Building a Strong Left: Black Alliance for Peace

November 3rd, 2018 by Black Alliance for Peace

Last night’s #AntiwarAutumn panel discussion was a success!

Speakers from BAYAN, the Black Alliance for Peace, the Black is Back Coalition, Friends of the Congo, People’s Organization for Progress (POP) and the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) came together for one night at the Solidarity Center NYC to discuss ways to raise the consciousness of the U.S. population regarding the U.S. wars and U.S.-funded proxy wars raging around the world. Participants agreed a strong left must be built to combat the rise of fascism, which is a reaction to imperialism’s existential crisis. Attendees signed our petition to shut down AFRICOM and took home copies of our 4-page AFRICOM booklet. Find more photos here of our standing-room only event. Check out our live tweets from last night. Watch the livestream, too.

Last Saturday, BAP Coordinating Committee member Jaribu Hill and BAP National Organizer Ajamu Baraka participated as jurors at the International Tribunal on U.S. Colonial Crimes in Puerto Rico. Many people traveled from around the country and from Puerto Rico to attend this historic event in New York City’s Holyrood Church, which has hosted revolutionary events in the past. Watch the final verdict!

Palestinian activist and author Susan Abulhawa has been detained by the settler-colonial state of Israel after trying to enter Palestine, her homeland, for a literature festival. Demonstrate solidarity with our Palestinian sister by signing this petition demanding her release! Below, you see her posing with Ajamu Baraka at the tribunal where they both served as jurors on Saturday.

Ajamu Baraka appeared on RT’s “In Question” to discuss our U.S. Out of Africa! campaign, as well as the rationale behind the tribunal. BAP member Netfa Freeman appeared in a Facebook livestream that you can also find on YouTube.

The Black is Black Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations (BIB) Chairman Omali Yeshitela also spoke to Black Agenda Report Radio about the devastating impact of the U.S. military occupation of Africa through AFRICOM, which denies self-determination to the entire continent. “Self-determination is the highest expression of democracy,” he said. Self-determination “is what we are fighting for, and that’s what people throughout the Americas and the world are fighting for.”

Last week, several BAP members participated in the Women’s March on the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., including YahNé Ndgo and Charo Mina-Rojas, who spoke to the crowd of 1,500 people marching for an end to all wars. Both women provided valuable perspectives as African diasporic women from the United States and Colombia, both settler-colonial states. Watch their talks, which were captured by Consortium News.

On Sunday, we hit 1,000 signatures on our petition to shut down AFRICOM! Help us get to 1,500 signatures by next week by sharing this link.

Please also attend these events:

  1. African peoples are asked to participate in the Black Is Back Coalition’s (BIB) November 3 March on the White House in Washington, D.C., and the BIB conference on November 4.
  2. Now that Trump’s military parade is canceled due to mass pressure, BAP is helping organize Peace Congress: End All U.S. Wars at Home and Abroad, being held November 10 in Washington, D.C. BAP Coordinating Committee member Netfa Freeman will speak at this event.
  3. Join BAP Coordinating Committee members Margaret Kimberley and Ajamu Baraka at the First International Conference Against U.S./NATO Military Bases, being held November 16-18 in Dublin, Ireland.
  4. BAP Coordinating Committee member Jaribu Hill has been organizing the Southern Human Rights Organizers’ Conference (SHROC) for 22 years. Join her and activists from the Global South Dec. 7-9 in Atlanta. Book a hotel room by November 13 for the group rate.

No compromise.

No retreat.

*

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

All images in this article are from BAP.

For a month after Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi’s Istanbul consulate, never to be seen or heard from again, Turkish President Erdogan refrained from accusing kingdom crown prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) of ordering his murder to silence him.

In a November 2  Washington Post  op-ed, that changed, President Erdogan pointedly saying:

“(W)e know the order to kill Khashoggi came from the highest levels of the Saudi government” – meaning MBS, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, authority delegated to him by his father, king Salman, Erdogan adding:

“We also know that (MBS directed a 15-member Saudi hit squad) to carry out (his) orders: Kill Khashoggi (in Istanbul) and leave.”

“(W)e must reveal the identities of the puppet masters behind Khashoggi’s killing” – meaning MBS and his top aides, not king Salman, having largely abdicated authority to his favorite son, the crown prince.

Screengrab from Washington Post

The Saudi hit squad team arrived in Istanbul and left less than 24 hours later, carrying out their order to kill Khashoggi and dispose of his body.

It’s unclear whether it was buried in Turkey at an unknown location, returned to the kingdom, or dissolved in acid as one report claimed.

Multiple reports said he was strangled to death straightaway after entering the consulate, his body dismembered for disposal.

After weeks of dissembling, wrapped in changing narratives, Riyadh finally admitted the killing, calling what happened “premeditated” – while going all-out to shield MBS from responsibility.

Erdogan accused high-level Saudi officials of “coverup,” adding

“(s)ome…hope this ‘problem’ will go away in time. But we will keep asking those questions, which are crucial to the criminal investigation in Turkey…”

A month after Khashoggi’s abduction and murder, important questions remain unanswered, including the location of his remains and names of all Saudi officials involved in eliminating him.

“…Saudi authorities have refused to answer (these and other important) questions,” stonewalling to conceal vital information, said Erdogan, saying:

He shared Turkish evidence of the killing “with our friends and allies, including the United States.”

“The murder of Jamal Khashoggi involves a lot more than a group of security officials” dispatched to Istanbul to eliminate him.

In a same day WaPo editorial, the broadsheet pointedly said the following:

“The most important question in the case of Jamal Khashoggi is whether Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, will be held accountable for what his regime acknowledges was a premeditated act of murder,” adding:

“Much of the available evidence points to the prince. We cannot find a Middle East expert who believes the official story that the 15-member assassination team sent to Istanbul, including five probable members of the prince’s security detail, was a rogue operation.”

“Yet the regime is engaged in a determined stonewalling operation to protect the 33-year-old crown prince, who stands to inherit the throne from his father and become the absolute ruler of one of the world’s largest oil producers, potentially for decades.”

“He has the support of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi — another dictator who has killed peaceful opponents — and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” – allied with the US in brutalizing Palestinians.

“According to Post reporting, Mr. Sissi and Mr. Netanyahu have lobbied the White House not to punish Mohammed bin Salman.”

At a Friday memorial service for Khashoggi in Washington’s Mayflower hotel, his fiancee Hatice Cengiz said

“I really don’t know how to express myself. Nothing has relieved me of the pain from the atrocity I experienced.”

“The most important reason for this is because his corpse has still not been found…(O)ur pain is still as fresh as the first day.”

Separately in a WaPo commentary, she said:

“Today is also United Nations International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists. The coincidence is tragic and painful.”

“It is now up to the international community to bring the perpetrators to justice…But the Trump administration has taken a position that is devoid of moral foundation.”

“Those who ordered this murder — even if they stand in the highest political office — should also be prosecuted.”

Most often, justice delayed is denied, what’s likely ahead this time – the Trump regime stalling to maintain normal relations with the kingdom.

The policy of most other countries is no different. Khashoggi’s murder won’t change dirty business as usual with the kingdom – never before, not now or ahead.

*

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

Award-winning author 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 The Unz Review.

One of the main set-pieces of US, EU and NATO member state foreign policy towards Russia is the claim that “Russia invaded Crimea,” a cardinal sin which can only be expunged by Moscow relinquishing its new acquisition. As punishment, the West have imposed punitive sanctions on Russia along with a near full economic embargo on the Russian Federation’s newest member, Crimea. Also woven into this stalemate is the linchpin of US and NATO’s geostrategic marriage of convenience with the Ukraine, namely, an ‘unwavering’ promise to Kiev by the West that they will do everything in its power to somehow ‘repatriate’ the Russian-speaking Crimean region to the Ukraine. If the collective commitment behind that promise ever comes into question, then the covalent bondbetween US, EU and Ukraine will weaken significantly, which may eventually steer Kiev toward the unimaginable – reestablishing sane bilateral relations with Russia.

According to recent remarks made by one Italian parliamentarian, that day may be approaching earlier than Washington and its partners would care to admit. Stefano Valdegamberi, deputy of regional parliament of Venice intimated in a recent interview (see passage below) how the current EU policy of frozen relations with Crimea could begin to thaw after the next election cycle. Far from happenstance, there are a number of practical reasons why this shift was bound to occur.

As a result of the Trump Administration’s aggressive trade policies, along with its apparent inability to honor its international treaties and commitments, most notably with the Iran JCPOA Nuclear Deal, Brussels has been allowed to drift away from Washington’s gravitational pull, and build independent trading mechanisms of its own in order to allow EU members to honor the JCPOA terms and maintain normal relations with Iran. Concerning the Iran deal, Washington had to choose between following the dictates of the Israeli Lobby, or honoring its multilateral agreement with the P5+1 signatories, and it chose Tel Aviv. Such shortsightedness has potentially opened a new door between Brussels and Moscow, as both parties desire partners who exhibit normative traits and consistent behavior – neither of which Washington has been able to offer under the current regime.

Recent large-scale NATO sabre rattling may appear ‘high-profile’ through the lens of a defense-friendly mainstream media establishment, but ultimately, for European lawmakers the military imperative will be subservient to the attraction of positive trade and diplomatic relations with their eastern partners. In other words, US and NATO can only milk the fear card so long before they expend too much credibility in the eyes of greater Europe. Moscow has made it clear to the West, by word and deed, that despite the loud condemnations, it is not prepared to offer any concessions to the US-EU duo. Nor can the US or EU make any coherent case that Russia or the people of Crimea have acted outside of international law. Conversely, a much stronger case has been made that the US and its allies initiated a coup d’etat in Kiev on February 23, 2014. A sober realist analysis of the situation reveals that regardless of the events of 2014, Russia would have found a way to maintain its strategic military interests in Crimea, only the unholy and haphazard alliance between Washington and Kiev created a perfect opportunity for Moscow to expedite a reunion with its former territory on the Crimean peninsula.

The West’s current conundrum is further compounded by the fact that the US and EU’s ‘smart’ or targeted sanctions – are not designed with any practical coercive objective in mind other than to show resolve and ‘send a clear message to the government of Vladimir Putin’ by punish individuals and businesses, with the intention of weakening and destabilizing the Russian and Crimean economies. As far as Italy and other European countries are concerned, all economic stakeholders are losers under the current isolation and containment framework, with European actors forced to participate in what is ostensibly a geopolitical chess match between Washington and Moscow.

Many EU members are struggling to see the benefits of this zero sum game. Arguably, no other country has consistently voiced as much opposition to this US-imposed crisis than Italy.

Stalkerzone reports…

The deputy of regional parliament of Venice Stefano Valdegamberi stated during the “Crimea in a Modern International Context” conference that the pressure of European sanctions is felt not only by Crimeans, but also by the citizens of the European Union who are interested in cooperating with the peninsula.

“The first time I visited Crimea was 3 years ago on the occasion of the International forum, and when I returned back to Italy I described the prospects of development in Crimea. I spoke in the regional parliament and spoke about the situation that exists, and the deputies of Veneto voted to recognise Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation. In the European arena there are comments about Crimea being occupied by Russia – this is completely false information. The decisions on the sanctions plan that were made in the EU aren’t correct in relation to Crimea,” noted Valdegamberi.

“Over the past few years the situation in Italy has changed concerning Crimea. Thanks to the results of the last three years, a new government came to power that supports Crimea and understands the situation that has now developed on the peninsula. A few days ago Matteo Salvini was in Moscow, and has said that Italy recognises the decisions made in Crimea,” said the deputy.

The politician has also expressed confidence that at the upcoming elections in European Parliament the situation will change in favor of the Crimean peninsula even more. Also he has given several examples of violation of the rights of the Crimea.

“Last year the police came to the Vinitaly exhibition in Verona and confiscated the wines that were presented by Crimea. The sale of Crimean wines in the European market is blocked. A week ago my friend went to Crimea, he brought equipment for construction. In fact, he had to go there illegally, because if Europe learned that this businessman was here, his accounts could be arrested.

Money transfers are blocked, the exchange of the necessary equipment is blocked. It is impossible to send tourists to Crimea, it is impossible to do business in Crimea, and many Italians would like to be engaged in business here. Many ask me already every day how it’s possible to develop tourism and agriculture here. Unfortunately, officially they can’t do it,” said the deputy.

“In fact, it is direct violence against the will of the citizens of the European Union. When I return I will speak about all these problems in Italy and I will try to further avoid them,” summarised Valdegamberi.

While Crimea may be cut off from the West economically, Moscow is gradually building up infrastructural improvements, including projects like the Kerch Strait Bridge which will further increase Crimea’s transport and trade capabilities, and offsetting any reliance on the Ukraine for subsistence. Aside from this, these type of investments are hugely symbolic and will further endear Crimea to Russia, as opposed to Kiev. The idea in Washington that this reality can somehow be reversed is but a post-modern projection on the decaying wall of Neoliberalism and R2P vindicationism.

The other fundamental error made by the West has been its consistent underestimation of the steadfastness and self-determination of the people in the Donbass. Recently, first deputy of OSCE SMM, Alexander Hug, commented that, “What I have seen – I haven’t seen this elsewhere really – is that the people in the Eastern part of Ukraine are very resilient.”

This point is pivotal, not least of all because the EU wing of the US-EU joint sanctions regime against the Russian Federation is tied to the implementation of the Minsk Peace Process. Do the people of the Ukraine really have the appetite for a protracted bloody civil war? If not, then the prospects of a lasting ceasefire are much more realistic than Washington’s fanciful hopes that the resistance in the Donbass will roll over and accept unequivocal subjugation by a US-controlled regime in Kiev. That said, it should be fairly obvious by now that the hawks in Washington and Kiev will try anything to railroad the Minsk Accords so as to keep broad economic sanctions nailed firmly in place. It has been suggested that the recent assassination of Donbass leader, Alexander Zakharchenko, was carried out for this very reason. The clear determination of the people of Donbass should point towards the possibility of a stalemate, at which point there is a chance for the implementation of the key objectives of Minsk. At this point, Kiev will have to negotiate. In his parting comments before leaving the region, Hug alluded to such an outcome:

“I can’t predict the date of the end of this conflict, I know that the military aspect of the conflict can be ended rather quickly. And I certainly know that it is not a conflict between the people, and that the decision is a political decision, and nothing else.”

The real danger is that desperate hawks in Washington and Kiev will try and undermine any peaceful outcome so as to extend the status quo indefinitely. The biggest beneficiary of a continuation of hostilities has to be NATO and the military industrial complex whose entire forward-planning policy and commercial agenda rests solely on the maintaining heightened tension between the Russia and the US-EU, with the Ukraine being the epicenter of that effort.

To date, most of the Western mythos for Crimea has been preserved through a sustained propaganda blitz, waged by the western government-media complex since 2014. As time passes and the daisy chain of repetitive, emotive talking points continues to fold under the weight of reality, Europe’s eventually acceptance and recognition of Crimea as a friendly outpost for trade and tourism – is inevitable. The same is true for European relations with Russia.

The days of unipolar hegemony are rapidly shrinking in the rear view mirror of history. The sooner Washington’s foreign policy blob realizes this, the better off everyone will be – including Washington.

*

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

Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq.

Featured image is from 21st CW.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Policy of ‘Returning’ Crimea to Ukraine May Not Work for Europe
  • Tags: , ,

While the body of the murdered Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post has not been found, the government of Saudi Arabia has admitted that he is dead, killed during an interrogation gone wrong in their Consulate in Istanbul. But the Turkish President Erdogan insisted that it is a pre-meditated murder, which the Saudi Attorney General owned up to recently.

Interestingly, a recent report in the British daily, the Express, reported that the British Government Command Headquarters (GCHQ) had intercepted communications from Saudi Intelligence some two weeks before Khashoggi’s disappearance, containing instructions for the latter’s capture and forced return to Saudi Arabia, which according to British intelligence sources was left open ended should there be resistance. Apparently they advised Riyadh against it but, as has transpired, the Saudis had obviously ignored them. But the source was at pains to point out they have no idea whether the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohamad bin Salman (MbS), was even aware. The question though is, why was Khashoggi not advised of this threat — apparently Washington too was not in the dark — because in an interview with the BBC Khashoggi’s fiancée said he had not shown any visible signs of fear.

We are told by British intelligence sources that Khashoggi was about to whistleblow on the Saudis use of chemical weapons in Yemen, which means he was viewed as a security menace by the Saudis. This leak, if true, explains the attempted rendition, if not the murder. 

But, what is puzzling is the furore caused in Washington and many European capitals, one that has been kept on the boil by mainstream media suggesting that this incident will not go away without costing Saudi Arabia dear, the lack of hard evidence notwithstanding and the blunder of Saudi admission fatal. 

And so, what could be the aftermath of the Khashoggi murder on Saudi Arabia?

Top of the list of possibilities is regime change. Many observers, including Washington insiders, argue for possible regime change. That initial reports went out of their way to implicate the Crown Prince would suggest this. One interviewee on Al-Jazeera’s “Inside Story” says that Saudi Arabia will now no longer be considered a reliable ally as long as the Crown Prince runs the country. His track record damns him: he ‘kidnapped’ the Lebanese Prime Minister and forced him to resign; the war on Yemen which he escalated that has turned out to be genocidal in intent; and, the imprisonment of feminist activists.

It is also no secret that the Crown Prince has made enemies from among the Royal princes. He detained the richest among them in Riyadh’s Ritz Carlton to shake them down like a Mafia boss, albeit for the country’s treasury. This did not endear him to them. Additionally, in the resulting mayhem two princes were killed. They would want revenge and ousting MbS would be a dream come true, but such decisions belong to the House of Saud’s Allegiance Council, comprising the ruling family’s senior princes, who agreed to Mohamad Bin Salman’s appointment as Crown Prince in the first place. 

But the return of self-exiled Prince Ahmad bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, brother to King Salman, in the last few days, with his safety guaranteed by the Americans and British might yet spell sweet revenge for the Crown Prince’s enemies. Ahmad bin Abdul-Aziz, a member of the Allegiance Council was one of the few who did not support Mohamad bin Salman’s appointment. However, he himself was by-passed by the Council for the position of Crown Prince, which opted, instead, for his brother Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud because they deemed him too weak. Nayef’s health it was that opened the way for Mohamad bin Salman.

In standing behind the weak Prince Ahmad do Washington and London then feel he can be asked to do their bidding at will?

Mohamad bin Salman is too valuable to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) because he is instrumental to the further strengthening of the Saudi-Israel relationship. Between Mohamad bin Salman and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, the ground is being prepared for the Kushner proposed Palestine solution which, according to leaks, would be overwhelmingly advantageous to Israel. But might not a Crown Prince completely compliant to American will — the King posing no obstacle because of alleged dementia — achieve the same end and thus eliminate any resistance even by this most powerful Jewish lobby group?

As to the war on Yemen, if this latest manoeuvre works, it can be fashioned at will depending on its primary objective. Whose war is it? Both Washington and London are fuelling it, the former even with boots on the ground. Iran is accused of supporting the rebels. Reports, though denied by Tehran, allege Iran arms the rebels. Saudi Arabia is spooked by the Iranian influence over the Houthis, the rebels. Iran has become an excuse for reinforcing the American role in Yemen which has its own history. And, it is worth remembering the civil war in Yemen has its roots in the 1960s when the foreign powers involved were Egypt and the British. Surely a straightforward civil war is easily solved, but not this one. One doubts, therefore, that a regime change by Washington would alleviate the suffering of the Yemenis.

But is a regime change without challenge? According to the media the Sauds as a family feels that Mohamad bin Salman is too tainted and has injured their image. But they have already decided that Ahmad bin Abdul-Aziz is “too weak” to even be a Crown Prince, what more a King, when the time comes. Rumours though, suggest that Ahmad bin Abdul-Aziz has gathered support from a few powerful princes.

What of the ulama around whom the family’s stranglehold on the throne has revolved? Can a divided Royal family rely on a fatwa that will support one against the other, if the people are to be placated when Ahmad bin Abdul-Aziz is clearly the choice of ‘infidels’? Furthermore, history has shown how much a strong leader is valued by the family, the reason why King Faisal was able to overthrow his older brother, the easy-going King Saud.

Should Washington and London’s political interference in the Saudi succession fail what other options are left to the Zionist imperialists?

While a revolutionary change in Saudi Arabia is hard to envision, there is talk of establishing a constitutional monarchy. The close cooperation between the Royal household and Islam has always meant that the citizenry is not open to change without a fatwa by the ulama. And, although a binary fission among the ulama class is said to exist both sides are conservative Wahhabis who view democracy as damaging to Islam.

But, is the “unreliable” Mohamad Bin Salman with the absolute power he wields, tempered only by his father, a threat to the American economy? Saudi Arabia, through its leadership of OPEC, is pivotal to the survival of the Petrodollar, the instrument that guarantees the US dollar’s status as the world’s premier reserve currency. It is this that has allowed America to borrow with impunity allowing her to execute a policy of perpetual (imperialist) war. Today the US national debt is over US$20 trillion. A collapse of the Petrodollar then is dangerous, if not fatal, to the US economy.

If Mohamad bin Salman, the undependable, threatens the economic security of the US would Washington decide to invade Saudi Arabia, when left without option? The war of words between the two countries began just before the Khashoggi murder. Furthermore, historical evidence shows that at the height of the oil embargo of the 1970s America had plans to invade but that was averted by the then King’s rabid antagonism towards Communism. The threatened defeat of America at the hands of Communist Vietnam ended the embargo.

Today, the US finds its premier global position threatened. Could this be why the Crown Prince has built strong relations with Russia? President Putin has remained aloof from the hyper-excitement of Washington and Europe with regard the Khashoggi ‘murder’ case saying that he is not privy to information that makes judgment possible. The Russian delegation to the MbS inspired “Davos in the Desert” was substantial. In fact, many think that Russia will benefit most from the Jamal Khashoggi fallout.

*

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

Askiah Adam is the Executive Director of the International Movement for a JUST (JUST) World. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The United States is threatening to withdraw from two international organizations that survived World Wars I and II but may not survive the retrogressive neo-conservative foreign policy of Donald Trump. The world’s third-oldest international organization, the Universal Postal Union (UPU), founded in 1874 in Bern, Switzerland, has been informed by Washington of the US withdrawal. The United States became, under the administration of President Ulysses Grant, a founding member of the UPU.

The Trump administration, notably the rabidly-rightwing White House trade adviser, Peter Navarro, is upset over foreign government subsidies for certain postal authorities, most notably that of China, which reduces international parcel mailing costs to manufacturers and consumers. Rather than negotiate revised postal rates, through the auspices of the UPU, which was established to standardize the world’s postal system, Trump plans to leave the organization.

The Trump White House is also threatening US withdrawal from the second-oldest international organization, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), established by the International Telegraph Convention in Paris in 1865. The United States joined the ITU in 1908, during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt. The two presidents – Grant and Roosevelt – who ushered the United States into the UPU and ITU, respectively, were Republicans.

Trump’s beef with the ITU is over the organization’s management of the international radio frequency spectrum and its movement toward managing international data bandwidth. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) members, notably FCC chairman Ajit Pai and member Michael O’Rielly, both of whom are owned and operated by America’s communications giants — including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast — who want private industry, not government agencies, to set the rules for radio spectrum and bandwidth governance.

The flagrant racism of the Trump administration was on full display when the United States, for the first time in the history of its membership of the Geneva-based ITU, withdrew its candidate for chairman of the Radio Regulations Board (RRB), one of the governing bodies of the ITU. The RRB is key to the oversight and management of the global radio spectrum management, something that Trump and his business cronies want to milk for as much profiteering as possible.

The candidate dropped for RRB chair was board vice-chair Joanne Wilson, nominated by Barack Obama in 2014 to the board’s second-ranking position. Breaking with protocol, Washington not only dropped Wilson as chairman-designate but counteracted the ITU’s consensus that Jean Philemon Kissangou should be elected as the director of the ITU’s Telecommunications Development Bureau (BDT).

The Trump administration has threatened to cut off funding of the ITU, a move tantamount to withdrawal, unless the ITU selects Doreen Bogdan-Martin, a favorite of the scandal-ridden US Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, to be the next BDT director. Ross’s Commerce Department touts Bogdan-Martin as the first woman to head any of the ITU’s elected leadership roles in the organization’s 153-year history. However, the Commerce Department is lying. Ms. Wilson was slated to become the ITU’s first woman to be elected the head of an ITU body, the RRB.

Wilson’s disqualifying factor for the Trump White House is that she is an African-American. Kissangou’s disqualifier for the Trump administration is that he is an African from the Republic of Congo, one of the nations that Trump previously described as a “shithole.” Bogdan-Martin, who is white, had the backing of the George W. Bush administration for various positions at the ITU. The racism that is on display by the Republican Party in elections in Georgia, Florida, Texas, and other states is also fashionable in elections for international organization leadership positions in Geneva.

The UPU is also withstanding an onslaught by the Trump administration. The advent of e-commerce has resulted in discussions by the UPU to overhaul its system of postal rates. However, rather than participate in UPU negotiations aimed at reforming the current system, the Trump administration, which eschews multilateralism, decided to walk away from an international organization that survived its adjunct status with the ill-fated League of Nations and became part of the United Nations specialized agency system.

The UPU’s main responsibility is to set standards for electronic data interchange (EDI), mail encoding, postal forms, international reply coupons, international postal money orders, and meters between postal authorities. It also strives to ensure that member states adhere to uniform flat rates for mailing letters to any location around the world. Another UPU standard is that stamp values be denoted in Roman numerals.

The UPU also sets regulations for the sending of biologically perishable materials via international post and the handling of both hazardous materials and disease-bearing items that could pose a danger to postal workers. In pursuit of postal safety, the UPU coordinates its activities with the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Trump administration also announced the US withdrawal from UNESCO, effective December 31, 2018. The United States maintains the horrible distinction of being the only UPU member where the postal system was used, during the George W. Bush administration, to distribute a biological warfare agent – anthrax.

The consequences of US withdrawal from the UPU will be felt immediately. According to UPU deputy director-general Pascal Clivaz, upon termination of American membership in the treaty, Americans will no longer be able to send or receive letters or packages to and from UPU member states, including Canada and Mexico. The UPU will no longer share special codes with the US Postal Service (USPS) that are necessary to send and receive international mail. The only mechanism to send and receive international mail will be via more expensive private delivery services, such as FedEx and UPS. Trump has made no secret of his desire to completely eliminate the USPS and its employees.

US postage stamps may soon be recognized as void postal instruments, so far as the rest of the world is concerned. Postage stamps issued by Vatican City, Christmas Island, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Pitcairn Island, Aitutaki, Tristan da Cunha, the United Nations, Madeira, the Faroes, and the British Antarctic Territory will carry more international legitimacy than a US stamp, thanks to Mr. Trump and his brigands.

The US withdrawal from the UPU will adversely affect three independent Pacific states that are in “compacts of free association” with the United States. Under the compacts, the USPS handles all mail deliveries to and from the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. In order to ensure uninterrupted postal connections with neighboring Pacific island states, Asia, and beyond, these impoverished nations will have to establish independent postal authorities and services. In one way, Trump’s decision will allow these semi-colonial states to become more independent of Washington and, ultimately, establish foreign policies that will no longer ensure their reflexive support for the US and Israel in the UN General Assembly.

The UPU and ITU managed to weather the Nazi occupation of Europe and North Africa. The belligerent nations of World War II continued to maintain membership in both organizations. In addition, the UPU and ITU were the only two international organizations in which the Soviet Union maintained membership before and immediately following World War II. Mail between the Nazi Reich and the Allied powers, all of which remained members of the UPU, was possible via P.O. Box 506 at the Thomas Cook office in Lisbon or the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva.

Although belligerent nations in World War II conducted extensive wiretapping of international telegraph and telephone lines and radio connections, phone calls and telegrams could still be sent between major world capitals because the ITU’s standards continued to be maintained. Seamless digital communications may no longer be the case if the Trump administration, unlike Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan, abandons the ITU and its radio frequency management and standards criteria.

The UPU and ITU survived Adolf Hitler, but not Donald Trump. That is a legacy for which every American should feel nothing but shame and everlasting remorse.

*

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

Featured image is from SCF.

Following the victory of Jair Bolsonaro in Sunday’s Brazilian election, events have suggested that the consequences of the far-right politician’s rise to power will reach far beyond Latin America. Indeed, the Middle East is set to feel the effects of Bolsonaro’s rise to power directly, as his administration will continue the trend of the normalization of the state of Israel — whose current government exhibits dramatic parallels with Bolsonaro, courtesy of their mutual promotion of ethno-nationalism and arguably ethno-fascism.

Over the course of his controversial campaign, Bolsonaro lavished praise upon Israel on numerous occasions, making it no secret that he is a great admirer of Israel’s current ruling party, Likud, and Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In August, Bolsonaro announced that – if elected President – he would close the Palestinian Embassy in Brasilia, cut off relations with Palestine completely, and move the Brazilian Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Following Bolsonaro’s electoral victory, Netanyahu called Bolsonaro to congratulate the country’s new president-elect and stated that

“I am confident that your election will lead to a great friendship between the two peoples and to the strengthening of ties between Brazil and Israel,” while also extending an invitation for Bolsonaro to visit Israel.

A senior Israeli diplomat, quoted by Israeli newspaper Haaretz, stated that – with Bolsonaro in charge – “Brazil will now be colored in blue and white,” referring to the colors of Israel’s flag. Soon after, Brazilian media reported that Netanyahu would most likely attend Bolsonaro’s inauguration on January 1, which would make Netanyahu the first Israeli prime minister to ever visit Latin America’s largest country.

An enduring Israeli romance

Bolsonaro’s praise of Israel has long been an important part of his politics. For instance, in 2014, during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, which killed thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, Bolsonaro sent a letter to Israel’s Brazilian Embassy announcing his full support for the offensive despite the indiscriminate use of force against civilians. Dilma Rousseff, who was Brazil’s president at the time, condemned the Israeli military’s tactics and later called the offensive a “massacre,” which prompted Bolsonaro to call Rousseff’s criticism “brutish, inopportune, hypocritical and cowardly.” Bolsonaro had further stated that “majority of Brazilians with culture, dignity and common sense are with the people of Israel and against terrorism.”

In another case, in 2016, Bolsonaro was baptized by a Brazilian Pentecostal preacher in the Jordan River during a trip to Israel, which Bolsonaro heavily promoted during his campaign to court Brazil’s Jewish and evangelical communities. However, some Jews – including Israelis who are fierce critics of Bolsonaro despite his unabashed support for the Jewish state – have accused Bolsonaro of using the trip and the footage of his baptism to court the large evangelical Christian community in Brazil as opposed to Brazil’s Jewish community. Notably, the recent Brazilian election fractured Brazil’s Jewish community, as many Jews in the country protested against Bolsonaro despite his efforts to court them.

Such division in Brazil’s Jewish community regarding Bolsonaro may relate to some of the inconsistencies that have arisen as a result of Bolsonaro’s heavy praise for Netanyahu. For example, while Bolsonaro campaigned heavily as a “swamp drainer” and as an antidote to the corruption scandals that have engulfed Brazil in recent years, the Israeli prime minister, as well as his wife Sara Netanyahu, are currently embroiled in massive corruption scandals that have threatened their popularity within Israel.

Another apparent paradox in the Netanyahu-Bolsonaro relationship is the fact that, as previously mentioned, a considerable number of Israelis have heaped criticism upon Bolsonaro — with groups like “Jews Against Bolsonaro” including Israelis as prominent members, and prominent Israeli newspapers comparing Bolsonaro to Adolf Hitler. Given the high-profile comparisons of Bolsonaro to Hitler within Israel, Netanyahu’s praise of Bolsonaro may seem strange and striking to some.

However, Netanyahu and other right-wing Israeli politicians have often supported ethno-nationalists abroad, while Likud party politics itself revolves around ethno-nationalism, which has often translated into apartheid policies. The support has gone both ways, as European and American ethno-nationalists in recent years have combined anti-Semitic rhetoric with fervent support for Israel’s apartheid policies and efforts to fortify its status as an exclusively Jewish ethnostate.

Ethnic cleansing meets the meat market

Bolsonaro, with his calls to “cleanse” Brazil of “undesirable” minority ethnicities and other groups, is just the latest far-right, ethno-supremacist politician to receive a warm welcome from Netanyahu and the Zionist apartheid apparatus.

Yet Bolsonaro’s pledge to forge close ties to Israel may face some unexpected obstacles. For instance, Brazilian media reports have noted that Bolsonaro’s pledges to cut off relations with Palestine and move the Brazilian embassy in Israel to Jerusalem are expected to jeopardize the market for Brazilian meat that Brazil has cultivated in Muslim-majority nations in the Middle East.

According to the influential Brazilian newspaper Folha, more than 40 percent of poultry and beef produced in Brazil is halal and thus can be consumed by practitioners of Islam. Experts and analysts quoted by Folha have warned that Bolsonaro’s expected Israel policy threatens to “annihilate” this key market for Brazilian meat producers. This concern could manifest as a major hurdle for Bolsonaro’s planned Israel policy, given that the meat lobby in Brazil – which includes the world’s largest meat producer, JBS – is extremely influential in Brazilian politics and will likely act to protect such a lucrative market.

*

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

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Featured image: Jair Bolsonaro holds an Israeli flag during the 26th March for Jesus in São Paulo, Brazil. Photo | Alexssandro Loyola

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israeli PM Set to Attend Inauguration of Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Highlighting Likud Support for Ethno-Nationalist Politicians Abroad
  • Tags: , ,

Genetically engineered viruses could very well become the next generation of warfare. Deadly viruses modified in labs could be released eliminating entire communities of people as they infect making them a valuable asset to militaries worldwide.

As dystopian as that sounds, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is already working on a project called Insect Allies which will use insects to infect crops with genetically modified viruses that edit the crops’ genetic profile to make them more resilient against disease, as well as natural and manufactured threats to the food supply.

Joe Joseph of The Daily Sheeple said a quick Google search would give you enough information to let you know how horrific this kind of technology can be. “…and you’ll find it fascinating just at how unbelievable a weapon this could be, how unintentionally mistakes can be made that can cause irreversible damage…irreparable damage…to the human race. And I mean, FAST!” Joseph said. “A gene drive…if let’s just say there’s a mistake, you could feasibly wipe out the human race in a very very short period of time. It’s an unbelievable tool at the disposal of madmen.” –SHTFPlan

DARPA attempted to squash rising fears about their Insect Allies project and issue reassurances after German and French scientists voiced questions and concerns about the program’s efficacy earlier this month.  Those scientists also suggested that it could be “widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for hostile purposes and their means of delivery, which—if true—would constitute a breach of the Biological Weapons Convention.”

If the know-how and means exist to transmit genetic viruses that supposedly create beneficial crop mutations, the opposite will also be possible.  DARPA will be able to use insects to deliver gene editing viruses that destroy crops, ruin harvests and adversely affect the wider ecosystem, RT accurately pointed out. This means that those who fear this program are not far off at all for doing so.

Another project receiving DARPA funding involves releasing genetically modified mosquitoes in the Florida Keys area to transmit a sterilizing genetic virus to their malaria-carrying counterparts. Apart from the unknown effects upon the wider ecosystem, the knowledge gleaned from such research could one day make it possible for a state, a non-state actor, or a non-state actor working on behalf of a state to accidentally or deliberately use insect vectors to unleash a variety of biological agents and genetic viruses upon an unsuspecting population.

Russian president Vladimir Putin expressed his concerns over the potential for a human killing genetically engineered virus just last year. Whilst chairing a meeting of Russia’s Human Rights Council, Putin stated:

“… do you know that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions of the Russian Federation? The question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally. We are a kind of object of great interest.”

*

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

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com.

American Terror Is Not New

November 3rd, 2018 by Margaret Kimberley

The casual, endemic and racist violence that characterizes American behavior at home and abroad cannot be laid at the doorstep of the current buffoon in the White House.

“The most prevalent racially motivated murders are carried out by police across the country.”

Within the past week very disturbing and violent events took place in quick succession across the country. Two black people were shot to death in a Louisville, Kentucky supermarket. The white shooter made it clear that his goal was to kill black people when he said, “Whites don’t shoot whites,” as he was apprehended. No sooner had this crime occurred than a Florida man was arrested and charged with sending explosive devices to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Maxine Waters, and Eric Holder among others. One day later a shooting at a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania synagogue left 11 people dead.

The unnamed suspect in all of these cases is Donald Trump. The bombing suspect made clear his love for the 45thpresident. He was described by his attorney as a previously apolitical man who nonetheless “found a father in Donald Trump.” The Louisville killing is the latest in a long line carried out by white racists. Anti-black violence is as old as white settlement on this continent.

“The bombing suspect was described as a previously apolitical man who nonetheless ‘found a father in Donald Trump.’”

Analysis of these recent incidents must be made very carefully. Trump differs from his predecessors mostly by tearing away the veneer of humanity and civility from a system which is relentlessly brutal. But the façade keeps many would be terrorists from carrying out their sick fantasies. There are people who keep their hatred to themselves until they know that they may be given some cover and acceptance. Hatred expressed by a president emboldens people who might not ordinarily act upon their racist impulses.

It is very dangerous for these hidden haters to think they can come out of their closets. At the same time we cannot forget that a racist shooter succeeded in entering a black church in Charleston, South Carolina and killing 9 people in 2015 when Barack Obama was president. The most prevalent racially motivated murders are carried out by police across the country when they kill an average of 300 black people every year.

“Anti-black violence is as old as white settlement on this continent.”

It is a mistake to see Trump as a singular evil in American history. He is also not an anomaly among world leaders. An avowed fascist just won a presidential race in Brazil. White supremacists march openly in European countries like Ukraine where the Obama administration helped to overthrow an elected president and install Nazis among the new leadership. Fascism is carried out daily not only by the police but by the neoliberal state and by the military as it carries out a war of terror all over the world.

The current moment is perilous and requires serious analysis. Trump is the low hanging fruit in any discussion of racism and other forms of bigotry. But the country cannot be given a pass and allowed to behave as if all was well until he was elected.White people cannot play innocent and black people can’t relax when the day comes that he is out office.

“White supremacists march openly in Ukraine where the Obama administration helped install Nazis.”

If Trump can be connected to all of these incidents it should be with the knowledge that the entire country is suffering from a terrible sickness that few want to confront. Americans prefer to think well of themselves and their nation and treat any information contradicting that belief as an inconvenience to be avoided at all costs. There were hate crimes before Donald Trump ran for president and most of them weren’t carried out by individuals. Most of them are still sanctioned by the state.

The crazed Trump lover may have tried to send bombs to Obama and Clinton but they sent bombs to Libya and destroyed a nation that still suffers from their terrorist acts. They are quite literally guilty of committing hate crimes, along with other NATO leaders and their predecessors in high places. The fact that they know how to express diplomatic niceties is no reason to see them as being on our side as we fight to defeat fascism at home and around the world.

Their enablers cannot be given a pass either. When we fight to make war and peace a political issue we are derided as purists and spoilers who ought to be quiet and allow imperialism to take place without hindrance. The people who join in the chorus of denunciation should not be allowed to wring their hands when dead bodies appear within our borders too.

“There were hate crimes before Donald Trump ran for president, most of them sanctioned by the state.”

If they want to denounce Trump they had an excellent opportunity recently. Trump announced that the United States was withdrawing unilaterally from the INF missile treaty with Russia. This decision quite literally puts the world closer to nuclear war. But the liberal Trump haters have had very little to say about a policy change which quite literally endangers all life on the planet. The numbers of people who realize the danger and speak against this action is miniscule, unlike the near unanimous condemnation of racist gun men and the would be mail bomber.

We always lived in a very dangerous nation. Trump makes it more difficult to be in denial. But we must fight against the crowd which averts its eyes until a racist buffoon enters the White House. There is nothing new about American terrorism. It can be found in high and low places regardless of presidential civility or lack thereof.

*

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

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com . Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Featured image is from BAR.

Warehousing Immigrant Children in the Texas Desert

November 3rd, 2018 by Victoria López

Since June, the federal government has been operating a massive tent city in the West Texas desert to detain immigrant children who have traveled to the United States seeking protection from persecution and abuse in their home countries. 

Last week, I visited the Tornillo detention camp with colleagues from the ACLU of Texas. There are currently over 1,000 unaccompanied immigrant kids at Tornillo, most from Central America, who were transferred from long-term shelter placements. They’re presently waiting to be reunified with family members or other sponsors while their immigration cases move forward. The sprawling detention camp has the capacity to detain up to 3,200 children.

Federal law prioritizes the best interests of the child. In the case of immigrant minors, that means prioritizing reunification and placing children in the least restrictive setting possible. Typically, these children are transferred from Department of Homeland Security custody to shelters across the country run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they wait to be reunified with family members or other sponsors while their cases move through the immigration courts.

The Tornillo detention camp represents a major shift in the policy and practice of putting the best interests of the child first. It is an outgrowth of a crisis manufactured by the Trump administration to terrorize immigrant communities and restrict legal options for people seeking protection in the U.S., including children.

A recent agreement between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ORR now requires background checks and fingerprints — not just for potential sponsors of immigrant youth but for any person living in the same household as sponsors — that can then be shared with ICE. The effect is to instill fear of arrest and deportation in those who come forward to sponsor a child. This change in policy has created major obstacles for families and delays in the reunification process, in some cases increasing the time a child spends in detention.

Some of the kids told us they had already been at Tornillo for a few months. One 16-year-old girl told us she is from Guatemala and was detained in a shelter in New York before she was transferred to the Tornillo camp in July. She said she had no idea how much longer she would be there but she wanted to be reunified with her family. Nearly all of the girls in the group I spoke with said they were waiting for “huellas” — fingerprint clearances of their sponsors and households. Officials told us that approximately 600 of the kids at Tornillo were waiting for such background checks.

The Tornillo camp was built from the ground up in the middle of the desert over the summer. It is a sprawling site that backs up to a border fence marking the boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. There are khaki-colored tents lined up in rows with plastic orange cones and temporary fencing, creating makeshift streets and sidewalks. There are about 20 boys to a tent who sleep on bunk beds. There are about 200 girls detained at Tornillo in a large white tent that serves as a dormitory, as well as a multi-purpose room where they have their meals and some activities, including a few hours of education per day — which were implemented after scrutiny by advocacy groups.

Tornillo Camp
Courtesy HHS

The tents are “soft-sided.” They are not insulated, but rather cooled and heated through an external unit that blows air into the tent. They have no natural source of light. The camp does not have a plumbing or sewage system, so all of the water and waste is hauled in and out of the camp. When there’s a lightning storm, common in the desert especially during the summer months, the kids use plastic, stand-alone portable toilets to avoid the risk of electrocution from using the facilities in the metal trailers. Like many immigration detention facilities, the Tornillo detention camp is in a remote area, far from public scrutiny and where legal services are very limited. This is troublesome when those detained are asylum-seeking children who need access to attorneys, social workers, medical care, and community support.

Tornillo Camp Beds
Courtesy HHS

ORR contracts with BCFS, a San Antonio-based nonprofit contractor that provides emergency management services during natural disasters and humanitarian crises. During the tour, officials told us they hauled in everything to set up the detention camp, from the gravel to the generator-powered electricity and portable toilet and shower trailers. The cost of detaining a child at Tornillo is estimated at $700 per day per child. This amounts to millions of dollars each month to advance the Trump administration’s cruel agenda targeting vulnerable migrants who are seeking protection and — in the case of immigrant youth like the kids at Tornillo — reunification with their families.

Detaining children, especially in these conditions, is certainly not in their best interest. It creates immediate risks as well as long-term physical and mental health consequences. Especially considering that many of these children have family members or sponsors waiting to care for their safety and well-being, the government’s insistence on warehousing them at Tornillo is a moral disgrace.

*

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

Victoria López is Senior Staff Attorney at ACLU National Prison Project.

Featured image is from HHS.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton announced an escalation of US sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela during a bellicose speech delivered in Miami on Thursday to an invitation-only audience of right-wing exiles and Republican functionaries.

Bolton’s speech on the Trump administration’s policy toward Latin America amounted to a demand for regime change in Cuba and Venezuela, as well as Nicaragua, and a naked assertion of US dominance over the hemisphere, with repeated statements concerning behavior that Washington would not “tolerate” on the part of countries to the south of the US border.

Coming just five days before the US midterm elections, the speech was unquestionably part of the Trump administration’s drive to turn out its base, which in Florida includes Cuban exile organizations that have been based in Miami since the 1959 revolution that overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.

While Bolton’s bombastic rhetoric was no doubt intended to throw out red meat to his reactionary audience, it also provided a genuine expression of Washington’s increasingly aggressive and militaristic policy toward Latin America.

He labelled Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua the “Troika of Tyranny,” a deliberate imitation of George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric that was employed during the launching of protracted and continuing US wars in the Middle East.

He continued, declaring that this

“triangle of terror is the cause of immense human suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability, and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism in the Western hemisphere.”

He vowed that the so-called troika had “met its match” in the Trump administration, which would “no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores.” He vowed that they would “meet their demise,” that “their day of reckoning awaits” and that Washington looked “forward to watching each corner of the triangle fall.”

Bolton called upon the rest of the hemisphere to “look to the north, look to our flag” for its inspiration, presenting the United States as the champion of “human rights” and the “rule of law.”

The absurdity of this pretense was made plain by a speech delivered by Trump just hours after Bolton’s address in which the US president vowed to violate US and international law by imposing a blanket denial of asylum against Central American refugees and threatening to have US troops shoot down immigrant men, women and children on the US-Mexican border.

The most significant of the new sanctions announced in Bolton’s speech was a measure aimed at impeding Venezuela’s exports of gold, which have become an important source of foreign exchange for the country’s crisis-ridden economy. US officials claim that Venezuela has exported some 20 tons of gold to Turkey, a NATO ally with which Washington has come into increasing conflict. Caracas and the government of China also recently signed an agreement to develop what the Venezuelan government termed a strategic alliance to develop the country’s gold-mining sector.

The gold sanctions announcement claims that by evading other US sanctions aimed at strangling the Venezuelan economy, the country’s trade in gold involves “deceptive practices” and “corruption.” Significantly, it adds that the measure can be extended to any other sector of the economy on the same basis, opening the door to the rapid implementation of a US embargo against Venezuelan oil, which accounts for roughly 98 percent of the country’s export earnings.

Also announced was a new set of sanctions against Cuba targeting some two dozen economic entities allegedly tied to the country’s military, which has extensive economic holdings. This is in addition to some 180 Cuban entities targeted by the Trump administration last year.

Bolton delivered his speech on the same day that the United Nations General Assembly condemned the 58-year-old US economic blockade against Cuba, with 189 countries voting for the resolution and only two – the United States and Israel – voting against.

In a question-and-answer period after the speech, Bolton indicated that the Trump administration is considering implementation of a section of the 1996 anti-Cuba Helms-Burton Law to take effect, allowing Cuban exiles in the US to file lawsuits in federal courts against companies doing business involving properties that were expropriated in the wake of the 1959 revolution. The measure has been routinely waived for over two decades because of its extra-territorial reach.

As part of its “America First” global trade war policy, it appears that the Trump White House may break with this practice, leading to a direct conflict between Washington and its leading trade partners, including Canada and the European Union, which both have extensive investments in Cuba.

While no new sanctions were announced against Nicaragua, Bolton advanced the same kind of charges and demands for regime change leveled against Cuba and Venezuela, vowing that the government of President Daniel Ortega “will feel the full weight of America’s robust sanctions regime” with measures coming “in the very near future.” Until now, Washington has exhibited a certain ambivalence toward the government of the Sandinista leader, who returned to power in 2007 on the basis of an economic program geared to the interests of Nicaraguan and foreign capital.

Amid all of the denunciations and threats, Bolton pointed to a supposed bright spot in the Americas, the election last month in Brazil of the fascistic former army captain Jair Bolsonaro, who has celebrated the country’s former military dictatorship and its regime of torture and threatened that his political opponents would have to choose between jail and exile.

Bolton described Bolsonaro as a “likeminded leader”, whose election was one of the “positive signs for the future of the region” and demonstrated “a growing regional commitment to the free market principles and open, transparent and accountable governance.”

Among Bolsonaro’s attractions for the US administration – aside for the affinity between the fascistic views of Trump and the Brazilian president-elect – is his vow to pursue a policy aligned with that of Washington and against the influence of China in the hemisphere. During the Brazilian election campaign, he denounced Beijing for attempting to “buy Brazil” and even made a provocative trip to Taiwan last February in an affront to the “one China” policy recognized by Brazil since the 1970s.

Behind all the posturing about “human rights” and the refusal to tolerate “despots,” US policy in Latin America is driven ever more openly by its strategic conflict with China, whose influence has steadily grown in a region long regarded by US imperialism as its “own backyard”. Once again, US officials are invoking the Monroe Doctrine and Washington’s supposed “right” to intervene to prevent “outside” powers from poaching on countries it regards as semi-colonies.

The Trump administration in September recalled its ambassadors from El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Panama and threatened to cut off aid over the decisions by the governments of these countries to break with Taiwan – which had cemented ties with previous anti-communist dictatorships — and establish relations with Beijing.

Even so, as Bolton was making his speech in Miami, the presidents of both El Salvador and the Dominican Republic were both in Beijing meeting with President Xi and other top officials, while China and Panama announced on the same day that Panama City would host a China-Latin America Caribbean Business Summit next year, focused on promoting economic-commercial cooperation between both regions. To the extent that the influence of China’s trade and investment challenges that of the US, Washington will respond with increasing provocations and militarism.

Notable in Bolton’s speech was his repeated denunciations of “communism” and “socialism,” and his insistence that the economic and social catastrophe in Venezuela—a country where finance capital has only strengthened its grip over the economy over the past 20 years and the government is run largely by the military—is an example of socialism “implemented effectively.”

Underlying this reactionary rhetoric is the fear within the US ruling class that the desperate conditions being created by the crisis of capitalism is producing a new revolutionary challenge from the Latin American working class.

*

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

Harsh US Sanctions to Have Limited Effect on Iran?

November 3rd, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

For nearly 40 years since the Islamic Republic’s 1979 revolution, ending a generation of US-installed fascist tyranny, Iran withstood the effects of multiple rounds of illegal US sanctions.

This time will likely be no different, Iran seeking ways to overcome unacceptable Trump regime harshness against the country – perhaps in the end to have only a modest effect, far short of US aims.

On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif discussed new US sanctions on its energy energy sector, petroleum related products, as well as central bank and other financial transactions with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, Denmark’s Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen, and Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom, saying:

“The possibility that the US will be able to achieve its economic goals through these sanctions is very remote, and there is certainly no possibility that it will attain its political goals through such sanctions.”

Iran’s Mehr News reported the following:

“Mogherini and three European foreign ministers emphasized their commitments to the JCPOA and efforts to maintain effective financial channels with Iran, as well as the continuation of Iranian oil and gas exports,” adding:

“They also highly regarded the commitment of finance ministers, in addition to the foreign ministers of the three European countries and other members, for the implementation of Special Purpose Vehicle, announcing that the mechanism will be officially in place in the coming days.”

It’ll let Iran bypass the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) financial transactions system to continue financial transactions with EU countries unobstructed.

In a joint statement on Friday, Mogherini, along with German, French, and UK foreign ministers together with other EU officials, announced their intention to continue “engag(ing) in legitimate business with Iran,” expressing support for the JCPOA nuclear deal, adding:

“(W)e have committed to work on…the preservation and maintenance of effective financial channels with Iran, and the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas” – together with Russia and China.

On Friday, Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak said the Kremlin will continue working cooperatively with Iran, including with its energy trade, adding:

It’s committed to “preserv(ing)” and “maintain(ing) effective financial channels with Iran, and the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas.”

“We do not recognize the sanctions introduced unilaterally without the United Nations (Security Council). We consider those methods illegal per se.”

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi said

“(t)here is no room for any concern. We should wait and see that the US will not be able to carry out any measure against the great and brave Iranian nation.”

“It seems that the US has no more capability to put countries and global economic enterprises under pressure.”

Washington granted eight countries waivers to keep buying Iranian oil. What a US source called temporary could become permanent ahead.

The unnamed countries are believed to include China, India, Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Italy.

On Friday, Trump regime Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA will be reimposed on Monday, November 5 – unilaterally and unlawfully, he failed to explain.

Around 700 Iranians will be blacklisted, sanctions also targeting financial transactions through the EU’s Special Purpose Vehicle to let Tehran bypass SWIFT.

“SWIFT is no different than any other entity,” said Mnuchin, adding: “We have advised SWIFT that it must disconnect any Iranian financial institutions that we designate as soon as technologically feasible to avoid sanctions exposure.”

Will Trump regime “maximum pressure” on Iran work, given world community opposition to its unilateral and unlawful actions?

For decades, hostile US actions against the Islamic Republic failed. If past is prologue, the same is likely ahead – despite likely all-out Trump regime efforts to impose harshness on the country.

A Final Comment

Former Iranian diplomat Seyed Hossein Mousavian believes harsh Trump regime sanctions on the Islamic Republic will fail, saying:

“Iran is the most experienced country in the world (at) handling sanctions. I don’t believe any other country in this region has the experience, capacity or scale to resist against sanctions.”

Nor will US sanctions deter the country’s legitimate development  of defensive weapons, or its regional activities with other nations, Mousavian believes – including its involvement in helping Damascus combat US-supported terrorists.

*

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

Award-winning author 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 Al-Masdar News.

On November 1, Hayat Tahir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) announced that its members had attacked positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the village of Abu Qamis in southeastern Idlib. Three SAA soldiers were reportedly killed.

A source in the SAA told SouthFront that clashes had erupted near the village, but declined to provide additional details. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least one Hayat Tahrir al-Sham member was killed.

Later on the same day, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and another al-Qaeda-linked group, Horas al-Din, shelled multiple SAA positions in northern Hama and western Aleppo.

Meanwhile, Turkish and US troops carried out a first joint patrol near the town of Manbij. The patrol was carried out near the Saju Stream, which separates the Turkish-held city of Jarabulus from Manbij, which is controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The SDF consists mostly of Kurdish armed formations like the YPG, which are considered as terrorist groups by Ankara.

Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar publicly promised that members of the YPG and another Kurdish armed group, the PKK, “will be buried in the trenches it has dug” near Manbij. He also stated that Ankara would continue its military operations against the PKK in northern Iraq, where the group has a wide infrastructure used for attacks in Turkey.

Sporadic clashes between the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the YPG/PKK are still ongoing near Kobani in Syria. Reports also appeared that the TAF is now forming a list of Turkish-backed groups, which would participate in a possible military operation against the YPG near the Euphrates River.

In the province of Deir Ezzor, the SAA uncovered a large ammunition depot, which included 450,000 bullets of 7.62×51mm caliber, near the city of al-Mayadin. This ammunition depot had been left behind by ISIS terrorists when they lost the battle for al-Mayadin to the SAA. According to the Syrian state media, this ammunition had been supplied by the US to Syrian militant groups, which then sold it to ISIS. Over the past few years, there have been multiple examples when US-backed “opposition groups” have appeared to be terrorist groups or openly cooperated with ISIS.

*

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

Selected Articles: Trump Sanctions, War Crimes in Syria

November 3rd, 2018 by Global Research News

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

Global Research is massive! I think as a resource for anyone interested in world affairs, it’s probably unrivalled in its depth and breadth. — William BowlesInvestigating Imperialism

*     *     *

Raqqa: A City Laid Waste, the Law Laid Low

By Christopher Black, November 02, 2018

Tens of thousands of strikes and heavy artillery bombardments over a period of a four months, from July to October 2017, the use of white phosphorus, a banned weapon, thousands killed, a city destroyed and for what, no one seems to know, except there exists a ruthless contempt for the norms of civilized behaviour and international law in the governments and armed forces of the “coalition” of gangster states that are committing theses crimes.

New Iran Sanctions Risk Long-term US Isolation

By Patrick Lawrence, November 02, 2018

The next step in the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran comes this Sunday, Nov. 4, when the most severe sanctions will be imposed on the Islamic Republic. Crucially, they apply not only to Iran but to anyone who continues to do business with it.

Two Koreas Halt Military Exercises and Close Gunports Once Aimed at Each Other

By Zoom in Korea, November 02, 2018

At 12:01 on November 1, North and South Korea began a halt to land, air, and sea military exercises and began the operation of a designated no-fly zone along the military demarcation line (MDL). The measures are in line with September’s Agreement on the Implementation of the Historic Panmunjom Declaration in the Military Domain, signed by the two Koreas’ defense ministers on the sidelines of the fifth inter-Korean summit in Pyongyang.

Cuba Scores 27th Victory at the UN on “Ending the US Blockade”. Overwhelming Vote in Favor, Two Against (U.S. and Israel)

By Nino Pagliccia, November 02, 2018

In an attempt to sway the vote against the resolution, this year the US surprisingly introduced eight aggressive amendments forcing the UN General Assembly to debate them. This was a manipulative tactic to compel a discussion on the issue of human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals in Cuba.

History of World War II: Conduct of Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa” against Russia

By Shane Quinn, November 02, 2018

In Soviet territory, Hitler demanded his men undertake “war of annihilation” procedures. These murderous assaults eventually rebounded onto the Germans, who were dealt little mercy as they themselves had shown. By indiscriminately targeting Soviet soldiers and civilians, the Nazis were already sowing the seeds of their own defeat, though they did not yet know it.

Trump’s Back Door Return to the TPP Free Trade Agreement in 2019/20?

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, November 02, 2018

In the absence of the US, Japan has served as proxy for the US in continuing the TPP negotiations, now concluded this past week. In coming months and the rest of Trump’s first term, watch for the US under Trump to re-enter the TPP. That re-joining will not be as a signatory to the revised, multilateral TPP just concluded by the other countries. Rather, it will be US re-joining it on a country-by-country, bilateral basis.

*

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

Featured image: A destroyed house where 28 members of the Badran family and five neighbors were killed in a US-led coalition airstrike on August 20, 2017, Raqqa, Syria (Amnesty International)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Trump Sanctions, War Crimes in Syria

Governo Bolsonaro: o que esperar?

November 2nd, 2018 by Gustavo Castañon

Não sei. Quando se olha para o futuro e se vê personagens com um passado, com um comportamento minimamente coerente, com crenças estáveis e inteligência mínima, grupos políticos com seus interesses e forças estáveis, há como fazer apostas mais claras sobre o futuro.

No momento, com um presidente que foi estatista a vida toda e vira liberal depois de uma viagem aos EUA, defensor da tortura, assassinato de opositores e ditadura, apresenta um papel higiênico de programa de governo e faz seu discurso de vitória cercado de Magno Malta e Alexandre Frota, o futuro parece um túnel escuro, incerto e sem fim.

Não há muita expectativa de bem a se extrair desse mal. A hora como disse um amigo é de estudar o adversário. As hipóteses de trabalho, e não previsões, que levanto são:

1) Nos encaminhamos num primeiro momento para um governo Pinochet implementado por um Trump que sempre viveu nas tetas do Estado e foi expulso do Exército. As primeiras indicações são de que será o governo de mais baixo nível técnico desde o primeiro ministério de Collor.

2) Bolsonaro foi eleito pela CIA-NSA e protegido e informado pelo Mossad. Tem acordos uterinos de realinhamento geopolítico brasileiro. Provavelmente fará o país entrar na OTAN, permitirá instalações de bases americanas em território nacional (a checar a reação das FFAA a esta humilhação), enterrará a participação brasileira no BRICS e no Mercosul e será aliado incondicional de Israel.

3) A máquina de envenenamento mental das redes continuará a todo vapor no governo Bolsonaro, preparando o terreno e a base de apoio popular para o desmantelamento dos resquícios de Estado de bem-estar social. Se não aprendermos como fazer frente a isso iremos para um estado de insanidade coletiva ainda maior. A tendência é que o Exército, o único que tem alguma capacidade de monitoramento de fake news, bote ordem nesse fenômeno que desestabilizou o país de fora. Agora fake news será monopólio do governo.

4) Não está descartada a entrada do Brasil aliado à Colômbia numa guerra contra a Venezuela. Os EUA encontrariam então seus sicários latino-americanos para legitimar o saque do petróleo Venezuelano. Esse cenário já está sendo discutido pelos EUA, mas encontrará forte rejeição das próprias FFAA. No entanto, um governo Bolsonaro poderia lançar mão desse recurso em caso de rápida degeneração interna, para tentar gerar coesão nacional e implantar medidas de exceção previstas para tempo de guerra. O resultado político, contudo, dificilmente deixaria de ser um desastre.

5) Paulo Guedes é fraco, inábil, muito arrogante, incompetente para a administração pública e moralmente vulnerável. Vai começar achando que tem carta branca para um governo ultraliberal. Mas só vai ter facilidades para destruir a aposentadoria, o serviço público e cortar gastos.

6) A aposentadoria pública será virtualmente extinta por Paulo Guedes sob aplausos dos meios de comunicação. Veremos várias reportagens indicando as maravilhas de se trabalhar até a morte.

7) Na hora de privatizar nossas grandes estatais e estatais de defesa, o ultraliberal deve enfrentar resistência das FFAA. O primeiro foco de conflito será não a privatização, mas a venda da Embraer. Vamos ver como os militares, que querendo ou não são os grandes fiadores de Bolsonaro, reagirão a esse negócio que não está concretizado.

8) Não acredito em desastre econômico nos primeiros dois anos. O Brasil está barato e muitos projetos parados por indefinição política. Os especuladores internacionais aos primeiros sinais de destruição do estado e estabilidade política, se houver, devem entrar comprando e investindo e darão um voo de galinha ao governo em virtude do fluxo de capitais. Isso mitigará o efeito devastador das reformas ultraliberais e destruição do estado nos primeiros anos. Se pegarmos um suspiro das commodities então, essa mitigação pode durar mais tempo.

9) O colapso não deve vir a médio prazo, mas se a agenda for essa ele virá, certamente. Chile, Rússia, Argentina de Menen e Macri, Grécia, Espanha e Cia estão aí para lembrar que não há exceções aos colapsos neoliberais. Nem uma exceção (o leitor está desafiado a citar uma exceção histórica). Pinochet depois de derrubar em mais de 40% o PIB chileno teve que chamar os desenvolvimentistas para simplesmente fazer com que ele voltasse ao nível de antes do golpe. Foi essa segunda parte de seu governo que se convencionou chamar de “milagre chileno”, que não foi nada mais do que a reversão do colapso neoliberal. A economia deverá sofrer profunda desnacionalização, o déficit na balança de pagamentos se tornar crônico, a população empobrecer brutalmente em subempregos sem educação ou saúde públicas. O Estado deverá perder a capacidade de intervir na economia e a recessão se cronificar.

10) Nesse momento, uma ditadura completa pode tentar se implantar como única forma de manter o regime. Mas será difícil para um governo que nasce odiado por metade da sociedade e estará moído pela crise e descrédito, num cenário internacional adverso. É difícil saber o que acontecerá até lá. O certo é que uma revolução não está no horizonte como resposta: antes disso todos os seus possíveis instrumentos estariam aniquilados e bases norte-americanas instaladas em território nacional.

11) Para apoiar a devastação do Estado, com extinção das universidades públicas e do SUS, as máquinas de fake news da NSA se voltarão à degradação da educação e saúde pública e seus servidores. A falta de recursos crônica causada pelo teto de gastos causará o colapso desses serviços enquanto o foco será jogado no salário dos professores universitários e médicos, para alimentar o ressentimento da máquina de eleitores esmagados nos subempregos da iniciativa privada da reforma trabalhista. A estabilidade deve virar pó e motivar demissões em massa para delírio dos fracassados que dizem “a mamata vai acabar” para os eleitores de esquerda. É claro que as verdadeiras mamatas das aposentadorias das FFAA e do Judiciário e seus super-salários, dos quais dependem a estabilidade do regime, não serão tocadas. O que vai acabar mesmo, no entanto, é a saúde pública e a educação superior.

12) Para aplicar a agenda ultraliberal se fará uso ainda largamente do antipetismo e do anticomunismo, que a massa ignara de classe média identifica com os lunáticos pós-modernos e identitários. Se exporá cada vez mais “cirurgias trans” e “performances de dedo no cu” nos hospitais e universidades para facilitar seu desmonte.

13) Bolsonaro deve se valer da pauta fundamentalista para mobilizar a esquerda a defender pautas impopulares como o aborto enquanto destrói o Estado. O PT aceitará de bom grado a pauta identitária enquanto se acomoda confortavelmente a sua nova condição de partido de nicho sem condições de voltar a exercer o poder.

14) Da mesma forma, Bolsonaro deve recorrer a violência policial brutal e ações de impacto contra o tráfico de drogas para angariar apelo popular e mascarar a brutal pauta econômica de perda de direitos. Certamente a redução da maioridade penal e a alteração do estatuto do desarmamento virão como propostas de plebiscitos para mergulhar a esquerda na pauta comportamental a opondo à sociedade e gerando a cortina de fumaça para a destruição do Estado. Mascaramento dos índices de segurança, como recusas em registrar ocorrências, podem provocar uma falsa sensação de melhoria na segurança. Não acredito, no entanto, que o empilhamento sucessivo de corpos vá lhe render mais popularidade do que rejeição a médio prazo. O povo brasileiro, no entanto, já deu muitas provas de enlouquecimento. Vamos conferir.

15) Movimentos como o MST e o MTST serão criminalizados como dois mais dois são quatro. Aqueles que sonham com Boulos meio por cento como novo líder popular da Praça São Salvador e Largo do Batata ainda não entenderam o tamanho da rejeição popular que a internet provocou a estes movimentos. Ele corre muito perigo nestes anos.

16) Não restam dúvidas de que a homofobia aumentará, agressões a mulheres, crimes políticos, cerceamento a atividade docente e arbitrariedades policiais de toda ordem. Na verdade, isso já começou antes mesmo dos resultados eleitorais.

17) O petismo deverá ser mantido na UTI, pois o que mais interessa ao governo é mantê-lo como a liderança da oposição, a imagem do que seria a alternativa a ele. Continuará a ser fustigado com denúncias de corrupção e “imoralidades” e tendo alguns de seus dirigentes presos, mas sem cassar seu registro ou torná-lo excessivamente fraco.

18) Será fácil para Bolsonaro, se quiser, sequestrar a base de grotões que sobrou ao PT (que perdeu a classe média, mesmo sua ala esquerda, e as cidades) turbinando e constitucionalizando seus programas assistencialistas. Como populista, não terá dificuldade de fazê-lo, como vimos com a proposta do 13o. Depois de quatro anos preso e perdidos os grotões, o poder político de Lula se esvairá. Sua possível morte no período dará outro folego ao lulismo, limitado ao Nordeste.

19) Se acumularem poder, Bolsonaro e Mourão tentarão reformar o Alto Comando das FFAA dobrando o número de generais e o STF ampliando o número de ministros. Isso no momento não é, no entanto, ainda possível. Mas o grupo de Villas-Boas deve perder espaço, a não ser, no entanto, que Bolsonaro seja inteligente e queira deter o poder de Mourão. A conferir.

20) A grande imprensa está apavorada e tentará aderir. O enfrentamento de Bonner a Bolsonaro ontem quando ele atacou a Folha de São Paulo indica que os grupos de comunicação estão articulados para se proteger num primeiro momento. Depois de entregue as reformas e definido o que será de fato privatizado, a tendência é partirem para desgastar o governo. Se sentirem sangue na água, começa ainda antes.

21) A lava-jato deverá seguir como política de governo de terrorismo e silenciamento da oposição e cooptação da base aliada, ou seja, a guerra à política continua. O convite a Moro já deu a senha. Será o reino do terror judiciário. O STF tentará cercear Bolsonaro com a ação de impugnação das eleições movida pelo PDT, mas agora eles lidarão com pessoas que não hesitam em exercer o poder, mesmo porque tem as FFAA por trás.

22) A continuação do reino de chantagem e terror vai gerar ressentimento com o Centrão e base aliada. Se seguir na promessa de um governo de técnicos sem indicação política vai se inviabilizar no congresso. Se começar a distribuir cargo e governar com o Centrão vai desmoralizar seu discurso de renovação. Aposto fortemente na segunda opção como os movimentos recentes na composição do governo já estão indicando.

23) As raposas sobreviventes de Brasília não vão engolir Bolsonaro. Todos o desprezam publica ou secretamente. O Congresso só está esperando a primeira curva da estrada. Como Bolsonaro vai reagir depende de seu apelo popular.

24) A incógnita é como as FFAA reagirão ao desmonte da nação e de nossa soberania. O provável é que repitam o Chile e 64 e assistam à devastação neoliberal ocorrer antes para pressionar por mudanças depois. Querendo eles ou não, todo fracasso do governo Bolsonaro vai cair na conta deles. Elas são minha única esperança de defesa do interesse nacional, racionalidade administrativa e moderação política no próximo governo.

25) Esperança? Sempre há esperança. E esperança no caso de Bolsonaro é somente a de ele um dia ir embora do poder. O governo é de baixíssimo nível, inédito na história do Brasil. A verdadeira elite, de fato, ainda não está representada nele. A imprensa está assustada e só esperará sentir sangue na água. Bolsonaro perderá a aura antissistema se mostrando como é: um deputado do baixo clero que governará com o centrão corrupto. E corrupto quer mamar. Todas as expectativas mitológicas de seus seguidores se esvairão com o desemprego, fim da aposentadoria, destruição da saúde e governo convencional. Este começa com a rejeição mais alta e sólida da história da democracia. A brutal recessão causada pelas políticas de Temer que agora se radicalizam, em algum momento se aprofundará. O colapso da educação e saúde não poderá ser colocada por muito mais tempo na conta do PT e menos ainda da esquerda. Arroubos autoritários podem ajudar a reconstituir um centro democrático. A centro-esquerda pode se organizar sem o PT. Mas minha principal esperança agora é o patriotismo genuíno das FFAA. Elas não vão querer ser vistas como as coveiras do Estado e da soberania nacional. Só elas terão poder suficiente para deter a destruição que está pela frente.

26) Já a centro-esquerda, se não guinar para o centro, abandonar a pauta identitária, centrar fogo na economia e principalmente aprender a usar a rede e a ela se dedicar, oferecendo uma nova narrativa global para a população, vai amargar mais uma derrota acachapante em 2022.

O governo Bolsonaro dará muito errado, é a única coisa que é certa. A questão agora é só quando, e como.

Quando ele acabar, seremos uma colônia agrícola extratora miserável, mais desigual e violenta do que nunca, com uma população de escravos.

Enfim, o momento requer estudo do que de fato será o adversário e reorganização de quem vai querer exercer a oposição.

Collor, Jânio, não duraram três anos. Há muito em comum: falso moralismo, ajuste liberal, recessão à vista, privatizações.

Mas só Deus sabe no que vai dar isso.

E ele parece estar muito zangado com esse país.

Gustavo Castañon

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Governo Bolsonaro: o que esperar?

Losing Users: Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook Problems

November 2nd, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

His detractors and enemies have been waiting some time for this, but it must have given them moments of mild cheer.  Facebook, the all-gazing, accumulating system of personal profiles and information, poster child, in fact, of surveillance capitalism, is losing users. At the very least, it is falling to that mild phenomenon in business speak called “flat-lining”, a deceptively benign term suggesting that the fizz is going out of the product. 

This week, Mark Zuckerberg has been more humble than usual.  The latest figures show that 1.49 billion users hop on the platform daily; monthly active users come in at 2.27 billion.  While both figures are increases from previous metrics, these fall shy of those bubbly estimates Facebook loves forecasting: 1.51 billion in the former; 2.29 billion in the latter. 

“We’re well behind YouTube”, he observed; in “developed countries”, Zuckerberg conceded that his company was probably reaching saturation. 

While security features of Facebook had improved, there was at least another twelve months before the standard was, in his view, up to scratch.

The user market in North America is flat, while in Europe, FB has experienced a loss of 3 million daily active users.  The process was already underway after 2015.  The moment your grandparents start using a communications product with teenage enthusiasm, it’s time for a swift, contrarian change. But social media, as with other forms of communication, is a matter of demographics and class.   

YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat have been beating down doors and making off with users.  A May study from the Pew Research Centre found that half of US teens between the ages of 13 and 17 claim to use Facebook.  But YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat are bullishly ahead with usage figures of 85, 72 and 69 percent respectively. To locus of this move is as much in the type of technology being used as behavioural change, with 95 percent of teens claiming to have access to a smartphone. A mind slushing statistic stands out: of those, 45 percent are online constantly in numb inducing ecstasy.   

The company, in an effort to plug various deficiencies in the operating systems, has been busy hiring content moderators, a point that has not gone unnoticed by users.  This, in of itself, is a flawed exercise, and one imposed upon the company in an effort of moralised policing.  Various legislatures and parliaments have gotten itchy in passing legislation obligating Facebook and similar content sharers to remove hate speech, extremist subject matter and state-sponsored propaganda.  (Where, pray, is that line ever drawn?).  

This raises a jurisdictional tangle suggesting that local parliaments and courts are getting ahead of themselves in gnawing away at the extra-territorial nature of tech giants.  This year, a German law was passed requiring social media companies to remove illegal, racist or slanderous content within 24 hours after being flagged by users or face fines to the tune of $57 million.  Such legislation, while localised in terms of jurisdiction, has international consequences.  Content otherwise permitted by the US First Amendment will have to be removed for offending regulations in another country.   

This is a far from academic speculation.  Canada’s Supreme Court in June last year ruled that Google had to remove search results pertaining to certain pirated products.  The natural consequence of this was a universal one. 

“The internet has no borders – its natural habitat is global,” claimed the trite observation from the majority.  “The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates – globally.”   

This precipitated a legal spat that proceeded to involve a Californian decision handed down by Judge Edward J. Davila, who turned his nose up at the Canadian judiciary’s grant of the interlocutory injunction.  To expect companies such as Google to remove links to third-party material menaced “free speech on the global internet.”  The emergence of a “splinternet” – one where online content is permissible in one country and not another – has been given a dramatic shove.  Police, in other words, or be damned. 

By the end of September, an army of some 33,000 labouring souls were retained by Facebook for the onerous task of sifting, assessing and removing errant content.  But this whole task has come with its own pitfalls, a preoccupation of danger and emotional disturbance.  Those recruited have become content warriors with a need for a strong constitution, a point that has presented Zuckerberg with yet another problem.   

Former moderator Selena Scola, who worked at Facebook from June 2017 till March this year, has gone so far as to sue the company for post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing content depicting graphic violence “from her cubicle in Facebook’s Silicon Valley offices”.  Scola, through her legal counsel, claims that the company did not create a safe environment, instead working upon the practice of having a “revolving door of contractors”.  Moderators, according to the legal suit, are “bombarded” with “thousands of videos, images and livestreamed broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide and murder.”  

Facebook ushered in a remarkable form of dysfunction between users, and the actual platform of communication.  This is very much in the spirit of a concept that lends itself to a hollowed variant of friendship, one based on appropriation, marketing and a somewhat voyeuristic format.  If you can’t make friends in the flesh, as Zuckerberg struggled to do, create facsimiles of friendship, their ersatz equivalents.  And most of all, place the incentive of generating revenue and profiles upon them.  Facebook is not merely there for those who use it but for those who feel free to be used.  This point is all too readily missed by the political classes.

Facebook makes everyone a practitioner, and creator, of surveillance, and anybody with a rudimentary understanding of totalitarian societies would know what that does to trust.  Split personalities and hived forms of conduct manifest themselves.  Unhealthily, then, the number of users globally is still increasing, even if it is dropping in specific parts of the world.  Much like the Catholic Church, reliance is placed upon the developing world to supply new pools of converts. 

Zuckerberg’s company faces investigations from the European Union, the FBI, the FTC, the SEC and the US Department of Justice.  Such moves are not necessarily initiated out of altruism; there is the prevailing fear that such a platform is all too readily susceptible to manipulation (the horror, it seems, of misinformation, as if this was ever a new issue).  Fake ads can still be readily purchased; campaigns economic with the facts can still be run and organised on its pages.  But to attribute blame to Facebook for a tendency as ancient as politics is another distortion.  Not even Zuckerberg can be blamed for that. 

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Losing Users: Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook Problems
  • Tags:

Is the US-China Trade War for Real?

November 2nd, 2018 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

This incisive article was first published in May 2018 at the outset of the trade war

If Trump’s trade policy toward US allies is ‘phony’, by seeking only token adjustments to trade relations, then the US trade offensive targeting China is for real.

While Trump has repeatedly exempted US allies from tariffs (steel and aluminum), pitched ‘softball’ deals (South Korea), and tweeted repeatedly how well negotiations are going with NAFTA, in stark contrast the actions and words of the US toward China and trade negotiations in progress have been ‘hardball’.

Contrary to media hype, the Trump trade offensive targeting China is not a product of just the past few months.  It did not arise in early March with an impulsive tweet by Trump or with his attention-getting declaration to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum producers worldwide.[1]  The US trade offensive targeting China was set in motion at least a year ago, in spring 2017. It surfaced last August 2017.

The US Plan to Target China

In August 2017 Trump formally gave the US Office of Trade (OUST) the task of identifying how China was transferring US technology, “undermining US companies’ control over their technology in China”, as well as seeking to do so by acquiring US companies in the US.[2]   On August 18, 2017, the OUST laid out in writing four charges in a formal investigation it was undertaking, accusing China of actions designed to “obtain cutting edge in IP (intellectual property) and generate technology transfer”. All four charges were intensely technology transfer related.

That August 2017 scope of investigation document and objectives was then reproduced verbatim on March 22, 2018, with expected recommendations, in the 58 page OUST report of March 22, 2018—not Trump tweets or the steel-aluminum tariffs—publicly launched Trump’s trade offensive against China. [3]  The main theme of the report was that China was ‘guilty’ of aggressively seeking technology transfer at the expense of US corporations, both in China and the US.

Based on the OUST report of March 22, 2018, Trump announced plans to impose $50 billion in tariffs on 1300 China general imports, ranging from chemicals to jet parts, industrial equipment, machinery, communication satellites, aircraft parts, medical equipment, trucks, and even helicopters, nuclear equipment, rifles, guns and artillery..  Trump may have appeared in March 2018 to have shifted gears in his trade policy—from a general, worldwide steel-aluminum tariffs focus to a focus targeting China trade— but China has been the planned primary target for at least the past year. Trump just set it in motion publicly on March 23, 2018. A confrontation with China over trade had been planned from the outset.[4]

Trajectory of US-China Trade Negotiations

But an announced plan to impose tariffs at some point in the future is not the same as the implementation of those tariffs.  Despite Trump’s March announcement, and declaration of $50 billion in tariffs on China goods imports, a delay of at least 60 days must take place before any further definition or actual implementation of the $50 billion by the US might occur—thus giving ample time for unofficial pre-negotiations to occur between the countries’ trade missions. Technically, the US could even wait for another six months before actually implementing any tariffs. To date there has been only talk and threat of tariffs—on China or on US allies. With China, Trump has merely ‘notched an arrow’ from his trade quiver. The bow hasn’t even been drawn, let alone the arrow let fly.

Following Trump’s threat of $50 billion in tariffs, China immediately sent its main trade negotiator, Liu, to Washington and assumed a cautious, almost conciliatory approach. China responded initially with a modest $3 billion in tariffs on US exports. It also made it clear the $3 billion was in response to US steel and aluminum tariffs, and not Trump’s $50 billion.  More action could follow, as it forewarned it was considering additional tariffs of 15% to 25% on US products, especially agricultural, in response to Trump’s $50 billion announcement.  China was waiting to see the details. At the same time it signaled it was willing to open China brokerages and insurance companies to western-US 51% ownership (and 100% within three years), and that it would buy more semiconductor chips from the US instead of Korea or Taiwan. It was all a token public response. China was keeping its arrows in its quiver.

Following Trump’s mid-March tariff tantrum, behind the scenes China and US trade representatives continued to negotiate. By the end of March all that had still only occurred was Trump’s announcement of $50 billion of tariffs, without further details, and China’s $3 billion token response to prior US steel-aluminum tariffs. From there, however, events began to deteriorate.

On April 3, 2018, Trump defined the $50 billion of tariffs—25% on a wide range of 1300 of China’s consumer and industrial imports to the US. The arrow was being drawn. The list of tariffed items was the verbatim USTR Report’s ‘list’. Influential business groups in the US, like the Business Roundtable, US Chamber of Commerce, and National Association of Manufacturers immediately criticized the move, calling for the US instead to work with its allies to pressure China to reform—not to use tariffs as the trade reform weapon.

China now responded more aggressively as well, promising an equal tariff response, declaring it was not afraid of a trade war with the US. That was a welcoming invitation for a Trump tweet which followed, as Trump declared he believed the US could not “lose a trade war” with China and maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing to have one.  Trump tweeted further that maybe another $100 billion in US tariffs might get China’s attention.

China now notched its own arrow, noting it would raise 15%-25% tariffs on the US and responded to Trump’s $50 billion, identifying their own $50 billion tariffs on 128 US exports targeting US agricultural products and especially US soybeans, but also cars, oil and chemicals, aircraft and industrial productions—the production of which is also heavily concentrated in the Midwest US and thus Trump’s domestic political base.[5]

This particular targeting clearly aggravated Trump, disrupting his plans to mobilize that base for domestic political purposes before the November elections. He angrily tweeted perhaps another $100 billion in China tariffs were called for. In response, China declared it was prepared to announce another $100 billion in tariffs as well, if Trump followed through with his threat of imposing $100 billion more tariffs.

Trump advisors, Larry Kudlow and Mnuchin, tried to clean up Trump’s remarks. Kudlow assured the stock markets, which plummeted with the developments, saying

“These are just first proposals…I doubt that there will be any concrete actions for several months”.[6]

In reply to Trump’s threat of another $100 billion, China Commerce Ministry spokesman, Gao Feng, declared it would not hesitate to put in place ‘detailed countermeasures’ that didn’t ‘exclude any options’. And China Foreign Ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, added in an official news briefing,

“The United States with one hand wields the threat of sanctions, and at the same time says they are willing to talk. I’m not sure who the United States is putting on this act for”…Under the current circumstances, both sides even more cannot have talks on these issues”. [7]

But all this was still a war of words, not yet a bona fide trade war.  To use the metaphor once more: arrows were taken from quivers and bows about to be drawn, but no one was yet prepared to let anything fly.

Through the remainder of April negotiations by second tier trade representatives continued in the background. Meanwhile US capitalists in the Business Roundtable and other prime US corporate organizations added their input to the public commentary process on the Trump tariffs that will continue formally until May 22 at least. Most warned a trade war with China would be economically devastating for their business.

In the first week of May, the Trump trade team of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, Trump trade advisor, Peter Navarro and White House director of Trump’s economic council, Larry Kudlow, headed off to Beijing for negotiations. The composition of the US trade team is notable. It reveals deep splits within the US elite, some reflecting Trump interests and others reflecting more traditional elite interests in finance and the Pentagon-War industries. While interests clearly overlapped, the splits reflect differing priorities in the China trade negotiations.

Image result for trump trade team in china

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin in China for the trade talk (Source: Gulf News)

Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin—the US financial sector and US multinational companies doing business in China; China ‘hardliners’, Robert Lighthizer, the current US trade representative, and Peter Navarro, Trump trade advisor—the interests of the Pentagon and US defense sector; and Larry Kudlow, head of Trump’s Economic Council—likely most concerned with the domestic political impact of the negotiations for Trump.

One of the first reports when the two trade teams first met in Beijing last week was from Mnuchin, who reported the negotiations were going extremely well. Mnuchin of course knew that before he left for Beijing. China had already indicated it was going to approve 51% US corporate ownership of China companies in March; and it further signaled it would approve 100% ownership within three more years. US bankers have always wanted a deeper penetration of China and now they’ll have it. They didn’t even have to give up anything to get it. That doesn’t sound like a ‘trade war’, at least not yet. China was cleverly driving a wedge between the bankers-multinational corporations wanting more access to its markets and the Pentagon-War industries faction of the US trade team that want a stop to technology transfer.

But if one were to believe the US press, the US negotiating team came back from Beijing this past weekend empty-handed and a trade war was imminent. If that were true, there would be no reason for China’s chief negotiator, Liu, coming to Washington for further talks later this week, which was quietly announced after the US trade team returned. US-China trade negotiations are thus continuing, notwithstanding Trump tweets and schizophrenic bombast: One day after the US team’s return demanding China reduce its $337 billion deficit by $200 billion by 2020; another day calling China president, Xi Jinping, his ‘good friend’ and expressing optimism about an eventual trade deal.

US-China trade negotiations will almost certainly take months to conclude, if ever, certainly extending well beyond the November 2018 US midterm elections.  This delay will put pressure on Trump to quickly come to some kind of token agreements with NAFTA and other trade partner negotiations also underway. A NAFTA deal is likely within weeks. And it will look more like the South Korea ‘softball’ trade deal negotiated by Trump a few months ago than not.

Early agreements before the end of this summer are necessary for Trump to tout his ‘economic nationalism’ strategy and declare it is succeeding before the November elections. One can also expect more ‘off the wall’ tweets by Trump designed to ‘sound tough’ on China trade and negotiations in progress for the same domestic US political purposes. But they will be more Trump hyperbole and bombast, designed for his domestic political base while his negotiators try to work out the China-US trade changes. Yet it’s unlikely Trump wants a China trade deal before the US November elections. There’s more political traction for him to publicly bash China on trade up to the elections.

What the US Wants from China Trade?

What Trump wants from US allies trade partners are token adjustments to current trade relations that he can then exaggerate and misrepresent to his domestic political base as evidence that his ‘economic nationalism’ theme raised during the 2016 US elections is still being pursued. The US traditional elite will allow him to do that, but won’t permit him to disrupt major US-partner trade relations in general. That’s why NAFTA, and later trade negotiations with Europe, will look more like South Korea’s ‘softball’ deal when concluded.

China, on the other hand, is another question. The issues are more strategic. US elites—both the traditional and the Trump wing—want more from China than they want from other US trade partners. With China, it’s not just a question of ‘token’ changes that Trump might then hype and exaggerate for domestic political purposes.

Currently, the US is pursuing a ‘dual track’ trade offensive: seeking token concessions from allies that won’t upset the basic character of past trade relations but will allow Trump to exaggerate and misrepresent the changes for his domestic political purposes, proving to his base that he’s continuing to pursue his promised ‘economic nationalism’. The key to the first track is ‘token’ adjustments to trade. But, in the second track, what the US elite want from China is a fundamental change in US-China trade relations and those changes aren’t limited to token reductions in the US deficit in goods trade with China.

US-Trump trade objectives in its negotiations with China are threefold: first, to gain access for US multinational companies into China markets, especially for US banks and shadow banks (investment banks, hedge funds, equity firms, etc.), but also for US auto companies, energy companies, and tech companies. Expanding US foreign direct investment into other economies is always a main objective of US trade negotiations everywhere. Despite all the talk about goods trade deficits, for the US trade deals are always more about ensuring US ‘money capital flows’ from the US into other economies, than they are about ‘goods flows’ coming from other countries to the US. Access to markets means first and foremost access for US finance capital.

The US second objective is to obtain some visible concessions from China that reduce that country’s goods exports to the US, without China in turn reducing US agricultural and energy related exports to China.[8]

But the main and most strategic objective of the US is to thwart China’s current rate of technology transfer from US companies in China and from China companies acquiring US companies in the US.

The key technology transfer categories are Artificial Intelligence software and hardware, next generation 5G wireless, and nextgen cyber-security software. The US obfuscates the categories by calling it ‘intellectual property’. But it is the latest technology in these three areas that will spawn not only new industries, and whoever (US or China) is ‘first to market’ will dominate the industries and products for decades to come, but the technologies further represent the key to future military dominance as well as economic.

The US is concerned that China may leapfrog into comparable military capability.  Already virtually all the new patents being filed in these tech areas are by China and the US. The rest of the world is left far behind. China’s 2017 long term strategy document, ‘China 2025’, clearly lays out its planning for achieving dominance in these technologies over the coming decade. It has succeeded in getting the attention of the US elite, both economic and military.

Image result for china 2025

The US defense sector—i.e. Lighthizer and Navarro—want to stop, or at least dramatically slow, China’s acquisitions of technology related US companies. While tariffs are on paper only so far, the US has been clearly targeting China companies hunting for US acquisitions. Stopping deals with ZTE and Qualcomm corporate acquisitions recently are but the first of more such US actions to come. The US financial-multinational corporation sector want more access to China markets and thus more authority to acquire China companies, whereas the US War Industries-Defense sector wants more limits on China company acquisitions of US corporations.

Trump may want both of these, but even more so he wants some kind of ‘win’ trade deal he can boast to his base about. China will offer a deal conceding on the last two objectives, while holding out on the tech transfer issue.

The contradiction the US faces in negotiations is thus internal. It is that the representatives of the US elite cannot agree on what are the priority changes they want from China. There are at least three US diverging elite interests on the US side, reflecting at least three major objectives sought by the US. That allows China to ‘play off’ one sector of the US elite against the other, giving it a long term advantage in negotiations with the US on trade.

Should the US elite settle for short term concessions from China—allowing for more US financial firms access to China, more US company ownership of Chinese companies, and/or moderate short term gains in China goods exports—but fail to slow China’s technology strategy, then it will represent another ‘defeat’ for the US in relation to China’s growing challenge to US global economic-military dominance.  It will represent another success for China, similar in strategic importance to its recent ‘One Belt-One Road’ initiative, its launching of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the adoption of its currency by the IMF for world exchange, and its current development of an Asian common market filling the gap by the US failure to establish its free trade Transpacific Partnership treaty.  Technology parity by China with the US may in fact have a greater impact on US dominance than all the above in the long run.

But there’s more to US-China trade than deficits, market access and even technology transfer. There are Trump’s domestic political objectives behind the China-US trade dispute as well.  Trump’s political priority has two dimensions: one is to maximize the turnout of the Republican base in the upcoming midterm November 2018 elections. Trump cannot afford to lose either the House or the Senate, or his agenda on immigration, walls, and deportations is finished. Trump also needs to agitate and mobilize his domestic base as a counterweight to traditional US elite resistance when he fires Mueller, the special counsel investigating his pre- and post-election relationships with Russian business Oligarchs.

Thus multiple objectives are contending among and between the different factions behind the US-China trade negotiations: technology transfer for the military hardliners, market access for the bankers and multinational corporations, and Trump getting relatively quick concessions he can sell to his ‘America First’ economic nationalist domestic political base before November. Which is the priority and which secondary.  Market access has already been conceded by China, so the alternatives are a trade war over technology transfer or some token adjustments to goods imports to the US that Trump can ‘sell’ to his base. If the latter, China-US trade negotiations outcomes will look more like South Korea and NAFTA. If the US insists on technology transfer, then arrows will be drawn and let fly.

Only then will it become clear that the current US-China trade negotiations are the opening phase in a real trade war, or just another case example of Trump hyperbole for purposes of pandering to his domestic political base.

*

Jack Rasmus is author of the book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and his twitter handle is @drjackrasmus. Dr. Rasmus is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Financial Press Cheers Election of Fascist in Brazil

November 2nd, 2018 by Alan MacLeod

Brazil’s controversial elections pitted far-right Jair Bolsonaro against the center-left Workers’ Party candidate Fernando Haddad. But it was clear which candidate international markets—and therefore the financial press—wanted.

Bolsonaro was elected with 55.5 percent of the vote in an election that saw former leftist President Lula da Silva, by far the most popular candidate, jailed and barred from running on highly questionable charges. Bolsonaro was an army officer during Brazil’s fascist military dictatorship (1964–85), which he defends, maintaining that its only error was not killing enough people.

An incendiary character with a long history of racist and sexist outbursts, he told a female federal deputy that she was not worthy of being raped by him, said that he would be unable to love a gay son and that his children would never have a black partner, as they had been very well-educated. During the 2016 impeachment of Workers’ Party President Dilma Rouseff, who was tortured by the dictatorship, he dedicated his impeachment vote to the colonel who tortured her.

The new president-elect has promised to unleash a wave of violence on the working class, minorities and the left. He told his supporters to shoot every Workers’ Party supporter in Acre state in September. At a presidential rally, he proclaimed (Guardian, 10/22/18):

These red outlaws will be banished from our homeland. It will be a cleanup the likes of which has never been seen in Brazilian history…. Either they go overseas, or they go to jail.

Economically, he proposes a course of shock therapy, appointing a University of Chicago-trained economist, Paulo Guedes, to oversee a fire sale of state assets and an opening up of the country’s vast natural resources for foreign exploitation.

Watching Brazil—the world’s ninth largest economy—carefully, the financial press has expressed its delight over Bolsonaro’s rise and victory. Forbes (10/3/18) happily reported on a rising “Bolsonaro fever,” noting the Brazilian currency, the real, was strengthening on news of his increasing support and dwindling Workers’ Party enthusiasm. The Financial Times (10/8/18) and CNBC (10/2/18) both reported that the markets were “cheering” his lead in the presidential race, with a follow-up Financial Times piece (10/18/18) noting weapons companies’ surging stocks upon Bolsonaro’s emergence as the frontrunner, a trend mirrored by stocks more generally as his performance “heartened investors.”

The New York Times (10/26/18) reported markets were surging on “hope of a Bolsonaro victory,” claiming his appeal lies in his willingness to enact unpopular privatizations and gut Brazilian pensions. Bloomberg (10/30/18) breathlessly reported that he would be “extraordinarily pro-business.” The CBC (10/26/18) explored the new world of possibilities for profits for Canadian corporations in agriculture, extractive sectors and finance, as Bolsonaro promises to slash environmental regulations and virtually all market restrictions. “It could be a good time to be a mining investor in Brazil,” it reported. It did note in an offhand manner that, as an externality, critics say it could lead to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

But the Wall Street Journal (10/29/18) went the furthest in its praise for the new president. Its editorial board came out to endorse him as a “credible” “reformer,” describing him as an “antidote” to the greed of the Workers’ Party. It also made the claim that the election was “transparent, competitive and fair,” a remarkable claim, considering Bolsonaro is widely accused of illegally employing foreign companies to create a massive fake news industry via WhatsApp (Guardian, 10/18/18), and that the real frontrunner for the election, Lula da Silva, is in jail on spurious grounds and barred from running, even from his cell.

Studying the financial press’ coverage of Brazil reveals a great deal about its priorities and ideology. Faced with the choice of center-left reformers who may tax business slightly more, and outright fascist candidates, the financial press once again made its decision clear, proving that democracy and the health of the stock market often do not mix.

The media appear uninterested in the human cost of Bolsonaro’s near-genocidal statements, nor the cost to the population if pensions are gutted and state assets are sold off, nor the cost to the Amazon, a crucial carbon reserve that must be maintained and strengthened if humanity has any chance of mitigating the catastrophe of climate change. These are mere externalities. When it comes to opportunities for profits, all else is forgotten. After all, fascism is big business.

*

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

Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in April.

Featured image is from FAIR.

Brazil’s president-elect Jair Bolsonaro has confirmed he intends to defy the Palestinians and most of the world by moving his country’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Brazil would become the second major country after the United States to do so.

“As previously stated during our campaign, we intend to transfer the Brazilian Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem,” Bolsonaro said in a Facebook post on Thursday.

“Israel is a sovereign state and we shall duly respect that,” the post stated.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed Bolsonaro’s comments on Thursday, saying the Brazilian leader’s intention to move the embassy to Jerusalem was “a historic, correct and exciting step!”

In an interview with Israel Hayom newspaper published earlier in the day, Bolsonaro said Israel should decide where its capital is located.

“When I was asked during the campaign if I’d do it when I became president, I said, ‘Yes, the one who decides on the capital of Israel is you, not other nations’,” he told the newspaper, which firmly supports Netanyahu.

Jerusalem’s status has long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian Authority wants occupied East Jerusalem to be the capital of any future Palestinian state, but Israel wants the whole city as its capital.

The issue has been considered one that would be decided by Israelis and Palestinians in a final status agreement, but the US’s decision to recognise the city as Israel’s capital last December broke with that tradition.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it in a move never recognised by the international community.

The embassy was officially transferred on 14 May, amid major protests in Gaza that Israel met with violent force, killing 61 Palestinians. Guatemala and Paraguay followed the US move soon after, though the latter announced last month it would return its embassy to Tel Aviv.

Welcomed by Israel 

Far-right politician Bolsonaro, 63, who won a run-off election on Sunday, has outraged many with his overtly misogynistic, homophobic and racist rhetoric.

Following his election, the former army captain was congratulated by Netanyahu, who invited him to Israel.

“I am confident that your election will lead to a great friendship between the two peoples and to the strengthening of ties between Brazil and Israel,” Netanyahu told Bolsonaro, according to a statement from the prime minister’s office.

“We await your visit to Israel,” Netanyahu said.

An official in Netanyahu’s office told AFP the Israeli premier was “very likely” to attend Bolsonaro’s inauguration ceremony in January.

The first Israeli official to congratulate Bolsonaro was Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein.

“Warm greetings to my friend Jair Bolsonaro for his election to the presidency of Brazil,” he said in a statement on Monday.

“Bolsonaro is a true friend of the State of Israel and during his visit to the Knesset two years ago, he told me a lot about his activities for us in Brazil. We look forward to your visit to Israel and wish you all the best.”

Israel’s economy minister, Eli Cohen, also welcomed the result, adding that he expected greater economic cooperation between the two countries.

In a statement in support of Bolsorano, Cohen said the president-elect would “usher in a new era of political and economic tries with the the largest country in South America”.

*

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

Featured image is from The Yeshiva World.

Raqqa: A City Laid Waste, the Law Laid Low

November 2nd, 2018 by Christopher Black

We must demonstrate that those who have committed the most serious crimes of international concern can have no place to hide. There must be no impunity for the horrendous acts taking place on a daily basis in Syria. There must be justice for the victims. It may take a long time. Sadly, I fear it will take a long time but there must be justice.”

So said the UK Permanent Representative to the UN General Assembly at the debate on the role of the International, Impartial, Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011, on April 18, 2018, citing the very long title for a very dubious organ of the United Nations that gets its funding primarily from NATO countries and their allies.

In her speech to the General Assembly the UK representative set out the real objective of this organ, to build propaganda against the Syrian government for crimes alleged by the US and its allies. The only Syrians referred to in her speech are what the western aggressors like to term the Syrian “civil society” and all their disparate NGO’s that are funded in one way or another by the very governments attacking Syria.

The mandate of this new UN organ, founded by a UN General Assembly resolution on December 21, 2016, which organ they term “the Mechanism” is stated on its website to be to assist in the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes in Syria since 2011, to collect and share evidence, prepare files for prosecution in national or international tribunals and to bring about justice for the victims of war crimes.

Yet nowhere on its website will you find any mention of the crimes committed by the very powers that organized the creation and funding of this Mechanism nor the crimes of the various forces attacking the Syrian government and civilians whether mercenaries or ISIS or their supporters. You will find nothing on American war crimes. You will find nothing on the laying waste of an entire country to achieve western imperial and colonial ambitions, nothing on what they have done to the city of Raqqa.

It appears from reading the resolutions and speeches of the founders of the mechanism that it was a reaction to their failed attempts to use the Security Council to refer alleged war crimes in Syria to the International Criminal Court. Syria is not a party to the Rome Treaty and so crimes committed there by whatever party are outside its jurisdiction. Some claim that the statute of the ICC allows the court to take on jurisdiction by means of a reference sent to it by the Security Council. In my opinion the Statute cannot be interpreted that way. The Security Council can only refer cases to the ICC over which it already has jurisdiction. But in any case Russia blocked resolutions by the US, UK and others to refer matters to the ICC because they contained references only to alleged Syrian government crimes and not the crimes of the referring parties. Russia recognized the game being played and would have none of it. Since the ICC gambit failed the governments hostile to Syria have created another gambit, the Mechanism, to achieve the same purpose.

I was asked in a recent interview whether the US and its allies will ever face justice for their crimes. My reply, based on my experience with the ad hoc UN tribunals the ICTY and ICTR and the ICC itself, was that they will never because those organs provide those countries with complete immunity from prosecution and further, provide a cover and encouragement for their crimes. The prosecutors of the ad hoc tribunals and their “outreach” programmes, funded by George Soros, bragged that there was no impunity for war criminals, yet that is exactly what they gave to the main war criminals in those wars. They gave impunity to NATO for its crimes with respect to its attack on Yugoslavia and with regard to Rwanda, gave impunity to the present dictatorship in Rwanda and its US, Canadian, British, Belgian and Ugandan allies. The ICC does the same, targeting only Africans standing in the way of western economic and strategic interests. The rest of Africa’s criminals, the worst being Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame, are protected from prosecution as are all the criminals leading the NATO and allied countries and their military forces. The Mechanism carries on this protection racket of the wests war criminals by in essence acting as a propaganda tool to provide them with further pretexts for war.

For if they were serious about making everyone accountable for war crimes in Syria surely they would be demanding that the United States of America, Britain and France be held accountable for the wanton destruction of a city; Raqqa.

There have been many articles and news items on the devastation wreaked on Raqqa and its people in 2017 and since. I’m not going to go over the long list of dead civilians, destroyed buildings, the destruction of Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Arabic culture, for such an inferno can only be described by those who lived through it. But what is clear is that almost the entire city was leveled primarily by American forces in what even Amnesty International calls, in the title of its report on the destruction of Raqqa:

WAR OF ANNIHILATION.’

The Report, subtitled “Devastating Toll on Civilians,” and available on their website, goes on to state,

The four-month military operation carried out by the US-led Coalition to oust the armed group calling itself Islamic State (IS) from the Syrian city of Raqqa, killed hundreds of civilians, injured many more and destroyed much of the city…. Eight months on, the Coalition remains in denial about the human tragedy resulting from its military campaign and the victims have received neither justice nor reparation. Amnesty International is urging Coalition members to promptly and impartially investigate allegations of international law violations and civilian casualties. They must provide reparation to the victims and adequate assistance for the desperately needed demining and reconstruction work.

“In all the cases detailed in this report, Coalition forces launched air strikes on buildings full of civilians using wide-area effect munitions, which could be expected to destroy the buildings. In all four cases, the civilians killed and injured in the attacks, including many women and children, had been staying in the buildings for long periods prior to the strikes. Had Coalition forces conducted rigorous surveillance prior to the strikes, they would have been aware of their presence. Amnesty International found no information indicating that IS fighters were present in the buildings when they were hit and survivors and witnesses to these strikes were not aware of IS fighters in the vicinity of the houses at the time of the strikes. Even had IS fighters been present, it would not have justified the targeting of these civilian dwellings with munitions expected to cause such extensive destruction.”

But it was not just air strikes that levelled the city to rubble and killed the people in it. AI states that the US Marines from the 11th and 24th Marine Expeditionary Units equipped with long range heavy artillery used M777 Mortars to “rain down 155mm artillery fire upon the city. The US military was the only Coalition partner with artillery capacity and was therefore responsible for all artillery fire into the city. …US marines launched tens of thousands of artillery shells into and around Raqqa.” And “The Coalition launched tens of thousands of airstrikes on Raqqa. American planes carried out ninety per cent of the strikes. The British and French did the rest.

Tens of thousands of strikes and heavy artillery bombardments over a period of a four months, from July to October 2017, the use of white phosphorus, a banned weapon, thousands killed, a city destroyed and for what, no one seems to know, except there exists a ruthless contempt for the norms of civilized behaviour and international law in the governments and armed forces of the “coalition” of gangster states that are committing theses crimes. The fact that the situation in Raqqa could have bee resolved without all this death and destruction is lost in history. The offers by the Syrians, by the Russians to negotiate with the occupying ISIS forces, were all rejected out of hand by the invading US and proxy forces.

At the end of October 2017, the government of Syria issued a statement that said:

″Syria considers the claims of the United States and its so-called alliance about the liberation of Raqqa city from ISIS to be lies aiming to divert international public opinion from the crimes committed by this alliance in Raqqa province…. more than 90% of Raqqa city has been leveled due to the deliberate and barbaric bombardment of the city and the towns near it by the alliance, which also destroyed all services and infrastructures and forced tens of thousands of locals to leave the city and become refugees. Syria still considers Raqqa to be an occupied city, and it can only be considered liberated when the Syrian Arab Army enters it.”

Source: Antiwar.com

The truth remains that war crimes were committed on a vast scale and there can be no doubt that the majority of them arose from the American adoption of Hitler’s Nazi war machine conception of ‘total war’, with which its aggressive wars are waged. We saw what they did in Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, in Libya. In ‘total war’ the moral ideals underlying the conventions which seek to make war somehow more humane, such as the requirement of proportionality of means in light of objectives and the corresponding requirement that a distinction be made between combatants and civilians, with civilians to be protected at all costs, are no longer regarded as having force or validity. Everything is made subordinate to the overmastering dictates of war. Rules, regulations, assurances, and treaties all alike are of no importance whatsoever, and so, freed from the restraining influence of international law, their aggressive war is conducted with unbridled barbarism. Accordingly, war crimes are committed when and wherever they think them to be advantageous.

The laws about protection of civilians in war and using proportional force are universally known. They are even contained in the US Army Military Law of War Manual which sets out the governing international law at length. They are the contained in Geneva Conventions, and the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Military necessity cannot override those laws. But there is something that overrides the laws agreed upon between civilized nations, aggression. Once that crime is committed the rest follow, a truism established as a principle of international justice at the Nuremberg Tribunals in 1946. And so we must add a further crime to the indictment against the United States and its allies, an aggravating circumstance to the American crimes, the crime of aggression against Syria, the invasion and occupation that led directly lead to the crimes committed in Raqqa. Yet where is the Mechanism? Search as you might I can find no mention of Raqqa, nor of American aggression in their materials, not a word of their crimes in Syria.

But many have said this and nothing happens to these criminals. As Canadian Law Professor Michael Mandel wrote in his book How America Gets Away With Murder, the system is rigged in their favour. They control the show and all the levers that control the show. Mandel found that out the hard way when, in 1999, he led our group of lawyers that filed war crimes charges against NATO with Louise Arbour, then the prosecutor of the Yugoslavia tribunal, who refused to do anything against them and instead acted as their agent, and has been rewarded with one position after another, several in the UN system. And “so it goes” as Kurt Vonnegut expressed it in his novel describing what they did to Dresden in the Second World War. And so it goes as their screaming planes sweep low with bombs caressed by taloned wings.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Why Do We Need a National-Security State?

November 2nd, 2018 by Jacob G. Hornberger

Given President Trump’s impulsive decision to suddenly send 5,200 armed U.S. soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent a few thousand women and children and others from seeking refugee status in the United States, which foreign citizens are entitled to do under U.S. law, a question naturally arises with respect to those troops: What were they doing before they were sent to the border?

The answer is: Nothing, at least nothing productive.

Oh sure, one can say that they were training to kill more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Africa, or other parts of the world. Or they might have been preparing an invasion of some other country in the world. Or they might be figuring out how to best enforce the embargoes and sanctions against the people of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and elsewhere.

But how can any of that possibly be considered productive? None of the people they are killing are attacking and invading the United States. Neither are the governments in the countries in which the victims are citizens. Moreover, the constant, never-ending killing brings the constant, never-ending danger of terrorist blowback against the United States, which U.S. officials then use as an excuse to destroy further our own freedom and privacy here at home.

How is that productive?

The sanctions and embargoes do nothing but bring death, suffering, impoverishment, and misery to the people in countries who happen to find themselves living under a regime that U.S. officials don’t like. By targeting the citizenry in those countries, U.S. officials are hoping that the targeted people will initiate a violent revolution that will oust their regime from power and install one that is acceptable to U.S. officials. But such a revolution would only bring more death and suffering, along with more anger and hatred against the United States.

How is that productive?

Our American ancestors had it right: No U.S. government meddling in the affairs of other countries. No foreign wars. No foreign aid. No sanctions or embargoes. No U.S.-inspired coups. No wars of aggression. No torture. No rendition. No alliances. No partnerships with dictatorships.

Such being the case, there was no need for a giant military-industrial-congressional complex. Yes, there was an army for the first 100 years of U.S. history but it was a relatively small army. Large enough to defeat Indian tribes and even defeat Mexico in a war but nowhere large enough to invade and occupy European and Asian countries, intervene in their forever conflicts, or initiate wars of aggression against them.

There was also no need for a CIA or NSA or vast military-industrial-congressional complex. In fact, if the proponents of the Constitution had told our American ancestors that they were bringing into existence a government that had the omnipotent power to take them into custody, hold them forever without a trial, torture them, spy on them, experiment on them, and assassinate them, they never would have approved the Constitution. We would still be operating under the Articles of Confederation, where the federal government’s powers were so weak it didn’t even have the power to tax. Our American ancestors liked it that way.

Let’s assume that we were to bring all U.S. troops home from everywhere, including Germany, Korea, Japan, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Afghanistan, Cuba, and everywhere else.

What would we need them for? We obviously wouldn’t need them at all given that they would have been engaged in actions overseas that were no longer being engaged in. They could all be discharged into the private sector. That would be doubly positive: No longer would citizens be taxed to fund what is essentially a military welfare dole, but also all those former soldiers would now be in the private sector producing wealth rather than living off of a tax-funded military dole

But then the question arise with respect to the troops here at home: Why do we need the vast military-industrial-congressional complex? What do we need all those domestic military bases for? Just because cities that have military bases are scared of losing their military welfare dole? What do we need all those domestic troops for? What do we need the CIA for? What do we need the NSA for?

One of the legitimate purposes of government is the military defense of the nation. But there is no danger whatsoever that any foreign regime is going to invade and conquer the United States. No foreign regime has the money, the troops, the weaponry, the supplies, the transports, or even the desire to invade and conquer the United States. Don’t forget: Hitler, despite Germany’s powerful military machine, couldn’t even cross the English Channel to invade England. Crossing the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean with the millions of troops that would be necessary to successfully invade and conquer the United States would be a virtual impossibility, especially when we consider the supply lines necessary for such an enormous endeavor.

So, the question again arises: What do all those troops do on a daily basis on all those military bases that are strung out all over the United States? They’re clearly not protecting American cities from Indian (i.e., Native-American) attacks because that danger was eliminated a long time ago. And they’re clearly not protecting the United States from an invasion or conquest because no such danger exists. So what do all those soldiers do on a daily basis — that is, when they are not being sent to the border to possibly shoot women and children and other prospective refugees?

They practice shooting or they training new recruits how to kill. They are training them how to march — left-faces, right-faces, and to the rear. They clean their rifles. They maintain their vehicles. They learn how to drive tanks or fly military aircraft. They do bureaucracy-type work. They do lots of paperwork.  They collect their paychecks, which come from taxes the IRS collects from people’s income. They go to work and they return home. It’s all so mundane and unnecessary. And none of it is productive. That is, it does not produce wealth in American society. Instead, it drains wealth from society in the form of taxation to fund all this unnecessary and unproductive activity.

The biggest mistake the United States ever made was to convert the U.S. government from a limited-government republic into a national-security state.  The Founding Fathers and the Framers had it right. The best thing that the American people could ever do is dismantle their national-security state governmental structure and restore a limited-government republic to our land. That would naturally entail the dismantling, not the reform, of the NSA, CIA, Pentagon, and what former President Eisenhower labeled the military-industrial-congressional complex.

*

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

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

To All Active Duty Soldiers:

Your Commander-in-chief is lying to you. You should refuse his orders to deploy to the southern U.S. border should you be called to do so. Despite what Trump and his administration are saying, the migrants moving North towards the U.S. are not a threat. These small numbers of people are escaping intense violence. In fact, much of the reason these men and women—with families just like yours and ours—are fleeing their homes is because of the US meddling in their country’s elections. Look no further than Honduras, where the Obama administration supported the overthrow of a democratically elected president who was then replaced by a repressive dictator.

These extremely poor and vulnerable people are desperate for peace.  Who among us would walk a thousand miles with only the clothes on our back without great cause? The odds are good that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. lived similar experiences to these migrants. Your family members came to the U.S. to seek a better life—some fled violence. Consider this as you are asked to confront these unarmed men, women and children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. To do so would be the ultimate hypocrisy.

The U.S. is the richest country in the world, in part because it has exploited countries in Latin America for decades. If you treat people from these countries like criminals, as Trump hopes you will, you only contribute to the legacy of pillage and plunder beneath our southern border. We need to confront this history together, we need to confront the reality of America’s wealth and both share and give it back with these people. Above all else, we cannot turn them away at our door. They will die if we do.

By every moral or ethical standard it is your duty to refuse orders to “defend” the U.S. from these migrants.  History will look kindly upon you if you do. There are tens of thousands of us who will support your decision to lay your weapons down. You are better than your Commander-in-chief. Our only advice is to resist in groups. Organize with your fellow soldiers. Do not go this alone. It is much harder to punish the many than the few.

In solidarity,

Rory Fanning
Former U.S. Army Ranger, War-Resister
Spenser Rapone
Former U.S. Army Ranger and Infantry Officer, War-Resister

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

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

Rory Fanning, following two deployments to Afghanistan with the 2nd Army Ranger Battalion, became one of the first U.S. Army Rangers to resist the Iraq war and the Global War on Terror. In 2008–2009 he walked across the United States for the Pat Tillman foundation.

Spenser Rapone is a former officer in the U.S. Army and the co-host of the EyesLeft podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @punkproletarian

New Iran Sanctions Risk Long-term US Isolation

November 2nd, 2018 by Patrick Lawrence

The next step in the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran comes this Sunday, Nov. 4, when the most severe sanctions will be imposed on the Islamic Republic. Crucially, they apply not only to Iran but to anyone who continues to do business with it.

It’s not yet clear how disruptive this move will be. While the U.S. intention is to isolate Iran, it is the U.S. that could wind up being more isolated. It depends on the rest of the world’s reaction, and especially Europe’s.

The issue is so fraught that disputes over how to apply the new sanctions have even divided Trump administration officials.

The administration is going for the jugular this time. It wants to force Iranian exports of oil and petrochemical products down to as close to zero as possible. As the measures are now written, they also exclude Iran from the global interbank system known as SWIFT.

It is hard to say which of these sanctions is more severe. Iran’s oil exports have already started falling. They peaked at 2.7 million barrels a day last May—just before Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation accord governing Iran’s nuclear programs. By early September oil exports were averaging a million barrels a day less.

In August the U.S. barred Iran’s purchases of U.S.-dollar denominated American and foreign company aircraft and auto parts. Since then the Iranian rial has crashed to record lows and inflation has risen above 30 percent.

Revoking Iran’s SWIFT privileges will effectively cut the nation out of the dollar-denominated global economy. But there are moves afoot, especially by China and Russia, to move away from a dollar-based economy.

The SWIFT issue has caused infighting in the administration between Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser who is among the most vigorous Iran hawks in the White House. Mnuchin might win a temporary delay or exclusions for a few Iranian financial institutions, but probably not much more.

On Sunday, the second round of sanctions will kick in since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Obama administration-backed, nuclear agreement, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for stringent controls on its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly certified that the deal is working and the other signatories—Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia have not pulled out and have resumed trading with Iran. China and Russia have already said they will ignore American threats to sanction it for continuing economic relations with Iran. The key question is what will America’s European allies do?

Europeans React

Europe has been unsettled since Trump withdrew in May from the nuclear accord. The European Union is developing a trading mechanism to get around U.S. sanctions. Known as a Special Purpose Vehicle, it would allow European companies to use a barter system similar to how Western Europe traded with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Screengrab from Reuters

EU officials have also been lobbying to preserve Iran’s access to global interbank operations by excluding the revocation of SWIFT privileges from Trump’s list of sanctions. They count Mnuchin, who is eager to preserve U.S. influence in the global trading system, among their allies. Some European officials, including Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, propose making the euro a global trading currency to compete with the dollar.

Except for Charles de Gaulle briefly pulling France out of NATO in 1967 and Germany and France voting on the UN Security Council against the U.S. invading Iraq in 2003, European nations have been subordinate to the U.S. since the end of the Second World War.

The big European oil companies, unwilling to risk the threat of U.S. sanctions, have already signaled they intend to ignore the EU’s new trade mechanism. Total SA, the French petroleum company and one of Europe’s biggest, pulled out of its Iran operations several months ago.

Earlier this month a U.S. official confidently predicted there would be little demand among European corporations for the proposed barter mechanism.

Whether Europe succeeds in efforts to defy the U.S. on Iran is nearly beside the point from a long-term perspective. Trans-Atlantic damage has already been done. A rift that began to widen during the Obama administration seems about to get wider still.

Asia Reacts

Asian nations are also exhibiting resistance to the impending U.S. sanctions. It is unlikely they could absorb all the exports Iran will lose after Nov. 4, but they could make a significant difference. China, India, and South Korea are the first, second, and third-largest importers of Iranian crude; Japan is sixth. Asian nations may also try to work around the U.S. sanctions regime after Nov. 4.

India is considering purchases of Iranian crude via a barter system or denominating transactions in rupees. China, having already said it would ignore the U.S. threat, would like nothing better than to expand yuan-denominated oil trading, and this is not a hard call: It is in a protracted trade war with the U.S., and an oil-futures market launched in Shanghai last spring already claims roughly 14 percent of the global market for “front-month” futures—contracts covering shipments closest to delivery.

As with most of the Trump administration’s foreign policies, we won’t know how the new sanctions will work until they are introduced. There could be waivers for nations such as India; Japan is on record asking for one. The E.U.’s Special Purpose Vehicle could prove at least a modest success at best, but this remains uncertain. Nobody is sure who will win the administration’s internal argument over SWIFT.

Long-term Consequences for the U.S.

The de-dollarization of the global economy is gradually gathering momentum. The orthodox wisdom in the markets has long been that competition with the dollar from other currencies will eventually prove a reality, but it will not be one to arrive in our lifetimes. But with European and Asian reactions to the imminent sanctions against Iran it could come sooner than previously thought.

The coalescing of emerging powers into a non-Western alliance —most significantly China, Russia, India, and Iran—starts to look like another medium-term reality. This is driven by practical rather than ideological considerations, and the U.S. could not do more to encourage this if it tried. When Washington withdrew from the Iran accord, Moscow and Beijing immediately pledged to support Tehran by staying with its terms.If the U.S. meets significant resistance, especially from its allies, it could be a turning-point in post-Word War II U.S. dominance.

Supposedly Intended for New Talks

All this is intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table for a rewrite of what Trump often calls “the worst deal ever.” Tehran has made it clear countless times it has no intention of reopening the pact, given that it has consistently adhered to its terms and that the other signatories to the deal are still abiding by it.

The U.S. may be drastically overplaying its hand and could pay the price with additional international isolation that has worsened since Trump took office.

Washington has been on a sanctions binge for years. Those about to take effect seem recklessly broad. This time, the U.S. risks lasting alienation even from those allies that have traditionally been its closest.

*

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

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist.

Featured image is from Sprott Money.

Indigenous communities on agro-industrial frontier declare state of environmental and territorial emergency amidst land grabs and deforestation.

Communities in the Bajo Huallaga area of the Peruvian Amazon declared an “environmental and territorial emergency” on 16 September this year following serious and ongoing impacts on their natural resources, territories and inhabitants caused by land grabs and deforestation of their lands by loggers and palm oil companies.

The decision to declare a state of emergency was taken at an emergency general assembly of the 14 base communities of the Federation of Kichwa Indigenous Peoples of Bajo Huallaga, San Martin (FEPIKBHSAM). The assembly took place in Puerto Mercedes (Papaplaya district of the San Martin province), home to one of the indigenous communities hardest-hit by the clearance and burning of the forest. The community holds the palm oil company, Palmas de Huallaga, responsible for destroying and clearing their forests for oil palm cultivation, and their operations are alleged to have spread into the neighbouring region of Loreto.

It is not only oil palm expansion driving deforestation and violating territorial rights across Bajo Huallaga. In another area of the territory, Santa Rosillo de Yanayaku (Huimbayoc), illegal loggers are harming community forests, causing rights violations and destroying the community’s hopes for sustainable development, while the community of Anak Kurutuyaku report that unknown persons are illegally cultivating coca for drug production within their lands.

Community members have reported these violations to the Specialised Environmental Prosecutor of Alto Amazonas in Yurimaguas on several occasions, yet in the case of Santa Rosillo, the Prosecutor has failed to attend three planned investigations.

Even as community members have spoken out about the territorial threats they face , those opposing these activities are being made to pay a high cost: in September 2018, the apu (chief) of Santa Rosillo, Manuel Inuma Alvarado, was beaten and has received death threats for opposing the illegal loggers clearing forests with impunity in his community’s territory.

“The titling of our territories is key to protecting forests, since it is we indigenous peoples who have been inhabiting and guarding these territories since before the creation of the Peruvian State.”

“These events only reinforce the indigenous movement’s stance on the central importance of collective titling in order to secure indigenous peoples’ territories and continued existence,” said Elias Sinty, president of the Federation, FEPIKBHSAM.

“At the same time, the titling of our territories is key to protecting forests, since it is we indigenous peoples who have been inhabiting and guarding these territories since before the creation of the Peruvian State.”

The regional indigenous organisation, the Council of Indigenous Peoples of San Martin (CODEPISAM), and its members, are currently setting up  a technical working group to resolve violations against its members, focusing on both environmental and territorial issues, especially the need for indigenous lands to be titled and reforms and measures to be put in place to legally recognise their rights over their forests.

The communities which make up FEPIKBHSAM are now calling upon the Peruvian Government to address their situation and follow them in officially declaring their lands to be in a state of environmental and territorial emergency. This would involve a cross-sectoral government agreement to direct resources towards effectively addressing the problems highlighted in Bajo Huallaga through a series of time-limited measures. In particular, FEPIKBHSAM are urgently calling for the communal titling of the entirety of their ancestral territory.

Until now, none of the 14 communities belonging to the federation have been titled in recognition of their property rights over their ancestral territories, despite the Peruvian State’s obligations to do so.

FEPIKBHSAM has indicated that they will continue to highlight how these violations are allowed to take place through flawed policies and inadequate legal protections. This fails to uphold their rights and leaves their territories open to logging, agribusiness, mining, the drugs trade and exclusionary conservation initiatives.  FEPIKBHSAM stresses how the creation of the Cordillera Escalera Regional Conservation Area and the Cordillera Azul National Park, without prior consultation, constitutes a further ongoing violation of their rights as indigenous peoples, including their rights to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent.

As FEPIKBHSAM await a response through the newly-formed working group to the territorial demands of their base communities, they hope that the government will take this opportunity to create policies which respect indigenous peoples’ rights and territories, and thus bring an end to the declared state of environmental emergency faced by the communities

*

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

Featured image is from Forest Peoples Programme.

At 12:01 on November 1, North and South Korea began a halt to land, air, and sea military exercises and began the operation of a designated no-fly zone along the military demarcation line (MDL). The measures are in line with September’s Agreement on the Implementation of the Historic Panmunjom Declaration in the Military Domain, signed by the two Koreas’ defense ministers on the sidelines of the fifth inter-Korean summit in Pyongyang.

NK News reports:

The two Koreas previously agreed to halt live-fire artillery drills and field training exercises (FTX) at the regiment level five kilometers from the MDL. At sea, both sides have stopped all live-fire and maritime maneuvers within 80 kilometer buffer zones on the east and west coast. The two sides will install covers on the the barrels of coastal artillery and ship guns and close all gunports within the designated zone.

The two sides are also expected to remove all guard posts from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) by the end of November. Starting next month, after the completion of a joint inspection by the two Koreas and the US-led UN Command, the Joint Security Area of the DMZ is expected open for people to move about freely between the north and south sides for the first time in sixty-five years.

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review.

At their annual Security Consultative Meeting, held in Washington DC on October 31, the South Korean and US defense chiefs signed the “Guiding Principles Following the Transition of Wartime Operational Control,” which says US Forces in Korea and the Combined Forces Command will remain in South Korea even after the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) to South Korea.

South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo and US Defense Secretary James Mattis agreed,

“the contributions of the ROK – U.S. Alliance are to continue into the future, carrying on the spirit of the ROK- U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty to prevent armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, promote peace and stability in Northeast Asia, and contribute to global peace.”

According to the agreement, after OPCON transfer, South Korea will appoint a General or an Admiral to serve as the Commander of the Combined Forces Command (CFC), and the United States will appoint a General or an Admiral to serve as its deputy commander. Currently, a U.S. general serves as the commander of the CFC and a South Korean general serves as its deputy commander.

OPCON transfer is expected to be completed before the end of President Moon Jae-in’s term in office.

The full text of the “Guiding Principles Following the Transition of Wartime Operational Control” can be here.

The full text of the Joint Communiqué of the 50th U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting can be read here.

South Korean defense minister says THAAD deployment will be permanent

South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo announced the country will formalize the deployment of the controversial U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system once the necessary Environmental Impact Assessment is completed. The Peace Committee to Stop THAAD Deployment denounced the Moon Jae-in administration for “ignoring law and order to bring in strategic weapons for the U.S. missile defense system, which has no place in the vision for peace on the Korean Peninsula.”

*

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

In the past month, Brazil’s first indigenous woman was voted to Congress while the nation’s newly elected President is expected to pursue assimilation policies toward indigenous peoples and seek an end to demarcations of their lands and protections to the environment. 

In a historic advance for indigenous peoples in Brazil, on 7 October indigenous lawyer, Joênia Wapixana (officially Joênia Batista de Carvalho of the Wapixana indigenous peoples) was elected to the Chamber of Deputies.  Ms. Wapixana is not a stranger to firsts.  She has been piercing through ceilings all her life.  She was the first indigenous person to graduate from law school in Brazil.  In 2008 she was the first indigenous lawyer to speak in front of the Supreme Federal Court in the famous case of the Raposa Serra do Sol indigenous lands in Roraima (an indigenous territory of approximately 1.678.800 hectares).  Her notoriety goes beyond national borders.  For years the Congresswoman has been championing the human rights of indigenous peoples internationally, both at the United Nations and the Organization of American States.  For over a decade and a half, together with Forest Peoples Programme, the Congresswoman has been representing the Macuxi, Wapichana, Taurepang, Ingaricó and Patamona indigenous peoples of Raposa Serra do Sol in their Petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The Congresswoman, now bringing the hopes of over 900,000 indigenous peoples of the nation, has vowed that she will continue to fight for the respect of indigenous peoples’ rights and their increased participation in the decisions that affect them.  With the growing threat to indigenous peoples and sustainable development posed by the agribusinesses that has a foothold in Brazil’s Congress, one of her priorities will be the repeal of the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC 2015) that intends to transfer the final decision on the demarcation of indigenous lands and territories from the executive agency, FUNAI, to the legislature.

The Congresswoman’s many efforts on behalf of indigenous peoples and the environment in Brazil will face great challenges not just from Congress, but from the Executive.  The same nation that wisely gave her a seat, also elected Jair Bolsonaro of the Social Liberal Party (PSL) to the Presidency.  Throughout his campaign, President Bolsonaro was outspoken in his desire to expand development into the Amazon and recognize not one inch more of indigenous lands.

Bolsonaro has touted his intent to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change accords, cease expansions of and new demarcations of indigenous lands, and remove regulations making it easier for licensing and concessioning for the expansion of agricultural and mining interests and hydroelectric dams — regardless of the risks to Brazil’s coveted rainforests and the rights of indigenous peoples.

There is no doubt that environmentalist and human rights activist in Brazil will need to redouble efforts in the coming years. They will need to work together even harder to protect what they have secured to date and continue to demand progress. Like Joenia Wapixana, however, these groups are no stranger to challenges.  More so, they now will have a new ally in Congress – an indigenous woman whose achievements are a constant reminder that what seems impossible today is just tomorrow eventual victory.

*

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

Featured image is from FPP.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bolsonaro and Indigenous Rights in Brazil: A Glimmer of Hope in Difficult Times

A new round of vote at the United Nations on Cuba’s resolution “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba” has just ended. [1] This was the 27th year in a row that Cuba submits this resolution and for the 27th time the resolution is voted overwhelmingly in favour: 189 voted in support, 2 against (United States and Israel), zero abstentions. [2]

In an attempt to sway the vote against the resolution, this year the US surprisingly introduced eight aggressive amendments forcing the UN General Assembly to debate them. This was a manipulative tactic to compel a discussion on the issue of human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals in Cuba. 

US delegate at the UN, Nikki Haley tweeted the day before:

“Tomorrow, the UN will listen to what we have to say about it [Cuba’s resolution] and the countries will have to vote between Cuba and the United States. Who will vote with us?”

Evidently only Israel.

Despite the fact that Cuban foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, noted that there are other bodies of the UN where it would be more appropriate to seriously debate such issues, the amendments were allowed but, following Cuba’s prompt proposal, the Assembly voted that two thirds of the votes would be required to pass the amendments. All eight amendments were defeated. Only the US, Israel and Ukraine voted in favor. 

That sealed the US isolation on what the Iranian delegate called the “pathological tendency of the United States” in relation to Cuba. Nikki Haley admitted that the US is alone in its policy towards Cuba, and then stated, “We have no problems in being alone.” And so they are.

We must read in this UN vote not only Cuba’s steadfast determination to its legitimate right to sovereignty and self determination, but also the implicit rejection by virtually all nations to sanctions and financial blockades by the US for violating the basic principle of non intervention established in the UN Charter.

Nevertheless, the US delegate made the US doctrine of exceptionalism in international relations evident when she admitted,

“The United Nations does not have the power to end the embargo [blockade] against Cuba.”

That is unfortunately true but it reveals the bully behavior of her government.

On the other hand, prior to the vote, Bruno Rodriguez delivered a speech that brought home the economic implications of the blockade,

“Calculated at current prices, the blockade has caused damages for more than 134 thousand 499 million 800 thousand dollars. Only in the last year, this siege caused losses to Cuba in the order of four thousand 321 million 200 thousand dollars.”

In relation to human rights, he pointed at the US saying,

“The United States is the author of human rights violations against its own citizens, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, minorities, refugees and migrants.” 

He went on to say,

“The US Government does not have the least moral authority to criticize Cuba or anyone else in terms of human rights. We reject the repeated manipulation of these for political purposes and the double standards that characterize it.” 

And addressing the US added,

“The United States is only part of 30% of Human Rights instruments. No one can be surprised that you have left the Human Rights Council.”

In reference to the blockade specifically, Bruno Rodriguez stated,

“The blockade constitutes a flagrant, massive and systematic violation of the human rights of Cubans, and has been and is an essential impediment to the welfare and prosperity aspirations of several generations.” “The blockade is against the Charter of the United Nations and its extraterritorial application harms all States.”

Image result for Miguel Diaz-Canel

His address was inspiring and strong.

“Cubans will continue to freely decide their internal affairs in close unity, as at present in the popular debate of the draft of the new Constitution and, later in the referendum to adopt it.” 

“There is no room for interference from a foreign power.”

At the news of the outcome of the UN vote on the US blockade against Cuba the president of Cuba, Miguel Diaz-Canel (image on the right), succinctly stated,

“The world is with Cuba.”

*

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

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and writer based in Vancouver, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” http://www.cubasolidarityincanada.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Full text of Cuba’s Report on Resolution 72/4 of the United Nations General Assembly: http://misiones.minrex.gob.cu/en/articulo/full-text-cubas-report-resolution-724-united-nations-general-assembly-entitled-necessity Download PDF file in Spanish here: http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/sites/default/files/InformeBloqueo2018/informe_cubavsbloqueo2018interactivo.pdf 

[2] http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/en/unga-voting-records

Featured image is from The UN Web TV.

The method of warfare fought by Hitler’s forces in the Soviet Union would, before long, come back to haunt them. By pursuing a conflict in extreme ideological terms against Russia, it steeled the Red Army’s resolve in overcoming the “fascist hordes” at whatever cost.

Hitler had titled his march eastwards “Operation Barbarossa”, named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a red-bearded Prussian emperor who centuries before had waged war against the Slavs.

In Soviet territory, Hitler demanded his men undertake “war of annihilation” procedures. These murderous assaults eventually rebounded onto the Germans, who were dealt little mercy as they themselves had shown. By indiscriminately targeting Soviet soldiers and civilians, the Nazis were already sowing the seeds of their own defeat, though they did not yet know it.

A proportion of the USSR’s citizens, such as those in the Ukraine, had welcomed the Germans as gallant saviors releasing them at last from Stalin’s iron grip. The July and August 1941 arrival onto Ukrainian lands of Hitler’s young, undefeated foot soldiers – some golden-haired and many bronzed from the glowing sun – had indeed seduced certain Ukrainian civilians.

As German troops pushed deeper into the lush wheatfields of the Ukraine, growing numbers came forth from country homesteads to warmly greet their apparent rescuers. The ancient offering of bread and salt was graciously provided to Nazi infantrymen, as were flowers.

Joseph Goebbels‘ propaganda machine was working away seamlessly too. German officers, standing upon platforms in town squares, were handing out large color posters to civilians of an aristocratic-looking Führer, dressed in full military attire, and staring imperiously across his shoulder into the distance. At the bottom of each poster a caption in Ukrainian read, “Hitler the Liberator”.

To some in the Ukraine that is how it seemed, in the beginning at least. During that long, fateful summer of 1941, as the world watched on in wonder, it looked like nothing would ever stop the Germans in their advance towards Russia’s great cities. From the 22 June attack, after just a week of fighting, the Wehrmacht was already halfway to the capital Moscow. Such news sent Hitler into raptures at his Wolf’s Lair headquarters in East Prussia, whose construction had been completed hours before the invasion.

Towards the end of July 1941, following a month of combat, the Nazis had claimed an area double the size of their own country. It was a scale of victory that would have subdued any other European country.

Before too long, however, the severity of Hitler’s policies would turn the smiling villagers into wary adversaries of the German Reich. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Hitler’s right arm during the war years, noted that when the dictator firmly set his mind on a decision, he would follow it through to the end. So it would be in this ideological conflict quickly descending into hatred.

Early in 1941, Hitler had said of the impending Russian attack,

“You have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down”.

After more than three months of fighting, Hitler insisted during his Berlin Sportpalast speech of 3 October 1941 that,

“this enemy [Russia] is already broken and will never rise again”.

The Nazi leader further outlined that his soldiers were,

“fighting on a front of gigantic length and against an enemy who, I must say, does not consist of human beings but of animals or beasts. We have now seen what Bolshevism can make of human beings”.

In the Ukraine, Hitler’s war of ruin served only to swell partisan numbers, while sending floods of Ukrainian men to the ranks of Soviet Armies – millions would inevitably join Stalin’s forces. The Nazi enslavement of countless Ukrainians by turning them into medieval laborers also disillusioned the society, while large-scale murders of the Jewish population drew much horror.

Operation Barbarossa Infobox.jpg

Clockwise from top left: German soldiers advance through Northern Russia, German flamethrower team in the Soviet Union, Soviet planes flying over German positions near Moscow, Soviet prisoners of war on the way to German prison camps, Soviet soldiers fire at German positions. (Source: CC BY-SA 3.0)

Had the invasion been conducted through avoidance of these mass killings, such as in the manner of Germany’s 1940 offensive against France, it may have weakened the Soviet soldiers’ fortitude. Hitler and his followers viewed the French racial composition as of a superior creed, however.

By directing an inhumane warfare in the east, it was impossible for the Nazis to convince local inhabitants theirs was a just motive. Sympathy swept behind the Soviet cause, and even towards Stalin himself, whose Great Purge remained fresh in the memory.

Some short years after the Second World War – across in the Caribbean – a critical factor allowing Cuba’s revolutionary, Fidel Castro, to claim power in the heartland of American dominion was the form of warfare he pursued. Castroite forces avoided the depredations of conflict witnessed elsewhere, such as wanton murder and torture. In turn, this clean conduct of battle diluted the fighting desire of Castro’s opponents, while bolstering his reputation among the Cuban people.

Of Hitler’s troops Castro noted they,

“didn’t let any Bolsheviks escape with their lives, and I really don’t know how the people in the Soviet resistance might have treated the Nazis who fell prisoner. I don’t think they could do what we did [let prisoners go]. If they turned one of those fascists loose, the next day he’d be killing Soviet men, women and children again”.

Castro’s units were battling the soldiers of Fulgencio Batista – a corrupt dictator who since 1952 was sustained mostly by American financial might. Despite the rebels being eternally outnumbered against Batista, by the late 1950s they had gathered crucial momentum.

Castro said his compliance of the laws of war, apart from its ethical aspect, was also,

“a psychological factor of great importance. When an enemy comes to respect and even admire their adversary, you’ve won a psychological victory… I once said to those who accused us of violating human rights, ‘I defy you to find a single case of extra-judicial execution; I defy you to find a single case of torture’… I say to you that no war is ever won through terrorism. It’s that simple, because if you employ terrorism you earn the opposition, hatred and rejection of those whom you need in order to win the war. That’s why we had the support of over 90% of the population in Cuba”.

In the Soviet Union, however, Hitler’s fanaticism failed to recognize the benefits, both moral and emotional, of avoiding arbitrary murder. By engaging in a war of terror, the Nazis delegitimized their purported reason for arriving as “liberators”, which held no basis in reality.

Occasionally, Hitler overcame his ideological mindset by revealing unusual, contradictory viewpoints. On separate instances, he remarked that sections of the Soviet population were racially purer than even that of the Germans.

Even before his attack on Poland, Hitler had said,

“Today the Siberians, the White Russians, and the people of the steppes live extremely healthy lives. For that reason, they are better equipped for development and in the long run biologically superior to the Germans”.

When the war turned in Russia’s favor from early 1943 onward, it was an argument Hitler would put forward with growing consistency.

Previously, in late summer 1940, after the Wehrmacht had routed French armies in the west, Hitler predicted to his generals Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl that, “a campaign against Russia would be child’s play”.

It was a gross misjudgment of what lay ahead. The triumphs the Nazis had enjoyed, from autumn 1939 to the spring of 1941, cannot have been lost on Hitler as he watched German armies sweep to one easy victory after another. The apparent invulnerability of his soldiers emboldened Hitler, making him reckless and foolhardy. It also set a foundation for complacency.

During Albert Speer‘s time as the German armaments minister (1942-45), he oversaw a hugely productive war economy; however, by 1943, as Germany’s weapons industry soared it was by then too late. Speer lamented that his total war strategies had not been implemented from 1940 – he estimated that, utilizing these policies, the German war machine which attacked Russia could perhaps have been twice larger than it was in 1941.

Almost four million Nazi-led units marched eastwards in June 1941, supported by over 3,000 tanks and up to 5,000 aircraft. The Soviets had much greater numbers of both airplanes and tanks, though many models were at that stage of an inferior quality to their German rivals.

Hitler also allowed himself to be misled by faulty military intelligence underestimating Russian strength; he was swayed too by the Soviets’ dismal performance against Finland in the Winter War of 1939. When it came to defending their own soil, the Red Army would be a different proposition.

While Hitler was disregarding Russian capacities, he had forgotten the woes that befell Napoleon during his 1812 invasion of the motherland. The French emperor attacked Russia on 24 June 1812 with almost 700,000 men, then the largest force in history – as early as mid-October 1812 Napoleon was set in retreat, and by December he had lost about 500,000 soldiers. Siberian conditions gnawed away at French hearts, as the Russians fought bitterly, employing scorched earth tactics.

France’s invasion of Russia was the Napoleonic Wars’ bloodiest battle, a turning point whose outcome weakened French hegemony in Europe, while damaging Napoleon’s once infallible reputation. It was a lesson from history that Hitler failed to heed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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.

Featured image: OKH commander Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch and Hitler study maps during the early days of Hitler’s Russian Campaign (Source: Publica Domain)

*Jean-Jacques, a member of one of Cameroon’s Baka Communities in the Ngoyla Mintom area, talks about being driven out of his ancestral forests, and the issues his people face on a daily basis through lack of land rights and lack of access to food, medicine and education.

***

“Life in my Baka community is getting harder and harder. We live mostly from the resources of the forest, and with our forest is increasingly exploited by foresters, and as the state continues to create national parks and reserves, the forest no longer provides us with enough food and medicinal plants. With the introduction of heavy forestry equipment, the game animals have disappeared. Poverty has become established, and we must convert ourselves into farmers, where again we face serious problems linked to land conflicts and lack of land. Our Bantu neighbours hold all the lands. Our rights of use of the forest, land and natural resources are ignored.

“We are a sharing community, and we try to share what we find in the forest to eat. During certain times of the year there is still enough food (wild mango, mushrooms, wild yams, rats, fish, leaves and roots). Since our community is growing, we divide into groups to go camping in the middle of the forest to stock up on food. During these trips, families eat well.

“Every Baka depends and continues to depend on the forest. It is she who makes our identity…She is our soul, without it we have no life, we disappear.”

“But our rights of use of the forest are being prohibited by conservation projects and state services.

“Every Baka depends on, and will continue to depend on, the forest. It is she who makes our identity. All our resources come from her: fruit, leaves, honey, meat, fish, medicinal plants. All our sacred trees, cultures and other traditional rites are practiced in the heart of the forest. God made us the guardians of the forest. She is our soul, without her we have no life, we disappear. This right to worship and to partake in our traditional rituals is increasingly being ignored.

“By driving us out of the forest to make us settle on the side of the roads next to the villages, everything in our community has changed. Our future has been sealed by the public authorities on the basis of an economic and political choice. Our expulsion from the forest has disrupted our lives. There is a real loss of value in our community. Individualism is gaining more and more ground, to the detriment of solidarity and sharing. Healers are losing their knowledge of plants. Generational conflicts, marginalization and poverty have become common. We are facing a great challenge for our survival. All these changes came with the socio-economic and political issues of the day. This right to life is also violated by the public authorities.

“My community works the land, but on a small scale. It must be emphasized that we are not farmers by nature, but hunter-gatherers. Many of us are not yet adapted to the lifestyle of farmers; with the depletion of the resources of the forest and especially because of not being able to freely access the forest, we are obliged to look for other means of survival. There is increasing pressure on my community’s access to land, natural resources and the right to development.”

The main problems we see today in my community are:

  • Lack of Citizenship of the Cameroonian State;
  • Lack of a civil status centre to enable us to enjoy our fundamental rights as citizens as all the rest of the Cameroonian population;
  • Lack of indigenous public institutions;
  • Discrimination in society, in employment and in occupations;
  • Lack of access to appropriate education and lack of schools at all levels;
  • Lack of consultation and participation in the management of public affairs;
  • Marginalization in our access of public services;
  • Lack of access to social and economic development;
  • Lack of access to justice;
  • No access of our young people to employment because of our status as “Pygmies”;
  • Illiteracy of the indigenous population;
  • Land conflicts with our Bantu neighbours and agro-industrialists;
  • Lack of useable land for the fields and buildings of our houses;
  • Lack of primary health services;
  • Violence, detention and arrest, search and torture by ‘eco-guards’ and protected-area officials;
  • Prohibition to practice our traditional activities of survival in the forest, which has become a protected area.

*

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

Note

*Name changed for security purposes.

Featured image is from FPP.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Without Our Forest, We Have No Life, We Disappear”: Cameroon’s Baka Community
  • Tags:

This week the nations that were formerly part of the Transpacific Partnerships Free Trade Deal, that the US refused to join in 2017, concluded their TPP free trade agreement without the US.

Since January 2017 Trump the free trader has set out to negotiate bilateral (country-country) free trade agreements instead. South Korea, Mexico, Canada, in 2018; thereafter Europe (after Brexit next spring) and Japan in 2019; and lastly China. Thus far, all Trump’s bilateral deals have really been only token adjustments to pre-existing US free trade agreements–hyped by Trump falsely as representing major changes as he promotes them to his domestic political base.

In the absence of the US, Japan has served as proxy for the US in continuing the TPP negotiations, now concluded this past week. In coming months and the rest of Trump’s first term, watch for the US under Trump to re-enter the TPP. That re-joining will not be as a signatory to the revised, multilateral TPP just concluded by the other countries. Rather, it will be US re-joining it on a country-by-country, bilateral basis.

It matters little whether the US rejoins multi-laterally or bi-laterally, however. The terms and conditions of TPP will be the same. As Trump negotiates and re-signs free trade deals with Japan, Australia, and the others in 2019, Trump-US will have rejoined TPP de facto,  if not in multi-lateral form. Trump will boast, exaggerate, and lie about the final terms on which the US rejoins, as he has with free trade deals already negotiated. He will claim it will mean more US corporate investment and jobs returning to the US, that will not happen.

The global economy is slowing and the volume of trade is slowing faster than global GDP for the first time in decades. It is a shrinking pie. By shifting to a bilateral approach to free trade and forcing the re-opening of former multi-lateral free trade deals the US had joined in prior years, US corporate America and Trump are seeking to ensure the retention, and expansion, of the US share in the 2020s decade to come.

Multi-lateral free trade treaties benefited US business nicely before 2008. That approach is no longer sufficient to protect, or advance, US corporations’ share of slowing global trade. In today’s post-2008 crisis global economy Trump’s strategy is to enforce even more concessions from global corporate competitors by renegotiating former multi-lateral and other free trade deals on a bilateral basis.

But free trade (and its negative impacts on labor, consumers, environment, etc.) is still free trade–whether multilateral or bilateral. And TPP is still TPP, whether the US joins it as a multilateral member or, as will be the case over the next two years, joins it by negotiating on a country by country basis with Japan, Australia, and the rest of the original TPP members!

Trump rails against ‘globalism’ and ‘globalists’ who in the past favored multi-lateral approaches, but he’s no less a globalist with a different approach: intent on advancing the interests of US multinational corporations on a case by case (country by country) basis.

The clear majority of US capitalists love Trump. He’s delivered $4t in tax cuts for them; he’s removed countless regulations they had to pay for; he’s raised defense-war spending by $100 billion a year (with more coming to pay for a new nuclear arsenal, cybersecurity, and an expanded ‘space force’); and now he’s beating up on their foreign capitalist competitors by renegotiating former free trade deals.

And just as Trump’s tax cuts are not producing US investment (equipment investment rose only 0.4% in the 3rd quarter and construction investment fell -8%), so too will Trump’s trade strategy result in neither the return of investment (and jobs) from offshore to the US.

The media of the traditional wing of the US corporate class (NYTimes, Post, etc.) may be complicit in ‘fake news’, but Trump’s news isn’t even ‘fake’. It’s ‘concocted news’, or what’s the same–it’s ‘big lie’ news.

*

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

Jack Rasmus is author of the forthcoming book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, as well as ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and tweets at @drjackrasmus. His website is: http://kyklosproductions.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

There’s a big push underway- it appears to be primarily a Democrat plan– for GOTV. GOTV is not a videogame; it’s the acronym of Get-Out-The-Vote. Behind this drive is the conviction: ‘If registered Democrats will simply get off their butts, drag themselves to the polls and check boxes for everyone running in their party’s column, this will restore democracy to America’; at the very least it may halt the Trump bulldozer from grinding it deeper into the dust.

Those embracing GOTV’s strategy and volunteering to work for a campaign are equipped with an array of 2018 genre phone apps. With these gripped firmly in our hands, we can identify, locate, and meet would-be voters, then with one click instantly convey results to a tally center. One of these apps allows phone canvassers to override unanswered calls and jump in when the algorithm stops at a real voice– someone has picked up! Seeing their name on our screen, we start our pitch.

Even with this discriminating process, before we’ve finished identifying ourselves, respondents often ring off. But look! My computer indicates one real person seems willing to speak to me! She’s Lorraine, age 55, registered ‘D’. She stays with me for seven whole minutes. This, even though she initially appears diffident, declaring “I don’t intend to vote. Have you seen what’s going on there?” she exclaims.

Is she speaking about the murdered Saudi journalist, the thousands of Honduran hopefuls trudging northwards through Mexico, or NBC network’s threat to dump host Megan Kelly? I’m unsure what to reply and, sensing my hesitation, Lorraine elaborates: “The bombs; explosives in the city! Evacuations of CNN! Are you not watching the news?”

Mention of these bomb threats seems to remind her that “there’s a Muslim terrorist camp only half an hour from here”. I ask for details and share my recall of a similar report in my district last year, rumors that proved unfounded. Then Lorraine admits she’s unsure about her claim. “It was a while ago; but some car full of ‘people’ was pulled over and there was a big drug bust”.

I steer the conversation back to GOTV, to the promising Democratic candidate for our district in the state senate race. Although the name is unfamiliar to Lorraine she finally appears interested: “What’s her position on abortion?” When I reply and elaborate on the candidate’s support for the New York Health Act and school finance reform, my potential voter turns less disputatious.

Has she met the candidate? Did she see last night’s debate? No reply. Now Lorraine moves the discussion to the governor’s debate, barking about De Blasio (mayor of New York City, not currently up for reelection), rather than incumbent governor Andrew Cuomo. Although she names his opponent (Molinaro). I can hardly keep up with her. This woman is not stupid, and, allowing for some factual confusion, Lorraine is better informed than many.

And she cares; I can tell.

Lorraine’s not alone in her confusion. Now she starts blaming Obama for the immigrant influx. The Obama administration raised her property taxes, she charges. “$5000 a year now.”

My I’m-not-voting respondent is angry at the Democratic Party. Even though, like many Americans who feel similarly, she’s a registered Democrat. “There’s no leadership.” By now Lorraine is subtly pleading with me. (Tell me something to believe in, I hear in her voice.)

She has run out of people to attack. At some point Lorraine actually praises the current White House occupant for what she sees as forthrightness. Although she doesn’t name any specific statement of his, she feels he’s clear-minded.

What can we learn from this?

For how long should I engage?

To end the conversation, I share with Lorraine my own apprehension about the Party; I cite reports of corruption and the irresoluteness I see at the local county level and with the National Democratic Committee. Then I rally; I tell her why I personally am making these calls to support this state senate candidate. I finish upbeat– “Well it seems you really care Lorraine; I do hope you’ll vote on November 6th. Will you?” Lorraine mutters “Yes, I‘ll vote.”

How should I register this on my app’s 1 to 5 scale?

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s webpage: www.radiotahrir.org.

Aziz is a veteran anthropologist and radio journalist, also author of Heir to A Silent Song: Two Rebel Women of Nepal, published by Tribhuvan University, Nepal, and available through Barnes and Noble in the USA. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

Brazil: Quilombo Campo Grande Suffers Threats From Fascism

November 2nd, 2018 by MST - Landless Workers Movement of Brazil

We, the MST families of Southern MG, of Quilombo Campo Grande, denounce fascist action against our 20-year struggle.

Here, families, after so many years, already have electrical energy infrastructure, houses and produce a great diversity of agroecological production, such as coffee, many varieties of corn, beans, vegetables, fruits, organic seeds livestock, chickens, pigs.

These families generate, with their work, food sovereignty, not only for those who produce and live on the land, but for thousands of people who have access to a healthy and quality food, without poison.

The camps also generate income distribution. The land, which was only of one owner, now brings dignity to nearly 450 families, more than 2,000 people who were almost having their dream of having possession of the land carried out by a state decree.

But now, through a legal conspiracy between the big landowners, deputies of the ruralist group and agribusiness companies in the region, they are organizing an eviction process for the families that live and resist throughout these 20 years of struggle.

This situation is unacceptable!

Two months ago the families had been settled and now they can lose everything they have built over the years.

This is one of the oldest agrarian conflicts in the country.

We urge all organizations, supporters and friends to send the message below to the Agrarian Court and the organization following the case demanding that the repossession action to be dismissed:

[email protected] (Agrarian Court)
[email protected]

***

Aos cuidados do Dr. Sr. Juiz Walter Ziwicker Esbaille Junior,

Venho através deste declarar sobre ação de reintegração de posse N° 0024.11.188.917-6 ajuizada em 17.06/2011, meu pedido de indeferimento de ação de reintegração de posse, que estão de acordo com os artigos 22 a 20 da DUDH consubstancia os direitos sociais, o direito ao trabalho, à escolha do trabalho, pois as 450 famílias, mais de 2000 pessoas já estão em posse velha da área a mais de 20 anos, tem suas casas, produção e reprodução da vida neste local.

Pela resolução do conflito e pela permeância das famílias, fazemos esse apelo

Sem mais a declarar

Name / organization, date and country

***

We are resistance!

The fight for Agrarian Reform is the Fight for 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.

Featured image is from The Bullet.

 

In July 2017, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) imposed illegal new sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea – legislation passing both houses near unanimously (five no votes alone in both houses), signed into law by Trump.

Last May, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal, flagrantly violating an international treaty with overwhelming world community support.

In August, the Trump regime reimposed nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. Stiffer JCPOA-related sanctions are coming on November 4 – targeting Tehran’s energy sector, petroleum related products, and central bank transactions.

Trump regime policy toward Iran is all about isolating the country politically and economically, notably attempting to block its oil sales, access to hard currencies and foreign investments, along with harsh sanctions and overall financial hardships – part of longstanding US efforts to weaken and topple its government.

Nations continuing normal trade relations with Iran face possible US sanctions, especially ones purchasing its oil.

How tough Trump regime hardliners intend being on Tehran is uncertain. In late October, the Wall Street Journal said the following:

“(D)ays before imposing sanctions aimed at the heart of Iran’s economy,” Trump hardliners are undecided on “(h)ow hard to push European allies to cut off the country from the global banking system,” adding:

“Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signaled that the US may not force Belgium-based financial-messaging service Swift to disconnect Iranian banks from the global banking network.”

“The secretary has told foreign governments the US could take a less-confrontational approach, according to people who have been briefed on the matter by government officials.”

US officials disagree on how tough to be on Iran. John Bolton urges unrelenting harshness. Mnuchin said

“(o)ur intent is to make sure that financial institutions do not process sanctioned transactions,” adding:

“I will use all the tools in my power to make sure that sanctioned transactions do not occur.”

Brussels may bypass the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) system, creating an alternative way for Iranian financial transactions to continue unobstructed with EU countries.

The EU reportedly is creating a “special purpose (financial transactions) vehicle (SPV) for European companies to circumvent SWIFT in dealings with Iran – its purpose to bypass US sanctions.

A French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman statement said the following:

The SPV “aims to create an economic sovereignty tool for the European Union beyond this one case. It is therefore a long-term plan that will protect European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial sanctions.”

Earlier, a joint statement by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini together with UK, French and German foreign ministers said “effective financial channels” with Iran remain open despite US reimposition of sanctions, adding:

“This is why the European Union’s updated (1996) Blocking Statute will enter into force on 7 August to protect EU companies doing legitimate business with Iran from the impact of US extra-territorial sanctions.”

“The remaining parties to the JCPOA have committed to work on, inter alia, the preservation and maintenance of effective financial channels with Iran, and the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas.”

The updated EU Blocking Statute prohibits European businesses from complying with US sanctions on Iran, letting them recover damages from Trump regime imposed penalties.

A separate European Commission statement said “lifting of nuclear-related sanctions is an essential part of the” JCPOA.

How Brussels and EU companies intend to act following imposition of tough new US sanctions on Iran in days remains to be seen.

Never before used, the EU Blocking Statute will be hard to enforce, especially when faced with strong US pressure to comply with its anti-Iran agenda.

All 28 member states must be willing to oppose US policy on Iran. Companies fearing loss of access to the US market may be unwilling to oppose its will.

EU guarantees without enforceable policies backing them are meaningless. Europe most often is subservient to US interests even when harming its own.

US legislation calls for cutting off companies from American banks and dollar processing transactions for not observing Washington’s sanctions on targeted nations.

How things unfold ahead is unknown. According to the New Delhi Economic Times broadsheet,

“India and the US have broadly agreed on a waiver. India will cut imports by a third, which is a significant cut.”

The US waiver permits Indian purchases of 2.5 million tons of Iranian oil monthly until March 2019, renewal likely at the time.

One country granted a waiver likely assures others seeking the same thing. Reportedly, South Korea seeks a US waiver, wanting “maximum flexibility” to buy Iranian oil.

According to energy and commodities information firm Platts, Japan seeks a US exemption to buy Iranian oil, calling its availability a top priority.

Image result for sinopec

Source: Fortune

Platts also said China’s Sinopec, the world’s largest oil refiner, Iran’s largest oil purchaser, is discussing “special arrangements” to continue buying Iranian oil after November 4 US sanctions are imposed.

Its daily purchases range from 500,000 to 800,000 barrels. Its refinery operations are configured to process Iranian rich aromatics content crude. It has longterm contractual arrangements with Tehran for buying its oil.

Beijing pledged to continue Islamic Republic imports. Sinopec and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) invested billions of dollars in Iranian Yadavaran and North Azadegan oil fields, reportedly intending participation in further developing them.

After France’s Total stopped buying Iranian energy last August, CNPC said it may take over its stake in the country’s South Pars gas field.

On October 30, Oil Price.com said

“the Trump administration is having second thoughts about how hard to press the Islamic Republic” – including on oil exports and ability to process financial transactions unobstructed, adding:

“Europe is resisting the US ‘maximum pressure’ campaign. The EU is forbidding European companies from complying with US sanctions, although the measure is mostly toothless.”

Trump officials “are at odds over how far to go.” Unacceptable US political and economic policies encourage nations to circumvent dollar transactions.

In mid-October, OilPrice.com said Iran has ways around Trump regime sanctions, including by having “private local entities buy (its) crude and then resell it to foreign traders.”

Russia and Turkey reportedly agreed with Tehran to circumvent US sanctions by transporting Iranian crude to Russian Caspian Sea refineries for sale in world markets as Russian oil, the Islamic Republic to be reimbursed for the sales.

New US sanctions on Iran take effect on November 4. What follows is uncertain.

*

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

Award-winning author 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.

Mo Stewart, an Independent disability studies researcher and fellow of the Centre for Welfare Reform, sent a letter to the Guardian newspaper last week to acknowledge the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), as used to resist funding the Employment and Support (ESA) long-term sickness and disability benefit to those in greatest need. Influenced by corporate America, the deplorable treatment by the DWP of chronically ill and disabled people, who live in fear of the WCA, is well documented and the Guardian had published letters in the past on the same subject yet failed to acknowledge this significant anniversary and failed to publish the letter. Co-signed by over 80 individuals made up of doctors, academics, charities, carers, campaigners, journalists and researchers along with other members of the public, it is cause for concern that the Guardian would fail to publish this most important of all letters.

Is this ongoing scandal becoming too politically sensitive, hence the Guardian’s refusal to publish? Mo Stewart’s research over the past ten years has exposed the fact that successive UK governments adopted a disability denial assessment model, co-designed by the second worst healthcare insurance company in America. The WCA is used to deny genuine claimants access to desperately needed financial support, with links to thousands of deaths and a disturbing increase in suicides linked to the fatally flawed WCA which disregards diagnosis, prognosis and the past medical history of the ESA claimant. The overall objective of this government-backed project is truly alarming. As official government advisers for welfare claims management, a notorious American healthcare corporation has been covertly influencing UK social policy since 1994, with the final goal being the planned demolition of the welfare state to be replaced with an American style private healthcare insurance backed system.

A more in-depth report, written by Mo Stewart for TruePublica can be READ HERE. The contents should shock anyone mainly because of the numbers of deaths involved as successive UK governments reject the welfare state, adopt American social policy, and watch as the entire national press resist identifying this American corporate influence with UK social policy.

The rejected letter to The Guardian is reproduced here.

***

The tenth anniversary of the WCA which introduced American designed hostility against chronically sick and disabled people

The identified government hostility against disabled people isn’t disputed (disabled people facing government hostility in the UKtheguardian.com, 11th May), yet there has been little mention of the consequences, with disability hate crimes climbing by 213%, and a link to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) with a vast increase in suicides.

Five years of rhetoric by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) during the coalition government’s term in office was successfully used to belittle chronically ill and disabled people who claimed the Employment and Support Allowance. To access the benefit, claimants are obliged to endure the fatally flawed WCA, which disregards diagnosis, prognosis and past medical history. Death was always inevitable for thousands of people. Introduced by the DWP in October 2008, the WCA was created following research funded with £1.6million by America’s second largest health insurance giant, who were advisers to the British government on ‘welfare claims management’ since 1994.

To date Coroner’s Inquests, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Psychological Society, MIND and the Work and Pensions Select Committee have all deemed the WCA to be ‘unfit for purpose’. The DWP disregard all official reports not commissioned by them, demonstrating the preventable harm created by the WCA as used to guarantee that the psychological security of the welfare state would be destroyed to make way for the eventual adoption of private healthcare insurance to replace the welfare state; as all planned since 1982. October 2018 is the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the WCA. When will it be stopped?

Mo Stewart   – Independent disability studies researcher

Ellen Clifford  – Campaigns & Policy Manager, Inclusion London

Professor Peter Beresford – Co-Chair, Shaping Our Lives

Dr Jay Watts – Consultant Clinical Psychologist, London

Dr Richard House – Chartered Psychologist, Stroud

Dr Christopher Johnstone – Retired GP, Glasgow

Dr Rich Moth – Social Work Action Network

Dr Maria Berghs – DeMontfort University, Leicester

Dr Kay Inckle – University of Liverpool

Dr Nigel Williams – University of the West of England

Dr Colin Goble – University of Winchester

Professor Tanya Titchkosky – University of Toronto, Canada

Lewis Elward – MA graduate, University of Liverpool

Julia N Daniels – University of Sheffield

Alyssa Hillary – University of Rhode Island, USA

Liz Adams Lyngback – University of Stockholm

Gail Ward – Disability campaigner, Newcastle

Sioux Blair-Jordan – Disability advocate

Barbara Hulme – Disability campaigner

Susan Pashkoff – Political activist

Lorraine Harding – Disability Labour

Fran Springfield – Disability Labour

Sophie Talbot – Disability Labour

Dave Townsend – Disability Labour

Kathy Bole – Disability Labour

Simon Lydiard – Disability Labour

Claire Harris – Disability Labour

Nico Pollen – Disability Labour

Pat Onions – Pat’s Petition

Rosemary O’Neil – CarerWatch

John McArdle – Black Triangle Campaign

John Frost – Disability campaigner

Jean Devlin – DPAC Glasgow

Leanne Theresa Purvis – Disabled

Julia Bell – Disability rights

Tony Dowling – People’s Assembly, North East

Annie Bishop – Advocate

Susan Archibald – Scottish Disability Rights

Julie Forshaw – Disabled activist

Carole Robinson – Disabled

Jonathan Fletcher – Project 125

Karen Whelan-Springer – Derbyshire DPAC

Wendy Denton – Disabled

Paul Anderson – Glasgow MIND

Ian Kerr – DPAC Glasgow Rail

Sian Roberts – Disabled

Dawn Wilson – Benefit advocate

Kerry Tubbrit – Carer

Vicky Gisborne – Carer

Dawn Quinonostante – Mental health campaigner

Sam Downie – Actor and disability rights campaigner, disabled actor

George Berger – Retired academic

Chris McCabe – Carer

Kathryne Wray – Disability activist

Ian Jones – WOW campaign

Neil Vaughan – Appeals representative

Kate Belgrave – Journalist

Denise McKenna – Mental Health Resistance Network

Abbie Chambers – Disability campaigner

Linda Pike – Carer

John Kelly – Musician

Natalie Miles – Medical Student

Dominique Payne – Disability campaigner

Jayne Gowland – Carer

Sue Jones – Disability campaigner

Trevor Bark – Welfare Activist

Ken and Tracey McClymont – Founders of Dudley CIL

John McGovern – Disability rights campaigner

Rick Burgess – Disabled activist

Anne Pridmore – Director, Being The Boss

Ruth Bowling – Carer

Alasdair Cameron – Launchpad/ReCoCo

Jan Turner – Director, Being the Boss

Helene Ayton – Carer

Mirium Binder – Disability campaigner

Carl Liddle – Disabled

Pat Aitchison – Disabled

Jennifer Dunstan – Sheffield Heeley Labour Campaigns Officer

Morvenna Richards – Disability campaigner

Tony Aldis – Open Eye Films

Andrea Burford – Community campaigner

Barb Roberts – Disability Coordinator

Jack Gray – National Autistics Society

Paul Ferry – Disabled

Graham Vanbergen – Journalist

*

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

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Reagan era Secretary of State James Baker’s “ironclad” pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev not to expand NATO “one inch eastward” was flagrantly breached by the Clinton presidency and subsequent US administrations. 

Today, US-led NATO forces surround Russia, posing a major threat to its security. Ukraine and Georgia so far aren’t part of the alliance – involved in US-led aggression since since the 1990s. Both countries border Russia, Ukraine especially important.

It shares a near-1,500 mile land and sea border with the Russian Federation, the longest Western frontier with the country.

In 1995, Ukraine became the first former Soviet republic to join NATO’s so-called Partnership for Peace, a notion the alliance abhors.

At the time, Bill Clinton called the initiative a “track that will lead to NATO membership” for countries joining it.

In 1997, a NATO/Ukraine Commission was formed. In 2008, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and parliament chairman Arseniy Yatsenyuk signed a statement, calling for consideration given to the country’s alliance membership.

Around the same time, Vladimir Putin said

“(t)he appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc…will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country’s security,” adding:

Russian missiles will target Ukraine if it joins NATO or allows Washington’s (solely for offense) missile defense shield to be installed in the country.

Then Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said

“the course of the Ukrainian authorities toward integration into NATO” is unacceptable for Moscow.

Russian international affairs parliamentarian Konstantin Kosachyov said

“(b)ilateral cooperation between Russia and Ukraine in the security sphere…will end if Ukraine joins NATO.”

In May 2014, following the February coup, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the

“seeds for (crisis conditions in Ukraine) were sown in 2008 in April during the NATO summit in Bucharest, when NATO leaders stated in a declaration that Georgia and Ukraine would be in NATO,” adding:

“(A)ttempts to draw Ukraine into NATO would be negative for the entire system of European security and we would be categorically against it.”

Changing Ukraine’s neutral military status is out of the question for Moscow – especially given Washington’s flagrant breach of its pledge not to advance militarily toward Russia’s borders.

“The real aim of the United States is not to let Europeans go on their own…keep(ing) Europe on a short leash,” using NATO as a weapon against Russia and other countries, said Lavrov.

In November 2014, months after the Obama regime’s coup in Ukraine, replacing its democratic governance with a government integrated by neo-Nazi parties, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called for “a 100% guarantee that no-one would think about Ukraine joining NATO.”

US-installed NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg rejected the demand, claiming acceptance would “violat(e) the idea of respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine, which is a fundamental.”

Longstanding US plans call for accession of all former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries into NATO – the objective supported by all US presidents since the Clinton era.

Since the dissolution of Soviet Russia in 1991, Ukraine has been “seen as the decisive linchpin in plans by the US and its NATO allies to effect a military cordon sanitaire severing Russia from Europe,” STOP NATO’s Rick Rozoff earlier explained.

Since the late 1990s, the US-dominated alliance has been “incrementally absorb(ing)” Ukraine as a member” – a key bipartisan-supported Washington objective, strongly opposed by Russia.

Image result for General Yury Baluyevsky

In 2008, then-Russian military chief General Yury Baluyevsky (image on the right) explained the country would be forced to greatly strengthen its border security with Ukraine and Georgia if these countries join NATO, saying:

“Russia will undoubtedly take measures to ensure its security near the state border. These will be both military and other measures,” declining at the time to elaborate further, adding:

“Ukrainians are unanimously against Ukraine joining NATO.” Most Georgians support the idea.

Last July, Vladimir Putin said Russia is forced to “react to what’s going on around us,” adding:

Granting NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia will have “extremely negative” consequences.”

“For us…it’s a direct and immediate threat for our national security. (M)oving this NATO infrastructure towards our borders would be a threat, and the reaction would be extremely negative.”

“It is a concern for us since the NATO is expanding its infrastructure and facilities. The number of servicemen is on the rise in the regions where they shouldn’t be.”

“This (violates) treaties between Russia and NATO. And this is a destabilizing factor, which we have to factor in” and react to accordingly.

Last August, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said accession of Georgia to NATO could trigger “a terrible conflict” with potentially catastrophic consequences. The same goes for Ukraine joining the alliance.

In late October, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu warned that Russia “will act” if Ukraine and/or Georgia join NATO – calling their accession if happens the “militarization of the European continent” against Russia, adding”

“We are following (NATO’s policy) with alarm…We see efforts being made to involve more and more NATO member countries, I mean the Balkans first of all.”

Russian Foreign Ministry’s European cooperation department director Andrei Kelin said

“(w)e will have to create a defense belt near Sochi. We will have to spend colossal resources on preventing likely actions by a hypothetical enemy, this is inevitable,” adding:

“The length of our common boarder (with Ukraine) is enormous. It is utterly unequipped, so we will have to build defense lines there and to shift the emphasis of our defense structures towards the south.”

If US-dominated NATO “proceed(s) along the road of building up confrontation…we will have to make fundamental preparations.”

During Vladimir Putin’s tenure as Russian president, relations with Washington deteriorated markedly, notably after the US-orchestrated coup in Ukraine.

With unrelenting US bipartisan hostility toward Russia, there’s virtually no chance for improving ties.

Provocative US-led NATO actions undermined mutual trust. Cold War 2.0 far exceeds the earlier danger – things likely to deteriorate further ahead, risking possible direct military confrontation.

*

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

Award-winning author 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 Crisis Group.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which consist mainly of members of various Kurdish armed groups, declared on October 31 that they had halted their operation against ISIS in the Euphrates Valley because of Turkish attacks on their positions in northern Syria.

The SDF blamed Turkey for its own inability to eliminate the ISIS-held area of Hajin in the Euphrates Valley and called on the so-called international community to pressure Ankara to stop its strikes on SDF targets. The SDF also vowed to retaliate to attacks.

On October 30, October 31 and November 1, clashes between the Turkish military and units of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) were reported near the towns of Ayn Arab, also known as Kobani, and Tel Abyad. According to pro-Turkish sources, at least 4 members of the YPG and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) were killed and 6 others were injured there. The YPG claimed that its members had destroyed a Turkish military truck with an anti-tank guided missile.

As to the situation in the Hajin area, over the past few days ISIS units have achieved a notable progress in clashes with the SDF recapturing multiple positions from the US-backed group. The halt of the SDF operation there will likely contribute further to ISIS expansion in the direction of the Iraqi border.

The SDF and the US-led coalition have for a long time ignored the ISIS-held pocket around Hajin because its elimination would remove the main formal pretext allowing Washington to keep its forces in the war-torn country. Now, they bear the consequences of this approach.

33 soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) were killed in clashes with ISIS in the area of al-Safa in southeastern Syria, according to the terrorist group’s news agency Amaq. Pro-government sources have not commented on this claim yet. Should this be true, this would be the second failed SAA attempt to advance in al-Safa this week.

The key issue behind the SAA setbacks in the area is that most of its elite forces are now deployed near the Idlib de-escalation zone, which is mostly controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups. So, by keeping a limited force in al-Safa, the SAA is able to deter ISIS operations, but is not able to put an end to the ISIS presence there.

Major General Igor Konashenkov, spokesman of the Russian Defense Ministry, revealed that Russian specialists are still training Syrian servicemembers to use S-300 air defense systems. Russia also supplied the advanced Polyana-D4M automated command and control system to the Syrian Air Defense Forces. Such systems, which serves as an upper level command post (CP) of air defense brigades and can handle up too 500 air targets, will be integrated into the air defense network created for the Syrian military.

*

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

The UN is investigating the alleged embezzlement of up to €5 billion that disappeared from accounts owned by Muammar Gaddafi, the former Libyan leader, according to Belgian MP Georges Gilkinet.

“UN documents confirm that Belgium failed to comply with a UN resolution on freezing Libyan assets,” he told the Belgian news network RTBF.

He said that so far, he had received fragmented information from Belgian authorities and that is vital “to clarify the situation, which may lead to a big scandal, because hundreds of millions of euros were sent to unknown individuals in Libya who were not known.”

RTBF also cited an anonymous source claiming that since 2013 the missing assets from the accounts have allegedly been used to “finance a civil war which led to a major migration crisis.”

In Belgium, the probe which is headed by investigator Michel Claise comes amid reports that a portion of Gaddafi’s assets could be sent to the Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign fund.

Furthermore, a special UN report also suggested that the money was received by the Libyan Investment Authority. As reported by Sputnik, its complex structure makes it almost impossible to find out what these funds were allocated for.

“The sum could have been sent to armed groups in Libya, something that further destabilized the region,” according to the report.

This comes after in March 2018, local media reported that around €10 billion of Libyan government funds, which were frozen as part of the sanctions against Gaddafi’s inner circle had vanished from a Belgian bank between 2013 and 2017.

Back in November 2013, four Euroclear Bank accounts belonging to the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) and its subsidiary Libyan Foreign Investment Company (LFICO) in Bahrain and Luxembourg, contained some €16.1bn in frozen assets. However, when authorities tried to seize the funds in 2017, it turned out there was only just over €5bn left in those accounts, an investigation by Le Vif weekly revealed.

“There remains a little less than 5 billion euros on the four accounts opened at Euroclear Bank SA,” Denis Goeman, a spokesman from Brussels’ prosecutor’s office told the Belgian publication. Michel Claise was initially the first to discovery that the funds were missing.

He was in charge of the probe into alleged money laundering by Gaddafi’s inner circle, requested the seizure of the frozen Libyan funds.

After the death of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the UN ruled that his assets should be frozen in four Belgian banks. However, it turned out later that interests and dividends from these assets have never been blocked.

Belgium’s finance ministry insisted that the interest payments were legal, Le Vif’s investigation in March is certain that authorities must answer several crucial questions, the biggest one being: Where did the €10 billion vanish to?

The probe by the UN and Michel Claise into the suspected illegal disbursement of interests and dividends on frozen accounts comes after months of denial from Foreign Minister Didier Reynders and silence from the rest of the cabinet. There has been little progress since the discovery of the initial missing €10 billion.

Ever since the ousting and death of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya has been in political turmoil, showing no signs of ending over the last 7 years.

Eastern Libya is governed by the parliament, backed by the Libyan National Army (LNA) and located in Tobruk. Whereas, Western Libya is led by the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), headed by Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj in Tripoli.

Libya’s population is to vote in general elections on December 10th.

*

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

Featured image is from South Front.

Vomitando diuturnamente falso moralismo entre uma e outra canalhice que sempre acaba vindo àtona, além de compor um Estado putretado em estágio avançado, Bolsonaro, Moro, STF, Ministério da “Justiça”, todos se merecem e há muito em comum entre eles – relaçãode amor bandido que extrapola as fronteiras nacionais, rebolam sigilosamente diante de Tio Sam

Era o que faltava para completar o grande elenco da corja nacional, com orelhas de ouro! Neonazista presidente “eleito” (à base de falsas notícias, excesso de truculência, ausente de todos os debates além da boa, velha e indispensável dose de imbecilzação midática) Jair Bolsonaro deseja que ninguém menos que Sergio Moro assuma o Ministério da “Justiça” tupiniquim, ou o Supremo Tribunal Federal.

Muito provavelmente, dado o contexto e pelo que conhecemos da politicagem brasileira mais baixa que esses cínicos personagens dizem combater, trata-se, no conceito da bandidagem usurpadora do poder, de “justa gratificação” a Moro pelos “serviços prestados” àcampanha do milico, e àprópria oligarquia nacional ao longo desses anos incluindo a promoçãode Temer, político mais impopular da história do Brasil por justíssimas razões: afundou ainda mais o Brasil em corrupção e caos econômico, além de ter transformado o País em um nanico, justifcado motivo de chacotas internacionalmente.

Durante vésperas de Temer assumir o poder, pós-impedimento da presidente Dilma Rousseff, apenas um perfeito idiota poderia acreditar que o emedebista seria a solução– e houve milhõese milhõesde perfeitos idiotas para isso, com os quais era, então, impossível tentar dialogar; alguém se lembra?

Na realidade, todos os elementos acima se merecem nesta farra através da qual o País tem sido entregue aos piores bandidos – amounts to the same thingpara ser mais original, nao é, Moro?

O juizeco da moda, fundamentalmente promovido por uma grande mídia de caráter bem conhecido, tem arrancado indignaçãode juristas renomados de todo o mundo pelas descaradas arbitrariedades que comete – com tendências bastante claras.

Moro, envlovido no abafado escândalo de corrupção do Banestado (*), tem sido um dos agraciados por WikiLeaksao estrelar em telegramas secretos enviados da Embaixada dos Estados Unidos em Brasília ao Departamento de Estado em Washington, recebendo treinamento dos norte-americanos tanto no Brasil quanto em territorio estadunidense, com tudo pago evidentemente (o que é, no mínimo, muito anti-ético senao mesmo crime receber financiamento e orientaçãoestrengeira para cargo público, tanto que nunca se soube desses cursinhos através do próprio envolvido nem de sua principal porta-voz, a canalhada da grande mídia).

Nas aulas de justiça made in USA, aparecem rasgando o verbo em elogios aos seus lordsdiversos outros juristas que compunham o Ministério da Justiça, Supremo Tribunal Federal, Ministério “Público”, enfim, nos bastidores, toda a nossa digníssima “Justiça” soltando as frangas diante dos teachers.

Bolsonaro, militar da reserva que deixou a corporaçãopelas portas do fundo em 1988 após ter planejado explodir bombas na instituição, qualificada por ele de a classe de vagabundos mais bem remunerada que existe no País”(exatamente os milicos sobre os quais se apoia atualmente), tem como maior bandeira política seu nacionalismo do pau-oco – como sempre foi o dos milicos em geral na ditadura, hoje e sempre: prestou continência àbandeira dos Estados Unidos em visita àcapital norte-americana de Washington, em outubro do ano passado.

O lema “Brasil acima de todos, Deus acima de tudo” de Bolsonaro, cópia da ordem do III Reichde Adolf Hitler que o pervertido presidente eleito (para usar tom mais moderado, em respeito sobretudo aos leitores mais pudicos) diz admirar, e de um falso moralismo se tomado o contexto da vida política que apenas uma sociedade adomercida intelectualmente, distraída em profundo ódio e discriminação, e incapaz de enxergar.

Longa vida do parlamentar neonazista que custou àNaçãoseu patrimônio de mais de R$ 15 milhões, em troca de duas propostas aprovadas, em 27 anos (!).

Um Supremo Tribunal Federal que, apenas para ficar no trágico exemplo mais recente, na pessoa do ministro Dias Toffoli afirmou recentemente que a derrubada do presidente JoãoGoulart em 1964 nao foi, para ele, um golpe mas sim um movimento militar – desta maneira, legitimando tortura e assassinato extrajudiciais de milhares de pessoas inocentes, além do próprio atentado àConstituição(que o STF diz defender) utilizado para afastar Jango da Presidência. Parece piada macabra – e é, éo Brasil de hoje. Essa gente vomitando diuturnamente falso moralismo, compondo um Estado putretado em estágio avançado.

MP doutrinado na mesma Estrategia de Seguranca Nacional dos Estados Unidos, nesta Republiqueta de Bananas prevalecendo desde os Anos de Chumbo dos milicos: o combate do “inimigo interno” que, na pratica, nada mais é que a declarada guerra deste terrorista Estado semicolonial contra as oprimidas classes trabalhadoras, especialmente pobres e pretos.

Por fim, e enquanto troca-se seis por meia duzia em Brasilia: para quem nao tira liõesda história como, por exemplo, no caso mais contemporâneo de Temer ao assumir interinamente a Presidência em março de 2016 com discurso pacificador ridículo, nao se debe iludir com tom mais moderado do neonazista Bolsonaro em patético prounciamento na noite em que foi eleito, 28 de outubro.

A campanha e o que vem ocorrendo desde o início deste ano, foram apenas preliminares do que aguarda o Brasil.

Edu Montesanti

 

(*) Breves vídeos sobre o caso Banestado – estrelando, Sergio Moro:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZiE4AcJI5Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5tB1B9Mg10

 

 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Em Terra de Abjeto Bolsonaro, Só Falta Corrupto Moro Ministro!

President Trump said this week that he is preparing an executive order to try to take away the citizenship guarantee in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that people born in the United States are United States citizens. On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham announced that he would introduce legislation with the same aim.

But the president cannot repeal part of the Constitution by executive order. And Congress cannot repeal it by simply passing a new bill. Amending the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and also ratification by three-quarters of the states. The effort to erase the citizenship guarantee will never clear those hurdles — for very good reasons.

Birthright citizenship is one of the bedrocks of this country. More than 150 years ago, the 14th Amendment guaranteed to all those born within the United States citizenship, without regard to parentage, skin color, or ethnicity. And the Supreme Court ruled, more than 100 years ago, that the citizenship guarantee applies fully to U.S.-born children whose parents have no right to citizenship.

Before the amendment was enacted, American citizenship was controlled by the abhorrent 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford. In that case, the justices found that Black people born in the United States were not citizens, but rather a “subordinate and inferior class of beings” with “no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.” Neither slaves, nor freed slaves, nor their descendants could ever become citizens, the justices ruled.

After the Civil War, Congress overruled Dred Scott by passing the 14th Amendment. The definition of citizenship is part of its very first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” In one sweep, the clause guaranteed citizenship to previously enslaved people and their children — and ensured that the law would never again perpetuate a multigenerational, permanent underclass of individuals barred from American citizenship.

In 1898, the Supreme Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, no matter what their parents’ status. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the justices found that a baby born in San Francisco to parents who were citizens of China — and subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited them from becoming U.S. citizens themselves — was automatically a citizen at birth. The court specifically rejected the argument that a child in those circumstances was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus excluded from the Constitution’s citizenship guarantee.

Only a few categories of people are excluded: children of foreign diplomats, children of enemy soldiers present in the U.S. during an occupation, and children of Native American tribes, who have American citizenship under a separate provision of law.

At least since 1898, there has been no serious question about whether children born in the United States can be denied American citizenship because of the status of their parents. James C. Ho, who was recently appointed by President Trump to the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, has written that citizenship “is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.” Similarly, Walter Dellinger, who was assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration, told Congress in 1995 that legislation to nullify birthright citizenship was “unquestionably unconstitutional.”

Of course, Dellinger acknowledged,

“Congress is free to propose, and the states to ratify, any amendment to the Constitution. Such naked power undeniably exists.”

Yet the Constitution stands for certain enduring principles, as he said in testimony before the House.

“For us, for our nation, the simple, objective, bright-line fact of birth on American soil is fundamental.”

*

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

Omar Jadwat is Director of ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Featured image is from SCF.

This afternoon it was revealed that the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, accepted £14K worth of hospitality from the Saudi regime.

According to the relevant entry in the House of Commons register of members’ interests, the purpose of the visit was a “meeting with regional figures to promote education for women and girls.”

As Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson supported billions of pounds worth of arms sales to the Saudi military.

UK government statistics show that since the bombing of Yemen began in 2015, the UK has licensed £4.7 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, including:

  • £2.7 billion worth of ML10 licences (Aircraft, helicopters, drones)
  • £1.9 billion worth of ML4 licences (Grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures)
Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

As Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson supported billions of pounds worth of arms sales to the Saudi regime and gave his full backing to its terrible bombardment and blockade of Yemen.

Politicians should not be taking money from authoritarian regimes or dictatorships like the one in Saudi Arabia, which has an appalling human rights record and has inflicted a humanitarian crisis on Yemen.

The Saudi regime is not spending money on hospitality for Boris Johnson because it cares about his views on education. It is doing it because it knows that he’s got ambitions for Downing Street and it wants to buy influence.”

*

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

True Dimensions of Trump’s $4-5 Trillion Tax Cuts

November 1st, 2018 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

With Trump and Congress promising to deliver another $1T in tax cuts before year end 2018, with the US Budget Deficit and Debt projected already to exceed $1T a year, annually, for the next decade ($32T US debt by 2028), and with the interest on the debt forecast by the Congressional Budget Office to reach $900 billion a year by 2028–the true dimensions of Trump’s 2018 tax cuts for multinational corporations, businesses, investors, and the wealthiest 1% households requires detailed understanding.

In 2019 Trump-McConnell will next try to pay for it by cutting social security, medicare, education and other programs, while the Fed will keep raising interest rates (precipitating the next recession) to try to pay for the $1T deficit in the interim.

The mainstream media keeps repeating the Trump 2018 Tax cuts amount to only $1.5 trillion. But that’s not the actual tax cuts. That’s the official projected impact on the budget deficit.

But even that official projection is grossly underestimated, since it assumes a GDP annual growth rate of 3.5% plus for every one of the next ten years with no recession in between.

Moreover, the $4T-$5T tax cuts for the rich and their businesses includes offsetting tax hikes on the middle class of $2 trillion over the next decade–eliminating exemptions, deductions, plus other hikes on middle class households. The $2T in middle class hikes begin in earnest in 2019 and accelerate after 2024–while the business/investor tax cuts grow larger over the decade.

So the actual dimension of the Trump 2018 tax cuts for investors and businesses is $4T-$5T, not $1.5T (i.e. $4-$5T minus the $2T tax hikes on middle class plus the phony growth assumptions of 3.5% GDP with no recession).

Mainstream media may be engaging in ‘fake news’ but Trump media and politicians are engaging in ‘bald-faced lying’. A plague on both their misrepresenting reality houses!

*

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

Jack Rasmus is author of the forthcoming book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, as well as ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and tweets at @drjackrasmus. His website is: http://kyklosproductions.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Libertarian Republic.

Prisoners in the US are once again on strike. Since August 21, prisoners have been engaging in various forms of protest in at least ten states. And prisoners in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, have also joined the protest wave, issuing their own statement and set of demands.

While the strike has provoked heavy-handed responses by some prison administrations, it is too early to tell if the strike will be able to force concessions. The US prison system is often characterized as uniquely unjust — which it admittedly is in key ways. So, why have Canadian prisoners risked participating in a US-based strike movement?

In the words of the prisoners themselves,

“The organizers of this protest assert that we are being warehoused as inmates, not treated as human beings. We have tried through other means including complaint, conversation, negotiation, petitions, and other official and non-official means to improve our conditions.”

At this point the size and character of the US carceral state is well known: the US has the largest prison population is the world, and it has one of the world’s highest incarceration rates. And the racial disparity evident in the US prison system is staggering.

Added to this are issues related to private prisons, the exploitation of prison labor by private firms, and a myriad of other issues, that culminate into a punitive, revanchist, and oppressive correctional system. While the size of the US prison system makes for difficult comparisons, many of its other issues do not. As the striking prisoners at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility, also known as “Burnside jail,” are demonstrating, much of the critique of the US prison system resonates with Canadian prisoners.

While the participation of the Burnside strikers in this latest US-based prison protest wave is unique, protest by Canadian prisoners is not — prisoners in Canada have their own long history of struggle against the injustices of the system in which they are confined.

The Canadian Carceral State

The Canadian prison system — which includes the country’s immigrant detention regime as well as the federal and various provincial correctional systems — is plainly awful. Canada is one of only a few countries that indefinitely detains immigrants, a practice decried by the UN. While recent anti-ICE protests in the US have drawn attention to the detention of immigrant children, much less has been paid to the fact that Canada also detains migrant children, some of them “unaccompanied.” For years, immigrant detainees in Ontario have drawn attention to the problems of the country’s immigration system and the conditions of their confinement by engaging in intermittent hunger strikes.

elevate

Source: End Immigration Detention Network

Canada’s incarceration rate is around 118 per 100,000 people. While this is significantly lower than that of the United States, it remains higher than most Western European liberal democracies. It’s also notable that this rate is close to that of the United States in the early 1970s, at the height of the prisoners’ rights movement. Although it’s hardly insignificant, the size of a prison system should not be the determining metric of its efficacy or character.

In its latest annual report, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, Canada’s federal prison watchdog, identified a host of issues in the federal system including deficiencies in health care provision, especially in relation to mental health; low pay and high expenses; and lack of effective educational, vocational, and rehabilitative programming, as major issues facing Canadian corrections. While the annual report of the Correctional Investigator is helpful in understanding the nitty-gritty of the problems in the country’s prisons, it rarely spurs a meaningful government response.

Like the US, racial disparity is also evident in Canadian prisons, with indigenous people in particular being hugely overrepresented. Indigenous people make up about 5 percent of the population, but account for around 27 percent of federally incarcerated adults. This trend is even more disturbing in Canada’s women’s prisons, where indigenous women account for 38 percent of the prison population. The youth justice system is even worse — nearly half of incarcerated youth in Canada are indigenous. These rates of incarceration have caused some commentators to assert that Canada’s prisons are its new residential schools. Black Canadians are also vastly overrepresented in Canada’s prisons and jails. Only 3 percent of the general population, Black Canadians account for 10 percent of the federal prison population.

Canada’s prisons shouldn’t be understood simply as instruments of racial dominance — they also warehouse the country’s poor and mentally ill. A 2010 study by the John Howard Society of Toronto of provincial prisoners in the Greater Toronto Area found that one in five were homeless at the time of their incarceration. Half of men entering federal prisons are identified as having “Alcohol or Substance Use Disorders.” and over 40 percent of sentenced prisoners and those remanded into pretrial custody are unemployed at the time of their admission. The 2016 Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator states that “federal prisons now house some of the largest concentrations of people with mental health conditions in the country.”

The consequence of these issues can sometimes be fatal. Several high-profile deaths have triggered inquiries, such as that of Ashley Smith, a young mentally ill woman who hung herself in 2007, in full view of guards who were ordered not to intervene until she lost consciousness. In a 2015 case, Matthew Hines died after a “use of force incident” with guards. Initially, Corrections Canada told Hines’s family that he had died of a seizure after being found “in need of medical attention.” It was later revealed that he had been beaten, restrained, and pepper sprayed by guards. Ten guards then placed him, handcuffed and with his t-shirt over his head, in a decontamination shower where he fell and hit his head. A video taken by prison staff shows Hines, laying on the shower floor pleading to officers that he couldn’t breathe: “Please, please … I’m begging you, I’m begging you.” The incident resulted in charges being laid against two of the officers involved. In April of this year, both of the accused officers entered not-guilty pleas.

Meanwhile, prison walls haven’t been a barrier to Canada’s escalating overdose crisis. Rates of drug-related deaths doubled in federal prisons between 2010–2016. Due to variations in data collection, it is difficult to tally overdose deaths in Provincial jails, but it is likely that the numbers are even higher. In 2017, twenty-seven prisoners died of overdoses in Ontario’s jails alone.

Provincial prisons, like the one in Halifax, are notorious for their poor conditions — something so widely accepted that upon conviction, judges routinely reduce sentences for time-served in pre-trial detention. Staff shortages plague jails, commonly resulting in lockdowns. Solitary confinement — despite its tendency to cause and exacerbate mental illness — is used frequently and with little regulation. The tragic case of Adam Capay, a young First Nations man awaiting trial in the Thunder Bay Jail, caused national controversy in 2016 when it was discovered that he had spent fifty-two months in solitary confinement in a Plexiglas cell, lit twenty-four hours a day.

The United Nations has declared that more than fifteen consecutive days in solitary confinement constitutes torture. The case only came to the attention of the press and Provincial correctional officials after a guard — the president of his union local — requested that Ontario’s chief human-rights commissioner look into Capay’s conditions, set off a review of solitary confinement in Ontario, and prompted federal rule changes.

Burnside has faced many of these issues including overcrowding, fatal overdoses, prisoner-on-prisoner violence, overreliance on solitary confinement, and staff shortages that result in routine lockdowns. These issues are reflected in the demands of the prisoners striking at Burnside.

Resistance and Prisoner Protest in Canada

The striking prisoners in Burnside acknowledge that they are far from the first in the country to protest, stating “we recognize the roots of this struggle in a common history of struggle and liberation.” Indeed, Canadian prisoners have a long history of collective resistance against inhumane conditions and treatment. Sometimes this resistance has taken the form of hostage-takings and large-scale riots — such as the deadly ones at Kingston Penitentiary in 1971, British Columbia Penitentiary in 1975, and Archambault Penitentiary in 1982. However, there is another, less-examined history of nonviolent collective actions by prisoners, including sit-down protests, work stoppages, and hunger strikes. As is made clear in their statement, this is the history in which the prisoners at Burnside are situating themselves.

The history of prisoner work stoppages stretches back to pre-Confederation, and although prisoner protests often failed or resulted in only minor improvements, they sometimes had more significant and longer lasting results. In September 1934, striking prisoners in BC demanded wages for prison work. The strike escalated into a minor riot that saw some property destruction and ended with protest leaders rounded up to face corporal punishment. Despite the successful repression of the protest, the demands for wages were won. At the beginning of January 1935, federal prisoners who worked began receiving a five-cent-per-day stipend.

The 1970s were turbulent times in Canadian prisons. One of the longest prison strikes in Canadian history started on January 14, 1976, when 350 prisoners at the Archambault Institution in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec, began a work strike. The prisoners declared their solidarity with striking prisoners at St Vincent de Paul Penitentiary in Laval and demanded better conditions. The Archambault strike lasted 110 days. Although the action was primarily a nonviolent work stoppage, there was considerable violence over the course of the protest. Prisoners were beaten by guards and prisoner-strike breakers, and two guards were jumped by strikers. Most spectacularly, a month after the strike began, two former St Vincent de Paul prisoners blew themselves up in an attempted bombing of a bus station in support of the Archambault strikers. Having been granted several of their demands, including recognition of a prisoners’ committee, the prisoners ended the strike. The next year, the prisoners’ key demand — the right to physical contact with visitors — was made policy by prison officials.

In the fall of 2013, Canada saw a nearly unprecedented strike in the federal system when prisoners stopped working their manufacturing, textile, construction, and service jobs to protest a 30 percent cut to their wages and the elimination of pay incentives offered by CORCAN, the government agency responsible for coordinating and managing prison industries. While unsuccessful at reversing these cuts, the strike demonstrated prisoners’ ability to coordinate protests across the country. Since that time there have been numerous smaller scale protests, hunger strikes, and work stoppages at various federal and provincial institutions across Canada.

Canadian prisoners — like others around the world — have also attempted to organize unions, to advance both their interests in relation to the conditions of their incarceration, and those of their labor within the institution. In 1975, The Prisoners’ Union Committee, an organization of former prisoners and radicals who had cut their teeth in the anti-war and women’s movements, and supported by the American Indian Movement, attempted to represent prisoners who were engaging in escalating work strikes and sit-down protests in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario. The effort was unsuccessful, but resulted in the creation of Prisoners’ Justice Day, an annual day of work and hunger strikes initiated in 1975 and held every August 10 since. The date of the first Prisoners’ Justice Day was chosen to commemorate the anniversary of the death of Edward Nolan, a prison organizer who died by suicide in his solitary cell in Millhaven Institution in Bath, Ontario. The event continues to serve as an annual day of remembrance of those who have died in Canada’s prisons.

In 1977, prisoners working in a privately run meatpacking plant operating out of the provincial jail in Guelph, Ontario successfully organized a local of the Canadian Food and Allied Workers Union, along with their non-incarcerated coworkers. In doing so, they became the first group of prisoners to be covered by a legally recognized collective agreement in North America. Their unionization resulted in the equalization of pay between prisoners and non-prisoners, among other benefits.

Most recently, in 2011, the Canadian Prisoners’ Labour Confederation (or “ConFederation”) began organizing around working conditions and pay in the Mountain Institution in Agassiz, British Columbia, with the goal of winning union recognition for federal prisoners. The effort fizzled after successive labor boards refused to adjudicate the case, ruling that federal prisoners fell outside of their jurisdiction and that they were not “employees,” but participants in rehabilitation programs.

Prison Justice Everywhere

Canada incarcerates too many people, and especially too many black and indigenous people. It routinely treats those it incarcerates as less than human, and overwhelmingly fails in its mission to deter crime and rehabilitate “offenders.” American progressives often — incorrectly — idolize Canada. Reducing the US incarceration rate to one similar to Canada’s would clearly be an accomplishment for human rights and social justice; it won’t, however, necessarily address the plethora of issues endemic to prison systems, including Canada’s. The demands of the strikers in Burnside makes this clear. Any movement for social, racial, and economic justice in Canada, like the US, will have to confront these issues and support prisoners in their struggles.

In response to the demands of the Burnside strikers, Jason MacLean, correctional officer and president of the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union — which represents workers at the jail — supported the prisoners’ demands to better food, a better library, and improved air quality. He was less supportive on other issues such as contact visitation rights, access to personal clothing, and improved exercise equipment. Most critically — and disappointingly — MacLean has dismissed the prisoners’ demands for improved medical care as unrealistic:

I think everybody has a right to health care. We should all have better health care. I would make the argument that those that are incarcerated have access to better health care than most Nova Scotians do.

I see what they’re saying, that they want to have more access, but that’s a hard thing, I believe, to sell to the public of Nova Scotia considering hardly anyone has a doctor anymore, and the acuity level of people in care who are being pushed out of hospitals as well.

While it’s critical that prisoners have real and substantive access to quality health care, MacLean touches on a point that shouldn’t be dismissed. Prison conditions can only practically be “improved” relative to the general conditions of society. In his 1980 book Prisons in Turmoil, the groundbreaking convict criminologist and former organizer of the California Prisoners’ Union, John Irwin, makes this argument succinctly: “any help offered to prisoners must be available to free persons.” As long as the general public lacks access to quality health care, education, housing, recreation, and other services, it should be unsurprising when such services offered in prison come under attack. Pioneering Canadian prisoners’ rights activist Claire Culhane puts it more poetically: “We can’t change prisons without changing society. We know that this is a long and dangerous struggle. But the more who are involved in it, the less dangerous and the more possible it will be.”

*

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

Jordan House is a Phd Candidate in the Department of Politics at York University, Toronto.

Featured image: Adam Capay, a young First Nations man awaiting trial in the Thunder Bay Jail, caused national controversy in 2016 when it was discovered that he had spent fifty-two months in solitary confinement in a Plexiglas cell, lit twenty-four hours a day. Allison Jane Capay / askfm

A Tale of Two Elections

November 1st, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

Some political observers in the United States are saying that next week’s midterm voting for seats in the Senate and House of Representatives as well as a number of governorships is the most important national election since those in 1968 and 1980. The 1968 voting saw a “law and order” Richard Nixon win the presidency in a rebuke to Lyndon Johnson’s “soft” handling of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements while Ronald Reagan won in 1980 at a time of economic turmoil, in part running on a similar “get-tough” platform to replace the seemingly hapless and indecisive Jimmy Carter.

In both 1968 and 1980 the election produced a decisive turn in direction by government, leading eventually to an end of the Vietnam War by Nixon and a more assertive foreign policy by Reagan. Though the upcoming election is midterm rather than a presidential, those who are seeing it as important hope that flipping control of the two houses of congress will check President Donald Trump and force him to change course in a number of areas. The election is, in fact, an accountability moment for Trump’s policies as seen by the American public. If there is a blue wave in congress and in the governorships, Trump will inevitably have to take notice and his impeachment becomes a real possibility.

But will that happen? The lead-up to the 2018 midterm election is playing out very much like the 2016 presidential election. In both cases the punditry and media have been promising an easy win for the Democrats, but winning will require selling something to voters that is more than just hatred of Trump.

Unfortunately for them, the Democrats are largely clueless on issues that matter to voters and continue to be a party that reactively “blames the Russians” while preaching “diversity” as if it were a solution to what ails the country. They studiously ignore the fact that opinion polling suggests that there are two issues that really concern Americans. Top of the list is health care. Anyone who actually pays for health insurance out of his or her own pocket will no doubt observe how healthcare costs have skyrocketed under Obamacare to the point where insurance is available but unaffordable, with premiums that in many cases have trebled per month over the past four years. The real damage to affordable health care in America has been done by the Democrats and those who are personally paying for insurance know that.

Since the Republicans do not have a health care plan but are resolved to repeal Obamacare, they win on the issue with voters. The second most important issue is immigration, both legal exploitation of existing loopholes in the system and illegals. The legal immigration problem includes birthright citizenship, when foreigners come to the U.S. to deliver babies who automatically become American citizens. Trump has indicated he will ban the practice by executive order.

Legal immigration problems also include those who are allowed to get green cards legally and then proceed to bring their entire families over including cousins and relatives by marriage. That was not the intent of the 1965 legislation. In fact, chain immigration was dismissed as a possible consequence of the law, with President Lyndon Johnson and Democratic congressmen including Senator Ted Kennedy assuring the public that it would not occur. Of course, they were wrong. Or they were lying. They were also Democrats.

The Democratic solution to the problem of illegal immigration is, apparently, to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), giving the United States open borders. Even given the fact that the horrible mess in Central America is the result of Washington’s meddling in its countries for the past 100 years, that does not necessarily mean the solution is an open doors policy that will drastically change America. Bringing in thousands or even millions of uneducated and unskilled migrants who do not speak English and then requiring local governments to educate, house and feed them is a recipe for disaster. Indeed, it has already proven to be just that for many communities, with standards declining and neighborhoods in decay.

There is considerable suspicion that the current mass migration from Central America is being organized and funded by Democrat George Soros to coincide with the election, and it only angers the voters who remember a time when local communities were safe places where everyone knew their neighbors and worked hard to get along. Today the social justice warriors, like Soros and other leading Democrats, have made a sense of community a crime because it does not invite enough diversity.

If one compares how the two parties stand on immigration, the Republicans win easily as they are pledged to stop the illegals and reduce the number of currently legal immigrants. It is a major issue for voters and the Democrats are predictably on the wrong side of it, just as they are with health care.

And the Democrats are also tactically inept. Having the widely despised Clintons and Obama out campaigning for Democratic candidates will surely encourage nervous Republicans to get out to vote. So, on balance, the GOP could do very well next week with issues-focused voters and might retain its advantage in both houses of congress. If that is so, the complaining from the Democrats will start immediately. Will their failure be blamed on the Russians again this time?

*

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

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

Featured image is from SCF.

Throughout his tenure, Obama waged US aggression in Yemen. The drone war launched by Bush/Cheney in October 2001 was continued by Obama for eight years.

It was and remains part of Washington’s war OF terror, not ON terror, escalated since Trump took office – in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, using ISIS and likeminded jihadists as proxy forces.

NATO, Israel, the Saudis and UAE, along with other countries, are partnered with US regional wars. Washington continues orchestrating war in Yemen, providing the Saudis and UAE with arms and munitions, intelligence, logistics aid, and mid-air refueling of their warplanes, along with target selection.

The targets include residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, marketplaces, mosques, electric power plants, and other vital infrastructure – virtually everything in the country vulnerable to terror-bombing.

Years of war caused the world’s gravest humanitarian crisis – official death toll numbers suppressed by nations directly or indirectly involved in the conflict.

An earlier UNICEF report said at least one Yemeni child under age-five dies every 10 minutes from starvation alone.

Annualized that’s 52,560 deaths – plus countless thousands of older children and adults, perishing from starvation, untreated diseases, and overall deprivation from blockade, along with from Saudi/UAE terror-bombing.

After endless war since October 2001, earlier Saudi terror-bombing, and full-scale US-orchestrated war begun in March 2015, the lives and welfare of millions of Yemenis are at risk. Perhaps hundreds of thousands already perished.

Why is the region’s poorest country important – with only about four billion proved barrels of oil reserves and modest amounts of natural gas?

For the Saudis, it’s gaining full control of the Arabian peninsula. For Washington and its imperial partners, it’s Yemen’s strategic location – near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el- Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which millions barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.

The Iranian factor is also in play, Washington allied with the Saudis, Israel, and other regional partners against the Islamic Republic, wanting the country isolated, pro-Western puppet rule replacing its sovereign independence.

War in Yemen rages with no prospect for near-term resolution, not as long as Houthi resistance remains strong – the human toll of no consequence to the Trump regime and its imperial partners. Western and Israeli media largely ignore it.

US-led NATO rhetoric calling for cessation of fighting belies imperial support for continuing it endlessly.

Trump rejected calls for ending arms sales to the Saudis over the regime’s brutal abduction, torture and murder of Jamal Khashoggi – Britain, France, and other Western countries likely to continue supplying the kingdom with as many weapons as it’s willing to buy.

On Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the following:

“The United States calls on all parties to support UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in Yemen based on the agreed references,” adding:

“The time is now for the cessation of hostilities, including missile and UAV strikes from Houthi-controlled areas into the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Subsequently, coalition air strikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen” to ease humanitarian crisis conditions.

“It is time to end this conflict, replace conflict with compromise, and allow the Yemeni people to heal through peace and reconstruction.”

On Tuesday, US war secretary James Mattis said

“(w)e have go to move toward a peace effort (in Yemen), and we can’t say we are going to do it some time in the future. We need to be doing this in the next 30 days.”

“We want to see everybody around a peace table based on a ceasefire, based on a pullback from the border and then based on ceasing dropping of bombs.”

“This has got to end. We have to replace combat with compromise. It’s time to stop this.”

Take the above comments from Pompeo and Mattis with a grain of salt. Post-9/11, permanent wars of aggression became official US policy.

The US wants ongoing wars waged endlessly, Afghanistan the likely prototype, war in its 18th year with no prospect for resolution, conflicts raging in multiple other theaters.

Continuing, not ending them, reflects what US imperial policy is all about. If Washington wanted peace and stability instead, it could end war in Yemen and other theaters where it’s ongoing.

A Final Comment

Instead of laying blame where it belongs for war in Yemen and elsewhere regionally, Mattis accused Iran of “fueling” conflicts in Yemen and Syria.

Blaming others for imperial crimes is longstanding US, NATO, Israeli policy.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The leading analysts repeatedly stated that the U.S. has failed to overthrow President Bashar Assad. Recently, The National Interest reporter and researcher, Doug Bandow, has made sure of it during his trip to Damascus. He claims “at long last, the conflict is winding down. Assad has won, and Washington has lost, and America’s approach has been a disastrous failure.’ 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is considering the possibility of changing the current political course that previously hasn’t led to any success. Today a new strategy for the war in Syria has been hastily worked out. According to Stratfor, an American geopolitical intelligence platform and publisher, the U.S. is focused on the full withdrawal of the Iranian military and their proxies from Syria, as well as on changing the current Syrian government.

The ‘war strategy’ particularly highlights the Russian and Iranian approach. However, the United States could hardly be expected to force Moscow and Tehran to leave Syria, as these states are acting officially involved in fighting terrorism at the invitation of the Syrian President. Due to allies’ support, the Syrian Arab Army is now controlling more than 60% of the territory and is going to liberate the Idlib enclave soon as well as the areas occupied by the U.S. and Turkey.

It’s worth noting that the U.S. has illegally deployed at least ten military bases in northeastern Syria. These territories are under the Kurdish control and are rich in natural resources such as gas and oil. Moreover, in September 2018, the U.S. forces have started setting up two additional military bases in al-Qamishli region in al-Hasaka province.

According to the new strategy, Washington intends to preserve its influence in the area by resolving two missions simultaneously. First, it is planned to carry out total control over gas and oil deposits for the American corporations. Second, continue to destabilize the situation until power in the country is changed.

Besides, one more U.S. military base is located in al-Tanf not far from the state border with Iraq and Jordan and near the al-Rukban refugee camp. The U.S. SOF trains opposition fighters there. Initially, the Pentagon planned to occupy the whole region of southeastern Syria, but the SAA backed by Iraq had derailed the U.S. plans by connecting western Syria with the Syrian-Iraqi border north to al-Tanf.

To sum up, the Pentagon controls about 30% of territories in northeastern and southern Syria. Another 10% of northwestern Syria is under control of the Turkish army and its military formations.

By the way, some Middle East experts are sceptical about the new U.S. strategy in Syria. They believe that the U.S.-designed plans will fail as Washington has not been able to overthrow Assad for years of the conflict. The also suppose that fighting terrorism and a possible risk for their motherland being transformed into another Libya consolidated the Syrian nation most of which trust their leader. After all, people have stopped to believe the information transmitted by Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.

The plan to drive Iran out is also hardly possible. Washington is not ready for confrontation with Tehran and is likely to limit itself to economic and diplomatic solutions.

However, we should not expect the US military to leave Syria. The White House won’t take that step. Otherwise, it could lose the influence in the region and American corporations would be deprived of income. President Trump is interested in gaining economic benefits of the U.S. oil companies’ presence in northern Syria. Consequently, it is too early to speak about the withdrawal of the U.S. troops. There have been no serious prerequisites.

The U.S. will have to leave the country only when Assad regains control over Idlib and establishes the dialogue with Kurds. Such a development is possible only in long-term perspective.

That is why the current task for the Syrian army is the restoration of peace in Idlib Governorate that is currently run by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Huras al-Din and other radical groups.

The government forces have already prepared for the offensive. The large-scale military operation is to begin if the jihadists reject leaving the buffer zone under the Russian-Turkish arrangement.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New U.S. Strategy in Syria Is Bound to Fail. Trump Wants “Regime Change” and the Withdrawal of Iranian Forces
  • Tags: , ,

Haikou, Hainan: In an unusual twist, financial experts have called upon China’s monetary authorities to let the Renminbi float to “ease risks” (China Daily, October 31, 2018). Sounds contradictory? At this juncture, at the height of Trump’s trade war against China, the Forex market has become  weaponized. The policy of “Floating the Yuan” has contributed to the RMB’s dramatic decline.  

Various market related concepts (including hikes in US interest rates and China’s trade surplus with the US) are put forth (out of context) by “authoritative” Western economists in support of an “RMB Float”, which in the last few months has led to a slide of the Yuan to its lowest level since the 2008 economic crisis (see graph below).

“By analyzing the recent signals from the authorities, as well as market performance, they [the experts] believe that the government much preferred a freer Renminbi, or allowing the market to decide.” (Ibid)

“Allowing the market to decide” is a nonsensical concept. It certainly does not apply to currency markets, which are the object of manipulation and speculative trade.

In making this narrow economic assessment, the geopolitics and the trade wars, are casually ignored. The “experts” quoted in the China Daily report are for the most part tied to Western and Japanese institutions. Their assessment conforms to that of the IMF.

Visibly, the recorded RMB decline of 11.1% against the US dollar since April 2018 coincides with the US-led trade war. (see graph below). It has occurred despite the fact that both Russia and China have been dumping US Treasuries.

 

Who is advising Beijing with regard to the RMB and forex market?

According to Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBC) a so-called managed floating RMB exchange based on market supply and demand criteria has been applied. This structure essentially follows the guidelines set by the IMF.

At the height of a US trade war against China, not to mention what Beijing considers an act of provocation by the US Navy in the Taiwan Straits, the Renminbi is indelibly under attack. For the People’s Bank of China to faithfully follow IMF guidelines is tantamount to abiding by the Washington Consensus.

Remember the 1997 Asian Crisis? The currencies of South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia were subjected to large scale speculative operations including naked short-selling by major banks and financial institutions leading ultimately to a dramatic collapse of the ROK Won, the Thai Baht and the Rupiah.

South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia were forcefully pressured by the US Treasury and the IMF to lift all protective measures and let their currency slide to the detriment of their national economies.

It is worth noting that in contrast to the fate of these three countries, Malaysia under the helm of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad successfully put together a carefully designed counter-speculative program to protect the Malaysian Ringgit.

Today’s speculative instruments are far more sophisticated than those prevailing during the 1997 Asian Crisis. We are dealing with financial warfare and the central role of the forex market in disrupting national economies.

In recent developments, the Russian Ruble and the Turkish Lira, have been pushed down to exceedingly low levels.

Amid trade tensions and veiled US military threats against China, IMF guidelines on currency management should be disregarded. The “Renminbi Float” should be analyzed and reassessed in relation to potential US sponsored speculative operations in the Forex market. It is essential that The People’s Bank of China (PBC) –under the guidance of China’s leadership–  adopt a carefully designed counter-speculative framework not only to protect but also to reinforce the Yuan in relation to the US dollar.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Financial Warfare and the Float of China’s Yuan. Weaponization of the Forex Market

Where Is Brazil Heading in Bolsonaro’s Presidency?

November 1st, 2018 by Edu Montesanti

Brazil above everything, God above everyone,” Jair Bolsonaro’s campaign motto, plagiarized from Nazi Germany.

“Today at 9 p.m. I was stopped by the military and lynched because, they said, I look like a drug smuggler. They said now Bolsonaro is the commander. I regret for having voted for Bolsonaro,” Douglas Barcellos on October 28, shortly after Bolsonaro had been declared the winner of Brazil’s presidential election.

“I’m going to vote… armed with a knife, pistol, devil, crazy to see a lounger, bum with a red shirt and to immediately kill… This bunch of negroes is going to die! Gonna die!!! He is a captain, [calling names]!!!,” said the lawyer Pedro Baleotti as filmed by himself in his car, on October 28. (See this)

One week before the election, university students in Campinas city were banned by the Police for giving out Haddad tracts: “military dictatorship is back!” the policemen said.

Jair Messias Bolsonaro is the 38th president of Brazil, elected with 55.14% of the valid votes, 44.86% of the Brazilians’ preference in the second round. At least 43 million Brazilians abstained from voting, annulled or voted blank, something like 29% of the entire contingent of voters. 

The former army captain received 57.7 million votes out of 147.3 million voters, that is, he was elected by 39% of eligible voters. Fernando Haddad, a professor, economist, political scientist, lawyer, and philosopher, received 47 million votes, 32% of the voters in a country of 210 million people.

An expected victory after a large difference in favor of Bolsonaro in the first round, on October 7; shortly after that date, according to polls, the difference was day by day increasing even more in favor of the candidate whose professional propaganda structure was carefully set up, with no clear sources yet.

The former army captain: As soon as his victory had been declared, in a national speech, Bolsonaro appeared eager to dispel concerns that he would govern despotically, vowing to govern respecting the Constitution, democracy, and liberty. “Enough of lies, enough of fake news in Brazil,” he hypocritically said later.

In his campaign, among many other terrible words Bolsonaro, a declared admirer of the military dictatorship who is used to saying that, “the dictators’ mistake has been only torturing but not killing about 30,000 people,” vowed during an address, delivered via a video linkup, to thousands of supporters gathered in São Paulo city, that:

 “Those red good-for-nothings will be banished from the homeland. It will be a clean up the likes of which has never been seen in Brazilian history.”

Once again, Bolsonaro is not only vague but contradictory: he says some tragic thing, several days later he states that he has not said that and accuses others of spreading fake news, to soon say the same thing in even worst words.

He refused to debate during the campaign, an omission that makes many people wonder about this project for Brazil – including among thousands of his supporters. 

The opponents state that Bolsonaro has no Project for the South-American nation; his supporters are not concerned about his Project, but by his declared “anti-Workers’ Party sentiment” [the party of Lula and Haddad] which justified their votes for the admirer of Adolf Hitler. The former army captain himself focused his campaign on that deeply hateful sentiment.

At the same time, the Workers’ Party (PT) has promised to contest the electoral process in court, due to Bolsonaro’s innumerable threats, excessively aggressive incitement to violence, and the fact that he was funded by private companies, and spread fake news up to the last minute – in the election day, Haddad was falsely accused via WhatsApp of having raped an eleven-year-old girl.

What does Bolsonaro’s victory means to Brazil?

Is he really going to forget his old criminal sayings and doings, increased in this campaign, respecting the rule of law? Does the extreme right-wing now president-elect have any government program?

Why has the Workers’ Party lost, and what does it mean to Brazil? 

These questions will be discussed below.

Bolsonaro Has a Government Program

“I do not know anything about economics, I am a military, but I’ll have a minister of economy in my government. Am I going to a campaign or to an entrance examination?”, Bolsonaro replied to a journalist question in an interview last July, and in October of 2017. (See this and this)

Like Donald Trump, Bolsonaro is inept and mediocre, from a cultural and intellectual standpoint; as  in the case of Trump, the Brazilian president-elect believe much more in persuasion and force; similar to Trump who won US presidential campaign, the Brazilian neo-nazi is not sure now about what he will do in Brazil’s Presidency. 

So the Trump-Bolsonaro’s proximity goes far beyond the fact that Steve Bannon has advised both.

That said, unlike what so many people think, Bolsonaro has a government program: it is an ultra-neoliberal one, outlined by Paulo Guedes, a “Chicago Boy” economist who proposes to “slim Brazil’s puffed-up, ineffective and near-bankrupt state through privatizations and public-spending cuts, and to undo the country’s serpentine red tape.”

As Bolsonaro’s candidacy has been confused in part as a tactic to reach everybody, he has been vague and fled debates for people not to know the essence of the unpopularity of his “proposals” to the country. 

He also fled debates due to his total lack of moral, cultural and intellectual skills. Not for not having a project as many people have said. Much likely, Bolsonaro’s absence in debates was due to afraid of himself as he is excessively talkative, but there is a program. 

His campaign, movements, and individuals in the favor of Bolsonaro dedicated much more to attack the Workers’ Party than to advocate for the then-extreme-right candidate, and his agenda. As never seen before in any campaign in the South-American country.

Constructing more and more prisons – privatizing all of them instead of confronting social problems, also improving prisons trying to recover individuals and opting for alternative methods for minor crimes –, making the society free to get guns instead of discussing public security and  social issues, the traditional war on drugs, the privatization of water and everything, no rights to workers and to minorities. Independence to the central bank, free to take every measure of big banks’ interests. 

This is Bolsonaro, eased out of the army in 1988, after trying to explode bombs in his institutions due to salary issues. 

Neoliberal policies are themselves empty and deeply contradictory, so Bolsonaro’s team feared, of course, the candidate debating face to face with his opponents, especially on the eve of the second round. His hysteria and deep intolerance would surely be much more evident and exposed to public shame along with every Bolsonaro’s anti-virtues. But cannot be said that there is no a program by Brazil’s president-elect.

It has been much easier to keep the Brazilian society submerged in fear, hysteria, discrimination, hate, and blindness. 

Objectively, Brazil’s so fragile democracy, unlike some analysts have said, has not been overthrown by democracy last October 28, but by a strong network of false propaganda, and countless electoral and social crimes. By an omissive justice system. Not to mention foreign shadows behind the scenes.

Surprisingly to many people, is the fact that the mainstream media, the Brazilian justice system and the people themselves, too hateful standing against corruption and political deceives since 2013, now keep silent before Bolsonaro’s endless lies and crimes. 

That is not a surprise at all if the last electoral process is considered a continuation of the coup d’Etat through former President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment in 2016, and the criminalization of progressive sectors.

As the far-right program has been hidden from most Brazilians, its only evident project is barbarism, accepted by almost 60 million Brazilians. A total confusion is just getting worse and worse in Brazil. In essence, Brazilians, stuck in hate by hidden powers, have been killing themselves by nothing.

The Workers’ Party Has Lost to Itself

The Brazilian “left” has opted in favor of identity politics and sectarianism. The priority is not fighting capitalism and social inequality anymore. For this sector, if one does not share some social values like abortion, gender, and so on even tireless combating poverty under genuine progressive politics, is aggressively condemned and rejected, not considered a real progressive. 

As discrimination is strongly rooted in a historically authoritarian nation, the last one to abolish slavery in America, every “liberation” movement is permeated by this sentiment – discrimination against others and even against themselves. It is something very clear among Brazilians.

The country, included the “left”, has not been preparing itself for the current political crisis, drawing for at least five years and a half. Until recently, talking to many “leftist” leaders one could feel them highly skeptical about a new military coup in Brazil.

Particularly, the Workers’ Party (PT) rejected any constructive criticism even from progressive sectors, aggressively labeling them “fascists” or “radical left”, to lead its neoliberal policy with a human face for thirteen years in power, beginning with Luiz Inacio da Silva in 2003.

Though important – and ephemeral – some social gains were achieved: e.g. the Family Allowance program (a continuation of the predecessor Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s School Allowance), and some real increase of the minimal wage. Despite these policies, social inequality in Brazil has prevailed.  

More generally we are dealing with a tragic crisis in so many sectors including public health, basic sanitation, access to justice, housing and working conditions, social and institutionalized discrimination, and public education.

About the latter point, it is important to highlight that during the PT years, like its predecessors, Brazil under-invested a meagre 5% of GDP in education (during Lula’s government, this number was even below 5%).

The PT hypocritically today manifests indignation towards Bolsonaro against indigenous people, as the party which presented itself as promoting a “Social Revolution”.

In the PT years, the indigenous people were murdered by agribusiness landowners, who were supported by the PT party, like never before in the country’s recent history – when compared to the years of military government from 1964 to 1985 and the years of the Cardoso government (see this).

The indigenous question during the PT years is another practical example of its authoritarian way of governing, only or, at the best, mostly concerned about keeping itself in power.

As the party was never willing to dialogue with the grassroots during the 2013 protests when many people required a political reform, the then-President Dilma refused to even put it in the discussion: PT lost its greatest chance of being closer to the base of society, while winning the support of Brazilian oligarchy which subseuqnetly played a role in destroying the PT party.

In the name of power, PT used to ally itself with the elites, never listening to claims that everything would end up in tragedy, to the party and Brazilian democracy. Worst of all, year by year since Dilma was impeached, the PT has refused to recognize its mistakes, something required even by internal militants.

All in all, PT’s principal “project” for Brazil has been the same throughout since the inception of the Lula government, even since Dilma’s impeachment including Haddad’s presidential campaign. It consists in gaining political power, through alliances with the Brazilian elites and the Washington Consensus.

So it has been relatively easy for the Brazilian and foreign elites to – once again – overthrow Brazil’s democracy. Now the PT desperately needs mass public support, which it has lost as a result of its betrayal of the Brazilian people.

It is worth remembering that it was Dilma who passed the Anti-Terrorism Act on the eve of 2014 World Cup, which actually gave the police the power to repress public protests.

The mainstream media attempted to portray both candidates as extremists. The difference however is that if Haddad had won the election won, there would be an election in 2022.  

Haddad is not an extremist, far from it; Bolsonaro is the most extremist president  in Brazil’s presidential history.

The “left” in general, attempting to preserve the PT, in its years in the Presidency, leading up to the massive protests in 2013 and in the last campaign, has ignored the PT’s social base.

What has occurred is that their inaction has strengthened the extreme right.

As mediocrity is the great winner in Brazil’s presidential election, the PT is the principal and a most pathetic loser; its national recovery is unthinkable for the coming years.

What To Expect from the Bolsonaro Regime

The destruction of the national industry, of Brazil’s regional alliance and its inclusion in the BRICS, are the first evident tragedies Bolsonaro will continue to do, a job begun in 2015/2016 by Judge Sergio Moro, the mainstream media and the most corrupted politicians in the Brazilian Congress, when they overthrew Dilma.

He also promises to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and is eager to implement massive deforestation in the Amazon region, saying that the indigenous people do not want to live in a forest, which has to be given to big companies to produce. Large latifundia, according to Bolsonaro, are the wealthy and progress of the nation.

Though the PT has not been a progressive party, what is also at stake in these elections is the privatization of water, Petrobras, Eletrobras (an energy public company), Caixa Economica Federal (a public bank). 

In an open letter published last week, 136 Brazilian geographers from Pará expressed their serious concerns about Bolsonaro: the researches and professors pointed out that the extreme right-wing candidate has adopted a “political stance” which consists in handing over the natural resources of the world’s largest rainforest “to the private initiative of foreign countries, thereby eliminating areas of environmental protection, extractive reserves and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that have historically been fighting for the traditional populations of the country.” (See this)

Last year, Temer invited the US Armed Forces to participate in joint military exercises in the Amazon, “to develop a greater knowledge, share experiences and develop mutual trust.” It is absolutely evident that Bolsonaro will continue to open Brazil’s doors to Uncle Sam’s Southern Command silent occupation of the world’s richest region in biodiversity – as Brazil’s Armed Forces themselves, who support him, does and did in the dictatorship times. It is worth remembering that, in his visit to Washington D.C. in October of 2017, Bolsonaro saluted US flag.

The Bolsonaro regime, as it has catastrophically been presented, and Jair Bolsonaro character itself as Brazilians historically know very well, will not be able to minimally mediate democratic relations, far from it. In Brazil’s particular case, given the current social, political and economic crisis, such a possibility is even most remote – unthinkable, we could say. 

Bolsonaro’s “government” will be totally incapable of ordering that, and promised to cut even more social investments, far from good during PT years, which Temer started to totally destroy. Times sign to a disaster in the near Brazilian future. 

His anti-corruption speech cannot become reality, not even taking seriously as another Bolsonaro’s opportunist verbiage. His historical truculent and corrupted essence, and his agenda reinforce the possibility of a self-coup leaned on falsely fighting the internal enemy violence, and corruption itself.

The militarization of Rio and the terror spreading across the country are examples that Brazil is an advanced Police State where, last year, 64,000 were killed – and Bolsonaro, a declared fan of Augusto Pinochet, has insisted that more assassinations, much more are necessary to combat violence in Brazil (!).

In a country where 55 percent of people are black, Bolsonaro and his vice, General Antonio Hamilton Mourao, dare to state that Brazilians of African descent are second-class citizens.

Bolsonaro will have to handle with the monster he has set up, the deep hate in many cases repressed for so long in a hostile society; an election  campaign based on fake news is socially devastating.

Sadly, democracy has been destroyed in Brazil by local and international oligarchies.  This destruction has been embedded in the person of Jair Bolsonaro.

With global capitalism marked by a deep-seated economic depression, Brazil’s power-brokers in alliance with Wall Street and Washington have chosen to substitute fragile representative “democracy” with a nazi-fascist regime. 

A neo-McCarthyism has been imposed. Blindness is the raw material for such an “ideology”. Given the world’s economic crisis, the Bolsonaro regime tends to be even more aggressive as any hard-liner, in such circumstances.

As the Workers’ Party is one of the biggest lies in Brazil’s history, Jair Bolsonaro tragically is one of the truest faces, in his neo-McCarthyism and fascist agenda.

*

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

Edu Montesanti is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Moving Right in Brazil: The Rise of Jair Bolsonaro

November 1st, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Moving left has been a Brazilian political tendency for some time, a tendency affirmed through the 1990s and 2000s with the presidential administrations of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.  But this is the same country also famed for its share of murderous military dictatorships and political convulsions.  The worm would eventually turn. 

Between 1964 and 1985, the military privileged itself with direct interventions in civilian and political life, ensuring a line of generals for president in the name of protective emergency.  The trumping of civilian rule in 1964 had come in response to the centre-left reformist government of the Brazilian Labor Party’s João Goulart.  The brutal reaction became an inspirational blueprint for Latin American governments to follow: right wing governments obsessed with corporatist principles and suspicious of civil liberties.  

That particular model, and precedent, offers lessons in the coming to power of former army parachutist Jair Messias Bolsonaro.  At the 2016 impeachment vote held in the Lower House of the Brazilian Congress against President Dilma Rousseff (notably cast by a chamber half-filled by members facing various criminal investigations), Bolsonaro recalled 1964, the year when the country was supposedly rescued from the relentless approach of godless communism.  His own ballot, as Perry Anderson reminds us, was dedicated to the conscientious torturer-in-chief, Colonel Carlos Brilhante Ustra.   

Colonel Ustra was adamant before a Truth Commission hearing in May 2013: “I fought terrorism.” Like Bolsonaro, he saw no moderation in any left-wing platform, a scourge that needed to be tortured into oblivion.  “Their aim was to depose the military and implement communism in Brazil.  That was written in their programmes.”  In 2016, Bolsonaro aired views drawn straight from the Ustra school of simple thinking: torture was appropriate, the right to vote should be questioned and the National Congress needed to be opposed. 

The overthrow of Goulart had been premised on the military’s harnessing of opposition from large landowners, the interests of big business and corporations, the Catholic Church and elements of the middleclass.  The forces that threaten the legacy of leftist reforms (30 million lifted out of poverty between 2002 and 2014), tarnished by the lingering stains of corruption linked to the state oil firm Petrobras and the Odebrecht construction firm, are similar.  These are, however, marked by a fundamental difference: the very same middle class boosted in numbers by progressive governments are now falling for personalities of reaction.    

In the considered opinion of sociologist Atilio A. Boron,

“They see those that declare an inferior economic position a threat, and therefore they are prone to have discriminatory, aggressive and offensive positions to the popular sectors.” 

Poverty, as the ultimate, dangerous crime.

Despite every major Brazilian political party being implicated in the orgiastic exercise of graft exposed in the economic downturn following 2013, Bolsonaro proved savvy enough to distance himself, and members of his own Social Liberal Party, from the filled trough.  The Workers Party (PT) was left holding the can of guilt, while the far-right movement courted a troubled angst-ridden middle class. 

Bolsonaro’s approach to the period of military presidents is to avoid using the term altogether.  (Another point of resentment towards Rousseff was her establishment of a truth commission to investigate the human rights abuses and disappearances perpetrated at the time.) He merely concedes to “excesses, because during wars innocents die”.  This is the fundamental law of survival: to keep a society safe, a few skulls have to be shattered.  He is keen to keep his friends close and the military even closer, promising to place the Ministry of Defence within purview of military, rather than civilian personnel, and involving members of the Armed Forces in his government. 

Bolsonaro has similarly modelled his campaign, and accompanying promises, on a Trump-style agenda of making Brazil great again, a coarser programme of self-inflation that contrasts with the previous Rousseff platform of “Larger Brazil”. His trip to the United States in October last year was a mission of instruction.   

He, like Trump, has his own variant of the message of draining the fetid swamp of political corruption, though, like his source of inspiration, remains reticent on what to fill it with.  He, like Trump, has a certain liking for the “law and order” message that emphasises muscle and arms over the logic and sober restraint of gun control. “It won’t be any better,” he argues about the policy of reducing gun ownership as a means of reducing violence. “If there were three or four armed people here now,” he speculated on the television channel Record, “I’d be certain that some nutter wouldn’t be able to come in through that door and do something bad.” 

Bolsonaro’s vision – nutters meeting nutters – features jungle retributions and protections, the state’s tactical outsourcing of violence in favour of privatised security. “Why can’t a truck driver have the right to carry a gun?  Just think about it; put yourself in the shoes of a truck driver.  He nods off at the petrol station… and when he wakes up the next day his spare tyre has gone.”  Not that the state is entirely absent from this savage equation: where police killings (autos de resistência) increase, he surmises, “violence goes down in the region where they took place.”

The current political move in Latin America is to the right.  Conservative governments now hold sway in Chile and Colombia.  The historical dislike for the keen meddling of Washington has, temporarily, taken second place.  Arms of approval are being extended.  Bolsonaro, to make that point, has already made his position on what regional foreign policy will look like.  “Trump is an example to me… I plan to get closer to him for the good of both Brazil and the United States.  We can take his examples from here back to Brazil.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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]

President Xi Jinping ordered his nation’s military to boost its capability to meet all threats to the nation’s security, saying:

“It’s necessary (for China’s armed forces) to strengthen (their capability), concentrat(ing) preparations for fighting a war,” adding:

“We need to take all complex situations into consideration and make emergency plans accordingly.”

“We have to step up combat readiness exercises, joint exercises and confrontational exercises to enhance servicemen’s capabilities and preparation for war.”

Beijing’s Defense Minister Wei Fenghe said

“China will take decisive steps regardless of the cost to preserve its territorial integrity and repel attempts to separate Taiwan from the country.”

China considers Taiwan its sovereign territory. It calls incursions by US warships into the Taiwan Strait provocative – the 110 mile-wide waterway separating Taiwan from the mainland.

On July 4, America’s Independence Day, China’s Global Times (GT) said

“the US is shifting toward a containment strategy toward China. Such a shift has become irreversible and will pose unprecedented challenges to China’s rise.”

Referring largely to Trump’s trade war at the time, GT added that differences over trade are “just the beginning of its containment on Beijing, and Sino-US ties will see intensified tensions in the future, an outcome which is extremely hard for China to prevent.”

Beijing must prepare for “major changes” in Sino/US relations. It must “confront exterior challenges to China’s rise.”

It’s confronted by Washington because of its growing political, economic and military power. The US tolerates no challengers to its aim for global dominance.

Trade war may be prelude to something much more serious. China must “safeguard its core interests on Taiwan and the South China Sea, strike counterblows to provocations without hesitation” – short of letting “countermeasures (become) a global contest with the US,” said GT.

In his remarks days earlier, Xi warned about “repeated challenges” to China’s sovereignty over Taiwan, calling them extremely dangerous, risking military confrontation.

His remarks were directed against the Trump regime. Military analyst Zhou Chenming expects the US to continue conducting provocative incursions near Chinese waters – on the pretext of freedom of navigation exercises.

He warned that “there will probably be more military friction between the two countries…”

Xi also spoke out against Taiwan’s independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party – in power since 2016. Bilateral relations deteriorated since then, including over US arms sales to the government.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi accused “non-regional countries” of provocations near the nation’s waters, saying they “have been showing off their force” referring to US actions.

In January, Defense News.com said “(t)he Pentagon is planning for war with China and Russia.” Washington has adversarial relations with both countries – along with Iran and other sovereign independent states.

War between nuclear powers would be potentially devastating, humanity’s greatest threat.

Neither Russia or China would initiate it. Would bipartisan hardliners in Washington risk armageddon to achieve their aim for unchallenged global dominance?

*

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

Award-winning author 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.

Libya, Seven Years On: A Shame for the West

November 1st, 2018 by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

The FUKUS Axis France-UK-US turned the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa into a failed state. Accountability? Are you joking?

After Messrs. Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy committed a spectacular mission creep violating the terms of the UN Charter and the UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011), I wrote this indictment along with some colleagues.

Needless to say, the European Court of Human Rights did not accept it and the ICC at The Hague likewise. But how  can a handful of war criminals invade a country, committing the acts named in the indictment among many others, and walk around today as if nothing had happened?

To put things into context, let us study a few figures about Libya in 2010 (the year before the unrest spurred on by the West in which terrorists were armed and abetted, terrorists on the FUKUS Axis own lists of proscribed groups, to destabilize the country).

GDP down from 188 bn. To 64

GDP in billion USD in 2010 was 187.8. In 2017 it was 64.4. GDP per capita in 2010 was 31,094 USD. In 2017 it was 9,986 USD, more than three times less. The inflation rate jumped from 2.5% in 2010 to a staggering  28% in 2017. The budget balance as a percentage of GDP was a positive 12.5% in 2010 and in 2017 it was 43.2% negative.

In 2010, under Muammar al-Qadafi, homelessness was at zero percent. Homes were guaranteed and free. Electricity was free. Bank loans carried a zero per cent interest rate. Farmers were given land, a house, seeds and equipment for free to set up farms in the interior of the country, where the Great Man-Made River irrigated the Sahara. NATO bombed the water supply network, bombed the tubes factory so it could not be repaired then bombed the electricity grid “to break their backs”.

Newly married couples received 50,000 USD, education was free, medical care was free. Higher education was free and students who wished to study abroad received 2,300 USD per month and a car allowance. Libyans who needed healthcare abroad travelled for free and their treatment was paid by the State.

Unemployed graduates received the average salary for the profession they wished to practice until they found a job. The State paid 50% of the price of a car. Mothers were paid 5,000 USD upon the birth of a child. To put this into context, a one could buy three loaves of bread with one US cent. Before al-Qadafi, 75% of Libyans could not read or write. Today the literacy rate is 100% among youths and 87% nationally. The external debt of Libya was zero and it had reserves of 150 billion USD. The FUKUS Axis stole this and today the country’s reserves remain frozen.

As said above, Libya had the highest Human Development Index in Africa and Muammar al-Qadafi was to receive a prize from the United Nations Organization for his development work. His crime? To be planning to drop the US Dollar for transactions and replace it with an African currency, which would have deprived the Western bankers of billions of dollars. His e-learning projects and telemedicine networks set up in Africa were already depriving western telecoms giants many millions in lost revenue.

Libya today does not have the resources to deal with illegal migrants, trafficked by gangs who are selling them as slaves in open-air markets, Libya today does not have the resources to deal with terrorism, Libya today does not have a budget to pay for what it needs to guarantee national security.

Today, power and the executive capacity in Libya is divided between the Tobruk-based Government and the National Libyan Army supported by Al-Qadafi loyalists, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya and the Warshefana militias; the Government of National Accord supported by the Misrata Brigares, the Zintan Brigades, the Amazigh Militias, the Toubou Militias, the Tuareg Militias, the Tripoli Brigade, and the Presidential Guard, among others; the National Salvation Government, supported by the Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the Shura Council of Mujahideen in Derna, Ansar al-Sharia in Derna, the Abu Salim Martyrs; Islamic State (ISIL), divided into Wilayat Barqa, Wilayat Tripolitania and Wilayat Fezzan and supported by AQIM.

What a mess? Thank France, the UK and USA for that, thank Obama, Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy and those mentioned in the indictment. All of them are walking around Scot-free as if nothing had happened. And what is the international community going to do about it?

Right, nothing. Welcome to Planet Earth 2018 but do NOT tell me that international law exists or that the West respects any form of the law.

*

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

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

Selected Articles: How Google Wipes Palestine Off the Map

November 1st, 2018 by Global Research News

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.

“Lying” in mainstream journalism has become the “new normal”: mainstream journalists are pressured to comply. Some journalists refuse.

Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): The Asian Parliamentary Assembly Meeting in Gwadar Was Good News for CPEC

By Andrew Korybko, October 31, 2018

It was a very prudent move for Pakistan to have Gwadar host this year’s Asian Parliamentary Assembly instead of any other of the country’s cities because Islamabad showed off the progress that’s been made thus far on CPEC, encouraged its fellow institutional members to feel like they have a stake in its future success, and opened their eyes to the peaceful state of affairs in Balochistan.

How Google Wipes Palestine Off the Map

By Asa Winstanley, October 31, 2018

Like the other Silicon Valley monopolies, Google habitually takes the side of Israeli occupation and war crimes in Palestine – the very term Palestine is not used by their highly influential maps app.

Does US Withdrawal From Another Nuclear Treaty Really Benefit Russia?

By Tony Cartalucci, October 31, 2018

No. Obviously Russia does not benefit from the scrapping of yet another treaty designed to prevent a nuclear exchange amid a war with the United States.

Mass Shooting at Pittsburgh Synagogue: Anti-Semitic Violence Erupts in America

By Joseph Kishore, October 31, 2018

The anti-Semitic massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has raised the crisis of American politics and society to a new level. More and more, the conditions in the United States have the character of a civil war, in which the most backward and reactionary forces are being encouraged and promoted.

Spooks and the Masked Media

By Edward Curtin, October 31, 2018

To even suggest that people’s favorite mainstream media are doing the work of the secret state feels so insulting to people’s intelligence with its suggestion of gullibility that many recoil in anger at the possibility.  A common retort is that it is absurd to suggest that The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, etc. are just disseminating propaganda from behind a mask of objectivity. 

Video: The Stone Guest at the Table with Italy and Russia

By Manlio Dinucci, October 31, 2018

The Conte government thus supported de facto the US plan to abandon the INF Treaty and once again to deploy in Europe (including Italy) medium range nuclear missiles pointed at Russia. These missiles will be added to the new B61-12 nuclear bombs that the United States will begin to deploy, as from March 2020, in Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland and probably other European countries, always with an anti-Russia objective.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: How Google Wipes Palestine Off the Map

Pipe Bombs: Frantic Denunciations of the False Flag Concept

November 1st, 2018 by Prof. Graeme MacQueen

Onto the 24-hour reality show that is U.S. politics, 15 package bombs recently made their entrance. 

The devices were sent to vocal opponents of Mr. Trump, most of them prominent members of the Democratic Party.  The incident became public on October 25, less than two weeks before the November 6 elections that mark the middle of Trump’s first term.

Now, it is an interesting question as to whether the designated perpetrator, Cesar Sayoc, is a lone wolf terrorist or a patsy acting on behalf of larger forces. I am encouraged to see researchers exploring the second possibility. But my focus in this article is different. 

The suggestion that the package bomb incidents might be false flag attacks—attacks by opponents of Trump deceptively imputing the attacks to his supporters to discredit them before the elections—was rapidly put forth. Among the fastest off the mark were right-wing pundits, so it was easy enough for various “liberals” (whatever this term means today in the U.S.) to characterize the false flag suggestion as a variety of right-wing conspiracy theory, and as both intellectually ridiculous and morally disgusting. The evident aim has been to stigmatize the concept and drive it from responsible political discourse. 

Among the most prominent of the denunciations appeared in CNN and The New York Times. 

The article by CNN Editor-at-large Chris Cillizza’s was entitled, “Debunking the despicable ‘false flag’ theory on the mail bombs.” He quoted Rush Limbaugh’s claim that a “Democratic operative” could be responsible for the attacks in order to make it look as if “the Republicans are a bunch of insane lunatics.” Cillizza noted that although we may be tempted to dismiss such “conspiracy crap” without comment, we must not. To refuse to comment on it is “to let it fester.” We must publicly challenge it. His article, it seems, was meant to be a model of such debunking. 

Screengrab from CNN

It was not a good model.

Cillizza concentrated on what he believed to be the logistical impossibilities in Limbaugh’s scenario. He named two steps in the scenario:

1. “Someone or someones who wanted to help Democrats—and the media, I guess, somehow?—would send a series of pipe bombs to prominent Democrats across the country.” 

2. “Then Democrats or the media or, again, someone, would have to have coordinated with the state and local police—not to mention federal authorities—so that law enforcement said that these were functional bombs (even though, again, according to this theory, they weren’t).”

He feels that simply to have named these steps is to have shown how ridiculous the hypothesis is.

Really?

There is nothing impossible about Step 1. Surely Cillizza is not saying that the faction of the U.S. intelligence community hostile to Trump—nicely represented by James Clapper and John Brennan, two recipients of the package bombs—is incapable of fashioning a few clumsy devices and sending them through the mail? The material in the 2001 anthrax envelopes was much more sophisticated and difficult to acquire than the non-functional “pipe bombs,” yet the U.S. intelligence community remains a prime suspect in these attacks.

As for the purpose in sending out such bombs, one of the first questions we ask when confronted by a violent event of this sort is, Cui bono? Who benefits? I cannot see how Trump and his supporters benefit, whereas the benefit to mainstream Democrats—of the Clinton variety, no threat to the established order—is obvious. They get to claim the status of nonviolent, sane victim.

What about Cillizza’s Step 2? I confess I am defeated by his prose. I do not know what he is trying to say. But let me speculate that he is claiming this conspiracy theory involves too many people (various levels of police, for example) and that it involves an impossibly complex deception—policing agencies portraying inoperative devices as operative. 

Once again we might fruitfully examine the anthrax attacks. There was an impressive amount of coordination involved in these attacks. As far as policing was concerned, this was mainly achieved by the FBI chasing away other levels of police while keeping strict control over its own personnel when they wandered too near the truth. 

But the coordination in the anthrax case went far beyond policing. Media were deeply implicated. The media faithfully set out the story they were handed by authorities: the attacks appeared to have been carried out by al-Qaeda, with a strong possibility of Iraqi involvement.  This story was successfully propagated, for example, through a wide variety of newspapers, from The New York Times and Washington Post to the Guardian. By the end of 2001—less than four months after the attacks began—Homeland Security, the FBI and the White House had been forced to admit that neither al-Qaeda, nor Iraq, nor domestic Muslims, appeared to have had anything to do with these attacks. Instead, they came from the heart of the US Military-Industrial-Intelligence community. As to who, precisely, in this community carried out the attacks, there remains disagreement; but even a sketchy familiarity with the anthrax attacks knocks out of Cillizza’s Step 2 objections. 

A useful rule of thumb is that if a thing has happened it is possible. We know a violent, coordinated and complex false flag attack is possible in the U.S. because it happened. 

But if this was the best CNN could do, what about The New York Times? Kevin Roose produced a piece somewhat longer, although not much more thoughtful, than the CNN editor’s. 

Screengrab from The New York Times

Roose let us have it with the old chestnut, “conspiratorial thinking has always been with us”, and then proceeded to dance lightly from the grassy knoll to the moon landing to 9/11 without troubling us with sources, evidence or other bothersome material. 

If you are like me you will find yourself, in an increasingly bad mood, asking: has this young fellow carefully researched all of these incidents? Has he, in fact, carefully researched a single one of them? 

Like the CNN editor, Roose spends his time countering claims that the package bombs sent to prominent enemies of Mr. Trump might have been sent by people wanting to discredit Trump and his allies. He places these “conspiracy theorists” on the political right and associates them with Trump’s presidency. More than this, he uses, and explains, the term “false flag” and tries hard to discredit it. “False flag philosophy—the idea that powerful groups stage threats and tragic events to advance their agendas—is now a bizarrely common element of national news stories.”

This statement is a sign of progress in the opening of the American mind. We should celebrate the good news that the concept of false flag is common in political discourse, common enough that The New York Times feels a need to discredit it. This achievement came through much labour by many people over many years. 

That Roose finds the concept “bizarre” is, of course, to be regretted, but this merely testifies to his naivety and his poor knowledge of false flag attacks, of which there have been plenty in human history (see Sources). 

As a matter of fact, the particular type of false flag attack being discussed in the present case, where Group A attacks itself and blames Group B, is centuries old. In China it used to be called the Stratagem of Wounded Flesh (see Sources).

The notion that the false flag concept and the conspiracy concept are the exclusive property of the political right is absurd. They are ideas available to, and used by, all those who genuinely care about what is going on around them and wish to have an adequate intellectual toolbox. I am not on the political right and I am not a supporter of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the like, but I do not for that reason choose to shut down my brain. 

Although we may not want to admit it, repetition is half the battle in public fights and debates. Let us use the term “false flag” repeatedly and ensure that it remains where it apparently is at the moment: in the center of U.S. political discourse.

*

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

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Sources

1. The CNN article is as follows:

Chris Cillizza, “Debunking the despicable ‘false flag’ theory on the mail bombs”, CNN, Octo. 25, 2018

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/politics/false-flag-theory-mail-bombs-cnn-democrats/index.html

2. The NYT article is:

Kevin Roose, “‘False Flag’ Theory on Pipe Bombs Zooms From Right-Wing Fringe to Mainstream,” The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/business/false-flag-theory-bombs-conservative-media.html?link_id=2&can_id=279a5d1be99466f29caeefa017e74f2e&source=email-disinformation-and-anthrax-mailings-interviews-available&email_referrer=email_443498&email_subject=disinformation-and-anthrax-mailings-interviews-available

3. Most comments on the anthrax attacks in this essay are based on my book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. Clarity Press, 2014.

https://www.claritypress.com/MacQueen.html

But see also FBI whistleblower Richard Lambert’s lawsuit, paragraphs 50 ff.:

https://archive.org/stream/RichardLambertLawsuit2015/FBI%20Agent%20Richard%20Lambert%20Lawsuit%20%282015%29%20concerning%20Anthrax%20investigations%20of%202001_djvu.txt

4. For examples of false flags, see the collection by Washington’s blog:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931

5. The Wounded Flesh Stratagem can be found at least as early as the 14th century CE in the novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms (San Guo Yan Yi). It can also be found as one among many stratagems in the later compilation, Thirty-six Stratagems. The Wikipedia article on the latter text offers an interpretative translation of ku rou ji: “inflict injury on oneself to win the enemy’s trust”. If the pipe bomb case is an instance of ku rou ji, the enemy of the perpetrators would be the U.S. population itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems

Bolsonaro: A Monster Engineered by Our Media

November 1st, 2018 by Jonathan Cook

With Jair Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil’s presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump’s, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.

The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump’s election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western “analysts” and “experts” are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.

Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:

“The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.”

This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity’s id.

Selling plutocracy

There is a kind of truth in Jenkins’ argument, even if it is not the one he intended. Social media did indeed liberate ordinary people. For the first time in modern history, they were not simply the recipients of official, sanctioned information. They were not only spoken down to by their betters, they could answer back – and not always as deferentially as the media class expected.

Clinging to their old privileges, Jenkins and his ilk are rightly unnerved. They have much to lose.

But that also means they are far from dispassionate observers of the current political scene. They are deeply invested in the status quo, in the existing power structures that have kept them well-paid courtiers of the corporations that dominate the planet.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion.

The plutocrats who run our societies need figureheads, behind whom they can conceal their unaccountable power. Until now they preferred the slickest salespeople, ones who could sell wars as humanitarian intervention rather than profit-driven exercises in death and destruction; the unsustainable plunder of natural resources as economic growth; the massive accumulation of wealth, stashed in offshore tax havens, as the fair outcome of a free market; the bailouts funded by ordinary taxpayers to stem economic crises they had engineered as necessary austerity; and so on.

A smooth-tongued Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the favoured salespeople, especially in an age when the elites had persuaded us of a self-serving argument: that ghetto-like identities based on colour or gender mattered far more than class. It was divide-and-rule dressed up as empowerment. The polarisation now bewailed by Jenkins was in truth stoked and rationalised by the very corporate media he so faithfully serves.

Fear of the domino effect

Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite’s power.

The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US.

Lula

Former socialist leaders like Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election.

Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home.

The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence.
Bolsonaro will not face any of the institutional obstacles Lula da Silva or Chavez needed to overcome. No one in power will stand in his way as he institutes his “reforms”. No one will stop him creaming off Brazil’s wealth for his corporate friends. As in Pinochet’s Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism.

Immune system 

If you want to understand the depth of the self-deception of Jenkins and other media gatekeepers, contrast Bolsonaro’s political ascent to that of Jeremy Corbyn, the modest social democratic leader of Britain’s Labour party. Those like Jenkins who lament the role of social media – they mean you, the public – in promoting leaders like Bolsonaro are also the media chorus who have been wounding Corbyn day after day, blow by blow, for three years – since he accidentally slipped past safeguards intended by party bureacrats to keep someone like him from power.

The supposedly liberal Guardian has been leading that assault. Like the rightwing media, it has shown its absolute determination to stop Corbyn at all costs, using any pretext.

Within days of Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army’s commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.

We are not supposed to reach the point where such threats – tearing away the façade of western democracy – ever need to be implemented. Our pretend democracies were created with immune systems whose defences are marshalled to eliminate a threat like Corbyn much earlier.

Once he moved closer to power, however, the rightwing corporate media was forced to deploy the standard tropes used against a left leader: that he was incompetent, unpatriotic, even treasonous.

But just as the human body has different immune cells to increase its chances of success, the corporate media has faux-liberal-left agents like the Guardian to complement the right’s defences. The Guardian sought to wound Corbyn through identity politics, the modern left’s Achille’s heel. An endless stream of confected crises about anti-semitism were intended to erode the hard-earned credit Corbyn had accumulated over decades for his anti-racism work.

Slash-and-burn politics 

Why is Corbyn so dangerous? Because he supports the right of workers to a dignified life, because he refuses to accept the might of the corporations, because he implies that a different way of organising our societies is possible. It is a modest, even timid programme he articulates, but even so it is far too radical either for the plutocratic class that rules over us or for the corporate media that serves as its propaganda arm.

The truth ignored by Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.

It is not that the masses are a menace to democracy. It is rather that a growing proportion of voters understand that a global corporate elite has rigged the system to accrue for itself ever greater riches. It is not social media that is polarising our societies. It is rather that the determination of the elites to pillage the planet until it has no more assets to strip has fuelled resentment and destroyed hope. It is not fake news that is unleashing the baser instincts of the lower orders. Rather, it is the frustration of those who feel that change is impossible, that no one in power is listening or cares.

Social media has empowered ordinary people. It has shown them that they cannot trust their leaders, that power trumps justice, that the elite’s enrichment requires their poverty. They have concluded that, if the rich can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the planet, our only refuge, they can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the global elite.

Are they choosing wisely in electing a Trump or Bolsonaro? No. But the liberal guardians of the status quo are in no position to judge them. For decades, all parts of the corporate media have helped to undermine a genuine left that could have offered real solutions, that could have taken on and beaten the right, that could have offered a moral compass to a confused, desperate and disillusioned public.

Jenkins wants to lecture the masses about their depraved choices while he and his paper steer them away from any politician who cares about their welfare, who fights for a fairer society, who prioritises mending what is broken.

The western elites will decry Bolsonaro in the forlorn and cynical hope of shoring up their credentials as guardians of the existing, supposedly moral order. But they engineered him. Bolsonaro is their monster.

*

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

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.

Featured image is from Transcend Media Service.

It was a very prudent move for Pakistan to have Gwadar host this year’s Asian Parliamentary Assembly instead of any other of the country’s cities because Islamabad showed off the progress that’s been made thus far on CPEC, encouraged its fellow institutional members to feel like they have a stake in its future success, and opened their eyes to the peaceful state of affairs in Balochistan.

This year’s Asian Parliamentary Assembly (APA) just took place in the southwestern Pakistani port city of Gwadar, the terminal point of the Silk Road’s flagship project of CPEC as well as its mainland-maritime pivot, which importantly allowed Islamabad to show off the progress that’s been made thus far on this game-changing initiative. Around 100 parliamentarians from 26 countries such as Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia arrived to participate in the event, which was the first high-profile multilateral one of this level to take place there. The author suggested back in Spring 2017 during a speech at Pakistan’s National Defence University (NDU) that the country prioritize hosting large-scale events in this growing connectivity nexus in order to promote CPEC, proposing at the time that a brand-new function one day be unveiled provisionally called the “Gwadar Gathering” for bringing together a wide array of academic, political, military, business, and civil society figures.

The two-day APA meeting can therefore be seen as an organizational and logistical precursor for preparing Gwadar to host even larger functions in the future such as the unique one that the author suggested. It’s also relevant in and of itself not only for the work that the organization carried out during this time, but because of the soft power goals that Pakistan advanced as well. CPEC recently secured significant Saudi backing during Prime Minister Khan’s visit to the Kingdom in mid-September which was seen as proof of this project being the “Zipper of Eurasia” in at least connecting West Asia with East Asia via Pakistani territory, let alone of its larger potential in ultimately becoming the “Convergence of Civilizations” in Afro-Eurasia. These geo-cultural integrational possibilities could powerfully debunk Huntington’s thesis about the imminence of a so-called “clash of civilizations” if successfully actualized and thus stabilize the emerging Multipolar World Order.

Accordingly, it only makes sense that Acting President Sadiq Sanjrani emphasized the angle of CPEC’s Asian integrational vision and also took the time to talk about Pakistan’s many sacrifices in the War on Terror. This latter part of his remarks drew attention to the peacemaking achievements that were made in the Balochistan region over the past couple of years that enabled Pakistan to guarantee the security of CPEC and therefore make APA’s Gwadar meeting a reality. The intention behind doing all of this was to make the visiting dignitaries feel like their countries have a stake in CPEC’s success, but it also had another motivation to it as well. Showing the foreign parliamentarians the developmental progress that CPEC has made in Gwadar and the entire Balochistan region, as well as Pakistan’s future plans for them, exposed the fake news narrative  that the supposedly “hopeless plight” of the native Baloch has given rise to a “rebellion” as nothing more than a debunked infowar narrative spread by hostile forces.

The fact of the matter is that approximately 100 visiting parliamentarians saw that CPEC is delivering tangible benefits to the people of Balochistan and that the Pakistani state has successfully defeated terrorism there, though the region nevertheless remains in the crosshairs of Hybrid War precisely because of its strategic significance vis-à-vis the “Zipper of Eurasia” concept and its larger “Convergence of Civilizations” one. Having said that, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the rare attacksthat still occur there every once in a while are due to foreign-backed terrorist infiltrators and not indigenous “rebels”, which former separatist leader Dr. Jumma Baloch proved to the world since switching sides, exposing how India hijacked his people’s struggle, and launching the Overseas Pakistani Baloch Unity organizationfor rehabilitating his remaining wayward compatriots. As such, it can be said that Gwadar’s hosting of the latest APA meeting was a success because it informed 26 countries’ representatives of CPEC’s grand strategic importance and the peaceful state of affairs of Balochistan.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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.

How Google Wipes Palestine Off the Map

October 31st, 2018 by Asa Winstanley

Like the other Silicon Valley monopolies, Google habitually takes the side of Israeli occupation and war crimes in Palestine – the very term Palestine is not used by their highly influential maps app.

A new report by a Palestinian human rights group last month exposed the depths of Google’s dedication to the Israeli occupation.

With a known history documented back more than 3,200 years, the name “Palestine” is the only term continuously used for the entire territory of the country lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Palestine is the most historically accurate term. But since 1948, when Zionist militias expelled the majority of the Palestinian population from the country by force, a new state, “Israel”, was established.

That state has never declared its borders.

Consequentially, when speaking about “Israel” it is unclear exactly what territory is being referred to. But Zionists of both the right and the “left” commonly claim the entire historic territory of Palestine as the “Land of Israel.”

The new report, by 7amleh (Hamleh), a Palestinian organisation advocating online rights, details how Google seems to almost go out of its way to eradicate the reality of Palestinian life.

In 2016, Google came under fire from Palestinians on social media when the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” disappeared from Google Maps. Google said that the removal of these terms was down to a glitch and that they had never used the word Palestine in the first place.

(The West Bank and Gaza Strip are regions of Palestine that are important, since they represent the remaining Palestinian territories which Israel failed to occupy in 1948. In 1967, however, Israel took over those too.)

“Through its mapping and labelling,” the 7amleh report explains, “one can deduce that Google Maps recognises the existence of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, but not Palestine.”

There are further aspects of the way Google has wiped Palestinian life off the map though. As the 7amleh report maps in some detail, Palestinian villages in the Naqab (Negev desert) deemed “unrecognised” by Israel (inside of what is sometimes termed “Israel proper” – the territories of Palestine occupied in 1948) are not properly mapped by Google.

These villages are only visible in Google Maps “when zooming in very closely,” the report explains, “but otherwise appear to be non-existent. This means that when looking at Google Maps, these villages appear to be not there.”

The report details how small Israeli villages are “displayed even when zoomed-out, while unrecognised Palestinian Bedouin villages, regardless of their size are only visible when zooming in very closely.”

This is despite the fact that there “are in total 46 Bedouin villages in the Naqab, the majority of which existed before Israel’s creation in 1948. Some claim to have existed since the 7th century.”

Israel has repeatedly attempted to physically remove these villages, but has repeatedly failed, thanks to the resistance of the Palestinians who live there, and thanks also to national and international solidarity shown to those villages.

Their Israeli (lack of) status as “unrecognised” also means that the state refuses to connect the villages to basic services like water and electricity – despite the fact that nearby Israeli-Jewish settlements are given all the support possible.

As Basma Abu-Qwaider, one Palestinian Naqab villager, explains in the report:

Google Maps acts in a discriminatory manner towards the unrecognised village the same [way] as the Israeli government does. Google ignores the existence of these villages just like Israel and for me if you do not exist on the map it means that you are invisible and that’s exactly what Israel wants us to be.

This solidarity with Israeli racism expressed by Google’s helpful attitude towards Israel’s wiping of Palestinians quite literally off the map extends across the 1967 “Green Line” ceasefire boundary.

Palestinian villages even within the “West Bank” area of the Jordan Valley are not properly mapped by Google either. The report documents that while Israeli settlements “can be seen when looking at the larger area of the map” some Palestinian villages are only visible when zoomed in – and even that only as a result of pressure being put on by a human rights organisation.

Google also refuses to recognise or map the reality of Israel’s apartheid roads system for Palestinians.

As part of Israel’s ongoing settler-colonisation of Palestine, large parts of the West Bank – which is ruled by Israeli military decree – are prohibited access for Palestinians. Many roads are reserved for the use of Jews only.

Despite the illegality of these practices under international law, Google’s route-planning apps do not designate Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.

7amleh’s report concludes:

“Google Maps, as the largest global mapping and route planning service, has the power to influence global public opinion and therefore bears the responsibility to abide by international human rights standards and to offer a service that reflects the Palestinian reality.”

Google should be compelled to end its complicity with Israeli racism and apartheid.

*

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

When it comes to relations between Donald Trump’s America, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and Xi Jinping’s China, observers everywhere are starting to talk about a return to an all-too-familiar past. “Now we have a new Cold War,” commented Russia expert Peter Felgenhauer in Moscow after President Trump recently announced plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The Trump administration is “launching a new Cold War,” said historian Walter Russell Mead in the Wall Street Journal, following a series of anti-Chinese measures approved by the president in October. And many others are already chiming in.

Recent steps by leaders in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing may seem to lend credence to such a “new Cold War” narrative, but in this case history is no guide. Almost two decades into the twenty-first century, what we face is not some mildly updated replica of last century’s Cold War, but a new and potentially even more dangerous global predicament.

The original Cold War, which lasted from the late 1940s until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, posed a colossal risk of thermonuclear annihilation. At least after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, however, it also proved a remarkably stable situation in which, despite local conflicts of many sorts, the United States and the Soviet Union both sought to avoid the kinds of direct confrontations that might have triggered a mutual catastrophe. In fact, after confronting the abyss in 1962, the leaders of both superpowers engaged in a complex series of negotiations leading to substantial reductions in their nuclear arsenals and agreements intended to reduce the risk of a future Armageddon.

What others are now calling the New Cold War — but I prefer to think of as a new global tinderbox — bears only the most minimal resemblance to that earlier period. As before, the United States and its rivals are engaged in an accelerating arms race, focused on nuclear and “conventional” weaponry of ever-increasing range, precision, and lethality. All three countries, in characteristic Cold War fashion, are also lining up allies in what increasingly looks like a global power struggle.

But the similarities end there. Among the differences, the first couldn’t be more obvious: the U.S. now faces two determined adversaries, not one, and .  (with a corresponding increase in potential nuclear flashpoints). At the same time, the old boundaries between “peace” and “war” are rapidly disappearing as all three rivals engage in what could be thought of as combat by other means, including trade wars and cyberattacks that might set the stage for far greater violence to follow. To compound the danger, all three big powers are now engaging in provocative acts aimed at “demonstrating resolve” or intimidating rivals, including menacing U.S. and Chinese naval maneuvers off Chinese-occupied islands in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, rather than pursue the sort of arms-control agreements that tempered Cold War hostilities, the U.S. and Russia appear intent on tearing up existing accords and launching a new nuclear arms race.

These factors could already be steering the world ever closer to a new Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world came within a hairsbreadth of nuclear incineration. This one, however, could start in the South China Sea or even in the Baltic region, where U.S. and Russian planes and ships are similarly engaged in regular near-collisions.

Why are such dangers so rapidly ramping up? To answer this, it’s worth exploring the factors that distinguish this moment from the original Cold War era.

It’s a Tripolar World, Baby

In the original Cold War, the bipolar struggle between Moscow and Washington — the last two superpowers left on planet Earth after centuries of imperial rivalry — seemed to determine everything that occurred on the world stage. This, of course, entailed great danger, but also enabled leaders on each side to adopt a common understanding of the need for nuclear restraint in the interest of mutual survival.

The bipolar world of the Cold War was followed by what many observers saw as a “unipolar moment,” in which the United States, the “last superpower,” dominated the world stage. During this period, which lasted from the collapse of the Soviet Union to the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Washington largely set the global agenda and, when minor challengers arose — think Iraq’s Saddam Hussein — employed overwhelming military power to crush them. Those foreign engagements, however, consumed huge sums of money and tied down American forces in remarkably unsuccessful wars across a vast arc of the planet, while Moscow and Beijing — neither so wealthy nor so encumbered — were able to begin their own investment in military modernization and geopolitical outreach.

Today, the “unipolar moment” has vanished and we are in what can only be described as a tripolar world. All three rivals possess outsized military establishments with vast arrays of conventional and nuclear weapons. China and Russia have now joined the United States (even if on a more modest scale) in extending their influence beyond their borders diplomatically, economically, and militarily. More importantly, all three rivals are led by highly nationalistic leaders, each determined to advance his country’s interests.

A tripolar world, almost by definition, will be markedly different from either a bipolar or a unipolar one and conceivably far more discordant, with Donald Trump’s Washington potentially provoking crises with Moscow at one moment and Beijing the next, without apparent reason. In addition, a tripolar world is likely to encompass more potential flash points. During the whole Cold War era, there was one crucial line of confrontation between the two major powers: the boundary between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations in Europe. Any flare-up along that line could indeed have triggered a major commitment of force on both sides and, in all likelihood, the use of so-called tactical or theater atomic weapons, leading almost inevitably to full-scale thermonuclear combat. Thanks to such a risk, the leaders of those superpowers eventually agreed to various de-escalatory measures, including the about-to-be-cancelled INF Treaty of 1987 that banned the deployment of medium-range ground-launched missiles capable of triggering just such a spiral of ultimate destruction.

Today, that line of confrontation between Russia and NATO in Europe has been fully restored (and actually reinforced) along a perimeter considerably closer to Russian territory, thanks to NATO’s eastward expansion into the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and the Baltic republics in the era of unipolarity. Along this repositioned line, as during the Cold War years, hundreds of thousands of well-armed soldiers are now poised for full-scale hostilities on very short notice.

At the same time, a similar line of confrontation has been established in Asia, ranging from Russia’s far-eastern territories to the East and South China Seas and into the Indian Ocean. In May, the Pentagon’s Pacific Command, based in Hawaii, was renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, highlighting the expansion of this frontier of confrontation. At points along this line, too, U.S. planes and ships are encountering Chinese or Russian ones on a regular basis, often coming within shooting range. The mere fact that three major nuclear powers are now constantly jostling for position and advantage over significant parts of the planet only increases the possibility of clashes that could trigger a catastrophic escalatory spiral.

The War Has Already Begun

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR engaged in hostile activities vis-à-vis each other that fell short of armed combat, including propaganda and disinformation warfare, as well as extensive spying. Both also sought to expand their global reach by engaging in proxy wars — localized conflicts in what was then called the Third World aimed at bolstering or eliminating regimes loyal to one side or the other. Such conflicts would produce millions of casualties but never lead to direct combat between the militaries of the two superpowers (although each would commit its forces to key contests, the U.S. in Vietnam, the USSR in Afghanistan), nor were they allowed to become the kindling for a nuclear clash between them. At the time, both countries made a sharp distinction between such operations and the outbreak of a global “hot war.”

In the twenty-first century, the distinction between “peace” and “war” is already blurring, as the powers in this tripolar contest engage in operations that fall short of armed combat but possess some of the characteristics of interstate conflict. When President Trump, for example, first announced tough import tariffs and other economic penalties against China, his stated intent was to overcome an unfair advantage that country, he claimed, had gained in trade relations. “For months, we have urged China to change these unfair practices, and give fair and reciprocal treatment to American companies,” he asserted in mid-September while announcing tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. It’s clear, however, that his escalating trade “war” is also meant to hobble the Chinese economy and so frustrate Beijing’s drive to achieve parity with the United States as a major world actor. The Trump administration seeks, as the New York Times’s Neil Irwin observed, to “isolate China and compel major changes to Chinese business and trade practices. The ultimate goal… is to reset the economic relationship between China and the rest of the world.”

In doing so, the president is said to be particularly keen on disrupting and crippling Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” plan, an ambitious scheme to achieve mastery in key technological sectors of the global economy, including artificial intelligence and robotics, something that would indeed bring China closer to that goal of parity, which Trump and his associates are determined to sabotage. In other words, for China, this is no mere competitive challenge but a potentially existential threat to its future status as a great power. As a result, expect counter-measures that are likely to further erode the borders between peace and war.

And if there is any place where such borders are particularly at risk of erosion, it’s in cyberspace, an increasingly significant arena for combat in the post-Cold War world. While an incredible source of wealth to companies that rely on the Internet for commerce and communications, cyberspace is also a largely unpatrolled jungle where bad actors can spread misinformation, steal secrets, or endanger critical economic and other operations. Its obvious penetrability has proven a bonanza for criminals and political provocateurs of every stripe, including aggressive groups sponsored by governments eager to engage in offensive operations that, while again falling short of armed combat, pose significant dangers to a targeted country. As Americans have discovered to our horror, Russian government agents exploited the Internet’s many vulnerabilities to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and are reportedly continuing to meddle in America’s electoral politics two years later. China, for its part, is believed to have exploited the Internet to steal American technological secrets, including data for the design and development of advanced weapons systems.

The United States, too, has engaged in offensive cyber operations, including the groundbreaking 2010 “Stuxnet” attack that temporarily crippled Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. It reportedly also used such methods to try to impair North Korean missile launches. To what degree U.S. cyberattacks have been directed against China or Russia is unknown, but under a new “National Cyber Strategy” unveiled by the Trump administration in August, such a strategy will become far more likely. Claiming that those countries have imperiled American national security through relentless cyberattacks, it authorizes secret retaliatory strikes.

The question is: Could trade war and cyberwar lead one day to regular armed conflict?

Muscle-Flexing in Perilous Times

Such dangers are compounded by another distinctive feature of the new global tinderbox: the unrestrained impulse of top officials of the three powers to advertise their global assertiveness through conspicuous displays of military power, including encroaching on the perimeters, defensive or otherwise, of their rivals. These can take various forms, including overly aggressive military “exercises” and the deployment of warships in contested waters.

Increasingly massive and menacing military exercises have become a distinctive feature of this new era. Such operations typically involve the mobilization of vast air, sea, and land forces for simulated combat maneuvers, often conducted adjacent to a rival’s territory.

This summer, for example, the alarm bells in NATO went off when Russia conducted Vostok 2018, its largest military exercise since World War II. Involving as many as 300,000 troops, 36,000 armored vehicles, and more than 1,000 planes, it was intended to prepare Russian forces for a possible confrontation with the U.S. and NATO, while signaling Moscow’s readiness to engage in just such an encounter. Not to be outdone, NATO recently completed its largest exercise since the Cold War’s end. Called Trident Venture, it fielded some 40,000 troops, 70 ships, 150 aircraft, and 10,000 ground combat vehicles in maneuvers also intended to simulate a major East-West clash in Europe.

Such periodic troop mobilizations can lead to dangerous and provocative moves on all sides, as ships and planes of the contending forces maneuver in contested areas like the Baltic and Black Seas. In one incident in 2016, Russian combat jets flew provocatively within a few hundred feet of a U.S. destroyer while it was sailing in the Baltic Sea, nearly leading to a shooting incident. More recently, Russian aircraft reportedly came within five feet of an American surveillance plane flying over the Black Sea. No one has yet been wounded or killed in any of these encounters, but it’s only a matter of time before something goes terribly wrong.

The same is true of Chinese and American naval encounters in the South China Sea. China has converted some low-lying islets and atolls it claims in those waters into miniature military installations, complete with airstrips, radar, and missile batteries — steps that have been condemned by neighboring countries with similar claims to those islands. The United States, supposedly acting on behalf of its allies in the region, as well as to protect its “freedom of navigation” in the area, has sought to counter China’s provocative buildup with aggressive acts of its own. It has dispatched its warships to waters right off those fortified islands. The Chinese, in response, have sent vessels to harass the American ones and only recently one of them almost collided with a U.S. destroyer. Vice President Pence, in an October 4th speech on China at the Hudson Institute, referred to that incident, saying, “We will not be intimidated, and we will not stand down.”

What comes next is anyone’s guess, since “not standing down” roughly translates into increasingly aggressive maneuvers.

On the Road to World War III?

Combine all of this — economic attacks, cyber attacks, and ever more aggressive muscle-flexing military operations — and you have a situation in which a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis between the U.S. and China or the U.S. and Russia or even involving all three could happen at any time. Add the apparent intent of the leaders of all three countries to abandon the remaining restraints on the acquisition of nuclear weapons in order to seek significant additions to their existing arsenals and you have the definition of an extremely dangerous situation. In February, for instance, President Trump gave the green light to what may prove to be a $1.6 trillion overhaul of the American nuclear arsenal initially contemplated in the Obama years, intended to “modernize” existing delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and long-range strategic bombers. Russia has embarked on a similar overhaul of its nuclear stockpile, while China, with a much smaller arsenal, is undertaking modernization projects of its own.

Equally worrisome, all three powers appear to be pursuing the development of theater nuclear weapons intended for use against conventional forces in the event of a major military conflagration. Russia, for example, has developed several short- and medium-range missiles capable of delivering both nuclear and conventional warheads, including the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile that, American officials claim, already violates the INF Treaty. The United States, which has long relied on aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons for use against massive conventional enemy threats, is now seeking additional attack options of its own. Under the administration’s Nuclear Policy Review of February 2018, the Pentagon will undertake the development of a “low-yield” nuclear warhead for its existing submarine-launched ballistic missiles and later procure a nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile.

While developing such new weapons and enhancing the capability of older ones, the major powers are also tearing down the remaining arms control edifice. President Trump’s October 20th announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the 1987 INF treaty to develop new missiles of its own represents a devastating step in that direction. “We’ll have to develop those weapons,” he told reporters in Nevada after a rally. “We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.”

How do the rest of us respond to such a distressing prospect in an increasingly imperiled world? How do we slow the pace of the race to World War III?

There is much that could, in fact, be done to resist a new nuclear arms confrontation. After all, it was massive public pressure in the 1980s that led the U.S. and USSR to sign the INF Treaty in the first place. But in order to do so, a new world war would have to be seen as a central danger of our time, potentially even more dangerous than the Cold War era, given the three nuclear-armed great powers now involved. Only by positioning that risk front and center and showing how many other trends are leading us, pell-mell, in such a direction, can the attention of a global public already distracted by so many other concerns and worries be refocused.

Is a nuclear World War III preventable? Yes, but only if preventing it becomes a central, common objective of our moment. And time is already running out.

*

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

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

Canadian scientists are becoming progressively alarmed at the increasing rate of melting of the country’s glaciers, warning that climate change is having a severe impact on the region.

Anyone concerned about climate change and sea level rise often thinks about melting glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. But after these two, Canada has the largest amount of glacial ice: some 200,000 square kilometres.

One of the scientists who is increasingly concerned is Gwenn Flowers, a glaciologist from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, who has been researching glacial retreat and melting in the Yukon for over a decade.

Her team is currently mapping the ice retreat on the Kaskawulsh glacier in the St. Elias mountain range, which is 70 kilometres long and 5 kilometres wide, with ice some 800 feet deep at some places. Flowers calls glaciers “fantastic barometers of climate change”.

However, Flowers says: “The thinning is really dramatic here” and adds that she believes that the ice is currently melting at about half a metre a year. Indeed from 1977 to 2007, the Kaskawulsh glacier is reported to have lost 17 square kilometres of ice.

Speaking to CBC she says:

“We as Canadians are stewards of about a third of the world’s mountain glaciers and ice caps, so this is our responsibility”.

She adds:

“As Canadians, given our responsibility to be stewards of this ice, I think we could be doing better. I think Arctic science should be a priority. I think understanding our terrestrial and marine ice should be a national priority.”

Her colleague from Simon Fraser University, David Hik said:

“The magnitude of the changes is dramatic. The region is one of the hotspots for warming, which is something we’ve come to realize over the last 15 years.”

Another person concerned about the rapid glacial loss in the region is Diane Wilson, from Parks Canada:

“We’re seeing a 20 per cent difference in area coverage of the glaciers in Kluane National Park and Reserve and the rest of the UNESCO World Heritage site [over a 60-year period]. We’ve never seen that. It’s outside the scope of normal.”

This is not the first time the Kaskawulsh glacier has made the news. Research published last year in the journal, Nature Geoscience, outlined what was called “river piracy”, in which one huge river suddenly flows into another. For centuries, the Slims river had flowed north carrying meltwater from the Kaskawulsh glacier towards the Bering sea.

However the unusually hot spring in 2016 caused an intense melting of the glacier that cut a new channel through the ice to the Alsek river, which flows southwards and on to Pacific. Where once the two rivers were comparable in size, the Slims was reduced to a trickle and the Alsek became 60-70 times larger.

At the time, Professor Dan Shugar, the paper’s lead author and a geoscientist at the University of Washington Tacoma said:

“We were pretty shocked. We had no idea what was really in store.” He added “Day by day we could see the water level dropping.”

Earlier this year, the Alpine Club of Canada issued its annual State of the Mountains report and warned that “the beheading of Slims River” is likely to be “permanent,” and argued that phenomenon could happen elsewhere as the world’s glaciers retreat.

They noted:

“recent history has shown that river reorganization due to climate change can, in some cases, have large consequences for people and ecosystems … As we move toward a world with far fewer glaciers and smaller ice sheets, land that has been covered continuously by ice for many tens of thousands of years will become ice-free.”

As it does so, they contended “many rivers in high mountains will be redirected via more hydrologically expedient paths to the sea. In most instances, the redirection will be inconsequential. In other cases, however, the changes might have more significance.”

*

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

Featured image is from Richard Droker.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have continued attacks on targets in Syria even after the downing of the Russian Il-20 military plane on September 17, Reuters reported on October 29 citing “a senior Israeli official”.

“The IDF have attacked in Syria, including after the downing of the Russian plane. Military coordination with the Russians continues as before,” Reuters quoted “the senior official, who could not be named” as saying. No further details were provided.

This report gained wide attention in mainstream media outlets, including Israeli ones, which even developed the story further. According to Israeli media, IDF warplanes carried out a strike on an Iranian weapons shipment to Hezbollah after the S-300 air defense system delivery to the Syrian military, which took place on October 1. Israeli sources went even further claiming that there were multiple airstrikes, which were mysteriously ignored not only by the IDF official media wing, but also by Israeli and Syrian media outlets and activists.

While these reports seem fascinating for supporters of Israeli actions in Syria, the problem is that no evidence exists to confirm such claims. Syrian military and local sources describe the Israeli claims as an example of fake news designed to save the face of the IDF.

It is interesting to note that the comment of the “anonymous source” to Reuters came less than an hour after the Russian news agency Sputnik had released a short interview with former Israeli deputy chief of staff and ex-head of the National Security Council Gen. Uzi Dayan. The general said that the Israeli Air Force would feel no difference even if Syria employs Russia-supplied S-300 systems and claimed Israeli warplanes would eliminate the air-defense systems stating “these weapons do not have any immunity”. This is another sign of the pre-planned PR trick.

It’s clear that the Israeli military is not going to cease its strikes on targets in the war-torn country and is likely fiercely preparing to continue them despite the S-300 delivery to the Syrian Air Defense Forces. However, pro-Israeli media as well as Israeli political and military officials probably consider every delay of such actions a major media and diplomatic setback revealing the decrease of Israeli influence on the conflict.

Russian deputy envoy to the UN Vladimir Safronkov stated during a meeting of the UN Security Council on October 29 that the White Helmets and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) are still capable of carrying out provocations involving chemical weapons in the Idlib de-escalation zone. He recalled “suspicious” movements of chemical weapons across the area and stated that Idlib de-escalation agreements have always been a temporary measure and nobody has dropped the goal of eliminating terrorists from this part of Syria. So, if provocations continue, Russia is ready to assist the Syrian military in eliminating the terrorist threat.

In the Euphrates Valley, clashes between ISIS and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have continued with reports that some ISIS units have even reached the area near the Iraqi border. In response, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) announced that they are mobilizing their fighters in order to prevent a possible ISIS advance into Iraqi territory.

*

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

The Return of the Latin American Caudillos

October 31st, 2018 by Wayne Madsen

Latin America’s “springtime of socialism” is at a close. After over a decade of progressive socialist presidents putting people ahead of cronyism, Latin America’s oligarchs, through the abuse of the courts, parliaments, and electoral systems, have put caudillos in office throughout the region. Unlike the past, when local generals, with a wink-and-a-nod from the local Central Intelligence Agency station chief, would call out the tanks and troops to oust democratically-elected presidents, today’s fascist leaders have discovered that social media, coupled with corrupt judges and legislators, can mount what are, essentially, soft “constitutional coups.”

Latin America’s springtime of socialism saw many nations adopt independent foreign policies, free of dictates from Washington. With the United States bogged down in military quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq, Latin America broke free of its political, financial, and military chains that tied it to Washington. Latin America’s newly-found freedoms irritated the neo-conservatives and military brass in the United States, particularly John Bolton, George W. Bush’s Senate-unconfirmed ambassador to the United Nations, and John Kelly, Commander of the US Southern Command in Miami. Both Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser, and Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, are now in positions to aid and abet the rise of the caudillos in Latin America, getting revenge on progressive leaders and their political parties.

Latin America’s progressive socialist springtime was at its pinnacle when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, leading a bloc of Latin American and Caribbean nations that served as an alternative to the neo-colonial and American-dominated Organization of American States (OAS), was an inspiration to other progressive leaders in the region.

These included Argentine President Nestor Kirchner and his widow, Cristina de Fernandez Kirchner, who was later elected president;

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega;

Brazilian Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”) and Dilma Rousseff;

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet;

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correra;

Bolivian President Evo Morales;

Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo;

Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide;

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya;

Uruguayan Presidents Jose (Pepe) Mujica and Tabaré Vazquez;

Alvaro Colom; and left-of-center leaders in the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Peru, St. Vincent, Dominica, and St. Lucia. Right-wing critics of the Latin American spring pejoratively called the trend the “Red Tide.”

Chavez was the brainchild behind the creation of the non-American-controlled Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) and Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

Latin America’s springtime of socialism began to unravel after the United States – mainly via the Central Intelligence Agency and Southern Command, engineered textbook military coups in Haiti and Honduras, an attempted military coup in Ecuador, and “constitutional coups” in Paraguay and ultimately, in Brazil. After Chavez was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer, his Bolivarian bloc was besieged by Washington. Today, only Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Uruguay remain as vestiges of the progressive bloc and all are under siege, to varying extents from Washington and compliant “crony capitalist” regimes in Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru.

The election as president of Brazil of Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right politician of the inaptly-named Liberal Social Party (PSL), represents a return to the days of the military-backed caudillos of Washington’s “gunboat diplomacy” days and its imposition of “banana republics” in the Western Hemisphere.

Bolsonaro, a self-proclaimed admirer of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Brazil’s past military dictatorship, began establishing himself as a far-right version of past Latin American military dictators even before he was elected president. Bolsonaro made no secret of desiring to lead a right-wing bloc of Latin American nations subservient to the nationalist and racist doctrines of the Trump administration. Bolsonaro reached out to Paraguay’s right-wing president, Mario Abdo Benitez – whose father served as the private secretary to the pro-Nazi dictator Alfredo Stroessner – in promising to forge closer ties between Brasilia and Asuncion.

Colombia’s right-wing president Ivan Duque also held talks with Bolsonaro with an eye on joining a far-right bloc of Latin American nations to be hammered out at a future Conservative Summit of the Americas, which will likely draw Mr. Trump as a participant. Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, busy with his plans for a summit of far-right European political parties under a Brussels secretariat called “The Movement,” has been advising Bolsonaro and his ambitious son, Brazilian congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro has also held conversations with Argentina’s right-wing president Mauricio Macri, a one-time business partner of Trump, in anticipation of forming a new right-wing alliance in Latin America. Bolsonaro received Jacqueline van Rysselberghe and Jose Durana, two right-wing Chilean senators of Chilean President Sebastian Piñera’s Independent Democratic Union (UDI), which looks fondly upon the past brutal dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.

Bolsonaro and members of Bannon’s Brussels-based “Movement” are also advising Bolivian far-right forces led by Las Calles opposition coalition head, Maria Anelin Suarez, who is trying to oust Evo Morales from the presidency. Bolsonaro dispatched one of his deputies-elect, Carla Zambelli, to Bolivia to organize, along with Suarez, Las Calles, and Bannon associates, an October 10, 2018 “national march” against Morales. Bolsonaro indicated that his anti-Morales efforts have the support of Argentina’s Macri and Chile’s Piñera, in fomenting opposition to Morales in Bolivia.

Bolsonaro has said that with him as president of Brazil, he and Argentina with Macri and Chile with Piñera will defeat “socialism” in Bolivia and Venezuela. Bolsonaro has been called the “Tropical Trump.” Bolsonaro has promised to seize the lands of Brazil’s indigenous tribes and hand them over to private businessmen for exploitation. He has also called Afro-Brazilians “obese and lazy” and people from Haiti, Africa, and the Arab Middle East the “scum of humanity.” Bolsonaro has given Brazilian opposition leaders two choices: exile or execution.

There is a strong possibility that Bolsonaro, Macri, Piñera, Abdo Benitez, and Duque will seek a revival of OPERATION CONDOR, a CIA-encouraged alliance of the secret police and intelligence agencies of Latin American military dictatorships that existed from 1968 to 1989. CONDOR, which had the blessing of US Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger, was responsible for tracking down and assassinating leftist leaders that had taken refuge in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay.

Bolivia, landlocked by right-wing governments in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Chile, and a Washington compliant Peru, will face mounting political, economic, and military pressure to deny Morales a fourth term as president in 2019. Venezuela, already paralyzed by economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, will see Brazil and Colombia allow their border regions to be used for CIA-supported paramilitary operations against the government of President Nicolas Maduro, Chavez’s chosen successor.

Ortega’s government in Nicaragua will also continue to be subjected to destabilization efforts mounted by the CIA, with the support of Bolsonaro’s government in Brazil.

Only the incoming progressive left-wing government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) in Mexico and Cuba will be able to help the few remaining pockets of left-wing populism in the Western Hemisphere to survive. The rights of workers, peasants, indigenous peoples, students, and non-evangelical clergy in Latin America will soon come under assault in a manner not seen since the days of the caudillos, juntas, and CONDOR. “Lula,” who remains the most popular political leader in Brazil, has been incarcerated in prison for 12 years on trumped up charges brought by a right-wing judiciary and legal apparatus.

The hemisphere must now look to AMLO; Cuba’s post-Castro president, Miguel Díaz-Canel; Uruguay’s former president Mujica; and the remaining progressive prime ministers of the English-speaking Caribbean states to rescue the leaders of Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua from the impending fascist onslaught. Mujica has warned that Bolsonaro’s election represents the same sort of mentality that saw Hitler elected in Germany. Mujica said, on the eve of the Brazilian election, that “humans have little memory. By clamoring for change, one can move to the worst.” Latin America and the anti-Trump opposition in the United States must be on guard against a new fascist Axis-like pact led by Bolsonaro, Trump, Macri, Duque, and fellow-travelers, such as Guatemala’s comedian-turned-fascist president – Jimmy Morales – and Honduran banana republic dictator Juan Orlando Hernandez.

*

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

Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club. 

Featured image is from Brazzil Magazine

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Return of the Latin American Caudillos

A new federal lawsuit charges that President Donald Trump, his company, and his three eldest children—Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric—deliberately defrauded working-class Americans by convincing them to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars in sham business opportunities and training programs.

As the New York Times reports, the 160-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday depicts the Trump Organization—the primary holding company for the president’s vast network of businesses—”as a racketeering enterprise that defrauded thousands of people for years as the president turned from construction to licensing his name for profit.”

“For more than a decade,” the complaint alleges, the president and his children named in the case “have operated a large and complex enterprise with a singular goal: to enrich themselves by systemically defrauding economically marginalized people looking to invest in their educations, start their own businesses, and pursue the American dream.”

The suit targets two of the president’s multi-level marketing companies—ACN, which provided telecommunications services, and the Trump Network, which sold vitamins—as well as the Trump Institute, described as “a live-seminar program that purported to sell Trump’s ‘secrets to success’ in extravagantly priced seminars.”

It was brought by four plaintiffs who are using pseudonyms because of “serious and legitimate security concerns given the heated political environment.” The plaintiffs’ attorney fees are being covered by the nonprofit Tesseract Research Center, whose chairman is Democratic donor Morris Pearl.

Trump Organization attorney Alan Garten dismissed the allegations as “meritless” and told the Times,

“This is clearly just another effort by opponents of the president to use the court system to advance a political agenda.”

Plaintiff attorneys Roberta A. Kaplan and Andrew G. Celli Jr. said in a statement that the case was motivated by “systematic fraud that spanned more than a decade, involved multiple Trump businesses, and caused tremendous harm to thousands of hardworking Americans.” Denying suggestions that the suit was intentionally filed just ahead of the midterm elections, they added, “The case is being brought now because it is ready now.”

While Kaplan and Celli told the Times they are unaware of “any prior case against the Trumps alleging consumer fraud on this scale,” this isn’t the first time the president has been sued for fraud. Shortly after winning the 2016 presidential election, he settled for $25 million after being accused of “swindling thousands of innocent Americans out of ​millions of dollars through a scheme known as Trump University.”

Additionally, in June, after a two-year investigation, New York State filed suit alleging that the Trump Foundation, the president’s charity, had engaged in “persistently illegal conduct,” including violations of campaign finance laws and tax regulations, and illegal coordination with his presidential campaign. That case is being held up by an ongoing court battle over whether a sitting president can be named in a civil suit.

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

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

Featured image is from Politico.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lawsuit Charges Trump Organization a ‘Racketeering Enterprise That Defrauded Thousands of People for Years’
  • Tags: