Global Research

News about humanitarian aid shipments to Venezuela almost never compare how tiny a fraction this aid is relative to the devastating damage that US sanctions against Venezuela have caused, which is now as draconian as the pre-Iraq war sanctions were, says CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot.

***

GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network, and I’m Greg Wilpert, coming to you from Baltimore.

The conflict over Venezuela is heating up again. Thursday evening, the former head of Venezuela’s intelligence services, Hugo Carvajal, turned against Maduro in a video address. In a statement, he called on the military to reject Maduro, and said the government was completely beset by corruption. He also urged Maduro to take in the humanitarian aid that is being sent by the U.S. and international donors. Carvajal himself had long been under U.S. sanctions and allegations of being involved in drug trafficking. He’s currently a representative of Venezula’s National Assembly.

Then on Friday, dueling concerts are taking place on the Venezuela-Colombia border. On the Colombian side, the billionaire and Virgin Atlantic airline founder Richard Branson organized a fundraising concert for humanitarian aid for Venezuela. And on the Venezuelan side, the government organized a rival concert with government supporters. Then on Saturday, self-proclaimed interim president Juan Guaido is promising to deliver tens of millions of dollars of international aid, mainly from the U.S., Canada, Colombia, and Brazil, into Venezuela, with the help of opposition supporters. President Maduro has denounced the effort, saying it is a pretext for military action. International aid groups such as the Red Cross and the UN have declined to participate, saying that the aid has been politicized, and thus does not meet their criteria for involvement.

Meanwhile, U.S.-imposed sanctions continue to wreak havoc on Venezuela’s economy. Oil companies report that U.S. Gulf coast refineries are scrambling to find new supply sources for the heavy crude they once received from Venezuela. Venezuela itself says it can sell its oil to India and China instead of the U.S., but it’s not clear yet how the payments will be processed. Also, a battle has erupted over who controls Citgo when the U.S. said it would impose a new board of directors that interim president Juan Guaido has named.

Joining me now to discuss the effects of the sanctions and some of the most recent developments in Venezuela is Mark Weisbrot. Mark is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. Thanks for joining us today, Mark.

MARK WEISBROT: Thanks for inviting me, Gregory.

GREG WILPERT: So let’s start with the sanctions. We’ve discussed these here before on several occasions, but it’s increasingly becoming clear that the last round of sanctions that were imposed on January 28, only five days after opposition leader Juan Guaido swore himself into office, are more draconian than most sanctions the U.S. has imposed. How would you compare these sanctions to, let’s say, the ones that have been imposed on Iraq? And just how much damage are they causing at the moment?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, the Iraq sanctions during the ’90s were quite damaging. The UN estimates, other estimates of the number of children who died as a result of those sanctions is in the hundreds of thousands, during the ’90s. And yet these are even worse, because the trade embargo–first you have to understand that when they recognized Guaido as president, that created a trade embargo, because Venezuela sells its oil for dollars around the world. And three quarters of its export markets consist of the United States and the countries that have joined the Trump regime change effort and recognized the Guaido government. And so that money, that foreign exchange, the source of almost all of the foreign exchange for the whole economy of Venezuela–not just the government, but the whole economy–that’s gone with this. And they made some, they carved out some exceptions for their oil companies. But those are temporary, and the whole thing is still a sweeping trade embargo.

And so that’s quite devastating. Now, they did this to Iraq, but they actually had an oil for food program that allowed them to export a fair amount of oil. So this is really a devastating set of sanctions that they’ve just imposed. But even before that, since August of 2017, that executive order by Trump created a financial embargo. And that was devastating. That, and I think we discussed this before, you know, that cut hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil out of production, and cost them at least six billion dollars in terms of lost oil production. And again, if you compare that to their total goods imports for 2018, which are $11 billion, that’s huge. Or you compare it to the $2 billion that they used to spend on medicine.

So this is really a devastating set of sanctions going back quite a while. And if you want to go back further to when Obama issued the executive order in March of 2015, those sanctions also damaged the economy. Because even though they say those sanctions are targeted on individual,s when they target government officials who have to handle financial transactions around the world, then that causes enormous problems, as well. And the banks and financial institutions take their cue from that, and they stop lending. And that really started a couple of years before the August of 2017 Trump sanctions.

GREG WILPERT: Now, legally, the only way the U.S. can impose sanctions is by naming Venezuela an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States. No one ever seems to mention this. Is it perhaps because this is actually an irrelevant clause in U.S. law?

MARK WEISBROT: Yes, that’s very important. Not only do they say in every executive order since March of 2015 that Venezuela poses an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States, but they also declare a national emergency for the United States caused by Venezuela. So it’s exactly what Trump did with the wall. Exactly the same thing. He’s declaring a national emergency. And that goes completely unnoticed. But it’s–and I think it’s important, actually, because organizations like Public Citizen have sued the Trump administration immediately, and some state governments, after he announced that he was going to use–he was going to use the national emergency declaration to build the wall and pay for it and take funds from elsewhere.

And I think a lawsuit could definitely be filed for the same thing around this national emergency. It’d be more difficult to win, because in the United States we don’t–the rule of law is very weak when it comes to foreign policy. The courts have generally let the president get away with almost anything. Although that now is also changing, with the House just a week or so ago using the War Powers Resolution to, in fact, restrict the president’s ability to get involved in wars. And this is very similar, and the Senate’s going to vote on this, and so on.

So that is changing some in Congress. And there’s also a bill right now in Congress with 33 cosponsors from Cicilline, Representative Cicilline, and that just says flatly that the Congress will not authorize any military intervention in Venezuela.

GREG WILPERT: Actually, I want to get to that point in a moment. But first I want to ask about something else that’s a huge issue, which is this coming weekend there will be an effort to bring some monetary aid into Venezuela that the opposition is organizing with the help of the United States and the governments of Colombia and Brazil. Many groups, such as the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., are calling on Maduro to accept this aid, but do not want to say a word about the effects of the sanctions. Now, just–this raises the question just how do the sanctions compare to the aid that is being offered?

MARK WEISBROT: Yeah, the aid is tiny compared to what the sanctions, the billions of dollars that are lost to the economy. And that’s what makes the whole thing so farcical. Imagine here is this huge power, and it’s doing everything it can to deprive people of food and medicine. It’s really that that’s what they’re doing. And spare parts, and everything that the economy needs. And wiping out the income of millions of people and doing this very–as forcefully as it can really do. As I said, the only exception they carved out from the latest set of sanctions is to protect–is to protect the profits of some of their own oil industry.

But this is really a massive effort to increase the suffering there so that people will rebel or the army will rebel. They’ve said that openly. And at the same time, then, they say as a PR stunt we’re going to try and get this aid across the border. And then they openly admit, both the Trump administration and the their allies inside Venezuela, that the purpose of this operation is to get the army to disobey orders from Maduro so that it will weaken him enough to topple the government. And they say this very openly. And that’s why the international organizations that really care about humanitarian aid, like the International Red Cross or the United Nations, they want nothing to do with this so-called relief effort. But I have to say, you know, if you weren’t following this very, very closely, and you were just watching the television news, or most of the news that people get here, their whole PR stunt appears to be pretty solid. It looks like they’re actually trying to help, and this evil person that they’ve demonized is trying to prevent people from getting their benefits and aid.

GREG WILPERT: Now, another issue which is related to the point you raised earlier is that a spokesperson for Bernie Sanders recently told Newsweek that Sanders opposes the threat of U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. Immediately, Florida Democrats criticized Sanders very strongly. And Representative Donna Shalala, as a matter of fact, said that the statement was regrettable, and suggested that Sanders would never be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.

Now, this also parallels a resolution that you mentioned already that was introduced in the House of Representatives with 33 cosponsors, including Ro Khanna, Tulsi Gabbard, Mark Pocan, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, et cetera, as stating that the president should not have a congressional authority to intervene militarily in Venezuela. Now, do you see this resolution as having a chance of passing? And if not, why are Democrats such as Shalala playing Trump’s game in Venezuela?

MARK WEISBROT: I think it does have a chance of passing. I think that even the worst kind of pro-sanctions Democrats, like Elliott Engel, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, who supported the recognition of Guaido and therefore–as an interim president–and therefore is supporting this new trade embargo. They don’t–even they don’t want a military option there. They said clearly that there’s no–there is not going to be any military option. So that is the majority view, certainly overwhelming majority among Democrats and some Republicans.

Now, how it plays out, you know, with the Florida delegation doing what it’s doing and what it’s been doing since the Cuban revolution, this is a real curse. You know, these people are just–and I think these people are just looking at it from the point of view of their right-wing base, right-wing Cubans, Venezuelans, other right-wing Latin Americans that go to southern Florida. And this is a lobby. And since Florida is a swing state, this is something that affects the presidential election. They’re trying to intimidate Bernie right now. There was a tech piece in Politico going after him.

But I don’t think they have even most of the mainstream media on their side on this. You know, or the State Department, or possibly even the Pentagon in terms of the military intervention. And a lot of the other things they’re saying they don’t–they’re in a minority trying to punish him for not being hostile enough to the government of Venezuela. I don’t think they’ll get that far with this. They really do represent extremist elements. Of course, we do have some of the most violence-prone and extreme elements in Bolton, Rubio, Abrams. Trump himself, who’s openly said why don’t we attack Venezuela, because they’ve got the oil and they’re in our backyard? And Bolton talking about the oil companies, as well. You know, this is almost unprecedented in the 21st or late 20th century for them to be so candid about this.

So I think though the Florida thing is very big, you know, if they were going to give this relief, so-called relief operation, a name, it should be Operation Florida 2020. If I had to guess the main reason why Trump is doing this, well, the oil is definitely part of it. He looks at these things this way. He said the same thing about Iraq, why didn’t we grab their oil. But it’s also Florida. And it is–it’s a real problem. But I don’t think they’re going to prevail.

GREG WILPERT: OK. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. Thanks again, Mark, for having joined us today.

MARK WEISBROT: Thank you, Gregory.

GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.

*

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

I discussed the possibility in a previous article, considering whether the Trump regime intends inventing a pretext for military intervention.

It’s an option Trump prefers based on his previous comments. The EU, Latin and Central American states oppose intervening in Venezuela militarily.

It’s unclear if Pompeo, Bolton and their point man for regime change in the country, convicted felon Elliott Abrams, prefer this option over others.

Most likely for now at least, sanctions war will continue,  along with US-orchestrated violence and chaos in the country likely to intensify.

Trump and regime hardliners are hellbent for wanting Maduro toppled – Bolivarian social democracy eliminated, US-controlled puppet leadership replacing it.

A similar scenario is playing out in Iran, aiming for the same result. If ongoing war by other means fails in either or both countries, military intervention may be the Trump regime’s fallback option – despite world community opposition.

The US prefers so-called “coalition” support for its imperial adventurism. At the same time, governance in Washington is so extremist, hardliners running things may be willing to go it alone in trying to topple Maduro if unable to get partners for hot war.

In mid-February, Cuba said the US has been covertly deploying special forces and military equipment to regional countries close to Venezuela – speculating on whether military intervention is planned, adding:

“Between February 6 and 10, military transport aircraft have flown to the Rafael Miranda Airport of Puerto Rico, the San Isidro Air Base, in the Dominican Republic and to other strategically located Caribbean islands, probably without knowledge of the governments of those nations.”

“These flights originated in American military installations from which units of Special Operations and Marine Corps operate, which are used for covert actions.”

US war on Venezuela by other means is causing “thousands of times greater” harm to its economy and people than so-called “humanitarian aid” can alleviate, a political stunt unrelated to providing help.

On Tuesday, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said the Trump regime deployed troops to Puerto Rico and Colombia, “preparing (for) a military invasion on an independent state,” adding:

“(T)he landing of US forces in Colombia and other facts clearly indicate that the Pentagon is reinforcing the grouping of troops in the region in order to overthrow the lawfully elected incumbent President Maduro.”

“And the Venezuelan people understand this well. Hence, such a reaction, the refusal to accept cargo from the aggressor country and the support of their president.”

After proposing talks with Russia on Venezuela, Trump regime hardliners U-turned on holding them, Patrushev explained.

Since Hugo Chavez’s December 1998 election, four right-wing US Republican and undemocratic Dem regimes plotted to replace Venezuelan social democracy with US-controlled puppet rule.

The plot is more intense under Trump than his predecessors, going all-out to try succeeding where they failed.

Is military intervention on the table if other tactics fail – in Iran and Venezuela? It’s ominously possible in both countries.

My view is as follows. Putin intervened in Syria against US-supported terrorists, changing the dynamic on the ground, foiling Washington’s attempt to topple Assad – even though endless war continues, diplomatic efforts for resolution since 2012 achieving no major breakthroughs.

Similar Russian intervention is needed to preserve and protect Iranian and Venezuelan sovereignty, ideally with cooperation from Beijing, a joint initiative.

In a previous article, I proposed that they send peacekeepers to Venezuela. The same goes for Iran if Trump regime hardliners escalate efforts to topple its government.

Thousands of Russian and Chinese peacekeepers to these countries would give the US pause about intervening militarily, risking war with either or both – deterring a military option, I believe, without firing a shot.

The way to preserve and protect Iran and Venezuela is aiding them this way. It’s not without risks. Failing to take this step entails greater ones, I believe.

The time has come for Russia and China to draw a red line not to be crossed on these countries, letting Washington know clearly where they stand. It may be the best strategy to save them and world peace at the same time – at least for now until US hardliners cook up new ways to pursue their imperial agenda.

*

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 Black Agenda Report

If Canada’s armed forces exist to protect our democracy why does its leadership flout laws meant to protect citizens’ rights to know what the government is doing?

Recently the Ottawa Citizen’s David Pugliese reported that top military officers denied the existence of an internal report even though they were warned doing so would be illegal under the Access to Information Act, which gives individuals the right to government records for a small fee. The office of the Canadian Forces’s top legal adviser, Judge Advocate General Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez, denied the existence of an internal report highlighting problems with the court martial system. But, in reality, there were electronic and paper copies of the document.

This incident falls on the heels of a DND official telling the pre-trial hearing of Vice Admiral Mark Norman that his superiors deliberately omitted his name from documents to skirt Access to Information rules. After receiving an access request concerning Norman, the official brought it to his superior. According to the testimony, “he gives me a smile and says … ‘Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name [in internal communications]. Send back nil return.” (Feeling the need to protect  the military witness from reprisals, the judge ordered a publication ban on their name.)

In fact, DND has repeatedly broken access laws. Informed that an officer attended a talk that Rideau Institute director Steven Staples delivered about the war in Afghanistan on January 26, 2006, Pugliese requested all CF documents mentioning public speeches in Halifax between January 15 and 30 of that year. Department officials claimed they did “a thorough and complete search” and couldn’t find any record of an officer who attended the function and wrote a report. But, the officer assigned to Staples’ speech inadvertently left a record. When the Ottawa Citizen turned it over to the information commissioner, DND finally acknowledged the record existed.

The secrecy is long-standing. In 1996 Information Commissioner John Grace pointed to a “culture within ND [national defense]/CF of secrecy and suspicion of those seeking information.” As part of its cover-up of the murderers committed by Canadian soldiers in Somalia, CF officials illegally doctored documents concerning the brutal murder of Shidane Arone. As part of an investigation into the March 1993 slayings in Somalia, CBC reporter Michael McAuliffe requested briefing notes for officers dealing with the media. DND was caught hiding documents, wildly inflating the cost of releasing them and altering files. At the 1995-97 inquiry into the killings in Somalia, Chief of Defence Staff Jean Boyle admitted the CF deliberately violated the spirit of Access rules, while a colonel and commander were convicted by a military court of altering documents requested under that legislation. Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair: Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia described DND’s “unacceptable hostility toward the goals and requirements of access to information legislation.”

The secrecy is not about security. DND can restrict information under access legislation for numerous reasons. This includes if information is deemed “injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities.”

DND also has more explicit means of bypassing access requests since the law doesn’t apply to much of the military. Since the early 2000s DND has massively expanded the special forces — Canadian Special Operations Forces Command now has nearly 3,000  personnel — partly because they are not required to divulge any information about their operations. But, noted the late Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington, “a secret army within the army is anathema to democracy.”

It seems the military leadership would prefer the public only learn about the Canadian Forces what they deem necessary to release, despite laws that say otherwise.

Should we trust an institution that flouts the rules of democracy to defend democracy?

*

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

The world of conservation has thrown up various voices of tenacity.  There was Aldo Leopold, a vital figure behind establishing the first wilderness area of the United States when he convinced the Forest Service to protect some five hundred thousand acres of New Mexico’s Gila National Forest.  There was Robert Marshall, the founder of The Wilderness Society.  There was Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), a solidly aimed blow at the use of DDT and its environmental effects.

Then there are the savvy showmen, the exploiters few short of a scruple, and manipulators keen on lining pockets.  The animal kingdom, for such types, is entertainment, much in the way that the automobile world is there for a figure such as Jeremy Clarkson.  Awareness of the existence of animals – their importance, their relevance – is drummed up by means of display and provocation.  The more dangerous, in a sense, the better, for here, human kind can be shown to be jousting with crocodile, sting ray and lion.  Humankind can return to savage roots, confronting other species in gladiatorial encounters with film crew and an extensive promotion strategy.  This is bullfighting, with a conservationist twist. 

Such a figure was Steve Irwin, who made his way from Australia to the US, assisted by the solid contacts of his American wife Terri Raines, to build a name in the animal show business.  He became – and here the language is instructive – the self-styled Crocodile Hunter, audacious, brash and vulgar in his animal chase.  He established Australia Zoo, which sports a vision of being “the biggest and best wildlife conservation facility in the entire world, and” (note the entertainment gong here) “there is no other zoo like Australia zoo!”  The emphasis here is also vital: zoos vary in history in terms of what they have done for conservation, turning species as much into museum species for spectacle as any act of preservation.

Irwin teased out the voyeur in the spectator: would he be added to the crocodile’s next meal?  Or, even more daringly, would he add his baby to it?  Punters, take your pick, and wait for the outcome – you know you are in store for something grand and grisly.   

This assertion is not far-fetched; in 2004, the showman introduced his one-month old son in what was promoted as “Bob’s Croc Feeding Debut” to a crocodile at feeding time, real fun for the family. While apologising for his actions in the face of strident protest, Irwin’s rather particular view on animal advertising came through.  He had, for one, been professional in keeping “a safe working distance with that crocodile when that took place”.  He would also have been “a bad parent if I didn’t teach my children to be crocodile savvy because they live here – they live in crocodile territory.”  Responsible, indeed. 

His unique interpretation of safe working distance was again at play when he met his death on the Great Barrier Reef near Port Douglas in the course of making an instalment in September 2006 for the series Ocean’s Deadliest.  The ingredients were all there: identifying a species that could kill rather than anything cuddly or cute; chasing a choice sample of that species; recording, for camera, its behaviour, using whatever means necessary. In the process, the barb of a stingray pierced his heart.  Marine biologists and zoologists make it clear that “they are not aggressive, reacting only when stepped on or improperly handled.”  The throngs of grieving supporters were revealing about how sapping the cult of celebrity can be.  Critics were few and far between.

One was fellow Australian, herself a superstar of sorts, Germaine Greer.  Greer reproached Irwin for not having “a healthy respect for stingrays, which are actually commoner, and bigger, in southern waters than they are near Port Douglas.”  Irwin never seemed to comprehend the vital fact “that animals needs space.”  No habitat was sacred to Irwin’s celebrity predations; creatures “he brandished at the camera” were distressed.  Left in such vulnerable situations, their options were limited: succumb or strike.

Irwin, whose birthday was commemorated by Google in one their “doodles” on Friday, did enough to drive the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to a state of sheer consternation.  Google described the doodle as a celebration of “the legendary Australian wildlife advocate & TV personality whose bravery & passion opened the eyes of millions to the wonders of wildlife.”   

PETA begged to differ.  Irwin, the organisation tweeted, “was killed while harassing a ray; he dangled his baby while feeding a crocodile and wrestled wild animals who were minding their own business.” The doodle sent “a dangerous, fawning message Wild animals are entitled to be left alone in their natural habitats.” 

The organisation also reiterated that Irwin was distinctly off message in terms of conservation.  “A real wildlife expert & someone who respects animals for the individuals they are leaves animals to their own business in their natural homes.”

This did not sit well in the Twattersphere and other social media outlets where outrage, not debate, characterise arguments.  Unsurprisingly, Irwin’s methods are irrelevant to the persona of challenging, sporting buffoon.  He entertained, and did so well; that was what counted.  His cheer squad ranged across the fields of entertainment and sport, fitting given the same fold he came from.  Baseball writer Dan Clark scolded PETA for not accepting the premise that Irwin had “saved the lives of countless of animals in his sanctuaries”, “loved animals and cared for them greatly.”  Love, and shoddy pedagogy, are clearly variable things.

Irwin had even won over certain wildlife conservationists such as Anneka Svenska, who claimed on BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat that he “has inspired the next generation of conservationists.”  Even she had to admit that “now it wouldn’t be looked at as so good to touch the animals like he used to.” 

The problem with the Irwin legacy is how consequences are divorced from actions.  Certain actions, be it the business model of display and torment, and the encouragement his actions supposedly did for conservationists and the cause, are blurred.  

PETA might be called out for some its more shonky and inconsistent protests when it comes to the world of animal ethics, but in the scheme of things, their notes of protest were valid.  Irwin was, first and foremost, a man of business, a rumbling combination of yahoo, entrepreneur and Tarzan.  That business might well have involved an element of conservation, but this was ancillary to the man, to his yob image, a person made wealthy on the fate and good deal of harassing, to use PETA’s term, deadly members of the animal kingdom. For that, he paid the ultimate price.

*

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]

A Russian defense contractor, Kalashnikov Concern, named after one of the most famous small-arms designers of all time, is now producing kamikaze drones designed to destroy remote ground targets.

The “high-precision unmanned aerial system” KUB-BLA was for the first time showcased at the International Exhibition of Arms and Military Equipment 2019 in Abu Dhabi. The drone delivers an explosive charge on the coordinates of the target, which are set manually or can be acquired automatically by uploading image of the target into the guidance system.

The KUB-BLA has a 3-kilogram payload, a flying time of 30 minutes, and a 80-130-kilometer-per-hour speed. It measures 1210mm wide by 950mm long and 165mm high. Typically, the payload is apparently a high-explosive charge. Kalashnikov Concern says that the advantages of the system are “hidden launch, high accuracy of the shot, noiselessness and ease of handling”.

Furthermore, it seems that the KUB-BLA has already been battle-tested in Syria.

On October 19, 2015, a swarm of five mysterious suicide drones attacked a military position of the Ahrar al-Sham Movement near the town of Maar Shamarin in the Syrian province of Idlib. A few hours after the attack, the local SMART News Agency interviewed the fighters who survived the attack. They all seemed to be shocked and terrified by the “Wunderwaffe” that killed one of their comrades and destroyed most of their equipment.

Back then, nobody was able to identify these drones. Some sources suggested that these were the ZALA 421-16E. However, this drone has no offensive capabilities and the vestiges of the employed suicide UAVs showed little match with its design.

In turn, the design of the KUB-BLA appeared to be similar, even in small details, to the mysterious suicide drones, which hit the Ahrar al-Sham position. Another factor is the location of the attack. Maar Shamarin is 27km north of Morek, the stronghold of Syrian government forces back in 2015. Taking into account the declared characteristics of the KUB-BLA, the kamikaze drone should be capable of hitting  targets in the range of about 40km. This range was more than enough to reach the Ahrar al-Sham position even if the drone was launched from the area behind the frontline.

This was not the first time when the Russians Defense Ministry used Syria as a test-ground for its modern weapons and equipment. According to official data, Russia tested over 300 types of weapons and equipment, including the Su-57 fifth generation fighter jet, the Uran-9 unmanned combat ground vehicle and the Terminator-2 armored fighting vehicle, in Syrian since the start of its anti-terrorist operation in the war-torn county in 2015. However, the October 19 event is the first case ever when it is reasonable to assume with a high probability that the Russian side employed an attack drone of any kind during the conflict.

*

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

The British empire may strike many of us as distant history that has no more than a marginal impact on our 21st-century lives. But we can’t really understand Brexit — the British move to exit the European Union — without understanding how that empire ended and, more pointedly, how Britain’s rich reacted to that demise. Two scholars at the University of Oxford, Sally Tomlinson and Danny Dorling, have an incisive new book out that explores the chain of events that have brought us to Brexit. This excerpt from that book, Rule Britannia: Brexit and the End of Empire (Biteback, 2019), offers a historical perspective that seldom informs our daily news doses on the latest in Brexit maneuvering.

***

Partly, if not largely, because of failing to come to terms with its loss of a huge empire, the UK had been ramping up economic inequality since the late 1970s, reaching a point where the gap between rich and poor in Britain was wider than in any other European country.

When India, and then most colonies in Africa, won their freedom, the British rich found themselves suddenly becoming much poorer. They blamed the trade unions and socialists in the 1970s. To try to maintain their position, from 1979 onwards they cut the pay of the poorest in a myriad of ways and vilified immigrants in the newspapers they owned or influenced, while managing to hold on to some of the pomp and ceremony that their imperial grandparents had enjoyed.

Something had to break, and, in the end, it was a break with the EU — it was Brexit. It is true that Brexit was partly the language of the unheard — the masses cocking a snook at the demands of their overlords — and there were some who actually believed the propaganda that problems in health, housing, and education were due to immigrants, and some who really thought “their” country was being taken over by colonial and EU immigrants, by refugees from anywhere, or even by Islam. But there were many others who voted Leave out of hope. They just hoped for something better than what they had.

The British had been distracted from the rise in inequality and the consequent poverty that grew with it by decades of innuendo and then outright propaganda suggesting that immigration was the main source of most of their woes. Without immigrants, they were told, there would be good jobs for all.

Then they were told, at first in whispers, and later through tabloid headlines, that without immigrants their children could get into that good school, or the school they currently go to would not be so bad.

Without immigrants, they could live in the house of their dreams, a home currently occupied by immigrants who have jumped the queue and taken their birthright. “We” (always “we,” always “us”) need to cap net immigration to the “tens of thousands” and then all will be so much better.

All this was said to distract people from looking at who was actually becoming much wealthier and who was funding a political party to ensure that the already wealthy could hoard even more in future.

Or, as Alex Massie of The Spectator wrote in 2016: “If you spend days, weeks, months, years, telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realize any of this is happening … at some point something or someone is going to snap.”

*

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

Sally Tomlinson is emeritus professor at Goldsmiths University and honorary fellow of the education department at Oxford. A selection of her work appears in The Politics of Race, Class and Special Education (2014) in the Routledge World Education series.

Danny Dorling is the Halford Mackinder Professor in geography at the University of Oxford. His work focuses on housing, health, employment, education, wealth, and poverty, and his books include The Real World Atlas (Thames and Hudson), Inequality and the 1% (Verso), Population 10 Billion (Constable) and All That Is Solid (Allen Lane).

A group family member victims of the 1940s WWII Holocaust and U.S.-supported 1980s genocides in Central America are calling on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council’s Committee on Conscience to remove Elliot Abrams from its board, questioning how “a proven supporter of some of the world’s most nefarious perpetrators of genocide and mass murderers for nearly 40 years—could be a member of your committee (whose) … core mission (is to) prevent genocide.”

The group of 12, which includes a Salvadoran “tortured by police under orders of two generals trained by the US military at the School of the Americas (and) a survivor of torture under Rios Montt dictatorship,” are circulating an online petition to gather support for their demand on the anti-genocide committee to take away Abrams’ seat at the table.

“We have come together in the name of advancing values like those contained in the Council’s core mission of preventing genocide. Our letter to you is written in the spirit of continuing the urgent work of the Committee on Conscience: to ‘confront and work to halt acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity.’

“It is in this spirit we write to question the choice of the Council in granting a committee seat to Mr. Elliott Abrams,” say the survivors of genocides orchestrated and oversaught by Abrams in the 1980s when he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs under the Ronald Reagan administrations.

Abrams was recently named by United States President Donald Trump to the nation’s Special Envoy to Venezuela. The high-ranking U.S. official, who supported genocides in El Salvador in Guatemala in the 1980s has claimed that the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador that wiped out 900 poor civilians in less than two days in 1981 couldn’t be confirmed. The former human rights official backed Guatemalan dictator Rios Montt’s massacre of over 1,700 Indigenous.

The small group that has growing support says that after investigating Abrams’ history they realized he is “in fact a member of the Council’s Committee on Conscience,” given a seat on the prestigious committee in 2009.

“We write because, given the crucial mission of this institution, we cannot fathom how Abrams—a proven supporter of some of the world’s most nefarious perpetrators of genocide and mass murderers for nearly 40 years—could be a member of your committee,” says the survivors who are calling on the larger public to join their request to the council.

The naming of Abrams to the U.S. envoy by Trump has caused an uproar in Congress and human rights circles who know Abrams was also a principal author in the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s that funded the violent Contras, a Nicaraguan para-military group.

*

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

After the Indian military bombed Pakistani territory last night, Pakistan promised to respond and the UK has been criticised for arming both sides.

The Indian Air Force claimed to have targetted a training camp of the militant Jaish-e-Mohammed group in Pakistan.

Pakistan said the bombs fell on an empty area but said it would respond “at the time and place of its choosing”.

The Indian and Pakistani governments have been hostile to each other for decades, mainly over the disputed region of Kashmir. Over 850,000 people have been killed in clashes between the two countries.

Both sides of the conflict, although particularly India, have been armed by arms companies based in the UK with exports approved by the UK government.

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

“For years now, the UK has armed both India and Pakistan. This has meant ignoring the tensions and dangers, and putting arms sales ahead of peace-building and human rights.

“These arms sales have only added to the volatility of the situation, when what is needed is diplomacy and dialogue. The Government must put the need for peace and disarmament before the interests of the arms companies.”

Both countries have nuclear weapons and the UK government and arms companies have been complicit in India’s development of these weapons.

When it was revealed that India was upgrading Jaguar aircraft to fire nuclear weapons, the UK refused to halt the sale of UK-built components that were being used to keep the aircraft airborne and could be used to build the Jaguar delivery systems.

*

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

Joe Lo is a freelance journalist and reporter for Left Foot Forward.

Featured image is from Left Foot Forward

As the USA and North Korea meet in Vietnam to discuss the possibility of a peace treaty between the two after decades of hostility against North Korea from the USA, the governments of Russia and Japan are engaged in talks about concluding a peace treaty to formally end the war between them that began during the Second World War. The two meetings are related since they concern peace and security in Asia and the Pacific and because the stumbling block to peace in both instances is the threat posed by the United States conventional and nuclear forces in the region.

North Korea has long sought a peace treaty with the USA along with a firm guarantee that the USA will not attack. North Korea’s requests for peace have been met, up until now, with nothing but false promises, unjust sanctions, attempts to isolate it from the world and threats of annihilation. The USA, on the other hand, has only one objective, the nuclear disarmament of North Korea, making it vulnerable to American attack while claiming the right to retain and develop its triad of nuclear forces and the right to use them whenever it sees fit. Since the word of the US leadership is not worth much, as the world has seen time and again as the US reneges on one international agreement after another, hopes of something positive coming out of the Korean-American meeting in Vietnam are slim. But we can hope.

The situation between Japan and Russia is also at an impasse and once again the basic cause for this is the USA. The key sticking point between them since the 1950’s has been, and remains, control over the Kuril Islands that lie north of the Japanese Island of Hokkaido and south of the Russian territories on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The islands have changed hands between them several times in history but with the defeat of Japan in 1945 the islands were given to the USSR by international agreement with Japan protesting that it should have ownership and control of the four southern islands in the chain. The islands have been in Russian hands ever since.

In 1956 the USSR and Japan entered into negotiations to try to conclude a peace treaty that resulted in a Joint Declaration paragraph 9 of which stated,

“9. Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agree to continue, after the restoration of normal diplomatic relations between Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, negotiations for the conclusion of a peace treaty.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, desiring to meet the wishes of Japan and taking into consideration the interests of Japan, agrees to hand over to Japan the Habomai Islands and the island of Shikotan. However, the actual handing over these islands to Japan shall take place after the conclusion of a peace treaty between Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

A peace treaty has never been concluded and the main reason is the signing in 1960 of a military treaty between Japan and the USA, the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, first signed in San Francisco in 1954, but amended in January 1960, which the USSR regarded as a hostile act. One of the key elements of the amended agreement, and which highlights Japan’s status as an occupied nation, provides for the continued presence of US military bases in Japan. The provisions of the treaty stipulate that it was to remain in force permanently unless one party gives a year’s notice that it wishes to terminate it. Since Japan is still, in reality, an occupied nation it is unlikely that any Japanese government will give such a notice unless it wants to draw down on itself the full measures of retaliation for which the USA is notorious.

The implications of the treaty were recognized by many in Japan at the time and the leftist opposition tried to prevent its ratification by the Japanese Diet. There were physical confrontations between members of the Japanese Socialist Party that opposed it and the Liberal Democratic Party deputies supporting it and this was followed by massive demonstrations and rioting by students and trade unions. A Peoples Council to stop the treaty was formed representing a cross section of Japanese society including labour unions, farmers, teachers, poetry circles theater groups, student and women’s organisations and groups affiliated with the Socialist and Communist Parties but they were unsuccessful.

They took issue with the treaty primarily because of Article 6 that contains a Status of Forces Agreement on the stationing of US forces in Japan that permits the US to make major changes in the placement and location of bases and the use of those bases for US combat operations other than in defence of Japan, that is for offensive operations against other nations, with Japan thrown the bone of being “consulted” on these issues. It was a confirmation to many at the time that Japan remained an occupied country even though the formal military occupation had been declared at an end.

The consequences of the treaty are still important today as the US bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa continue to meet resistance from the people while successive Japanese governments, controlled by reactionary forces, act in lock step with the US in enforcing the agreement against the peoples’ wishes. Just this week Prime Minister Abe ignored a referendum that opposed the presence of the largest Okinawa base and instead approved the US plans for its relocation on the island.

As a result of the amendment of the Japan–US treaty, the USSR in January 1960, issued a Memorandum which needs to be read in full:

“The Soviet Union certainly cannot ignore such a step as Japan’s conclusion of a new military treaty which undermines the basis for peace in the Far East and creates obstacles to the development of Soviet-Japanese relations. A new situation has formed in relation to the fact that this treaty actually deprives Japan of independence and that foreign troops stationed in Japan as a result of Japan’s surrender remain on Japanese territory. This situation makes it impossible for the Soviet Government to fulfill its promises to return the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan.

It is because the Soviet Government met Japan’s wishes and took into consideration the interests of Japan and the peace-loving intentions expressed by the Japanese Government during the Soviet-Japanese negotiations that it agreed to hand over such islands to Japan after the signing of a peace treaty. But since the new military treaty signed by the Japanese Government is directed against the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Government cannot contribute to extending the territory available to foreign troops by handing over such islands to Japan.

Thus, the Soviet Government finds it necessary to declare that the islands of Habomai and Shikotan will be handed over to Japan, as was stated in the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of October 19, 1956, only if all foreign troops are withdrawn from Japan and a Soviet-Japanese peace treaty is signed.”

So, the USSR saw the Japan US treaty as a hostile act against both it and China, as a statement that Japan remained an occupied nation and was willing to conclude a peace treaty if, and only if, US forces were withdrawn from Japan.

The present Russian government states that this memorandum does not clarify conditions for handing over the islands and so further clarification is needed. What this language means is not clear but it is not a repudiation of the demand by the USSR that US forces be removed from Japan before a peace deal can be concluded. The dilemma for Russia is that the US forces in Japan are a threat to peace in the region and to Russia and China. Further, they fear that if they ignore the Soviet memorandum and go ahead with a peace treaty and hand over the designed islands to Japan the islands will be quickly occupied by US forces which will install their AEGIS missile systems there that can deploy nuclear armed missiles close to Russia in the Pacific and will allow them to threaten the large Russian naval base at Vladivostok. Yet the Japanese government, backed by the US, is pushing for the return of the islands as a precondition of a peace treaty. The Russians refuse to allow this.

In return the Russians can use the Memorandum as a lever to force the Japanese to kick the US forces out of Japan. So the impasse remains.

That these issues were discussed at a meeting on February 16 between Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Japanese Foreign Minister Kono at the Munich Conference is indicated by the statement of the Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshida Suga at a press conference in Tokyo that “there was a frank, though sometimes heated, exchange of views’ between the two,” diplomatic language for a blazing row.

The Japanese have been in the process of signing military accommodation agreements with a number of Pacific Rim countries, including Canada, the past year, allowing for exchanges of military assistance, training, transfers of equipment and cooperation at the same time as it tries to wiggle out from the Japanese constitution imposed by the Americans that limits its military forces to defensive purposes. Japan wants to be a major power once again, not only economically, but also politically and militarily. It continues to rely on the American military umbrella as it does this and this also suits American immediate objectives since Japan can then become a powerful ally in the region. Japan seems to want to become more than an ally of the US. It wants to become again a power in the world in its own right. Until it has achieved its objective of again being a world power it can be expected to be a loyal ally to the USA and therefore a threat to Russia. It will not ask the US to withdraw its forces until it is ready; and the Russian government would face serious problems on the domestic front if it surrendered the islands to Japan under these conditions so it is unlikely that a peace treaty can be concluded between Russia and Japan in the near future.

So as North Korea, having suffered decades of Japanese military occupation, tries to deal with US militarism in the region, Russia has to contend with both US existing militarism and a rising Japanese militarism both of which constitute threats to its peace and security, a result of unfinished business from a world war that threatens a new world 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.

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

Featured image is from Russia Direct

Malaysia, on 12 January, one of the international hosts of the 2019 World Para Swimming Championships ethically boycotted Israel as a competitor.

Malaysia’s principled boycott was not directed against the athletes but against the Jewish state of Israel in protest of decades of Israel’s brutal illegal occupation, its 12 year illegal siege of Gaza and its months of recent sustained atrocities against Gaza’s unarmed protestors at the non-violent Great March of Return,

If hosting an international sporting event is more important than safeguarding the interests of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, than we have lost our moral compass.”  Syed Saddiq, Malaysia’s Minister of Youth and Sports

Perplexing to say the least was the response by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) headed by its president, Andrew Parsons.

Would anyone of moral calibre, let alone a body that embraces athletes with impairments and is acutely aware that the courage and determination of these inspiring men and women is hard won through the mental and physical challenges, frustrations and inconveniences of daily life as well as dealing with societal attitudes, be ‘bitterly disappointed’ that Malaysia refuses visas to the delegation from terrorist Israel?

Israel’s mass maiming in Gaza

We are talking here of Israel – allowing for 15 minutes of objective research, the IPC  would find the indisputable fact that Israel is a vicious maiming machine manufacturing mental and physical disabilities in innocent Palestinian men, women and children over generations.

Did the IPC deliberate carefully on the present mass maiming in Gaza? Since the inception of the NON-VIOLENT Great March of Return on 30 March 2018, Israel’s calculated massacres and attacks (“Human Rights Watch concluded that the lethal crackdown was “planned at [the] highest levels of the Israeli government.”) have transmuted hundreds of  healthy unarmed young protestors into yet another disabled generation.

To arrive at an educated resolution, did the IPC Governing Board read testimonies of  Palestinian and international surgeons in ‘Will he lose his leg?’: Thousands of Gaza protesters facing life-altering injuries from Israeli high velocity bullets?                                                                 

And- shockingly – it is documented that Jewish Israeli snipers also targeted and killed disabled protestors.

From a witness,

“Gaza City—The sniper bullets don’t come in quick succession. It’s not a barrage of fire. It is methodical, patient, precise. A single shot rings out and someone falls. You wait a few minutes. The crosshairs settle on the next target. Another shot, another body drops. Again and again and again. It goes on for hours.

This is how the Israeli military shot more than 1,350 Palestinians in Gaza on a single day, on May 14. Slowly. 

As at least 60 people were being killed and over 2,700 wounded, White House officials clinked champagne glasses with their Israeli counterparts 50 miles away in Jerusalem to celebrate the transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv.”

On 3rd December 2018,

“According to the latest report issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the total number of wounded is 24,516 since the Gaza Return March started.

The injuries in the lower limbs were 49.6% and 8.2% is the head and neck.

This gives a clear indication that the occupation is inflicting casualties on the largest number of citizens To cause permanent disabilities .. using explosive bullets in order to increase the suffering of the injured and affect them longer period.

The disabilities caused by the Israeli attacks since the beginning of Gaza March of Return reached 94, including 82 amputations in lower bodies, 12 amputations in upper body parts.”

The Great March of Return is now in its 48th week and despite the horror and carnage, young healthy as well as newly maimed Palestinians, children and grandchildren of the refugee survivors of the 1947-8 Nakba (Palestine’s holocaust) continue to protest for their legal Right of Return. Their resilience, courage and determination is phenomenal and is in contrast to IPC cowardice.

The IPC response

The IPC’s shabby response to Malaysia’s boycott was, “Politics and sport are never a good mix” 

This is the standard platitude for normalising injustice. The IPC knows, in the real world, that no individual is immune to politics and we all must take responsibility to reinforce our commitment to our fundamental moral and ethical principles that encompass inclusivity of all humanity to a life of peace and equity.

So did the IPC make a moral decision? A humanitarian one? No. The IPC hypocritically made the  politicaldecision to strip Malaysia of hosting the 2019 World Para Swimming Championships thereby normalising Israel’s brutal violations of international law and making mockery of IPC’s proclaimed ethical principles:

“Not only does this decision stress the importance of keeping sport and politics separate, but it also reinforces the IPC’s commitment to our fundamental moral and ethical principles that encompass inclusivity of all eligible Para athletes and nations to compete at IPC sanctioned events.”

The IPC has deliberately disregarded Israel’s butchering but I doubt there would be one para-athlete that would give impunity to any nation that has a brutal policy to systematically maim protected persons under occupation in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. 

The WPSC hosts

Malaysia took the honourable stand – alone – unlike the IPC and the other hosts of the 2019 World Para Swimming Championships (WPSC) that are Israel’s shills:

Australia: is an obedient servant to Zionism, it has backed the illegal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, has not supported UN resolutions condemning Israel’s illegal settlements. Does not recognise a Palestinian state.

USA:is the arch-apologist and shield for Israeli terrorism and war crimes, it arms and pays Israel $3.5 billion p.a. in ‘defence’ aid. Does not recognise a Palestinian state

Brazil: under president Lula da Silva, Brazil along with 137 nations has recognised the state of Palestine. Today’s fascist president Bolsonaro has vowed to move the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem in defiance of international law. 

GB: since Israel’s 2014-war-crimes-war on Gazan families  it has sold to Israel $445 million of arms, including spare parts for sniper rifles’ despite the UK having ratified the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on 2nd April 2014. Does not recognise  a Palestinian state. 

Singapore: has a Special Relationship with Israel and strong diplomatic and economic ties since 1965 when IOF trained the newly established Singapore military. Does not recognise a Palestinian state 

Italy: has lucrative reciprocal military contracts with Israel that trump the Palestinian human right to life. Does not recognise a Palestinian state

Germany: since WWI Israel has led Germany by a nose-ring of outdated holocaust guilt to ironically support Israel’s systematic state-sponsored, racist holocaust of the Palestinian people. Does not recognise a Palestinian state

Conversely, Malaysia has a historical commitment to the fundamental moral and ethical principles that encompass Palestine’s human rights, 

“Malaysia’s support for Palestine stems from the 1970s. It was the first Southeast Asian nation to allow the Palestine Liberation Organisation to establish itself in its capital, Kuala Lumpur before having it upgraded to full embassy status in 1983. While Malaysia was a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in 1989-1990, it helped the Palestinians lobby for support for their cause by allowing Palestine access to its network in the Non-Aligned Movement and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. 

Additionally, Malaysia extended support for the cause financially and by having regular consultations. So much so that Tan Sri Razali Ismail, in his memoir, wrote that many of the UN resolutions on Palestine were written at the Malaysian mission in New York. Malaysia was an essential key player and important advocate of Palestinian issues. And throughout the years, Malaysia’s commitment stands firm. Its recent tenure in the UN Security Council was highly celebrated with the passing of Resolution 2334 declaring Israel’s settlement activity as a flagrant violation of international law and having no legal validity.”

And Malaysia’s President Dr Mahathir Mohamad has uncompromisingly withstood the predictable zionist slings and arrows of pseudo anti-semitism. 

Call for sanctions against Israel

The IPC should uphold its vision to ‘Inspire and excite – Touch the heart of all people for a more equitable society’ 

Israel, according to international law, is not equitable, it is a belligerent apartheid coloniser which daily perpetrates crimes against humanity and war crimes against the indigenous Palestinian people and therefore the IPC should place sanctions  against Israel until its ends its military occupation of Palestine.

Please demand that the International Paralympic Committee place sanctions against Israel: [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

*

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

Dr. Vacy Vlazna is Coordinator of Justice for Palestine Matters and editor of a volume of Palestinian poetry, I remember my name. She was Human Rights Advisor to the GAM team in the second round of the Acheh peace talks, Helsinki, February 2005 then withdrew on principle. Vacy was convenor of  Australia East Timor Association and coordinator of the East Timor Justice Lobby as well as serving in East Timor with UNAMET and UNTAET from 1999-2001.

“Americans have no idea of the extent of their government’s mischief… the number of military strikes we have made unprovoked, against other countries, since 1947 is more than 250.’’ Gore Vidal

Last Saturday U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, who is seen by many as being in charge of Trump’s policy towards Latin America, threatened Veneuela’s government with a military invasion for its numerous violations of human rights. The U.S. political elite is trying to exploit ordinary people’s disgust at alleged human right’s abuses to justify the potential invasion of another county.

Ordinary people taken in by humanitarian bombers such as Rubio need to be reminded that American loftiness over events in Venezuela stands in stark contrast to the indifference and complicity of the U.S. and its allies regarding human rights abuses in the Middle East.

Amnesty International has issued a new report, ”Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: A review of 2018’’. It reveals a grim picture of ruthless repression against civilian protestors, torture, and war crimes on a grand scale.

Saudi Arabia has been in the media spotlight since the murder of journalist Jamal Khosoggi in its Turkish embassy back in October 2018. Khasoggi’s murder by a Saudi hit squad provoked a global outcry yet the House of Saud dictatorship has not faced any punitive action from the United States. President Trump has made it clear that U.S. arms sales and military support for the Saudi’s genocidal war in Yemen will continue unabated.

Several European countries, such as Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and Finland, took the rare step of suspending arms sales to the Riyadh dictatorship and its UAE partner in crime. Yet major powers such as France and the UK continue to not only sell arms to the Gulf dictatorships but have even lobbied Germany to resume its arms sales again.

Heba Morayef who is Amnesty’s Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa has commented:

“It took Jamal Khashoggi’s cold-blooded murder inside a consulate to prompt a handful of more responsible states to suspend arms transfers to a country that has been leading a coalition responsible for war crimes and has helped create a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen. Yet even the global outcry over the Khashoggi case has not been followed by concrete action to ensure those responsible for his murder are brought to justice.”

On a domestic level Saudi Arabia continues to imprison human rights activists, government critics and women’s rights defenders. Many have been given lengthy prison sentences after being subjected to torture and grossly unfair trials that make a mockery of the term justice. Besides this, women and the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia continue to face systematic discrimination and violence. Freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest offline and online are expressly forbidden.

Scores of government critics and human rights defenders are serving lengthy prison sentences. Meanwhile, the Saudi dictatorship routinely uses torture to obtain confessions, conducts grossly unfair secret mass trials and makes liberal use of death sentences to ‘crush dissent’. Saudi Arabia’s much vaunted reform allowing women the right to drive was somewhat diminished by the fact that many female activists who had campaigned for the right to drive remain in prison. Women still require the permission of a male guardian to seek employment, enrol in higher education, travel or marry.

On an international level Saudi Arabia and its coalition of the killing, that includes most of the Gulf dictatorships, continues to wage an illegal war in Yemen creating the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. The Saudi led coalition use weaponry supplied by the U.S., France and Britain to systematically destroy Yemen’s food infrastructure and its water irrigation systems along with the deliberate targeting of residential areas in towns and cities. To compound matters, the Saudi led coalition has imposed a land, sea and air blockade of Yemen which is a deliberate attempt to restrict humanitarian aid getting into the starving population. The Saudi led siege of the Red Sea port of Hodeidah is intensifying the famine that has enveloped the country.

The Amnesty report makes it clear that:

“Coalition [I.e.Saudi led] forces continued to be the main cause of civilian casualties, according to the UN. They committed with impunity serious violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law. They used imprecise munitions in some attacks, including large bombs with a wide impact that caused deaths and destruction beyond their immediate strike location.’’

Besides this, Saudi led forces routinely use enforced disappearances, torture, secret prisons and other forms of ill-treatment that amount to ‘war crimes’.

Saudi Arabia along with the United States and France continue to supply military aid for internal repression to the military dictatorship currently ruling over the Arab world’s most populous nation Egypt. President Sisi who won 98% of the vote for his second term has presided over grossly unfair mass trials. Take for example, the mass trial that convicted 739 people for participation in the sit-in at Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya Square on 14 August 2013. During the sit-in the army shot dead over 900 people. Sisi’s brand of justice led to 75 people being sentenced to death, 47 to 25 years in prison, and 612 to prison sentences ranging from five to 15 years. By the way over 22 children were convicted at this mass trial. In the same month another court upheld death sentences against 20 men.

Sisi has introduced laws that give the state total control over all forms of media, meanwhile his security services continue to use enforced disappearances against hundreds of people together with the routine use of torture to obtain ‘confessions’. Women and Egypt’s Christian minority face systematic discrimination and harassment on a daily basis.

The current crusade by the Trump regime to bring about the overthrew of Venezuela’s elected government, all in the name of defending human rights, resonates with many ill informed people. Perhaps, they should cast their minds back to 1945 when the American Empire was preparing for its domination of the post-war world.

In February 1945 at the Chapultepec (Mexico) Conference the United States laid down the basis for implementing the Monroe Doctrine in Latin America once World War 2 was over. The U.S. State Department was concerned that,

“Latin Americans are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country.’’

Chomsky has pointed out that for the United States such an idea was totally, “…unacceptable: the first beneficiaries must be US investors, while Latin America fulfils its service function.’’

The next time we hear some corporate politician whining about human rights in Venezuela then we should remind ourselves of the quip once made by that great chronicler of American foreign policy William Blum. Blum observed that America’s deadliest export since 1945 has been democracy.

*

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

Leon Tressell is a UK based historian whose research focuses upon geo-politics and economics.

In January 2019, campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman accusing European regulatory agencies of collusion with the agrochemicals industry. This was in the wake of an important paper by Charles Benbrook on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides that appeared in the journal ‘Environmental Sciences Europe’.

In an unusual step, the editor-in-chief of that journal, Prof Henner Hollert, and his co-author, Prof Thomas Backhaus, issued a strong statement in support of the acceptance of Dr Benbrook’s article for publication. In a commentary published in the same issue of the journal, they write:

“We are convinced that the article provides new insights on why different conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides] were reached by the US EPA and IARC. It is an important contribution to the discussion on the genotoxicity of GBHs.”

The IARC’s (International Agency for Research on Cancer) evaluation relied heavily on studies capable of shedding light on the distribution of real-world exposures and genotoxicity risk in exposed human populations, while the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) evaluation placed little or no weight on such evidence.

Up to that point, Dr Mason had been writing to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Commission for an 18-month period, challenging them about ECHA’s positive assessment of glyphosate. Many people around the world had struggled to understand how and why the US EPA and the EFSA concluded that glyphosate is not genotoxic (damaging to DNA) or carcinogenic, whereas the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, the IARC, came to the opposite conclusion.

The IARC stated that the evidence for glyphosate’s genotoxic potential is “strong” and that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. While IARC referenced only peer-reviewed studies and reports available in the public literature, the EPA relied heavily on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by pesticide manufacturers.

In fact, 95 of the 151 genotoxicity assays cited in the EPA’s evaluation were from industry studies (63%), while IARC cited 100% public literature sources. Another important difference is that the EPA focused its analysis on glyphosate in its pure chemical form, or ‘glyphosate technical’. The problem with that is that almost no one is exposed to glyphosate alone. Applicators and the public are exposed to complete herbicide formulations consisting of glyphosate plus added ingredients (adjuvants). The formulations have repeatedly been shown to be more toxic than glyphosate in isolation.

Rejection of Dr Mason’s complaint

The European Ombudsman has now rejected Rosemary Mason’s complaint who has in turn written a 25-page response documenting the wide-ranging impacts of glyphosate-based Roundup and other agrochemicals on human health and the environment. She also outlines the various levels of duplicity that have allowed many of these chemicals to remain on the commercial market.

Mason is led to conclude that, due to the rejection of her complaint (as with others lodged by her to the Ombudsman), the European Ombudsman Office is also part of the problem and is essentially colluding with European pesticide regulatory authorities. Mason has addressed this concern directly to Emily O’Reilly, who currently holds the post of European Ombudsman:

“In your rejection of all my complaints over the last few years, it is clear that The Ombudsman’s Office is protecting the European pesticides regulatory authorities, who are in turn being controlled by the European Glyphosate Task Force…. You have turned a blind eye to the authorisation of many of the toxic pesticides that are on the market today because industry is being allowed to self-regulate.”

Some of the key points, claims and issues raised in Mason’s new report ‘The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities’ include:

• The European pesticide regulatory authorities and the European Ombudsman is colluding with industry, resulting in the poisoning of humans and the environment;
• Cancer Research UK is not addressing the impact of agrochemicals because it is heavily compromised by industry interests and therefore claims, “there is little evidence that pesticides cause cancer”;
• The UK Science Media Centre is an industry lobby organisation, which feeds the wider media and its journalists with misleading and false information about agrochemicals;
• Industry group the European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) has been instrumental in ensuring the re-licensing of glyphosate in the EU;
• Maladministration and criminal collusion with the agrochemicals industry resulted in the renewal of glyphosate registration in the EU;
• The report touches on the condemnation of the ECHA’s positive classification of glyphosate by the judges of the International Monsanto Tribunal;
• The global insect apocalypse and the impact of intensive agriculture and pesticides is catastrophic;
• Children and adults have diminished mental acuity and exhibit increasing levels of mental health disorders, depression, suicides and anxiety as a result of exposure to agrochemicals;
• Monsanto’s sealed secret studies shows the company knew about impact of its product on cancers and eye damage;
• The report mentions UN expert on Toxins Baskut Tuncak’s call to put children’s health before pesticides;
• Mason outlines the poisoning of British food: breakfast cereals have shockingly high levels of glyphosate;
• She notes that 30,000 doctors and health professionals in Argentina have demanded a ban on glyphosate;
• Brazil’s National Cancer Institute statement that genetically modified crops are causing of massive pesticide use is referred to;
• The independence of regulatory decisions made by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has been marred by political donations to Labor and the Coalition. In the 2017-18 financial year, Bayer donated $40,600 to Labor and $42,540 to the Coalition, with CropLife donating $34,271 to Labor and $22,300 to the Coalition;
• As a result, APVMA is allowing clothianidin and Roundup to be applied to crops in low lying areas which drains into The Great Barrier Reef;
• In turn, the poisoning of The Great Barrier Reef is taking place due to the impact of herbicides and long-acting insecticides.

There are numerous other important points and issues tackled in the report, which readers are urged to read in full. Mason names key individuals and provides all relevant links to research, reports and papers. You can access the report below. You can also access Dr Mason’s many other documents here.

Read Rosemary Mason’s new report here.

*

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

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

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

In a historic 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided today in Jam v. International Finance Corporation (IFC) that international organizations like the World Bank Group can be sued in U.S. courts.

The Court’s decision marks a defining moment for the IFC – the arm of the World Bank Group that lends to the private sector. For years, the IFC has operated as if it were “above the law,” at times pursuing reckless lending projects that inflicted serious human rights abuses on local communities, and then leaving the communities to fend for themselves.

International organizations like the IFC have long claimed they are entitled to “absolute” immunity, even as they engage in commercial activities, like the coal-fired power plant at the heart of this case. Because the relevant statute only gives the IFC the same immunity as foreign governments, and foreign governments do not have absolute immunity in U.S. courts when they engage in commercial activities, the Supreme Court rejected this position: “The International Finance Corporation is therefore not absolutely immune from suit.”

The case involves an IFC-financed power plant in Gujarat, India. The plaintiffs are members of local fishing and farming communities whose livelihoods, air quality, and drinking water have been devastated by the project. They allege that the IFC and the project developers knew about these risks in advance but nevertheless chose to recklessly push forward with the project without proper protections in place.

The plaintiffs originally tried to raise their concerns through the IFC’s internal grievance mechanism, but when the IFC’s leadership ignored the grievance body’s conclusions, they reluctantly filed suit in the United States as a last resort. EarthRights International represents the plaintiffs, along with the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

The IFC is headquartered in Washington, DC, along with the rest of the World Bank Group, because the U.S. government is by far the largest shareholder in these organizations. The U.S. government has long supported the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law: that international organizations can be sued for their commercial activities or for causing injuries in the United States. The U.S. Departments of Justice and State submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs’ position, as did members of Congress from both parties.

The IFC argued that allowing it to be sued would be disastrous, but the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, found these concerns to be “inflated.” The Court noted that, unlike many international organizations, the IFC’s founding members did not grant the organization absolute immunity in its charter.

The case is Docket No. 17-1011. Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself, because he was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when the case was heard there. Justice Stephen Breyer was the sole dissenter, arguing that a “broad exposure to liability” for international organizations runs counter to Congress’ original purpose in providing immunity.

Now that the Supreme Court has established that the World Bank Group can be sued, the case will return to the lower courts for further litigation.

Another case against the IFC is also expected to proceed in the U.S. District Court for the State of Delaware. The case, Juana Doe et al v. IFC, involves IFC projects that have been linked to murders, torture, and other violence by paramilitary groups and death squads in Honduras. EarthRights International represents the plaintiffs, whose identities are kept anonymous to protect them from retaliation.

Statements

“We are extremely happy with the decision of the Supreme Court of US. This is a huge victory for the people of Mundra in particular and other places in general, where World Bank’s faulty investments are wrecking communities and environment. This is major step towards holding World Bank accountable for the negative impacts their investments are causing.” – Dr. Bharat Patel, the head of fishworkers’ rights group MASS, one of the plaintiffs in the case

“We are delighted with this judgment. This is a victory of all who have fought for a more accountable World Bank since the past many decades world over and has fought valiant struggles against Bank funded projects on the ground, exposing the monumental human and environmental costs of their lending. This judgment will strengthen communities’ efforts to hold the Bank accountable and is a step in the direction of bringing accountability in financial institutions.” – Joe Athialy, Executive Director of the Centre for Financial Accountability, India

“Immunity from all legal accountability does not further the development goals of international organizations. It simply leads them to be careless, which is what happened here. Just like every other institution, from governments to corporations, the possibility of accountability will encourage these organizations to protect people and the environment.” – Marco Simons, General Counsel, EarthRights International

“The commercial activities of international organizations such as the IFC can have a significant impact on lives of Americans and others around the world. We welcome today’s decision.” – Prof. Jeffrey Fisher, Co-Director, Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

Background

From the start, the IFC recognized that the Tata Mundra coal-fired power plant was a high-risk project that could have significant adverse impacts on local communities and their environment. Despite knowing the risks, the IFC provided a critical $450 million loan in 2008, enabling the project’s construction and giving the IFC immense influence over project design and operation. Yet the IFC failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harms it predicted and failed to ensure that the project abided by the environmental and social conditions of IFC involvement.

As predicted, the plant has caused significant harm to the communities living in its shadow. Construction of the plant destroyed vital sources of water used for drinking and irrigation. Coal ash has contaminated crops and fish laid out to dry, air pollutants are at levels dangerous to human health, and there has already been a rise in respiratory problems. The enormous quantity of thermal pollution – hot water released from the plant – has destroyed the local marine environment and the fish populations that fisherfolk like Mr. Budha Ismail Jam rely on to support their families. Although a 2015 law required all plants to install cooling towers to minimize thermal pollution by the end of 2017, the Tata plant has failed to do so.

A nine-mile-long coal conveyor belt, which transports coal from the port to the Plant, runs next to local villages and near fishing grounds. Coal dust from the conveyor and fly ash from the plant frequently contaminate drying fish, reducing their value, damage agricultural production, and cover homes and property. Some air pollutants, including particulate matter, are already present at levels dangerous to human health, in violation of Indian air quality standards and the conditions of IFC funding, and respiratory problems, especially among children and the elderly, are on the rise.

The IFC’s own internal compliance mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), issued a scathing report in 2013 confirming that the IFC had failed to ensure the Tata Mundra project complied with the environmental and social conditions of the IFC’s loan at virtually every stage of the project and calling for the IFC to take remedial action. IFC’s management responded to the CAO by rejecting most of its findings and ignoring others. In a follow-up report in early 2017, the CAO observed that the IFC remained out of compliance and had failed to take any meaningful steps to remedy the situation.

The harms suffered by the plaintiffs are all the more regrettable because the project made no economic sense from the beginning. In 2017, in fact, Tata Power began trying to unload a majority of its shares in the project for one rupee (a few cents) because of the losses it has suffered and will suffer going forward. At the moment, the plant is operating at only one-fifth capacity in part because India has an oversupply of electricity.

The case is Budha Ismail Jam v. International Finance Corp., No. 17-1011.

*

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 EarthRights International

Elected Presidents Assad and Maduro are not the brutal dictators.  We are.

We are the ones imposing economic warfare, and regime change wars on non-belligerent countries.  We are the ones supporting terrorists who impose the death penalty on hundreds of thousands with our weapons, our command and control, our mercenaries, our air support and our terror bombings.

We are dictating our will by destroying these and other countries, by changing “regimes”, by setting up non-democracies throughout the world.[1]

President Assad was elected, democratically[2], by his own people. None of the invading Western-supported terrorists were elected by Syrians.  In fact, when terrorists occupy areas, elections are forbidden. Likewise, the uninvited terrorists, including the Western militaries, are the ones murdering and bombing and gassing Syrian citizens.  Assad and legitimate associated armed forces are protecting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity not destroying it, as Western Newspeak would have us believe.

President Maduro, too, was democratically[3] elected.  The Western-supported aspiring puppet dictator Guaido, on the other hand, appointed himself interim President, with Washington’s blessing.  He didn’t even run for the office of President. Government and media messaging that suggests that he is a legitimate alternative to President Maduro amounts to war propaganda, and is part of a conspiracy to destroy Venezuela and impose the death sentence on countless Venezuelans (should an invasion occur), just as the Regime Change war against Syria has imposed death and disaster upon countless innocent Syrians.

Humberto Da Silva, Toronto, ON., February 23, 2019.

When Regime Change dictators “win”, puppet dictators, vassals to international diktats, also win, and terrorism wins. International law, sustainable political economies, and democracy, all lose.

*

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

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

Notes

[1] Nicolas J.S. Davies, “America’s Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953.” AlterNet, 8 April, 2014. (https://www.alternet.org/2014/04/americas-coup-machine-destroying-democracy-1953/?fbclid=IwAR0Immo0i3WH0TurBbFti15yrBiRYXA3SLSnILL3IyGm0kiOdTrZaZxQV6k#.XHWtzDuMujA.facebook)Accessed 27 February, 2019.

[2] Steven MacMillan, “Bashar al-Assad: The Democratically Elected President of Syria.” NEO New Eastern Outlook, 20 December, 2015.( https://journal-neo.org/2015/12/20/bashar-al-assad-the-democratically-elected-president-of-syria/) Accessed 27 February, 2019.

[3] Mark Taliano, “Venezuela, and Canada’s Duplicitous Criminality.” Global Research, 29 January, 2019. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-canadas-duplicitous-criminality/5666689) Accessed 27 February, 2019.

---

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

While US President Donald Trump is in the Vietnamese capital for a second summit with the north Korean leader, his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen testified before US congress.

Michael Cohen offered explanations mainly regarding three cases, the WikiLeaks-hacked Democratic emails, hush money paid to an adult film star and a Russia skyscraper project. He then called president Trump a conman, racist and cheat offering evidence to prove his claims while feeling embarrassed for having done lots of wrong things for him and concealing his illicit acts.

Watch the debate between Michel Chossudovsky, Director of Centre for Research on Globalization Montreal, and Mike Harris, Editor of Veterans Today Phoenix on PressTV.

*

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

Do personalities matter; or do they dissolve in the sea of circumstance?

The Atlantic alliance set sail on a collision course with Venezuela before Trump’s improbable election;

Then Trump’s dilettantish, dreadful selection of subordinates generated an additional, autonomous impetus to war.

*

The Venezuelan War council consists of:

(a) Vice President, Mike Pence;

(b) Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo;

(c) National Security Advisor, John Bolton;

(d) Special Representative for Venezuela, Elliot Abrams; and

(e) USAID Administrator, Mark Green.

Pence was a Congressman from Indiana from 2001 to 2013. The Tea Party wave floated Pompeo through four Congressional elections in the 4^th district of Kansas. Green won four victories in Wisconsin’s 8^th district; then narrowly lost the 2006 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. Pence won the 2012 Indiana gubernatorial election. Abrams and Bolton are bureaucrats.

They’ve all got religion. Abrams wrote four books on faith. Pence and Pompeo are born Catholics, born-again Evangelicals. Pompeo is a deacon and Sunday school teacher. Pence’s Christian-based traditionalism explains his electoral success. Green, a Catholic, relied on pro-lifers for an electoral base. Congressman Green championed religious freedom, particularly overseas. Bolton, although a Lutheran, cultivated ties with Armageddonist, pro-Israel elements from the Bible Belt.

With birth-years ranging from 1948 to 1963, Cold War anti-communism molded each man. Abrams, especially, plays the Red Scare card, and justifies his Central American crimes as necessary lesser evils. Pompeo associated with a website that called Obama an “evil Muslim communist.” Venezuela’s United Socialist Party naturally became their communal grindstone.

Pompeo, Bolton and Green have working class roots. Abrams’ father was a lawyer. Pence’s father, himself of humble origins, prospered as vice president of a mid-sized Midwestern gasoline retailer.

Except for Pompeo, all professionally immersed themselves in politics while in their twenties. Pompeo earned an engineering degree in the Army and later managed manufacturing plants in Kansas. He first ran for Congress aged 37. All five are lawyers.

Bolton, Pompeo, Pence (image right)

Abrams started amidst elitist Democrats like Daniel Moynihan. By 1980 he was a Reagan man. The rest are Republican lifers. Bolton led his high school’s Young Republicans for Goldwater club.

But for Trump’s triumph none would hold top government posts. Two years ago, except for Green, none dreamed they might soon be elbows deep in Venezuelan intrigue.

They do possess impressive foreign policy creds. From 2003 to 2013 Pence sat on the House International Relations Committee (HIRC, later Foreign Affairs). Pompeo sat on the Intelligence Committee and the Sub-Committee on the CIA. Green spent 6 years on the HIRC.

Thereafter Green served as Ambassador to Tanzania then spooled through aid philanthropies for several years culminating in his 2014 appointment to the presidency of the International Republican Institute (IRI). He left IRI to become Trump’s USAID Administrator. At IRI Green survielled and discussed Venezuelan domestic affairs.

IRI is one of several overlapping departments and quangos that assumed much of the skullduggery which had been the CIA’s preserve during the Cold War. This consortium includes: USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, National Democratic Institute, plus a dozen European counterparts and likeminded foundations.

This consortium’s political component channels $1 billion annually. It employs a few thousand Western professionals and several times that number across targeted countries. They’ve executed coups in Haiti, Honduras and the Ukraine. The Polish ruling party is indebted to them as were the Arab Spring’s instigators. They have financed Venezuela’s opposition for 20 years.

Green is key because the Venezuelan War’s preliminary bouts consist mainly of using USAID shipments to: dramatize the plight of Venezuelans; embarrass Venezuela’s government; empower oppositionists; provoke conflict; and smuggle weapons. Green has established airport bases at: Boa Vista, Brazil; Cucuta, Colombia; and on three Dutch-controlled islands off Venezuela’s coast (Curacao, Aruba and Bonaire). Green shuttles between these locales and USAID depots in Miami, Houston and Puerto Rico.

Abrams is the old-hand at re-purposing humanitarian aid, human rights propaganda, and democracy movements. He was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs from 1981 to 1985. As Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (1985-89) Abrams micromanaged terror campaigns in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala.

In Guatemala Abrams aided and abetted General Rios Montt’s slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians; crimes the UN-endorsed Commission on Historical Clarification defined as “genocidal.” In Nicaragua Abrams smuggled weapons inside humanitarian aid shipments. Regarding El Salvador Abrams covered-up the El Mozote massacre and Archbishop Romero’s assassination.

Abrams is a shameless liar. He was convicted of lying to Congress regarding Iran-Contra. In a letter to the New York Times denying Guatemalan atrocities Abrams fabricated evidence from whole cloth. Examples abound.

Abrams vanished in the 1990s only to re-appear as Bush’s “Democracy Czar.” In 2001 he became the NSC’s Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations. From 2005 to 2009 he was Deputy NSA for Global Democracy Strategy. Abrams figured prominently in Venezuela’s failed 2002 coup.

Abrams deploys democratic rationales where possible but routinely defends autocratic allies. Rather than debate critics who call out his hypocrisy, he accuses them of being commie spies. He had one critic deported.

Abrams knows the short-comings of velvet revolutions. He spent decades trying to topple Sandinistas, Chavistas and Castroites; and their still standing. Thus, Abrams repeatedly calls for dispensing with formalities and militarily smashing Nicaragua, Iran et al.

At Pompeo’s suggestion Trump named Abrams: Special Representative for Venezuela. (Abrams began work January 25, 2019.) He’s a PR catastrophe. This cross between Bela Lugosi and Adolf Eichmann may be the most reviled man in the Latin Caribbean.

Pompeo was Trump’s CIA Director until Tillerson’s untimely departure created an opening at State. Pompeo’s expansion of the CIA’s drone assassination program coincided with a drone assassination attempt on Venezuelan President Maduro.

Aged 24, Bolton interned under Vice President Agnew. He passed his next 15 years intermittently as a lawyer and persistently as a think-tank gadfly. In 1997 he joined the American Enterprise Institute. In 2001 Bush named him Under-Secretary State for Arms Control. During a 2005 Senate recess Bush made him UN Ambassador. When the recess ended, Bolton exited. He parlayed this brush with glory into a $500,000-a-year gig as Fox News’s in-house war-hawk bobble-head. Neither Bolton nor Abrams supported Trump. (All three evaded service in the Vietnam War.)

Bolton is another liar. He lied about Cuba’s bio-weapons program. He lied about Iraq’s nuclear program then lied about telling those lies. Bolton practises “politics disguised as intelligence” i.e. choosing outcomes then distorting intelligence findings to facilitate those outcomes. Bolton withholds facts from superiors. In truthful slip-ups Bolton confesses to a perceived duty to lie.

For reasons untold Trump delegated the Venezuela file to Pence who for reasons untold embraced it with ardour. The composition of Pence’s cabal guarantees war. All are blinkered holier-than-thou Red Scare cranks. Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams habitually monger unilateral pre-emptive aggression. Delusional group-think already manifests in collective denial of Maduro’s formidable domestic and international support.

Now the scary part. The resolve to do unto Venezuela as has been done unto Syria emerged not from Trump’s Administration. No, this agenda arose from Democrats and their European overlords. Thus, the Mad Hatter’s party over which Pence presides hatches its war plans absent any check or balance. Uneasy layeth the head.

*

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

Beginning in the early decades of the 15^th century the African continent faced an unprecedented onslaught where human traffickers and colonizers sought to conquer the people for the purpose of labor exploitation, strategic territorial advantage and the plunder of natural resources.

Prior to this period, Western Europe had not been the center of the world system which was based in the Indian Ocean basin spanning from the North, West, South and East of Africa extending through Asia to the South Pacific. For nearly six centuries this clash for supremacy has resulted in the transformation of international relations, sharp divisions within the dynamics of political power along with the domination of global markets for the benefit of Western Europe and its outgrowth in North America.

After the beginning of the slave trade there was the founding of outposts and colonies in Africa and other regions of the world. In the Western Hemisphere the conditions were conducive for the development of large-scale plantations where agricultural commodities were produced for export into the burgeoning capitalist markets which were controlled by Western Europeans. The conditions under which the indigenous peoples and Africans were forced to labor under breed resistance to this horrendous form of exploitation and oppression.

With specific reference to the African people brought to North America, Central America, the Caribbean and South America, the aim on the part of the enslavers and colonizers was to break the will to oppose the slave system. This was never done successfully due to the fact that there were many forms of resistance including flight, work stoppages and slow-downs, compounded by small and large-scale rebellions.

In Brazil as early as the 17^th century there was the advent of the Quilombos representing independent African communities established by runaway formerly enslaved people. The Maroon communities of the Caribbean were also a case in point representing the rejection of Africans to the slave system managed through the process of colonization.

In the United States there were indeed many instances of flight from enslavement. This is documented through the innumerable ads placed in newspapers offering rewards for information on the whereabouts of escaped Africans. There existed detention facilities exclusively designed for the purpose of holding runaways where further repressive measures were enacted to demoralize those who sought freedom from bondage.

On an institutional level it is important to recognize that in the U.S. the earliest mutual aid societies and churches called themselves first and foremost African. The First African Baptist Churches in Georgia, Virginia and South Carolina were formed during the latter decades of the 18^th century.

Later in the Northeast state of Pennsylvania during the late 1770s and 1780s, Blacks who were no longer enslaved created the Free African Society in Philadelphia. These efforts would later lead to the establishment of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in the 1790s through the early years of the 19^th century. This church would spread first in the slave state of South Carolina where in Charleston the second major congregation, Mother Emanuel founded in 1816, was accused of being the staging ground for a planned rebellion led by Denmark Vessey in 1822.

The Founding of Sierra Leone and Liberia

Thousands of enslaved Africans fled from their owners during the American War of Independence particularly after the British occupation of Charleston, South Carolina.  The English military forces promised freedom to Africans in exchange for their loyalty to the Crown.

More Africans fought on the side of the British during the separatist war than did for the army led by George Washington seeking to break away from London. After the defeat of the English, thousands of these Africans were evacuated from Charleston and New York in what became known as the U.S., to Nova Scotia in Canada. Conditions were harsh and some of the European loyalists were allowed to keep enslaved Africans in bondage.

However, by late 1780s others had been taken to London where they suffered from poverty and racism. The Sierra Leone Company eventually took 4,000 “Black Loyalists” to settle back in West Africa where many of them were captured during the Atlantic Slave Trade. Even under these circumstances as subjects to the British colonial system, many were not free from harassment by slave traders and recapture.

Liberia was another nation formed in West Africa in order to resettle freed Africans. The area was acquired by Rev. Robert Finley of New Jersey and missionary Samuel John Mills of Connecticut, the co-founders of the American Colonization Society in 1816. These European Americans, who were supported by both liberal and conservative elements in the U.S., believed that Africans freed from bondage would not be able to enjoy full equality.

The repatriation of over 4,000 Africans from the U.S. and the Caribbean served as the demographic base for the founding of Liberia in 1822. Nonetheless, the lack of support for these inhabitants of the territory resulted in huge mortality rates and desertions. By 1847, the settlement of Liberia was encouraged to declare independence although U.S. political and economic dominance has remained until the present period.

Many Africans were intrigued by the idea of repatriation in light of the protracted struggle to end slavery and the precarious status of those considered free. Edward Wilmot Blyden (image on the right) was one such person. Blyden was born in St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands then controlled by Denmark. He was encouraged by American missionary John Knox to pursue higher education in the U.S.

Blyden was rebuffed by several theological colleges. He eventually traveled to Sierra Leone to teach for several years and then to Liberia in 1850, where he served as a journalist, educator and government official.

Blyden’s writings on religion, African culture and emigration placed him in the position of being described as the “Father of Pan-Africanism.” His ideas influenced the likes of Henry Sylvester Williams, Marcus Garvey and Kwame Nkrumah. He is credited with developing the concept of the “African Personality” which was widely advanced by the Ghana government of Nkrumah during the 1950s and 1960s.

Pan-Africanism and the Awakening in the 20^th Century

As a writer and public intellectual Blyden’s work was reflective of many others who played a pivotal role in the consciousness of African people during the latter decades of the 19^th century and early 20^th century. A series of Pan-African gatherings beginning in Chicago in 1893 to the conference in London in 1900, extending through the founding of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (African Communities League) by Marcus Garvey in 1914 and the convening of the Pan-African Congresses by Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois from 1919 to 1927, provided the ideological foundations of the national liberation movements and unification efforts.

By the time of the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, England in October 1945, which brought together luminaries such as Du Bois, George Padmore, Amy Ashwood Garvey, Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Ras Makonnen, among others, the political situation was ripe for a major campaign against colonialism and imperialism. All through the late 1940s until the mid-1990s, most African and Caribbean states gained their independence from direct European domination. In the U.S., African Americans waged a decades-long struggle for civil rights, human rights and self-determination resulting in the passage of legislation in 1957, 1964, 1965 and 1968, which ostensibly guaranteed the right to an existence absent of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion and national origins.

Kwame Nkrumah and Fathia with the Du Boises, Aug. 1963

However, the struggle continues against exploitation and oppression as efforts are well underway aimed at the recolonization of Africa and the Caribbean, as well as the reversal of the legal gains related to the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution. Successive judicial rulings and state legislative measures have eroded the legal force of the Civil Rights bills of the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S.

In the 21^st century Africans from around the world must recognize the interconnectivity of their plight under the yoke of modern-day imperialism. Organizations aimed at the renewal of the international character of the Black struggle will inevitably be revitalized in order to complete the movement for genuine independence, political unity and economic justice.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

Let this be a lesson to its detractors, doubters and stuff shirts of the secrecy establishment: the documents sourced from WikiLeaks can have tangible, having significant value for ideas and causes. They can advance matters of the curious; they can confirm instances of the outrageous and they can add to those fabulous claims that might change history.  While Julian Assange and the publishing organisation have been sniped at for being, at various instances, dangerous, unduly challenging and even less than significant (odd no?), its documentary legacy grows. 

Nowhere has there been a tangible demonstration of this than the issue of litigation.  With gradual but relentless commitment, advocates and activists have been introducing documents obtained from WikiLeaks into court proceedings.  The judicial benches have not always been consistent on how best to cope with the adducing of such matters.  Would, for instance, a document obtained improperly still be relevant in proceedings?  Or should be excluded on grounds of confidentiality?  This state of affairs sits oddly with reality, but then again, the law is more often a fiction that resists reality. 

The technological imperative here should be obvious.  Such documents lose their factual character of confidence the moment they appear on the website, however obtained.  Millions have the means to access it, even if, legally, the document might retain a certain character.  In this regard, state officials remain jealous of their secrets and their correspondence, keen to ensure that prying publics are kept in the necessary dark.

The case of removing the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago is a particularly ugly one, deeply mired in political considerations and diplomatic intrigue.  The islands, located some 1,800 kilometres from Mauritius, became part of an arrangement between Britain and the United States, the latter particularly keen to acquire a military base in the area, the former keen to be in the good books as Greek advisor to all-powerful Rome.   

In 1965, with cards firmly kept to their chests, British diplomats disaggregated the Chagos Islands from Mauritius.  Mauritius, in turn, received four million pounds for the favour.  This underhanded arrangement became the prelude for the removal of all 3,000 occupants from the Islands.  The UK Permanent Under-Secretary overseeing the sordid business was intent on being brutal, suggesting in 1966 with all the crudeness of an ethnic cleanser that Britain be “tough about this.  The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a Committee (the Status of Women does not cover the rights of Birds).” 

The hand written note appended by D.A. Greenhill on August 24, 1966 on the same document was filled with lashings of vulgarity: “along with the birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays” who had to be moved on.  Once done, “we must be very tough and a submission is being done accordingly.”  What followed was a forced eviction of the inhabitants and the construction of the US base on Diego Garcia. 

This nastiness proved perennial.  The Chagossians took up their claims of return, including unacknowledged fishing rights, badgering the UK government repeatedly in their efforts.  One ploy adopted by the good officials in Her Majesty’s Government was its attempt to turn the area of claim, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, into a marine park or reserve. 

This is where WikiLeaks proved particularly valuable, with cables clearly outlining the improper and frustrating motive of UK officials.  This wily and heinous move, went one summary on May 15, 2009 of a discussion conducted by US political counsellor Richard Mills at the Foreign Office, would make it “difficult if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve.”  The assent of the United States would also be required – a mere formality. 

That cable in question became the subject of a legal claim by the Chagossians that wound its way through the British legal system, culminating in two approvals of the use of WikiLeaks cables, the first being the Court of Appeal in 2014, and the second being before the UK Supreme Court in 2018. The latter duly acknowledged that the principle of inviolability would normally “make it impermissible to use such documents or copies in a domestic court of the host country” except in extraordinary circumstances or instances of a waiver by the mission state. In this case, the cable in question did not form part of the London Embassy archive, meaning it could be used in court proceedings.  Even more significantly, the very fact that it came into the public domain “even in circumstances where the document can be shown to have been wrongly extracted from the mission archive” destroyed its inviolability.

Such proceedings formed part of a momentum that saw the UK referred to the International Court of Justice via vote in the United Nations in 2017.  Many European states that might have voted for the UK decided to abstain, a result of Brexit fever.  The ICJ duly found that “the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.”  Accordingly, the UK was “under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.”

The UK Foreign Office has been snooty in response.  This island dot continues to irk, worry, and gets under the skin of the establishment. “This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment.”  Besides, “The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help to protect people here in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats, organised crime and piracy.”  When in a tight corner, always aspire to universal relevance and importance.  In the meantime, the fortunes of the Chagossians, and international opinion, have turned.

*

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]

US Vice President Mike Pence delivered a bellicose speech before representatives of 14 Latin American countries at a meeting of the Lima Group in Bogotá, Colombia, yesterday. The remarks were timed to coincide with the US-orchestrated provocations at the Venezuelan border over the weekend, resulting in clashes that left several people dead.

Pence rehashed phrases plagiarized from speeches given by George W. Bush in the run-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, combining them with denunciations of socialism.

“There is no turning back,” Pence said. “All options are on the table.”

“A new day is coming in Latin America,” he continued. “In Venezuela and across the Western hemisphere, socialism is dying and liberty, prosperity and democracy are being reborn before our eyes.”

Pence issued an ultimatum to the Venezuelan military, threatening that if it did not overthrow Maduro,

“You will find no safe harbor, no easy exit, no way out. You will lose everything.”

Pence announced that the US would place added sanctions on officials in the Venezuelan government and called on the right-wing governments of Latin America to “transfer ownership of Venezuelan assets in your country” to the government of US puppet Juan Guaidó.

In other words, the US is conducting cross-hemispheric highway robbery.

In his speech, Pence gave several justifications for intensifying US war threats against Venezuela. Venezuela exploits indigenous tribes, damages the environment through oil exploration and impoverishes its population, Pence said.

These claims would be laughable were it not for the seriousness of the threats. The United States is the world’s worst offender in each of these departments.

Particularly disgusting was Pence’s attack on Venezuela for refusing “shelter for those displaced” immigrants along its border.

The Washington Post wrote that Pence “embraced a sobbing elderly man,” an immigrant waiting to enter Venezuela. The Post reporters, tears welling in their eyes, wrote that Pence “told the man in English, ‘We are with you.’”

The Post report made no mention of the thousands of immigrants currently sleeping on the streets in Mexican cities along the US-Mexico border after the US barred them from entering the country to apply for asylum.

Simultaneous with this weekend’s planned confrontation, the US military escalated its war plans. CNN reported that

“the US military has flown an increased number of reconnaissance flights in international airspace off the coast of Venezuela during the last several days to gather classified intelligence” in possible preparation for a military intervention.

On Saturday, Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Rosselló reported that the Venezuelan military threatened to “open fire” on an American ship that entered Venezuelan territorial waters without permission. Though the ship was registered in Vanuatu, it was flying under a US flag in violation of international maritime law. US officials claim the ship was carrying 200 tons of “humanitarian aid.”

Venezuelan officials allege that US “humanitarian aid” includes weapons shipments to Colombia. Last Wednesday, Colombian armed forces leader Maj. Gen. Luis Navarro Jiménez traveled to Florida, where he met with leaders of US Southern Command.

The Washington Post wrote yesterday that behind the scenes in Bogotá, Guaidó “sought assurances that the United States could use force if necessary.” Venezuelan right-wing opposition leader Julio Borges tweeted Sunday that the opposition “will urge for an escalation of diplomatic pressure and the use of force against the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro.”

President Trump has long privately expressed his interest in waging war on Venezuela. In his recently published book, former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe reports that Trump once brought up Venezuela in his presence, saying,

“That’s the country we should be going to war with. They have all that oil and they’re right on our back door.”

The bellicose mood in Washington was exemplified by a reckless Washington Post opinion article published yesterday by Francisco Toro, who leads the think tank “Group of 50,” founded by a former World Bank official with the backing of the imperialist Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Despite the article’s title, “With US military action, Venezuela could become the Libya of the Caribbean,” Toro makes the case for pushing the region to the brink of war. Last weekend’s border confrontation “moved military action to dislodge the Venezuelan regime from fringe speculation to serious policy discussion,” Toro writes.

The Venezuelan military, he continues, is “unlikely to rebel against Maduro unless they calculate US military action is genuinely imminent… The best solution now, then, is a strategy designed to convince Venezuela’s generals that, unless they topple Maduro in short order, they’ll be bombed out of existence—a message that should be delivered by people who understand actually bombing them out of existence would be a disaster. What the United States needs to do, in other words, is bluff, by taking further steps that raise Venezuelan generals’ perception of a threat.”

The article concludes: “God help us all.”

This incendiary strategy has the bipartisan support of the US political establishment. As former Bush administration official José Cárdenas wrote in Foreign Policy:

“US policy toward Venezuela has enjoyed a bipartisan consensus in Congress through successive administrations. Democrats such as Sen. Bob Menendez, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Rep. Eliot Engel, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have been active critics of the breakdown in Venezuelan democracy over the years.”

It is not certain, however, that the US will be able to line up its allies behind its threats of military intervention. The increased threats of war have deepened divisions between Washington and its allies in the region and in Europe.

While the Lima Group declaration called for the immediate resignation of Maduro, it also noted that “the transition to democracy should be conducted by the Venezuelans themselves peacefully… by political and diplomatic means, without the use of force.”

Brazil’s vice president, Hamilton Mourão, said Monday from Bogotá that “a military option was never an option” for Brazil, and that “we advocate for no intervention.” The foreign minister of Spain, Josep Borrell, told the Efe news agency on Sunday, “We have clearly warned that we would not support—and would roundly condemn—any foreign military intervention.”

Despite support from the governments of the region and in Europe for the US regime-change operation, these statements reflect concerns that the US is proceeding with a degree of recklessness that risks throwing the entire hemisphere into an unprecedented level of chaos.

The Trump administration has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, now scheduled for Tuesday. The US will likely use the opportunity to denounce Russia and China, which are likely to exercise their veto power as permanent members to block a pseudo-legal international fig leaf to US imperialism’s machinations in South America.

*

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: Guaido (left) with Pence (right) (Reuters/L. Gonzalez)

The China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has confirmed  “the discovery of a high-quality and high-yield oil” in the Bohai Sea with   proven reserves of natural gas exceeding 100 billion cubic meters. (see RT News)

In chapter 11 of his book, Adults in the Room Yanis Varoufakis tells how he arranged the sale of the third container terminal of the Port of Piraeus to the Chinese corporation Cosco who manage the other two quays since 2008. As Varoufakis explains himself, Syriza had promised, before the elections, that they would not further privatize the port of Piraeus. Varoufakis says “From 2008 to 2015 Syriza had campaigned not only to prevent this but to evacuate Cosco altogether”. He adds “a couple of my fellow cabinet ministers owed their election to parliament to this campaign”. [1] Varoufakis nevertheless hastened to conclude a deal with Cosco. He had the help of one of Tsipras’ principal advisers, Spyros Sagias, who until the previous year had been a legal advisor to Cosco. There was a blatant conflict of interest here, which Varoufakis acknowledges. It was in fact Sagias’ firm that produced the first deals for Cosco in 2008. Sagias had also been adviser, in the 1990s, to PASOK Prime Minister Konstantinos Simitis who launched the first big wave of privatizations. In 2016, after leaving his post as government secretary to Tsipras, Sagias went zealously back to his firm and back into Cosco’s service. [2]Varoufakis shamelessly tells how he reviewed the public offer in March 2015 to ensure that it was what Cosco wanted: “Sagias and I briefed Alexis [Tsipras] and began preparations. The intention was to restart the formal bidding process under the new conditions that the Chinese government had accepted”. [3]

This is how Varoufakis summarizes the offer he made to Beijing through the Chinese ambassador in Athens:

“Greece has a highly educated workforce, yet wages have fallen by 40 per cent. Why not get companies like Foxconn to build production and assembly facilities in a tech park enjoying a special business tax regime in an area close to Piraeus?” (p. 312).

This proposal contains all the arguments used by neoliberal governments to attract investment: qualified manpower on the cheap and tax breaks for the investors.

Varoufakis writes that he suggested to the Chinese authorities that they purchase the Greek railways as an easy access to the rest of the European market and as a new link in their modern Silk Road project. This proposal, however, did not work out. [4] The offers Varoufakis made to the Chinese were very contentious: borrow from China to pay the IMF! Abandon control over its railways; then follow up with more privatizations!

Varoufakis had hoped to convince the Chinese government, in March 2015, to purchase Greek Government treasury bills (Tbs) to a value of several billion euros, the product of which he hoped to use to pay IMF instalments. To Varoufakis’s great disappointment the Chinese leaders did not keep their promises; they purchased only one hundred million euros on each of two occasions. Berlin had warned the Chinese off: someone from Berlin had apparently called Beijing with a blunt message: “Stay out of any deals with the Greeks until we are finished with them”. [5]

Finally, the agreement with Cosco was not settled by Varoufakis. It happened at the beginning of 2016 with conditions that Varoufakis says are even more favourable to Cosco than what he had offered. [6] This indicates that the Chinese authorities had in fact come to agreement with Berlin to let Greece be stifled in exchange for richer pickings later. Chinese, German, Italian and French corporations, among others, acquired Greek assets for a song. In any case, if the Chinese had kept their promises to purchase Greek Tbs in 2015 as Varoufakis had hoped that would certainly not have benefited the Greek people or helped them retain some measure of sovereignty.

The Russians also rejected Greece’s request for help. They were contacted by Tsipras and Lafazanis shortly after Varoufakis’s contacts with Beijing. [7] Vladimir Putin negotiated with Angela Merkel for the EU to soften its reprisals against Russia on the Ukrainian issue in exchange for Russia stepping back from helping Greece.

Varoufakis and Tsipras’ hopes of help from Obama were also dashed. According to Varoufakis the Obama administration made it clear that Greece was part of Berlin’s sphere of influence and Obama himself recommended that Greece make concessions to the Troika. [8]

“Let Greece breathe”, at a London demonstration in solidarity, February 2015

Varoufakis’s and Tsipras’ secret diplomacy and misleading information

Varoufakis tells his version of the Eurogroup meeting that followed the 20 February capitulation that was falsely presented to the Greek people as a success that resulted in the end of the Troika and debtors prison for Greece. During this meeting Varoufakis did not obtain a single concession from the European leaders, the ECB or the IMF. Varoufakis clearly lays the blame for the “success” story on Tsipras whom, he reports, said: “We are spinning it as a success: political negotiations to commence in Brussels along the lines of the 20^th February agreement in order to end the impasse”. [9]

What is most noticeable is how much time Varoufakis and Tsipras spent in ceaselessly meeting abroad, taking part in negotiations in which they made concessions whilst the Troika methodically plodded on in its task of destroying the hopes of the Greek people. It did not occur to either of them to consult the Greek people, to organize meetings with the Greek population to explain what was really going on, to tell the voters of the measures they proposed in response to the humanitarian crisis and to give a boost to the economy.

Neither Varoufakis nor Tsipras sought to create contact with international public opinion, to create a movement of international solidarity with the Greek people. Never did they take the time, when in Brussels or in any other capital, to directly address the many activists who wanted to know what was happening and to show their solidarity with the Greek people.

Varoufakis and Tsipras are guilty of not developing massive and active solidarity. In order to have great waves of citizens moving in favour of the Greek people it was necessary to call for it, and to inform the people of, and counter, the massive smear campaign directed against the Greek people as well as the Greek government.

Varoufakis and the IMF

On 12 February 2015, Greece paid €747.7 million for one of the loans granted by the IMF in the context of the first MoU. It was a serious mistake. They should have defaulted on this debt for two reasons: 1. the state of necessity [10] in which the Greek government found itself and the urgency to give priority to fighting the humanitarian crisis; 2. the launch of an audit of the debt with citizens’ participation, during which payments had to be suspended. [11] This audit could be justified by Regulation 472/2013 of the European Union, which says that “A Member State subject to a macroeconomic adjustment programme shall carry out a comprehensive audit of its public finances in order, inter alia, to assess the reasons that led to the building up of excessive levels of debt as well as to track any possible irregularity.” [12] Neither Varoufakis nor Tsipras ever seriously considered suspending payments during an audit process aimed at assessing whether the debt claimed was legitimate or not, odious or not.

It would have been possible for the government to start a communications campaign to delegitimize the IMF loans to Greece from 2010 onward. Tsipras and Varoufakis had in their hands the secret IMF files that testified to the odious and illegitimate nature of those loans. The problem was that Varoufakis was convinced that it did not make sense to refer to the illegitimate and odious nature of loans to Greece.

The Wall Street Journal had made the secret IMF files public as early as October 2012, as mentioned in a previous article Greece: Leaders’ Ambivalence regarding debt and the financial system, even though resistance started on a promising note. A few days after their publication, I had met Tsipras to discuss the possibility of collaborating with the CADTM to carry out an audit of the debt. I told him and John Milios, his economic advisor at the time: “That gives you a solid reason to challenge the IMF. If there is proof that the IMF knew that its programme would fail and that the debt would not be sustainable, there is enough evidence for us to wage war against the illegitimacy and illegality of the debt”. [13] Tsipras replied, “But look here… the IMF keeps its distance from the European Commission.” [14] I could see that he thought the IMF could support Syriza if it came to power. There was no solid basis for this assumption.

In February 2015, Tsipras and Varoufakis were still stuck in those vain hopes. They thought they could coax the IMF, notably counting on Barack Obama’s support and on the influence of the US advisors Varoufakis had chosen, namely Jeffrey Sachs and Larry Summers. They were wrong. Varoufakis had the first evidence of this on 20 February, and in the following days, when Christine Lagarde, the IMF Managing Director, told the Eurogroup that the current MoU had to be carried out.

In spite of this obviously hostile attitude on the part of the IMF, Varoufakis and Tsipras went along with further repayments to the IMF through the month of March 2015. Varoufakis explains that he paid the IMF €301.8 million on 6 March, €339.6 million on 13 March, €565.9 million on 16 March and €339.6 million on 20 March. Altogether, more than €1,500 million were paid in March, which drained all available liquidities, while Varoufakis’ hope of finding funding in China had vanished and the ECB had confirmed that it would not pay the interest owed to Greece on the bonds it had bought between 2010 and 2012, and that it would not restore Greek banks’ normal access to liquidities. Yet the Greek government desperately needed the money it paid to the IMF in order to fight the humanitarian crisis and create jobs. Varoufakis writes, “It was a miracle that my ministry managed to find that €1.5 billion for the IMF while also meeting our obligations to civil servants and pensioners.” [15]

The decision to suspend debt payments to the IMF

Varoufakis records a surrealistic meeting between Tsipras and his main ministers on Friday 3 April 2015. Before the meeting he tried to persuade Tsipras not to go ahead with the next payment to the IMF scheduled for 9 April 2015 (€462.5 million). He argued that they had to put pressure on the European leaders and the ECB to get something from them such as the retrocession to Greece of the two billion euros of profits the ECB had made on 2010-2012 Greek bonds, since they had not managed to get anything in March. Varoufakis says he felt he had failed to persuade Tsipras. He records Tsipras’ words and behaviour during the “informal council of ministers” [16] that ensued:

“Confined to a grim assessment of a process that was evidently going nowhere, the more he talked the greater the gloom in the room. By the time he had concluded, there was a leaden atmosphere of resignation. Every minister who contributed to the ensuing discussion spoke in a distinct tone of melancholy. Once everyone who wanted to had spoken, Alexis took the floor again to wrap up the meeting. He began much as he had ended his introductory speech – slow, subdued, almost depressed – recounting how difficult the situation was and the dangers involved, but gradually he picked up a little in speed and buoyancy.

“ ‘Before you all came in, I was talking with Varoufakis in my office. He was trying to convince me that it is time to default to the IMF. He was telling me that they are showing no signs of wanting to compromise so that a difficult but decent agreement, one that is economically viable and politically manageable for us, can be reached. I explained to him that this is not the right time to default. (…) But you know what, comrades? I think he is right. Enough is enough. We have been playing by their rules. We accepted their process. We bent over backwards to show them that we are willing to compromise. And all they did was to delay us and then blame us for the delay. Greece is still a sovereign country and we, the cabinet, have the duty to say, “Enough!” Then, rising from his chair and with his voice growing louder, he pointed at me and bellowed, ‘Not only are we going to default but you are going to get on a plane, go to Washington and tell the lady in person that we shall default on the IMF!’

“The room erupted with cheers. Colleagues looked at one another for confirmation of what they had heard, fully recognizing its historic nature. The gloom and darkness vanished as if a curtain had been ripped back on a sunny day. Like everyone else but perhaps more, much more, I allowed myself a moment of elation. At that moment it felt like the nearest thing to a sublime Eucharist a bunch of atheists can experience.” [17]

Varoufakis’ silence on the Truth Committee on Public Debt

The continuation of this story is both farcical and outrageous. Varoufakis left next day for Washington via Munich for an emergency meeting with Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF. While he records at length his meeting on 3 April and when he met Lagarde on 5 April, there is not a word about a meeting he attended on 4 April. This is significant since on that day the Truth Committee on Greek Public Debt was inaugurated at the Hellenic Parliament in the presence of Alexis Tsipras, Zoe Konstantopoulou, President of the Hellenic Parliament, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, President of the Republic and of ten ministers among whom was Yanis Varoufakis, who spoke (See 4 April 2015: a landmark in the search for the truth about the Greek debt ). I was the scientific coordinator of the Committee and I spoke just after the President of the Republic and the President of the Hellenic Parliament and before three of my colleagues on the Committee and Varoufakis.

In fact, in his detailed book, Varoufakis completely ignores the very existence of the Committee to which he had pledged his support. Although he claims on his blog and in interviews he gave after the book’s publication that he supported the Committee, this is totally untrue.

Alexis Tsipras, Eric Toussaint and Zoe Konstantopoulou during the presentation of the Committee’s report in the Greek Parliament 17 June 2015

What is also significant in my view is that George Katrougalos, a member of the government, did not even know about the meeting on 3 April when suspension of debt payments to the IMF was decided. I was with him at his ministry while it was taking place. In the night of that same day I had a long meeting with the President of the Hellenic Parliament to fine-tune to the last details the Committee’s inaugural session, and she didn’t know about it either. Panagiotis Lafazanis, one of the six ‘super-ministers’ (as Tsipras called them), had not been invited either. This testifies to the way Tsipras and his circle function: key decisions were made secretly, in small groups, without consulting most members of the government, or the President of Parliament or the Syriza leaders.

We should also highlight that the Committee’s work for Truth on the debt had a deep impact on the Greek population, as I can personally testify. Many people came to me and conveyed their support and gratitude when I was walking in the streets of Athens or shopping in the local market of the popular district where I lived from April to July 2015. This is evidence that many were following the work of the Committee and could identify its members, who were systematically vilified by the right-wing media.

Tragedy is only a flight away from farce

Let us go back to Varoufakis’ narrative. When he arrived in Washington D. C. on Sunday 5 April Tsipras reversed his previous instruction. Here is the dialogue between Tsipras and Varoufakis as recorded in the latter’s book:

“ Tsipras:‘Look, Yani,’ he said, ‘we’ve decided that we’re not going to default, not yet.’ Flabbergasted, I asked, ‘Who’s “we”? Who decided that “we” won’t default?’ Alexis, sounding coy, said, ‘Me, Sagias, Dragasakis… we decided that it’s not the right move just before Easter.’

‘Thanks for telling me,’ I replied, fuming and dejected. Adopting as cool and dispassionate a tone as I could, I asked, ‘So what do I do now? Get on the same plane and return? What’s the point of seeing Lagarde now?’

‘No, you must hold the meeting. You must go ahead as we agreed. Go in there and tell the lady that we’ll default.’

It was the most absurd thing I have probably ever heard. I cannot be hearing this right, I told myself. I needed clarification. ‘What do you mean? Tell her that we’ll default even though you’ve decided that we won’t be defaulting?’

‘Yes,’ said Alexis. ‘Threaten her so that she gets anxious enough to call Draghi and push him to stop the liquidity squeeze. Then we’ll reciprocate by announcing that we’re not defaulting to the IMF.’” [18]

And Varoufakis accepted to play mas’ at the IMF seat and told Lagarde “I am authorized to inform you that in four days’ time we shall default on our scheduled repayment to the IMF, as long as our creditors continue to stall the negotiations and the ECB continues to limit our liquidity.’” [19]

Varoufakis’ trip to Washington had been made public. What Varoufakis does not say in his book is that Dimitris Mardas, whom he had appointed Alternate Minister for Finance, [20] had already told the international media that Greece would pay what it owed the IMF on 9 April 2015. Deutsche Welle, the official German press agency, wrote: “Junior Finance Minister Dimitris Mardas gave assurances on Saturday that Greece has the money. ‘The payment to the IMF will take place on April 9. There is money for the payment of salaries, pensions and whatever else is needed in the next week,’ Mardas said.” See this.

Christine Lagarde and Yanis Varoufakis

Back to Varoufakis’ narrative: “Our conversation lasted a long time and covered a broad range of issues. It was friendly, constructive and pleasant because both of us made an effort to see the other’s point of view. (…)

‘So, do you see Christine,’ I beseeched her, ‘why we need some evidence that we are all on the same page? That we all want a comprehensive solution for Greece within the Eurozone?” [21]

Further on, he claimed to have told the IMF managing director, “Let’s get serious here. You folks – Mario [Draghi], Angela [Merkel] and you – have to give us a road map.” [22]

He was still kowtowing to the Troika, so doing the total opposite to what Tsipras and Varoufakis claimed in their public statements: that Greece had recovered its freedom and that the Troika was no more.

Quite unashamed, Varoufakis further records the following conversation with Poul Thomsen, the IMF director for Europe, who attended the meeting: “‘Not paying on the ninth is

not the solution,’ he said, ‘if that is what you will tell your colleagues in Europe.’

‘I never said that,’ I protested.

Christine intervened in my favour. ‘He did not say that,’ she confirmed.

‘What I did say,’ I clarified, ‘was that if we do not get any liquidity provisioning then we will be forced to default independently of our will.’” [23]

As Varoufakis records it, he told Christine Lagarde that Greece did not intend to default but that it might have no choice if the ECB did not provide liquidities.

Once again, we see that Varoufakis never called into question the debt demanded of Greece by the IMF. He never asked for it to be reduced, nor denounced the illegitimate nature of the debts that the IMF claimed from Greece even though they were the direct result of the first Memorandum which had done so much harm to the people of Greece. Neither did he ever threaten the IMF with a unilateral suspension of payment.

All he evoked before the IMF was the risk of a suspension of payment brought about by a lack of liquidities; and not by a wish to call into question the odious and illegitimate debts demanded of Greece.

There is a difference between defaulting on payments because of a lack of liquidities, which Varoufakis advanced as a possibility, and suspending debt payments because continuing to repay would go against the interests of the population or the government’s obligations towards its people.

Varoufakis showed Christine Lagarde that the Greek government did not have the nerve to resort to suspending payments (just as on 4^th February he had shown Mario Draghi that he had no real intention to resort to a unilateral haircut of the Greek bonds in possession of the ECB – See The Varoufakis-Tsipras Line was Doomed to Fail from the Word ‘Go’). Varoufakis, at each major step of the negotiations, showed how weak he was. He showed that there was no risk of the threats of defaulting being carried out, thus convincing the European leaders and the IMF that they could push ahead with their asphyxiation of Greece.

Amongst the elements proving this unacceptable attitude: when on 5 April Varoufakis declared to Christine Lagarde that Greece would be forced to default on payments on 9 April if the ECB did not provide the government with liquidities, his Ministry did make the payment on the due date without the ECB reopening normal access to liquidities, and the government finally continued to empty the State coffers to repay the debt.

The way Varoufakis narrates events constantly leads the reader to make mistaken assumptions, as he claims to have genuinely given Lagarde to understand that Greece might suspend payment on 9 April. He is careful not to mention in his book that he declared the opposite to the press. There follows a quote from a Deutsche Welle press release, dated 6 April 2015: “Greek finance minister promises prompt IMF repayment. Greece has agreed to repay its debt to the International Monetary Fund due this week, according to the Fund’s director. Christine Lagarde held informal discussions with Greece’s finance minister in Washington. This week, Greece has to repay more than 450 million euros ($494 million) to the IMF. After the meeting on Sunday, Yanis Varoufakis said Greece ‘intends to meet all obligations to all its creditors, ad infinitum.’” See this.

Not only did Varoufakis make a clear declaration to the press that Greece would pay the debt to the IMF but he added that his country would repay all creditors, ad infinitum. One can only conclude that Varoufakis’ narrative of what happened between 3 and 5 April was pure hogwash, duping his readers and hoping that they would not check up on a version of facts where he depicts himself as a hero.

The rest of the account of the interview with Christine Lagarde and Poul Thomsen is extremely edifying. Varoufakis expresses the empathy that he felt for Christine Lagarde, that allowed her to lead him up the garden path. She pretends that she is not aware of the demands of the private Greek bankers and asks him to keep her updated about the situation. As for Varoufakis, he tells her that he would like the Troika to approve his idea of placing Northern European managers, preferably German bankers, at the head of the Greek banks. He gives the decision to place the Swiss Joseph Ackerman, former boss of the Deutsche Bank, at the head of the Bank of Cyprus as an example. [24] Ackerman had been involved in multiple frauds organized by the Deutsche Bank (which at the time had been implicated in over 6 000 cases of litigation around the world), and played a detrimental role in preparing the 2012 restructuration of Greek debt, which of course Varoufakis did not mention.

When he arrived in Athens on 6 April, Varoufakis announced to Alexis Tsipras that his trip to Washington had been very fruitful. He had visibly forgotten the effect produced by Tsipras’s counter-order and was convinced that his conversation with Christine Lagarde would have positive consequences for Greece. Neither, in his book, does he say a word about the payment made to the IMF on 9 April, thus continuing to omit fundamental facts of the so-called negotiation process.

Varoufakis’s dialogue with Obama

On 15 April 2015, Varoufakis was back in Washington to take part in the annual spring meeting of the IMF and the World Bank to which all Finance ministers of member countries of the two institutions are invited. Varoufakis recounts the brief dialogue he had with Obama at a White House reception. There follows a significant excerpt:

“Obama: (…) I had to go against my policy to save Wall Street. To collaborate with people who had created the problem.

Varoufakis: We appreciate this well, Mr. President. Believe me, we too are ready to collaborate even with those who caused our crisis. To take the political cost of doing so.

(…)

Obama : (…) But you must compromise in your dealing with the institutions so that an agreement can be locked in.

Varoufakis : Mr. President, we are ready to compromise, compromise and compromise some more. But we are not ready to end up compromised.” [25]

Yet it seems obvious that if you compromise, compromise and compromise some more with the enemies of the people, you are bound to end up very heavily compromised.

A little further on, Varoufakis adds the sub-title “Improbable American Friends”. He refers in particular to a lawyer named Lee Buccheit (See this) who works for a large law firm that gives advice both to creditors and governments in matters of debt restructuring: the firm is Cleary Gottlieb, present in sixteen finance centres around the world (See this) It is an international firm well-known for its nuisance value by all those who have experience in the struggle against illegitimate debt. Indeed, Varoufakis explains that Lee Buccheit played an active role in the nefarious Greek debt restructuration in 2012, which had such dire consequences for Greek pension funds and the country’s social security system, while preserving the interests of the private bankers and vulture funds. In fact, Varoufakis went to extraordinary lengths to find support and advice, not from improbable friends but from real enemies of peoples and public goods with names such as Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary, who shared responsibility for the abrogation of the law separating commercial banks from investment banks (i.e. the Glass-Steagall Act adopted under Roosevelt in 1933 and abrogated in 1999), Jeffrey Sachs, the brain behind the neoliberal shock therapy applied to Bolivia in 1985 and a few years later to Poland and Russia; or Mathieu Pigasse, the head of the Parisian bank Lazard, not to mention the British Conservative Lord Norman Lamont See Varoufakis Surrounded Himself with Defenders of the Establishment

Conclusion: After the capitulation contained in the agreement made 20 February 2015 with the Eurogroup, Varoufakis tried in vain to get funding from China both to pay debts due to the IMF and to privatize a bit more of the strategic infrastructure, such as Greece’s main port, Piraeus, and the railways. He also expected the IMF to support him in persuading the ECB to loosen their grip on some liquidities but that did not work. Then he had high hopes of support from the Obama Administration, who advised him to make even more concessions to the European leaders. Varoufakis constantly worked within the unwholesome framework of secret diplomacy. Contrary to the image he tries to give of his actions, he made endless concessions throughout, and in a pitiful manner. And the asphyxiation of Greece continued.

*

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

Translated by Vicki Briault Manus, Mike Krolikowski and Christine Pagnoulle for the CADTM where this article was originally published.

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France.
He is the author of Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.
See his bibliography.

Notes

Proposals to allow trophy hunting of elephants to resume in Botswana, home to Africa’s largest elephant population, and even use the meat for canned pet food have been strongly criticised by the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting (CBTH).

A report by ministers  recommends a lifting of the ban and also calls for the “establishment of elephant meat canning” for pet food. Approximately 130,000 elephants – representing one-third of the world’s total remaining African elephant population – live in the country which is the size of France.

The CBTH has led international efforts to stop plans to bring back trophy hunting in the southern African nation.

Elephant trophy

Supporters of the charity including Bill Oddie and Sir Ranulph Fiennes handed in an open letter to Botswana’s High Commission in October 2018. The letter was signed by Joanna Lumley, Stephen Fry and Chris Packham, among others. A global petition coordinated by CBTH was signed by 250,000 people.

Eduardo Gonçalves, of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said:

“African elephants are in serious trouble. Populations have crashed in recent years, and there is a real risk of the species going extinct. Allowing elephants in their last stronghold to be killed for entertainment is the last thing it needs.

“The proposal to kill them for pet food is beyond bizarre. If the trophy hunting ban is lifted, we can expect to see an increase in elephant trophies, ivory and body parts coming into Britain. The UK was one of Botswana’s primary markets prior to the ban.

“It would be a travesty if this plan led to Britain – which oridesnitself as a world leader in wildlife conservation – once more becoming a major global destination for elephant trophies.”

The vote by Botswana’s parliament to call for the resumption of elephant trophy hunting was condemned by conservationists and public figures.

Disappear

Joanna Lumley said:

“I have always considered trophy hunting the lowest of the low. Killing animals for fun is just disgusting. We are urging President Masisi to reject the proposal to lift the ban on trophy hunting for the sake of the elephants in his beautiful country and for the reputation of humans everywhere.”

The proposal has angered leading conservationists. Bill Oddie warned that allowing trophy hunting could spell disaster:

“I’m just incredulous that anyone would even think this is a good idea.

“Elephants are fast approaching a pre-extinction phase. They’ve disappeared from much of Africa. You’ve got small isolated groups separated from one another. Trophy hunting in the one place where they are relatively thriving could spell disaster. Botswana is the last hope for the African elephant. If we lose them here, the whole battle could be lost.”

Damian Aspinall added:

“As a conservationist and as someone directly involved in working to save persecuted species, I can say from first-hand experience that hunting for ‘sport’ is putting tremendous pressure on our wildlife.

“Trophy hunting is simply inexplicable and inexcusable, and those who practice it need to take a long, hard look at themselves and what they’re doing. Elephants have been with us for millions of years. Are we really going to allow them to disappear within the blink of an eye just because a handful of people take pleasure from killing them?”

Trophy

Legendary explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes is another leading name to have thrown his weight behind the campaign:

“Our children will despise us if we let elephants die out.

“We should hang our heads in shame at what’s going on. People who kill elephants for fun need to be stopped. We need a global ban and tough jail terms for trophy hunting and poaching.”

Politicians from across the political spectrum have condemned Botswana’s plans and backed a ban on trophy hunting. Sir Ed Davey MP (Lib Dem) said:

“The case for legal hunting of elephants ranges from weak to immoral.

“Legal hunting can often act as a cover for illegal hunting, endangering the species – and the idea that tourist money trickles down to support local people who then prevent poaching simply isn’t proven. We need the ban – and we need to resource its enforcement, urgently.”

Chris Williamson MP (Labour) added:

“The appalling, indiscriminate killing of elephants for their tusks is barbaric. There has been a spate of killings in Botswana, a previous safe haven for these beautiful creatures.

Collapsed

“That’s why I am calling on the Botswana Government to take action to address the slaughter of these animals without delay”.

Trophy hunting was banned in 2014 by President Ian Khama following a decline in elephant numbers in the country, since which populations have recovered. However the election of President Masisi last year has seen a push for trophy hunters to be allowed back into the country.

Botswana’s parliament passed a resolution last May calling on the government to overturn the ban, a move supported by the Vice President. President Masisi launched a ‘public consultation’ exercise which has now concluded and recommends a resumption of hunting.

It is thought there were as many as 10 million elephants at the beginning of the 20th century.  Populations in Zimbabwe have collapsed by up to 75 percent in some parts of the country.

The population in Tanzania has crashed by 60 percent in the last five years, and halved in Mozambique. In Zambia – which has one of the largest groups in the 1960s – numbers have plummeted from around 200,000 to 10,000.

*

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 Ecologist

The U.S. Army is transferring tons of gold from Daesh-held areas in Syria to the U.S., multiple reports said.

According to a source who spoke to Kurdish Bas News Agency, the U.S. forces transferred about 50 tons of gold from areas seized from Daesh terrorists in eastern Syria’s Deir el-Zour region and gave a portion of the remaining gold to the PKK’s Syrian offshoot People’s Protection Units (YPG).

The gold was reportedly transported from the U.S. military base in Kobani.

Meanwhile, 40 tons of gold bullions stolen by Daesh terrorists from Iraq’s Mosul province was also taken by the U.S. forces.

Local sources who spoke to regime-run SANA news agency claimed that the troops relocated large boxes containing Daesh’s gold treasure from al-Dashisheh region in southern Hasakah.

Daesh terrorist leaders nabbed by U.S. troops reportedly provided information on the whereabouts of the gold, the report said.

The claim coincides with a report by the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which said that the U.S.-backed YPG was after 40 tons of gold left behind by Daesh terrorists in Deir el-Zour.

“The U.S.-led coalition forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) deliberately do not target the areas under the control of the ISIL terrorists and commanders in Eastern Euphrates in Deir el-Zour as they are trying to locate this treasure by forcing the ISIL militants to speak about its location after surrendering,” the SOHR said, referring to Daesh using another acronym.

Though Daesh lost many strongholds in Iraq and Syria, a controversial deal between Daesh militants and Syrian groups linked to the PKK, a major terrorist group that carries out attacks in Turkey, helped their safe evacuation from Raqqa, Syria.

The U.S. still has about 2,000 troops in Syria, many of whom are working in close cooperation with SDF.

Almost all the territory in the east of the Euphrates River comprising some one-third of the territory of Syria, except for the Assad regime-controlled area near Deir el-Zour and the Daesh-held area near the Iraqi border, is controlled by the SDF. The SDF also controls the districts of Manbij and Tabqah on the right bank of the river.

*

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 Liberty Nation

For 500 years since Copernicus, Krakow has revolutionized science. Today the city stands alone in the conflict over the safety of electromagnetic radiation to protect its citizens.

***

At the Third International Forum on Protection from Electromagnetic Environmental Pollution three scientists speaking the city’s Hall of Sessions told the international audience of the threat posed by modern microwave based technology to human life amide and environment of political and corporate corruption. Krakow remains the only municipality on the planet to protect it’s citizens from the dangers of electromagnetic radiation pollution.

On the same day as the conference, The United Nations International Telecommunications Union (ITU) issued a press release promoting global wireless technology including: regulatory sandboxes of enterprise; ‘start-up and experiment’ interfaces and 5G projects”. The ITU sponsored a symposium in Geneva and produced “guidelines for encouraging policy and regulatory measures to facilitate the deployment and use of emerging technologies for affordable digital infrastructure and services”.

Nowhere is the issue of planetary security, or health and safety addressed. The Forum was opened by Jacek Maria Majchrowski, Mayor of the Royal Capital City of Kraków since 2002 (reelected in 2006, 2010 and in 2014), a professor of law and history (since 1988) at Copernicus’ Jagiellonian University. A member of the Democratic Left Alliance, Majchrowski’s left-wing stance became globally-renown when he was snubbed during a visit to the city by US president George W Bush, due to his opposition to the Iraq war and his country’s forces involvement in it.

The profound historic significance of Bush’s behaviour in Poland can not be over-emphazied. G.W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was immersed in business dealings with the Nazis and deployment of I.B.M’s technology – the Hollerith machine – which used punch cards to keep track of trains and prisoners to the Auschwith-Birkenau complex – an hour’s drive from Krakow – before turning to computers. The program was administered from Wael Castle in Krakow and operated from a facility across the street from a modern day  hopping center and train station at 22 Pawia Street. According to Edmond Black, author of IBM and the Holocaust, a third machine was located little over a mile from Auschwitz III, also known as Monowitz Concentration Camp.

On the world stage, while Krakow works to inform it’s citizens about microwave electromagnetic technology, Warsaw (capital city) are negotiating to roll out 5G.

The very heart of Poland is at risk.

Presenter for the event was Marta Patena, Councillor of the City of Krakow and long-time promoter of protecting citizens from electromagnetic pollution.

A mathematician, Patena has been a member of the Krakow City Council for 16 years and now plans to run for the Małopolska Regional Assembly – for Krakow. Prior to the guest presentations, Cllr. Patena was presented with an Award of Merit by Mayor Michrowski for her services to the city of Krakow.

The three guest speakers at the event included:

• Dott.ssa Fiorella Belpoggi (Italy), director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center,
  Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy.
• Dr. Marc Arazi (France), Président “Alerte Phonegate”.
• Prof. Olle Johansson (Sweden), Neuroscientist.

Collegium Ramazzini is an independent, international academy with 180 invited members from more than 30 countries. It was founded in 1982 by American-born Dr. Irving Selikoff who made the definitive link between asbestos and lung disease.

It was named after 16th Century Italian physician Bernardino Ramazzini. The Collegium Ramazzini’s brief is to investigate occupational and environmental health issues. As head of research, Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi conducts her scientific studies at the Collegium’s Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy.

The significance of the Ramazzini Institute is that it is a nonprofit scientific cooperative which only exists through donations from individuals and organizations to investigate subjects as diverse as weather modification, Monsanto’s glyphosate and cancer in children. In 2000 The Ramazzini Institute signed an agreement to cooperate with the National Toxicology Program, an inter-agency program which operates under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Collaboration between the Ramazzini Institute and the National Toxicology Program focuses on four areas:

• Rodent cancer bioassays
• Interactions of genetic susceptibility and environmental exposures
• Basic mechanisms of carcinogenesis
• Statistical methods for the evaluation of bioassay data

“We started to study radiation as physical agents (ionizing and non ionizing radiation) in 1991, some years after the Chernobyl accident. The whole project on  radiation includes: Gamma radiation, ELF-EMF: and RFR,” explained Dr. Belpoggi.

In 2005, both the Ramazzini Institute and the NTP decided to extend their enquiries into  microwave frequencies.

Rather than accepting reports from the Ramazzini Institute and the NTP’s controversial interim report in 2016 on the increased incidence of cancer from microwave exposure, the International Agency for Research and Cancer (IARC) praised the work of both groups but said more work needs to be conducted. IARC wants a complete inventory of the effects of radiation on every part of the body.

There is a sublime irony to be found in IARC’s request. Headquartered at Lyon, France, IARC began life after a group of leading French figures persuaded President DeGaulle to establish an organization to deal with the issue of escalating cancer rates. The new organization was to be funded from the national budget allocated to nuclear weapons development. Following DeGaulle’s approval, within 18 months the idea became widespread and the project evolved into an international effort and IARC was created in 1965 by the World Health Assembly which is the governing body of the World Health Organization (WHO).

In a scientific paper accepted in January 2018 titled, Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission, Dott.ssa Belpoggi and her team concluded:

 An increase in the incidence of malignant glial tumors was observed in treated female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although this was not statistically significant. Similarly to the NTP (Wyde et al., 2016), the communication of the first important findings of the RI study was urged by different factors: 1) the fact that also a small increase of the incidence of tumors induced by the exposure to RFR could have great impact for public health; 2) The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with the results of the NTP study on near field exposure to RFR (Wyde et al., 2016), as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats;and 3) because the tumors of the brain and heart observed at increased incidence in rats exposed to RFR generated by an 1.8 GHz GSM antenna in our study are of the same cytological origin of those observed in some epidemiological studies of cell phone users. These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.

In essence the paper supports the contention of Dr. Annie Sasco who unsuccessfully urged that IARC declare EMF radiation a carcinogen rather than the current 2B Possible Carcinogen rating.

According to Belpoggi, the NTP Program found a “significant increase in malignant glioma and glial cell hyperplasia” in the brains of male rats and startlingly in the heart “a significant dose-related increase in malignant schwannoma and hyperplasia in males”. In contrast, her team found a “slight but not insignificant (increase) in malignant glioma in exposed female rats”. It was during investigations of cancer of the heart that proved electromagnetic frequencies prompted unanticipated results including heart attacks. “There was a significant dose-related increase in malignant schwannoma in males; slight increase, not insignificant, in hyperplasia of Schwann cells in both males and females,” she reported. “Considered together, these lesions are highly significant in all treated groups, both male and females”.

Dottt.ssa Belpoggi summarized explaining:

• The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with the results of the NTP study on near field exposure
• The tumors of the brain and heart observed in rats exposed to RFR in both studies have the same cytological origin as those observed in some epidemiological studies on cellphone users
• These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans

“If the telecommunications industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition,” said Belpoggi, “no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet.”

In a chilling warning from a scientist of life-long professional experience, Belpoggi warned,

“These 5G plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of the Earth’s ecosystems.”

Dr. Marc Arazi is a medical doctor and radiation health activist. His 2016 enquiries and subsequent legal action led to the release of French government documents in 2017 which list cell phones that generate radiation levels in excess of legal thresholds. The radiation levels noted by the government in 2015 revealed that radiation levels from nine out of 10 cell phone manufacturers were as much as three times statutory guidelines.

In a peer review of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s draft cancer report published in May 2016 Arazi noted:

In July 2016, the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) published an important report entitled, “Exposure to Radiofrequencies and Child Health”. This report brought to light information hitherto unknown to the public, namely that 9 out of 10 mobile phones tested in 2015 by the French National Frequencies Agency (ANFR) in contact with the body showed a SAR level higher than 2W/kg and one out of 4, a SAR level higher than 4 W/kg…

In June 2017, following several legal actions by Arazi and others, the ANFR was forced to publish preliminary partial results of tests on 379 mobile phones selected from stores between 2012 and 2016. These results reveal that leading mobile phones sold in
France as well as Europe exceed the regulatory thresholds for the Standard Absorption Rate (SAR) for the trunk and extremities of the human body valid within Europe.

Six months ago in a press release, Dr. Arazi explained,

“On March 8, 2018, the Agency revealed on the same DATA site the complete reports (but not the original ones) of 442 cell phones tested until 2017. These results show that the leading mobile phones sold in France as well as Europe exceed the regulatory thresholds for the SAR trunk and extremities valid within Europe. All this was made possible by inappropriate regulation that allowed mobile phones to be tested at a distance of 15 to 25 mm from the skin.”

The resultant health scandal was dubbed PhoneGate by French journalist Pierre Le Hir of Le Monde and resulted in the establishment of the the non-governmental organization called PhoneGate Alert in March of this year. Arazi is also a co-funder of a French commercial company which provides financial services to healthcare professionals.

To view Araziʼs full presentation, click here.

Just why a citizen, a professional in the field of medicine should find it difficult to obtain information about health-related issues from his government remains problematical. There can only be one reason why a government would withhold information. France, like most other governments and the United Nations, has another agenda. That agenda is formulated by corporations pursuing profit and governments failing to implement the socalled Precautionary Principle which calls for discretion by policy-makers to justify difficult decisions relating to electromagnetic radiation to control the population.

There is a catch in Europe’s approach to the Precautionary Principle. According to the Journal of the European Union there are two very big “IFs. “The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It relates to an approach to risk management whereby if there is the possibility that a given policy or action might cause harm to the public or the environment and if there is still no scientific consensus on the issue, the policy or action in question should not be pursued. Once more scientific information becomes available, the situation should be reviewed.”

Against what Arazi calls “An industrial scandal on a planetary scale”, France’s hesitation to make information available to Arazi and his colleagues at Alerte PhoneGate could be interpreted as being cautious because there “is still no scientific consensus” about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones in particular. In addition to the failure to implement the Precautionary Principle in France, there is a global push for wireless technology. While IARC is holding the line against declaring wireless technology dangerous to human beings it is acting as an agency of the World Health Organization which, in turn is a subsidiary of the United Nations – a voluntary, unelected body founded under the influence of Rockefeller family interests.

Simultaneously, the United Nations, through it’s subsidiary agency, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is promoting the rollout of wireless technology, including AI and 5G, around the world. Logically, the U.N. is delaying acceptance of wireless dangers while promoting its deployment.

The U.N’s International Telecommunications Union claims that “ consumer demands are shaping the development of mobile broadband services.’ The ITU has created an international specification called IMT-2020, noting that 5G trials and pre-commercial activities already underway.

The IMT standard is intended to :

• “transport a huge amount of data much faster, reliably connecting an extremely large number of devices and processing very high volumes of data with minimal delay 5G is expected to connect people, things, data, applications, transport systems and cities in smart networked communication environments;
• “5G is expected to support applications such as smart homes and buildings, smart cities, 3D video, work and play in the cloud, remote medical surgery, virtual and augmented reality, and massive machine-to-machine communications for industry automation and self-driving cars. 3G and 4G networks currently face challenges in supporting these services.
• Due to its sheer scale and scope, “5G is expected to accelerate the achievement of all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), from affordable and clean energy to zero hunger.”

A second difficulty facing Arazi and PhoneGate Alert is the issue of corporate lobbying of politicians and governmental bodies. According to the Sunday Times, a company operating in both France and Ireland, for example, Cube Infrastructure Managers (CIM) fronted by Granahan McCourt was revealed to be the host of a dinner meeting with Ireland’s Minister for Communications and four of his officials in Manhattan’s Club 21.

The friendly relationship between the minister and Granahan McCourt led to his resignation 11 October.

“We are assembling a team of specialized lawyers and jurists to identify the judicial means to launch legal actions on a large scale in France, Europe and internationally,”explained Arazi. “In order to force the public authorities to act. We are also launching group actions to enable each affected consumer to be heard and have his or her damages remedied.”

Arazi claims that there are 300 million world-wide persons who are victims to radiation overexposure from smartphone radiation.

“We are one of the rare associations to fight, in a free and independent way, with no financial or corporate interests, to ensure the defense of citizens and not to cede to the power of big multinationals which decide that they can make the rules and favor the dominance of their devices over our health and that of our children – and this without being accountable to anyone, protected by regulations made to measure.”

In August of this year PhoneGate called for the withdrawal of most cell phones on the market. PhoneGate said,

“The recall of more than 250 of the best-selling mobile phone models on the French market, which must either be withdrawn from the market by a procedure of free exchange or their software or hardware must be updated by the manufacturer.”

Should governments agree it would dramatic economic consequences on a global scale.

Simultaneous to Arazi’s efforts to bring the issue to a global audience, a case was weaving it’s way through the French courts. As reported by LeParisian, Electrosensitivity: the discomfort of an employee recognized as an accident at work, for the first time.

Just three days after the Krakow conference the Court of Social Security Affairs of Versaillesruled that the discomfort of an employee in the workplace was caused by microwave radiation. This ruling gives affirmation to the work of Dott.ssa Belpoggi and the concerns of the Ramazzini Institute as well as supporting the evidence unearthed by Asst. Prof. Olle Johansson, formerly of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Due in large part to the relentless work of Johansson and the Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive, Sweden is the only country in the world to recognize electrosensitivity as a functional impairment.

According to Johansson,

“In Sweden, impairments are viewed from the point of the environment. No human being is in itself impaired, there are instead shortcomings in the environment that cause the impairment (as the lack of ramps for the person in a wheelchair or rooms electrosanitized for the person with electro-hypersensitivity). This environment-related impairment view, furthermore, means that even though one does not have a scientifically-based complete explanation for the impairment electrohypersensitivity, and in contrast to disagreements in the scientific society, the person with electrohypersensitivity shall always be met in a respectful way and with all necessary support with the goal to eliminate the impairment. This implies that the person with electrohypersensitivity shall have the opportunity to live and work in an electrosanitized environment.”

Johansson’s appearance on the podium at Krakow added a sense of gravitas to the proceedings. He is the only speaker to be invited to address the Forum for a second time.

“From the current vast scientific literature, it is obvious we must proceed with caution before immersing the citizens in more and more artificial electromagnetic fields,” he said, “We may, as a matter of fact, already be gravely endangering our current as well as coming generations. To not act today, may prove a disaster tomorrow, and such lack of action may again result in the classical ‘late lessons from early warnings’.“

“I, as a scientist, am not here to promote convenience or economic growth, but only ‘to serve and protect’ human health, as well as to directly protect other animals, plants and bacteria.”

He listed the following lessons from science:

• Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.
• A progressive decrease in the number of newborns per diem was observed, which ended in irreversible infertility.
• Exposure of pregnant women to mobile phone significantly increase fetal and neonatal heart rate, and significantly decreased the cardiac output.
• After 45 min of exposure to pulsed 2450 MHz micro-waves (2 microseconds pulses, 500 pps, 1 mW/cm2, average whole body SAR 0.6 W/kg), rats showed retarded learning while performing in the radial-arm maze to obtain food rewards, indicating a deficit in spatial “working memory” function. … These data indicate that both cholinergic and endogenous opioid neurotransmitter systems in the brain are involved in the microwave-induced spatial memory deficit.
• The present findings suggest that Wi-Fi exposure may exert gender-related alterations on neural activity associated with the amount of attentional resources engaged during a linguistic test adjusted to induce working memory.
• EMFs disturb immune function through stimulation of various allergic and inflammatory responses, as well as effects on tissue repair processes. Such disturbances increase the risks for various diseases, including cancer.

Response to electromagnetic radiation is not only affecting human beings. All of nature is affected.

”These responses occur very soon after exposure, strongly suggesting that they are the direct consequence of application of radiofrequency fields and their similarities to wound responses strongly suggests that this radiation is perceived by plants as an injurious stimulus,” said Johansson. ”Even bacteria are affected leading to resistance to antibiotics, he said, adding, ”These responses occur very soon after exposure, strongly suggesting that they are the direct consequence of application of radiofrequency fields and their similarities to wound responses strongly suggests that this radiation is perceived by plants as an injurious stimulus.”

The solution to the proliferation is, according to Johansson, based on The London Resolution, published by the science journal Elsevier in 2009.

“Based on the (UN) Precautionary Principle, children and vulnerable groups (such as people with epilepsy and heart conditions) should not be exposed to a risk of harm”, Said Johansson, “Thus we propose that children under 16 should use mobile phones and cordless phones for emergency calls only. No Wi-fi, WiMax or other forms of wireless networking are placed in homes, schools or public areas or promoted for use thereof.”

Johansson had no sooner finished his presentation and a hand from the audience shot up asking him to repeat his opinion on electromagnetic radiation. In a departure from Forum protocol Johansson returned to the podium and reasserted his contention that no artificial man-made radiation is safe. A second departure from protocol was the appearance of brochures designed to mimic Forum literature claiming that EMFs, wireless microwave radiation has not been proven to be unsafe – this after hearing from two eminent scientists and a medical doctor.

Related topics discussed at the Krakow Forum included:

• Ecophone and other global innovative solutions in wireless communication by Mgr inż. Przemysław Kitowski
• Role of state authorities in preventive and protective actions aimed at protecting people from excessive exposure to EMFs by Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
• EMF monitoring in Krakow by Dr. inż. Jacek Stępień
• Results of EMF measurements including the results obtained from personal exposimeters in Krakow by Dr. Barbara Gałdzińska-Calik

The propaganda against the goals and the safety of the people of Krakow was ratcheted up with an article in the Rzeczpospolita newspaper threatening economic difficulties if Krakow fails to join Warsaw’s political political agenda of even more radiation. The newspaper article titled “The fate of 5G weighs in Krakow”, explains:

“In Poland, the city will probably not be the second largest in Krakow, because there is a strong movement opposing the increase of electromagnetic field limits (PEM) in the environment, led by councillor Marta Patena, though the city council is afraid that the 5G network may have a negative impact on the health of residents.”

Aside from the national push for 5G technology from Warsaw, the article infers a failure on the part of Krakow to submit to the directives of the un-elected European Commission.

“The creation of the 5G network in our country is Poland’s commitment to the European Commission and at the same time the condition for the implementation of many national projects included in the strategy for responsible development, investments, the creation of the latest generation network, on which the implementation of flagship government projects, such as intelligent transport systems, depends on a strong social resistance,” said Patena.

The week of the Forum, the United Nations issued a press release calling for less red tape in the roll-out of 5G technology and on the following Friday, the U.S. White House hosted a summit to facilitate investment in 5G. But the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) said in a statement that it would sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) if the commission does not change a proposed policy that would preempt local control in a bid to streamline installation of 5G wireless infrastructure.

If Poland is in the crosshairs of international deployment of 5G, Krakow, as the heart of Poland, can anticipate more than one wireless-triggered heart attack. As Mayor Majchrowski steps down, one candidate for the office – in the face of burgeoning scientific evidence – has promised to make the city the first in Poland to deploy 5G technology.

 

*

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

Sources

Rzeczpospolita http://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1386615-Losy-5G-waza-sie–w-Krakowie.html

Ramazzini Institute Bioassays on Wireless Radiation: Fiorella Belpoggi, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESRIubk9iAM

Ramazzini Institute Study on Base Station Radiofrequency Radiation: Teleconference March 22, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqYczFa_KZM

Phonegate Alert https://www.phonegatealert.org/notre-presentation-du-scandale-du-phonegate-lors-de-laconference-internationale-de-cracovie

Trump officials on 5G: Bring it on, private sector https://www.cnet.com/news/white-house-hosts-5g-summit/

ITU’s approach to 5G https://news.itu.int/5g-fifth-generation-mobile-technologies/

What Is IMT-2020? https://www.sdxcentral.com/5g/definitions/imt-2020/

Today, the House of Representatives is poised to adopt a resolution overturning Donald Trump’s trumped-up “national emergency” proclamation, in which he claims authority to fulfill his campaign promise to build a wall at the southern border.

The National Emergencies Act requires Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring the House resolution to a vote within 18 days. In order to prevail in the Senate, four Republicans would have to defy Trump. If the bill passes both houses of Congress, Trump has pledged to veto it and there is little chance Congress could muster the two-thirds necessary to override his veto.

In the likely event the legislature fails to void Trump’s “emergency” declaration, the judicial branch will have the opportunity to check and balance the executive. Six lawsuits have already been filed in federal courts around the country. They quote Trump’s own words to demonstrate that even he doesn’t believe there’s a bona fide emergency. The suits claim Trump violated the Constitution’s Separation of Powers mandate by circumventing the will of Congress, which has rejected Trump’s $5.7 billion demand for his wall. And they allege violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Protect Democracy Project, which filed the lawsuit in El Paso County & Border Network for Human Rights v. Trump, noted that courts traditionally defer to a president’s claims that national security is under threat. “But no such deference is owed to the executive here, where the president is violating statutes and usurping the legislative branch’s role.” The lawsuit, which was filed in the Western District of Texas, argues,

“[H]aving seized the power of the legislative branch to make law and spend federal funds, the president may not attempt to sideline the judicial branch by arguing that it cannot interpret and apply the law.”

On February 15, after months of wrangling and a 35-day government shutdown during which Trump held the country hostage, Congress passed the 2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act and Trump signed it. The bill rejects Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to build his border wall. It allocates $1.375 billion to repair existing border barriers or fencing and build 55 miles of new fencing, using a previously approved design. It forbids wall construction in wildlife areas and parks and requires consent of local officials and a public comment period before construction begins in border cities.

The same day he signed that legislation, Trump issued a proclamation declaring a “national emergency.” It states:

The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics.

Trump also published a statement titled “President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory” specifying how he intends to repurpose money that Congress has already allocated to pay for his wall. He plans to pilfer $3.6 billion from military construction projects, $2.5 billion from counterdrug enforcement, and $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.

Although Trump has been demanding that Congress allocate $5.7 billion for his wall, he now asserts authority to redirect funds that, when combined with the $1.375 billion Congress did approve, total almost $8.1 billion.

The lawsuits claim that by repurposing funds Congress has already designated, Trump has exceeded his constitutional and statutory powers.

No Bona Fide Emergency

The National Emergencies Act, enacted to limit the president’s authority to declare a national emergency, requires a real emergency. Trump’s claim that the entry of criminals, drugs and gangs at the southern border constitutes a national security threat is spurious.

When he announced in the Rose Garden that he was declaring an “emergency,” Trump admitted there was no real emergency. He said, “I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster.” Trump was expressing a personal preference, not describing a national emergency.

Sixteen states filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California. In California v. Trump, the states marshaled data demonstrating that migration on the southern border does not constitute a national threat.

On February 25, a bipartisan group of 58 former national security and homeland security officials issued a Joint Declaration, stating, “there is no factual basis for the declaration of a national emergency” at the southern border. They wrote:

• Illegal border crossings are at near 40-year lows;
• There is no documented terrorist or national security emergency;
• There is no emergency related to violent crime;
• There is no human or drug trafficking emergency that can be addressed by a wall;
• This proclamation will only exacerbate the humanitarian concerns that do exist;
• There is no basis for circumventing the appropriations process;
• The situation at the border does not require the use of the armed forces, and a wall is unnecessary to support the use of the armed forces; and
• Redirecting funds for the “national emergency” will undermine U.S. national security interests “by needlessly pulling resources from Department of Defense programs that are responsible for keeping our troops and our country safe and running effectively.”

On January 29, the Director of National Intelligence issued a “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” That report makes no mention of any security threat posed by migrant caravans at the southern border. It states that most asylum applicants are “fleeing violence at home.” On the same day, the directors of the Office of National Intelligence, the FBI and the CIA testified about global threats at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. None of them described a security crisis at the southern border.

A 2018 State Department report found “no credible evidence indicating that international terrorist groups have established bases in Mexico, worked with Mexican drug cartels, or sent operatives via Mexico into the United States.”

Several studies have determined that undocumented immigrants do not commit crimes at a greater rate than U.S. citizens. For example, a 2018 study in Criminology concluded that “undocumented immigration does not increase violence.” In fact, “increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with significant decreases in the prevalence of violence.”

And the overwhelming majority of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl smuggled into the United States comes in through official ports of entry rather than through illicit border crossings.

Moreover, a border wall could actually increase the clout of the drug cartels. A wall would squeeze smaller drug operators “and force them into the hands of the large organizations, increasing their income and power,” Don Winslow wrote in The San Diego Union-Tribune. “The wall would not cost the cartels money. It would make them more money.”

Violation of Separation of Powers

California v. Trump argues that Trump’s scheme to secure money for his wall constitutes a “flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.” Congress has the power to make the laws and the power of the purse. The president has the duty to faithfully carry out the law.

The Lawmaking Power (Article I, Section 1) provides,

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.”

The Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) says,

“The Congress shall have Power to … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

The Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) states,

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2) requires that all bills passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the president for signature. The president then has only two options. He can sign the bill or veto it.

The Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3) says that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court said that when the president seeks to circumvent the expressed or implied will of Congress, “his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” Presidential claim to such power “must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to authorize expenditures of federal funds. Congress has specifically considered and refused to appropriate the $5.7 billion Trump is demanding for his border wall. By using the pretext of a national emergency to steal money Congress already assigned to other purposes, Trump is circumventing the will of Congress. No president has ever declared a national emergency as an end run around Congress after it rejected his spending demand.

Trump is claiming the right to take $3.6 billion away from military construction projects, under Tit. 10 USC sec. 2808; $2.5 billion away from counterdrug enforcement, under Tit. 10 USC sec. 284; and $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.

Diverting Money From Military Construction (Section 2808)

Trump cannot lawfully invoke section 2808. It allows a president who claims an emergency that “requires the use of the armed forces” to divert funds that have not been “obligated” and use them for construction projects “necessary to support” the military.

The funds Trump seeks to usurp have already been obligated to other purposes. Building a border wall does not constitute “military construction,” which must support a military installation.

In El Paso County, the Protect Democracy Project asserts,

“Since 1996, hundreds of miles of southern border barriers have been built without any use of the armed forces. Likewise, policing the southern border has been the function of the Department of Homeland Security, and prior to that the Immigration and Naturalization Service, not the military.”

Moreover, the use of the military to enforce domestic law is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act, unless Congress makes exceptions, which it has not done here.

The civilian construction of a border wall does not require the use of the military, nor is it “necessary to support” the military.

“The Proclamation turns the statute on its head, seeking to mobilize the armed forces to engage in a civil construction project; not to engage in a construction project necessary to support the mobilization of the armed forces,” Project Democracy argues.

Diverting Money From Counterdrug Enforcement (Section 284)

Section 284 does not allow shifting the money Congress has allocated for counterdrug operations to construct a border wall. Use of those funds is limited to “roads, fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors.” The entire 2,000-mile southern border is not a “drug smuggling corridor.” Money under this section can be used for repair and maintenance of equipment, and transporting personnel. Small-scale construction projects are permitted, but not border wall construction.

Diverting Money From the Treasury Forfeiture Fund

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund can only be used for specific purposes, including paying law enforcement officers, consultants and informants, and upgrading law enforcement vehicles. They do not include construction.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act mandates the preparation of environmental impact statements for major federal projects that “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” There has been no environmental impact statement here. Yet Stephen Miller said people would be “shocked” at the speed with which the administration will build the wall.

Several environmental organizations filed litigation to overturn Trump’s declaration. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition. Another suit was filed in the District of Columbia by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

A 2017 study by the Center for Biological Diversity found that Trump’s border wall threatens 93 endangered and threatened species, including jaguars, ocelots, Mexican gray wolves and cactus ferruginous pygmy owls.

“The border wall won’t be effective at stopping people seeking a better life from getting to this country, but it will destroy habitat and divide wildlife populations,” Noah Greenwald, the center’s endangered species director, noted in a statement. “Building a wall across the entirety of the border would cause massive damage to one of the most biologically diverse regions in North America.”

“Beyond jeopardizing wildlife, endangered species and public lands, the U.S.-Mexico border wall is part of a larger strategy of ongoing border militarization that damages human rights, civil liberties, native lands, local businesses and international relations,” the Center for Biodiversity said in a statement announcing the filing of its lawsuit. “The border wall impedes the natural migrations of people and wildlife that are essential to healthy diversity.”

Public Citizen Litigation Group filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia on behalf of Frontera Audubon Society and three Texas landowners whose land would be seized to build the wall.

And Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued the Department of Justice in the District of Columbia, alleging that the Freedom of Information Act requires the Office of Legal Counsel to disclose its opinions about the power of the president to declare a national emergency, and specifically to build a wall or barrier on the southern border.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will likely decide whether Trump’s action is illegal. He is counting on the high court to affirm his “emergency” declaration like it upheld his rewritten Muslim Ban. But Chief Justice John Roberts, though conservative, is mindful of the legacy of his Court. He may well vote to overturn Trump’s unprecedented end run around Congress and uphold the Constitution’s separation of powers mandate.

There is much at stake. Congress should do its duty to check and balance this out-of-control executive. Failing that, it is up to the courts to halt Trump’s illegal assertion of executive power.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CC BY 2.0

Tomorrow in French Guiana, OneWeb plans to launch the first 6 of 900 satellites to blanket the Earth in 3G, 4G, 5G and Wi-Fi. From the company website (oneweb.world):

Liftoff is scheduled at exactly:

4:37 p.m., in Washington, D.C.

6:37 p.m., in Kourou, French Guiana

21h37 Universal Time (UTC)

10:37 p.m., in Paris

0:37 a.m., in Moscow on February 28, 2019

6:37 a.m., in Tokyo on February 28, 2019.

This is the beginning of a health and environmental disaster.

Microwave radiation impacts biological organisms including bees, birds, trees, and humans.

It damages DNA, breaches the blood-brain barrier, impacts the heart and the blood, disrupts the immune, neurological, hormone, and reproductive systems, and may damage chitin.

The U.S. National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute results last year confirm this radiation is a carcinogen. 5th generation wireless — 5G — will especially impact insects due to the wavelength of the frequencies.

The many rocket launches will also severely damage the atmosphere and ozone layer.

Richard Branson is an investor in this project which is partnering with AirBus. OneWeb is one of a number of projects already approved by the FCC for space-based Wi-Fi, 4G, and 5G. Elon Musk’s company SpaceX plans to send 1000s of satellites into orbit, beginning in June.These companies intend to cover the entire Earth. There will be no place to escape.

Please publicly oppose this devastating project.

Hundreds of doctors and scientists have signed international appeals to stop 5G and space-based systems.– see below.

Environmental, spiritual, health, and consumer groups and leaders are urgently needed to speak up and publicly oppose 5G and these projects.

OneWeb’s original press release for an earlier launch that was cancelled is here.

One additional element: these satellites will dramatically raise the noise floor — increase ambient RF — making it much more difficult for emergency personnel such as police, fire, ambulances, and dispatchers to communicate via their RF equipment.

Recent international appeals opposing 5G and space-based Wi-Fi with details on the impacts:

• See this and this
  International Appeal: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, 2018
  Scientists, physicians and other professional signatories listed
• EU Appeal–Scientists and Doctors Appeal for 5G Moratorium: Warn of Potential Serious Health Effects of 5G, 2017
  Initial signatures: over 180 scientists and doctors
• See this and this
  Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space (GUARDS) letter to European Commission, 2016. signed by experts and citizens
• See this and this
  Appeal to the UN and member nations, 2015,
  247 scientists signed as of January 2019
  Issued a statement in 2017 on 5G

*

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

Nina Beety is a researcher, writer, and public speaker on public policy, the environment, and wireless radiation hazards. Her 2012 report for public officials “Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems: Legislative Solutions” is on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in Monterey, California.

Featured image is from the author

In a pre-dawn airstrike on Tuesday, according to Indian account, 12 Indian Mirage 2000 fighter jets intruded into Pakistan’s airspace and dropped their payload on the top of a mountain at a terrorist training camp, allegedly belonging to a jihadist group that had claimed responsibility for the Pulwama attack in the Indian-administered Kashmir on February 14 in which more than 40 Indian soldiers had lost their lives.

Although Pakistan military’s official spokesman, Major General Asif Ghafoor, tweeted after the Indian incursion that the Indian jets had intruded 3-4 miles in Muzaffarabad sector of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, according to location provided by local residents, the site of the airstrike was deep inside the Pakistani territory between Balakot and Mansehra in northwestern Pakistan. Thankfully no loss of lives has been reported as the bombs fell in the open and created four large craters.

In response, Pakistan’s air force struck six targets inside Indian-administered Kashmir on Wednesday. Indian air force chased Pakistani aircrafts inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir where two Indian MiG-21 aircrafts were shot down by Pakistan’s air force and two Indian pilots were arrested, one them was injured who has been hospitalized.

India has admitted that one MiG-21 has crashed in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and its pilot is missing in action. India has also claimed that its air force has shot down a Pakistani F-16, though Pakistan has denied the claim and the report could not be independently verified.

Although the proximate causes of the latest flare-up between India and Pakistan are evidently Indian elections due to take place in May and the Pulwama terrorist attack which was claimed by the Pakistan-based jihadist group, Jaish-e-Mohammad, though carried out by a Kashmir resident Adil Dar, in order to understand the underlying causes of friction, we need to take a look at the changing geopolitical dynamics in the region.

On January 26, Reuters reported [1] that Taliban officials said the US negotiators had agreed on a draft peace pact setting out the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan within 18 months, potentially ending the United States longest war.

Confirming the news, New York Times reported [2] on January 28 the US chief negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad (image on the right) stated the American and Taliban officials had agreed in principle to the framework of a peace deal in which the insurgents guaranteed to prevent Afghan territory from being used by terrorists, and that could lead to a complete pullout of American troops in return for a ceasefire and Taliban talks with the Afghan government.

Moreover, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted on January 26:

“The US is serious about pursuing peace, preventing Afghanistan from continuing to be a space for international terrorism and bringing forces home,” though he declined to provide a timeframe for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

The news of drawdown of American forces is expected after the second round of peace talks is concluded, which is currently being held in the capital of Qatar, Doha, in which Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (image on the left), a close aide to the Taliban’s deceased leader Mullah Omar, is leading the Taliban delegation in the negotiations with the US Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad.

Baradar was released from captivity [3] in October by Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and was allowed to join his family in Afghanistan. He was captured in a joint US-Pakistan intelligence-based operation in the southern port city of Karachi in 2010. His release was a longstanding demand of the US-backed Kabul government because he is regarded as a comparatively moderate Taliban leader who could play a positive role in the peace process between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

Alongside the issues of Taliban providing guarantees it would not allow Afghan soil to be used by transnational terrorists, al-Qaeda and Islamic State Khorasan, the Taliban holding direct negotiations with the US-backed Afghan government – which the Taliban regards as an American stooge and hence refuse to recognize – a permanent ceasefire and the formation of a mutually acceptable interim government, a few other minor issues, such as the exchange and release of prisoners, removing travel restrictions on the Taliban leadership and unfreezing its bank accounts are also on the agenda of the peace talks.

Regarding the presence of transnational terrorist networks on the Afghan soil, the al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden has already been killed in a May 2011 raid of the US Navy Seals in the Abbottabad compound in Pakistan and its second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri is on the run. Besides, the number of al-Qaeda’s Arab militants in the Af-Pak region does not exceed more than a few hundred and are hence inconsequential.

Although both Reuters and New York Times reports hailed the news of the pullout of American forces from Afghanistan a diplomatic victory for Washington since the Taliban had agreed to a ceasefire and holding talks with the US-backed government of Afghanistan, in fact the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Afghan soil would be a stellar victory for the Taliban and one of the most humiliating defeats for Washington since the Fall of Saigon in 1975, because besides destroying a country of thirty-million people, Washington has failed to achieve any of its objective, including the much-touted imperialist project of “nation-building,” during its seventeen years of occupation of Afghanistan.

In fact, according to a recent report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the US-backed Afghan government only controls 55% of Afghanistan’s territory. It’s worth noting, however, that SIGAR is a US-based governmental agency that often inflates figures.

Factually, the government’s writ does not extend beyond a third of Afghanistan. In many cases, the Afghan government controls district-centers of provinces and outlying rural areas are either controlled by the Taliban or are contested.

If we take a cursory look at the insurgency in Afghanistan, the Bush administration toppled the Taliban regime with the help of the Northern Alliance in October 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attack. Since the beginning, however, Afghanistan was an area of lesser priority for the Bush administration.

The number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan did not exceed beyond 30,000 during George Bush’s tenure as president, and soon after occupying Afghanistan, Washington invaded Iraq in March 2003 and American resources and focus shifted to Iraq.

It was the Obama administration that made the Afghanistan conflict the bedrock of its foreign policy in 2009 along with fulfilling then-President Obama’s electoral pledge of withdrawing American forces from Iraq in December 2011. At the height of the surge of the US troops in Afghanistan in 2010, the American troops numbered around 140,000 but they still could not manage to have a lasting effect on the relentless Taliban insurgency.

The Taliban are known to be diehard fighters who are adept at hit-and-run guerrilla tactics and have a much better understanding of the Afghan territory compared to foreigners. Even by their standards, however, the Taliban insurgency seems to be on steroids during the last couple of years.

The Taliban have managed to overrun and hold vast swathes of territory not only in the traditional Pashtun heartland of southern Afghanistan, such as Helmand, but have also made significant inroads into the northern provinces of Afghanistan which are the traditional strongholds of the Northern Alliance comprising the Tajik and Uzbek ethnic groups.

In October 2016, for instance, the Taliban mounted brazen attacks on the Gormach district of northwestern Faryab province, the Tirankot district of Uruzgan province and briefly captured [4] the district-center of the northern Kunduz province, before they were repelled with the help of US air power.

The main reason of the surge in Taliban attacks during the last couple of years appears to be the drawdown of American troops which now number only 14,000, and are likely to be significantly scaled back after the conclusion of the second round of peace talks, currently being held in Doha, Qatar.

Finally and in conclusion, the Pashtun Taliban is known to be the proxy of Pakistan’s military whereas India has traditionally supported the Northern Alliance, comprising the Tajik and Uzbek ethnic groups. After the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attack, India was hopeful that Washington would pressure Pakistan to withdraw its support from jihadist group, including the Kashmir-focused militant groups which are a thorn in India’s side.

India even mobilized its troops along Pakistan’s borders in 2002 in order to pressure Pakistan to toe Washington’s “war on terror” policy in Afghanistan, and it has invested significant Indian resources during the last seventeen years of the US occupation of Afghanistan. But it is now becoming obvious that not only Washington is permanently abandoning the region, but the rest of the global powers, such as Russia and China, are also getting cozy to Pakistan’s proxy, the Taliban.

As soon as American troops withdraw from the region, Pakistan’s military would once again get a free hand not only to nurture militancy in Afghanistan but also in Kashmir. Thus, the Indian air force conducted an aerial incursion in the Pakistani airspace on Tuesday in sheer frustration, apparently sending a message that even if Washington abandons the region, India can guard its own strategic interests, though the audacious show of force has evidently backfired.

*

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

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

Notes

[1] Foreign troops to quit Afghanistan in 18 months:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-draft/foreign-troops-to-quit-afghanistan-in-18-months-under-draft-deal-taliban-officials-idUSKCN1PK0DG

[2] US and Taliban Agree in Principle to Peace Framework:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/asia/taliban-peace-deal-afghanistan.html

[3] Afghan Taliban founder Mullah Baradar released by Pakistan:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/afghan-taliban-founder-mullah-baradar-released-pakistan-181025093128441.html

[4] Concerted Taliban onslaughts on Kunduz, Faryab, Uruzgan, Farah and Helmand:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/afghanistan-taliban-captures-ghormach-district-161011141613477.html

We are bringing to the attention of our readers the testimony of former Trump staff Michael D. Cohen.

Cohen’s statements are backed up by documents made available to the House Committee on Oversight. The testimony includes reference to fraudulent transactions, coverup of Trump’s business interests in Russia, the payment of hush money

Apart from Trump’s business interests with Russia which are of a  financial nature, Cohen does not provide evidence that Trump’s election campaign was supported by the Kremlin.

Upon the release of the BuzzFeed News report in mid-January, the US media has gone into high gear focussing on the possibility of impeachment on the grounds that President Trump had instructed “Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about his business dealings in Russia” (Vox, Jan 18, 2019)

The general reaction among House Democrats was that this was a very serious allegation — and that they wanted to hold hearings and investigate to see if the story was true. And some are already on the record as saying that if it is true, impeachment would be the appropriate response.

Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-TX), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted late Thursday that if the story is true, “President Trump must resign or be impeached.”

The testimony points to Trump’s fraudulent behavior, racism and adultery. But these are issues which are already known and documented.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 27, 2019

***

Highlights (bold) by Global Research

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL D. COHEN

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 2019

Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today.

I have asked this Committee to ensure that my family be protected from Presidential threats, and that the Committee be sensitive to the questions pertaining to ongoing investigations. Thank you for your help and for your understanding.

I am here under oath to correct the record, to answer the Committee’s questions truthfully, and to offer the American people what I know about President Trump.

I recognize that some of you may doubt and attack me on my credibility. It is for this reason that I have incorporated into this opening statement documents that are irrefutable, and demonstrate that the information you will hear is accurate and truthful.

Never in a million years did I imagine, when I accepted a job in 2007 to work for Donald Trump, that he would one day run for President, launch a 2 campaign on a platform of hate and intolerance, and actually win. I regret the day I said “yes” to Mr. Trump. I regret all the help and support I gave him along the way.

I am ashamed of my own failings, and I publicly accepted responsibility for them by pleading guilty in the Southern District of New York.

I am ashamed of my weakness and misplaced loyalty – of the things I did for Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him.
Editors’ Picks

 

I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience.

I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is.

He is a racist.

He is a conman.

He is a cheat.

He was a presidential candidate who knew that Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails.

I will explain each in a few moments.

I am providing the Committee today with several documents. These include:

• A copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account – after he became president – to reimburse me for the hush money payments I made to cover up his affair with an adult film star and prevent damage to his campaign;

• Copies of financial statements for 2011 – 2013 that he gave to such institutions as Deutsche Bank;

• A copy of an article with Mr. Trump’s handwriting on it that reported on the auction of a portrait of himself – he arranged for the bidder ahead of time and then reimbursed the bidder from the account of his non-profit charitable foundation, with the picture now hanging in one of his country clubs; and

• Copies of letters I wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction that threatened his high school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores.

I hope my appearance here today, my guilty plea, and my work with law enforcement agencies are steps along a path of redemption that will restore faith in me and help this country understand our president better.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

 

Before going further, I want to apologize to each of you and to Congress as a whole.

The last time I appeared before Congress, I came to protect Mr. Trump. Today, I’m here to tell the truth about Mr. Trump.

I lied to Congress about when Mr. Trump stopped negotiating the Moscow Tower project in Russia. I stated that we stopped negotiating in January 2016. That was false – our negotiations continued for months later during the campaign.

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell 5 me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.

There were at least a half-dozen times between the Iowa Caucus in January 2016 and the end of June when he would ask me “How’s it going in Russia?” – referring to the Moscow Tower project.

You need to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it.

To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project.

And so I lied about it, too – because Mr. Trump had made clear to me, through his personal statements to me that we both knew were false and through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie. And he made it 6 clear to me because his personal attorneys reviewed my statement before I gave it to Congress.

Over the past two years, I have been smeared as “a rat” by the President of the United States. The truth is much different, and let me take a brief moment to introduce myself.

My name is Michael Dean Cohen. I am a blessed husband of 24 years and a father to an incredible daughter and son. When I married my wife, I promised her that I would love her, cherish her, and protect her. As my father said countless times throughout my childhood, “you my wife, and you my children, are the air that I breathe.” To my Laura, my Sami, and my Jake, there is nothing I wouldn’t do to protect you.

I have always tried to live a life of loyalty, friendship, generosity, and compassion – qualities my parents ingrained in my siblings and me since childhood. My father survived the Holocaust thanks to the compassion and selfless acts of others. He was helped by many who put themselves in harm’s way to do what they knew was right.

That is why my first instinct has always been to help those in need. Mom and Dad…I am sorry that I let you down.

Michael D. Cohen provided documents to Congress that he said would support his testimony about the 2016 campaign and Mr. Trump’s business practices.

As many people that know me best would say, I am the person they would call at 3AM if they needed help. I proudly remember being the emergency contact for many of my children’s friends when they were growing up because their parents knew that I would drop everything and care for them as if they were my own.

Yet, last fall I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with Individual #1.

For the record: Individual #1 is President Donald J. Trump.

It is painful to admit that I was motivated by ambition at times. It is even more painful to admit that many times I ignored my conscience and acted loyal to a man when I should not have. Sitting here today, it seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were absolutely wrong.

For that reason, I have come here to apologize to my family, to the government, and to the American people.

Accordingly, let me now tell you about Mr. Trump.

I got to know him very well, working very closely with him for more than 10 years, as his Executive Vice President and Special Counsel and then personal attorney when he became President. When I first met Mr. Trump, he was a successful entrepreneur, a real estate giant, and an icon. Being around Mr. Trump was intoxicating. When you were in his presence, you felt like you were involved in something greater than yourself — that you were somehow changing the world.

I wound up touting the Trump narrative for over a decade. That was my job. Always stay on message. Always defend. It monopolized my life. At first, I worked mostly on real estate developments and other business transactions. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump brought me into his personal life and private dealings. Over time, I saw his true character revealed.

Mr. Trump is an enigma. He is complicated, as am I. He has both good and bad, as do we all. But the bad far outweighs the good, and since taking office, he has become the worst version of himself. He is capable of behaving kindly, but he is not kind. He is capable of committing acts of generosity, but he is not generous. He is capable of being loyal, but he is fundamentally disloyal.

Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation – only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say, this campaign was going to be the “greatest infomercial in political history.”

He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign – for him – was always a marketing opportunity.

I knew early on in my work for Mr. Trump that he would direct me to lie to further his business interests. I am ashamed to say, that when it was for a real estate mogul in the private sector, I considered it trivial. As the President, I consider it significant and dangerous.

I knew early on in my work for Mr. Trump that he would direct me to lie to further his business interests. I am ashamed to say, that when it was for a real estate mogul in the private sector, I considered it trivial. As the President, I consider it significant and dangerous.

But in the mix, lying for Mr. Trump was normalized, and no one around him questioned it. In fairness, no one around him today questions it, either.

A lot of people have asked me about whether Mr. Trump knew about the release of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of time. The answer is yes.

As I earlier stated, Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks drop of emails.

In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of “wouldn’t that be great.”

Mr. Trump is a racist. The country has seen Mr. Trump court white supremacists and bigots. You have heard him call poorer countries “shitholes.”

He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t a “shithole.” This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States.

While we were once driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that only black people could live that way.

And, he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid.

And yet I continued to work for him.

Mr. Trump is a cheat.

As previously stated, I’m giving the Committee today three years of President Trump’s financial statements, from 2011-2013, which he gave to Deutsche Bank to inquire about a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills and to Forbes. These are Exhibits 1a, 1b, and 1c to my testimony.

It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes.

I am sharing with you two newspaper articles, side by side, that are examples of Mr. Trump inflating and deflating his assets, as I said, to suit his financial interests. These are Exhibit 2 to my testimony.

As I noted, I’m giving the Committee today an article he wrote on, and sent me, that reported on an auction of a portrait of Mr. Trump. This is Exhibit 3A to my testimony.

Mr. Trump directed me to find a straw bidder to purchase a portrait of him that was being auctioned at an Art Hamptons Event. The objective was to ensure that his portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon. The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. Please see Exhibit 3B to my testimony.

And it should come as no surprise that one of my more common responsibilities was that Mr. Trump directed me to call business owners, many of whom were small businesses, that were owed money for their services and told them no payment or a reduced payment would be coming. When I advised Mr. Trump of my success, he actually reveled in it.

And yet, I continued to work for him.

Mr. Trump is a conman.

He asked me to pay off an adult film star with whom he had an affair, and to lie to his wife about it, which I did. Lying to the First Lady is one of my biggest regrets. She is a kind, good person. I respect her greatly – and she did not deserve that.

I am giving the Committee today a copy of the $130,000 wire transfer from me to Ms. Clifford’s attorney during the closing days of the presidential campaign that was demanded by Ms. Clifford to maintain her silence about her affair with Mr. Trump. This is Exhibit 4 to my testimony.

Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a Home Equity Line of Credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign. I did that, too – without bothering to consider whether that was improper, much less whether it was the right thing to do or how it would impact me, my family, or the public.

I am going to jail in part because of my decision to help Mr. Trump hide that payment from the American people before they voted a few days later.

Michael D. Cohen provided documents to Congress that he said would support his testimony about the 2016 campaign and Mr. Trump’s business practices.

As Exhibit 5 to my testimony shows, I am providing a copy of a $35,000 check that President Trump personally signed from his personal bank 14 account on August 1, 2017 – when he was President of the United States – pursuant to the cover-up, which was the basis of my guilty plea, to reimburse me – the word used by Mr. Trump’s TV lawyer — for the illegal hush money I paid on his behalf. This $35,000 check was one of 11 check installments that was paid throughout the year – while he was President.

The President of the United States thus wrote a personal check for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws. You can find the details of that scheme, directed by Mr. Trump, in the pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

So picture this scene – in February 2017, one month into his presidency, I’m visiting President Trump in the Oval Office for the first time. It’s truly awe-inspiring, he’s showing me around and pointing to different paintings, and he says to me something to the effect of…Don’t worry, Michael, your January and February reimbursement checks are coming. They were FedExed from New York and it takes a while for that to get through the White House system. As he promised, I received the first check for the reimbursement of $70,000 not long thereafter.

When I say conman, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.

As I mentioned, I’m giving the Committee today copies of a letter I sent at Mr. Trump’s direction threatening these schools with civil and criminal actions if Mr. Trump’s grades or SAT scores were ever disclosed without his permission. These are Exhibit 6.

The irony wasn’t lost on me at the time that Mr. Trump in 2011 had strongly criticized President Obama for not releasing his grades. As you can see in Exhibit 7, Mr. Trump declared “Let him show his records” after calling President Obama “a terrible student.”

The sad fact is that I never heard Mr. Trump say anything in private that led me to believe he loved our nation or wanted to make it better. In fact, he did the opposite.

When telling me in 2008 that he was cutting employees’ salaries in half – including mine – he showed me what he claimed was a $10 million IRS tax refund, and he said that he could not believe how stupid the government was for giving “someone like him” that much money back.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump said he did not consider Vietnam Veteran, and Prisoner of War, Senator John McCain to be “a hero” because he likes people who weren’t captured. At the same time, Mr. Trump tasked me to handle the negative press surrounding his medical deferment from the Vietnam draft.

Mr. Trump claimed it was because of a bone spur, but when I asked for medical records, he gave me none and said there was no surgery. He told me not to answer the specific questions by reporters but rather offer simply the fact that he received a medical deferment.

He finished the conversation with the following comment. “You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam.”

I find it ironic, President Trump, that you are in Vietnam right now.

And yet, I continued to work for him.

Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions.

Sometime in the summer of 2017, I read all over the media that there had been a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 involving Don Jr. and others from the campaign with Russians, including a representative of the Russian government, and an email setting up the meeting with the subject line, “Dirt on Hillary Clinton.” Something clicked in my mind. I remember being in the room with Mr. Trump, probably in early June 2016, when something peculiar happened. Don Jr. came into the room and walked behind his father’s desk – which in itself was unusual. People didn’t just walk behind Mr. Trump’s desk to talk to him. I recalled Don Jr. leaning over to his father and speaking in a low voice, which I could clearly hear, and saying: “The meeting is all set.” I remember Mr. Trump saying, “Ok good…let me know.”

What struck me as I looked back and thought about that exchange between Don Jr. and his father was, first, that Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in the world. And also, that Don Jr. would never set up any meeting of any significance alone – and certainly not without checking with his father.

I also knew that nothing went on in Trump world, especially the campaign, without Mr. Trump’s knowledge and approval. So, I concluded that Don Jr. was referring to that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting about dirt on Hillary with the Russian representative when he walked behind his dad’s desk that day — and that Mr. Trump knew that was the meeting Don Jr. was talking about when he said, “That’s good…let me know.”

Over the past year or so, I have done some real soul searching. I see now that my ambition and the intoxication of Trump power had much to do with the bad decisions I made.

To you, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, the other members of this Committee, and the other members of the House and Senate, I am sorry for my lies and for lying to Congress.

To our nation, I am sorry for actively working to hide from you the truth about Mr. Trump when you needed it most.

For those who question my motives for being here today, I understand. I have lied, but I am not a liar. I have done bad things, but I am not a bad man. I have fixed things, but I am no longer your “fixer,” Mr. Trump.

I am going to prison and have shattered the safety and security that I tried so hard to provide for my family. My testimony certainly does not diminish the pain I caused my family and friends – nothing can do that. And I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump.

And, by coming today, I have caused my family to be the target of personal, scurrilous attacks by the President and his lawyer – trying to intimidate me from appearing before this panel. Mr. Trump called me a “rat” for choosing to tell the truth – much like a mobster would do when one of his men decides to cooperate with the government.

As Exhibit 8 shows, I have provided the Committee with copies of Tweets that Mr. Trump posted, attacking me and my family – only someone burying his head in the sand would not recognize them for what they are: encouragement to someone to do harm to me and my family.

I never imagined that he would engage in vicious, false attacks on my family – and unleash his TV-lawyer to do the same. I hope this committee and all members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will make it clear: As a nation, we should not tolerate attempts to intimidate witnesses before congress and attacks on family are out of bounds and not acceptable.

I wish to especially thank Speaker Pelosi for her statements in Exhibit 9 to protect this institution and me, and the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff and Chairman Cummings for likewise defending this institution and my family against the attacks by Mr. Trump, and also the many Republicans who have admonished the President as well.

I am not a perfect man. I have done things I am not proud of, and I will live with the consequences of my actions for the rest of my life.

But today, I get to decide the example I set for my children and how I attempt to change how history will remember me. I may not be able to change the past, but I can do right by the American people here today.

Thank you for your attention. I am happy to answer the Committee’s questions.

Source: US Congress Transcripts, published in the NYT

 

It is, unfortunately, a matter of fact that less than half of UK adults say the news media is doing a good job at getting facts right, the worst rate for trustworthiness in western Europe. It is also a sad fact that the British press is not just the most politically unbalanced, it is regarded as the most right-wing and biased in Europe as well.

It is these two facts, untrustworthiness and bias by the mainstream media that has allowed Britain to shift from a fairly consistent idea of the political realities of their country, communities and people they interact with – to one dominated by propaganda and disinformation. This seismic shift has taken less than a decade to take a real grip on Britain’s political discourse and is now driving not just public opinion but political policy.

Hannah Arendt, widely considered one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century wrote, –

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.’ So to defend our democracy we need to analyse the assault on our shared reality by those who would seek to create a world of ‘alternative facts.”

And ‘alternative facts’ is something you already know something about because the media space is full of it. In reality, it is proving to be little more than an intervention on democracy by those with a hidden agenda.

As MEP Molly Scott Cato says on the The Brexit Syndicate –

“Any attempt to criticise the purveyors of disinformation – or to assert a right to limit the use of propaganda within a democratic system – is met with accusations of oppression and claims that creating a legal structure within which a genuinely free media might flourish are attempts to deprive the propagandists of their freedom. But, as Winston Smith observes in 1984 by George Orwell, ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four’ and not to enable those who would claim that it equals five. I examined some of these issues in a report about the Leveson Inquiry, concluding that our media system is anything but free.”

By the nature of politics, the right-wing will always have more money, resources and power than the left-wing. One is fundamentally capitalist and the other socialist – albeit that rather binary description has many caveats.

This is evidenced by the ‘alt-right’ being considerably louder, (certainly in Britain) than its opposing movement – and has managed to permeate the mainstream media to such an extent that entirely false claims like the £350 million Britain would save by not being a member state of the EU would go on health spending. The message there was clear, Britain was made poorer by membership and could therefore not afford to look after its own. Rich and powerful people who promoted this idea knew then that this claim was entirely false. The evidence provided by the OBR was clear. It was fake news – but millions were taken in by it.

No matter what your political allegiances are, this next fact is at best very disturbing. Academics at the London School of Economics analysed the content of eight national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, when Mr Corbyn was first elected. That information was then published in The Independent, the only paper to have done so.

“The media researchers found that in 52 per cent of articles about the Labour leader, his own views were not included – while in a further 22 per cent they were “present but taken out of context” or otherwise distorted.”

The results were in fact even worse when looked at from a different angle.

In just 15 per cent of 812 articles analysed, Mr Corbyn’s views were present but challenged, and in only 11 per cent were they present without alteration. Think about that – only 11 per cent of reports about the comments and thoughts of the opposition leader in Britain was unaltered.

Dr Bart Cammaerts, the project director concluded –

“Allowing an important and legitimate political actor, ie the leader of the main opposition party, to develop their own narrative and have a voice in the public space is paramount in a democracy.”

Other good examples of politically pinpointed deceit in the mainstream media are demonstrated no better than false newspaper reports from the right-wing press that have included claims that Jeremy Corbyn’s ancestor was the “despotic” master of a Victorian workhouse (Daily Express), that he rides a “Chairman Mao-style bicycle (The Times) and that he will appoint a special minister for Jews (the Sun). Whilst just personal smears – all these claims are designed to blur what is fact and what is not.

We are now seeing this false narrative at the very forefront of British politics. The breakaway faction of mainly the Labour party, the Independent Group, justifies its action by saying anti-semitism has become so endemic in the party since Jeremy Corbyn became leader, that they had no choice but to quit.  And yet, an in-depth report by none other than the Commons Home Affairs Committee, found there was “no reliable, empirical evidence” that Labour had any more of an anti-semitism problem than any other British political party, the Tories included. Two ways to look at that is that either there is no anti-semitism issue in the first place or that the Tories are just as bad. Either way, the accusations are unfounded and therefore false.

A big part of the problem is that this era of ‘alternative facts’ and fake news have ultimately been advanced and then accelerated by social media. Their own false narrative is that due to free speech rights they should not be responsible for the content their platforms share, irrespective of the damage they do. The reality is they simply do not want to spend the money to moderate the content on their own product properly.

For example, In 2018, General Motors employed 180,000 people producing cars. It made $147 billion in revenue. Facebook’s revenue last year was $56 billion – and it employs 35,000 people globally. Facebook spends half that of GM (per $billion) on people to do the job. Facebook’s workforce tasked with reviewing the most offensive content on the web is underpaid, overworked, and poorly supported – GM can’t afford for their workforce to fail otherwise the people who buy their product could get hurt. Many, many people are mentally and physically hurt by social media. The comparison may not be great – but you get the point.

The result of the failure of social media platforms is that the ‘alternative facts’, the fake news, was then followed up with very public animosity and hostility, which has now become the common normality of our political discourse.

The truth is, that in this environment the level of false information impairs society’s ability to absorb facts so real evidence-based knowledge declines – and the reality of a genuine and public democratic debate literally dissolves without us noticing.

It is common knowledge that the Daily Mail is perhaps the most untrusted newspaper in Britain. It is a point of fact that it also happens to be the most right-wing. It should be disturbing to know that the Daily Mail’s website is now the largest English-speaking newspaper website in the world and has been since about 2011. But somehow it isn’t. In 2017, Wikipedia editors even banned the Daily Mail as a source for its website after deeming it “generally unreliable”. And yet, it’s powerful influence over the political narrative in Britain is equally valid as a claim.

And as Molly Scott Cato says –

“The structures of propaganda, making use of the classic techniques of the Big Lie and of constant repetition of a false narrative as honed by authoritarians in the last century, are flourishing on the hard right.”

Like the beginnings of road rage in the early 1990s, Britain then soared to worst incidents by numbers by 2000 in Europe, moving to last year where over 60 per cent of drivers in a survey reported a verbal or physical attack in the last 12 months – the political narrative is now getting out of control and causing real harm.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

Global oil and gas companies are increasingly facing an uphill battle as global warming policies are taking their toll. Most analysts and market watchers are focusing on peak oil demand scenarios, but the reality could be much darker. International oil companies (IOCs) are likely to face a Black Swan scenario, which could end up being a boon for state-owned oil companies (NOCs).

Increased shareholder activism, combined with global warming policies of institutional investors and NGOs, are pushing IOCs in a corner, constricting financing options for oil companies.

The first signs of a green revolution in the shareholder-investors universe are there, as investors have forced Dutch oil and gas major Shell to officially change its strategy, investing in more renewable energy and energy storage. The Dutch IOC wasn’t forced by to do so because of mismanagement or a lack of reserves but due to a well-orchestrated investor/stakeholder offensive. Several other peers, such as BP, ENI or Total, are expected to experience comparable situations.

And it has become clear that not only oil and gas giants are being targeted, after one of the world’s largest mining and commodity trading companies, Glencore, decided to put a limit on its thermal coal investment. The group stated that this was done after it was confronted by a largely unknown shareholder network called Climate Action 100+, which claims to be backed by more than 300 investors, managing assets of around $32 trillion. The group was founded a little over a year ago but has already forced oil majors’ boardrooms to take radical decisions.

The above shows that international hydrocarbon and mining sectors are facing a new obstacle, being confronted by large groups of socially and environmentally engaged shareholders, which are no longer looking at commercial value only. A combination of activist institutional investors, international pension funds and NGOs, is a new force to be dealt with. Stock-exchanged listed companies will need to address the will of their shareholders, especially with regards to climate change policies or decarbonization of the economy. After decades of having focused on creating maximum shareholder returns, things have changed dramatically, but maybe not for the better.

For Climate Action 100+, which includes investors such as Calpers, Allianz SE, and HSBC Global Asset Management, making profitable investments remains a top priority, but they will no longer look accept a passive stance towards climate change. Without complying with the demands of NGOs and socially engaged investors, access to new capital for new oil and gas upstream projects will be reduced. Some even expect that the role of Western IOCs could decline in the next couple of years, due to political shareholder engagement policies. To force IOCs, such as Shell or BP, to comply with policies that would halve their “net carbon footprint” by 2050 could result in a death-wish for these companies in the long-run.

The demise of IOCs, as we know them right now, could come sooner than many may expect. This will, of course, come at a cost for energy-hungry regions or consumers. With a net demand growth for oil and gas in the coming years, the world will need all hands on deck to support upstream investments to bring the hard-needed oil and gas reserves and volumes to the market. With less financing options for IOCs, and also oilfield services, the already existing investment gap in upstream investment worldwide will only grow wider. In contrast to what some media sources are suggesting, oil and gas demand will not diminish, on the contrary, oil and gas prices will rise due to a lack of supply.

That this picture is not a future nightmare scenario but is already the reality, is shown by the fact that a growing amount of smaller oil and gas companies have become insolvent. The latter is partly caused by “global warming constraints” and lower oil prices in general. The first casualties are falling in Europe, mainly the UK, where 16 companies went bankrupt in 2018, in comparison to zero in 2012. British accountancy firm Moore Stephenson stated that lower prices were the main cause. At the same time, increased costs (North Sea decommissioning) and lower oil price expectations are doing the rest. If the international financial markets are going to take over the doomsday scenarios presented by pressure groups and NGOs, independent oil and gas companies are going to be hit extremely hard. No investor is willing to invest in a sector or company that looks to hit rock-bottom in the next decade. Stranded reserves reports, as presented by the Bank of England and others, are not helping at all to change perceptions.

Western consumers and politicians, however, should not already start to cheer a green revolution and the end of the oil era. The future is different and could be even less positive than currently is assessed. Financial pressure on IOCs is opening up a Pandora’s Box. By removing market-oriented oil and gas giants from global markets, the only way to gain access to oil and gas will be the national oil companies (NOCs). Not only are they the real owners of the overwhelming majority of hydrocarbon reserves in the world, but NOCs are also not constrained by shareholder activism or NGO pressure.

The main driver for NOCs is to support the sustainable economic growth of their home country or government. In stark contrast to IOCs, which are fully focused on shareholder value and profits, NOCs have a long-term national approach, in which other factors are playing a role. Saudi Aramco and its peers are not only the sole owner of the reserves but also of most of the value chain. The ongoing downstream focus of NOCs can be seen as a push to gain control of the entire value chain, from exploration to sales.

This position is still of value to institutional investors and national financial institutions, as the combination of long-term access, ownership and extensive value chain control, is very attractive. The Fitch AA+ rating of Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC shows that NOCs have become very attractive, even more than IOCs at present.

Mainstream investors, hedge- and pension funds, are and will be interested in financing NOCs, as long as demand and profits are there. Western consumers and the industry should however also realize that a transformation of power to NOCs will also mean that market fundamentals will change, and possible unexpected hiccups in supply will occur at the will of governments, not due to market fundamentals. NOCs are still controlled and owned by national governments.

Supply risks will increase if IOCs see their influence in the hydrocarbon sector diminish. Destruction of knowledge, technical capabilities and additional financing, could constrain the hard-needed push for new oil and gas production.

Political and environmental pressure groups should realize that pushing too hard for change could produce a boomerang effect of unwanted-order. To force IOCs to change their investment strategies, and abandon highly profitable upstream projects, while investing in renewables, could be more destabilizing than anticipated. Between 2014 and 2018, upstream oil and gas investments have been hit hard, leaving a $1 trillion investment gap. This development will impact the market within the next 24 months. Lower oil supply will push up prices if demand continues to grow.

*

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. Cyril Widdershoven is a long-time observer of the global energy market. Presently, he holds several advisory positions with international think tanks in the Middle East and energy sectors in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Featured image is by B. Rich/Hedgeye via OilPrice.com

The United States has a track record of asking nations to prove a negative when it comes to compliance with arms control agreements, and then holding them to account when they fail to do so. The deficit of integrity over U.S. claims against Iraq regarding weapons of mass destruction and Iran and its nuclear program speaks volumes about how corrupt America’s policymaking apparatus has become. Now the United States is making the same mistake again by pulling out of the INF Treaty, which it claims Russia violated.

“A high degree of confidence is required before the United States will publicly charge another party with violation of an international agreement.”

Acting Deputy Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) Thomas Graham, Jr. delivered those remarks during testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 1994. At that time, the ACDA served as the lead agency regarding arms control compliance. The intelligence community supported the ACDA’s mission of making firm compliance judgments by providing the necessary intelligence information and analysis.

ACDA was supported in this effort by the CIA’s Arms Control Intelligence Staff, or ACIS. ACIS provided intelligence support tailored for the specific compliance monitoring and verification requirements stemming from arms control agreements such as the INF Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START). It brought a different skill set and mindset than the work being done by the CIA’s Nonproliferation Center, or NPC, whose targets were less structured and far more nebulous and nuanced. It was one thing to assess that nation A was exporting technology capable of supporting nuclear enrichment to nation B; it was far different to determine that Russia had destroyed its silos to the depths mandated by a treaty.

For the former, there was far more latitude in interpreting data used to make assessments. The latter required a level of specificity that was unforgiving and often difficult to achieve.

There was a synergy between ACDA and ACIS that extended throughout the intelligence cycle. ACDA would task ACIS with information and analysis. On more technical issues, ACDA would work directly with more specialized organizations within the intelligence community. ACDA, as the lead arms control agency, was responsible for negotiating arms control agreements that, according to Thomas Graham, “have a level of verifiability that is sufficient to provide an acceptable level of confidence regarding other parties’ compliance.”

As such, ACDA had to be fully appraised about the capabilities and limitations of U.S. intelligence assets so they could appropriately task them with fulfilling specific compliance verification requirements, as well as understanding the limitations of that intelligence. The synergy that existed between ACDA and ACIS allowed for the building of a robust treaty monitoring capability comprised of technical collection systems that were responsive to the specific tasking requirements of policymakers.

But in 1999, the Clinton administration disbanded ACDA, merging its specific arms control functions into a bureau reporting to the under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. This consolidation resulted in the dilution of the relationship between policymakers and the intelligence community. That relationship was further reduced when, in 2001, the intelligence community undertook a similar consolidation, melding ACIS with NPC to create the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center, or WINPAC. One of WINPAC’s first “accomplishments” was the Iraq WMD fiasco. That was followed in short order by an unimpressive performance on Iran, marked by the use of forged documents, flawed human sources derived from compromised opposition groups, and erroneous analysis—in short, Iraq without the war.

The mindset for tracking WMD proliferation is, by its very nature, different from that of verifying arms control agreements. The first permits actions based on suspicion, while the second mandates a high degree of certainty. Blending these distinct approaches into a singular bureaucratic structure invited intelligence failure, where uncorroborated suspicions were translated into de facto violations in a manner that had been virtually impossible under the former ACDA-ACIS relationship. This consolidation, more than anything else, represents the genesis of the current INF Treaty imbroglio.

Sometime in 2007 or 2008, intelligence analysts began observing activity indicating that the Russians were developing a new ground-launched ballistic missile. The specific intelligence tip-offs remain classified, but based on what little has been reported, it appeared to include aerial imagery of the Kapustin Yar missile test facility, telemetry collected from various test launches of missiles, and all-source monitoring of Russian weapons acquisition processes. These are the established intelligence tools of the trade—and, as the Iraq and Iran examples have shown, they are susceptible to misinterpretation.

According to the current director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, the intelligence community “assesses Russia has flight-tested, produced, and deployed cruise missiles with a range capability prohibited by the Treaty.” Coats named the system in question as the 9M729. He noted that the Novator design bureau was the responsible agency, and that the 9M729 missile closely resembled other cruise missiles Novator was developing at the time.

According to Coats,

“Russia conducted the flight test program in a way that appeared purposefully designed to disguise the true nature of their testing activity as well as the capability of the 9M729 missile.”

Coats makes careful use of estimative language, in particular the terms “assesses” and “appeared,” which clearly indicate that the American allegations are not absolute, but rather a matter of analytical supposition. This conclusion is furthered by Coats’ concluding statement: “Russia probably assumed parallel development—tested from the same site—and deployment of other cruise missiles that are not prohibited by the INF Treaty would provide sufficient cover for its INF violation.”

What is clear from Coats’ statement is that Novator was conducting simultaneous tests of multiple similar systems. Open source information confirms that during the timeframe in question, it was working on upgrading the guidance and control systems of the 3M14 “Kaliber” sea-launched cruise missile—which has a range of well over 2,500 miles, but as a sea-launched system is not covered by the INF Treaty—as well as the 9M729, a ground-launched missile. As such, it is plausible that Russia tested the new guidance and flight control system on the 3M14 missile, and then tested the same system on the 9M729 (guidance systems are not covered by the INF Treaty).

It appears that the 9M729 missile that is being deployed by Russia is likely notcapable of ranges that violate the INF Treaty. The Russians have provided a static display of the weapon that showed the propulsion system of the 9M729 to be identical to that of the 9M728 missile, which operates at ranges below the threshold set by the INF. In fact, the larger warhead and increased size of the guidance and flight control systems on the 9M729 result in its range being less than the 9M728. Russia has indicated that it is willing to go further—perhaps removing the missile from its sealed launch canister for a more technical evaluation by U.S. specialists—to reinforce the 9M729’s compliance.

The U.S. has refused to participate in such an exercise. Andrea Thompson, the current under secretary for arms control and international security, met with her Russian counterparts in January 2019 prior to the final decision being made to withdraw from the INF Treaty.

“I was there to listen,” Thompson noted, “but my objective and the message was clear from the administration that Russia must return to full and verifiable compliance with the INF Treaty.”

According to Thompson, the only acceptable solution was “the verifiable destruction of Russia’s noncompliant missile system.”

Thompson’s Russian opposite, Sergei Rybokov, responded by noting,

“Clearly, the United States was no longer interested in obtaining our substantive response to their questions. This once again showed us that our efforts at transparency have no impact on the decisions taken by the United States, and that they have taken all their decisions a long time ago and are only waiting for Russia to plead guilty.”

“A high degree of confidence is required before the United States will publicly charge another party with violation of an international agreement.” The words of Thomas Graham hang heavy in the air today. There is nothing about America’s case against Russia that meets that standard. Instead, the U.S. seems intent on following in the same path as previous intelligence failures in Iraq and Iran. This time, however, the consequences will resonate beyond regional chaos. By killing the INF Treaty based on flawed intelligence, the U.S. risks global annihilation.

*

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

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Dealbreaker: Donald Trump and the Unmaking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (2018) by Clarity Press.

Featured image is from Russian President Vladimir Putin By Harold Escalona/shutterstock And President Trump By Drop of Light/Shutterstock

As Washington and Caracas blame each other for torching a truck carrying what the US called vital ‘humanitarian supplies’ from Colombia to Venezuela, a video has emerged, finally shedding some light on the incident.

In parliament, Alan Duncan for the government has just rejected yesterday’s stunning result at the International Court of Justice, where British occupation of the Chagos Islands was found unlawful by a majority of 13 to 1, with all the judges from EU countries amongst those finding against the UK.

This represents a serious escalation in the UK’s rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the US model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented.

Duncan put forward two arguments. Firstly that the ICJ opinion was “only” advisory to the General Assembly. Secondly, he argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction as the case was a bilateral dispute with Mauritius (and thus could only go before the ICJ with UK consent, which is not given).

But here Duncan is – against all British precedent and past policy – defying a ruling of the ICJ. The British government argued strenuously in the present case against ICJ jurisdiction, on just the grounds Duncan cited. The ICJ considered the UK’s arguments, together with arguments from 32 other states and from the African Union. The ICJ ruled that it did have jurisdiction, because this was not a bilateral dispute but part of the UN ordained process of decolonisation.

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on this point is given at length in paras 83 to 91 of its Opinion. This is perhaps the key section:

88. The Court therefore concludes that the opinion has been requested on the matter of decolonization which is of particular concern to the United Nations. The issues raised by the request are located in the broader frame of reference of decolonization, including the General Assembly’s role therein, from which those issues are inseparable (Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 26, para. 38; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 159, para. 50).

89. Moreover, the Court observes that there may be differences of views on legal questions in advisory proceedings (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 24, para. 34). However, the fact that the Court may have to pronounce on legal issues on which divergent views have been expressed by Mauritius and the United Kingdom does not mean that, by replying to the request, the Court is dealing with a bilateral dispute.

90. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that to give the opinion requested would have the effect of circumventing the principle of consent by a State to the judicial settlement of its dispute with another State. The Court therefore cannot, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to give the opinion on that ground.

91. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there are no compelling reasons for it to decline to give the opinion requested by the General Assembly.

As stated at para 183, that the court did have jurisdiction was agreed unanimously, with even the US judge (the sole dissenter on the main question) in accord. For the British government to reject the ICJ’s unanimous ruling on jurisdiction, and quote that in parliament as the reason for not following the ICJ Opinion, is an astonishing abrogation of international law by the UK. It really is unprecedented. The repudiation of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention over Julian Assange pointed the direction the UK is drifting, but that body does not have the prestige of the International Court of Justice.

The International Court of Justice represents the absolute pinnacle of, and embodies the principle of, international law. In 176 decisions, such as Nigeria vs Cameroon or Malaysia vs Indonesia, potentially disastrous conflicts have been averted by the states’ agreement to abide by the rule of law. The UK’s current attack on the ICJ is a truly disastrous new development.

I have taken it for granted that you know that the reason the UK refuses to decolonise the Chagos Islands is to provide an airbase for the US military on Diego Garcia. If Brexit goes ahead, the Chagos Islands will also lead to a major foreign policy disagreement between the UK and US on one side, and the EU on the other. The EU will be truly shocked by British repudiation of the ICJ.

I have studied the entire and lengthy ICJ Opinion on the Chagos Islands, together with its associated papers, and I will write further on this shortly.

*

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 Georgia Today

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen – who will soon head to prison after pleading guilty to eight criminal charges – will testify to Congress on Wednesday that President Trump is a “con man” and a cheat,” according to a copy of his opening statement given to the New York Times.

Cohen will say that while Trump was “intoxicating” to be around, and “When you were in his presence, you felt like you were involved in something greater than yourself — that you were somehow changing the  world,” that the president is actually a ‘racist, conman and a cheat.’

Cohen will claim among the following (via the Times):

• Trump knew that Roger Stone was “talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails” (something easily confirmed by the Ecuadorian Embassy, which keeps extensive records on Assange’s communications).

In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone,” his written remarks say. “Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of ‘wouldn’t that be great.’”

• Trump “implicitly” instructed Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow timeline – using winks and nods instead of direct language.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing,” Mr. Cohen plans to say. “In his way, he was telling me to lie.”

• Cohen was instructed to “threaten his high school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores.

When I say conman, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.

• Cohen will say that Trump never said “anything in private that led me to believe he loved our nation or wanted to make it better. In fact, he did the opposite.

When telling me in 2008 that he was cutting employees’ salaries in half – including mine – he showed me what he claimed was a $10 million IRS tax refund, and he said that he could not believe how stupid the government was for giving “someone like him” that much money back.

• Cohen will claim Trump is a racist who said that black people are “too stupid” to support him.

• Cohen will say Trump lied about bone spurs to get out of servicing in vietnam. “You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam,” Cohen claims Trump said.

Collusion?

Cohen says that he has no evidence of collusion with Russia surrounding the 2016 US election – but he has his “suspicions.”

Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions

Sometime in the summer of 2017, I read all over the media that there had been a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 involving Don Jr. and others from the campaign with Russians, including a representative of the Russian government, and an email setting up the meeting with the subject line, “Dirt on Hillary Clinton.”

Something clicked in my mind. I remember being in the room with Mr. Trump, probably in early June 2016, when something peculiar happened. Don Jr. came into the room and walked behind his father’s desk – which in itself was unusual. People didn’t just walk behind Mr. Trump’s desk to talk to him. I recalled Don Jr. leaning over to his father and speaking in a low voice, which I could clearly hear, and saying: “The meeting is all set.” I remember Mr. Trump saying, “Ok good…let me know.” What struck me as I looked back and thought about that exchange between Don Jr. and his father was, first, that Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in the world. And also, that Don Jr. would never set up any meeting of any significance alone – and certainly not without checking with his father.

Read the rest of the statement 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 Zero Hedge

India is portraying its first aerial violation of the Line of Control (LoC) in nearly half a century as another “surgical strike” against Pakistan that followed in the footsteps of the operation that it claimed to have pulled off without evidence in 2016, but in the absence of any proof to once again back up its assertion and considering that Pakistan already presented contradictory photographic evidence proving that the so-called “attack” only destroyed a couple of trees, it’s clear that this was just another big Bollywood spectacle for infowar purposes.

Facts First

India dramatically claimed to have pulled off another “surgical strike” against Pakistan in the early hours of 26 February, declaring that 200-300 members of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) were killed in retaliation for the group’s involvement in the Pulwama attack. The country’s media is wildly celebrating what their government portrayed as a massive victory over Pakistan after the Indian Air Force violated the Line of Control (LoC) for the first time since the 1971 war with their neighbor and didn’t instantly trigger a larger conflict. The message being conveyed to their citizens is that India can “surgically strike” Pakistan at will without repercussions, but the actual facts of the matter state something altogether different and show that this is nothing more than a big Bollywood spectacle for infowar purposes.

Here are the facts as they objectively exist at the time of writing:

1. The Pulwama attack was the worst Indian military loss in a generation;
2. India reactively blamed the Pakistani state for involvement in the attack without presenting evidence;
3. The Indian Air Force violated the LoC for the first time since 1971;
4. Pakistan proved that only a few trees were destroyed and no infrastructure damaged or people killed;
5. Islamabad says that the Indian jets shed their payload in fright to jettison extra weight as they fled;
6. New Delhi denies that its jets were chased out of Pakistani airspace by its neighbors’;
7. India presented no evidence to back up its claims that it killed 200-300 JeM fighters;
8. and Pakistan vowed to respond to this border violation at a “time and place of its choosing”.

Modi’s Motivations

Accepting the publicly verifiable veracity of the abovementioned facts, it’s possible to piece together the motivations that Indian Prime Minister Modi had for ordering this stunt. The first and most obvious one that comes to mind is that it was a re-election ploy to ensure his victory ahead of this May’s polls, seeing as how it temporarily appeased his party’s chest-thumping ultra-jingoist base that’s been braying for blood even prior to the Pulwama attack. He’s able to present this as an “unprecedented foreign policy success” against his countrymen’s hated neighbor and show that he’s “tough on terror”. Correspondingly, he can continue to contrast his two “surgical strikes” with the lack of a “kinetic response” to the 2008 Mumbai attack that the Congress opposition blamed on Pakistan when it was in power at the time.

In parallel with this, Modi also wants to shape international perceptions about his country and Pakistan. Per the first-mentioned, he wants it to appear like a “rising military superpower” capable of carrying out “surgical strikes” against another nuclear-armed state without triggering World War III, something that neither the US nor Russia have ever claimed to do against one another even during the height of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Pertaining to Pakistan, Modi wants to paint the country as a “state sponsor of terrorism” that’s “militarily weak” and perennially on the edge of “sliding into instability” because it “can’t control its own borders”. These weaponized narratives are supposed to deter states and private citizens alike from investing in the globally game-changing China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which India opposes on the basis of its maximalist claims to the Kashmir Conflict.

Strategic Context

All of this is occurring in a specific strategic context. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov warned earlier this week against India being used by the US to “contain” China through what he said is the “artificially imposed” concept of the “Indo-Pacific Region”. Seeing as how CPEC is the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project, the latter of which is the engine of the emerging Multipolar World Order, it makes sense why India and its American ally are jointly waging a Hybrid War on CPEC through interconnected terrorist and infowar aggression, especially in the strategically located Pakistani province of Balochistan where the megaproject’s terminal port of Gwadar is based. About that aspect of this unconventional conflict, India recently succeeded in manipulating Iran into blaming Pakistan for the spillover effect of this campaign and even getting Tehran to imply the threat of its own cross-border strike last week.

Bearing this backdrop in mind, India’s latest claim to have carried out its second “surgical strike” against Pakistan in less than three years correlates perfectly with its desire to destabilize its neighbor and the CPEC project that it hosts on behalf of its new American patron in the larger context of the US’ New Cold War competition against China. Neither “surgical strike” accomplished anything of military significance because both were intended from the get-go to be infowar provocations that would negatively shape international perceptions about Pakistan and scare off foreign investment in CPEC, which could have in turn indirectly led to setbacks for China’s grand strategy if they were successful. The latest one, however, saw India dangerously violating the LoC for the first time in almost half a century, which it may have partially done in an attempt to inspire Iran to do something similar.

Debunking The Bollywood Bluster

Three simple points debunk the Bollywood bluster behind India’s false claims of “victory”:

1. The absence of any evidence implicating Pakistani state institutions for involvement in the Pulwama attack means that India’s “surgical strike” claim is technically an aggressive violation of international law, which is counterproductive for its desired soft power gains.
2. The absence of any evidence proving that 200-300 JeM members were killed means that India’s “surgical strike” claim is a lie and intended to cover up its military failure of being too fearful to attack Pakistan while inside of its territory, which is counterproductive for its desired military reputation.
3. In view of the aforementioned and the fact that Pakistan is unfazed by this “surgical strike” claim and wasn’t destabilized by it in the least, India’s stunt actually bolstered its rival’s international standing and counterproductively proved why the global pivot state is more than suitable for foreign investment.

Concluding Thoughts

Far from being the “devastating blow” against Pakistan that many in both the Mainstream and Alternative Medias are presenting it as, India’s latest claims of a “surgical strike” backfired against it after the absence of any evidence confirming the attack or even the supposed “justification” for it (i.e. that Pakistani state institutions were involved in the Pulwama attack) exposed this stunt as being nothing more than a big Bollywood spectacle for infowar purposes. This entire operation failed with every one of its intended objectives because the easily obtainable truth actually harms India’s soft power and military reputation instead of Pakistan’s, Iran wisely didn’t emulate India’s example, and CPEC has yet to be destabilized by New Delhi’s hand at its American ally’s behest. Like all Bollywood productions, “the show must go on”, but the “surgical strike” series won’t have a happy ending for India.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

On February 22, the boss of the Council On Foreign Relations, Richard N. Haass, cited the so-called Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in response to the situation in Venezuela. 

.

.

What the Maduro regime is doing to the people of Venezuela is inconsistent with the obligations that come with being a sovereign state. The time has come for the UN or OAS or Lima Group to consider how to apply the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. https://t.co/Ppum6DJaXS

— Richard N. Haass (@RichardHaass) February 22, 2019

R2P was engineered by the United Nations to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Of course, this policy is selectively enforced.

For instance, while the UN has pointed to Israel as a serial violator of R2P, no action has been taken to curb its ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, certainly not sanctions or an invasion of Israel. 

“If ever there was a group in need of protection from war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing it is the Palestinians,” writes Stephen Gowans for Global Research. “And yet the Palestinians receive little outside help, relying on themselves, for the most part, for whatever little protection they can provide. Realpolitick prevents them from falling within the ambit of the responsibility to protect doctrine, the idea that ‘the international community,’ that is, Western governments led by the United States, should intervene in other countries to prevent genocide, mass killings and massive human rights abuses. Responsibility to protect (R2P) has given rise to campaigns for humanitarian intervention in Darfur, Myanmar and Zimbabwe, but not Gaza or the West Bank.”

Moreover, this highly selective double standard does not apply to the United States and its so-called war on terror against manufactured enemies. 

“The most extreme expressions of this cognitive dissonance occurred during the Obama administration, when the notion of U.S. exceptionalism was used to justify continuing the barbarism of the Bush administration’s so-called War on Terror,” explains Ajamu Baraka, the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace. “With this justification and the outrageous assertion that it was defending democracy, the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination committed crimes against humanity and war crimes that resulted in the deaths of millions, while millions more were displaced and ancient cities, nations and peoples were destroyed.”

A WIN/Gallup International survey of people in 65 countries conducted in 2014 found most of those surveyed consider the US the greatest threat to world peace, followed by Pakistan (now apparently at war with India), and China. 

Richard Haass is naturally a hypocrite and his tweet reveals what the ruling elite want for Venezuela—a return to the status quo before Hugo Chávez: all the nation’s wealth owned by a small oligarchic elite and parceling out of its vast oil reserve to transnational corporations. 

In 1995, before Chávez’s ascension, the poverty rate in Venezuela stood at 55%. As the chart below shows, in 1999 extreme poverty was at 23.4%. 

When the geopolitical ignoramus Donald Trump and his foreign policy handlers—Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, and Abrams—talk about “democracy,” they are talking about returning Venezuela to its vassal state with accompanying mass poverty and disenfranchisement. 

The people of Venezuela know this and are ready to fight against the neoliberal diktat of poverty and international bankster imposed debt.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Tehran Times

As the Soviet Union crumbled in December 1991, a Special Period unfolded in Cuba as she reeled from the disappearance of her principal commercial partner. In the late 1980s, over 85% of Cuba’s trade was tied to the USSR.

During those months that followed Soviet disintegration, Cuba was shorn of 80% of both its exports and imports, while her Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plunged by 34%. By comparison, America’s GDP fell by 30% during the Great Depression.

These were staggering blows for any nation to endure, let alone a state not much larger in size than Ireland. In 1989, the daily average intake of a Cuban adult was about 3,000 calories, an acceptable level of consumption by first world standards. Come 1993, the typical Cuban was living on 2,000 calories per day, and by 1995 it declined to around 1,800 calories. Gradual weight loss was witnessed throughout the country.

The Special Period still resembled nothing like a Siege of Leningrad scenario, in which 800,000 people starved to death during the Nazi blockade.

Incredibly, no person in Cuba died directly due to starvation, yet hunger was widespread initially, affecting children and the elderly most severely. Deprivations such as this had not been seen in Cuba since the pre-1959 days, when she was a virtual American colony and run like a traditional gangster’s paradise.

To overcome this crisis, the state’s leader Fidel Castro encouraged and promoted self-sufficient agriculture to take root in any available space across Cuba, including in parks and gardens. The Castro government dispatched teams of experts to train others in the mastery of independent farming, minus the use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers. By the mid-to-late 1990s, the situation was slowly improving as hunger pangs eased.

Cuba had also been a huge importer of oil from the USSR, and petroleum levels in the country subsequently dropped by 90%. Prior to 1991, for any Soviet petrol that Cuba did not consume, the island nation then re-exported to other countries which represented a crucial mode of income.

As a result, the Cuban population’s reliance upon automobiles was no longer a viable one. To offset this separate catastrophe, Castro imported over one million bicycles from the People’s Republic of China, which became an important ally.

Steps were implemented to manufacture a further 500,000 bicycles within Cuba itself, bringing the combined number to about two million. That is, almost one bicycle for every five people. For those who did not own a bicycle, public transport and carpooling were advised, along with walking.

As oil supplies were almost wiped out, Castro further reintroduced the dependence on the horse as a means of drawing carriages, a method which humankind had for thousands of years relied upon; but which has almost disappeared over past generations. The horse is an animal that boasts impressive strength and beauty, but which has been increasingly cast into the fields and stables, lying idle as the world became industrialized.

The modest selection of material stocks in Cuba, dwindling further during the Special Period, might not be as disastrous as it seems. In rich consumer societies, one can be bamboozled with the many brands of shampoo, toothpaste, soap, and so on. To exist in comfort, a human being requires only a limited set of goods and products. It is no bad thing for a person to sometimes live without certain luxuries, as it can make one appreciate such a thing far more when one has possession of it.

Image on the right: U.S president Dwight D. Eisenhower (left), and leader of Cuba Fidel Castro (right)

Meanwhile, driving Cuba’s massive reliance upon the USSR was an American embargo, first implemented during the latter end of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s presidency. In February 1962 the embargo was extended by Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy, to include almost all exports. Its punishing ramifications persist to the current day in opposition to almost entire world opinion.

Kennedy had instituted aggressive actions against Cuba, such as the illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. It was followed by a covert campaign of terror known as Operation Mongoose, authorized via presidential consent in late 1961, with the ultimate aim of toppling Castro.

This CIA-administered scheme ranged from artillery and gun attacks against Cuba, to poisoning of crops and livestock, contamination of sugar exports, along with a range of plans to assassinate the Cuban leader. US government assaults lasted into the early 1980s, descending to acts of biological and chemical warfare, such as the introduction of African swine fever and dengue fever into Cuba.

In the meantime, Castro realized that his country must seek close ties with the Soviets for their revolution to survive – particularly in its early years when socialism was not yet deep-rooted in Cuba and under major attack.

Widespread aspersions that Cuba was “a Soviet client state” ranked as mischievous propaganda. The revolution swept to power in early 1959 without any assistance from the USSR. Entirely independent of Moscow were Castro’s policies such as the institution of world-renowned health and education systems, the eradication of homelessness, drug addiction and gambling, along with the Cuban-inspired liberation of southern Africa from apartheid.

Nelson Mandela, the South African political leader, held a strong reverence for Castro personally, describing him as “a tower of strength” and he remarked in summer 1991,

“The Cuban internationalists have made a contribution to African independence, freedom and justice unparalleled for its principled and selfless character” – and that the Cuban Revolution “has been a source of inspiration for all freedom loving people”.

As time progressed into the mid-1990s and beyond, far-sighted strategies enacted by Castro’s government, adapting to the adverse conditions, began to pay off. It came as a shock not only to elite US organizations that the socialist project in Cuba survived, but those in Russia like Mikhail Gorbachev were taken aback too.

Gorbachev noted that,

“Fidel held his ground and strengthened his country at the time of the harshest American blockade, at the time of massive pressure on him”.

Weighing all of the obstacles placed against Cuba, it is remarkable that their revolution exists into its 61st year. Along with the large-scale support of Cuba’s population, Castro can take ample credit in defying the most powerful nation in history – whose strongly militarized coastline in Key West, Florida, is just over 100 miles from Havana, Cuba’s capital.

Elsewhere, in South America, while the situation in Venezuela is indeed serious, the difficulties she faces may not be as severe as those experienced by Cuba. The crisis is undoubtedly a gruelling test of Nicolás Maduro‘s leadership, but the 56-year-old can take inspiration from that resilience demonstrated most abundantly by the Cubans.

Maduro should also draw courage from the many thousands of Cuban personnel in Venezuela, with the two Latin American nations now relying heavily upon each other.

It may be worth mentioning that Maduro is Venezuela’s democratically elected president, and is recognized as such by the United Nations. International observers have explicitly outlined, noting “the sophistication of the voting system” in May 2018, that Maduro won a “fraud-proof” election claiming more than 66% of votes.

The independent analysts highlight, “We were unanimous in concluding that the elections were conducted fairly”, and certain allegations to the contrary have been “of the most disgraceful kind”. Numerous claims that Maduro’s election victory was “fraudulent” are, therefore, disingenuous and without foundation.

In addition, it is somewhat outrageous that a youthful figure such as Juan Guaidó – unknown before Christmas to over 80% of Venezuelans – has “declared himself interim president”. Guaidó, a pawn of the White House, has committed a number of errors like publicly confirming his regular contact with Washington and tying himself so obviously to American business interests. It is a shameful episode and Guaidó will surely never have the legitimate support of Venezuela’s people.

The US government-led pressures and threats against Venezuela are furthermore a violation of the UN Charter, which was signed in San Francisco, California, during late June 1945. President Donald Trump, along with his National Security Advisor John Bolton, has said recently that “All options are on the table” with regard Venezuela, including a possible US military intervention.

The UN Charter, under Article 2, declares that,

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

Once more, the old charter is being shredded to pieces. That Venezuela contains 20% of the world’s known oil reserves is of more importance to some than refraining “from the threat or use of force”, which is against international law to begin with.

*

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.

Annual bilateral trade between the 5th largest economy in the world and the 34th rated global economy exceeds US$3 billion with over 300 known Israeli companies operating in Britain.  Much of this trade is in classified military equipment, armaments and security systems notwithstanding that the state of Israel is the only undeclared nuclear entity, globally, and has built huge secret nuclear arsenals that are outside the inspection of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Plus the unpalatable fact that Israel is in gross breach of UNSCR2334 that demands withdrawal of all Israeli citizens from illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories.

In other words, the United Kingdom collaborates closely with a nuclear-armed state that is vastly superior to the UK in terms of its nuclear weaponry and other WMD including its ‘second strike’ capability afforded by a fleet of German-built, Dolphin-Class submarines armed with Cruise missiles boasting a range in excess of 1500kms. This enables them to reach Copenhagen from Genoa on the Mediterranean and virtually every other state in Europe both East, West and North. That includes Britain, Germany, France, Holland, Spain, Austria, Poland, Italy, Ukraine and Switzerland etc.  All are now within range of Israel’s SLCMs.

However, there are other important considerations from the Israeli perspective apart from its hugely profitable bilateral trade with the UK.  Israeli owned companies are major suppliers of generic drugs to Britain’s National Health Service, without which the NHS would be in serious difficulty.

Apart from these military and commercial considerations, there is a still more important aspect – a political one.  Virtually the entire ruling Conservative party are paid-up members of the Friends of Israel lobby, including apparently the Prime Minister.   This gives the Israeli government a unique entry into the corridors of power in Westminster to an extent that a former Conservative Minister allegedly had secret talks with her counterpart in Tel Aviv without the knowledge of the UK government and, reportedly tried to offer funding to the IDF in a completely unauthorised effort to collaborate with the Israeli authorities. The Prime Minister had no option but to require her immediate resignation.  Some years’ prior to that, a Conservative Defence Minister was obliged to resign for also indulging in improper negotiations with a foreign government. This latter politician has, of course, now been instrumental in his new role in concluding post-Brexit trade links with the Israeli state ahead of negotiations with the rest of the world.

Of course, the state of Israel is a non- member of NATO.  It is also a non-member of the EU.  It is not a party to the IAEA.  It is not a party to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.  It is neither a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention or the BWC. In other words, it is outside many of the most important international treaties and conventions to which virtually the whole world is a committed party.

Why then has the British Government been so anxious to sign a post-Brexit trade deal with one of the most potentially dangerous regimes in the world – a regime that even holds the United Nations Security Council in contempt but which, of course, has US President Donald Trump’s family in the White House as mentors, and funders and arms suppliers courtesy of the US 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.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

I am surprised that no one else is saying it, writing it, shouting it at each and every corner:

It is not Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Iran that are in dire and crucial need of ‘regime change’. It is the United States of America, it is the entire European Union; in fact, the entire West. 

And the situation is urgent.

The West has gone mad; it has gone so to speak, bananas; mental. And people there are too scared to even say it, to write about it.

One country after another is falling, being destroyed, antagonized, humiliated, impoverished. Entire continents are treated as if they were inhabited by irresponsible toddlers, who are being chased and disciplined by sadistic adults, with rulers and belts in their hands yelling with maniacal expressions on their faces: “Behave, do as we say, or else!”

It all would be truly comical, if it weren’t so depressing. But… nobody is laughing. People are shaking, sweating, crying, begging, puking, but they are not chuckling.

I see it everywhere where I work: in Asia, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.

But why?

It is because North American and European countries are actually seriously delivering their ultimatum: you either, obey us and prostrate yourself in front of us, or we will break you, violate you, and if everything else fails, we will kill your leaders and all of those who are standing in our way.

This is not really funny, is it? Especially considering that it is being done to almost all the countries in what is called Latin America, to many African and Middle Eastern nations, and to various states on the Asian continent.

And it is all done ‘professionally’, with great sadistic craftsmanship and rituals. No one has yet withstood ‘regime change’ tactics, not even the once mighty Soviet Union, nor tremendous China, or proud and determined Afghanistan.

Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK and Syria may be the only countries that are still standing. They resisted and mobilized all their resources in order to survive; and they have survived, but at a tremendous price.

*

The victims keep crying. A few independent countries keep expressing their outrage. But so far, there is no grand coalition, which would be ready to fight and defend each other: “one for all, all for one”.

Until the recent ‘rebellion’ at the UN, no one has been openly and seriously suggesting that international law should apply to all nations of the world, equally.

People talk about ‘peace’. Many are begging the brigands to ‘to stop’, to ‘have mercy’, to show some compassion. But, neither Europe nor North America has ever shown any compassion, for long, terrible centuries. Look at the map of the beginning of the 20^th century, for instance: the entire world was colonized, plundered and subjugated.

Now it is all moving in the same direction. If the West is not stopped, our planet may not survive at all. And let us be realistic: begging, logical arguments and goodwill will not stop Washington, Paris or London from plundering and enslaving.

Anyone who has at least some basic knowledge of world history knows that.

So why is the world still not forging some true resistance?

*

Is Venezuela going to be the last straw? And if not Venezuela, that is if Venezuela is allowed to fall, is it going to be Nicaragua, Cuba or Iran next? Is anything going to propel people into action?

Are we all just going to look passively how, the socialist Venezuela, a country which has already given so much to the world, Venezuela which managed to create beautiful visions and concepts for our humanity, is going to be burned to ashes, and then robbed of all of its dreams, its resources and of its freedom?

Are we all such cowards? Is this what we – human beings – have actually become; been reduced to? Cowards and cattle, selfish and submissive beings; slaves?

All this, simply because people are too scared to confront the empire? Because they prefer to hide and to pretend that what is so obvious, is actually not taking place?

Therefore, let me pronounce it, so at least my readers do not have that ‘luxury’ of claiming that they were not told:

“This world is being brutalized and controlled by the fascist clique of Western nations. There is no ‘democracy’ left in this world, as there is near zero respect for international law in North American and European capitals. Colonialism has returned in full force. Western imperialism is now almost fully controlling the world.”

And begging, trust me – begging and talking of peace is not going to help.

During WWII, fascism had to be stopped. If not, it was going to devour the entire planet.

In the past, tens of millions have already died fighting for freedom and for our mankind.

Yes, some nations tried to compromise and negotiate with Nazi Germany, but we all know where it all ended.

Now, the situation is the same. Or worse, perhaps much worse, because the West has nukes and a tremendous propaganda apparatus: it controls human brains all over the world with ‘mass media’, and ‘education’.

And because the citizens of the West are now much more brainwashed than the Germans and Italians were in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s; more brainwashed, more scared, submissive and more ‘disciplined’.

*

Look, seriously: are the people who are now writing those “peace essays”, in which they argue with the Western regime about who is right and who is wrong, seriously thinking that they are going to move people like Donald Trump, or Pompeo, or Abrams, or Rubio?

Do they believe that Washington is going to stop murdering millions of people all over the world? Or that the neo-colonialist plunder would stop, after the US Congress and Senate suddenly understands that it has been at the wrong side of history?

This is not some rhetorical question. I am serious: I demand answers!

Does ‘peace movement’ thinks that by amassing arguments it could stop Western expansionism? Yes or no?

Do they believe that Pompeo or Trump will suddenly hit their foreheads and exclaim: “You people are correct! We did not see this!” And call their troops, their thugs and mercenaries back?

If not, if this is not what peace movements believe would be done by North American and European leaders, then why all those thousands of wasted pages?

Would you go near a crocodile that is ready to devour an innocent child, and try to reason with it? Would you, seriously? Do you think it would stop, drop a few tears, wag its tail and leave?

*

Sometimes I tend to believe that ‘peace movements’ in the West are making things worse. They create false hopes, and they behave as if the empire is some entity that has a soul, and understands logic. They grossly underestimate the threat; the danger.

And they tend to analyze the Western threat from a Western perspective, using Western logic.

It somehow gets lost in interpretation that fascism, terror, and bestiality have to be confronted and fought.

One cannot negotiate with a group of countries which are already bathed in the blood of some 80% of the planet. If it was to happen, it would just be a mockery and it would simply humiliate everyone that is sincerely trying to stop the assassins.

*

Right now, Venezuela needs solidarity. It requires direct help, actions; not words. And so do many other countries.

Instead, it gets an endless avalanche of best wishes, as well as premature obituaries.

The Bolivarian Revolution has gotten plenty of colorful words. But what it urgently needs is volunteers, money, and internationalist brigades!

I know that billions of people all over the world are now cheering from their armchairs; in fact, doing absolutely nothing, while also spending zero. Their love for Venezuela is ‘platonic’.

I have just left Syria, where I was covering the Idlib war zone. There was not one single foreigner near me, during those days. Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley usually work all over the toughest areas in Syria, but how many others do? And most of the time we work with near zero backing, just because we feel that it is our moral obligation to inform humanity.

I am wondering, how many foreigners are fighting for Venezuela, right now?

Who is going to face the Western spooks implanted into the Caracas and the Venezuelan borders with Colombia and Brazil? A few RT and TeleSur reporters, those true heroes, yes, but who else?

Only direct action can save Venezuela, and the world.

This is no time for debates.

This is worse, much worse than the late 1930’s.

The proverbial crocodile is here; its enormous ugly mouth open, ready to devour yet one more brilliant, proud country.

It is time to stick a big metal rod into its mouth. Now, immediately; before it gets too late.

Let us shout LONG LIVE VENEZUELA! But with our hands, muscles and purses, not just with our mouths.

And let us not be scared to declare: if anywhere, it is Washington where regime change is truly and urgently 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.

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.

Featured image: A protest outside the United States Consulate in Sydney on January 23 2019 to demand no US intervention in Venezuela. Photo: Peter Boyle

This is a critical look at the situation in Russia. The video is based on an article of one of our readers and additional data.

***

The Russia of 2019 is in a complicated economic and even political situation. Smoldering conflicts near its borders amid continued pressure from the US and NATO affect the situation in the country negatively. This is manifested in society and in national politics. The approval rating of the Russian government and personally of President Vladimir Putin has been decreasing.

According to VCIOM, a state pollster, in January 2019, Putin’s confidence rating was only 32.8%. This is 24% less than in January 2018 when it was 57.2%. At the same time, the confidence rating of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was 7.8%. The approval rating of his cabinet is 37.7% while the disapproval rating is 38.7%. Opposition sources show data, which is far worse for the current Russian leadership.

This tendency is not linked to the foreign policy course of the Kremlin. Rather, it’s the result of the recent series of liberal-minded economic reforms, which look similar to the approaches exercised by the Russian government in the mid-1990s. The decision to increase Value Added Tax amid the slowing Russian economy, especially in the industrial sector, and a very unpopular pension reform increasing the retirement age were both factors contributing to the further growth of discontent in the population.

Russia’s GDP increased by 2.3% in 2018 compared to 1.6% in 2017. However, the Ministry of Economic Development, in its document entitled “Economic Picture” stated that this is linked to “one-time factors” and is not “stable”. The ministry maintained its earlier forecast stating that GDP growth in 2019 will be 1.3%. It confirmed increasing capital outflow. In this case, the repayment of funds to Western creditors by the Russian private sector is one of the causes.

The Ministry of Economic Development also pointed out that the expendable income of the population decreased by 0.2%. Statutory charges, including the increased taxes, are named as one of the reasons. The document says that statutory charges grew by 14.8% in 2018.

Additionally, the population is facing an increasingly restrictive administrative pressure: new fines and other penalties for minor violations in various fields and additional administrative restrictions limiting the freedom of actions of citizens. Restrictive traffic management of big cities, increasing fees for using federal highways as well as policies that are de-facto aimed at small business and self-employed persons are among its landmarks.

Meanwhile the general population has no effective levers of pressure to affect or correct government policy. The public political sphere has become a desert. United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) is the only political party still de—facto existing in public politics. By now its ideological and organizational capabilities have become exhausted. Other “political parties and organizations” are just media constructs designed to defend the interests of a narrow group of their sponsors. It is hard to find a lawmaker in the State Duma or the Federation Council, who is not affiliated with the cliquish top political elite and oligarch clans.

In the media sphere, the government has failed to explain its current course to the population. A vast majority of the initiatives of Medvedev’s cabinet face a negative reaction from the population. A spate of scandals involving high and middle level government officials made the situation even worse. These cases revealed blatant hypocrisy and the neglectful attitude to duties of some Russian officials.

Some of the officials even became heroes of nationwide memes. Probably, the most prominent of these heroes are Minister of Labour and Employment of the Saratov region Natalia Sokolova and Head of Department for Youth Policy in the Sverdlov Region Olga Glatskikh.

Sokolova advised Russian pensioners to eat “makaroshki” [a derogatory term for maccheroni] to save money and to thus become able to survive on the subsistence minimum of 3,500 RUB [about 50 USD] per month.

“You will become younger, prettier and slimmer! Makaroshki cost is always the same!”, she said during a meeting of the regional parliamentary group on social policy in October 2018 adding that discounted products can be used to create a “balanced, but dietic” menu.

Glatskikh became a meme hero thank to her meeting with young volunteers during the same month. Commenting on the possible financing of youth projects, she told volunteers that the government did not ask their parents “to give birth” to them. So, they should expect nothing from the state.

In the period from 2018 to 2019, there were multiple arrests of officials caught exceeding the limits of their authority and being involved in corruption schemes. In comparison to previous periods, this number had increased by 1.5-2 times. The most recent detention took place right in the Parliament building on January 30. A 32-year-old senator, Rauf Arashukov, is suspected of being a member of a criminal group involved in the 2010 murders of two people and in pressuring a witness to one of the killings. On the same day, authorities detained his father, an adviser to the chief executive of a Gazprom subsidiary, Raul Arashukov. He is suspected of embezzling natural gas worth 30 billion rubles ($450 million).

However, these actions do not appear to be enough to change the established media situation. After a large-scale corruption scandal in the Ministry of Defense in 2012, which led to almost no consequences for key responsible persons including former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who even continued his carrier in state-linked corporation Rostec. The general public has serious reservations about any real success of anti-corruption efforts.

The aforementioned factors fuel the negative perception of the Medvedev government and Vladimir Putin as the head of state among Russian citizens.

The 2014 events in Crimea showed to the Russian population that its state is ready to defend the interests of the nation and those who describe themselves as Russians even by force of arms. This was the first case when this approach was openly employed in the recent history of Russia. Therefore, the population was enthusiastic and national pride was on the rise. However, the Kremlin failed to exploit these gained opportunities and did not use them to strengthen the Russian state. In fact, up to February 2019, the policy towards eastern Ukraine has been inconsistent. At the same time, Moscow continues to lose its influence in post-Soviet states. This can be observed in both the Caucasus and Central Asia. Even, their close ally, Belarus, occasionally demonstrates unfriendly behavior and focuses its own efforts on the exploitation of economic preferences granted by Russia.

Evaluating the current internal political situation in Russia and its foreign policy course, it’s possible to say that the Russian leadership has lost its clear vision of national development and a firm and consistent policy, which are needed for any great power. Another explanation of this is that the Russian leadership is facing pressure from multiple agents of influence, which stand against vision of a powerful independent state seeking to act as one of the centers of power on the global stage. One more factor, often pointed out by experts, is the closed crony-caste system of elites. This system led to the creation of a leadership, which pursues its own narrow clannish interests. Apparently, all of these factors influence Russian foreign and domestic policies in one way or another.

The aforementioned large-scale anti-corruption campaign, regarding the people’s show-me attitude towards its result, could be a sign of a new emerging trend, which would lead to a purge of the corrupt elites and to strategic changes in Russian domestic policy.

It is highly likely that Russia will face hard times in the next two years (2019-2020) and face various threats and challenges to its economy, foreign policy course and even to its statehood.

*

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

Since the 1960s uproar over the dangers of widespread agriculture use of the weed killer, DDT, no other herbicide or agriculture chemical has stirred as much widespread opposition as glyphosate. Glyphosate is the main and only publicly disclosed ingredient in the world-leading herbicide, Roundup from Monsanto/Bayer. With fierce opposition from many EU member states, in 2018 owing to a sly maneuver by the former German Minister of Agriculture, the EU Commission ruled to continue allowing the controversial pesticide. Now recent tests have added to the body of evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic and should be banned immediately.

On February 10, 2019 the scientific journal Mutation Research published the results of a major new study on the possible cancer-causing effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH). The authors noted,

“We investigated whether there was an association between high cumulative exposures to GBHs and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in humans. We conducted a new meta-analysis that included the most recent update of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort published in 2018 along with five case-control studies. Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41%…” The study authors concluded that there was a “compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL.”

A 41% greater risk of lymphoma is significant.

Rachel Shaffer, a co-author of the study at the University of Washington, stated of the results,

“This research provides the most up-to-date analysis of glyphosate and its link with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, incorporating a 2018 study of more than 54,000 people who work as licensed pesticide applicators.”

The University of Washington study supports the 2015 conclusion of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified glyphosate as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’ The GMO and related agrichemical industry has done everything imaginable to counter the impact of the independent IARC report.

Roundup today is the world’s most widely used herbicide. Since commercialization of GMO crops in the USA after 1996, the amount of Roundup-bearing glyphosate has dramatically increased worldwide. In the United States alone, usage increased nearly sixteen-fold between 1992 and 2009. What is not often understood, the patented GMO crops are modified to resist the toxic Roundup, nothing else.

In addition to killing weeds on GMO soybeans or corn, Roundup or other GBHs are sprayed again on crops just before harvest to accelerate their dessication, giving the crops a far higher glyphosate residue. Given that at least in the USA GMO crops have permeated the entire food chain, exposure to glyphosate and related toxins has spread as well.

EU Stalls on glyphosate ban

Despite decisions by numerous EU member states against use of glyphosate following the 2015 IACR finding, and millions of citizen petitions to the Brussels EU Commission calling to not renew the license for glyphosate, the powerful agrichemical lobby to date is dominant.

The EU has just published results of a 2-year study of effects of GMO corn on rats. It is a response to an earlier shocking study, the first ever over the 2 year normal rat lifetime, of effects of Monsanto GMO corn and of the associated glyphosate-bearing Roundup weed killer. The 2014 Seralini study found very significant chronic kidney deficiencies in the GMO-fed rats as well as cancer tumors and early death among other alarming results. Monsanto and the agrichemical industry launched a de facto war to discredit the damning Seralini study. One result is the of that effort is the EU-funded 2-year study known as G-TwYST that has just been released.

The EU study of the effects feeding rats Mon NK603+Roundup, is misleadingly titled: “Lack of adverse effects in subchronic and chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies on the glyphosate-resistant genetically modified maize NK603 in Wistar Han RCC rats.” That makes it sound like they found no problems, unlike Seralini’s group. However when we take the trouble to actually read the study, buried deep in the text is the following:

“…the mortality rate of the male rats fed the 33% NK603 + Roundup diet was significantly higher than that of the corresponding control group. The most common cause of premature death in both groups was a pituitary pars anterior adenoma, 12 in the control group and 17 in the group fed the 33% NK603 diet. The next most common cause of premature death was a kidney chronic progressive nephropathy, 1 in the control group and 3 in the group fed the 33% NK603 + Roundup diet. ”

The EU study ignored this in the conclusion and concluded that no long-term animal studies for risk assessment of °GMO plants was needed.

Fat rats…

In order to get their benign result, the EU study authors had to explain away the increased mortality in male rats fed Monsanto NK603 GMO corn with Roundup related to pituitary tumors. To do so they claimed that the GMO-Glyphosate fed rats ate more, leading to a “strong increase” in body weight between the 12th and 24th month of the feeding trial, compared with the non-GMO-fed control group.

Significantly they did not ask why GMO+Roundup fed rats were significantly fatter than non-GMO+Roundup fed rats. That could shed light on the causes of the epidemic obesity in USA and EU populations over the past 20 years as glyphosate use has soared. The EU scientists conveniently ignored both increased deaths in the males fed NK603 maize + Roundup, or the increase in body weight in the same animals. GMWatch asks the relevant question: “This misrepresentation of the study findings raises the question of why scientists funded with EU taxpayers’ money would apparently downplay such results, misleading the public and the scientific community.”

In August 2018 a California jury ruled in favor of a school groundskeeper exposed to significant Roundup over years who contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma that he claimed was due to Roundup exposure. The court ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to Dewayne Johnson. Since then Monsanto has become target of thousands of similar lawsuits and the stock price of parent, Bayer AG, has declined significantly on a negative outlook.

It’s time to ask for more than transparency in government studies of effects of the agrichemicals. The accepted precautionary principle requires government agencies to protect the general health and safety when there is any doubt. That pervasive human and food-chain exposure to glyphosate is associated with higher cancer, obesity, organ damage and other risks is clearly indicated. The prudent response would be calling for total ban unless and until effects are fully and independently determined.

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

UN chief Antonio Guterres will unveil Monday a report which accuses Israel of burying radioactive nuclear waste in the Golan Heights, a Syrian territory under occupation for over five decades.

Guterres will submit the report – which is based on Syria’s charges against Israel – to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at the panel’s 40th session, set to open in Geneva Monday and run through March 22.

“The Syrian Arab Republic noted that Israel continued to bury nuclear waste with radioactive content in 20 different areas populated by Syrian citizens of the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly in the vicinity of al-Sheikh Mountain,” the report says.

“The practice has put the lives and health of Syrians in the occupied Syrian Golan in jeopardy, and constituted a serious violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention,” it added.

Israel is the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but its policy is to neither confirm nor deny having atomic bombs. The regime is estimated to have 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal.

Israel is not a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whose aim is to prevent the spread of nuclear arms and weapons technology.

Tel Aviv seized the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and has continued to occupy two-thirds of the strategically-important territory ever since.

Over the past decades, Israel has built dozens of settlements in the Golan Heights in defiance of international calls on the regime to stop its illegal construction activities.

The UN report further accuses Israel of “providing logistical support to terrorist groups,” such as the Nusrah Front which is affiliated to al-Qaeda.

Israel, the report says, is providing terrorist groups with weapons, ammunition, money and medical care to frighten the local population and to maintain a no-go zone along the Syrian border.

The report also censures Israel’s decision “to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan” as “null and void and without international legal effect,” calling on the regime to “rescind forthwith its decision”.

The Syrian army has repeatedly seized huge quantities of Israeli-made weapons and advanced military equipment from militant groups.

Tel Aviv has frequently attacked military targets inside Syria in an attempt to prop up terrorist groups that have been suffering defeats at the hands of Syrian government forces.

Israel’s angry response 

The UN report drew an angry reaction from Israel, with its foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon dismissing it at “another false report from the UNHRC which specializes in attacking Israel.”

The UNHRC had initially said that at this four-week session, it would publish for the first time its data base on companies doing business with illegal Israeli settlements. Israel has reportedly worked behind the scenes to prevent the publication of the database.

The UN body is also expected to debate Israeli actions against Palestinians along the fence between the besieged Gaza Strip and the occupied territories.

*

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

Featured image: Israel’s Merkava Tank in the Golan Heights. (By ChameleonsEye /Shutterstock)

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

At present we are not covering our monthly costs. The support of our readers is much appreciated. 

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

*     *     *

“Humanitarian Aid” for Nefarious Purposes. USAID and Guaido’s February 23, 2019 – The Second Battle of Cucuta

By William Walter Kay, February 26, 2019

The genesis of Juan Guaido’s February 23, 2019 Cucuta provocation remains murky. Re-purposing humanitarian aid missions for nefarious purposes isn’t an original idea. Staging a mass portage of USAID packages across the Colombian-Venezuelan border, however, appears to be Guaido’s brilliancy.

Black History: Trump Era Resistance, Mumia’s Plight, and Freedom for the Move 9

By Michael Welch, Glen Ford, Suzanne Ross, and Mumia Abu-Jamal, February 26, 2019

Previous to becoming president, Trump had established a track record that was anything but evolved in terms of reconciling the divide between people of color and whites in his country. In the 70s, his family’s real estate company was sued twice by the U.S. Justice Department for rental practices that discriminated against black applicants.

Shifting the Centre of Gravity: Julian Assange Receives His Passport

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, February 26, 2019

In March 2008, one Michael Horvath of the US Army Counterintelligence Center within the Cyber Intelligence Assessments Branch considered the risks posed by WikiLeaks in a 32 page document.

“Arab NATO” Isn’t NATO-like at All

By Andrew Korybko, February 26, 2019

It’s become popular over the past few years to talk about the so-called “Arab NATO” that the US is reportedly trying to assemble in the Mideast to militarily contain Iran, but the actual entity being created doesn’t resemble its European predecessor at all.

Alexander von Humboldt, Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution

By Franklin Frederick, February 26, 2019

Back in Europe, Humboldt began publishing several books recounting his adventures in America, revealing the natural and cultural riches of South America to a curious and fascinated European public.

The Conservatives, “Nam-Nam Friction” and Nuclear Crisis in South Korea

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, February 26, 2019

What is hard to believe is that while the leaders of the four political parties made lobbying for the success of the Summit, the leader of the main conservative opposition party, the Ja-yoo Hangook- Dang (LKP), Mme Na Kyung-won, tried to convince Washington politicians that North Korea should not be trusted and there should be no end of the Korean War. This party seemed to wish for the continuation of the nuclear crisis.

Juan Guaido: A Traitor to His People

By Radio Havana Cuba, February 26, 2019

The self-proclaimed “Provisional President of Venezuela,” Juan Guaidó, is an expert in dangerous actions, who — in pursuit of his unending ambition — will go down in history as a person that broke all the rules of decency and democracy.

5G and GMO: Electromagnetic Waves and Genetic Engineering: Profit Driven Destruction

By Julian Rose, February 25, 2019

We know that the genetic engineering of the plant and animal kingdom alters their DNA, and does the same to those who regularly ingest GM foods. People, animals, fish, insects and plants that absorb or are cross contaminated by other genetically modified species, are the victims of the recombinant DNA laboratory techniques used in genetic engineering.

*

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

Maria Faría, the daughter of a would-be Hugo Chávez assassin, illegally barged into Venezuela’s embassy in Costa Rica and declared herself ambassador. The embarrassing stunt highlighted everything wrong with Juan Guaidó’s reality-show government.

***

While tweeting that she had taken charge of Venezuela’s Embassy in Costa Rica on February 20, Maria Faría demonstrated that she was more familiar with the conventions of social media than those dictating international diplomacy.

“In fulfillment of the diplomatic functions, assigned by President Juan Guaido”, tweeted Faría, referring to the US-appointed leader of Venezuela’s parallel coup government, “we assume control of the administrative headquarters of the Embassy of Venezuela in San Jose”.

The surprise announcement came early Wednesday morning from inside the Embassy, leading many to wonder how Faría, or “@Mandyfaria26” — who describes herself in her Twitter bio as the “Diplomatic Representative for the Venezuelan Republic” in Costa Rica — was able to secure access to the Embassy.

#Ahora | En el cumplimento de las funciones diplomáticas, asignadas por el pdte @jguaido y reconocidas por el Gob. Costa Rica, asumimos el control de la sede administrativa de la Embajada de Venezuela en San José. Pendientes brindaremos información importante. #20Feb pic.twitter.com/2pGaZytTPI

— Maria A Faria F (@Mandyfaria26) February 20, 2019

A senior Venezuelan official told the Grayzone that Faría and her entourage were able to access the building by paying its owner to hand over the keys.

Once inside, Faría seemed to believe she could tweet her way to legitimacy, just as the presidency of her boss, Juan Guaido, had been announced on Twitter by US President Donald Trump.

But getting her foot in the door would be the least of Faría’s challenges. Within hours the young diplomatic wannabe had managed to offend her host country and demonstrate her lack of qualifications for the job.

The fail-daughter of an exiled coup plotter, her clownish behavior was hardly unique to a government that existed only in cyberspace and the fever dreams of John Bolton. Beyond its illegal occupation of the Costa Rican embassy, Guaido’s gang had no Foreign Ministry, let alone any physical address to govern from.

A month into their shadow puppet government, the attempt to barge into the consular space exposed the desperation behind their search for legitimacy.

“Strong rejection of the performance of … María Faría”

Faria’s first day as the Twitter-proclaimed ambassador quickly deteriorated into a humiliating debacle.

Costa Rica might have recognized Guaido as President of Venezuela on January 23rd, but her brazen move took the country’s Foreign Ministry by surprise. Speaking to reporters, Costa Rican Vice Minister Lorena Aguilar announced that her office “deplored the unacceptable entry” into Venezuela’s Embassy in Costa Rica “by diplomatic personnel of the government of interim President Juan Guaidó.” Aguilar went on to express a “strong rejection of the performance of the diplomatic representative María Faría”.

On February 15th, Costa Rica gave diplomats representing the internationally recognized government of Nicolas Maduro 60 days to leave the country — meaning they legally represented Venezuela in San Jose until April 21st. Aguilar accused Faria of disrespecting that diplomatic deadline with her stunt.

In a letter to reporters, Faría’s staff apologized for cancelling a press conference scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, announcing she will spend Thursday discussing her unilateral takeover of the Embassy with Costa Rican Foreign Minister Manuel Ventura Robles. It was safe to assume the meeting would include a crash course in international law for the ambitious social media diplomat.

When Venezuelan diplomats representing Maduro’s government arrived at the embassy on Wednesday, they were greeted by a swarm of opposition supporters blocking its entrance. Several videos posted on social media showed crowds angrily clashing with the dignitaries as they attempted to enter their workplace and perform official duties.

The ghosts of terrorist past

Multiple journalists took to social media to note that two of the men who led the attack on the embassy appeared to be the sons of Eduardo Manuitt, the former governor of Guarico state in Venezuela. Manuitt is a former Chavista who turned against the movement after the United Socialist Party of Venezuela refused to support his daughter’s efforts to succeed him as governor. He had been in hiding since 2009 in order to avoid an arrest warrant over corruption charges alleging he pocketed government funds while in office.

But the Manuitt boys were not the only children of shady characters involved in storming Venezuela’s Embassy in Costa Rica. In fact, the new “diplomatic representative” Faría hails from a family of failed coup plotters.

In 2005, Faría’s father, retired National Guard Colonel Jesus Faría Rodriguez, was sentenced to nine years in prison for his involvement in the Daktari Farm case, a foiled plot to attack the military and assassinate then-President Hugo Chavez with Colombian paramilitary men disguised in Venezuelan military garb. Colonel Faría’s brother, Dario, and nephew, Rafael, were also sentenced in the case.

In 2006, the elder Faría miraculously escaped from prison, along with Dario and Rafael. A Denver Post article from that year features a photograph of young Maria Faría bearing a poster calling for her father and his relatives to be freed.

Thirteen years later, she would join in the family tradition of clumsily botched attempts at sedition.

Government by Instagram

Little is known about what qualified Maria to represent the Venezuelan people from San Jose, or about her professional career at all. An article published in El Nacional at the time of her father’s prison escape revealed that the colonel had “three children: two boys and a female who has just graduated as an accountant”.

The Faría family virtually disappeared from the public eye after the prison break. In fact, Maria only posted her first Instagram photo on February 1st, weeks after Washington’s coup attempt was underway.

Instagram posts she published since that day combine gushing pro-Guaido sentiment with right-wing talking points about US humanitarian aid and photos of a woman who appears desperate to look the part of an international power-player. Her ambitions culminated with her Twitter proclamation of control over the Venezuelan Embassy in Costa Rica. But then reality set in.

According to Costa Rica’s Vice Foreign Minister, Faría’s entry to the Embassy “injures elementary diplomatic norms of respect and trust in relations in the international community, and above all, in international law.”

These words perfectly summed up the whole absurd spectacle of the Washington backed coup attempt.

While Guaido may have fooled some when declaring himself president from the streets of Caracas, Faria learned the hard way that it would take more than social media optics campaigns and bribery to declare herself a diplomat. But within Guaido’s right-wing gaggle, there seems to be little interest in the rule of law. It is a collection of unknown backbenchers, amateurs, and elite hooligans that equate Twitter proclamations with governmental legitimacy.

At least in this respect, Faria is the perfect representative.

*

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

Anya Parampil is a Washington, DC based journalist. She previously hosted a daily progressive afternoon news program called In Question on RT America. She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on the ground reports from the Korean peninsula and Palestine.

Israel’s decision to withhold part of the taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and plunge it deeper into crisis starkly illustrates the hypocrisies and deceptions at the core of the two governments’ relationship.

Under the terms of what are now the quarter century-old Oslo accords, Israel is responsible for collecting about $200 million each month in taxes, which it is supposed to pass on to the PA, the Palestinian government-in-waiting in the West Bank.

The money belongs to the Palestinians but Israel has temporarily withheld it on several occasions in the past as a stick with which to beat the Palestinian leadership into line.

On this occasion, however, the stakes are far higher.

Last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu belatedly implemented a law passed last summer that requires his officials to retain part of the taxes owed to the Palestinians – those that the PA transfers to political prisoners’ families as a monthly stipend.

It echoes the Taylor Force Act, a law passed by the US Congress in 2016, that denies American economic aid to the PA until it stops sending those same stipends to 35,000 families of prisoners and those killed and maimed by the Israeli army.

The PA has tried to avert that threat by channelling the payments through a separate body, the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Israel and Washington regard the prisoners simply as terrorists. But most Palestinians view them as heroes, those who have paid the highest price in the struggle for national liberation.

The Palestinian public no more believes the families should be abandoned for their sacrifices than Irish republicans turned their backs on those who fought British rule or black South Africans forsook those who battled apartheid.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas called Israel’s actions “robbery” and said he would rather cut funding for health and education than for the prisoners and their families. “They are the most respected and appreciated part of the Palestinian people,” he declared.

Then he played his ace card. He said he would refuse all tax money from Israel until the full sum was reinstated.

That risks plunging the PA into financial meltdown and – most importantly for Israel – might ultimately lead to the disbanding of the Palestinian security services. Their job has long been to act as a security contractor, keeping order on Israel’s behalf in the West Bank.

The security forces hoovered up a massive 20 per cent of the PA’s $5.8 billion state budget last year.

The PA is already reeling from a series of hammer blows to the Palestinian economy. They include Donald Trump’s decision to cut all funding to UNRWA, the refugee agency for Palestinians, and to hospitals in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem.

In addition, Abbas reportedly declined $60m in annual US aid for his security services last month for fear of exposing the PA to legal action. A new congressional measure makes aid recipients like the PA subject to American anti-terrorism laws.

But the current stand-off between Netanyahu and Abbas lays bare the duplicity of the situation for all to see.

The PA leader may say the prisoners are the most cherished Palestinian constituency but he also describes his security services’ co-ordination with Israel as “sacred”.

The security services’ role is to assist the Israeli army in foiling Palestinian attacks and in arresting the very Palestinians he extols. Abbas cannot realistically hold true to both positions at the same time.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, has nothing to gain from harming the Palestinian security services, which the Israeli army relies on.

The decision to withhold taxes was taken chiefly to boost his popularity as rival right-wing parties compete for who appears the most hawkish before April’s general election.

Paradoxically, in withholding the PA’s tax money, Netanyahu is punishing Abbas, his supposed peace partner, while showing a preference for Hamas, Abbas’s arch rival in Gaza.

Although Israel categorises Hamas as a terror organisation, Netanyahu has been allowing extra funds into Gaza from Qatar to alleviate the enclave’s dire conditions.

Further, there is something richly ironic about Netanyahu rebuking the PA for rewarding Palestinian “terrorists” in the same week he negotiated a deal to assist bringing Otzma Yehudit, or Jewish Power party, into the Israeli parliament.

The party is Israel’s version of the Ku Klux Klan, disciples of the late rabbi Meir Kahane, whose virulently anti-Arab Kach party was outlawed 25 years ago as a terror organisation.
So appalling is the prospect of this unholy alliance that even pro-Israel lobbies like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the American Jewish Committee felt compelled to issue statements condemning Jewish Power as “racist and reprehensible”.

Netanyahu believes the extra votes Jewish Power will attract to the right in the election will ensure he has the support necessary to build a coalition that can keep him in power.

But there is another glaring flaw in Netanyahu’s tax grab.

If Abbas’s coffers run low, he will simply send even less money to Gaza, which is already being choked by Israel’s lengthy blockade.

That would intensify the unrest in Gaza, which could lead to rocket attacks into Israel and even larger mass protests by Palestinians at the perimeter fence encaging them.

At the same time, if things remain unresolved, an already fragile PA will move closer to collapse and Hamas might then be poised to fill the void left in the West Bank.

Loss of power for Abbas, combined with loss of a security contractor for Netanyahu, appear to make this confrontation mutually self-destructive – unless Netanyahu and the right have another card up their sleeve.
Hani Al Masri, a Palestinian policy analyst, has wondered whether Netanyahu is setting the stage for US President Donald Trump to introduce his long-awaited “peace deal” after the election.

Much of Netanyahu’s coalition is keen to annex Palestinian areas outside the main West Bank cities, destroying any hope of a Palestinian state ever emerging. Trump might be amenable.

In this scenario, argues Al Masri, Israel would aim to “end what remains of the PA’s political role, preserving only its administrative and security role”. It would be reduced to bin collections and law enforcement.

Should the PA reject the process of being hollowed out, Israel and the US would then look for an alternative, such as rule by local warlords in each Palestinian city and expanded powers for Israeli military rulers in the West Bank.

The denial of taxes to the PA may not yet presage its demise. But it points to a future in which Palestinian self-rule is likely to become an ever-more distant prospect.

*

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

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

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

According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, the US is preparing to covertly arm the opposition in Venezuela. 

From Sputnik:

We have evidence that US companies and their NATO allies are working on the issue of acquiring a large batch of weapons and ammunition in an Eastern European country for their subsequent transfer to Venezuelan opposition forces.

I find it highly hypocritical that @realDonaldTrump would participate in a coup to overthrow an elected president (of Venezuela) while daily critizing the Dems coup to overthrow him. https://t.co/9chbL3PkpI

— Good vs Evil (@Sweeps2032) February 22, 2019

Instead of the standard neocon tactic of making up a load of horse manure about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and other scary campfire stories and then bombing and invading the country, it looks like Trump’s rabble of neocon chicken hawk warmongers are considering (for now) the Obama way of doing things—arming the “opposition” (in Libya, these were Salafist murderers, in Ukraine, Russian-hating fascists) while simultaneously running a large propaganda campaign designed to demonize the elected leader of Venezuela. Maduro understands his only two options are to either stand and fight or flee the country. He has chosen the former. 

According to an article posted at Axios (h/t Robert Wenzel), the prime motivator is not John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, or Mike Pompeo. It’s Mike Pence, Trump’s robotic Christian Zionist Vice President. 

National Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Sen. Marco Rubio also play pivotal roles, but from the first days of the Trump presidency, Pence has dominated the [Venezuela] issue…

As an Indiana congressman, Pence fiercely opposed Castro and railed against communism in Latin America. His faith colors his work. “We are with you,” Pence told a crowd of several hundred South Florida Venezuelans at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church after his first vice presidential trip to Latin America, in the summer of 2017.

Pence arranged to have Juan Guaidó falsely claim he is Venezuela’s “interim president.” 

On Monday, Pence traveled to Bogotá “at the invitation of Colombia’s president, touting the U.S.’s ‘unwavering support’ for Guaidó, who he will also meet with. It will be Pence’s fifth trip to Latin America as VP.”

Newsweek reports:

Pence is expected to deliver his speech at a summit of the Lima Group at 10.30 a.m. (ET), following his meeting with regional leaders in Bogota, Colombia. The meeting comes days after U.S. aid convoys were blocked by troops loyal to embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who is no longer recognized as the country’s leader by the U.S. and other Western nations, at the border on Saturday.

Heading to Bogota, Colombia tomorrow to address the Lima Group to voice solidarity w/ regional leaders for freedom & against Maduro. Meeting with Colombian President @IvanDuque & Venezuela’s only legitimate President – @jguaido. It’s time for a free & democratic Venezuela.

— Vice President Mike Pence (@VP) February 24, 2019

Over the weekend, following the torching on “aid” trucks, Pence was “forced” (according to the Miami Herald) to formally request “the international community” to consider “all options” in Venezuela. 

To President @jguaido of Venezuela, it is a great privilege to share this moment. I bring you and President of Colombia @IvanDuque a very simple message from @POTUS Trump & the United States of America: We are with you 100%. pic.twitter.com/iEaTyDvB7i

— Vice President Mike Pence (@VP) February 25, 2019

In short, Pence leads the effort to invade Venezuela, or at minimum conduct a merciless bombing raid similar to the sort used to turn Iraq and Libya into failed states wracked by endless violence, which of course was the plan all along, never mind the fantasy Saddam Hussein met with and harbored al-Qaeda or twiddled with anthrax (sold to him by US and European countries). 

For the MAGA crowd, Trump can do no wrong. Here’s Lou Dobbs, whom I mistakenly called libertarian-ish a few years ago. In truth, he is simply another neocon fellow traveler.

#NoSocialism – @HeyTammyBruce: @POTUS sent a very strong message to Venezuela today. Many people in southern Florida experienced totalitarianism. They understand the importance of freedom, capitalism & the value of support from the American President. #MAGA #TrumpTrain #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/dx3PkWY2Ie

— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) February 19, 2019

Trump may lose a few supporters after he bombs the hell out of Venezuela—like he did when he bombed an empty airbase in Syria—but the vast majority will support him no matter what he does. 

The conversion is almost complete. MAGA is now shorthand for neocon. 

Trump’s Make America Great is indistinguishable from the neoliberal claim the United States is the sole exceptional and indispensable nation and this gives it free rein to engage in mass murder and the destruction of societies, especially those in “our backyard.”

*

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.

Russia’s top diplomat Sergei Lavrov strongly spoke out against the US’ so-called “Indo-Pacific” concept that’s recently become very popular among Indian strategists, remarking that it’s ”artificially imposed” and conditioned on containing China. 

From “Conspiracy Theory” To Strategic Fact

Routinely dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” by hyper-jingoist Indian commentators, none other than Russia’s top diplomat Sergei Lavrov just confirmed that it’s actually a strategic fact that the US’ so-called “Indo-Pacific Region” (IOR) concept that’s recently become very popular in New Delhi is “artificially imposed” and conditioned on “containing China”. His remarks were reported on by Russia’s publicly funded international media outlet TASS and made in connection with his words about another externally supported structure, the so-called “Middle East Strategic Alliance” (MESA), better known by many as the “Arab NATO” initiative. So as not to be accused of misportraying the Foreign Minister’s comments, here’s the entirety of TASS’ short article on his comments:

TASS’ Report

“The United States is trying to impose the creation of the so-called Arab NATO, the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), despite serious doubts of its possible members, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday.

 The steps have been made to reshape geopolitical landscape in a way to obstruct the natural development of events and try to contain the formation of new growth centers, Lavrov told a conference dubbed International Cooperation in a Troubled World, organized by the Valdai International Discussion Club in partnership with the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam.

 “One of the examples is the Middle East Strategic Alliance, which now [US President Donald] Trump’s administration is trying to impose on the Persian Gulf states plus Jordan and Egypt while overcoming very serious doubts of potential members, and here Israel is also pursuing its interests around this initiative,” Lavrov said.

 Another artificially imposed concept is the Indo-Pacific Region, which Washington has started advancing together with Japan and Australia with an apparent goal of containing China and involving India in military and political and maritime processes, Lavrov said, noting that this concept undermines the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the region.

“I want to compare natural processes integrating countries based on their coinciding interests and artificial processes, which they try to forcefully impose on the countries to carry out a joint effort in the interests of one geopolitically oriented power,” the foreign minister stressed.

 According to the US idea, the Arab NATO will bring together six Persian Gulf states (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia) and also Egypt and Jordan. In mid-January, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo toured these countries holding a series of talks with their leaders. One of key tasks of the trip is bringing closer the positions of eight countries to create MESA. The goal of the coalition is to counter threats in the region and step up economic and energy cooperation.”

Key Takeaways

In view of the above, the following observations can be made:

• Russia regards the IOR and MESA as being complementary components of the US’ Eurasian strategy;
• Both of these concepts are military-led and designed to contain an obvious target (Iran and China);
• Nevertheless, Russia will continue comprehensively cooperating with its members;
• This includes through “military diplomacy” (especially arms sales to the Gulf and India) and energy;
• Russia’s 21^st-century “balancing” act is driving its pragmatic relations with both US proxies.

Concluding Thoughts

Lavrov’s remarks and the reality of Russia’s “balancing” act reveal the complexities of the emerging Multipolar World Order whereby Moscow has lately found itself strengthening relations with countries that can generally be regarded as American allies and are the centerpieces of Washington’s regional containment strategies (India through the IOR against China and Saudi Arabia through the MESA against Iran). Nevertheless, Russia doesn’t interpret International Relations through the “zero-sum” paradigm but instead follows the “win-win” philosophy, meaning that it has no compunctions about cooperating real closely with those two despite their US-designated roles in undermining its Chinese and Iranian partners. After all, the alternative is to give the US uncontested influence over India and Saudi Arabia, which is disadvantageous to Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interests.

*

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

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.

With a rapidly changing industrial environment Europe, driven by macro-economics, economic reforms and the natural ebb-and-flow of business, some of the continent’s industries are currently on the losing side of history. Among them, Sweden’s submarine industry, which was promising 40 years ago, and is facing oblivion in the next few years.

If only for the quality of their cars, nobody in the world would ever mock Swedish engineers for their worth. As a historic industrial country, Sweden has a long tradition of brilliant minds and clever engineering ideas. Among the industries which were generated by this culture of creative and thorough minds, was the submarine industry. The earliest and most audacious Swedish pioneer was, of course, John Ericsson, one of the fathers of the modern submarine (and of many other inventions). In 1862, Ericsson designed the first ironclad battleship for the Union, pushing naval combat into a new era. He quickly turned to the submarine world, which was barely nascent, with his life-long friend and partner, Cornelius de Lamater, and adapted several inventions (such as shaft propellers) to submarines. Decades later, Sweden had continued on its tracks and in 1914, the national shipyards, Kockums, issued its first submarine, placing itself at the tip of military innovation. But despite a promising head start, the industry started declining in the 1970s and never managed to make its submarine industry self-standing.

In fact, Sweden’s submarine shipyards never produced many submarines, and thrived post-war with the building of surface ships, not subs. Over the century of its existence, Sweden has only issued three types of subs – remarkably little compared to other sub-producing countries – and only partially in some cases, such as the Japanese Soryu-class and the Singapore Archer-class. In the 1950s and 1960s, business is booming for large-scale cargo ships, increasingly needed to support the development of global trade. The surface ship profits are a lifeline for the submarine division and provide the funds necessary for development. But the oil crisis in the 1970s hits the shipyards particularly hard. The abrupt slowdown and its strategic consequences is described by defense site Global Security:

“Sweden, which by 1980 had only two destroyers in commission, had gone farther than the other Nordic countries in renouncing large ships in favor of fast attack craft and submarines. The number of these latter two types had not increased since 1960, however, and, in fact, the submarine force had declined since 1974 from its previous average of 22 units to 14, despite the introduction of three Nacken-class submarines in 1979-80.”

Barely after having invested in the world’s largest crane, business grinds to a halt and destroys even the cargo ship division’s profitability – which the slow-growing submarine division needed desperately to survive. 

Swedish submarines can be divided into two categories: national subs, and export subs. The national subs are the Gotland class, sailed at present by the Swedish navy. Though they belong to the older, diesel electric era, they are considered to be modern, and high-quality warships. In fact, Sweden was the only country which was able to virtually sink a US carrier, during 2005 war games. So, the Swedes were indeed capable of making good use of their subs – but that doesn’t mean the Swedish submarine industry is healthy. Indeed, the export division shows the cancer within the industry. The only successful export submarine program was the Australian Collins class, which is deemed one of the worst in the world. In effect, the Swedish shipyards are able to produce good subs if they are placed on unlimited life-support by Stockholm. As a self-standing industry on the global market, it simply lacks the industrial capacity for quality outputs.

As an answer to this lack of industrial power, and in order to break the deadly spin of years with no contracts, Kockums partnered with German competitor ThyssenKrupp at the beginning of the century. Unfortunately, the partnership was peppered with political tension, business trickery and quickly escalated into an international drama show. After its re-acquisition by Saab in 2013, Kockums was back under Swedish control, but the damage was done, and decades have now gone by without a Swedish sub being sold. Guardian reporter Leonore Taylor covered the Australian sub-replacement debate, and reports:

“PM Tony Abbott has ridiculed Sweden’s submarine-building capacity and Labor’s suggestion that the country should have been included on Australia’s submarine-purchasing shortlist, saying Sweden had only refurbished ageing submarines for the past 20 years and had not designed and built new ones.”

In such a sensitive industry, years of inactivity will severely damage the quality of the workforce and compromise the outcome of future programs. Despite desperate tries to acquire new contracts, Sweden may already have entered the vicious cycle of failure begetting failure, and no one can say if the Swedish sub industry will still be around in 10 years.

In other words, the Swedes are missing the show. The global market for non-nukes is booming, as described by SWJ defense reporter Daniel Michaels:

“For the first time since the cold war, the world sub fleet is growing. Driven by changing threats, surging global trade, and new technologies, countries are buying or upgrading subs, even as some scale back on land and air equipment”.

No matter how high the global demand, the Swedish shipyards will have a hard time picking up contracts with a production tool in its current state, as potential customers will fear facing the same quality problems as with the Australian Collins-class. 

It is possible that, without knowing it, Sweden’s submarine activity already be doomed. Much like a chess player who has run out of options but doesn’t know it yet, the skeleton industry in Sweden may forbid any chance of recovery. Submarine programs have lifespans that spread throughout decades. Any potential clients, which would be much needed to revive and restore naval shipyards in Sweden, may fear that the industry may simply have disappeared in 20 years’ time, which would cause the entire programs to collapse.

*

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 Sputnik International

Dear Readers,

Lying is a a money making activity and lies are commodities. There is a profitable global market for those committed to spreading disinformation.

Needless to say, “Telling the Truth” Is Not a Money-Making Proposition. Independent online analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is an increasing target of online suppression and tacit censorship, our content often 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. 

We have 1.9 million page views a month and just over 50,000 subscribers to our newsletter, yet only a small fraction of our readers have contributed to Global Research. We are deeply indebted to those people who have already made contributions. We are now asking the remaining 99%, can you help us?

Click to donate:

DONATIONS BY POST:

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

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

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

---

Global Research Annual Membership – $95.00/year

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

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

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

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

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

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

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

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Sustainer Member – $200/per year

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

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

FOR FULL DETAILS AND OPTIONS, PLEASE VISIT OUR MEMBERSHIP PAGE

Thank you for supporting independent media!

In March 2008, one Michael Horvath of the US Army Counterintelligence Center within the Cyber Intelligence Assessments Branch considered the risks posed by WikiLeaks in a 32 page document.  Created under the auspices of the Department of Defence’s Intelligence Analysis Program.  The overview suggests, importantly, the interest shown in Assange by the defence wing of the United States at the time it was starting to make more than a generous ripple across the pond of information discourse.  Importantly, it suggests a direct interest of the military industrial complex in the activities of a guerrilla (read radical transparency) group.

The question it asks remains a source of ongoing interest and curiosity about the role played by WikiLeaks in the information wars: “Wikileas.org – An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?”  The answer is implicit in the text: its all of the above.

The document remains salient for the persistent strategy adopted against WikiLeaks and its chief publishing head throughout.  To avoid the integrity and credibility of the information, target the man, the organisation and the method.  Suggest he is wonky, a crank, generally wobbly on principles and ethics.  Suggest, as well, that his reputation is questionable, as are his moral inclinations.

The document highlights a feature that gained momentum in the 2016 US presidential elections: that WikiLeaks might serve “as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organisation for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).” (The only difference in 2016 was that the CIA had fallen out of the orbit of paranoid reckoning, replaced by wily Russian operatives in the US imaginary of electoral manipulation.)  Not only had the organisation denied this, there was “no evidence” mustered “to support such assertions.”

The DoD document makes the objective clear; nothing else will suffice than a campaign ranging on various fronts to target WikiLeaks and its system of obtaining and releasing information.

“The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current and former insiders, leakers or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy the center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site.”

The centre of gravity here is a critical point. It is one that is being persistently targeted, using Assange as convenient focal point of derangement, treachery and both.  The memo from Ecuadorean officials from October last year was a laundry list for model good behaviour, effectively the conditions of his continued tenancy in the embassy, along with using the internet.  Press outlets saw it as lunacy taking hold.  He had to refrain from “interfering in the internal affairs of other states” and activities “that could prejudice Ecuador’s good relations with other states.”  His pet cat also had to be looked after lest it be banished to an animal shelter. Sanitation was also noted.

Each granular detail of his fate garners international headlines in an ongoing battle of attrition.  Will he step out?  Will he seek medical treatment he urgently needs?  What will the local constabulary do?  Statements from the Metropolitan Police and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office suggest that he will be medically tended to but will also have to face the charge of violating his bail conditions when he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in 2012.  Once that door opens, the narrow horizon to a US prison cell becomes a realistic prospect, even if it is bound to be a protracted matter.

The recent turn has also excited commentary, though it is not the same mould as the cudgel like recommendations of the 2008 DoD memo.  The Australian dissident figure of the publishing world has been granted a passport by the Australian authorities.  This was something, if only to suggest that those in Canberra, previously keen to see Assange given the roughing over, had warmed somewhat.  In 2016, the then Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop had, at the very least, offered Assange what he was due: consular assistance.

While the grant took place either last September or October, confirmation of its existence was revealed in a Senate estimates hearing.  Australian Senator Rex Patrick of the Centre Alliance pressed officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade whether they had engaged their US counterparts about possible safe passage for Assange in the event he left the embassy.

DFAT’s chief legal officer James Larsen claimed to have no knowledge of any US proceedings against Assange (untutored, mute and ill-informed is Larsen, on this subject); that being so, there was nothing to discuss.  “We are not aware, on the Australian government’s side, of any legal proceedings initiated within, or by, the United States, concerning Assange.”  Larsen had no “record before me of what our engagement with the United States is specifically concerning Mr Assange.”

What mattered were the remarks made by first assistance secretary of the Consular and Crisis Management Division.

“Mr Assange,” Andrew Todd confirmed, “does have an Australian passport.”

Some lifting of the dark had taken place, suggesting, as one of legal advisers, Greg Barnes, has been saying for some time:

“The Australian government does have a role to play in the resolution of the Julian Assange case.”

A potential stumbling block for Assange in getting a passport was section 13 of the Australian Passports Act 2005.  Facing a “serious foreign offence” within that section’s meaning would have scotched the application.  “In order to progress your application,” DFAT informed him, “we require confirmation that section 13 is not enlivened by your circumstances.  To this end, we ask that you provide us with confirmation that section 13 no longer applies to you. Until this time, your passport application will remain on hold.”

There is an element of dark farce to this.  To show that he was eligible to receive a passport, he had to show that he did not face a serious foreign offence.  But pieced evidence revealed thus far demonstrates that a US prosecution assisted by a range of security agencies has busied themselves with making sure he does face such an offence. Thankfully, WikiLeaks has not been able, in their quest for a totally transparent record, to find any relevant corroborating indictment, a point that seemed to seep through the Senate estimates hearings.  In such cases, ignorance can remain, if not blissful, then useful.

*

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]

On Sunday morn, February 28 1813, General Ramon Correa, commander of 800 Spanish Royalist troops, sat upon his favourite Cucuta pew. While Correa communed with the Almighty, Simon Bolivar marched 400 men to hilltops overlooking Cucuta. Futile attempts to dislodge Bolivar left Correa’s men disorganised and demoralised; and left Correa sporting a head-wound. In the afternoon Bolivar, espying gaps in Cucuta’s defences and in his own ammunition stores, led a bayonet charge at the town. Panic-stricken defenders scattered; abandoning a fortified town stacked with weapons and ammunition.

The genesis of Juan Guaido’s February 23, 2019 Cucuta provocation remains murky. Re-purposing humanitarian aid missions for nefarious purposes isn’t an original idea. Staging a mass portage of USAID packages across the Colombian-Venezuelan border, however, appears to be Guaido’s brilliancy.

Venezuela rejected American aid which they ascertained to be a regime change tactic and weapons smuggling ruse. Disregarding Caracas, USAID dispatched several US Airforce cargo planes freighted with 190 tonnes of aid to warehouses in Cucuta; a Colombian city of 650,000; a few kilometres from Venezuela’s border.

Guaido’s choice of February 23 (“F23”) is significant. The Constitutional clause upon which Guaido erroneously bases his pretense to Venezuela’s presidency stipulates that the “Interim President,” which Guaido erroneously auto-proclaimed himself to be on January 23, must hold elections within 30 days of becoming Interim President. While a partisan semi-literate observer might be gulled into believing circumstances warranted an interim presidency, there is no redacting the requirements to hold an election within 30 days. F23, being the election deadline, pounded the final nail into the coffin of Guaido’s frail presidential creds. The Cucuta aid invasion was in part designed to provoke a violent spectacle to serve as evidence of Guaido’s having been physically prevented from holding an election.

The masterplan, repeatedly spouted by Guaido, involved amassing a million supporters in Cucuta and then having them triumphantly carry USAID packages passed the “usurper” Maduro’s crumbling lines. Guaido promised a “human avalanche.” He boasted signatures from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans affirming their commitment to the Cucuta pilgrimage.

There were logistical challenges. Guaido’s support is concentrated in Caracas and Maracaibo. Caracas is a 13-hour drive from Cucuta, down a winding 870-kilometre highway. Maracaibo to Cucuta is a 7-hour drive down a 425-kilometre road. Transportation by car would require 200,000 cars, 26 million litres of gasoline, and would cause paralysing traffic jams.

Provisions presented another problem. The USAID included 100 tonnes of food. A million porters would snack this down as they strolled across the border. Further issues related to latrines and water.

Reportage hyping F23 betrayed growing unease about Guaido’s lack of planning. This disquiet surfaced days before F23 when USAID Administrator Mark Green gave an exculpatory interview stressing that his job was limited to getting aid to Cucuta. It was Guaido’s job to get that aid to Venezuela.

Rushing to Guaido’s logistical rescue came billionaire Richard Branson and several Colombian tycoons. They announced a Venezuela Aid and Freedom concert for February 22. They lined up 32 A-list performers and brought the full complement of outdoor concert amenities. The concert attracted a mainly local audience of 200,000 some of whom were cajoled into sticking around for F23’s festivities. Guaido defied his travel ban to hobnob with the celebs, and with the presidents of Chile, Paraguay and Colombia each of whom found time to attend this apolitical humanitarian concert.

On F23 eve US Special Representative for Venezuela, Elliot Abrams, flew to Cucuta. National Security Adviser John Bolton cancelled a Seoul meeting to fly back to the Sit-Room. USAID’s Green frantically shuttled about.

On F23 no USAID packages crossed the Colombian-Venezuelan border. Advertised throngs of hundreds of thousands of Guaido loyalists; resolved to a few thousand. Local hooligans were enticed to throw rocks and torch aid trucks. A few Venezuelan National Guards deserted; including one hero who drove his armoured vehicle into a crowd of civilians.

Over the day, doctors treated 37 demonstrators for injuries. F23 was a boutique photo-op riot. Compared to its billing F23 was a shambolic fiasco.

On F23 morn, Field Marshal Guaido made a cameo appearance; hanging off the side of a truck. He wasn’t seen again. He tweeted about an upcoming meeting with Vice President Pence in Bogota whereat Guaido promised to recommend “all options” for removing Maduro. “All options” means US invasion. Great patriot.

The second battle of Cucuta proved as much of a calamity for imperialism as the first.

*

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 contingent of US troops will remain deployed in Syria even after the troops withdrawal declared by President Donald Trump.

On February 21, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders announced that “a small peacekeeping group of about 200” troops will remain in Syria for “some period of time.” By February 22, it had appeared, according to US officials quoted by mainstream media, that Sanders had underestimated the number of troops remaining. According to these reports, 200 US troops will remain in northeastern Syria and 200 others will remain in the al-Tanf base on the Syrian-Iraqi border.

By February 23, the story had developed further with the Pentagon officially declaring that the remaining US troops will be a part of the multinational force consisting of “primarily” NATO member states. While Pentagon spokesman Commander Sean Robertson, provided no manpower estimations for this force, media reports relying on US defense officials suggested that the US allies will keep from 800 to 1,500 troops.

Therefore, from 1,000 to 1,700 troops, 200-400 of whom will be US personnel, will remain deployed in the war-torn country alongside with an unknown number of private military contractors. Comparing to the current 2,000-3,000 US troops operating in Syria, this is a notable decrease. However, this is far from any kind of the rapid and full troops withdrawal announced by the US president in December 2018.

In fact, Washington is reshaping its contingent to pursue own political and military tasks in the post-ISIS Syria. The US-led coalition will also keep most of its infrastructure established in Syria, including the al-Tanf base on the Damascus-Baghdad highway. This will allow the Trump administration to achieve the following goals:

• To limit the growth of influence of the Damascus government, Iran and Russia in northeastern Syria;
• To keep its own proxies, the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), under control and prevent any significant progress in negotiations between Damascus and the SDF in the short-term. In some cases, this may lead to the creation of a quasi-state on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. This entity will in fact be controlled from Washington;
• To keep a direct action tool to influence the situation on the ground. This should strengthen the US negotiation positions in its ongoing bargain over the northeastern Syria safe zone with Turkey;
• To continue projecting power in Syria assisting to Israel in its operations against Iranian and Iranian-backed forces.

Meanwhile, Washington also continued its diplomatic campaign against Iran. During the Warsaw conference held on February 13-14^th, the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia once again attempted to establish a multi-national anti-Iran coalition to crack down on the growing regional power. This effort failed mostly because a neutral stance of EU states. However, this does not mean that the conflict between the Iran-Hezbollah bloc and the US-Israeli-Saudi alliance has any real chances to be de-escalated.

*

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 results were announced at 4 p.m. on Monday, February 25, the day after the referendum, and they are excellent. However, based on my visit to Cuba last September–October, during the course of the debate when people had the opportunity to revise the draft (which they DID – and moved it toward the “left”!), and during a recent visit to Havana at the end of January into early February, I am not at all surprised by the very positive results.

The campaign and the voting took place under very difficult conditions. A concerted campaign by the most diverse sectors in the U.S. and inside Cuba itself against a positive outcome constituted one of the most ferocious examples in recent history of the ideological, political and cultural war being waged against the Cuban socialist option.

For example, a former Cuban diplomat and academic resident in Havana was quoted in the corporate media just before the vote:

All this propaganda [for the Yes] has created the image of strong pressure on people to vote yes, and that if you vote no there’s something wrong with you… From what I can tell, if you add together the no votes, the ballot papers left blank or invalidated and the abstentions, we are somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the total electoral roll… That would mean only around 60 percent voted “yes.” And the valid votes would be between 70 and 80 percent, and not at 97 percent as in the local 1976 [referendum]…. The country has changed.

First, one cannot compare the results of the 1976 referendum (about 97% voter turnout with about 97% in favour of the constitution) with those of the 2019 referendum. To do so serves, wittingly or not, to purposely place the bar too high in order to discredit the current process. The historical conditions of 1976 compared with 2019 are entirely different, and beyond the scope of this short piece.

In fact, voter turnout in the national elections that take place every five years has been decreasing regularly since 1993 (99.57%) to 1998 (98.35%) to 2003 (97.64%) to 2008 (96.89%), with the most significant drop in 2013 (90.88%) and with yet a further dip for the latest elections in 2018 to 82.9%.

In the same vein as the first source quoted above, an accredited foreign journalist in Havana who actively campaigned for the “no” side or at least for abstention was also betting on the preconceived notion that Cuba has “changed” and is moving away from socialism. (By the way, no one charged this journalist for interfering in Cuba’s electoral process!) He headlined: “Cubans expected to voice unprecedented opposition in constitutional vote” – and the content went like this:

“Opposition to the new charter could reach a quarter of the vote, one Cuban analyst said, a major increase from the low single digits of past votes.”

For a third example, the CNN Havana correspondent dared to headline: “Does socialism have a future? Cubans are hitting the polls.” It goes on: “Millions of Cubans are about to tell the world ‘yes’ – or so Havana hopes.” Havana hopes? As if millions of Cubans had not already participated in the constitutional debate, when, in fact, they “changed” it to be closer to socialism and even to include the ideal of communism, which had been deleted in the draft.

This media orientation directed by the U.S.-centric view on Cuban society, which dictates that Cubans cannot really desire socialism, is part of the ideological and political war to give the impression that the “yes” vote is forced upon the Cubans by the government. To make it even more ominous, the CNN correspondent, after quoting the usual dissident sources, concludes on a very ominous note:

In one government-produced video on social media, former Cuban spy and one-time U.S. prisoner Gerardo Hernández raises the stakes. “I will vote ‘yes’ because there are two groups, the ‘yes’ and the ‘no,’” he says. “The ones calling us to vote ‘no’ are the traitorous enemies of Cuba.”

Oh, the Cubans are so scared! Big Brother is watching.

There were many other examples such as these.

What were the results and why were the soothsayers wrong?

These are the results according to the national tabulation of official vote-counting in the local electoral colleges (which I personally witnessed during elections in 1997–98 and again in 2007–8 whereby nothing is more transparent):

• Voter turn out: 84.4% of eligible voters.
• Yes: 86.85%
• No: 9.0%
• Blank or Spoiled: 4.5%

Voter turnout was higher than in the latest general elections in 2018, which, as mentioned above, registered 82.9%. One must keep in mind that the media war against the elections was less ferocious in 2018, for the most recent national parliamentarian elections, than in the February 2019 referendum. This cultural war began well before the referendum period itself. Thus, despite the adverse conditions, the February 2019 voter turnout represents, for the first time since 1993, a reversal of the trend toward lower voter turnout.

One very important factor: the 1976 referendum did not have to deal with the U.S.-led media offensive through social media, which of course did not exist in 1976.

However, the most important result:

• Yes: 86.85%
• No: 9.0%

This represents a very strong majority.

Thus, my very initial evaluation is that Cuba has indeed “changed” and is going through a process of change, even though it is not the type of change hoped for by some. When one considers the grassroots debates from mid-August to mid-November and the referendum campaign itself, one sees that Cuba has changed – and is changing – toward a more socialist model.

Is this part of the revival of what some thought was dead and buried, what they call “the pink tide”? The referendum vote came on the same weekend as the Bolivarian Revolution’s amazing victory against the U.S.-led coup d’état attempt (February 23) through “humanitarian aid.” Is this part of a new awakening in Latin America and the Caribbean that is represented by changes that strike fear in the hearts of the enemies of the Cuban and Bolivarian Revolutions? We will see in the coming weeks and months, as events are unfolding rapidly. I am optimistic.

*

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

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and the recently released  Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. As a journalist he collaborates with many web sites in Latin America, Europe and North America including Global Research. Twitter,  Facebook, His website:  www.arnoldaugust.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

An Arizona lawmaker is renewing his push to halt uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, outlining a proposal Saturday that would make permanent a moratorium on new claims across 1 million acres of public lands.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva has introduced other versions of what he’s calling the “Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act” several times in recent years, but he’s likely to find stronger support this time in the Democratic-controlled House, where he is chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

On Saturday, he pitched the idea at the Canyon, flanked by Havasupai, Hualapai, Hopi and Navajo tribal leaders, in a building near the park’s South Rim that was packed with park visitors, tribal members and environmental advocates.

“Protecting the canyon is just, it’s overdue and it’s life-affirming,” Grijalva said, gesturing to the group. “The public wants us to do it, the economies of the region need it and the Grand Canyon’s future depends on it.”

Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar imposed the original 20-year moratorium on new mining claims in 2012.

Grijalva made the announcement just days before the 100th anniversary of the Canyon’s status as a national park, and just days after news broke about buckets full of uranium ore sitting in a South Rim museum, exposing visitors and employees to small amounts of radiation.

Tribal leaders line up behind bill

The presence of the tribal leaders signaled the importance of the Canyon to surrounding indigenous communities. Some of the tribes are still dealing with the effects of uranium mines that sickened or killed people who lived or worked nearby. Tribal leaders fear new mines could further contaminate the environment.

Richard Powskey, a Hualapai tribal council member, said protecting the Grand Canyon’s regional watershed has been a decades-long effort that the communities are not ready to give up.

“This water cannot continue to be threatened by these mining operations,” Powskey said, adding that native people are the most affected. “The damage from these mines lasts for a while and brings lasting health concerns and other adverse effects.”

Ethan Aumack, executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust, an advocacy group, said contaminated water is pumped from one operation, the Canyon Mine, even though it has not produced new ore for years.

Mines, he said, “are inactive because uranium remains too costly to mine.” The group has released a new report arguing that uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region is not necessary for national security.

“It is uneconomic,” Aumack said. “And it is a threat to our tourism-based economies.”

Uranium mining is a toxic and touchy topic for Arizona politicians, who laud the cultural significance the Grand Canyon holds for tribes, as well as the ecological importance as the cradle of the Colorado River.

But the rich uranium deposits sitting outside the park’s boundaries are highly sought after and many local leaders believe the state can pursue economic interests while also preserving the Canyon.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order about two years ago that told federal agencies to examine policies that could slow energy development on public lands. One of those recommendations was reversing the moratorium on uranium mining near the park, which has been upheld in court.

While existing claims remain for now, Republican lawmakers have pushed to lift the ban, which would open up 1 million acres around the Canyon to developers.

Gosar: Bill is ‘misguided quest’

One of the harshest critics of the moratorium is Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. Gosar, who has called the mining of uranium a “national security issue” and vital to the United States’ energy independence, took aim at Grijalva’s bill in a statement, calling it a “misguided quest.”

In that same statement, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., members of the Congressional Western Caucus and mining stakeholders condemned the proposed bill and reiterated their opposition to the restrictions on a huge reserve of breccia pipes in the Grand Canyon region. Some of those pipes are essentially plugs of high-quality uranium, which Gosar stressed are “far outside” the canyon.

“There is no reason America should be importing 97 percent of our uranium necessary for domestic reactors from countries with Russian influence when we have an ample supply here at home,” Gosar said in the statement, adding that it would create jobs and provide energy to communities. “At a time when we should be celebrating the Centennial of the Grand Canyon, Rep. Grijalva’s bogus effort distracts from what should be a joyous bipartisan celebration.”

While energy independence is on the minds of Democrats and conservationists like Grijalva, they say the risk from mining is not worth potentially damaging the delicate and thriving ecosystem that inhabits one of mankind’s timeless treasures.

Efforts to push the permanent ban through Congress have stalled in recent years, never earning a hearing from a Republican-controlled House. Grijalva said he was confident he could get it to the floor of the Democratic House. If passed, it would be placed in the hands of a Republican-led Senate and face a doubtful future.

The draft bill already has a cosponsor, Rep. Tom O’Halleran, D-Ariz., who stressed the connection people in Arizona have to the Canyon and implored people to think about the merits of the projects, some of which are within walking distance of the canyon.

“This is not what America is about,” O’Halleran said, referring to the lasting environmental damage of some of these mines. “The health of our children needs to come first, it cannot be a second thought.”

*

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

Andrew Nicla covers the environment for the Republic. Reach him at [email protected] or on Twitter @AndrewNicla.

Featured image: U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva (third-from-right) stands with tribal leaders at the Grand Canyon on Saturday, Feb. 23, 2019. Grijalva, D-Arizona, was at the Grand Canyon Saturday to announce his Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, which would permanently ban uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. (Photo11: Thomas Hawthorne/The Republic)

We discussed in the previous article how China and Russia are using diplomatic, economic and military means in areas like Asia and the Middle East to contain the belligerence and chaos unleashed by the United States. In this analysis, we will examine the extent to which this strategy is working in Europe. In the next and final article, we will look at the consequences of the “America First” doctrine in relation to South America and the Monroe Doctrine.

The United States has in the last three decades brought chaos and destruction to large parts of Europe, in spite of the common myth that the old continent has basked in the post-WWII peace of the American-led world order. This falsehood is fueled by European politicians devoted to the European Union and eager to justify and praise the European project. But history shows that the United States fueled or directed devastating wars on the European continent in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, with the conflict between Georgia and Ossetia at the beginning of the 1990s, with the war in Georgia in 2008, and in the coup in Ukraine in 2014, with the ensuing aggression against the Donbass.

The major problem for Washington’s European allies has always been summoning the will to contain US imperialism. For many years, especially since the end of the Cold War, European countries have preferred to defer to Washington’s positions, confirming their status as colonies rather than allies. It is fundamental to recognize that European politicians have always been at the service of Washington, eager to prostrate themselves to American exceptionalism, favoring US interests over European ones.

The wars on the European continent are a clear demonstration of how Washington used Europe to advance her own interests. The abiding goal of the neocons and the Washington establishment has been to deny any possibility of a rapprochement between Germany and Russia, something that could potentially result in a dangerous axis threatening Washington’s interests. The war of aggression against Yugoslavia represented the deathblow to the Soviet republics, an effort to banish the influence of Moscow on the continent. The subsequent war in Ossetia, Georgia and Ukraine had the double objective of attacking and weakening the Russian Federation as well as creating a hostile climate for Moscow in Europe, limiting economic and diplomatic contacts between East and West.

In recent years, especially following the coup in Ukraine, the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation, and Kiev’s terrorist action against the Donbass, relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated to historically low levels.

The election of Trump has sent confusing signals to the Europeans vis-a-vis Russia. Initially Trump seemed intent on establishing good relations with Putin in the face of strong opposition from European allies like France, Germany and the UK. But the possibility of a US-Russia rapprochement has been severely undermined by a combination of Trump’s inexperience, the unhelpful advisors he has appointed, and the US deep state. This geopolitical upheaval has had two primary consequences. For the Germans, first and foremost, it has deepened energy and economic cooperation with Moscow, especially in relation to the Nord Stream 2. But on the other hand, Trump has found friends in European countries hostile to Russia like Poland.

The divergences between the US and Europe have widened with Washington’s withdrawal from a number of important treaties like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, both of which have a direct impact on Europe in terms of security and the economy. Donald Trump and his “America First” attitude has thereby afforded Europeans some space to maneuver and establish some level of autonomy, resulting in increasing synergies with Moscow and especially Beijing.

In economic terms, China has offered Europe (with Greece as a prime example) full integration into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a project with vast possibilities for increasing trade among dozens of countries. Europe will become the main market for Chinese goods, but at the moment one of the greatest obstacles to be overcome can be seen in the freight trains, which often start their journey towards Europe full but are half-empty on their return journey to China. Beijing and the major European capitals are well aware that to make the BRI project economically sustainable, this exchange must go in both directions so that both sides gain.

The technological interconnection between China and Europe is already happening thanks to Huawei devices that are being purchased by European companies in increasing numbers. The absence of back doors in Huawei systems, in contrast to what Snowden has shown with other Western systems, is the real reason why Washington has declared war on this Chinese company. Industrial espionage is a priceless advantage enjoyed by the United States, and the presence of backdoors on Western systems, to which the CIA and NSA have access, guarantees a competitive advantage allowing Washington to excel in terms of technology. With the spread of Huawei systems this advantage is lost, to the chagrin of Washington’s spy apparatus. European allies understand the potential advantage to be gained and are protecting themselves with the Chinese systems.

In technological terms, Beijing’s efforts are proving very successful in Europe and are paving the way for future physical integration in the BRI. In this sense, the participation of such European countries as the UK, France, Germany and Italy in the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) also shows how the prospect of Chinese capital investments are of great interest to troubled European economies.

In the military field, the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty threatens the safety of European countries because of the measures adopted by the Russian Federation to guarantee necessary protection from US systems deployed in Europe. A proverb states that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. Europe, as the potential battlefield in any great-power confrontation, has the most to lose from a renewed cold war that could turn hot. Moscow’s revelation of its new generation of weapons has caused anxiety among Europeans who worry that their lives may be sacrificed in order to please Americans who are thousands of miles away. At the same time, the Americans want to get rid of NATO while demanding that the Europeans spend more on American weapons and also limit Sino-Russian investments in Europe. It is likely that the breakdown of the INF Treaty, combined with the conventional and nuclear capabilities of Moscow, will boost diplomatic talks between Russia and Europe without the US being able to sabotage future agreements. Some European countries are keen to be rid of the policy of subordinating their interests to that of Washington, especially with regards to security.

Russia cleverly uses two decisive instruments to limit Washington’s influence on Europe and contain the chaos produced by its foreign-policy establishment. Firstly, it has the strength of its own conventional and nuclear arsenal that acts as a deterrent against excessive provocations. Secondly, it has huge deposits of oil and LNG that it exports to the European market in considerable quantities. The combination of these two factors allows Moscow to contain the chaos unleashed by the US in such places as Georgia or Ukraine as well as limit US influence on internal European affairs, as can be seen in the case of Germany and the Nord Stream 2 project. Merkel is forced to concede that in spite of her demonisation of Moscow, Berlin cannot do away with Russia’s supply of energy. This has increased tensions between Berlin and Washington, with the US eager to replace Russian gas with its own much more expensive LNG shipped all the way across the Atlantic.

Chinese economic power, combined with Russia’s military deterrence as well as European reliance on Russia for its energy supply, shows that Europe cannot afford to follow its American ally in acting provocatively against the Sino-Russian axis. Europe has, moreover, suffered from US wars in the Middle East and the waves of migrants brought on by this. Small shoots of strategic autonomy can be seen in the creation of the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), an alternative payment system to the dollar to work around sanctions against Iran. The little or no diplomatic support extended to Ukraine’s anti-Russia stance by France and Germany could be seen as another sign of the Europeans becoming more independent. The recent Munich Security Conference, with Poroshenko in attendance, further confirmed that Merkel intends to rely on Russian gas supplies in the interests of energy diversification.

The combined diplomatic, military and economic actions of Russia and China in Europe are decidedly more limited and effective in Europe compared to other parts of the world like the Middle East and Asia. Political rhetoric, amplified by the media, that is against cooperation between Europe, Russia and China, only serves the interests of the United States. Russia and China are succeeding by proposing viable alternatives to Washington’s unipolar world order, extending to European countries a strategic liberty that would otherwise not be available to them in a Washington-directed unipolar world order.

It is still not clear whether the European capitals are turning to Moscow out of anti-Trump rather than anti-American sentiment. It remains to be seen whether these changes are temporary and await the return to the US presidency of someone who believes in liberal hegemony, or whether the changes underway are the first in a series of upheavals that will progressively reshape the world order from unipolar to multipolar, with Europe clearly being one of the main poles.

*

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

“Bi-partisanship between neoliberals and conservatives built the monster we now call ‘mass incarceration.’ No so-called ‘progressive prosecutor’ can or will unbuild it. That’s because it took the entire system – DAs, judges, cops, defense lawyers, and prison administrators, not to mention the media, to collaborate on a monstrous project like mass incarceration. Only mass resistance can abolish mass incarceration.”– Mumia Abu Jamal (February 16 2019 speech to Yale Law School`s Rebellious Lawyering Conference.) [1]

“There are so many injustices in this system, man, about the things they do to people, the harm they cause to people. It’s not just MOVE that are treated horribly like this.” – Mike Africa Sr, MOVE 9 member interviewed in this week`s program

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

U.S. President Donald Trump saluted “National African American History Month” in a February 1st tweet:

National African American History Month is an occasion to rediscover the enduring stories of African Americans and the gifts of freedom, purpose, and opportunity they have bestowed on future generations…https://t.co/n9kf58NruZ

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 1, 2019

This from the president who has characterized Mexican immigrants as “criminals and rapists”, demanded a Muslim ban, and avoided renouncing known white supremacists like former KKK leader David Duke. [2]

Previous to becoming president, Trump had established a track record that was anything but evolved in terms of reconciling the divide between people of color and whites in his country. In the 70s, his family’s real estate company was sued twice by the U.S. Justice Department for rental practices that discriminated against black applicants. Workers at his Atlantic City casinos would accuse him of making racist remarks about black people, even removing African-American card dealers at the discretion of high rolling customers. In one notorious case from 1989, he spent $85,000 on newspaper ads calling for the return of the death penalty and for the execution of the so called Central Park five, five youths of colour who were intimidated by authorities at the time into confessing to a rape they never committed. [3][4]

There are legitimate concerns about what Trump’s past activities will mean for vulnerable minorities, especially as economic conditions worsen, and scapegoating becomes fashionable. However, the impulse to make Trump an exclusive focus of anti-racist organizing by, for example, campaigning for more progressives and people of colour, such as the newly minted Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, could conceivably distract the nation from structural and systemic violence that has festered through ‘hope and change’ President Barrack Obama.

As mentioned in an October 2018 edition of this radio program, such structural racism includes racialized policing and a system of mass incarceration that has seen blacks imprisoned at a rate nearly five times higher than their white counterparts. The Black Lives Matter Movement which sprung up in opposition to police shooting unarmed black youth, seemingly with impunity, erupted under the administration of America’s first black president.

On the occasion of Black History Month, this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program attempts to take the temperature of the struggle for racial and social justice two years into the Trump presidency with three provocative interviews.

Our first guest, Glen Ford, directly addresses the question of how Trump can be a potential distraction from more fundamental grassroots organizing, and lays out his appraisal of how meaningful change can and is being achieved.

Our next guest, Suzanne Ross of International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal brings listeners up to speed on a new opportunity and setback for the campaign to free America’s most high profile political prisoner.

At the midpoint of the program we hear a brief excerpt from a speech by Mumia Abu Jamal, recorded and presented to Yale Law School’s Rebellious Lawyering Conference. This was in place of speaker Larry Krassner who was disinvited following his efforts as District Attorney to sabotage Mumia’s case.

Finally, we end the show with an exclusive interview with two members of the MOVE 9, Debbie Africa and Mike Africa Sr, along with their son Mike Africa Jr. The family now re-united after more than 40 years detail their own recollections of the incident for which they were falsely accused of murder, their ordeal behind prison walls, and their reflections on what has and has not changed in the outside world since 1978.

Glen Ford is a distinguished radio-show host and commentator. In 1977, Ford co-launched, produced and hosted America’s Black Forum, the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program on commercial television. Ford co-founded the Black Commentator in 2002 and in 2006 he launched the Black Agenda Report where he continues to serve as executive editor. Ford is also the author of The Big Lie: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of the Grenada Invasion.

Suzanne Ross is a New York City based clinical psychologist, a long-time anti-imperialist activist and representative of International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Debbie Africa and Mike Africa Sr. are two members of the organization known as MOVE, a black liberation group founded by John Africa which embraces revolutionary ideology and embraces a philosophy of protecting life, both human and non-human. The couple were arrested along with seven others following an August 1978 raid on the group’s communal home which left a police officer dead. All members of the MOVE 9 have denied criminal wrongdoing. Two of the nine died in jail. Five are remain in prison. Their son Mike Jr. is actively working to seek justice for the MOVE 9. Find out more on his site mikeafricajr.com.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 249)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with released MOVE 9 members Debbie Africa and Mike Africa Sr, and their son Mike Africa Jr., February 20, 2019.

Part One

Global Research: In Philadelphia, August 8th 1978, in a predawn raid, hundreds of Philly police officers converged on the home of the MOVE family in the Powelton Village neighborhood. Battering rams and at least four high-pressure firehoses were used against the occupants. During an exchange of gunfire which ensued, one Philadelphia police officer, James Ramp, was shot and killed. The Philadelphia court system found the 9 adults in the communal household criminally responsible for the killing and charged them with 3rd-degree murder. This in spite of the fact that ballistics revealed Ramp had been shot at a downward angle, while the alleged perpetrators were in the basement of the house, below Ramp.

Last year, after spending four decades in prison, two of the MOVE 9 were released on parole, fully ten years after being eligible. Debbie Africa was released in June, and her partner Mike Africa Sr released four months later. With two members having died while in prison, that leaves five still behind bars and prison walls for the crime that they have continually asserted they never committed. For the first time since their early 20s, Debbie and Mike Sr, now in their 60s, have been reunited with their children and grandchildren, and can once again walk the streets freely. The Global Research News Hour welcomes Debbie, Mike Sr, and Mike Jr to our program.

It’s a pleasure to have you on our show, thank you so much for making the time to speak with our listeners

Mike Africa Sr: You got it, man! On a move!

Debbie Africa: On A Move!

GR: Debbie, Mike Sr, please, if you could, could you convey to our listeners the feelings that you experienced on having finally being released and being reunited with each other and with your kids and grandkids for the first time after 40 years behind prison walls?

DA: Relief. I always tell the story that when I was first sent to prison in …1978, my oldest child was only 2 years, she wasn’t even 2 years old yet. And Michael Jr wasn’t born yet. So, I was pregnant with him. I had a two year old baby that I was holding when the raid took place, and she was taken from me. And – my daughter was taken from me.

And, without even realizing how long I felt so heavy, when I finally got released it was like a weight just came off of my heart, and that’s really all I can explain to you. As soon as I walked out that door, Michael Jr was there and the family was there – his wife, his children, which are my grandchildren, it was just like the weight was just lifted up off of my heart … it was just a really great feeling, to know that they finally, finally did something they were supposed to do. Release us.

MAS: Yeah, well for me, it was relief also, to say that we had waited for all these decades sometimes feeling that it wasn’t even gonna happen. And I did not believe that it was happening until – even when we was granted parole – I still didn’t believe it would happen until I was finally out that door on the road with my son in the car. At that point, is when I finally believed that it had happened. It was due all to a lot of hard work from Mike Jr, and a lot of family, and a lot of friends, a lot of supporters. So, I was euphoric, man, it was really, really nice.

GR: And Mike Jr, maybe you’d like to comment on this day finally having arrived, I mean I’m sure its something you’ve dreamed up for literally your entire life. Anything that you experienced that maybe you hadn’t anticipated or expected?

Mike Africa Jr: Yeah well, I mean it was the same thing for me… Trying to get something done and it not happening, you know, for a long time, so to actually finally get to that point, and actually be able to watch my parents walk out of the prison, rather than be carried out, or rather than be wheeled out… It was a big thing. It was important. It was a relief for me too.

GR: Debbie and Mike Sr, could you maybe just take us back to that raid in 1978. I mean we’ve all heard the clinical account. But I was curious to know about the memories that have stuck with you from that day and that have haunted you in the decades since, of what you saw and experienced on that horrible day.

MAS: Ah, well it was a lot of chaos. A lot of confusion. It was mostly just dark, because there was a lot of tear gas and smoke and shouting and babies crying and dogs barking. It was a lot of confusion, man. It was a horrible, horrible day. I just remember, you know, it was so dark you couldn’t see anything in the basement, because as I said they had shot in smoke and tear gas, so we couldn’t breathe either.

And they had a lot of deluge hoses, and I don’t know if you are familiar with those but they were strong enough, the force of the water was strong enough to take bricks out of the walls, so you had to shield yourself from that… They were shooting from all directions coming in at us. So, it was just a terrible day, man. It was a miracle that we survived and we came out of there and that none of our children were killed. So it was just a hard day for us.

GR: Debbie, I mean you as I understand it, you were clutching your baby at the time, this is before Mike was born, maybe you have some recollections from that time as well.

DA: Well, it was scary that’s for sure. It was scary. It was scary being pregnant, and holding a baby, and watching other women who had babies and young children. It was pretty scary. We’re not really at liberty to talk about it at length, because there is still litigation going on as far as the whole issue with that day.

You know it was also a tragic day for the officer who lost his life, and MOVE never, ever, ever, ever willed nothing like that to happen. There has never ever been in our frame of mind, our frame of work, our frame of network, to have anything like that ever happen to anybody. MOVE… is about life, about protecting life, and that’s what we’re about. That’s what our whole purpose is, to protect life. Not to encourage life to be destroyed or killed.

For me, all I can say is, it was a really scary day, and I didn’t think we were coming out of that house alive. I don’t even know how we came out of that house alive, except for the fact – to say that it had to be a miracle.

GR: Yes, could you talk, both of you, about the time you spent in prison. It must have been particularly difficult, given that as MOVE members you had a special diet and routines that were probably not compatible with what was being forced on you. What did you and your fellow incarcerated MOVE members have to put up with, and how did you cope for the past 40 years?

DA: Well, we pretty much had to eat really what the prison served. Aside from being down at county for three years, myself and my other MOVE sisters who were down there, we had to eat what they served, however we were able to obtain some, a few of the vegetables and fruits that we did normally eat on the street for those 3 years while we were in the county. But, once we went upstate, we would just had to eat pretty much what everybody else had to eat. That’s just the way it was.

So, the food wasn’t the healthiest food to eat. You know, you hardly got any raw foods at all – I mean, vegetables. Everything was canned. We didn’t really have the option until years and years later of what you could eat, and even the commissary that you bought food or snacks from, the snacks weren’t the healthiest to buy either, up until like I said, like a few years maybe before I came home.

MAS: Well, prisons – the conditions of prison are pretty well known, man, and we’re not the only victims of a system that jails people who are innocent. Just recently, another person was released from death row after doing 28 years by the current District Attorney. And the food is historically horrible. So these are well known things.

Not as well known is the need for prison reform, which once we did settle in, we were always fighting for our freedom. Always fighting to expose an injust system. But what I settled then on, what we settled then on is a lot of prison reform. A lot of things to expose, and to help people gain their freedom, and understand that while they’re – might be working on their individual cases, there’s a need to address systems that systemically represses certain people, and we worked hard to address those issues, and we did that even before we were jailed in the first place, which is another reason why we were attacked in the first place.

So, this is something that we’re still continuing to do right now. We were very much interested and active in the issue of prison reform.

GR: And your interactions with other inmates… people who were also in prison. Were you able to interact with them and help continue the cause through your interactions with the people who were also in custody?

MAS: Yeah, very much so. Right now we still have people that now want their release, they just had an issue with a juvenile lifer. In Pennsylvania in the United States they had a ruling where they found it unconstitutional for a juvenile lifer to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. So, many of them have been released over the last couple of years, and over the years, I had been in touch with many of them, we had all – all the MOVE people in prison – had been in touch with a lot of them, mentoring them, and keeping them out of some dire situations, and protecting them from some dire situations, and they still come up to us to this day, thanking us about those issues. This is something that we continue to do now – mentoring people who’s freshly released, and staying in contact with some of the people, now.

DA: Um, I do have a story to tell about that too. One day, I was waiting for the bus, to go some place, and Michael Sr was with me. When I got on the bus, the bus driver just kept looking, and he kept looking. He said, “I know that guy! I know that guy!” He said, “Wow,” he said, “Man, that’s a strong brother!” And he looked at me, and he said, he said, “Man, y’all are really strong people!” And what he did was he recognized him from being released, and he recognized him from a friend of his telling him who he was and how he had taken care of his friend while he was in jail. And he just was in awe of just seeing him on the street because he remembered when he was released. And this is the kind of response that we’re still getting on the street from people that mostly had been in there with Mike – Mike Sr.

I mean we were in the supermarket just about 2 weeks ago and, you know they got, a guy walked up to him and says, “Dang!” You know? “Mike!” You know just friendly, and just always just so happy and the first thing they say is, “Man if it wasn’t for you,” he said, “Man, I would have been in some bad trouble. Mike, you really kept me straight!” You know? And these are the examples that we run into, like all the time.

Intermission

Part Two

GR: There’s a question that’s been burning in my mind and I just have to ask you. You know there’s a saying that everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were and what they were doing the day Kennedy was assassinated. Talk about that day in 1985 when you heard that the MOVE home on Osage Avenue had been fired on and bombed by the police, killing eleven of your family members including six adults and five children, including your group’s founder John Africa. Could you share your feelings on that day? How you got the news and how you processed that information?

DA: I remember very well where I was at. Myself and the two MOVE women who had children in that house in 1985, we were all in solitary confinement at the time, 1985. We were all locked behind a gate. We were all in solitary confinement with only one hour out for recreation a day. And we were given the news by an officer who just came by each of our cells and said, “There was a fire bombing and your child is dead.” That’s the way we got the news. And, in fact, let me think, it was three of them, it was Sue, Janine and Janet whose children were in that house May 13th and that’s how we got the news.

MAS: Well, for me I was in Huntingdon prison in 1985, and I was watching it unfold on either CNN or some – yeah it had to be CNN because it wasn’t local up there. And I was just watching in disbelief, you know, and I didn’t um, I never believed what I was seeing. Never believed that our people were actually gone, until I talked to some people, some MOVE people later. Sometimes I had, I was, left the TV set to call home and I talked to a couple of the members of the organization. And they confirmed some things and that was a very horrible, horrible hard day.

GR: Yeah that ..it must have been quite horrible to have to …to get that news and then, you know, you’re continued incarceration goes on. Might I ask, how do you make sense of your release now, forty years later, and ten years after being eligible for parole?

MAS: Well the sense of it is that we should have never been – as you mentioned in your opening statement – that we should have never been convicted in the first place. That it took 40 years… that’s a system that needs reform. That it should make more than MOVE people incensed. It should make more people than MOVE concerned about prison reform. That it does not, speaks volumes of the system not MOVE people.

That we were speaking on it in the beginning before August 8^th, before May 20^th, before any historical record about or any confrontations between MOVE and the city of Philadelphia, should speak volumes about the MOVE organization. Because we were aware of it before. We had stickers going on envelopes before. We were doing things in the community before this became a hot topic it is today. And thanks to MOVE’s founder John Africa, we got on this issue and stayed on this issue and warned people about this issue back then. That he encouraged MOVE people, and opened the eyes of MOVE people, and made people aware of it, and MOVE people have committed themselves to this issue.

So, it’s no surprise that it took 40 years. Some people – there are so many injustices in this system, man, about the things they do to people, the harm they cause to people. It’s not just MOVE that are treated horribly like this.

You know, so many things are not addressed in this system. You know, the child abuse. The child trafficking. There are so many missing people in society. You have DACA. You have the environment that is treated so horribly and disdainfully. Um, you have water. You remember the situation in Detroit, you might have heard up there. And Michigan… they had dirty water that they were saying was safe for children to drink, and of course it was dirty, you could see that it was dirty, and now all these children had brain damage from lead poisoning, and they are still trying to wash their hands of that situation.

So it’s not surprising at all that they would treat one organization who speaks out against this in a horrible manner that they had. Or that it took forty years for them to correct a wrong that never should have been in the first place.

GR: There have been of course a lot of changes in the world – in your city. What struck you the most about what’s changed from the time you were jailed in ‘78, and what you are seeing around you now in 2019?

DA: Well, what was… I dunno if the word ‘striking’ is the right word for it but, what was quite offensive to me, but not surprising to me, was the fact that we had to drink water out of a bottle and buy it. You know something that’s just so, should be, supposedly, like the foods used to be, free and abundant for all of life, all of humans, to be able to endure, is bottled up, and sold for a profit. Something that you need in order to live. You cannot live without water. You cannot live without food. However, we’ve lived… in an environment, in a country, in a world that has prostituted the God-given food by nature, for centuries. For centuries! And so we’re pretty much used to having to buy food.

However when we go back years and years ago, and you read these books, even the Bible, you will see that you just go to a garden and pick food and eat it and survive. Well, that same mentality that caused man – the mentality of man – to take food from the earth that’s given to us plentiful, that prostituted the earth and put it in a supermarket, in order for us to have to buy it, is a sin.

And so although we were used to that from growing up, we just kind of accepted it, that you had to buy food from a supermarket, rather than just take it from the ground for free. Well when you come into the world now, after forty years, seeing that the water is actually bottled up and you have to buy is equally a sin, if not more of a sin. It’s disturbing, this is the way the system is going, this is the way humanity is going, and it is definitely a violation of our beliefs, and it’s a violation of …every God given creature, on this earth, because it shouldn’t be that way. So, that was the most obnoxious, you know, disturbing thing to me.

MAS: We know with technology comes more distortion, and more imbalance, and more imposition on the planet. And that is what we are seeing. You know, you can’t go outside in the summertime without, almost, you know, you almost turn into the bubble boy. You got to have some protection from life. And that’s what, you know, all these so-called advances has caused on the planet, where everything is, you know, the Arctic looks like Florida!

So, I’m not really concentrating on the changes, I’m concentrating on the things that are constant, that remain the same. You know the loyalty in people, the good in people, activism in people, and the people who will always take the chance and time and effort to speak out against the power that oppresses. No, I’m not concentrating on any of the changes, any of the new technology, you know that they call advancements, because I know the only thing that is advancing is a faster demise of the planet.

So, the things that are constant, the love of my family, of people’s families, and letting animals be animals, and you know, have their territories, and just letting people be, man, without restriction. And I’m concentrating on the hugs I get from my family, not the technology, not the advancements, the love of my family, and that’s constant. It’s the same forty years ago as it is today.

GR: I want to thank you for sharing with us. Before we close, is there any message you have for our listeners who wish to show their solidarity with your cause, and with the MOVE family, what would you like to say to them?

MAJ: This is Mike Jr. For people who want to get involved and want to help out with what we are doing, you can go to my website, mikeafricajr.com, and at that website, you can find links to the things that we are working on now. We started a non-profit called the Seed of Wisdom Foundation in which we are working with people and young people and trying to get people to learn how to eat healthy and physical activity and all that kind of stuff. You can also find out more information about the MOVE organization and upcoming events, and how to get involved and how to support. All the information that you need, you can go to mikeafricajr.com.

GR: Ok. Well Debbie, Mike Sr, Mike Jr, it’s been a unique privilege to speak with you. I wish you all the best in your endeavors. I believe you are doing a bit of touring. Thanks so much for taking the time to speak with us.

MAS: Thank you man!

DA: You’re welcome, and thank you for inviting us!

MAJ: See you next time!

GR: We’ve been speaking with two of the recently released members of MOVE 9, Debbie Africa, and Mike Africa Sr, as well as their son Mike Africa Jr. They joined us from their home just outside of Philadelphia.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time. 

Notes: 

1. https://www.prisonradio.org/media/audio/mumia/rebel-lawyers-speech-mumia-abu-jamal-1005
2. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
3. ibid
4. Oliver Laughland (Feb. 17, 2016), ‘Donald Trump and the Central Park Five: the racially charged rise of a demagogue’, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/central-park-five-donald-trump-jogger-rape-case-new-york

It’s become popular over the past few years to talk about the so-called “Arab NATO” that the US is reportedly trying to assemble in the Mideast to militarily contain Iran, but the actual entity being created doesn’t resemble its European predecessor at all. Rather, it appears as though the NATO branding was tacked onto it in order to simplify the purpose of this emerging alliance, not to accurately describe its intra-organizational workings or anything else related to NATO for that matter. In order to understand why everyone has it so wrong whenever they talk about the “Arab NATO”, it’s necessary to list off the main differences between these two structures.

Here’s what defines the original NATO:

• Formed after World War II;
• A directly US-led military alliance;
• Unprecedented at the time;
• A common/central operational command;
• A “captured market” for US arms.

Compare that to what the “Arab NATO” is beginning to look like:

• Forming without a regional war having taken place;
• Modelled off of the “Lead From Behind” strategy of back-end, indirect US support;
• Built upon the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC);
• Divided between Saudi Arabia and the UAE;
• Military diversification after recent deals with Russia and China.

For all their differences, here’s what the two alliances have in common:

• Predominant American strategic influence;
• Common foes (USSR/Russia and Iran, respectively);
• Key component of larger geopolitical containment strategies;
• Based along the Eurasian Rimland;
• Multilateral military integration between regional partners.

Dual Redundancies

Unlike NATO at the moment of its inception, the “Arab NATO” is doubly redundant because two interconnected military structures already exist that preceded it. The GCC has gradually been transitioning from an economic group to a military one over the past few decades, but then Saudi Arabia unveiled its transregional Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) in 2015 stretching from West Africa to Southeast Asia. The latter entity is comprised of Saudi-friendly countries all across the Eastern Hemisphere’s strategically positioned “Islamic Belt”, but it has thus far appeared to be more of a symbolic creation than anything substantive. In any case, the GCC and IMCTC already exist and make one wonder what exactly it is that the US wants to achieve with the “Arab NATO”.

The Containment Core

It can’t be known for certain, but it seems like the US intends for the GCC to simply rebrand as the “Arab NATO”, whether officially or not, since the countries that are usually included in this plan are oftentimes the same ones. This suggests that the US wants to strengthen the IMCTC’s core and hopefully one day turn that larger aforementioned organization into a gigantic proxy against Iran and other Muslim targets all across the Eastern Hemisphere, though this is much easier said than done for several reasons. Here are the most basic challenges facing the US’ strategic efforts to transform the GCC into an “Arab NATO” and then expand that entity all throughout the IMCTC’s member states:

• Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the “core of the core”, are in a “friendly competition” with one another;
• “Peripheral members” of the “GCC+” like Egypt and Jordan would first have to officially join the GCC;
• Israel’s behind-the-scenes support of the “Arab NATO” is controversial without peace in Palestine;
• Some of the IMCTC’s members such as Pakistan don’t want to be “contract soldiers” for the US;
• It takes years of training, coordination, and trust-building to form an effective multinational alliance.

Being mindful of these serious challenges, it’s unlikely that the US will ever succeed in anything more than strengthening military coordination between the GCC’s members, which is already difficult enough as it is seeing as how Saudi Arabia and the UAE are basically waging two separate but semi-coordinated campaigns in Yemen. Neither of those two countries wants to enter into a position where they cede military sovereignty to the other, let alone to the US, so the very optics of an “Arab NATO” are an obstacle in and of themselves. It’s possible that they might put aside their sensitivities for symbolism’s sake, but in that case, they wouldn’t be an “Arab NATO”, but rather a strengthened GCC.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

Featured image: President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump join King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Sunday, May 21, 2017, to participate in the inaugural opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

As Congress and the public debate the pros and cons of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), or New NAFTA, behind the scenes and in the shadows transnational corporations are doubling down on their plans to weaken and eliminate public protections through a related entity, the secretive Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). This little-known council has the mission of promoting trade by “reducing, eliminating or preventing unnecessary regulatory differences” between Canada and the United States. Since the RCC’s inception, agribusiness—including factory-farmed livestock producers, the feed industry, and chemical and pesticide manufacturers and linked transportation businesses—has had a seat at the regulatory cooperation table. Their focus, without exception, has been advocating the scaling back and even elimination of important safety protections in both countries. In the U.S., recommendations made by the RCC feed directly into regulations enacted (or eliminated) by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, among others.

Cross-border regulatory cooperation activities aimed at eliminating so-called “non-tariff barriers” to trade—standards that can increase the cost of importing products that don’t meet another country’s health and safety protections, or prevent the import altogether—began following the signing of the original NAFTA. Initially, informal working groups were established to harmonize pesticide and other regulations. The RCC was formally created in 2011 by an Executive Order from President Obama, and proceeded to establish work plans to harmonize U.S. and Canadian regulations in 23 policy areas, including meat and plant inspections, food safety, workplace chemicals, chemicals management, rail safety and transport of dangerous goods. The RCC was revitalized in June 2017 by the Trump and Trudeau administrations with a new Memorandum of Understanding.

The Trump administration recently sought comment from “stakeholders” on what the RCC’s activities and focus should be going forward. It is very clear that the administration’s RCC initiative is part of its broader deregulatory plan. The U.S. request for comment specifically states that international regulatory cooperation initiatives “may serve deregulatory functions and help agencies achieve the objectives of Executive Order 13771.” This executive order “requires that, for each fiscal year, agencies must identify in their Regulatory Plans offsetting regulations for each regulation that increases incremental cost” and at a minimum, must repeal two regulations for every one that is adopted. The Trump government intends for the RCC process to promote these regulatory rollbacks.

Predictably, the RCC stakeholder submissions were mostly from transnational corporations and industry associations. Most of the public, as well as many food, consumer and environmental groups, have never heard of the RCC. (IATP’s comments were among very few from civil society.) The corporate commenters have a consistent message, which mirrors that of the Trump administration: Use the RCC to get rid of regulations. Many also see the RCC as a mechanism for implementing new restrictions on public protections that are part of the New NAFTA. Here are some of the most egregious industry asks:

• All inspections of imported meat at the border should be eliminated. In their joint comments on the RCC, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) and Canadian Meat Council (CMC) said that “microbial and residue testing of meat products at the border should be eliminated” in order to facilitate trade, and opined that “Free Trade Agreements between the US and Canada provide the legal basis” for this action. As Food & Water Watch has pointed out, the no-inspection demand is one these meat industry lobbyists have been making since the RCC was established in 2011. Border inspections are important for protecting public health because U.S. and Canadian food standards and practices are not the same. It also protects the public as government is privatizing meat inspection and shifting to self-reporting while slaughtering line speeds increase. Food & Water Watch gives the example of USDA’s zero tolerance policy for the pathogen Listeria monocytogenes on all products it regulates. Canada does not have this ban. Without checking at the border, there is no way to know if Canadian products that violate U.S. policy on this pathogen are being imported into the U.S. While the industry’s earlier demands to end border inspections were upended by a major recall of contaminated Canadian beef in 2012, the industry is trying again under the Trump administration. This time, they may succeed.

• If all border inspections aren’t eliminated, then food safety inspectors should reduce tested sample size. If you test less of a product, you will undoubtedly find fewer violations. Of course, this isn’t the reason meat industry lobbyists NAMI and CMC give for their request that the RCC focus on reducing sampling lot size—instead they say their goal is to prevent food waste! When it comes to food safety, what you don’t know can hurt you.

• Prevent Canada’s new mandatory Front of Package health and nutrition labels from going into effect. The U.S. Meat Export Federation wants the RCC to harmonize front-of-package labeling between the U.S. and Canada. What does this mean? The industry’s goal is to use the RCC process to stop Canada from implementing new health warnings on packaged foods. In their regulatory cooperation comments, NAMI and CMC assert that food nutrition labels proposed by Health Canada were promulgated in a manner inconsistent with “good regulatory practice as outlined in the text” of New NAFTA, and that the proposed rule “creates a non-tariff trade barrier for U.S. companies.” The groups falsely claim that the Canadian measures are not evidence-based and “will be unique in the world and set a dangerous precedent,” mentioning particularly their objection to linking the labeling provisions to restrictions on marketing to children. In fact, health warnings on junk food packaging has been effectively implemented in several countries to combat obesity, diabetes and other diet-related diseases. As we reported previously, U.S. negotiators, egged on by agribusiness, sought to prevent Canada (as well as Mexico and the U.S.) from implementing effective front-of-package junk food warning labels. The proposed anti-labeling negotiating text was leaked, and the ensuing public outcry killed the proposal. It appears that the meat industry wants to use this secretive regulatory cooperation process to achieve through the back door what it was unable to accomplish directly in New NAFTA.

• Allow Canadian-grown meat to be sold with chemical treatments and in packaging that currently isn’t allowed. Canada doesn’t allow some “food safety interventions and packaging” that the U.S. does, according to meat industry lobbyists CMC and NAMI. The industry suggests that since some U.S. meat products exported to Canada are allowed to be sold even when chemically treated or in packaging that Canada does not allow domestically, “there is a compelling rationale to converge these approval processes.” In their view, Canada should simply adopt the U.S. standard, and the RCC can help achieve this outcome.

• Reduce safety testing of containers used to transport pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. The Industrial Packaging Alliance of North America (IPANA) wants to use the RCC to limit required safety inspections of containers used to transport hazardous goods. Currently, under U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration rules, these containers must be retested every 12 months. Right now, Transport Canada does not require any periodic safety retesting, but it has proposed testing every five years. The industry group says the U.S. standard “represents a competitive cost disadvantage for U.S. manufacturers” and that changing to the Canadian proposal “would eliminate a significant and unnecessary regulatory burden.” How would workers and others exposed to leaking pesticides or exploding hazardous materials be affected if these containers fail because of inadequate testing? IPANA doesn’t say.

• Use obscure words instead of plain language to hide information from consumers. The Chamber of Commerce thinks the RCC should help get rid of a U.S. rule that requires English words instead of obscure Latin terms for 57 ingredients on some consumer product labels. Since Canada allows the Latin terms, harmonizing the two countries’ regulations to the Canadian standard presents a unique opportunity to further confuse consumers trying to decipher what’s really in these household products—and whether they are safe.

• Exempt U.S. exporters from some Canadian safety standards for explosive grain dust in animal feed and non-food grain. This is one of many joint requests from the National Grain and Feed Association and North American Export Grain Association. Canada requires hazard labeling and safety data sheets for workers handling animal feed and non-food grain, whereas the U.S. does not. The feed associations want the RCC to harmonize regulations intended to prevent dangerous grain dust explosions by allowing the less protective U.S. standard to apply. The industry solution? Of course, harmonize downward.

• Roll back controls on climate-harming hydrofluorocarbon gases. The Chemistry Society of Canada and the American Chemistry Association want Canada to piggy-back on a Trump administration attempt to roll back rules meant to prevent the leaking and venting of organic compounds called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from large refrigerating and air-conditioning units. HFCs contribute to global warming and ozone depletion. The chemical industry lobbyists state the RCC should be used to “encourage collaboration between Canada and the U.S., which could reduce burden, enhance compliance, and promote a North American market.” It would also further accelerate climate change, not to mention contribute to more cases of skin cancer, facts the chemical industry fails to mention.

It is very clear that the Regulatory Cooperation Council, and related language in the new NAFTA, is part of a broader deregulatory plan. New NAFTA hasn’t yet been sent to Congress for ratification and isn’t in effect, but that hasn’t stopped industry lobbying groups from trying to use it to deregulate. Several comments submitted by industry groups made the case that provisions in New NAFTA should be implemented through the RCC, or that a domestic regulation they object to violates provisions in the deal. As we discuss above, in their objections to Canada’s new junk food labeling rule, the meat industry claims the rule is inconsistent with New NAFTA’s “Good Regulatory Practices” (GRP) chapter. The GRP chapter includes provisions defining what information and studies may be used to develop domestic regulations, how other countries should be involved in the rule-making process, and procedures for adopting, reviewing and repealing regulations. It also includes many provisions promoting regulatory cooperation and harmonization. Other New NAFTA chapters, including provisions on technical rules including labeling, also encourage or require regulatory cooperation prior to adoption of new mandatory public protections.

While different regulations in the two countries could be harmonized to the most protective of the divergent standards, that approach is not reflected in any of these recent industry demands. Nor is it what actually happened during the decade since the RCC was established. Perhaps there is no more devastating and obvious proof of this than U.S. and Canadian regulators’ actions both before and after the 2013 Lac Mégantic train disaster.

From the early days of the RCC, it was a forum for regulators to seek to harmonize regulations governing rail safety and the transport of dangerous goods, including policies regulating the rail transport of volatile crude from North Dakota’s Bakken formation and Alberta’s oil sands through Canada and the U.S. We know now that these regulatory cooperation initiatives did nothing to improve rail safety, either before or after a 72-car runaway oil train crashed and exploded like a bomb in the Quebec village of Lac Mégantic, directly killing 47, destroying the community’s historic center, and spilling thousands of gallons of crude oil on the edge of what had been a pristine lake and tourist destination.

The disaster was caused by reckless industry cost-cutting, abetted by massive regulatory failure as the Canadian government pursued a single-minded focus on deregulation. This deregulatory agenda has many parallels with what’s going on now under the Trump administration, including the arbitrary and foolish 2-for-1 policy that requires repealing two existing regulations for every new rule. Transport of dangerous goods and rail safety continue to be part of the RCC’s mission. It’s hard to see how secretive discussions aimed at eliminating regulatory differences that impede free trade will improve safety, especially with the Trump administration busy rolling back many measures intended to address some of the biggest safety gaps that led to the Lac Mégantic disaster. As Bruce Campbell’s book on Lac Mégantic details, these rollbacks include delaying or completely stopping:

• measures to require more than one crew member on dangerous goods transporting trains;
• positive train control, the remote control satellite-based protection system that helps prevent derailments;
• a rule requiring certain trains carrying high-hazard liquids to be operated with an electronically controlled pneumatic braking system by 2021;
• prospective regulations to address track deterioration;
• and proposals to require engineers to be screened for sleep apnea.

The current RCC agenda, added to New NAFTA’s “Good Regulatory Practices,” points to a concerted effort by corporations and their allies in government to lower standards in North America and beyond. Neither the Canadian nor U.S. government seems likely to use the RCC to harmonize rules upwards. Obviously, when at least one of the two countries seeking to harmonize regulations across the border is hell-bent on rescinding public protections, harmonization will lead to lower standards. Protective standards and oversight are already deficient in both countries—from meat inspection and food safety, to protecting workers and the public from exploding grain elevators and exploding oil trains. Without the will to hold industry accountable and adopt strict protections, regulatory cooperation in and of itself does nothing to improve those standards. In fact, as the rail safety example illustrates, the RCC experience even under the more regulation-friendly Obama administration failed the public interest. Indeed, just this month there was another major derailment which killed the crew as a freight train plunged 60 meters off a bridge near the British Columbia-Alberta border.

*

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

Featured image is from IATP

“One cannot praise enough the intelligent legislation of Spanish America’s new republics, which, since their inception, have been seriously concerned with slavery’s total cessation. In that respect, this vast part of the earth has an immense advantage over the South of United States.”

“In North America white men have created for themselves a white republic with the most shameful laws of slavery.”

— Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)

In 2019 we celebrate the 250th birthday of the scientist and geographer Alexander von Humboldt, the true “discoverer” of America according to Simon Bolívar, who knew him personally. Between 1799 and 1804, Alexander von Humboldt, accompanied by the French botanist Aimé Bonpland, traveled through the colonies of Spanish America, exploring regions that today belong to Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru and Cuba. Back in Europe, Humboldt began publishing several books recounting his adventures in America, revealing the natural and cultural riches of South America to a curious and fascinated European public.

While writing about the wonders of the tropical nature of America and the cultural wealth of its original peoples, Humboldt denounced — like no other before him — the horrors of slavery, the oppression of Indigenous peoples, and the injustices of the colonial system. Its importance for our time is due precisely to his ability to see the interrelations between the environment, society, politics and the economy. He was the first modern Western thinker to scientifically describe the planet as a living organism where humans, plants, animals, soils and climate interact and influence each other. The novelty of this vision at his time, when a mechanistic view of nature still prevailed, was revolutionary. For Humboldt, poetry and science were two complementary and necessary ways of understanding the world. His influence on poets, writers, and scientists was enormous. Goethe loved spending hours talking to his younger friend Humboldt. Both “Faust” and his studies of plants might not have existed as we know them today had it not been for Humboldt’s influence.

Charles Darwin took several of Humboldt’s books with him on his Beagle voyage, with which he was in constant dialogue. Without Humboldt, Darwin would hardly have written the Origin of Species, nor would Thoreau hardly have written Walden.

Humboldt was probably the last scientist capable of understanding almost all scientific thinking of his day, and used this knowledge to show how different phenomena relate to each other in an approach that we would call today «interdisciplinary».

While exploring the Valencia Lake region in present-day Venezuela, for example, Humboldt began to understand the relationship between agriculture and climate change. He wrote:

“When forests are destroyed, as they are everywhere in America by the European planters, with an imprudent precipitation, the springs are entirely dried up, or become less abundant. The beds of the rivers, remaining dry during a part of the year, are converted into torrents, whenever great rains fall on the heights. The sword and moss disappearing with the brush-wood from the sides of the mountains, the waters falling in rain are no longer impeded in their course; and instead of slowly augmenting the level of the rivers by progressive filtrations, they furrow during heavy showers the sides of the hills, bear down the loosened soil and form those sudden inundations that devastate the country.”

Humboldt drew attention to the fact that forests increase the ability of soils to retain water and how they contribute to regulate climate. Understanding these interrelationships and how they contribute to climate change is a key part of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — what Humboldt did more than 100 years ago. Moreover, Humboldt clearly denounced the colonial system and the capitalist mode of production — without using this term — as the main mode responsible for the destruction of the environment and consequent impacts on climate: European farmers and their production turned to the interests of the metropolis, using slave labor and expelling Indigenous peoples from their lands. Humboldt clearly denounced European colonial “barbarism” and presented a vision of South American Indigenous peoples and black slaves differently from the dominant assumptions of their time. Humboldt not only rejected the endemic racism and the supposed “superiority” of the “white race”, but declared that the cultures of Indigenous peoples are as creative and diverse as European cultures. In addition, Humboldt vehemently attacked Count Buffon, one of the leading proponents of European “scientific racism,” and exposed the ridicule of his ideas.

The progress of science in the 19th century has inevitably led to even greater specializations and the relative isolation of various scientific disciplines, thus hindering an integral view of the planet that Humboldt still could have. This situation is still prevalent today, since the greatest difficulty we have is integrating the enormous amount of knowledge that we accumulated in several fields into an overview — a fundamental task that could contribute immensely to our future. Once again, the work of the IPCC is a concrete and current example of this attempt. However, by its very nature, the IPCC cannot clearly and precisely include the political and economic dimensions in its studies — or even superficially allude to the problems posed by the capitalist economy, not to mention condemning capitalism itself.

If, on one hand, Humboldt’s world-view, combining philosophy, poetry and natural sciences, was possible only at the time he lived; on the other hand, in a certain way, Humboldt came “too soon”. He died before Germany began its experiments with colonies in Africa, especially in Namibia, and the consequent upsurge of “scientific” racism in Germany and throughout Europe.

The Count de Gobineau, who would retake the banner of Bouffon racism so ridiculed by Humboldt, was born in 1816 — Humboldt was then 47 — and lived until 1882, so over 20 years after Humboldt died, over 20 years of “work” spreading racist theories with no one with the same reputation and ability as Alexander von Humboldt to contradict him. The connection between German colonialism in Africa and the later emergence of the Nazi movement has been amply demonstrated by historians such as David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichsen in “The Kaiser’s Holocaust.” With the rise of Nazism in Germany in the late 1920s, how could the thinking of Humboldt, the most celebrated German scientist of the 19th century, be reconciled with the Nazi ideology? In fact, at the end of the 19th century, Humboldt had already become an embarrassing character for Europe’s cultural capitalist elite. Consequently, his work had to be expunged from its most visionary part: its denunciation of colonialism, economic exploitation of the environment, and of human beings — especially Indigenous peoples and slaves. We had to forget that the most celebrated scientist of all time attacked racism and defended the Indigenous peoples and black slaves from capitalist economic exploitation, precisely so that the exploitation of third world countries by the same European powers denounced by Humboldt could continue.

I may be mistaken, but I do not think that Karl Marx – an exact contemporary of the Count de Gonineau – studied the writings of Humboldt in depth. I believe that Marxism would have acquired another understanding of colonialism, racism and the supposed “superiority” of European civilization and the “white race” over Indigenous and black peoples. The ideas of Hegel on all that – a contemporary of Humboldt who greatly influenced Marx – were much closer to the thinking of Count de Gobineau than to the revolutionary vision of Humboldt.

Perhaps the most relevant contribution of Humboldt to the understanding of our own times comes from the relationship between him, Simon Bolivar (image on the right), and Thomas Jefferson (image below). On his return from the voyage through Spanish America in 1804, Humboldt spent a short time in the United States where he met Thomas Jefferson, the then celebrated President of the U.S.A. Jefferson shared the same interests in natural sciences as Humboldt, and also had an encyclopaedic mind. The two got along very well, talking for hours when Humboldt was a guest at the White House. But there was an irreconcilable fundamental question between the two: slavery. Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the new republic that claimed to be the homeland of liberty and equality was not only the owner of slaves, but also advocated the importance of maintaining slavery for the economic development of the United States. Humboldt denounced the horror and hypocrisy underlying such an idea of “economic development”. Jefferson also agreed with Buffon’s ideas about the “inferiority” of the “black race”, which Humboldt considered idiotic.

Shortly after his return to Paris, Humboldt was introduced to a young gentleman, newly arrived from the Spanish colonies of America: Simon Bolívar, the future “liberator”. Bolivar reported how the meeting with Humboldt opened his eyes to the wonders and potential of his own country: the future Venezuela.

As Bolívar wrote in his famous “Letter of Jamaica”, it was Humboldt who really showed him his own continent, America.

The two met again some months later in Rome – and at this time Bolívar already spoke about the independence of Spanish America. At this moment, the advice and wisdom of Humboldt were fundamental for the political maturity of young Bolívar. While in Rome, Bolivar would swear an oath to free America, and then return to his country.

Bolívar’s fight for the independence of the Spanish colonies did not go unnoticed by Thomas Jefferson, who corresponded with Humboldt, requesting information about the revolutionary movement led by Bolivar as it unfolded — questions that Humboldt could answer “better than any other”, as Jefferson wrote. But Jefferson’s relationship with the struggle for liberation from the Spanish colonies was rather ambiguous. If on one hand, Jefferson considered important the establishment of republics and the end of control by the Spanish monarchy in the American territory, he also feared the consequences of this liberation on the U.S. economy. While Spain maintained its control over the colonies, the U.S. economy benefited from the export of grains and wheat to Spanish America, since the agriculture of the colonies was entirely geared to the financial interests of the metropolis or, as we would say today, was an economy based on the export of a few products to the world market. With independence, the colonies could produce their own food, which was a blow to U.S. exports.

The independence of Spanish America posed another, much greater danger to the United States — a danger that Jefferson understood very well: he hoped the colonies would remain separate and not unite in one country, for as “a single mass they will be a very powerful neighbour”, Jefferson admitted.

And since then, this has been the great nightmare of the US: a united, independent and powerful South America. It is the main reason behind the United States’ aggression towards Venezuela today. Venezuela has oil and other natural resources coveted by the large multinational corporations intrinsically linked to the elite that governs the United States. But this fact does not fully explain the U.S.A’s intense aversion and hostility towards Venezuela. The deepest and oldest reason dates back to Humboldt’s time, to the liberation wars of Bolivar and the Jefferson administration: the necessity of preventing, by all means, the union of South America, of not allowing its development to be independent and sovereign. Since his election in 1999, Hugo Chavez suffered three violent attacks: the 2002 coup, the 2002-2003 “strike” and the 2004 “recall” referendum, not to mention the permanent attempts to destabilize and strangle Venezuelan economy. But Chávez also contributed most to Latin American integration: UNASUR and CELAC were initiatives led mainly by Venezuela under his government, the most dangerous challenge to U.S. hegemony in the region since the Cuban revolution. Hugo Chávez and Venezuela dared to revive Simon Bolivar’s dream of an independent, united, sovereign and powerful South America. The empire cannot bear this affront — nor this threat.

Simon Bolívar, unlike Jefferson, freed all his slaves and put in the constitution of the first country he liberated from Spanish rule the prohibition of slavery, hence Humboldt’s admiration in the quotation at the beginning of this text. Humboldt accompanied and encouraged the struggles for Spanish America’s independence until the end of his life. Between Jefferson and Bolivar, between a nation that frees its slaves and another that feeds on them, Humboldt chose the side of Bolivar and his project.

In the 20th century, Humboldt would have defended and supported the liberation movements of the European colonies in Africa and Asia, exchanged letters with Ho Chi Min and defended Vietnam; he would have welcomed the Cuban revolution and been friends with Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Humboldt would have admired Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian project, ALBA. There is no doubt that, today, Humboldt would be defending Venezuela against the aggressions of the “Republic of white men”. Gabriel Garcia Marquez knew this, that’s why Humboldt appears in his novel “The General in his Labyrinth” and is also mentioned in “One Hundred Years of Solitude”.

Perhaps the planned events of the “Humboldt Year”, mainly by institutions in Germany, will not speak of this Humboldt. Perhaps they will describe him as a character of the past, with little relevance to the present or to the future, but then this could be considered the most glaring example of Europe’s betrayal of its own Enlightenment ideals today. When we see the elite of Europe joining the lies of the Empire about Venezuela, when we see Europe joining the coup against the legitimately elected government of Nicolas Maduro — it is clear that this aggression is not only against the Venezuelan people, but also against the best of European culture. Celebrating Humboldt today and at the same time not defending Venezuela will be yet another example of the hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty that seems to have become the hallmark of our time.

It will perhaps be up to Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia to move the celebrations of the “Humboldt Year” forward since Alexander von Humboldt and his legacy live much more among these Latin American peoples than in a neoliberal Europe increasingly submissive to the interests of the Empire and the “white supremacy” it represents.

*

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 Alai. Translated from Spanish by Tamanna Kohi.