Don’t you think something is fishy when the presstitutes orchestrate a fake news “humanitarian crisis” in Venezuela, but totally ignore the real humanitarian crises in Yemen and Gaza?  

Don’t you think something is really very rotten when the expert, Alfred Maurice de Zayas,  sent by the UN to Venezuela to evaluate the situation finds no interest by any Western media or any Western government in his report?

Don’t you think it is a bit much for Washington to steal $21 billion of Venezuela’s money, impose sanctions in an effort to destabilize the country and to drive the Venezuelan government to its knees, blame Venezuelan socialism (essentially nationalization of the oil company) for bringing “starvation to the people,” and offer a measly $21 million in “humanitarian aid.”

As the United States is completely devoid of any print or TV media, it falls upon internet media such as this website to perform the missing function of honest journalism.  

As for the alleged starvation and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, Zayas has this to say:

The December 2017 and March 2018 reports of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) list food crises in 37 countries. “The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is not among them.”

“In 2017, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela requested medical aid from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the plea was rejected, because Venezuela ‘is still a high-income country … and as such is not eligible’.”

The “crisis” in Venezuela “cannot be compared with the humanitarian crises in Gaza, Yemen, Libya, the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq, Haiti, Mali, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Somalia, or Myanmar, among others.”

In order to discredit selected governments, failures in the field of human rights are maximized so as to make violent overthrow more palatable. Human rights are being “weaponized” against rivals.

In paragraph 37 of his report, de Zayas says:

  “Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns with the intention of forcing them to surrender. Twenty-first century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees. A difference, perhaps, is that twenty-first century sanctions are accompanied by the manipulation of public opinion through ‘fake news’, aggressive public relations and a pseudo-human rights rhetoric so as to give the impression that a human rights ‘end’ justifies the criminal means. There is not only a horizontal juridical world order governed by the Charter of the United Nations and principles of sovereign equality, but also a vertical world order reflecting the hierarchy of a geopolitical system that links dominant States with the rest of the world according to military and economic power. It is the latter, geopolitical system that generates geopolitical crimes, hitherto in total impunity.”

He expresses concern about the level of polarization and disinformation that surrounds every narrative about Venezuela. 

“A disquieting media campaign seeks to force observers into a preconceived view that there is a ‘humanitarian crisis’ in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. An independent expert must be wary of hyperbole, bearing in mind that ‘humanitarian crisis’ is a term of art (terminus technicus) that can be misused as a pretext for military intervention.”

In order to discredit selected governments, failures in the field of human rights are maximized so as to make violent overthrow more palatable. Human rights are being ‘weaponized’ against rivals.

A political solution is blocked because “certain countries [the US] do not want to see a peaceful solution to the Venezuelan conflict and prefer to prolong the suffering of the people of that country, with the expectation that the situation will reach the threshold of a humanitarian crisis and provoke a military intervention to impose a regime change.”

Washington’s attack on Venezuela is in violation of established international law.

“The principles of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States belong to customary international law and have been reaffirmed in General Assembly resolutions, notably 2625 (XXV) and 3314 (XXIX), and in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Article 32 of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted by the General Assembly in 1974, stipulates that no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights.”  Chapter 4, article 19, of the Charter of the OAS stipulates that “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.”

Zayas reports that an atmosphere of intimidation accompanied the mission, attempting to pressure him into a predetermined matrix. He received letters from American-financed NGOs asking him not to proceed on his own, dictating to him the report he should write. Prior to his arrival in Venezuela, a propaganda campaign was launched against him on Facebook and Twitter questioning his integrity and accusing  him of bias. (See this) 

As Washington’s sanctions and currency manipulations constitute geopolitical crimes, Zayas asks what reparations are due to the victims of sanctions.  He recommends that the International Criminal Court investigate Washington’s coercive measures that can cause death from malnutrition and lack of medicines and medical equipment. 

“Despite being the first UN official to visit and report from Venezuela in 21 years, Mr de Zayas said his research into the causes of the country’s economic crisis has so far largely been ignored by the UN and the media, and caused little debate within the Human Rights Council.

“He believes his report has been ignored because it goes against the popular narrative that Venezuela needs regime change.” (See this)

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and an abundance of other natural resources including gold, bauxite and coltan. But under the Maduro government they’re not accessible to US and transnational corporations.

*

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.

This article was originally published in August 2014.

There is a scene from Danny Devito’s fine film Hoffa when Jimmy Hoffa is organizing a teamsters’ strike in the midst of WW2. As he walks through the trucking company yard the strikers there keep asking him what and when. One of his subordinates runs up to him and tells him “Tobin called and said to call it off Jimmy!” Hoffa ponders for but a moment and says very loudly “Everyone says I’m wrong so I must be right!” And he signals the men to move forward towards the corporate entrance.

For that minority of us who reject both this Military Industrial Empire and its Two Party ‘One Party’ system, we are marginalized and ostracized. For that smaller segment of our grouping that holds to most of the conspiracy theories of empire… Wow!! We are just simply crazy! Factor out the way out theories of aliens, the shape shifting reptilians,  etc. That is not what this writer is speaking about. No, I and others who study history and truth (which our controlled mainstream media is directed not to cover) are labeled crazy for believing:

  • FDR and his inner circle, with help from Churchill and the Brits, knew of the soon to be attack on Pearl Harbor. They chose to keep the Air Craft carriers out at sea while allowing the Japanese to proceed with their plans, so as to get us into the war.
  • FDR and Churchill kept putting off the plans for a second front (Operation Overlord) for as long as possible. This agenda was to allow the Germans and Russians to continue killing each other off. If Stalin did not threaten them with making a separate peace deal with Hitler after the German defeat at Stalingrad, the invasion of Normandy might have been pushed back even further.
  • Truman gave the OK to drop A-bombs on Japan for two major reasons: A) to let the Russians know that we had the bomb and could make more than one at a time and B) to keep Russia from getting into Japan before the war ended. As far as the excuse given of ‘saving American lives‘ that would have been naturally very true if in fact we had to invade Japan. The real fact is that the Russians had already brokered a deal allowing the Japanese high command to surrender and keep the emperor… that was all that was needed in the spring of ‘45.
  • The U-2 flights of the 50s and early 60s proved that the Soviet Union was much weaker than us militarily, especially in the area of volume of missiles and other weaponry. This fact was withheld not only from the American public, but from most of the Congress as well. When Eisenhower, too late in the game (as he knew the truth for most of his presidency) warned us in his farewell address of the Military Industrial Complex, the die had been cast, and jingoism was in full gear, so much so that…
  • When JFK had his epiphany, beginning after the Bay of Pigs and finalized during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he went from a cold warrior to a born again patriot. Sadly, the mechanism for the Coup d’Etat was churning rapidly. Oswald was nothing more than a Naval Intelligence undercover operative who was used as a patsy for the killing of our president. Anyone who studies the many facts and chain of events in this story knows that as David Ferrie told Jim Garrison “It’s an enigma inside of an enigma“. It wasn’t the mob that killed JFK (maybe the shooters came from the mob) rather it was elements within our own government that ordered the hit and masterminded the cover-up.

  • Robert Kennedy knew too much concerning the Coup d’Etat…and when he was on the verge of becoming President in ‘68 (“And now it’s on to Chicago and the nomination”) … boom! Another patsy, Sirhan, was mind controlled to take the fall. As for Martin Luther King, in ’67 he stopped focusing on Civil Rights and lashed out at the Vietnam War (“… the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today- my own government“) and then in spring of ‘68 first ventured  involvement into labor unrest (Memphis sanitation workers strike) and … boom!
  • Anyone with half a mind knows that Reagan and his crew orchestrated the deal with the Iranians in the fall of ’80 to hold off releasing the hostages until after the election. Come on, I mean minutes after assuming office on Jan 20th 1981 Iran releases the hostages! Imagine how such an underhanded act should have been covered by our news media? It wasn’t and still isn’t even discussed much.
  • Bush Sr. on July 25th 1990 sent his Ambassador April Glaspie to meet with Saddam Hussein. During their conversation she stated “We have no opinion in your Arab/Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait… Secretary of State Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” Then, Iraq went into Kuwait and the trap was set. You know the rest. (see image below, retreating Iraqi forces)

  • The election of 2000 was one of the most heinous acts of fraud and trickery in the history of American politics. Many books have been written on it, so this writer will not waste his time on the details. Even Vincent Bugliosi, who I hardly ever agree with on things, wrote eloquently (The Betrayal of America) on this disgraceful episode. This all connects, according to most conspiracy researchers to….
  • September 11th 2001. I mean, how dumb the American public was (and is) to disregard the myriad of facts of what transpired that day. The coincidence (?) that on that very day NORAD was conducting Operation Vigilant Guardian involving the fake hijacking of airliners…while the real thing was going on! How many demolition experts have to be assembled to contradict the government version of the two towers going down like pancakes from burning jet fuel? The truth of the matter, according to these experts, is that there had to have been explosives planted in those buildings to coincide with the planes crashing into them. The You Tube of the three NYC veteran firemen watching it happen in real time on a television screen is interesting. One remarks “Did you see that? Boom boom boom! “And another one answers “Controlled demolition.”  Forget all the countless facts concerning this case, and just digest the two given above. Could Bin Laden and his gang get the access and lengthy time it would take to place highly intricate and carefully hidden explosives into both buildings? Come on!
  • After he sat like a dodo in that Sarasota classroom for seven minutes after the 2nd plane hit the tower, Bush Junior is taken on a cross country tour on Air Force One. He then returns home to direct the American public to “Go out and shop“, while he sits with his handlers to plot the upcoming invasion of Iraq… oh sorry, I mean Afghanistan. No! Richard Clarke was told to find the evidence to connect Hussein and Iraq with 9/11. A little more than a year later, and countless cherry pickings of what the Bush gang called intelligence, they get Colin Powell to ‘sell his soul‘ and deliver to the UN (see image right) the best fiction your tax money could buy… and soon after we invade and occupy and you know the rest. The Congress, like the lap dogs they were (and are) goes along to get along with the Bush/Cheney gang’s agenda. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year are thrown down the rabbit hole of military spending… until it reaches around 50% of our federal tax dollars. Imagine how many roads, schools, libraries, clinics, hospitals, police and fire personnel … that a portion of that increased spending could have been used to save our economy? Finally, to add insult to injury we have …
  • Mr. Hope and Change 2008. Mr. Obama speaks like a preacher and acts like a stooge for the empire. He promised to close Gitmo (never happened). He promised to deal with torture and then allowed extraordinary rendition (grabbing someone here in the USA and rushing them, hooded and manacled, to some foreign nation that does in fact conduct torture). Under his stewardship (or lack of) A) Military spending reached an all time high (56% in 2011 fiscal year) and we keep our military footprint in the Middle East, B) As a candidate in 2008, he took in almost three times the amount of donations from the private health care industry than McCain- thus ObamaCare was a gift to the private health insurers. His handlers, and those of the ‘Two Party/ One Party System, would not allow Medicare for All, C) He continued the phony and disgraceful bailout of the Wall Street banksters. Obama could have spent a fraction of that TARP money by putting the ailing bankster banks and investment houses into receivership, and keeping the employees at their jobs. By having Uncle Sam purchase all the bad mortgage related paper for 10 and 20 cents on the dollar, many foreclosed homes would be off the market. Foreclosed homeowners would keep their homes through lengthier mortgages, thus lower monthly payments. This would not only raise the value of all homes, but stimulate the economy. Builders, cabinetmakers, hardware wholesale and retail businesses… every aspect of the housing industry would see great progress. Not to be. Instead, Obama allowed the corporate beast to create an ever increasing rental housing machine that makes serfs out of more and more of us.

“It’s all right Ma, I’m only bleeding!“

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez / Truthout

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on And They Say I’m the Crazy One! “For Rejecting the Military-Industrial Empire and the Two Party ‘One Party’ System”

Has Trump Gone Full Neocon??

March 9th, 2019 by Mike Whitney

The details of what took place at the Hanoi Summit strongly suggests that President Donald Trump has joined the neocons in their quest to strangle the North Korean economy and bring about regime change. As it happens, the Trump delegation did not negotiate in good faith or make an honest attempt to resolve the nuclear issue but, instead, piled on a list of unrelated demands that they knew would blow up the summit. Multiple reports point to John Bolton as the author of the plan to sabotage the meetings which seems to be the case. Check out this excerpt from the Pearls and Irritations website:

“In his article on the Hanoi talks … Richard Broinowski reported that a senior Asian diplomat, in Canberra, had told him that an important reason for the break-up of the talks was that Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, had persuaded Trump to add, at the end, the demand that DPRK also disclose it’s holdings of chemical and biological weapons.This report has now been confirmed by a report published in the March 4th edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which cites a statement by the DPRK Foreign Minister, Ri Yong-Ho, in Hanoi, that “John Bolton disrupted the talks by demanding that North Korea disclose it’s chemical and biological arsenal as well as it’s nuclear arsenals”. This would seem to answer the question I posed in my article on whether or not a spanner had been thrown into the works and if so, by whom? Not unusually, there seems to have been no report of this highly salient fact by western mainstream media.” (John Menadue–Pearls and Irritations)

The new list of demands was confirmed in an article at The Guardian on Thursday which said:

“The US is demanding North Korea destroy all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons before receiving any sanctions relief…Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, said the US president was open to another summit with Kim, but that the US wanted to discuss a “big deal” involving complete disarmament in return for comprehensive sanctions relief….

“Nobody in the administration advocates a step-by-step approach. In all cases the expectation is the complete denuclearisation of North Korea as a condition for all the other steps being taken,” the official said, confirming that Trump had also called on Kim to get rid of all North Korea’s chemical and biological weapons at the same time.” (“North Korea must give up all nuclear weapons before any sanctions relief, says US “, The Guardian)

The Trump administration’s objective in changing the focus from nuclear weapons to a more comprehensive disarmament was not intended to simply “move the goalposts” but to undermine mutual trust to the extent that future negotiations would be impossible. Trump’s performance in Hanoi suggests that he is now willing to participate in a confrontational and potentially-explosive strategy in exchange for the tacit support of the neocons and foreign policy establishment elites who have opposed any cooperation with the DPRK from the very beginning. Trump supporters– who felt that the president was sincere in promising a non-interventionist “America First” foreign policy– should pay close attention to these recent developments as they portend a dramatic reversal in Trump’s stated position. The President appears to be abandoning his campaign promises to garner greater political support from his former adversaries.

There’s always been ferocious opposition to negotiations with the DPRK, particularly from foreign policy elites see great benefit in preserving the status quo. It is in their interests to continue the 65 year-long occupation of a divided peninsula in a strategically located region. Washington’s military presence allows it counter emerging rivals and assert its dominance a full 10,000 miles from its own shores. That is why any movement towards constructive dialogue, peace or reunification is avoided like the plague. It’s because elites figure that peace will inevitably undermine public support for a permanent US military presence in the South.

Maintaining a 30,000-man garrison in South Korea also allows Washington to preserve its role as regional policeman, further encircle China and Russia, dictate how the South Korean Army may or may not be used under the terms of the Combined Forces Command, strengthen America’s influence in the critical Asia-Pacific theater, and provide the essential military component needed to implement America’s “pivot to Asia.” For these reasons, foreign policy elites oppose any change in the present arrangement, which is why they have used their agents in the intelligence community, the administration, the military and the media to torpedo any move towards resolution or reconciliation.

Some readers might remember how the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, tried to sabotage the upcoming summit just a month before Trump was scheduled to meet Kim Jong un in Hanoi. Coats appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee on January 29, 2019– accompanied by the Directors of the CIA and FBI– and told the Committee that, in the his estimation, Kim would never give up his nukes:

“We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capability because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival.”

Coats testimony was clearly crafted for political purposes. He was not trying to inform the senate about a sensitive matter of national security. He was using his high office to apply political pressure on the president. He chose to use the prestigious setting of the Senate chamber to throw cold water on Trump’s policy of engagement and dialogue. His objective was to reinforce feelings of distrust towards Kim Jong un and to strengthen public opposition to the summit. Coat’s performance provides another glaring illustration of how politicized the intelligence community has become.

Coat’s appearance on Capitol Hill was the first shot fired at the Trump-Kim bandwagon. The next, and perhaps most effective was Bolton’s bombshell delivered during the talks themselves. Bolton’s additional demands gave Kim no choice but to end the meetings and delay any further concessions on denuclearization. Clearly, this was Bolton’s objective from the get go.

The summit was followed by an intensive propaganda campaign aimed at shifting the blame for the meetings’ failure from the Trump camp to North Korea. Hundreds of cookie-cutter articles– many featuring scratchy satellite photos of partially abandoned bunkers– popped up in headlines across the country overnight. The obvious aim of this saturation campaign was to convince the American people that Kim was reopening his ballistic missile sites in clear violation of the agreement he made with President Trump in Singapore. The media was trying to drive home the same point as DNI chief Dan Coats, that is, that North Korea cannot be trusted and that Kim is “a cheater”. Of course, a closer analysis of these articles, suggests that it is not Kim that can’t be trusted but the unscrupulous western media that consistently shapes its narrative to suit the interests of foreign policy elites.

Let’s test this theory on the piece that was published on March 5, by the New York Times titled “North Korea Has Started Rebuilding Key Missile-Test Facilities, Analysts Say”. Here’s an excerpt:

“Speaking to lawmakers behind closed doors at South Korea’s National Assembly on Tuesday, officials from its National Intelligence Service indicated that North Korea had been rebuilding the Tongchang-ri facilities even before the Hanoi summit meeting, South Korean news media reported on Wednesday.

North Korea may have wanted to rebuild them in order to make their dismantling more dramatic if the Hanoi summit produced a deal with the Americans, the intelligence officials were quoted as saying. Or it may have wanted the option to resume rocket tests if the Hanoi talks broke down, they said.”(New York Times)

“Resume rocket tests”? What rocket tests? By the Times own admission, the facilities were used “to launch satellites into orbit and test engines”. The site is a satellite launching pad not a ballistic missile launching pad. There’s a big difference, and I would argue, the Times knows what that difference is, they merely fudge the details in order to hoodwink their readers. And the reason they want to hoodwink their readers is so their readers believe that North Korea cannot be trusted. That’s how war propaganda works, by helping to strengthen public opposition to peaceful negotiations and a final resolution of the nuclear crisis.

And let’s be clear, Kim has kept his word, he has not resumed the nuclear weapons tests or the ballistic missile tests. Also, the United States can call “the satellite program a front for developing intercontinental ballistic missiles”, but that doesn’t change the fact that a satellite launch site is a satellite launch site. It is not a ballistic missile site. Check out this short clip from Tim Shorrock at http://peaceinkoreanews.timshorrock.com

“As I pointed out yesterday on Twitter, the US Defense Intelligence Agency, in a report earlier this year, classified Sohae as a satellite launch site that “supported satellite launch cycles in 2012 and 2016,” NOT as a missile site.” …

[Sohae] is a space launch center that was completed in 2011. There was a lot of work and a lot of money sunk into it. North Korea, despite what a lot of people think, has a serious space program. It’s hard to believe, but it’s true. Secondly, it has been used trying to put satellites in space and launching space vehicles. It has not been used for missile tests. …

OK, got it? It’s a satellite launch facility where engines for ICBMs have been tested. But it’s not a missile site…

….the stories from CSIS and NBC are clearly designed to drum up support for a return to the more confrontational, no-compromise “maximum pressure” campaign that brought US-DPRK tensions to a boiling point in the first place. That’s propaganda, not news.”(“CSIS and NBC provide a case study in war propaganda”, Tim Shorrock)

Bottom line: Kim hasn’t done anything wrong and he hasn’t violated the terms of the deal he made with Trump. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Trump who promised to discontinue the provocative
joint-military exercises the US conducts twice a year with South Korea, but went back on his word. Here’s the story:

On Thursday, the United States and South Korea began weeklong joint military drills on the Korean peninsula in clear violation of the agreement that was signed by President Donald Trump and North Korea Chairman Kim Jong un in Singapore in June, 2018. The military exercises, which are called “Dong Maeng” or “Alliance”, are a rehearsal for an invasion and “decapitation” of the government in Pyongyang. And while the maneuvers have largely been ignored in the western media, they were sharply criticized by North Korea’s state-run KCNA which issued the following statement:

“The threatening moves of the South Korean military and the US are a clear violation of the DPRK-US joint statement (in Singapore) in which both parties agreed to reduce hostilities and tension. These drills undermine the desire of the Korean people and the international community for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

It’s not clear whether President Trump or South Korean President Moon Jae-in approved the drills or not. It could be that both country’s military leaders simply made the decision by themselves. But doesn’t that suggest that their agendas are more closely aligned with the foreign policy bigshots then they are with people who want to resolve the nuclear issue, ease sanctions, normalize relations and end the 65 year-long war with North Korea?

The fact that powerful people are trying to derail the peace process doesn’t make peace any less desirable. It just means that the peacemakers are going to have to show as much resolve as the warmongers. Kim Jong un appears to be determined to meet the challenge head-on and try to put this 7 decade-long nightmare behind him. That’s the kind of doggedness it’s going to take to succeed. We wish him luck.

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Has Trump Gone Full Neocon??

Syria and its allies are preparing their missiles for a forthcoming battle with Israel if Tel Aviv decides to open fire against significant military positions under the control of the Syrian army.

Well informed sources say that “it all depends on the direction the Israeli elections will take. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu estimates his chances are high enough to win a second term, then he will not venture any time soon into a new confrontation with Syria and its allies. The date of the next battle will be postponed. But, if he believes he will lose the election, then the possibility of his initiating a battle becomes very high. A serious battle between Israel on one hand and Syria and Iran on the other would be sufficient enough to postpone the elections. Netanyahu doesn’t have many choices: either he wins the election and postpones the corruption court case against him, or he goes to jail”.

US European Command (EUCOM) recently send military airplanes, along with 200 US servicemen, carrying THAAD anti-ballistic missile defence systems to be deployed in southern Israel. The official reason for deployment of this very modern and sophisticated system is said to be preparation for a joint drill between Israel and the US. THAAD will enhance the already existing Israeli anti-missile interception defence systems. These are “Iron Dome” for short-range, “David Sling” for tactical missiles and “The Arrow” for intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“The US doesn’t trust the Israeli system, and thus the THAAD system was deployed to hunt down any missiles launched by the Syrian or Iranian forces deployed in Syria as these promised in case of a battle triggered and provoked by Netanyahu. Both Syria and Iran promised immediate retaliation if Israel bombs any significant military positions in those countries. This is why the US has decided to take part in this confrontation, convinced that any future battle will be devastating for all parties”.

President Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Tehran made it clear to all involved in the Syrian war, especially the EU and the US, that Damascus will never ask Iran to withdraw from Syria to please third parties or in exchange for reconstruction or a normalisation of the relationship between the Arabs and Syria or between the West and Syria.

“The visit of the Syrian President to Iran helped President Putin clarify to his visitor Netanyahu that Moscow cannot help Israel with its request to get Iran out of Syria. The relationship between Syria and Iran is robust – Putin explained to his guest, as Damascus has learned –and Russia is in no position to ask for a change in the strategic relationship between the two countries”, said the source.

*

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 EJM

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria Preparing Its Missiles for the Next Battle with Israel

An Urgent Appeal for Unity Against the Growing Danger of War

March 9th, 2019 by Canadian Peace Congress

To all those who share our sense of urgency about the worsening international situation, and the grave danger that war poses for the world today, we issue this Appeal for a united and powerful response.

At this critical moment, ending militarism, aggression and war, averting climate catastrophe, and tackling poverty, social disparity and related global problems should be humanity’s top priorities. Instead, political elites, especially in the countries of the NATO alliance including Canada, are pushing the world in the opposite direction.

We are witnessing the emergence of a ‘new cold war’ and the deliberate cultivation of Russophobia and Sino-phobia, along with other forms of fear-mongering and demonization. In North America, rearmament, bullying tactics and glorification of militarism seem the order of the day. While US President Donald Trump has been particularly shrill in his attacks against peace, his Democratic Party rivals frequently attempt to out-flank him with their hawkish rhetoric. The principles of international law – respect for the full equality and sovereignty of all countries, non-interference, and the resolution of disputes through peaceful negotiation, not threats and aggression – are being increasingly violated. Important agreements such as the Iran Nuclear deal (JCPOA) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces/INF treaty are being unilaterally cancelled.

The arms race is accelerating, and weapons systems relentlessly “modernized”. Globally, military spending is now over a trillion dollars a year, with the expanding US military budget leading the way. Foreign military bases are spreading like a metastasizing cancer, and the world’s armed forces are now the largest single global source of carbon emissions from fossil fuel consumption.

As regional and international flashpoints sharpen, the danger of global war – involving the main nuclear powers – looms ever larger. The NATO encirclement of the Russian Federation is tightening, and economic and military pressures, as well as propaganda attacks against the People’s Republic of China are growing. Backed by Washington, Israel’s rulers are escalating their repressive, apartheid policies against the Palestinian people in besieged Gaza and the Occupied West Bank. Imperialist “regime change” campaigns are targeting Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries around the world. The US occupation of Afghanistan is now entering its 18th year, with no end in sight. Canada’s arms sales are helping the Saudi regime conduct a vicious war against the people of Yemen. Even the hopeful signs of progress on the Korean peninsula towards a peaceful resolution of that longstanding conflict are being undermined by hawkish forces inside the US Administration and the military-industrial complex.

The widespread advance of racist, national chauvinist, and neo-fascist movements is adding to global instability. The deepening economic crisis of capitalism is fuelling increased rivalries, trade and tariff wars, even predictions of another global economic meltdown. The crisis of climate change is already bringing destructive weather systems, droughts, rising ocean levels, and other dire consequences.

Canada’s Role

In the face of this rapidly deteriorating situation, Canada should and must be a voice of reason and restraint, and a principled advocate for peace and disarmament. Instead, however, Ottawa has become one of the most bellicose voices marching to the ‘drums of war’. The current Liberal government of Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland has tilted Canadian foreign and defence policies in a far-right, militarist and interventionist direction, and its bloated war budget squanders valuable resources which would be better spent on socially useful purposes. Any hope that this government would slash carbon emissions, or prioritize the needs of workers, Indigenous peoples, the poor and marginalized, seniors and youth, has vanished. Instead, Canadian military spending is skyrocketing, from the current levels of $20 billion, to a projected $36 billion by the middle of the next decade.

Across Canada, a number of useful and important peace & solidarity initiatives are taking place. But we must face the reality that overall, the peace movement in Canada and internationally today is not sufficient to address these many dangerous and interrelated threats. Unlike earlier periods – the 1980s with its huge mobilizations against the danger of nuclear war, or the early 2000s when millions protested the invasion of Iraq – the anti-war movement today is far smaller. The doctrine of “responsibility to protect”, which the imperialist powers use as a pretext for their geopolitical agenda, has disoriented and neutralized popular resistance.

Today it is more urgent than ever to foster greater cooperation, and unity of action among all of the forces for peace, solidarity and social justice. In the view of the Canadian Peace Congress, the absolutely imperative task of our times is to build powerful mass mobilizations for a decisive shift in Canadian and global politics, away from confrontation and militarism, and towards peace and disarmament. Only such a change can give the human race a realistic chance to save the planet from war and environmental disaster, and to improve the lives of billions of people.

But success requires far more than well-meaning phrases. Common action to transform Canadian foreign and defence polices toward peace and disarmament is needed now! We call upon all the diverse forces in our movement to set aside differences, unite around our shared concerns, and build campaigns to push back the threat of war and militarism, before it is too late!

The Canadian Peace Congress stands committed to this urgent and decisive goal and welcomes dialogue and joint action with any and all peace and solidarity groups and other concerned organizations and movements to help work for its realization.

*

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 An Urgent Appeal for Unity Against the Growing Danger of War

Marco Rubio, the neocon senator from Florida, considers a suspicious power outage across Venezuela to be funny. He would no doubt feel different if his mother was on a ventilator in a Caracas hospital—then again. 

.

.

Rubio’s little joke is comparable to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s national television chortle over the rape and murder of Gaddafi in Libya. 

However, the top award for sociopathic viciousness remains on Madeleine Albright’s mantle of accomplishments. Albright was a protege of the late Zbigniew Brzezinski. She also went on national television and declared the engineered murder of half a million Iraqi children during the medieval siege of Iraq to be “worth it.” For her service to the Empire, she received the Senator H. John Heinz III Award for Greatest Public Service by an Elected or Appointed Official, an award handed out annually by the Jefferson Awards Foundation.

Mr. Hanke, an economics professor at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, ignores the intensified economic warfare waged by the United States against the people of Venezuela. Indeed, socialism is a failed system. However, in the case of Maduro and Venezuela, its inherent failures were helped along by a strong dose of covert subversion by the US. 

“That sabotage by the private sector has taken the form of hoarding of selected items, price speculation, keeping supermarket shelves empty, sending food shipments to neighboring countries, even setting food warehouse stockpiles on fire. This purposely-generated scarcity creates chaos and discontent, further undermining the government,” writes Joyce Nelson. 

The use of “financial weapons” is detailed in the Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare booklet, made public by WikiLeaks. The document has been described as an instruction manual for subversion of nations unwilling to submit to neoliberal bankster loan shark schemes. 

“WikiLeaks drew particular attention to a segment of the publication entitled ‘Financial Instrument of U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare.’ This section outlines how the US government, in its own words, uses ‘financial weapons’ to wage ‘economic warfare’ against foreign governments that try to pursue an independent path,” writes Ben Norton. 

The Pentagon document explains how the US “can use financial power as a weapon in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war” and adds that, “manipulation of U.S. financial strength can leverage the policies and cooperation of state governments.”

Rubio has continued to tweet out jokes as babies are manually ventilated in dark hospitals and ICU life-support systems fail. 

According to Telesur, a satellite television network funded by the Venezuelan government, the widespread power outage is part of an “electric war” waged by the US. 

“We want to send a message to the international community: just three minutes after the attack, Marco Rubio, once again, as a crime reporter, reported on the event that was happening in our country. Mr. Rubio, I want to inform you that, in a few hours, the Venezuelan people and the international community will know the truth. We’ll know that your rotten hands—supported by your lackeys who permanently attack the Venezuelan people—are involved in this event,” Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez announced on Thursday. 

Venezuela said its Guri dam, one of the largest hydroelectric dams in the world, was sabotaged by a US subversion operation.

“The government is saying that the opposition and its leader Juan Guaido are behind this attack, as well as the US,” Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo reported from Caracas. 

Marco Rubio’s callous attempts to make fun of the suffering of the Venezuelan people reveals the psychosis of the neocons and their fellow travelers. 

They are responsible for mass murder and genocide, most recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and much of Africa, particularly Somalia. Iran is also suffering from punitive sanctions. More alarming, the neocons and their “humanitarian interventionist” bedfellows are behind efforts to aggressively confront Russia and China, two countries bristling with nuclear warheads. 

The latest attempt to take down Venezuela and punish its people for electing a government outside the stranglehold of the globalists has failed. 

In the weeks ahead, we can expect more serious and deadly subversion operations conducted by the US. This will inspire Marco Rubio to send out more tweets mocking the suffering of millions of Venezuelans. 

*

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.

Jorge Rodriguez showed evidence of the participation of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio in the sabotage of the electrical system that left the country without service for more than 24 hours. 

***

The Vice President of Communication, Tourism and Culture of Venezuela, Jorge Rodriguez, offered a press conference on Friday during which he demonstrated the participation of the U.S. senator for the state of Florida, Marco Rubio, in the cyber sabotage that left the South American country without power for more than 24 hours.

They attacked the automated control of the Guri system that supplies the country with energy, Rodríguez said in his speech. This information was handled by US Senator Marco Rubio shortly after the aggression was executed as he let it be known on his Twitter posts.

‘How did Marco Rubio know that backup generators had failed? At that time, no one knew that,’ the Bolivarian government official asked.

Also, Rodriguez denied that hospitals in Venezuela had recorded deaths during the day without power, as President Nicolás Maduro had ordered the provision of generation plants to prevent any such attack.

He furthered showed a series of publications on the same social network as Senator Rubio; those of the Secretary of State of the United States, Mike Pompeo, and of the opposition Juan Guaidó, which tie them to the event.

Rodriguez informed that the electrical system in the country continues to be restored gradually thanks to the work of the employees of the state company Corpoelec. Likewise, he thanked the civility and calm that the citizenship has maintained before what he described as “the most brutal aggression to which the people of Venezuela have been subjected in 200 years.”

“While in Venezuela society calmly assumed the consequences of the electrical sabotage and the employees of Corpoelec (state electric power company) are working tirelessly, Donald Trump’s entourage was celebrating, enjoying with guilty perversion the anguish of the Venezuelan people, “said Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza through his Twitter account.

“A few weeks ago, the Maduro regime blamed the iguanas for causing a major blackout in the electricity network, and now we have received the first video of what caused the unprecedented national blackout this evening in Venezuela,” said Rubio ironically. about the event that affected Venezuelans, the American official accompanied his publication with an image of Godzilla throwing fire through his mouth.

On Thursday night, the vice-president for Culture and Tourism Communication of Venezuela, Jorge Rodríguez, affirmed that the intention of this act of sabotage was to subject the Venezuelan people to several days without providing electrical service to attack and leave various vital areas without electricity.

Last Wednesday, the U.S. senator from the state of Florida stated that Venezuela was “within a few days of the most serious shortage of food and fuel.”

Also, Rodriguez questioned that less than three minutes after the sabotage occurred Rubio appeared posting a tweet where he announced the situation.

For his part, Pompeo said Friday that “the shortage of energy and hunger (in Venezuela) are the result of the incompetence of the ‘Maduro’ regime.”

“There is no food, there are no medicines, now there is no energy,” said Pompeo on Twitter on Friday and then added that the Venezuelan leader would be next to fall.

The Bolivarian Government has repeatedly denounced the coup plans of the United States against the constitutional president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.

*

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

Another Failed Coup in Venezuela?

March 9th, 2019 by George Ciccariello-Maher

If you repeat your own lies enough—so goes the apocryphal Goebbels quote—you start to believe them yourself. For two decades, the Venezuelan opposition and its supporters in Washington have smeared Hugo Chávez and now his successor, Nicolás Maduro, as despotic strongmen kept in power solely through military force and paltry payouts to the poor. So it’s no surprise that they are once again underestimating both Chavismo and the resilience of its supporters today.

Underestimating the People

We’ve seen this all before: On April 11 of 2002, the Venezuelan opposition—according to the most credible accounts—unleashed snipers on its own supporters and used the ensuing deaths to justify a coup against Hugo Chávez. But the opposition dramatically overplayed its hand and underestimated the Chavista grassroots, who it routinely smeared as the blind followers of a populist strongman. When coup leaders abolished all branches of government and scrapped the constitution, hundreds of thousands of poor Venezuelans poured into the streets demanding, and eventually forcing, Chávez’s return to power.

Much has changed since 2002. A perfect storm of Chávez’s death, collapsing global oil prices, a mismanaged system of currency controls, ferocious aggression from the opposition and—more recently—U.S. sanctions, has thrown the Venezuelan economy into a tailspin. Many of the impressive accomplishments of the Bolivarian Revolution—in health care, education and poverty reduction—have quickly evaporated, producing frustration, confusion and desperation among even Chavismo’s most hardline supporters.

So when opposition backbencher Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president of Venezuela on January 23, he and his co-conspirators thought the military would quickly fragment before eventually falling in line behind the self-proclaimed president. Things didn’t work that way: Aside from a handful of soldiers and the U.S. military attaché, the Venezuelan armed forces remained solidly behind Nicolás Maduro. And despite large demonstrations both for and against the government, there have been no signs of sustained, mass resistance in the streets in favor of the coup either.

Why? In part because the frustration many poor Venezuelans feel today is just that: frustration. They are fed up with the economic crisis, and many place at least a share of the blame on Maduro. But as in the past, most don’t see frustration as justifying undemocratic regime change, much less foreign intervention—which the majority of Venezuelans oppose. What’s more, wanting the economy to improve has not led many to identify with opposition parties that still represent the most elite sectors of Venezuelan society and have offered no credible solutions to the economic crisis.

The Trojan Horse of Humanitarian Aid

But if much has changed, much has also stayed the same: Unable to believe that the poor might hold such a nuanced position, the opposition has again overplayed its hand and bet it all on yet another failed coup. February 23 marked one month since Guaidó’s self-coronation, and also the expiration of the 30-day period during which any interim president must hold new elections. According to even the opposition’s contrived reading of the Venezuelan Constitution, since Guaidó never called those elections, he has no remaining claim to the presidency. And so it was that on February 23, Guaidó resorted to increasingly desperate measures, attempting to provoke a crisis by forcing deliveries of US-provided “humanitarian aid” across the border.

It’s not difficult to debunk this false humanitarianism. The United Nations refused to participate in what it deemed “politicized” aid shipments, and the Red Cross denounced the border charade as “not humanitarian aid”—and rebuked the unauthorized use of Red Cross insignia by opposition forces. Given that Contra war criminal Elliott Abrams is now in charge of U.S. policy in Venezuela, it’s worth recalling that U.S.-backed Contras used the Red Cross insignia toward similar ends in Nicaragua.

And then there’s also basic math: While the opposition mounted a spectacle to deliver a few million dollars in aid, U.S. sanctions have already cost Venezuela billions, and will cost billions more. Economist Mark Weisbrot estimates the death toll of the sanctions to be “in the thousands or tens of thousands so far,” with more deaths from Trump’s draconian tightening of the sanctions almost guaranteed.

In contrast, the Trump government essentially handed over the keys of Citgo’s bank accounts and assets—worth around $7 billion—to Guaidó, who has also demanded control of more than a billion dollars’ worth of Venezuelan gold held by the Bank of England. And if we harbored any illusions about the humanitarian credentials of the Venezuelan opposition, it’s worth noting that it routinely attacks a social welfare infrastructure it associates with Chavismo—most recently burning a warehouse where subsidized food bundles known as CLAPs were packaged and distributed.

Provocation on the Border

On February 23, as in 2002, the opposition sought to sow blood and chaos to justify its coup, but this time it was unsuccessful. Any objective analysis of video footage from the Colombian border makes this clear: On the Venezuelan side, Venezuelan troops were standing in a single line behind riot shields. On the Colombian side, masked opposition protesters hurled molotov cocktails toward them. When two “aid” trucks suddenly burst into flames, Guaidó and most of the media immediately blamed the fire on Maduro. So overwhelming was this media narrative that few observers seemed to notice that the trucks never reached the Venezuelan side, and were almost certainly ignited by those same molotovs.

Desperate for any pretext to justify foreign intervention, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) even blamed Maduro when an opposition lawmaker and his aide were “poisoned” on the Colombian side of the border. Despite an utter lack of any evidence, the international press ran with the story. But it turned out the assemblyman was apparently drugged and robbed by sex workers he had brought back to his room after a night of partying. And when long-simmering tensions between the Venezuelan military and indigenous Pemones on the southern border with Brazil led to violent clashes and several deaths, their longstanding concerns were opportunistically folded into the opposition narrative about aid deliveries. Opposition parties had been stoking dissent among indigenous groups for years, and many of those involved in clashes were less concerned with aid shipments than with what they perceived as years of corrupt military activity in the region.

The opposition has been oddly silent about its own violence, however. When three defecting Venezuelan soldiers hijacked armored personnel carriers, driving them at full speed into the border barriers in order to defect to the Colombian side, they struck a crowd of civilians that included Nicole Kramm, a Chilean photojournalist. Kramm, who was nearly killed in the attack—and whose camera was running the entire time—later described the scene: “This was an attack on civilians. I can’t believe they are being treated as heroes. If I didn’t run, and was 15 centimeters closer, I would not be here to tell you this.”

The Danger Isn’t Over

“Plan A” failed on January 23rd and “Plan B” similarly failed a month later, leaving Guaidó in dire straits and without a clear path forward. When he attempted to reach out to disaffected Chavistas by tweeting that Hugo Chávez would not approve of Maduro’s actions, Guaidó was attacked by his own supporters on Twitter, revealing old tensions simmering within the opposition coalition. And with all other options exhausted, Guaidó and U.S. vice president Mike Pence failed to convince the Lima Group—a regional coalition of mostly right-wing governments and Canada—to support military intervention. With the threat of U.S. intervention stirring dissension even within the cabinet of far-right Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, Guaidó’s coup appears to be on its last legs.

This doesn’t mean that the danger is over, however. On Monday, Guaidó made a less-than-triumphant return to Venezuela and, despite his violation of a travel ban, the government has opted not to arrest him for now. If anything, Maduro will protect him at all costs: Amid threats on Guaidó’s life, the Lima Group has warned of dire consequences should anything happen to him. If Guaidó were to be killed, however, it would almost certainly be at the hands of a Venezuelan right-wing eager to provoke military intervention (the government has dismantled similar plots in the past).

In the coming months, U.S. sanctions will continue to tighten the economic screws, heaping suffering on those who always suffer most—the poorest Venezuelans—while waiting out defections from the military and the population as a whole. In 1990, Nicaraguans voted the Sandinistas out of power, knowing full well that if they didn’t, both U.S. sanctions and the Contra War would continue. With many of the same people once again in charge of U.S. policy today, the strategy remains the same: to “make the economy scream,” in Nixon’s words. This coup may be failing, but Washington will fail and try again. Venezuela can’t afford to fail even once.

*

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

George Ciccariello-Maher is a Visiting Scholar at the Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics, and the author of We Created Chávez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan Revolution (Duke, 2013); Building the Commune: Radical Democracy in Venezuela (Verso, 2016); and Decolonizing Dialectics (Duke, 2017). 

Featured image is from France 24

For the first time since war broke out in Syria in 2011, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad has travelled to Iran to meet Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

President Assad had only travelled outside of Syria on two other occasions during the war – both times to Russia.

The significance of the trip cannot be understated – it was a message sent to those who orchestrated the proxy war against Syria that Damascus has prevailed and instead of driving a wedge between it and its allies in Moscow and Tehran – it has only drawn these regional powers closer together.

The symbol of solidarity between Syria and Iran comes at a time when Washington finds itself vacillating between a full withdrawal from Syria, a redeployment to Iraq, or an attempt to drag out the conclusion of the Syrian conflict for as long as possible by keeping US forces there indefinitely.

The Washington Post in its article, “Syria’s Assad visits Iran in rare trip abroad,” would admit:

U.S. officials said Trump’s decision authorizing a small number of U.S. troops to stay is a key step in creating a larger multinational observer force that would monitor a so-called safe zone along Syria’s border with Turkey. The buffer zone is meant to prevent clashes between Turkey and U.S.-backed Kurdish forces. It is also aimed at preventing Assad’s forces and Iran-backed fighters from seizing more territory.

The US will also seek to preserve militants – many of which are openly aligned with designated terrorist organizations – still occupying the northern Syrian governorate of Idlib.

While the US has certainly failed in its goal of regime change in Syria and even as it appears weak and confused regarding its policy in Syria and the Middle East in general – its potential to prolong the Syrian conflict and leave the nation more or less permanently divided persists.

Iran is in Syria for Good 

President Assad’s visit to Iran was not only a symbolic gesture of gratitude for Iran’s role in helping Syria prevail over US aggression – it is also a clear sign that Iranian influence has only grown in Syria. Iranian-backed militias have spread across both Syria and Iraq to confront US and Persian Gulf-backed terrorists including various factions of Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) itself.

Washington’s gamble banked on what it had hoped would be a relatively quick regime change operation following along the same lines as the US-backed proxy war in Libya. The Syrian government was meant to fold quickly – the US appears not to have anticipated its resilience nor the eventual Russian military intervention in 2015. Washington may also not have anticipated the scale and efficacy of the commitment made by Tehran.

Instead of liquidating one of Iran’s allies thus further isolating Tehran ahead of US-backed regime change efforts aimed directly at Iran – the terrorist proxies the US and its regional partners sponsored in Syria served as impetus for Tehran to broaden and deepen the presence of its forces – including militias sponsored by Iran – across the region, and specifically in Syria and Iraq.

US policy papers predating the 2011 proxy war against Syria – including the RAND Corporation’s 2009 publication titled, “Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East,” noted that much of Iran’s domestic and regional policies revolved around self-defense.

The RAND paper itself would note:

Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.

RAND also noted Iran’s preference for asymmetrical warfare over conventional military forces and the use of resistance militias across the region. The report would note:

Some of Iran’s asymmetric capabilities are threatening. Because of its inferior conventional military forces, Iran’s defense doctrine, particularly its ability to deter aggressors, relies heavily on asymmetric warfare. Iranian strategists favor guerilla efforts that offer superior mobility, fighting morale, and popular support (e.g., the Hezbollah model in Lebanon) to counter a technologically superior conventional power— namely, the United States.

These militias would end up playing a significant role in neutralizing both asymmetrical forces sponsored by the US and its regional partners, as well as conventional military forces deployed by the US and Europe in both Syria and Iraq. It is clear that US policymakers were aware of Iran’s capabilities – and either ignored them or believed their own plans had sufficiently accounted for them.

Iran’s significant and long-term investments in sponsoring resistance forces including Hezbollah and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) across the Middle East coupled with Russia’s significant conventional military capabilities left little chance for success for US-sponsored militants – with Russia’s role in Syria preventing a more muscular conventional military response from the US when its proxy forces began to crumble.

The US and its regional partners – particularly Israel – have expressed a determination to dislodge the growing Iranian presence their own proxy war on Syria necessitated. However, despite repeated Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory – it is clear that such airstrikes alone will accomplish very little and in the long-term even signals weakness that will only further rally Iran’s allies, justify their continued expansion across the region, and further broaden and deepen their positions well beyond Iran’s own borders – making a US-led regime change war against Iran itself a more remote possibility than ever.

America’s Flagging Unipolar Order 

The US faces an ignominious retreat from the Middle East – as well as from other areas around the globe. Its refusal to shift from its 20th century unipolar hegemonic ambitions to a constructive 21st century multipolar player may be closing permanently windows of opportunity that will cost it significantly as others displace its influence and reach in regions like the Middle East.Russia and Iran are clearly benefactors of Washington’s stubbornness. But as Russia and Iran have both repeatedly expressed a desire for more constructive relations with the United States – perhaps policymakers in Washington believe they can risk pursuing destructive hegemonic ambitions to carve out or coerce from the region the best position possible in the Middle East before coming to the table to negotiate.

More likely though – the world is witnessing a 21st century rendition of the British Empire’s withdrawal from around the globe, stubbornly being thrown out of one corner of its realm after the other until relegated as Washington’s subordinate. For Washington, there is no other Western power for it to hand the torch of Western imperialism over to. Once it is evicted from around the globe, it will struggle to find a relevant or more constructive role to play in these regions ever again.By virtue of Washington’s shortsightedness and its inability to adapt to the world as it really is versus how Washington desires it to be – Washington has proven itself unfit to lead the “international order” it presumes dominion over.In a global order predicated on “might makes right,” Washington is now faced with the reality of no longer being mightiest, and thus no longer “right.”Iran’s patient and measured resistance has proven capable of challenging and rolling back American hegemony in the Middle East and serving the ultimate goal of Tehran’s asymmetrical strategy – the defense of Iran itself.

While the prospect of US war with Iran can never be fully ruled out, it is a possibility that appears to be fading into the distance as US power wanes regionally and globally. But a flagging empire is a desperate empire. While the days of US regime change wars burning a path of destruction across the Middle East appear to be over, continued patience and persistence must be maintained by Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies to ensure the victories they are celebrating today endure and are expanded upon well into the future.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Assad’s Tehran Visit Signals Iran’s Victory in Syria
  • Tags: , ,

Elated, with the single-mindedness of the “We” of the many, suddenly aware of its power, the crowd pours out of the narrow street in which it was crammed, to the spacious Place de la Republique while singing the Marseillaise. It is by far the most popular song among Yellow Vests.

The second most popular is the WWII partisans’ song (Chant des Partisans), though with slightly changed lyrics. Now the song calls for the “toothless”, the “illiterate”, the “slackers”, the “stubborn Gaullois”– as Macron and his servants called the people who refuse to embrace his “reforms” – to rise against the Financial Elite, sparing not tears and blood, just as the French patriots did when they fought against the Germans. Occasionally you can also hear them singing the Internationale, which, anyway, was an adaptation of the Marseillaise.

Originally the song of the French Revolution, La Marseillaise is now the official national anthem of France. It calls “les enfants (the children) de la patrie”, the “citizens” to “take up arms” and raise the “bloody banners” against “tyranny” as the “day of glory” has arrived.

The ghost of the revolution

There is a one dominant analogy which is drawn, indirectly but explicitly by all –  whether by discussing with representatives of the French establishment or by watching the Yellow Vests’ demonstrations or by listening to the slogans and songs of the protesters here in France, the analogy is strongly felt throughout the last three months during which this original movement, despite the unavoidable fatigue, continues its mobilizations, taking by storm the French rural and peri-urban areas, several provincial cities, while now it also attempts to penetrate the “Suburbs”, the forts of the French working class.

The inescapable comparison which appears in a variety of forms, be they planned or spontaneous, is the Great French Revolution of 1789.

Its ghosts seem to haunt the French and their country. Whether it is because they want to dispel its notion or draw inspiration from it, I am not sure, but in the end, this is the analogy which, one way or another, is drawn by everyone; both the demonstrators and those siding with the government.

Anyone who wants to make a political argument sound convincing in today’s France, is rushing to “borrow” a character or a symbol of 1789. “You’re like Mirabeau” a “leftist” critic said lashing out at Mélenchon the other day, accusing him of being overly compromising.

Either through symbols and historical analogies or collective memory, the memory has been passed down through ten generations of the French people. The mother of Europe and modern Democracy faces now up to its past, in search of its future.

France, all of its classes – save perhaps for the English-speaking managers of French multinational corporations and some extreme neo-liberals and neoconservatives who are ashamed of their country’s history – remains inherently proud of its Revolution, even if it shudders at its memory.

The hour of tear gas

Although the Marseillaise announces the coming of the day of glory, for the time being, it is only the “hour of tear gas,” as canisters hellishly rain down upon the demonstration as it leaves the Place de la Republique. “Damn you” I say, talking to myself, having spotted Eric Drouet, the lorry driver who became a “star” of the Vests’ movement, but unable to catch up to get an interview with him. I was caught in the rampage which scattered the crowd, some of us fleeing to refuge and others pushing on.

Drouet has a few hundred thousand followers on his Facebook page and is now becoming as difficult to talk to as it is to talk to the Prime Minister.

But the tear gas these days in France is no joke. There are many who started their day that morning with both their eyes and arms ending in the evening in a hospital one of these appendages missing.  The police’s crackdown is of course a double-edged sword, having already been condemned by Amnesty International, law experts and government MPs.

On the one hand, it discourages some people from joining the demonstrations but on the other it inspires anger. At the same time, police officers seem to have reached their limit, having spent days and nights in the streets over the last three months, counting injuries without getting paid overtime in order to suppress the demonstrators, among whom they might find their own wives!

*

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

In Memory of Dave Vasey who knew first-hand about official callousness toward life in the small town of Walkerton where people died needlessly of water contamination. Dave dedicated his too short life to fighting against climate injustice, militarization, and the austerity state.

***

I read the Canadian news today: “Pipeline expansion should be approved: regulator.”

Regulators ignorantly, negligently, criminally, and in contempt of life, yet again gave the go-ahead to money over incontestable science. Liberal democratic Canada is in league with Brazil’s military dictatorship and the Lima Group in overthrowing the Maduro government in Venezuela, and in deforesting the “lungs of the earth.” Theirs is a triple crime, of thrice proliferating greenhouse gas emissions at this time of the Earth’s sixth great extinction event. Venezuela is all about oil. The pipelines transport high emitting diluted bitumen from the tar sands, and Jair Bolsonaro aims to expand biofuel production (and criminalize the Landless Peasant Movement). These mega-projects involve deforestation of the boreal forest and the tropical Amazon rainforest, destroying the Earth’s major terrestrial carbon sink and amplifying the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Informed Consent

Are these arbiters of life on Earth, Justin Trudeau, Jair Bolsonaro et al, subject to the Nuremberg laws on individual responsibility, with the implication that decision-makers need to be fully informed and not just claim to follow orders? The legal underpinnings of the doctrine of informed consent upholds a standard of knowledge. It came out of the Tuskegee experiments in which Black men were not informed that they were subjects of a medical experiment.

The legal norm of knowledge was based on breast cancer cases in which it was found that women at all levels of education could be fully informed about the state of knowledge about breast cancer and its treatments. Unfortunately, in the sociopathic mill of American legality, “informed consent” in medical practice and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People turned into its exact opposite – a perfunctory formality, a checklist document that protects power from countersuits. Yet the critical importance of knowing is central. The “ostrich defense,” burying one’s head in the sand, and evasion through plausible deniability, are fundamentally dishonest.

The decisions around pipelines, the tar sands, and deforestation of the boreal and tropical forests, reflect extreme disregard of facts about the state of the climate. Alarmingly, not-knowing, for multiple reasons, characterizes all levels of governmental and nongovernmental bodies. Willful disregard for the full facts also applies to the new standard set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Congress of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 12-year time line aiming to cap temperature rise at 1.5°C ignores the very dynamics of the climate system and the hegemonic principles espoused in the political/economic system. Their climate predictions leave out the dynamics of amplifying feedbacks and are also skewed by leaving out the extent of ice melt in the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctica. The predictions do not include the evidence from the paleoclimate record, which indicates that current greenhouse gas concentrations correlate with alarmingly higher temperatures and sea-level rise, and that in the past, climate change occurred in rapid shifts.

There is a grandiose sense of omnipotence at work, as if this is still the best of all possible worlds, while all evidence points to the inevitable, irreversible melting of all Earth’s ice, and the inevitable mass migrations that will be necessary.

A Barrel of Oil Trumps a Human Life

At the base is the belief that all can be commodified and monetized. The same unit of measurement is used to price a barrel of oil and human life. It is the exchange value of a person’s life, and the barrel of oil has more value in this society. Jonathan Schell, writing about nuclear weapons,1 describes the exterminism of liberal civilization. Nuclearism did not arise “to face extraordinary danger whether from Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union, but for more deep-seated, unarticulated reasons growing out of its own, freely chosen conceptions of national security… an intrinsic element of the dominant liberal civilization itself – an evil that first grew and still grows from within that civilization rather than being imposed from without.” Schell writes of the “pointless slaughter and destructive fury from the midst of that same liberal civilization.”

In liberalism as infamously enunciated by Margaret Thatcher, there is no such thing as society. More problematic than people’s relationship to the environment is people’s relationship with each other and what to do about power. In much of English literature, even family ties are torn asunder. The main child characters are orphaned or sacrificed for power. 16th century Shakespeare wrote of Romeo and Juliet’s cruel parents, Cordelia’s death due to her narcissistic father King Lear, child-killers Macbeth and entitled Richard III. In Anglophone countries, there is a long history of separating children from their families. 18th century Jonathan Swift wrote of the anti-human, monetized underside of Enlightenment thinking: “A Modest Proposal” recommended that parents could relieve themselves of the responsibility of caring for their children by selling them for food to rich people. What a contrast to writers of former British colonies like Rohinton Mistry who sensitively portrays ordinary decency and caring in the novel Family Matters. Climate historians Bonneuil and Fressoz identify the very specific causes of the climate catastrophe as coming from the British political economic order under liberalism, and that “Anglocene” more helpfully clarifies this era than Anthropocene.

Who do I mean by “et al”? They are people in positions of influence and power who have not taken it upon themselves to be fully informed about the state of the climate or of society: the National Energy Board, corporate shareholders, pension boards, international financial institutions, private banks, and the military/industrial/security complex. How many people in the government have read James Hansen’s 2009 book Storms of My Grandchildren, explaining the climate system? Can they explain climate sensitivity, amplifying feedbacks, carbon sinks, or paleoclimate findings? Do they know what is exempt under the Kyoto Protocol? My experience is that they cannot answer these questions. Do they even know about the Nuclear Ban Treaty and that their ignorance and inaction cause premature death?

*

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

Judith Deutsch is a member of Independent Jewish Voices, and former president of Science for Peace. She is a psychoanalyst in Toronto. She can be reached at [email protected].

First published on October 30, 2014

For many years after the Vietnam War, we enjoyed the “Vietnam syndrome,” in which US presidents hesitated to launch substantial military attacks on other countries. They feared intense opposition akin to the powerful movement that helped bring an end to the war in Vietnam. But in 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush declared, “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!”

With George W. Bush’s wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Barack Obama’s drone wars in seven Muslim-majority countries and his escalating wars in Iraq and Syria, we have apparently moved beyond the Vietnam syndrome. By planting disinformation in the public realm, the government has built support for its recent wars, as it did with Vietnam.

Now the Pentagon is planning to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War by launching a $30 million program to rewrite and sanitize its history. Replete with a fancy interactive website, the effort is aimed at teaching schoolchildren a revisionist history of the war. The program is focused on honoring our service members who fought in Vietnam. But conspicuously absent from the website is a description of the antiwar movement, at the heart of which was the GI movement.

Thousands of GIs participated in the antiwar movement. Many felt betrayed by their government. They established coffee houses and underground newspapers where they shared information about resistance. During the course of the war, more than 500,000 soldiers deserted. The strength of the rebellion of ground troops caused the military to shift to an air war. Ultimately, the war claimed the lives of 58,000 Americans. Untold numbers were wounded and returned with post-traumatic stress disorder. In an astounding statistic, more Vietnam veterans have committed suicide than were killed in the war.

Millions of Americans, many of us students on college campuses, marched, demonstrated, spoke out, sang and protested against the war. Thousands were arrested and some, at Kent State and Jackson State, were killed. The military draft and images of dead Vietnamese galvanized the movement. On November 15, 1969, in what was the largest protest demonstration in Washington, DC, at that time, 250,000 people marched on the nation’s capital, demanding an end to the war. Yet the Pentagon’s website merely refers to it as a “massive protest.”

But Americans weren’t the only ones dying. Between 2 and 3 million Indochinese – in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia – were killed. War crimes – such as the My Lai massacre – were common. In 1968, US soldiers slaughtered 500 unarmed old men, women and children in the Vietnamese village of My Lai. Yet the Pentagon website refers only to the “My Lai Incident,” despite the fact that it is customarily referred to as a massacre.

One of the most shameful legacies of the Vietnam War is the US military’s use of the deadly defoliant Agent Orange, dioxin. The military sprayed it unsparingly over much of Vietnam’s land. An estimated 3 million Vietnamese still suffer the effects of those deadly chemical defoliants. Tens of thousands of US soldiers were also affected. It has caused birth defects in hundreds of thousands of children, both in Vietnam and the United States. It is currently affecting the second and third generations of people directly exposed to Agent Orange decades ago. Certain cancers, diabetes, and spina bifida and other serious birth defects can be traced to Agent Orange exposure. In addition, the chemicals destroyed much of the natural environment of Vietnam; the soil in many “hot spots” near former US army bases remains contaminated.

In the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973, the Nixon administration pledged to contribute $3 billion toward healing the wounds of war and the post-war reconstruction of Vietnam. That promise remains unfulfilled.

Despite the continuing damage and injury wrought by Agent Orange, the Pentagon website makes scant mention of “Operation Ranch Hand.” It says that from 1961 to 1971, the US sprayed 18 million gallons of chemicals over 20 percent of South Vietnam’s jungles and 36 percent of its mangrove forests. But the website does not cite the devastating effects of that spraying.

The incomplete history contained on the Pentagon website stirred more than 500 veterans of the US peace movement during the Vietnam era to sign a petition to Lt. Gen. Claude M. “Mick” Kicklighter. It asks that the official program “include viewpoints, speakers and educational materials that represent a full and fair reflection of the issues which divided our country during the war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.” The petition cites the “many thousands of veterans” who opposed the war, the “draft refusals of many thousands of young Americans,” the “millions who exercised their rights as American citizens by marching, praying, organizing moratoriums, writing letters to Congress,” and “those who were tried by our government for civil disobedience or who died in protests.” And, the petition says, “very importantly, we cannot forget the millions of victims of the war, both military and civilian, who died in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, nor those who perished or were hurt in its aftermath by land mines, unexploded ordnance, Agent Orange and refugee flight.”

Antiwar activists who signed the petition include Tom Hayden and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. “All of us remember that the Pentagon got us into this war in Vietnam with its version of the truth,” Hayden said in an interview with The New York Times. “If you conduct a war, you shouldn’t be in charge of narrating it,” he added.

Veterans for Peace (VFP) is organizing an alternative commemoration of the Vietnam War. “One of the biggest concerns for us,” VFP executive director Michael McPhearson told the Times, “is that if a full narrative is not remembered, the government will use the narrative it creates to continue to conduct wars around the world – as a propaganda tool.”

Indeed, just as Lyndon B. Johnson used the manufactured Tonkin Gulf incident as a pretext to escalate the Vietnam War, George W. Bush relied on mythical weapons of mass destruction to justify his war on Iraq, and the “war on terror” to justify his invasion of Afghanistan. And Obama justifies his drone wars by citing national security considerations, even though he creates more enemies of the United States as he kills thousands of civilians. ISIS and Khorasan (which no one in Syria heard of until about three weeks ago) are the new enemies Obama is using to justify his wars in Iraq and Syria, although he admits they pose no imminent threat to the United States. The Vietnam syndrome has been replaced by the “Permanent War.”

It is no cliché that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. Unless we are provided an honest accounting of the disgraceful history of the US war on Vietnam, we will be ill equipped to protest the current and future wars conducted in our name.

Copyright, Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Commemorating the Vietnam War, 8 March 1965: US Government Sanitizes Vietnam War History

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham will continue its attacks on the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russian forces around Idlib province, a spokesman for the terrorist group said in an official video message released on March 6. Abu Khalid al-Shami threatened that the SAA and Russian forces with “long dark nights” and “black days stained with blood.”

This statement came in response to a recent resumption of SAA strikes on terror infrastructure of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies in the province.

An acute humanitarian crisis is developing in the Rukban refugee camp, which is located near the US military garrison in al-Tanf. On March 5, the Russian Defense Ministry released satellite images showing the real living conditions in the camp.

  • A waste deposit is located in close proximity to the living accommodations.
  • A notable part of the camp is tents and sheds, which means that no conditions allowing a permanent residence of thousands of people have been created.
  • No subsistence warehouses or meal stations are being observed.
  • Food and other goods can be get only in pop-up markets controlled by militants.

The Russian military said that US-backed forces are preventing civilians from leaving the site. It stressed that the Rukban area is no more a refugee camp. It is a reservation area with hostages.

The Russian side pointed out that the US military is opposing to the evacuation of civilians and spreading rumors that they will be persecuted by the Damascus government. US-backed militants demand notable sums in USD from people who want to leave the camp.

The statement added that about 35,000 people have declared their readiness to return to the government-controlled part of the country.

Earlier in March, Deputy Spokesperson of the US State Department said that Washington is against the Syrian-Russian plan to evacuate people from the area because it does not meet “protection standards”. Nonetheless, he did not point out what standards are being met by the living conditions created for refugees by US-backed forces in Rukban.

On March 6, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to deploy Israeli warships to help tackle suspected Iranian efforts to continue export oil via maritime routes to skirt US sanctions. Netanyahu stressed that Israeli sailors are well-trained and adept at carrying out sea missions against adversaries. However, he failed to explain how a relatively small Israeli naval force is going to block maritime routes used by Iran. Most likely, the Israeli Prime Minister expects that in the event of a naval confrontation with Iran, the Israeli force will be directly supported by the US Navy. This would explain where Israel is going to find resources to achieve a victory in a supposed standoff.

While this kind of statements are a common practice for Israeli politicians exploiting tensions with Iran to score some political points, they also show that Israel may have been planning to expand its military actions against Iranian and Iranian backed forces outside the Syrian battleground.

*

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

Women’s Day 2019: Selected Articles

March 8th, 2019 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Women’s Day 2019: Selected Articles

A popular Indian online media outlet published a piece purporting that part of one of the Pakistani Prime Minister’s latest speeches was intended to “exploit India’s fault lines under Modi’s rule”, which implies that the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” is taking a page from its American ally’s infowar playbook by concocting a Russiagate-like hysteria ahead of general elections this May designed to deflect attention away from India’s many domestic troubles by making it taboo to talk them lest one inadvertently ‘plays into Pakistan’s hands’.

The Quint, a popular Indian online information outlet, published a piece titled “How Imran Khan Is Exploiting India’s Fault Lines Under Modi’s Rule” which puppets that the Pakistani Prime Minister tailored part of one of his recent speeches in such a way as to meddle in India’s domestic affairs ahead of its upcoming elections this May. The article admittedly makes some interesting points by analyzing the historic and political contexts of PM Khan’s words that he specifically addressed to the Indian audience, but it would be amiss to suggest that this amounts to “exploiting India’s fault lines” in the way that’s implied within the text.

It’s veritably true that India is an ultra-diverse country and that the many preexisting identity fault lines that it inherited since independence are widening at a worrying pace under the majoritarian rule of the Hindutva ideologues led by Prime Minister Modi, but it doesn’t amount to “exploitation” for anyone — whether a citizen or non-citizen alike — to hint at that fact or directly talk about it. Actually, it’s contradictory to the democratic principles upon which the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” claims to espouse to believe that the expression of one’s freedom of speech in that manner is anything nefarious.

There’s no doubt that state and non-state actors sometimes do abuse those freedoms in order to destabilize targeted states per the modus operandi of Hybrid Wars, but PM Khan’s commentary on the situation in his country’s neighbor and especially the occupied region of Kashmir doesn’t fit the criteria of weaponized rhetoric. To claim otherwise, like is being implied in The Quint’s piece, is to take a page from the infowar playbook of India’s American ally to concoct a Russiagate-like hysteria that could troublingly make it taboo to talk about India’s manifold domestic problems lest one inadvertently “plays into Pakistan’s hands”.

Trump’s public and “deep state” foes have been alleging for over two and a half years already that RT’s hosting of dissident American voices and its critical coverage of the US’ many domestic problems was tantamount to “meddling” in the country’s affairs so as to “hack” the 2016 election in Trump’s favor, similar to what The Quint implied that PM Khan was doing with one of his latest speeches by directly addressing the Indian people ahead of their national elections in May in order supposedly to tip the scales against Modi. This is a very dangerous narrative to introduce into Indian society because it runs the risk of pressuring people to self-censor their constructive criticism of the contemporary state of affairs in their country, which some believe have become much more divisive because of the BJP’s demagogic divide-and-rule re-election strategy and not due to anything having to do with Pakistan or PM Khan.

India is already plagued by WhatsApp-driven mob lynchings, so it’s not far-fetched to imagine that dissidents who publicly express the aforementioned observation about the root cause of India’s hyper-partisan political environment and worsening identity differences could become the next targets of ultra-jingoist mob violence on the basis that they’re “Pakistani agents” or at the very least “useful idiots”. The BJP community leaders who manage massive WhatsApp groups might also deliberately spread fake news in this respect about their political opponents in order to incite their indoctrinated minions into attacking those people or their followers, following the cow lynching model that they’re suspected of successfully employing against Muslims.

Not only is this terrifying from humanitarian and democratic perspectives, but it’s also counterproductive from a pragmatic one because it will only lead to the worsening of those said fault lines instead of making any progress on fixing them, which could ultimately culminate in the creation of many “mini-Kashmirs” all across the country in the worst-case scenario. Therefore, instead of pointing to PM Khan and painting him as a Hybrid War boogeyman per the US’ infowar playbook of copying and pasting the Russiagate fake news narrative into an Indian context, the country would do best to look inward when searching for the source of its many worsening fault lines and prioritizing addressing them before it’s too late.

*

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 Business Today

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India’s Taking a Page from Its American Ally by Accusing Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan of “Meddling”
  • Tags: ,

Recent Buzzfeed reports about WWF hiring ‘paramilitary forces’ to fight poaching and the associated human rights abuses of local peoples show the urgent need for a shift in current conservation models.

Forest Peoples Programme Director, James Whitehead today said:

“To protect the world’s forests and wildlife while respecting the rights of those who have lived for generations in these areas we need a fundamental change in the approach taken to conservation globally.”

“The National Park model of excluding indigenous peoples and local communities is fundamentally flawed – we have witnessed countless examples of human rights abuses in conservation projects, stretching back to our formation in the 1990s.”

Yet conservation and human rights are not intrinsically opposed. There is mounting evidence that conservation based on respect for the rights of traditional owners of the lands is more effective than exclusionary protected areas. For example, in the Amazon deforestation is between 2 and 6 times lower in areas where indigenous people have land rights.

Despite the long-standing formal commitments of WWF and many other conservation agencies to respect human rights, the reality experienced by many communities on the ground is very different and the abuses very real.

“With so much information now in the public domain, governments, conservationists and donors cannot ignore these abuses,” said Whitehead.

”At this time of threats from climate change and environmental destruction, the need to place conservation in the hands of those well placed to ensure the worlds biodiversity is secured is critical,” he added.

“Now is the time for a real shift to a conservation model that works to uphold and extend the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.”

FPP calls on the donor community to step up and ensure that none of their funding results in rights abuses and that it in fact invests in the types of conservation that strengthens the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and ultimately provides the most effective protection for our natural environments.

*

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

Featured image is from Forest Peoples Programme

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Human Rights Abuses Can No Longer be Tolerated in Conserving the World’s Forests
  • Tags: ,

The identities of civil servants who investigated British involvement in India’s Golden Temple massacre will remain secret, despite concerns that they could have potentially tampered with key evidence.

An anonymity order from the Information Commissioner means the government will not have to admit whether top officials active during the massacre were later allowed to control what files investigators saw.

The commissioner made the ruling after Whitehall claimed its staff could be targeted on social media which “may cause them distress.”

Indian troops shelled the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984, in a military operation against Sikh dissidents who were occupying their faith’s holiest site.

Hundreds if not thousands of Sikh pilgrims perished in the cross-fire.

In 2014, newly declassified British government files revealed that Margaret Thatcher had sent an SAS officer to advise Indian commanders how to raid the temple just months before the operation unfolded.

The revelation caused outrage among British Sikhs and then-prime minister David Cameron immediately launched a review — although he stopped short of ordering a full public inquiry.

Mr Cameron’s in-house review was conducted at breakneck speed by a Cabinet Office team and absolved the British military of any wrongdoing.

His probe claimed that the SAS role was “limited” and the officer’s advice was not heeded.

Sikh groups branded the review a “whitewash” and it later emerged that the Cabinet Office had not been given access to a crucial special forces file.

Concerns escalated further when Whitehall admitted in 2017 that it had allowed retired diplomats to select what files the Cabinet Office team saw.

The government then refused to rule out whether these ex-diplomats included a man called Bruce Cleghorn.

Just before the massacre Mr Cleghorn wrote a secret Foreign Office memo in 1984 about “the threat of Sikh terrorism,” warning:

“It would be dangerous if HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] were to become identified, in the minds of Sikhs in the UK, with some more determined action by the Indian government, in particular any attempt to storm the Golden Temple in Amritsar.”

Mr Cleghorn later went on to become a British ambassador before taking on a more low profile role at the Foreign Office as a “sensitivity reviewer,” vetting the department’s old files before they are released to the National Archives.

He was working in this sensitivity reviewer role in 2014 when the prime minister ordered the probe.

The Foreign Office has confirmed that its sensitivity reviewers were tasked with selecting files for the PM’s probe.

However, the department has refused to answer a freedom of information request by the Morning Star which asked if Mr Cleghorn himself was allowed to select files.

The Foreign Office told the Information Commissioner that the probe was “a significant and emotive issue for the Sikh community and if the identity of the sensitivity reviewers involved in the review were released then this could lead to significant activity on social media that could lead to them receiving attention that may cause them distress.”

In making her decision, Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said “even the perception of a possible conflict of interest adds weight to the argument” that the Foreign Office should reveal who took part in the review.

However, the Commissioner ultimately concluded that Mr Cleghorn’s right to privacy outweighed the public interest in knowing whether the probe’s integrity was tainted.

The decision has outraged Slough Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi.

He told the Morning Star:

“There seems to be a serious conflict of interest at the heart of the review into the British government’s involvement with the 1984 massacre at Sri Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple) Amritsar.

“Given the enormous loss of life, there is overwhelming public interest in ensuring the government conducts the most transparent investigation.

“To ensure justice, I reiterate the demand for an independent inquiry, which I’m proud to say the Labour Party manifesto called for in 2017.”

*

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 Morning Star

I still do not know what happened in the Skripal saga, which perhaps might more respectfully be termed the Sturgess saga. I cannot believe the Russian account of Boshirov and Petrov, because if those were their real identities, those identities would have been firmly established and displayed by now. But that does not mean they attempted to kill the Skripals, and there are many key elements to the official British account which are also simply incredible.

Governments play dark games, and a dark game was played out in Salisbury which involved at least the British state, Russian agents (possibly on behalf of the state), Orbis Intelligence and the BBC. Anybody who believes it is simple to identify the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in this situation is a fool. When it comes to state actors and the intelligence services, frequently there are no “good guys”, as I personally witnessed from the inside over torture, extraordinary rendition and the illegal invasion of Iraq. But in the face of a massive media campaign to validate the British government story about the Skripals, here are ten of the things I do not believe in the official account:

1) PURE

This was the point that led me to return to the subject of the Skripals, even though it has brought me more abuse than I had received in my 15 year career as a whistleblower.

A few months ago, I was in truth demoralised by the amount of abuse I was receiving about the collapse of the Russian identity story of Boshirov and Petrov. I had never claimed the poisoning, if any, was not carried out by Russians, only that there were many other possibilities. I understood the case against the Russian state is still far from established, whoever Boshirov and Petrov really are, and I did not (and do not) accept Bellingcat’s conjectures and dodgy evidence as conclusive identification. But I did not enjoy at all the constant online taunts, and therefore was not inclined to take the subject further.

It is in this mood that I received more information from my original FCO source, who had told me, correctly, that Porton Down could not and would not attest that the “novichok” sample was made in Russia, and explained that the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” was an agreed Whitehall line to cover this up.

She wanted to explain to me that the British government was pulling a similar trick over the use of the word “pure”. The OPCW report had concluded that the sample provided to them by the British government was “of high purity” with an “almost complete absence of impurities”. This had been spun by the British government as evidence that the novichok was “military grade” and could only be produced by a state.

But actually that is not what the OPCW technical experts were attempting to signal. The sample provided to the OPCW had allegedly been swabbed from the Skripals’ door handle. It had been on that door handle for several days before it was allegedly discovered there. In that time it had been contacted allegedly by the hands of the Skripals and of DC Bailey, and the gloves of numerous investigators. It had of course been exposed to whatever film of dirt or dust was on the door handle. It had been exposed to whatever pollution was in the rain and whatever dust and pollen was blowing around. In these circumstances, it is incredible that the sample provided “had an almost complete absence of impurities”.

A sample cannot have a complete absence of impurities after being on a used doorknob, outdoors, for several days. The sample provided was, on the contrary, straight out of a laboratory.

The government’s contention that “almost complete absence of impurities” meant “military grade” was complete nonsense. There is no such thing as “military grade” novichok. It has never been issued to any military, anywhere. The novichok programme was designed to produce an organo-phosphate poison which could quickly be knocked up from readily available commercial ingredients. It was not part of an actual defence industry manufacturing programme.

There is a final problem with the “of high purity” angle. First we had the Theresa May story that the “novichok” was extremely deadly, many times more deadly than VX, in minute traces. Then, when the Skripals did not die, it was explained to us that this was because it had degraded in the rain. This was famously put forward by Dan Kaszeta, formerly of US Intelligence and the White House and self-proclaimed chemical weapons expert – which expertise has been strenuously denied by real experts.

What we did not know then, but we do know now, is that Kaszeta was secretly being paid to produce this propaganda by the British government via the Integrity Initiative.

So the first thing I cannot believe is that the British government produced a sample with an “almost complete absence of impurities” from several days on the Skripals’ doorknob. Nor can I believe that if “extremely pure” the substance therefore was not fatal to the Skripals.

2) Raising the Roof

Three days ago Sky News had an outside broadcast from the front of the Skripals’ house in Salisbury, where they explained that the roof had been removed and replaced due to contamination with “novichok”.

I cannot believe that a gel, allegedly smeared or painted onto the doorknob, migrated upwards to get into the roof of a two storey house, in such a manner that the roof had to be destroyed, but the house inbetween did not. As the MSM never questions the official narrative, there has never been an official answer as to how the gel got from the doorknob to the roof. Remember that traces of the “novichok” were allegedly found in a hotel room in Poplar, which is still in use as a hotel room and did not have to be destroyed, and an entire bottle of it was allegedly found in Charlie Rowley’s house, which has not had to be destroyed. Novichok was found in Zizzi’s restaurant, which did not have to be destroyed.

So we are talking about novichok in threatening quantities – more than the traces allegedly found in the hotel in Poplar – being in the Skripals’ roof. How could this happen?

As I said in the onset, I do not know what happened, I only know what I do not believe. There are theories that Skripal and his daughter might themselves have been involved with novichok in some way. On the face of it, its presence in their roof might support that theory.

The second thing I do not believe is that the Skripals’ roof became contaminated by gel on their doorknob so that the roof had to be destroyed, whereas no other affected properties, nor the rest of the Skripals’ house, had to be destroyed.

3) Nursing Care

The very first person to discover the Skripals ill on a park bench in Salisbury just happened to be the Chief Nurse of the British Army, who chanced to be walking past them on her way back from a birthday party. How lucky was that? The odds are about the same as the chance of my vacuum cleaner breaking down just before James Dyson knocks at my door to ask for directions. There are very few people indeed in the UK trained to give nursing care to victims of chemical weapon attack, and of all the people who might have walked past, it just happened to be the most senior of them!

Image result for Colonel Alison McCourt

The government is always trying to get good publicity for its armed forces, and you would think that the heroic role of its off-duty personnel in saving random poisoned Russian double agents they just happened to chance across, would have been proclaimed as a triumph for the British military. Yet it was kept secret for ten months. We were not told about the involvement of Colonel Alison McCourt (image on the right) until January of this year, when it came out by accident. Swollen with maternal pride, Col. McCourt nominated her daughter for an award from the local radio station for her role in helping give first aid to the Skripals, and young Abigail revealed her mother’s identity on local radio – and the fact her mother was there “with her” administering first aid.

Even then, the compliant MSM played along, with the Guardian and Sky News both among those running stories emphasising entirely the Enid Blyton narrative of “plucky teenager saves the Skripals”, and scarcely mentioning the Army’s Chief Nurse who was looking after the Skripals “with little Abigail”.

I want to emphasise again that Col. Alison McCourt is not the chief nurse of a particular unit or hospital, she is the Chief Nurse of the entire British Army. Her presence was kept entirely quiet by the media for ten months, when all sorts of stories were run in the MSM about who the first responders were – various doctors and police officers being mentioned.

If you believe that it is coincidence that the Chief Nurse of the British Army was the first person to discover the Skripals ill, you are a credulous fool. And why was it kept quiet?

4) Remarkable Metabolisms

This has been noted many times, but no satisfactory answer has ever been given. The official story is that the Skripals were poisoned by their door handle, but then well enough to go out to a pub, feed some ducks, and have a big lunch in Zizzi’s, before being instantly stricken and disabled, both at precisely the same time.

The Skripals were of very different ages, genders and weights. That an agent which took hours to act but then kicks in with immediate disabling effect, so they could not call for help, would affect two such entirely different metabolisms at precisely the same time, has never been satisfactorily explained. Dosage would have an effect and of course the doorknob method would give an uncontrolled dosage.

But that the two different random dosages were such that they affected each of these two very different people at just the same moment, so that neither could call for help, is an extreme coincidence. It is almost as unlikely as the person who walks by next being the Chief Nurse of the British Army.

5) 11 Days

Image result for rowley + sturgess

After the poisoning of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, the Police cordoned off Charlie Rowley’s home and began a search for “Novichok”, in an attitude of extreme urgency because it was believed this poison was out amidst the public. They were specifically searching for a small phial of liquid. Yet it took 11 days of the search before they allegedly discovered the “novichok” in a perfume bottle sitting in plain sight on the kitchen counter – and only after they had discovered the clue of the perfume bottle package in the bin the day before, after ten days of search.

The bottle was out of its packaging and “novichok”, of which the tiniest amount is deadly, had been squirted out of its nozzle at least twice, by both Rowley and Sturgess, and possibly more often. The exterior of the bottle/nozzle was therefore contaminated. Yet the house, unlike the Skripals’ roof space, has not had to be destroyed.

I do not believe it took the Police eleven days to find the very thing they were looking for, in plain sight as exactly the small bottle of liquid sought, on a kitchen bench. What else was happening?

6) Mark Urban/Pablo Miller

The BBC’s “Diplomatic Editor” is a regular conduit for the security services. He fronted much of the BBC’s original coverage of the Skripal story. Yet he concealed from the viewers the fact that he had been in regular contact with Sergei Skripal for months before the alleged poisoning, and had held several meetings with Skripal.

This is extraordinary behaviour. It was the biggest news story in the world, and news organisations, including the BBC, were scrambling to fill in the Skripals’ back story. Yet the journalist who had the inside info on the world’s biggest news story, and was actually reporting on it, kept that knowledge to himself. Why? Urban was not only passing up a career defining opportunity, it was unethical of him to continually report on the story without revealing to the viewers his extensive contacts with Skripal.

The British government had two immediate reactions to the Skripal incident. Within the first 48 hours, it blamed Russia, and it slapped a D(SMA) notice banning all media mention of Skripal’s MI6 handler, Pablo Miller. By yet another one of those extraordinary coincidences, Miller and Urban know each other well, having both been officers together in the Royal Tank Regiment, of the same rank and joining the Regiment the same year.

I have sent the following questions to Mark Urban, repeatedly. There has been no response:

To: [email protected]

Dear Mark,

As you may know, I am a journalist working in alternative media, a member of the NUJ, as well as a former British Ambassador. I am researching the Skripal case.

I wish to ask you the following questions.

1) When the Skripals were first poisoned, it was the largest news story in the entire World and you were uniquely positioned having held several meetings with Sergei Skripal the previous year. Yet faced with what should have been a massive career break, you withheld that unique information on a major story from the public for four months. Why?

2) You were an officer in the Royal Tank Regiment together with Skripal’s MI6 handler, Pablo Miller, who also lived in Salisbury. Have you maintained friendship with Miller over the years and how often do you communicate?

3) When you met Skripal in Salisbury, was Miller present all or part of the time, or did you meet Miller separately?

4) Was the BBC aware of your meetings with Miller and/or Skripal at the time?

5) When, four months later, you told the world about your meetings with Skripal after the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you said you had met him to research a book. Yet the only forthcoming book by you advertised is on the Skripal attack. What was the subject of your discussions with Skripal?

6) Pablo Miller worked for Orbis Intelligence. Do you know if Miller contributed to the Christopher Steele dossier on Trump/Russia?

7) Did you discuss the Trump dossier with Skripal and/or Miller?

8) Do you know whether Skripal contributed to the Trump dossier?

9) In your Newsnight piece following the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you stated that security service sources had told you that Yulia Skripal’s telephone may have been bugged. Since January 2017, how many security service briefings or discussions have you had on any of the matter above.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Craig Murray

The lack of openness of Urban in refusing to answer these questions, and the role played by the BBC and the MSM in general in marching in unquestioning lockstep with the British government narrative, plus the “coincidence” of Urban’s relationship with Pablo Miller, give further reason for scepticism of the official narrative.

7) Four Months

The official narrative insists that Boshirov and Petrov brought “novichok” into the country; that minute quantities could kill; that they disposed of the novichok that did kill Dawn Sturgess. It must therefore have been of the highest priority to inform the public of the movements of the suspects and the possible locations where deadly traces of “novichok” must be lurking.

Yet there was at least a four month gap between the police searching the Poplar hotel where Boshirov and Petrov were staying, allegedly discovering traces of novichok in the hotel room, and the police informing the hotel management, let alone the public, of the discovery. That is four months in which a cleaner might have fatally stumbled across more novichok in the hotel. Four months in which another guest in the same hotel might have had something lurking in their bag which they had picked up. Four months in which there might have been a container of novichok sitting in a hedge near the hotel. Yet for four months the police did not think any of this was urgent enough to tell anybody.

The astonishing thing is that it was a full three months after the death of Dawn Sturgess before the hotel were informed, the public were informed, or the pictures of “Boshirov” and “Petrov” in Salisbury released. There could be no clearer indication that the authorities did not actually believe that any threat from residual novichok was connected to the movements of Boshirov and Petrov.

Similarly the metadata on the famous CCTV images of Boshirov and Petrov in Salisbury, published in September by the Met Police, showed that all the stills were prepared by the Met on the morning of 9 May – a full four months before they were released to the public. But this makes no sense at all. Why wait a full four months for people’s memories to fade before issuing an appeal to the public for information? This makes no sense at all from an investigation viewpoint. It makes even less sense from a public health viewpoint.

If the authorities were genuinely worried about the possible presence of deadly novichok, and wished to track it down, why one earth would you wait for four months before you published the images showing the faces and clothing and the whereabouts of the people you believe were distributing it?

The only possible conclusion from the amazing four month delays both in informing the hotel, and in revealing the Boshirov and Petrov CCTV footage to the public, is that the Metropolitan Police did not actually believe there was a public health danger that the two had left a trail of novichok. Were the official story true, this extraordinary failure to take timely action in a public health emergency may have contributed to the death of Dawn Sturgess.

The metadat shows Police processed all the Salisbury CCTV images of Boshirov and Petrov a month before Charlie Rowley picked up the perfume. The authorities claim the CCTV images show they could have been to the charity bin to dump the novichok. Which begs the question, if the Police really believed they had CCTV of the movements of the men with the novichok, why did they not subsequently exhaustively search everywhere the CCTV shows they could have been, including that charity bin?

The far more probable conclusion appears to be that the lack of urgency is explained by the fact that the link between Boshirov and Petrov and “novichok” is a narrative those involved in the investigation do not take seriously.

8) The Bungling Spies

There are elements of the accepted narrative of Boshirov and Petrov’s movements that do not make sense. As the excellent local Salisbury blog the Blogmire points out, the CCTV footage shows Boshirov and Petrov, after they had allegedly coated the door handle with novichok, returning towards the railway station but walking straight past it, into the centre of Salisbury (and missing their first getaway train in the process). They then wander around Salisbury apparently aimlessly, famously window shopping which is caught on CCTV, and according to the official narrative disposing of the used but inexplicably still cellophane-sealed perfume/novichok in a charity donation bin, having walked past numerous potential disposal sites en route including the railway embankment and the bins at the Shell garage.

But the really interesting thing, highlighted by the blogmire, is that the closest CCTV ever caught them to the Skripals’ house is fully 500 metres, at the Shell garage, walking along the opposite side of the road from the turning to the Skripals. There is a second CCTV camera at the garage which would have caught them crossing the road and turning down towards the Skripals’ house, but no such video or still image – potentially the most important of all the CCTV footage – has ever been released.

However the 500 metres is not the closest the CCTV places the agents to the Skripals. From 13.45 to 13.48, on their saunter into town, Boshirov and Petrov were caught on CCTV at Dawaulders coinshop a maximum of 200 metres away from the Skripals, who at the same time were at Avon Playground. The bin at Avon playground became, over two days in the immediate aftermath of the Skripal “attack”, the scene of extremely intensive investigation. Yet the Boshirov and Petrov excursion – during their getaway from attempted murder – into Salisbury town centre has been treated as entirely pointless and unimportant by the official story.

Finally, the behaviour of Boshirov and Petrov in the early hours before the attack makes no sense whatsoever. On the one hand we are told these are highly trained, experienced and senior GRU agents; on the other hand, we are told they were partying in their room all night, drawing attention to themselves with loud noise, smoking weed and entertaining a prostitute in the room in which they were storing, and perhaps creating, the “novichok”.

The idea that, before an extremely delicate murder operation involving handling a poison, a tiny accident with which would kill them, professionals would stay up all night and drink heavily and take drugs is a nonsense. Apart from the obvious effect on their own metabolisms, they were risking authorities being called because of the noise and a search being instituted because of the drugs.

That they did this while in possession of the novichok and hours before they made the attack, is something I simply do not believe.

9) The Skripals’ Movements

Until the narrative changed to Boshirov and Petrov arriving in Salisbury just before lunchtime and painting the doorknob, the official story had been that the Skripals left home around 9am and had not returned. They had both switched off their mobile phones, an interesting and still unexplained point. As you would expect in a city as covered in CCTV as Salisbury, their early morning journey was easily traced and the position of their car at various times was given by the police.

Yet no evidence of their return journey has ever been offered. There is now a tiny window between Boshirov and Petrov arriving, painting the doorknob apparently with the Skripals now inexplicably back inside their home, and the Skripals leaving again by car, so quickly after the doorknob painting that they catch up with Boshirov and Petrov – or certainly being no more than 200 metres from them in Salisbury City Centre. There is undoubtedly a huge amount of CCTV video of the Skripals’ movements which has never been released. For example, the parents of one of the boys who Sergei was chatting with while feeding the ducks, was shown “clear” footage by the Police of the Skripals at the pond, yet this has never been released. This however is the moment at which the evidence puts Boshirov and Petrov at the closest to them. What does the concealed CCTV of the Skripals with the ducks show?

Why has so little detail of the Skripals’ movements that day been released? What do all the withheld CCTV images of the Skripals in Salisbury show?

10) The Sealed Bottle

Only in the last couple of days have the police finally admitted there is a real problem with the fact that Charlie Rowley insists that the perfume bottle was fully sealed, and the cellophane difficult to remove, when he discovered it. Why the charity collection bin had not been emptied for three months has never been explained either. Rowley’s recollection is supported by the fact that the entire packaging was discovered by the police in his bin – why would Boshirov and Petrov have been carrying the cellophane around with them if they had opened the package? Why – and how – would they reseal it outdoors in Salisbury before dumping it?

Furthermore, there was a gap of three months between the police finding the perfume bottle, and the police releasing details of the brand and photos of it, despite the fact the police believed there could be more out there. Again the news management agenda totally belies the official narrative of the need to protect the public in a public health emergency.

This part of the narrative is plainly nonsense.

Bonus Point – The Integrity Initiative

The Integrity Initiative specifically paid Dan Kaszeta to publish articles on the Skripal case. In the weekly collections of social media postings the Integrity Initiative sent to the FCO to show its activity, over 80% were about the Skripals.

Governments do not institute secret campaigns to put out covert propaganda in order to tell the truth. The Integrity Initiative, with secret FCO and MOD sourced subsidies to MSM figures to put out the government narrative, is very plainly a disinformation exercise. More bluntly, if the Integrity Initiative is promoting it, you know it is not true.

Most sinister of all is the Skripal Group convened by the Integrity Initiative. This group includes Pablo Miller, Skripal’s MI6 handler, and senior representatives of Porton Down, the BBC, the CIA, the FCO and the MOD. Even if all the other ludicrously weak points in the government narrative did not exist, the Integrity Initiative activity in itself would lead me to understand the British government is concealing something important.

Conclusion

I do not know what happened in Salisbury. Plainly spy games were being played between Russia and the UK, quite likely linked to the Skripals and/or the NATO chemical weapons exercise then taking place on Salisbury Plain yet another one of those astonishing coincidences.

What I do know is that major planks of the UK government narrative simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

Plainly the Russian authorities have lied about the identity of Boshirov and Petrov. What is astonishing is the alacrity with which the MSM and the political elite have rallied around the childish logical fallacy that because the Russian Government has lied, therefore the British Government must be telling the truth. It is abundantly plain to me that both governments are lying, and the spy games being played out that day were very much more complicated than a pointless revenge attack on the Skripals.

I do not believe the British Government. I have given you the key points where the official narrative completely fails to stand up. These are by no means exhaustive, and I much look forward to reading your own views.

*

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

In a devastating admission of system failure, the Metropolitan Police have said that criminal charges in the matter of the Grenfell Tower block conflagration in West London that killed 72 people on June 14th 2017, are now unlikely to brought until 2021 –  if at all.

Of course, those individuals responsible have presumably already now liquidated their assets and relocated abroad and those companies implicated have, no doubt, likewise re-arranged their assets, executives and professional advisors, accordingly.  Now, in the light of this unprecedented decision of system failure, they have another two years to complete their arrangements.

The facts of the matter are crystal clear.  Polymer foams have been known for over 40 years to be fire-accelerants and to emit deadly hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) gas when ignited.   This information has been in public domain for decades and all architects, surveyors, building inspectors, manufacturers and suppliers would have been well aware of the dangers of using such highly combustible and toxic material inside or outside any residential building in the UK, or anywhere else.

The documented dangers were deliberately ignored.  Seventy-two died as a result of gross negligence and no criminal charges have been brought to date.

It is a double catastrophe, for the bereaved, for Britain’s judicial system and for those tens of thousands who still live in buildings containing fire-accelerant polymer foam.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 2017 Grenfell Tower Conflagration in West London that killed 72 People: A Travesty of Justice as Grenfell Charges Unlikely for Yet Another Two Years!
  • Tags: ,

For most of the last five decades, it has been assumed that the Tonkin Gulf incident was a deception by Lyndon Johnson to justify war in Vietnam. But the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam on Aug. 4, 1964, in retaliation for an alleged naval attack that never happened — and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that followed was not a move by LBJ to get the American people to support a U.S. war in Vietnam.

The real deception on that day was that Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara’s misled LBJ by withholding from him the information that the U.S. commander in the Gulf — who had initially reported an attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on U.S. warships — had later expressed serious doubts about the initial report and was calling for a full investigation by daylight. That withholding of information from LBJ represented a brazen move to usurp the President’s constitutional power of decision on the use of military force.

Dean Rusk, Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert McNamara in Cabinet Room meeting February 1968. (Photo credit: Yoichi R. Okamoto, White House Press Office)

Image: Dean Rusk, Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert McNamara in Cabinet Room meeting February 1968. (Photo credit: Yoichi R. Okamoto, White House Press Office)

McNamara’s deception is documented in the declassified files on the Tonkin Gulf episode in the Lyndon Johnson library, which this writer used to piece together the untold story of the Tonkin Gulf episode in a 2005 book on the U.S. entry into war in Vietnam. It is a key element of a wider story of how the national security state, including both military and civilian officials, tried repeatedly to pressure LBJ to commit the United States to a wider  war in Vietnam.

Johnson had refused to retaliate two days earlier for a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. naval vessels carrying out electronic surveillance operations. But he accepted McNamara’s recommendation for retaliatory strikes on Aug. 4 based on reports of a second attack. But after that decision, the U.S. task force commander in the Gulf, Capt. John Herrick, began to send messages expressing doubt about the initial reports and suggested a “complete evaluation” before any action was taken in response.

McNamara had read Herrick’s message by mid-afternoon, and when he called the Pacific Commander, Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp Jr., he learned that Herrick had expressed further doubt about the incident based on conversations with the crew of the Maddox. Sharp specifically recommended that McNamara “hold this execute” of the U.S. airstrikes planned for the evening while he sought to confirm that the attack had taken place.

But McNamara told Sharp he preferred to “continue the execute order in effect” while he waited for “a definite fix” from Sharp about what had actually happened.

McNamara then proceeded to issue the strike execute order without consulting with LBJ about what he had learned from Sharp, thus depriving him of the choice of cancelling the retaliatory strike before an investigation could reveal the truth.

At the White House meeting that night, McNamara again asserted flatly that U.S. ships had been attacked in the Gulf.  When questioned about the evidence, McNamara said, “Only highly classified information nails down the incident.” But the NSA intercept of a North Vietnamese message that McNamara cited as confirmation could not possibly have been related to the Aug. 4 incident, as intelligence analysts quickly determined based from the time-date group of the message.

LBJ began to suspect that McNamara had kept vital information from him, and immediately ordered national security adviser McGeorge Bundy to find out whether the alleged attack had actually taken place and required McNamara’s office to submit a complete chronology of McNamara’s contacts with the military on Aug. 4 for the White House indicating what had transpired in each of them.

But that chronology shows that McNamara continued to hide the substance of the conversation with Admiral Sharp from LBJ. It omitted Sharp’s revelation that Capt. Herrick considered the “whole situation” to be “in doubt” and was calling for a “daylight recce [reconnaissance]” before any decision to retaliate, as well as Sharp’s agreement with Herrick’s recommendation. It also falsely portrayed McNamara as having agreed with Sharp that the execute order should be delayed until confirming evidence was found.

Contrary to the assumption that LBJ used the Tonkin Gulf incident to move U.S. policy firmly onto a track for military intervention, it actually widened the differences between Johnson and his national security advisers over Vietnam policy. Within days after the episode Johnson had learned enough to be convinced that the alleged attack had not occurred and he responded by halting both the CIA-managed commando raids on the North Vietnamese coast U.S. and the U.S. naval patrols near the coast.

In fact, McNamara’s deception on Aug. 4 was just one of 12 distinct episodes in which top U.S. national security officials attempted to press a reluctant LBJ to begin a bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

In September 1964, McNamara and other top officials tried to get LBJ to approve a deliberately provocative policy of naval patrols running much closer to the North Vietnamese coast and at the same time as the commando raids. They hoped for another incident that would justify a bombing program. But Johnson insisted that the naval patrols stay at least 20 miles away from the coast and stopped the commando operations.

Six weeks after the Tonkin Gulf bombing, on Sept. 18, 1964, McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk claimed yet another North Vietnamese attack on a U.S. destroyer in Gulf and tried to get LBJ to approve another retaliatory strike. But a skeptical LBJ told McNamara, “You just came in a few weeks ago and said they’re launching an attack on us – they’re firing at us, and we got through with the firing and concluded maybe they hadn’t fired at all.”

After LBJ was elected in November 1964, he continued to resist a unanimous formal policy recommendation of his advisers that he should begin the systematic bombing of North Vietnam. He stubbornly argued for three more months that there was no point in bombing the North as long as the South was divided and unstable.

Johnson also refused to oppose the demoralized South Vietnamese government negotiating a neutralist agreement with the Communists, much to his advisers’ chagrin. McGeorge Bundy later recalled in an oral history interview that he concluded that Johnson was “coming to a decision … to lose” in South Vietnam.

LBJ only capitulated to the pressure from his advisers after McNamara and Bundy wrote a joint letter to him in late January 1965 making it clear that responsibility for U.S. “humiliation” in South Vietnam would rest squarely on his shoulders if he continued his policy of “passivity.” Fearing, with good reason, that his own top national security advisers would turn on him and blame him for the loss of South Vietnam, LBJ eventually began the bombing of North Vietnam.

He was then sucked into the maelstrom of the Vietnam War, which he defended publicly and privately, leading to the logical but mistaken conclusion that he had been the main force behind the push for war all along.

The deeper lesson of the Tonkin Gulf episode is how a group of senior national security officials can seek determinedly through hardball – and even illicit – tactics to advance a war agenda, even knowing that the President of the United States is resisting it.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published Feb. 14.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on March 8, 1965: How LBJ Was Deceived on Gulf of Tonkin. War Pretext Incident to Justify Vietnam War

US Shifts Weapons from Iraq to Syria

March 8th, 2019 by Jack Detsch

The Pentagon rerouted millions of dollars’ worth of weapons and vehicles from Iraq to Syria in the second half of 2018, Al-Monitor has learned, as US-backed forces cornered the last remnants of the Islamic State (IS).

In a series of notifications to Congress reviewed by Al-Monitor, the Defense Department said it had determined that a bevy of supplies purchased by the Pentagon for the Iraqi military would instead go to the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The Pentagon sent lawmakers its last reprogramming notification for 2018 on Dec. 31, 12 days after President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria.

The stock of equipment includes nearly 50 Humvees, 20 mine-resistant vehicles, 40 enhanced armament carriers and nearly 700 light anti-tank weapons. The Pentagon also approved the transfer of more than 2,400 mortar rounds, 25 mine rollers and dozens of charges used to destroy mines and other explosives, the letters indicate.

Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon spokesman, would not confirm whether the supplies had been moved, citing government policy. When Al-Monitor reported the transfer of route clearance equipment to Syria in June, he said it would “assist the SDF in successfully retaking the last remaining [IS-held] territory in Syria.”

“Ensuring that the SDF are sufficiently equipped has been critical to the SDF’s hard-fought campaign to liberate the Middle Euphrates River Valley from [IS] control,” he said last month. “The [Defense] department will always exercise effective and efficient use of the train-and-equip funding appropriated by Congress.”

Experts said the equipment may help the SDF further diminish IS, which beefed up its urban defenses with car bombs, booby traps and other battlefield hazards. Al-Monitor first reported that the Pentagon was transferring equipment from Iraq to Syria in June.

The equipment would be helpful, “particularly to be able to overcome entrenched [IS] defenses” and vehicle-born improvised explosive devices, which the militant group used extensively to slow US-backed forces in Syria’s Middle Euphrates River Valley, said Nick Heras, a Middle East fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Mazlum Kobane, the SDF’s top commander, said last week IS is just days away from losing control of all its territory in Syria. But the shift in resources may come at a cost for Iraq, which is struggling to regain its military footing even after declaring IS defeated in 2017.

The Pentagon budgeted $800 million to rebuild the country’s armed forces last spring. But experts worry that without US boots on the ground in next-door Syria, Iraq could be forced to pick up the slack, taking on an expeditionary role fighting IS across the border.

“When you don’t have intelligence on the ground and you lose some of the things that are leaving, it will become much more pinpricks from the outside,” said Linda Robinson, a senior defense researcher at the RAND Corporation. “It will become a much more difficult fight to prosecute. It’s first a question of the wolf at the door and then the wolf across the border.”

As Iraq looks to beef up its counterinsurgency operations against IS, and US forces take on more of a training mission, Ambassador Fareed Yasseen said the US troop and equipment presence in Iraq remains to be seen.

“It will certainly mean more American troops if we get American equipment,” Yasseen said. “It will probably mean less if we buy European or Russian equipment. The American equipment is pretty expensive, and we’re cash-strapped.”

The envoy’s assessment aligns with incoming US Central Command chief, Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who told Congress in December that Iraq will not be able to pay to maintain US equipment.

Yasseen said Iraq will likely see an “internationalization of the Western military presence that’s there in support of Iraqi military capabilities.” That includes a new NATO training operation led by Canadian Gen. Dany Fortin. The US-led coalition fighting in Iraq told the Pentagon’s inspector general last month that training of Iraqi forces “is of a basic nature” and does not fit US definitions of counterinsurgency instruction.

Though the president visited US troops at al-Asad air base in December, he did not meet with Iraqi officials.

“Every minute we try to spend putting the Humpty Dumpty back together again we are reducing our opportunity to solidify Iraq,” Robinson said. “We have to look at all of the pieces on the chessboard and make the right decision.”

*

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


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.

Trump Administration Announces Stripping Gray Wolf Protections Across Country

March 8th, 2019 by Center For Biological Diversity

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced plans to strip gray wolves of Endangered Species Act protection across the lower 48 states.

If finalized the proposal will allow trophy hunting and trapping of wolves in the Great Lakes states. It will slow or completely halt recovery of wolves in more of their former range.

“This disgusting proposal would be a death sentence for gray wolves across the country,” said Collette Adkins, a senior attorney at the Center. “The Trump administration is dead set on appeasing special interests that want to kill wolves. We’re working hard to stop them.”

The proposal would remove federal protections for all gray wolves, with the exception of Mexican gray wolves, which are listed separately under the Endangered Species Act.

Congress stripped wolves in Idaho and Montana of protections in 2011, and the Fish and Wildlife Service stripped protection from Wyoming wolves in 2017. This led to the killing of thousands of wolves and cessation of further recovery in these states.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also stripped protection from gray wolves in the Great Lakes region in 2011, allowing trophy hunting and trapping seasons in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, but the courts restored protection in 2014.

“The courts have repeatedly slammed the Fish and Wildlife Service for prematurely removing wolf protections, but the agency has now come back with its most egregious scheme yet,” said Adkins. “Once again, we’ll take it to the courts and do everything we can to stop this illegal effort to kill wolf protections.”

Gray wolf numbers in these states have only recently recovered to pre-hunt numbers. These hunts will start anew if the Trump administration’s proposal is finalized.

The proposal will also all but ensure that wolves are not allowed to recover in the Adirondacks, southern Rockies and elsewhere that scientists have identified suitable habitat.

“The livestock industry and trophy hunters want wolves dead, but we’ll make sure the feds fulfill their obligation to restore wolves across the country,” Adkins added.

Background

Volunteer wolf advocates around the nation are gathering this week to oppose the Trump administration’s plans. The “Wild for Wolves” events are part of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Call of the Wild campaign.

On December 17, 2018, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain protection for gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

On Nov. 14, 2018, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for violating the Endangered Species Act by never providing a comprehensive recovery plan for gray wolves nationwide. If successful, that lawsuit would mean that wolves must remain federally protected until the Service implements a national recovery plan.

*

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

The Electric Energy Minister Dominguez denounced that this loss of power is due to sabotage in the area of electric generation and transmission in Guri, in the eastern Bolivar state.

***

The Minister of Popular Power For Electric Energy, Luis Motta Dominguez stated on Thursday that the electric system of Venezuela was attacked again on Thursday afternoon.

Several states of the South American country were left without electricity, Minister Motta stated that authorities are working to put the system back up and bring service back to normality.

The Electric Energy Minister Dominguez denounced that this loss of power is due to sabotage in the area of electric generation and transmission in Guri, in the eastern Bolivar state.

According to Motta Dominguez, Venezuela “has been, once again, the target of an attack in an Electric War (…) But here we have a strong government, they will not demoralize or defeat us. (…) they have failed in past attempts and they will fail again.”

The minister also reported that the work on the restoration of electrical services could take up to three hours. teleSUR correspondent Leonel Retamal reported that 18 states of Venezuela have reported electricity cuts and that the Caracas Metro service was delayed until the electricity was back was up.

The Venezuelan Minister of Popular Power for Communications and Information, Jorge Rodriguez, offered a statement to inform about the attack against Venezuela’s electrical system. Rodriguez said that the electric system in Venezuela is back up in 60 percent of the country, and it will only take a couple of hours to go back to 100 percent normality.

Rodriguez also stated that the Venezuelan right-wing opposition intended to sabotage the system for days, but have failed. Calls the recuperation “a heroic act”. He highlighted the irony of United States Senator Marco Rubio tweeted about the energy loss, only minutes after it happened,

“One byproduct of nationwide power outage in #Venezuela is that much of the country is currently offline with no access to cell phone service or internet coverage,” Rubio tweeted on Thursday afternoon.

“Marco Rubio has failed again,” said Rodriguez, after the electrical system was repaired.

*

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

Predictably during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday, Republican chairman Marco Rubio condemned Venezuela’s Maduro as a “clear danger” and a “threat to the national security of the US.” To be expected the hearing was filled with plenty of threats and talk of flipping “military elites” and enforcing tougher sanctions. 

But perhaps unexpected was just how out in the open and brazen Rubio’s own admissions of how far he’s willing to go in promoting regime change in Caracas. In public testimony he called on the US to promote “widespread unrest” in order to eventually bring down the Maduro government.

It appears Rubio is now urging the White House to initiate a full-on “Syria option” for Venezuela, which implies covert arming, funding, and militarization of the opposition to reach peak escalation and confrontation with the government, perhaps inviting broader external military intervention, similar to efforts to topple Syria’s Assad over the past years.

We’ve commented before about how popular anti-Maduro protests seemed to have lost significant momentum of late, pretty much fading out altogether over the past couple weeks, after tensions came to a head on Feb. 23 when US-backed opposition leader Juan Guaido led a failed attempt to get an unauthorized humanitarian aid convoy across the Colombian-Venezuelan border.

This as it appeared the opposition was itching for a provocation that might draw the US and regional allies into some of kind of more direct intervention, and as a significant uptick in US military flights went to and from Colombia near the border with Venezuela.

During Thursday’s Senate hearing, there appeared a willingness to admit the fact that it appears Maduro is not going anywhere anytime soon, for example, when the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, said,

“Confronting tyranny requires sustained commitment. But Maduro is not invincible. He’s far from it.”

Though issuing plenty of threats of tighter sanctions and strangling Venezuelan oil exports, the Democrats on the committee stopped short of endorsing military action:

“The support that we have lent unequivocally on Venezuela does not include the use of force,” Menendez said further.

However, Rubio’s extreme “regime change by any means possible” hawkishness was on full display. Journalist Max Blumenthal reports:

At Senate hearing on Venezuela just now, Marco Rubio called for the US to promote “widespread unrest” as a means of encouraging regime change. His proposal was met with approval.

Blumenthal noted this was a reference to instigating further “violent guarimba riots” referencing the local Spanish word  that have been a feature of Venezuelan city streets since Maduro was sworn in for a second six year term in January, and which has further represented the more violent side of Venezuelan politics for years.

Journalist Clifton Ross, who has long reported from on the ground in Venezuela, explained the term as follows:

Your Spanish lesson for the day is guarimba, (feminine, as in ‘me voy a la guarimba’ I’m going to the guarimba) the blocking of roads, lighting of tires, and sometimes involving defensive acts of rock-throwing, a practice adopted by the Venezuelan opposition in response to elections they feel are unfair. Those who participate in the guarimbasare known as guarimberos. It is presently the season of guarimbas, and one can only hope, for the sake of the nation, that they will soon come to an end.

Though Maduro has survived the latest round of international pressure to succumb to internal coup efforts led by a US-supported opposition, the fires of unrest Venezuela don’t look to be extinguishable anytime soon.

As Ben Norton also pointed out on Thursday while speaking of using “humanitarian aid” as a pretext for regime change: “They’re not even hiding it at this point.”

Indeed, Rubio personally promised just this during hearing:

“To those in Venezuela: Your fight for freedom and restoration of democracy is our fight, and the free world has not and will not forget you,” he said, and added, “We [the United States] will be [focused] on this as long as it takes.”

Earlier in the day Rubio told Fox News that:

“Trump won’t give up until Maduro is gone in Venezuela.”

More ominously, Rubio predicted during the hearing“Venezuela is going to enter a period of suffering no nation in our hemisphere has confronted in modern history,” in reference to the Venezuelan military blocking US aid shipments and tightening sanctions.

Of course Rubio laid all blame for the dire future plight of common Venezuelans on the Maduro regime alone, and not on his own admitted desire to stir yet more unrest in the country.

*

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 Gage Skidmore/Flickr

In the United States, as Rep Omar pointed out, politicians on both sides of the aisle in both Houses routinely fall over themselves to pledge fealty and taxpayer dollars to Israel. 

The Trump administration is virtually owned by the state of Israel. Donald Trump has taken money from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and other wealthy pro-Israel donors. His daughter converted to Orthodox Judaism in 2009. Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, also an Orthodox Jew, is close to the Netanyahu regime in Israel. Two established neocons, John Bolton and Elliot Abrams, and a convert, Mike Pompeo, are bedrock supporters of the Israeli mission to establish dominance in the Middle East, diminish the native Palestinian population, and steal land from its neighbors.

Enter Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, a failed presidential candidate desperately trying to stay politically relevant. 

Cruz and the notorious neocon senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, introduced companion resolutions demanding the US recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Syrian territory prior to the Six-Day War in 1967.

Colonel Jan Mühren, a former UN observer stationed in the Golan Heights and West Bank during the war, told a Dutch current affairs program Israel “provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land,” illegal under international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva and Hague Conventions. The Golan was officially annexed by Israel in 1981. In December of that year, United Nations Security Council resolution 497 denounced Israel’s annexation. 

Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan admitted in 1976 Israel had masterminded over 80% of the hostilities on the border with Syria. In 1997 The New York Times quoted Dayan as saying 

I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was.

Israel has long coveted the resources of the Golan Heights. She planned to dispute the 1923 border and claim the Hula swamp and monopolize Lake Galilee. The stolen water would then be diverted downstream from the Jordan for exclusive use by Israel’s National Water Carrier. The Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan was paid for by the United States (see “Rivers of Discord: International Water Disputes in the Middle East”). 

The Israeli state also attempted to seize water resources in Lebanon. Its 1978 invasion of South Lebanon was codenamed “Operation Litani,” named after the Litani River, a vital water resource for the people of southern Lebanon. The PLO provided a convenient excuse for the invasion when it established what the corporate media at the time called a “quasi-state” (while completely ignoring an-Nakba, the forced expulsion—ethic cleansing—of around a million Palestinians, many thousands fleeing to southern Lebanon to escape massacres committed by the Israeli army). 

In other words, Israel stole hundreds of square miles of Syrian territory primarily to exploit its water resources and expand its border for the establishment of illegal settlements. Thanks to the United States and its domination of the United Nations, Israel has been allowed to violate numerous resolutions condemning its behavior vis-à-vis the Palestinians. 

For Ted Cruz and his cohort Tom Cotton, making the once divided Jerusalem—now largely ethnically cleansed of Arabs (this is called the “Judaization of Jerusalem” in politespeak)—the capitol of Israel was not hardly enough. Now Congress must recognize and support the outright theft of land and natural resources by Israel in direct violation of international law. 

The introduced bill states that it is “the sense of Congress that… Israel’s security from attacks from Syria and Lebanon cannot be assured without Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights” and “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of a peace agreement between Israel and Syria will be an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.” The proposed legislationstates that recognizing Israel’s theft of the Golan is “in the United States national security interest,” which it obviously isn’t unless we consider Israel the fifty-first state of the US, which it may as well be. 

It remains to be seen if this bill will get traction in Congress. However, considering the staunch support for Israel in Congress, and the overwhelming influence of AIPAC and around sixty other Jewish lobbying groups (including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Zionist Council, the American Jewish Committee, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations), the resolution may receive a warm and enthusiastic reception in Congress. 

*

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.

On March 6, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) delivered a massive rocket strike on positions of the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in Jisr al-Shughur in the northwestern part of Idlib province. This was the first such strike in this area in five months.

The strike reportedly came in response to the recent increase in militant shelling of government-held areas in northwestern Hama, which has been causing  civilian casualties on a regular basis.

Separately, the SAA carried out a rocket strike on the headquarters of Jaysh al-Izza near the town of Khan Shaykhun in southern Idlib. The HQ was fully destroyed and 7 militants, including the group’s prominent field commander Majid al-Said, were eliminated.

Jaysh al-Izza is one of the key allies of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) in northern Hama and southern Idlib. Despite this, mainstream media outlets describe it as a moderate opposition group. At various different times during the war, Jaysh al-Izza was receiving supports from the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The SAA renewed its efforts aimed at destroying militant infrastructure within the Idlib de-escalation zone just recently. This forced decision came as the only effective response to continued violations of the ceasefire regime by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Jaysh al-Izza, the TIP and their al-Qaeda-linked allies.

Pro-government sources speculate that the SAA may soon launch a limited military operation in the agreed demilitarized zone in order to force radicals to withdraw from it and to put an end to the constant shelling of civilian areas. However, this decision faces multiple diplomatic obstacles.

Meanwhile, the so-called de-escalation zone has become the source of another threat – the growing activity of ISIS cells.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham claimed that it had cracked down on an ISIS cell, captured its leader and a weapons depot in the town of Atarib in western Aleppo. The depot was full of assault rifles, remote-controlled improvised explosive devices and other equipment.

Last week, an ISIS suicide bomber blew himself up in the city of Idlib killing several Hayat Tahrir al-Sham members. Following the attack, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham executed ten ISIS members on the site of the explosion. Despite this public move, the terrorist group appears to be unable to stop the expansion of ISIS cells within the Idlib zone. One of the key reasons for this is that the groups ideologies are similar in multiple aspects. Therefore, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham members not satisfied with the lack of large-scale operations against the SAA could opt to join ISIS.

Members of local pro-government militia prevented an infiltration attempt by a group of ISIS members near the town of Taraba in northern al-Suwayda. They opened fire on a unit of the terrorist group conducting reconnaissance in the area, but were not able to eliminate it.

In the second part of 2018, the SAA conducted a military operation against ISIS cells operating in the desert area on the administrative border between al-Suwayda and Damascus. Despite this, ISIS cells started resurfacing in the area in February 2019. Local sources say that ISIS members are infiltrating the area through the US-occupied zone of al-Tanf.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces continue their operation against ISIS in the Euphrates Valley. The ISIS resistance has been mostly overcome and terrorists are now surrendering to the US-backed force.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Army Delivers Massive Strike on Terrorist Infrastructure in Idlib Province
  • Tags: , ,

The organic movement has been seen as a fad and a trend by many, but others call it a necessity in a changing world where toxic chemicals are increasingly killing life from the bottom of the food chain up, including people as the story of terminally ill groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson demonstrated.

Organic agriculture is still a ways off from becoming truly mainstream in the United States, especially with companies like Bayer (now the owner of Monsanto) renewing their push for more pesticides and new technology-intensive methods of farming.

But even as the U.S. continues to approve new “longer-lasting” GMOs, harsh, toxic pesticides and other unnatural “innovations,” other parts of the world are anteing up on organic farming like never before.

While these changes have been far from simple, places like the Himalayan state of Sikkim in India are making immense progress, helping to support the health of pollinators, human beings, and the environment in the process.

Indian state first go 100% organic

In January 2016, the state of Sikkim, in the shadow of the world’s third-tallest peak Mt. Kanchenjunga, succeeded in becoming the first fully organic state in India, and probably the world. A few short years later, there are still plenty of kinks to be worked out, but the benefits are being seen first hand.

Bee populations are said to be rebounding, with plants dependent on bee pollination like cardamom providing much higher yields. Cardamom for example has risen by more than 30% since 2014, a report from The Washington Post said.

Tourism to the region has also increased nearly 70% since the state went organic according to the BBC (see video below), and soil health has rebounded tremendously, as is usually the case when organic methods are applied. Marketed as an eco-friendly dream destination, the region boasts 500 species of butterflies, 4,500 types of flowering plants, and rare wildlife like the red panda, Himalayan bear, snow leopards and yaks.

The state also received a Future Policy Award 2018 at a UN ceremony in Rome, beating out 51 other nominees from 25 countries worldwide for best promoting agro-ecology.

While many farmers have struggled in the years following Sikkim’s mandated switch to organic, they have also said that their crop yields have rebounded to what they were before the change. In response to the increasing signs of success, Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi has recognized the state for its contributions and pledged further support for organic farmers throughout India.

Thus far, there have also been concerns about ineffectiveness of the bio-pesticides being used in place of synthetic ones, as well as rising prices and diseases affecting crops.

The state has also had to rely on conventional crops from West Bengal to help feed its population while farmers continue to learn how best to maximize yields with assistance from government programs.

But positive signs abound, as shown in the BBC report below.

The world’s biggest GMO docu-series is BACK and free to watch now through March 10, 21019! Click here to secure your spot and watch GMOs Revealed now, the future of our food system depends upon it! Here’s the link to watch one more time.

Yields up for all but one crop in India’s first organic state

While individual farmers have reported difficulties in multiple cases including much lower income in some places, as a whole things seemed to be looking up yield-wise as of April 2017, when it was reported that productivity per capita among four major crop types had risen.

The Sikkim mandarin orange, a local specialty crop, saw yields per capita drop 22% from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016.

But during that same time period, all other fruits rose by 5% on average, total spices including ginger and cash crop turmeric rose 2%, large cardamom rose .8%, and all roots & tubers including potatoes rose by .6%.

Officials say that the health of the environment, which had been suffering under the conventional system of agriculture, has improved, however, as has the health of the locals.

“It’s had a huge impact,” said Khorlo Bhutia, Sikkim’s secretary of horticulture and cash crop development. “It’s because of the good environment – chemical-free air, water, food – all these factors.”

The country is serious about passing them on to the rest of the world, although the process is one fraught with challenges and hard work.

“This is a big moment for India,” said India’s minister of agriculture and farmers’ welfare Radha Mohan Singh in 2018, adding that people have slowly been jumping on board with the idea of going 100% organic.

Sikkim is currently offering organic agriculture modules for students in the fourth and fifth grades, in stark contrast to the United States where propaganda from chemical companies like Monsanto has infiltrated students’ textbooks.

“The approach Sikkim has started will be adopted by the whole world tomorrow,” he said, in a speech that stretched five hours. “This is our vision!”

Renowned organic activist and author Vandana Shiva has also joined in the project, as shown in 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.

Featured image: Yogita Limaye of the BBC network in Sikkim, India. (Source: AltHealthWorks.com)

For a while, all the guns have fallen silent.

I am near Idlib, the last stronghold of the terrorists in Syria. The area where the deadliest anti-government fighters, most of them injected into Syria from Turkey, with Saudi, Qatari and Western ‘help’, are literally holed up, ready for the final showdown.

Just yesterday, mortars were falling on villages near the invisible frontline, separating government troops and the terrorist forces of Al Nusra Front. The day before yesterday, two explosions rocked the earth, only a couple of meters from where we are now standing.

They call it a ceasefire. But it’s not. It is one-sided. To be more precise: the Syrian army is waiting, patiently. Its cannons are pointing towards the positions of the enemy, but the orders from Damascus are clear: do not fire.

The enemy has no scruples. It provokes, endlessly. It fires and bombs, indiscriminately. It kills. Along the frontline, thousands of houses are already ruined. Nothing gets spared: residential districts, sport gymnasiums, even bakeries. There is an established routine: assaults by the terrorists, rescue operations organized by Syrian armed forces (SAA – Syrian Arab Army) and Syrian National Defense Forces, then immediate rebuilding of the damage.

Hundreds of thousands of Syrian people have lost their lives in this war. Millions had to leave their homeland. Millions have been internally displaced. For many, the conflict became a routine. Rescue operations became routine. Rebuilding tasks became routine, too.

Now, it is clear that the final victory is near. Syria survived the worse. It is still bleeding, but most of its territories are beginning to heal. People are slowly returning home, from Lebanon and Turkey, from Germany and elsewhere. They go through rubble – their former homes. They sit down and cry. Then, they get up and start rebuilding. That’s in other parts of the country: Duma, Homs, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zur.

But in the villages and towns north of Hama and towards Idlib, the war is far from being over.

In the town of Squalbiah, Commander Nabel Al-Abdallah of the National Defense Forces (NDF) explained to me:

“SAA could easily use force and win militarily; it could take Idlib. But the SAA operates under command of President Assad, who believes in negotiations. If we take the city now, there would be huge casualties.”

*

The situation is not as simple, as we would like it to be. Victory may be near, but the West is not giving up, nor is Turkey. There are still pockets that are held by the US and French troops, and around Idlib (including Manbij), a large area is still controlled by the terrorists, who were transported here from all corners of Syria, under the Russian-sponsored agreement.

And there is more to it: My sources in Syria shared the latest:

“Some 4 months ago, the ’new ISIS’ appeared in the south of Idlib, not far from where we are right now. They were injected into Syria by the Turks. They were wearing brand new uniforms, white long dresses. Before, they were recognizable by black or gray outfits – ‘Afghan-style’. They now call themselves ‘Hurras Aldeen’, or ‘The Guardians of Religion’. Why? In order for the United States, and the West in general, to continue to support them. The ISIS are officially on the list of the terrorist organizations’, but this new ‘brand’ is not.”

I ask Commander Nabel Al-Abdallah, what the West really wants? He replies, immediately:

“The West wants terrorism to spread to Russia and China. Many terrorists work and fight directly for the interests of the United States.

We need to take care of the innocent civilians. But we also have to find the solution, very quickly. If we fail, terrorism will spread all around the world.”

We sit in the Commander’s provisory headquarters, having a quick cup of tea, before moving to the frontline.

He wants to say something. He thinks, how. It is not easy. Nothing is easy under the circumstances, but he tries, and what he utters makes sense:

“If we don’t have solution, soon, terrorists will damage the world. Our problems are not just the ISIS, but above all, the ideology that they represent. They use Islam, they say that they fight in the name of Islam, but they are backed by the United States. And here, the SAA, our military and our defense forces, are fighting for the world, not just for Syria.”

We embrace and I go. His men drive me in a military vehicle to the outskirts of As Suqaylabiyah (also known as Squalbiah). From there, I photograph a hospital and the positions of Al Nusra Front. They are there, right in front of me, just a couple of hundreds of meters.

I am told that I am like a sitting duck, exposed. I work fast. Luckily, today the terrorists are not in the mood for shooting.

Before returning to the vehicle, I try to imagine how life must be there, under Al Nusra Front or the ISIS occupation.

From the hill where I stand, the entire area looks green, fertile and immensely beautiful. But I know, I clearly understand that it is hell on earth for those who live in those houses down below; in the villages and towns controlled by some of the most brutal terrorists on earth.

I also know that, these terrorist monsters are here on foreign orders, trying to destroy Syria, simply because its government and people have been refusing to succumb to the Western imperialist dictates.

Here, it is not only about theory. The lives of millions have been already destroyed. Here it is all concrete and practical – it is reality.

We can hear explosions, in a distance. The war may be over in Damascus, but not here. Not here, yet.

*

My friend Yamen is from the city of Salamiyah, some 50 kilometers from Hama. Only recently the area around his home town was liberated from the extremist groups.

Twenty kilometers west from Salamiyah lies the predominantly Ismaili village of Al Kafat, which used to be surrounded by both Al-Nusra Front and the ISIS.

Mr. Abdullah, President of local Ismaili Council, recalls the horrors which his fellow citizens had to endure:

“In the past, we had two car bomb explosions here. In January 2014, 19 people were killed, 40 houses totally destroyed and 300 damaged. Fighting was only 200 meters away from here. Both Al-Nusra Front and ISIS surrounded the village, and were cooperating. We are very close to one of the main roads, so for the terrorists, it was an extremely important strategic position. This entire area was finally liberated only in January 2018.”

Whom do they blame?

Mr. Abdullah does not hesitate:

“Saudis, Turks, the USA, Europe, Qatar…”

We walk through the village. Some homes are still lying in ruins, but most of them have at least been partially restored. On the walls and above several shops, I can see the portrait of a beautiful young woman, who was killed during one of the terrorist assaults. 65 villagers were slaughtered, in total. Before the war, the population of the village was 3,500, but traumatized and impoverished by war, many decided to leave and now only 2,500 inhabitants live here, cultivating olive trees, herding sheep and cows.

Image on the right: These women survived life under ISIS

Before my visit here, I was told that education played an extremely important role in defending this place, and in keeping morale high during the darkest days of combat and crises. Mr. Abdullah readily confirmed it:

“The human brain has the capacity to solve problems, and to defuse crises. During a war like this, education is extremely important. Or more precisely, it is mainly about learning, not only about education. Al-Nusra and ISIS – they are synonymous with ignorance. If your brain is strong, it easily defeats ignorance. I think we succeeded here. And look now: this poor village has at this moment 103 students attending universities, all over Syria.”

As we drive on, east, large portraits of a brother of my friend Yamen decorate many military posts. He was one of the legendary commanders here, but was killed in 2017.

Then I see a castle: monstrous, more than two millennia old, overlooking the city of Salamiyah. There are green fields all around, so much beauty, in all the corners of Syria.

“Come back and visit all these marvels when the war is over,” someone around me jokes.

I don’t see it as a joke.

“I will,” I think. “I definitely will”. But we have to win, and win very soon, as soon as possible! To make sure that nothing else goes up in flames.

*

I drop my bag in at a local inn in Salamiyah, and ask my comrades to drive me on, further east. I want to see, to feel how life was under ISIS, and how it is now.

There are ruins, all around us. I saw plenty of terrible urban ruins during my previous visit: all around Homs and the outskirts of Damascus.

Here I see rural ruins, in their own way as horrifying as those scarring all the major cities of Syria.

This entire area had recently been a frontline. Or it was screaming in the hands of the terrorist groups, mainly ISIS.

Now it is a minefield. The road is cleared, but not the fields; not the remains of the villages.

I photograph a tank that used to belong to the ISIS; burned and badly damaged. It is an old Soviet tank, which used to belong to the Syrian army. It was captured by the ISIS, and then destroyed by either the SAA or a Russian airplane. Next to the tank – a chicken farm burned to the ground.

The Lieutenant, who is accompanying me, goes on, monotonously, with his grizzly account:

“Today, outside Salamiyeh, 8 people were killed by the landmines.”

We leave the vehicle, and walk slowly down the road, which is full of craters.

Suddenly, the Lieutenant stops without any warning:

“And here, my cousin was killed by another mine.”

*

We reach Hardaneh Village, but almost no one is left here. There are ruins everywhere. Before – 500 people lived here, now only 30. This is where heavy fighting against the ISIS took place. 13 local people were killed, 21 soldiers ‘martyred’. Other civilians were forced to leave.

Mr. Mohammad Ahmad Jobur is the local administrator (el muchtar), 80 years old:

“First, we fought ISIS, but they overwhelmed us. Most of us had to leave. Now some of us returned, but only few…Yes, now we have electricity; at least 3 hours a day, and our children can go to school. The old school was destroyed by the ISIS, so kids are now collected and taken to a bigger town for education. Every villager wants to come back, but most of the families have no money to rebuild their houses and farms. The government made a list of the people whose dwellings were destroyed. They will get help, but help will be distributed gradually, stage by stage.”

Naturally: almost the entire country lies in ruins.

Are villagers optimistic about the future?

“Yes, very optimistic,” declares the village chief. “If we get help, if we can rebuild, we will all come back.”

But then, they show me the water wells, destroyed by the ISIS.

It is all smiles through tears. So far only 30 have come back. How many will come home this year?

I asked the chief what the main aim of the ISIS was?

“No aim, no logic. ISIS was created by the West. They tried to destroy everything, this village, this area, this entire country. They made no sense… they do not think like us… they only brought destruction.”

*

Soha, a village even further east, a place where men, women and children were forced to live under the ISIS.

I am invited into a traditional house. People sit in a circle. Several younger women are hiding their faces, not wanting to be photographed. I can only guess why. Others don’t care. What happened here; what horrors took place? Nobody will pronounce it all.

This is a traditional village inhabited by a local tribe; very conservative.

Testimonies begin to flow:

“First, they banned us from smoking, and shaving. Women had to cover their faces and feet; they had to wear black… Strict rules were imposed… education was banned. The ISIS created terrible prisons… They were often beating us with rubber hoses, in public. Some people were beheaded. Severed heads were exhibited above the main square.”

“When ISIS arrived, they brought with them their slaves – kidnapped people from Raqqah. Some women got stoned in public, alive. Other women were thrown to their death from the roofs and from other high places. They were amputating hands… Various women were forced to marry ISIS fighters…”

An uncomfortable silence followed, before the topic got changed.

“They killed 2 men from this village…”

Some say more, many more.

Several youngsters joined the ISIS. 3 or 4… ISIS would pay $200 to each new combatant who subscribed. And of course, they were promising heaven…

In one of the villages, I am shown a big rusty cage for ‘infidels’ and “sinners”. People were locked in there like wild animals, and kept exposed, in the open.

ISIS cage for infidels and sinners

I see the destroyed ‘police’ building of the ISIS. At one point I am offered some papers – documents – which are just scattered all over the floor. I don’t want to take any with me, not even as a ‘souvenir’.

Testimonies continue to flow:

“They were beheading people for being in possession of mobile phones… Local villagers were disappearing… they were kidnapped…”

At some point, I have to halt this flow of testimonies. I can hardly process all that is being said. People are shouting over each other. One day, someone should take it all down, to record it, to file it. I do what I can, but I realize that it is not enough. It is never enough. The scale of the tragedy is too great.

By now it is getting dark… and then it is dark. I have to return to Salamiyeh, to rest a bit; to sleep for a few hours, and then to return to the frontline, where both the Syrian and Russian soldiers are bravely facing the enemy. Where they are doing all that is humanly possible to prevent those gangsters sponsored by the West and their allies, from returning to the already liberated areas of the country.

But before I fall asleep, I recall; I am haunted by the image of a little girl who survived the occupation of her village by the ISIS. She stood resting her back against the wall. She looked at me for a while, then lifted her hands and moved her fingers quickly across her throat.

*

The next day, the Commander of the National Defense Forces in Muhradah, Simon Al Wakel, drives me all around the city and the outskirts, Kalashnikov resting next to his seat. It is a quick and matter-of-fact ‘tour’:

“This is where the mortars landed two days ago, there is a power plant which was liberated from the terrorists, and this is a huge gymnasium attacked by the terrorists simply because they hate that our girls excel in volleyball and basketball.”

Image on the right: Driving  to the front with Commander Simon

We talk to locals. Commander Simon gets stopped in the middle of the streets, embraced by total strangers, kissed on both cheeks.

“I have been targeted more than 60 times,” he tells me. One of his former cars is rotting at a remote parking lot, after it was hit and burned by the terrorists.

He shrugs his shoulders:

“Russians and Turks negotiated the ceasefire, but obviously, terrorists do not respect any agreements.”

We return to the frontline. I am shown the Syrian cannons pointing towards the positions of Al Nusra Front. The local headquarters of the terrorists is clearly visible, not too far from the magnificent ruins of the Sheizar Citadel.

First, I see the Syrian soldiers, operating slightly outdated Soviet as well as newer Russian equipment: armed vehicles, tanks, “Katyushas”. Then I spot several Russian boys settling down in two houses with a commanding view of the valley and the enemy territory.

Both the Syrian and Russian armies, shoulder to shoulder, are now facing the last enclave of the terrorists.

I wave at the Russians, and they wave back at me.

Everyone seems to be in a good mood. We are winning. We are ‘almost there’.

We all also know that it is still too early to celebrate. Terrorists from all over the world are hoarded in the area in and around the city of Idlib. The US, UK and French “Special Forces” are operating in several parts of the country. The Turkish military keeps holding big chunk of the Syrian land.

The weather is clear. The green fields are fertile and beautiful. The nearby citadel is imposing. Just a little bit more of determination and endurance, and this wonderful country will be fully liberated.

We all realize it, but no one is celebrating, yet. Nobody is smiling. The facial expressions of the Syrian and Russian comrades are serious. Men are looking down towards the valley, weapons ready. They are fully concentrated. Anything may happen; anytime.

I know why there are no smiles; we all know: Soon, we may defeat the enemy.Soon, the war may end. But hundreds of thousands of Syrian people have already died.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author. Featured image: Territory held by Al Nusrah Front, including their military hospital

There is an immense amount of criticism of Putin, especially coming from America, most of it empty criticism which ignores realities and genuine analysis. For the more thoughtful, it represents only the stink and noise of propaganda, and not honest criticism in its true sense at all.

In politics, and especially in the direction of a country’s foreign affairs, there are certain behaviors and ideas and attitudes which mark out a person as exceptional. I think there can be no doubt, Putin is just such a person, and I am very much inclined to say, the preeminent one of our time. Frankly, compared with Putin’s skills, Donald Trump comes off as a noisy circus act, a sideshow carnival barker, and not an appealing one. He has an outsized impact in the world only because he represents the most powerful country on earth and has embraced all the prejudices and desires of its power establishment, not because of the skilfulness of his actions or the insight of his mind. Obama made a better public impression, but if you analyze his actions, you see a man of immense and unwarranted ego, a very secretive and unethical man, and a man who held no worthy ideals he promoted. He was superficial in many things. And he was completely compliant to the power establishment, leaving no mark of his own to speak of.

Putin is a man who advocates cooperation among states, who argues against exceptionalism, who wants his country to have peace so that it can grow and advance, a man lacking any frightening or tyrannical ideologies, a man who invariably refers to other countries abroad, even when they are being uncooperative, in respectful terms as “our partners,” a man who knows how to prioritize, as in defense spending, a man with a keen eye for talent who has some other exceptional people assisting him – men of the calibre of Lavrov or Shoygu, a man who supports worthy international organizations like the UN, a man who only reluctantly uses force but uses it effectively when required, a highly restrained man in almost everything he does, a man who loves his country and culture but does not try foisting them off on everyone else as we see almost continuously from American presidents, a man with a keen eye for developing trends and patterns in the world, a man with an eye, too, for the main chance, a man whose decisions are made calmly and in light of a lot of understanding. That’s quite a list.

The differences between recent American leaders, all truly mediocre, and Putin probably has something to do with the two counties’ relative situations over the last few decades. After all, if the support isn’t there for someone like Putin, you won’t get him. Russia’s huge Soviet empire collapsed in humiliation in 1991. The country was put through desperate straits, literally its own great depression with people begging or selling pathetic trinkets on the streets. And America made no real effort to assist. Indeed, quite the opposite, it kicked someone who was down and tried to shake all the loose change from his pockets. Out of Russia’s desperation came a man of remarkable skills, a rather obscure figure, but one who proved extremely popular and was obviously supported by enough powerful and important people to employ his skills for the county’s recovery and advance.

And he showed no weakness or flinching when dealing with some of the extremely wealthy men who in fact became wealthy by striping assets from the dying Soviet Union, men who then also used their wealth to challenge the country’s much-needed new leadership. He was, of course, excoriated in the United States, but to the best of my understanding, he did what was necessary for progress. The results are to be seen in a remarkably revitalized Russia. Everywhere, important projects are underway. New highways, new airports, major new bridges, new rail lines and subways, a new spaceport, new projects and cooperative efforts with a whole list of countries, new efforts in technology and science, and Russia has become the world’s largest exporter of wheat. Putin also has committed Russia to offering the world grain crops free of all GMOs and other contaminants, a very insightful effort to lock-in what have been growing premium markets for such products, even among Americans.

The military, which badly declined after the fall of the USSR, has been receiving new and remarkable weapons, the products of focused research efforts. New high-tech tanks, artillery, ships, and planes. In strategic weapons, Russia now produces several unprecedented ones, a great achievement which was done without spending unholy amounts of money, Russia’s military budget being less than a tenth that of the United States. Putin’s caution and pragmatism dictate that Russia’s first priority is to become as healthy as possibly, so it needs peace, for decades. Few Westerners appreciate the devastating impact of the USSR’s collapse, but even before that, the Soviet empire had its own slow debilitating impact. Russia’s economic system was not efficient and competitive. The effects of that over many years accumulated. The USSR always did maintain the ability to produce big engineering projects such as dams and space flight, but it always was sorely lacking in the small and refined things of life that an efficient economy automatically sees are provided.

The new strategic weapons are an unfortunate necessity, but the United States threatens Russia as perhaps never before with the expansion of NATO membership right to the Russian border, something breaking specific American promises of years back. And it has been running tanks all over Europe and then digging them in them right at the frontier just to make a point. It has deployed multiple-use covered missile launchers not far from the border which may as easily contain offensive intermediate-range ground-to-ground nuclear missiles as the defensive anti-missile missiles claimed to be their purpose. And it has torn up one of the most important nuclear-weapons treaties we had, the INF Treaty, pertaining to intermediate-range missiles. Intermediate-range nuclear missiles based in Europe give the United States the ability to strike Russia with little warning, their ten-minute flight path compares to a roughly thirty-minute flight path for an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) coming from America. These are extremely de-stabilizing, as are the counter-measures Russia felt it must take, Russian intermediate-range nuclear missile aimed at European centers. Everyone eventually recognized that, and that’s why the treaty was successfully completed. Europeans appreciated no longer becoming the immediate battlefield in a nuclear war.

But relations with the United States now have entered a new world, and it is not a brave one. America’s power establishment has assumed new goals and priorities, and in those, Russia is not viewed well, despite its new identity as a nation ready to participate and peacefully compete with everyone, a nation without the kind of extreme ideology communism was, a kind of secular religious faith. Despite its readiness to participate in all Western organizations and forums and discussions, it is viewed with a new hostility by America. It is arbitrarily regarded as an opponent, as an ongoing threat. As I discuss below, America, too, has been in kind of a decline, and the response of its leadership to that fact involves flexing its muscles and extracting concessions and privileges and exerting a new dominance in the world, a response not based in economic competition and diplomatic leadership, a response carrying a great deal of danger.

And, very importantly, its response is one that involves not only bypassing international organizations, but, in many cases, working hard to bend them to its purposes. There are many examples, but America’s treatment of the UN has been foremost. It has in the recent past refused for considerable periods to pay its treaty-obliged dues until it saw changes it unilaterally demanded. It has dropped out of some important agencies completely, most notably UNESCO. In general, it has intimidated an international organization into better accommodating American priorities, including very much imperial ones opposed to what the UN is supposed to be about. And it has used this intimidation and non-cooperativeness to influence the nature of leadership at the UN, the last few Secretaries-General being timid on very important matters and ineffective in general. That’s just the way America likes them to be now. A harsh Neocon like Madeleine Albright won her government-service spurs at the UN by engineering the departure of an unwanted Secretary-General.

Promoting coups is not a new activity for the United States. There is a long postwar record, including Iran’s democratic government in the 1950s, Guatemala’s democratic government in the 1950s, and Chile’s democratic government in 1973. But the recent coup in Ukraine represented something rather new, a very provocative activity right on a major Russian border. It was also against an elected government and in a country which shares with Russia a history and culture going back more than a thousand years to the predecessor state of Kievan Rus. Yes, there are resentments in Ukraine from the Soviet era, and those are what the United States exploited, but the country was democratically governed. In any event, staging a coup in a large bordering country is a very serious provocation. You can just imagine the violent American reaction to one in Mexico or Canada.

The new, post-coup government in Ukraine also made many provocative and plainly untrue statements. The ineffective, and frequently ridiculous, President Poroshenko kept telling Europeans that Russian troops and armor were invading his country. Only his brave army was holding the hordes back. He was literally that silly at times. Of course, none of it was ever true. American spy satellites would quickly detect any Russian movement, and they never did. In an effort to put the wild claims into perspective, treating them with the contempt they deserved, Putin once said that if he wanted to, he could be in Kiev in two weeks. Undoubtedly true, too. Well, the statement was taken completely out of context, treated as a threat by America’s always-faithful-to-the-narrative press. Journalism in the service of government policy – all of it, from the most elevated newspapers and broadcasters to the humblest. And I think that nicely illustrates the absurdity of events in Ukraine and the way they have been used.

The United States paid for the coup in Ukraine. We even know how much money it spent, five billion dollars, thanks to the overheard words of one of America’s most unpleasant former diplomats, Victoria Nuland. The idea was to threaten Russia with the long Ukrainian border being put into genuinely hostile hands. Never mind that the government driven from office with gunfire in the streets from paid thugs was democratically elected. Never mind that many of the groups with which the United States cooperated in this effort were right-wing extremists, a few of them resembling outright Nazis, complete with armbands and symbols and torchlight parades. And never mind that the government America installed was incompetent, not only sending Ukraine’s economy into a tailspin but promptly igniting a completely unnecessary civil war.

The large native, Russian-speaking population (roughly 30% of the country) is completely dominant in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Those two regions partly turned the tables by seceding from Ukraine with its government which early-on worked to suppress historic Russian-language rights and carried on a lot of activities to make those with any Russian associations feel very unwelcome. It’s a deliberately provocative environment, and, as we all know from our press, not a day goes by in Washington without anti-Russian rhetoric and unsupported charges. While Washington greatly failed in this effort, it nevertheless succeeded in generating instability and hostility along a major Russian border. It also gained talking points with which to pressure NATO into some new arrangements.

In the case of Crimea, it is important to remember that it has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great. It only was in recent history that Crimea became part of Ukraine, and that happened with the stroke of a pen, an administrative adjustment during the days of the USSR, the very USSR the people now running Ukraine so despise, rejecting almost everything ever done, except for the administrative transfer of Crimea apparently. Just one of those little ironies of history. The people who live in Crimea speak Russian, and they did not welcome the new Ukrainian government’s heavy-handed, nationalist, anti-Russian drive around Ukrainian language and culture, necessarily a narrow, claustrophobic effort since the late USSR was a multi-national and multi-lingual state, and given Crimea’s much longer-term history as part of Russia. Even during Crimea’s recent past as part of Ukraine, Russia continued to maintain, under lease, its major naval base at Sevastopol on the Black Sea, so the connections with Russia have been continuous.

In virtually every newspaper story you read and in places like Wikipedia on the Internet, you will see the word “annexation” used to describe Crimea’s relationship with Russia. It simply is not an accurate description, but its constant use is a very good measure of America’s ability to saturate media with its desired version of events. The people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from an unfriendly new Ukraine, and they voted to petition Russia’s admitting them as part of the country. How can you call the results of free and open votes annexation? Well, only the same way you can tell the twice-elected President of Venezuela that he is not President and that another man, who did not even run in the election and administered the oath of office to himself, is the President. This is the kind of Alice-in-Wonderland stuff that comes as part of America’s new drive for dominance. It simply paints the roses red. What is claimed to have happened in Crimea provides the only support for charges of Russian aggression, the laying on of all kinds of sanctions, and running around all over Europe tearing up road surfaces with tanks. This is the atmosphere within which Putin must work, trying to maintain as many sound relationships with Europe as he can, and he actually has been quite successful. A number of prominent European politicians, especially retired ones who aren’t under the immediate pressures of politics and relations with America, have voiced support for Russia. Some have even visited Crimea by invitation and toured. And Russia’s major new gas pipeline into Europe, Nord Stream 2, proceeds despite constant American pressure against it. It is at this writing 70% complete. The Europeans cannot just abandon their long-term ally, the United States, even though I’m sure they understand the illusions and false claims of the current situation. The United States also retains considerable capacity to hurt Europe financially, so they rush into nothing, but I believe there can be no doubt that American words and actions have significantly weakened old and important relationships. No one likes being lied to, and they like even less having to pretend lies are truth.

Putin has been more cautious in the case of the secession of another Russian-speaking portion of Ukraine, an even larger one in population and in economic importance, the Eastern portion called Donbass. The people there declared two republics, Donetsk and Luhansk, and they petitioned to be admitted as part of Russia. But Russia does not officially recognize them although it has sent large volumes of aid as they were besieged by the new Ukrainian government. The government of Ukraine started a small civil war in the region. Russia supports the Minsk Accords, which it helped to write, accords to reunite the region with Ukraine but which require Ukraine to grant it a degree of constitutional autonomy to the region. This is a reasonable approach to ending the conflict, but it is not easy to implement. It is not something looked favorably upon by Ukraine’s right-wing extremists who push the government hard, having even threatened it at times. The entire business has been mired in difficulties from the start. Ukraine displayed remarkable military incompetence in this civil war against a much smaller opponent. It tried to increase the size of its forces with conscription in the West of Ukraine, but the number of no-shows and run-aways grew embarrassingly large. And, of course, none of this even needed to happen had the new government’s policies been sensible and fair in the first place. But you got no pressure from the United States over fairness. It is merely content to have caused a lot of difficulties on Russia’s border. And there is the matter of the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines’ Flight MH-17, which my study of the circumstances suggests unequivocally was an act by Ukraine, whether accidental or deliberate. The United States has pushed hard to have this blamed on Russia, so as to not discredit its installed Ukrainian government, but the facts, as we know them, simply do not support that conclusion. The United States has shamefully pressured a NATO member, Holland, not even a central party to the event, to conduct a long and tortoise-paced investigation of the crash. It has ignored key evidence, and all of its interim conclusions can readily be seen as couched in the kind of suggestive but inexact language criminal lawyers advise their clients to use in court. What we see in Ukraine, is government incompetence, almost uniformly in all its activities, and again there is no concern expressed by the United States about all the difficulties – economic, military, and social – its efforts have caused for the Ukrainian people.

Putin’s adroit handling of the coup in Ukraine, frustrating many of America’s aims without getting Russia involved in conflict, determined Washington to further stoke-up anti-Russian feeling in Europe. You must always remember that NATO does represent a vehicle for the peaceful American occupation of Europe, Europe being an important economic competitor and potentially a major world power. The obsolescence of the original arguments for NATO – the threat of the USSR and the massive Red Army, now both long passed into history – had the potential to see America eventually lose its occupying perch in Europe.

Russian-threat hype added force to recent efforts over the last decade and a half to have inconsequential new states admitted to NATO, some of them having the attraction of borders with Russia and lots of simmering old anti-Soviet hostilities. Certainly, countries like Estonia or Latvia bring neither military nor economic strength to the organization. Other small states, such as Slovenia or Slovakia or Montenegro just fill holes in the map of Europe, so NATO is a contiguous mass. The small states are in fact potentially a serious drag. But for America, they were attractive new members because they are so grateful about being asked “to play with the big boys.” Their votes as part of the organization effectively dilute the influence of the larger, older states, such as France or Germany, who sometimes disagree with the United States, and some of whom have been developing new relationships with modern Russia. The entire series of American activities in Europe after the disappearance of the USSR represents absolutely nothing constructive, indeed, quite the opposite.

As I mentioned, America, too, has been in a kind of decline, but absolutely nothing resembling what Russia experienced. America’s establishment has come to realize that over the last couple of decades it is in a relative decline. It went from producing, after WWII, about forty percent of what the world used to twenty-something percent, and all signs point to the trend continuing. America was waking-up from an extended fantasy – a period when fluffy notions like “the American Dream” were embraced as real, a period explained by the simple fact that after the war all of America’s serious competitors had been flattened. America was waking to a time when those competitors were coming back and a time when fierce new competitors were rising. The “Dream” part of the advertising slogan, “the American Dream,” became all too apparent.

During that period of unique prosperity and power following WWII, a good deal of America’s leadership became what people who have been given too much often tend to become, spoiled and corrupt, unable to make good decisions in many cases, indulging in god-like notions of the planet being run for their benefit, and always, steadily leaving behind their own people’s welfare for imperial concerns abroad. The entire ethic of the New Deal period evaporated, and by the 1990s, a Democratic President like Clinton could actually make a speech bragging about “ending welfare as we know it.”

The people who really run the country, its power establishment, fixed on a new strategy to address uncomfortable realities. That strategy involves using America’s still great military and financial power to dominate international affairs in a more obvious and palpable way than ever. Dominance became an openly-discussed theme, as it rarely was before, in the hope, over time, of squeezing concessions and advantages from others to regain or at least hold on to its global position. This is an openly aggressive posture that has been assumed. No more pretence of being a nice guy. And it was actively promoted by a new political faction in Washington, the Neocons, a group who share certain interests and see America’s use of power as serving those interests. They have been open advocates of using military force to get things you want, and they hold many important and influential posts. Perhaps their greatest common interest is the welfare of Israel, and they see an America perceived as aggressive best serving Israel’s security.

It is important to note that while Russia maintains excellent relations with Israel – Putin has been visited often by Israel’s Prime Minister – nevertheless, by virtue of its sheer size and geographical location and military power, Russia is seen as a barrier to America’s more unrestrained use of power. “Russia” is almost a dirty word for many of America’s Neocon faction and for many Israelis. Russia’s recent decisive assistance to Syria in fighting gangs of terrorists introduced and supported from outside was viewed about as negatively as is possible. That is war Israel wanted President Assad to lose, and it secretly gave a great deal of assistance to the terrorists. It was hoping to secure a permanent hold on the Golan, grab even another slice of Syria as a buffer for its illegal residents in Golan, all while seeing one of the region’s leaders it most dislikes eliminated. It worked closely in the effort with Saudi Arabia’s murderous Crown Prince, and America oversaw and encouraged all aspects of a dirty war to topple a legitimate government which has remained fairly popular with its people despite years of agonizing conflict and endless dishonest American claims about such matters as chemical weapons. Assad is seen as a defender of the rights of Syria’s diverse religious groups, including its many Christians.

So, there is a built-in powerful negative towards Russia in Washington power circles for which there is no clear possible remedy or correction, and, indeed, no matter how reasonably Putin behaves, his country faces this opposition. For some American politicians, and very notably Hillary Clinton, this has proved a handy tool, Clinton long having been a close-to fanatical supporter of Israeli interests. The fact has earned her a great deal of campaign funding and other support over the years. Clinton’s ego also just could not take the fact that she lost the election to the leader of “the deplorables,” as she once called Trump’s supporters, so in dark claims of Russian interference, supported by absolutely no proof whatsoever, she protects her ego. And long before election day, Clinton had a hand in exploiting attitudes about Russia in another way. She is known to have paid, at least in part, for the fraudulent Steele Dossier commissioned from an ex-British spy. It was used to try to discredit Trump over Russian connections.

This dislike for Russia by the Neocons and other boosters of resurgent American power really is what is at the heart of America’s current Russophobia obsession, not any threatening actions by Russia. It becomes a kind of vicious circle with new accusations piled on all the time by various actors each with their own motives, and it is clearly quite dangerous.

So, these are the positions of the two countries today, Russia having risen quite impressively from the depths under a remarkably able leader, extremely popular and well-supported by powerful elements of its society, versus America, now in a much different kind of decline than what Russia experienced, led by an establishment group with rather less-than-honorable intentions and with a political system virtually designed to produce no real leaders who might interfere with establishment plans.

Putin is further supported from the outside by the rising colossus of China, one of the great miracle stories of our time. In the past, the two countries have not always been friends, and America, in the time of Nixon, actually worked at playing one off against the other. But that is no more. The American establishment’s intentions for China are too clear. It is virtually reneging on many old promises such as those around Taiwan being an integral part of China, it is treating China as an unwanted competitor, accusing it of every nefarious activity you can think of to impede its economic progress and demanding trade concessions as though China had been an unfair competitor rather than just a new, more successful one. America is now attacking in every way possible – from questioning motives and methods to trying to generate opposition by participants – China’s unprecedented and magnificent global enterprise, the Silk Road Project, a project dwarfing the great canals of the past and destined to bring new prosperity to all participants through trade. It hardly represents a positive attitude to oppose and impede it.

Putin is exactly the kind of man to quickly recognize and embrace a project like that. Russia is also rushing to help China greatly increase its supply of natural gas from Siberia’s immense reserves in order to decrease its dependence on coal. The first great new pipeline is almost finished.

So, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, both highly intelligent leaders, have a great many weighty common interests in working together as never before. America’s new policies have been a driving force in bringing them together, and there is no reason to expect any diminishment of that force. Recent American international behavior requires others to accept what Putin likes to call America’s “exceptionalism,” its position first and above all other nations, its self-granted privilege of not having to play by the same rules as everyone else – its status of “the indispensable nation” as one of America’s more arrogant diplomats put it not very long ago – and it requires that from two major, proud, and ancient societies which cannot possibly grant it.

America’s dependence on its gigantic military and security establishment represents a serious long-term weakness in many ways, even though it provides the very foundation of the American establishment’s new strategy for dominance. Empires, after all, while benefiting the privileged segments of a society, are a drag on most of its citizens, depriving them of many benefits, including the simple, important benefit of good and caring national government. America spends more than ten times as much as Russia on its military. China, compared to not many years ago, has increased its military spending greatly, but for a country with such a huge economy, second only to the United States and likely to overtake it before long, it still spends less than a quarter of what the United States does. And America does not even have the money to pay for its atrociously large military. It borrows the money, and who do you think pays the stream of interest payments for those massive borrowings? You’d be right if you said all of its ordinary, tax-paying citizens without privileges. They also are “on the hook” for the ultimate negative economic consequences of all this debt and borrowing.

Of course, from a world perspective, America’s military represents an ongoing threat to peace and security, much the opposite of what is claimed for it inside the United States. Great standing armies have always represented threats, and here is the greatest standing army in history. Many historical analyses hold them largely responsible for such terrible conflicts as WWI (a war whose outcome made WWII inevitable also). When such power is at hand, the temptation to use it is constant, and its very presence distorts all attitudes and decisions. Many of America’s own Founders understood that, but it has been forgotten by the contemporary American establishment in its relentless pursuit of empire and influence.

Security expenses are hard to compare, so much is secretive, but the United States with its 17 separate national security agencies and such a vast enterprise as the NSA’s new archipelago of facilities stuffed with hi-tech gear and supercomputers which spy on and record every American plus others would put any other country out of the competition. Again, the demands of the American establishment utterly compromise the interests of the country’s own citizens at large. Indeed, now in security matters, ordinary Americans have been pretty much reduced to a herd, each with an identifying tag stapled to his ear.

Russia’s democracy may be quite imperfect, but America’s – what it had of one, it never from the beginning identified itself actually as a democracy – has been transformed into plutocracy with an elaborate window-dressing simulation of democracy, an arrangement in which the state’s resources are committed to its privileged class and the advance of empire. And, as I’ve written many times, you can have a decent country or you can have an empire, but you cannot have both.

*

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 Cohen Scooped by Julian Assange

March 8th, 2019 by Ann Garrison

Press and citizenry continue to discuss former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen’s testimony before Congress on February 27.

Russiagate skeptics and supporters of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange are taking particular note of what Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie said to Cohen:

.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: You said—and this is also in your testimony—in the days before the Democratic convention, you became privy to a conversation that some of Hillary Clinton’s emails would be leaked. Is that correct?

MICHAEL COHEN: Correct.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: OK. Was that in—you said late July. Do you know the exact day?

MICHAEL COHEN: I believe it was either the 18th or the 19th, and I would guess that it would be on the 19th.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: But it was definitely July?

MICHAEL COHEN: I believe so, yes.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Do you know that was public knowledge in June? This was Mr. Assange. And I’d like to submit this [Guardian article quoting Julian Assange in June 2016]. Unanimous consent to submit this for the record.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Without objection, so ordered.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Mr. Assange reported to the media on June 12th that those emails would be leaked. So, I’m not saying you have fake news; I’m saying you have old news, and there’s really not much to that.

Finally, a US Congressman stated what should have been obvious all along, and it was read into the Congressional Record. The investigation wears no clothes to anyone paying attention, but the Russiagate faithful press are spinning this as desperately as they are Robert Mueller’s failure to find hard evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton, despite a two-year, 25-million-dollar investigation.

Democracy Now! reported what Massie said, but only within an interview with Marcy Wheeler, who responded,

“Julian Assange said publicly that he had material on Hillary Clinton. What Julian Assange never said publicly is ‘I’m going to drop it at the beginning of the DNC’ [Democratic National Convention]. And so, what is interesting about Cohen’s story—and, to be clear, it’s unlikely that he really did speak directly with Julian Assange—we know from a bunch of Stone’s other claims that when he claimed to be speaking directly with Assange, he instead was speaking with a cutout, like Jerome Corsi or like Randy Credico.”

Wheeler said that Assange did not publicly reveal the timing of the release, yet Stone (through Corsi or Credico) knew the timing, implying, according to Wheeler, that they had actual communication with Wikileaks, but there’s no hard evidence of that and the timing was entirely predictable given the date of the Democratic National Convention.

Wheeler’s among the worst of the Russiagate faithful now embroidering the facts. Is she saying that journalists should not publish for maximum impact? Or simply that Wikileaks should not? Would she impose the same standard on the New York Times, the Washington Post, or her own aptly named blog, EmptyWheel.net?

Neither releasing information nor knowing the date that it would be released are a crime. And even if Donald Trump did know the release date, what impact could that possibly have? How was Trump supposed to have used prior knowledge of the date on which Wikileaks would release the DNC and Podesta emails? They were guaranteed to be the day’s biggest headlines whether he knew their release date or not, so even if he did, it would have had absolutely no impact.

Any earnest journalist is going to release whatever they’ve got for maximum impact at whatever time and in whatever outlet they can. Any earnest news outlet is going to rush to publish a big story as fast as they can. And the DNC and Podesta emails were guaranteed to be a huge story no matter who knew of them or their publication date in advance.

Russiagators too flustered to admit failure

Admitting that they’ve propagandized Americans into a state of mass psychosis about Russian interference and infiltration could embarrass the Russiagate faithful press as much as admitting that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should have embarrassed that theory’s proponents. It should be remembered, however, that New York Times reporter Judith Miller neither acknowledged being embarrassed nor apologized for leading us into that criminal war of aggression, and neither did Robert Mueller, the special Russiagate prosecutor now lionized by Trump-hating liberals. During the run-up to the 03/20/2003 attack on Iraq, Mueller told Congress,

“As Director Kennedy has pointed out, Secretary Powell prevented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical, or radiological material.”

In the United States of Amnesia, however, this is all long past, less significant than sportscasters’ speculation as to who will win the NBA Finals and the NBA MVP award in coming months. Disengagement is the most fundamental fact of American political life, and propagandists know they can count on it.

The record of Mueller’s Iraq War lie has not been played on cable TV. No journalist, media outlet, or public official has gone to prison for the war crime of spreading lies to justify war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq, and none will go to prison for Russiagate lies even if they lead to nuclear war. Who’ll be left to prosecute? However, unless and until that eventuality, exposure could be embarrassing for the Russiagate faithful. It could damage whatever credibility they have left with anyone listening, so they’re scrambling. Someone may even put their narrative at risk by mounting an edit challenge to the Wikipedia entry titled “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Elections,” even though it has almost 500 footnotes and is so long that Wikipedia includes an editorial note that “this article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.” It would be a good start to challenge the opening sentence, which reads as though it were established fact: “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political discord in the United States.” (See Wikipedia: Editing policy for instructions on its collective knowledge creation practice.)

Why haven’t recorded phone calls been submitted in evidence?

Regarding telephone calls between Julian Assange, Randy Credico, Jerome Corsi, Roger Stone, Donald Trump or anyone else, they no doubt would have been recorded and therefore readily available as evidence. On February 27, Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Wikileaks and Julian Assange, tweeted:

“Anybody who believes that Julian Assange was able to phone Roger Stone [or Randy Credico or Jerome Corsi] from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy with neither the GCHQ, NSA, CIA, MI5, or FBI intercepting the call is severely deluded. The combined budget of those agencies is 41 billion US dollars. Michael Cohen’s testimony is obvious nonsense.”

Applauding Congressman Thomas Massie from Across the Partisan Divide

Northern Kentucky’s Republican Congressional Representative Thomas Massie deserves huge thanks for finally stating the obvious last week in the Hall of Congress and having it read into the Congressional Record. By doing so he demonstrated that Donald Trump’s polarizing election doesn’t inform every political decision, alliance, or coalition from that date forward. Massie is a libertarian Republican and member of the Liberty Caucus, and readers no doubt disagree with him about a long list of core positions on taxation, limited government, and free markets, but not on Russiagate, Wikileaks, and Julian Assange. On August 16, 2018, Real Clear Politics published his editorial “Russia Hysteria Undercuts Our Values, Impedes Relations.”

Shortly before his exchange with Cohen, Massie voted with the Democrat-majority House of Representatives to overturn President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration, then tweeted:

“’If we violate the Constitution to build a wall, then the wall protects nothing. If legislators always vote with the President, we have a king. If legislators always vote with the prevailing wind, we have mob rule. If legislators always vote with the Constitution, we have a Republic.”

*

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

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

Featured image is from France 24

The latest Kashmir Crisis resulted in a stunning reversal of international perceptions about India and Pakistan whereby the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” has now been recast as a rogue state wanting to wage a war of aggression on unproven pretexts while the previously presumed “rogue state” of Pakistan has been revealed to be a responsible international actor fighting to uphold the UN-enshrined rules-based international order that the US and “Israel’s” South Asian ally is dangerously trying to undermine.

The Kashmir Crisis of 2019 will go down in history as the moment when international perceptions about India and Pakistan were stunningly reversed. The fast-moving multi-dimensional developments that took place between the last week of February and the first week of March did more than anything else to ruin India’s global reputation (mostly through its own reckless actions) while greatly improving Pakistan’s, something that few observers could have expected because they’d been so heavily indoctrinated with decades-old outdated dogmas that they never paid attention to how much both countries had changed by the beginning of the New Cold War. What follows is a concise breakdown of the 10 main military, diplomatic, and soft power points that caused the world to never see India and Pakistan the same way again:

Military

Pakistan Responded Proportionately To India:

Many commentators previously presumed that Pakistan lacked the conventional capabilities to respond tit-for-tat to India because of the numerical mismatch between their two militaries and the defense budgets funding them, but Pakistan proved just how wrong such superficial comparisons are when it responded proportionately and even managed to down at last one of India’s planes.

Pakistan Preemptively Prevented An MH-17-Like False Flag Attack:

By preemptively closing down its airspace to civilian airliners during the climax of the Kashmir Crisis, Pakistan prevented India from staging an MH-17-like false flag attack and blaming it on Islamabad in order to ratchet up the international pressure against its adversary, which prudently contributed to the forthcoming de-escalation that later unfolded.

The Pakistan Navy Detected And Deterred An Indian Submarine’s Infiltration Attempt:

Once again contradicting the international “experts” who never expected that the Pakistani military could ever pose a challenge to its Indian counterpart,  the Pakistan Navy detected and deterred an Indian submarine’s infiltration attempt and therefore proved its worth as a valuable branch of the Armed Forces that’s more than capable of punching well above its weight.

Diplomatic

Russia Expressed Its Willingness To Mediate Between India And Pakistan:

Bruising India’s wannabe-“superpower” ego and its supremacist self-perception relative to Pakistan, Russia showed that it regards India and Pakistan as equals in accordance with international law by expressing its willingness to mediate between them and even host peace talks if both parties were interested, which undercut India’s international prestige while raising Pakistan’s.

India Outright Rejected Russia’s Or Anyone Else’s Mediation Efforts While Pakistan Welcomed Them:

The Indian Ambassador to Russia told Sputnik that his country wouldn’t accept any mediation offer from anyone if it was formally made in the future while the Pakistani Foreign Minister enthusiastically welcomed the possibility of international – and especially Russian – assistance in this respect, which went a long way towards reshaping how Russia regards these two South Asian nations.

The OIC Slammed India For Its Atrocities In Kashmir:

The 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) slammed India for its atrocities in Kashmir despite hosting its Foreign Minister as the bloc’s official guest of honor during its latest summit, powerfully sending the message that it considers the Kashmir issue to be of premier importance for the international Muslim community (“Ummah”) and the rest of humanity in general.

India’s “Economic Diplomacy” Miserably Failed To Achieve Anything Of Political Significance:

India had hitherto assumed that the billions of dollars’ worth of deals that it signed with Russia and the Gulf States would eventually lead to them politically supporting it when the need arose, yet New Delhi’s “economic diplomacy” failed to get Moscow to “compromise” on its joint anti-terrorist and Afghan-related interests with Islamabad just as it failed to get the OIC to sell out its co-confessionals in Kashmir.

Soft Power

PM Khan’s Consistent Peacemaking vs. PM Modi’s Incessant Warmongering:

The contrast between the Pakistani and Indian Prime Ministers couldn’t be clearer, both in the context of the latest Kashmir Crisis and in the months-long run-up to it, because PM Khan’s consistent peacemaking statements were the complete opposite of PM Modi’s incessant warmongering ones and proved that the Pakistani leader was behaving much more responsibly than the Indian one.

Indian Media Exposed For Being Military Proxies

Most of the world naively thought that the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” had a “free and fair” media environment, but this was exposed as a total misconception after Indian media marched in lockstep with the military by braying for Pakistani blood, even going as far as spreading regular fake news reports in order to rile up the population into “seeking (nuclear) revenge” against Pakistan.

“Democracy” Debunked:

India staked the bulk of its international reputation on being regarded as the “world’s largest democracy”, but this untrue notion was decisively debunked by none other than its own government after the ruling party’s Finance Minister scandalously implied that the opposition’s dissent is treasonous all because they questioned the authorities’ claims after no proof was ever presented to support them.

Concluding Thoughts

The dramatic events of the past two weeks proved to the world that Pakistan is a responsible power that will fight to protect the UN-enshrined rules-based international order in the face of India’s irresponsible attempts to undermine it at the behest of its American and “Israeli” allies on unproven pretexts, leading to Pakistan becoming the champion of regional – and consequently, global – stability while India was recast as the rogue state committed to destroying it. India’s international reputation is irreparably ruined while Pakistan’s has immensely improved, both in the realms of international norms and geostrategy. India will always be important because of its location and attractive consumer and labor market potentials, but there’s no more denying that it’s now a US pawn for destabilizing the global pivot 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.

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 South Front

At the Human Rights Council in Geneva, David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, insisted that air pollution is a “silent, sometimes invisible, prolific killer” which affected women and girls more than men.

This is despite the fact that the right to a healthy environment is legally recognised by 155 States, Dr. Boyd explained.

“Air pollutants are everywhere, largely caused by burning fossil fuels for electricity, transportation and heating, as well as from industrial activities, poor waste management and agricultural practices,” he said.

Air pollution is present both inside homes and outside and is responsible for the premature death of seven million people each year, including 600,000 children, according to the Special Rapporteur’s report.

“Every hour, 800 people are dying, many after years of suffering, from cancer, respiratory illnesses or heart disease directly caused by breathing polluted air,” he said, before highlighting that these deaths were preventable.

Cleaner cooking fuel switch cuts indoor pollution  

Some States, such as Indonesia have begun to address the problem of indoor air pollution linked to cooking by helping millions of poor families switch to cleaner cooking technologies.

 

To read the complete UN release click 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 UNICEF/Batbaatar

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Air Pollution, the Silent Killer’ that Claims Seven Million Lives a Year: UNHRC
  • Tags:

The Cardinal Can Do No Wrong: George Pell’s Defenders

March 7th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The powerful have always had defenders.  Power seeps into the system, corrupts, controls and, ultimately, assumes an authority that does wonders to destroy an appraisal of fairness.  To be there is to assume that matters are natural, a habit.  As David Hume made clear, such an instance creates the basis of error: because it has been accepted for generations and through precedent does not make it a law or an acceptable practice. 

To be fair is, in a sense, to relinquish the advantages of power and accept the levelling nature of balance.  To be fair is to understand power as a danger.  For the highest cleric in the Catholic Church to receive a formal conviction in terms of historical child abuse is an example of bringing a certain power to account. 

“He did have in his mind,” observed the County Court’s chief judge Peter Kidd in the pre-sentence hearing, “some sense of impunity.” 

The Pell conviction is also an example of defenders running to barricades in the name of protection, hoping that faith prevails over evidence, belief over the allegedly crude advances of the secular realm.  As that philosopher of revolution Frantz Fanon appositely noted, those holders of a strong core belief, when “presented with evidence that works against that belief” repel what is placed before them.  Cognitive dissonance must be avoided.

The issue for some of Pell’s defenders is not one of finding justice but its impossibility for those who see a being beyond capture, and past conduct beyond censure.  Forget the victims and what the convicted person did to them.  Some other ploy is at work.   

Guy Rundle got heavy at Crikey, claiming that the conviction of Pell had to be a significant moment in the culture wars.

“The full court press by Bolt, Henderson, Akerman, Devine et al marked them off pretty decisively from the parliamentary wing of the right (with the rule-proving exception of Craig Kelly), who were quick to ring-fence Pell from what remains of their politics.”

This has assumed fabulous contortions.  To know a man is to presume an all-conquering, wilting innocence, pushing evidentiary findings to the outer limits.  No legal system could possibly corrupt this personalised sense of he of certain cloth of Church; to have met a creature in garb, even not necessarily believing him, is to acknowledge a person as beyond guilt.

The matter must, therefore, be far more fundamental, a big picture plot as to why Pell must suffer.  It might be the vengeful in search of a sacrificial lamb, the Cardinal’s conviction as a rite for purification.  It might be the Church in search of a cleansing alibi.  It is not possible to claim that Pell is guilty, shouts reactionary columnist Miranda Devine, because no jury could possibly claim to be unbiased.  Would that problem be alleviated by a jury of other peers, priests, maybe? 

Devine, herself a Catholic, has never been shy to suggest a conspiracy.  There is always something else at work.  In 2017, she claimed in an off-the-edge tweet that Victoria’s Police Chief Graham Ashton was “desperate or a distraction from the crime epidemic he’s incapable of stopping”. Catholics, she suggested in the language of sectarian fear, were being hunted. 

Andrew Bolt, who holds court at Sky News and The Herald Sun, similarly cannot fathom what has been done to the fallen cleric, and assumes that self-opinion can become canonical.

  “Declaration: I have met Pell perhaps five times in my life and I like him,” admitted the one-dimensional polemicist. “I am not Catholic or even a Christian.  He is a scapegoat, not a child abuser.  In my opinion.”   

The opinion caveat is important for Bolt.  Having landed in hot water previously for not clarifying that his opinion as just that, the Federal Court gave him a good wrapping over the knuckles for what was, at its core, shoddy journalism on “White Aboriginals”.  But on this occasion, the self-proclaimed rabblerouser felt he was on to something.

“Cardinal George Pell has been falsely convicted of sexually abusing two boys in their early teens. That’s my opinion, based on the overwhelming evidence.”   

Not that Bolt actually saw the evidence or was exposed to it, but he is nonetheless content suggesting that the victims’ reluctance to initially report the abuse (has he any understanding of Church history?), and the business of the room where the abuse was said to have taken place, suggested innocence.  Furthermore, “the man I know seems not just incapable of such abuse, but so intelligent and cautious that he would never risk his brilliant career and good name on such a mad assault in such a public place.”  Bolt, ever the purveyor of the shallow view and ignorant formulation of human nature.  Perhaps he suggests that the cleric was simply too intelligent to have been genuinely caught? 

A dangerous twilight zone has developed.  The critics have shown, in searing fashion, that they do not believe that guilt could ever be associated with certain figures of office.  In this sense, they betray a posh-boy, aristocratic perversion: people of a certain class can never wrong; people of some groups (African migrants, for instance) always do.  Kill, maim, rape and maul, yes, but never assume that any code, criminal or otherwise, applies to certain members.   

This is entertaining if teasing idiocy.  The very people who believe in necessary rules assume that these should be selectively applied.  There have always been pleasant, decent murderers, but thinking otherwise changes it.  There are entertaining child abusers of high standing, and thinking them charming and ambitious makes abuse improbable.  There are bon vivant genocidal maniacs, dressed well and hoping for a historical kill, and thinking them good company turns them into miraculous innocents.   

Such conduct, including messages of support from former Australian Prime Ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, brings to mind the good character references, and beliefs, of the recently canonised Mother Teresa (now St. Teresa of Calcutta), who kept good company with the dictatorial likes of Jean-Claude Duvalier of Haiti, and swindling millionaires such as Charles Keating. The latter, an anti-pornographic crusader of frothing fanaticism, liked talking about God and family values even as he perpetrated financial fraud with sociopathic enthusiasm.  The Saint simply believed they were incapable of crime.  For some, that is all that matters, and laws should be best forgotten.

The process will have to run its course and the cardinal’s run of the legal system is far from over.  Pell’s defence team will no doubt be reassessing the evidence with forensic aptitude, and point out errors or doubts.  But that does not discredit a verdict arrived at through formal processes in the presence of a jury and a well summing up by the judge. The danger in such doubting circumstances is that those good souls who are duly selected to serve on a panel of peers are deemed, if not expendable, then dangerous to the health of the defendant.   

*

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: Cardinal George Pell (Source: Salt and Light / Youtube)

The Socialist Equality Party denounces the March 3 physical assault on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The political differences between the SEP and Corbyn are well known and unbridgeable. But we unreservedly call on workers and young people to defend him from any attack by the extreme right.

The March 3 events are a serious warning of the dangerous right-wing political climate being whipped-up by Britain’s ruling elite and its media outlets. It points to the need for heightened political vigilance and a determined political struggle against all those political forces giving succour to the far-right.

Corbyn was visiting the Muslim Welfare Centre in north London during the annual “Visit My Mosque” day, attached to Finsbury Park mosque. John Murphy, 31, was in attendance and approached Corbyn from behind, hitting him on the head with an egg in his fist.

Murphy screamed, “When you vote you get what you vote for.” He later made clear this was an attack on Corbyn’s acceptance of a possible second referendum on Britain leaving the European Union should Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed Brexit deal or Labour’s alternative proposal fail.

Alongside Corbyn on Sunday was Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, who wrote on social media,

“I was there. He punched Jeremy very hard. He happened to have an egg in his palm. But it could have been a knife. Horrible.”

It was left to bystanders to come to Corbyn’s aid, surrounding Murphy and calling the police. Inexplicably, it appears that no police officers were present to protect the Labour leader. According to reports, it was only after the assault that a marked police van with uniformed officers arrived in the centre’s driveway. No serious explanation has been given for the seemingly total absence of security protection for one of the most prominent political figures in Britain.

Murphy has since been charged by Scotland Yard with Assault by Beating and will appear at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court March 19.

A physical attack on a leading politician would normally receive saturation press coverage. However, the media response to the incident was belated, sporadic and deliberately framed to trivialise the issue.

Across the political spectrum, the attack was described as Corbyn being “egged.” The state broadcaster, the BBC, wrote of an egg being “thrown.” The Sun ran as its headline, “Br-Eggs-it.” Few newspapers even reported Abbott’s description of the incident, or that of well-known Labour Skwawkbox blogger that “It was an attempt to punch him in the face not just egg him…”

Significantly, the Metropolitan Police statement also wrongly referred to an egg being “thrown.”

The right-wing Guido Fawkes blog, frequently cited in the mainstream media, carried an interview with Murphy, publishing his jokes about having “squished an egg on Jeremy Corbyn’s head.” Murphy decried Corbyn as an associate of Hamas and the IRA, claiming his own actions were in defence of the “democratic rights of most of our country…”

The fascist-minded commentators on the blog roared in approval of the attack. One referred to Corbyn as “Jewemy,” while another declared, “Shame it wasn’t a grenade.”

The impulse for Murphy’s attack is the toxic atmosphere generated by Brexit, and the relentless and hysterical state campaign against Corbyn and the “left.” There is a sinister and deadly logic to these attacks.

On June 19, 2017, Darren Osborne drove a rented van at a group of worshipers on the street outside Finsbury Park Mosque and the Muslim Welfare Centre, injuring 12 people and killing Makram Ali, who died of multiple wounds. Osborne was jailed in February 2018 for murder and attempted murder and sentenced to serve at least 43 years in prison—with the judge stating that he was guilty of “terrorist murder.”

During the trial, Osborne admitted he had planned to murder Corbyn and London’s Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan at a June 18 Al Quds protest in central London. He had chosen Finsbury Park because “It was Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency.” Osborne was radicalised by the fascist propaganda of Britain First and the anti-Muslim diatribes of Tommy Robinson.

Just one year before Osborne’s attack, the fascist Thomas Mair murdered Labour MP Jo Cox. As he repeatedly shot and stabbed her, he shouted, “Britain first! This is for Britain. Britain will always come first.” Cox was killed just one week prior to the referendum vote on Britain’s continued membership of the EU. She was a high-profile supporter of the Remain campaign.

Politics in the UK is increasingly frenzied. The ruling class is split into warring factions fighting over whether they should leave or remain in the EU, but the orientation of the entire ruling class is ever further to the right. Above and beyond their differences over Brexit is a common aim to massively escalate the austerity measures against the working class and a growing fear of the social opposition this is generating.

Corbyn is being vilified despite his constant political retreats and willingness to abandon every policy on which he won popular support. This only proves that the real targets of the state witch-hunt against Corbyn are the hundreds of thousands of workers and young people seeking a left-wing alternative to capitalism. For this reason, Corbyn is still routinely denounced as a threat to national security who has effectively “destroyed” the Labour Party by attracting an influx of left-leaning members.

This offensive invariably brings the official political parties—Conservative and Labour—into alignment with the far right, above all thanks to their common espousal of anti-communist rhetoric. It is no accident that the physical assault on Corbyn follows last month’s separate attacks by fascists on Karl Marx’s grave in Highgate Cemetery—which were similarly downplayed by the media and all but ignored by the police.

Despite the clear and present danger posed by the growth of far-right and fascist parties throughout Europe, an incessant slander campaign is underway—led by an alliance of Labour’s Blairite right wing, the Tories and the media—portraying Labour as a hotbed of anti-Semitism. It was left to Momentum leader Jon Lansman to blurt out the real target of this filthy campaign, when he said the source of these alleged “hardcore anti-Semitic opinions” was Labour’s “300,000 or more new members.”

In the Orwellian universe occupied by Lansman, Labour’s Deputy-Leader Tom Watson and self-appointed Independent Group MP Luciana Berger, left-wing opponents of Zionism who defend the Palestinian people represent a greater danger to the Jewish people than does fascism. This lie is repeated endlessly, despite the steady escalation of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim violence—and despite Israel’s own alignment with fascist and anti-Semitic parties from Victor Orbán’s Fidesz to Matteo Salvini’s Lega Nord.

The campaign continued without interruption the morning after the attack on Corbyn. Blairite MP Siobhain McDonagh told John Humphrys on BBC Radio Four that anti-Semitism is “very much part… of hard left politics, to be against capitalists and to see Jewish people as the financiers of capital. Ergo you are anti-Jewish people.”

When Humphrys asked, “In other words, to be anti-capitalist you have to be anti-Semitic?” McDonagh replied, “Yes.” This astonishing libel against socialism passed without comment from the BBC’s presenter.

Just two MPs on the party’s right-wing have issued statements condemning the attack on Corbyn. The rest stayed silent—too busy plotting to expel the party’s “anti-capitalist” members using bogus accusations of anti-Semitism.

Corbyn too has remained silent on the Finsbury Park assault and on the right-wing offensive that led to it. He cannot point out what scores of his supporters on social media have: Corbyn’s attacker comes from the right, but his readiness to act has been shaped by the efforts, led by the Blairites, to demonize and delegitimise the left.

As has been demonstrated again and again throughout history, including in the fate of Corbyn’s hero Salvador Allende in Chile, it is the tragedy of an impotent reformism that it is not only incapable of fighting for socialism, but even of defending itself. Even the most basic struggle for democratic rights requires a genuinely socialist politics, entirely opposed to that represented by Corbyn.

*

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

A More Dangerous World: The Nuclear Arms Race, the INF Treaty and Canada

March 7th, 2019 by Socialist Project Steering Committee

On October 20, 2018, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the bilateral Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia. The INF was signed by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1987. The treaty eliminated 2,692 land-based missiles with ranges of 500 km to 5,500 km. On February 1, 2019, the United States suspended its participation in the treaty, and Russia responded by withdrawing from the treaty the following day.

This comes at a time of heightening belligerence by the United States and its allies against countries beyond the ongoing military operations in the Middle East. Particularly since the Ukraine/Russia crisis of 2014/15, current targets include Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and now Venezuela. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes until midnight: military strategy from the U.S., its NATO partners, and Israel, appallingly includes the first-strike deployment of nuclear weapons based on a belief that a nuclear war is winnable and that nuclear weapons can be used like conventional weapons. The abrogation of the INF Treaty follows the massive $1.1-trillion investment in nuclear weapons by former President Barack Obama, and it comes as the Trump administration opens the possibility of Saudi Arabia’s development of its own nuclear weapons arsenal.

Unipolar World

The end of the Cold War was a pivotal turning point in world history, a time when nuclear weapons should have been eliminated and when the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases could have been maintained at a safe level. Instead, the United States took the lead in expanding NATO and persisting with energy and economic policies that accelerate greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has long claimed a number of entitlements for unilateral foreign policy interventions which allow a wide range of measures to protect oil supplies and to undertake military actions with impunity. Since the 1990s massive expansion of the American overseas military capabilities, the U.S. is now estimated to be operating some 800 to 1000 military bases worldwide. Indeed, the U.S. now appears to be engaged in ‘permanent war’, with any number of interventions in contravention of international law (such as it is) – wars that have come at the cost of millions of lives.

The abrogation of the INF nuclear arms control treaty comes after former U.S. President Barack Obama allocated $1.1-trillion for modernizing American nuclear weapons. In the words of the late Jonathan Schell, a lifelong opponent of nuclearization: “[T]he United States and its nuclear allies did not build nuclear weapons chiefly in order to face extraordinary danger, whether from Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union, but for more deep-seated, unarticulated reasons growing out of its own, freely chosen conceptions of national security. Nuclear arsenals will seem to have been less a response to any particular external threat, totalitarian or otherwise, than an intrinsic element of the dominant liberal civilization itself – an evil that first grew and still grows from within that civilization rather than being imposed from without.” Schell angrily asks what is it about liberalism that pushes it again and again to “pointless slaughter and destructive fury.”

The United States has driven the arms race: it detonated the first atomic bomb, built the first ballistic-missile-launching submarine, assembled a massive stockpile of strategic missiles and multiple warheads, and developed computerized guidance systems for weapons (including drones and others). The United States refused to ratify the UN Conference on Disarmament’s Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (final draft in June 1996). In 2002, G.W. Bush made the unilateral decision to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union which subsequently led to the development and installation of missile defense systems.

The work of Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests that installed missile defense systems surrounding Russia and China are easily convertible to offense and that their close range falls within the INF Treaty. He writes that missile defense deployment of weapons is undetectable by current Russian and Chinese technology, leading to a scenario in which these countries could launch a pre-emptive strike without having full knowledge about whether there actually is an imminent threat. The Cold War strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) no longer deters nuclear warfare. Missile Defense provides an incentive to both sides to launch first strike annihilation before a retaliatory strike is possible.

Dismantle NATO!

The United States and NATO justify armed interventions under false pretexts, the most notorious recent examples being ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in Iraq and overblown reports of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. At the same time, there is (phony) secrecy about Israel’s nuclear weapons program and political coverage of Israel’s weapons programs and deployments. At the time of the 2014-15 Ukraine/Russia crisis, German newspaper Der Spiegel quoted NATO General Breedlove that “40,000 Russian troops were ‘massing’.” But they noted that “[i]n the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none. There is in fact no evidence of mass Russian troop movement.”

In Canada, there is little knowledge about Canada’s active participation in building missile defense systems or Canada’s involvement in nuclear weapons proliferation. In 1963, former prime minister Lester Pearson signed an agreement with the United States to acquire nuclear warheads for its Bomarc ground-to-air missiles. In violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Canada supplied India with the technology for making its nuclear weapons. Canada contributes RADARSAT remote sensing technology for NATO’s missile defence system, and most recently participated in provocative NATO war games close to Russia’s and China’s borders. Canada did not participate in any of the preparatory meetings in Oslo (March 2013), Nayarit (February 2014) and Vienna (December 2014) leading to the nuclear ban treaty.

Dismantling NATO and the entire military/industrial complex urgently needs to be in the forefront of political education and action, especially with the ominous shift to militarized authoritarianism in much of the world and the willingness to launch nuclear war. Canada’s hypocritical self-image as a ‘peace-loving decent country’ blinds the public to Canada’s role, and the aggressive interventionist policies being pursued by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland.

Street protests by the ant-war movement have at times been large and worldwide but have had limited effect in eliminating nuclear weapons or, without sustained and long periods of organizing, in stopping war. Nor have the growing climate justice and ecological movement at this time made any dent in decreasing overall greenhouse gas emissions, the other threat to all human life. At present, there is no cohesive anti-war movement in either Canada or the USA. Nuclear war, climate disaster, and extraordinary poverty are appalling atrocities that require united, cooperative, informed, courageous, and unrelenting opposition. It is a crucial test of the emerging socialist and green movements in North America to rebuild peace and international solidarity movements capable of challenging North American imperialism and the new arms race.

*

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

Featured image is from The Bullet

Make no mistake – On the eve of yet another US war for oil, what usually preempts intervention into a sovereign state is the pretext of a humanitarian crisis as espoused by a co-opted mainstream media that rarely challenges the government diktat in foreign policy decisions.  One only has to look at Iraq or Libya for instance. In the case of Venezuela, do not be taken in by the mainstream media in Britain and America – they are merely parroting what they are being told to say. We’ve seen it all before.

From the New York Times that reports a back up plan is needed to prevent a Venezuelan famine to the Financial Times that appeals for desperate economic aid to reach the country. The mainstream media is even reporting that Venezuelan soldiers are starving to death but the truth is very different from what is little more than unadulterated propaganda peddled out on a mass scale.

Venezuela: mainstream media fake news - what the UN Rapporteur really said

Broadly speaking, the Western mainstream media are reporting about the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and blaming the socialist leader Nicolas Maduro for his dictatorial mismanagement and therefore the crisis, the truth is quite different.

Testimony

Testimony from the human rights investigator designated by the United Nations to assess the situation in Venezuela has been completely ignored.

Alfred De Zayas was the first UN investigator to go to Venezuela in 21 years – he has written a total of 13 reports for the UN Human Rights Council.

“I am the first and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years.  I have opened the door for other rapporteurs and even for the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, who was officially invited in December.  My visit lasted from 26 November to 5 December.  I met with members of the National Assembly, chamber of commerce, diplomatic corps, opposition groups, non-governmental organizations, church leaders, professors university students.

There was no “humanitarian crisis”, as confirmed to me – nothing to compare with Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Central African Republic, etc.  But indeed there was a scarcity of foods and medicines.  The situation has gotten much worse since Dec. 2017 because of Trumps sanctions and the economic and financial blockade.”

This report on Venezuela by the United Nation’s own staff is important. De Zayas was himself completely bewildered as to how his reports have been totally ignored. In an attempt to get an audience De Zayas was interviewed by Abby Martin from the Empire Files in late February.

In the interview, De Zayas says:

if you know a humanitarian crisis in places like Gaza, Syria Sudan, Yemen and the like you wouldn’t say there was a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.”

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

“I think it would have been sensible to say that the BBC or Washington Post or FT … well – at no time since my report to the human rights council at the UN have I been approached by any of these organisations who actually have a responsibility to inform the wider public of what is really happening.

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

The so-called President-in-waiting Juan Guaidó is merely the jockey – he is riding in the trojan horse of the US – but the solution  is easier than the band-aid offered than simply food and medicine – the solution is in my report – that I told the Human Rights Council – is that the financial blockade has had extremely adverse human rights impacts.

A country as wealthy as Venezuela should have been able to borrow money on its enormous natural resoures to buy and sell like any one else. But because of the enormous US threats metered out, the banks have been closing the accounts of the Venezuelan government and of the state oil company.

Already some of the biggest banks, without notice, closed the bank accounts of the Bank of Venezuela.  They blocked the shipment of more than 300,000 doses of life-saving insulin and $1.65 bn of money spent by the Venezuelan government for the purchase of food and medicine, which was blocked.

The Venezuelan state oil company has not been able to move its money to buy all these things – it needs that money to buy food and medicine.

Other US banks are withholding transfers from other country banks to Venezuela for the supply of electricy. Yet more have stopped the transfer of money for the supply of dialysis supplies including supplies to children.

You see here the immorality of it – there is personal criminal liabilty for the impact of these sanctions. I am certain that the increase in child mortality, the increase in maternal mortality, the increased deaths for lack of medical supplies and drugs is a direct result of this blockade where the government of Venezuela has not been able to supply what it needs to its people.”

“The government (of Venezuela) is being asphyxiated and that was the name of the game. What the US government intended to do was to create a situation whereby the people or the military would topple the government and then the 1% could again come in and again control the wealth of Venezuela.”

Venezuela has succeeded in bringing millions and millions of its people out of extreme poverty. Nobody cared in the 1980s and 90s that millions were starving to death – it was a government that was palatable to the US government – but the moment a left-wing government came to power the priority of Washington was to topple it.

The Bank of England – is yet another violation of international law (for withholding Venezuela’s gold sale) – but try to bring the US or UK to the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice, it is impossible. What is important now is for the UN to adopt a resolution condemning the sanctions and ask that they are lifted because they kill.

I would also like to see the prosecutor of the International Court investigate to what extent the number of deaths related to the sanctions imposed by the US – amount to a violation of article 7 of the Statute of Rome – it defines crimes against humanity.”

“When you deliberately impose sanctions and social blockades – effectively an economic war that asphyxiates a country economy and thereby make it very difficult for that country to provide food and medical supplies, the consequence is that thousands die – you have a case of crimes against humanity.”

De Zayas continues –

But the narrative in the mainstream press completely ignores it – when they refer to a humanitarian crisis they put the entire fault on the government and they say – well socialism is a proven failure, therefore, you have to have regime change.”

International response 

Abby Martin goes on to point out that the narrative by the mainstream media blocks another reality in this story. For instance, according to most of the mainstream media, most of the world’s leaders support America’s wishes and want Maduro out of power. However, not reported is that 51 countries in Africa recognise the Venezuelan elected leader in Maduro – only one recognises the unelected leader in waiting – that is Morroco.

Out of all the nations covering the whole of Asia, only Australia recognises Guido – 33 nations recognise Maduro.

In the Middle-East, it is only Israel supports that Guido – all other nations support Maduro. It is the same in the Americas and Caribbean – 17 countries support Guaidó – but 19 support Maduro. It goes without saying that some of those countries that back the USA in pressuring for regime change are either sycophants or the scared and have little choice in such matters.

The BBC reports that – “The UK, France, Germany, Spain and other European countries have officially recognised opposition leader Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela” – without actually saying that a number of European countries were solidly against regime change. Italy, Norway, Ireland, the Vatican and Switzerland were among them.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s official position was, as expected, that “further steps” were being considered, “including the use of sanctions.”

Alfred De Zayas continues:

“International law has been violated by interferring in the internal affarirs of states. The right to self determination is guaranteed by international law – it is not the right of the UN to decide this.

The use of force and the threat of the use of force is illegal and the US has threatnend time and time again that a military option is on the table with regard to Venezuela, this would be a major violation of international law.

It is true to say that 80 per cent of Venezuelan people had never heard of Guido.”

Abby Martin then goes on to discuss who is Juan Guaidó – with much of the report stating he spent most of his educational in the USA and has deep roots in causing violent street protests using right wing political activists. Guaidó was also involved in a US attempt of regime change back in 2002.

Martin makes the point that by 2010 the US government and other groups were pouring $50m a year into funding a Venezuelan opposition movement – with Guaidó being groomed for the operation.

*

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

Trump Looks to Nationalize 5G

March 7th, 2019 by Michael Kern

Trump apparently wants to control 5G in a ‘state-run’ socialist twist to American capitalism—and now there are indications that it could become part of the 2020 election campaign.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign team renewed its controversial pitch on nationalizing the country’s 5G network. In other words, the government would have control of 5G airwaves and lease access to private wireless providers.

Kayleigh McEnany, a Trump 2020 campaign spokeswoman, told Politico that a wholesale 5G market would drive down costs and provide access to millions of Americans who are currently underserved.

“This is in line with President Trump’s agenda to benefit all Americans, regardless of geography,” McEnany said. Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, has been also pushing for a plan that would involve a nationwide 5G network.

Last month, President Trump himself wrote on social media about 5G, saying that

“American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind.”

“I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible. It is far more powerful, faster, and smarter than the current standard,” he tweeted. (We’ll let the fact that there is no such thing as 6G technology slide for the sake of election campaigning). 

Not everyone’s on board the nationalization train, though. There are some in the White House who would prefer the industry lead this game. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, for one, believes wireless companies should manage the build-out of 5G. Feeling the heat over this talk of nationalization, even McEnany and Parscale later walked back their calls for government control of 5G, saying they were expressing their own personal opinions—not Trump’s.

The idea of a wholesale network is being pushed by little known wireless company Rivada Networks. However, it should be noted that Peter Thiel and Karl Rove, who both have close ties to the Republican party and are strong President Trump supporters, have invested in Rivada.

While this new campaign is ostensibly aimed at reducing costs and providing rural residents with fast internet, motives aren’t always what they appear to be.

We heard about this plan last year, too, when the administration thought it would test the waters and gauge public sentiment. It’s wasn’t very successful, taking a lot of heat from critics in the industry and from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). It also got crushed by lawmakers on both sides of the gaping political divide. It was quickly shoved under the rug.

But China keeps coming back around.

A memo from a National Security Council official, obtained by Axios, insisted that a strong, government-controlled 5G network is necessary as a bulwark against Chinese threats to America’s economy and cyber security.

“China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure…China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain,” the memo read.

In the meantime, U.S. mobile providers such as  AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, for example, are investing heavily in this area and have promised to make 5G a reality later this year.

However, they are still lagging behind Chinese companies, Huawei primarily, one of the biggest phone makers and telecommunications kit providers in the world and the company that has been the target of U.S. lobbying over national security and economy concerns.

The US administration has recently announced it is considered barring American companies from using equipment from Chinese companies and called on its allies to do the same.

So, the elephant in the 5G room is China—not “underserved” American farmers—however, nice that might sound for the 2020 campaign. Much of China’s power comes from the fact that the government controls everything. But the suggestion is that if America wants to beat China, it has to become China, and nationalization is the first step.

*

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

The US Empire Has Up to 1,000 Military Bases in 80 Countries

March 7th, 2019 by Darius Shahtahmasebi

This article was originally published on January 30, 2018.

On the weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Baltimore University hosted more than 200 activists in the peace, environment, and social justice movements to launch a new initiative known as the Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases, the Nation reported.

In a series of panels that lasted over two days, the conference attendees highlighted the horrors of American foreign policy despite the fact Martin Luther King warned against these horrors over 50 years ago, a fitting reminder to heed the warnings of Dr. King.

According to the panel, the U.S. has over 800 formal military bases in 80 countries, “a number that could exceed 1,000 if you count troops stationed at embassies and missions and so-called ‘lily-pond’ bases, with some 138,000 soldiers stationed around the globe,” the Nation notes.

According to David Vine, author of Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Overseas Harm America and the World, maintaining bases and troops overseas cost $85 to $100 billion in 2014, while the total for bases and troops in war zones was between $160 billion and $200 billion.

The Nation also highlighted Vine’s claim that only some 11 other countries have bases in foreign countries, around 70 altogether. Russia is believed to have at least 26 bases in nine countries. They are mainly in former Soviet states, as well as Syria and Vietnam. The U.K., France, and Turkey have around four to ten bases each, and a handful of global bases are occupied by India, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. This might all change in the years to come, however, as China may be looking to build bases of its own in the Middle East.

Once the U.S. establishes itself militarily in a nation, it rarely leaves. Consider that after the defeat of Germany in World War II, the U.S. never left the country. It has maintained its bases there ever since. Germany’s Ramstein base is now the “hub” for America’s global drone assassination program throughout the Middle East.

The British spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), has been using a base in North Yorkshire called Menwith Hill to assist with America’s targeted killings in the Middle East, using an unknown number of employees.

This is but one example of how American bases overseas can be used to commit mass suffering in the Middle East, and the effects of these bases on the local populations are far too many to document.

For example, in Okinawa, Japan, the U.S. was suspected of housing and burying Agent Orange at its unpopular base in Futenma. Protests are not uncommon, with a specific sit-in protest lasting more than 5,000 consecutive days, as reported by the Japan Times at the end of last year. Rapes, theft, assaults, and murders committed by U.S. personnel there are all rather common.

The most famous incident involved the rape of a 12-year-old girl by three U.S. servicemen in 1995. The Okinawans have been protesting the U.S. military presence ever since, but the U.S. refuses to budge (with the exception of its proposal to relocate the base to a separate location, which is yet to appease the locals’ concerns).

“U.S. bases in Korea and Japan are vehicles of the Cold-War threat of China. Bases are not the spoils of the past war as some believe; they are the purpose of the war,” Satoko Oka Norimatsu, editor of the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus and author of Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States,told Anti-Media. Norimatsu also said resisting the U.S. base presence and its plans to relocate is important for Okinawa because “U.S. bases concentrated in Okinawa are a form of colonial oppression by Japan that’s continuing for over four centuries.”

“Some people in Okinawa believe that if Japan as a whole wants to maintain the U.S.-Japan military alliance, it should be Japan who carries these bases and not Okinawa,” she added.

Okinawa is just one instance of anti-U.S. sentiment brought on by its unwelcome military presence. In Okinawa, the U.S. reportedly takes up about one-fifth of Okinawan land. In 2004, Gangnam Style singer Psy released a song that was heavily critical of the U.S. military after an incident caused by a military vehicle that killed two young Korean girls. According to CNN:

“CNN was able to translate the lyrics as saying, ‘Kill those f–ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives and those who ordered them to torture,’ and going on to say, ‘Kill them all slowly and painfully,’ as well as ‘daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers.’”

It may be for this reason that the Nation, one of the few outlets to document this issue over the past few years, is highlighting the movement to bring an end to this disastrous and unnecessary foreign policy, which at its heart turns local populations against the U.S. across the globe.

*

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

Featured image is from The Anti-Media

Tell Congress to Stand Up for Real Net Neutrality Protections

March 7th, 2019 by Katharine Trendacosta

When the FCC announced its intention to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order, Americans spoke up. When the FCC ignored the fact that most Americans support net neutrality, Americans spoke up again, asking Congress to reverse the FCC’s decision. And the Senate listened. This fight continues in the courts, in the states, and, yes, in Congress.

The just-introduced Save the Internet Act would restore the 2015 Open Internet Order and prevent the FCC from pulling the same stunt it did in 2017 by ignoring facts and the clear desire of the people. Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast would once again be banned from engaging in discriminatory data practices like blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. ISPs would once again be accountable for actions that threaten the free and open Internet, public safety, and competition. Privacy protections from your ISP would once again be restored. There would again be protections for real net neutrality.

The Save the Internet Act returns us to the hard-fought-for protections of the 2015 Open Internet Order and we should not settle for anything less. Bills, like H.R. 1101 (Walden), H.R. 1006 (Latta), and H.R. 1096 (McMorris Rodgers), that focus only on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization miss the vital point that net neutrality is a principle of fairness. We cannot let ISPs try to redefine net neutrality as simply bans on three specific actions. It’s the idea that the provider that you pay to get you online doesn’t get to determine your experience once you’re on the Internet. You decide what you want to see and use, without ISPs stacking the deck in a way that benefits them.

Legislation that protects real net neutrality recognizes that there are more than three ways for ISPs to leverage the fact that they control your access to the Internet and Internet services’ access to you. Legislators that truly believe in a free and open Internet will support the Save the Internet Act and not any bill that does less for Americans.

Americans of both parties have made their opinion on net neutrality clear. Over and over again, we’ve spoken out. And we’re going to keep doing it until we get the Internet we deserve.

Tell your representatives you want them to stand up for real net neutrality. And don’t let them redefine net neutrality by supporting one of the other, net-neutrality-in-name-only bills. Tell them you want them to co-sponsor the Save the Internet Act, and take a stand for Team Internet—not ISPs.

*

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

While the Zircon hypersonic cruise missile has not attracted the same level of media attention as the strategic Avangard re-entry vehicle or even the air-launched Kinzhal aeroballistic missile, it nevertheless represents an important advance in military technology and represents the state-of-the-art of Russian technologies. It promises to maintain and even expand Russia’s conventional deterrence through its high guarantee of effective retaliatory capability even against the most advanced anti-air and anti-missile defenses.

The secrecy surrounding the 3M22 Zircon, to the point of there existing no official images of the weapon, is remarkable and reminds one of the careful effort to conceal the true nature of the P-700 Granit heavy anti-ship missile, specifically its air-breathing ramjet propulsion.  It is also indicative of the importance attached to this weapon by the Russian government. Zircon has already been assigned a NATO reporting designation of SS-N-33, indicating that the alliance is treating the reports of its development and testing fairly seriously.  As well it should, given that the weapon system is being developed by the world-famous NPO Mashinostroyeniya know for, among other things, the aforementioned Granit and the Oniks/Yakhont cruise missile boasting ramjet propulsion, top speeds several times the speed of sound,  and the capability of striking land and naval targets. While the Granit was never used in combat, Oniks has already proved itself in Syria, where it was used to destroy extremist high-value targets with high precision and played an important role in deterring NATO strikes against Syria by threatening its naval assets in the Mediterranean.

While the Oniks is still a potent weapon that poses an extremely difficult challenge for any point-defense system due to its small size and high speed, the nature of the offense-defense technological race means that its successor in the form of Zircon is already under development and will likely enter service within the next few years, though according to some officials it already forms part of Russia’s arsenal. It is entirely possible that while the weapon is still undergoing development and testing, some missiles are already being carried by naval vessels on an experimental basis, in the same way the air-launched Kinzhal aeroballistic missile was deployed while still undergoing evaluation.

The reports that the Zircon is to be launched from the same 3S14 vertical launchers that are used for the Oniks indicate the two missiles are in the same weight and size class, with comparable range and payload characteristics. The one advantage the Zircon will have over the Oniks is the speed, which various sources estimate at between Mach 6 and Mach 9, a figure that may well depend on the missile’s flight altitude. If a low-altitude trajectory is adopted, on the one hand the dense layers of the atmosphere would reduce the speed considerably while on the other reducing reaction time by allowing the missile to clear the radar horizon relatively close to its target. A high-altitude cruise at 30-40km would enable it to accelerate to maximum velocity likely approaching that of a short-range ballistic missile and attack its target in a steep dive. While the high-altitude approach would provide the adversary with greater opportunity to detect the missile whose heat alone would make it difficult to conceal, it still would be a difficult weapon to intercept, particularly since most weapons sent against it would be considerably slower. It is not clear whether the Zircon is capable of high-g evasive maneuvers. If it is, that would increase its resistance to interception even more.

The differences between high and low flight trajectories likely account for the different cited maximum ranges for the weapon. While some sources list its range as only 400km, President Putin’s recent address included the claim the weapon has effective range in excess of 1,000km. Moreover, should an air-launched variant of the Zircon be developed, which is rather likely considering the existence of sea-, land-, and air-launched versions of the Oniks, its maximum range should be well in excess of 1,000km, particularly if the launching aircraft is flying at high altitude and at supersonic speed.

Once operational, the naval variant of the Zircon will be deployed on all ships currently capable of carrying the Kalibr and Oniks missile systems, from 800 ton missile corvettes to frigates and even ships currently armed with the large Soviet-era Granit anti-ship missiles, namely the nuclear-powered missile cruisers and cruise missile submarines.  It appears that, as in the case of Oniks, the primary mission is anti-ship, with a combination of inertial, satellite, and active radar guidance, with a secondary land-attack role. On account of its rather shorter range and smaller payload, it is unlikely to displace Kalibr as the naval land-attack weapon of choice. While there are reports that the Zircon could be used to target US command and control facilities on the Atlantic coast, the weapon’s range means the launching submarine would have to cruise uncomfortably close to US coasts and therefore risk detection and destruction in order to bring its missiles to bear. It is doubtful the Zircon would be the sole or even the main weapon used for conventional strikes against land targets in such a scenario, and there are no indications it is intended to completely or even partially replace the Kalibr. However, the Zircon would have one major advantage over the Kalibr in the land-attack role, namely its potential ability to destroy underground targets due to its extremely high speed, if equipped with an appropriate “bunker buster” warhead and launched on a plunging trajectory against its target. Kalibr does not have the ability to defeat such heavily protected targets, and while Kinzhal potentially does, it is an air-launched weapon only. Thus the Zircon promises to not only preserve the competitiveness and viability of Russia’s anti-ship weapon systems but also provide an important and so far lacking niche capability.

*

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

President Trump today issued an executive order revoking a 2016 executive order provision requiring the government to release annual statistics on drone and other lethal strikes overseas. The 2016 order required the government to disclose the number of strikes as well as the number of combatants and non-combatants killed in counterterrorism operations “away from areas of active hostilities.”

Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, issued the following statement in response:

“President Trump has already weakened rules that sought to limit civilian deaths caused by this country’s illegal and immoral lethal force program, in which it kills suspects in places where we are not at war.  This order now shrouds those killings in even greater secrecy.

“Trump’s decision to increase secrecy about the United States’ killing of people abroad is deeply wrong and dangerous for public accountability.  Trump revoked a transparency order that provided an imperfect but still important official record of deaths caused by the military and, critically, the CIA.  This decision will hide from the public the government’s own tally of the total number of deaths it causes every year in its lethal force program. Now, the government is also no longer committed to providing reasons why its total death count is different from independent credible reports by media and rights groups.”

*

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 Geopolitics Alert

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ACLU Comment on EO Revoking Requirement to Release Casualty Numbers from Lethal Strikes Abroad
  • Tags:

The world had been watching for eight months, since the Singapore Summit of June 2018, official or non-official Washington-Pyongyang peace dialogues. As the countdown of the Hanoi Summit began, the world thought that it had the right to hope for some encouraging outcomes. But the world could not digest what happened. The world hoped that the dim light for peace would shine brightly, but it failed to shine. The Summit collapsed.  Why? 

A special train left Pyongyang on the 25th of February and headed for Hanoi with Chairman Kim Jong-un on board along with the world’s hope for a successful summit. The trip was lasted 70 hours; it was long and dangerous.

It is possible that Kim has chosen the rain trip for four reasons.

First, by being absent from Pyongyang for 10 days, he would have wanted to tell the world that he had total control of North Korean politics and that he had North Koreans’ confidence in him.

Second, by taking the same rout as his grandfather Kim Il-sung who has quasi divine status in North Korea did long time ago, he would have wanted to strengthen his political legitimacy.

Third, by taking three days of train trip to Hanoi, he attracted global media light thus widened his global visibility.

Fourth, the train has given him a chance to be surrounded by the whole team connected with denuclearization and the Washington-Pyongyang negotiation process so that he could finalize the strategy of bargaining with Trump.

It appears that the discussion with these people would have given him an optimistic outlook of the summit. Kim Jong-un might have thought that he would get the lifting of some sanctions in exchange of the dismantling of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. He knew too well what price North Koreans had paid for the production of nuclear arsenal which was the only means to defend his country against American nuclear attacks.

Thus, Kim Jong-un might have expected some decent results from the Summit; he would have never thought that Trump would walk out. Now, Kim knows who Trump is and what the U.S. can do. Kim now knows how undisciplined and unjust the negotiation with Washington could be. This could have been too much for a young leader with little experience in international politics.

I hope that the Hanoi Summit experience would not discourage Kim. On the contrary, this experience should be considered as a lesson useful for a better bargaining strategy and even an alternative peace approach.

One thing clear is that the international community should offer more support for Kim’s sincere effort to bring peace and prosperity not only in the Korean peninsula but also in the whole of East Asia

In this paper, first, I will discuss the possible contents of the agreement accepted by the professional negotiation teams. Second, I will examine the possible reasons for the summit collapse. Finally, in the fourth section, I will try to provide an answer to the question: “What will Happen?”.

1. Possible Unsigned Pre-Agreement

Since there are no official announcements about the agreements by the negotiation teams, we have to make reasonable guessing for the pre-agreements based on the opinions and comments of “experts” media people, government officials and, of course, the politicians.

1.1 Gift Offered by North Korea

Gifts offered by North Korea would have included the following:

(1) Moratorium on nuclear arsenal: no production, no use, no tests, no proliferation; in fact, this was declared in Chairman Kim’s 2019 New-Year Speech. This moratorium shows how honestly Kim wants denuclearization

(2) Dismantling of Yongbyon nuclear facilities which represent 80% of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. The U.S. tries to minimize the importance of these facilities saying that they are old. But most experts of nuclear weapons admit that the cumulated nuclear knowledge and experiences are embodied in the Yongbyon nuclear equipments and products. Thus, the Yongbyon nuclear facilities are the rich stock of North Korean nuclear know-how.

For North Korea, the dismantling of these facilities means the virtual irreversibility of denuclearization. Hence, the loss of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities justifies significant compensation from the U.S.

(3) Promise to get rid of other nuclear facilities in response to the extent of sanctions removed. There are surely other nuclear facilities and weapons. These facilities and weapons will be revealed and used for negotiations with Washington

1.2 Gifts offered by the United States 

American gifts would have contained the following.

(1) Opening of liaison offices in Pyongyang and Washington. Various media in South Korea indicate that these offices may be opened sooner or later. These offices will facilitate the Washington-Pyongyang communication and the process of building mutual trust.

(2) Reopening of the Gaesung Industrial Complex and the Geumgang-san tourism. It appears that Washington might allow the Gumgang-san tourism without violating the current sanctions through, for instance, paying North Korean tourist facilities later when the sanctions will be lifted.

The Gaesung Industrial Complex is an important source of income both for the South and the North. But, its opening must wait until the lifting of the sanctions

(3) Declaration of the “End of the Korean War”. It appears that this was honestly discussed at the meeting of the professional negotiation teams and it could have been included in the summit documents to be signed.

(4) Some additional removal of sanctions. The lifting of the main part of the sanctions depends on whether it is the Bolton model or the Pyongyang model. In the Bolton model, CIVD is first and then sanction lifting. In the Pyongyang model, sequential denuclearization is matched by corresponding sanction lifting.

It appears that before the intervention of Bolton, the Pyongyang model would have been considered, but Bolton’s interventions could have put the whole issue back to no man’s land.

2. Reasons for the Collapse of the Summit

There are at least six reasons for the collapse of the summit.

2.1 Mismatch of the prices of the dismantlement of Yongbyon nuclear facilities before Bolton’s interventions  

Pyongyang would have asked the removal of the five UNSC Resolutions of Sanctions adopted in 2016 and 2017: UNSC Resolutions: 2276, 2321, 2371, 2375, 2397.

These resolutions prohibit North Korea’s trade of natural resources, textile products and crude oil in addition to the prohibition of sending North Koran workers abroad. These sanctions can cut down deeply Pyongyang’s earning of foreign currencies.

Washington considers such price as too high and not acceptable, while Pyongyang argues that this price is the minimum it can allow.

The price mismatch appears to be one of the key factors responsible for the break-up of the summit

2.2 Price Mismatch of Gift Price after Bolton’s Interventions  

The White House Security Advisor John Bolton joined the expanded summit meeting in the latter part of the morning of the 28th of February.

He was not supposed to be there. He gave Trump a yellow envelope in which he would have asked North Korea to include, in its gift package, the destruction of even biological and chemical weapons as well as the removal of the ballistic missiles.

This request is just too much for Kim Jong-un to accept, because it means, in fact, the giving-up of a good part of his country’s national defence capacity.

It is possible that the true objective of Bolton’s demand could mean the end of the peace process.

Bolton’s demand would have pleased greatly the South Korean conservatives, the Japanese conservatives and the Washington hawks. This group would do everything to maintain the nuclear crisis, because it will bring electoral wins and wealth deriving from weapon transactions.

2.3 Mutual Mistrust

Trump would have told Kim that there were some other nuclear weapon producing facilities; Trump even asked Kim if he knew about them.

This was a rather annoying attitude on the part of Trump; it could have given the impression that North Korea was hiding something. This could be interpreted as North Korea being not to be trusted.

If there are such facilities, Kim would have known about it.  Kim might have decided to reveal and use them later as the bargaining tools.

In fact, the major difficulty in Washington-Pyongyang relation has been always the lack of mutual trust. This is perhaps understandable, for both countries have been enemies for 70 years.

Many opinion leaders in the U.S. have been claiming that North Korea could not be trusted. But, North Korea does not trust the U.S. either. North Korea remembers well who broke the Framework Agreement of 1994.

KEDO did not provide funds for the construction of the two light-water nuclear plants for civil us in North Korea. The U.S. did not provide North Korea with 500,000 tons of crude oil. These activities were the main contents of the Agreement; the U.S. and its allies did not implement the Agreement.

The U.S. and its allies justified their non-implementation of the Agreement by arguing, with no proof, that North Korea had not respected the Agreement.  North Korea faithfully carried out the Agreement requirement; it halted all the nuclear activities for military use.

It seems clear that the necessary condition for the success of the future peace process has to be the trust building, especially among the Washington elite, American corporate media and think-tanks.

2.4 Cohen Factor 

It is just unbelievable to see that the U.S. Congress heard Cohen’s devastating testimony against Trump while the summit agreement was about to be signed.

It was an event which was too consequential to be considered as a simple coincidence. It seems more than possible that the Democrats decided to destroy Trump.

Under such circumstances, signing the summit agreement would not produce the political benefits for Trump.

In fact, Trump suggests that he Cohen testimony was a variable responsible for the collapse of the summit. Trump seems to regard the Cohen testimony as the Democrats’ sabotage.

2.5 Japan Factor 

It is a well known fact that Japan has very effective lobbying network in Washington for the continuation of nuclear crisis in Korea, for it has been very useful not only for successive electoral victories of Abe’s party for more than 60 years but also for immense benefits deriving from weapon deals

It seems that Bolton is a faithful friend of Abe and Japanese large corporations. Japan has been asking Trump to include in the Pyongyang-Washington dialogue the issues of the abduction of a dozen Japanese nationals by North Korea happened decades ago, the removal of even middle-range missiles and perhaps the thorny issue of human rights in North Korea.

The issue of the abductees is not a part of nuclear dialogue. This is an issue to be settled between Japan and North Korea. The removal of medium-range missiles means serious weakening of North Korea’s defence capacity. The issue of human rights is the most sensitive issue for Pyongyang. Japan knows well that, if the Washington-Pyongyang negotiation includes these issues, North Korea will give up the dialogue. This is perhaps what Abe aimed at.

It is not impossible that these issues were in Bolton’s yellow envelope. If this was the case, Chairman Kim had no choice but refuse to sign the agreement.

2.6 Trump Factor

In the final analysis, the most important reason for the summit collapse was the Trump factor. At the press conference Trump said: “I could sign the agreement, but I did not!” What is incredible was that he said this with pride; there was no single word of regret; there was no single word of apology to Kim Jong-un.

So, the biggest factor of the summit collapse was Trump himself. He could save the summit, he did not. Did he sabotage the summit himself? (See interesting Global Research articles by Professor Michel Chossudovsky of March 1 and Mike Whitney of March 3)

3. What Will Happen?

Before I offer my evaluation of the summit, I would like to discuss the fundamental problem of the peace dialogue. I am afraid that unless this problem is properly dealt with, the whole peace process will be more than bumpy; it might go nowhere.

The fundamental problem is the lack of mutual trust. In the U.S. not only those who are directly or indirectly involved in the peace process but also the general public seem to think that North Korea is not trustworthy.

Where does this mistrust come from? It comes from a logical frame fabricated by the Washington hawks. It goes like this. North Korea is threat to the world, especially to the U.S. Japan and South Korea. Therefore it is dangerous. Being dangerous, it should not be trusted. Since one cannot trust it, North Korea should be punished through sanctions and even pre-emptive attacks.

Thus, the root of the mistrust is the belief that North Korea is a threat to the world. But which part of the world?

Remember this. North Korea is a tiny, poor but very proud country. Can it be a threat to South Korea? If it was so before, it is not so any more. The North and the South signed in 2018 the agreement of de facto non-aggression.

Can North Korea be a threat to Japan? Here again, why should North Korea threat Japan? In fact, North Korea fears the threat of Japan better armed; this fear can increase as Abe amends the peace constitution so that it cam wage war against foreign country.

Can the country of Kim Jong-un be a threat to the U.S.? North Korea has been consistent in that it can retaliate with nuclear weapon if, and, only if the U.S. attacks first. Besides, the U.S which spends $700 billion per year can surely be able to destroy a few ICBM coming from North Korea long before they can reach the U.S. territory.

It is absurd the think that North Korea can be a threat to China or Russia.

In short, the argument of North Korea’s being a threat to the world is a pretext to demonize North Korea.

If North Korea is not a threat to the world, the issue of its being untrustworthy is no longer an issue.

There is another side of the issue of trustworthiness. It is the matter of the relation between trust and lie. When you say that North Korea cannot be trusted, it means that what North Korea says is a lie. The U.S. can also lie.

The U.S. is the strong, while the North Korea is the weak. Now, to see which one would lie more depends on the cost of lying; this cost is represented by related penalty. It seems obvious that the lie by the weak costs far more than the strong’s, because, the weak cannot punish the strong. If this logic is sound, it is quite possible that the U.S. could have lied about the nuclear crisis more than North Korea.

The Hanoi Summit has collapsed and we are disappointed. But, ti is not necessarily a failure; it has allowed both sides to better know what the other side can do and cannot do. So, the coming dialogues and negotiations are likely to be even more productive, only if the U.S. wants peace and no regime change in North Korea.

But, the necessary condition for the success of the peace process is the mutual trust without which no matter what one side says the other would not believe. The immediate problem will be the number of nuclear warheads. North Korea will say that it has 30 war heads, but the U.S. will say 45. Then the negotiation will die.

I think that North Korea and South Korea should invest much more resources to convince the American think tanks, media and especially the ordinary people that North Korea is not an evil, that it can be trusted and that the nuclear tension is beneficial only to a few military-industrial elite in Washington,Tokyo and the far-right South Korean conservatives.

The future course of the peace process will depend much on the careful mediation role of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea. But Washington and Pyongyang should facilitate Moon’s role by conceding a little more.

In closing, I say this. North Korea cannot accept the Libya model, for it means the total destruction of a country. North Korea is sincere in getting rid of nuclear arsenal, but as a sovereign nation, it cannot sacrifice its own defence.

If Bolton’s idea of denuclearization means the destruction of all the means and resources needed for North Korea’s own defence, Chairman Kim Jong-un will go his “My Way”.

Then, only God knows what will happen.

*

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

Professor Joseph H. Chung is co-director of the East-Asia Observatory (OAE)-the Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and Kim Jong Un, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea meet for a social dinner Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019, at the Sofitel Legend Metropole hotel in Hanoi, for their second summit meeting. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)


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

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month outlined her strong backing for Juan Guaidó, a young Western-supported proxy figure also favoured by Venezuela’s wealthy class. Merkel proposes that Guaidó “is the legitimate interim president” of Venezuela, without providing evidence to support her assertion. The reality suggests something quite different, and points to Nicolás Maduro as the rightful democratically elected leader of Venezuela.

Independent observers present throughout the May 2018 election procedure in Venezuela, such as experienced British journalist and author Jeremy Fox, have described a fully digital voting process “designed with multiple safeguards against fraud” which is “impressively efficient” and has “an automated manual verification back-up”; while “foreign media have been making hay with defamatory rhetoric, much of it consisting of outright fabrications”.

With regard Merkel’s stance on oil rich Venezuela, one should not be too surprised her government is again bending to Washington; following reunification a generation ago, Germany has been heavily influenced by American interests. In 1990 there were 200,000 US troops present on German soil, and almost 30 years later president Donald Trump was surprised to learn that 35,000 American soldiers are still stationed in the country. That number is set to gradually rise next year.

The US military remains in Germany on the pretext of deterring a Russian invasion that will never come. Were any such attack to occur it would very likely trigger a catastrophic nuclear war, as Russia’s president Vladimir Putin is likely aware judging by his recent nuclear warnings.

Merkel has lamented that America no longer “protects us” under Trump’s presidency. Germany, the great powerhouse of Europe with a long history of militarism, has forgotten how to stand upright on her own two feet. The obsequious dependence the Germans have placed upon American might was indeed not always the case.

During the Second World War, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was a strong critic of the American way of life. In one of Hitler’s vitriolic rants from early January 1942 against US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he denounces as “a sick brain” and “impostor”, the German dictator insisted,

“I’m very glad I recently said all I think about Roosevelt… The noise he made at his press conference was typically Hebraic. There’s nobody stupider than the Americans”.

As the Holocaust and mass murders on the Eastern front revealed, Hitler undoubtedly fell under the category of “a sick brain” himself.

In more recent times, during spring 2003, when Merkel was leader of the opposition she firmly supported America’s invasion of Iraq – despite criticism from within her own party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merkel said prior to the US military attack, which was entirely illegal, “War had become unavoidable. Not acting would have caused more damage”.

Merkel urged her nation, in breach of the United Nations Charter, to “stand by America’s side” while accusing then Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of “anti-Americanism” for steering Germany away from an unseemly invasion.

The US occupation of Iraq constitutes the most serious aggression witnessed this century, eventually leading to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths – along with fracturing what was left of that nation’s civil society and destabilizing much of the Middle East.

Last August, Merkel further highlighted that, “Germany and America are linked by values: Democracy, freedom, respect for human rights and dignity”. Some may again find this opinion a disputable one, like those living in Laos, a nation in south-east Asia bordering Vietnam and Cambodia. During the US war in Indochina – for more than eight years beginning in December 1964 – America’s Air Force unleashed more bombs on Laos than the combined total dumped over Japan and Germany during World War II.

Laos, a severely impoverished state, became the most bombed country in history, forcing some of the populace to seek sanctuary in remote caves. When the saturation attacks on Laos at last ceased in summer 1973 about 80 million unexploded US bombs, out of 270 million dropped, lay across a nation less than half the size of France. Over elapsing years, there were no efforts by American forces to return to Laos and clean up the devastation wrought by their military, such has been the “respect for human rights and dignity” that Merkel expounded on.

Over the unfolding decades, there have been many thousands of casualties as a result of Laotians accidentally triggering explosives buried in the ground. Today, a mere 1% of Laos is officially bomb-free.

Meanwhile, Germany’s neighbour, France, has also been unduly reliant upon American power. In 1949, France was one of the “founding members” of NATO, a US-led organization which has rapidly expanded eastwards since the USSR’s 1991 demise – in spite of NATO having been established on the premise “to provide collective security against the Soviet Union”.

French leader Emmanuel Macron, shortly after being elected in mid-2017 said that,

“I wish to tell the United States, France believes in you, the world believes in you”.

International opinion polls have revealed in recent years, however, that America is regarded as “the greatest threat to peace in the world today” due to her military’s long history of foreign intervention.

In Venezuela, Macron has described president Maduro’s election victory last May as “illegitimate” and regards Guaidó as the “president in charge”. Guaidó is recognized by a range of countries in Europe and Latin America, the great majority of which comprise either capitalist “democracies”, right-wing administrations or are NATO members.

Those familiar with Venezuela’s election procedure – like journalist Jeremy Fox and senior lecturer Francisco Dominguez – have noted that all neutral observers present “could find no fault in Venezuela’s system” as Maduro won over two thirds of votes. Little of this is being relayed to the broader public, however.

Upon president Trump’s election victory, British counterpart Theresa May assured those listening that,

“Britain and the United States have an enduring and special relationship based on the values of freedom, democracy and enterprise”.

Rather, the US has illegally involved herself in sovereign countries around the globe, from Vietnam, Chile and Nicaragua to Indonesia, Yugoslavia and Iraq, all in flagrant infringement of the UN Charter.

The well regarded British historian, Mark Curtis, outlines that America “is in fact the world’s greatest outlaw state” with Britain ranking as number two in its junior partner role.

The USSR, a purported “evil empire” which existed for seven decades, had no comparable record of transgressing international law or the bloodshed that follows; furthermore, almost all of the Soviet interventions occurred in countries it shared a direct border with such as Korea, Hungary and Afghanistan. The Soviets usually acted out of a position of weakness or insecurity, and made no attempts to topple fascist dictatorships in Spain, Argentina or Brazil.

Relating to Britain – once a vast empire that ruled for three centuries – following the “loss of India” in 1947 successive British governments have resorted to all sorts of illegal measures, so as to cling on to any semblance of power possible.

Britain has partly instituted and supported brutal dictators from the Shah of Iran, to Suharto of Indonesia and Pinochet of Chile, backing despots while undermining basic democratic principles. Later, under Tony Blair in particular, Curtis notes that “violating international law has become as British as afternoon tea”, with the illicit attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 and Iraq four years later bearing proof of this.

Yet current prime minister May insists a hallmark of the US/UK partnership has been “our democratic values and our commitment to justice” which “we in the UK will always cherish – as I know the US will too”. May’s government inevitably champions Guaidó and calls for “free and fair elections” in 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.

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.

In the last 24 hours, the Trump administration has intensified its attacks on Turkey which has significantly strained relations and increased the prospect of a military confrontation. The present situation is extremely tense and could explode without warning and without the American people having any idea of the dramatic events that preceded the clash. As often happens, the western media has papered over Washington’s provocations and failed to provide adequate coverage of the latest developments. With that in mind, here’s a quick recap:

Washington’s first incitement took place on Monday in the form of an attack on the Turkish economy. This is from the Daily Sabah:

“U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer announced that President Trump intends to terminate Turkey’s designation as a beneficiary developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) …citing the countries’ economically developed status….

(Turkish) Trade Minister Ruhsar Pekcan criticized the move on her official Twitter account and highlighted that removal of Turkey from the GSP program is contradictory to the target of $75 billion in bilateral trade, a mutually agreed goal. “We still would like to pursue our target of increasing our bilateral trade with the U.S. who we see as our strategic partner, without losing any momentum,” she said and added, “This decision will also create repercussions for small and medium-sized enterprises in the U.S.”…(The Daily Sabah)

President Trump defended the action saying

“I am taking this step because I think that Turkey should not be on the list of developing countries benefiting from GSP based on its level of economic development.”

But this is clearly not the case. Washington routinely violates WTO regulations to punish nations that fail to comply with its diktats. In this case, Turkey has made a number of decisions that have clearly angered Washington triggering the punitive response. In truth, the removal of preferential status has more to do with Turkey’s purchase of Russian anti aircraft batteries (S-400) than it does with economic development. In other words, the decision is purely political.

As for Turkey’s decision to buy Russia’s S-400 surface-to-air missile defense systems, that has been a bone of contention for some time now. On Tuesday, the friction between the two countries escalated dramatically when “The top U.S. general in Europe said that he would recommend that the United States not sell Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 jets to its NATO ally Turkey if Ankara does not drop its plans to buy S-400 defense systems from Russia.” His statement was followed by a similar threat from the US State Department which said that trading with Moscow would have dire consequences in the future.

“We’ve clearly warned Turkey that its potential acquisition of the (Russian) S-400 (air defense system) will result in a reassessment of Turkey’s participation in the F-35 program and risk other potential future arm transfers to Turkey,” State Department spokesman Robert Palladino told a briefing.

Later in the day, a report surfaced that “First Lady Melania Trump visited a charter school operated by the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ) in Tulsa, Oklahoma.” According to the Turkish daily: “(Melania) Trump paid a visit to the Dove School of Discovery during her anti-bullying “Be Best” initiative.

When was the last time that Melania Trump was featured on headline news?

Never, which is what made the report so surprising. Of course, it’s not surprising at all if one realizes that Melania was being used for political purposes. Then it all makes sense. The First Lady was providing a bludgeon for pummeling Turkey, that’s what her visit was really all about. Keep in mind, the vast majority of Turks believe that the founder of the charter schools Melania visited is the coup leader who tried to topple Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2016. Here’s a bit of background from the Daily Sabah:

“Residing in Pennsylvania since 1999, FETÖ’s ringleader Fetullah Gülen is known as the man who controls around 140 charter schools and $500 million annually from the U.S. government, according to some U.S. media reports…..

FETÖ’s infiltrators in the military, from generals to low-ranking officers, were behind the coup attempt on July 15, 2016, that killed 250 people, and Turkey has already sent a large cache of evidence to U.S. officials implicating FETÖ in the attempt.

The United States’ apparent reluctance to extradite Gülen, one of the most wanted people in Turkey, remains a deep rift in relations between the two countries. Ankara formally requested Gülen be extradited on July 19, 2016.” (“Melania Trump visits FETÖ charter school in US”, Daily Sabah)

Gülen will never be extradited even though Turkey has extradited a number of alleged terrorists the US wanted. Why? Because Gülen’s connections to the intelligence community remain highly suggestive. Many think he is a CIA asset, which means that Turkey will never get their hands on him no matter what.

In any event, Melania’s appearance was clearly orchestrated to slap Turkey in the face and show them who’s boss. She is merely an unwitting pawn in the operation.

Also on Tuesday, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar met with U.S. special envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey, in Ankara. “During the meeting, the two officials discussed the latest developments in Syria, focusing on the Manbij roadmap and the situation in the east of the Euphrates.

The coordination on the U.S. pullout from Syria, strategies for a post-U.S. period in the northern parts of the country controlled by the PKK terrorist group’s Syrian offshoot the People’s Protection Units (YPG), (and) the fight against PKK and Daesh, implementation of the Manbij road map.”

The Turkish leadership is still operating on the assumption that Donald Trump was sincere in his promise to remove all US troops from Syria and to fulfill his commitments under the terms of the Manbij roadmap. Those commitments–according to Reuters– require “the clearing of Manbij of all terror organizations and the permanent instatement of safety and stability…In the first step, the determination of parameters for common plans for the removal of YPG-PYD from Manbij – you can also call it PKK – will be determined.”

In short, Turkey expects Trump to keep his word, help remove the militant-proxies from the area, assist in the transition of US Special Forces and Kurdish militants to members of the Turkish Army, and help to create a safe zone that will be overseen by Turkey. And while Turkey has no more legal right to occupy Syrian sovereign territory than the US, this is the deal that Trump agreed to in his conversations with Erdogan in December. In fact, this is the deal that Turkey has insisted upon dating back to 2012. They haven’t changed their position at all, it’s only the United States that keeps vacillating.

Tuesday, provided a prime example of how fickle US policy can really be. Readers might recall how Trump announced the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria in a video in December. He said:

“We have won against ISIS….Our boys, our young women, our men — they’re all coming back, and they’re coming back now.”

Yesterday, Trump did a complete about-face saying he now agrees “100%” with the plan to maintain a permanent military presence in Syria. He added, “We seek to ensure that all of the gains made in Syria are not lost, that ISIS never returns, that Iran is not emboldened, and that we consolidate our gains” ahead of potential political negotiations.”

Naturally, Erdogan was never consulted on the matter nor were Turkey’s national security concerns taken into consideration. Is Turkey supposed to meekly accept (what they see as) a “terrorist corridor” on their southern flank or the emergence of an independent Kurdish state at the center of the Arab world? And yet this is exactly what Trump’s announcement suggests, which is why it’s so shocking and provocative.

So how is Erdogan going to respond to this humiliation? Will he simply suck it up and submit to Washington’s redrawing of Syria to suit its own geopolitical objectives or will he order his army (that has been massed on the southern border for months) to invade Syria, remove the YPG from Manbij, and implement his own ambitious refugee resettlement plan? What’s he going to do?

It’s hard to say but, as you can see, we are at a dangerous crossroads for US-Turkish relations which is further complicated by the fact that Erdogan has no good choices. If he sends his troops into battle, he will be locking horns with the US military. And if he doesn’t, he will have to accept the new status quo, which is, a hostile Kurdish state–that is armed and supported by Washington– on his southern border. Is Erdogan prepared to accept that new reality?

No, he’s not.

Let’s not forget that on December 12, 2018, (just days before Trump told Erdogan he would remove all US troops from Syria) Erdogan announced his plan to invade Syria regardless of the risks it posed to US military personnel. Here’s a recap from an article at the Guardian:

“The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has said that Turkey will launch a military operation against the Kurds in northern Syria within days, in a decision that could signal a shift in Turkish-US relations and have far-reaching consequences for Syria’s future.

Long frustrated by US support for Kurdish militias that Turkey views as terrorists, Erdoğan has threatened to push deeper into north-eastern Syria since sending Turkish forces into the Kurdish enclave of Afrin in February.

The president said during a televised speech in Ankara on Wednesday that the operation was imminent. “We will begin our operation to free the east of the Euphrates [river] from the separatist organization within a few days,” he told MPs. “Our target is not the American soldiers – it is the terror organizations that are active in the region.”

Erdoğan also expressed disappointment that US-backed Kurdish fighters in Syria had not left the town of Manbij, as agreed in a US-Turkish deal brokered this year. “The Americans are not being honest; they are still not removing terrorists [from Manbij],” he said. “Therefore, we will do it.”(“Turkey primed to start offensive against US-backed Kurds in Syria”, The Guardian).

Erdogan was prepared to invade then, and (we believe) he is prepared to invade now if his minimal security requirements are not met.

The Trump administration has created the one situation on the ground that Turkey will not tolerate. Perhaps, that’s why the Pentagon has beefed up its deployment to 3,000 troops. (The DOD has added 1,000 troops since Trump made his “withdrawal” announcement) Maybe Trump’s neocon advisors secretly want Turkey to invade Syria thinking that the scenario will be similar to Saddam’s ill-fated invasion of Kuwait. Is that what’s going on or is Washington just so used to giving orders, they expect Erdogan to simply click his heels and obey? Whatever the thinking may be, the glaring shortcomings of the strategy should be obvious. The Trump administration is forcing a confrontation that could quickly escalate into a major regional war. It’s a recipe for disaster.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

March 7th, 2019 by Federico Pieraccini

The previous articles (firstsecond) examined what appears to be a coordinated strategy between Moscow and Beijing to contain the damage wrought by the United States around the world. This strategy’s effectiveness relies heavily on the geographical position of the two countries vis-a-vis the United States and the area of contention. We have seen how the Sino-Russian strategy has been effective in Asia and the Middle-East, greatly stemming American disorder. Moscow and Beijing have less capacity to contain the US and influence events in Europe, given that much depends on the Europeans themselves, who are officially Washington’s allies but are in reality treated as colonies. With the new “America First” doctrine, it is the central and southern parts of the American continent that are on the receiving end of the US struggling to come to terms with the diminishment of its hitherto untrammelled influence in the world.

South and Central American countries blossomed under the reign of socialist or leftist anti-imperialist governments for the first decade of this century. Such terms as “21st-century socialism” were coined, as was documented in the 2010 Oliver Stone documentary film South of the Border. The list of countries with leftist governments was impressive: Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chávez (Venezuela).

We can establish a close correlation between Washington’s actions since 1989 and the political roller-coaster experienced in South America in the ensuing thirty years.

Washington, drunk on the experience of being the only superpower in the post-Soviet period, sought to lock in her commanding position through the establishment of full-spectrum dominance, a strategy that entails being able to deal with any event in any area of ​​the globe, treating the world as Washington’s oyster.

Washington’s endeavor to shape the world in her own image and likeness meant in practical terms the military apparatus increasing its power projection through carrier battle groups and a global missile defense, advancing towards the land and sea borders of Russia and China.

Taking advantage of the US dollar’s dominance in the economic, financial and commercial arenas, Washington cast aside the principles of the free market, leaving other countries to contend with an unfair playing field.

As later revealed by Edward Snowden, Washington exploited her technological dominance to establish a pervasive surveillance system. Guided by the principle of American exceptionalism, combined with a desire to “export democracy”, “human rights” became an enabling justification to intervene in and bomb dozens of countries over three decades, aided and abetted by a compliant and controlled media dominated by the intelligence and military apparatuses.

Central and South America enjoyed an unprecedented political space in the early 2000s as a result of Washington focusing on Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia and Ukraine. The Latin Americans exploited this breathing space, with a dozen countries becoming outposts of anti-imperialism within a decade, advancing a strong socialist vision in opposition to free-market fundamentalism.

Both Washington and Moscow placed central importance on South America during the Cold War, which was part of the asymmetric and hybrid war that the two superpowers undertook against each other. The determination by the United States to deny the Soviet Union a presence in the American hemisphere had the world holding its collective breath during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As any student of international relations knows, the first objective of a regional power is to prevent the emergence of another hegemon in any other part of the world. The reason behind this is to obviate the possibility that the new power may venture into other regions occupied by other hegemonic powers, thereby upsetting the status quo. The second primary objective is to prevent access by a foreign power to its own hemisphere. Washington abides by this principle through its Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe, with the United States duly expelling the last European powers from the Americas in the early 19th century.

In analyzing the events in South America, one cannot ignore an obvious trend by Washington. While the United States was intent on expanding its empire around the world by consolidating more than 800 military bases in dozens of countries (numbering about 70), South America was experiencing a political rebirth, positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Washington, favoring socialism over capitalism and reclaiming the ancient anti-imperialist ideals of Simon Bolivar, a South American hero of the late 18th century.

Washington remained uncaring and indifferent to the political changes of South America, focusing instead on dominating the Middle East through bombs and wars. In Asia, the Chinese economy grew at an impressive rate, becoming the factory of the world. The Russian Federation, from the election of Putin in 2000, gradually returned to being a military power that commanded respect. And with the rise of Iran, destined to be the new regional power in the Middle East thanks to the unsuccessful US intervention in Iraq in 2003, Washington began to dig her own grave without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, South America united under the idea of a common market and a socialist ideology. The Mercosur organization was founded in 1991 by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But it was only when Venezuela, led by Chavez, became an associate member in 2004 that the organization assumed a very specific political tone, standing almost in direct opposition to Washington’s free-market template.

Meanwhile, China and Russia continued their political, military and economic growth, focusing with particular attention on South America and the vast possibilities of economic integration from 2010. Frequent meetings were held between Russia and China and various South American leaders, culminating in the creation of the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Brazil, first with Lula and then with Dilma Rousseff, was the unofficial spokesperson for the whole of South America, aligning the continent with the emerging Eurasian powers. It is during these years, from the birth of the BRICS organization (2008/2009), that the world began a profound transformation flowing from Washington’s progressive military decline, consumed as it was by endless wars that ended up eroding Washington’s status as a world power. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have deeply undermined US military prestige, opening unprecedented opportunities for alliances and future changes to the global order, especially with the rise of Iran’s influence in the region as a counterweight to US imperialism.

China, Russia and the South American continent were certainly among the first to understand the potential of this political and historical period; we can recall meetings between Putin and Chavez, or the presence of Chinese leaders at numerous events in South America. Beijing has always offered high-level economic assistance through important trade agreements, while Moscow has sold a lot of advanced military hardware to Venezuela and other South American countries.

Economic and military assistance are the real bargaining chips Moscow and Beijing offer to countries willing to transition to the multipolar revolution while having their backs covered at the same time.

The transformation of the world order from a unipolar to a multipolar system became a fact in 2014 with the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation following the NATO coup in Ukraine. The inability for the US to prevent this fundamental strategic defeat for Brussels and Washington marked the beginning of the end for the Pentagon still clinging on to a world order that disappeared in 1991.

As the multipolar mutation developed, Washington changed tactics, with Obama offering a different war strategy to the one advanced during the George W. Bush presidency. Projecting power around the globe with bombs, carrier battle groups and boots on the ground was no longer viable, with domestic populations being in no mood for any further major wars.

The use of soft power has always been part of the US toolkit for influencing events in other countries; but given the windfall of the unipolar moment, soft power was set aside in favor of hard power. However, following the failures of explicit hard power from 1990 to 2010, soft power was back in favor, and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) set about training and financing organizations in dozens of hostile countries to subvert governments by underhanded means (colour revolutions, the Arab Spring, etc.).

Among those on the receiving end of this soft-power onslaught were the South American countries deemed hostile to Washington, already under capitalist-imperialist pressure for a number of years in the form of sanctions.

It is during this time that South America suffered a side effect of the new multipolar world order. The United States started retreating home after losing influence around the globe. This effectively meant focusing once again on its own backyard: Central and South America.

Covert efforts to subvert governments with socialist ideas in the hemisphere increased. First, Kirchner’s Argentina saw the country pass into the hands of the neoliberal Macri, a friend of Washington. Then Dilma Rousseff was expelled as President of Brazil through the unlawful maneuvers of her own parliament, following which Lula was imprisoned, allowing for Bolsonaro, a fan of Washington, to win the presidential election.

In Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, the successor of Correa, betrayed his party and his people by being a cheerleader for the Pentagon, even protesting the asylum granted to Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London. In Venezuela following Chavez’s suspicious death, Maduro was immediately targeted by the US establishment as the most prominent representative of an anti-imperialist and anti-American Chavismo. The increase in sanctions and the seizure of assets further worsened the situation in Venezuela, leading to the disaster we are seeing today.

South America finds itself in a peculiar position as a result of the world becoming more multipolar. The rest of the world now has more room to maneuver and greater independence from Washington as a result of the military and economic umbrella offered by Moscow and Beijing respectively.

But for geographic and logistical reasons, it is more difficult for China and Russia to extend the same guarantees and protections to South America as they do in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We can nevertheless see how Beijing offers an indispensable lifeline to Caracas and other South American countries like Nicaragua and Haiti in order to enable them to withstand Washington’s immense economic pressure.

Beijing’s strategy aims to limit the damage Washington can inflict on the South American continent through Beijing’s economic power, without forgetting the numerous Chinese interests in the region, above all the new canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific that runs through Nicaragua (it is no coincidence that the country bears the banner of anti-imperialist socialism) that will be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moscow’s objective is more limited but just as refined and dangerous to Washington’s hegemony. A glimpse of Moscow’s asymmetrical military power was given when two Russian strategic bombers flew to Venezuela less than four months ago, sending an unmistakable signal to Washington. Moscow has the allies and the technical and military capacity to create an air base with nuclear bombers not all that far away from the coast of Florida.

Moscow and Beijing do not intend to allow Washington to mount an eventual armed intervention in Venezuela, which would open the gates of hell for the continent. Moscow and Beijing have few interlocutors left on the continent because of the political positions of several countries like Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, which far prefer an alliance with Washington over one with Moscow or Beijing. We can here see the tendency of the Trump administration to successfully combine its “America First” policy with the economic and military enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, simultaneously pleasing his base and the hawks in his administration.

Leaving aside a possible strategy (Trump tends to improvise), it seems that Trump’s domestic political battle against the Democrats, declared lovers of socialism (naturally not as strident as the original Soviet or Chavist kind), has combined with a foreign-policy battle against South American countries that have embraced socialism.

The contribution from China and Russia to the survival of the South American continent is limited in comparison to what they have been able to do in countries like Syria, not to mention the deterrence created by Russia in Ukraine in defending the Donbass or with China vis-a-vis North Korea.

The multipolar revolution that is changing the world in which we live in will determine the rest of the century. One of the final battles is being played out in South America, in Venezuela, and its people and the Chavist revolution are at the center of the geopolitical chessboard, as is Syria in the Middle East, Donbass in Central Europe, Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the DPRK in Asia. These countries are at the center of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and the success of this shift will be seen if these countries are able to resist US imperialism as a result of Moscow and Beijing respectively offering military help and deterrence and economic survival and alternatives.

Russia and China have all the necessary means to place limits on the United States, protecting the world from a possible thermonuclear war and progressively offering an economic, social and diplomatic umbrella to those countries that want to move away from Washington and enjoy the benefits of living in a multipolar reality, advancing their interests based on their needs and desires and favoring sovereignty and national interest over bending over to please Washington.

*

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

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCF

The issue that needs official investigation regarding both Antisemitism and Islamophobia, is the link to a foreign embassy in London that seeks to exert undue influence over Britain’s legislature through its lobbyists at Westminster.

This is not only a threat against government but a very real danger both to Britain’s national security and our democratic institutions by attempting to subvert our representatives in both Houses of Parliament.

Any lobbyist or individual, in Britain, who is clearly acting in the interests of a foreign power should be registered as a ‘foreign agent’ and his/her activities strictly monitored’. That is only common sense. You wouldn’t allow a fox to roam free in your family home.

The problem is how to enact legislation to neutralise the threat when some legislators themselves are currently an (albeit reluctant) part of that threat?

One answer might be to require all Members of Parliament to swear a new oath of allegiance to the Crown and Nation, to the clear exclusion of any foreign state, and to make the breaking of that oath a treasonable offence, i.e. criminal disloyalty.

These are dangerous times when so-called claimed democracies, (usually nuclear-weaponised), are headed by corrupt politicians and their families.  We must not allow Britain to go the same way. Our grandfathers gave their lives in two world wars that we and our children, of whatever faith, should live as free men in a free, just and independent society. A democratic society based on human and civil rights together with national security as the primary imperative. These ideals are now in obvious danger, in Britain, today.

*

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

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

Think charity, think vulnerability and its endless well of opportunistic exploitation.  Over the years, international charity organisations have been found with employees keen to take advantage of their station.  That advantage has been sexual, financial and, in the case of allegations being made about the World Wild Life Fund for Nature, in the nature of inflicting torture on those accused of poaching.

BuzzFeed, via reporters Tom Warren and Katie J.M. Baker, began the fuss with an investigative report claiming instances of torture and gross violence on the part of rangers assisted by the charity to combat poaching.  It starts with a description of a dying man’s last days, one Shikharam Chaudhary, a farmer who was brutally beaten and tortured by forest rangers patrolling Chitwan National Park in Nepal.  Shikharam, it seems, had been singled out for burying a rhinoceros horn in his backyard.  The horn proved elusive, but not the unfortunate farmer, who was detained in prison. After nine days, he was dead. 

Three park officials including the chief warden were subsequently charged with murder.  WWF found itself in a spot, given its long standing role in sponsoring operations by the Chitwan forest rangers.  As the BuzzFeed report goes on to note,

“WWF’s staff on the ground in Nepal leaped into action – not to demand justice, but to lobby for the charges to disappear. When the Nepalese government dropped the case months later, the charity declared its victory in the fight against poaching. Then WWF Nepal continued to work closely with the rangers and fund the park as if nothing had happened.” 

The report does not hold back, insisting that the alleged murder of the unfortunate Shikharam in 2006 was no aberration. 

“It was part of a pattern that persists to this day.  In national parks across Asia and Africa, the beloved non-profit with the cuddly panda logo funds, equips, and works directly with paramilitary forces that have been accused of beating, torturing, sexually assaulting, and murdering scores of people.”

The poach wars are a savage business, throwing up confected images of heroes and villains.  They do not merely involve the actions of protecting animals, but military-styled engagements where fatalities are not uncommon.  Anti-poaching has become a mission heralded by the romantically inclined as indispensable, its agents to be celebrated.  Desperate local conditions are conveniently scrubbed out in any descriptions: there are only the noble rangers battling animal murderers. 

The Akashinga, for instance, are an anti-poaching enterprise of 39 women operating in Zimbabwe who featured with high praise in a report from the ABC in October last year.  Who are the victims, apart from the animals they protect?  There is little doubt in the minds of the reporters: the women themselves, victims of assault, many single mothers from Nyamakate.  Laud them, respect their mission.

It is clear is that these women are feted warriors, armed and given appropriate training.  They “undergo military-style training in unarmed combat, camouflage and concealment, search and arrest, as well as leadership and conservation ethics.”  Their source of encouragement and support is Damien Mander, formerly a military sniper and founder of the International Anti-Poaching Foundation.   

Mander’s own laundry list for being a “good anti-poaching ranger”, as featured in an interview to the Hoedspruit Endangered Species Centre in 2015, is unvarnished: “A passion for nature, strong paramilitary base, and ability and willingness to work in hostile environments for extended periods of time as part of a team.” 

The line between the mission of charity and its mutation into one of abuse is tooth fine.  In February 2018, The Times, assisted by information supplied by whistleblowers, sprung the lid off Oxfam GB workers in Haiti, suggesting that charity workers had received sexual favours for payment in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.  (Nothing like a crisis that breeds opportunity.)  It was duly revealed that the organisation had done its level best to conceal the fact.  The UK International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt’s statement to Parliament in February took most issue with the latter.  “In such circumstances we must be able to trust organisations not only to do all they can to prevent harm, but to report and follow up incidents of wrongdoing when they do occur.”  

In the course of its conduct, Oxfam did not, according to Mordaunt, furnish the Charity Commission with a report on the incidents.  Nor did the donors receive one.  The prosecting authorities were also left in the dark on the subject.

Defences have been mounted by those working in the aid sector.  Mike Aaronson, writing in August last year, pleaded the case that aid organisations were being unduly singled out, the scape goats of moral outrage and privileged ethics. 

“Aid organisations carry a lot of risk, operating in chaotic and stressful environments where in trying to do good they can end up doing harm.” 

In condemning them, it was easy to ignore the fact that they had “done most to address the issue”.

The WWF situation, which has moved the matter into the dimension of animal protection and conservation, has hallmarks that are similarly problematic with the humanitarian sector in general.  And the reaction of the organisation has also been fairly typical, laden with weasel-worded aspirations. 

“At the heart of WWF’s work are places and people who live with them,” an organisation spokesman for WWF UK asserted in response to the allegations.  “Respect for human rights is at the core of our mission.”  There were “stringent policies” in place to safeguard “the rights and wellbeing of indigenous people and local communities in the places we work.”

Students of the broad field of humanitarian ventures suggest four instances where militarisation takes place.  Charities and relief organisations have become proxy extensions in armed conflict (consider Nicaragua and Afghanistan during the 1980s); creatures of embedment (the Red Cross in the World Wars); agents of “self-defence” – consider the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in the twelfth century; and engaged in direct conflict (the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War).  

The WWF case suggests a direct connection between the mission of a charitable organisation and its captivation by a dangerous militancy.  It has become a sponsor, and concealer, of vigilante action, obviously unabashed in cracking a few skulls in the name of shielding protected species.  Along came the networks of informants, surveillance and exploiting local issues.  No longer can this be regarded a matter of altruistic engagement in the name of animal conservation; it is a full-fledged sponsorship of a paramilitary operation with all the incidental nastiness such an effort entails.

*

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 Boing Boing

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Militarised Conservation: “Paramilitary Rangers” and the World Wild Life Fund (WWF)
  • Tags: , ,

The Trump regime and Beijing seem headed toward striking some form of accommodation on major economic, financial, and trade differences – at best a short-term fix.

Structural issues are at the heart of them, not the large trade imbalance between both countries favoring China with a record $323 billion surplus in 2018.

Offshoring US manufacturing and other jobs to China and other low-wage countries bear responsibility, corporate America to blame, not other nations.

In discussing US jobs-destroying NAFTA, Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach explained one of countless examples, saying

“Goodyear opened up a new tire manufacturing plant in San Luis Potosi in Mexico.”

“They’re paying their workers there a $1.58 an hour. They are making the exact same tires that workers in Kansas City in the US at a Goodyear plant are being paid $26 an hour for.”

If wages in a country are raised,  jobs may be lost to lower-wage nations. Multiply Wallach’s example over a thousand-fold. It adds up to millions of US jobs lost in recent decades, mostly post-January 1991 NAFTA.

Major Sino/US differences are irreconcilable. They’re all about China’s growing political, economic, financial, and military clout – the trade deficit between both countries largely a distraction.

Washington seeks global dominance, tolerating no challengers to its aim for dominion over planet earth, its resources and populations.

Obama’s Asia pivot, continued by Trump, is all about reasserting America’s regional presence, advancing its military footprint in a part of the world not its own.

It’s about marginalizing, weakening, containing, and isolating Russia and China, risking confrontation with both countries.

It’s about trying to undermine Beijing’s Made in China 2025 (MIC2025) strategy, the terminology omitted in Premier Li Keqiang’s March 5, 2019 address to the National People’s Congress, instead saying Beijing intends “work(ing) faster to make China strong in manufacturing” – notably its technologically advanced sectors.

China aims to advance 10 economic sectors to world-class status, including information technology, high-end machinery and robotics, aerospace, marine equipment and ships, advanced rail transport, new-energy vehicles, electric power, agricultural machinery, new materials and biomedical products.

As part of reaching accommodation with the Trump regime, the MIC2025 phrase perhaps is gone, Beijing’s blueprint for advancing economically, industrially, and technologically unchanged, Li saying:

“We will strengthen the supporting capacity of quality infrastructure…and improve the quality of products and services to encourage more domestic and foreign users to choose Chinese goods and services.”

Whatever accommodation is reached with the US, China’s aim to become an economic, industrial, and high-tech powerhouse remains unchanged.

Trump regime criticism of Chinese support for its industries, including subsidies aiding their development, ignores the longstanding history of US government handouts – from the beginning of the republic to now.

Historian Howard Zinn earlier explained the following, saying:

“Let’s face a historical truth. We have never had a ‘free market.’ We have always had government intervention in the economy, and indeed that intervention has been welcomed by the captains of finance and industry.”

“These titans of wealth (earlier and now) hypocritically warned against ‘big government,’ but only when (it) threatened to regulate their activities, or when it contemplated passing some of the nation’s wealth on to the neediest people.”

“They had no quarrel with ‘big government’ when it served their needs, (and it) started way back” in 1787 when the Constitution was drafted – the origin of US government handouts to business.

“In the first sessions of the first Congress,” markets were manipulated with tariffs “to subsidize manufacturers.” Government partnered with private banks to establish a national one.

These practices were commonplace from earlier through today. Only the amounts get bigger. The more concentrated business gets, the greater its appetite and more power it wants served by Washington.

Countless examples explain how so-called US-style free-market capitalism works. The nation’s interstate highway system was built at the behest of the auto industry.

WW I was the pretext for subsidizing US shipbuilding. The nation’s railroad infrastructure and aviation industry were government subsidized.

The Panama canal aided east and west coast US shippers. The Department of Commerce is all about what Calvin Coolidge called serving “the business of America.”

The same goes for departments of the Treasury, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, Health and Human Services, and others – established to serve monied interests, not the general welfare, along with business friendly legislation.

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act was the mother of all federal handouts to business, giving Wall Street control over the nation’s money, the supreme power ability to print and control money, credit and debt.

The federal income tax was enacted the same year to service the federal debt owed to bankers. Government handouts to business reflect the American way – socializing costs and privatizing profits, today more than ever.

Trillions of federal dollars go for subsidies, other direct grants, tax breaks, reductions, deductions, exclusions, write-offs, exemptions, credits, loopholes, accelerated depreciation, shelters, and rebates even for profitable companies.

The bigger and more powerful they are, the more they get – besides letting corporations headquarter operations abroad, at times to tax havens, minimizing or avoiding federal taxes.

Lucrative government contracts are awarded to corporate favorites, including cost-plus and no-bid ones – with built-in incentives to game the system for maximum profits.

Government-funded R & D for Big Pharma and other industries is longstanding US practice. Direct payments to business occur in other ways, including from cabinet departments.

Whatever Beijing does to benefit home-grown businesses, the US does much more of. China should be criticizing US subsidizing practices, not the other way around.

Beijing reportedly intends increasing its science and technology development budget by 13.4% this year.

Instead of MIC2025 terminology, the phrase “smart plus” perhaps will define China’s aim to advance economically, industrially and technologically going forward.

The language may change, not the nation’s longterm aim. How that affects Sino/US trade differences ahead remains to be seen.

*

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.

Featured image is from NEO

Pakistan’s Indian Submarine Interception

March 6th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The Pakistan Navy proved its importance on Tuesday by intercepting an Indian submarine that attempted to infiltrate the country’s sovereign waters, highlighting the increasing role that this often overlooked branch of the Armed Forces is poised to play in the coming future as CPEC expands along the southern maritime vector to facilitate Chinese-African trade via the global pivot state.

Indian Infiltration Thwarted

The Pakistan Navy (PN) proved its highly skilled competence on Tuesday by detecting and deterring an Indian submarine that attempted to infiltrate the country’s sovereign waters, with this interception occurring in spite of New Delhi investing an order of magnitude more into this branch of the Armed Forces than Islamabad does. That in and of itself confirms that cost and quantity comparisons between these two rival militaries are misleading and don’t account for the differing quality of service between them, which was seen most clearly last week when the Pakistan Air Force – which also receives less funding than its Indian counterpart – shot down an intruding jet over its airspace and even managed to capture its pilot. That event understandably received a lot more international attention because of how dramatic it was, but the world also shouldn’t overlook the latest maritime tension between the two, nor the growing importance of the PN in general.

Introducing The Pakistan Navy

The popular Pakistani online media outlet Global Village Space (GVS) dedicated the February 2019 issue of its in-print magazine to precisely this topic and included insightful pieces by prominent figures such as Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Zafar M. Abbasi, Cdr (retd) Azam Khan, Vice Admiral (R) Taj M. Khattak, Rear Admiral (R) Pervaiz Asghar, and Minister for Maritime Affairs Ali Zaidi, as well as a detailed description by Strategic Affairs Editor Shahid Raza of the assets being acquired or developed for the PN. GVS released digital versions of all of these articles so that the wider audience outside of Pakistan can be informed about the latest developments concerning the country’s navy, with the following pieces being specifically recommended if readers are eager to learn more about this branch of the Armed Forces:

The abovementioned interviews, analyses, and articles revealed that the Pakistani economy is disproportionately dependent on maritime trade for a whopping 90% of its activity, which explains why the government decided to refocus on the maritime sector in late 2017 when it renamed and subsequently reconceptualized the Ministry of Ports and Shipping as the Ministry of Maritime Affairs. This preceded the launching of the Regional Maritime Security Patrols (RMSP) in summer 2018, after which the country’s first-ever Maritime Doctrine of Pakistan was unveiled at the end of the year. Amidst all of this, the PN carried out six biennial multilateral exercises called AMAN (which means peace in Urdu) from 2007-2019 that progressively saw more countries participating in these trust-building and interoperability drills, which proved that Islamabad isn’t “isolated” despite New Delhi refusing to allow it to join the “Indian Ocean Rim Association”.

S-CPEC+

Building off of the insights and outlooks gleaned from GVS’ pieces on the subject, it’s possible to identify the basic principles of Pakistan’s forward-looking naval strategy in the 21st century. The author previously described the country as the global pivot statebecause of the unparalleled pan-hemispheric integrational potential that it has due to the possibility of expanding CPEC along several geographic vectors all across Afro-Eurasia. The most pertinent one is what could be described as S-CPEC+, or the southern expansion of CPEC across the “Indian Ocean” (reconceptualized by the author as the Afro-Asian Ocean [AAO] to make it more civilizationally and strategically accurate) to facilitate African-Chinese trade via Pakistan, ergo the growing relevance of the PN. It’s with this frontier in mind that the country launched its RMSP to establish a presence in that region.

The author elaborated on these interconnected concepts more in detail in the following three pieces:

The main point is that Pakistan must urgently “Pivot to Africa”, with the PN leading the way.

Pakistan’s “Pivot To Africa”

From these analyses and the previously cited ones, the following policymaking points can be made:

  • The PN is expanding from a coastal defense force to a blue water navy;
  • It’ll defend the planned offshore Russian pipeline and S-CPEC+’s Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC);
  • The RMSP will make the PN one of the main state-to-state points of contact with African countries;
  • This must eventually be leveraged to economic ends to improve Pakistani-African trade;
  • Bilateral state-to-state navy-driven regional ties can evolve to become multilateral and non-military;
  • AMAN is a useful military platform that can be expanded into a Chinese-backed economic one;
  • The People’s Republic has plenty of experience building parallel institutions around BRI;
  • The same strategy can be applied with S-CPEC+ to replace the Indian-led IORA;
  • The RMSP form the transregional security vanguard of S-CPEC+ and require multilateral support;
  • Coalition-building can preemptively thwart any possible Indian “blockade” scenario;
  • The Pakistan Navy can therefore position itself as one of the leading forces in S-CPEC+ and the AAO;
  • In order to be complete, however, Pakistan must have a complementary continental strategy;
  • The February 2019 African-centric edition of Pakistan Politico can point experts in the right direction;
  • But a comprehensive African policy must be created with military, economic, and academic input.

Concluding Thoughts

The Pakistan Navy’s thwarting of an Indian submarine’s infiltration attempt into the country’s sovereign waters brought global attention to this often overlooked branch of its military, which is long overdue because of its growing geostrategic significance as the vanguard force leading Pakistan’s “Pivot to Africa” and securing S-CPEC+. The impressive role that the Pakistan Navy is tasked by strategic inertia with playing makes it a very attractive partner for a plethora of countries, including most interestingly Russia, which the author touched upon in the following two pieces on the topic:

It’s therefore foreseeable that the Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership might soon expand into this domain if Moscow decides to sell naval equipment to Islamabad and even jointly establish a presence astride some of the most important Sea Lines Of Communication in the Afro-Asian Ocean. It’s not just Russia, either, since any Great Power could theoretically follow the aforementioned template in partnering with the Pakistan Navy and strengthening their influence along S-CPEC+. With this in mind, the Pakistan Navy is finally gaining the global recognition it deserves, and at the perfect time too.

*

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

This article was originally published on 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 Global Village Space

A Way Out of the Money Trap

March 6th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Nomi Prins had spent many years working for Wall Street “predatory” firms like Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. She then became ‘born again progressive’ and tells it like it is. Recently, this writer read a fine piece of hers about the inequality of income and wealth in our nation. In it Nomi explains how the top one tenth of one percent (0.1) of Americans possess as much wealth as 90 percent of us. And, Prins reveals, 90 % of Americans owe 3/4 of the country’s household debt (mortgages, auto loans, student loans, credit card debt to name but a few items of debt). These debts are now at a record high $13.5 trillion! Here is a way out of this tragic unfairness:

  • The federal income tax rate is now at a high of 37% if a person earns in excess of $ 500,000 a year. Looking back, the top rates for the decades of 1950s, 60s and 70s never dipped below 70%. Under Reagan and his gang the top rate was slashed to 50% in 1981. So, look how great the super rich have it now! It is time to Surtax the Super Rich and leave the 99+ % of us as is. Let’s shout for a FLAT SURTAX OF 50% for any income of over one million dollars a year. This would only affect the millionaires. Anyone  earning up to one million would be taxed as is now. Once they go over that amount, half of their earnings of over one million goes to the treasury, and half they keep… tax free. How many working stiffs would be satisfied with that deal? Since 99+ % of us would not be in that basket, why not stimulate the economy with all those billions for the common good?
  • Social Security contributions of 6.2 % per worker and employer currently cap at $132,000 in earnings per year. By eliminating that ceiling the Social Security fund would really be in the black forever. Plus, there could be real and generous annual ‘Cost of living’ increases in how much retirees can receive. How many hard working stiffs who rely on that monthly check would really appreciate the added dollars to live more decently?
  • Implement Robert Reich’s idea for a Payroll Tax forgiveness plan. Why not make all contributions to the Payroll Tax forgiven up to the first $20k a year in earnings? If the employee and the employer can keep the 7.65% contribution, each would save over $1500 a year, tax free. Of course, this forgiveness plan should have a cap at 50 employees per business for the employer’s contribution, NOT the individual worker’s. This would really stimulate the economy, and cut down the use of ‘off the books’ employment. Why would a small business hire ‘off the books’ workers when by keeping all ‘on the books’ would be more viable? Do the math yourself. Having had personal experience as a partner in a small cafe, this writer can attest to how Mom and Pop businesses could use that financial aid. They could use that savings to pay their employees better and operate more successfully via increased advertising etc.

We hardly even see these super rich who hold that 1/10 of 1 % of our nation’s wealth. They don’t live anywhere near where we live. They don’t usually eat in the places we eat. Sadly, they say that in our country ‘Royalty is dead’ … well it isn’t and never was.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

The Orientalism of Western Russophobia

March 6th, 2019 by Max Parry

Last year marked the 40th anniversary of the publication of Edward W. Said’s pioneering book, Orientalism, as well as fifteen years since the Palestinian-American intellectual’s passing. To bid farewell to such an important scholar shortly after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Said fiercely criticized until his dying breath before succumbing to leukemia, made an already tremendous loss that much more impactful.

His seminal text forever reoriented political discourse by painstakingly examining the overlooked cultural imperialism of colonial history in the West’s construction of the so-called Orient. Said meticulously interrogated the Other-ing of the non-Western world in the humanities, arts, and anthropology down to its minutiae. As a result, the West was forced to confront not just its economic and political plunder but the long-established cultural biases filtering the lens through which it viewed the East which shaped its dominion over it.

His writings proved to be so influential that they laid the foundations for what is now known as post-colonial theory. This became an ironic category as the author himself would strongly reject any implication that the subjugation of developing countries is a thing of the past. How apropos that the Mandatory Palestine-born writer’s death came in the midst of the early stages of the ‘War on Terror’ that made clear Western imperialism is very much alive. Despite its history of ethnic cleansing, slavery, and war, the United States had distinguished itself from Britain and France in that it had never established its own major colonies within the Middle East, Asia or North Africa in the heart of the Orient. According to Said, it was now undergoing this venture as the world’s sole remaining superpower following the end of the Cold War with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today’s political atmosphere makes the Bush era seem like eons ago. Thanks to the shameful rehabilitation of neoconservatism by centrist extremists, Americans fail to understand how Trumpism emerged from the pandora’s box of destructiveness of Bush policies that destabilized the Middle East and only increased international terrorism. Since then, another American enemy has been manufactured in the form of the Russian Federation and its President, Vladimir Putin, who drew the ire of the West after a resurgent Moscow under his leadership began to contain U.S. hegemony. This reached a crescendo during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election with the dubious accusations of election interference made by the same intelligence agencies that sold the pack of lies that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. The establishment has even likened the alleged intrusion by Moscow to 9/11.

If a comparison between the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans and the still unproven allegations of Russian meddling seems outrageous, it is precisely such an analogy that has been made by Russiagate’s own biggest proponents, from neoconservative columnist Max Boot to Hillary Clinton herself. Truthfully, it is the climate of hysteria and dumbing down of discourse to such rigid dichotomies following both events where a real similarity can be drawn. The ‘with us or against us’ chasm that followed 9/11 has reemerged in the ‘either/or’ post-election polarity of the Trump era whereby all debate within the Overton window is pigeonholed into a ‘pro vs. anti-Trump’ or ‘pro vs. anti-Russia’ false dilemma. It is even perpetrated by some on the far left, e.g. if one critiques corporate media or Russiagate, they are grouped as ‘pro-Trump’ or ‘pro-Putin’ no matter their political orientation. This dangerous atmosphere is feeding an unprecedented wave of censorship of dissenting voices across the spectrum.

Image result for orientalism edward said

In his final years, not only did Edward Said condemn the Bush administration but highlighted how corporate media was using bigoted tropes in its representations of Arabs and Muslims to justify U.S. foreign policy. Even though it has gone mostly undetected, the neo-McCarthyist frenzy following the election has produced a similar travesty of caricatures depicting Russia and Vladimir Putin. One such egregious example was a July 2018 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Russia’s Turn to Its Asian Past” featuring an illustration portraying Vladimir Putin as Genghis Khan. The racist image and headline suggested that Russia is somehow inherently autocratic because of its past occupation under the Mongol Empire during its conquest of Eastern Europe and the Kievan Rus state in the 13th century. In a conceptual revival of the Eurocentric trope of Asiatic or Oriental despotism, the hint is that past race-mixing is where Russia inherited this tyrannical trait. When the cover story appeared, there was virtually no outcry due to the post-election delirium and everyday fear-mongering about Russia that is now commonplace in the media.

The overlooked casual racism used to demonize Russia in the new Cold War’s propaganda doesn’t stop there. One of the main architects of Russiagate, former Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, in an interviewwith NBC‘s Meet the Press on the reported meddling stated:

“And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.”

Clapper, whose Office of the DNI published the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”, has been widely praised and cited by corporate media as a trustworthy source despite his previous history of making intentionally false statements at a public hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee denying that the National Security Agency (NSA) was unconstitutionally spying on U.S. citizens.

The disclosures of NSA activities by whistleblower Edward Snowden that shocked the world should have discredited Clapper’s status as a reliable figure, but not for mainstream media which has continuously colluded with the deep state during the entire Russia investigation. In fact, the scandal has been an opportunity to rehabilitate figures like the ex-spymaster complicit in past U.S. crimes from surveillance to torture. Shortly after the interview with NBC, Clapper repeated his prejudiced sentiments against Russians in a speech at the National Press Club in Australia:

But as far as our being intimate allies, trusting buds with the Russians that is just not going to happen. It is in their genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United States and to Western democracies.”

The post-election mass Trump derangement has not only enabled wild accusations of treason to be made without sufficient evidence to support them, but such uninhibited xenophobic remarks to go without notice or disapproval.

In fact, liberals have seemingly abandoned their supposed progressive credence across the board while suffering from their anti-Russia neurological disorder. In an exemplar of yellow journalism, outlets like NBC News published sensational articles alleging that because of the perceived ingratiation between Trump and Putin, there was an increase in Russian ‘birth tourism’ in the United States. More commonly known by the pejorative ‘anchor babies’, birth tourism is the false claim that many immigrants travel to countries for the purpose of having children in order to obtain citizenship. While there may be individual cases, the idea that it is an epidemic is a complete myth — the vast majority of immigration is motivated by labor demands and changes in political or socio-economic factors in their native countries, whether it is from the global south or Eastern Europe. Trump has been rightfully criticized for promoting this falsehood regarding undocumented immigrants and his executive orders targeting birthright citizenship, but it appears liberals are willing to unfairly apply this same fallacy toward Russians for political reasons.

In order to make sense of the current groupthink hysteria towards Moscow, it must be understood in its context as an extension of the ongoing doctoring of history regarding U.S.-Russia relations since the Cold War. Americans living within the empire are proselytized into a glorified and nationalist version of their entire background, beginning with merchants and explorers ‘discovering’ the continent and the whitewashing of indigenous genocide. This imaginary narrative includes the version of WWII taught in U.S. schools and the arms race with the Soviet Union that followed. The West presents an entirely Anglospheric perspective of the war starting with its very chronology. For example, it is said that the conflict ‘officially’ began with the September 1st, 1939 invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. This mythology immediately frames the war from an Eurocentric viewpoint by separating the Sino-Japanese war that was already underway as the Pacific Ocean theater began long before the ‘surprise’ Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and U.S. entry into the conflict.

The truth is that nearly everything Americans are taught about U.S. participation in the war is either a mischaracterization or a lie, with its role in the Allied victory inflated exponentially. The widely held misconception that the 1944 Normandy landings in the Allied invasion of France was the decisive turning point in Europe is a fairy tale. The ‘D’ in D-Day does not stand for ‘decision’ as many Westerners assume, and when the Allied forces converged on Germany from East and West it was the Soviets who captured Berlin. Although Operation Overlord may have been the largest invasion transported by sea in history, the real watershed in the Great Patriotic War was the Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad the previous year, the biggest defeat ever suffered by the German army. The U.S. only took on the Wehrmacht once it was exhausted by the Red Army which bore the real burden of overcoming Germany.

Just three years earlier, the British army had been completely vanquished by the Nazi armed forces. Omitted from Hollywood folklore like Christopher Nolan’s film Dunkirk is that the Germans were entirely capable of pressing on with an invasion of the British isles but abruptly halted their advance — what stopped them? Quite simply, Hitler’s fanatical desire to conquer the Soviet Union and eradicate communism which he regarded as a greater threat to the Third Reich than Western capitalism. It is not surprising that the Eastern Front became a higher priority considering that the ruling classes in Britain, France and the U.S. had previously financed the German rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

The Germans did not hold the same hatred for the West that it reserved for the Russians. In fact, the Führer personally admired the U.S. so much for the extermination of its natives that he named his armored private train ‘Amerika’, a mobile version of the Wolf’s Lair. The Nuremberg race statutes were partly inspired by Jim Crow segregation laws in the U.S. and many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials tried to excuse their atrocities by arguing the similarity between Nazi race theories and the eugenicist movement which actually originated in the United States. Auschwitz physician Josef Mengele was even previously employed as an assistant to the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics institute that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Hitler also preferred an attack on the Soviets over an invasion of Britain because of the eugenics of Lebensraum. Nazi Germany, like Britain and France, was really an imperial settler colonialist state and Hitler viewed the Slav inhabitants of the USSR as ethnically inferior to the ‘master race.’ The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had been a strategic move to buy time for the Soviets in preparation for a German onslaught, at the time the most powerful military power in the world.

Britain and France had rebuffed Stalin’s efforts to form an alliance in 1938, leaving the USSR no choice but to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany, knowing full well it was only a matter of time until Hitler would eventually embark on his Masterplan for the East. Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 broke the agreement and the German dictator ultimately sealed his own fate. Although the Soviets were victorious, the slaughter that proceeded it had no parallel in human history as 27 million citizens would lose their lives in the fight compared to less than half a million Americans. Even worse, the West has made a mockery of this sacrifice with their refusal to fully acknowledge the USSR’s contribution despite the fact that they did the vast majority of the fighting and dying while 80% of all German casualties were on the Eastern Front.

Meanwhile, the Cold War had already begun before the Second World War even ended. Whether or not Stalin was fully aware of either the U.S. capability or plans to use the atomic bomb against Japan is still a matter of debate, as U.S. President Harry S. Truman changed his story numerous times over the years. Nevertheless, their use is incorrectly attributed by the West to have brought the war’s end and very few Americans realize this tale was told entirely for political reasons. The purported rationale was to allegedly save the lives of American soldiers that would be lost in a future Allied invasion of Japan planned for the Autumn of 1945. Controlling the narrative became crucial in ‘justifying’ the use of such deadly weapons which held the secret motivation to begin an arms race with the Soviets.

Stalin and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had agreed at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 that the USSR would eventually break its neutrality treaty with Japan and enter the Pacific theater later in the year. That was until Roosevelt died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage just a few months later while American nuclear physicists were busy at work enriching uranium in Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Then, just a day prior to newly inaugurated President Truman’s meeting with Stalin at the Potsdam Conference in July, the U.S. army and Project Y successfully detonated a nuclear weapon for the first time with the Trinity test as part of the expensive Manhattan Project. After his face-to-face with Truman at Potsdam, whom everyone agrees at least hinted to Stalin of the new U.S. weaponry, the Soviet premier suspected the new U.S. leader would go back on the previous agreement at Yalta with Roosevelt that included compromises with the USSR in the Pacific.

The ugly truth is that the U.S. was well aware that the Japanese were willing to conditionally surrender on the basis of immunity for Emperor Hirohito. However, the U.S. secretly wanted to achieve an Allied victory ideally without Soviet participation so it could demonstrate its exclusive nuclear capability in order to dominate the post-war order. Japan didn’t relinquish following the first bombing of Hiroshima but the second, Nagasaki, three days later — both of which mostly impacted civilians, not its military. What else happened on August 9th, 1945? The Soviet Union declared war on Japan upon realizing that the U.S. was backtracking on its pledge with the underhanded use of ‘Fat Man and Little Boy’ that instantly killed more than 200,000 civilians. The timing gave the appearance that the bomb resulted in the surrender when it was the Soviet invasion of occupied Manchuria in the north against Japan’s military stronghold that was the real tipping point which led to an unconditional acceptance of defeat.

According to the Western narrative, the Cold War only began following Winston Churchill’s invitation to the U.S. by Truman after being surprisingly voted out of office in 1946. At Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, hegave a speech entitled “Sinews of Peace”, widely known as the Iron Curtain speech, where he condemned Soviet policies in Europe and popularized the moniker for the boundary dividing the continent after the war:

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an “iron curtain” has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.”

Although the term ‘iron curtain’ predates Cold War usage to describe various barriers political or otherwise, what is not commonly known is that Churchill likely appropriated the term from its originator, none other than the German Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels himself, who used it in reference to the Soviet Union. In February 1945, he wrote in Das Reich newspaper:

“If the German people lay down their weapons, the Soviets, according to the agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, would occupy all of East and Southeast Europe along with the greater part of the Reich. An iron curtain would fall over this enormous territory controlled by the Soviet Union, behind which nations would be slaughtered.”

The ‘Nazi megaphone’ himself may have gotten the term from the Wehrmacht propaganda publication Signal which in 1943 published an article entitled “Behind the Iron Curtain” that described:

“He who has listened in on the interrogation of a Soviet prisoner of war knows that once the dam is broken, a flood of words begins as he tries to make clear what he experienced behind the mysterious iron curtain, which more than ever separates the world from the Soviet Union.”

Is it any wonder that British newspaper The Guardian is now illustrating cartoons in its anti-Russia propaganda today that imitate Goebbels’ anti-Soviet posters during WWII?

Although Stalin was unaware of Churchill’s lifting of Nazi phraseology, he still detected the resemblance between Western and Third Reich policies toward the Soviet Union in the Fulton speech during an interview with Pravda:

“A point to be noted is that in this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends bear a striking resemblance to Hitler and his friends. Hitler began his work of unleashing war by proclaiming a race theory, declaring that only German-speaking people constituted a superior nation. Mr. Churchill sets out to unleash war with a race theory, asserting that only English-speaking nations are superior nations, who are called upon to decide the destinies of the entire world. The German race theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only superior nation, should rule over other nations. The English race theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the only superior nations, should rule over the rest of the nations of the world. Actually, Mr. Churchill, and his friends in Britain and the United States, present to the non-English speaking nations something in the nature of an ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all will be well; otherwise war is inevitable.” But the nations shed their blood in the course of five years’ fierce war for the sake of the liberty and independence of their countries, and not in order to exchange the domination of the Hitlers for the domination of the Churchills. It is quite probable, accordingly, that the non-English-speaking nations, which constitute the vast majority of the population of the world, will not agree to submit to a new slavery.”

It is easy to see the parallels between Stalin’s explanation for the geopolitical tensions underlying the Cold War and Edward Said’s postcolonial theory. From a Marxist perspective, one of Said’s shortcomings was a reductionism in understanding empire to cultural supremacy, one of the reasons he unfortunately conflated Marxism with Orientalism as well. When it came to the Cold War, Said also demonstrated a lack of understanding of internationalism. He wrote:

“By the time of the Bandung Conference in 1955, the entire Orient had gained its independence from the Western empires and gained a new configuration of imperial powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Unable to recognize “its” Orient in the new Third World, Orientalism now faced a challenging and politically armed Orient.”

Yet who foremost ‘armed’ the movements of national liberation? The USSR, including support for the Palestinians during most of its history. Nevertheless, Stalin’s description of the West’s prerogative for post-war hegemony based on the belief in its primacy has many overlaps with the idea that the Occident exercised patronizing dominance over the East. Today, even though the Berlin Wall has long since fallen and Eastern Europe is under free enterprise, the political establishment in the West is still clinging to this attitude and misunderstanding of Moscow to fulfill its need for an permanent global nemesis with a desire to eventually colonize Russia with foreign capital as it did under Boris Yeltsin.

Russia has historically possessed a unique and ambivalent identity located between the East and West, having been invaded by both European and Asian empires in previous centuries. Said included Russia in Orientalism in his analysis of European countries and their attitude toward the East, but did not note that Russia is in many respects the Orient within the Occident, as more than 75% of its territory as the largest nation in the world is actually located in Asia while three quarters of its population live on the European side. Russia may be partly European, but it is certainly not Western. Then again, Europe is not a continent unto itself but geographically connected to Asia with the arbitrary division between them based on cultural differences, not landmass, where Russia is an intermediate. Expansionism under Peter the Great may have brought Western European ‘cultural values’ and modernization to Russia, but the majority of its territory itself remains in Asia.

Even after the presumed end of the Cold War, Russia has been excluded from the European Union and instead joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), while developing strong ties with China. As recentlydisclosed documents from the National Security Archive prove, NATO has broken its promise to Mikhail Gorbachev during the George H.W. Bush administration that it not expand eastward following Germany’s enrollment. It has since added 13 countries since 1999, 10 of which were former Warsaw Pact states. Russia’s alliance with China has been solidified precisely because it is still not treated in the same regard as other European nations even after the adoption of a private sector economy. In order to justify its continued armament and avoid obsolescence, NATO has manufactured an adversarial relationship with Moscow.

Contrary to the widespread perception of his rhetoric, in terms of policy-making President Trump has been equally as hostile to Moscow as his predecessors, if not more so in light of the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). What the usual suspects behind the attempted soft-coup against him fail to understand is that Trump’s tact toward Putin is more likely an inverted version of the ‘only Nixon could go to China’ strategy, an unexpected style of diplomacy based on the pragmatic objective of containing Beijing by dividing America’s two primary foes. The liberals still in denial about their election defeat continue to underestimate Trump, but the Chinese are not fooled. The architect behind Nixon’s détente with Mao, Henry Kissinger, is even believed to have encouraged Trump to ease tensions with Moscow in order to quarantine China and don’t think they haven’t noticed. Ultimately, the divide between Trump and his enemies in the establishment is really a disagreement over strategy in how to surround China and prevent the inevitable downfall of the U.S. empire.

The ongoing demonization of Moscow is ultimately about China as well. It was only a matter of time until the uncertain allegations of election interference were also leveled against Beijing without proof as a Joint Statement from the U.S. intelligence agencies recently showed.

Make no mistake — underneath the West’s Russophobia lies Sinophobia and as Washington’s real geopolitical challenger, China will in due course emerge as the preferred bogeyman. The bipartisan hawkishness has created an environment where rapprochement and diplomacy of any kind is seen as weakness and even a sign of treason, making the prospect of peace seemingly impossible. As China continues to grow, it will find itself more squarely in the crosshairs of imperialism, regardless of whether Trump’s strategy to renew relations with Moscow against Beijing is successful. Until then cooler heads at the highest levels of government must prevail as they thankfully did at the height of the first Cold War for the sake of peace between Russia, the U.S. and the entire world.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

Forward by Richard Galustian 

Carla Ortiz is one of the most unique people of our times, a real hero; a woman who is braver than the most seasoned war reporter. She has spent considerable time in the Syrian war zones where the fighting between the Syrian Army and Al Qaeda and its affiliates was at its most bloody and intense, especially in and around Aleppo.; a city where for centuries Christians, though dominant in the area nevertheless, lived as one community with Muslims.

Quoting from a Reuters article written in July 2017 mostly describing the world renowned famous Baron Hotel, located in West Aleppo, where some of the most famous people of the 20th Century including T.E.Lawrence and Agatha Christie, were frequent visitors.

Again quoting from the Reuters article

“In the upstairs room she (Christie) always stayed during her frequent stays to Aleppo stands the glass-topped wooden desk where she wrote part of Murder on the Orient Express.”

The excellent Reuters piece, written by Angus McDowall, gives background and texture of Syrian history describing a country that once was, while explaining the symbolic significance of that County’s most famous hotel.

“Founded by an Armenian family in 1911, The Baron played host to adventurers, writers, Kings, aviators, Bedouin chiefs and presidents, actors, etc until war forced it to close five years ago.

In its heyday,

“The Baron was part of a Syria that valued religious and ethnic diversity, openness to the outside world, culture and respect for the country’s great antiquities.” said Mrs. Mazloumian.

Roubina Tashjian Mazloumian, the 68 year old widow of Armen Mazloumian, the grandson of the hotel’s founder, who died in 2016 said further:

“Syria was the most comfortable, the most secular country in the Arab world,” adding “It was even embarrassing if people asked if you were a Christian or a Muslim.” such was the harmonious relationship that existed between Christian and Muslims communities, not just in Syria but throughput the Middle East in a world before Al Qaeda and ISIS.

“During the fighting, the hotel took in refugee families” till it finally closed for good.

The Baron symbolised what was great about this secular and beautiful Country. The building inevitably has sustained some war related damage but is still standing.

The below is an interview given by Carla Ortiz to THE SYRIA TIMES, but I particularly urge you to watch her films and videos on Syria most can be found on her Facebook page and/or on YouTube.

She is in the process of completing the editing of a new film which is much awaited by all those interested in Syria’s fate. It is expected for general release this Spring/Summer, 2019.

Richard C. Galustian, March 6, 2019

The below extract from one of her first films from Syrian front lines is a perfect introduction to readers (plus an article by her given to Global Research) of her outstanding work.

***

Carla Ortiz interviewed By Syria Times:

Syria is truly a country of love and peace

Over the past three years, she has fully dedicated her life to help end the war and lift sanctions on the Syrian people, and her big final plan is to release this year her film “Voice Of Syria” that has become the most beautiful journey of her life.

Carla Ortiz, the Bolivian actress and activist, who has made more than 10 trips to what she described as her second country [Syria] and has been on the ground in 80% of the country in ‘rebel’ and government areas, feels responsibility to pass the message that Syria is truly a country of love and peace.

“I have been coming to Syria my second country since the beginning of 2016. I have made several trips (more than 10). I have been on the ground in 80% of the country in ”rebel” and government areas.

This is why I know what Syrians want. I have been documenting for 3 years the “Voice of Syria” a documentary film that has become the most beautiful journey of my life. I have fallen in Love with Syria, with Syrians and their resilience. I never seen anything like that,” she told the Syria Times newspaper, hoping that her documentary film can be an instrument of peace and part of the reconstruction of Syria.

Ortiz has participated last October in a three-day activity held at Liberty University on peace talks and end of intervention in Syria.

“We had a beautiful intense 3 day back to back classes for students of foreign policy, law making and social studies with Senator Richard Black for US congress and Reuben Egolf from US Global Leadership Council. We gave them an overall on Syria we talked about the Assyrians and the original Christians in the Middle East. It was inspiring to see the American young Christians connect to the roots of Aramaic and the beginning of world civilization in Christianity and Islam,” she said.

The speakers in the activity explained the conflict in Syria and the war of 8 years along with the interest of all nations involved in the conflict. “The outcome was just incredible. They were really touched and you could honestly see the interest of the institution, professors and students to pursue conversations of peace and end of intervention in Syria. Some decided to start some new movements to support specific themes in Syria.”

Constructive dialogues

Another activity was held in Washington DC at the National Press Club with the participation of 30 journalists and it was something amazing, according to the actress, who told us what happened there.

“We were not allowed to present any audiovisual material. So it was an actual conversation. Many of them have worked in the Pentagon or Capitol Hill. Many of them understood the war very clearly. Others did not agree with all that was exposed, but it was an exchange of ideas and actions that can truly help inform better about Syria,” Ortiz clarified.

She underscored the need to talk to the people that are misinformed or the ones that have only one side of the story.

“If we don’t open constructive dialogues, we will never find real solutions….Syrians are doing a great job themselves but the international community must help lift the sanctions… All the journalists that night understood the urgency of this matter. So, I considered it a total success!”

Asked about the impression she got during her recent visit to Syria, Ortiz replied: “I am always amazed to see how fast Syrians rebuild their lives…I’ve been in Aleppo several times…. I went this November last and I had tears in my eyes of the emotion to see the Aleppians [Aleppo citizens] so stablished. Many businessmen are back investing in their country, people rebuilding the roads, opening stores, schools, restaurants and hotels are functioning again…The same goes to Damascus, Homs and other cities. But I have to say that I was mostly impressed with Aleppo because I was there in November 2016 during the battle and makes my heart warm to see so alive again.”

Add to that, she was impressed with the amount of Women soldiers volunteering.

“In several occasions when I was going to the frontlines, Syrian soldiers were the ones protecting me or any other journalist that was traveling along. What can I say about them? Many of them are the youth and people of Syria and they are sacrificing their lives to save their families from the result of this unjust war that left terror no one in the world would like to have at home,” Ortiz said.

She has taken paintings with her from Syria and she intends to make an exhibition soon.

“US Customs had detained my shipment for over a year. So, for things like this I need to have patience. We are also working with other projects to bring musicians and artists to Damascus and Palmyra. We, for instance, we had a gorgeous talk in Lericci Italy with Katharine Cooper, a South African Photographer and Syrian conductor Ms. Baghboudarian, the maestro of the National Orchestra in Damascus, about diplomacy and art. It was so special to talk to other artists. There were journalist from mainstream media and they had to listen to us.”

Here is the link:

Ortiz concluded by saying: “Just that I am proud of Syrians. I am seeing that reconciliation is happening. Very soon it will be 2 million people that have retuned home. It is beautiful to see my friends from all sides coming along to their beautiful Syria. It is only YOU Syrians that can rebuild your amazing country. So I say thank you to every Syrian I have ever cross paths with! you have given me the most incredible type of love I have ever received form the people! Thank you for feeding me and for protecting me as family! I love you.”

 See also:

Video: The War on Terror is a Fraud. “Syrians Do Not Wish to Live Beneath the Tyranny of Western-supported Terrorists”

By Mark Taliano and Carla Ortiz, May 24, 2018

*

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

Shortly before violent protests broke out in the oil-producing city of Basra in Iraq, British government representatives visited an oilfield partially operated by BP, and praised the company’s “impressive” social and environmental performance. Campaigners have criticised the visits for prioritising BP’s interests over those of local Iraqis.

According to documents seen by DeSmog, released in response to a Freedom of Information request from campaign group Culture Unstained, the British ambassador to Iraq, Jon Wilks, met with BP and Iraq’s Department for International Trade on 9 April 2018. The meeting took place at the Rumaila Oilfield, which is being developed by BP.

A summary of the event, sent to Wilks in the following week, states:

“Broadly on the oil and gas companies we visited it was impressive hearing about their social outreach and the work they are doing to employ and professionalise local Iraqis – including a focus on those who lived in close proximity to the oil fields. [REDACT]”

The work of British companies was clearly having an impact on Basrawis, particularly the gas capturing which was improving the air pollution and increasing electricity coverage. [REDACT]”

Following the visit, Ambassador Wilks himself tweeted that he had

“Toured the Rumeila [sic] oil field and saw for myself the huge commitment and success of BP, one of Iraq’s main oil operating partners. Some of the infrastructure dates back to the 1950s, but it is being upgraded even as production expands across the field.”

Unrest

The praise of BP’s work came at a time of severe discontent among local Iraqis.

Around three months after the ambassador’s visit, citizens of Basra took to the streets to protest lack of basic public services in the region, including polluted water, electricity shortages and unemployment. The unrest resulted in the deaths of several protesters.

While the government praised BP’s production expansion and social and environmental conduct, it appears not to have engaged with this nascent unrest: The Foreign Office denied holding any records relating directly to the protests.

In a response to DeSmog UK, the Foreign Office said:

The comments the Ambassador made were in relation to BP and the good work they are doing to provide jobs and training for Iraqis, and help local communities.”

We regularly engage with the Government of Iraq on the importance of addressing water, electricity, public services and job needs for the people of Basra.”

BP said it couldn’t respond as it wasn’t aware of the comments in question.

Serving Companies

In another email, the ambassador was told that the visit to British companies in Basra would be “an opportunity for us to understand their key concerns and demonstrate HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] support for these companies.”

BP is not the only oil company operating in the Basra region of Iraq. Lukoil and Exxon Mobil also operate major oilfields in the area, although Rumaila is the biggest.

In this region of Iraq, the wealth of the oil industry is in sharp contrast to the struggles of daily life in Basra. Protesters told media outlets at the time that they felt neglected as the money made by oil executives failed to trickle down into their own pockets, and higher paying jobs went to foreign workers.

Extreme health and energy-poverty conditions have worsened as the activities of BP and other companies have expanded and as oil production and exports increased,” according to Iraqi economist Kamil Mahdi, in a briefing including Culture Unstained.

It is not good enough for these companies to claim they are not directly responsible for the outcome,” he said.

A fact-finding mission by the Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative NGO found that the water in Basra was not safe for human consumption, due to the disposal of industrial and petrochemical waste, either from Iran or inside Basra.

Chris Garrard, co-director of Culture Unstained, criticised the Embassy’s friendly approach towards BP’s operations in Iraq.

They pretty much give the impression that they understand their role is there to service the interests of the oil companies … whereas ideally they should be taking a much more critical approach, and also seeking to understand what civil society groups on the ground feel about those companies,” he told DeSmog.

He also questioned the need for redactions that appear throughout the released documents, including those made to protect the commercial interests of BP.

In a letter accompanying the documents, the FCO justified the redactions on the grounds that:

Failure to protect such commercially sensitive information would limit the sources of information and interlocutors available to the FCO and limit the FCO’s ability to promote the British economy and lobby for the interests of British businesses overseas.”

*

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: Fire at Rumaila oilfield. Credit: Wikimedia/Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on BP’s Iraq Operations Praised by British Ambassador Prior to Fatal Basra Civil Unrest
  • Tags: , ,

Ministry of Defence refuses to answer MEE’s questions about what its personnel were doing and what they saw at height of torture scandal in US-run Baghdad prison

***

Britain’s defence ministry covertly deployed a team of interrogators to Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison at the height of the scandal over the torture and humiliation of inmates, a parliamentary oversight body has found.

The operation remained hidden for years until documentary evidence was discovered during an investigation into Britain’s involvement in the CIA’s rendition programme and the mistreatment of detainees.

The UK’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) last year produced a damning report which showed that British intelligence agencies had been involved in more than 50 rendition operations and that they had supplied questions to be put to detainees whom they knew or suspected were being mistreated on at least 560 occasions.

Despite the ISC’s discovery of the secret Abu Ghraib operation, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) is refusing to say what its interrogators were doing at the prison, what they reported and how the government responded.

Commenting to Middle East Eye in response to a list of questions raised in connection with this article, the MoD also inaccurately said that its interrogators were not based at the prison while it was under US control.

MEE asked the MoD for further clarification, pointing out that the prison had been under US control for several months by the time the British interrogators arrived, but did not receive any further response.

The questions from MEE that the MoD is refusing to answer include:

  • What were the interrogators doing at Abu Ghraib?

  • What did they report to their superiors about the conditions in which prisoners were being held and treated?

  • How did the MoD respond?

  • Were government ministers informed?

The refusals appear likely to fuel demands by British members of parliament (MPs) for a judge-led inquiry to be established to discover more about political responsibility for the human rights abuses that the ISC has unearthed.

Last week MEE reported that several senior MPs were keen to press the government for a new inquiry into rendition, but that they are waiting until the political chaos surrounding Brexit – the UK’s departure from the European Union – has died down.

Amnesty and Red Cross warnings

Three interrogators were deployed to Abu Ghraib from January to April 2004, at a time when the prison held 6,000 inmates. This was some time after the first signs that prisoners were being abused had come to light.

Seven months earlier, Amnesty International had warned publicly that prisoners were being shot by US troops while protesting against indefinite detention at Abu Ghraib, and three months earlier the International Committee of the Red Cross had witnessed the mistreatment of inmates during a visit to the prison.

No attempt appears to have been made to conceal the abuses from the visiting Red Cross inspectors. The organisation’s report – which was subsequently leaked – said that “during the visit, ICRC delegates directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation of the persons deprived of their liberty with their interrogators”.

These included keeping prisoners naked in dark, bare cells for days at a time, forcing men to wear women’s underwear, tightly binding inmates’ wrists, issuing threats and insults, and sleep deprivation caused by loud music and bright lights.

“Some persons deprived of their liberty presented physical marks and psychological symptoms,” the report said.

This report was passed to the British government in February 2004, shortly after the MoD’s interrogators arrived at Abu Ghraib and two months before they were withdrawn.

The following month, 16 US soldiers were charged over their role in the abuses, and in April 2004 photographs that showed the abuse of prisoners appeared for the first time on CBS television in the US.

It is around this point that the British interrogators appear to have been withdrawn.

‘Exploiting detainees for intelligence’

The ISC found that Abu Ghraib was just one of several prison where British interrogators and MoD civilian staff were operating following 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It found that the MoD deployed 28 people to the prison at Bagram airbase north of Kabul between December 2001 and July 2002.

This is a period when it is now known that many inmates were being tortured. The ISC found evidence that at least 11 of these UK personnel “were engaged in exploiting US detainees for intelligence”.

From March 2003 until late 2004, three MoD personnel were based at the US-run prison at Balad airfield north of Baghdad.

The committee found that they were withdrawn because of the “inadequate holding facilities for detainees”.

Visiting British special forces officers told journalists that they had complained that inmates at Balad were being held in dog kennels.

While the ISC discovered that the UK was deeply involved in human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee’s members believe that the country’s intelligence agencies are currently anxious to avoid becoming mired in such crimes in the future.

Privately, however, a number of members of the committee have expressed concern that British military interrogators appear less concerned about their involvement in the abuse of detainees.

In 2017, a report by the UK parliament’s defence committee found that British military interrogators had abused their prisoners in Iraq as a consequence of the training they had received, which “may have placed them, unwittingly, at risk of breaking the Geneva Conventions in their work”.

Although the defence committee described this as “a failing of the highest order”, its report focused on a flawed criminal investigation into the abuses, rather than the training regime that resulted in those abuses being committed.

*

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: This handout photo from SBS TV received 15 February, 2006 shows a hooded prisoner allegedly being tortured at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail supposely during interrogation by US soldiers in Baghdad in 2004. Australian public broadcaster SBS 15 February released a handful of what it said were previously unpublished photographs of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail by US soldiers. (AFP PHOTO/HO/SBS DATELINE)

Tax havens are locations around the world where wealthy individuals, criminals and terrorists, as well as governments and government agencies (such as the CIA), banks, corporations, hedge funds, international organizations (such as the Vatican) and crime syndicates (such as the Mafia), can stash their money so that they can avoid regulation and oversight and, very often, evade tax. According to Nicholas Shaxson: ‘Tax havens are now at the heart of the global economy.’

Which is why, as he explains it: ‘The term “tax haven” is a bit of a misnomer, because such places aren’t just about tax. What they sell is escape: from the laws, rules and taxes of jurisdictions elsewhere, usually with secrecy as their prime offering.’ See ‘The tax haven in the heart of Britain’. A tax haven (or ‘secrecy jurisdiction’) then is a ‘place that seeks to attract business by offering politically stable facilities to help people or entities get around the rules, laws and regulations of jurisdictions elsewhere’. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

Tax havens are a vitally important part of the global infrastructure of corruption and criminality – see ‘Giant Leak of Offshore Financial Records Exposes Global Array of Crime and Corruption’– that enables privileged individuals and their organizations to legally and illegally steal money from the rest of us, particularly those in developing countries, and to have the services of a vast network of accountants, bankers, lawyers and politicians (often from captured legislatures) to help them do it, and to ensure that they get away with it.

How many tax havens are there? Where are they? How much money do they have? Who uses them? Why? How do they work? Why does all this matter to us? And what can we do about them?

Tax Havens: how many and where are they?

Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens

In his book Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World, author and financial journalist Nicholas Shaxson identified about sixty ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ or ‘offshore groups’ around the world which he divided into four categories, as follows.

The most important category, by far, is those tax havens that form the spider’s network of havens centred on the City of London. It has three main layers: there are two inner rings – Britain’s Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey (which includes the sub-havens of Sark, Alderney and Brecqhou) and the Isle of Man, and its overseas territories such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and Gibralter – which are substantially controlled by Britain. The third layer is an outer ring with a more diverse array of havens, like Hong Kong, Singapore, the Bahamas, Dubai and Ireland, which are outside Britain’s direct control but have strong historical and current links to that country and the City of London (which I will discuss below). This network controls almost one half of all international bank assets.

The second category of tax havens is those in Europe notably including Switzerland, Luxembourg – see ‘Explore the Documents: Luxembourg Leaks Database’–  the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria, as well as microstates such as Liechtenstein and Monaco. While ‘Geneva bankers had sheltered the secret money of European elites since at least the eighteenth century’, the European havens ‘got going’ during World War I as governments raised taxes sharply to pay for the war.

The third category of tax havens is that focused on the United States. It has three tiers as well. At the federal level, the US government offers a range of tax exemptions, secrecy provisions and laws designed to attract foreign money. This means, for example, that US banks can legally accept proceeds from a range of crimes as long as the crimes are committed overseas. The second tier involves individual US states such as Florida (where Central/South American elites do their banking and the countries adversely impacted are prevented by US secrecy provisions from accessing relevant data, and where much Mob and drugs money is hidden too), Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming, where even terrorist money is protected by secrecy provisions. The third tier of the US network is the overseas satellites such as the American Virgin Islands, the Marshall Islands, Liberia and Panama, with the latter, according to Jeffrey Robinson, being ‘one of the filthiest money laundering sinks in the world’. See The Sink: Terror, Crime and Dirty Money in the Offshore World.

As Shaxson notes: ‘offshore finance has quietly been at the heart of Neoconservative schemes to project US power around the globe for years. Few people have noticed.’

The fourth category of tax havens identified by Shaxson includes those that do not fit in the categories above, such as Somalia and Uganda.

The (incomplete) list of tax havens on the website ‘Tax Havens of the World’ will give you some idea of where these secrecy jurisdictions are located but there are important omissions in this list, notably including the City of London Corporation.

For a brief look at 15 tax havens (again, notably excluding some of the most important) and some of the corporations that use them, see ‘What Are the World’s Best Tax Havens?’

And for a highly instructive and utterly sobering video documentary on British Tax Havens, see ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’. This documentary will inform you, among many more important things, that the building housing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the UK tax office, is owned by an offshore company in Bermuda!

To summarize the central aspect of the development of tax havens following World War II: ‘The British Establishment – an old boys network of privileged elites – had carved out a lucrative vehicle for themselves in the offshore world after the demise of Empire. They transformed themselves from administrators of Empire to financial handlers for the global elite and multinational corporations.’ See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Before concluding this section, it is worth emphasizing that, as Shaxson explains it, ‘the offshore world is not a bunch of independent states exercising their sovereign rights to set their laws and tax systems as they see fit. It is a set of networks of influence controlled by the world’s major powers, notably Britain and the United States. Each network is deeply interconnected with the others.’ He goes on: ‘The world’s most important tax havens are not exotic palm-fringed islands, as many people suppose, but some of the world’s most powerful countries.’ Shaxson quotes Marshall Langer, a prominent supporter of secrecy jurisdictions: ‘It does not surprise anyone when I tell them that the most important tax haven in the world is an island. They are surprised,  however, when I tell them that … the island is Manhattan. Moreover, the second most-important tax haven … is located on an island. It is called the City of London.’

The City of London Corporation

What is the City of London Corporation, also known as the ‘Square Mile’? It is ‘a 1.22-square-mile slab of prime central London real estate that stretches from the Thames at Victoria Embankment, clockwise up through Fleet Street, the Barbican Centre, then to Liverpool Street in the north-east, then back down to the Thames just west of the Tower of London.’ See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

According to Shaxson, the City of London Corporation, the ‘modern period’ of which dates from 1067 (yes, that is not a typing error), is ‘the local-government authority for the 1.2-square-mile slab of prime real estate in central London that is the City of London. The corporation is an ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state; a “prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world”, as a 19th-century would-be City reformer put it.’

Importantly, Shaxson explains, ‘the role of the City of London Corporation as a municipal authority is its least important attribute. This is a hugely resourced international offshore lobbying group pushing for international financial deregulation, tax-cutting and tax havenry around the world.’ Moreover, it is ‘the hub of a global network of tax havens sucking up offshore trillions from around the world and sending it, or the business of handling it, to London’. Notably, so powerful is the City of London that no sovereign or government of Britain in a thousand years has had the courage to seriously take it on and attempt to subject it to British government control. See ‘The tax haven in the heart of Britain’.

How much money is in Tax Havens?

So how much of the world’s wealth is stashed in tax havens around the globe? According to the Tax Justice Network in its 2012 report written by James S. Henry ‘The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for “Missing” Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality, and Lost Taxes’: ‘A significant fraction of global private financial wealth – by our estimates, at least $21 to $32 trillion as of 2010 – has been invested virtually tax-free through the world’s still-expanding black hole of more than 80 “offshore” secrecy jurisdictions. We believe this range to be conservative…’ He goes on to emphasize that ‘this is just financial wealth. A big share of the real estate, yachts, racehorses, gold bricks – and many other things that count as non-financial wealth – are also owned via offshore structures where it is impossible to identify the owners’.

Henry also notes that given that Credit Suisse estimated global wealth in 2011 at $231 trillion, the amount of money in secrecy jurisdictions is conservatively estimated at 10% of global wealth.

But other figures do indeed suggest this estimate is low. Shaxson cites compelling evidence that ‘More than half of world trade passes, at least on paper, through tax havens. Over half of all banking assets and a third of foreign direct investment by multinational corporations, are routed offshore.’ Moreover, as long ago as 2008, the US Government Accountability Office reported that 83 of the 100 biggest corporations in the USA had subsidiaries in tax havens and the following year, using a broader definition, the Tax Justice Network discovered that ninety-nine of Europe’s hundred largest companies used offshore subsidiaries. And in each country, ‘the largest user by far was a bank’. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

In any case, the most recent estimate by the Tax Justice Network indicates ‘tax losses to profit shifting by multinational companies (a)pplying a methodology developed by researchers at the International Monetary Fund to an improved dataset… of around $500 billion a year’. See ‘New estimates reveal the extent of tax avoidance by multinationals’.

To reiterate then, on the understanding that these estimates are probably quite low, by 2010, between $US21 and $US32 trillion had been taken out of circulation so that it was beyond the laws, financial regulations and taxes that the rest of us cannot escape. But that figure has been added to by half a trillion dollars each year since, by moving more money into tax havens. And don’t forget: this figure does not include non-financial wealth. How many gold bricks, yachts, artworks and racehorses do you own and have stashed away somewhere free of scrutiny?

Who uses Tax Havens? And why?

As I mentioned above, tax havens are used by wealthy individuals (including businesspeople, sports and pop stars), criminals and terrorists, as well as governments (and their agencies), banks, corporations (such as Amazon and Google), international organizations and crime syndicates (such as the Medellin Cartel). While motives vary, in essence the lack of regulation and oversight, as well as tax evasion, are the reasons that individuals and organizations use them.

An individual might want to hide stolen wealth, to evade tax or cheat a divorced spouse out of their share of the family fortune. A bank, corporation, crime syndicate, international or terrorist organization might want to evade scrutiny of the source of their money and/or evade tax on windfall or even ongoing profits (legal and/or otherwise). A government might want to hide the ‘dirty money’ it uses to finance ‘black ops’ (that is, illegal and secret military violence such as that carried out by the CIA). But there are myriad explanations.

In John Christensen’s analysis of over 100 offshore clients of accounting firm Deloitte Touche he studied in Jersey, he found that the clients were engaging in insider trading, market rigging, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, weapons trading, illicit political donations, contract kickbacks, bribery, fraudulent invoicing, trade mispricing and tax evasion. See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Most people have heard of the money stashed away by corrupt dictators like Suharto in Indonesia, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) each of whom stole from the people of their country. However, they could only do this with the help of western enablers and ongoing elite resistance to developing country attempts to create a more transparent and fairer process for collecting tax on cross-border financial flows. As a result, Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network observes, worldwide, developing nations lose in excess of $1trillion per year in ‘capital flight’ and tax evasion to wealthy countries. See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

But these more public examples, while terrible, tend to obscure two important facts. The amount stolen from sub-Saharan Africans, for example, between 1970 and 2008 was at least five times the total amount of their foreign debt during that period – see ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’ – and, by highlighting these examples, attention is drawn away from even worse and ongoing examples of such criminality by those corrupt/criminal individuals and organizations (including banks, accountancy and legal firms, corporations, international organizations, crime syndicates and governments) committed to using outright theft, fraud, money laundering and other devices to steal wealth from ordinary people all over the world.

So, for example, if one follows the money trails of various lucrative financial operations, some technically legal but immoral and others simply illegal, apart from the world’s major corporations, one quickly comes across the names of the major (and well known) banks and financial institutions (such as the Bank of England, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase…), the ‘big four’ accountancy firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young (EY), KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers), and elite lawyers (such as those in London’s ‘Magic Circle’, like Clifford Chance, Mourant du Feu & Jeune, and Slaughter and May). See, for example, Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World‘New estimates reveal the extent of tax avoidance by multinationals’ and ‘Looting with Putin’.

Apparently, like major corporations and crime syndicates, few banks, accountancy firms and lawyers have ethics policies that require them to follow the law and to exercise ‘due diligence’ (check out a client before signing a contract) so that they can steer clear of handling illegal and immoral profits, especially if they are monstrous.

In fact, according to a US Senate report, ‘virtually every major bank in the world – especially the biggest in North America and Europe – holds accounts for offshore banks and/or banks in suspect jurisdictions’. See The Sink: Terror, Crime and Dirty Money in the Offshore World.

As Eva Joly MEP, vice-chair of the Panama Papers Committee of the European Parliament, succinctly puts it: ‘Ordinary people are paying taxes. Rich people are not.’ See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

The Vatican

Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia

But perhaps the example which best illustrates the moral depravity of those who use tax havens is the Vatican. In his carefully researched book Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia author Paul L. Williams recounts the efforts of the CIA, former Nazis, the Sicilian/American Mafia, the Vatican and even Freemasonry to resist an anticipated postwar invasion of western Europe by those ‘Godless communists’ in the Soviet Union by establishing ‘stay-behind units’ (clandestine military and paramilitary units) throughout the countries of Europe (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal…) led by former Nazis and composed of ‘die-hard fascist fanatics’.

This alliance to fight the Cold War against the former Soviet Union and the rising tide of progressive governments in Europe and the rest of the world, particularly as the US war on Vietnam gathered pace, led, as Williams chillingly puts it, to ‘the toppling of governments, wholesale slaughter and financial devastation’ around the world. It was also, of course, the forerunner to its equivalent – Operation Condor – to resist, and destroy if possible, the spread of progressive movements, ranging from communism to liberation theology, throughout Central/South America.

With the CIA providing services, such as the transport of Mafia/Medellin cocaine to drug dealers in the US, its share of the drug profits (cycled through its own CIA-controlled banks including Bank of Credit and Commerce International but eventually involving many of the most prestigious banks in the US, as the money was passed to the Vatican Bank) were used to finance key aspects of Operations Gladio and Condor with weapons also supplied by the CIA from NATO arsenals. But there was plenty of Vatican money in these Operations too.

As an aside, so devastating was the fallout from the ongoing exposure of the many aspects of Vatican corruption that, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, Roman Catholic membership was falling by 400,000 per year in the USA alone but the trend was even stronger in Europe with ‘magnificent churches and cathedrals’ becoming museums visited solely by tourists, parishes being boarded up, seminaries and convents closed, and parochial schools consolidated. And this was before the ‘plague of pedophilia’ had fully hit further decimating the Church’s tattered reputation. To this day, the Vatican Bank remains ‘one of the world’s leading laundries for dirty money’. See Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia.

How do Tax Havens work?

Each tax haven offers its own unique combination of services. After all, it is a tough market competing for the world’s wealth and so each jurisdiction has developed its own set of services designed to maximize its attractiveness to potential clients. In essence, this means that there is some ongoing ‘competition’ to reduce regulatory and oversight requirements so that each tax haven can attract clientele. This has become so extreme that basic requirements of banking for those who do it legally, such as proof of identity, are not required in the offshore world. In fact, even your true name can be withheld if you wish. It is easier to avoid any risk of embarrassment from exposure this way.

As a result, virtually any jurisdiction will open an account (or as many accounts as you want) in whatever names you specify. Then, usually employing a variety of devices, ranging from secret bank accounts, nominee directors (usually locals who play no part in the organization bar give it their name) and structures such as shell companies (that exist on paper and perhaps a wall plaque somewhere, but nothing else) and trusts (which, unlike the legitimate version, appear to separate responsibility and control from the benefits of ownership but actually do not), to processes such as transfer pricing (a technique by which companies ‘shift paper profits into low-tax countries and costs into high-tax countries’ to minimize – or eliminate – tax payments) and often employing a convoluted process that rapidly shifts monies through several jurisdictions so that it becomes ‘untraceable’ (because authorities must get permission to access each jurisdiction in turn in any effort to trace the money), profits are effectively hidden and any accountability to authorities of any kind utterly eliminated. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

For one simple example of such a strategy, employing a technique known as the ‘double Irish, Dutch sandwich’ (which is legal), see Google shifted $23bn to tax haven Bermuda in 2017, filing shows. But you can read other examples here: ‘The tech giants will never pay their fair share of taxes – unless we make them’ and ‘7 Corporate Giants Accused of Evading Billions in Taxes’.

Why does the existence of Tax Havens matter to us?

Well, the simple answer to this question is that just a fraction of the money hidden in tax havens would feed, clothe, house and provide clean water, medical care and educational opportunities to everyone on Earth. It would eliminate the 100,000 deaths by starvation-related diseases each day. It would eliminate poverty and homelessness. And, as one byproduct of having these material needs met, it would facilitate the emergence of an informed, engaged and empowered human population to tackle the vast range of environmental, climate and military threats that currently threaten biosphere collapse and imminent human extinction. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

As Professor Prem Sikka puts it more simply: Because of the penetration by financial services executives of the British state, including the Treasury ‘It deprives people of opportunities to have healthcare, education, security, justice and, ultimately, a fulfilling life.’ See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Fundamentally, then, tax havens and their secrecy are at the heart of those elite institutions and processes that functionally undermine democracy and give extraordinary power to certain anonymous individuals and their entities without accountability. See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Of course, the elites that control the tax haven networks are not about to let this change. Tax havens are simply too important as part of the global infrastructure for maintaining elite profit, power and privilege and for resisting grassroots efforts to bring peace, justice and ecological sanity to our world. And that is why they are protected by government legislation and legal systems, with an ‘army’ of accountants, auditors, bankers, businesspeople, lawyers and politicians ensuring that they remain protected.

So don’t forget: laws are designed to control and punish you, no matter how trivial your infringement: a parking fine, a littering offence, a petty theft. But if you have enough money, the law simply does not exist. And you can evade taxes legally and in the full knowledge that your vast profits (even from immorally-acquired wealth such as sex trafficking, gun-running, endangered species trafficking, conflict diamonds and drug trafficking) are ‘lawful’ and will escape regulation and oversight of any kind. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

Let me give a personal example. I have been a war tax resister since 1983: I have a conscientious objection to paying taxes to the Australian government to deploy military forces in other countries to kill people in my name. So, instead of paying taxes to kill, for many years I donated the equivalent amount to organizations engaged in peace, development, environment and human rights work, and to ‘pay the rent’ for my use of indigenous land. As some of many outcomes to this conscientious and highly public resistance (garnering national media attention at times), in 1991 I was bankrupted, in 1992 I was convicted of contempt of court (for my conscientious refusal to cooperate with the bankruptcy trustee) and in 1993 my passport was seized. In 1999, I was advised that I will be ‘bankrupt forever’ because of my ongoing conscientious refusal to finance the killing.

In the same period, since 1983, trillions and trillions of dollars of tax have been illegally and secretly evaded as wealthy individuals and corporations, criminals and crime syndicates, international organizations and governments channel their incomes and profits through tax havens. Laws and legal systems throughout the world make this possible and, provided it is done correctly, it is quite straightforward to avoid any penalties for secretly evading payment of taxes or hiding money acquired through criminal activity. But the point, as you can see, is that tax evasion by wealthy individuals and corporations meant that many of these individuals and corporations didn’t pay taxes to kill people either. They just didn’t pay taxes at all.

O f course, their motive was personal gain, their way was legal, they incurred no penalty and, of course, they didn’t pay an equivalent amount to support peace and justice causes. More fundamentally, however, the trillions of dollars they took from the global economy were made by killing and exploiting people and the planet in a significant variety of other ways, ranging from sex trafficking, gun-running, conflict diamonds and trafficking in drugs and endangered species, to simply starving people to death at the rate of 100,000 people each day by managing the global economy, using tax havens as a primary tool, to extract maximum profit.

Richard Brooks documents how this legal exploitation occurs in another way in his book The Great Tax Robbery: How Britain Became a Tax Haven for Fat Cats and Big Business. The vast tax evasion by elites in Britain, including by diverting funds through tax havens, attracts just five prosecutions each year per £1 billion of evasion of direct taxes. In contrast, benefits fraud by those on unemployment and disability pensions attract 9,000 prosecutions each year per £1 billion of fraud. ‘So theft by the poor warrants the full force of the law’. But not theft by elites who write the law and largely control the political and legal processes in relation to it.

Hence, under the guise of ‘relationship taxing’ (that is, building a relationship between tax authorities and corporate executives and ‘tailoring’ tax payments to corporate wishes to the extent the law allows), corporations have long known that ‘If you don’t like the law… we’ll see what we can do’.

As is obvious from this example, attempts at government reform, including to defeat tax havens, in the direction of making elites financially and legally accountable, both nationally and internationally, for the responsibilities which the rest of us cannot escape, are invariably for show and, in any case, achieve zero of substance. For example, the attempt to ‘approve’ a blacklist of tax havens at the G20 gathering in 2009 was resisted by the Chinese premier on behalf of Chinese elites who, like other national elites keen to have political control but ‘judicial separation’ from their offshore centres, opposed the listing of notorious havens Hong Kong and Macau: see Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World. The global elite is clearly in control with national governments and international organizations powerlessly doing as instructed. So complete is this control, in fact, that Brooks notes that, in Britain, ‘Anti-tax avoidance laws had to be relaxed to accommodate companies’ tax avoidance schemes.’

Brooks concludes that ‘British taxation policy really had been so comprehensively captured by the world’s biggest corporations that screw-the-poor policies… could be written into the statute books at their whim, without a pang of conscience being felt anywhere in Whitehall.’ Clearly, however, his comment can be applied to virtually any government in the world.

So does it matter to you that these tax havens exist and do what they do?

What can be done about Tax Havens?

Authors such as Nicholas Shaxson and Richard Brooks suggest a raft of measures to correct the large number of ‘faults’ that facilitate the secrecy, protection from regulation and tax evasion that individuals, corporations, organizations, criminals and terrorists utilize in tax havens.

For Shaxson, these include financial reforms such as ‘blacklisting’ of tax havens so that their rogue state status is public knowledge;

  • greater transparency, for example, through government sharing of information about the local income and assets of each other’s citizens and by requiring multinational corporate activities in each country to be made visible (rather than hidden behind ‘international’ figures);
  • promoting the needs of developing countries which need their tax bases protected far more than they need aid or debt relief; confronting the British ‘spider’s web’ of tax havens by abolishing the City of London Corporation and submerging it into a unified and fully democratic London;
  • taxing an entire multinational ‘group’ as a single unit and then allocating the appropriate amounts of its income out to the different jurisdictions in which it was earned and allow it to be taxed as each jurisdiction decides;
  • onshore tax reform such as a land value tax (because land cannot be moved offshore and so tax on it must be paid locally), and by a direct distribution of mineral wealth in any country to each of its inhabitants (who can then be taxed);
  • tackling the ‘enablers’ – the accountants, lawyers, individual bankers, businesspeople – and not just the clients, so that they go to jail;
  • rethinking the meaning of ‘corporate responsibility’ (because corporations are given a wealth of capital in public infrastructure, an educated and healthy workforce… with which to work) so that corporations are transparent about their affairs and pay tax as part of their corporate responsibility;
  • re-evaluating the meaning of corruption – insiders abusing the common good in secrecy and getting away with it and so worsening inequality and entrenching vested interests and unaccountable power – so that we see, more clearly, all of the actors and their activities; and changing the culture that fawns over people who abuse the system for personal gain. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

And some progress appears to be occurring along lines he suggests. For example, a version of automatic information exchange (AIE), by which governments make sure that essential information is made available to other jurisdictions as a matter of routine, has been discussed by the OECD and, while full of loopholes – see ‘Loophole USA: the vortex-shaped hole in global financial transparency’ – some commitments have been made. For the list of commitments as at November 2018, see ‘AEOI commitments’.

However, the USA has not made this commitment and while Switzerland, for example, finds this objectionable – see ‘The U.S. hasn’t signed the AEoI Agreement: Reciprocity demanded’ – the reality is that it makes little difference. For example, ICO Services, which specializes in the formation of offshore companies and offshore banking, will assist you to get around the AEoI requirement. Their website advertises that ‘asset holders need to start looking for alternative jurisdictions for protecting their assets. There are some reputable jurisdictions that are still outside the AEoI  – e.g. Cyprus  –  but U.S. states of Delaware and some others shouldn’t be dismissed.’

But if you want a more established name to help you take advantage of a tax haven in the USA, you really can’t go past Rothschild & Co. So, to check out what they are offering: ‘Here Is Rothschild’s Primer How To Launder Money In U.S. Real Estate And Avoid “Blacklists”’.

Moreover, the AEoI agreement ‘outlaws’ bank secrecybut not trust secrecy(which dates from the Crusades) on which the British model is based – ‘The Trust lies at the core of the British secrecy model’ – so it does not address the cornerstone of British tax haven secrecy and explains why the British were happy to see the Cayman Islands commit to the AEoI. In short: the British government would be happy to kill off bank secrecy so that they can capture a larger market share (based on Trust secrecy). See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Separately from this initiative, in 2018 the UK parliament enacted a new law requiring its overseas territories – including notorious tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands – to start disclosing the owners of corporations they register by 2020. In theory: ‘This could shut down a huge amount of offshore tax evasion and other financial crimes because individuals from anywhere in the world, including the United States, have long been able to set up secret corporations in these tax havens to stash their money.’ See ‘New UK Law May Shut Down the Biggest Tax Havens – Aside from the U.S.’

However, while the report pointed out that the new law obviously does not impact the USA (or, of course, Switzerland or …) and the easy rerouting options available if these havens are effectively (or even actually) shut down, it failed to mention that this initiative does not in any way address the City of London Corporation so the impact of this initiative must be very limited unless it is followed by some pretty drastic initiatives in Westminster, Washington, Bern and elsewhere.

In summary, while one cannot disagree with any of Shaxson’s fine suggestions or be displeased that public pressure has led to some effort being made by the OECD and the UK parliament to address elements of the tax haven scourge, the reality is that the extent of the changes necessary are not going to happen without enormous grassroots pressure, strategically applied, and they are very unlikely to happen as reforms of the existing capitalist system.

This is simply because the global elite is solidly in control of the institutions and processes of global capitalism, including its compliant governments and international organizations, and will readily stymie any attempt at serious reform of tax havenry particularly given the number of major reforms needed and the number of nations in which these reforms must be enacted. To state two obvious examples: The City of London Corporation has not existed for 1,000 years because it has no defense. And the changes noted above have only made the US more attractive as a secrecy jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, with the aim of promoting ‘financial innovation’, Switzerland has recently made things easier for smaller financial technology companies thus making tax havenry more attractive to those who might not have otherwise considered it. See ‘Swiss watchdog to propose looser anti-money laundering rules for fintechs’.

So, given that most tax havens are protected by host government legislation and there is no international mechanism to control them, the tax haven industry generally is not under threat of being held to account in any significant way.

And, despite the more elaborate explanation offered above, there is a simple reason for this. Unofficially, of course, illegal money, laundered through tax havens, has become an essential and sometimes stabilizing element of the global financial system. See ‘Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor’.

So what can we do that will make a difference?

Given the deeply entrenched and long-standing nature of this problem, clearly it needs to be addressed at various levels.

Fundamentally, we can nurture our children so that we do not destroy their conscience. See ‘My Promise to Children’. Remember all of those corrupt/criminal accountants, bankers, businesspeople, priests and popes, lawyers and politicians that kept creeping up in the discussion above? The people who maintain the entire infrastructure that allows tax havens to exist and those who manage and profit from it too?

Do they care about you? Do they care about the people in Africa, Asia and Central/South America who starve as a result of the types of policies that allow tax havens to exist and function? Do they care about those driven into poverty and homelessness in modern industrial economies because vast sums are drained out of them and hidden in secrecy jurisdictions? Do they care about the people killed by the military and other violence from which they profit and then hide the proceeds to evade tax? Do they care about the Earth? Fundamentally, do they care about themselves?

Of course not! But this is only because they are extraordinarily psychologically damaged individuals. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ with a more complete explanation in Why Violence? and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

If we inflict enormous violence on a child throughout their childhood to compel their obedience, how can we expect them to grow up to lead a life of integrity based on their conscience, courage, compassion, empathy and love? Those who use tax havens are truly ‘poor little rich boys’ (and girls). See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’ and ‘Why Set Up a Shell Company in Panama? The Psychology Driving Illicit Financial Flows’.

Beyond tackling the problem at its source however, we can also tackle manifestations of the problem but not by lobbying elites – and their political agents: there are no votes in it, in any case – to control this depravity for which they are well rewarded.

For a start we can boycott all of the major private banks in favor of those smaller or member-owned banks that have a serious commitment to peace, justice and ecological sustainability, or we can seek out equivalent institutions like credit unions. We can also create public banks based on ethical principles. See ‘What are Public Banks and How Do They Operate? An Introduction’.

We can boycott large corporations – like Amazon, Apple, Gap, Google, Ikea, Microsoft and Starbucks – that use tax havens. None of these corporations is a monopoly: there are alternatives which can be investigated and employed, assuming we can’t go without some version of the product or service they offer. Whenever you can, find a locally-owned outlet that offers a local product or service.

We can boycott the Catholic Church. God does not ask that you morally or financially support a corrupt organization that doesn’t understand or represent morality and spirituality. Remember, it was Jesus who threw the moneychangers out of the temple.

If our conscience speaks loudly enough, we can decline employment by any organization that is unethical, such as those that use tax havens.

We can refuse to gamble, refuse to buy the services of a sex worker (who might even be illegally trafficked into the work), refuse to buy the products of endangered species – see, for example, ‘Killing Elephants “for Pet Food” Condemned’– and refuse to use illicit drugs. These products and services are virtually always offered by industries controlled by criminal organizations so by buying them you are only harming yourself and/or other people or species about whom you could choose to exercise a duty of care while also not contributing to the diversion of financial resources into tax havens.

We can encourage unions, with members who work for organizations using tax havens, to take a stand on the issue.

We can support existing organizations that work on the problem, preferably those that offer grassroots alternatives. The Tax Justice Network, an ‘activist think tank’, and its sister organization, the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, campaign for systemic change.

If we are genuinely ambitious, we can develop comprehensive nonviolent strategies to compel particular individuals and organizations to desist from using tax havens or even compel countries to close down tax havens. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. This can easily be part of a larger strategy to transform the global economy into one that satisfies human and ecological needs, particularly given the imminence of biosphere collapse, as noted above. See The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth.

If violence and exploitation in all of their guises concern you, consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

So here is a final question for you to consider: What might the world look like if all those trillions of dollars were being shared and spent where they are most needed?

*

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

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of Why Violence? His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Elite Banking at Your Expense: How Secretive Tax Havens Are Used to Steal Your Money
  • Tags:

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Video: Israel Delivers More Strikes on Syria

By South Front, March 06, 2019

Late on March 3, battle tanks of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) shelled positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near Qars Nafal and Jubata al-Khashab in the province of Quneitra. Local sources said that the Israeli attack did not inflict casualties and revealed that these SAA positions remain empty most of the time.

Eight Venezuela Lies the US Government and the Mainstream Media Want You to Believe

By Makia Freeman, March 06, 2019

The US claims many nations and groups support its efforts to topple Maduro and install Guaido. In reality, these countries are basically vassal states or other nations controlled by the US that don’t want to upset the apple cart. Notice the strategy of the US: try to co-opt the United Nations HRC (Human Right Council) into following US coup efforts, and try to strong-arm groups like the OAS (Organization of American States) and the Lima Group into betraying their brother nation Venezuela.

Washington’s Escalation to Venezuela’s Oil

By Nino Pagliccia, March 06, 2019

A realistic successful military intervention can only take place if the Venezuelan high-ranking officers of the armed forces deserted in mass. This is not likely to happen. However, Venezuela cannot ignore those threats. The US has carried them out irresponsibly in other countries.

Will 5G Cell Phone Technology Lead to Population Reduction as Large Numbers of Men Become Sterile?

By Michael Snyder, March 06, 2019

What’s further disturbing about 5G radiation is how the human body responds to and processes it. Dr. Ben-Ishai from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem discovered as part of a recent investigation that human skin acts as a type of receptor for 5G radiation, drawing it in like an antenna.

The Recolonization of Latin America and the War on Venezuela

By Prof. James Petras, March 06, 2019

US colonization of Latin America was based on direct US military, economic, cultural and political interventions with special emphasis on Central America, North America (Mexico) and the Caribbean. Washington resorted to military invasions, to impose favorite trade and investment advantages and appointed and trained local military forces to uphold colonial rule and to ensure submission to US regional and global supremacy.

Trump Breaks Another Promise: Troops Will Remain in Syria

By Kurt Nimmo, March 06, 2019

This illegality, this violation of international law and the UN Charter (the US signed this document in 1945 with the founding of the UN), represents a cornerstone of US foreign policy. The US has invaded 70 nations, engaged in genocide, economic warfare, and has fomented terror since the founding of the nation.

City of London: The Shocking Study No Mainstream Media Outlet Dared to Publish

By Robert Woodward, March 06, 2019

Each year, the banking and financial services industry in the City of London is sucking out of Britain’s economy the equivalent of 160 per cent of total government spending on all health care including the NHS, or 100 per cent on social protection, which includes that of all pension payments per year, or 700 per cent spent on public order and safety or 230 per cent of spending on education.

*

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, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Recolonization of Latin America and the War on Venezuela

The news is not yet official, but is already being discussed – as from October, the Italian flag will be flying over Camp Darby. Are the United States about to close down the largest arsenal they have in the world outside of their homeland, and return to Italy the approximately 1,000 hectares of territory that they occupy between Pisa and Livorno?

Not at all. They are not in the process of closing down, but restructuring the base in order to be able to store even more weapons, and to increase the liaisons with the port of Livorno and Pisa airport.

In the restructuration, a small portion of the recreation area remained unused – 34 hectares, hardly more than 3 % of the total surface of the Camp. This is what the US Army Europe has decided to give back to Italy, more specifically to the Italian Minister for Defense, in order to use it more productively. So an agreement was drawn up planning for the transfer to this area of the Comando delle Forze Speciali dell’Esercito (COMFOSE) which is presently housed in the Caserne Gamerra in Pisa, headquarters of the Centre for Parachute Training. These are the Forces which are used more and more frequently for secret operations – they infiltrate foreign territory by night, note the targets to be hit, eliminate them with sudden actions by parachuting from planes or jumping from helicopters, then disappear without leaving a trace other than the dead and the destruction.

Italy, which had used these forces especially in Afghanistan, took a decisive step in their potentialisation when, in 2014, it made the COMFOSE operational – it now counts four regiments under a unified command – the 9th assault regiment Col. Moschin and the 185th Folgore regiment for the acquisition of targets, the 28th communications regiment Pavie and the 4th Rangers Parachute regiment.

During the inauguration ceremony in 2014, it was announced that the COMFOSE would maintain a “constant liaison with the US Army Special Operations Command”, the most important US command for special operations, composed of approximately 30,000 specialists employed particularly in the Middle East.

At Camp Darby – as was specified last year by Colonel Erik Berdy, commander of the US Army Italy – joint training operations were already under way with US and Italian soldiers. The transfer of COMFOSE to an area of Camp Darby, which legally belongs to Italy, will enable the complete integration of Italian and US special forces, and their use in secret operations under US command. All of this under cover of military secrecy.

It is therefore difficult not to think about the history of secret operations at Camp Darby – the investigations of judges Casson and Mastelloni revealed that since the 1960’s, Camp Darby has served as a base for the putchist network created by the CIA and by the SIFAR (Intelligence Service of the Italian Armed Forces) in the context of the secret Gladio plan. The USA/NATO bases – wrote Ferdinando Imposimato, honorary President of the Supreme Court of Cassation – supplied the explosives for the massacres of Piazza Fontana, Capaci and Via d’Amelio. In these bases “extreme right-wing terrorists, NATO officers, mafiosi, Italian politicians and Freemasons gathered together  on the eve of the attacks”.

And yet no-one, either in Parliament or the local collectives, worries about the implications of the transfer of Italian special forces, which, inside Camp Darby, will be under US command.

The municipalities of Pisa and Livorno, which passed respectively from Pd to the Lega and M5S, have continued to promote, with the region of Tuscany, “the integration of the US military base of Camp Darby with the surrounding community”.

A few days ago, it was decided to integrate the Web sites of the local administrations with those of Camp Darby. The Camp Darby network is expanding increasingly across the territory.

Source: PandoraTV

*

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 Il Manifesto. Translated by Pete Kimberley.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Video: Israel Delivers More Strikes on Syria

March 6th, 2019 by South Front

Late on March 3, battle tanks of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) shelled positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near Qars Nafal and Jubata al-Khashab in the province of Quneitra. Local sources said that the Israeli attack did not inflict casualties and revealed that these SAA positions remain empty most of the time.

Following the attack, multiple Israeli warplanes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles were spotted flying over the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights.

A previous IDF strike in this area took place on February 11. Then, the attack targeted a Quneitra city hospital and an SAA positon near Jubata al-Khashab causing no casualties.

In comparison with IDF attacks on alleged Iranian infrastructure in the countryside of Damascus, the strikes in Quneitra province have a very small scale and almost no impact. Some Israeli sources claim that these attacks are a warning to Iranian forces, which may approach the contact line between the Israeli- and Syrian-controlled areas.

It is interesting to note that during a weekly cabinet meeting on March 3, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Israel and Russia would work through a joint group to remove all foreign forces from Syria. Additionally, Netanyahu claimed that his country “will not allow Iranian military entrenchment” and “will continue to militarily act against it”.

Last week, Netanyahu visited Moscow and held extensive talks on Syria with President Vladimir Putin. This was the first face-to-face meeting between the two leaders had since the downing of the Russian intelligence plane over Syria in September. According to some experts, this meeting is a sign that the Russian-Israeli relations may have been started improving since the IL-20 incident, which was caused by what the Russian military described as “hostile” Israeli actions. Despite this, it does not mean that Moscow and Tel Aviv have a full understanding on the all range of issues regarding the conflict.

While Tel Aviv sees the withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria as a top priority, Moscow and Damascus consider the presence of Iranian personnel as a legal move because they are deployed under request from the Syrian government. Furthermore, Damascus and Teheran are being engaged in a deep military technological cooperation. On the other hand, Moscow, Teheran and Damascus are interested in the US withdrawal from the areas, which it occupied in northeastern Syria, something what Israel would not like to see. This means that the creation of the joint working group will not likely lead to the withdrawal of all or at least some foreign forces.

Nevertheless, the Israeli-Russian group may become a useful tool to de-escalate the situation between powers involved in the Syrian standoff and to start working on some compromise decision on the settlement of the conflict.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are finishing their operation against ISIS in the Euphrates Valley. Over the past few days, the US-led coalition has delivered multiple artillery and air strikes in the area. The ISIS-held pocket will soon be declared eliminated.

According to reports, during a recent “humanitarian pause” only, from 300 to 500 ISIS fighters and members of their families surrendered to the SDF. Separately, the SDF revealed that its administration had decided to release 283 ISIS-linked persons. The declared reason of this decision is that they have allegedly not participated in crimes of the terrorist group.

The number of ISIS-linked persons within the SDF-held area is growing. Without a proper security management, this may create conditions contributing to the growth of ISIS cells network in northeastern 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.

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

Hands Off Venezuela! No Coup, No War, No Sanctions

March 6th, 2019 by Answer Coalition

Join us on March 9 for a march and rally against the Trump administration’s effort to engineer a coup in Venezuela and a new devastating war there. The aggressive policy against Venezuela repeats the ugly pattern of wars for regime change in the oil-rich countries of Iraq and Libya.

On March 3, John Bolton, the colonialist National Security Adviser who is leading the charge against Venezuela, told CNN:

“In this administration, we’re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine. This is a country in our hemisphere.”

Bolton has made it clear that the objective of the imperialist offensive is overthrow not only the government of Venezuela, but also those of Cuba and Nicaragua. Trump has repeatedly stated that the “mistake” of Washington’s wars in the Middle East is that “we didn’t take the oil.” Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world.

It is time to stand up and with a clear voice say NO to the newest example of the “Monroe Doctrine,” which the U.S. government has used for over two centuries to repeatedly invade Latin America and Caribbean, control its politics and extract its resources.

The White House aims to overthrow the government of President Nicolás Maduro and replace him with Juan Guaidó. Guaidó is a U.S.-trained operative who was unknown to the vast majority of Venezuelans before he proclaimed himself president — at Vice President Mike Pence’s urging. Although Guaidó has the backing of Trump, the CIA, and the Republican and Democratic Party leaderships alike, huge numbers of Venezuelans have marched to reject this coup and defend their independence.

Join us on March 9 to say:

  • U.S. hands off Venezuela — U.S. Hands Off Latin America!
  • NO to the coup — the U.S. does not have the right to select other country’s leaders!
  • NO to the sanctions, oil embargo and economic war on Venezuela that aims to cause suffering for ordinary people in the country.
  • NO to intervention and war from the U.S. and their proxies in the region

The San Francisco action will be held in conjunction with the National March on Washington on March 16.

Initial Signers of the National March:

ANSWER Coalition

SF Labor Council

CodePink

Black Alliance for Peace

Alliance for Global Justice Popular Resistance

Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee

Haïti Liberté International Support Haiti Network

Popular Education Project

Abby Martin, journalist, The Empire Files

Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party presidential candidate

Dr. Jared Ball, Prof. of Communication Studies, Morgan State Univ., imixwhatilike

Medea Benjamin, CodePink

Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox

Berthony Dupont, Director, Haïti Liberté

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, constitutional rights attorney

Max Blumenthal, journalist

Ajamu Baraka, National Organizer, Black Alliance for Peace

Mike Prysner, Iraq War veteran, producer, The Empire files

Dr. George Ciccariello-Maher, author

Dr. Anthony Monteiro, Saturday Free School

Dr. Jodi Dean, Prof. of Political Science, Hobart & William Smith Colleges

Gloria La Riva, National Coordinator, Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee

Kim Ives, journalist

Anoa Changa, host, The Way With Anoa

Dan Cohen, journalist and filmmaker

Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice

Eugene Puryear, Stop Police Terror Project

Jeanette Charles and Lucas Koerner, Venezuela Analysis

Margaret Flowers, Co-Coordinator, Popular Resistance

Kevin Zeese, Co-Coordinator, Popular Resistance

Dan Kovalik, author and human rights lawyer

Mahdi Bray, National Director, American Muslim Alliance (AMA)

Anakbayan (South Bay)

Serve the People San Jose

Democratic Socialists of America SF and East Bay

All African People’s Revolutionary Party

Students for Justice Palestine – San Jose

Alianza Hondureña US NorCal

Arab Resource Organizing Center

FMLN – NorCal

Third World Resistance

Green Party Santa Clara County

San Jose Peace and Justice Center

AIM-West

Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee

Party for Socialism and Liberation (complete list of signers)

Venezuela lies abound. Both the USG (United States Government) and its lapdog MSM (Mainstream Media) have been going into overdrive, exaggerating or just plain lying about the state of affairs in Venezuela. Truth is always a casualty of war, and it’s also a casualty of pre-war, as the NWO prepares the ground for military intervention by demonization and propaganda. Here are 8 lies about Venezuela which are being used to justify yet another coup in a long, long history of US coups in foreign lands.

Venezuela Lies #1: The Venezuelan People Have No Food and the Shelves Are Bare

In these videos (here and here) on the ground in Caracas, Max Blumenthal exposed one of the lies about Venezuela that is constantly repeated, i.e. that the people have no food and the supermarket shelves are bare.

Venezuela Lies #2: The US Only Wants to Send Aid

If by “aid” you mean “weapons and barbed wire for radical opposition forces,” then yes, the US only wants to send aid. However, if by “aid” you mean actual medicine, then no. This VenezuelaAnalysis report quotes a NYT reporter and USAID itself. They either don’t have medicine as part of the inventory or state outright that there was no medicine:

“According to New York Times reporter Anatoly Kurmanaev, the trucks that the opposition tried to force across the border contained “no medicine” at all, with reports that a “small” amount of medicine was being stockpiled in Cucuta not confirmed by USAID. Initial inventories from USAID made no mention of medicine, listing only basic food and personal hygiene products amongst the “aid”.”

The Venezuelan Government is accepting aid from Russia and other countries it can trust, just not the US, since US “aid” may just “accidentally” happen to contain weapons for anti-Maduro agitators (or, as the Spanish say, compradores). Hmm, wonder how those arms got in the food truck?

As I covered in the article NGOs: Choice Tool of Subversion for the New World Order, NGOs have become a weaponized tool of soft power through which the NWO expands its empire – meddling, destabilizing, toppling and installing, all the while using the NGO as a humanitarian pretext. USAID is just another in a long-line of NGOs loyal to the US Government and NWO, willing to put a nice PR happy face on their agenda of subversion.

Venezuela Lies #3: Juan Guaido Has Legitimacy in Declaring Himself President

As I covered in my previous article Is This the Most Blatant US Coup Ever?, Juan Guaido is a US-CIA stooge through and through. He’s an agent-provocateur “opposition leader” who has been carefully groomed to play his role in the coup. His claim to be interim president of Venezuela under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution is, legally, utter nonsense, since Maduro has not abandoned the presidency and Maduro held free, open and fair elections as adjudged by outside independent parties.

Venezuela Lies #4: Many Countries Support Guaido

The US claims many nations and groups support its efforts to topple Maduro and install Guaido. In reality, these countries are basically vassal states or other nations controlled by the US that don’t want to upset the apple cart. Notice the strategy of the US: try to co-opt the United Nations HRC (Human Right Council) into following US coup efforts, and try to strong-arm groups like the OAS (Organization of American States) and the Lima Group into betraying their brother nation Venezuela.

The US tried this same trick with the Syrian War by creating and controlling a group called “Friends of Syria.” Here is what Venezuela’s Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador Jorge Valero said:

“the self-proclaimed “Lima Group” is a cartel made up of satellite governments of the imperial government to break Latin American and Caribbean unity, and, due to the failure of using the Ministry of the Colonies, which is the OAS to isolate Venezuela in this organization. The empire and its minions couldn’t approve Article 20 of Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Permanent Council of the OAS and resort to the United Nations Security Council, where they also failed. The creation of puppet governments by the US is not new.”

Venezuela Lies #5: The US Cares about the Venezuelan People (Just Like It Cares about the Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian and Iranian People)

The NWO uses the US to bring all nations into its fold, but it like to do so with the veneer of democracy so as to gain more public support and engender less resistance. Subversion, NGO soft power and covert operations are more palatable than overt control and boot-in-the-face oppression. In this vein, the USG likes to pretend it truly cares and has deep compassion for the people of nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela and any other place it plans to subvert, invade or bomb … even though it has never professed such care in the past and will probably never again profess it in the future once its new puppet leader is installed.

Just look at the kind of lies, hypocrisy and nonsense Pence and a “deeply concerned” Pompeo tweeted about Iran when the USG set it sights on igniting a coup there in 2018:

Venezuela Lies #6: Venezuela is Only in the Condition It is Because of Chavez, Maduro and Socialism (They’re the Bad Guys)

Nothing is black and white. It is possible to look at the unfolding Venezuelan crisis and acknowledge that Maduro has mismanaged things while at the same time seeing the gross foreign interference he and his government have been subjected to. As I covered in other articles such as Venezuelan Economic Crisis: The Real Cause is Not Socialism, US-NWO foreign meddling is by far the biggest factor here. For instance, did you know that Bank of England has effectively stolen USD$1.2 billion from Venezuela by toeing the NWO line and blocking Venezuela from accessing it? Did you know that the US has effectively stolen USD$11 billion from Venezuela by freezing its US accounts? How is a small nation supposed to function as normal when such massive amounts are stolen from it?

Venezuela Lies #7: Yes, the US Has Toppled Governments Worldwide, But “This Time It’s Different”

Once you study enough history, you begin to see the lies of tyrants and empires. The lie remains the same. The US wants Venezuela’s gold and mineral reserves. It’s only 5 days from the US, whereas the Middle East is around 20 days from the US and in a very volatile part of the world. There is also the strategic acquisition of the mineral coltan. They also want to teach the successive government to Hugo Chavez a lesson after he thumbed his nose at the US-NWO Empire. This isn’t any different from other subversions and invasions. It fits the pattern exactly.

Venezuela Lies #8: It’s a “Grassroots Uprising” against a “Brutal Dictator”

This entire coup has been planned, orchestrated and executed from Washington. Period. There is no “grassroots uprising.” Ever wondered why Assad and Maduro are “brutal dictators” but bin Salman, El Sisi and other US-CIA stooges are not? It’s all about branding the enemy, marketing foreign interference and controlling perception. Today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy and vice versa. Al-Qaeda is bad and now Al-Qaeda is good. Were we fighting Eastasia or was it Eurasia?

Who is the brutal dictator? Who is imposing economic warfare and deprivation, starvation and misery by sanction? Who is fomenting regime change on innocent nations? Who is funding and supporting terrorists to topple any government they don’t like?

Final Thoughts: The US vs. Russia/China Proxy War Continues

Both Russia and China have invested a lot in Venezuela, including actual investments in their oil, military assistance and financial loans. They are not about to let the US get away with this – even if Venezuela is in the USA’s backyard, geographically speaking. The Monroe Doctrine, which started out in the 1800s as a policy by which the US would protect fellow American nations from European invasion, has now been turned on its head. Raving warmonger John Bolton recently mentioned the term as yet another excuse for the US to dominate whomever it wants on the 2 American continents. However, despite all the Venezuela lies emanating from Washington DC and the MSM, Venezuela is going to be a tough nut to crack, and many American and Westerners are already aware of the propaganda being used to foment war.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14355

https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14316

NGOs: Choice Tool of Subversion for the New World Order

Is This the Most Blatant US Coup Ever?

The Saker interviews Jorge Valero, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Venezuelan Economic Crisis: The Real Cause is Not Socialism

Featured image is from TFA