview below (relevant part begins at 2:16:00):

*

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 Zero Hedge

No One Trusts the US Government, Not Even the American People

February 24th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Atlantic Bridge, a German front organization set up by Washington to propagandize Germans to serve Washington, has failed in the job.  The latest survey conducted by the front group shows that 85% of Germans are alienated from the US.  The front group’s chairman acknowledged “the great lost of trust in the United States.”  By a margin of two to one, Germans see China as a more reliable partner for Germany than the US. (See this) 

Americans have come to the same conclusion about the US government as have Germans.  The latest Gallup Poll reveals that Americans regard America’s top problem to be the US government.  Twice as many respondents regard the US government to be the top problem than regard immigration, and Americans see Washington to be six times the problem that health care is.   

As many have concluded, the United States is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy ruled by monied private interest groups. (See this) 

There has clearly been a revolution in America.  An aristocracy has overthrown the people. Democracy is dead.  We live in the Oligarchy United Against the 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.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

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

An Idiot’s National Emergency

February 24th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

It’s not proper form to open a blog post by calling a sitting president an idiot who knows not what he talks or tweets about. Even so, the conclusion is inescapable. 

President Donald Trump is an idiot, at least when it comes to navigating politics, but then this is basically de rigueur in America. As a nation, we know very little about the rest of the world or for that matter our own country, and that includes the real number of criminals, drug smugglers, human traffickers, and terrorists crossing the border. 

I live in Las Cruces, New Mexico, less than fifty miles from the US-Mexico border. There is far less crime here than in Chicago, New York, and San Francisco (the liberal troika). I lived in Chicago in the late 1990s, and I can say the murder rate there at that time was far worse than anything happening along the border. 

Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute posted an article recently breaking down the numbers. It doesn’t look good for the president and his zombified MAGA supporters. 

“First, the crime rate in the 23 counties along the U.S. border with Mexico is below that of counties in the United States that do not lie along the Mexican border,” Nowrasteh writes. “Violent and property crime rates are both slightly lower along the border, but the homicide rate along the border is a whopping 34 percent below the homicide rate in non-border counties. If the entire United States had a homicide rate as low as that along the border in 2017, then there would have been about 5,720 fewer homicides nationwide that year.”

He points out that illegal immigrants “apprehended along the border have a low criminal conviction rate… The most serious offense of ‘homicide, manslaughter’ accounted for 0.04 percent of all convictions of apprehended illegal immigrants from FY2015 through August 31, 2018.”

Nowrasteh points out

“resident illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated or convicted of crimes than native-born Americans. The estimated nationwide illegal immigrant incarceration rate in 2016 was 47 percent below that of native-born Americans, including those in immigration detention. 

If dangerous drug smugglers, cartel assassins, gang members, and other violent individuals (including nonexistent terrorists) were in fact a serious issue, there would be scores of Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty. 

“Border Patrol agents are unlikely to be murdered while on the job. If there was a national emergency on the border, we should at least expect that that would be reflected in a murder rate of Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty. From 2003 through the end of 2018, six Border Patrol agents were murdered on the job. All of those are tragic, but that amounts to a murder rate of about 2 per 100,000 agents per year during that time. That’s far below the national murder-rate of about 5.1 per 100,000 per year during the same time.”

Trump rants about gang violence, but as Cato notes “gang apprehensions by Border Patrol agents in the Fiscal Year 2018 (through August 31st), account for about 0.2 percent of all apprehensions.  One must take these statistics with a grain of salt, but there is no obvious large-scale crossing of gang members along the border.”

Trump’s claim about terrorists crossing the border is pure, unadulterated bunkum.

“The perceived threat of terrorists crossing the border with Mexico has been a major justification for beefing up security, but there is little justification for it.  Those most worried about terrorists infiltrating along the border cannot point to any attack, any conviction for planning an attack, or any plot planned by an illegal immigrant who crossed the border with Mexico from 1975 through the end of 2017.”

In short, Trump’s justification for imposing a national emergency is based on hyperbole, similar to the exaggerations and lies told following the attacks of 9/11. 

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead writes that Trump’s national emergency “is not about illegal immigration or porous borders or who will pay to build that wall. This is about unadulterated power and the rise of an ‘emergency state’ that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.” 

He believes the “seeds of this present madness were sown more than a decade ago when George W. Bush stealthily issued two presidential directives that granted the president the power to unilaterally declare a national emergency.” 

For Trump, the border wall is all about his legacy and his grossly overinflated ego. The border wall remains his number one issue, never mind it is a mirage in the desert that disappears when reality is factored in. 

Trump built casinos and developed real estate, but when it comes to politics—and especially foreign policy—he is an ignoramus. Donald Trump is certainly unfit for the job. He will eventually be either voted or thrown out of office and the “swamp,” the “deep state” of insiders and corporate interests will find another smooth-talker like Obama to mollify an uninformed and ignorant public. 

The real national emergency is an unsustainable national debt. This avalanche will ultimately bury the American people alive and make the largely imaginary situation on the border look like a fender-bender by way of comparison. 

Finally, if Trump and his CFR-Goldman Sachs handlers really wanted to stop people crossing the border, they would forbid illegal immigrants from recieving welfare handouts and other goodies (including the unearned “right” to vote for Democrats). 

Additionally, his administration—now replete with neocons like Bolton, Abrams, and Pompeo—will make the flight of Central Americans far worse. 

They plan to take down both Venezuela and Nicaragua. The violence-wracked “Northern Triangle”—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—was made possible by US intervention in the region. The “civil wars” in El Salvador and Guatemala were fueled by the US. It organized and trained death squads and staged a coup in Guatemala. Honduras was destabilized by US support for the Contras. Reagan’s “freedom fighters” killed untold numbers in its effort to destroy the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. 

It is entirely possible Trump knows virtually nothing about this, along with most of the rest of the country, which remains locked in a “civil war” of its own, artificially produced in classic Hegelian fashion to distract you from real issues—a national debt of crushing proportion and the scourge of wars engineered to never end and feed an obese military-industrial-surveillance complex. 

*

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

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 The Daily Dot

No one actually thinks the same Donald Trump who kicked off his run for the White House by calling Mexicans rapists, and subsequently, as president, left Puerto Rico for dead after Hurricane Maria, cares at all about the Venezuelan poor. No one actually thinks the murderers row of Cold Warriors—led by two of the most extreme right-wingers in American politics, Venezuela envoy Elliott Abrams and national security adviser John Bolton—cares at all about the starving people in Venezuela or their plight. No one reading this, be they right, left, center, libertarian or communist, actually buys the prevailing narrative that the U.S. is sending “aid” to Venezuela as a humanitarian gesture.

So why is everyone pretending otherwise?

There are a number of reasons why these superficial narratives take hold, but I’d like to speculate on two of them.

First, the crisis in Venezuela is very real and very daunting. Without litigating who’s responsible for what, whether U.S.-led sanctions and economic sabotage are more to blame or the economic policies of Nicolás Maduro, one simple fact is true: The status quo is untenable. Perhaps, then, the instinct to “do something” is understandable. But as with previous crises, both organic and contrived, what that “something” is remains unclear. Liberals—as they did in the build-up to the invasions of Iraq and Libya—are easily pressured into this “do something” posture.

The way these things work, however, is that this vague moral directive often involves a combination of CIA and U.S. military intervention. During the Syrian conflict, for example, it meant U.S.- and NATO-led bombings of Syrian forces and a tacit declaration of war under the guise of “no-fly zones.” What’s never considered is a reduction or cessation of U.S. involvement, be it CIA weapons running, wide-scale bombing campaigns, or the imposition of sanctions—all of which prolong a given conflict or simply make it more violent.

Because a core tenet of American liberalism is to avoid assigning blame—at worst, its adherents believe, the U.S. is run by a bunch of bumbling do-gooders—what the American empire is actually doing to fuel a conflict cannot be debated, much less censured. And so the notion that we could simply cease our crippling sanctions, which even the pro-opposition Economist acknowledges are designed to “starve” the Venezuelan people, is simply not an option.

The current “something” in Venezuela we’re all compelled to “do” is ensure the arrival of a humanitarian aid convoy. The fact that the bulk of the international aid community has either distanced itself from this PR stunt or outright opposes it has been widely ignored by the mainstream media. One exception is NPR, which recently reported this inconvenient truth:

The U.S. effort to distribute tons of food and medicine to needy Venezuelans is more than just a humanitarian mission. The operation is also designed to foment regime change in Venezuela — which is why much of the international aid community wants nothing to do with it. Humanitarian operations are supposed to be neutral.

That’s why the International Committee of the Red Cross, United Nations agencies and other relief organizations have refused to collaborate with the U.S. and its allies in the Venezuelan opposition who are trying to force President Nicolás Maduro from power.

“Humanitarian action needs to be independent of political, military or any other objectives,” Stéphane Dujarric, the U.N. spokesman, told a press briefing last week in New York. “The needs of the people should lead in terms of when and how humanitarian assistance is used.”

In fact, no neutral observer of international aid thinks Bolton and Abrams’ convoy is anything but a mechanism to foment civil war and regime change. We know this because high-level administration officials and their allies on the right keep telling us that’s the case. As the New York Post recently proclaimed, “U.S. delivers aid to town bordering Venezuela to undermine President Nicolas Maduro.”

Donald Trump delivered a long and rambling speech in Miami last week and didn’t once mention human rights, instead railing against the evils of socialism. Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe reflects in his new book that Trump has openly fantasized about overthrowing Maduro, something he has discussed in White House meetings. “That’s the country we should be going to war with,” Trump said, according to McCabe. “They have all that oil, and they’re right on our back door.”

Determined to maintain U.S. hegemony and control over the world’s largest-known oil reserves, the Trump officials plotting this latest coup aren’t even bothering to take its humanitarian pretext seriously. Why, then, are purportedly centrist and liberal media outlets?

A second matter to consider is how our government has weaponized the public’s sense of morality. Since the Spanish-American War, the U.S. has used humanitarian concerns as a shield against criticism or skepticism, and it has more or less worked every time. It’s why “aid” organizations like Air America used food transports to ship guns to anti-Communists in Indochina in the 1960s and ’70s. (Weapons were code-named “hard rice.”) And it’s why Elliott Abrams—the current quarterback of this latest affair in Venezuela—used humanitarian aid shipments to smuggle weapons to the Nicaragua’s Contras in the ’80s. Ultimately, these shipments allow for massive military buildups, without anyone in the media or Congress asking too many questions. After all, what kind of monster is opposed to helping starving people?

It’s impossible to know if the current shipments to Venezuela are being used to transport weapons, although Venezuelan authorities say they have intercepted American arms shipments. But given the history of the U.S. (to say nothing of Abrams’), and the fact that the Trump administration is openly calling for Maduro’s ouster while amassing forces along the Colombian border, it’s not exactly a long shot. Still, our political press dismisses the possibility as tin-foil hat stuff, at least in part because mocking wacky Latin American “conspiracy theories” is a mark of one’s seriousness in foreign policy circles.

Unlike a lot of U.S. regime change activities, reports indicate that this latest stunt was exceptionally rushed and slapdash. The Wall Street Journal paints a picture of a U.S. operation its architects believed would work in a day or two:

“The people who devised it in Caracas and sold it here [in Washington], sold it with the promise that if Guaidó made a move and [South American countries] and the U.S. came in behind, the military would flip and Maduro would go,” said a former senior U.S. official. “They thought it was a 24-hour operation.”

Because the large-scale military defections expected never took place (as they almost never do), the U.S. has had to resort to its Plan B for promoting conflict and galvanizing the Venezuelan opposition: On Sat., Feb. 23, President of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó will carry out a “humanitarian avalanche” at the Venezuelan border with Colombia and Brazil that, when one reads the fine print, sounds a lot like a U.S.-led invasion. Billionaire Richard Branson is reportedly organizing a “humanitarian aid” concert the night before. But we know this is a fig leaf, and we know this because those running this operation say so again and again. Bolton himself has speculated that Maduro could end up in a “beach area like Guantanamo.”

Despite all the evidence before them, MSNBC, CNN and countless other networks and publications across the ideological spectrum refuse to frame this humanitarian gambit as an act of hostility. Instead, knowing what they know and who they are covering, they have largely portrayed Trump, Bolton and Abrams as champions of the Venezuelan people.

It goes without saying that hundreds of thousands are suffering in Venezuela, and the instinct to alleviate that suffering is a healthy one. But a craven marketing stunt by far-right Cold Warriors—without any buy-in from actual aid organizations—cannot be taken at face value.

Just as the U.S. military has made calls to high-ranking Venezuelan officials, I am writing directly to the editors, television producers and reporters of our most prominent news outlets. I’m asking you to defect and come to the side of the patently obvious. Unlike the Pentagon, I can’t bribe you or promise you amnesty, but I can appeal to your basic sense of integrity and intellectual honesty: At best, you are helping provide cover for a campaign designed to starve the Venezuelan people; at worst, you are enabling a military conflict that will drag on for years.

One does not need to hold any normative opinions about the fate of Venezuela to be able to identify a naked PR campaign when they see one. Journalists with blue checkmarks on Twitter must say so before this gets any further out of hand.

*

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

Guaidó-USAID Trucks Torched on Border

February 24th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

The “humanitarian aid” false flag has devolved into violence on the Francisco de Paula Santander bridge in Venezuela. 

.

.

.

Meanwhile, in Santa Elena de Uairén near the Venezuela-Brazil border, gunfire has erupted.  

Imagine the response if Venezuela tried to drive a caravan of “humanitarian aid” across the border in McAllen, Texas, Nogales on the Arizona border, or the crossing in California at Mexicali. It would likely resemble Bush the Elder’s Highway of Death in Kuwait. 

Meanwhile, there was an opportunity for Juan Guaido, the self-proclaimed leader of Venezuela, to partake in a photo-op.

This was played up by Trump’s neocon national security adviser, John Bolton. He said earlier the next target is Nicaragua and its leader, Daniel Ortega. 

If you ever had doubt Bolton and the neocons are living in 1963 during the height of the Cold War, consider the following tweet. 

It looks like the situation on the border will devolve into violence and the US will use this to argue for military intervention, either by the US or in combo with Brazil and especially Colombia. The sanctions imposed on the country will take too long for impatient neocons. 

The incidents on the border crossings in Venezuela are a great propaganda victory for the US. It’s not clear who is responsible for torching (and possibly bombing) “aid” trucks on the Francisco de Paula Santander bridge, but the blame was quickly placed on the Maduro and the Venezuelan military. 

*

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.

This article was originally published on Global Research on January 2015. It is of particular relevance to the ongoing SNC-Lavalin scandal which implicates the Trudeau government.

***

Canada has the dubious honour of being home to the largest number of firms on a World Bank blacklist of corrupt companies.

But virtually all of that can be attributed to one Canadian company — SNC Lavalin, the construction and engineering giant whose name is becoming a paragon of Canadian corruption.

Of the more than 600 companies now listed as barred from doing business with the World Bank over corruption, 117 are Canadian, the most of any one country. And of those, 115 represent SNC-Lavalin and its subsidiaries, the Financial Post reports.

Among the listed SNC subsidiaries are Candu Energy, which designs CANDU nuclear reactors, and Evergreen Rapid Transit Holdings, the SNC-Lavalin company established to build Vancouver’s new Sky Train line.

The World Bank’s head of corruption investigations, James David Fielder, told the paper the SNC subsidiaries’ inclusion was due to “a World Bank investigation relating to the Padma Bridge project in Bangladesh where World Bank investigators closely cooperated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in an effort to promote collective action against corruption.”

As if on cue, the RCMP on Wednesday announced charges against former SNC executive Kevin Wallace, in conjunction with the probe into the Padma Bridge project.

Wallace was charged with bribery of a foreign official under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

“In some countries, bribes are still accepted as a necessary part of doing business. However, bribery raises serious moral and political concerns, undermines good governance and sustainable economic development, and distorts the conditions of international competition,” the RCMP said in a statement.

The World Bank is in the midst of a crackdown on corrupt companies. It expanded its list by some 250 names in the first seven months of this year alone, the South China Morning Post reports.

We’re not a global policeman, but what we can do is facilitate the global conversation against corruption,” Stephen Zimmerman, director of operations at the bank’s integrity division, told the Financial Times.

After Canada’s 117 listed companies, the U.S. is in second place, with 46 listed. That’s followed by Indonesia (43 firms) and Britain (40 firms).

Bangladesh is not the only place where SNC-Lavalin is alleged to have engaged in bribery.

The company’s former CEO, Pierre Duhaime, was arrested last year on corruption charges related to $56 million in “questionable payments” believed linked to some of the company’s overseas operations. Duhaime was arrested again earlier this year in connection with allegations of corruption surrounding a contract to build a new facility for the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) in Montreal.

SNC-Lavalin’s links to the former Gadhafi regime in Libya are said to have been so close that the company offered one of the dictator’s sons a vice-president position in 2008, according to news reports.

SNC-Lavalin is also alleged to have been engaged in corrupt practices in Algeria.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Corrupt Corporations: World Bank’s Corrupt Companies Blacklist, Dominated By Canada

German Government’s “Right to Resist” UK Pressure on Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

February 23rd, 2019 by CAAT - Campaign Against Arms Trade

Campaign Against Arms Trade has welcomed the Germany Government’s decision to continue its arms embargo against Saudi Arabia. The ban on arms sales was put in place in 2018, following the escalation of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

This week it was revealed that the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, wrote to the German Government urging it to lift the ban.

Since the bombing of Yemen began in March 2015, the UK has licensed £4.6 billion worth of arms to the Saudi regime, including:

  • £2.7 billion worth of ML10 licenses (Aircraft, helicopters, drones)
  • £1.9 billion worth of ML4 licenses (Grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures)

In reality the figures could be a great deal higher, with most bombs and missiles being licensed via the opaque and secretive Open Licence system.

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

“It is totally inappropriate for Jeremy Hunt to use his position in this way. He is meant to be a statesman, not a lobbyist for arms companies and the Saudi dictatorship.

The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is the worst in the world. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in this brutal and devastating war, and yet the main goal for the UK Government and the Foreign Secretary has been to maximise arms sales. That tells us everything we need to know about their priorities.

Germany should never have been arming Saudi forces in the first place, but it has done the right thing by ending the sales. If Jeremy Hunt, Theresa May and their colleagues want to do the right thing for the people of Yemen then they must follow Germany’s lead.”

*

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 NDTV.com

A Canadian federal agency today formally recommended approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, a move strongly condemned by Coast Salish Tribes on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.

In November 2018, representatives from U.S. Coast Salish Tribes joined Canadian First Nations in Victoria, British Columbia, to testify before Canada’s National Energy Board as part of a review of the proposed pipeline expansion.

Despite testimony and legal arguments presented by First Nations and U.S. Tribes describing the significant harms the pipeline expansion project will cause for their communities, the Canadian federal government made a determination to push ahead with the project. The Trans Mountain expansion will triple oil tanker traffic through the Salish Sea — imperiling endangered orcas, increasing navigation risks for fishermen, and increasing the risk of a major oil spill.

“The NEB found that the Trans Mountain Pipeline will harm Indigenous people and endangered orcas, but it still recommended the project,” said Stephanie Tsosie, an Earthjustice attorney representing the U.S. Tribes before the Energy Board. “It has twisted the definition of public interest to sacrifice the Salish Sea, the people who rely on it, and even the air we breathe.”

Tulalip Chairwoman Marie Zackuse, Suquamish Chairman Leonard Forsman, Lummi Hereditary Chief Bill James, Swinomish Senator Brian Wilbur, and Swinomish Senator Jeremy James Wilbur lead U.S. Coast Salish tribal members into a hearing before the Canadian National Energy Board in November 2018 in Victoria, British Columbia.

Tulalip Chairwoman Marie Zackuse, Suquamish Chairman Leonard Forsman, Lummi Hereditary Chief Bill James, Swinomish Senator Brian Wilbur, and Swinomish Senator Jeremy James Wilbur lead U.S. Coast Salish tribal members into a hearing before the Canadian National Energy Board in November 2018 in Victoria, British Columbia. (Source: ALEX HARRIS FOR EARTHJUSTICE)

Quotes from US Coast Salish Tribes

“We are in danger of losing our relatives the southern resident killer whales,” said Lisa Wilson of the Lummi Nation. “We know the impact of vessel traffic, we know the impact of the noise, and we know what the impact would be if there is an oil spill — the major devastation that’s going to wipe out all of the species in the Salish Sea.”

“Salmon is one of the resources that has sustained our people since time immemorial,” said Swinomish Senator Jeremy James Wilbur. “We’ve always relied on salmon, clams, halibut, shrimp, prawns, diving. Usual and accustomed fishing areas are places our tribes have fished for many, many generations. And to impact that would be a major disaster.”

“We are very concerned about the Trans Mountain Pipeline’s impact on the orcas, and also on the rest of the food chain in the Salish Sea,” noted Chairman Leonard Forsman of the Suquamish Tribe. “Everything interrelates. The orca’s just an alarm bell — there are other places where we have a lot of other problems with salmon habitat, shellfish habitat, water quality and all those things that impact the food web. Also, the promotion of fossil fuel use and combustion will contribute more to climate change, which is bringing warming waters and raising sea levels.”

“You don’t poison where you get your food. You just don’t do that,” said Noel Purser, of the Suquamish Tribe. “I understand in British Columbia, this pipeline will provide a way of having an income. But is it worth the potential of a spill, that risk? Is it really worth that? Because that will impact everybody, not just here in British Columbia. It will impact us in Suquamish; it will impact our relatives in Alaska.”

“As Coast Salish people, we do not recognize the imaginary line that divides us from First Nation relatives,” said Chairwoman Marie Zackuse, from the Tulalip Tribes. “The Salish Sea does not recognize this border. Our relatives, the salmon and the killer whales do not recognize this border. Pollution, industrial waste, and climate change do not recognize this border. Impacts to these species are felt throughout the Salish Sea on both sides of the border, and they are cumulative effects. This Trans Mountain expansion may just be the project that brings us past the point of no return.”

The National Energy Board decision disregarded these and other comments shared during the November 2018 oral testimony. For media interviews, reporters should reach out to Tribal contacts listed above.

Location of the Salish Sea.

The proposed tar sands pipeline expansion is one of several projects that would dramatically increase the passage of tankers and bulk carriers through the Salish Sea on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.

Background

In 2013, four Northwest U.S. Tribes — the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Tulalip Tribes, Suquamish Tribe, and Lummi Nation — intervened in Canadian permit proceedings over the new tar sands pipeline, joining scores of Canadian First Nations and conservationists, the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby, and the Province of British Columbia in opposition to the pipeline. The U.S. Tribes’ position before Canada’s National Energy Board represented a critical call to safeguard the Salish Sea from increased oil tanker traffic and greater risk of oil spills.

The Trans Mountain Pipeline Project calls for tripling the amount of oil shipped from tar sands fields in Alberta to approximately 890,000 barrels per day to the British Columbia coast. The pipeline would cause an almost seven-fold increase in oil tankers moving through the shared waters of the Salish Sea, paving way for an increase in pollution, noise, groundings, accidents, and oil spills.

The proposed tar sands pipeline expansion is one of several projects that could dramatically increase the passage of tankers and bulk carriers through the Salish Sea on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.

*

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: Tulalip Tribes Chairwoman Marie Zackuse before addressing Canada’s National Energy Board. (Source: ALEX HARRIS FOR EARTHJUSTICE)

As I write this, there is a false flag underway on the border of Venezuela and Brazil. 

It looks like two people were killed and a dozen wounded after Venezuelan troops opened fire on locals. The confrontation is part of an effort to deliver “aid” to the crisis-wracked nation (thanks in large part to US sanctions). 

Of course, the Maduro government doesn’t trust USAID, a US government funded agency that specializes in “democratic” color revolution and undermining elections around the world under the banner of “humanitarianism.”

Here’s a clueless rich guy pushing a “concert” in favor of oligarchic rule by the Venezuelan elite.  

And here’s the “entertainers” who are headlining Venezuela Aid Live, a PR effort to make the violent overthrow of a democratically elected leader soft and squishy and palatable to liberal America.

These entertainers are, naturally, almost completely braindead on Venezuela, the CIA’s efforts to overthrow the Hugo Chavez government, and the bottomline—handing over the nation’s oil wealth to transitional corporations and banksters. 

Fortunately, some of us understand what’s going on behind the scenes of this rich man’s concert—regime change.

Roger Waters, formerly of the group Pink Floyd, understands what’s behin

*

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.

US Defeat in Syria: The Wrong End of “Might Makes Right”

February 23rd, 2019 by Tony Cartalucci

With Damascus and its allies firmly in control of Syria and its future – the war having been decided on the ground rather than “politically” as envisioned by Western politicians, media, and policymakers – the US proxy war against Syria has all but failed.

Despite the obvious defeat – and as contemporary American history has illustrated – the US will unlikely relent and instead, do all within its power to complicate the war’s conclusion and disrupt desperately needed reconstruction efforts.

Encapsulating current American intentions in Syria is a Foreign Policy article titled, “The New U.N. Envoy to Syria Should Kill the Political Process to Save it.”

The article – written by Julien Barnes-Dacey of the NATO-Soros-funded European Council on Foreign Relations –  suggests the otherwise inevitable end of the conflict be delayed and that reconstruction aid be held hostage until political concessions are made with the militarily-defeated foreign-backed militants dislodged from much of Syria’s territory by joint Syrian-Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah efforts.

The article makes an unconvincing argument that maintaining Idlib as a militant bastion, delaying the conflict’s conclusion, and withholding reconstruction aid will somehow positively benefit the day-to-day lives of Syrian civilians despite all evidence suggesting otherwise.

Demands made toward “decentralizing” political power across Syria seems to be a poorly re-imagined and watered down version of America’s Balkanization plans rolled out in 2012 when swift regime change was clearly not possible. The article also indicates concern over Europe’s potential pivot toward Russia and an abandonment of European complicity with US regime change efforts.

But what is most striking is the article’s – and Washington’s insistence that Syria make concessions to a defeated enemy – funded and armed from abroad and with every intention of transforming Syria into what Libya has become in the wake of the US-led NATO intervention there – a fractured failed state overrun by extremists disinterested and incapable of administering a functioning, united nation-state.

It is striking because it has been the US who has for over half a century predicated its foreign policy on the age-old adage of “might makes right.” The US – no longer mightiest – now demands concessions despite no leverage to logically compel anyone to make such concessions.

At the Wrong End of “Might Makes Right”

While the US poses as leader of the “free world” and self-appointed caretaker of a “rules based international order,” such rhetorical constructs are mere smokescreens obfuscating what is otherwise naked modern-day imperialism.

By the end of the Cold War, the US saw an opportunity to cement this “might makes right” international order by plundering a collapsed Soviet Union and liquidating old Soviet client states from North Africa, through the Middle East, and all across Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was perhaps the apex of American “might makes right” in action. It was a war based entirely on intentionally fabricated claims to underwrite what was otherwise a war of conquest. It was the keystone of a much larger project to reorganize Cold War spheres of influence into a single realm under Wall Street and Washington.

The US possessed not only the military and economic means of forcing nations to concede to its interests, it monopolized global information and public perception to convince the world it was doing so for a nobler cause.

With the acceleration of technology – in terms of information, industry, and defense – the disparity between the sole global superpower and even developing nations has begun to shrink – saying nothing of the growing parity between Russia and China vis-a-vis the US and Europe.

The US-led war in Libya was perhaps the last, mostly unopposed “might makes right” war Washington executed with full impunity.

Its attempts to repeat the Libyan experience in Syria met a political and military brick wall with the 2015 Russian intervention. The US also suffered serious setbacks in Ukraine in 2013 and 2014 when Crimea was reunited with Russia and separatists in eastern Ukraine spoiled a US-backed coup aimed at transforming the entire nation into a proxy not only hostile toward Moscow, but sitting right on Russia’s borders.

In an international order predicated on “might makes right,” Washington finds itself no longer the mightiest. Rather than reexamining American priorities and reforming US foreign policy, the US is instead doubling down on its commitment toward regional and global primacy. The corporate-financier interests underwriting this foreign policy do so for a lack of a better alternative.

The Tropism of Imperialism 

Like an evolutionary tropism – the economic and political forces that have taken hold of America, its people, and its resources could no more redirect the course of American foreign policy than a tree could redirect its growth toward the sun. However, external forces – an emerging multipolar world order – are more than capable of pruning this overgrown empire, and perhaps redirecting its growth into a shape more conducive toward global stability.

In Syria, a significant branch of American imperialism is being pruned away.  US troops lodged in Syria’s east represent an expensive and vulnerable occupation. The ability or inability of Syria and its allies to dislodge the US presence there will indicate just how aggressive the rolling back of American imperialism will be – which may be one explanation as to why the US is so stubbornly refusing to withdraw them.

A US withdrawal from Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan would be perceived as a sign of weakness. But it is weakness already more than apparent to the world – thus stubborn long-term and now multiplying occupations in and of themselves are a sign of growing American impotence. There is no positive outcome regarding current US foreign policy – not for those directing it and for the time being benefiting from it, nor for those subjected to it.

In Syria and elsewhere the US is engaged, the task at hand is to manage America’s decline with patient persistence and avoid deadly, desperate attempts by Washington and Wall Street to reassert American influence through destructive wars and proxy wars.

Rome was not built in a day, nor was it dismantled in a day. But it was ultimately dismantled. It would be unrealistic to believe otherwise regarding modern American hegemony.

*

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

The announcement by seven MPs from the UK Labour Party on Monday that they were breaking away and creating a new parliamentary faction marked the biggest internal upheaval in a British political party in nearly 40 years, when the SDP split from Labour.

On Wednesday, they were joined by an eighth Labour MP, Joan Ryan, and three Conservative MPs. There are predictions more will follow.

With the UK teetering on the brink of crashing out of the European Union with no deal on Brexit, the founders of the so-called Independent Group made reference to their opposition to Brexit.

The chief concern cited for the split by the eight Labour MPs, though, was a supposed “anti-semitism crisis” in the party.

The breakaway faction seemingly agrees that anti-semitism has become so endemic in the party since Jeremy Corbyn became leader more than three years ago that they were left with no choice but to quit.

Corbyn, it should be noted, is the first leader of a major British party to explicitly prioritise the rights of Palestinians over Israel’s continuing belligerent occupation of the Palestinian territories.

‘Sickeningly racist’?

Image result for Luciana Berger

Luciana Berger (image on the right), a Jewish MP who has highlighted what she sees as an anti-semitism problem under Corbyn, led the charge, stating at the Independent Group’s launch that she had reached “the sickening conclusion” that Labour was “institutionally racist”.

She and her allies claim she has been hounded out of the party by “anti-semitic bullying”. Berger has suffered online abuse and death threats from a young neo-Nazi who was jailed for two years in 2016. There have been other incidences of abuse and other sentences, including a 27-month jail term for John Nimmo, a right-wing extremist who referred to Berger as “Jewish scum” and signed his messages, “your friend, the Nazi”.

In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, the former Labour MP said the Independent Group would provide the Jewish community with a “political home that they, like much of the rest of the country, are now looking for”.

In a plea to keep the party together, deputy leader Tom Watson issued a video in which he criticised his own party for being too slow to tackle anti-semitism. The situation “poses a test” for Labour, he said, adding: “Do we respond with simple condemnation, or do we try and reach out beyond our comfort zone and prevent others from following?”

Ruth Smeeth, another Jewish Labour MP who may yet join a later wave of departures, was reported to have broken down in tears at a parliamentary party meeting following the split, as she called for tougher action on anti-semitism.

Two days later, as she split from Labour, Ryan accused the party of being “infected with the scourge of anti-Jewish racism”.

Hatred claims undercut

The timing of the defections was strange, occurring shortly after the Labour leadership revealed the findings of an investigation into complaints of anti-semitism in the party. These were the very complaints that MPs such as Berger have been citing as proof of the party’s “institutional racism”.

And yet, the report decisively undercut their claims – not only of endemic anti-semitism in Labour, but of any significant problem at all.

That echoed an earlier report by the Commons home affairs committee, which found there was “no reliable, empirical evidence” that Labour had more of an anti-semitism problem than any other British political party.

Nonetheless, the facts seem to be playing little or no part in influencing the anti-semitism narrative. This latest report was thus almost entirely ignored by Corbyn’s opponents and by the mainstream media.

It is, therefore, worth briefly examining what the Labour Party’s investigation discovered.

Over the previous 10 months, 673 complaints had been filed against Labour members over alleged anti-semitic behaviour, many based on online comments. In a third of those cases, insufficient evidence had been produced.

The 453 other allegations represented 0.08 percent of the 540,000-strong Labour membership. Hardly “endemic” or “institutional”, it seems.

Intemperate language

There is the possibility past outbursts have been part of this investigation. Intemperate language flared especially in 2014 – before Corbyn became leader – when Israel launched a military operation on Gaza that killed large numbers of Palestinian civilians, including many hundreds of children.

Certainly, it is unclear how many of those reportedly anti-semitic comments concern not prejudice towards Jews, but rather outspoken criticism of the state of Israel, which was redefined as anti-semitic last year by Labour, under severe pressure from MPs such as Berger and Ryan and Jewish lobby groups, such as the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement.

Seven of the 11 examples of anti-semitism associated with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition adopted by Labour concern Israel. That includes describing Israel as a “racist endeavour”, even though Israel passed a basic law last year stripping the fifth of its population who are not Jewish of any right to self-determination, formally creating two classes of citizen.

Illustrating the problem Labour has created for itself as a result, some of the most high-profile suspensions and expulsions have actually targeted Jewish members of the party who identify as anti-Zionist – that is, they consider Israel a racist state. They include Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker, Martin Odoni, Glyn Secker and Cyril Chilson.

Another Jewish member, Moshe Machover, a professor emeritus at the University of London, had to be reinstated after a huge outcry among members at his treatment by the party.

Unthinking prejudice

Alan Maddison, who has been conducting statistical research on anti-semitism for a pro-Corbyn Jewish group, Jewish Voice for Labour, put the 0.08 percent figure into its wider social and political context this week.

He quoted the findings of a large survey of anti-semitic attitudes published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in 2017. It found that 30 percent of respondents from various walks of society agreed with one or more of eight anti-semitic views, ranging from stereotypes such as “Jews think they are better than other people” to Holocaust denial.

However, lead researcher Daniel Staetsky concluded that in most cases, this was evidence of unthinking prejudice rather than conscious bigotry. Four-fifths of those who exhibited a degree of anti-semitism also agreed with at least one positive statement about Jewish people.

This appears to be the main problem among the tiny number of Labour Party members identified in complaints, and is reflected in the predominance of warnings about conduct rather than expulsions and suspensions.

Far-right bigotry

Another of the institute’s findings poses a particular problem for Corbyn’s opponents, who argue that the Labour leader has imported anti-semitism into the party by attracting the “hard left”. Since he was elected, Labour membership has rocketed.

Even if it were true that Corbyn and his supporters are on the far-left – a highly questionable assumption, made superficially plausible only because Labour moved to the centre-right under Tony Blair in the late 1990s – the institute’s research pulls the rug out from under Corbyn’s critics.

It discovered that across the political spectrum, conscious hatred of Jews was very low, and that it was exhibited in equal measure from the “very left-wing” to the “fairly right-wing”. The only exception, as one might expect, was on the “very right-wing”, where virulent anti-semitism was much more prevalent.

That finding was confirmed last week by surveys that showed a significant rise in violent, anti-semitic attacks across Europe as far-right parties make inroads in many member states. A Guardian report noted that the “figures show an overwhelming majority of violence against Jews is perpetrated by far-right supporters”.

Supporters of overseas war

So what is the basis for concerns about the Labour Party being mired in supposed “institutional anti-semitism” since it moved from the centre to the left under Corbyn, when the figures and political trends demonstrate nothing of the sort?

A clue may be found in the wider political worldview of the eight MPs who have broken from Labour.

All but two are listed as supporters of the parliamentary “Labour Friends of Israel” (LFI) faction. Further, Berger is a former director of that staunchly pro-Israel lobby group, and Ryan is its current chair, a position the group says she will hold onto, despite no longer being a Labour MP.

So extreme are the LFI’s views on Israel that it sought to exonerate Israel of a massacre last year, in which its snipers shot dead many dozens of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza in a single day. Faced with a social media backlash, it quietly took down the posts.

The eight MPs’ voting records – except for Gavin Shuker, for whom the picture is mixed – show them holding consistently hawkish foreign policy positions that are deeply antithetical to Corbyn’s approach to international relations.

They either “almost always” or “generally” backed “combat operations overseas”; those who were MPs at the time supported the 2003 Iraq war; and they all opposed subsequent investigations into the Iraq war.

Committed Friends of Israel

In one sense, the breakaway group’s support for Labour Friends of Israel may not be surprising, and indicates why Corbyn is facing such widespread trouble from within his own party. Dozens of Labour MPs are members of the group, including Tom Watson and Ruth Smeeth.

Smeeth, one of those at the forefront of accusing Corbyn of fostering anti-semitism in Labour, is also a former public affairs director of BICOM, another stridently pro-Israel lobby group.

None of these MPs were concerned enough with the LFI’s continuing vocal support for Israel as it has shifted to the far-right under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have stepped down from the group.

‘Wrong kind of Jews’

Anti-semitism has taken centre stage in the manoeuvring against Corbyn, despite there being no evidence of significant hatred against Jews in the party. Increasingly, it seems, tangible abuse of Jews is of little interest unless it can be related to Corbyn.

The markedly selective interest in anti-semitism in the Corbyn context among the breakaway MPs and supposed anti-semitism watchdogs has been starkly on show for some time.

Notably, none expressed concern at the media mauling of a left-wing, satirical Jewish group called Jewdas when Corbyn was widely attacked for meeting “the wrong kind of Jews”. In fact, leading Labour figures, including the Jewish Labour Movement, joined in the abuse.

And increasingly in this febrile atmosphere, there has been an ever-greater indulgence of the “right kind of anti-semitism” – when it is directed at Corbyn supporters.

A troubling illustration was provided on the TV show Good Morning Britain this week, when Tom Bower was invited on to discuss his new unauthorised biography of Corbyn, in which he accuses him of anti-semitism. The hosts looked on demurely as Bower, a Jewish journalist, defamed fellow Jewish journalist Michael Segalov as a “self-hating Jew” for defending Corbyn on the show.

Revenge of the Blairites

So what is the significance of the fact that the Labour MPs who have been most outspoken in criticising Corbyn – those who helped organise a 2016 leadership challenge against him, and those who are now rumoured to be considering joining the breakaway faction – are heavily represented on the list of MPs supporting LFI?

For them, it seems, vigorous support for Israel is not only a key foreign policy matter, but a marker of their political priorities and worldview – one that starkly clashes with the views of Corbyn and a majority of the Labour membership.

Anti-semitism has turned out to be the most useful – and damaging – weapon to wield against the Labour leader for a variety of reasons close to the hearts of the holdouts from the Blair era, who still dominate the parliamentary party and parts of the Labour bureaucracy.

Perhaps most obviously, the Blairite wing of the party is still primarily loyal to a notion that Britain should at all costs maintain its transatlantic alliance with the United States in foreign policy matters. Israel is a key issue for those on both sides of the Atlantic who see that state as a projection of Western power into the oil-rich Middle East and romanticise Israel as a guarantor of Western values in a “barbaric” region.

Corbyn’s prioritising of Palestinian rights threatens to overturn a core imperial value to which the Blairites cling.

Tarred and feathered

But it goes further. Anti-semitism has become a useful stand-in for the deep differences in a domestic political culture between the Blairites, on one hand, and Corbyn and the wider membership, on the other.

A focus on anti-semitism avoids the right-wing MPs having to admit much wider grievances with Corbyn’s Labour that would probably play far less well not only with Labour members, but with the broader British electorate.

As well as their enthusiasm for foreign wars, the Blairites support the enrichment of a narrow neo-liberal elite, are ambivalent about austerity policies, and are reticent at returning key utilities to public ownership. All of this can be neatly evaded and veiled by talking up anti-semitism.

But the utility of anti-semitism as a weapon with which to beat Corbyn and his supporters – however unfairly – runs deeper still.

The Blairites view allegations of anti-Jewish racism as a trump card. Calling someone an anti-semite rapidly closes down all debate and rational thought. It isolates, then tars and feathers its targets. No one wants to be seen to be associated with an anti-semite, let alone defend them.

Weak hand exposed

That is one reason why anti-semitism smears have been so maliciously effective against anti-Zionist Jews in the party and used with barely a murmur of protest – or in most cases, even recognition that Jews are being suspended and expelled for opposing Israel’s racist policies towards Palestinians.

This is a revival of the vile “self-hating Jew” trope that Israel and its defenders concocted decades ago to intimidate Jewish critics.

The Blairites in Labour, joined by the ruling Conservative Party, the mainstream media and pro-Israel lobby groups, have selected anti-semitism as the terrain on which to try to destroy a Corbyn-led Labour Party, because it is a battlefield in which the left stands no hope of getting a fair hearing – or any hearing at all.

But paradoxically, the Labour breakaway group may have inadvertently exposed the weakness of its hand. The eight MPs have indicated that they will not run in by-elections, and for good reason: it is highly unlikely they would stand a chance of winning in any of their current constituencies outside the Labour Party.

Their decision will also spur moves to begin deselecting those Labour MPs who are openly trying to sabotage the party – and the members’ wishes – from within.

That may finally lead to a clearing out of the parliamentary baggage left behind from the Blair era, and allow Labour to begin rebuilding itself as a party ready to deal with the political, social, economic and environmental challenges of the 21st century.

*

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

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001, is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: www.jonathan-cook.net He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Venezuela: A Unique Experience in Protagonist Democracy?

February 23rd, 2019 by Arnold August

The issue for us all is: No to military intervention in Venezuela and full support for the right of Venezuela to defend itself.

“Maduro declared in his February 4 Caracas speech: ‘Not one Yaqui soldier will enter Venezuela.’”

Is Trump contributing to a unique experience in protagonist democracy in Venezuela? If so, his administration and the Democratic Party supporting the U.S. elite’s Venezuela policy are in for a big surprise. On February 25, 2014 – five years ago! – BAR published my article titled “Obama’s Arrogant Interference in Venezuela and Resistance by a Participatory Democracy.” Over the five years of tampering, obstruction and suffocating sanctions, the Obama and Trump administrations have not been able to conquer Venezuela. Why?

The U.S.-centric mindset has been steeped in the white supremacist notion of the “chosen people” from the time of the Pilgrims. It consists, among other features, of the racist outlook that peoples in the “Third World,” such as Latin America, cannot take their destiny in their own hands. Since the publication of that piece five years ago, history — along with my experience during other short visits to Caracas and my close following of TeleSUR in both English and Spanish — has forced me to revise my appreciation of Venezuela’s unique experience in democracy. It has certainly gone up more than just a notch. As a result of U.S. policies, democracy in Venezuela has been crossing the Rubicon from participatory democracy to a protagonist one. While the two are similar, especially in comparison with the experience of the Diktat in the capitalist North, there is a qualitative difference. Any hesitation at this time to qualify Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution’s democracy as being “above all” – as Chávez predicted and desired – “protagonist and not only participatory” vanished on February 4, 2019 in Caracas.

“The main issue now is the right of Venezuela to its sovereignty and to choosing its own path without foreign interference.”

Many valuable articles have already been published in BAR concerning the legitimate election of Maduro in the last elections of May 2018 on the one hand and, on the other, regarding the violation of Venezuelan and international law, including the United Nations in “recognizing” its man in Caracas. Furthermore, the main issue now is the right of Venezuela to its sovereignty and to choosing its own path without foreign interference, irrespective of any other considerations. Moreover, within this optic, the principal reality – ignored by the international media – is the civilian military union as a key component of Venezuelan democracy. It is not recognized either by ignorance or by mere wishful thinking, as those who want to eliminate the Bolivarian Revolution know very well it is this union that blocks their plan.

Although it was not the first time that I had heard Maduro speak, his February 4 talk in that semi-private meeting with Venezuelans and foreign guests was a clincher. Among other points, he outlined in detail how he and the other leaders (whom I also met briefly in that meeting) have been and are today still working to organize and inspire — and in turn are being inspired by — all the sections of the armed forces all over the country, from pilots, navy to the army to the people’s militia. He pointed out that this civilian military union has been developing in the country over several decades.

“The principal reality is the civilian military union as a key component of Venezuelan democracy.”

To flesh this out, I would add that more recently in the 1990s Chávez spent considerable time and effort to build a civilian military union. The goal was to overthrow the U.S.- backed de facto dictatorship that had ruled for many decades through the “two-party system” — all too familiar to Americans — alternating from one discredited party to another… that also soon became disgraced and so on. On February 4, 1992, Chávez and other officers and civilian revolutionary leaders organized a coup to overthrow the corrupt wealthy political elite to be replaced by the Bolivarian principles of independence and social justice. It failed, but then Chávez returned from prison to declare to the people on state TV that “for the moment” [por ahora] the rebellion had failed. This now iconic image and perspective words had further cemented the union between the military and the civilian population who had never before seen a political-military leader ready to give his life for a new Venezuela.

This union rose to the fore again on April 13, 2002 when the civilian-military alliance brought Chavez back to power as the legitimate president after a short- lived US-backed coup executed on April 11, 2002.

“Maduro and the other leaders have been working to organize and inspire all the sections of the armed forces all over the country.”

What then is this civilian-military union, its history and tradition?

Chávez said that he found the idea of the civilian-military alliance in the political thought of the Venezuelan intellectual, guerrilla leader, Fabricio Ojeda, who wrote in his 1966 book La guerra del pueblo (The People’s War):

“The anti-feudal and anti-imperialist basis of our revolutionary process suggests a form of alliance that can accommodate differences in background, political credo, philosophical conception, religious convictions, economic or professional status, or party affiliation among Venezuelans. The strength and might of the common enemy calls for a united struggle to defeat it… The forces most inclined to fight for national liberation are the workers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie, students, intellectuals, and professionals as well as the majority of officials, Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs), and soldiers of the air, sea, and land forces…” In Ojeda’s vision, which Chávez shared, all these civilian and military sectors are called upon to come together in a genuine national revolutionary alliance. (Ramonet, Ignacio, Hugo Chávez: Mi primera vida. Conversaciones con Ignacio Ramonet, Vintage Español, Nueva York, 2013. [Translation by Arnold August]).

The civilian population had never before seen a political-military leader ready to give his life for a new Venezuela.”

Today, more than ever before, in the face of a potential U.S. military intervention, this feature of the people being the authors of their ownBolivarian Revolution, rather than just participants in it, Venezuela is displaying a protagonist democracy to the world. It can be the death knell to any military adventure.

The U.S. should not be mistaken. While Maduro declared in his February 4 Caracas speech to us that his government is ready to participate in any efforts at mediation, he also made clear that Venezuela is ready to defend its country: “Not one Yaqui soldier will enter Venezuela.”

The threat of U.S.-led military intervention is more real than ever. The issue for us all: No to military intervention in Venezuela and full support for the right of Venezuela to defend itself in the worse-case scenario. Polls in Europe and other countries show support for this position, while the main unions in Canada have issued and are issuing statements rejecting the pro-Trump position of the Justin Trudeau Liberal Party position and demonstrations are taking place in the U.S.

“The strength and might of the common enemy calls for a united struggle to defeat it.”

The Justin Trudeau government hosted the so-called Lima Group in Ottawa on that same day, February 4, when we were in Caracas meeting with the Maduro government leadership. The official communiqué reaffirmed its support for the Trump position on Venezuela, consisting of foreign interference in the internal affairs of that country with full support of its puppet as the so-called president. The position of the Justin Trudeau government is a major and historical (in the very negative sense of the term)changein Canadian foreign policy, including within his own Liberal Party.In contrast for example, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War (March 2013) former Liberal Party Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said in an interview regarding Canada’s position to NOT support the U.S. war in Iraq, that he [Chrétien]has no regrets about rejecting Canada’s participation in the U.S.-led mission. It was a very important decision, no doubt about it. It was, in fact, the first time ever that there was a war that the Brits and the Americans were involved, and Canada was not there, Chrétien told CTV’s [Canadian national news network] Power Play.

The move also helped assert Canada’s independence on the world stage, he said.

Unfortunately, a lot of people thought sometimes that we were the 51st state of America. It was clear that day that we were not.

The main unions in Canada have issued and are issuing statements rejecting the pro-Trump position.”

Chrétien said he refused to commit to military action in Iraq without a resolution from the UN Security Council. He said Canada always followed the UN and intervened in other conflicts when asked to.

Chrétien also said he was not convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the threat that fuelled support for a U.S.-led invasion of the country — and that turned out to be true.

Chrétien also addressed his visit to Venezuela last week [March 2013] (to attend President Hugo Chávez’s funeral).

He said he went because he knew Chávez personally and “never had any problem” with the controversial leader, even though he didn’t agree with him “on many things.” He also wanted to show his respect for the people of Venezuela.

He had support of the people and he was loved by the poor of his country. He was kind of a Robin Hood, Chrétien said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper [of the Canadian Conservative Party] angered the Venezuelan administration by saying in a statement that he hoped the country can have a better, brighter future after Chávez’s death.

Chrétien said the Venezuelan authorities were very, very happy to see him at the funeral, because they were very unhappy with Harper’s remarks.

Let us recall what most political people in Cuba, Latin America, and many in the West know: Justin Trudeau’s own father, as Liberal Party Prime Minister of Canada, went to Cuba when he stood next to Fidel Castro in June 1976 and shouted in a public meeting “Long live Prime Minister Fidel Castro!,” and had taken other positions independent of the U.S.

Everyone in Canada hates Trump for all his policies, yet Justin Trudeau is aligned with him.”

As the Canadian and other peoples increasingly recognize now, like any other family in whatever system, family relations and characteristics change. Regarding foreign relations, Justin Trudeau is not at all like his father. The press can quote me here as a Canadian: “Justin Trudeau’s father would turn over in his grave if he knew what his own son was doing.” Everyone in Canada hates Trump for all his policies, yet Justin Trudeau is aligned with him.

While the Trudeau government admonishes Venezuela for its supposed lack of democracy, it does not seem to recognize cynical incongruities, such as when, last January 2019 (while the Lima Group anti-Venezuela “pro-democracy “conspiration was in full swing), the Canadian government’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — as part of the century-long racist colonial occupation of indigenous lands — arrested 14 native people and entered a fortified checkpoint on a forest service road in northern B.C., where people at the Gidimt’en camp were barring a pipeline company from access (CBC). That led to more protests (YouTube: Toronto Star).

“Democracy” in the North is one thing. The constantly developing protagonist democracy in Venezuela is entirely the opposite. Furthermore, it is the main shield to defend the fledgling Bolivarian socialist path against U.S.-led foreign interference which we must all fully oppose.

*

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 Black Agenda Report.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and the recently released Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. As a journalist he collaborates with many web sites in the U.S., Canada, Latin America and Europe. He writes occasionally for Black Agenda Report and Global Research. Follow Arnold on Twitter , Facebook, His website: www.arnoldaugust.com

Featured image is from BAR

Following the USSR’s official collapse over Christmas 1991, the CIA expected that within two years Cuba’s Revolution would follow suit. A generation later socialism endures in Cuba while the Soviet Union, a state larger in size than America and Canada combined, is becoming a distant memory.

It stands out as remarkable that a great power such as the USSR evaporated without a single shot being discharged. Rubbing of salt into open wounds followed as Russia, under US supported Boris Yeltsin, made its transition to destructive state capitalism without serious protest; widespread privatization was ushered in along with trade and market “liberalism”.

Those westerners who gleefully celebrated Soviet disintegration in the early 1990s, would have been wise to remember that it was the USSR which – less than 50 years before – had lifted itself up from the Wehrmacht’s staggering blows, before overcoming a Third Reich that had been marching eastwards to conquer the vast open steppes of Eurasia.

By the mid-1970s, meanwhile, the Soviet Union was gradually eroding from within. This was partly due to their increasingly ill and frail president Leonid Brezhnev, who replaced Nikita Khrushchev in 1964, remaining in office until the day he died, 10 November 1982.

Brezhnev had developed an appetite for luxury that was out of step for a communist leader, as revealed by his owning dozens of immaculate, Western-built automobiles. No such opulence was enjoyed by the average Soviet citizen. Brezhnev was fond too of fur coats, expensive liquor and prestigious medals, while he was a heavy smoker until the early 1970s.

In December 1979, Brezhnev authorized what would prove a calamitous intervention in neighbouring Afghanistan. By this point Brezhnev’s bodily decline was in its final stages when, influenced by some voices in his ear, he said of the impending military advance, “we will end this war in three or four weeks”. The fighting in Afghanistan continued for nine years, much of it against American and Saudi-backed Jihadis including Osama bin Laden, which was another factor in the USSR’s demise.

During the mid-1980s, Soviet causes were hampered further by the swift death in office of two of Brezhnev’s immediate successors: Yuri Andropov, who governed for a year before succumbing to kidney disease aged 69 in February 1984 – and then Konstantin Chernenko, always a heavy smoker and in later life plagued with emphysema. Chernenko, in his early 70s, died just over 12 months after succeeding Andropov and by the end suffered from a string of debilitating ailments.

The decisions in electing both men to power were indeed questionable ones, as Andropov and Chernenko had been in poor health for years, while they lacked the vitality to overcome monumental problems that lay ahead. Their advanced years was not the issue, as countless people beyond so-called retirement age can retain their exuberance for life.

Andropov and Chernenko may have been seen as steady, dependable figures and, significantly, both had a history of activism dating to Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion. The Soviets had never fully recovered from Hitler’s assault, either psychologically or emotionally, and all their postwar leaders except Mikhail Gorbachev had performed a role in the Great Patriotic War.

As the Soviet system fell a generation ago, America’s intelligence centres anticipated a quick and ignominious end too for the Cuban Revolution. Yet while the trappings of grandeur and cult of personality had hindered the USSR, similar weaknesses were not evident in Cuba.

Fidel Castro, the Caribbean island’s long-time leader, had resisted the temptations of materialism and corruption, which has further bedevilled left governments in South and Central America.

During his decades in power, Castro led an austere existence, working long hours and shunning the desire to indulge in ostentatious luxury or consumerism. He lived in a modest house consisting of two floors and four bedrooms, a comfortable if functional residence.

One need but examine a person’s clothing to gain something of an idea into their habits and mode of living. For many years, Castro donned olive green military attire which stood out for its absence of medals and trinkets, unlike his Soviet counterpart Brezhnev, who had an array of decorations dangling from his lapels. Castro’s army fatigues constituted simple, loose clothing, ascetic and lacking in pretension.

Castro himself outlined just over a decade ago that,

“The most difficult, most important fight that anyone with power faces is the fight against himself, the struggle for self-control. That may be one of the toughest ones. Against corruption and even against the abuse of one’s own prerogatives, one has to have a very well-trained, strong conscience, a great deal of awareness”.

As the years progressed it became clear, even to some of his foes, that Castro was not the typical state leader, but someone in possession of a formidable intellect, who read for many hours each day and could instantly recall events from bygone years. He was particularly influenced by the writings of José Martí, a famed 19th century revolutionary philosopher, essayist and “Apostle of Cuban independence”.

In 1985, aged 59, Castro ceased his smoking of Cohiba cigars with the future in mind. This lifestyle change played an important role in allowing him to enjoy a long existence.

Leaving ideology aside, the Cuban government has – perhaps most importantly – remained separate from the insidious effects of private power, which across the world has become embedded in states resulting in ongoing compromised policies, followed by the predictable avarice and short-sightedness. In turn, this increasing need for collection of wealth and profits has resulted in planetary ecosystems being wiped out, heralding our world’s sixth mass extinction.

A government can only stay independent should the head of state and all of its sitting members, without exception, have no links to vested interest groups, business board rooms, private ventures, and so on. Should a state be engineered by corporate dictates, it surely becomes an elitist one, pursuing strategies to benefit the rich and powerful.

One can see this conflict of interest in various market economies, from America and Australia to Ireland. Major business influences, once implanted in state policy and promoted by willing politicians, seeks to serve the top bracket of society most of all – leaving general populations, broadly speaking, cast adrift.

With Cuba’s disdain for private business, the Castro government sought programs such as instituting first class education and health systems, dispatching thousands of medical personnel to regions most in need of them. In the early 1990s, Cuba led the way in tackling climate change, which is little known or spoken of.

Previously, in the 1970s and 1980s, Castro instigated foreign initiatives like the Cuban-inspired liberation of southern Africa from apartheid, a contribution which African leaders are not likely to forget.

South Africa’s anti-apartheid revolutionary, Nelson Mandela, highlighted in July 1991,

“What other country can point to a record of greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to Africa?… It is unparalleled in African history to have another people rise in defence of one of 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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Political Correctness and the Immigration Debate

February 23rd, 2019 by Nauman Sadiq

There are two contrasting styles of debating an issue: those who prefer normative arguments, and those who choose descriptive line of reasoning. Most intellectuals nowadays adopt the former approach, but the truth unfortunately is generally bitter.

Let me admit at the outset that I do understand race relations are a sensitive issue in the modern world, particularly when millions of skilled and unskilled immigrants from the Third World countries have migrated to the economically prosperous developed countries to find a better future for themselves and their families.

However, instead of bending over backwards and demanding from the natives of their host countries to be more accommodating and totally non-communal, the immigrants need to understand that migration is not the natural order of societies.

In order to elaborate this paradox by way of an analogy, when we uproot a flowering plant from a garden and try to make it grow in a different environment, sometimes the plant flourishes in the new environment, but at other times, it doesn’t, depending on the adaptability of the plant and the compatibility of the environment. If we want to change the whole environment to suit the needs of that particular uprooted plant, such an unrealistic approach may not be conducive to native flora and fauna of those habitats.

The right way to tackle the immigration problem is to discourage it by reducing the incentive for prospective immigrants to permanently abandon their homes, families and communities to find a better job in a foreign country and a radically different culture, where they might be materially better off but could find themselves socially isolated and emotionally desolate.

In order to minimize the incentive for immigration, we need to revamp the global economic order. Once the relative imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing world is narrowed down, then there will be no need for the people of one region and culture to relocate to another, except on a temporary basis for education, traveling and cultural exchange.

Humanism only implies that we should be just and fair in our approach. The human mindsets, attitudes and behaviors are structured and conditioned by their respective cultures and environments. A person born and bred in Pakistan or India generally has more in common with the people of the subcontinent.

For instance: when the first generation Indo-Pakistani immigrants relocate to foreign countries, they find it hard to adjust in a radically different culture initially. It would be unwise to generalize, however, because it depends upon the disposition and inclination of immigrants, their level of education and the value system which they have internalized during their formative years.

There are many sub-cultures within cultures and numerous family cultures within those sub-cultures. Educated Indo-Pakistani liberals generally integrate well into the Western societies, but many conservative Pakistani and Indian immigrants, particularly from backward rural areas, find it hard to adjust in a radically different Western culture. On the other hand, such immigrants from underprivileged backgrounds find the conservative societies of the Gulf countries more conducive to their social integration and individual well-being.

In any case, the second generation immigrants, who are born and bred in the Western culture, seamlessly blend into their host environments; and they are likely to have more in common with the people and cultures where they have been brought up. Thus, a first generation Pakistani-American is predominantly a Pakistani, while a second generation Pakistani-American is predominantly an American, albeit with an exotic-sounding name and a naturally tanned complexion.

Regardless, the rise of Trump in America, Brexit in the UK and anti-immigration protests all over Europe, North America and Australia are the manifestation of the underlying sentiment against the globalists’ normative approach toward the issue of immigration, which generally goes against the interests of the working classes of developed countries.

For instance: while joining the European Union, Britain compromised on the rights of its working class in order to protect the interests of its bankers and industrialists, because free trade with the rest of the EU countries spurred British exports.

The British working classes overwhelmingly voted in favor of Brexit because after Britain’s entry into the EU and when the agreements on abolishing internal border checks between the EU member states became effective, the cheaper labor force from the Eastern and Central Europe flooded the markets of Western Europe, and consequently the wages of native British workers dropped and it also became difficult for them to find jobs, because foreigners were willing to do the same job for lesser pays, hence raising the level of unemployment among the British workers and consequent discontentment with the EU.

The subsequent lifting of restrictions on the Romanians and Bulgarians to work in the European Union in January 2014 further exacerbated the problem, and consequently the majority of the British electorate voted in a June 2016 referendum to opt out of the EU. The biggest incentive for the British working class to vote for Brexit was that the East European workers would have to leave Britain after its exit from the EU, and the jobs will once again become available with better wages to the native British workforce.

As I argued earlier that instead of offering band aid solutions, we need to revise the prevailing global economic order and formulate prudent and far-reaching economic and trade policies that can reduce the imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing nations, hence reducing the incentive for immigrants to seek employment in prosperous developed countries.

Finally, it’s a fact that we, as individuals, don’t like to revamp our deeply entrenched narratives even when such narratives have been conclusively proven to be erroneous, because our minds are incapable of radically transforming themselves, especially after a certain age. Despite being a mystery of gigantic proportions, the human mind still has its limits, particularly the minds of grownups are quite inflexible.

The reality is always too complex to be accurately perceived by the mind. Our narrative is simply a mental snapshot of objective reality that we have formulated to the best of our humble abilities. But since our minds are highly cluttered, therefore we generally tend to adopt linear narratives; and try to overlook deviations and contradictory evidence as mere anomalies by employing cognitive mechanisms, such as selective perception and confirmation bias.

Moreover, our minds also adopt mental shortcuts, or heuristics, to ease the cognitive load while making a decision. To instantiate this concept, the developing world has numerous problems: like social injustice, corruption, patriarchy, bigotry and oppression of the minorities, to name a few. My individual narrative, however, has mostly been predicated on the social justice aspect; but I do appreciate the activists who are doing commendable work in other areas, too.

My only gripe is that most social and political commentators these days restrict themselves exclusively to denouncing the crime and criminals, without looking into socio-political and socio-cultural root causes that spawn the crime and criminals; such an approach seems facile and lacking in perspective.

As the renowned Indian author Arundhati Roy poignantly explains the idea in these words:

“I don’t see myself as someone who looks at the world through a lens of ‘rights’ and ‘issues’. That is a very narrow, shallow way for a writer to look at the world. If you ask me what is at the core of what I write, it isn’t about ‘rights’, it’s about justice. Justice is a grand, beautiful, revolutionary idea. What should justice look like? If we disaggregate things into issues, then they just remain issues, problematic areas in an otherwise acceptable scenario.”

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Turning Screws: China’s Australian Coal Ban

February 23rd, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Overly reliant economies are dangerously fragile things.  As it takes two parties, often more, to play the game, the absence of interest, or its withdrawal by one, can spell doom. The Australian economy has been talked up – by Australian economists and those more inclined to look at policy through the wrong end of a drain pipe – as becoming more diverse and capable of withstanding shock.  In truth, it remains a commodity driven entity, vulnerable to the shocks of demand.  Think Australia, think of looting the earth. 

Such carefree, plundering optimism lays bare the jarring fact that Australia remains obsessively and maddeningly committed to King Coal.  To coal, she pays tribute, runs errands and sponsors with conviction.  And it is coal that keeps the country tied to hungry markets which, for the moment, see use for it.  But such hunger is not indefinite.  India and China, traditional destinations for Australia’s less than innovative dig it and export it approach, have made it clear that their lust for coal is temporary.  The appetite is diminishing, despite occasional spikes. Renewables are peeking over the horizon, forming the briefing documents of energy and trade departments.

To this comes another problem.  Australia has been rather bullish of late towards the country that receives most of its earthly treasures. The People’s Republic of China has made it clear that it does not agree with the ambitiously aggressive line Canberra has taken on a range of fronts.  There is the issue of blocking Chinese influence in the Pacific, notably through the provision of alternative cyber infrastructure whilst excluding Huawei in bids to secure 5G telecommunications contracts.  There has been a campaign to combat purported Chinese influence on university campuses and claims of meddling in the political process.  (Meddling by the US, by way of contrast, remains gloriously free to continue.)

All of these acts have shown Beijing less Australia’s independence and sovereign will than its unqualified, traditional commitment to the United States, for which it remains undisputed, kowtowing deputy.  What Washington dictates, Canberra disposes. 

Which bring us to Australia’s lingering weakness.  According to Reuters, customs officers of the Dalian Port Group have stopped Australian coal imports, specifically coking coal central to steel making, and announced a plan to cap imports at $A12 million tonnes a year.  This comes after the noticeable increase in delays at Chinese ports handling both coking and thermal coal over the course of last year.  So far, Australia’s coal problem seems confined to the northern port.

The anti-panic campaign is already in full swing, which might also be read as an alternate universe in motion.  Prime Minister Scott Morrison insists that “people should be careful about leaping to conclusions about this.”  Local ports make decisions on local matters; no reason, then, to break into a sweat.  Treasurer Josh Frydenberg feels there is really nothing to see here.  “Our exports with China will continue to be strong as they have been in the past.”  Trade Minister Simon Birmingham has said, banally enough, that China was “a valued partner of Australia and we trust that our free trade agreement commitments to each other will continue to be honoured.”  Hiccups have previously happened in the relationship (“occasional interruptions to the smooth flow”), but this was nothing compared to the common goal: exporting and using more coal. 

Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe prefers to focus on the amount of coal being stopped at Dalian as negligible and, in any case, transferrable. (The Dalian port receives some 1.8 percent of Australian coal exports.) 

“The amount of coal that is being blocked is the equivalent of two months’ exports from Australia to China.  It’s entire possible that if it cannot enter the Chinese market then it can go to other markets.”

The justification from the Chinese Foreign Ministry remains vague, pegged to the language of regulation and quality reassurance.  Spokesman Geng Shuang relies heavily on the issue of compliance. 

“China’s customs assesses the safety and quality of imported coal, analyses possible risks, and conducts corresponding examination and inspection compliant with laws and regulations.” In so doing, China “can better safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese importers and protect the environment.” 

Geng was also in a playful mood.  Did the reporter ask him on “coal” or “cow”?  The issue is less amusing for Australian exporters, who have received special attention distinct from their Russian and Indonesian counterparts. This is despite the claim that there is a glut in coal, necessitating a temporary halt for domestic reasons. 

The spokesman was also firm: China-Australia relations had not been impaired. 

“As we have stressed many times before, a sound and stable China-Australia relationship serves the common interests of both countries and peoples.” 

The subtext is hard to ignore: Canberra will need to be taught periodic lessons, bullied when necessary, and reminded about being too overzealous.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Small Caps

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the National Defense Forces (NDF) have finished their combing operation in the central Syrian desert, the NDF media center said in a statement.

According to the released statement, the SAA and the NDF eliminated several ISIS members and seized loads of weapons and equipment in the framework of the operation, which covered desert areas of Homs, Rif Dimashq, Deir Ezzor and Raqqa provinces. Despite this, ISIS cells still control a large chunk of the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert.

On February 21, a car bomb exploded near the Deir Rasm hospital in the center of the Turkish-occupied city of Afrin injuring up to 10 people. The attack took place a few hours after a military parade held  by Turkish-backed militants in the city. Opposition activists accused YPG-linked rebels of carrying out the attack. Since early 2018, YPG-linked cells had conducted multiple IED attacks and ambushes on positions of Turkey-led forces in the region.

A car bomb hit a bus currying workers returning from the Omar oil fields. At least 15 people were killed and multiple others were injured. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but local sources say that it was likely conducted by ISIS cells.

Multiple convoys carrying men, women and children, mostly ISIS members and their families, left the ISIS-held pocket in the Euphrates Valley in the last 2 days. These persons are being transferred to filtration camps controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). According to reports, about 250 ISIS fighters remained besieged in the area because they refuse to surrender.

It is interesting to note that pro-SDF sources pretend that the group allows civilians only to leave the pocket. However, evidence from the ground contradicts to these claims. On February 21, it appeared that the US-backed group had handed over 500 ISIS members to the Iraqi military.

On February 19, Russian forces opened two humanitarian corridors allowing refugees to leave the camp. Members of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent were stationed at the checkpoints to provide medical aid to refugees leaving the camp.

However, according to the Russian Reconciliation Centre, militants have blocked the exit from the camp by building an earth berm. They also threatened the refugees with “jail and death” on the territory under the control of the Damascus government.

Head of the Centre Sergei Solomatin added that at the same time, “the possibility of exit of foreign fighters from the 55-kilometer zone to Jordan and Iraq is not limited” and ISIS militants and their families are being moved to the camp from the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. From its side, US-backed militants continue to repeat that the Damascus government is persecuting and punishing refugees returning to their homes.

The Iranian Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have got control of 7-8 US unnamed aerial vehicles operating in Syria and Iraq, IRGC Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said adding that the IRGC extorted intelligence data from the aircraft. The IRGC media also released videos confirming its claims.

While ISIS is de-facto defeated in Syria and Iraq, a possible escalation of the long-standing conflict between the US-Israeli-led bloc and Iran continues to pose a threat to regional security.

*

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

5G and Trump’s Tweets – Ignorance, Greed, or Insanity?

February 22nd, 2019 by Felicity Arbuthnot

“The 5G Rollout is Absolutely Insane.” Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University.

Donald Trump’s total disregard for humanity, fauna, flora, environment – and indeed a towering ignorance – is perhaps encapsulated in recent Tweets:

Electromagnetic Sense Ireland (1) has possibly the most comprehensive, accessible, expert material to be found on 5G. It makes chilling reading.

“5G is the next generation of mobile and wireless technology. It is being touted as the next best thing in communications – providing faster speeds (up to 100 times) and higher capacity transmissions to carry the massive amount of data that will be generated … A dense network of antennae is needed for 5G to operate, so these will be placed on thousands of lamp posts, poles, under manholes, street equipment etc.

“As well as 5G on earth, there are plans to put 20,000 satellites in space. The intention of this is to completely cover the earth in wireless  radiation.

“5G will substantially increase exposure to radio–frequency electromagnetic fields RF-EMF, that has already been proven to be harmful for humans, animals and the environment.”

Risks from 5G include:

  • Damage to the eyes – cataracts, retinal damage
  • Severe sweating
  • Skin damage
  • Immune system disruption
  • Metabolic disruption
  • Neurological disturbance
  • Leakage of blood brain barrier
  • Damage to sperm
  • Increased risk of cancers
  • Collapse of insect populations, the base of food for birds and bats
  • Rise in bacterial resistance and bacterial shifts
  • Damage to plants and trees

“The plans to beam highly penetrative 5G milliwave radiation at us from space must surely be one of the greatest follies ever conceived by mankind. There will be nowhere safe to live”, states Olga Sheean, former World Health Organisation employee and author of “No Safe Place.”

“It would irradiate everyone, including the most vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation: pregnant women, unborn children, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, the elderly, the disabled, and the chronically ill” states Ronald Powell, with a PhD, in Applied Physics from Harvard University.

One hundred and eighty doctors and scientists from thirty six countries have already written to the European Union demanding a moratorium on 5G implementation.

5G is part of a seven Trillion Dollar business. So in Trump Land, clearly to hell with all life on earth – or is he actually unaware of the unimaginable horror of what he is championing?

Radiation from whatever source kills, deforms, attacking the unborn, wreaks havoc – as the haunting birth deformities and cancers, environmental devastation from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the testing grounds of the Pacific Islands, to Iraq and the Middle East show in horrors which follow the generations.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky comments succinctly of 5G: “It’s a bit like nuclear war, it kills.”

*

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

Note

1. https://es-ireland.com/5g-5th-generation-greater-dangers/

Video: An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela

February 22nd, 2019 by Abby Martin

On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about Venezuela.

She uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.

Watch the video below.

..

 

*

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

Major General Qassem Soleimani, the famed commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC), proved that his country is increasingly turning into India’s proxy after he taunted and threatened Pakistan, resulting in the Islamic Republic incredibly taking some of the same positions as its American and “Israeli” enemies (both of whom are its new Indian patron’s allies) in spite of its official “principled” opposition to every manifestation of their policies.  

Digging A Deeper Hole

Iran recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, but instead of marking this momentous occasion by showcasing its sovereign gains over the past four decades, it ended up being manipulated into becoming India’ s proxy and paradoxically undermining the very independence that it’s so proud to have supposedly achieved. The author wrote about this at length in his piece earlier this week about how “Iran’s Being Tricked Into Making Balochistan The New Kurdistan”, explaining that the Islamic Republic’s “deep state” divisions are being masterfully exploited by India in order to turn Iran against Pakistan in the aftermath of a recent terrorist attack along the two Muslim countries’ shared border in the transnational region of Balochistan.

Instead of de-escalating the situation behind the scenes by walking back some of its officials’ anti-Pakistani rhetoric and actively commencing joint anti-terrorist operations like the author suggested that it do in order to make the best out of a bad situation, Major General Qassem Soleimani – the famed commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – upped the ante by taunting and threatening Pakistan, proving that Iran is indeed on the path of becoming India’s proxy and apparently has no problem with this. His words dealt enormous damage to Pakistani-Iranian relations after he called into question the professionalism of his neighbor’s armed forces and portrayed the country as being on the brink of dissolution.

Soleimani’s Statement

Here are his abridged comments as reported by the Fars News Agency:

“We have always offered Pakistan help in the region, but I have this question from the Pakistani government: where are you heading to? You have caused unrest along borders with all your neighbors and do you have any other neighbor left that you want to stir insecurity for?

 

 Are you, who have atomic bombs, unable to destroy a terrorist group with several hundred members in the region? How many of your own people have been killed in different terrorist operations? We do not want your condolences, how could your condolence help the people of Iran?

 

 I tell the Pakistani people that the Saudi cash has influenced Pakistan and they want to destroy Pakistan with such measures.

 

 I warn you not to test Iran and anyone who has tested Iran has received firm response. We are speaking to Pakistan with a friendly tone and we are telling that country not to allow their borders to become a source of insecurity for the neighboring countries; anyone who has made this plot for Pakistan is seeking to disintegrate that country, the Islamic Republic of Iran will take revenge of its martyrs from those mercenaries who have committed this crime no matter where they are in the world.”

Soleimani’s statement revealed a lot about Iran’s current outlook and deserves to be analyzed in depth.

Interpreting Iran’s Intentions

Firstly, Soleimani implied that Pakistan backstabbed Iran after he said that Tehran always offered to help it, after which he remarked that Islamabad is responsible for regional unrest. The General then taunted the Pakistani Armed Forces by rhetorically asking why their nuclear weapons can’t defeat a small armed group that’s supposedly operating within its borders, despite knowing fully well that those armaments are irrelevant when dealing with hybrid threats. That was a cheap attack against the military and meant to make it an international laughingstock. He also portrayed Pakistan as hypocritical by reminding it of how many people it lost to this same type of terrorism that he says its government is responsible for, after which he disrespectfully rejected its condolences.

Soleimani then directly addressed the Pakistani people and tried to impugn Prime Minister Khan’s integrity by making it seem as though their leader is concealing an existentially dangerous conspiracy from them that involves Saudi Arabia paying the country to become a regional exporter of terrorism, which he implied the authorities recklessly agreed to even though he arrogantly predicted that this will result in Pakistan’s “disintegration”. He then proceeded to threaten Pakistan while disingenuously assuring it that he’s “speaking with a friendly tone” by promising that his military will “take revenge of its martyrs…no matter where they are in the world”, or in other words, might pull an Indian-like “surgical strike” against its neighbor (whether claiming it did or actually trying to).

Ruining The Regional Balance

Whether Iran realizes it or not, its representatives’ statements – and especially the latest ones from General Soleimani – have reversed the recent progress in bilateral relations with Pakistan and shown the world that their country has been successfully manipulated by a foreign power’s psy-ops into turning against its neighbor. Some members of the Iranian “deep state” probably don’t mind, however, since they might cynically believe that this serves the purpose of distracting their population from their many internal problems that have been exacerbated by the US’ unilateral re-implementation of sanctions and getting them to redirect their critical focus away from Iran’s setbacks in the Mashriq and towards the new externally aggravated fault line with Pakistan instead.

Worse still, all of this is occurring in the context of pronounced Indian-Pakistani tensions after the Pulwama attack, which suggests that Iran’s rhetoric is actually part of India’s regional Hybrid War against Pakistan and further reinforcing the notion that the Islamic Republic has become New Delhi’s proxy against Islamabad. This increasingly hostile state of affairs is making it impossible for Pakistan to maintain its desired balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia and mediate between them like Islamabad previously offered to do. As a result, pro-Saudi sentiment is surging in Pakistani society while previously friendly attitudes towards Iran are rapidly disappearing, which is no one’s fault other than Tehran’s for implementing such an irresponsibly partisan policy against Pakistan.

Indian Strategic Interests

India didn’t manipulate Iran’s response to the artificial security dilemma that the joint Indo-American Hybrid War on CPEC eventually created between it and Pakistan just for the sake of “deep state” satisfaction, but to achieve tangible strategic outcomes that work out to its long-term advantage. The worsening of Pakistani-Iranian relations greatly hinders the creation of the Golden Ring of Multipolar Great Powers between those two Muslim countries, Turkey, Russia, and China, and it gives India a direct inroad into this geopolitical construction’s Central Asian core through the trans-Iranian North-South Transport Corridor’s (NSTC)’s eastern branch. Furthermore, India could take advantage of this situation to obtain basing rights for its navy in Chabahar, as well as pull Iran away from the Taliban.

By unprecedentedly becoming strategically dependent on India, however, Iran is also coming under the indirect influence of its patron’s American and “Israeli” allies too. About that, it can be said that Iran has currently come to share the same position towards Pakistan as India’s two aforementioned allies despite being their sworn enemy after all four of them accused Islamabad of hosting terrorists and being responsible for regional unrest. It’s almost surreal that the Islamic Republic celebrated the 40thanniversary of its revolution by aligning itself with what it refers to as the “Great and Little Satans”, an outcome that was brought about by India’s clandestine “facilitation” and which the Islamic Republic might wrongly believe will relieve their growing pressure upon it.

Dealing With The “Devils’” Best Friend

It’s the height of hypocrisy that Iran is now on the same side as its American and “Israeli” enemies vis-à-vis Pakistan because it’s invested so heavily since the revolution to establish the international reputation that it will always oppose the manifestation of both of their policies on principle. This “politically incorrect” observation draws into question everything that the Iranian leadership said that it stood for since 1979 and confirms that there are indeed “exceptions” to its “principled stance” of never aligning with the “Great and Little Satans”. Apparently, it’s okay to do so as a form of protest against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s (MBS) recent visit to Pakistan and as a sign of appreciation for India’s NSTC investments.

Still, Iran didn’t overreact when MBS went to India afterwards, probably because New Delhi has basically “paid off” Iran with the promise (key word) of those said megaproject investments as a form of implicit sanctions relief. This, however, ignores the fact that the US’ NSTC sanctions waiver to India and Saudi Arabia’s planned energy deals with it both work out to the Islamic Republic’s long-term detriment by making it so that New Delhi achieves historically unparalleled “good cop/bad cop” influence over its economy. Tellingly, while Iran harshly criticizes Saudi Arabia for its secret ties with “Israel”, it’s silent about Modi publicly strolling with Netanayhu barefoot on a Mediterranean beach in summer 2017, proving how “exceptional” Iran regards India as being.

Russia To The Rescue?

While it might seem like all hope is lost in Pakistani-Iranian relations after the latter danced along to America’s strategic choreography by becoming India’s proxy in exchange for the promise (key word) of de-facto sanctions relief, there’s a chance that Russia’s recent return to the region can at the very least stop the situation from reaching rock bottom. Russia is regarded as being just as “exceptional” as India is in Iran’s eyes and therefore “allowed” to enjoy high-level strategic relations with both of the Islamic Republic’s “Israeli” and Saudi foes (despite growing Russian-Iranian disagreements over Syria) because Tehran considers Moscow to be an irreplaceable “pressure valve” by virtue of its geography, impending free trade deal, and a possible $5 billion loan.

Russia is so indispensable to Iran that there’s no way that Tehran could pressure Moscow to suspend its planned $10 billion undersea pipeline between itself, Pakistan, and India until Pakistani-Iranian relations improve. Nor, for that matter, could it stop Russian businessmen from using the NSTC to facilitate their country’s trade with Pakistan, meaning that Moscow is unquestionably in a position to “balance” between both Muslim Great Powers in accordance with its envisaged 21st-century grand strategy and therefore keep the situation from spiraling out of control. In fact, Russia might even be able to exert some “moderating influence” over Iran and get it to reconsider its current hostility against Pakistan, which could eventually set the basis for it to broker a rapprochement.

Concluding Thoughts

Iran was surprisingly manipulated on the occasion of none other than the 40thanniversary of its revolution into abandoning its commitment to independent policies and becoming India’s proxy instead, which it did in response to New Delhi’s wildly successful psy-op after a recent terrorist attack and in exchange for the promise (key word) of de-facto sanctions relief. IRGC commander General Soleimani publicly taunted and threatened Pakistan as a sign of fealty to his country’s new patron, which ruined any chances of Islamabad mediating between Tehran and Riyadh like it previously offered to do in pursuit of regional peace and incredibly aligned the Islamic Republic with its American and “Israeli” enemies, all of which works out to India’s ultimate strategic benefit.

All isn’t lost, however, since Russia could conceivably leverage its impressive influence over Iran and hefty investments in its economy (both current and forthcoming) to ensure that Pakistani-Iranian relations stabilize and avoid reaching rock bottom, though it’ll still remain immensely difficult for Moscow to counteract New Delhi’s influence and get Tehran to improve its ties with Islamabad in the near future. As unbelievable as it may sound, “Israel’s” Haaretz almost got the regional state of affairs right when it released an article titled “Pakistan Just Became Saudi Arabia’s Client State, and Turned Its Back on Tehran”, except they mixed up the subjects and it should have been that “Iran Just Became India’s Client State, and Turned Its Back on Islamabad”.

*

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 Iran’s Turning into India’s Proxy by Taunting and Threatening Pakistan?
  • Tags: , ,

As he stated at the outset, Vladimir Putin’s annual state of the nation address today before a joint session of the nation’s bicameral legislature was devoted preponderantly to domestic policy. He was expanding on the practical implications for the Russian population of the policy priorities for his current six-year term that he set out in decrees of May 2018. These have in the meantime taken the form of national projects organized around support to families to encourage childbearing and stabilize the national demographics; housing construction and financing; roads, ports and other transport infrastructure development; improved health services; upgrading public education; encouragement to business innovation and export; and the like.

This material was delivered with a human touch, drawing on many experiences of contact with people from all walks of life that the President has gathered in specially organized meetings focused on these national projects at various cities around his vast country. He cited in particular his time in Kazan last week talking about housing.

For most political observers outside of Russia, myself included, the domestic policy story was marginal to our interests, though we did sit up and pay close attention to his brief remarks on one achievement illustrating the strides the country is making in state of the art applied sciences. This was his description of the breakthrough represented by the design and production of the hypersonic Avangard missile system. He likened it to the launch into orbit of the first Sputnik and he promised spill-over of the science into the civilian economy.

Otherwise, we foreigners had to wait until the very end of his speech to hear what brought us to watch this annual ritual in the first place. The raisins in our cake came when the President finally turned to international affairs. And there, after a rather cursory summary of Russia’s foreign policy priorities, his discourse shifted to defense issues raised by the recently announced American withdrawal from the Intermediate- Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. Indeed, notwithstanding the mention a few moments before of the key importance of bilateral ties with China and also with India, Putin’s focus on Washington and the way the whole Russian defense industry is directed to meeting threats from the USA, highlights the centrality of that one country in Russian thinking. Thus, Putin allowed himself to mock Europe as US “satellites.” Further to the point, he went on to use folksy language that Nikita Khrushchev would surely a have approved to describe the Europeans as so many little piglets oinking their assent to Washington’s allegations of Russian INF violations. The audience in the hall turned to smiles and applauded enthusiastically.

Western mainstream media have been quick to note the direct threat by Putin in his speech to respond to any US placement of nuclear armed cruise missiles in Europe by targeting not only the European host countries of such installations but the decision-making centers authorizing their use, meaning Washington. By its new hypersonic weapon systems, Russia would be able to reach targeted American cities within the same 10 – 12 minutes that the Americans would enjoy by lobbing their slower cruise missiles at Moscow from perches in Poland and Romania.

This is tough talk over basic issues that suggest not so much a revisiting of the US-Russian Cold War confrontation over European based Pershings versus Soviet medium range SS20s targeting Western Europe in the 1980s, as a revisiting of the issues underlying the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. At that time, US missiles secretly based in Turkey brought a mirror image response from Russia (the Soviet Union) in the form of missiles positioned just off the American coast and having comparable flying times to hit the American heartland.

Surely, as I have remarked in recent essays, the highly polished Putin is no Khrushchev, and he is careful to avoid appearing to issue threats. But the toughness is there under the velvet glove in speeches like today’s.

To allow readers to draw their own conclusions, I offer below my translation of the complete text of the speech relating to the United States.

***

Excerpt – the final 12 minutes devoted to foreign and defense policy of a speech that ran approximately 90 minutes.

The most acute and discussed issue today in Russian-American relations is the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Therefore, I am simply compelled to dwell on this in some detail. Yes, to be sure, from the moment of the conclusion of this Treaty in 1987 there have been serious changes in the world. Many countries have developed and continue to develop this form of weapons, whereas Russia and the USA do not. We voluntarily have restricted ourselves in this matter. Such a situation, of course, can raise questions; that is understandable. That is what our American partners should have said, honestly, and without using fabricated accusations against Russia to justify their unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty. It would have been better if, as in 2002, when they left the ABM Treaty, they had been open and honest about it. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter. I believe it is bad. But they did so and that’s it. Here they should have acted honestly. How are they themselves acting in fact? They are violating everything and then seek justification and designate guilty parties. And still more, they mobilize their satellites: they are very cautious, but still like piglets they oink their assent on this question. At first, they began development and application of medium range missiles, seeking to divert attention by calling them “target missiles” for their missile defense system. Then they began installing in Europe the MK-41 multipurpose launchers which make it possible to perform combat use of the medium range Tomahawk cruise missiles.

I am talking about this and taking your time with it only because we are compelled to respond to the accusations which we hear directed against us. But having done everything that I have just said, the USA openly disregarded and demonstratively ignored the whole set of provisions stipulated by articles 4 and 6 of the INF Treaty. In particular, according to point 1, article 4 of the Treaty, (and I quote) “each of the parties liquidates its medium range missiles and launch installations for such missiles so that neither of the parties has such missiles and such launchers.” In article 6, point 1, we see (I am reading word for word): “after this Treaty comes into force and thereafter neither of the parties will produce any medium range missiles or carry out flight tests of such missiles, nor produce any stages of such missiles or any launch installations of such missiles.” End of citation.

By launching medium range target-missiles and by installing in Romania and Poland launchers suitable for use with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the USA directly and crudely violated these requirements of the Treaty. Well, they did this already long ago. In Romania these launch installations are already standing, and nothing, or seemingly nothing is happening. Strange, you might say. We see nothing strange. But people should see this and understand.

How do we evaluate the situation in this regard. I have already said and want to repeat: Russia does not intend – and this is very important, I repeat it especially – Russia does not intend to be the first to locate such missiles in Europe. If they really will be produced and placed on the European Continent, and the USA has such plans, in any case we have not heard contrary statements, then this will greatly exacerbate the situation in the sphere of international security; it will create serious threats for Russia. After all, the flying time to Moscow of certain categories of such missiles can amount to 10 – 12 minutes. This is a very serious threat for us. In this case, we will be compelled, and I want to underline, precisely compelled, to take mirror-image and asymmetrical actions. What does this mean?

I will say right now directly and openly what I am talking about so that no one will rebuke us later, and so that everything is clear in advance. Russia will be forced to create and deploy forms of weapons which can be used not only with respect to those territories from which the respective direct threat arises, but also with respect to those territories where are located the centers for taking decisions about using the missile complexes threatening us.

What is important in this connection: here there is a lot that is new. By their tactical and technical characteristics, including flight time to the indicated management centers, these weapons will fully match the threats which are being directed against Russia.

We know how to do this and we will carry out these plans immediately, as soon as the respective threats to us become real. I do not think that the international situation today is such that it needs additional and irresponsible exacerbation. We do not want this

What do I want to add here? Our American colleagues have already tried to achieve absolute military superiority with the help of their global missile defense system. They must put such illusions aside. The response from our side will always be powerful and effective.

Work on the promising models and systems of arms about which I spoke in my Address a year ago is continuing – at an even pace, without interruptions, according to plan. We have begun serial production of the Avangard complex about which I already spoke today. This year, as was planned, the first regiment of the Strategic Missile Troops will be supplied with it. We are in production and carrying out the cycle of tests on the heavy, intercontinental missile Sarmat which has unprecedented power. The Peresvet laser installations and air force complexes equipped with the hypersonic Kinzhal missiles have confirmed their unique specifications in test and battle duty; the personnel have gained experience operating them. In December of this year all the Peresvety units delivered to the Armed Forces will be put on combat duty. We are continuing work to extend the infrastructure for hosting MiG-31 planes equipped with Kinzhal missiles. The tests are going well on our unlimited range cruise missile powered by the Burevestnk nuclear engine, as well as on the Poseidon, our underwater drone with unlimited range.

In this connection, I want to make a very important remark. We didn’t talk about this previously, but today I can say this: already in the spring of this year we will put out to sea our first atomic submarine carrying this drone complex. The work is proceeding according to plan.

Today, I consider it possible also to officially inform you about still one more promising new unit. Remember that last time I said: there is something additional to talk about, but it is a bit early. Now, calmly we will tell you what we have held in the vaults. It is one more promising innovation, work on which is going successfully, with completion certain to occur within the planned timeline. Namely, I want to speak about the hypersonic Zircon missile, having a speed in flight of around Mach 9 and a range greater than one thousand kilometers, capable of destroying targets both on land and at sea. Its use is foreseen on naval carriers, serial produced surface ships and submarines, including those already produced or under construction and fitted with the high precision Kalibr missile complexes. That is to say, all of this will not incur extra costs for us.

In this connection, I want to emphasize that for the defense of the national interests of Russia, we will turn over to the Russian Navy two – three years earlier than scheduled seven new multifunctional submarines, and in the near future we will begin construction of five surface ships for global service, while a further 16 ships of this class will be introduced into the fleet by 2027.

In closing out the subject of the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the INF Treaty, I would like to say the following. In the past few years, the USA has been conducting towards Russia a policy which one could hardly call friendly. They ignore the lawful interests of Russia. They are constantly organizing various kinds of anti-Russian campaigns which are absolutely unprovoked, and I emphasize this, from our side. They introduce more and more new sanctions which are illegal from the standpoint of international law. They are dismantling unilaterally practically all the treaties and legal basis of international security that developed over recent decades, and at the same time they just about call Russia the main threat to the USA.

I will say directly that this is untrue. Russia wants to have full-bodied, equitable and friendly relations with the USA. Russia is not threatening anyone. All of our actions in the sphere of security bear an exclusively reactive, meaning defensive character. We are not interested in a confrontation and do not want it, least of all with such a global power as the United States of America. But it would appear that our partners are not noticing how and with what speed the world is changing, where it is headed. They continue their destructive and clearly erroneous policy. It hardly corresponds to the interests of the USA itself. But that is not for us to decide.

We see that we are dealing with businesslike, very talented people. However, among the ruling class there are many of those who are excessively captivated by the idea of their exceptionalism and their superiority over the rest of the world. It stands to reason that they have the right to think so if they wish. But do they know how to count? Surely they do. Let them calculate the range and speed of our upcoming weapons systems. We only ask one thing: let them first do their calculations, and only after that take decisions which can create serious threats for our country, understandably leading to actions in response from the Russian side to reliably ensure our security.

Moreover, I already spoke about this and want to repeat it: we are ready for negotiations on disarmament, but we will no longer knock at a closed door. We will wait until our partners mature, come to understand the need for equitable dialogue on this subject.

We will continue to develop our Armed Forces, to raise the intensity and quality of combat preparation, including our taking into account our experience from the anti-terrorist operation in Syria. And this was received by practically all the commanders of the major units of our Ground Troops, our special operations forces and military police, navy crews, army, tactical operations, strategic and military transport aviation.

I want to emphasize the following: for steady and long-term development we need peace. All of our work to raise our defense capability has only one objective: it is directed towards ensuring the security of the country and of our citizens, so that no one will not only not think about committing aggression against Russia but will not try to use the methods of forcible pressure against our country.

Here’s the full video of President Putin’s state of the nation address.

*

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

Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2017.

Featured image is from The White House

The Start of Homelessness in Cyprus

February 22nd, 2019 by Andreas C Chrysafis

A Rachman-style landlord has decided to make homeless and evict over 100 of his tenants during the week of last Christmas from his rundown apartment building located in Nicosia. He has given the occupants eight-days notice to vacate the premises and turned off the electricity and water supply as a way of intimidation. Yet, no authority or the police intervened; at least, not until the state television exposed the plight of the distraught tenants!

Exposing the quandary of the tenants with no place to go but the streets has outraged the nation. The public was mortified that such practices by some landlords and often pillars of the community is condoned in Cyprus.

Shamefully, the local authorities seem to turn a blind eye to such anti-social behaviour; it appears as if citizens of poorer standing can be discarded at will with no recourse! This is not an isolated case and the government is responsible for the new frenzy in rental behaviour at the expense of those less fortunate citizens of society.

As of April 21 of this year, rent controls are being abolished and a “free market for all” replaces social responsibility! Capitalizing on the forthcoming law, some landlords are evicting tenants from their homes so they can demand higher rents plus 8% annual rent increase and as much as 6-months security deposit instead of the customary two months!

With the arrival of AirBnB, rents have in fact skyrocketed and for private investors this is a golden opportunity to capitalize on their investment. Meanwhile tenants are priced out of their homes and neighbourhoods.

A rental epidemic is now in process and property-owners started converting basements, storerooms and garages as flats or rooms for AirBnB rentals. Meanwhile, well-connected companies fortified by the new law have set out to purchase bank foreclosures and home repossessions at bargain prices for conversion.

The shortage of affordable accommodation has certainly created a serious problem for people that rely on rentals but also for students and young working couples. In fact, the failure to invest in affordable housing is the reason why a wider gap exists in Cyprus today between “the haves” and the “have-nots” than any other time before.

Under the current policy change and the government’s political attitude, it is only a matter of time before the nation is faced with a greater public problem on it hands: homelessness!

Refugee/Asylum Seekers

If that was not bad enough, the rising tide of illegal migrants has now added to the looming problem of homeless people! The influx of refugees can be claimed as a social time bomb that has caught the Cyprus government napping!

Under EU regulations, Cyprus is obliged to provide support and shelter to all refugees or asylum seekers entering the Republic. Instead of learning from the “refugee/asylum” experience of Greece and the demographic impact it has on society and local way of life, the government has failed to foresee the burgeoning risks of refugees landing on its shores or sneaking across the buffer zone.

As a result of its complacency, the EU and UNHCR have criticized the government for not doing enough to provide accommodation and assistance to migrants. Oddly enough, eight out of ten new arrivals are mostly young men that have paid smugglers as much as €2.000 to enter their newly-discovered destination of the Republic in the hope of getting on the EU gravy train.

Last year 4.500 people landed in Cyprus to join the hundreds of others seeking international protection. The island is now considered a honey trap and a hub of activity for traffickers transporting human cargo via the occupied area or on rickety boats from Turkey to be abandoned at the mercy of the sea and rescued by the Republic’s coastguard. Most end up in Pomos and Latchi marinas to be transferred into receiving centres for processing.

The current conditions, however, pose a major problem for the authorities; not enough centres are available to accommodate the flow of newcomers! With a backlog of more than 8,000 asylum claims, the situation is aggravated by the fact that – for obvious reasons – the main Kofinou Reception Centre no longer accepts single males.

The shortage of accommodation coupled with a monthly €100 per person rent-allowance leaves asylum/refugee recipients below the poverty line. Those that slip through the net end up sleeping rough or become easy targets for exploitation in a cycle of perpetual destitution in the land of milk and honey.

Homelessness for Cypriots

Since the government’s election win in March 2013 and EU-Troika’s Bail-in robbery (emptying people’s bank accounts without consent) the new government carved out a new course for Cyprus; neo-liberalism! This calls for the privatization of national industries by also trusting the forces of a market-economy to drive the nation forward!

Unfortunately, when private corporations are in control and driven by greed at the top, there is little hope for those at the bottom!

True to its dogma, the Cyprus government did exactly what other nations have tried and regretted it; the break up of national industries and their sale to private corporate investors on the cheap!

In its wisdom, it also sanctioned mega projects aimed specifically to cater for an elite sector in society and plutocracy; projects such as tower blocks of high-class apartments selling at €1.5 million and as much as €4.0 million per unit. It relaxed zoning laws allowing the development of commercial/residential restricted projects on the seafront; introduced the opening of casinos but most importantly; the selling of golden passports!

The intergovernmental organization OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has put Cyprus on its blacklist for exposing the EU to “the corrupt and the criminal” by offering residency permits to rich non-nationals without strict screening process or transparency. Subsequently, it produced a damning report stating that: “Cyprus passports-for-citizenship salescheme, is the most prolific of its kind in Europe, with 3.300 foreign nationals having secured EU passports since 2013, earning the country some €5.0 bn.”

As often, none of those earnings and EU-Troika loans including the Bail-in cash amounting to billions of euros trickled down to the population or the infrastructure. Instead, billions have been syphoned off to bail out corrupt banks and to maintain a plutocratic system and status quo.

The scarcity of affordable housing and lettings plays a critical role in any society and yet successive governments never did encourage programmes to build new stocks of subsidized housing for citizens but rather relied on private developers to fill the gap – they never did; and why should they without financial incentives?

In fact, governments have been in denial to recognize that a housing problem exists in Cyprus but the Interior Minister recently broke ranks and has acknowledged that: “homeless people really do exist in Cyprus”.

But the greatest cause of homeless people in Cyprus is yet to come; the evictions and mass repossession of homes by the banks and third party associates!

The Parliament (Vouli) passed a Bill last year allowing banks –for the first time – to apply a fast-track repossession of homes. To “legitimize” the seizure of properties, the government has licensed a number of auction houses (bailiffs) to handle the evictions. In the absence of a safety net homeowners can now find themselves in the streets without the full protection of the law.

The banks did not waste time and began issuing “repossession” letters to thousands of “non-performing” and trapped householders. Under strict instructions by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Troika they embarked to unload their toxic loans and mortgages to foreign hedge funds on the cheap!

Yet, MPs failed to insist that banks offer the same terms to those homeowners in trouble and save themselves from eviction! That was never part of the Troika scheme and recently, under the eyes of the news cameras a woman in Limassol with her three children were evicted from their house and made homeless!

That’s what neo-liberalism is all about – the survival of the fittest! Without a strong and caring social-conscious policy in place, it’s the start of Homelessness in Cyprus!

 

*

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

Andreas C Chrysafis is a UK published author of five books and over 400 press articles. He is not political affiliated but a strong advocate of Democracy, Transparency, Equality and Human Rights. His latest books “Aphrodite’s Sacred Virgins” and “Andreas C Chrysafis ART –Volume 1” are both available to the reading public from bookshops, Amazon and Online book providers.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Start of Homelessness in Cyprus
  • Tags:

Trump’s surrender to the  neoconservatives makes it impossible for an informed person to support him.  He has signed off on the coup against democracy in Venezuela, and he has placed all life at risk by pulling out of the INF treaty with Russia.  Putin has publicly announced that the consequences of Washington’s reckless and irresponsible decision to junk the INF treaty will be the targeting of the missile sites in Europe and also of the American command and control centers.

As I write there is nothing on the BBC or CNN websites or anywhere else in the US print and TV media about the President of Russia’s clear statement.  Trump has allowed the crazed neocons to raise the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon to near certainty, and it has gone unreported by the presstitutes.

Not only is there no evidence for Washington’s claim that Russia has violated the INF treaty, violating the treaty is not in Russia’s interests. Russian intermediate range missiles cannot reach the US. The purpose of the treaty is to keep Russia from targeting Europe by preventing US intermediate range missiles from being deployed in Europe.  Washington tore up the INF treaty in order to put intermediate range missiles on Russia’s border, thus endangering Europe.

A hopeful person could perhaps reason that Trump, realizing that he is powerless to reduce tensions with Russia and to stop the wars, has decided to give free rein to the neocons in the expectation that they will so terrify Europe that Europe will break from Washington and NATO in an act of self-preservation. Perhaps Trump realizes that only the breakup of the Empire can stop the wars, and that the best way to destroy the American Empire is to give free rein to the crazed neoconservatives. 

What is important is not what political party or candidate that we support, but that we support truth wherever we find it.  Most people are confused about this.  If truth is on Trump’s side, and you support truth, people see it as supporting Trump.  This shows how politicized and emotional American thinking has become.  Andrew McCabe, former acting director of the FBI, has made it clear that the FBI, the Democratic Party, US media, former CIA director John Brennan, former director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and the US Department of Justice (sic) were, and are, involved in a plot to remove President Trump from office.  The fraudulent “Steele Dossier” is the basis for the fraudulent “Russiagate” investigation.  A number of laws have been violated by those involved in the plot.  For example, spy warrants were obtained from the FISA court under false pretense, and there is little, if any, doubt that Brennan, Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller are guilty of sedition and conspiracy against the President of the United States.  By demanding that these government officials be held accountable, we defend truth and the rule of law, not Trump.  

Russiagate is a hoax, but the INF treaty and the open plot to overthrow Venezuelan democracy are not hoaxes.  These, not conspiring with Putin, are the crimes for which Trump should be held accountable.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

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

Featured image is from Geopolitics Alert

The definition of the term “terrorism” has been deliberately left undefined by the Western powers to use it as a catch-all pretext to justify their interventionist policy in the energy-rich Islamic countries. Depending on context, “terrorism” can mean two markedly distinct phenomena: religious extremism or militancy.

If terrorism is understood as religious extremism, then that is a cultural mindset and one cannot possibly hope to transform cultures through the means of war and military interventions; if anything, war will further radicalize the society.

However, by terrorism, if the Western powers mean militancy, then tamping down on militancy and violence through the agency of war does make sense because a policy of disarmament and deweaponization can be subsequently pursued in the liberated territories.

That being understood that the Western powers aim to eradicate militancy through wars, but then a question arises that why have the Western powers deliberately funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized armed militants waging proxy wars against the governments of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya and Bashar al-Assad in Syria since 2011 onward?

Notwithstanding, it can be argued that war and militancy are only means to achieve certain ends, and it’s the objectives and goals that determine whether such wars are just or unjust. No-one can dispute the assertion that the notions of “just wars” and “good militants” do exist in the vocabulary; empirically speaking, however, after witnessing the instability, violence and utter chaos and anarchy in the war-ravaged countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, the onus lies on any “liberal interventionist” to prove beyond doubt that the wars and militants that he justifies and upholds are indeed just and good.

In political science, the devil always lies in the definitions of the terms that we employ. For instance: how does one define a terrorist or a militant? In order to understand this, we need to identify the core of a “militant,” that what essential feature distinguishes him from the rest?

A militant is basically an armed and violent individual who carries out subversive activities against the state. That being understood, now we need to examine the concept of “violence.” Is it violence per se that is wrong, or does some kind of justifiable violence exist?

In the contemporary politics, I take the view, on empirical grounds, that all kinds of violence is essentially wrong; because the ends (goals) for which such violence is often employed are seldom right and elusive at best. Although democracy and liberal ideals are cherished goals but such goals can only be accomplished through peaceful means; expecting from armed and violent militants to bring about democratic reform is incredibly naïve and preposterous.

The Western mainstream media and its neoliberal constituents, however, take a different view. According to them, there are two distinct kinds of violence: justifiable and unjustifiable. When a militant resorts to violence for the secular and nationalist goals, such as “bringing democracy” to Libya and Syria, the misinformed neoliberals enthusiastically exhort such form of violence.

However, if such militants later turn out to be Islamic jihadists, like the Misrata militia and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, or the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front, Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, the credulous neoliberals, who were misguided by the mainstream narrative, promptly make a volte-face and label them as “terrorists.”

More to the point, there is a big difference between an anarchist and a nihilist: an anarchist believes in something and wants to change the status quo in the favor of that belief, while a nihilist believes is nothing and considers life to be meaningless.

Similarly, there is also a not-so-subtle difference between a terrorist and an insurgent: an Islamic insurgent believes in something and wants to enforce that agenda in the insurgency-hit regions, whereas a terrorist is simply a bloodthirsty lunatic who is hell-bent on causing death and destruction. The distinguishing feature between the two is that an insurgent has well defined objectives and territorial ambitions, while a terrorist is basically motivated by the spirit of revenge and the goal of causing widespread fear.

The phenomena of terrorism is that which threatened the Western countries between 2001 to 2005 when some of the most audacious terrorist acts were carried out by al-Qaeda against the Western targets like the 9/11 tragedy, the Madrid bombing in 2004 and the London bombing in 2005; or the terrorist acts committed by the Islamic State in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

However, the phenomena which is currently threatening the Islamic countries is not terrorism, as such, but Islamic insurgencies. Excluding al Qaeda Central which is a known transnational terrorist organization, all the regional militant groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, al Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria, and even some of the ideological affiliates of al Qaeda and Islamic State, like Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, the Islamic State affiliates in Afghanistan, Sinai and Libya which have no organizational and operational association with al Qaeda Central or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, respectively, are not terror groups, as such, but Islamic insurgents who are fighting for the goals of liberating their homelands from foreign occupation and interference.

Nevertheless, after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, and when the American “nation-building” projects failed in those hapless countries, the US policymakers immediately realized that they were facing large-scale and popularly rooted insurgencies against foreign occupation; consequently, the occupying military altered its CT (counter-terrorism) approach in the favor of a COIN (counter-insurgency) strategy.

A COIN strategy is essentially different from a CT approach and it also involves dialogue, negotiations and political settlements, alongside the coercive tactics of law enforcement and military and paramilitary operations on a limited scale.

The root factors that are primarily responsible for spawning militancy and insurgency anywhere in the world are not religion but socio-economics, ethnic differences, marginalization of disenfranchised ethno-linguistic and ethno-religious groups and the ensuing conflicts; socio-cultural backwardness of the affected regions, and the weak central control of the impoverished developing states over their remote rural and tribal areas.

Additionally, if we take a cursory look at some of the worst insurgency-plagued regions in the Middle East, deliberate funding, training and arming of certain militant groups by regional and global powers for their strategic interests has played the key role.

Back in the 1980s, during the Soviet-Afghan war, the Afghan jihadists did not spring up spontaneously out of nowhere; the Western powers, with the help of their regional allies, trained and armed those militants against their archrival, the former Soviet Union. Those very same Afghan “freedom fighters” later mutated into the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Similarly, during the proxy wars in Libya and Syria, the Western powers, with the help of their regional client states, once again trained and armed Islamic jihadists and tribal militiamen against the governments of Colonel Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. And isn’t it ironic that those very same “moderate rebels” later mutated into Ansar al Sharia, al Nusra Front and the Islamic State?

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Many have dismissed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s Asia tour to Pakistan, India, and China as nothing more than a post-Khashoggi photo-op to shore up international support, but it’s actually about much more than that because of its religious, economic, and geopolitical dimensions.

There’s little doubt that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s (MBS) international reputation will receive a much-needed boost as a result of his Asia tour to Pakistan, India, and China in the aftermath of Khashoggi’s killing, but unlike what many are saying about this trip, it’s about much more than a “politically convenient” photo-op. Those who dislike MBS, especially within the Western Establishment, will continue to do so regardless of how enthusiastic Asian audiences are in receiving him, so it’s irrelevant to make the dismissive remark that he only embarked on his journey to make himself look better in their eyes. Actually, while his profile will probably rise in each of the three countries that he travelled to, he chose them in order to accomplish very real religious, economic, and geopolitical objectives that will be concisely summarized below in easy-to-read bullet point form:

Religious

Pakistan

The visit of the next Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is intended to strengthen intra-Ummah relations.

India

Similarly, the optics of his trip to India – in spite of the ruling BJP-led government’s anti-Muslim stance – carry with them the hint of inter-civilizational cooperation between a Muslim and Hindu government.

China

Likewise, MBS’ trip to China shows that he has no problem cooperating with a formally atheist state and doesn’t buy into the Mainstream Media’s fake news about its alleged treatment of the Muslim Uighur.

Economic

Pakistan

The $20 billion of investments that MBS committed to Pakistan proves that Saudi Arabia has a serious stake in the success of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

India

Saudi Arabia sees India as an exciting new partner with enormous potential that his Kingdom can tap into to establish itself as a key player in its long-term rise as an envisaged hemispheric Great Power.

China

The People’s Republic is predicted to play an outsized role in MBS’ ambitious Vision 2030 socio-economic reform agenda, especially when it comes to possibly financing the NEOM future city.

Geopolitical

Pakistan

Given that Pakistan is the global pivot state, Saudi Arabia clearly wants to play a role in the cutting-edge Eurasian integration processes that Islamabad is expected to lead through its CPEC+ corridors.

India

MBS is mostly interested at this stage in “poaching” India away from Iran by actually turning it into the “client state” that the Mainstream Media falsely fearmongered he intended to do to Pakistan.

China

The success of Vision 2030 and Saudi Arabia’s ultimate transition to a post-oil economy is largely dependent on Chinese support, which will make or break the Kingdom’s future Great Power plans.

*

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.

Washington Newspeak

February 22nd, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua has twice been elected to the presidency and has been a popular leader in Nicaragua since 1979.  The neoconservative war criminal, John Bolton, picked by President Trump to run US foreign policy, has declared that Washington is going to overthrow the duly elected Ortega and replace him with a puppet.  Then, Bolton says, the Nicaraguan people will be free.

What Bolton means is that Nicaragua will once again be under Washington’s control and free to be looted by American corporate interests.  In Washington’s version of Newspeak, Orwell’s “Freedom is Slavery” becomes “Freedom is Vassalage.”  “Democracy” becomes its opposite—leadership appointed dictatorially by an outside power. (See this)

Meanwhile in Venezuela, the neoconservative war criminals Bolton and Elliott Abrams are trying to smuggle in arms to the person Trump has appointed president of Venezuela in order to have a go at violently overthrowing democracy in Venezuela and replacing it with another Washington puppet.  Venezuela’s state owned oil reserves, the largest in the world, are the target.  This money, Washington thinks, should be going to the American oil companies, not to Venezuela’s needs.

Americans should be very proud that their country stands up for freedom and democracy.  If it weren’t for Washington, surely freedom and democracy would have been stamped out by now. (See this)

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

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

Featured image is from South China Morning Post

The Candidate Rides Again: The Bernie Sanders Re-Run

February 22nd, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

He could not stay away, and few could blame him.  Such political tendencies are nerves, conditions, diseases: eventually, we have to succumb to them.  Bernie Sanders has announced his intention to run for the White House in 2020.  It was as surprising as any statement about US inequality.  But what matters here is the crowd – and a large one at that – that Sanders has to contend with this time around.

The primary problem here is timing and that old nag of history.  Politics has, at its core, a clock.  Ticking, with an ancient menace, it reminds politicians that a time to challenge comes only once in a time, if not a life time.  It might resurface, supplying the failed candidate with a chance for redemption.  Generally, this is rare; politics and Lazarus do not tend to meet. 

The short of it is this: Abiding by the tick-tock of political opportunity benefits the shrewd and calculating.  On evidence, Sanders is neither shrewd nor calculating.  Passionate, yes.  Buckets of character, yes.  On some level, conditionally principled, but otherwise green on the kill.  His capitulation to Hillary Clinton and her family’s strangling apparatus over the Democratic Party was significant in giving the brightest of green lights to Trump. 

The populist election should have been a battle of the populists, and for some time, Sanders’ 2016 campaign was marked by colours different from the standard Democratic line.  His movement into the Democratic universe proved to be a mistake, though it should never be forgotten that he has, at stages of his political life, hugged the outlines of that confused “centrist” party. 

His voting record show patches of poor, and, in some instances severely compromised judgment.  He favoured sending his state’s nuclear waste to the township of Sierra Blanca, Texas in 1998 (better out of Vermont than in). He favoured the sanctions regime against Iraq, one that did much to cause desperation in the populace and nothing to dislodge Saddam Hussein’s regime.  And, in a fit of humanitarianism-at-the-end-of-a-missile, he supported the attack on Serbia in 1999.  This was all the more galling given Sanders’ credentials as the great anti-war activist. 

The point was not missed by fifteen Vermonters who proceeded to occupy his office.  As Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn remind us,

“The last time any political rep from Vermont had an office occupied was when a group later known as the Winooski 44 sat in (Republican) Jim Jeffords’s office in 1984, protesting Reagan’s war in Central America.”

The befuddled statisticians, strategists and Mook-governed sociopaths in the Clinton camp attempted to absorb the threat posed by the Sandernistas, thereby extinguishing it while hoping to grab the voter base.  This did not happen, and a campaign was strangled.

Not all blame can be laid at Clinton’s feet and venal calculation. Sanders retreated, effectively abandoning his supporters.  That old hard-nosed Russian dissident Boris Kagarlisky had something to merit the following remark: in Philadelphia, as he surrendered to Clinton, the political figure from Vermont became “a pathetic old man who does not understand what is happening around him.” 

Sanders may well have aroused the electorate, but he had no desire to consummate his attraction.  Instead he spoke about the future.

“Together, we continue to fight to create a government that represents all of us, and not just the one percent – a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.” 

Now, Sanders does not come out as the fresh eccentric and dynamic alternative figure.  He is an establishment candidate whose message of “Medicare for all” and a Green New Deal has been, for the most part, accepted by the bevy of Democrats making the White House charge.  While it would be nonsense to suggest that the United States has suddenly become more attuned to social democratic principles, there is something to suggest greater receptiveness to them.     

Sanders himself acknowledges how his flush of ideas was received in 2016.

“Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were ‘radical’, and ‘extreme’.  We were told that Medicare for All, a $15 an hour  minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, aggressively combating climate change, demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, were all concepts that the American people would never accept.” 

After three years “millions of Americans” were now “standing up and fighting back”, in the process supporting “all of these policies”. 

Sanders, this time around, is playing on the unity message.  As an announcement of his candidacy goes,

“I’m running for president because, now for than ever, we need leadership that brings us together not divides us up.  Women and men, black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, native born and immigrant.  Now is the time for us to stand together.” 

Against the whole gaggle of female candidates, and a spread of younger variants of himself who have made it clear that they want the laurels; and against other aged hopefuls, Sanders has a mountain to climb so high he may lose his breath.  But US politics, since 2016, is as interesting as any other theatre on the planet.  Best call off the bets and wait the next turn.

*

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]

There has been considerable speculation in recent months concerning reasons why the S-300 air defense systems supplied to the Syrian Arab Army by the Russian Federation have yet to fire a shot in anger at Israeli aircraft encroaching on its airspace and launching ordnance against a variety of targets on Syria’s territory. This video attempts to explore a reasonably complete range of explanations. On the one hand, the S-300 batteries in Syria operate under a handicap of operational and political restrictions. However, it would be a mistake to believe that just because missiles are not being launched, that the weapons in question are ineffective.

Israel’s Human Shields

One crucial aspect of Israeli aerial operations is their use of civilian air traffic and also US-led coalition operations to shield their aircraft against Syrian air defenses. It is noteworthy that Russian cruise missile strikes, for example, are invariably preceded by international notifications and closures of relevant airspace in order to prevent tragedies. Israel has not followed similar procedures and has frequently sent its combat aircraft into airspace used by civilian airliners over the Mediterranean and Lebanon. Considering the “international reaction” that would have inevitably followed in the event of a Syrian or Russian air defense shoot-down of a civilian airliner, it is rather likely that rules of engagement used by the Russia-led coalition forces in Syria include strict prohibitions against engaging hostile aircraft when there is even a remote danger to civilian aircraft. The loss of Russian Il-20 with its entire crew to a Syrian air defense missile clearly shows the dangers of engaging remote targets in a crowded airspace.

The Lebanese Doormat

Few examples illustrate the hypocrisy of Western powers’ supposed belief in the sanctity of national sovereignty better than its condoning of near-constant Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace. While that country’s territorial sovereignty is rarely challenged by Israel largely thanks to Hezbollah’s ability to inflict severe casualties on the IDF, neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese military possess an air force or an air defense system capable of doing the same for the country’s airspace.

This allows Israeli aircraft to use Lebanon’s terrain features, specifically the mountain ranges flanking the Bekaa Valley, as a shield against long-range air defense systems. Israeli aircraft using stand-off munitions such as the SDB or Delilah are able to position themselves close to their targets by flying below the Syrian radar horizon, then popping up to launch their GPS-guided weapons before dropping down below the horizon to return to base. In order to deny Israel that ability, Syria and Russia would have to extend their air defense network to the Bekaa Valley and/or patrol it using their own fighter aircraft, a measure that would likely provoke “international condemnation” and risk a massive escalation of the conflict. By the same token, the “international community” has imposed a de-facto embargo on the provision of modern weapons systems of any kind to the state of Lebanon, rendering it unable to defend itself against Israeli incursions.

Russian “Equidistance”

Further complicating matters is the fact that the Russian foreign policy is attempting an extremely difficult task of maintaining reasonably good relations with both Israel and Iran in order to achieve its foreign policy objectives and bring the war in Syria to a successful conclusion. It really is a testimony to the skill and perseverance of Russian diplomats that it has managed to remain in good standing with both of these states. No other major power can claim a similar success. But the downside of this kind of diplomacy is that it makes Russia, and therefore, by extension Syria (over whose national air defense system Russia exercises considerable control simply in order to safely operate its own aircraft) unwilling to engage Israeli aircraft except in the extreme cases of Israel attacking Russian bases or assets in the area. Israel, for its part, has refrained from striking Russian and high-value Syrian targets which does suggest there exists something akin to an understanding between Russia and Israel that was reached in the wake of the aforementioned loss of the Il-20. That loss led to a serious, though apparently temporary, deterioration of Russia-Israel relations. Fortunately Israel’s leaders value Russia’s good will, which is evidenced by Netanyahu’s nine meetings with Vladimir Putin in the space of 3 years and so far have been unwilling to risk even their brand-new F-35s against the S-300s. The combination of these political factors has limited Israel’s attacks against Syrian territory, which is also a contributing factor to the apparent idleness of the S-300 batteries.

The Iran Factor

As if these problems were not enough, it doesn’t help matters that Iran is pursuing a range of objectives of its own, which may not be consistent with Syrian and Russian interests. One visible example of the relatively low level of trilateral cooperation was the abrupt cancellation of the permission given to the Russian Aerospace Forces to use an airbase on Iranian territory to enhance the effectiveness of bombers operating from Russia against targets in Syria. While Iran’s efforts to ensure its security vis-à-vis the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are understandable, given the brutal nature of the power struggle in the region, in practical terms it means that Russia’s leadership does not feel an obligation to protect Iranian assets in Syria every time Israel attacks them. There certainly is no evidence of any security agreement between Russia and Iran suggesting a commitment to mutual defense. The dependence on Iran-provided or Iran-supported manpower in the form of IRGC troops, Hezbollah, or Shia militias has moreover meant that Russia had relatively few levers of influence over Iranian policies in the region, since Iran’s ability and willingness to put “boots on the ground” in Syria made it an indispensable part of that loose alliance. To the extent that there exists an understanding between Russia and Iran in matters regarding Syria, it seems to consist of Russia giving Iran a more or less free hand to do as it pleases, in return for Iran not expecting Russian air cover for its activities which in turn allows Russia to remain on good terms with Israel whose goodwill it definitely needs to end the war in Syria.

Conclusion

While the situation remains relatively stable with few escalation risks, it cannot be said it is a satisfactory state of affairs because considerable ambiguities remain and will remain for the foreseeable future. Iranian forces in Syria will remain indispensable to that country’s security for as long as US forces remain in Syria and the status of Syria’s northern provinces controlled by insurgent groups supported by Turkey remains unresolved. Until these issues are addressed, the S-300 batteries in Syria will continue to play their part in maintaining this uneasy equilibrium.

*

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

War with China? It’s Already Under Way

February 22nd, 2019 by Michael T. Klare

Introduction

by Tom Engelhardt

These days, the trade “war” between the Trump administration and China is regularly in the headlines and, sometimes, so are the bases the Chinese are building in the South China Sea, the ships the U.S. Navy is sending ever more provocatively close to them, and the potential clashes that might result. But the global nature of the growing conflict between Washington and Beijing has yet to be fully taken in. As it happens, at this moment, it extends from Greenland (I’m serious!) to Argentina (I’m serious again!). In Greenland, still a self-ruling part of Denmark, a panicked U.S. military and Trump administration recently turned back a Chinese plan to help bankroll and build three airports. In fact, the Pentagon itself actually offered to invest in Greenland’s airport infrastructure. Otherwise, military officials feared, China might secure an economic foothold at the far end of what that self-proclaimed “Near-Arctic State” has dubbed its future “Polar Silk Road” or “blue economic passage” across the melting north. And far worse, as the Wall Street Journal put it (undoubtedly reflecting the fears of Pentagon officials), China could have ended up with “a military foothold off Canada’s coast” — that is, the sort of military base that the U.S. already has in Greenland, the northernmost of its 800 or so bases across the planet.

Meanwhile, at the southern tip of the same planet, in Argentina’s desolate Patagonian desert, the Chinese have built a deep-space tracking station with a big-dish radar for “peaceful research.” It is, however, run by that country’s military and U.S. military officials are already in a dither about the dangers it might someday pose to America’s array of satellites. (That the U.S. has similar radar equipment dotted across much of the Earth is undoubtedly just more evidence of what the Chinese might, in the future, want to do.)

Think of these Chinese forays at the planet’s antipodes, one aborted, one successful, and the hypersensitive Washington response to each of them as signs of a genuinely rising power and also of the heightening of potential conflicts between it and the still reigning superpower. I’m talking, of course, about the previously “exceptional” and “indispensable” country that Donald Trump swears he’ll make “great again.” In the process, as TomDispatch regular Michael Klare makes strikingly clear today, both countries are plunging into what can only be thought of as a new kind of war that could prove hot indeed before it’s over.

***

War With China? It’s Already Under Way

by Michael Klare

In his highly acclaimed 2017 book, Destined for War, Harvard professor Graham Allison assessed the likelihood that the United States and China would one day find themselves at war. Comparing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to great-power rivalries all the way back to the Peloponnesian War of the fifth century BC, he concluded that the future risk of a conflagration was substantial. Like much current analysis of U.S.-Chinese relations, however, he missed a crucial point: for all intents and purposes, the United States and China are already at war with one another. Even if their present slow-burn conflict may not produce the immediate devastation of a conventional hot war, its long-term consequences could prove no less dire.

To suggest this means reassessing our understanding of what constitutes war. From Allison’s perspective (and that of so many others in Washington and elsewhere), “peace” and “war” stand as polar opposites. One day, our soldiers are in their garrisons being trained and cleaning their weapons; the next, they are called into action and sent onto a battlefield. War, in this model, begins when the first shots are fired.

Well, think again in this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition. Today, war means so much more than military combat and can take place even as the leaders of the warring powers meet to negotiate and share dry-aged steak and whipped potatoes (as Donald Trump and Xi Jinping did at Mar-a-Lago in 2017). That is exactly where we are when it comes to Sino-American relations. Consider it war by another name, or perhaps, to bring back a long-retired term, a burning new version of a cold war.

Even before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, the U.S. military and other branches of government were already gearing up for a long-term quasi-war, involving both growing economic and diplomatic pressure on China and a buildup of military forces along that country’s periphery. Since his arrival, such initiatives have escalated into Cold War-style combat by another name, with his administration committed to defeating China in a struggle for global economic, technological, and military supremacy.

This includes the president’s much-publicized “trade war” with China, aimed at hobbling that country’s future growth; a techno-war designed to prevent it from overtaking the U.S. in key breakthrough areas of technology; a diplomatic war intended to isolate Beijing and frustrate its grandiose plans for global outreach; a cyber war (largely hidden from public scrutiny); and a range of military measures as well. This may not be war in the traditional sense of the term, but for leaders on both sides, it has the feel of one.

Why China?

The media and many politicians continue to focus on U.S.-Russian relations, in large part because of revelations of Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 American presidential election and the ongoing Mueller investigation. Behind the scenes, however, most senior military and foreign policy officials in Washington view China, not Russia, as the country’s principal adversary. In eastern Ukraine, the Balkans, Syria, cyberspace, and in the area of nuclear weaponry, Russia does indeed pose a variety of threats to Washington’s goals and desires. Still, as an economically hobbled petro-state, it lacks the kind of might that would allow it to truly challenge this country’s status as the world’s dominant power. China is another story altogether. With its vast economy, growing technological prowess, intercontinental “Belt and Road” infrastructure project, and rapidly modernizing military, an emboldened China could someday match or even exceed U.S. power on a global scale, an outcome American elites are determined to prevent at any cost.

Washington’s fears of a rising China were on full display in January with the release of the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, a synthesis of the views of the Central Intelligence Agency and other members of that “community.” Its conclusion: “We assess that China’s leaders will try to extend the country’s global economic, political, and military reach while using China’s military capabilities and overseas infrastructure and energy investments under the Belt and Road Initiative to diminish U.S. influence.”

To counter such efforts, every branch of government is now expected to mobilize its capabilities to bolster American — and diminish Chinese — power. In Pentagon documents, this stance is summed up by the term “overmatch,” which translates asthe eternal preservation of American global superiority vis-à-vis China (and all other potential rivals). “The United States must retain overmatch,” the administration’s National Security Strategy insists, and preserve a “combination of capabilities in sufficient scale to prevent enemy success,” while continuing to “shape the international environment to protect our interests.”

In other words, there can never be parity between the two countries. The only acceptable status for China is as a distinctly lesser power. To ensure such an outcome, administration officials insist, the U.S. must take action on a daily basis to contain or impede its rise.

In previous epochs, as Allison makes clear in his book, this equation — a prevailing power seeking to retain its dominant status and a rising power seeking to overcome its subordinate one — has almost always resulted in conventional conflict. In today’s world, however, where great-power armed combat could possibly end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation, direct military conflict is a distinctly unappealing option for all parties. Instead, governing elites have developed other means of warfare — economic, technological, and covert — to achieve such strategic objectives. Viewed this way, the United States is already in close to full combat mode with respect to China.

Trade War

When it comes to the economy, the language betrays the reality all too clearly. The Trump administration’s economic struggle with China is regularly described, openly and without qualification, as a “war.” And there’s no doubt that senior White House officials, beginning with the president and his chief trade representative, Robert Lighthizer (image on the right), see it just that way: as a means of pulverizing the Chinese economy and so curtailing that country’s ability to compete with the United States in all other measures of power.

Ostensibly, the aim of President Trump’s May 2018 decision to impose $60 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports (increased in September to $200 billion) was to rectify a trade imbalance between the two countries, while protecting the American economy against what is described as China’s malign behavior. Its trade practices “plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the United States economy,” as the president put it when announcing the second round of tariffs.

An examination of the demands submitted to Chinese negotiators by the U.S. trade delegation last May suggests, however, that Washington’s primary intent hasn’t been to rectify that trade imbalance but to impede China’s economic growth. Among the stipulations Beijing must acquiesce to before receiving tariff relief, according to leaked documents from U.S. negotiators that were spread on Chinese social media:

  • halting all government subsidies to advanced manufacturing industries in its Made in China 2025 program, an endeavor that covers 10 key economic sectors, including aircraft manufacturing, electric cars, robotics, computer microchips, and artificial intelligence;
  • accepting American restrictions on investments in sensitive technologies without retaliating;
  • opening up its service and agricultural sectors — areas where Chinese firms have an inherent advantage — to full American competition.

In fact, this should be considered a straightforward declaration of economic war. Acquiescing to such demands would mean accepting a permanent subordinate status vis-à-vis the United States in hopes of continuing a profitable trade relationship with this country. “The list reads like the terms for a surrender rather than a basis for negotiation,” was the way Eswar Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell University, accurately described these developments.

Technological Warfare

As suggested by America’s trade demands, Washington’s intent is not only to hobble China’s economy today and tomorrow but for decades to come. This has led to an intense, far-ranging campaign to deprive it of access to advanced technologies and to cripple its leading technology firms.

Chinese leaders have long realized that, for their country to achieve economic and military parity with the United States, they must master the cutting-edge technologies that will dominate the twenty-first-century global economy, including artificial intelligence (AI), fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications, electric vehicles, and nanotechnology. Not surprisingly then, the government has invested in a major way in science and technology education, subsidized research in pathbreaking fields, and helped launch promising startups, among other such endeavors — all in the very fashion that the Internet and other American computer and aerospace innovations were originally financed and encouraged by the Department of Defense.

Chinese companies have also demanded technology transfers when investing in or forging industrial partnerships with foreign firms, a common practice in international development. India, to cite a recent example of this phenomenon, expects that significant technology transfers from American firms will be one outcome of its agreed-upon purchases of advanced American weaponry.

In addition, Chinese firms have been accused of stealing American technology through cybertheft, provoking widespread outrage in this country. Realistically speaking, it’s difficult for outside observers to determine to what degree China’s recent technological advances are the product of commonplace and legitimate investments in science and technology and to what degree they’re due to cyberespionage. Given Beijing’s massive investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at the graduate and post-graduate level, however, it’s safe to assume that most of that country’s advances are the result of domestic efforts.

Certainly, given what’s publicly known about Chinese cybertheft activities, it’s reasonable for American officials to apply pressure on Beijing to curb the practice. However, the Trump administration’s drive to blunt that country’s technological progress is also aimed at perfectly legitimate activities. For example, the White House seeks to ban Beijing’s government subsidies for progress on artificial intelligence at the same time that the Department of Defense is pouring billions of dollars into AI research at home. The administration is also acting to block the Chinese acquisition of U.S. technology firms and of exports of advanced components and know-how.

In an example of this technology war that’s made the headlines lately, Washington has been actively seeking to sabotage the efforts of Huawei, one of China’s most prominent telecom firms, to gain leadership in the global deployment of 5G wireless communications. Such wireless systems are important in part because they will transmit colossal amounts of electronic data at far faster rates than now conceivable, facilitating the introduction of self-driving cars, widespread roboticization, and the universalapplication of AI.

Second only to Apple as the world’s supplier of smartphones and a major producer of telecommunications equipment, Huawei has sought to take the lead in the race for 5G adaptation around the world. Fearing that this might give China an enormous advantage in the coming decades, the Trump administration has tried to prevent that. In what is widely described as a “tech Cold War,” it has put enormous pressure on both its Asian and European allies to bar the company from conducting business in their countries, even as it sought the arrest in Canada of Huawei’s chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, and her extradition to the U.S. on charges of tricking American banks into aiding Iranian firms (in violation of Washington’s sanctions on that country). Other attacks on Huawei are in the works, including a potential banon the sales of its products in this country. Such moves are regularly described as focused on boosting the security of both the United States and its allies by preventing the Chinese government from using Huawei’s telecom networks to steal military secrets. The real reason — barely disguised — is simply to block China from gaining technological parity with the United States.

Cyberwarfare

There would be much to write on this subject, if only it weren’t still hidden in the shadows of the growing conflict between the two countries. Not surprisingly, however, little information is available on U.S.-Chinese cyberwarfare. All that can be said with confidence is that an intense war is now being waged between the two countries in cyberspace. American officials accuse China of engaging in a broad-based cyber-assault on this country, involving both outright cyberespionage to obtain military as well as corporate secrets and widespread political meddling.

“What the Russians are doing pales in comparison to what China is doing,” said Vice President Mike Pence last October in a speech at the Hudson Institute, though — typically on the subject — he provided not a shred of evidence for his claim.

Not disclosed is what this country is doing to combat China in cyberspace. All that can be known from available information is that this is a two-sided war in which the U.S. is conducting its own assaults.

“­The United States will impose swift and costly consequences on foreign governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant malicious cyber activities,” the 2017 National Security Strategy affirmed.

What form these “consequences” have taken has yet to be revealed, but there’s little doubt that America’s cyber warriors have been active in this domain.

Diplomatic and Military Coercion

Completing the picture of America’s ongoing war with China are the fierce pressures being exerted on the diplomatic and military fronts to frustrate Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions. To advance those aspirations, China’s leadership is relying heavily on a much-touted Belt and Road Initiative, a trillion-dollar plan to help fund and encourage the construction of a vast new network of road, rail, port, and pipeline infrastructure across Eurasia and into the Middle East and Africa. By financing — and, in many cases, actually building — such infrastructure, Beijing hopes to bind the economies of a host of far-flung nations ever closer to its own, while increasing its political influence across the Eurasian mainland and Africa. As Beijing’s leadership sees it, at least in terms of orienting the planet’s future economics, its role would be similar to that of the Marshall Plan that cemented U.S. influence in Europe after World War II.

And given exactly that possibility, Washington has begun to actively seek to undermine the Belt and Road wherever it can — discouraging allies from participating, while stirring up unease in countries like Malaysia and Uganda over the enormous debts to China they may end up with and the heavy-handed manner in which that country’s firms often carry out such overseas construction projects. (For example, they typically bring in Chinese laborers to do most of the work, rather than hiring and training locals.)

“China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands,” National Security Advisor John Bolton claimed in a December speech on U.S. policy on that continent. “Its investment ventures are riddled with corruption,” he added, “and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as U.S. developmental programs.” Bolton promised that the Trump administration would provide a superior alternative for African nations seeking development funds, but — and this is something of a pattern as well — no such assistance has yet materialized.

In addition to diplomatic pushback, the administration has undertaken a series of initiatives intended to isolate China militarily and limit its strategic options. In South Asia, for example, Washington has abandoned its past position of maintaining rough parity in its relations with India and Pakistan. In recent years, it’s swung sharply towards a strategic alliance with New Dehli, attempting to enlist it fully in America’s efforts to contain China and, presumably, in the process punishing Pakistan for its increasingly enthusiastic role in the Belt and Road Initiative.

In the Western Pacific, the U.S. has stepped up its naval patrols and forged new basing arrangements with local powers — all with the aim of confining the Chinese military to areas close to the mainland. In response, Beijing has sought to escape the grip of American power by establishing miniature bases on Chinese-claimed islands in the South China Sea (or even constructing artificial islands to house bases there) — moves widely condemned by the hawks in Washington.

To demonstrate its ire at the effrontery of Beijing in the Pacific (once known as an “American lake”), the White House has ordered an increased pace of so-called freedom-of-navigation operations (FRONOPs). Navy warships regularly sail within shooting range of those very island bases, suggesting a U.S. willingness to employ military force to resist future Chinese moves in the region (and also creating situations in which a misstep could lead to a military incident that could lead… well, anywhere).

In Washington, the warnings about Chinese military encroachment in the region are already reaching a fever pitch. For instance, Admiral Philip Davidson, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, described the situation there in recent congressional testimony this way: “In short, China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”

A Long War of Attrition

As Admiral Davidson suggests, one possible outcome of the ongoing cold war with China could be armed conflict of the traditional sort. Such an encounter, in turn, could escalate to the nuclear level, resulting in mutual annihilation. A war involving only “conventional” forces would itself undoubtedly be devastating and lead to widespread suffering, not to mention the collapse of the global economy.

Even if a shooting war doesn’t erupt, however, a long-term geopolitical war of attrition between the U.S. and China will, in the end, have debilitating and possibly catastrophic consequences for both sides. Take the trade war, for example. If that’s not resolved soon in a positive manner, continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely curb Chinese economic growth and so weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every nation on Earth, including this one. High tariffs will also increase costs for American consumers and endanger the prosperity and survival of manyfirms that rely on Chinese raw materials and components.

This new brand of war will also ensure that already sky-high defense expenditures will continue to rise, diverting funds from vital needs like education, health, infrastructure, and the environment.  Meanwhile, preparations for a future war with China have already become the number one priority at the Pentagon, crowding out all other considerations. “While we’re focused on ongoing operations,” acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan reportedly told his senior staff on his first day in office this January, “remember China, China, China.”

Perhaps the greatest victim of this ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all the creatures, humans included, who inhabit it. As the world’s top two emitters of climate-altering greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are doomed to a hellish future. With a war under way, even a non-shooting one, the chance for such collaboration is essentially zero. The only way to save civilization is for the U.S. and China to declare peace and focus together on human salvation.

*

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

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. His most recent book is The Race for What’s Left. His next book, All Hell Breaking Loose: Climate Change, Global Chaos, and American National Security, will be published in 2019.

Featured image: Chinese military (Source: Greg Walters/Flickr)

The Subways in New York City Should be Free

February 22nd, 2019 by Christopher Baum

Last month, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio finally launched his eagerly anticipated Fair Fares program offering half-price transit fares for low-income New Yorkers — but the early reviews were decidedly mixed.

The first phase of the program will make weekly and monthly unlimited-use MetroCards (NYC bus and subway fare cards) available at half price to some 30,000 New Yorkers, with another 100,000 to be added to the program in April.

Advocates quickly pointed out that these totals fall far short of the estimated 800,000 New Yorkers who currently live below the federal poverty line, and accused de Blasio of failing to live up to the grandiose promises he made when announcing the program last year.

Given that an astounding one in three poor New Yorkers are unable to pay for public transit, it’s critical for activists to fight for Fair Fares to be expanded as rapidly and widely as possible.

But socialists should also use this opportunity to ask why anyone in New York — or anywhere else — should have to pay a fare to use the subways.

It’s time to claim public transportation as a basic right — a service that should be available to all people, and fully funded not through fares, but through progressive taxation of the city’s wealthy businesses and individuals.

After all, while it is primarily working people who ride public transportation every day, it’s our bosses who reap the benefits from our daily commutes.

As Vincent Michael wrote in SW,

“[V]iable transit systems are vital to the larger capitalist economy, connecting workers to employers and consumers to products, and enabling urban development, from which the real estate, construction and financial industries profit.”

Whether you’re a local on your way to work or a tourist headed into the city to see a show or do some shopping, capitalists need you to be able to get where you’re going. Disrupt the flow of workers or consumers by removing mass transit, and the whole system threatens to break down.

As gentrification pushes us further and further away from the central areas where many of us work, our commutes get longer, we spend increasingly more time in buses and our crumbling subway system, and our quality of life suffers accordingly — especially for those who work more than one job.

Meanwhile, those who can’t afford to pay are left with a choice of geographic isolation or risking criminal punishment. New York City has reduced arrests for turnstile jumping, but over 5,000 people were still arrested last year for not being able to afford a Metrocard, while another 53,000 were issued summonses.

All in all, not only do capitalists rely upon public transportation to maintain the flow of workers, and therefore the goods and consumers on which their profits depend, they also play a decisive role in setting the terms under which the transit system is accessed.

So why shouldn’t they pay for it?

“Oh, but we do,” they may say. After all, we pay taxes…

We need look no further than the $3 billion in tax breaks and other incentives that the city and state of New York recently lavished upon Amazon to see how hollow this protestation truly rings.

But even when the government does collect taxes to fund the transit system, the money has a curious habit of going astray. A 2017 report by the New York Times revealed how Republican and Democratic administrations alike have repeatedly “cut the subway’s budget or co-opted it for their own priorities” over the preceding 25 years:

They stripped a combined $1.5 billion from the M.T.A. [Metropolitan Transit Authority] by repeatedly diverting tax revenues earmarked for the subways and also by demanding large payments for financial advice, I.T. help and other services that transit leaders say the authority could have done without.

They pressured the M.T.A. to spend billions of dollars on opulent station makeovers and other projects that did nothing to boost service or reliability, while leaving the actual movement of trains to rely on a 1930s-era signal system with fraying, cloth-covered cables.

They saddled the M.T.A. with debt and engineered a deal with creditors that brought in quick cash but locked the authority into paying $5 billion in interest that it otherwise never would have had to pay.

In one particularly egregious example, [current Governor Andrew] Cuomo’s administration forced the M.T.A. to send $5 million to bail out three state-run ski resorts that were struggling after a warm winter.

During the same period, the fare for a single subway or bus ride went through a total of six increases, from $1.25 in 1992 to $2.75 today — with a further rate hike expected to take effect in March, and additional increases likely after that.

“Without new revenue or significant service cuts,” the Times reports, “fares might have to rise by an additional 15 percent in the coming years to address the agency’s growing deficits.”

Considered as a percentage of overall operating costs, the city’s fare revenue has actually remained fairly steady over the past 15 years, averaging a little under 40 percent, which is even down a little from around 42 percent in the early 2000s.

Yet in terms of actual dollars and cents, the fares keep going up because during this same time period, the MTA’s operating expenses have more than doubled, from $7.6 billion in 2003 to $16.9 billion in 2017.

After decades of underfunding and mismanagement, the New York City transit system is well and truly falling apart, and repairs and modernization efforts can no longer be put off.

Yet even in this moment of dire need, the idea of raising the necessary funding through a tax on wealthy businesses and individuals evidently remains unthinkable. Instead, the politicians claim to have no choice but to squeeze more and more money out of transit riders.

Inevitably, this squeeze is felt most keenly by the neediest members of society. A bus or subway fare, like any flat charge, is inherently regressive — that is, it places a heavier burden on a poor person than on a wealthy one, since it constitutes a higher percentage of the former’s income.

In addition, as the city’s transit infrastructure continues to crumble, New Yorkers who can afford to use alternative means of transportation — taxis, ride-sharing services, commuter rail, etc. — are doing so in ever-increasing numbers.

This means that, to an ever-greater degree, the people left riding the buses and subways tend to be those who cannot afford any other option. And it is to these people that the authorities turn, again and again, to demand more money in the form of higher fares.

We must instead demand a progressive funding solution: a tax scheme that is structured to ensure that the wealthier a company or individual is, the greater their contribution will be to the funding of the public transportation system that keeps their empires running.

The goal of this tax program must be, expressly and from day one, to eliminate fares altogether, so that all people will have access to public transportation free of charge.

Needless to say, the Fair Fares program is nothing of this kind, but it merits closer attention nonetheless.

According to the New York Times, only the 30,000 New Yorkers who are both employed and receive cash assistance from the city and are employed are initially eligible for the program, which is set to expand in April to 130,000 people who both are employed and receive federal food stamps.

The fact that this plan is only available to people with jobs is a bitter irony, given de Blasio’s claim, when announcing the program last June, that “I don’t want to live in a city where someone is desperate to get a job, but they can’t get to the job interview.”

By excluding the unemployed, the program instantly shuts out many of the poorest and neediest New Yorkers, affecting not just their ability to find work, but also their access to health care and other needed services.

Underlying this requirement is the neoliberal creed of “personal responsibility”: if you are poor, it is in some measure your own fault. We are willing to help you (grudgingly, and only a little), but first you must show us that you are doing your part and helping yourself by working.

While the employment requirement is an especially punitive aspect of the Fair Fares program, it has the more general flaw of all social programs that rely on means-testing — the idea that, in determining eligibility for government aid, a person’s ability to pay some portion of the costs themselves should be taken into account.

Means-testing rests on two assumptions: first, that people should generally pay their own way; and second, that the amount of money available to help those who cannot pay their own way should be strictly limited, and should be given out only to those who can demonstrate the highest degree of need.

In the case of the Fair Fares program, the threshold for establishing need is the Federal poverty level — defined as an annual income, for a family of four, of around $25,000.

In addition to shutting out the many equally needy people whose income places them on the “wrong” side of this cutoff — particularly in a city with as high a cost of living as New York — the Fair Fares program’s reliance on means-testing produces at least two more harmful consequences.

First, it stigmatizes the beneficiaries of government aid, branding them as “burdens on society” who are unable to carry their own weight like “regular people,” and leaving them exposed to future budget cuts and political attacks.

This stigma may be even more keenly felt as transit fares continue to rise for the general public, increasing resentment toward those to whom the program gives assistance.

Of course, this resentment would more justly be directed at the authorities who — instead of coming up with a solution that would offer relief to all transit riders, let alone actually fix the broken transit system — content themselves with providing a limited amount of funding to public transportation somewhat more affordable for a limited number of people.

The second consequence, which flows from the first, is that by focusing on “affordability,” means-testing helps to perpetuate the view of basic services (not just public transportation but also health care, access to education, and so forth) as commodities to be bought and sold under market conditions.

We must instead insist that public transportation (like health care and all the rest) should, in fact, be regarded as a public good, a service available to all members of society as a basic right.

There are two broad categories of objection to free public transportation: first, that eliminating transit fares will lead to huge additional operation and maintenance costs as the system struggles to keep up with the dramatic increase in ridership; and second, that it will open the floodgates to a host of “problem riders.”

Let’s consider “problem riders” first. The idea here is that when fares are eliminated, the transit system is opened up to people who should ideally be kept out: criminals, vandals, vagrants, truant kids and so on. These people are said to drive up security and maintenance costs and push “legitimate” riders out of the system.

Clearly, it is in everyone’s interest for the public transportation system to be safe and clean, and for riders to feel confident that they will not be attacked or molested while using it. But “problem riders” obviously reflect a set of social problems that need to be addressed. Their existence does not constitute a justification for rejecting the idea of free public transportation, any more than it would justify permanently closing all public parks.

What it does, rather, is demonstrate that free public transportation is only one of a number of different programs we will need in order to transform our cities into spaces that exist for the benefit of all people.

As for cost, there is obviously no getting around the fact that making a major metropolitan transit system free for all people will cost a lot of money.

Yet there seems always to be money available to hand over to big corporations or to fund politicians’ pet projects. In the end, this is a matter, not of what canbe done, but of what we our leaders are willing to do — and of what we are willing to demand that they do.

After all, even New York City’s own Mayor Bill de Blasio could say recently, and without apparent irony: “Brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. There’s plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands.”

It’s time to redistribute that money to pay for public transportation.

A person’s ability to travel from one part of the city to another, whether to go to work (or find work), visit friends or family, explore a museum or park or whatever else, should not be contingent on their ability to pay. It should be theirs by right. After all, it is their city, built and maintained and developed on the fruits of their labor.

But to truly make public transit available to all people, as a basic right, will require far more than simply eliminating fares.

To begin with, existing transit systems will need to be overhauled, modernized and greatly expanded to accommodate the increase in ridership while providing timely and reliable service. And these repairs, improvements, and expansions will take time — and money.

In the longer term, transit routes must be transformed to meet the needs of the community. This means bringing an end to “transit deserts” — neighborhoods with inadequate or nonexistent public transportation coverage.

And to fully achieve this objective will require not just the expansion of transit lines into these neighborhoods, but also, ultimately, a radical restructuring of our cities, which until now have been shaped by the interests and whims of capital, in ways that will instead benefit all members of society.

The challenges are certainly daunting. But a crucial first step is simply to be clear about our basic demand: Public transportation should be made free for all people, and big capital should pay for it.

*

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

Christopher Baum argues that a new plan to reduce fares for some low-income riders in New York City is a good start, but that we need to set our sights much higher.

Featured image is from SocialistWorker.org

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Subways in New York City Should be Free

Donald Trump‘s emergency declaration is a blatant abuse of power in the service of his anti-immigrant agenda. No president has ever tried this before.

***

President Donald Trump declared a “national emergency” on Friday to pay for his border wall. In doing so, he’s violating the law, subverting the Constitution and hurting American communities. That’s why we’re taking him to court.

We all know what an emergency really is. It’s when something unexpected and dangerous happens that requires an immediate response. Trump himself admitted that there is no emergency when he said, “I didn’t need to do this.”

Trump added that his reason for the declaration was that he wanted to build the wall “much faster.” But that’s not how our democratic system works. Congress considered his desire for $5.7 billion in wall funding — and rejected it, instead appropriating $1.375 billion for new border barriers. The president cannot now try to get his way by unilaterally taking money that Congress has already budgeted for other things.

The Constitution assigns Congress the power of the purse. Members of Congress fight to secure funding for national priorities and their constituents’ needs during the yearly budget battles that dominate Washington for months.

The system is far from perfect, but it’s the way it works in our democracy. If  Congress doesn’t give him what he wants, the president can’t do an end run by diverting public money for a campaign promise for which he has failed to secure funding.

Congress has granted the president limited power to spend federal funds without a congressional authorization if the president declares a national emergency. But it only allows the president to spend taxpayer money on military construction projects, like overseas air bases in wartime, “that are necessary to support such (emergency) use of the armed forces.”

That’s clearly not what’s happening here. Besides the fact that there isn’t actually an emergency, Trump’s declaration doesn’t say how a diversion of military construction funds is necessary to support the armed forces. No president has ever tried to use emergency powers to fund a massive and permanent domestic project like this.

Trump is also trying to take money from funds seized by the government through anti-drug operations and forfeitures. But Congress has passed laws dictating that this money must be used only for certain law enforcement purposes. It’s not a slush fund that can be used to finance presidents’ unfulfilled campaign promises.

 Trump can’t raid US Treasury at will

We filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition to stop the irreparable harm their members will suffer if Trump’s illegal border wall construction plan is allowed to proceed.

The coalition’s members live near the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. A wall would heighten divisions in border communities and promote hostility towards immigrants and communities of color in border areas. It would also increase the risk of flooding and threaten residents’ access to clean water, clean air and other natural resources.

In moving forward with an unauthorized border wall, the Trump administration is ignoring decades-old environmental and public safety laws that safeguard the places, species and values that Sierra Club members work to preserve.

Trump’s emergency declaration is a blatant abuse of power in the service of his anti-immigrant agenda and a brazen attempt to subvert the constitutional separation of powers.

The federal treasury isn’t a bank account that the president can just raid whenever he’s in a bind. It’s taxpayer money that the Framers specifically left in the hands of Congress. Trump is seeking to thwart Congress’ will. Now we are asking the courts to give Trump another lesson in how the Constitution works.

*

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

Anthony D. Romero is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. You can follow the group on Twitter:@ACLU

Featured image is from ACLU

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Border Wall ‘Emergency’, Abuse of Power: We’ll See You in Court, President Donald Trump
  • Tags: ,

The government also announced a rival peace concert and plans to supply food and medical attention to poor Colombians as the border heats up.

***

Venezuela’s armed forces have responded angrily Tuesday to threats made against them by US President Donald Trump and calls to break the chain of command.

Speaking at a press conference held in Caracas and flanked by commanders from all of the branches of the military, Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez told press that Washington “Will not be able to install a “puppet” and anti-patriotic government, they will have to step over our dead bodies first.”

Trump had warned Venezuelan soldiers that they risked “losing everything” should they continue loyal to Maduro at a press conference in Miami Monday. He once more urged them to recognise National Assembly President Juan Guaido as “interim president” and yet again refused to rule out direct military action against Venezuela, stressing that “all options are on the table.”

“If [the Venezuelan soldiers] choose this path [of loyalty to the government] they will find no refuge, they will lose everything,” Trump told reporters and Venezuelan immigrants in Florida.

Padrino called attempts to give orders to the Venezuelan armed forces “disrespectful,” while also vowing that threats of sanctions and blackmail would not allow the US to “achieve its objective.”

“When a president of another country comes and tries to give orders to [our] Armed Forces, he is underestimating them disrespectfully (…) It is incredulous,” Venezuela’s Padrino Lopez responded.

Venezuelan embassy in Costa Rica “taken” by Guaido’s team

Guaido’s efforts to seize power from Maduro have continued on the diplomatic front, with reports on Wednesday morning that his appointed representative to Costa Rica, Maria Faria, had “taken control” of the Venezuelan embassy in San Jose.

“We have come to the Embassy to advance with the process of transition which is being led by Venezuela’s National Assembly and President Juan Guaido,” she told press in San Jose. Existing embassy staff were working “irregularly,” she went on to affirm. It is unclear if any confrontation with embassy staff took place.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza issued a statement rejecting the actions taken by the opposition sympathizers of Guaido, reminding Costa Rica that his team enjoy diplomatic immunity and invoking Costa Rica’s responsibilities under the Convention of Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention.

He urged San Jose to “assume the correct side of the international conventions and to avoid a violent situation stimulated by factors of the Venezuelan opposition.” For their part, Costa Rican authorities criticised the move, with Vice-Foreign Minister Lorena Aguilar calling it “unacceptable” and a break of diplomatic norms. Aguilar went on to express her “strong rejection” of Faria’s actions for not respecting the 60 days that had been given to the Venezuelan diplomatic corps to leave the country.

Following his formal recognition by around 25 percent of the world’s governments, Guaido’s team has proceeded to name “diplomatic representatives” to a number of European countries Tuesday, including the UK (Paolo Romero), Belgium (Mary Ponte), the Netherlands (Gloria Notario), Germany (Otto Gebauer), France (Isadora de Zubillaga), Portugal (Jose Rafael Cotte), Spain (Antonio Ecarri), Sweden (Leon Poblete) and Austria (Williams Davila). He also named representatives to Australia, Luxembourg, Romania, Andorra, the Dominican Republic, Malta and Denmark. In late January, Guaido named representatives to a number of Latin and North American nations.

María Faría (centre, black jacket) took control of the Venezuelan Embassy in Costa Rica alongside a team of legal advisors (Courtesy, La Nacion).

María Faría (centre, black jacket) took control of the Venezuelan Embassy in Costa Rica alongside a team of legal advisors (Courtesy, La Nacion).

More aid pledged

A number of European countries also pledged to support Washington’s efforts to deliver humanitarian aid across the Venezuelan border this upcoming February 23, donating a total of US $18 million between them.

In a press conference held in Caracas, the ambassadors of France, Spain, the UK, Italy and Germany all reaffirmed their support for attempts to bring in humanitarian aid, which have been shunned by the United Nations, War Child, Oxfam and the Red Cross as being “politicised.” President Maduro has refused to allow the “aid” to enter, claiming that it is a spark for US intervention.

Adding to the White House’s efforts, Germany is to pledge €5 million, Italy US $2 million and the UK US $8.5 million to the aid plans led by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), it was reported Tuesday. Brazil also announced it will be warehousing aid in its border town of Pacaraima.

On Tuesday, Venezuelan authorities closed the maritime and aerial border with the Dutch Antilles, which have been reported as a third collection point for “aid.”

The measure comes as part of Operation Sentinel, which the Armed Forces use to protect the country’s sovereignty across the national territory.

Rival concerts planned

To support efforts in bringing aid across the border into the country, Venezuela’s opposition is organising a large international concert in the Colombian city of Cucuta on Saturday, only eight kilometres from the Venezuelan border. The concert, which is being financed by British media mogul and Virgin CEO Richard Branson, is being branded as “Live Aid for Venezuela.” Latin singers Alejandro Sanz, Nacho, Luis Fonsi and Maluma have all confirmed that they will be performing.

Guaido had previously vowed that aid would enter on February 23 “no matter what,” but speaking to press on Monday he said that “if it’s not on [February] 23, it will be on the 24.”

Branson’s initiative has also drawn criticism, with Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters stating that it “has nothing to do with humanitarian aid at all.”

“It has to do with Richard Branson … having bought the US saying, ‘We have decided to take over Venezuela, for whatever our reasons may be’ … Do we really want Venezuela to turn in to another Iraq or Syria or Libya? I don’t and neither do the Venezuelan people,’” Waters said in a message on social media.

Pro-government forces are also organising a large two-day “peace” concert on the Venezuelan side of the border this weekend, allegedly at the request of “artists who love the country.”

Vladimir Padrino López, speaking alongside a number of military commanders of the Venezuelan armed forces (@EjércitoFANB / Twitter)

Vladimir Padrino López, speaking alongside a number of military commanders of the Venezuelan armed forces (@EjércitoFANB / Twitter)

The Bolivarian concert will be close to the Simon Bolivar International Bridge in the border town of San Antonio, and has received the backing of a number of Venezuelan and international artists. It will be held under the slogan “No one wants war.”

The government’s concert will be accompanied by a range of social programs which Venezuelan President Maduro is planning to set up which will focus on poor citizens of Colombia’s Northern Santander region and it’s capital Cucuta.

The government has also pledged to distribute 20,000 subsidised CLAP food boxes to the Colombian border community between Friday and Sunday, and to provide free medical appointments with the assistance of the Cuban medical mission in Venezuela, including paediatricians, surgeons and dentists.

Venezuelan authorities quoted data from the Colombian National Administrative Statistics Department which indicate that poverty in North Santander province of Colombia runs at 40 percent, extreme poverty at 8.5 percent. It also states that there are more than 20,000 children working in the streets and that 15 percent of children have chronic malnutrition in the province.

*

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

UN Warns of Alarming Rate of Language Disappearance

February 22nd, 2019 by Prensa Latina

In the celebration of the International Mother Language Day this Thursday, the UN draws attention to the alarming rate at which languages are disappearing and calls for more action to counteract this trend.

According to UN data, at least 43 per cent of the six thousand languages spoken in the world are endangered and only a few hundred occupy space in education systems and the public domain.

Meanwhile, less than a hundred are used in the digital world.

Every two weeks, a language disappears carrying with it a complete cultural and intellectual heritage, noted the UN on the website commemorating the date.

Linguistic diversity is increasingly under threat as more languages disappear: globally, 40 percent of the population does not have access to education in a language they speak or understand, it adds.

International Mother Language Day began in February 2000 to encourage linguistic and cultural diversity and multilingualism.

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), more than half of the world’s languages could become extinct by the year 2100 and indigenous languages are particularly threatened.

*

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 Prensa Latina

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Warns of Alarming Rate of Language Disappearance

Many Canadians are familiar with the Monroe Doctrine. First issued by the United States in 1823, it warned European powers against renewed colonization of the Western Hemisphere. Presented as anti-imperialist, the Monroe Doctrine was later used to justify US interference in regional affairs.

We may be seeing the development of a Canadian equivalent. The ‘Trudeau Doctrine’ claims to support a “rules-based order”, the “constitution” and regional diplomacy independent of the US. But, history is likely to judge the rhetoric of the Trudeau Doctrine as little more than a mask for aggressive interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation.

For two years Canada’s Prime Minister has been conspiring with Juan Guaidó’s hardline Voluntad Popular party to oust the government of Nicolas Maduro. In May 2017 Trudeau met Lilian Tintori, wife of Voluntad Popular leader Leopoldo López. The Guardian recently reported on Tintori’s role in building international support for the slow-motion coup attempt currently underway in Venezuela. Tintori acted as an emissary for Lopez who couldn’t travel to Ottawa because he was convicted of inciting violence during the “guarimbas” protests in 2014. According to a series of reports, Lopez is the key Venezuelan organizer of the plan to anoint Guaidó interim president. Canadian diplomats spent “months”, reports the Canadian Press, coordinating the plan with the hard-line opposition. In a story titled “Anti-Maduro coalition grew from secret talks”, the Associated Press reported on Canada’s “key role” in building international diplomatic support for claiming the head of the national assembly was president. This included Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland speaking to Guaidó “the night before Maduro’s swearing-in ceremony to offer her government’s support should he confront the socialist leader.”

Just before the recent Lima Group meeting in Ottawa Trudeau spoke with Guaidó and at the meeting of countries opposed to Venezuela’s president he announced that Canada officially recognized Guaido’s representative to Canada, Orlando Viera Blanco, as ambassador. The PM has called the leaders of France, Spain, Paraguay, Ireland, Colombia and Italy as well as the International Monetary Fund and European Union to convince them to join Canada’s campaign against Venezuela.

The international community must immediately unite behind the interim president”, Trudeau declared at the opening of the Lima Group meeting in Ottawa.

At the UN General Assembly in September Canada announced it (with five South American nations) would ask the International Criminal Court to investigate the Venezuelan government, which is the first time a government has been formally brought before the tribunal by another member. Trudeau portrayed this move as a challenge to the Trump administration’s hostility to the court and described the ICC as a “useful and important way of promoting an international rules-based order.” In other words, Trudeau would challenge Washington by showing Trump how the “international rules-based” ICC could undermine a government the US was seeking to overthrow through unilateral sanctions, support for the opposition and threatening an invasion, which all contravene the UN Charter.

While Trudeau claims to support an “international rules-based order”, his government has adopted three rounds of illegal sanctions against Venezuela. It has also openly interfered in the country’s affairs, which violates the UN and OAS charters.

The Trudeau Doctrine emphasizes its interpretation of Venezuela’s constitution. On a whole series of platforms the Prime Minister has cited “the need to respect the Venezuelan Constitution”, even responding to someone who yelled “hands off Venezuela” at a town hall by lecturing the audience on article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution, which he claims makes the head of the National Assembly president. It doesn’t.

More fundamental to the Trudeau Doctrine is the mirage of a regional coalition independent of the regional hegemon – the United States.

Ottawa founded the anti-Maduro Lima Group coalition with Peru. Amidst discussions between the two countries foreign ministers in Spring 2017, Trudeau called his Peruvian counterpart, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, to “‎stress the need for dialogue and respect for the democratic rights of Venezuelan citizens, as enshrined in the charter of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Democratic Charter.” But the Lima Group was established as a structure outside of the OAS largely because that organization’s members refused to back Washington and Ottawa’s bid to interfere in Venezuelan affairs, which they believe defy the OAS’ charter.

While many liberal Canadian commentators promote the idea that the Lima Group operates independently of Washington, their US counterparts are not deceived. In a story titled “Intervening Against Venezuela’s Strongman, Trump Belies ‘America First’” the New York Times described US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s influence over the Lima Group declaration of January 4 that rejected Maduro’s presidency. The paper reported that Pompeo is in “close contact with” Freeland “who has played a leading role in rallying global criticism of Mr. Maduro.”

The claim the Lima Group is independent of Washington conjures up a story Jean Chrétien recounts telling US President Bill Clinton in My Years as Prime Minister:

Keeping some distance will be good for both of us. If we look as though we’re the fifty-first state of the United States, there’s nothing we can do for you internationally, just as the governor of a state can’t do anything for you internationally. But if we look independent enough, we can do things for you that even the CIA cannot do.”

While currently focused on Venezuela, the nascent Trudeau Doctrine has wider regional implications. Freeland has justified Canada’s aggressive interference in Venezuela’s affairs by saying “this is our neighbourhood” while Trudeau’s personal representative for the G7 Summits and recent appointee to the Senate, Peter Boehm told CBC, “this is our backyard, the Western hemisphere. We have a role here.”

Describing Latin America as “our backyard” is the language favoured by so-called Ugly American politicians seeking to assert the Monroe Doctrine. Latin Americans should beware of the emergence of Ugly Canadians promoting the Trudeau Doctrine.

On February 23 protests are planned in Canada and around the world calling for “No War on Venezuela!”

*

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

This article first appeared on Canadian Dimension.

Featured image is from G20 Argentina

The War on Venezuela Is Built on Lies

February 22nd, 2019 by John Pilger

Travelling with Hugo Chavez, I soon understood the threat of Venezuela. At a farming co-operative in Lara state, people waited patiently and with good humour in the heat. Jugs of water and melon juice were passed around. A guitar was played; a woman, Katarina, stood and sang with a husky contralto.

“What did her words say?” I asked.

“That we are proud,” was the reply.

The applause for her merged with the arrival of Chavez. Under one arm he carried a satchel bursting with books. He wore his big red shirt and greeted people by name, stopping to listen. What struck me was his capacity to listen.

But now he read. For almost two hours he read into the microphone from the stack of books beside him: Orwell, Dickens, Tolstoy, Zola, Hemingway, Chomsky, Neruda: a page here, a line or two there. People clapped and whistled as he moved from author to author.By way of contrast, said Carter, the US election system, with its emphasis on campaign money, “is one of the worst”.

In extending the franchise to a parallel people’s state of communal authority, based in the poorest barrios, Chavez described Venezuelan democracy as “our version of Rousseau’s idea of popular sovereignty”.

In Barrio La Linea, seated in her tiny kitchen, Beatrice Balazo told me her children were the first generation of the poor to attend a full day’s school and be given a hot meal and to learn music, art and dance. “I have seen their confidence blossom like flowers,” she said.

In Barrio La Vega, I listened to a nurse, Mariella Machado, a black woman of 45 with a wicked laugh, address an urban land council on subjects ranging from homelessness to illegal war. That day, they were launching Mision Madres de Barrio, a programme aimed at poverty among single mothers. Under the constitution, women have the right to be paid as carers, and can borrow from a special women’s bank. Now the poorest housewives get the equivalent of $200 a month.

In a room lit by a single fluorescent tube, I met Ana Lucia Ferandez, aged 86, and Mavis Mendez, aged 95. A mere 33-year-old, Sonia Alvarez, had come with her two children. Once, none of them could read and write; now they were studying mathematics. For the first time in its history, Venezuela has almost 100 per cent literacy.

Then farmers took the microphone and told him what they knew, and what they needed; one ancient face, carved it seemed from a nearby banyan, made a long, critical speech on the subject of irrigation; Chavez took notes.

Wine is grown here, a dark Syrah type grape. “John, John, come up here,” said El Presidente, having watched me fall asleep in the heat and the depths of Oliver Twist.

“He likes red wine,” Chavez told the cheering, whistling audience, and presented me with a bottle of “vino de la gente”. My few words in bad Spanish brought whistles and laughter.

Watching Chavez with la gente made sense of a man who promised, on coming to power, that his every move would be subject to the will of the people. In eight years, Chavez won eight elections and referendums: a world record. He was electorally the most popular head of state in the Western Hemisphere, probably in the world.

Every major chavista reform was voted on, notably a new constitution of which 71 per cent of the people approved each of the 396 articles that enshrined unheard of freedoms, such as Article 123, which for the first time recognised the human rights of mixed-race and black people, of whom Chavez was one.

One of his tutorials on the road quoted a feminist writer: “Love and solidarity are the same.” His audiences understood this well and expressed themselves with dignity, seldom with deference. Ordinary people regarded Chavez and his government as their first champions: as theirs.

This was especially true of the indigenous, mestizos and Afro-Venezuelans, who had been held in historic contempt by Chavez’s immediate predecessors and by those who today live far from the barrios, in the mansions and penthouses of East Caracas, who commute to Miami where their banks are and who regard themselves as “white”. They are the powerful core of what the media calls “the opposition”.

When I met this class, in suburbs called Country Club, in homes appointed with low chandeliers and bad portraits, I recognised them. They could be white South Africans, the petite bourgeoisie of Constantia and Sandton, pillars of the cruelties of apartheid.

Cartoonists in the Venezuelan press, most of which are owned by an oligarchy and oppose the government, portrayed Chavez as an ape. A radio host referred to “the monkey”. In the private universities, the verbal currency of the children of the well-off is often racist abuse of those whose shacks are just visible through the pollution.

Although identity politics are all the rage in the pages of liberal newspapers in the West, race and class are two words almost never uttered in the mendacious “coverage” of Washington’s latest, most naked attempt to grab the world’s greatest source of oil and reclaim its “backyard”.

For all the chavistas’ faults — such as allowing the Venezuelan economy to become hostage to the fortunes of oil and never seriously challenging big capital and corruption — they brought social justice and pride to millions of people and they did it with unprecedented democracy.

“Of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored,” said former President Jimmy Carter, whose Carter Centre is a respected monitor of elections around the world, “I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

By way of contrast, said Carter, the US election system, with its emphasis on campaign money, “is one of the worst”.
In extending the franchise to a parallel people’s state of communal authority, based in the poorest barrios, Chavez described Venezuelan democracy as “our version of Rousseau’s idea of popular sovereignty”.

In Barrio La Linea, seated in her tiny kitchen, Beatrice Balazo told me her children were the first generation of the poor to attend a full day’s school and be given a hot meal and to learn music, art and dance. “I have seen their confidence blossom like flowers,” she said.

In Barrio La Vega, I listened to a nurse, Mariella Machado, a black woman of 45 with a wicked laugh, address an urban land council on subjects ranging from homelessness to illegal war. That day, they were launching Mision Madres de Barrio, a programme aimed at poverty among single mothers. Under the constitution, women have the right to be paid as carers, and can borrow from a special women’s bank. Now the poorest housewives get the equivalent of $200 a month.

In a room lit by a single fluorescent tube, I met Ana Lucia Ferandez, aged 86, and Mavis Mendez, aged 95. A mere 33-year-old, Sonia Alvarez, had come with her two children. Once, none of them could read and write; now they were studying mathematics. For the first time in its history, Venezuela has almost 100 per cent literacy.

This is the work of Mision Robinson, which was designed for adults and teenagers previously denied an education because of poverty. Mision Ribas gives everyone the opportunity of a secondary education, called a bachillerato.(The names Robinson and Ribas refer to Venezuelan independence leaders from the 19th century).

In her 95 years, Mavis Mendez had seen a parade of governments, mostly vassals of Washington, preside over the theft of billions of dollars in oil spoils, much of it flown to Miami. “We didn’t matter in a human sense,” she told me. “We lived and died without real education and running water, and food we couldn’t afford. When we fell ill, the weakest died. Now I can read and write my name and so much more; and whatever the rich and the media say, we have planted the seeds of true democracy and I have the joy of seeing it happen.”

In 2002, during a Washington-backed coup, Mavis’s sons and daughters and grandchildren and great-grandchildren joined hundreds of thousands who swept down from the barrios on the hillsides and demanded the army remained loyal to Chavez.

“The people rescued me,” Chavez told me. “They did it with the media against me, preventing even the basic facts of what happened. For popular democracy in heroic action, I suggest you look no further.”

Since Chavez’s death in 2013, his successor Nicolas Maduro has shed his derisory label in the Western press as a “former bus driver” and become Saddam Hussein incarnate. His media abuse is ridiculous. On his watch, the slide in the price of oil has caused hyper inflation and played havoc with prices in a society that imports almost all its food; yet, as the journalist and film-maker Pablo Navarrete reported this week, Venezuela is not the catastrophe it has been painted. “There is food everywhere,” he wrote. “I have filmed lots of videos of food in markets [all over Caracas] … it’s Friday night and the restaurants are full.”

In 2018, Maduro was re-elected President. A section of the opposition boycotted the election, a tactic tried against Chavez. The boycott failed: 9,389,056 people voted; sixteen parties participated and six candidates stood for the presidency. Maduro won 6,248,864 votes, or 67.84 per cent.

On election day, I spoke to one of the 150 foreign election observers. “It was entirely fair,” he said. “There was no fraud; none of the lurid media claims stood up. Zero. Amazing really.”

Like a page from Alice’s tea party, the Trump administration has presented Juan Guaido, a pop-up creation of the CIA-front National Endowment for Democracy, as the “legitimate President of Venezuela”. Unheard of by 81 per cent of the Venezuelan people, according to The Nation, Guaido has been elected by no one.

Maduro is “illegitimate”, says Trump (who won the US presidency with three million fewer votes than his opponent), a “dictator”, says demonstrably unhinged vice president Mike Pence and an oil trophy-in-waiting, says “national security” adviser John Bolton (who when I interviewed him in 2003 said, “Hey, are you a communist, maybe even Labour?”).

As his “special envoy to Venezuela” (coup master), Trump has appointed a convicted felon, Elliot Abrams, whose intrigues in the service of Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush helped produce the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s and plunge central America into years of blood-soaked misery.

Putting Lewis Carroll aside, these “crazies” belong in newsreels from the 1930s. And yet their lies about Venezuela have been taken up with enthusiasm by those paid to keep the record straight.

Image result for chris williamson

On Channel 4 News, Jon Snow bellowed at the Labour MP Chris Williamson, “Look, you and Mr. Corbyn are in a very nasty corner [on Venezuela]!” When Williamson tried to explain why threatening a sovereign country was wrong, Snow cut him off. “You’ve had a good go!”

In 2006, Channel 4 News effectively accused Chavez of plotting to make nuclear weapons with Iran: a fantasy. The then Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, allowed a war criminal, Donald Rumsfeld, to liken Chavez to Hitler, unchallenged.

Researchers at the University of the West of England studied the BBC’s reporting of Venezuela over a ten-year period. They looked at 304 reports and found that only three of these referred to any of the positive policies of the government. For the BBC, Venezuela’s democratic record, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives and poverty reduction did not happen.  The greatest literacy programme in human history did not happen, just as the millions who march in support of Maduro and in memory of Chavez, do not exist.

When asked why she filmed only an opposition march, the BBC reporter Orla Guerin tweeted that it was “too difficult” to be on two marches in one day.

A war has been declared on Venezuela, of which the truth is “too difficult” to report.

It is too difficult to report the collapse of oil prices since 2014 as largely the result of criminal machinations by Wall Street. It is too difficult to report the blocking of Venezuela’s access to the US-dominated international financial system as sabotage. It is too difficult to report Washington’s “sanctions” against Venezuela, which have caused the loss of at least $6billion in Venezuela’s revenue since 2017, including $2billion worth of imported medicines, as illegal, or the Bank of England’s refusal to return Venezuela’s gold reserves as an act of piracy.

The former United Nations Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, has likened this to a “medieval siege” designed “to bring countries to their knees”. It is a criminal assault, he says. It is similar to that faced by Salvador Allende in 1970 when President Richard Nixon and his equivalent of John Bolton, Henry Kissinger, set out to “make the economy [of Chile] scream”. The long dark night of Pinochet followed.

The Guardian correspondent, Tom Phillips, has tweeted a picture of himself in a cap on which the words in Spanish mean in local slang: “Make Venezuela fucking cool again.” The reporter as clown may be the final stage of much of mainstream journalism’s degeneration.

Should the CIA stooge Guaido and his white supremacists grab power, it will be the 68th overthrow of a sovereign government by the United States, most of them democracies. A fire sale of Venezuela’s utilities and mineral wealth will surely follow, along with the theft of the country’s oil, as outlined by John Bolton.

Under the last Washington-controlled government in Caracas, poverty reached historic proportions. There was no healthcare for those could not pay. There was no universal education; Mavis Mendez, and millions like her, could not read or write. How cool is that, Tom?
*

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

Venezuela: Is Trump Heading for Military Intervention?

February 22nd, 2019 by Marc Vandepitte

After Chávez’ death in 2013 Maduro was elected president of Venezuela. Since then the US has resolutely been heading for a regime change. The strategy to achieve this has run through several stages. Now we have come to the last stage in which the chances of a US military intervention are very high.

Economic pressure

At first Washington opted for of an economic warfare. In 2015 Obama announced economic sanctions. In August 2017 Trump tightened them considerably with the intention of draining the country financially and preventing oil production and oil export. For a country that particularly depends on oil export, including to the US, the sanctions hit hard. Until August 2017 the oil production in Venezuela was still lining up with Colombia’s oil production, but after making the sanctions more strict, the oil production completely plummeted.

A senior official of the US State Department states:

“The financial sanctions we have placed on the Venezuelan Government has forced it to begin becoming in default, both on sovereign and PDVSA, its oil company’s debt. And what we are seeing because of the bad choices of the Maduro regime is a total economic collapse in Venezuela. So our policy is working, our strategy is working and we’re going to keep it on the Venezuelans.”

Few countries in the world, with the exception of Cuba, have experienced in times of peace an “economic siege” like the one the Venezuelans are experiencing today. Alfred De Zayas, former UN reporter for Venezuela, clearly labels the economic sanctions as a crime against humanity.

“I think when the magnitude of the suffering that sanctions cause is as it was in Iraq or as is now becoming apparent in Venezuela, I can say that the sanctions against Venezuela entail a crime against humanity, which could be brought against the International Criminal Court as a violation of Article 7 of the Statute of Rome.”

Failed colour revolution

But economic sanctions in themselves were apparently not sufficient, the Maduro government remained intact. At the beginning of this year the Trump government moved into a higher gear and tried to set up a ‘colour revolution’.

The scenario was to thwart Maduro’s second term of office by recognising someone else as a legitimate president. The choice fell on the almost unknown, but young and mediagenic parliamentary president Juan Guaidó. A few days after Maduro was sworn in on 10 January, Trump announced that he was considering recognising Guaidó as president. On the same day – strengthened by this backing – the opposition took to the streets on the same day with the aim of ousting President Maduro and forming a provisional government. The military were called upon to walk over. But the army stayed right behind the elected president.

The White House further increased the pressure. In a video message on 22 January, Vice-President Pence urged Venezuelans to take to the streets en masse in order to depose President Maduro. The next day Guaidó proclaimed himself interim president of Venezuela. The intention was that he would be recognized as interim president by the whole world or at least by a large part of it. And indeed, countries like the US, Brazil, Colombia, Canada promptly did recognize Guaidó. Later a lot of European countries did the same.

Yet, this diplomatic offensive wasn’t an undivided success. Even not a third of all countries have expressed their support for Guaidó, and the UN continues to support Maduro. In the US-controlled Organisation of American States, a majority of countries keep supporting Maduro.

The great pressure coming from the street, which the US had hoped for so strongly, isn’t forthcoming as well. For the time being, there is no question of a massive and protracted popular uprising like the ones in 2013 or 2017. The Maduro government retains the support of important sections of the population and is still able to massively mobilise its supporters.

The military card

If economic, political or diplomatic means don’t work, only the military option will ultimately remain. War is merely the continuation of politics by other means, Clausewitz already knew.

In the past Trump hasn’t excluded foreign military intervention in Venezuela. He has recently repeated that again during a bellicose speech in Miami.

In order to keep up with the public opinion, great powers invariably disguise military intervention as a humanitarian mission. That is not different now. The strategy of the White House consists of sending aid convoys with medicine and food from Colombia, Brazil, Curaçao and Aruba. But, because there is supposedly “a lot of anarchy” in Venezuela, these convoys will be armed. The White House knows very well that the Venezuelan army is never going to tolerate such convoys, whether armed or not, on the territory. The aim is for these convoys to lead to skirmishes which will escalate and ultimately legitimise a military intervention. In any case, the Red Cross has already stated that it doesn’t wish to cooperate with these ‘aid operations’.

Meanwhile the Pentagon has made all the preparation to a military intervention. During a press conference John Bolton, the US national security adviser, held a notepad with ‘5,000 troops to Colombia’ written on it. Neither President Duque of Colombia nor Admiral Faller of the American Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) have contradicted this message. Early February Special Forceswere flown to military bases in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. In the same period Admiral Faller visited Brazil and Curaçao. A nuclear aircraft carrier and six other warships are stationed off the coasts of Florida. Within a week the US can deploy thousands of marines, fighter jets and tanks in Venezuela.

In that military build-up, Washington receives support from London. The United Kingdom is currently conducting military exercises off the coast of Venezuela, with the same battalion that led the landing in Iraq in 2003.

Whether the White House is effectively heading for a military confrontation will become clear in the next days and weeks. Meanwhile, many countries, institutions and personalities, with Mexico and Uruguay at the forefront, continue to make every possible effort to find a peaceful solution through dialogue and mediation. If Trump, however, continues his war plans, we risk ending up in the disastrous scenario of 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.

Featured image is from Tallahassee SDS protests US intervention in Venezuela. (Fight Back! News)

The Venezuela coup attempt is not going well at all and Washington’s global allies may soon regret rushing to recognise Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela, French journalist and geopolitical analyst Gilbert Mercier told Sputnik.

Make no mistake, the so called Venezuela crisis has been engineered through economic sanctions and plotted in Washington for many years, Gilbert Mercier, a French journalist, geopolitical analyst, and editor-in-chief of the News Junkie Post, told Sputnik.

He recalled that Washington’s 2002 coup attempt plotted by Elliott Abrams, Donald Trump’s current Venezuela special envoy, failed in Venezuela.

“I cannot foresee that the US imperial push against Maduro will be successful either as long as Venezuela’s military remains loyal to him, and as long as Maduro consolidate both his regional and global support,” the journalist said, adding that the Venezuelan legitimate head of state “should emulate the survival tactics of the Cuban revolution through striking the right alliances, and numerous improvements of his economic management of Venezuela’s socialist society”.

He remarked that

“after all the Castros, first Fidel than Raul, defied US imperialism for six decades”.

“In what must be called, as I did some time ago, a new Cold War, Venezuela is the major geopolitical test of our times. It might be even more critical than Syria, because this time around it is a conflict between imperial capitalism and a socialist state,” Mercier opined.

World Divided Into Pro-Maduro and Pro-Guaido Camps

“So far the US sponsored coup to replace legitimately elected Nicolas Maduro by Washington groomed Juan Guaido has not progressed as planned,” the geopolitical analyst pointed out. “As matter of fact, as we stand, it is a fiasco, and US vassals in Europe and the Americas could soon regret their premature enthusiasm to embrace Washington’s regime change policy”.

On 23 January, Juan Guaido, the president of the disempowered National Assembly declared himself the interim president of Venezuela. His move was immediately endorsed by the US which triggered a domino effect among Washington’s allies, with Canada and eleven Latin American states following suit.

On 31 January, the European Parliament (EP) recognised Guaido “the only legitimate interim president of the country” which was followed by a joint declaration signed by 19 EU states that “acknowledges and supports” Guaido as “president ad interim of Venezuela”. On 19 February Japan joined the chorus of Guaido supporters.

“The United States, like any empires, has vassals and client states which they control through various organisations such as NATO or the OAS,” the analyst elaborated. “This is what the anti-Maduro coalition is about. When the Empire’s Diktats encounter resistance from vassals, it uses different level of coercion to get to the bottom of it. It is summarised by the “with or against us” US imperial litmus test. The very same allegiance test was, by the way, used in the build up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003″.

In contrast, Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey and many other countries have thrown their weight behind the legitimately elected president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro.

Meanwhile, a report by the prestigious Research Services division of Germany’s Bundestag found that there were “strong” legal reasons to consider the recognition of Guaido as interim president as “interference” in the Latin American country’s internal affairs.

Trump is ‘Frustrated and Impatient’ Over Stalled Coup Attempt

Judging from Donald Trump’s harsh statements and threats, it appears that

“the coup attempt has stalled and is not going well at all”, Mercier emphasised.

“President Trump, himself, is showing his frustration and impatience,” he opined. “Last Monday, while he was in Miami, Florida, Trump delivered a speech to threaten Venezuela’s military. Trump said that Venezuela’s military would ‘lose everything by remaining loyal to Maduro’, and not allowing the so called US humanitarian aid for Venezuelans stockpiled at the border of Columbia and Venezuela”.

“As matter of fact, the Trump administration, and US imperialism’s little helper in Venezuela Juan Guaido, has given Maduro an absurdly artificial deadline to let the US aid in the country: it is 23 February,” Mercier noted.

According to the French journalist,

“this stratagem completely falls into the humanitarian imperialism playbook”.

“First you starve people through drastic sanctions, then you pretend to have compassion and send food and medical supplies,” he said. “My partner at News Junkie Post, Dady Chery, actually was the first one worldwide to identify this strategy, which she coined in 2015 as Humanitarian Imperialism: Aid as a Trojan Horse.”

Mercier stressed that the US humanitarian aid is by no means “about feeding the people of Venezuela”, rather, “It is about trying to get Venezuela’s military to either cave in to the request or become divided”.

Commenting on the issue on 20 February, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denounced Washington’s threats to Venezuela’s military as a violation of the United Nations Charter and “direct interference in the internal affairs of an independent country”.

Chavez & Maduro Partially Responsible for Venezuela Economic Problems

Still, “both Chavez and Maduro have a partial responsibility in Venezuela’s less than stellar economic performance”, Mercier believes.

“It is of course a failure to efficiently exploit the country vast oil reserves, but actually, more importantly the lack of diversification notably in terms of exploiting Venezuela’s rich agricultural potential,” he said. “In other words, Venezuela, despite the US sanctions, should be a prosperous country, and let’s face it, it is not. Maduro and his team, to survive and make Venezuela’s brand of socialism not only a workable proposition but a thriving one, must diligently improve on this”.

However, he emphasised that despite the dire economic situation,

“Maduro still has his core support within most of the population intact”.

“Venezuela’s elite, needless to say a minority, had been opposed to Chavez, and his heir Maduro, for more than twenty years, this has remained, and many of them have actually immigrated to the United States,” the French journalist said.

Why Trump Won’t Send US Troops to Venezuela

Nevertheless, the geopolitical analyst cast doubt on the possibility of the US launching a military option against Caracas.

“After the recent military humiliations both in Afghanistan and Syria, which are de-facto defeats but spun in Washington respectively as ‘negotiations with the Taliban*’ in the first case and “victory on ISIS [Daesh]*” in Syria’s case, I do not think that the United States and NATO partners have much appetite for direct ‘boots on the ground’ military adventures. Venezuela shall not be an exception,” Mercier opined.

At the same time, he did not rule out a potential proxy operation.

“In the unfortunate eventuality, which I am sure is seriously considered by the Pentagon and the CIA, of using proxy agents to engage Venezuela’s military and powerful Chavista militia, the prime candidate are right-wing regimes of Columbia and Brazil with a covert logistic support of US special forces/CIA field operatives, and also the powerful mercenary outlet of Erik Prince (formerly Blackwater),” the journalist suggested.

Mercier warned that

“this proxy war scenario would be a disaster for Venezuela and the region”, stressing that “if Venezuela’s military stay loyal to Maduro, it is regardless doomed to fail”.

*

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 Sputnik News.

Gilbert Mercier is a French journalist, geopolitical analyst, editor-in-chief of the News Junkie Post and the author of “The Orwellian Empire”.

Featured image is from France 24

“Quantitative easing” was supposed to be an emergency measure. The Federal Reserve “eased” shrinkage in the money supply due to the 2008-09 credit crisis by pumping out trillions of dollars in new bank reserves. After the crisis, the presumption was that the Fed would “normalize” conditions by sopping up the excess reserves through “quantitative tightening” (QT) – raising interest rates and selling the securities it had bought with new reserves back into the market.

The Fed relentlessly pushed on with quantitative tightening through 2018, despite a severe market correction in the fall. In December, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said that QT would be on “autopilot,” meaning the Fed would continue to raise interest rates and to sell $50 billion monthly in securities until it hit its target. But the market protested loudly to this move, with the Nasdaq Composite Index dropping 22% from its late-summer high.

Worse, defaults on consumer loans were rising. December 2018 was the first time in two years that all loan types and all major metropolitan statistical areas showed a higher default rate month-over-month. Consumer debt – including auto, student and credit card debt – is typically bundled and sold as asset-backed securities similar to the risky mortgage-backed securities that brought down the market in 2008 after the Fed had progressively raised interest rates.

Chairman Powell evidently got the memo. In January, he abruptly changed course and announced that QT would be halted if needed. On February 4th, Mary Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said they were considering going much further. “You could imagine executing policy with your interest rate as your primary tool and the balance sheet as a secondary tool, one that you would use more readily,” she said. QE and QT would no longer be emergency measures but would be routine tools for managing the money supply. In a February 13th article on Seeking Alpha titled “Quantitative Easing on Demand,” Mark Grant wrote:

If the Fed does decide to pursue this strategy it will be a wholesale change in the way the financial system in the United States operates and I think that very few institutions or people appreciate what is taking place or what it will mean to the markets, all of the markets.

The Problem of Debt Deflation

The Fed is realizing that it cannot bring its balance sheet back to “normal.” It must keep pumping new money into the banking system to avoid a recession. This naturally alarms Fed watchers worried about hyperinflation. But QE need not create unwanted inflation if directed properly. The money spigots just need to be aimed at the debtors rather than the creditor banks. In fact regular injections of new money directly into the economy may be just what the economy needs to escape the boom and bust cycle that has characterized it for two centuries. Mark Grant concluded his article by quoting Abraham Lincoln:

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.

The quote is apparently apocryphal, but the principle still holds: new money needs to be regularly added to the money supply to avoid an overwhelming debt burden and allow the economy to reach its true  productive potential. Regular injections of new money are necessary to avoid something economists fear even more than inflation – the sort of “debt deflation” that took down the economy in the 1930s.

Most money today is created by banks when they make loans. When overextended borrowers pay down old loans without taking out new ones, the money supply “deflates” or shrinks. Demand shrinks with it, and businesses lacking customers close their doors, in the sort of self-feeding death spiral seen in the Great Depression.

As Australian economist Steve Keen observes, today the level of private debt is way too high, and that is why so little lending is occurring. But mainstream economists consider the rate of growth of debt to be irrelevant to macroeconomic policy, because lending is thought to simply redistribute spending power from savers to investors. Conventional economic theory says that banks are merely intermediaries, recirculating existing money rather than creating spending power in their own right. But this is not true, says Prof. Keen. Banks actually create new money when they make loans. He cites the Bank of England, which said in its 2014 quarterly report:

[B]anks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits. . . .

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.

Loans create deposits, and deposits make up the bulk of the money supply. Money today is created by banks as a debt on their balance sheets, and more is always owed back than was created, since the interest claimed by the banks is not created in the original loan. Debt thus grows faster than the money supply. When overextended borrowers quit taking out the new loans needed to repay old loans, the gap widens even further. The result is debt deflation – a debt-induced reduction in the new money needed to stimulate economic activity and growth. Thus the need for injections of new money to fill the gap between debt and the money available to repay it.

However, the money created through QE to date has not gone to the consuming public, where it must go to fill this gap. Rather, it has gone to the banks, which have funneled it into the speculative financialized markets. Nomi Prins calls this “dark money” – the trillions of dollars flowing yearly in and around global stock, bond and derivatives markets generated by central banks when they electronically fabricate money by buying bonds and stocks. She writes, “These dark money flows stretch around the world according to a pattern of power, influence and, of course, wealth for select groups.” She shows graphically that the rise in dark money is directly correlated with the rise in financial markets.

QE has worked to reverse the debts of the banks and to prop up the stock market, but it has not relieved the debts of consumers, businesses or governments; and it is these debts that will trigger the sort of debt deflation that can take the economy down. Keen concludes that “no amount of exhorting banks to ‘Intermediate’ will end the drought in credit growth that is the real cause of The Great Malaise.” The only way to reduce the private debt burden without causing a depression, he says, is a Modern Debt Jubilee or People’s Quantitative Easing.

QE-funded Debt Relief

In antiquity, as Prof. Michael Hudson observes, debts were routinely forgiven when a new ruler took the throne. The rulers and their advisors knew that debt at interest grew faster than the money supply and that debt relief was necessary to avoid economic collapse from an overwhelming debt overhang. Economic growth is arithmetic and can’t keep up with the exponential growth of debt growing at compound interest.

Consumers need that sort of debt relief today, but simply voiding out their debts as was done in antiquity will not work because the debts are not owed to the government. They are owed to banks and private investors who would have to bear the loss. The alternative suggested by Keen and others is to fill the debt gap with a form of QE dropped not into bank reserve accounts but digitally into the bank accounts of the general public. Debtors could then use the money to pay down their debts. In fact Keen says it should go first to pay down debts. Non-debtors would receive a cash injection.

Properly managed, these injections need not create inflation. (See my earlier article here.) Money is created as loans and extinguished when they are paid off, so the money used to pay down debt would be extinguished along with the debt. And the cash injections not used to pay down debt would just help fill the gap between real and potential productivity, allowing demand and supply to rise together, keeping prices stable.

A regular injection of money into personal bank accounts has been called a “universal basic income,” but better would be to call it a “national dividend” – something all citizens are entitled to equally, without regard to economic status or ability to work. It would serve as a safety net for people living paycheck to paycheck, but the larger purpose would be as economic policy to stimulate demand and productivity, keeping the wheels of industry turning.

Money might then indeed become a servant of humanity, transformed from a tool of oppression into a means of securing common prosperity. But first the central bank needs to become a public servant. It needs to be made a public utility, responsive to the needs of the people and the economy.

*

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 Truthdig.com.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. A 13th book titled Banking on the People: Democratizing Finance in the Digital Age is due out soon. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Venezuela – US Attack Imminent?

February 22nd, 2019 by Peter Koenig

Imagine, the President of the self-declared, exceptional and unique Superpower, Donald Trump of the United States of America, has the audacity to threaten the Venezuelan military with their lives, if they keep standing behind the democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro, and defending his Government. An open threat – yesterday, 18 February, at a Miami University, in a speech of ‘fire and fury’; this time against socialist Venezuela with which he wants to finish, like with all other socialist nations – especially those in his ‘backyard’. So, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia are next in Trump’s crosshairs – and / or the crosshairs of his handlers. Don’t forget, he is a staged and convenient fool for the “Deep State” or the “Profound Government” – whatever you want to call this secret clan of the Chosen People that intends to rule the world.

I cannot help being amazed at what level of inhumanity we have arrived. Trump calls openly out to assassinate those who stand behind the legitimate President of Venezuela – and the rest of the world just looks on, watches and says NOTHING – zilch, zero – tolerates such atrocity coming from the mouth of a buffoon, aka the strongman of the self-proclaimed one and only superpower of the globe. – No, much worse – the so-called civilized west, the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan – and some second- and third class puppet developing countries from South America, whose people are being starved while the elite admires and dances to the tune of the USA; united in what they call the “Group of Lima” (created in Lima in August 2017, to “safe” Venezuela). Members include, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru.

In the meantime, Mexico, under her new leftwing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or simply, AMLO, abstains from any decision against Venezuela. To the contrary, Mexico is part of the “Montevideo Mechanism” that comprises Mexico, Uruguay, Bolivia and the member countries of CARICOM and seeks conflict resolution through dialogue with the opposition, for which the Maduro Government has been ready from the beginning of the conflict, but which has been boycotted by the opposition, as were the 20 May 2018 elections which the non-participating opposition now calls a fraud.

The Lima Group was initiated, as such unofficial clubs always are, to out-rule the official routes, by Washington. Similarly, Washington created “The Friends of Syria” – all with the objective to bring about “Regime Change”. In the case of Venezuela, to circumvent the official representation of the Americas – the OAS – Organization of American States. – Why? – Because the empire was unable to get the legitimate majority of the OAS members to side with them against Venezuela. So, they organized the Lima Group, a club of the willing, of the utmost corrupted vassals, who believe at the end of the days to receive some crumbs of ‘gracias’ from their northern master and tyrant – or the vassals’ leaders (sic) hope perhaps for a safe haven, a castle in Miami?

I often wonder whether such a dream of eventually, at the end of the day – the end of all days perhaps? – being saved by the surviving elite of the US of A in an untouched paradise, is also the dream of the European puppets, for example those that pull the EU’s strings – the Macrons, Merkels and Mays – and, of course, the rest of the EU, the puppets of the puppets? – What else could make them so miserably betray their people, hundreds of millions of people? – Do they have not an iota of morals left?

Coming back to Venezuela – the Buffoon calls for outright war against the Maduro regime – and to salvage the Venezuelan people, he sent US$ 20 million worth of “humanitarian aid” to Cucutá, border town in Colombia, which, of course, the Bolivarian army does not let enter Venezuela. There is no need for humanitarian aid, let alone for US$ 20 million worth, peanuts, as compared to what Venezuela buys on a daily basis in food and medical supplies.

Undeniably, the US warmongers – specially Bolton, Pompeo and Pence – are preparing for a hot war. Whether they will execute it, remains to be seen. But the Bolivarian military does not idly watch what may happen. They are ready to face any Yankee aggression. The US southern military command, SOUTHCOM, stationed in Florida, is preparing an impressive military build-up. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with 3,200 military personnel, 90 fighter planes and helicopters is positioned off the Florida coast, accompanied by the cruise missile carrier, USS Leyte Gulf, and the destroyers, USS Bainbridge, USS Gonzalez, USS Mason, and USS Nite. Joining the fleet is also the Spanish marine ship ESPS Mendez Nuñez.

The Spanish participation in this war game of criminal aggression is outrageous. The Spanish socialist leader, Pedro Sanchez (who certainly does not deserve the attribute of ‘socialist’), has also had the audacity requesting Nicolas Maduro to resign and call elections. Who is the (faltering) head of the fallen Spanish empire to meddle in another country’s internal affairs? – Maybe because the Spaniards can still not stomach having been defeated by Simón Bolívar, still feel superior and behave racist over the ‘brown’ Latinos, or maybe because he wants to please the masters in Washington – or simply because he needs popular support in his own country, as he is leading a minority, currently non-government and had to call snap elections for 28 April 2019?

There are, however, also Russia and China, solid, but rather quiet partners of Venezuela’s. Russia has made it clear, though, “Don’t mess with Venezuela”. Russia has two nuclear capable bombers, TU-160, deployed to the Venezuelan Caribbean island of la Orchila, where Moscow will establish, with the agreement of Venezuela, a permanent military base.

Both Russia and China have tens of billions worth of investments in Venezuela’s hydrocarbon industry. But besides the commercial interests, Russia and China vie for a multipolar world and want to guarantee the independence of Latin America, the sovereignty of the peoples of the Americas.

On 26 January 2019, the US dragged the “Case Venezuela” to the UN Security Council, in an attempt to condemn Venezuela and to trailblaze the path for a military invasion. However, while nine of the 15 UNSC members voted for a special meeting on Venezuela (Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, United Kingdom, United States), four voted against (China, Equatorial Guinea, Russian Federation, South Africa), with two abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia). The Russian Federation’s delegate countered that the Council has no role to play in a domestic matter that poses no threat to international peace and security. And right he is!

This UNSC event prompted a solidarity movement of more than 50 states, including China, Russia, Cuba, DPRK, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Nicaragua, and many more, supporting Venezuelan’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza’s statement before the Security Council, declaring the illegality of unilateral coercive economic sanctions, and territorial invasions by the United States. As Carla Stea reports,

this new alliance “constitutes a formidable force which Western capitalism will antagonize at its own peril. This is a long overdue counterforce to Western domination of the United Nations, a domination based on money, on the large payments enabling the US and other capitalist powers to bribe, threaten and otherwise control the direction of the UN, and distort and destroy the independence, impartiality and integrity which the UN requires in order to maintain its legitimacy, and implement the sustained global peace and justice for which Franklin Delano Roosevelt created it.”

This new alignment of more than 50 states comprise more than half of the world’s population, to a large extent people who have been exploited, slaughtered and their countries raped and ravaged for hundreds of years by wester capitalist and colonialist powers. This alliance promises to become a solid new face in the otherwise western dominated and bought United Nations.

As to Venezuela’s fate, Trump has made vague indications of 23 February being the deadline for an assault on Venezuela. We will see whether this remains nothing but an intimidating insinuation, or whether it will be real. The latter case would be a disaster not only for Venezuela, and Latin America, but for the entire world. Will Trump’s handlers allow such blunder? – In any case, Venezuela’s armed forces are disposed to confront the empire’s nuclear aircraft carrier, missile launchers, countless fighter planes and the up to 5,000 US troops and mercenaries newly stationed in Colombia and ready to cross the border into Venezuela.  – And, not to forget, there are also Russia and China.

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of 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.

Trump Regime Pursuing Nuclear Technology Sales to the Saudis

February 21st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Saudi Arabia is a fascist dictatorship run in cahoots with religious extremists – the Middle East’s most dangerous regime after Israel. 

Other than nations already with nukes, it’s likely the last regime on earth anti-war activists would want to be nuclearized with a potential military component.

The possibility should terrify everyone, mass destruction regionally and beyond greatly heightened if the Saudis have this capability.

A US House Oversight and Reform Committee report raised the issue, saying the following:

“(M)ultiple whistleblowers came forward to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of highly sensitive US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act and without review by Congress as required by law—efforts that may be ongoing to this day,” adding:

Trump regime relations with the Saudis are “shrouded in secrecy,” Jared Kushner involved with crown prince Mohammad bin Salman on what’s going on – MBS once saying he’s got Trump’s son-in-law “in his pocket.”

Saudi Arabla is a highly valued US client state, the most important in the Arab world one because of its huge oil reserves and around $750 billion of its wealth invested in US assets.

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.

Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal earlier said he bailed Trump out twice. Businessman Trump created and registered eight companies to do business in Saudi Arabia.

During an August 2015 campaign rally, he said

“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

According to the Wall Street Journal in January 2017, the Washington-based Trump International Hotel was paid about $270,000 by the Saudi lobbying firm Qorvis MSLGroup – for lodging, catering, and related expenses – plus another $200,000 spent at the hotel.

As president, Trump chose Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip, sealing what he called a $110 billion arms deal, along with a memorandum of intent to supply the kingdom with weapons worth around $350 billion over the next decade.

Much of the $110 billion deal was ordered before his tenure began, worth tens of billions of dollars,  much less than Trump’s touted figure.

The $350 billion figure exists on paper alone. Saudi purchases over the next decade will likely be far short of this inflated amount.

Whatever comes to fruition or not, Trump clearly wants as much Saudi revenue coming to the US as possible. Selling highly sensitive nuclear technology to the kingdom would be reckless, a threat to regional and world security.

According to the House report, the Trump 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 that it can be used to develop nukes. The NEA’s Section 123 states that nuclear technology transfers abroad are subject to congressional approval.

The House Oversight and Reform  Committee is investigating allegations of Trump regime efforts to sell sensitive nuclear technology to the Saudis that can be used to develop and produce nukes.

Kushner, former national security advisor Mike Flynn and Trump fundraiser Thomas Barrack reportedly support the scheme backed by US commercial interests, standing to make billions of dollars constructing and operating nuclear facilities in the kingdom.

Last year, MBS said “(w)ithout a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” The Islamic Republic abhors these weapons, wanting them eliminated everywhere.

According to the House report,

“whistleblowers who came forward have expressed significant concerns about the potential procedural and legal violations connected with rushing through a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.”

“They have warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes. They have also warned about a working environment inside the White House marked by chaos, dysfunction, and backbiting.”

“And they have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisors at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump Administration officials to halt their efforts.”

The White House allegedly aims to pursue a “Trump Middle East Marshall Plan,” involving the construction and operation of “dozens of (regional) nuclear power plants” in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan through a company called International Peace Power & Prosperity (IP3).

The House report warned that Trump met last week with “nuclear power developers at the White House about sharing nuclear technology with countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.”

According to the whistleblowers, the Saudis refuse to agree on prohibitions against enriching uranium and processing plutonium unlike other regional countries.

IP3 maintains Russia and China seek to build and operate Middle East nuclear power plants – dubiously claiming only the US can assure nuclear safety, security and regulatory oversight.

In her books titled “Nuclear Madness,” “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer,” and “The New Nuclear Danger,” Helen Caldicott explained that nuclear power plants are atom bomb factories.

A 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually, 10 pounds alone needed as fuel for a bomb able to devastate a large city, irradiate it, and make it too unsafe for human habitation.

Of all energy forms, nuclear power is the most dangerous. Safe, renewable energy sources are the only acceptable ones – including wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass, ocean, and geothermal.

Saving the planet and its life forms may depend on shifting from fossil and nuclear energy to these sources exclusively.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Defense Secretaries Sound the Alarm

This first quote was an important admission from Robert Gates, as Defense Secretary during the second-term of the Bush Administration and first-term of the Obama Administration, it was his responsibility to sign off on Pentagon spending. This is also why Gates’ Secretary of Defense predecessor Donald Rumsfeld, in his now infamous speech at the Pentagon on September 10, 2001, said it was time to “declare war” on Pentagon waste for not being able to account for $2.3 trillion.

Here’s a little-known speech on Pentagon accounting that Robert Gates gave on May 2011 at the American Enterprise Institute:

“My staff and I learned that it was nearly impossible to get accurate information and answers to questions such as ‘how much money did you spend’ and ‘how many people do you have?’….

The efficiencies project also showed that the current apparatus for managing people and money across the DoD enterprise is woefully inadequate.

The agencies, field activities, joint headquarters, and support staff functions of the department operate as a semi-feudal system – an amalgam of fiefdoms without centralized mechanisms to allocate resources, track expenditures, and measure results relative to the department’s overall priorities.”

Reuters was one of a handful of news outlets to report on Gates’ shocking comments. They also got additional mind-blowing quotes from former Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England. He spoke about the financing and accounting operations throughout the Pentagon that lack oversight:

“No one can even agree on how many of these accounting and business systems are in use. The Pentagon itself puts the number at 2,200 spread throughout the military services and other defense agencies.”

“A January 2012 report by a task force of the Defense Business Board, an advisory group of business leaders appointed by the secretary of defense, put the number at around 5,000.”

“There are thousands and thousands of systems,” former Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said in an interview. “I’m not sure anybody knows how many systems there are.”

Given what we know now, Donald Rumsfeld’s September 10, 2001 speech at the Pentagon is of historical significance. Here are excerpts from that speech:

“The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America.

This adversary is one of the world’s last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond.

With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.

Perhaps this adversary sounds like the former Soviet Union, but that enemy is gone: our foes are more subtle and implacable today. You may think I’m describing one of the last decrepit dictators of the world. But their day, too, is almost past, and they cannot match the strength and size of this adversary.

The adversary is closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy.

In this building… money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy…. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

That’s wrong. It’s wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn….

According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.

We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible…

Why is DOD one of the last organizations around that still cuts its own checks? …

There’s a myth, sort of a legend, that money enters this building and disappears, like a bright light into a black hole, never to be seen again.

In truth, there is a real person at the other end of every dollar, a real person who’s in charge of every domain, and that means that there will be real consequences from, and real resistance to, fundamental change….

And let there be no mistake, it is a matter of life and death. Our job is defending America, and if we cannot change the way we do business, then we cannot do our job well, and we must.

So today we declare war on bureaucracy….

I’ve read that there are those who will oppose our every effort to save taxpayers’ money…. Well, fine, if there’s to be a struggle, so be it….

It’s about respect for taxpayers’ dollars. A cab driver in New York City ought to be able to feel confident that we care about those dollars.

It’s about professionalism, and it’s also about our respect for ourselves, about how we feel about seeing GAO reports describing waste and mismanagement and money down a rat hole.”

Of course, the day after that speech was 9/11. In a very interesting coincidence, the part of the Pentagon that got hit was where accounting offices were. 34 Pentagon accountants were killed that day. Here’s how it was summed up in the “Official U.S. Government Historical Office” report:

“Of the Managerial Accounting Division’s 12 members present, only 3 survived. For these three the fireball and partial collapse of a wall almost proved their undoing; not one escaped without injury. All told, 34 of the 40 members of the Program and Budget and Managerial Accounting Divisions present that morning perished.”

The only report in the mainstream media that I could find, which followed up on Rumsfeld’s September 10th speech, was from CBS News. This brief report featured shocking quotes from three Pentagon insiders who were in a position to know what was happening.

The War On Waste

On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy,” he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat. “In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death,” he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11– the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, “my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending.”

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

“We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency’s balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

“The director looked at me and said ‘Why do you care about this stuff?’ It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job,” said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off. “They have to cover it up,” he said. “That’s where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can’t do the job.”

The Pentagon’s Inspector General “partially substantiated” several of Minnery’s allegations but could not prove officials tried “to manipulate the financial statements.” Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. [Chuck] Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the “accounting games.” He’s still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

“Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year,” he said.

Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy’s 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976. In his opinion, “With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers.”

Here’s the TV version of this report:

Read full article here.

*

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

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez / Truthout

We commit a big fallacy when we assume that our educational accomplishments are our individual achievements. We like to believe that we are born with a certain innate talent that makes us intellectually superior to all the rest.

But the fact of the matter is that our innate talents aren’t all that different. Some people are born with genes that make them grow to being six-feet tall, whereas others are a few inches shorter; these are all minor differences of genetics, nevertheless.

The difference of innate intelligence amongst people belonging to all races is quite similar. It’s our environment, family, culture and educational institutions which are primarily responsible for our cognitive abilities and critical faculties.

In this regard, capitalism works like outdated monarchy: a person born in a rich and educated family is by default a prince; he has access to all the modes of learning: such as parental guidance, best educational institutions, books, libraries and internet; peer pressure as a motivation, and intellectual discussions and debates with well-informed teachers, family members and close friends further hone one’s cognitive abilities.

A poor peasant, on the other hand, lacks the wherewithal to educate himself and his children to that level. Thus, when the neoliberals blame the uneducated for their lack of education, they are actually blaming the victims for their misfortunes. They ought to blame the structural injustices and the capitalist system which engenders social stratification and consequent inequality of educational opportunities.

It bears mentioning, however, that I’ve written this article in the context of the Third World’s stratified educational systems where we have markedly different educational institutions that impart elementary education to the children of the elite and the masses.

The public schools of the developed world provide quality education to all the citizens, irrespective of their social class, because in a country like the UK, the budgetary allocation for public education is more than $50 billion for a population of 65 million, while in a Third World country, like Pakistan, the education budget is roughly $5 billion for a population of more than 200 million. Thus, equality of opportunity, which is directly linked to the equality of education, has been ensured in the developed world, but not in the Third World.

In the Third World developing countries, especially in Pakistan, there are four distinct types of educational institutions that impart elementary education to citizens:

Firstly: The elite English-medium schools that offer courses in O/A Levels, and Junior and Senior Cambridge. The quality of education in such institutions is quite good, but their tuition fee and other expenses are so exorbitant that only the upper middle class can admit their children in such schools.

Secondly: The Urdu-medium public and private sector schools that cater to the educational needs of the children of the middle and lower middle classes. Though such institutions are often misrepresented as “English-medium,” because the textbooks are in English, the lingua franca in such schools is generally Urdu; and their quality of education is average, at best.

Thirdly: The government schools that are run by the provincial education departments. The tuition fee in such schools is quite nominal and so is the standard of education that they impart. Such institutions cater to the educational needs of the children of the poor classes.

Fourthly: The religious seminaries, or madrassas, that are funded by the Islamic charities and endowments, and that impart religious education to the children of the poorest of the poor.

These petrodollars-funded madrassas offer the kind of incentives which are lacking even in government schools, like free boarding and lodging, meals for the poor students, free of cost books and stationery; and some generously funded madrassas even give monthly stipends to their students.

The poor folk who admit their children in madrassas, in a way, outsource the upbringing of their children to the madrassas; because, for all practical purposes, such children are raised by religious clerics.

Regardless, in today’s complex world, without education, people are not equipped to survive. For instance: if I go to China and I don’t understand the Chinese language, I’ll be needing a tour guide with me all the time.

Similarly, those of us who can’t read and write, they can survive due to their traditional social networks in villages, but not in modern cities. And the innumerate who can’t do math, they cannot succeed in business. If you want to register a property or a vehicle to your name, and you don’t know the law and the understanding of how the system works, you can run into a lot of trouble.

Therefore, education is imperative for survival in today’s complex world. Biological evolution is based on the cardinal principle of natural selection and the survival of the fittest; thus, fitness to the environment is the only law that ensures our survival. But that fitness is bestowed upon us by nature; and like I have argued earlier, that in today’s complex, man-made world, every newborn child is unfit to survive until he gets proper education.

More to the point, the lack of fitness of an individual, or a social group, is not their fault, it is the fault of the society as a whole. If you are fortunate enough to have been born in upper middle class family, by default you will be equipped with all the necessary tools that are required for survival and progress; but if you have not been properly educated to understand and deal with today’s complex modern societies, then you will remain an unfit peasant.

Finally, and in a nutshell, equality of opportunity, which is the fundamental axiom of the modern egalitarian worldview, is directly linked to the equality of education, or at least, the equality of educational opportunities.

In the capitalist neoliberal societies of the Third World, however, only the children of the upper classes get proper education which is essential for upward social mobility, whereas the children of the masses get barely sufficient education which might be enough for becoming clerks and technicians, but as far as honing one’s cognitive abilities and critical faculties are concerned, their optimal potential is not realized.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Education and the Capitalist Myth of Equality of Opportunity

It does seem specific.  A middle class concern centred on a man and an elderly woman, a sort of surrogate, irritating mother type of indulgent wisdom and uncertain past, seemingly irritating yet, on some level, fulfilling.  Alan Bennett writes prose that moves gracefully, a sort of tender glaze of tea, cocoa and the fire place.  But it was Bennett who brought, into being, this figure who provided haunting teases, provocations and awareness.

It’s all about a van, this un-priestly domain of living, and its indomitable occupant, a certain Miss Mary (or Margaret?) Shepherd, who proffers manners godly but prefers, often, a distinctly profane form of living.  The van itself, poor condition, appears in Gloucester Crescent, north London.  Movement followed, a kind of inexorable progression.  Eventually, number 23 – Bennett’s residence – became a home.  She would stay for fifteen years. 

These are fifteen years that waver between emotions, though one is consistent. “One seldom was able to do her a good turn without some thoughts of strangulation,” remembers Bennett.  During her stay, she is effusive about receiving “guidance from the Virgin Mary” and claims to being horrendously busy.  She sells tracts.  “I sell them, but so far as authorship is concerned I’ll say they are anonymous and that’s as far as I am prepared to go.” 

She becomes a feature of Gloucester Crescent.  For some, its pity – and these are given short shrift; then there the youths keen to get a look.  Even police on the beat, as Bennett recalls, were happy to have their little stab of curiosity to “enliven a dull hour of their beat.”  She becomes an object of village persecution, from stall holders to children.  Drunks smash the windows of the van.  The vehicle, at stages, is given a violent rocking.  But she maintains, throughout, a degree of equanimity.  She even has time to tell Bennett that she witnessed “a ginger feller I saw in Parkway in company with Mr Khrushchev. Has he disappeared recently?”

Then there is the sanitation – or its conspicuous lack of.  Concealment and blame are the order of the day: Yardley dusting power is used generously; and, when in doubt, some other cause is identified as being responsible for the “Susie Wong”. 

For Bennett, charity is not unadulterated.  This, perhaps, is the lingering lesson of this encounter.  He quotes, at the start of his account of Miss S in Writing Home, William Hazlitt’s observations in “On the Knowledge of Character” (1822): “Good nature, or what is often considered as such, is the most selfish of all virtues: it is nine times out of ten mere indolence of disposition.” 

There is guilt, self-interest and anger in such a disposition.  The repeated attacks and attention eventually see Miss S find her way into a form of tenancy in the garden, security that provides scant comfort for Bennett.  He wanted “a quiet life as much as, and possibly more than, she did.  In the garden she was at least out of harm’s way.” 

When Miss S finally moves off the mortal coil, having bathed, given a set of fresh clothes and clean sheets, Bennett finds himself searching her van searching for clues as to what made her live the way she did.  He was surprised to find it all rather ordinary, in fact, as ordinary as the lives of others, particularly his own mother: kitchen utensils, soap, talcum powder, hoarded toilet rolls. “The more I laboured, the less peculiar the van seemed – its proprieties and aspirations no different from those with which I had been brought up.” And there are the savings, some £6,000.   

Two remarkable women have entered this figure (figuratively speaking), attempting to capture the essence of that Lady in the Van.  Maggie Smith, who played Miss S in the 1999 stage production and then in the film version in 2015, is inimitable, hard bitten, and impossible.  Miriam Margolyes adds a tender dimension to the Melbourne stage, using her entire frame to convey presence.  She does not match the original description of Miss S by Bennett in any convincing sense: “Nearly six foot, she was a commanding figure” though the outfit is correct enough: “greasy raincoat, orange skirt, Ben Hogan golfing cap and carpet slippers.”  Height is compensated for in terms of sheer billowing character.   

The display at the Melbourne Theatre Company’s production falters a tad with the two figures playing Bennett – such bifurcations can be a tricky business.  One Alan is bad enough, but we are left with two, voices teasing, adjusting, cajoling each other like lingering lovers.  It is clear that somewhere there, a demon is meant to push the angel over, though neither is entirely demonic nor angelic. 

Critics, worried about their brief, will attempt to read things into matters that do not exist.  Smith is the naturally hardened one, immune to brittle senses yet aware; and Margolyes has a certain heavenly struck sense about her, touching amidst the faecal spread and confessions.  Both figures may well have played an inscrutable character disposed to a certain urine smell and the incontinence pad but both supply the necessary boldness for the role in contrast to the timid Bennett, who lives, in Camus’s words, “slightly the opposite of expressing.”  Fittingly, they stretch the bounds of charity, showing, as it were, its selfish virtuousness.

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]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Most Selfish of Virtues: Alan Bennett’s “Lady in the Van”

Western governments are indirectly promoting hostile narratives against Russia simultaneously with censoring those that are supposedly “Russian-linked”.

***

It is obvious that the US and Russia are at loggerheads in a New Cold War, one which is taking a completely different form than the previous one that lasted almost half of the last century and is being fought in totally new domains. One of these is the global information space, which was naively assumed by many would forever remain a forum of free speech and independent thought but is increasingly becoming ever the more dystopian because of the West’s anti-Russian infowar.

Western governments are indirectly promoting hostile narratives against Russia simultaneously with censoring those that are supposedly “Russian-linked” and go against their own interests in an extensive campaign that’s changing the very nature of how people all across the world receive information and even use the internet. Both of these tactics are being undertaken in a way that allows their true perpetrators to retain the veneer of “plausible deniability” in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and risk undermining their own self-professed “values”.

One of the most common modus operandi is for Western governments to fund various think tanks and “NGOs” or have “friendly philanthropists” like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation do so in their place. The first-mentioned approach makes any recipient “NGOs” more like “GONGOs”, or “government-organized NGOs”, while the second results in a more “plausibly deniable” connection and seems to be the preferred method nowadays. In any case, the think tanks/ ”NGOs”/ GONGOs oftentimes then go on to invent and/or peddle government-supporting anti-Russian narratives.

Sometimes they even establish “shell” entities (the notorious “matryoskas” that Russia’s always accused of creating) like “new media” outlets and “crowd-sourced” “investigative” ventures. These in turn invent and/or peddle the said weaponized narratives, even directly engaging with Mainstream Media or “legacy media” outlets to amplify them across the world, such as what prominently happened with MH-17 and the Skripal saga. Other times, however, these Western-government-backed actors (think tanks/”NGOs”/GONGOs/”new media”/”crowd-sourced” “investigative” ventures) also participate in censorship schemes.

RT revealed how the “Alliance for Securing Democracy”, part of the American- and –German-financed “German Marshall Fund”, “tipped off” CNN to what it alleged were “Russian-linked” Facebook pages that were later removed from Facebook for supposedly violating the platform’s new unpublished rules that the company says it’s progressively rolling out behind the scenes. The pages were managed by Maffick Media, a company partly owned by RT subsidiary Ruptly, and the fact that this wasn’t prominently mentioned was exploited as the pretext for Facebook to censor them.

It shouldn’t be forgotten how a US government-funded think tank got the ball rolling and ultimately resulted in this outcome, strongly implying that American authorities might have had an indirect hand in orchestrating this entire infowar operation. That’s probably just the proverbial tip of the iceberg, however, since these methods were likely occurring for a while before they were brought to the public’s attention by RT after its popular affiliated pages were scrubbed from the social media site.

Of note, those pages collectively generated over a billion views and had tens of millions of subscribers, suggesting that they were probably targeted in order to send a message to the rest of the world that no one is untouchable and that anyone can fall victim to Facebook’s selective imposition of secret standards for infowar purposes. Despite the US governments’ best efforts to act like it wasn’t involved, the paper trail left by the “Alliance for Securing Democracy” says otherwise.

Altogether, the bigger picture that’s beginning to become more apparent is that Western governments are waging an anti-Russian infowar by hook or by crook, relying more upon proxies in order to retain “plausible deniability” and avoid undermining their self-professed “values” than directly spreading fake news and censoring “politically inconvenient” narratives. This trend can be expected to become more popular in the coming future, but it’s also foreseeable the genuinely independent investigative journalists will continue to expose these connections and shed light on the manipulative game being played on people’s minds.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

Featured image is from InfoRos

Jewish communities in Britain and France, London and Paris, together with the rest of Europe are now reconsidering their unqualified support for the state of Israel in terms of money and arms which they concede are used for the subjugation of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories. They have previously always maintained that this was necessary in order that the state of Israel survives as a political entity for otherwise it would be overrun by Muslim Arabs who have a higher birth-rate, generally, than the Indigenous Israeli.

Now, however, they are forced to come to the conclusion that such support for such a regime can only realistically be described as, at best, anti-democratic and, at worst, bordering on fascism or neo-colonialism whereby the indigenous Arab people are subjected to continuous harassment and violence, and  in many cases being actually killed by the occupying security forces.   To support such is not only contrary to Jewish law and ethics but is now clearly counter-productive. The policies of the hard-Right Israeli government have caused an increasing reaction throughout the world but particularly so in Europe and also in America, that now manifests itself as antisemitism i.e.  it now tars every Jew as a latent supporter of neo-colonial ideology.

There have been warnings both to the Israeli government and to religious and civic leaders of the Jewish communities throughout Europe over many years but they made a decision not to listen. This was partly due to the fact that the largest Jewish community outside Israel, i.e. in the Diaspora, is in the United States of America which is governed essentially by the US Congress.  Congress, in turn, is heavily influenced by the Israel lobby, AIPAC, which although not the most powerful in either financial or membership terms is nevertheless considered the most influential upon the US legislative process and upon the Presidency in respect of foreign policy.

The means that AIPAC is able to use its influence to indiscriminately support Israel’s hard-Right government with billions of dollars of aid and arms in its illegal occupation of Palestinian land and settlements in which over 600,000 Israelis now live in direct violation of the will of the UN Security Council.  All this has now culminated in an increasing backlash of animosity not only against Israel itself but also against all those who either overtly or covertly support the extreme Right-wing policies of the Netanyahu government.

As indicated, this feeling of animosity against Israeli policy has now morphed into overt antisemitism whereby most Jewish communities are now seen and labelled as pro-Israel and anti-democratic. The consequences of this scenario are immensely serious. It means that the half a million Jews in France and the quarter of a million in Britain now live in, if not fear then in apprehension of a period in Europe similar to that of the 1930s in Germany whereby antisemitism grew exponentially and which, of course, led to the horrors of the Holocaust. It is not expected that there will be another Holocaust but it is anticipated, in many (Jewish) quarters, that there may well be an exodus of Jews from the Diaspora to Israel as the only sanctuary available. This is in view of that which has transpired but which has only transpired owing to the extraordinary arrogance, or possibly stupidity, of the indiscriminate support for a regime whose policies are clearly anathema to the average European and in opposition to the principles of western democracy.

Of course, the other side of the coin, from the Israeli perspective is that it is more than happy for all Jews in the Diaspora – that is the majority of the global Jewish population, to sell-up and bring themselves and all their assets to the state of Israel.  That is an objective that has been articulated by more than one Israeli government minister as being, from the point of view of the Israeli state, the optimum scenario but from the point of view of the approximately eight million in the Jewish Diaspora, would be a disaster if not a complete catastrophe.

*

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

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

Featured image: For News: 03/09/14: Israel’s Draft: New York –  Some of the thousands of Orthodox Jews in a prayerful demonstration on Water St. in the Wall St. area.  They are demonstrating against a mandatory draft in Israel.    Photo by Helayne Seidman

Obstructed Justice: Law and Disorder in the Klan Age

February 21st, 2019 by Greg Guma

Forty years after the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation it still wasn’t safe to be free and black in Kentucky. For Celia Mudd, who was born into slavery but had inherited the Lancaster farm in Bardstown, it was time to defend her rights. Here is chapter four of a new work in progress called Inheritance.

***

Celia awoke suddenly after a fitful sleep that climaxed with images of an angry mob storming the farmhouse. Even half-conscious she knew it was just her imagination. Still, the first thing she did was rush to the window and check outside.

Nothing had changed. From the front of the two-story building she could see the courtyard, the open gate at the edge of the property, and beyond that Plum Run Road winding toward Bardstown. The only person around was young Sam, her half-brother, humming absently as he led a buggy out of the barn.

In the dream a terrifying crowd had surrounded her home, torches blazing, taunting her to come out and meet her maker. Some wore Klan hoods or masks, but many of the faces were recognizable in the flickering light. Horrified, she saw neighbors, white folks who had never expressed anything remotely like this kind of rage. And respected pillars of Bardstown, people who always treated her with, if not convincing respect, at least a formal civility. Now they were out for her blood.

It was like one of those awful tales Celia often read in the papers. Usually, the victims were kidnapped from jail in the middle of the night and strung up at the edge of town, left there for children to see on their way to school. In Shelbyville not more than a year ago, Jimbo Fields and Clarence Garnett had been lynched from a railroad trestle less than a mile from the center of town. The next day they were still hanging when Methodists from all over the state arrived for a convention, a gruesome reminder of southern “justice” and what could happen to blacks when whites needed someone to blame.

They were just boys, teenagers accused of killing a white man who sometimes shared a bed with their mother. But they got no trial. The jail was stormed within days of their arrest.

No one was threatening Celia, at least overtly. But whenever she thought about the trial that would start today, she couldn’t help but suspect that if the verdict went in her favor, night riders might someday come for her and her family. Dozens of black folks had met Judge Lynch in the last few years. In fact, things seemed to be getting worse rather than better. Forty years after the Emancipation Proclamation and it still wasn’t always safe to be free and black in Kentucky.

“Mornin’, Miss Cely,” shouted young Sam from the yard. “When we goin’ to town?”

The words jerked Celia back to reality, reminding her that, no matter what her private fears, this day could not be avoided. It had been coming for almost a year, since the moment Boss Sam signed his will. At times she wondered whether, if she’d known in advance what he was planning to do, she could or would have tried to stop him. Very likely, Sam would not have taken kindly to such talk. Even on his best days, when he wasn’t raving about his brother’s greed or some plot against him, the old man wasn’t one to accept advice once his mind was made up. Beyond that, though he’d confided in his final months that she was the only person on earth he truly trusted, he rarely let Celia forget that she was also a servant.

But Celia was no one’s servant anymore. She was the mistress of this house, for the moment. And as such, she had no time to be paralyzed by nightmares.

“Mornin’,” she replied, waving at the shy, sturdy young fellow. Very much like his father, young Sam was large, light-skinned and handsome. Also like Jack Barnes, the quiet giant who had married her mother after the Civil War, he treated Celia with a deference that made her feel responsible and oddly maternal.

“Things don’t get started til about ten,” she explained. “Lawyers don’t keep the same hours as farm folks.”

Sam guffawed, half-embarrassed to have a laugh at the expense of those intimidating men in high collars and stiff suits. “I know it,” he said. “But mama say you got to talk with mista Halstead. She tol’ me to git Ezekiel hitched up and ready to go by nine.”

“Well, mama knows best.” The remark carried a hint of skepticism Sam didn’t catch. Celia turned away from the window, grabbed her housecoat, and rushed through the dining room. Beyond it was the breezeway that connected the main building to the kitchen. She could hear clattering dishes and smell sausage cooking on the fire.

“Mama, you at it already?”

“Somebody’s got to get this family going,” replied Emily. Celia rolled her eyes and marched in to find her mother happily setting the table.

She had asked Emily to stay over last night, but hadn’t counted on her taking charge. She should have known better. At 69 years old Emily Barnes was as active as ever. She lived on a five acre plot down the road, managing not only to take care of her own home and good-natured, though somewhat lazy man, but also to help sister Annie with the cooking down at the Talbott Tavern, plus keep Celia on her toes.

Sometimes it was irritating to have her mother set the pace. Emily could barely read, knew nothing about business, and didn’t understand the complexity of managing an 840 acre farm, with a foreman who wasn’t used to being told what to do by a Black woman he didn’t consider his equal. Then again, Emily’s specialty had always been getting people, especially men, to do what she wanted, an area in which Celia had scant experience.

Nat W. Halstead was a good example. As executor of Sam Lancaster’s will, the prominent local lawyer was supposed to represent Celia’s interest in the case. But he rarely discussed it with her, preferring to develop strategy with Sam’s cousin Button Willett. When she asked Halstead to explain exactly what Robert wanted to prove in court, he simply told her not to worry.

“He’s just jealous of your good fortune,” said Halstead, using the just-folks manner that worked so well in the courtroom. “So he’s claiming the will isn’t legal. Robert never did agree with anything Sam did. Why would he start now? You let us handle it, Miss. The law is men’s work.”

But it’s my life, she thought back then. I’m the one everybody whispers about. I’m the one they think stole this white man’s inheritance. But she didn’t say it, and might have entered the county courthouse without understanding the real issues if not for her mother. One day, as Halstead and his crew were leaving Talbott Tavern, Emily ambushed him outside, sweet as pie but impossible to shake. Without a hint of aggression she made it clear that if he didn’t want to bring his main client into his full confidence, maybe her daughter needed a different lawyer.

It would be sad, she said coyly, since he had always been such a friend to the Negro people and was clearly the best person they could hope to find. It was part threat, part seduction.

The next day Halstead was at the farm having tea and outlining the history of the case. What Robert’s lawyers hoped to prove was that his brother wasn’t competent to understand the will he had signed. They probably wouldn’t make a direct attack on Celia in court, but they would attempt to show that Button Willett arranged everything and that the people who witnessed the will weren’t qualified to know whether Sam was right in the head. They would bring in doctors and friends to say he’d gone crazy. Why else would he leave almost everything to a Negro servant?

It wasn’t a bad argument. She could hardly believe what he had done herself.

“You go back and get into that pretty blue dress,” Emily commanded, then swept back a whisp of wavy grey hair. Celia could see hints of the light brown that had helped make her a striking sight in her youth. “And don’t forget a coat,” she said. “It may look like summer but it’s still February.”

“Right, mama. But you told Sam I had to talk with Halstead today. I thought we had everything worked out.”

“Sure, them men got things worked out for themselves. But this is your land Celia, and you got to make sure that old boy knows who he’s working for. People saying you tricked Boss Sam.”

Celia wanted to argue, but what was the point? For Emily, the issue wasn’t what a judge or jury thought, but what people in Bardstown believed. As she saw it, Celia’s honor was on trial. In a way she was right. But a lawyer couldn’t do much in the court of public opinion. That was a case Celia had to win on her own.

While dressing her mind raced over the same questions she had been asking herself for weeks. Could they win against such a formidable opponent and his herd of lawyers? Robert had spared no expense on his team. But more important, would the jury be fair? Could a group of white folks, trying to decide between the claim of a black servant and the charges of a respected white banker, see the truth and do what was right? Did her dedication to Boss Sam and the Lancaster family for all those years count for anything?

She stared at the mirror and carefully examined what the jurors would see. She wasn’t used to evaluating her own appearance. She couldn’t escape the feeling that it was giving in to the sin of pride. But everything had to be right today.

Could the jury and townsfolk believe that she had taken advantage of a dying man? It didn’t seem possible. Yet when land and money were involved, people often suspected the worst.

Satisfied that she was ready, she returned to the breezeway and ate quietly as Emily prepared for the trip. Afterward she visited her old bedroom behind Boss Sam’s, passing on the way through the formal dining room. Jim Hardy was sitting at the long table and nodded somberly. The stoic foreman, who used to take meals with Boss Sam and the white guests who often stayed at the farm, now preferred to eat alone.

In the tiny cubicle Celia sat on the bed and closed her eyes. She knew the place by heart: narrow bed by the wall, marble-top table with a crock pitcher and wash basin, and her primitive, hand-carved rocking chair. This dim, windowless space had been her private world, and also her prison from the age of thirteen, when Ann Lancaster brought her in from the cold, two-room former slave cabin.

A few months after Sam passed on she had moved into his old room, the bedroom across the room from the parlor. Moving to the chair in front of the fireplace she fingered her rosary and said a prayer for Missus Ann, her former master and earliest teacher. She also prayed for Ann’s troubled son Matt, a man-child who never emerged from the shadow of his two domineering brothers. He had died in her arms nine years ago.

And she prayed for Boss Sam. Ah, Sam! She couldn’t remember a time when he was not at the center of her life, as owner, mentor, employer, object of her juvenile infatuation, or general architect of her fate.

Before she knew it, Emily summoned her to the buggy. Young Sam had changed into button shoes and a too-tight Mayfield suit on loan from his father. Holding the reigns, he reached down to help Celia aboard, eyes wide as he contemplated his first time inside the Nelson County Courthouse. The impressive new building had been constructed less than ten years ago, replacing the old stone courthouse that had stood at the center of Bardstown for more than a century.

The story was that in 1785 William Bard had donated two acres for a courthouse, jail and other public buildings. At the time the town was known as Salem, and most of the land was owned by William’s brother David and one John Cockey Owings. David Bard was from Pennsylvania and never lived in Nelson County, instead receiving a thousand acres through a grant from the governor of Virginia. By the time William arrived to look over the location and dispose of some property, the population had grown from an initial settlement of 33 to more than 200. That meant it rivaled Louisville and Lexington. In return for the gift, the town was renamed for its benefactor.

Bardstown grew and prospered over the next decades as immigrants from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, even some New York and New Jersey adventurers, were attracted by its emerging reputation as the Athens of the West. Despite frontier status it became known as a genteel oasis in the wild bluegrass region. Schools flourished, first a grammar school, then Old Town Academy, the Female Institute, St. Thomas Seminary and St. Joseph’s College, eventually making the town famous throughout the South.

Catholic missionaries also put down roots, eventually drawing enough attention to have Bardstown designated as one of four new dioceses in 1808, right up there with Philadelphia, Boston and New York. Then came St. Joseph’s Proto-Cathedral, built about ten year later, complete with golden tabernacle and candlesticks, not to mention a dozen paintings said to be donated by Pope Leo XII and both French and Sicilian royalty.

By the time Celia was born the glory days were over. The seat of the diocese had been moved to Louisville as a steamboat-driven commercial explosion made it the commonwealth’s first city. People slowly drifted away, leaving Bardstown with faded memories of a noble past. That imposing courthouse, encircled by a diminutive cityscape, served as a reminder of earlier grandeur. For people like Young Sam and Celia, who thought of justice as a faint promise too often betrayed, it was a sterile monument that held little relevance and a hint a dread.

They barely spoke at the start of the five-mile trip, trying to enjoy the sunshine and unusually mild weather. The road was rough with potholes from the winter months. The tree-lined road looked bleak. Emily had her rosary out, praying the mysteries from the annunciation to the coronation. But Sam couldn’t restrain himself for very long.

“Is they gonna take the farm away? Mista Hardy say people in town’s pretty mad at you.”

“I guess that’s right,” said Celia. “But we get a trial, and they have to prove that Boss Sam’s will ain’t right. That’s not so easy to do. In the meantime we stay where we are.”

Sam said it didn’t seem fair for Robert Lancaster to win. “He never cared about that old place.”

“Well, there’s fair and there’s the law. And they’re not the same thing,” Celia said.

“And then there’s Kentucky law,” Emily added. They instinctively knew what she meant. The law of the gun and the rope. It had even claimed the life of the state’s last governor, burning in the state’s image as an outlaw land where feuds were bloody and not even a powerful white politician was safe if he made the wrong enemies.

The assassination was still big news three years after the fact. Attorney General William Taylor, who was ultimately declared the loser to William Goebel in the election for governor in 1900, had fled the state after being charged as an accessory in the murder of his rival. Three men convicted of the crime, one of them the Republican former secretary of state, had appealed the verdict and won new trials. Most people felt that original judge was biased, most jurors were Democratic loyalists, and some witnesses had lied. The quarreling was so fierce that people sometimes shot each other dead. Businesses were breaking up, even churches were coming apart.

Governor-elect Goebel was shot while walking to the state capitol just days before he was supposed to be sworn in. For some it was justice, those who called him Boss Bill and claimed that he had ruthlessly murdered a man, an old Confederate fighter and fellow Democrat, on the streets of Covington. Ruthless murderer or not, Goebel went free and his victim’s wife went insane. They also said he was trying to impose a one-party tyranny on the state, using the new Board of Election Commissioners to stack local precincts and control the race for governor. He was a German blueblood, they said, a demagogue devoted only to the pursuit of power.

Maybe some of it was true. But as Celia saw it, he was also trying to change things for the better, challenging the Louisville & Nashville railroad’s hold on the state and fighting for the common man. The Republicans had gone too conservative, and the Democrats needed someone like Boss Bill to shake them up. Whatever his faults, Goebel certainly didn’t deserve to be killed. If things had gone much further, it could have led to another Civil War in Kentucky, this time with the fighting along party lines.

It took three days for Goebel to die. In the meantime Taylor, who had been sworn in as governor based on the Election Commission’s initial findings, called out the militia and declared a “state of insurrection.” His apparent plan was to stop the investigating committee appointed by the legislature from delivering its report that Goebel had actually won the race. Armed soldiers blocked Democratic lawmakers from entering the capitol. They met anyway, in secret with no Republicans on hand, and declared the dying man governor. His only official act was to order the militia home and call the legislature back into session.

The new administration quickly assembled its own militia, facing down the Gatling guns pointed across the capitol lawn. Thousands of men stayed out there for two days, neither side looking ready to budge. But once Goebel was dead tempers cooled a bit and everyone involved decided to let the courts settle the issue. The decision took months, and that left the state with no one in charge, a formula for more chaos.

When the smoke eventually cleared and the US Supreme Court had spoken, Kentucky had a Democrat as governor after all: John Crepps Wickliffe Beckham, lawyer and bluegrass aristocrat, Bardstown native and, at 30 years old, the youngest man ever to hold the office. They called him the Boy Governor. But when it came to politics Beckham was no sapling. He had already been Speaker of the House and managed to get himself on Goebel’s ticket as lieutenant governor.

Things settled down after that. But in Bardstown the hostility that had sparked Kentucky’s latest brush with war was still close to the surface. Some considered Beckham a source of pride, a local boy trying to bring his state back from the brink, a cautious reformer who talked about stopping child labor, training more teachers, and regulating the insurances companies. He also had bitter enemies, among them another Bardstown-born power broker, Ben Johnson, a wealthy Catholic challenging him for control of the party.

Celia had no illusions about the new governor. She believed the rumors about his support for segregating Berea, the last integrated college in the south, and how he had stopped going after the railroads to get elected. Just last year he had supported a law eliminating the right of women to vote in school elections.

What could you expect, she thought. The people who ran this state didn’t even think a judge or sheriff who did nothing to stop a lynching should be cast out of office.

Many locals also worried that Beckham might come out for prohibition. Support had been growing for years in the home of Bourbon. In Bardstown, the state’s distillery center, the debate divided neighbors and families. Too many jobs and too much money was at stake. Celia had been a prohibitionist for as long as she could remember, yet never dared to voice her opinion to Boss Sam. What could she have said? Close down the Lancaster distillery, one of the family’s main sources of income, because Demon Rum was a destroyer of lives? Because it had played a part in killing Sam’s own brother. He had often made his views plain: it was just business, not a moral quandary. And anyway, you could never legislate drinking out of existence.

After Emily’s comment about Kentucky law there wasn’t much more to say. If Celia lost in court, she’d be out of a home, a Black woman with no prospects and nothing to show for decades of service. But at least she might be safe from the anger of all those white folks who thought she had slept with a crazy old man to steal his land. If she won, on the other hand, last night’s dream might well become reality.

She sat erect as they approached the courthouse, determined not to reveal her fear. The streets were packed, a tangle of horses, buggies and whispering, finger-pointing pedestrians. The curious had come from as far as Louisville some 40 miles away. A large contingent had also made the trip from Marion County, since one of its prominent citizens was the plaintiff. Most people considered the outcome of the proceedings a foregone conclusion. After all, R. B. Lancaster was the only legal heir, blood kin. And Celia Mudd was just a nigger, a former slave at that. And still, the air bristled with anticipation. The mood combined the rough-and-ready gaiety of a carnival with the anxious energy of a high-stakes horse race.

Young Sam reined Ezekiel to a halt directly in front of the courthouse. For a long moment no one moved. Celia turned her head slowly, taking in the cluster of lawyers, white matrons in their bustled overskirts and high top shoes, sour-faced husbands, and her own clan, much more modestly attired as they huddled beside the door. Everyone was watching her. The silence was unnerving. But she forced back a frown, took a deep breath, and nudged Sam to get moving.

Leaping off, he rushed around to the brick sidewalk, helping Celia and Emily down from the buggy. As he did so, Celia could feel his whole body shaking. “Don’t fret, little brother,” she whispered. “At least we’ve got God on our side.”

She didn’t really believe that God took sides in court, but knew it would calm him down. Then she linked arms with her mother and walked defiantly through the crowd.

The Rest of the Story

It was an epic trial, dramatized in Celia’s Land, written with Georgia Davis Powers, and in my new book, Inheritance. Both also explore Celia’s life at the Lancaster farm in the years between 1865 and the early Twentieth Century.

On February 28, 1903, to the surprise of many Nelson County residents, an all white, all male jury ruled that Sam Lancaster’s will was valid. Predictably, his brother Robert challenged the decision and the case continued for four more years. He and his sons eventually took their complaint to the state’s highest court, the Kentucky Court of Appeals. But before all the testimony could even be reviewed, Robert Lancaster died in May 1904.

His two sons still didn’t give up. But in February 1907 Celia finally prevailed when the Appeals Court decided not to reverse the original ruling. Now a landowner, one of her first moves was to borrow $13,000 from the local bank, a loan she repaid in just three years. She also sold 325 acres. Having learned from Sam, and gradually assuming direct responsibility over the years, she had become a competent business woman.

Some locals never accepted her. Sometimes she would pick up the phone and hear women gossiping on the party line. But the night riders never came, and Celia ultimately became known as a respected and generous member of the community.

After Sam’s death she began a second life: the quiet, dignified manager of a working farm. Charles Crawford, a ruggedly handsome widower who lived on Plum Run Road, soon took a serious interest. Although much younger, he actively pursued Celia at first by driving her to church at St. Joseph’s Cathedral. They finally married in 1910 and remained together for thirty years.

Over the next decades Celia became a role model and a benefactor, especially for members of her family. When her sister Annie’s husband died, leaving her with six children, Celia said not to worry, and paid for three of the girls to attend a Catholic school in Ohio. Two of the older boys got jobs on the farm. When the family of another sister became destitute after her husband sustained a back injury, Celia bought them a home.

Beyond employing and helping family members, she especially encouraged the girls to get an education. Some attended St. Monica’s Colored Catholic School, walking miles to school in shoes she bought for them. Celia never did have biological children of her own, but she became a surrogate mother for many.

“I want my people to progress,” she often said, “and the only way they can is to have an opportunity for an education. If it means leaving the county, so be it.” Fortunately, Celia didn’t have to leave, and lived long enough to see many nieces and nephews graduate from high school. Another achievement in an amazing life.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Greg Guma/For Preservation & Change.

Featured image: The former Lancaster home, inherited by Celia Mudd in 1903.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obstructed Justice: Law and Disorder in the Klan Age

What If They Started a War and No One Showed Up?

February 21st, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

The humiliation of United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Warsaw last week was a good thing. The ancient Greeks, exercising their demonstrated ability to synthesize defining characteristics, had a word for it: hubris. Hubris is when one develops an extreme and unreasonable feeling of confidence in a certain course of action that inevitably leads to one’s downfall when that conceit proves to be based on false principles.

Pompeo was in Warsaw for a “summit” arranged by the US State Department in partnership with the Polish government to discuss with representatives of sixty nations what to do about the fractious situation in the Middle East. In advance, he promised that the meeting would “deliver really good outcomes.” The gathering was initially conceived as a “war against Iran” precursor, intended to pull together a coalition against the Persians, but when it became clear that many of the potential participants would balk at such a designation, it assumed a broader agenda concerning “Peace and Security in the Middle East.”

Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria were not, not surprisingly, invited as some of them were the expected targets of whatever remedial action the conference might recommend. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu was, of course, present, tweeting in advance of the gathering that it would be all about “war against Iran.” He also characteristically delivered a warning that Iran was planning a “second holocaust” for his country.

Many countries, including regional power Turkey, and global powers Russia and China refused to participate at all. The European Union, the French and the Germans all sent career diplomats to the meeting rather than their Foreign Ministers while Britain’s Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt only agreed to attend at the last minute after he was granted his wish to head a discussion session on Yemen.

The meeting was overshadowed by the context in which it took place, something that Pompeo was apparently too tone deaf to appreciate. The Europeans, to include close allies Britain, France and Germany have all been openly opposed to the White House’s completely irrational decision last year to exit from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed limits verified by intrusive inspections on Iran’s nuclear program.  America’s closest allies made clear that they object to being told how and with whom they are permitted to do business, and they were finally doing something about it. Even US intelligence confirms that Iran has been fully compliant with the nuclear agreement, but the dunces in the White House are too blinded by hubris to change course.

The week before the conference opened the British, French and Germans also, perhaps deliberately, declared their intention to launch a “special purpose vehicle” barter system that would enable purchases of Iranian oil after the May 5th deadline which the United States had unilaterally declared for the initiation of sanctions prohibiting such activity. Washington has declared that any countries disregarding its sanctions against Iran would be themselves subject to secondary sanctions implemented through the US Treasury’s ability to both control and restrict access to the dollar denominated financial markets. Nevertheless, the action by the Europeans served as confirmation that much of the world wants to do business with Iran even if the White House says “no.”

Present with the US delegation in Warsaw were Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton, Special Adviser Jared Kushner, and President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. “America’s Rabbi” Shmuley Boteach also appeared in an unofficial capacity. All of the Administration officials took the stage at one point or another to denounce Iran as the “world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism,” which appeared to resonate with Netanyahu but hardly anyone else. There was also considerable spontaneous theater provided by the American cast of characters in the lead-up to the conference itself.

In an interview with CBS News before the meetings, Pompeo indicated his pleasure over the impact of the existing sanctions on Iran. When asked if there had been any sign “…that this pressure is pushing Iran to negotiate with the US?” he responded that

“Things are much worse for the Iranian people, and we’re convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime.”

The suggestion that Washington believes in starving the very people it is claiming to want to help to bring about a violent uprising clearly did not disturb Pompeo in the least. And he exhibited no appreciation of the fact that pressuring Iran’s government is actually the best way to strengthen it as the Iranian people have been rallying against the economic warfare being waged by the United States.

Not to be upstaged by Pompeo, John Bolton, in a video released on the Monday before the conference opened on Wednesday, celebrated in his own unique fashion the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, which the people of Iran have recently been commemorating. Bolton called Iran “the central banker of international terrorism” and declared it guilty of “tyrannizing its own people and terrorizing the world.” The video concluded with a direct threat to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

“I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.”

Also during the lead-up to the conference, Rudy Giuliani was featured at a pep rally in downtown Warsaw for the “cult-like” terrorist group Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an organization for which he has served as a paid lobbyist. He told a crowd of MEK supporters that “If we don’t have a peaceful, democratic Iran then no matter what we do we’ll have turmoil, difficulties, problems in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. That has to tell you something: Iran is a country you can’t rely on, do business with, can’t trust.” He added that their government consists of “assassins, they are murderers and they should be out of power.” Afterwards, Rudy would not disclose how much he had been paid to make the speech.

But it was Vice President Pence who took the prize for unmitigated gall in his address to the conferees in which he accused the Europeans of something close to treason: “They call this scheme a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle.’ We call it an effort to break American sanctions against Iran’s murderous revolutionary regime.’’ He insisted that

“The time has come for our European partners to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and join with us as we bring the economic and diplomatic pressure necessary to give the Iranian people, the region and the world the peace, security and freedom they deserve.”

Pence might just as well have said “my way or the highway” or quoted George W. Bush’s line, “you’re either with us or against us.” The audience, including a large number of Washington-sycophants, responded with silence, unimpressed by Pence’s fulminations and his demands.

The Warsaw Summit did not produce the results envisioned by the White House, which were to pull together a group willing to escalate pressure on Iran before attacking it, while simultaneously generating support for Jared Kushner’s much discussed Israel/Palestine peace plan, due to be unveiled in April. The American plan will basically give Netanyahu everything he wants while relegating the Palestinians to the status of a non-people. As a result of the lukewarm reception in Warsaw, even from Arab states that truly hate Iran, Washington is now weaker in the Middle East than ever before. That is a good thing as the policies being embraced by Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani and Kushner are not only an embarrassment, they are a potential disaster for everyone in the region as well as for the United States.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Twitter via SCF


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.

The orchestrated campaign to remove the elected government in Venezuela and replace it with a puppet authority willing to serve U.S. economic and political interests has now reached a critical moment, one which may well end in a bloody civil war, a foreign military invasion, or both.

That this ‘regime change’ operation has been built on a mountain of lies, is hypocritical to its very core, and violates every principle of international law – including the UN and OAS Charters – doesn’t seem to bother in the least its architects in Washington or Ottawa. But it should alarm everyone who values peace and social justice, and who wants to avert a real humanitarian catastrophe.

The time to act is now, to stop this attempted right-wing coup d’état and prevent foreign military intervention which would only bring great hardship, suffering and loss of life on the Venezuelan people!

The manufactured political crisis did not start on January 23rd when the far-right usurper Juan Guaidó declared himself ‘interim president’ and was quickly recognized by the U.S., Canada and other Western powers, and right-wing governments such as Brazil, Colombia and Peru in Latin America. In fact, the campaign to destabilize the Venezuelan economy and prepare conditions for the attempted ouster of democratically-elected President Nicolas Maduro and his government began long ago.

Ever since Hugo Chavez won the presidency in 1998 and subsequently launched progressive social changes with majority popular support – public housing, literacy and healthcare campaigns, and the nationalization of oil – U.S. imperialism has sought to subvert the Bolivarian Revolution and reestablish control over the Venezuelan people and their oil and other natural resources. Washington masterminded an abortive coup (2002), a failed business strike (2003), and a series of violent street protests (most recently in 2014 and 2017).

The economic shortages and hardships touted by the western mass media today were not caused by government mismanagement or the ‘failure of socialism’ but rather by ever-tightening economic sanctions imposed unilaterally by the U.S. and its closest allies; by the collapse of world oil prices starting in 2014; and by the artificial shortages and currency manipulations of capitalist enterprises inside the country, forces that retain tremendous power within the domestic economy to this day.

It is in fact the same strategy used in Chile back in the early 1970s to destabilize the progressive government of Salvador Allende, before a fascist coup led by General Pinochet left more than 3,000 dead, and many more thousands tortured and driven into exile.

But the Maduro government, its military and its mass base among working people have stood firm against all of these pressures and threats. That is why the U.S. is now trying to use ‘humanitarian aid’ as a ‘Trojan horse’ to provoke a border conflict, providing a pretext to invade and occupy the country. Reports have already surfaced that US special ops forces have been covertly re-positioned near the Venezuelan frontier for precisely this purpose.

This economic war, the open demands on the military to overthrow their own government, and the possibility of foreign military aggression – all this is a gross violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and independence, and the right of the Venezuelan people to self-determination.

We condemn the shameful role which PM Trudeau, Minister Chrystia Freeland and the Canadian government are playing in this despicable ‘regime change’ operation. Instead of ‘fronting’ for U.S. imperial ambitions, Canada should get out of the Lima Group, end the onerous economic sanctions, and support a political solution to this crisis which it has helped to create and exploit.

The Canadian Peace Congress welcomes the fact that many labour, peace, solidarity and other mass organizations and movements have found their voice to speak out against this unfolding outrage. We appeal to all progressive and democratically-minded organizations and individuals to overcome every hesitation, and every attempt to silence our dissent, and speak out now for peace and for respect of international law!

No Sanctions!  No Coup d’État! No Military Intervention!

Hands Off Venezuela!

Join the actions this Saturday, Feb. 23

Demonstrations, marches and other actions with take place this Saturday in many centres across Canada. Protests are scheduled in Washington DC and dozens of other cities in the U.S.; in Europe, throughout Latin America, and in South and East Asia. It is truly an International Day to say “No War on Venezuela!”

If you are in or close to any of the actions listed below, we strongly urge you to consider participating. If your city or region is not listed, there still may be actions locally that somehow missed our list, so please check,. Or consider organizing an action yourself – a protest, picket at an MP’s office, an educational event, even a kitchen party to write letters to your local newspaper!

Here’s what’s on so far (alphabetically by city):

Calgary, AB

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
615 MacLead Trl SE

Courtenay, BC

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm

Courtenay Public Library [300 6th Street]

– Organized by Comox Valley Peace Group

Edmonton, AB

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm

Old Strathcona Farmers’ Market [10310 83 Avenue Northwest]

– Organized by Edmonton Coalition Against War and Racism

Halifax, NS

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm
Peace and Freedom Park (formerly Cornwallis Park) | Hollis St.

– Organized by Alliance for Venezuela Halifax and the Halifax Peace Council

London, ON

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
NW corner of Victoria Park

– Co-hosted by Communist Party of Canada – Forest City Club; People for Peace, London, Ontario; and London Common Front

Montreal, QC

Saturday, February 23 | 2pm
Carré Philipps [Rue Saint-Catherine & Union]

Ottawa, ON

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
Gather at the Prime Minister’s office [ 80 Wellington St.] for a march to the U.S. Embassy!

Regina, SK

Saturday, February 23 | 2pm
City Hall, Peace Fountain [2410 Victoria Ave.]

– Organized by the Regina Peace Council

Toronto, ON

Saturday, February 23 | 11am
Rally Outside CBC Office – 250 Front Street West | March to Bay Street/ Financial District

– Organized by the Venezuela Solidarity Committee 

Winnipeg, MB

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm

Gerald James Lynch Park, south side Osborne Street Bridge (near Osborne and Roslyn)

– Hosted by Venezuela Peace Committee  

Vancouver, BC

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
Gather in front of the CBC at Georgia and Hamilton Streets

– Rally organized by the Venezuela Peace and Solidarity Committee (Vancouver)

*

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 New Eastern Outlook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Peace Congress: Act Now to Defend Venezuela’s Sovereignty! No Sanctions! No Coup d’État! No Military Intervention!
  • Tags: , ,

The Fake News About Humanitarian Aid and Venezuela

February 21st, 2019 by Alan MacLeod

In recent times the international media, including many who promised to “resist” the dangerous commander-in-chief Donald Trump, have been awash with stories about Nicolas Maduro blocking US “humanitarian aid” reaching Venezuela. Maduro is said to have even blocked a bridge in his desperation to starve his own people (see, for example, CNN, CBC, Associated Press, BBC, NPR, ABC, Bloomberg, The Guardian). A constant flow of stories such as this have served to establish a narrative of a dictator blocking a benevolent US government from helping its desperate people. Something must be done!

Virtually unreported in the humanitarian aid story are several inconvenient truths that contradict the official US government narrative the media is so closely parroting. Firstly, the “aid” is not recognized as such at all. For shipments to qualify as aid, they must be given indiscriminately. The US “aid” appears destined only for Juan Guaidó, the US-backed self-appointed president. The Red Cross and the United Nations have refused to help the US or to recognize Trump’s shipments as aid. Indeed, the United Nations has formally condemned the US’ actions in Venezuela. For their part, the Venezuelan government has been very eager to accept genuine aid, and is currently working with the UN to distribute supplies.

The UN Human Rights Council denounced Trump’s sanctions (illegal even under OAS law), noting that they specifically target “the poor and most vulnerable classes”, calling on all member states to break them and even began discussing reparations that the US should pay to Venezuela. The sanctions have had a devastating effect on the country’s economy, reducing its oil output by 50 percent, according to the opposition’s own economics czar.  Furthermore, Trump has threatened anyone breaking the sanctions with up to 30 years imprisonment. One UN special rapporteur described the sanctions as akin to a medieval siege and declared them a “crime against humanity.” Thus, much of Venezuela’s crisis is actually manufactured in Washington, though you would be extremely hard pressed to understand that from mainstream coverage.

The appointment of the notorious Elliott Abrams should be a major red flag for anyone believing that the US government’s actions are benign. Abrams was responsible for organizing death squads across the region in the 1980s that carried out mass slaughters and genocide in Central America and was also prosecuted for selling arms to Iran to fund the Contra death squads, famously sending them weapons under the guise of humanitarian aid. History now repeats itself, as the Venezuelan government intercepted a shipment from Miami containing assault weapons, ammunition and military-grade radios on a Boeing 767 that had made nearly 40 round trips from the US to the region this year alone. Thus, the person famously caught for sending guns under the cover of aid to Nicaragua may already be sending guns under the cover of aid to Venezuela.

In short, there is more than ample reason for Venezuelans to be highly skeptical of any help the US claims to be offering, especially considering the terrible harm the US has wrought on its economy. The $20 million shipment of “aid” is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the effect of the sanctions, estimated to be tens of billions of dollars. The “aid” therefore constitutes about what Venezuela loses every eight hours due to the sanctions. The very obvious thing any American with a genuine desire to help the Venezuelan people would advocate is to end the illegal sanctions and begin paying reparations.

Yet all this has been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, marching in lockstep with the Trump administration’s regime change agenda. Instead it presents a socialist dictatorship intent on spurning good faith US efforts to help its stricken people in an attempt to establish the grounds for escalation of US actions in the country. In 2017 the US blocked genuine Venezuelan aid to the victims of Hurricane Harvey. Yet this was not seen as the justification for an invasion of the US.

The final piece in this farcical puzzle is that the bridge Maduro supposedly blocked to stop aid reaching the country has, in fact, never been opened and the barriers blocking the way have been in place since at least 2016, as five minutes on Google would have shown. Yet virtually the entire media – so obsessed with fact-checking everything Donald Trump says – went along with his administration’s PR stunt. That it was immediately exposed as a hoax meant nothing to the media outlets in question, who have not deleted or modified their stories since publication. Printing fake news about official enemies will not result in a ban from Twitter or deletion from Facebook, it seems. However, merely expressing an alternative opinion has done.

The Venezuelan case proves the lie that the media genuinely cares about honest reporting, countering fake news and resisting Trump. When it comes to serving an imperial agenda, all is jettisoned out the window in favor of regime change propaganda.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in April.

Dollar Dominance and the Third World

February 21st, 2019 by Enzo Calandra

The history of international political economy has consisted of several monetary regimes, each corresponding to a particular stage of capitalist development and possessing traits which reflect said stage.

In order to illuminate the dynamics of the dollar regime, I will compare its unipolar nature to that of the Gold Standard (1870-1914). I will analyze the key political/historical events which led to the establishment of dollar dominance, such as the Second World War and the 1973 Oil Crisis. Finally, in this paper I argue that the tendency to de-dollarize is inevitable due to internal contradictions within the neoliberal political economy, and that Third World nations under the leadership of China are laying the foundations for a multipolar monetary regime at last free from Western colonial domination.

The brutal and crusading barbarism of the US has claimed the lives of millions in the interest of maintaining dollar dominance. In terms of power polarity, the dollar “non-system” of today differs little from the Gold Standard of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in which Britain, as the leading imperialist country, imposed upon the world a favorable economic regime controlled by its Central Bank:

“Britain’s singular position in the world economy protected her balance of payments from shocks and allowed sterling to anchor the international system” (Eichengreen 41).

Similarly, the US position as global hegemon anchors the dollar as fiat currency and prevents it from feeling negative fluctuations of the world market. An important distinction can be drawn here, however, in that US power actually extends further than Britain’s ever did as Britain could not (despite the best efforts of centuries of alchemical experiments) produce goldor create value out of thin air, where the US, due to the nature of the dollar regime, can.

The Gold Standard was established and maintained through violent conquest over smaller nations. Similarly, the US regularly conducts imperialist wars to maintain dollar dominance. Iraq and Libya stand as the most quintessential example of countries brutally destroyed on the altar of the dollar.

These wars, disguised as attempts to “spread democracy,” are rather directly related to questions of international political economy. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein declared his intention to trade his oil using Euros instead of dollars. Later on, when discussing the petrodollarI will show why the idea of oil being traded in anything but dollars was considered such a huge threat to US hegemony. Suffice to say, the “Iraq war is mostly about… the unspoken but overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro” (Clark 3).

The US-French war on Libya was provoked after Gaddafi announced his intention to trade Libya’s oil using a Gold-based African currency. Hillary Clinton’s own emails show grave concern at “the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at ‘143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,’ posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency” (Hoff).

These examples serve to show the deeply unequal distribution of power under the current international system, in which peripheral countries are brutally exploited and destroyed if they refuse to conform. All capitalist world market systems have been predicated upon the ruthless exploitation of the Third World, and the realities of capitalist exploitation have remained fundamentally unchanged throughout the centuries, from the discovery of silver in South America, to the Gold Standard, through Neoliberalism. De-dollarization efforts led by China represent a possibility of breaking this oppressive historical pattern of monetary policy as a tool of colonialism and imperialism.

Now that we have situated the dollar regime alongside past monetary systems, let us take a deeper look into its origins and functions. The US was the only Western country who did not have fighting on its homeland during WWII. As a result it was in the unique position to aid the recovery in Europe, and was the key founder of the IMF and World Bank which provided liquidity to reawakened international markets.

During the Bretton Woods conference, John Maynard Keynes advocated for the creation of an international bank with its own currency called a “Bancor” to serve this aim. “But there was one country – at the time the world’s biggest creditor – in which his proposal was less welcome. The head of the American delegation at Bretton Woods, Harry Dexter White, responded to Keynes’s idea thus: ‘We have been perfectly adamant on that point. We have taken the position of absolutely no’” (Monbiot).

This intransigence on the part of the US led the dollar to be pegged to gold at $35 an ounce and serve along with gold as the world’s reserve currency. While Third World nations were allowed to participate in Bretton Woods, they were still relegated to a second class status:

“Not unlike their experience under the gold standard, (developing countries) were subject to exceptionally severe balance-of payments shocks, which they met by devaluing more frequently than was the practice in the industrial world” (Eichengreen 48).

Robert Triffin predicted the demise of the Bretton Woods system. The Triffin Dilemma asserts a contradiction between confidence and liquidity inherent to a world reserve currency. This dilemma contributed to the “Nixon shock”of 1971. Underlying this move by Nixon were both geopolitical and economic pressures. In the realm of foreign policy, the US had just conducted the brutal destruction of Vietnam which cost $141 billion USD1. European countries began to resent a “monetary system that… facilitated US adventures abroad, particularly, of course, in Vietnam” (Gowa 28).

All this military spending began to exceed the gold reserves held by the Fed, prompting European countries (most notably France under De Gaulle) to try to get their gold back. This confluence of factors led Nixon to float the US dollar and end convertibility, destroying the Bretton Woods system. Being that the dollar was still the reserve currency, the US gained the “exorbitant privilege” of being able to print dollars without having to back them up with gold. The suspension of convertibility caused a crisis of confidence in the dollar. In order to reinvigorate use of the USD it was pegged (in a loose sense) to barrels of oil provided by Saudi Arabia in a secret agreement that would shape American foreign policy for the next 40-50 years.

The petrodollar system is the means by which the US is able to control the world oil market. Oil is to the globalized neoliberal market what stone was to the Stone Age. By controlling oil trade through the petrodollar the US is able to further dominate the world market and weaponize it to its aims. In 1973, several OPEC countries declared an embargo on trading oil with the US due to its support of Israel. As a response to this crisis, “the (Nixon) administration hatched an unprecedented do-or-die plan that would come to influence just about every aspect of U.S.-Saudi relations over the next four decades. The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending” (Wong). This agreement for the Saudis to price their oil exclusively in USD led to the creation of the petrodollar. All nations need oil for the functioning of their economies, so by tying the USD to Middle East oil, the US has effectively guaranteed a high demand for USD after the loss in confidence provoked by the Nixon shock.

Another crucial part of this arrangement is that the surpluses of oil producing countries be reinvested in western banks. This is a peculiar characteristic of the petrodollar regime in which capital flowed fully back into US treasury securities, then to developing nations in the form of loans. “Commercial banks were eager to make profitable loans to governments and state-owned entities (as well as private companies) in developing countries, using the dollars flowing from the Middle Eastern countries. Developing countries, particularly in Latin America, were also eager to borrow relatively cheap money from the banks” (Carrasco). This process led to the debt enslavement of much of the Third World as these loans became increasingly too large to pay off. In response, the IMF stepped in and restructured the debt while introducing structural adjustment policies. As I mentioned earlier, this process of “petrodollar recycling” bears the fundamental characteristics of traditional colonialism, with power centers in the West creating unequal and oppressive conditions in Third World nations in order to extract wealth. “IMF stabilization programs typically included drastic reductions in government spending in order to reduce fiscal deficits, a tight monetary policy to curb inflation, and steep currency devaluations in order to increase exports” (Carrasco). While it sounds benign in the quote above, “drastic reductions in government spending” during this period undoubtedly led to great human suffering. Contrast the position of Third World debt peonage and immiseration to that of the US, who merely has to print dollars (worth pennies) to pay for its oil and to manage itsbalance of payments.

In 1917, Lenin declared the development of monopoly capitalism to be a new stage of capitalist development which he called “Imperialism.” In contrast to traditional colonialism, in which raw materials flowed from periphery countries to the core for manufacturing, imperialism functioned by core countries exporting finance capital and not commodities. Lenin spoke of monopoly capitalism as whole of a nation’s capitalist system of production being harnessed by the will of one or several capitalists:

“Scattered capitalists are transformed into a single collective capitalist… When these operations grow to enormous dimensions we find that a handful of monopolists control all the operations, both commercial and industrial, of the whole of capitalist society” (Lenin 35).

Despite the optimism of Lenin that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, it would seem that an even higher stage has been reached, that of Late stage capitalism (Neoliberalism), centered in the US around the US-Saudi petrodollar and enforced by the US military, and that this is the final expression of capitalism’s abstracting, centralizing tendencies.

The condition of imperialism contained 3 major contradictions. I will first outline these contradictions, and afterward attempt an analysis of the contradictions of the neoliberal political economy rooted in Lenin’s analysis of imperialism. This list of contradictions comes from the CPGB website.The explanations are my own.

  1. The contradiction between labor and capital

This is a fundamental contradiction in the capitalist mode of production. In the age of imperialism, “the concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life” (Lenin 89). In other words, financial and banking oligarchies have come to dominate every facet of domestic society within the imperialist nation.

  1. The contradictions within imperialist factions

We can see this in the Scramble for Africa, in which the “territorial division of the whole world among the great capitalist powers is completed” (Lenin 89). This concept explains the origins of the First World War.

  1. The contradiction between the imperialist core and the exploited masses Funneling finance capital into the Third World has created a proletariat where there wasn’t one before. This contradiction was negated by the heroic national liberation movements of the 20th century.

Since 1917, however, we have seen several developments in the relations of production within the international political economy. The centralization of the national bourgeoisie observed by Lenin has began to take place transnationally, coinciding with the rise of the USD as a transnational currency. National capital, around which Lenin centers his analysis, has largely been supplanted by a new form of transnational capital and a transnational capitalist class which rose in tandem with the weakening of the nation state’s economic influence. This denationalization of financial capital is one of the most salient aspects of our new neoliberal stage, with transnational institutions such as the IMF and World Bank serving as economic imperialists in the form of structural adjustment policies on the behalf of the transnational bourgeoisie.

Exploitative finance capital no longer comes from national monopolies but supranational organizations. The US military, as demonstrated in the first part of this paper, serves as the armed wing of the transnational bourgeoisie. The dollar is its means of financial control, particularly over oil, which is the basis of the global economy. The monopolization and financialization which took place in the era of imperialism laid the foundation for the totally abstract neoliberal market we see today in which the dollar can be printed ad infinitum by the US for its balance of payments deficits while Third World nations toil in cyclical debt, superexploitation, and Lumpen proletarianization. Following Lenin, we can see the internal contradictions of imperialism as having evolved in the following ways:

  1. The contradiction of labor and capital on a transnational scale

“In the United States, the size of the financial sector as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown from 2.8 percent in 1950 to 7.9 percent in 2012… Individuals working in the U.S. finance sector have experienced a 70 percent increase in their incomes relative to workers in other sector since 1980.”3

The financial crisis of 2008 nearly wiped out the world economy, and a similar crisis now would likely do just that. In contrast to the total subjugation of the proletariat described by Lenin under monopoly capitalism, Western countries have entered a stage of Post-Fordism, in which authority has largely become diffused, and service, administrative, and part time labor have come to prominence. Horizontalization (visible in say, the “sharing economy”) has provided unique opportunities to socialize these new means of production. It is clear that since Lenin’s Imperialism this 1st contradiction has only deepened and evolved, from the creation of a monopoly in one nation, to monopolies in the form of supranational institutions such as the IMF which provide finance capital and commit economic violence on Third World nations through the gutting of their social services. The IMF provides the structural policies which lead to mass capital flows from the “Third World” or “Global South” to the West.

  1. The contradiction between a decaying West and a rising multipolar bloc Colonialism, imperialism, neoliberalism…These oppressive world systems, each rooted in the last, seem to have reached their final form, as the debt-ridden West appears to be on its last legs. Inter-imperialist conflict has largely been subsumed under the US hegemony. The US flag provides acommon enemy for oppressed people across the world. Acting on behalf of the transnational capitalist class they have given this apparitional figure a face, and placed a target firmly on its back. Therise of China and Russia point to the unseating of the West as world hegemon. Syria will be seen as a critical turning point in International Relations, as Russia, China, Hezbollah and the Syrian Arab Republic were able to check US power, multipolarity succeeding over unipolarity.
  1. The contradiction between supranational institutions and transnational proletariat 

Financial capital has expanded its influence, and the increase in global interconnectivity has permitted unprecedentedly large capital flows which have had a devastating impact on Third World workers. Now a capitalist can set up a factory, exploit a population, and abandon production when it becomes more profitable elsewhere. Capital is allowed to flow freely while labor migration is restricted by increasingly militarized national borders. This has led to an explosion in lumpen proletarianization, with much of the world living in slums and unemployed. The international division of labor has also become more pronounced, as a strike in a Amazon factory in Brazil would effect one in the US and vice versa. This new mode of production encourages transitional cooperation of the proletariat. Just as the export of financial capital to the Third World under imperialism created a proletarianized Third World capable of achieving national liberation, transnational finance capital has birthed for the first time a transnational proletariat capable of conducting intercommunal revolution. The neoliberal world order hasdeepened global inequalities to unprecedented levels and created a mass of lumpen proletariat will nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Related to contradiction #3, there seems to be a new contradiction at the heart of the international political economy, namely

  1. The contradiction of the USD as a national and international currency

The US is able to create value out of thin air by printing dollars. This has been called the “exorbitant privilege” of the US. On a surface level this is clearly untenable, as value is created by labor, and the value of USD exists only at the level of abstraction. In terms of international political economy, the situation becomes even more precarious. Why would nations such as Russia and China, whom the US considers enemies, continue to accept and prop up the USD, especially when the use of the USD as reserve currency allows for military intervention in, say, Syria, where Russia and China are fighting opposite the US? How long will the world pay for US imperialism? To further complicate the picture, the West is in huge amounts of debt, and is only able to continue its balance of payments by sliding further and further into it. This system cannot persist forever and will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. De-dollarization has become imperative for Third World nations.

The dollar is essential to the neoliberal world market.

“Today the US dollar is undoubtedly the top international currency. This is true for its public and private international roles… at least 37 of the 1461 currencies of IMF members are pegged to the dollar” (Williamson 75).

Therefore, for countries attempting to escape the cyclical crises and contradictions of the neoliberal world market, de-dollarization becomes a top priority. China is providing an example for other formally colonized nations to develop their productive forces and compete on the same level as the West, de-dollarization being an important step in this process. To quote Professor Cohen,

“For many, the arrival of the dollar’s new rivals is a welcome development. A broader multi-currency system, it is argued, will widen the range of choice for market actors, thus making it harder for the United States to act in arbitrary, unilateral fashion” (Cohen 44).

I consider myself one of the “many” mentioned by the Professor. I will now asses the petroyuan as a potential rival to dollar dominance.

As mentioned earlier, oil is the fuel of the international economy. For a nation to be able to undermine US domination in the world economy it would have to wrestle control over the trade of oil away from the dollar. We can see China taking steps in this direction by asserting the yuan as a medium of international trade, specifically in oil markets. One important step occurred in March of last year, when China announced the creation of an oil futures market on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange.

“Since their launch… Shanghai crude futures have stolen market share from the incumbent benchmarks – Europe’s Brent and U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) – which trade oil derivatives worth trillions of dollars every year” (Gloystein).

While lagging far behind oil contracts in the US and Europe, in China we see a world historical milestone in which a formally colonized nation has risen to be able to challenge the West on every level— militarily, technologically, and financially. While the yuan remains weak, my hope is that the inevitable process of de-dollarization leads to the creation of a more just and equitable monetary regime, leaving past oppressive systems in the dustbin of history where they belong.

*

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

Enzo Calandra is a student of Political Science at the University of California, Sta. Barbara.

Sources

Carrasco, Enrique R. “The 1980s: The Debt Crisis & The Lost Decade.” The University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development, University of Iowa Press, 2011, web.archive.org/web/20110606041529/http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/ebook2/contents/part1-V.shtml.

Clark, William. The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic andGeostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth. 2003,web.cs.iastate.edu/~prabhu/gmonpolitics/Clark.pdf.

Cohen, Benjamin. “Global Governance at Risk.” Global Governance at Risk, by David Held, Polity, 2013, pp. 31–50.

Eichengreen, Barry. Globalizing Capital: a History on the International Monetary System. Leuven University Press, 1996.

Gloystein, Henning. “Shanghai Crude Futures Eat into Western Benchmarks as China Pushes…” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 30 Aug. 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-china-crude-oil-futures-analysis/shanghai-crude-futures-eat-into-western-benchmarks-as-china-pushes-yuan-idUSKCN1LF2RE.

Gowa, Joanne. Closing the Gold Window: Domestic Politics and the End of Bretton Woods. 1980.

Hoff, Brad. “Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention.” Foreign PolicyJournal, Foreign Policy Journal, 28 Feb. 2018,www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/.

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. International Publishers, 1939.

Monbiot, George. “George Monbiot: Lord Keynes Really Did Propose the International Monetary Fund.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 18 Nov. 2008, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund.

Williamson, John. Chapter three: The dollar and US power, Adelphi Papers, (2013)

Wong, Andrea. “The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 30 May 2016, www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret.

Notes

1. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/01/archives/us-spent-141billion-in-vietnam-in-14-years.html

2. https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2004/10/01/news/theory/three-contradictions-of-imperialism-marxism-leninism/

3. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialization.asp

Why Canada Should Withdraw from NATO

February 21st, 2019 by Science for Peace

Hon. Lloyd Longfield MP

February 20, 2019

Dear Lloyd,

I am a longstanding member of Science for Peace, Canada’s most renowned scientific community for peace research and advocacy over more than 30 years centered in the Department of Physics of the University of Toronto.  Its co-founding president was George Ignatieff whose son later led the Liberal party of Canada.  So the positions Science for Peace adopts are not marginal and very seriously thought through.

The attached brief position paper advocating withdrawal from NATO is the result of years of research, debate and vigorous membership discussion which represents the overwhelmingly supported position of Science for Peace.  It rightly advises that Canada in NATO is now in repeated violation of United Nations Treaty and Declaration in military aggressions under international law, and  the President’s covering letter emphasizes the need “to oppose global trends towards militarizing the many urgent and devastating humanitarian situations”. I urge you to communicate these issues to your constituency and colleagues in the knowledge that the position paper and letter have also been sent to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister.

NATO’s increasingly warlike policies far beyond the North Atlantic regional alliance it was founded on, coupled with US-led demands for ever more needed public money to finance its non-defensive policies of nuclear and military domination across continents, are directly opposed to Canada’s common life and public interest, especially with Canada and the world’s environmental defence so threatened and underfunded at the same time.

This is a repressed turning-point issue of our age which the responsible federal government must come to grips with for its integrity as well as for Canada and humanity’s future.

faithfully yours,

John McMurtry, Ph.D (University College London),

Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Professor of Philosophy,

University Professor Emeritus, University of Guelph Ontario, Canada


The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau

Prime Minister

House of Commons

Ottawa

Dear Prime Minister:

Re: Canada’s Withdrawal from NATO

Science for Peace calls on the Government of Canada to withdraw from NATO and to cease from colluding with NATO’s pretence of pursuing defensive goals. In addition, we urge the government to join in condemning NATO’s violations of international peace and security.

Finally, we call on the Canadian government to sign the United Nations’ treaty to ban nuclear weapons and to work towards dismantling NATO altogether.  Canada can, and should, do more to oppose global trends towards militarizing the many urgent and devastating humanitarian situations.

I attach a brief position paper, prepared by Science for Peace, which explains the reasoning behind our proposals for a major foreign-policy shift by your government.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Sandbrook DPhil, FRSC

Acting President

c.c. The Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs; The Hon. Andrew Scheer, Leader of the Opposition


Why Canada Should Withdraw from NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed (1949) under a Treaty renouncing “the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” The Treaty calls for military action only in response to an attack upon a member. By reserving the liberty of deciding when military action is required, it usurps the authority the UN Charter supposedly confers on the Security Council to make such decisions. But NATO’s assault on world peace goes much farther. Plainly, its many military initiatives (as in former Yugoslavia in 1992 and 1999, and in Libya in 2011) and its military “exercises” threatening Russia on its very borders (up to the present) have violated NATO’s self-declared limitations. One might regard this as sufficient reason for a peace-seeking member nation to withdraw.

Almost from its beginning, NATO has committed a still more serious breach of the spirit and letter of international agreements: it systematically strives to impose its will by the threat of nuclear war. On the one hand, Science for Peace can not condone Canada’s adherence to an alliance which insists on its readiness to be the first to resort to nuclear arms (discussed, e.g., by the Arms Control Association); but on the other hand, even were NATO abruptly to accept the principle of No First Use, the use or threat of nuclear war even in retaliation incurs absolutely unacceptable danger to the survival of humanity and must be repudiated. The rationale of nuclear deterrence, far from shielding Canada or anyone under a “nuclear umbrella”, acts to multiply the ways a nuclear war may be triggered, and magnifies the destruction it threatens1.

Despite the increasingly potent threats to human survival through nuclear war and climate change, the public is largely uninformed by media, the government, and to a great extent within academia. Knowing the historical context is essential. With regard to laws and implementation of regulations that need to truthfully provide human security:

“The malleable, indeterminate, and oft-ignored ‘rules’ of the [U.N.] Charter concerning use of force can plausibly be marshaled to support virtually any U.S. military action deemed in the national interest. Limited or ambiguous U.N. Security Council approval, where available, is easily stretched.”2

In 1996 the International Court of Justice declared that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles of humanitarian law”and yet there is silence about these threats coming from President Trump or implicitly from NATO’s first-use policy.

Similarly indeterminate and lacking in meaningful constraints have been the agreements around nuclear weapons. The U.N. Non-Proliferation Treaty has not resulted in sanctions or limit-setting in any of the states already possessing nuclear weapons and has not addressed former president Obama’s $1.1 trillion allocation for nuclear weapons proliferation. The public is uninformed about the significant escalation of danger since 1991: George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Defense Treaty with the consequent development of a missile defense system that effectually increases NATO’s belief that after a first strike a missile defense system could stop a nuclear counter-attack and that a nuclear war is winnable.

Challenging the ambiguity and compromises of the U.N. Security Council in order to address the mounting threats of human extinction, non-NATO nations and civil society members joined together to implement a nuclear ban treaty. Canada, bowing to NATO pressure, did not even participate in the meetings leading up to the treaty. Canada is also bowing to NATO pressure to increase military spending.

Science for Peace calls on the Government of Canada not only to withdraw from NATO and to cease from colluding with NATO’s pretence of pursuing defensive goals, but to join in condemning its violations of international peace and security. We call on the Canadian government to also sign the treaty to ban nuclear weapons and to work towards dismantling NATO altogether and to oppose the global trends towards militarizing the many urgent and devastating humanitarian situations.

Lastly, it is the responsibility of an informed public to engage politically and demand the deep changes required for human survival.

*

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

Notes

1Daniel Ellsberg. The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. Bloomsbury. New York. 2017.

2P. 99-101. Michael Glennon. National Security and Double Government. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2015.

3P. 213. Mohammed Elbaradei. “Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe” in Richard Falk and David Krieger, At the Nuclear Precipice: catastrophe or transformation?Palgrave. New York. 2008.

Featured image is from http://nousnatobases.org

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Canada Should Withdraw from NATO
  • Tags:

The United States and its NATO partners are attempting to make the case for Washington’s decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Claims that the Russian Federation has been violating the treaty have yet to be substantiated with anything resembling credible evidence. Also missing is any rational explanation as to why Russia would develop or deploy nuclear weapons capable of launching a nuclear strike on Europe without warning – a scenario the INF Treaty was created to deter.

Bloomberg in its article, “Nuclear Fears Haunt Leaders With U.S.-Russian Arms Pact’s Demise,” would claim:

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s top civilian, cited recent Russian deployments and evoked a Cold War-style threat of nuclear destruction at a global conference of security and defense officials this weekend in Munich, the baroque German metropolis that’s one of Europe’s richest cities.

“These missiles are mobile, easy to hide and nuclear-capable,” Stoltenberg said. “They can reach European cities, like Munich, with little warning.”

Stoltenberg, the rest of NATO, Washington, and the many media organizations that work for and answer to both have failed categorically to explain why Russia would ever use nuclear-capable missiles against cities “like Munich, with little warning.”

Would Moscow Nuke Russia’s Closest Trade Partners? 

While Russia has invested greatly in recent years to expand its economic trade with Asia, it is still heavily dependent on trade with Europe.

The Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity reveals not only Europe as the most important region for Russian trade, particularly for Russian exports, but nations like the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy as among Russia’s top trade partners.

Russia is currently working with Germany on its Nord Stream 2 pipeline – a pipeline transporting Russian hydrocarbons to Western Europe without passing through politically unstable nations like Ukraine. The project is a keystone of recent Russian efforts to modernize and adapt its hydrocarbon industry around complications arising from US interference across Europe – particularly in the form of the US-engineered 2014 coup in Ukraine and NATO’s constant US-led expansion along Russian borders.

And Russian companies aren’t the only ones benefiting from Nord Stream 2 or other economic ties between Russia and Europe. Russia imports more from Germany than any other European nation, and Germany is only second to China among all nations Russia imports goods from.

It is highly unlikely Russia is going to launch nuclear missiles at “Munich, with little warning” – because to do so would be entirely without rational justification. Characters like Stoltenberg and the rest of NATO gloss over this obvious gap in their narrative to sell Russia as an unpredictable adversary and an enduring threat to Western Europe, as well as the United States. But by filling in this obvious gap in NATO’s logic, we can see who really benefits from turning Europe into a potential nuclear battlefield by stationing short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

Nuclear Battlefield Europe

It is Washington, not Germany nor Russia that opposes the Nord Stream 2 project. It is Washington who seeks to drive a wedge between Western European and Russian economic trade. It is Washington who seeks to galvanize – or coerce – Europe into a united front against Russia – even if it means compromising regional stability – both in terms of economics and security.

Washington – by withdrawing from the INF Treaty – doesn’t jeopardize the security of its own territory – but opens up a new dimension to an already ongoing nuclear arms race in the heart of Western Europe. It will be Western Europeans and Russians who face the consequences that emerge from the abandoning of the INF Treaty and any unpredictable – or even accidental – incidents that result from the stationing of short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

As pointed out many times before – NATO itself more than any external threat – represents the greatest danger to its member states in terms of pilfering national treasuries, miring nations in protracted wars and occupations thousands of miles from their own shores, and exposing member nations to the consequences of these wars including the deluge of refugees fleeing to Europe from them.

The US – by causing chaos and division both within Europe and between Europe and its trade partners – is able to continue exercising control over the continent – literally an ocean away from Washington DC.

The withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the dangerous arms race sure to follow is another example of the US playing the roles of arsonist and fire brigade as a means to maintain the relevance of the international order it constructed over the last century – an order the US serves as the self-appointed leader of.

In terms of simple economics and genuine European security – the United States could not be more irrelevant.

While Germany maintains the United States as its top export destination – the overall European and Asian regions by far contribute more to the German economy. Any instability or crisis in Europe would have an impact on the German economy its trade with the US would in no way compensate for. In terms of imports, the role of the US is even less.

While European trade with Russia is relatively small in comparison to inter-European trade, or with partners in Asia or even the US – Russian hydrocarbons serve an important role in European energy security. And while the cutting of ties between Europe and Russia would certainly hurt Russia more – the chaos used to cut those ties may disrupt stability within Europe itself – chaos that would impact inter-European trade – trade that ties with the US or Asia would not compensate for.

Washington plays a dangerous game, with short-range nuclear missiles being the latest point of leverage it seeks to use in prying Europe away from Russia. It is another illustration of just which nation’s government truly poses the greater threat not only to Europe, but to global peace, security and stability in general.

*

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.

All images in this article are from the author


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

WWIII Scenario

Trump and the World Economy

February 21st, 2019 by Leo Panitch

Martin Thomas (MT): I can see four main sorts of possible outcomes to be considered from Trump’s economic jousting.

One: it may reshape some deals, like NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] to the USA’s advantage or imagined advantage, but after a flurry relations in the world markets will settle down much as before.

Two: By generally shaking up trade relations, and putting pressure on some of China’s protectionist policies, economic life around the world may settle after the jousting into a more “globalized” form, more subject to world-market rules.

Three: The jousting leaves a world-market system operating in much the same way as now, but with the USA now a rogue state on the edge of it rather than the pivotal state in the system. Maybe the system is organized around a new pivot, maybe China.

Four: The jousting begins a serious unravelling of the world-market order, a contraction of supply chains, a re-raising of trade barriers, a push to economic nationalism. The shift is moderate and limited for now, but escalates in the next big economic crisis.

Some articles in the new Socialist Register argue cogently that the third option is not a real possibility. What do you think about the others? And does this list map out accurately the possibilities we should consider?

Leo Panitch (LP): The list is about right. The main question, though, is: will the effects of Trump’s regime, not just his antics at an international level but his presidency itself, be to render the key American state institutions that have been responsible for firefighting financial crises incapable of being effective firefighters.

MT: Yes. As you argue in your book with Sam Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism, the current world market order has not just evolved automatically: it has been made and managed by the U.S. state…

LP: The U.S. is already acting as a rogue state under Trump. But the system is so dependent on the role of the U.S. state within it, and the American economy, and the American dollar, so that it is difficult to see how the system can dispense with the centrality of the United States.

If Trump’s effects are longstanding, we may face a very dysfunctional system, but one that is not open to reorganization.

In that framework, and with the rise of right-wing xenophobic nationalisms, with some added militarist dimensions, I fear that this could lead to conditions of extreme nationalisms facing off against each other.

The limiting aspect is the degree of integration of the world bourgeoisies with one another. The kind of shift that the Ruhr industrialists [in Germany] undertook between 1928 and 1932 to back the Nazis is hard to see as on the cards given the degree of capitalist integration. That’s where the cloudy crystal ball leaves us.

MT: The centrality of the U.S. in managing the world economic order has not diminished, despite the 2008 crash and despite the fiasco of U.S. policy in Iraq. China’s holdings of Treasury paper are bigger than they were, not smaller. The dollar’s role in world trade has increased, not diminished.

LP: Yes, 88 per cent of transactions are now conducted through the dollar.

MT: At the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a common theory about it was that the USA was doing it in order to head off the euro taking over from the dollar at the centre of world trade.

LP: There were, possibly, policy-makers in the United States who thought that way. There were certainly loads of left-wing commentators who explained it that way. Neither group had much purchase on reality. As we see with Trump, sometimes U.S. policies are undertaken for reasons which are delusional. But most of the arguments inside the Bush administration were, I think, opportunist, of a militarist kind, or about re-establishing the supremacy of the executive vis-à-vis Congress.

Why the argument about the euro becoming the vehicle currency for Iraqi oil sales leading to its replacing the dollar as the world currency was other-worldly… even if you sold oil in euros, those could be exchanged in milliseconds for dollars. Insofar as big capitalists, institutional funds, corporations and so on find the dollar more useful, it is for a multitude of specific reasons to each of them. The dollar doesn’t hang there in mid-air. Its role is embedded in a set of institutions and practices and skills and knowledge which capitalists pay one another for.

The centrality of the City of London in changing the world’s currencies into dollars through derivatives markets and so on is deeply embedded in the institutions of the City of London, including the American banks operating there and the capitalist skills and knowledge built over centuries of British merchant banking. There is no other set of institutions now capable of replacing them. And that’s why, although there will be some marginal movements of jobs from the City of London, even the Bank of England’s most recent warnings about the effects of Brexit do not talk about the City of London being displaced from the role it plays in the dollar markets of the world.

In this very dysfunctional world, affected by Trump’s ascension to the presidency, it is remarkable that the dollar continues to have its centrality. That’s partly because the American economy has done relatively well, compared to others, in the decade since the fourth great crisis of capitalism, but it is also to do with the centrality of the institutions which sustain the dollar in the quotidian workings of global capitalism. But in the end it is because of capitalists’ confidence in the American state as the ultimate guarantor of property and value and wealth and capital, that the dollar remains so central.

MT: In your Socialist Register article with Sam Gindin (“Trumping the Empire”), you refer to the possibility of the central banks becoming the saviour of the existing order.

LP: This is a great irony. The motivation that drove making central banks independent from elected governments, especially in the era of globalization over the last 30 or 40 years, with the IMF virtually dictating to states that central banks must be made independent, was precisely to remove them from democratic pressures.

Above all, the motivation was the fear that working people, as voters, would opt for monetary policies that would provide room for wage increases – that would open the inflationary space that governments have been guarding against since they defeated trade unions in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Now these right-wing patriotic scoundrels who are being elected find that they can’t force the central banks to do their bidding so easily – above all Trump, and in relation to the Federal Reserve.

That really matters. There is plenty of evidence that the Treasury is being severely hampered by the Trump administration in the role it can play as a firefighter and as a functional actor in the global system.

You see that in the G20 meeting in Argentina [30 November and 1 December]. The G20 is essentially a creation of the United States Treasury, which always wrote the communiqués that were then signed by the finance ministers or by the heads of state. Now its is the senior officials of the other finance ministries who have to scramble to produce consensual texts, and the G20 can’t get the U.S. to sign on to them.

Just recently the Financial Times commented on the appointment of Randal Quarles to head the world Financial Stability Board. Quarles has been a long-time senior figure in the Federal Reserve, a smart functionary of the reproduction of capitalist social relations at a global level. The FSB, created in the wake of the 2008 crisis, was headed by Mark Carney [governor of the Bank of England] before him, and before that by Mario Draghi [chief of the European Central Bank]. The appointment of Quarles indicates that the Fed is putting a lot of resources into infrastructure which will keep the links between the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve of a kind that will allow them to do the super-intendence over the transfers of dollars between the central banks and the general sort of coordination and firefighting that was done after 2008. That would indicate that the system is not quite as dysfunctional as it appears to be.

MT: You’ve discussed the possibility that the end-effect of Trump’s jousting will be to open up the Chinese economy more to world markets.

LP: Ever since Trump was elected, you’ve seen the Chinese, especially Xi, plugging the theme that the United States needs to live up to its global responsibilities.

China is the capitalist late-developer which has relied most in the whole history of capitalist development on foreign direct investment. In our essay in the new Socialist Register, Gindin and I quote Xi saying this earlier this year to a group of visiting foreign capitalists that they are going to remove some of their restrictions on foreign capital becoming majority owners of Chinese firms and on foreign financial institutions operating in China.

Removing those restrictions on foreign financial institutions has long been a main goal of Wall Street and previous American administrations – to allow a larger role in China for Goldman Sachs and the rest of them. The Chinese have also signalled that they will not be protecting as much their rights to technology transfer when firms invest in China. So Xi is prepared to move quite a distance. There are internal pressures from many Chinese capitalists themselves, who want a loosening of China’s capital controls.

The Chinese are very much the takers of this trade war. They are responding, to be sure, in ways which are designed to inflict some harm on, for example, American farmers producing soy which is exported to China, and are having some effects on U.S. construction companies who rely on Chinese wood products. But the Chinese are not leading this trade war. They are trying to find ways to mollify Trump. All this suggests to me that it is possible that Trump will get his way.

At the same time, the Chinese Communist-capitalists are also nationalists. All of the great Third World Communist-revolutionary movements were in very good part nationalist movements.

How far they can be pushed is a significant question. If you read the essays by Lin Chun and Sean Starrs in Socialist Register 2019, the heavy dose of nationalism that defines the ideology of this Chinese leadership, and especially Xi, may mean that they can’t be pushed too far.

On 1 December, Canadian authorities, at the demand of the U.S. seeking her extradition, arrested Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei and daughter of the founder, someone who has been described as a member of Chinese corporate royalty, on the grounds that her firm has allegedly been involved in breaching American sanctions against Iran. This has produced a furore in China. These things can get out of hand.

It would be misleading, when we look at the structural conditions that put limits on the whole system falling apart, to think that these contingent things can’t have effect. We need to watch this closely. It is not only people of our political orientation who are watching Washington with bated breath.

American capitalists, and the world’s capitalists, are watching with bated breath.

MT: It’s said that the economic jousting between the USA and China isn’t fundamentally about tariffs and trade; it’s about technology transfer and the U.S. wanting to maintain its technological lead.

LP: That’s an important dimension. A lot is done in the U.S., for example on microchips, to limit the Chinese to being assemblers. The Chinese have a very explicit goal of becoming, by the 2030s, fully adept in the technologies themselves. It is clearly a concern of the Americans.

The technology transfer issue has long-term economic dimensions to it, but it also has military-strategic-intelligence dimensions. It does reflect – some of the kinds of behaviour and motivations that defined the old inter-imperial rivalries. Some of it has to do with the capacities of rival military and security apparatuses. The fact that China and Russia are not in NATO and are not in the global intelligence and security establishment that operates under the rubric of the United States. The so-called “five eyes,” Anglo-American countries (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), are at the core of that establishment. The key historical determinant even of Clinton’s and Blair’s view of the world was that Russia and China were not subjected to postwar state reconstruction by American military occupation as Japan and Western Europe were.

MT: The new Socialist Register has material expressing a sceptical view on the prospects of the Belt and Road Initiative [Chinese-sponsored infrastructure development and investment in a range of countries, launched since 2013, to develop a new China-centred trade network].

LP: Yes, I think, we have to take the evidence on this in the outstanding essays by Sean Starrs and Lin Chun very seriously. They show very clearly not only the economic contradictions which have emerged with the Belt and Road Initiative, but also the extent to which China is seen by many other states in southeast Asia in the light of a an imperial power posing the main threat to their national sovereignty.

This is what most people overlook when they see China as forming Asia as a whole into a regional counter-power to the USA, and especially in south-east Asia, China is seen by other nationalist forces as their main enemy. That dimension is largely overlooked when people speak of a multipolar world in which China dominates Asia. As well as the economic limits of the Belt and Road Initiative, there is a very important historical, cultural-nationalist-imperial dimension.

MT: World capitalism is much more integrated in the late 20s and early 30s, and you mentioned that when saying that it is hard to think of the bourgeoisie in any country swinging behind ultra-nationalist forces as heavy industry in Germany swung behind the Nazis.

But there’s another variant historically. In the period up to World War One, people like Bernstein would argue that the degree of integration of capital across borders was such as to make war less and less likely. Writers like Trotsky responded that it was an integration which tended to set up large rival alliances.

The world order became one, not just of molecular struggles between states, but of jousting between large rival alliances. That created the conditions for World War One.

There was a lot of talk in the early 90s about world capitalism developing into three great regional blocs, one dominated by the U.S., one dominated by the EU, and one dominated by Japan. It was mistaken.

What you’ve said about China is an argument against reviving that regional-bloc thesis today. Does that mean the thesis is pretty much ruled out?

LP: Who knows? Karl Kautsky (1854 – 1938) around World War One saw a ruling-class condominium developing among the big capitalist states, along the lines of the Paris discussions which led to the Treaty of Versailles. It didn’t turn out to be all that stable, did it? The flaw in Kautsky’s understanding was that he saw it as a matter of coordination among ruling classes who were accumulating still within the boundaries of their own states or territorial empires. But especially in the second half of the 20th century there was an interpenetration of capital around the world – the material, structural underpinning to the trade and investment agreements made by governments.

It became a different world than that of World War One.

The question we began discussing today was whether the political effects of the current Trump administration will be so dysfunctional as to get in the way of the reproduction of the integration. This is so important to analyse precisely because the economic integration has also produced contradictions, which are increasingly severe in the 21st century. These contradictions partly have to do with the crisis-prone nature of the very volatile global financial system which is essential to tying together global production. They also have to do with the domestic consequences, in class terms, of the ever-greater inequalities of power, income, and wealth which this integrated capitalism produces as states compete to get capital landing inside of them.

Insofar as the world we are living in is increasingly prone to severe contradictions, extending beyond the two I have mentioned to all kinds of morbid symptoms ranging from the climate crisis to the migration crisis and the xenophobia that attends it, we need to see those symptoms as opening up possibilities in terms of revolutionary transformations within particular states which would then have international implications.

But, at the same time, given the weaknesses of the left and of the working classes, those transformations are not going to be triggered by the type of events we’ve seen in Paris [with the “gilets jaunes”], that is, another round of inflammatory protest movements. Since the 1930s, some Trotskyist analysis has been premised on the notion that capitalism is over-ripe for revolution… and thus its fall can be triggered by unexpected conflagrations of any type, which will then have international effects like a falling row of dominoes. I am not of the view that capitalism is, in its material base, “over-ripe for revolution.”

MT: I agree. I know that idea has become a common theme in would-be Trotskyist literature, but I think it comes more from Third Period Stalinism.

LP: So it does.

*

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 Workers’ Liberty.

Leo Panitch is emeritus professor of political science at York University, co-editor (with Greg Albo) of the Socialist Register and author (with Sam Gindin) of The Making of Global Capitalism (Verso).

Images in this article are from The Bullet unless otherwise stated

Russia will press for putting the White Helmets on trial for crimes committed in Syria, including faked videos of chemical attacks, the director of the Foreign Ministry’s department of new challenges and threats, Ilya Rogachyov, told TASS in an interview on February 20.

“The leading Western countries have failed to place the struggle against terrorism above their own time-serving political interests. In the sphere of international counter-terrorist cooperation various selective approaches thrive. Terrorists are rated as ‘bad’ and ‘not very bad’. Countries are being forced to agree with the concept of ‘resistance to violent extremism’ and its dangerous elements that create situations for ousting ‘disfavored’ governments,” Rogachyov said. “The Western sponsors are keen to present the contractors on their payroll in a favorable light as ‘envoys of peace’ in order to use this as a cover to push ahead with political destabilization scenarios.”

“We are determined to push ahead with and safeguard Russia’s foreign policy positions in order to ensure the White Helmets’ crimes in Syria and their attempts to mislead the international community by means of fake chemical weapons attacks attributed to the Syrian government forces, just as any other terrorist activity, should be thoroughly investigated and put on trial,” Rogachyov 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.

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

Featured image is from PravdaReport

Recently I have had several journalists, academics and progressive activists ask me my opinion on some of the key economic questions of the day. Here are some of my replies: on Trump tax cuts and US growth, current immigration debates, wages, expanding income inequality in the US, on what is the real rate of inflation today, and whether proposals for universal guaranteed income, debt jubilee, Modern Money Theory, green new deal are solutions to today’s economic problems.

Question 1: Is US economic growth under Trump due to his tax cut policy and what is the future of average or low wage Americans today?

Dr. Rasmus: The nominally higher US GDP growth in 2017-18 has little to do with the Trump tax cuts. The Trump tax cuts passed in early 2018 amounted to more than $4.5 trillion over the decade, targeting to wealthy households, businesses, investors and corporations, which have been ‘front-loaded’ in 2018. Offsetting this are $1.5 trillion in tax hikes for wage earners, that begins to hit this year and accelerates after 2022. Assumptions about 3% GDP growth for another decade, with no recession, produces a further offsetting of $1.5 trillion. The net result supposedly is the $1.5 trillion reported by the press. But the $4.5 trillion cuts for business and investors have not gone into real investment and generated the Trump 2017-18 GDP growth rates.

Real investment in structures and equipment declined steadily over 2018 as the Trump tax cuts took effect: measured in percent terms compared to the preceding quarter, residential construction was negative every quarter in 2018. Commercial construction, with a lag, turned negative in the second half of 2018. And equipment spending fell from 8.5% in the first quarter to 3.4% by October 2018.

So if the Trump tax cuts did not go into real investment, creating real employment and real GDP where did it go? It went into stock buybacks, dividend payouts, and M&A activity. Several US banks’ research departments estimate buybacks plus dividends for just the Fortune 500 largest companies in the US will reach a record $1.3 trillion in 2018. Add the largest 2000 or 5000 companies and its close to $2 trillion. Hundreds of billions more for M&A. This diversion of the Trump tax cuts to financial markets is the main determinant driving stock markets (even after corrections) and other financial asset markets.

The government grossly over-reports wage gains for the average and low paid workers in the US. Independent source reports show that more than half of US workers received no wage gain at all in 2018. The official reported wage gains of 3% are skewed to the top 10% of the labor force, dragging up the ‘average’ wage. Moreover, the data is for full time employed only, leaving out tens of millions of part time-temp workers’ wages. And it doesn’t adequately account for local taxes and interest on debt that reduces the take home wage further. Then inflation is under-estimated, making the real wage appear higher. So average workers at best stagnated, with most experiencing a decline in real wages. The rate of inflation in the US is especially under-estimated for median worker family households, while inflation is rising for rents, medical, education, and other major items in household budgets. So the immediate future will mean even less real wage gains for the majority of US workers. If workers were doing so well today, as Trump and the business and mainstream press report, why is it that 7 million of them have defaulted on their auto loans? Probably a like amount for education loans, the defaults of which are grossly under-reported. And why is credit card, auto loans, and education loan debt now all over $1 trillion each? And total household debt load approaching $14 trillion?

Question 2: With undocumented immigrants at 10-12 million, do you believe Trump’s claim that immigrants are invading the US economy?

Dr. Rasmus: Immigrants are certainly not invading the US. The 10-12 million number has been stable for several years. And for immigrants for some countries, like Mexico, the numbers are in sharp decline. It is true that more immigrants are coming from central American countries like Honduras, Salvador and Guatemala. But that is due to the economic crises and violent breakdown of the social order in those countries, which is due largely to US support for the corrupt elites of those countries who encourage the gang violence in their countries and do nothing about the economic crises. If there is a problem with immigration in the US, it is a problem of highly educated tech workers being brought in on H1-B and L-1 visas, and rich Asians who can buy themselves a ‘green card’ residency by promising to spend $50,000 when they come. These groups are taking the best jobs, the high paying tech and other professional jobs, and have been since the 1990s. But Trump is agreeing with the US tech companies to keep bringing them in, taking jobs US workers should and could get. Trump’s immigration policy and draconian action against immigrants from Latin America and elsewhere is about his re-election plans in 2020. By creating ‘enemies’ within and outside the US, he diverts his political base from the real problems of America. Blame the foreigner in our midst has always been a useful fascist argument. And Trump is marching down that road, as witnessed in his latest Constitutional power grab by declaring national emergencies to build his Wall and invoking phony national security to justify his trade wars.

Question 3: Do you believe the widening gap between rich and poor in the era of Trump can boost Americans interest in socialism?

Dr. Rasmus: The income and wealth gaps in the US are not only widening but doing so at an accelerating pace. US neoliberal policy under Obama was to subsidize capital incomes through Federal Reserve cheap money and by extending and expanding his predecessor, George W. Bush, tax cuts for business and investors. He gave more than $5 trillion in tax cuts to business and investors, more than even Bush. Trump policy has accelerated the tax cuts even further and he’s now stopped the Fed from raising interest rates. So we have subsidization on steroids now by both fiscal and monetary policy. The direct consequence is booming stock and corporate bond markets, fed by $1 trillion annual stock buybacks and dividend payouts every year since 2011 (now at record $1.3 trillion in 2018). As wage incomes for the 90% of Americans remain stagnant, barely rise, or decline, the direct consequence is accelerating income inequality and wealth gaps. But it’s mainly due to the shift toward financial profits by American (and increasingly global) capitalists that’s been building since the 1980s.

Will this boost interest in socialism? It already has. A clear majority, well over 60%, of people aged 34 and younger in the work force, have indicated in various recent polls that they prefer socialism over capitalism. It’s not by accident, therefore, that Trump and the US business press has been launching an offensive to attack the idea of socialism once again. This shift in public opinion will continue as the Trump policies continue to create a growing gap in income, wealth and opportunity in America.

Question 4: Some critics of US economic statistics on inflation say that inflation may be as high as 9.6% or at least more than 5%. What’s your view on this?

Dr. Rasmus: I agree the CPI rate is actually higher. I don’t think it’s 9.6%, but certainly not 2.1% (core) or 2.4% (headline). The Shadow Stats source has long critiqued US stats, including inflation. Also, employment and wage data, both of which I’ve been criticizing this past year. The CPI is higher than reported for several reasons. First, as Shadow Stats notes, they make arbitrary assumptions about product quality improvements that lower the actual rate. Second, they use what’s called ‘chain price indexing’ that smooths out, and lowers, the rate over time. Third, the weights for the basket of goods in the CPI is outdated. This is especially true for median income and below families. There should be different weights and definition of the basket for different levels of income, but there isn’t. Middle income and below families are experiencing greater inflation due to rising drug and health prices, rising local taxes and utilities, rising interest rates on mortgages, and rising rents. Rent prices are under-reported in particular since they are smoothed out by including what’s called ‘imputed rents’; that is, assumptions about home owners paying themselves a rent (yes, that’s illogical but true in the methodology), which hasn’t changed much for years but, when added to direct rents, results in a lower average. There’s also issues with how the data is collected on prices.

Of course, we’re talking here about prices for goods and services. Not prices for financial assets which have accelerated several fold since 2009, as bubbles have grown. I suspect that real CPI is about 3.5% to 4%, not the 2.1%. That of course means that real US GDP is not 3% in 2018 but actually less than 1% in real terms. (The price index for GDP real adjustment is the GDP deflator index, which is notoriously even lower than the CPI (or the PCE, which the Fed uses).

Watch the first quarter 2019 GDP come in closer to 1% in official reporting later this spring. That means the Trump tax cuts of more than $4 trillion over the coming decade, front loaded in 2018, have had very little effect on real GDP. Most of it has gone to stock buybacks, dividend payouts and M&A financing. Buybacks pus dividends for the just the Fortune 500 will equal around $1.3 trillion for 2018, a record. Real investment has been sliding throughout 2018, when the tax cuts took effect. Residential construction contracted every quarter. Commercial construction lagged, but turned negative as well in the second half of the year. And equipment investment declined from 8.5% at the beginning of 2018 to 3%-4% by the end. It’s a real fiction that Trump tax cuts are responsible for the 3% plus growth in 2018. It’s mostly been due to government spending, especially defense, and to consumption driven by household debt for the bottom 80%, although nicely rising compensation for the top 10% has driven consumption as well. Trump cut paycheck withholding in 2018 so that average households would think the tax cut was putting more money in their wallets. But it wasn’t. And now, in 2019, most households will start feeling the bite of more taxes. The $4 to $4.5 trillion actual Trump tax cuts are going to the wealthiest individuals, businesses, and corporations, especially the US multinationals. That will be offset by $1.5 trillion in tax hikes for wage earners, which really starts to hit about 2022. Plus phony assumptions about 3% plus GDP growth rates for the next decade, with no recession. That’s how Trump gets his $1.5 trillion total deficit from the tax cuts. It’s a big fiction that the press also fails to report. Reporters are either stupid or the policy is to report the $1.5 trillion.

In other words, it’s not just price stats that are inaccurate, but GDP, wages and jobs data as well. The only thing holding up the house of cards is debt. For households now approaching $14 trillion. For the national government now $22 trillion (and going to $34 trillion by 2028). For state and local governments, trillions more. And for private business well over $20 trillion more. A big problem with leveraged loan debt, junk rate corporate debt, half of investment grade (i.e. BBB) which is also ‘junk’, and who knows what in derivatives and margin borrowing by investors.

Question 5: Progressive proponents of public banking, and what’s called modern monetary theory, both believe that the Federal Reserve could simply create money for all citizens’ economic benefit, not just for the banks. What’s your view on this? And specifically on the idea of a guaranteed basic income, what’s called a debt jubilee of legal forgiveness of debts of households, and a green new deal?

Dr. Rasmus: The Fed isn’t feeding the banks to avoid a recession; the Fed is feeding the financial markets to prevent a third major contraction since Feb. 2018 that is coming. Cheap money in excess keeps rates low (or in this case prevents them from rising further). But the money doesn’t go into real investment. It goes into asset markets (or flows offshore to emerging markets), or into M&A activity, or into stock buybacks and dividend payouts in the trillions annually (this year $1.3 trillion, after 6 years of an average of a trillion a year).

Yes, the Fed could provide credit to households and non-banks, but that’s not why it was created. It was created, like all central banks, to subsidize the banks with cheap credit and to bail them out when they binge too much and create a crisis. In the postscript to my 2017 book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, I provide language for legislation (and a constitutional amendment) that would radically change the mission of the Fed to serve all society not just bankers and investors. But the Fed was set up in 1913 to only lend to the banks, and since 2018 the shadow banks which now control more assets than the commercial banks like Chase, Wells, Citi, etc.

As for proposing a Debt Jubilee that’s just nonsense. So long as there’s a capitalist system the capitalists will never allow a debt forgiveness on a major scale. You’d have to change the system before to allow it.

What about guaranteed basic income? Something like that is inevitable. McKinsey Consultants recently estimated that Artificial Intelligence technology, or AI, will destroy 30% of all the job occupations in the US by 2030. Already more than 50 million of the US labor force are part time, temp, gig or what’s called ‘contingent’ or precariat labor force. They’re working two and three part time jobs to make ends meet and still can’t. AI will drive that total to well over half of the labor force. The system just can’t manage that many low and underpaid workers. Consumption will collapse, despite providing ever more household debt to fund consumption. However, as most are proposing guaranteed basic income now, it smacks of welfare and that makes it an easy ideological target for capitalists. It’s all about raising wages and creating real jobs that families can survive on. We need to be more creative than just UBI. But it does bring attention to the crisis of insufficient wage income for tens of millions of Americans, mostly young workers and the older that are forced to work into their seventies and until they drop.

Funding medicare for all? It’s possible to envision how the Fed, as the epicenter of a public banking system (part of my proposal) could provide funding for the infrastructure for medicare for all, in a new layer of clinics and public doctor offices locally. But the real funding for Medicare for all should come from taxing financial markets. That would be more acceptable to voters. Ditto for Green New Deal initiatives.

Progressives enamored with public banking or other monetary solutions (i.e. Modern Monetary Theory advocates) tend to over estimate the potential for monetary solutions to the economic crisis now maturing long run, as real investment continues to slow, productivity falls, prices tend toward stagnation and deflation (wages, interest rates, goods & services), global growth slows, and capitalists turn increasingly to financial asset markets to make their profits instead of past approaches of making things and new services that are useful and provide income for consumption. That is the ‘slow grinding crisis’ of capitalism today.

I support a public bank, but only as a small part of a larger solution that must include fiscal policy, industrial policy, and external (trade, exchange rate, money flows) policies. Money and banking are only part of the new program needed. But the program means nothing without political organization. The lack of that is the key characteristic of the time we live in. It all comes down to the organization question. Where can people turn to participate in realizing the new ideas? Not the Democratic Party. Certain not the Trumpublicans (there’s no Republican Party left, it’s now Trump’s). And the unions, as they grow weaker, turn to the Dems to save their ass. So forget a labor party based on the unions. That’s nostalgia of the 1930s. Won’t come again.

MMT theory is just another equilibrium theory that concludes that money can be created without limit, just use it for progressive programs. I don’t believe that. The Fed’s free money for the bankers and investors since 1980, and especially since 2000, and accelerating after 2009, is leading to unsustainable deficits and debt. The $22 trillion will be $34 trillion in less than ten years. And the interest on it will be $900 billion a year, per the CBO. That means capitalists will either have to give up their tax cuts, reduce their war spending budget, or….massively attack social security, medicare, education, etc. Guess which one is coming? The Trumpublicans make no apologies for it; and the Dems lie about how they won’t either.

Meanwhile, Sanders keeps acting the political Don Quixote tilting at the Dem party, trying to reform it, which keeps shitting on him and will do so perpetually. The Warrens, Bookers, and other ersatz progressives will ‘talk the talk’, the Dem party moneybags and leaders will encourage them to do so in order to outflank and dissipate Sanders’ progressive message, but in the end whomever of the progressives gets the next Dem presidential 2020 nomination, the Party leaders will ditch their proposals and programs and bring them in line. Don’t forget Obama in 2008, sounding like a progressive, but once in office put the bankers back in charge of his administration. But Biden’s the front runner anyway. So it’s not likely the party will even choose Warren, Booker, or any of the other ersatz progressive wannabes and Sanders clones.

In short, while I’ve probably written more about central bankers and financial markets than most ‘on the left’ (latest book coming in March is ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’), I’m not a proponent of primary reliance on monetary policy and banking system restructuring as a solution. And nothing matters without having first resolved the ‘organization question’.

*

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: Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression, Clarity Press, August 2017, and the forthcoming ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Policy from Reagan to Trump’, also by Clarity Press, 2019. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Economic Questions of the Day: Trump Tax Cuts, Economic Growth, Inflation. Monetary Policy. Undocumented Immigrants
  • Tags: ,

One of the latest American scandals revolves around former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s alleged breach of ethical norms in trying to secretly push through a nuclear energy deal with the Saudis which might have even been illegal if he tried to circumvent the so-called “123 agreement”, though his partnered company at the time hit back against these accusations and the claims that this represented a conflict of interest by defending their actions as necessary for the US to compete with Russia.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives just opened an investigation into whether former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn breached ethical norms by trying to secretly push through a nuclear energy deal with the Saudis, one that might have also been illegal if he tried to circumvent the so-called “123 agreement” that entails safety guarantees and prevents the recipient state from abusing this technology to potentially develop nuclear weapons.

Critics are also decrying the optics of an obvious conflict of interest after it was revealed that he was an advisor for a subsidiary of the IP3 International company that ended up officially making the proposal during the first weeks of Trump’s Presidency while Flynn was still with the Administration, though the company defended its actions by saying that everything it did was within the law and designed to help the US compete with Russia in the Kingdom.

Most observers have probably paid little if no attention to it, but Russia has leveraged its world-class nuclear energy expertise over the years in order to expand its influence in accordance with the model that the author wrote about in his September 2017 article about how “Russia’s nuclear diplomacy has returned Moscow’s global strategic reach”. The gist is that Moscow understands that all nuclear energy deals are more than just about constructing a reactor but tacitly entail the clinching of a strategic partnership that transcends the energy sphere and lays the trust-building basis for more comprehensive state-to-state relations further down the line. One month later, the Saudi King paid the first-ever visit to Russia in history, which prompted the author to ask whether Saudi Arabia was recalibrating its grand strategy in a piece that he published at the time titled “Is Saudi Arabia’s Grand Strategy Shifting?

Evidently it was, or at least enough to convince Rosatom to announce a month afterwards in November 2017 that it wants to take part in a bid to construct 16 nuclear reactors in the Kingdom, a full 15 more than Russia built in nearby Iran. While no tangible work has been undertaken in this respect thus far, that doesn’t mean that Russian-Saudi ties haven’t continued to improve in the intervening period. The Khashoggi scandal saw Saudi Arabia’s former Western “partners” team up against it in an effort to put multilateral pressure on the country and “isolate” it, which failed because of Russia’s refusal to jump on the bandwagon. That’s why the author remarked last fall that “It Turns Out That Saudi Arabia Isn’t Exactly An American Puppet After All”, which was confirmed by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) famously sharing a brotherly handshake at the G20 in defiance of the West.

That wasn’t the first time that the two leaders behaved real chummy in public either, since MBS reappeared in Russia after a suspicious month-long absence from public life during the opening match of the World Cup in Moscow, the significance of which the author elaborated upon in his piece titled “He Lives! MBS’ First Foreign Trip Since His Disappearance Will Be To Moscow”. The Putin-MBS bonhomie is attributable every bit as much to their two Great Powers’ converging geopolitical interests in the Mideast and overlapping energy ones in OPEC+ as it is to their personal affinity for one another. President Putin has tremendous respect for the young Saudi’s extraordinarily rapid rise to power in such a cutthroat environment as his Kingdom’s royal politics, while MBS deeply appreciates that the Russian leader did the sword dance with his father during his visit in 2007 and even received the Order of King Abdulaziz:

Photo ITAR-TASS / Dmitry Astakhov

With the world having seen the writing on the wall over a decade ago that Russian-Saudi relations were increasingly taking on the strategic nature that they’d later unquestionably embody almost a year after Trump’s election following the Saudi King’s visit to Moscow, it’s little wonder that IP3 International realized that it would have to act fast through Flynn if the US wanted to stand any chance of competing with Russia in the Kingdom, ergo the ongoing scandal over the former National Security Advisor’s alleged promotion of his partner’s nuclear energy deal. That’s not to say that anything illegal transpired, but just that there was veritably a sense of urgency to push through the proposal in order to not lose out to the Russians, so it’s conceivable that some ethical corners might have been cut along the way.

About those, there’s nothing new about potential conflicts of interest occurring in the US or anywhere else in the world for that matter, and it’s an illusion to believe that nuclear energy deals are always concluded after a period of truly competitive bidding results in the recipient state making a strictly independent decision on which country to partner with. That said, it does appear as though IP3 International skirted the US’ “official ethical norms” by more than likely using Flynn as their “deep state” lobbyist for promoting their plans, which they justified in the interests of competing with Russia. Seeing as how US-Saudi ties have only gotten worse in the past two years while Russian-Saudi ones have unprecedentedly improved to their best-ever point in history, it can be said that this risky gambit failed and now Flynn might be forced to pay the consequences.

*

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.

Featured image is from Photo ITAR-TASS / Vladimir Rodionov

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

At present we are not covering our monthly costs. The support of our readers is much appreciated. 

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

*     *     *

Canadian Policy on Venezuela, Haiti Reveals Hypocrisy that Media Ignores

By Yves Engler, February 20, 2019

If the dominant media was serious about holding the Canadian government to account for its foreign policy decisions, there would be numerous stories pointing out the hypocrisy of Ottawa’s response to recent political developments in Haiti and Venezuela.

Venezuela Expels Euro Deputies Amid Reports of Talks with Washington

By Paul Dobson, February 20, 2019

The European politicians, who travelled in a personal capacity, had previously been warned through diplomatic channels that they would not be allowed in the country, but the group opted to proceed with the trip.

Video: Staged Chemical Attack Videos and Other Trends in Modern Propaganda

By South Front, February 20, 2019

The scandal regarding the fake hospital video published by the White Helmets as a proof of the Douma chemical attack has reached its peak in the media and has caused reaction on the diplomatic level.

Political Correctness Demands Diversity in Everything but Thought

By William Blum, February 20, 2019

The Islamic State, you see, is composed of Muslims, and the United States and its Western allies have bombed many Muslim countries in the recent past killing thousands of Muslims and causing widespread horror. Therefore, whatever ISIS and its allies do is “revenge”, simple revenge, and should not be condemned by anyone calling himself a progressive; least of all should violence be carried out against these poor aggrieved jihadists.

Survey Reveals Many Jewish Canadians Critical of Israel

By Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, February 20, 2019

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research from June to September 2018, reveals that contrary to public opinion, Jewish Canadians have a broad range of opinions on Israel-Palestine. It also reveals that a significant number of Jewish Canadians are critical of the Israeli government and its human rights abuses against Palestinians.

Military Coups, Regime Change…: The CIA Has Interfered In Over 81 Foreign Elections…

By Nina Agrawal, February 20, 2019

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

Challenging Dollar Hegemony: Russia and China Are Containing America’s Attempts to “Reshape the World Order”

By Federico Pieraccini, February 19, 2019

China and Russia are leading this historic transition while being careful to avoid direct war with the United States. To succeed in this endeavor, they use a hybrid strategy involving diplomacy, military support to allies, and economic guarantees to countries under Washington’s attack.

*

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 Selected Articles: Political Correctness Demands Diversity in Everything but Thought