The election of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s next president is a major step in the direction of Trump’s plans to build a “Fortress America” that he intends will cement the US’ hegemonic influence in the Western Hemisphere by systematically squeezing China out of Latin America.

Jair Bolsonaro’s election as Brazil’s next president will go down in history as a pivotal moment in hemispheric affairs because it represents the greatest success so far of the US’ “Operation Condor 2.0” secret scheme of replacing the region’s socialist “Pink Tide” governments with right-wing neoliberal ones. The Hybrid War on Brazil deliberately shaped the socio-political environment in South America’s largest country in such a way that this “dark horse” candidate was able to come out of nowhere and capture control of this Great Power with the US’ tacit backing, which will expectedly have far-reaching geostrategic implications. The US is employing all means at its disposal to push back against China’s game-changing Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) in the nascent New Cold War, and there’s little doubt that Bolsonaro will do good on his campaign pledge to counter China’s growing influence in his country, which perfectly dovetails with what his role model Donald Trump is trying to do in the US.

White House Hints

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders confirmed that the two spoke with one another shortly after the news broke that Bolsonaro trounced his opponent, noting that “both expressed a strong commitment to work side-by-side to improve the lives of the people of the United States and Brazil, and as regional leaders, of the Americas”, which could hint at a few prominent possibilities of cooperation between the two that will be described shortly. Reuters also reported that Bolsonaro promised to “realign Brazil with more advanced economies rather than regional allies” in the first public comments that he made after his victory was announced, suggesting that he might neglect his country’s membership in BRICS in favor of prioritizing relations with the US and EU instead. Returning to Sanders’ statement, it’s important to point out that she characterized Brazil as a regional leader of the Americas, which correlates with Trump’s vision for hegemonically managing Western Hemispheric affairs through the continuation of the Obama-era policy of “Leading from Behind” through regional proxy partnerships.

Building “Fortress America”

To elaborate, Trump’s predecessor quietly carried out regime changes in several Latin American countries and planted the seeds for what would later occur in Brazil, which was always the US’ ultimate prize because of its sheer size and influence. The current American President envisions the US working together with several regional partners, including Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil, to advance the goal of Washington-led hemispheric integration that would embed the US’ restored influence all throughout Latin America while squeezing out its prime Chinese competitor. To accomplish this, Bolsonaro-led Brazil will be encouraged to carry out the following geo-economic policies that will greatly enable the creation of a US-dominated “Fortress America” that Trump intends to build in response to China’s Eastern Hemispheric Silk Road connectivity gains of recent years:

  1. Merge Mercosur With The Neoliberal Pacific Alliance:

All of the countries in both trading blocs are now run by right-wing leaders so it’s “natural” for them to merge with one another in order to take regional integration to its next step, which is a trend that even Mexico’s leftist president-elect AMLO will more than likely continue in order to expand his country’s influence throughout Central and South America.

  1. Clinch Free Trade Deals With The EU And The USMC (NAFTA 2.0):

The next step is for a united Mercosur-Pacific Alliance to successfully conclude the first-mentioned group’s stalemated free trade talks with the EU and then do the same when it comes to prospective ones with the USMC, which will altogether lay the structural basis for further integrating the hemisphere and making Latin America part of the so-called “Trans-Atlantic Community”.

  1. Unfreeze The FTAA And Link It To TTIP:

The last phase of constructing “Fortress America” is for the US to take the lead in unfreezing the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) proposal for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone following the success of South America’s Brazilian-led geo-economic pivot and then link this transcontinental trading structure to the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the EU.

The whole point of these aforementioned plans is for the US to lock Latin America into neoliberal trading structures that forever preclude its return to socialism, even though this could eventually backfire by inspiring another “Pink Tide” sometime in the future. While there’s an important trans-Atlantic component related to the EU, “Fortress America” could still be built without Europe if the latter remains embroiled in simmering trade disputes with the US. So long as Bolsonaro succeeds in getting the rest of South America to follow his Trumpist lead (possibly through the merging of Mercosur and the Pacific Alliance), then the diminishment of Chinese influence in the continent will be a fait accompli because the People’s Republic will see its many investments challenged by a combination of the host governments themselves and its newly invigorated US competitor.

Breaking BRICS

It’ll be extremely difficult for BRICS to continue to function in anything other than name only if Brazil breaks ranks with the organization’s de-facto Chinese leader and does everything in its power under Bolsonaro to push back against it, including either scrapping the Trans-Oceanic Railroad (which could colloquially be considered to be the “South American Silk Road”) or replacing most of its Chinese investments with Western ones and thereby neutralizing its intended multipolar strategic purpose. When paired with fellow BRICS member South Africa’s tilt towards neoliberalism after the country’s “deep state” coup brought President Ramaphosa to power possibly as a result of an American-backed regime change process just like with Bolsonaro, it’s plain to see that BRICS is for all intents and purposes regressing back to its original RIC framework, which is itself only kept alive in a truly multilateral format through Russia’s “balancing” role between its competing Asian Great Powers that has thus far saved it from just becoming a hodge-podge of overlapping bilateral partnerships.

Concluding Thoughts

Bolsonaro’s election, socio-politically engineered by Washington over the past few years, is a watershed event in Latin American history because of the very high likelihood that it’ll further the US’ plans for building “Fortress America”. Given the practically identical worldview that the Brazilian president-elect shares with Trump, especially regarding the need to “contain” China and suppress domestic socialist tendencies at home, it’s all but assured that the former military officer will march in lockstep with his idol in carrying out their joint will in the Western Hemisphere. This could predictably see Brazil taking the lead to advance regional integrational initiatives that would have otherwise been unthinkable under a leftist government such as merging Mercosur with the Pacific Alliance and probing the possibilities for a multilateral free trade deal between this resultant continental-wide structure and the USMC (NAFTA 2.0). None of this augurs well for China’s Silk Road interests, but that’s one of the main reasons why “Fortress America” is being built in the first place.

*

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.

Fascism Triumphs in Brazilian Presidential Election

October 30th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

In Sunday’s runoff presidential election, hardline Social Liberal Party (PSL) candidate Jair Bolsonaro defeated Workers Party (PT) aspirant Fernando Haddad with 55% of the vote.

He’ll succeed US-installed Michel Temer, serving as interim president after the Obama regime’s orchestrated coup d’etat, ousting democratically elected Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, replacing her with illegitimate fascist rule – continuing under Bolsonaro.

A previous article explained that his campaign openly featured fascist, sexist, racist, homophobic rhetoric.

His running mate retired general Hamilton Mourao suggested a military coup is possible, adding “very well elaborated plans” are in place for the military to intervene against what he called “illicit acts.”

He and Bolsonaro praised Brazil’s 1964 – 1985 military dictatorship, a dark period when countless numbers of regime critics were kidnapped and murdered.

According to Bolsonaro, former Brazilian military despots didn’t go “far enough” in eliminating regime critics.

He’s openly anti-indigenous Brazilians, anti-Black; anti-gay, urging parents to beat their gay children.

He’ll take office for a four-year term on January 1 as Brazil’s 38th president, a former military officer turned hardline politician, certain to be a US favorite.

He’s pro-hardline governance, pro-dictatorial rule, pro-free-market predation, pro-neoliberal harshness, pro-gun, pro-torture, anti-populist, anti-equity and justice for all Brazilians.

According to historian Pablo Meriguet, he represents the “extremely dangerous for democratic processes…extreme right,” adding:

His economic agenda is likely to be “aggressiv(ely)” neoliberal without neoliberal ethics…an absolutely repressive state to benefit the most powerful layers” at the expense of ordinary Brazilians.

His elevation to power “means the consolidation of a new political model in which the usage of hatred and fear are paramount in order to generate political support…”

Governing this way “could cause a very serious crisis in Brazil. (He’s) openly intolerant, and that can have very serious repercussions” in a nation already hugely unequal.

His extremist rule risks potentially serious consequences. “I mean real dangers of war,” said Meriguet.

Sunday turnout barely over 70%, almost 29% of eligible Brazilians not voting or their ballots were marked null.

Dubbed a “Brazilian Trump” or a “Tropical Trump” by some media sources, he called America’s president his inspiration.

He’s pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian, promising to move Brazil’s  embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, along with and shutting down the PLO office in Brazil.

Trump congratulated him on his triumph, promising to work closely with him, according to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.

“We are going to change the destiny of Brazil,” he vowed – to the detriment of the vast majority of its people.

*

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.

Selected Articles: Jair Bolsonaro: Collapse of Democracy in Brazil?

October 30th, 2018 by Global Research News

For seventeen years, Global Research, together with partner independent media organizations, has sought Truth in Media with a view to eventually “disarming” the corporate media’s disinformation crusade.

To reverse the tide, we call upon our readers to participate in an important endeavor.

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

Our objective is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member

*     *     *

Far-right Jair Bolsonaro Wins Brazil’s Presidential Elections

By Telesur, October 29, 2018

Far-right politician Jair Bolsonaro has won the Brazilian presidential elections with over 55 percent of the vote beating leftist Fernando Haddad who scored 44.3 percent in the country’s most polarized elections in decades.

Democracy in Brazil Is Not Just About Voting. Bolsonaro, “The Tropical Trump”

By Nino Pagliccia, October 28, 2018

Bolsonaro has made statements that qualify him as “racist”, “fascist”, “misogynist”, “xenophobic”, “white supremacist”, and “military puppet”. A single one of these labels should be enough to disqualify him as an honest politician, much less as a president.

Bolsonaro Is a Pivotal Part of Trump’s Plans to Build “Fortress America”

By Andrew Korybko, October 30, 2018

The election of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s next president is a major step in the direction of Trump’s plans to build a “Fortress America” that he intends will cement the US’ hegemonic influence in the Western Hemisphere by systematically squeezing China out of Latin America.

Brazil: The Collapse of Democracy? Rise of the Far Right

By Alfredo Saad-Filho, October 27, 2018

The world is going through a mounting tide of authoritarian neoliberalism, as the outcome of three converging processes: the crisis of economies, political systems and institutions of representation after the global financial crisis that started in 2007; the decomposition of neoliberal democracies, and the kidnapping of mass discontent by the far right.

Fascism Triumphs in Brazilian Presidential Election

By Stephen Lendman, October 30, 2018

His economic agenda is likely to be “aggressiv(ely)” neoliberal without neoliberal ethics…an absolutely repressive state to benefit the most powerful layers” at the expense of ordinary Brazilians.

Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s Political Nightmare: a Neo-Nazi ‘Phenomenon’ Made in the USA

By Edu Montesanti, October 26, 2018

A former lawmaker that delivered just two bills across almost three decades, as a presidential candidate now Bolsonaro promises, among many other fascist “policies” layered in a total lack of project to the country as he refuses to debate, to make the “police free to kill” without any investigation. 

Jair Bolsonaro

Brazil – Bolsonaro Towards a Military Dictatorship – Worse Than 80 Years Ago

By Peter Koenig, October 24, 2018

The usual propaganda of deceit from the right has infiltrated every election in the last 5-10 years, starting with the sophisticated internet and propaganda fraud invented by Oxford Analytica (OA), which is largely believed having brought Trump to the White House, Macri to the Casa Rosada in Buenos Aires, Macron to the Elysée in Paris and Mme. Merkel for the fourth time to the German Federal Chanceller’s office in Berlin – among others.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Jair Bolsonaro: Collapse of Democracy in Brazil?

The explanatory Commentary and Editorial published in Cortex on October 9 and 13, 2018, is timely, given that the U.S. has, for quite some time, been ratcheting up its rhetoric against Cuba. The Commentary and Editorial in this new scientific publication appears as we approach the UN’s October 31 vote on the blockade, when Washington is increasing its hostility toward Cuba, perhaps to justify its vote at the UN against lifting the blockade. The U.S. has desperately attempted to find pretexts to provide a basis for the alleged sonic attacks, for which the U.S. State Department directly or indirectly blames Cuba.

My Article on this issue was published in Global Research on September 4, 2018, based on an exclusive interview with Robert D. McIntosh, one of the two scientists from the department of Human Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K., whose joint study with Sergio Della Sala challenged the U.S. State Department-commissioned University of Pennsylvania report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The interview with McIntosh was based on the report that was published in the European Journal of Neurology and found echo at the time among some mainstream media, such as The Guardian (U.K.).

In the scientific report they notably demonstrate, as quoted in the article, that the University of Pennsylvania report was “lacking in scientific rigour,” “unreliable” and “unsound.” The acceptable professional approach for cognitive tests is to measure individual performance compared with others in the population. And what is the standard measure accepted by the profession? A person must score in the bottom five percent to be considered impaired. The threshold needs to be this low to take into account a variety of factors. One is that only a very small proportion of the population is deemed to be impaired according to professional standards.

Yet, the University of Pennsylvania report arbitrarily defined the threshold at forty percent to be considered impaired, meaning that ipso facto four in 10 who take the test will be “impaired.” Thus, the Edinburgh scientists concluded in an understatement that “the 40% threshold is hardly a detail.”

The article in Global Research wrapped up as follows:

“The University of Pennsylvania to date has never responded to the very specific issue of the 40% criterion, even though a very important portion of the U.S. State Department’s retaliatory measures against Cuba is based on the 40% baseline.”

Since its publication, the University of Pennsylvania JAMA authors have since been forced to deal with the challenge from Scotland by publishing another article in JAMA. However, in addition to the University of Edinburg professors’ response to the University of Pennsylvania rebuttal in JAMA, other scientists from Europe and the U.S. also published their respective views in that U.S.-based scholarly journal. The steam was building up.

Thus, the above-mentioned scientists joined together to publish, on October 9 and 13, an explanatory Commentary and Editorial in the prestigious European-based international scientific journal Cortex. Founded in 1964 by Ennio De Renzi, it is devoted to the study of cognition and of the relationship between the nervous system and mental processes, particularly as reflected in the behaviour of patients with acquired brain lesions, normal volunteers, children with typical and atypical development, and in the activation of brain regions and systems as recorded by functional neuroimaging techniques.

In the introductory Commentary, the two University of Edinburg original pioneers (Della Sala and McIntosh), in this quest for truth relating to the questionable methodology, are joined by the following:

  • Roberto Cubelli, Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy
  • Jason A. Kacmarskic, Health Psychology Section, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado, USA
  • Holly M. Miskeyd and Robert D. Shurad, Mental Health and Behavioral Science Service Line, Salisbury Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

The title of the Commentary in Cortex says it all: “Cognitive Symptoms in U.S. Government Personnel in Cuba: The Mending Is Worse than the Hole.” The six scientists write that they have strongly criticized the University of Pennsylvania procedures as being inconsistent with any normal professional practice for evidence-based neuropsychology (Della Sala & Cubelli, 2018; Shura, Kacmarski & Miskey, 2018) and with statistical logic (Della Sala & McIntosh, 2018). They were therefore not shocked that the University of Pennsylvania study found all six patients to be “impaired.” They write that, when one employs the 40 percentile, 40% of people will fail each test and the chances of anyone passing all the tests without an impairment being diagnosed are negligible.

The stinging Commentary points out that the University of Pennsylvania authors did not defend their “idiosyncratic” choice of a 40th percentile threshold. Rather, they implied that they used some other standard. In the same tone, they write that they are unsure what this ambiguous and unclear response means.

With a literary twist, they make their point by stating, “An old Venetian saying seems very apt here: ‘Xe pèso el tacòn del buso’ – the mending is worse than the hole.” The University of Pennsylvania specialists have attempted to devise an indefensible threshold for impairment reported in the original paper with a less coherent argument of their criterion in the rebuttal. Thus, the Cortex authors conclude in a doubtful manner that only two things are clear: first, the universally accepted criterion for cognitive impairment was misrepresented in the original University of Pennsylvania paper; and second, the neuropsychological data put forward does not support the conclusion that whatever happened in Cuba resulted in persistent cognitive decline.

The actual Editorial published by the Cortex Editorial Board is titled “Responsibility of Neuropsychologists: The Case of the ‘Sonic Attack,’” Cortex Editorial Board.

In referring to the two contradictory statements, the original one and the rebuttal to the contending scientists from Europe and the U.S., both published by the University of Pennsylvania in JAMA, the Cortex Editorial Board takes up an important moral issue that affects the outside real world and the media: that the statements are not scientifically based.

The Cortex Editorial writes that several ensuing critical comments in JAMA, from the scientists referred to above, underscored important and obvious glitches in the technical approach and resulting analysis and interpretation of the cognitive deficits reported in their JAMA paper. Seemingly aghast at this approach, the Editorial goes on to show that the University of Pennsylvania-based response to these criticisms was not to defend or explain the original methods, but to claim that the methods used were in fact different from those stated in the original paper (Hampton, Swanson & Smith, 2018). “The two descriptions of the methods, which are both highly questionable, cannot both be true: either what was reported in the original paper is false, or what is stated in the rebuttal is false (or possibly both).”

This Editorial is concerned with the higher-level issue of how such self-contradictory statements could come to be published at all, let alone in an internationally recognized journal such as JAMA. One cannot allow, they write, such disoriented and incompatible explanations of process and scrutiny from being uncontested. Otherwise, it results in “a slippery path for science, and [is] dangerous for society at large.” Proving information about cognitive impairments, unsupported by science, “invites media coverage that may lead to widespread public misconception about the nature of this phenomenon.”

The Cortex Editorial Board appeals to neuropsychologists and all scientists to concern themselves with this case because of its wider implications. Cortex is straightforward: the University of Pennsylvania authors of the JAMA report “should now either publish an official Erratum, to explain their actual methods clearly and unambiguously, or they should retract the original paper.”

It is my sincere hope that the international scientific community will respond even further to take up this case to show the arbitrary nature of the U.S. government actions against its own Embassy in Havana, the Cuban Mission in Washington, D.C., and the American and Cuban peoples affected by this incident.

What will the reaction of the U.S. State Department be in light of this latest scientific challenge?

*

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

Arnold August is Canadian author and journalist. His books include Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-1998 Elections (1999), Cuba and its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion (2013) and Cuba-U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond (2017). As a journalist his articles appear in many web sites. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Web site: www.arnoldaugust.com. He is frequent contributor to Global Research.

References to the Cortex Editorial Board:

Della Sala, S., McIntosh, R.D., Cubelli, R., Kacmarskic, J.A., Miskey, H.M., and Shura, R.D. (2018). “Cognitive Symptoms in US Government Personnel in Cuba: The Mending Is Worse than the Hole.” Cortex, this volume.

Hampton, S., Swanson, R.L., and Smith, D.H. (2018). “In Reply: Neurological Symptoms in US

Government Personnel in Cuba.” JAMA, 320(6), 604–605.

Swanson, R.L., II, Hampton, S., Green-McKenzie, J., Diaz-Arrastia, R., Grady, M.S.,Verma, R., et al. (2018). “Neurological Manifestations Among U.S. Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba.” JAMA, 319(11), 1125–1133.

References quoted in the Cortex Commentary:

Della Sala, S., and Cubelli, R. (2018). “Alleged ‘Sonic Attack’ Supported by Poor Neuropsychology.” Cortex, 103, 387–388.

Della Sala, S., and McIntosh, R.D. (2018). “Cognitive Impairments That Everybody Has.” Journal of Neurology, 265(7), 1706–1707.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Alleged “Sonic Attacks” Against US Diplomats in Havana: Rebuttal
  • Tags: ,

Two Stories From the Propaganda War

October 30th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

Two recent stories about Russians have demonstrated how the news is selected and manipulated in the United States. The first is about Maria Butina, who apparently sought to overthrow American democracy, such as it is, by obtaining a life membership in the National Rifle Association. Maria, a graduate student at American University, is now in detention in a federal prison, having been charged with collusion and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. She has been in prison since July, for most of the time in solitary confinement, and has not been granted bail because, as a Russian citizen, she is considered to be a “flight risk.”

Maria, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges, is now seeking donations to help pay for her legal defense as the Russian government renews demands that she be released from jail or be tried on whatever charges the Justice Department can come up with, but her release is unlikely as she is really a political prisoner.

The media has been silent about Maria Butina because the case against her is falling apart. In early September prosecutors admitted that they had misunderstood text messages used to support claims that she had offered to trade sex for access to information. Demands that she consequently be released from prison were, however, rejected. Her lawyer observed that

“The impact of this inflammatory allegation, which painted Ms. Butina as some type of Kremlin-trained seductress, or spy-novel honeypot character, trading sex for access and power, cannot be overstated.”

In an attempt to make the Butina embarrassment disappear from the news, the Justice Department has proposed an unprecedented gag order to prevent her attorney from appearing in the media in a way that could prejudice a jury should her case eventually come to trial. Currently there is no court date and Maria remains in jail indefinitely, but the press could care less – she is just one more Russiagate casualty in an ongoing saga that has long since passed her by.

Given the Maria Butina story and the hysteria over all things Russian it was perhaps inevitable that the tale of Kremlin interference in American elections would be resurrected and repeated. Federal prosecutors are now reporting that another Russian woman has illegally conspired with others to “defraud the United States” and interfere with the U.S. political system, to include plans for conducting “information warfare” to subvert the upcoming 2018 midterm elections.

The complaint was filed on October 19th at a federal court in Virginia which handles most national security cases. According to the court documents, Elena Alekseevna Khusyainova, a 44-year-old resident of St. Petersburg in Russia, has worked as the head accountant for “Project Lakhta,” a Russian influence operation backed by an oligarch close to President Vladi­mir Putin. According to the Justice Department, the operation “spread misinformation about US political issues including immigration, gun control, the Confederate flag, and protests by NFL players. It also used events including the Las Vegas mass shooting, and the far-Right rally in Charlottesville, to spread discord.”

Khusyainova, who is not likely to be extradited to the United States for trial, allegedly purchased advertising in social networks and also supported dissident groups. The accusation of the American authorities emphasizes the connection between Khusyainova and St. Petersburg businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was previously identified by the media as the owner of a ‘Troll Factory’ in St. Petersburg. In the U.S., several charges have already been brought against him and his staff, including interfering in the presidential elections in 2016.

The Maria Butina story reveals how there is a fundamental flaw in the justice system in the United States. When someone is found guilty by the media there is no way to right the wrong when the story shifts and starts to break down. The New York Times or Washington Post is unlikely to leap to the defense of the accused. Maria Butina has been raked over the coals in stories that were partly true but mostly false in terms of any criminal intent. She is still waiting for justice and will likely be doing so for some time.

The case of Elena Khusyainova is Maria Butina redux, only even more idiotic. No actual evidence is presented in the indictment and since Elena is in Russia and not likely to visit the United States, the entire affair is a bit of theater intended to heighten hysteria about the U.S. midterm elections. Is the U.S. electoral system really so fragile and what did Elena actually seek to do? The Justice Department is silent on the issue beyond vague accusations about trolling on the internet by Russians. One wonders who in the federal government ordered the investigation and signed off on the indictment.

Both Maria and Elena are victims of a politicized miscarriage of justice. Maria Butina should be released from prison now and allowed to pay her fine for being an unregistered agent before leaving the country. There is no justification for holding her in prison. And the indictment of Elena Khusyainova is not worth the paper it is written on. It should be torn up and thrown away.

*

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.

The murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi was about to disclose details of Saudi Arabia’s use of chemical weapons in Yemen when he was killed, as reported by the Sunday Express, a source close to him told the media outlet Friday.

This revelation was made as different intelligence sources disclosed that the U.K. was made aware of the entire plot by Saudi Arabia three weeks before the incident took place on Oct. 2.

Intercepts by GCHQ of internal communications by the kingdom’s General Intelligence Directorate revealed orders by a “member of the royal circle” to abduct the troublesome journalist and take him back to Saudi Arabia. The report does not confirm or deny whether the order came from the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

They were supposed to abduct Khashoggi and take him back to Riyadh but could take other actions, if the journalist created problems.

“We were initially made aware that something was going in the first week of September, around three weeks before Mr. Khashoggi walked into the consulate on October 2, though it took more time for other details to emerge,” the intelligence source told the Sunday Express Friday.

“These details included primary orders to capture Mr. Khashoggi and bring him back to Saudi Arabia for questioning. However, the door seemed to be left open for alternative remedies to what was seen as a big problem. We know the orders came from a member of the royal circle but have no direct information to link them to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. Whether this meant he was not the original issuer we cannot say.”

The MI6 had warned their Saudi counterparts to cancel the mission.

“On October 1 we became aware of the movement of a group, which included members of Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-‘Āmah (GID) to Istanbul, and it was pretty clear what their aim was.

“Through channels, we warned that this was not a good idea. Subsequent events show that our warning was ignored.”

Sunday Express also obtained an anonymous interview from a close friend of Khashoggi’s who revealed that the journalist was about to obtain “documentary evidence” of Saudi Arabia’s use of chemical weapon in its proxy war in Yemen.

Iran has previously claimed that the kingdom had been supplying ingredients that can be used to make the nerve agent Sarin in Yemen but Khashoggi was possibly referring to phosphorus which can be used to burn bones. Last month it was claimed that Saudi Arabia had been using U.S.-supplied white phosphorus munitions against troops and even civilians in Yemen.

Jamal Khashoggi was a Washington Post columnist who left Saudi Arabia a year ago due to the widespread crackdown on dissent by the crown prince which sawimprisoning of a large number of dissenters and activists in Saudi Arabia.

The journalist went to Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2 .to get papers for his marriage and never seen after that. Turkey maintained that he was killed inside the consulate by Saudi authorities but the latter denied any allegations against them for almost three weeks before finally accepting that he indeed was murdered but alleged it to be a rogue operation about which the crown prince had no knowledge.

The case of Khashoggi created an international uproar and diplomatic scandals where many countries are deciding to impose sanctions on the country and many companies severed their ties with Saudi Arabia.

According to the latest updates, the European Union is considering a ban on arms sale to Saudi Arabia and other sanctions. The EU will make a joint decision on how to punish the kingdom, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said Saturday in Istanbul after Russia-Turkey-France-Germany summit on Syria. A similar sentiment was expressed by France’s Emmanuel Macron.

*

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 former candidate of the PT said that Brazilians must aspire for a great social movement to defend the freedoms and rights of Brazilians.

Speaking after the results of the Brazilian elections were announced and the victory of far-right Jair Bolsonaro, the former candidate for the Presidency of Brazil for the Workers’ Party (PT), Fernando Haddad, indicated that he will use his political gains to work for the social unification of the Brazilian people.

“We, who helped build one of the largest democracies in the world, are committed to maintaining it, and not accepting provocations, not accepting threats,” Haddad told his supporters Sunday night.

The former candidate of the PT said that Brazilians must aspire for a great social movement to defend the freedoms and rights of Brazilians.

The leader of the Movement of Rural Landless Workers (MST), Joao Pedro Stedile, argues that the PT and the other leftist organizations must build up strength and organize the people to face the future government of Jair Bolsonaro.

According to Stedile, if the neoliberal agenda of the new government is materialized, it will generate a social chaos that will allow the popular movements to resume the offensive and mass mobilizations.

The social leader warned that the political left and social organizations have the challenge of organizing popular committees throughout Brazil in order to move towards a new debate in the country, on a new sovereign project for an egalitarian and just society.

Both Haddad and Stedile acknowledge that after losing the second round of elections, the social movements should be reunited in order to create a great national movement that will allow them to face Bolsonaro’s policies and return to power in Brazil.

After the results of the first electoral round on Oct. 7, Haddad maintained a sustained growth that led him to receive around 45 million votes in the ballot on Sunday.

In the first round, the then PT candidate won 28 percent of the vote compared to the 46 percent scored by far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro.

*

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 VOA News.

El gran capital transnacional hace sus elecciones entre los candidatos a la presidencia de los países: se trata siempre de elegir el candidato que mejor gestione el Estado en favor de sus intereses, que gestione la continuidad del saqueo capitalista. En función del momento histórico, elige a gestores más abiertamente declarados fascistas o a gestores socialdemócratas; lo que es imprescindible para la burguesía es que el canditato/a priorice los intereses del gran capital, en vez de los de la clase explotada. Las “elecciones” en la Dictadura del Capital, pretenden dar una apariencia “democrática” cuando no son otra cosa que la imposición de los candidatos de la burguesía: ésta los impone mediante millonarias campañas y todos los medios de alienación de los que dispone. La línea política del imperialismo se impone indefectiblemente. En el caso, muy improbable, de que falle este mecanismo de imposición de las decisiones de la burguesía transnacional, esta recurre al golpe de Estado y la desestabilización, como lo hemos visto en varias ocasiones (como por ejemplo en el Golpe contra Salvador Allende en Chile, el Golpe en Honduras más recientemente, o la usura económica contra el gobierno venezolano). El fascismo es una herramienta de la clase explotadora, al igual que lo es la socialdemocracia. La burguesía implementa el fascismo cuando incrementa exponencialmente la tasa de explotación y saqueo, ya que necesita mayor represión para contener el descontento social que el incremento de explotación genera; y usa a la socialdemocracia para apuntalar la estafa de la “alternancia democrática”. Los gobiernos de la socialdemocracia también toman medidas económicas que van en el sentido de los intereses capitalistas, aunque algunos de estos gobiernos socialdemócratas instauren a veces medidas de corte asistencialista, a la par que siguen entregando los territorios y las poblaciones al saqueo capitalista.

Las elecciones burguesas plantean “elegir” con qué salsa van a ser devorados los pueblos y los recursos naturales los siguientes años… En este momento histórico, la burguesía se decanta claramente por el fascismo, por todo el orbe. Los gobiernos socialdemócratas no están actualmente en la agenda de la burguesía, ya los utilizó durante un período para la pantomima de la “democracia”, y ya éstos le hicieron todos los favores que les correspondía hacer. En América Latina vemos la subida y apuntalamiento de regímenes incondicionales del gran capital, declaradamente dispuestos a incrementar la represión y violencia contra la clase explotada, como es el caso en Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Brasil, etc. La burguesía hace ganar a la salsa más amarga, pues en este momento histórico de incremento exponencial del saqueo capitalista, requiere una “mano dura”, abiertamente asumida como tal, para gestionar al Estado Burgués. El ritual electorero funge de apuntalamiento del régimen del Terror en países que llevan décadas padeciendo Terrorismo de Estado, como es el caso de Colombia (en este país una combinación de presiones socialdemócratas regionales, injerencia imperialista, bombardeos y exterminio político, logró recientemente la desarticulación de la mayor guerrilla del continente, lo que le abre paso a mayor saqueo multinacional, a mayor Terrorismo de Estado contra la población colombiana, y a mayor guerrerismo regional por parte del régimen colombiano, aliado incondicional del imperialismo estadounidense). Los recientes resultados en las “elecciones” brasileras del 2018 [1], confirman esa tendencia a apuntalar regímenes de corte fascista. Y no es que “los pueblos son brutos y eligen mal”, es que la maquinaria de alienación y propaganda dispuesta por la burguesía para propulsar sus candidatos es descomunal, no hay “elección” real en medio del condicionamiento y la coacción. Es el poder económico y mediático que define los resultados. Lo importante, más allá del juego electorero burgués en el que la oligarquía y el gran capital transnacional ya marcan las cartas desde el inicio, es que la clase explotada tome consciencia de que la clase explotadora le hace una guerra permanente (una guerra económica, mediática, ideológica, de exterminio incluso), y que como clase explotada dejemos de adoptar como nuestro el discurso falaz de la misma burguesía, dejemos de creer en las mil estafas que esta despliega mientras prosigue el saqueo, y cuestionemos la raíz del problema: el sistema capitalista.

La clase explotadora transnacional y brasilera aúpa al fascismo para intensificar la explotación y el saqueo: tras el golpe de Estado institucional del 2016, encumbra en 2018 a Bolsonaro mediante una campaña multimillonaria de manipulación, racismo, misoginia, anticomunismo y fanatismo religioso. El odio promocionado ha impulsado decenas de ataques fascistas: palizas y amenazas de muerte contra comunistas, adversarios políticos, periodistas, e incluso el asesinato del artista afrodescendiente Moa Do Katende, pilar de la cultura bahiana. Marcello Pablito, de la agrupación Quilombo Vermelho de Brasil, expresa: «Moa do Katendê era uno de los más importantes maestros de Capoeira del país, fundador del histórico bloque afro Afoxé Badauê en Salvador, activista de la cultura negra. Las 12 puñaladas que penetraron el cuerpo de Maestro Moa vinieron directamente de la boca de Bolsonaro, su partido y sus aliados, que estimulan el discurso de odio a los negros, nordestinos e inmigrantes. Durante sus 28 años en la Cámara de Diputados, hizo carrera en apología a la dictadura, a la tortura, al recorte de derechos a los trabajadores, con posiciones machistas y el más profundo odio contra los negros. Bolsonaro es la representación de los señores esclavistas. Ese racismo que expresa está al servicio de profundizar un proyecto de país esclavista y completamente entregado al imperialismo, donde los negros, que ocupan los peores puestos de trabajo y reciben los peores salarios, sean aun más explotados para las ganancias de los grandes capitalistas» [2].

El proyecto de profundización del saqueo capitalista se apoya en todos los pilares de odio fascista. El fascismo no es un “espontáneo miedo al otro”; al contrario, es fomentado a consciencia por la clase explotadora y sus medios. El aparato cultural y mediático del capitalismo intensifica su promoción del racismo, del machismo, del anticomunismo, y de todo paradigma de discriminación, con la finalidad de dividir a la clase explotada. La clase explotadora suple, a través de sus medios de alienación masiva, exhutorios de rabia: de la rabia que genera la explotación y empobrecimiento. El aparato cultural crea las figuras de “chivos expiatorios” sobre los que dirigir la rabia; fomenta la visceralidad desprovista de análisis y el fanatismo religioso; explota todo suceso para hacerle propaganda a las fuerzas y estructuras represivas. La clase explotadora sabe del descontento social y la rabia que genera su explotación: por ello encauza esa rabia de los expoliados hacia direcciones equivocadas. Otro de los pilares de odio de Bolsonaro, es la misoginia: las hordas fascistas, enardecidas por su discurso y la hiel que difunden los medios, han agredido a varias mujeres, grabando incluso esvásticas sobre el cuerpo de una joven. En Brasil cada diez minutos violan a una mujer. Cada media hora una de ellas sufre una violación colectiva. Cada dos días muere una mujer por un aborto inseguro, por causa de la prohibición del aborto. Hay en promedio ocho víctimas de feminicidio diarias. En ese contexto ya profundamente machista, Jair Messias Bolsonaro encarna la misoginia más exacerbada: llegó a increpar a la exministra María Do Rosario, con la frase de “no mereces ni que te viole”[3], le dedicó su voto a favor del “impeachment” contra Dilma Rousseff al coronel Ustra, conocido en la dictadura brasileña por usar técnicas de tortura como introducir ratas en las vaginas de las guerrilleras. Bolsonaro definió el nacimiento de su propia hija como un momento de debilidad: “Tuve tres varones, y con la cuarta di un bajonazo”[ibidem]. Expresa su apoyo rotundo a la desigualdad salarial, metodología de acumulación capitalista que consiste en perpetrar un mayor robo de la plusvalía contra las mujeres (por un trabajo igual, las mujeres reciben un salario inferior que los hombres. En Brasil los hombres cobran un 52% de media más que la mujeres): “No es papel del Estado sino de los empresarios. Para mí es lógico que ganen menos porque se quedan embarazadas y faltan al trabajo”, expresó en un debate televisivo [ibidem]. Las mujeres representan el 52,5% del electorado brasileño, pero lamentablemente, como todo el conjunto de la clase explotada (trabajadores y trabajadoras), la mayoría llega a votar contra sus propios intereses, condicionada por el fanatismo religioso y la alienación mediática.

Bolsonaro es un ferviente defensor de la dictadura brasilera, que se instauró tras el Golpe de Estado militar de 1964, llegando incluso a expresar que no asesinó lo suficiente: “El error de la dictadura fue torturar y no matar”[4]. “En el período de la dictadura, hubieran tenido que fusilar a unos 30.000 (…)hubiese sido una gran ganancia para la nación”[5]. Espetar estos despropósitos es posible en una sociedad en la que jamás han sido castigados los torturadores de la dictadura, ni los posteriores torturadores, una sociedad marcada por la Ley de Amnistía y una educación destinada a la desmemoria; una educación destinada a que la población no comprenda que la dictadura fue implementada por la burguesía nacional y transnacional, en aras de profundizar el saqueo capitalista. El Golpe de 1964 contra Joao Goulart contó con la injerencia estadounidense y se produjo después de que Goulart anunciara reformas benéficas para Brasil, que limitaban el saqueo capitalista, tales como la nacionalización de las refinerías de petróleo, la expropiación de tierras para la aplicación de la reforma agraria, la disminución de la participación de empresas extranjeras en ciertos sectores estratégicos de la economía [6]. El Golpe de Estado militar fue aplaudido por los grandes medios nacionales e internacionales, que por supuesto no se hicieron eco de los gritos de los miles de torturados, del dolor de un pueblo frenado en su emancipación histórica. “La censura ocultaba la violencia. Y la propaganda vendía una idea de milagro, la imagen de un país donde todo el mundo era feliz(…) En 1979 se había firmado una ley de amnistía que exculpaba a los agentes del Estado de cualquier delito contra los derechos humanos. Esa ley fue la cláusula principal de la transición. Y ahora una parcela de la población tiene un recuerdo que no es traumático de la dictadura; de que no fue para tanto(…)”[7]. En el 2010, la Orden de Abogados de Brasil intentó revisar la Ley de Amnistía de 1979, para poder juzgar a los torturadores que desgarraron miles de vidas durante la dictadura; pero lamentablemente la derogación que pedían víctimas y defensores de DDHH fue rechazada, hasta con el apoyo de la socialdemocracia [8]. La transición en 1985 y las décadas siguientes, fueron el reino de la impunidad y la continuidad capitalista. La burguesía había logrado, mediante la dictadura, mediante el exterminio de los hombres y mujeres más comprometidos con la justicia social, mediante el Terrorismo de Estado aplicado contra todo intento organizativo de la clase explotada, mediante la entrega del país al capital transnacional, frenar el desarrollo histórico emancipador de Brasil… y podía dedicarse a cosechar los frutos de la barbarie, amargos para el pueblo, pero jugosos para el gran capital local y transnacional.

En 2018 la burguesía impone nuevamente un régimen abiertamente fascista, asegurándose de que sea su elegido el que gane la “farsa electoral”: «Las elecciones estuvieron marcadas por la continuidad del golpe institucional, tuteladas por las fuerzas armadas, manipuladas por el poder judicial, con la prisión arbitraria de Lula para impedir su participación (…)marcadas por la proscripción de casi un millón y medio de electores en la región Nordeste, además del apoyo a Bolsonaro por parte de la gran prensa, el agronegocio, empresarios y políticos golpistas(…) Es más que simbólico que el fortalecimiento de esa extremaderecha ultraliberal, racista, homofóbica, machista y esclavista se haya materializado en el asesinato de uno de los más reconocidos maestros de Capoeira, uno de los más fuertes símbolos de la cultura y heroica lucha negra en Brasil, y en Bahía, uno de los estados con mayor concentración de negros (…) En nuestro país hay una profunda y rica historia de negros que se rebelaron contra la esclavitud, que en la lucha por su libertad organizaron revueltas, rebeliones y pusieron en pie miles de Quilombos, haciendo temblar a las élites colonial e imperial, tradición que confluye con la formación de la clase obrera en Brasil»[9]. El asesinato de Moa Katende representa un claro mensaje de exterminio contra la organización de la clase explotada, además de representar una gran pérdida para la cultura (sus obras fueron grabadas por artistas como Caetano Veloso y Clara Nunes, y su aporte a la cultura baihana es sustancial). Este asesinato se suma a los centenares de asesinatos políticos perpetrados por las fuerzas militares y paramilitares, en su labor de represión contra la reivindicación social y política. Este asesinato: «no fue obra de “un loco suelto”. Es un predecible subproducto de la campaña que el ex-capitán del Ejército llevó adelante de cara a las presidenciales. Los propósitos racistas plagaron sus discursos(…) [Además] Bolsonaro incitó al asesinato de los simpatizantes de la izquierda, proclamó “vamos a fusilar a la petralada”; “la petralada” en Brasil es algo similar a decir “los zurdos”»[10].

Bolsonaro expresa, acerca de los asesinatos perpetrados por la policía militar en Brasil durante los últimos años, que:”Tendría que matar más”[11]. El elegido de la burguesía criticó con saña el trabajo de reivindicación de justicia social y de denuncia contra la policía militar, realizado por la concejal Marielle Franco en las comunidades más empobrecidas de Río de Janeiro. Marielle fue asesinada para callar su voz. Tras su éxito en la primera vuelta, Bolsonaro expresó que iba a”poner el punto y final a todos los activismos de Brasil” [ibidem]. Las calles de Brasil están militarizadas desde hace meses, y lo son reiteradamente por extensos períodos desde hace años: la labor militar es reprimir el descontento social frente al saqueo capitalista que empobrece a la población, mientras enriquece a un puñado de multimillonarios. Cuando la clase explotadora incrementa la explotación y el saqueo, y que en contraparte las poblaciones ya no aguantan más y se fragua la rebelión, la clase explotadora echa mano de la represión más bárbara: deteniendo hasta niños pequeños en las calles para registrarlos, amedrentando los barrios más empobrecidos. La militarización se ha cobrado decenas de vidas: “El empleo de las Fuerzas Armadas en la ciudad de Rio de Janeiro se ha convertido en una constante (…) Esta conducta ha ocasionado un festival de violaciones de derechos humanos, sobretodo en contra de la población negra, mestiza y pobre” [12].

El saqueo capitalista causa éxodos rurales que engrosan las barriadas urbanas más empobrecidas; pero la burguesía no pretende frenar el saqueo, sino golpear doblemente a los despojados, desplazados y empobrecidos. Para forzar las comunidades campesinas a abandonar sus tierras, el gran capital recurre al terror paramilitar. Las calles y campos militarizados impusieron al régimen de derecha que urdió el golpe institucional del 2016, y ahora apuntalan a Bolsonaro, que viabiliza al máximo el saqueo de los riquísimos recursos naturales de Brasil.La dirigente nacional del MST, Kelli Mafort, expresó: “La cuestión agraria brasileña está en el centro de la economía y en la disputa de ese proyecto, tanto el golpe como el programa de Bolsonaro van en el mismo camino de que el campo brasileño sea del agronegocio, de la minería, de los monocultivos y del veneno”[13].

Millones de desposeídos son empujados a los caminos del hambre. La desesperanza que causa el empobrecimiento es encausada en alienación religiosa, se trata de impedir que las y los explotados se rebelen. La alienación religiosa, implantada a sangre y fuego en Brasil desde la época colonial, fue mantenida por las clases dominantes durante siglos de educación religiosa y de productos culturales destinados a la alienación. La religión católica preconiza la sumisión, las nuevas iglesias evangélicas preconizan lo mismo: son una verdadera cadena contra la emancipación de los pueblos. Bolsonaro es por supuesto un fanático religioso, y ya expresa claramente sus intenciones de acabar con la laicidad y de embestir contra las creencias de los pueblos indígenas y afrodescendientes que no se hayan todavía plegado al “dios” que impuso la colonia portuguesa: “Dios encima de todos. No existe esa historita de Estado laico, no. El Estado es cristiano y quien esté en contra, que se mude. Las minorías tienen que plegarse a las mayorías” (mitin en Paraíba, febrero del 2017) [14].

El capitalismo se ha perpetuado siempre a punta de exterminio, alienación, fascismo. Frente a la continua guerra que la clase explotadora perpetra contra la clase explotada, la única opción de un futuro de libertad consiste en la toma de consciencia de clase, y la consiguiente lucha emancipadora que se articula a la consciencia. La burguesía lo sabe, por eso trabaja la alienación para impedir la toma de consciencia, y la represión contra la parte más consciente de la clase explotada. La clase explotadora brasilera y transnacional pretende exterminar la reivindicación social usando la barbarie represiva, pero el pueblo no se detiene cuando lo que reclama es Justicia Social. Marcello Pablito expresa: «Sabemos que para derrotar a la extrema derecha no podemos confiar en la salida electoral y en las alianzas que el PT hizo, que abrieron camino al golpe y al fortalecimiento de la derecha. La resistencia y osadía del pueblo negro estuvo en la línea de frente de la lucha de clases, y en esas experiencias nos referenciamos. Mientras haya capitalismo, habrá resistencia negra, para la furia de Bolsonaro y compañía. El Maestro Moa fue asesinado porque cargaba en sus venas esa historia, esa fuerza. Es por esa tradición de lucha, resistencia y osadía de los negros que Bolsonaro nos odia.(…) Tienen miedo de lo que puedan hacer los negros cuando se ponen en movimiento contra la opresión y la explotación. Miedo de que nuestro ánimo de lucha despierte al conjunto de los trabajadores. Por eso, es en la lucha de clases donde derrotaremos a Bolsonaro y a sus aliados (…)No olvidamos a Marielle, no olvidaremos a Maestro Moa”

__________________________________________

Blog de la autora: www.cecilia-zamudio.blogspot.com

NOTAS:

[1] Este texto se escribe tras la primera vuelta, a pocas horas de la segunda vuelta, en la que, probablemente que dará apuntalado el candidato Bolsonaro.

[3] https://www.republica.com.uy/el-boom-mujeres-contra-bolsonaro-crece-con-mucha-fuerza-en-brasil-id678124/ 

[4] “El error de la dictadura fue torturar y no matar”. Declaraciones en entrevista con la radio Jovem Pan, junio del 2016, https://www.nacion.com/el-mundo/politica/las-frases-celebres-de-jair-bolsonaro-candidato/53YWTQ46KNCHLHGJCBB3BLVGGE/story/

[5]“En el período de la dictadura, hubieran tenido que fusilar a unos 30.000 (…) hubiese sido una gran ganancia para la nación” Declaraciones difundidas por TV Bandeirantes, mayo de 1999 https://www.nacion.com/el-mundo/politica/las-frases-celebres-de-jair-bolsonaro-candidato/53YWTQ46KNCHLHGJCBB3BLVGGE/story/

[6] https://www.ecured.cu/Golpe_de_estado_contra_Jo%C3%A3o_Goulart

[7] https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/09/28/actualidad/1538153452_095290.html

[8] Hasta el gobierno de Lula se pronunció en contra de la derogación de la ley de Amnistía del 79, derogación que pedían víctimas y defensores de DDHH, en abril de 2010. Estos son los favores que la socialdemocracia le hace al capitalismo y su aparato represivo, favores que, como en este caso, ni siquiera le son suficientes para evitar la orden de persecución en su contra, cuando la burguesía decide alistar al fascismo. “La mayoría de los jueces de la Corte votaron en contra del pedido de la Orden de Abogados de Brasil (OAB), que pretendía que se reinterpretara la Ley para poder juzgar a quienes cometieron torturas durante los años de represión. (…) El gobierno de Lula da Silva se había pronunciado en contra de la derogación de la Ley. El mandatario afirmó que lo importante “no es sancionar a los militares, sino recuperar la historia de aquellos que fueron perseguidos”.”

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/america_latina/2010/04/100429_2246_brasil_amnistia_corte_jg

[9] https://www.izquierdadiario.es/Entrevista-Las-12-punaladas-que-mataron-a-Moa-do-Katende-vinieron-de-la-boca-de-Bolsonaro?id_rubrique=2653 

[10] ttps://izquierdaweb.com/brasil-neofascista-asesina-a-un-artista-por-ser-negro-y-criticar-a-bolsonaro/

[11] https://www.eldiario.es/internacional/brasilenos-entregan-capitan-abogaba-Congreso_0_822768260.html 

[12] http://www.global.org.br/blog/justica-global-denuncia-a-onu-e-a-oea-intervencao-federal-militar-no-rio-de-janeiro/

[14] “Dios encima de todos. No existe esa historita de Estado laico, no. El Estado es cristiano y quien esté en contra, que se mude. Las minorías tienen que plegarse a las mayorías” (mitin en Paraíba, febrero del 2017). https://www.nacion.com/el-mundo/politica/las-frases-celebres-de-jair-bolsonaro-candidato/53YWTQ46KNCHLHGJCBB3BLVGGE/story/
  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on La burguesía aúpa al fascismo: Bolsonaro y el esclavismo capitalista

Who prefers military might over peaceful discussion to settle a long festering international dispute? Canada, it seems.

It may surprise some that a Canadian general is undercutting inter-Korean rapprochement while Global Affairs Canada seeks to maintain its 70-year old war footing, but that is what the Liberal government is doing.

At the start of the month Canadian Lieutenant General Wayne Eyre told a Washington audience that the North Koreans were “experts at separating allies” and that a bid for a formal end to the Korean war represented a “slippery slope” for the 28,500 US troops there.

So what could an end-of-war declaration mean? Even if there is no legal basis for it, emotionally people would start to question the presence and the continued existence of the United Nations Command,” said Eyre at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace. “And it’s a slippery slope then to question the presence of U.S. forces on the peninsula.”

Lieut. Gen. Wayne D. Eyre, the deputy commander of the United Nations Command, speaks during a change-of-responsibility ceremony at Camp Humphreys, a sprawling U.S. military complex in Pyeongtaek, 70 kilometers south of Seoul, on July 30, 2018. (Yonhap)

The first non-US general to hold the post since the command was created to fight the Korean War in 1950, Eyre became deputy commander of the UNC at the end of July. He joined 14 other Canadian officers with UNC.

Image on the right: Lieut. Gen. Wayne D. Eyre, the deputy commander of the United Nations Command, speaks during a change-of-responsibility ceremony at Camp Humphreys, a sprawling U.S. military complex in Pyeongtaek, 70 kilometers south of Seoul, on July 30, 2018. (Yonhap)

Responsible for overseeing the 1953 armistice agreement, UNC has undercut Korean rapprochement. At the start of the month the Financial Times reported,

the US-spearheaded United Nations Command has in recent weeks sparked controversy in host nation South Korea with a series of moves that have highlighted the chasm between Seoul’s pro-engagement attitude to Pyongyang and Washington’s hard line.”

In August, for instance, the UN force blocked a train  carrying South Korean officials from crossing the Demilitarized Zone as part of an initiative to improve relations by modernizing cross-border railways.

As it prepares to concede operational control over its forces to Seoul in coming years, Washington is pushing to “revitalize” UNC, which is led by a US General who simultaneously commands US troops in Korea. According to the Financial Times, the UN force “serves to bolster and enhance the US’s position in north-east Asia at a time when China is rising.” To “revitalize” UNC the US is pressing the 16 countries that deployed soldiers during the Korean War to increase their military contribution going forward, a position argued at a Vancouver gathering in January on promoting sanctions against the North.

In other words, Ottawa and Washington would prefer the existing state of affairs in Korea because it offers an excuse for keeping tens of thousands of troops near China.

As part of reducing tensions, ridding the peninsula of nuclear weapons and possibly reunifying their country, the two Korean governments have sought a formal end to the Korean War. It’s an initial step in an agreement the Korean leaders signed in April and last month they asked the UN to circulate a peace declaration calling for an official end to hostilities.But, Canadian foreign minister Chrystia Freeland has responded gingerly to these efforts. In response to Seoul and Pyongyang’s joint announcement to seek a formal end to the Korean War in April Freeland said, “we all need to be careful and not assume anything.”

Two Global Affairs Canada statements released last month on the “North Korea nuclear crisis” studiously ignored the Koreas’ push for an official end to hostilities. Instead they called for “sanctions that exert pressure on North Korea to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs completely, verifiably and irreversibly.” The second statement said UN Security Council sanctions “must … remain in place until Pyongyang takes concrete actions in respect of its international obligations.”

Global Affairs’ position flies in the face of South Korea, Russia, China and other nations that have brought up easing UN sanctions on North Korea. Washington, on the other hand, is seeking to tighten sanctions.

Partly to bolster the campaign to isolate North Korea a Vancouver Island based submarine was sent across the big pond at the start of the year. In April Ottawa also sent a CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft and 40 military personnel to a US base in Japan from which British, Australian and US forces monitor the North’s efforts to evade UN sanctions. A September Global Affairs Canada statement titled “Canada renews deployment in support of multinational initiative to enforce UN Security Council sanctions on North Korea” noted:

A Canadian Armed  Forces maritime patrol aircraft will return to the region to help counter North Korea’s maritime smuggling, in particular its use of ship-to-ship transfers of refined petroleum products. In addition, Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Calgary, on operations in the area as part of Canada’s continued presence in the region, was named to contribute to this effort.”

Rather than undermine Korean rapprochement, Ottawa should call for an official end to the 70-year old war and direct the Canadians in UNC to support said position. Canada should welcome peace in Korea even if it may trouble those seeking to maintain 30,000 US troops to “contain” China.

*

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 Canada Seems to Prefer State of ‘War’ in Korea, Not Peace
  • Tags: ,

What Does Erdogan Know About Khashoggi’s Execution?

October 29th, 2018 by Richard Galustian

“The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million a statistic.”  And the death of one man, Khashoggi, at the hand of Saudi assassins in Turkey has reinforced that axiom, amidst tens of thousands of children slaughtered in Yemen.

One man’s death has set the whole complex Middle Eastern political vortex spinning.

The first effect of his murder is the shattering of a claim that Saudi Arabia’s, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), is piloting this most conservative regime on the path of liberal reform.

That MBS was a reformer, regarded with great skepticism even before Khashoggi was lured to the Saudi  consulate on October 2, ostensibly for papers allowing him to marry his Turkish fiancé.

Months ago, the international media made great play of MBS’s decision to let women drive – while also reporting his jailing of women’s rights activists.

MBS’s purge of the Saudi elite, by locking them in a luxury hotel until they handed over billions of dollars in cash and assets was regarded by many as shocking – was that reform or a move worthy of Al Capone?

MBS insists the assassination was done without his knowledge. Many will be watching the fate of the 18 men involved in the Khashoggi killing, not least because some are bodyguards previously identified in photographs with MBS.

How the assassins thought they could get away with it is also a mystery.

Turkey is festooned with CCTV and those images have made clear Khashoggi never left the consulate, but a body double did to deceive and attempt to establish that he had left the Consulate; how amateurish; how arrogant. Just as landing records showed the arrival to Turkey of the hit team, and their rapid departure.

Trump himself put his finger on this aspect of the killing, describing it as the “worst cover-up in history.”

MBS now badly needs to recover his image. Galloping production in shale oil by the US, which will soon over take Saudi’s mantle as the world’s leading oil producer, promises long-term cheaper oil. The House of Saud, which gives its family name to the country it controls, rests its authority on its ability to shower oil largess on its population. But there is not enough oil revenues to go around the whole 30 million. They need international investment.

Hence the drive to convince the world that MBS is a reformer. Few will now agree with Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir’s description of the Kingdom under MBS is a “vision of light”.

Across the Gulf, Iran has won some breathing space, as it faces US sanctions barring companies, and anyone who has interests in the US, from buying Iran’s oil. The European Union may feel emboldened to encourage its companies – at least those with no US interests – to trade with Iran, keeping the Iran nuclear freeze deal alive.

Erdoğan reeling from his own US sanctions, in part resulting from his jailing so many journalists, and a spiralling debt crisis, has also gained an important ‘ace’.

Khashoggi was no jobbing journalist. For decades he supported the Saudi regime. The change of power at the top when MBS assumed the reigns of power, saw him switch. Khashoggi was critical in his writings of MBS, while supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and further, he did not include any criticism of its (the MB) other main supporter (other than Turkey), Qatar.

Western powers, meanwhile, are on the back foot. Contrast the tardy reaction to the Khashoggi killing with the attack on the Skripals. After Sergei Skripal, the former Russian intelligence officer who was a British double-agent, was found slumped on a bench in the UK with his daughter Yulia, the UK moved quickly to expel Russian diplomats. Within days the US and most European nations followed suit.

By contrast, no Saudi officials have yet been expelled over the Khashoggi affair, with the only hard action being from Germany which has ended its miniscule arms sales to Saudi.

Trump says he is “not satisfied” with the Saudi account even following his phone conversation with MBS, while also making clear that the only real sanction available, suspension of arms sales, is not on the cards due to the consequences for jobs in the US.

Crying on Turkish TV, his fiancé Hatice Cengiz described herself as being in “darkness I cannot express”. It is a darkness faced by loved ones of the slain across conflicts raging in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Palestine; the suffering of one being a vivid reminder of the suffering of millions more.

The events surrounding Khashoggi’s death and the ‘game’ being played out by Erdoğan was most interestingly and eloquently described by former British parliamentarian George Galloway:

“Erdoğan’s definitely doing the dance of the seven veils, who knows when the final veil will be revealed and cast off but there is no doubt he (Erdoğan) has the goods! I know for certain because someone close to me has heard the goods (meaning the audio of the killing). He’s negotiating I presume behind the scenes, the price will be going up because frankly if this ordeal is released, it will be the most devastating audio of the 21st Century. Shakespeare couldn’t have written this, it’s Macbeth on steroids, right down to the poor son of Khashoggi’s who went to the Palace to shake hands with the murderers of his father.”

*

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: Salah Khashoggi and Mohammed bin Salman (Source: author)

Despite years of disagreements on Syria, the leaders of Turkey, France, Germany, and Russia worked out a common vision for the steps to reconciliation in the war-torn country when they met in Istanbul. Here’s a summary of it.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who hosted the talks, was joined by Russia’s Vladimir Putin and France’s Emmanuel Macron, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Following the summit, the four leaders held a joint press conference and released a communique, highlighting what common ground they had found during the four-way talks.

  • Only political solution for Syria
    The leaders have “expressed their support for an inclusive, Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process that is facilitated by the United Nations.”
  • Need to start work on constitution in Geneva
    A committee tasked with drafting a new constitution for Syria should begin its work as soon as possible, preferably before the end of this year.
  • No to division of Syria
    Syria must continue to exist within its pre-war borders. Any separatist movements or desires of foreign powers to occupy parts of the country are therefore firmly rejected.
  • Keep ceasefire & defeat terrorists
    The four countries have expressed their support for the Idlib ceasefire deal, brokered earlier by Russia and Turkey. At the same time, they emphasized the importance of fighting terrorism and condemned the use of chemical weapons.
  • Boost humanitarian aid
    The United Nations and other international organizations should bolster aid deliveries to the war-torn country. “Swift, safe and unhindered” flow of humanitarian aid will provide much-needed relief to the sufferings of the Syrian people.
  • Help return of refugees
    The four leaders stressed the importance of “safe and voluntary” return of refugees to Syria. To facilitate the process, appropriate housing and social care facilities must be constructed in the country.
  • Internationally observed elections
    The ultimate goal of the political settlement process is holding transparent, internationally observed elections, the statement reads. All Syrians, including those who had to flee the country, must be able to participate.

*

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 form Global Look Press / Oliver Weiken

A Ridiculed Election Show of US-NATO on the Stage of Afghanistan

October 29th, 2018 by Defend Democracy Press

On October 20, 2018, there were Parliamentary Elections in Afghanistan. The election was fully funded and influenced by US-NATO to give legitimacy to their puppet regime in Kabul. Obviously, holding so-called election in an occupied country never represent the will and interest of the people of occupied country but rather it serves for the military, political and economic interests of NATO leading countries headed by US, UK, Germany and France.

The current parliamentary election was held after three years delay, completely in contradiction to Afghanistan national constitution. The puppet government is not the outcome of election and votes of the people but, it is the yield of a compromise between the leading candidates of the presidential election 2014 and their foreign masters in NATO. The puppet government of Ghani-Abdullah which was created by John Kerry the US secretary of state in 2014, widely faced with the opposition from National Assembly as well the people who participated in presidential election and recognized this product of the John Kerry as an insult to their votes and will. So, the new illegal government which then named itself “the National Unity Government” to reduce the tension between the parliament and government, agreed to increase the salaries and privileges as well as extend the duration of the exiting parliament members by postponing the coming election for further three years. Through this unofficial agreement, while before most of the introduced candidates for ministries being rejected, but following this agreement, they were collectively accepted, and the level of opposition decreased.

The US-NATO along with its puppet regime in Kabul held the election in circumstances where they have control on less than 60% of the territory of Afghanistan. And it means 60% of the citizens will not or cannot participate in the election. You can image that the government failed to well manage the polling station only in Kabul city where it was supposed to start the voting on 8 am but due to delay supplying of technical materials, it started 11 am and some regions 1 pm. That is why the Election Commission announced to continue the process for next day where they opened a way for potential fraud and corruption out of the sight of “independent observers”.

The official report says that 12 million people are eligible to vote, but only 8.8 million of them registered for casting the ballots. A local TV reported from Badi Sayad the president of the electoral commission that only around 3 million people used their votes across the country except Ghazni and Kandahar provinces. The general distrust of the people on the election process as well as deteriorating security situation and threats by Taliban, the people totally boycotted the puppet regime election under the occupation.

The absolute majority of the existing National Assembly was comprised of war lords, war criminals and human rights violators, that most of them were involved in land grabbing, kidnaping, mining extraction and smuggling, corruption and illegal contracts. Similarly, for the new parliament, the sons or family members of the existing war lords and criminal faces such as Gulbadin Hekmatyar, Rasool Sayaf, Karim Khalili, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Rashid Dustom, Burhanudin Rabani, Masoud, Qadeer, Esmailkhan, Atta Noor… nominated themselves for parliament. Most of the candidates interpret the parliament as a shop of multiple benefits where the MPs can save big amount of money, receive immunity from prosecution, enjoy military and financial power.

Beside of complaints of the people, the famous war criminals and human rights violators and corrupts elements succeeded to nominate themselves. The so-calledAfghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission never dared to disclose the names of war criminals and human rights violators in Afghanistan to prevent them to rule on people repeatedly.

The people believe that it is not their vote which determine the success or failure of a candidate, rather it’s the “invisible hands” that play the main role to decide on the results. Without compromise with government and criminal faces or relations with regional and Nato member countries, it is almost impossible to win the election. Because of the result of such compromises and deals, the parliament lose its credit and the government repeatedly ignores its decisions. For example, 90% of the ministers that were disqualified by the parliament, still continuing their duties. Owing to the deterioration of security situation, increase in civilian casualties and supporting of ISIS and some Taliban by “invisible hands”, there were burning debates on US- Afghan Bilateral Security Agreement which was signed by Ghani-Abdullah Government in its second day of coming on power in 2014. The MPs demanded to totally cancel the agreement or at least amend its contents. But, it was serious faced with a reaction of the government and warned, nobody is allowed to bring under question the BSA. Therefore, the story ended, and the corrupt MPs kept shut their mouths.

Only in last decade, for three round presidential elections and two rounds of parliamentary election more than one billion dollars invested by US and Nato to dress their puppet regime in Kabul with the cloths of legitimacy. The current election cost more than 135 million dollars for US- Nato but for the people of Afghanistan through 193 attacks and blasts by armed opposition, 36 persons lost their lives and 127 others were injured.

The people of Afghanistan have lost their hope to count on the puppet regime anymore. The US and its allies have been performing comic shows under the name of democracy and election on the ground of Afghanistan. The democracy which is taught by using of the Mother of All bombs, the democracy which is cost for Afghans both sides of the war 300 daily dead since 2001, the democracy which is fully mixed with fraud, corruption and injustice. The democracy where the last word is said by John Kerry and Nato commanders, the democracy which 60% people living in areas out of the government control and out of 12 million eligible voters only around 2 million cast their ballots!!!

Until the country is occupied and from A to Z controlled by the US and NATO, no election will be legitimate. The official reports or the mass media from Kabul to Washington and Paris will drum the victory of democracy in Afghanistan but the bitter really will slaps on their faces while judging on the outcomes of this ridiculous democracy and fraudulent election in Afghanistan.

*

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 Irish Times.

For the thousands of Hondurans who are part of a migrant caravan proceeding towards the United States, the recent comments by US president Donald Trump were yet another instance of the persecution they have faced while trying to escape horrible living conditions. On Monday, Trump threatened the countries the migrants passed through – Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico – with sanctions for failing to stop them. He also called them criminals. This is in addition to the brutal repression they have faced since the beginning of their journey.

Nearly 7,000 people are part of the caravan that began early last week. The reasons for their flight are diverse but most of them have to do with the absence of dignified living conditions in Honduras. People are unable to access education, health care and employment, and violence is ubiquitous. The situation has drastically worsened in the last decade with the coup d’etat, imposition of the dictatorship and the illegal reelection of Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH). Many have said that the thousands of Hondurans headed towards the United States border are not in search of the ‘American dream’ but are rather fleeing the Honduran nightmare.

The hashtag #MejorMeVoy (#ItsBetterIGo) has been trending, with people highlighting the extremely adverse conditions they are facing in Honduras.

Source: Peoples Dispatch

The caravan has been met with an outpouring of solidarity from people across the world. In Guatemala and Mexico, many community organizations and residents who live along the caravan route rallied to organize supplies, food and general support for the thousands of Hondurans.

However, the state response has been one of threats. Several US officials, as well as those from Guatemala and Honduras, have warned the migrants of repression and deportation should they reach the United States. At both the Honduran border with Guatemala and the Guatemala-Mexico border, the caravan was met with tear gas and baton attacks.

Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened on Twitter to cut all aid to the three countries. He even claimed the caravan was full of “criminals” and “unknown Middle Easterners” and as such, it has been deemed a national emergency. Trump also alerted Border Patrol and threatened that he would deploy the US military to close the southern border. He even went so far as to thank Mexican law enforcement by retweeting a video of riot police being deployed to repress migrants at the Mexico-Guatemala border. He also tried to frame the caravan as a result of Democratic party immigration policies, in an attempt to generate anti-Democratic sentiment before the midterm elections scheduled in November.

Missing in all this is the question of why the Hondurans are fleeing. The Freedom and Refounding party of Honduras (Partido Libertad y Refundación), under the direction of former president Manuel Zelaya, who was overthrown in the 2009 coup, released a statement in response to the statements made by US officials. It said,

“You all, along with Donald Trump, backed the monstrous electoral fraud of November 2017 and the violent repression unleashed against the protesters, many of whom were assassinated and others who today are still kept as political prisoners. [All this was while] knowing that it is Juan Orlando Hernández himself who is responsible for looting the State, for the disastrous state of the economy, of violence, of insecurity and impunity that without a doubt are the roots of the profound crisis which forces our fellow countrymen and women to flee.”

What are the conditions like in Honduras?

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. More than 65% of the population lives in poverty with 40% struggling in conditions of extreme poverty. It is also the second most unequal country in the region.

Since its founding, Honduras has mostly been ruled by conservative governments in service of the United States and its imperialist interests. It is home to one of the largest US military bases in Latin America, Palmerola, which has served as a strategic launch point in the region to quell dissent. For example, in the 1980s, at the peak of the left-wing guerrilla struggles in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, many counter-insurgent forces and operations were coordinated from Honduran territory. Today, Honduras continues to be a highly militarized country. Despite the absence of any internal armed conflict, its military and military police are deployed across the country and concentrated in areas of strategic economic importance.

Economically, Honduras has also been key for the empire. It has historically supplied transnational companies with land and cheap labor. For example, the US-based United Fruit Company, now Chiquita Bananas, has been operating in Honduras since the early 20th century. The company profits off the poor working conditions and low wages that they pay the Honduran workers. In response, in 1954, thousands of workers went on strike to demand better working conditions, salary and the creation of a labor code, among other demands.

Since the coup d’etat in 2009, there has been a significant increase in the number of concessions given to transnational companies for mining, energy and cash crop plantations. These projects have had all sorts of diverse impact from displacement of communities to contamination of their water and the environment. In a country with very little state support and high unemployment, cutting off people’s access to clean water and the ability to work on their land has had a dire impact. These extractive mega-projects have been resisted fiercely which in turn has been met with brutal repression.

An example of this repression is the assassination of Berta Cáceres and the attack on the movement she led, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH). Berta and COPINH were integral to the resistance to the coup of 2009 and saw first hand how the imposition of mega projects in the territory of the indigenous Lenca community was a direct consequence of the coup d’etat. The Agua Zarca dam project, which COPINH was resisting alongside the Río Blanco community, received its concession and licenses shortly after the coup.

In 2017, Global Witness declared Honduras the most dangerous country to be an environmental activist. At least 120 Honduran activists have been killed since 2010 while trying to protect their rivers, forests and land.

Honduras is also infamous for high levels of crime due to the pervasiveness of the ‘maras’, which are structures of organized crime . These are controlled by top-level police and state officials who use young Hondurans as pawns to wage their war to control territory and drugs. Due to the lack of opportunities in Honduras, many young people are forced to join the maras or in many cases, are even coerced into enrolling. Generally, the maras have a policy of killing those who disobey their orders or try to leave. Many of those currently fleeing Honduras are doing so for this reason.

The systemic corruption, collapsing health system and underfunded public education are other key factors that make life in Honduras unsustainable for the majority of its citizens. Most of these conditions are the direct results of the policies of the overwhelmingly conservative governments of Honduras and the US ,which has significant economic, political and military influence over the country. After the 2009 coup d’etat and the destruction of democracy, these sectors further consolidated their project to sell Honduran resources to foreign companies, militarize the territory in defense of these projects of capital, and divert state resources destined for health and education into the pockets of the political elite.

In the next few days, the thousands of Hondurans who are part of the caravan will continue their journey towards the US border, where they will surely be met with even greater difficulties. The plight of Honduran migrants is the most glaring example of the contradictions of US policy, which has led to the creation of horrible living conditions in many countries, yet seeks to penalize and punish those who wish to escape it.

In April, a Central American Migrant Caravan, comprising over a 1,000 people, was met with similar repression and threats by Trump and US officials and were denied the chance to apply for asylum.

*

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: Migrant carrying the Honduran flag makes their way over the Guatemalan-Mexican border fence. (Source: Peoples Dispatch)

Far-right politician Jair Bolsonaro has won the Brazilian presidential elections with over 55 percent of the vote beating leftist Fernando Haddad who scored 44.3 percent in the country’s most polarized elections in decades.

According to the latest polls, support for Bolsonaro grew by six million votes, however, his opponent won an additional 13 million since the first-round elections earlier this month.

Some 21.17 percent of Brazilian abstained from the elections while another 7.43 percent of the ballots were marked null.

Bolsonaro announced that he will not be speaking to the press, but will be making all his public statements via social media.

Congratulations from Latin America’s right-wing leaders began to flow in just minutes after the election results were announced.

Chile’s President Sebastian Piñera tweeted,

“I congratulate the Brazilian people for a clean and democratic choice. I congratulate you @jairbolsonaro on your great electoral triumph. I invite you to visit Chile and I am sure that we will work with willpower, strength, and vision for the welfare of our people and the integration.”

From his Twitter account, Argentina’s leader, Mauricio Macri, wrote,

“Congratulations to Jair Bolsonaro for the win in Brazil! I want us to work soon together for the relationship between our countries and the well-being of Argentines and Brazilians.”

President Enrique Peña Nieto, tweeted,

“On behalf of the people and the Government of Mexico @jairbolsonaro, I congratulate for his election as President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, in an exemplary day that reflects the democratic strength of that country.”

Jorge Arreaza, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, tweeted:

“The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela @NicolasMaduro, extends his congratulations to the people of Brazil, for the civic celebration of the 2nd electoral round, in which was favored @jairbolsonaro as President-Elect of that brother country.”

In a live interview, Haddad thanked Brazil for its support:

“My dear Brazilian people, I am very grateful for your confidence and we will work together to make a better future.”

Haddad made considerable progress with his countrymen abroad. In the Netherlands, for instance, where Bolsonaro only received 900 votes, Haddad garnered an impressive 1047 votes, the Brazilian Consulate General in Amsterdam said.

*

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

Julian Assange, Ecuador and the Dangers of Farce

October 29th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

This is the next stage of the Julian Assange chronicles: from the summit of information disclosures and meddlesome revelations on classified state matters, the Australian rabblerouser now finds himself the subject of a new round of jokes and ribbing.  WikiLeaks, in short, must be wary of the dangers posed by a new campaign of farce.

Satire, humour and ad hominem attacks can have the effect of wounding and deflating.  When directed against dissidents from the vantage point of tradition, the effect can be calculating and delegitimising.   For Chelsea Manning, a querulous attitude to the US military, a confused matter of gender and lingering resentment were furnished as weapons against her role as a genuine whistleblower.  Whistleblowers, or so goes this line of reasoning, cannot suffer “delusions of grandeur”.  They must be calm, focused, and scrupulously clean.

Assange, as with others associated with the vocation of exposing the asymmetrical nature of power and its impacts, has found himself repeatedly depicted in fashions that supposedly undermine the rationale for transparency politics.   He is an enemy of conventional forms of stratified power, and must duly account for dirtying that sty in advancing an approach that insists upon transnational networks “which function,” writes Raffi Khatchadourian, “outside norms of state sovereignty that have held for centuries.”

Joan Smith, chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Panel, provided an exemplary demonstration of how an attempted diminution of a legacy can work.  In a graceless attack on Assange in 2016, she showed a damnable political immaturity. Her clumsily fashioned assault dismissed international protections against arbitrary detention or matters of political prosecution; none of these, she suggested, applied to Assange.

No mention of Cablegate, or any other expansive document release, features; Assange was merely a molesting ego-maniac who needed to front legal processes as others who had been accused of assault, “including the comedian Bill Cosby who has just been told that prosecutors in the US can proceed with a sexual assault charge dating back to 2004.”  Assange was “a fugitive from justice, a man with such an inflated ego that he believes himself beyond the law.”

The restoration of basic entitlements to Assange at the Ecuadorean embassy (modest, restricted internet access being one of them), where he remains a troublesome tenant, has provided another round for comic skewering.  Now, the razors of satire have been deployed in various measures that seek as much to render his historical contributions to whistleblowing and journalism a matter of mirth rather than worth.  In one sense, this returns Assange to a time immemorial function of palace politics: to be the jester, is to reveal the truth.

It all began with the new “house rules” of the Ecuadorean embassy, which restore conditional access to the Internet.  Not following these newly minted conditions “could lead to the termination of the diplomatic asylum granted by the Ecuadorean state”.

While such injunctions might be sensible for many citizens, they grate with the publisher who has made it both his hobby and work to disrupt international relations and rubbish the façade of diplomatic decency.  In an act of substantive neutering in that regard, he had to avoid any activity, according to the Ecuadorean government memorandum, “considered as political or interfering with the internal affairs of other states.”

The memorandum also made it clear that the embassy was going to target “unauthorised equipment”, reserving “the right to authorise security personnel to seize equipment” or request British authorities to enter the premises to do so.

This was not all.  In the language of an irritable nurse, the memorandum urged Assange to observe basic levels of hygiene (cleaning his own bathroom, including after himself and his guests), a behavioural requirement rich with imputation, and could not hope for embassy payments towards his food, laundry or other costs for his stay from December 1, 2018 onwards.  Quarterly medical check-ups would cease being covered.

He also had to ensure continued adequate care for his feline companion, one whose name has altered over time in the name, ostensibly, public relations.

“When Castro died,” explained Assange, “we started calling it Cat-stro.”  (Currently, the name Michi seems to be preferred.)

Where this instagrammed, tweeted creature came from is unclear, though it invariably supplies his observers with salivating prospects for speculation.  One story run for tabloid consumption is that the cat was a gift from his children; another, told to Khatchadourian, was that the tale was a handy concoction designed to gull.  The embassy is, however, clear.  He had to take care of the cat’s “well-being, food and hygiene”. Not doing so risked having to surrender the animal to care.

It is precisely such antics – and for Assange, being in a restricted abode for six years should entitle him some measure of frivolity – that provide morsels for distraction.  Information wars can reach the high summit of austere seriousness in exposing state mendacity, or they can plummet into depictions of distracting farce.

Farce and the staged absurd is something that is bound to shadow Assange in this latest bout, even if a certain tart historical legacy is assured.  Having now launched a lawsuit against Ecuador’s Foreign Affairs Ministry on claimed violations of constitutional rights, Assange is being mocked for being unable to understand the appointed translator.  “According to the English-speaking Assange,” goes an acerbic Seamus Bellamy, “his self-righteous blather differs from what the rest of the English-speaking world gets along with.”  Judge Karina Martinez conceded that the court had erred in appointing a translator not adept in picking up the Australian accent which, for Assange, was sufficiently thick to warrant consideration.  This is vintage Assange: amidst the undergrowth of seriousness comes an element of the absurd with a good twist of truth.

*

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]

Featured image is from WSWS.

Imagine the splendid Mekong River, as it flows not far from an ancient capital of Laos, Luang Prabang. The river is powerful, with muddy banks, surrounded by lush mountains. Imagine poor villages and old ferry crossings, as well as broken plastic sandals on the feet of local people.

Then suddenly, near the village of Phonesai, you can spot several tremendous concrete pillars. They are growing out from the water, and from both river banks, literally connecting two mountains.

Soon it will be a bridge for high-speed trains. It is being built by China, a nation with the most advanced high-speed rail technology on earth. And a bit below, there will be another bridge, for cars and pedestrians.

Both mountains are being drilled, carefully and sparingly. This is where two tunnels will be passing through.

It is of course much cheaper to blow the mountains down with explosives. But earlier this year, China engraved the “Ecological Civilization” into its Constitution, and what it preaches at home, it also implements abroad.

This is the biggest project in the history of Laos, and it is often described as a mammoth engineering task: with 154 bridges and 76 tunnels, as well as 31 train stations. The Laotian terrain is very complex, its nature still pristine at large, and it is supposed to remain as such. The railroad will be 414 kilometers long, connecting Boten on the Laos-China border and the Laotian capital Vientiane. It is estimated that 20,000 Chinese workers will take part in the construction, as well as further tens of thousands of local laborers.

The railroad is expected to be operational in 2021, linking Laos with both China in the north, and Thailand to the south. 

China Daily reported:

“The Lao government hopes that the completion of China-Laos railway will bring powerful momentum to social and economic development, while the construction of the railway has already brought great changes in many areas along the route. 

At Sinohydro Bureau 3 Co Ltd’s railway construction site between towns of Luang Prabang and Vangvieng, local staffs outnumber Chinese workers. Nearby hilly villages have over 300 people while some 20 of them have been employed to work for Sinohydro 3. Lao staffs are learning the advanced technology and management from their Chinese colleagues. 

Chinese construction companies also donated money to local villages for building bridges and roads.”

And not only roads, I saw and photographed new workshops, hotels, small factories and hospitals, along the road from Luang Prabang to Phonesai Village.

This is all part of Belt and Road Initiative, an optimistic, internationalist plan of China and its leadership, designed to connect lift out from poverty, a great number of nations, among them various previously colonized and plundered (by the West) countries in all corners of the globe.

*

While the Chinese workers are sweating, constructing the future of Laos, several French-speaking tourists on the main street of Luang Prabang are having beer.

In 1995, UNESCO inscribed this ancient capital of Laos onto the world heritage site list. Mass tourism, mainly from the West, followed.

Luang Prabang

Restored strictly the ‘French-way’ into a sentimental, colonialist nostalgia ‘living museum’, Luang Prabang caters mainly to European tastes. The local people are here predominantly to serve, to ‘just be there’ for decorative purposes; poor and ‘native’, humble, selling craft, sitting on the asphalt and making sure to look appropriately destitute but ‘friendly’.

There are a few posh boutiques and high-end hotels in town. No Laotian person could ever be able to afford a glass of Belgian beer on offer, or a meal in one of identical ‘traditional’ restaurants.

Signs are in English, sometimes in French or Laotian, but very rarely in Chinese.

Official Communist flags of Laos have almost entirely disappeared from the main streets of Luang Prabang.

In a local library, I am told by Mr. Seng Dao, who is the main librarian:

“Foreigners, mainly Europeans, used to come to local people and ask, sarcastically, even aggressively: “Why do you show Communist flags here? Or: ‘Why do you have Communist history in your books?”

Within few years, in the center of the city, the proud Communist legacy and identity of Laos has almost been entirely replaced with mass-produced low-quality silk, banal toys and other kitsch catering to the Western cultural fundamentalists, mainly from Europe.

But Laos is a Communist country, and flags are still waving in the wind as a rebellion, from various tuk-tuks and from the houses.

*

 

I used to work in Laos, on several occasions, but especially in 2006, when I reported on the activities of the British de-mining agency MAG, in the devastated Plain of Jars.

For many years I have been passionate about this part of the world, trying to understand what really happened during the horrendous ‘side-kick’ wars initiated by the Empire: those in Cambodia and Laos.

In a beastly show of cruelty and indifference, the West took millions of innocent human lives in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. We will never know the precise numbers, but combined, the death toll of the civilians most likely reached between 5 to 8 million. The West murdered and maimed people, and it poisoned entire huge areas of what was once known as ‘Indochina’. And it got away with it, as it has done in virtually every corner of the world, where it brought genocide, thorough destruction and indescribable misery.

I spoke to dozens of local people in the Plain of Jars, using the services of my patient and deeply compassionate local interpreter, Mr. Luong.

There, in a small village of Ban Khai, Mr. Phommar who was then already 81 years old, revealed to me all the horrors of the so called “Secret War”, unleashed by the West but particularly by the United States, against the scarcely populated Laos:

 “We used to hide by the side of the road, in the ditch. Bombs kept falling and once our entire family was buried and we had to dig ourselves out. People were dying all around us. They used to bomb us with enormous airplanes which flew so high that we couldn’t see or hear them approaching. And they used to send small planes which were looking for people on the ground; those flew so low that we were able to see faces in the cockpits.”

“But the carpet bombing was the scariest. There was no warning. Bombs began to explode all around this area and we had no idea where they were coming from. On average, they bombed us five times a day. They bombed us almost every day, for more than ten years. Laos had only two million people then. And we were later told that the U.S. and its allies dropped three million tons of bombs on us.”

“Eventually, nobody could survive here, anymore. Our houses were destroyed and our fields were full of unexploded substances. People were dying and so were the animals. We had to leave and so we decided to go to Vietnam, to search for refuge. But the journey was tremendously arduous. We were moving at night, carrying few possessions. During the day we were hiding from the enemy planes.”

“During the war I was very angry at Americans. I couldn’t understand how can somebody be so brutal. How can somebody kill fellow human beings in such cold blood? But now my government tells me that everything is ok, that it is past and we should forget. But how can we forget? I don’t feel angry anymore, but I would like the world to know what happened to us.”

John Bacher, a historian and a Metro Toronto archivist once wrote about The Secret War in Laos: 

“More bombs were dropped on Laos between 1965 and 1973 than the U.S. dropped on Japan and Germany during WWII. More than 350,000 people were killed. The war in Laos was a secret only from the American people and Congress.”

US cluster bombs in Laos

Jeremy Kuzmarov described in detail and in full psychological horror, what the West did to Laotian men, women and children:

“Military planners and “defense intellectuals” saw Laos as a testing ground for new forms of counterinsurgency and automated warfare the Pentagon had been developing, unencumbered by media or congressional scrutiny.  A State Department official said: “This is [the] end of nowhere.  We can do anything we want here because Washington doesn’t seem to know that it exists. While USAID provided rice drops in the effort to win “hearts and minds,” the military pioneered computer-directed bombing along with drone surveillance and dropped over 270 million cluster bombs, 80 million of which did not detonate… These strategies helped to delay the victory of the Pathet Lao revolutionary forces by over a decade, while providing a template for the automated warfare of the 21st century.”

Conclusions of Jeremy Kuzmarov are chilling but precise:

“If the Nazi activities represented a kind of apex to an age of inhumanity, American atrocities in Laos are clearly of a different order,” Branfman wrote.  “Not so much inhuman as a-human. The people of Na Nga and Nong Sa were not the object of anyone’s passion.  They simply weren’t considered.  What is most striking about American bombing in Laos is the lack of animosity felt by the killers to their victims. Most of the Americans involved have little if any knowledge of Laos or its people. “

To put numbers into perspective, as reported by Santi Suthinithet, at Hyphen:

“From 1964 to 1973, as part of the Secret War operation conducted during the Vietnam War, the US military dropped 260 million cluster bombs – about 2.5 million tons of munitions – on Laos over the course of 580,000 bombing missions. This is equivalent to a planeload of bombs being unloaded every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years – nearly seven bombs for every man, woman and child living in Laos.”

Princess Beatrice

My credentials as a writer, film-maker and investigative journalist who was risking his life for Laos (and Cambodia), browsing through the minefields, interviewing victims of the beastly Western campaigns in this part of the world, got me, this time, absolutely nowhere. Or more precisely, they got me just 5 minutes of a visit to the UXO center. After that I got escorted to my car, so the safety of a member of mass-murderous British monarchy could be guaranteed.

Did Laos really need Princess Beatrice? It does not need charity, does it? The UK, together with the US, Australia and few other nations were fully responsible for the death of at least 300,000 Laotian people. The West killed here; it lied, and it has been covering it all up until today. 

For experimenting on defenseless and innocent human beings, for ruining their land, poisoning rivers, slaughtering animals from the comfortable distance and height of the B-52 strategic bombers flight-paths, in an ideal, or even just ‘normal world, the West should be standing on its knees throwing ashes on its head, begging for forgiveness. Naturally, it should be paying war reparations amounting to trillions of dollars; to Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. All this and much more it should be doing, to offset at least some of the monstrosities it committed, instead of throwing gala charity parties for the royal mafia, in the middle of  5-star establishments surrounded by local rice fields.

*

But we are not living in an ideal or even ‘normal’ world. The West is unapologetic. Despite everything, it feels morally superior to the rest of the world. It preaches its fundamentalist gospel. And here, in Laos, it is trashing China for pulling this wonderful gentle nation out of decades of horrors, misery and dependency.

Western propaganda against the Chinese projects in Laos, is now in top gear.

Like in Africa, Western-financed NGO’s are in full force in Vientiane and other cities of Laos. Instead of building or improving Laos, they are there just in order to push the Western agenda; to agitate against the Communist government and its projects and cooperation with China. 

Bizarre and totally false stories are circulating in many major Western publications, accusing China of virtually everything, from not paying adequate wages, to ruining the Laotian environment.

The reason for all this propaganda is clear: Laos is an extremely strategically-located country, bordering China, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam.

It is a Communist country. It is still very poor, but with tremendous potential. And now it is clearly aware of the fact that it can soon stand on its own feet.

China is capable and willing to transform this country, literally overnight, from a recipient of meager aid, to a powerful nation of 7 million inhabitants.

China is involved in building roads, railroads, hospitals, factories, workshops, as well as dams and hydroelectric power plants on the Mekong River. The latter is solving the notorious electricity shortages of Laos, while turning it into a net exporter of electricity, particularly to neighboring Thailand. It is also pulling hundreds of thousands of Laotian people out of poverty.

An article published on February 1, 2016 by NEO Magazine (“Laos: The new Cold War Battleground You Don’t Know About”) addresses the issue:

“Protesters paradoxically claim that the dams will disrupt both the environment and traditional fishing communities along rivers downstream from dams. Traditional fishing communities, however, are generally synonymous with both unsustainable environmental destruction and poverty. Conversely, environmental impacts by dam construction can be mitigated through careful planning, while working to lift surrounding communities and the nation as a whole from poverty through improved infrastructure and cheaper and more accessible energy.

Protesters are not campaigning for careful planning, or better oversight of projects, they are campaigning instead for arrested development for Laos and its people – the sort of campaign only Wall Street and Washington could benefit from.”

The West has built nothing substantial in Laos. And it is horrified by the possibility that under the Chinese leadership, Laos will provide an example to the world, proving that even a poor and once destroyed country could stand independent and tall, if it is helped by its mighty, ideologically close neighbor.

While the West is helping to build a few services in the old city, mainly for its own tourists and profits, China has already built the efficient Luang Prabang International airport, replacing the old tiny yellowish building that used to serve as a terminal.

Railroad and highway projects that will be passing through Laos will connect China with several countries of Southeast Asia, and secure for Laos substantial transit fees. It is a win-win situation, but not when observed from the point of view of those who just want the continuation of Western supremacy in the region and the rest of the world.

And what about the people of Laos? Is the West really treating them better than they are treated by the Chinese? This is what I learned from Mr. Seng, a Laotian supervisor working at a luxury international hotel 3 Nagas in Luang Prabang:

“I am really glad that the Chinese are here. They are now involved in many projects here in Laos, including power plants and this high-speed train project which will interlink Laos with China, Thailand and hopefully, Cambodia. Chinese are treating us very well. My brother works for them; he is a driver. He earns 900 dollars monthly. This is enormous amount of money here. In fact, Chinese are paying him 1.500 dollars, but the government here takes 600 as an income tax, or something… I work for a French hotel chain ACCOR, which is the biggest hotel company in the world, and I earn 200 dollars, as a supervisor. Local staff earns on average 120 dollars.”

I checked with a French ACCOR employee who is based in Luang Prabang, and he confirmed the numbers.

The conclusions are clear: China pays local people the same wages as they pay to the Chinese workers. The French are paying local staff approximately 25-30 times less than what they pay their own people.

But search the net: at least in the English language, and all you will find is an avalanche of fake news about the Chinese involvement in Laos. This is all that the world is allowed to know about this country, and its epic battle for true independence. 

As always in the Western media: black is white, boys are girls, war is peace, and flamingos are pigs.

*

In the meantime, as I wrote earlier, the Communist flags have almost entirely disappeared from the center of Luang Prabang. It is because, I was told, the European tourists don’t like to see them.

Yes, UNESCO supervised the preservation work of the old capital, but what is the result? Sentimental, feel-good ‘colonial charm’; temples, silk shops and cafes with the Western beer and free WIFI. Old Chinese-Lao architecture looks, suspiciously, French. Not a word about the horrors that the country had to go through in recent history; not a word that hundreds of people of Laos are still losing their lives due to the UXO, all over the country. Not a word about the French colonialism, the Western genocide during the so-called “Secret War”, which was unleashed against the defenseless Laos.

And yes, not a word about the heroic Pathet Lao, and its superhuman struggle for a Communist fatherland, against the Western imperialist monsters.

On the outskirts of the city, predominantly European tourists visit the fake ‘bear rescue center’ (it is really nothing more than a depressing zoo for foreigners), overcrowded waterfalls and caves with religious motives. Hardly anyone goes to the real, tough and beautiful caves, where the Laotian patriots hid while they fought against the West.

Now the “National Museum” in the center of the city is basically an implanted (from abroad) glorification of the departed Laotian monarchy. While its shabby theatre shows, exclusively for foreign tourists and at an ‘international price’, several fragments of Ramayana.

And the public library in the city center has, since several years ago, something called “The American Corner”. You can find Allure there, Entrepreneur, Reader’s Digest

Mr. Seng Dao, my friend, a librarian, explains:

“There is not much we can do. We can’t just say ‘no’ to their corner, to their books. We cannot yet openly say ‘no’ to them, when it comes to so many things. But Lao people did not lose their memory. We know, we remember very well what was done to us. And our government reminds us; through our radio stations, through our press, our history books…”

In the old city, there are hardly any Chinese language signs. Yes, it is paradoxical, as the city is built in a Chinese style, although it now feels ‘colonial’, or call it Europeanized; catering to standardized, mainly ignorant German and French tastes.

Lao people are supposed to look native, cute and poor. They do, here in the city. But only for now.

A few kilometers away from this pseudo-reality, from this over-sugary and to some extent treasonously demeaning tourist bordello, Chinese signs are proudly displayed, next or underneath Laotian writing. Chinese people, who are engaged in building Laos, prefer to live on the outskirts of Luang Prabang, together with local people, eating their food, sleeping in their guesthouses.

The presence of the Chinese engineers and workers is transforming, improving reality. Workshops are growing, eateries flourishing, and the real local economy is growing.

Further away from the city, powerful machines are roaring, drilling tunnels, building bridges. Laos is undergoing electrification; it is getting connected to the rest of the world through high-speed railroads and new highways. Schools and hospitals are being built, roads paved. Two Communist countries; two Asian sisters, side-by-side, are hard at work.

Nobody chases me away when I photograph Chinese construction sites. Proud smiles welcome me. Workers wave at me, or bow, and then, immediately, they go back to work. There is nothing to hide. There is no time to waste. This is reality; good, progressive reality!

Nothing is perfect, here or anywhere else in the world, but this is as good as it gets. I believe it is. I watch a giant construction site and people who are building the nation, raising it literally from the ashes, left by imperialism. The lenses of my glasses get foggy. Mekong is flowing below, and intact, pristine green mountains are resting in a tender embrace of white clouds.

I think: “The West dares to talk about ‘environmental damage’ here? Yet they have already ruined, thoroughly poisoned and literally liquidated some of the most pristine parts of the world that I know: Borneo, Papua, the Democratic Republic of Congo! How dare they?” But they do; they dare, and still getting away with it.

The nihilism, smear, filth that pours from the muzzles of the West and its regional servants, but it cannot deter this revolutionary optimism, which is so clearly detectable. It is simply beautiful to watch both Chinese and Laotian people working side by side, for a better world.

What did the countries that are attacking this tremendous effort, ever do for Laos? What has the West done for the people here? It colonized and enslaved Laos. And then, in one prolonged and truly incomprehensible horror show, carpet bombed, for years, the entire nation, murdering hundreds of thousands, without even declaring war against it!

How can the countries that committed genocide against Laos (and the entire world) be allowed to criticize Laos and China, belittling their efforts to improve lives of their people? And how come that Laotian people are still tolerating, even ‘welcoming’ Westerners in places like Luang Prabang, while they show clear disrespect for true essence of the Laotian state, for which so many local people sacrificed their lives? What are Westerners going to teach Laos, what can they teach, really: how to serve, how to be good obedient neo-colonial subjects?

Nobody needs that here, except the few members of the treasonous elites.

How can people like Princess Beatrice, or any of those ‘royal’ freaks be even allowed on the premises of such places as the UXO? The British royal family is the symbol of global colonialist holocaust. In their name, hundreds of millions of ‘un-people’ vanished, all over the world.

In the past, these were only rhetorical questions. Now such questions are being asked, in order to be answered.

What goes on in Laos is what I call the war between revolutionary optimism and Western nihilism (my latest book has the same title: Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism ).

It is the last attempt of the monstrous Western imperialist culture to retain its control over the Planet.

Laos, in the past one of the most devastated countries on earth, is not going to allow being lectured to by its tormentor – the West – anymore. In the past, it fought, and against all odds it won. Now it is winning again. But the ‘weapons’ are different than in the days of the so-called “Secret War”: they consist of high-speed railroad tracks, bridges and tunnels, mighty power-plants, hospitals and schools.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

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

It would be an understatement to say that during U.S. President Donald Trump’s term in office, the issue of truth and falsehoods has been a central topic of political discourse. It was a reoccurring issue throughout the 2016 election and has only continued following his unlikely triumph. While naïve liberals who fetishize Trump would have us believe he is the first political figure to ever lie routinely, the real radical departure of the numerous false statements that seemed to propel, rather than hinder, his success was their lack of refinement and unpredictability.

Shortly after Trump took the oath of office, campaign manager Kellyanne Conway infamously used the phrase “alternative facts” while defending Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s dispute of the attendance drop at the inauguration ceremony from predecessor Barack Obama. The low-hanging fruit of Conway’s remarks were widely interpreted as an instance of ‘Orwellian doublespeak’, but the kernel of truth in them was missed by the self-styled ‘respectable’ media of the establishment who hide behind a guise of objectivity and self-appointed expertise while positioning themselves as omniscient arbiters of truth. Spicer’s claim was indeed an obvious lie, yet the general accuracy of Conway’s point was that what one considers ‘factual’ often comes down to worldview.

For the U.S. political establishment, there is only one acceptable worldview. The terrifying significance of Trump’s victory, which defied their so-called expert polling and turned the New York Times forecast needle 180-degrees, is that the propaganda arm of mainstream media has become irrelevant and the American political system is collapsing. Hillary Clinton’s defeat was the culmination of a steady, inevitable process as evening news audiences have been shrinking for years while print media has approached near obsolescence. Simultaneously, more and more people are turning to alternative sources for news and information, albeit some of it unfortunate.

The introduction of the term “fake news” into the political lexicon has been deliberate and is a desperate attempt by the establishment to maintain its grip on the flow of knowledge. It was strategically re-appropriated by Trump himself, who frequently accuses mainstream media of reporting misinformation. Unfortunately, what he deems “fake news” is merely that which undermines him politically or personally, but there is a truth at the core of his crude attacks on the press. Trump’s labeling of mainstream media as “the enemy of the people” was unintentionally accurate only because he was referring to that which undercuts his own power. Nevertheless, it is an appropriate label considering that 90% of mass media — newspapers, magazines, books, radio, television, film studios, and internet news content — is owned by just six conglomerates in General Electric, News Corp, CBS, Disney, Viacom and Time Warner. Some like G.E. are contracted by the Pentagon.

Frankfurt School critical theorists Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno once wrote of ‘the culture industry’, or how the mechanized standardization of popular culture homogenizes everyday life under capitalism. They would likely cringe at the very idea of the “fake news” phenomenon, which implies that what mass media typically produces is “real.” A billionaire reality television star becoming President is itself the perfect apotheosis of a society governed by a deceptive mass media rendering it docile. Unsurprisingly, the fourth estate was only interested in superficially reducing Trump’s attack on their credibility to his propensity to behave like a despot, something which in their counterfeit world only exists in other countries.

Not only does mass media provide the public with what comic George Carlin called an ‘illusion of choice’, but it acts as a dictation machine for the military-industrial complex. Most notably, virtually all the major news outlets parroted the lies of the Bush administration with its fabrication of evidence that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction to sell the U.S. invasion of Baghdad in 2003. Its monumental failure to hold the Bush administration accountable has directly correlated with the rapidly declining public trust in the media ever since. Perhaps the reason the phrase resonated with voters during the election is because it generally acknowledged the enormous gap between the reported world and the actual one they live in. Noam Chomsky and the late Edward S. Herman wrote the definitive manual on the media’s propaganda function and social engineering in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

In reality, the phrase “fake news” was inserted into the mass political consciousness by the leading US spy agencies, who clearly favored a Clinton victory, through mass media to stoke fears of ‘domestic disinformation’ being spread on social networks by the Russian government. Just as in the lead-up to the Iraq War, major news outlets have simply repeated, instead of scrutinizing, the intelligence community’s unproven claims that Moscow manipulated voters by spreading ‘disinformation’ to influence the election. As a result, the meaning of the expression has been redefined to discredit any news from a political viewpoint that challenges the status quo. The media’s strings have been pulled by a modern equivalent of the C.I.A.’s Operation Mockingbird influence campaign during the Cold War which appears to have been resurrected for its sequel.

Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, was equally responsible for the idiom’s ubiquitous usage and weaponized it in the same manner — not to identify actual disinformation, but to denote any claims, true or false, which tarnished her image. Clinton dismissed the significance of the WikiLeaks release of transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and leaked emails which exposed her conspiring with the Democratic National Committee for the party’s nomination against her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. As a diversion, the genuine leaks were conflated with wild speculation on the right-wing fringe about her health and a debunked conspiracy about a child sex ring at a D.C. pizzeria. However, Clinton and the media never disputed the leak origins and authenticity.

This left the American voter a choice between a far right demagogue speaking to their confused grievances, or a career politician with close ties to a constellation of global financiers who professed to be a champion of women’s rights as she accepted millions from Persian Gulf monarchies that stone women to death for committing adultery. Unfortunately for Hillary, it was easy to tell she would be more comfortable at a Bilderberg Group meeting than at your local feminist bookstore. None of this is to say that Trump isn’t cut from the same cloth, but he expertly cast himself as an outsider up against an elite and they played right into his hand.

The foremost purveyor of truly damaging false news has been liberal flagship, the Washington Post. Owned by the world’s wealthiest man in technocrat Jeff Bezos, whose company Amazon provides the C.I.A. with its cloud infrastructure through a $600 million contract with the Defense Department, it is structurally incompatible for such an asset to ever be critical of the military-industrial complex without working against its financial incentive. Despite that enormous and undisclosed conflict of interest, the Post openly collaborated with the C.I.A. to leak unverified claims by anonymous officials that Russia ‘cyber meddled’ to undermine the democratic process in favor of a Trump victory. In a paradigm of yellow journalism, WaPo published such unreliable hearsay uncritically while keeping the evidence and sources entirely secret. They presented the accusations as if they should be taken at face value based on the intelligence community’s supposed infallibility, as if to wipe clean the collective memory of the Iraq War and the disclosures of the NSA’s global surveillance program.

The Washington Post also promoted PropOrNot, an anonymously written website that labeled dozens of news sites, some of which this author has written for, as “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.” The site alleges that the spreading of articles by the targeted outlets somehow influenced the election, when the overlapping characteristic between the pages smeared was not support for Donald Trump or opposition to Hillary Clinton, but a critical regard for U.S. foreign policy across the political spectrum. PropOrNot also advertises a section entitled ‘related projects’ which mostly lists similar “fact-checking” websites promoted by Google and Facebook. Pseudo-analysis of news has become another weapon of choice for the establishment’s psychological warfare, but unlike grassroots watchdog groups who hold journalism under a critical microscope such as Media Lens and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, “fact-checking” sites mechanically repeat the pre-approved narratives of corporate media without exception.

The referees of truth endorsed by big tech all don the misleading disclaimer that they have no political affiliations or funding from biased organizations. Take for instance the highly cited FactCheck.org, owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center and bankrolled by its endowment, the Annenberg Foundation. The late billionaire publishing tycoon Walter H. Annenberg is perhaps most known for his massive painting collection donated to prominent museums and his financial support for the arts. However, he spent much of his life in philanthropy for the purpose of rehabilitating the family reputation tarnished by his crooked father, Moses “Moe” Annenberg, who was convicted in one of the largest tax fraud cases in U.S. history during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration.

Moe Annenberg started his career working for newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as a distribution manager where he hired mobsters like Lucky Luciano to terrorize their competitors. He later became a media mogul himself using the same illicit tactics until he was indicted for his financial misconduct in 1939. The young Walter Annenberg worked for his father and initially faced similar charges, but they were dropped after the elder Annenberg pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. While his father took the rap, Walter Annenberg was free to continue to build the family fortune and eventually a media empire, using his riches to carry on the family legacy of tax evasion in the form of charitable donations. The scam of philanthropy is a practice typical of the ultra-wealthy who mask their influence on global affairs under the phony banner of altruism.

Walter Annenberg later became a diplomat as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon and was even knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, whom he frequently hosted at the Annenberg family’s 200-acre estate along with numerous other figures in high society, from Ronald and Nancy Reagan to the deposed Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza. Despite FactCheck.org’s endorsement from Silicon Valley oligarchs as an impartial source, it turns out the Annenberg Foundation also made huge financial donations to the Clinton Foundation over the years and could not be more in the service of the powers that be.

Google also advertises the U.S.-government funded Polygraph.info as a reputable source, a site launched by the C.I.A.’s Radio Free Europe/Free Liberty and Voice of America “news” organizations. RFE/FL is currently based in Prague but was previously headquarted in West Germany during the Cold War where it broadcast its anti-communist propaganda to undermine the Soviet Union. Polygraph.info now serves a similar purpose of information warfare in cyberspace for the revived Cold War 2.0 while presenting itself as a fact-checking source to counter “Russian propaganda” outlets. The C.I.A. openly admitted the true character of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and its origins on its own website:

“On June 1, 1949, a group of prominent American businessmen, lawyers, and philanthropists — including Allen Dulles, who would become Director of Central Intelligence in 1953 — launched the National Committee for Free Europe (NCFE) at a press release in New York. Only a handful of people knew that NCFE was actually the public face of an innovative “psychological warfare” project undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). That operation — which soon gave rise to Radio Free Europe — would become one of the longest running and successful covert action campaigns ever mounted by the United States.”

Meanwhile, the most dubious of all the advocated verification sites is the popular domain Snopes.com. Snopes was founded in the mid-90s originally as Urban Legends Reference Pages, a site started by an apparently ordinary California couple, David and Barbara Mikkelson, to ‘debunk’ urban folklore. Its moniker comes from a fictional family in the Snopes trilogy of novels by renowned modernist writer William Faulkner. In the series, the Snopes family consists of disturbed relatives who commit murder, pedophilia, bestiality, pornography, racism, theft, corruption and other misdeeds. Thus, anyone ‘exposed’ by the site making claims it determines to be false are likened to a seedy member of the Snopes family.

Despite its bottom-up outward appearance, the site never breaks from mainstream news accounts of events. For example, Snopes maintains that the well-documented allegations of ties between the volunteer rescue organization Syrian Civil Defense, AKA the White Helmets, and terrorist groups participating in the Syrian Civil War is “false.” It does not address that there are multiple videos of White Helmets members facilitating and participating in executions, celebrating with militants of Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate Al-Nusra Front, and dumping the bodies of Syrian Arab Army soldiers. The issue is clearly still a matter of dispute among the journalism community as many credible figures, from Seymour Hersh to John Pilger, have expressed skepticism about the group, but Snopes per usual made a one-sided determination. It may be able to disprove tabloid fodder or the likes of Breitbart and InfoWars, but it is no authority on matters of geopolitics and should not be irresponsibly promoted as such. Maybe it should stick to its roots debunking popular myths about whether or not earwigs crawl into human ears.

Since the site expanded to include politics and world events, it became extremely popular over time and now averages millions of views. In the meantime, Barbara and David Mikkelson have gone through a bitter divorce and the latter has retained control of the site, hiring a team of assistants allegedly from its message board to replace his ex-wife. Although it claims to have a tiny staff, Snopes somehow manages to produce an extremely prolific amount of investigative articles. Given its scope and body of work, it is difficult to believe it is only receiving its financial support from ad revenue and GoFundMe campaigns alone or is as small an operation it claims. Until recently it was in an ongoing legal battle with Proper Media, an advertising agency with a 50% stake in its ownership which for a time put its future in jeopardy.

Snopes does admit to accepting $100,000 from Facebook for participating in their fact-checking partnership effort following the 2016 election. Rather than being punished for its mishandling of the private information of tens of millions of profiles, the social media giant is being rewarded for its failure to protect user privacy from data breaching. Earlier this year, Facebook announced it had partnered with the Atlantic Council, an elite Washington think tank funded by the U.S. State Department, NATO, foreign governments like United Arab Emirates, weapons contractor Lockheed Martin, oil giant Chevron, and features Henry Kissinger on its board of directors. In a disturbing corporate-state collaboration, Silicon Valley has been empowered to be the umpire of determining authentic news and given the authority to stifle subversive content with no oversight or legal ramifications. All of this begs the question — who fact-checks the “fact checkers”? Who gets to determine what is or what isn’t “fake news”? The ruling elite, apparently.

In her memoir, Hillary Clinton made it clear what constitutes fake news — the release of her emails and transcripts of speeches revealing her corruption and subservience to Wall Street. WikiLeaks’ reporting was never impugned, however, therefore what constitutes “fake news” is actually real news or anything that threatens those in power. Instead of encouraging media literacy, the working class is regarded with utter disdain by the establishment who have made clear they must control what the public is allowed to see because they can no longer be trusted to make the correct decision, i.e. vote for the candidate favored by the military-intelligence apparatus. The true purpose behind the “fact-checking” PSY-OP is to stigmatize criticism of the neocon political establishment as a whole and liken anyone who does so to those who believe global warming is a hoax or that the earth is flat.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that Trump, like Barack Obama before him, has only expanded the U.S. war machine as President. Unlikely it may seem to many, however, during the campaign he was the ‘peace candidate’ relative to Hillary Clinton. American voters certainly saw it that way and it may have just tipped the scales of the election. Last year, an academic study was released which made the argument entitled Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House? Its summary states:

“Increasingly, a divide is emerging between communities whose young people are dying to defend the country, and those communities whose young people are not. In this paper we empirically explore whether this divide — the casualty gap — contributed to Donald Trump’s surprise victory in November 2016. The data analysis presented in this working paper finds that indeed, in the 2016 election Trump was speaking to this forgotten part of America. Even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump. Our statistical model suggests that if three states key to Trump’s victory — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate, all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.”

One must ascribe to chaos theory to see the forest through the trees in the Trump era. The significance of his victory is that it has been an enormous ‘shock to the system’ where the permitted political space has been opened to anti-establishment narratives across the spectrum. A similar shakeup came ten years ago in the form of the financial crash and not coincidentally the Occupy Wall St. and the Tea Party emerged. While it has the unfortunate side effect of emboldening the worst elements on the far right, it also has the potential to revitalize a left that was, sans Occupy, largely dormant under Obama. Those in power are well aware and the current wave of censorship is not about preventing a Trump re-election so much as it is about neutralizing the left.

The failures of the left throughout the past century, more specifically that of socialism, can also come from within. Social democrats betrayed the working class and participated in the slaughter of WWI until the Bolsheviks ended it. The left of today must be willing to learn from its mistakes more quickly. For example, many have expressed excitement that Bernie Sanders is partnering with Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis to counter the rise of ultra-nationalism worldwide, as far rightist Jair Bolsanaro was just elected the President of Brazil. Yet the social democracy that Sanders and Varoufakis advocate is only the most modest New Dealism to reform capitalism and make it more humane. However relatively progressive it may seem, it will likely prove no match for either the ruling class or the up-and-coming wave of far right populism. The fact that Sanders uses the Nordic model should be enough to know their limitations. Although he wisely jumped ship, it was Varoufakis’ elected SYRIZA coalition in Greece which completely betrayed its constituency by capitulating to EU austerity and NATO expansion. History indicates that only a real alternative in genuine socialism and a working class willing to become militant will the promise of emancipatory politics ever be fulfilled.

*

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

Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in publications such as The Greanville Post, Global Research, OffGuardian, CounterPunch, Dissident Voice, Signs of the Times, and more. Read him on Medium. Max may be reached at [email protected]

Bolsonaro, Next President of Brazil. 55.6% of the Vote

October 29th, 2018 by Global Research News

LATEST:

With 92 percent counted, far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro is slated to become the next president of Brazil.

Bolsonaro obtained 55.6 percent of the vote, against PT candidate Fernando Haddad who received 44.3 percent.

Reports yet to be confirmed suggest that up to thirty percent of the voters either refused to vote, cancelled their vote or abstained.

An atmosphere of social confusion and division prevails in Brazil.

There are no reports of electoral fraud.

Bolsonaro is described as “Brazil’s Donald Trump” or “Trump of the tropics,”.

Is he not a Brazilian version of The Philippines President Duterte who has instituted a policy of extrajudicial assassinations.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bolsonaro, Next President of Brazil. 55.6% of the Vote

Antisemitism needs an excuse and Netanyahu sadly provides it every day on the Israeli- Gaza border.  His heavily armed snipers have gratuitously killed over 200 unarmed Palestinians at the March of Return protest and injured over 10,000 at the border since 30 March 2018 in a sickening exhibition of state sponsored violence that has brought death and disability to those actively, and largely legitimately, demonstrating for return of their land and property.

You cannot deprive 2m of their human rights, enshrined in international law, without consequences. Israel is not an island in the sky and the dispossessed Palestinian people are very real and so is their suffering. Hate needs fuel to grow and it is currently fed by propaganda and political inertia on an international scale.

The blockade of essential goods and services for nearly two million civilians in Gaza has not only been allowed by the international community but actually sustained and armed by America, with some support from Britain, in a failed attempt at regime change.  For over eleven years, Gaza has been denied essential utility services including power, water and electricity in an illegal attempt to gain political advantage by deliberately keeping the entire population at just above starvation level.

This has been happening in the 21st century in broad daylight for over a decade as lobby-influenced governments have turned a blind eye. That there are inevitable repercussions around the world seems to have come as a shocking surprise to many.

For as long as this atrocity against a civilian people in Gaza is allowed to continue, there will inevitably be consequences as perception of the injustice perpetrated by an indoctrinated minority manifests itself in extreme violence often by those who are psychologically unstable or social misfits, and ‘useful idiots’ for political propagandists.

The only solution is for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and an end to the infamous blockade of Gaza.  Only then will we be able to sleep at night in the knowledge that 5m Palestinians have finally been accorded justice and a return of the land they populated for over 1200 years. And that innocent men, women and children will once again be given respect and freedom to live and work without persecution.  Those qualities that the rest of us enjoy without question.

There will always unfortunately be a degree of latent antisemitism just as there will always be racial attitudes and colour prejudice but officially endorsed violence, both military and otherwise, by maverick power-hungry politicians or weak governments, must be identified and stamped upon if civil unrest on an international scale is to be avoided in the years 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.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is a political analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Humanitarian standards

I had noted previously the twitter spat between Canada and Saudi Arabia.  After the Saudis were insulted/enraged by Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland’s tweet concerning the sister of a Saudi journalist, the Saudis kicked out the Canadian ambassador.  Since then the murder of Jamal Khashoggi has further muddied the waters of Canada’s foreign policy.

Canadian politicians pride themselves in being guardians of “Canadian values”, one of which is its support of humanitarian principles throughout the world.  When that attitude is compared to what Canada actually does, it does not hold up very well.  In the current case with Khashoggi, it has presented a large conundrum for the government. 

Canada’s government is very upset about the murder of Khashoggi in some manner  probably by a Saudi hit team in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.  However they are not quite sure how upset they should actually be.  Canada had signed a $15 billion armaments deal with the Saudis to supply them with 928 light armoured vehicles (LAV), later reduced to 742 LAVs.  Now, while jumping on the Khashoggi distress train, they are unsure what to do about it and express that in a variety of not very coherent arguments. 

The main argument is simply cancel the order as it will assuredly be used in a military fashion against civilians, in particular in the war torn country of Yemen.  But…then come all the buts…it has a cancellation clause that will cost us billions…it has a non-disclosure clause…it will cause Canada to lose 3 000 jobs…we closely monitor our sales of arms…it will wreck our business climate…it will ruin our reputation.  None of these stand up to the criticism about Saudi human rights abuses, mainly centered on the amount of killing they are doing in Yemen, let alone their terrible domestic record.  

So I have to ask the government, to ask PM Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau, and Foreign Affairs Minister Freeland, what is the price that is too heavy to pay?  Consider that the majority of the Yemen population is now subject to disease and famine, is that not a significant consideration in this deal?  Are the 3 000 Canadian jobs (but no deaths) equal to the tens of thousands of mostly civilians killed in the Yemen war, a war sponsored in large part by the U.S. – and thus implicating Canada as our foreign policy follows theirs?   Maybe it is a bit pricier, as the billions of dollars in contract default penalties would make it not worthwhile to stop the sale, to stop the killing?   Perhaps we are heading for a Madeleine Albright moment, whom we are proudly going to outdo, as she says that killing 500 thousand Iraqi children was worth the effort in defeating Iraq?  Heck, at the rate Yemen is going, we could do a million….   

If Canada were truly interested in humanitarian concerns, the contract would be cancelled as the cost to Canada is negligible, almost non existent compared to the cost of tens of thousands of Yemeni lives.  The fallout from the Saudis could be dealt with later and from what little trade we already do, would have little repercussion on the economy, or our reputation other than to improve it by showing that Canada puts humanitarian principles ahead of killing others. 

Climate change standards

The issues on global change at the moment are mostly domestic but it is a global issue with global impacts. 

The Canadian government recently bought the Kinder Morgan pipeline in Canada from its U.S. parent company, intending to double the pipe’s capacity in order to ship bitumen – tar sands – dilbit – call it what you will it is essentially unrefined tar such as used for roofing and roads – to Burnaby from the Alberta tar sands operations.  The Kinder Morgan shareholders were quite happy to sell the pipeline as the Canadian courts had ruled the procurement process as inadequate.  

At the same time, Canada’s internal politics are squabbling about whether to accept a federal carbon tax, use cap and trade, or impose their own carbon protocols in order to alleviate climate change.   As all the proposals so far are based on some form of monetary control/punishment for carbon use, they will probably have minimal if any real impact on global warming.  

So perhaps this is not so much a double standard as a single standard, being we don’t really care about global warming because it hurts our finances.  The double standard returns at the pretence and the rhetoric that the government does care.  But again at what cost?  And to have to ask at what cost in both these situations highlights the money power orientation of government and business.  As long as money is in charge of regulating big business pollution, not much will change. 

The government is determined to build the pipeline project.  This is also regardless of the various Indian bands in B.C. that are against the project and at the same time have never conceded through treaty or sale their rights to their original territories (most of B.C.).   Oops, sorry, that would be a third double standard as the federal rhetoric is all about consultation and working with the natives and making them equals in our society, none of which can be truly done when the government insists it will do the project “for the benefit of Canada” and enters any discussion with that mindset.   

At any rate, back to global warming.  Canada signed the Paris accords.  Canada says it wants to reduce carbon emissions by such and such a percent by some future date.   Canada presents a wannabe green facade to the world, then insists it wants to ship one of the more heavily polluting kinds of oil resources over long distances for – more money.  Forget the climate, money matters more. 

The federal government is not alone.  Here in B.C. the provincial government we have a thin coalition of NDP (41) and Green (3) giving them a one seat majority over the Liberals (small “c” conservative).   Campaigning on an environmental theme the NDP then decided to proceed with a natural gas pipeline from northeastern B.C. to the coast.  Admittedly natural gas is far less polluting than bitumen, however the biggest impact will be with all the fracking that is required in order to obtain the gas.  In order to have the gas, the government is willing to frack the landscape, using explosives, a huge amount of water, and using chemicals the fracking companies refuse to identify, all in the name of  – more money.  What environment? 

Tripling down

For all its rhetoric, Canadian actions speak much louder than its words.  Effectively it puts money ahead of both humanitarian rights and global climate change – and where the two come together with the indigenous rights of the local Indian bands.   

If Canada was truly concerned about humanitarian rights it would stop selling arms to the Saudis, indeed stop selling arms to anyone (it has a government department set up to facilitate this), and stop wallowing in the wake of U.S. foreign policy.  If Canada was truly concerned about climate change, it would not promote the use of bitumen, nor the fracking of the landscape.  Finally, if it wants to demonstrate real intent on both these items, it will listen to the wisdom of the indigenous people who do not want their environment, their land and water, destroyed by societies greed for money and power.

*

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

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

High Sea Level Rise Projections and the IPCC

October 29th, 2018 by Dr. Andrew Glikson

Global Research Editor’s Note

There is controversy concerning the IPCC analysis.

Global Research will be publishing both sides of this important debate on climate change: the IPCC focus as well as the critics including the analysis pertaining to environmental modification techniques for military use, which the IPCC fails to acknowledge.

***

In a key paper titled “Scientific reticence and sea level rise” (2007)  James Hansen, the renown climate scientist, has been critical of what he regards as major underestimates of the magnitude and pace of global warming, as further elaborated in the article “How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change: Here are just eight examples of where the IPCC missed predictions)” (Glen Scherer, 2012) and this.

It is only more recently that the IPCC has upgraded its climate projections, stating “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate”, and “Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean.”

Whereas IPCC reports are based on authoritative peer reviewed scientific journal publications, the summaries for policy makers tend to underestimate the scale and pace of the consequences of global warming, currently induced by a rise in greenhouse gas at rates unprecedented since about 56 million years ago (Cenozoic mean greenhouse gases and temperature changes with reference to the Anthropocene 2016).

A prime example is the question of sea level rise, estimated by the IPCC 2007 to reach 50 cm by 2100. At that stage the IPCC stated no reliable estimates existed for the breakdown of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, despite reports of increased Greenland melt in 2005. This is contrasted to sea level rise of several meters projected by James Hansen, consistent with paleo-climate observations of a rise of sea level of 7-9 meters during the Eemian, 125 thousand years ago, when temperatures were similar to current temperatures. This implies lag effects of ice sheet melting and a major sea level rise, possibly this century. Recently the IPCC updated its estimates to a maximum of 1 meter by 2100 according to model RCP8.5 whereas according to NOAA sea level may reach a maximum of 2.5 meters by the end century relative to the year 2000, getting close to the level suggested by Hansen.  

Figure 1. Sea level rise scenarios according to NOAA, see this and this

According to Hansen and a large group of climate scientists (2016), the flow of cold ice melt water from Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets cause ocean surface cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic while lower latitudes are warming, driving more powerful storms.

These authors state:

Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions.

Figure 2. Model surface air temperatures (C) relative to 1880–1920 in (a) 2065, (b) 2080, and (c) 2096. Top row is IPCC scenario A1B, see this

The consequences of Eemian-like 7-9 meters sea level rises around the world would include flooding of large heavily populated and food producing delta plains, such as the Ganges delta (Bangladesh), Hindus delta (Pakistan), the Mekong delta (Vietnam), Yellow river delta (Northeastern China), Nile delta (Egypt), Po River delta (Italy) Rhine delta (northwestern Europe), Mississippi delta, Florida and elsewhere, with consequences for hundreds of millions of people and food supplies around the world.

There is no evidence much is being done by world governments and parliaments to avert such calamity.

*

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 Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleo-climate science, Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, ANU Climate Change Institute, Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on High Sea Level Rise Projections and the IPCC

Syria is Washington’s war, launched by Obama in March 2011, escalated by Trump, no end of it in prospect. It’s all about wanting pro-Western puppet rule replacing the Syrian government,  isolating Iran, ahead of a similar scheme to topple its government.

Most Americans are mindless about what’s going on.

Syria is in the eye of the storm, war in its eighth year, Washington using ISIS and other terrorists as imperial proxies, supplemented by US-led terror-bombing, is responsible for massacring thousands of Syrian civilians.

US forces operate in Syria illegally, occupying northern and southern territory on “18 bases in the northeastern and eastern provinces of” the country, according to Fars News.

Russian military analyst Vladimir Kozin said

“the US is training terrorists in 19 military bases in Syria.”

Northern ones are in “Ein al-Arab (Kobani), Kharab Ashak, Manbij, Ein Issa, Raqqa and Tabaqa in Raqqa province, al-Shadadi, al-Houl, Tal Tamar, Tal Bidar and Romeilan in Hasaka province and al-Amr oilfield and al-Bahrah region in Deir Ezzur province,” according to the Arabic language al-Watan broadsheet.

The Pentagon’s illegal al-Tanf base was established in southern Syria near the country’s border with Iraq and Jordan.

Last summer, Kozin said

“(t)he US intends to set up a military base equipped with state-of-the-art military hardware and systems” along the Syrian/Iraqi border.

Washington came to Syria and Iraq to stay, intending permanent occupation, using military bases in both countries as platforms for endless regional wars of aggression – aided by NATO, Israel, the Saudis, other Gulf states, Turkey and Jordan.

US forces illegally occupy a 55-square km area in southwestern Syria near the Iraqi/Jordanian border.

Russia’s General Staff called the area a staging ground for America’s war against the Syrian government, including from its al-Tanf base.

US special forces gave ISIS and other area terrorists safe haven at al-Tanf, training them for use as Pentagon proxy troops.

Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees are tapped inside the US-controlled Rukban refugee camp along the country’s border with Jordan – the area a Russian established deconfliction zone not observed by Washington and its terrorist foot soldiers.

Rukban refugees are held hostage by US forces and terrorists they support under dire humanitarian conditions, using the camp to recruit new fighters to combat government troops.

Aid is vitally needed, thousands of refugees risk starvation. On Saturday, US forces blocked a UN/Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) humanitarian mission to deliver it. January was the last time aid was let into the Rukban camp.

Russian General Vladimir Savchencko slammed what happened on Saturday, saying:

“The inability of the US side to live up to its commitment to provide security in the 55-km area around its (al-Tanf) base stopped the convoy from going. UN officials said the delivery had been cancelled over lack of security guarantees.”

The Pentagon refused to provide it. Savchenko added that territory around al-Tanf is swarming with “large number(s) of armed and uncontrolled (US-backed jihadists) who can stage any manner of provocation(s).”

The area bordering Iraq and Jordan is “extremely dangerous” for aid workers. According to Syrian Network for Human Rights director Ahmad Qazem, at least 14 refugees in the Rukban camp died for lack of aid in the past few days alone.

Damascus explained that the 55-km territory US forces control is a haven for ISIS and other terrorist fighters, used as a platform for attacks on nearby areas.

According to Middle East Eye,

“(i)n the past three years, tens of thousands of people have fled to the camp from Islamic State group-held parts of Syria…”

Last year, the UN estimated around 45,000 refugees in Rukban. Doctors Without Borders and other aid groups number them at about 60,000.

Unknown numbers of deaths likely resulted from protracted dire humanitarian conditions in the camp.

Without US security guarantees so far not forthcoming, aid cannot be delivered to the camp. Dangerous conditions prevent it.

*

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.

While the Trump administration ignores warnings from nuclear experts and pursues plans to exit the Cold War-era intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty (INF) with Russia, former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev—who initially signed the deal with former President Ronald Reagan—has joined the chorus of voices cautioning that ditching it poses “a dire threat to peace” by increasing the risk of armed conflict.

Since reports emerged last week that President Donald Trump’s warmongering National Security Adviser John Bolton was working within the administration to garner support for dismantling the 1987 treaty, as experts have denounced the move as “stupid and reckless” and a “colossal mistake,” the president and Bolton have doubled down, justifying the looming withdrawal by claiming that Russia is violating the deal by developing the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile.

Reflecting on the landmark agreement, which led to significant reductions in both American and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons, Gorbachev wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Thursday:

“I am being asked whether I feel bitter watching the demise of what I worked so hard to achieve. But this is not a personal matter. Much more is at stake. A new arms race has been announced.”

Gorbachev noted that Trump’s decision to withdraw comes as American “military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising,” and in the context of the president’s disdain for global cooperation.

“There will be no winner in a ‘war of all against all’—particularly if it ends in a nuclear war. And that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out,” the former Soviet leader warned. “An unrelenting arms race, international tensions, hostility, and universal mistrust will only increase the risk.”

“With enough political will, any problems of compliance with the existing treaties could be resolved,” Gorbachev pointed out. “But as we have seen during the past two years, the president of the United States has a very different purpose in mind. It is to release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles.”

While urging the United States and Russia “to return to dialogue and negotiations,” he also called on other nations to refuse to support a new nuclear arms race.

“I hope that America’s allies will, upon sober reflection, refuse to be launchpads for new American missiles. I hope the United Nations, and particularly members of its Security Council, vested by the United Nations Charter with primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, will take responsible action,” he concluded. “Faced with this dire threat to peace, we are not helpless. We must not resign, we must not surrender.”

In addition to Gorbachev’s piece, the Times published on Thursday an op-ed in which George Shultz, Reagan’s former secretary of state, argued that

“now is not the time to build larger arsenals of nuclear weapons. Now is the time to rid the world of this threat. Leaving the treaty would be a huge step backward. We should fix it, not kill it.”

*

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: Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed a landmark nuclear arms control treaty in 1987. (Photo: White House Photographic Office/National Archives and Records Administration)


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

Tony Blair has resisted calls to end his multi-million dollar deal with Saudi Arabia despite allegations that the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi may have been authorised by the Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman.

Accounts published last month by the Tony Blair Institute confirmed that Blair had received donations of up to $12 million from the kingdom for a deal with the Crown Prince to support his modernisation programme for the kingdom.

The agreement was said to be the first major deal to have emerged involving the Tony Blair Institute, which Blair established in 2016 after winding down his commercial operations.

While there had calls for Blair to end his arrangement with Mohammed Bin Salman over the ongoing war in Yemen, the killing of the Washington Post journalist earlier this month in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, has put further pressure on the former prime minister to cut all ties with Riyadh.

Blair’s insistence on maintaining his financial ties to the Saudi government makes him “complicit” in crimes committed by the Saudi government,  Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, Lloyd Russell Moyle,  told Business Insider. Moyle was responding to Blair’s refusal earlier in the month to terminate his business relations with the Saudis saying that the kingdom had “issued a very strong denial” of their responsibility.

The issue over whether Blair would continue to work with the Saudi regime following the Kingdoms admission that Khashoggi had been killed by agents thought to be close to MBS, was raised once again. A spokesperson for the Blair institute told Business Insider: “We have nothing further to add to what Mr Blair has said previously”.

Blair had expressed concern over Khashoggi when news of his disappearance broke earlier this month. He said to Reuters “this issue [the killing of Khashoggi] has to be resolved because otherwise it runs completely contrary to that process of modernisation”.

A source close to Blair is said to be “following events closely” in the country.

In contrast to Blair, the current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for Western leaders to cut ties with Saudi Arabia in response to Khashoggi’s killing.

“The issues that have come to light of the death in Istanbul of a Saudi national who was visiting the embassy call into question the close relationship with Saudi Arabia of so many Western countries,” Corbyn told CNN.

Despite being members of the same party, Corbyn and Blair are bitter rivals. The current leader has expressed his desire to put Blair on trial for the mistakes he had made over the war in Iraq. On the issue of his ongoing deal with the Saudis one of Corbyn’s allies described Blair’s reluctance to cut his ties to the regime as “absolutely immoral” and made him “complicit in war crimes” committed by the Saudis in Yemen.

“If Mr Blair doesn’t see the light and continues to accept money from the Saudis then I think his moral integrity is in ruins,” Lloyd Russell Moyle, the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, told BI.

*

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: Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the UK addresses the World Travel & Tourism Council Asia Summit on 10 September 2013 [World Travel & Tourism Council/Flickr]

Just over 100 years ago, Britain’s empire held sway over 23 per cent of the world’s population and 24 per cent of the world’s landmass. It was the foremost global power, the largest in human history. After the Second World War, a period of decolonisation took place with the transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997 marking for many the end of the British Empire.

Others thought that the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 was the last nail in Britain’s diplomatic coffin. Historians concluded that the crisis “signified the end of Great Britain’s role as one of the world’s major powers.” America politically and financially froze Britain out, it was an unmitigated disaster. The 1976 IMF loan crisis was another event worthy of mention in Britain’s downward trajectory.

However, Britain’s decline even from the beginning of this century has been equally as catastrophic. Foreign policy decisions from both Labour and Conservative, especially in the Mid-East has been calamitous. The loss of control of the ‘secret state’ such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ with all of its ‘covert’ budgets, torture, rendition and extra-judicial assassinations, combined with its illegal mass surveillance architecture, is exposed to the embarrassment of an out-of-control political class. Their only response is to savagely ramp up the charges of whistleblowers to that of foreign spies and increase the use of secret courts. Political prisoners such as Assange are a stain against the rule of law and only enhance a sense of injustice.

David Cameron’s grandstanding in Tripoli was an act of gross stupidity on the international stage. He took Africa’s richest nation and then left it to fall into the hands of terrorist and thugs. It is now a failed state and boasts slave trade markets and people trafficking as its most notable export, which directly led to the migration crisis gripping Europe and a diplomatic cliff-dive for Britain.

Politically driven policy fiasco’s are so frequent, described by the government as ‘blunders,’ they are now costing the national treasury hundreds of billions. Extreme neoliberal capitalism has also taken over all common sense. One only has to look at the incomprehensibly egregious disaster that is the PFI system of funding national infrastructure that has straddled the taxpayer with. Debts of nearly £250 billion have piled up on just a few of these projects. This total waste of public money (that will fill the coffers of the banks) will last until 2050.

The list of Britain’s political mismanagement is too long for this article, but we could mention some recent notable events such as; Windrush, Grenfell and Universal Credit. These events demonstrate little more than racism, neoliberalism and class war as ideologies that should have died decades ago or never emerged in the first place. But even these are overshadowed by meltdowns. What followed the 2008 bank-led financial crisis (facilitated by every government since Thatcher) was the era of ‘austerity’ that then led to the ultimate political and constitutional crisis – a protest vote – giving us Brexit. That, in turn, will likely lead to the break-up of the union.

The elections of 2020, 2024 and 2027 will usher in a period of bitter and caustic American styled attack canvassing that will literally feel like ‘divide and rule’ is the norm.

These are the intolerable and deplorable mistakes of amateurs masquerading as our political masters. From various polls, studies and research papers it appears that somewhere between 75-80 per cent of the electorate do not believe that politicians are trustworthy people. Why then, are we fooled into buying into their vision of the future, which is inevitably consigning Britain to the international waste bin of irrelevance. Cameron brought the Brexit vote to Britain. He is a now a travelling salesman flogging Chinese products to Britain. His counterpart in the coalition, Nick Clegg now works for Facebook. Hardly the hallmarks of great statesmen. The top contenders for Prime Minister of Britain after our current one is ‘stabbed in the back’ by her own party is a shambolic list of political charlatans, looking only to feather their own nests.

A lengthy and detailed 2018 report by Democratic Audit that focuses on the UK’s changing democracy spells out where Britain stands right now.

Its report asks how democratic and effective are the UK’s executive and government. Both tribes are in the frame and accused of little more than dereliction of duty, negligence and mismanagement. This is the final conclusion to that report, which I recommend you read in full.

The UK’s core executive once worked smoothly. It has clearly degenerated fast in the 21st century. Westminster and Whitehall retain some core strengths, especially a weight of tradition that regularly produces better performance under pressure, reasonably integrated action on homeland security for citizens, and some ability to securely ride out crises. Yet elite conventional wisdoms, which dwelt on a supposed ‘Rolls-Royce’ machine, are never heard now – after eight years of unprecedented cutbacks in running costs across Whitehall; political mistakes and poor planning over Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq; and the unexpected loss of the Brexit referendum. Now this tarnished record may be capped by the looming threats of either leaving the EU on poor economic terms under a ‘hard Brexit’ strategy or of being trapped in an unsatisfactory ‘soft’ Brexit, where the ‘dirty’ component of a ‘quick and dirty’ exit turns into enduring disadvantages.

The clouds in the form of recurring ‘policy disasters’ and ‘fiascos’ have also gathered. Both the Conservative and Labour party elites and leadership, and Whitehall elites themselves have seemed disinclined to learn the right lessons from past mistakes or to take steps to foster more transparent, deliberative and well-considered decision-making at the heart of government. Like the Bourbon monarchs, the fear might be that they have ‘learnt nothing and forgotten nothing’.

Is it not time to hear something new? The socialist and capitalist political classes have failed. Even Keynesian economics has failed as the government has no money saved up for the next recession that is now looming. Next year, Britain will spend almost as much on interest payments as it does to its defence budget and more than it does on education. That is how much debt Britain is in today – with years of rising interest rates on the horizon.

Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May – Tory, New Labour, Coalition – they have all failed us. Brexit will fail us too, especially in the hands of a so-called political elite who have proven time and time again, that they are the least qualified people to look after the national interests of Britain.

Our current trajectory is to be the 51st State of America – an America in the grip of its own spiral. Corporatism, individualism and extreme capitalism is where we are currently heading. What could be worse?

A time of sustained challenge to the current authority is needed. Britain so desperately needs a new way to rise ethically, morally, economically, politically and diplomatically.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Awful Conclusion of Britain’s Predicament. Political Mismanagement, Corporatism and Extreme Capitalism

Hope is pervasive in the North. We live for hope. It pervades medicine. Patients hope for survival, for cure.  Others are dying but it won’t happen to me.  I hope to deny evidence.

Nietzsche was right: When Pandora slammed shut the box, keeping hope, she kept the greatest evil of all. Brilliant Cuban philosopher and diplomat, Raúl Roa, said the world’s greatest crisis was the consolidation of liberalism’s homo faber.1  Glorified individuals, supposedly controlling their destinies, directing their own dreams, hoping for what they want.

It turned rationality upside down.

Tolstoy saw it. In War and Peace, Pierre Bezukhov seeks reasons from ends:philanthropy, Masonry, social life, wine, self-sacrifice, romantic love, politics.  He finds them, finally, as Napoleon’s prisoner, when he is not driven by greatness. He learns from a sick peasant with a dog. Pierre learns, not from what Platon Karataev tells him, but by connection: shared humanity.

Tolstoy calls it “insanity”: “Pierre’s insanity consisted in the fact that he did not wait, as before, for personal reasons, which he called people’s merits, in order to love them, but love overflowed his heart, and, loving people without reason, he discovered the unquestionable reasons for which it was worth loving them”.

Insanity, true. Pierre’s (more productive) life rejects the reason of homo faber, already by the 19th century deeply engrained. Rather than determining ends to define reasons, Pierre feels connection “without reason” and discovers human well-being, his own and others’.

It’s a lost art. Roa says the Renaissance denied science. It inspired hope: for dreams we think we direct, by ourselves. It denied who we are: beings, like everything else in the universe, rooted in causal connection.  The only source of dreams lies “dormant beneath a thin coating of snow and neglect”.

So says Patrick Modiano in Sleep of Memory, his first book since the 2014 Nobel prize. 2  It says Roa was right. We miss “the “thousands of paths you didn’t take at various crossroads in your life because you thought there was but a single one”. The “single one”, feeding hope.

Literature trumps philosophy. We feel what we reject intellectually. It is why politics needs art. Beauty is a sword, José Martí said (370 times).  It cuts through the lies: Directing the dream is not freedom.  It is not even interesting.

Sleep of memory shows an ancient truth: there is no coherent self grounding ends that provide reasons that are reasons because they promote ends that are yours because you have them. Philosophers’ “inner voice”, the supposed source of freedom, is a lie.

We expect to order memories like “electric maps near the ticket windows in the metro”.  The cherished story of the self, the task of entire lifetimes, is “bits of sentences spoken by anonymous voices”.

 Modiano tries

“to impose some order on my memories. But many are missing, and most of them remain isolated. … I hope that these names, like magnets, will draw others to the surface, and that those bits of sentences might end up forming paragraphs and chapters that link together.”

He hopes, but it doesn’t happen. They don’t link together except when he doesn’t want them to. The people he wants to forget “rise to the surface like a drowned man, at a bend in the street, at certain hours of the day”.

“Brief encounters”, “real encounters”, “fruitless encounters” concern Modiano. They might “drag you in their wake when they disappear”. But they’re real. Indeed, “Paris is studded with nerve centres and the many forms our lives might have taken”. We don’t notice them. Modiano does.

So does Che Guevara. He told medical students in 1960: “If we all use the new weapon of solidarity then the only thing left for us is to know the daily stretch of the road and to take it. Nobody can point out that stretch; that stretch in the personal road of each individual; it is what he will do every day, what he will gain from his individual experience … dedicated to the people’s well- being.”

He doesn’t urge hope. He urges awareness: conciencia.

In 1995, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuban journalist Mirta Rodríguez Calderón, writing in the US about Cuba’s economic crisis, said it is impossible to understand Cuba without understanding what it means to believe in Guevara’s “new man”. 3

It’s not so new. It is the vision of smart poets and philosophers who knew “nerve centres” are more interesting than lines into dreams. Understanding arises from experienced connections. They might “drag you in their wake” but they’re real.

People ask me: “Where’s the hope for Cuba?”. My answer? “Go there, live there, stay long enough to make friends and learn the language. Learn the ideas and live them. You’ll know the energy of those who know the “new man”, which is not new.

The medical system needs a more scientific conception of hope: seeing things as they are. Patients would see they can face their reality, finding its opportunities. Science is about the world as it is. Human reality includes death and decay. True. But human reason allows us to face it, to seek truth not dreams.

It’s a more useful sense of hope: the energy, confidence and enthusiasm that arises when we see things as they are, when we respond to “nerve centres”: Cuba’s “new man”.  But it means giving up expectations of greatness, as Pierre did. Homo faber doesn’t do that.

Perhaps some will now read Modiano’s book to find a way out of the modern liberal obsession with lines and dreams. They’re useless. Our memories “blend images of roads that we have taken, and we can’t recall what regions they cross”. Hope obscures such ignorance. Pandora, in the end, did us no favours.

  1. “Grandeza y servidumbre del humanismo”, Viento sur, Havana, 1953
  2. Yale University Press, 2018
  3. 1995 “Life in the special period”, NACLA Report on the Americas 29(2), 18– 19.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Occasional Stupidity of Hope and How, Again, “To Learn from Cuba”

Massacre in Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue

October 29th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

 

On Saturday, alleged shooter 46-year-old Robert Bowers killed 11, wounding six others inside Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue before surrendering to police.

Police said he exchanged gunfire with officers, wounding four, one reportedly in critical condition. He was shot, hospitalized, and remains in stable condition.

Shootings occurred in the city’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood, the targeted synagogue located at the corner of Wilkens and Shady Avenues.

A personal note. I know the location well. In the early to mid-1960s, I lived in Pittsburgh, blocks from where the shootings occurred, a neighborhood I remember fondly – where I met my wife and had many friends.

What happened has special meaning for me, close to my former home, a quiet violence free area at the time – any time of day or night, no longer since Saturday.

Bowers was reportedly armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle sold to civilians and law enforcement agencies – along with a Glock semi-automatic pistol, used for recreational and competition shooting, another pistol in his waistband, one more strapped to his ankle.

“It’s a very horrific crime scene…one of the worst that I’ve seen. It’s very bad, said Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich.

According to FBI Pittsburgh field office special agent Bob Jones, Bowers opened fire on entering the synagogue, firing on police when engaging them outside.

Tree of Life congregants said a mid-morning bris (circumcision) was taking place when the incident occurred.

Hours before the shootings, Roberts reportedly wrote the following: “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

The incident was one of the deadliest ever for Jewish Americans. US attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania Scott Brady said “justice in this case will be swift and it will be severe.”

Bowers had no previous criminal record. He used the Gab social media site, founded in 2016 as an alternative to Facebook and Twitter, to make anti-Semitic remarks.

Andrew Torba said he founded the site to let users say pretty much anything they wished, free from constraints. Critics call Gab a “hate-filled echo chamber of racism and conspiracy theories… Twitter for racists.”

In the site’s bio section, Bowers wrote “Jews are the children of Satan.” He accused the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) of bringing “invaders” into the US that “kill our people.”

He faces multiple criminal counts, a US attorney’s statement saying the following:

“On Saturday, October 27, 2018, at 8:05 pm, US Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell signed a criminal complaint charging Robert Bowers of Baldwin, PA with 29 counts, setting forth federal crimes of violence and firearms offenses.”

“The crimes of violence are based upon the federal civil rights laws prohibiting hate crimes. The FBI in Pittsburgh is leading the investigation.”

AG Jeff Sessions said Bowers faces possible capital punishment, a barbaric practice no just societies tolerate. It  flagrantly violates the Eight Amendment, prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments.”

It’s banned in 20 US states and the District of Columbia. Most countries either abolished or rarely impose the death penalty.

Gun violence in America is at epidemic levels, ineffective gun laws and easy access key reasons, including to semi-automatic assault weapons like the one Bowers used.

Incidents like Saturday’s shooting occur with disturbing regularity in America. Among developed nations, the US is by far the most violent – domestically and abroad.

In 2017, US civilian-owned firearms numbered over 120 per 100 residents – well over double any other country.

Yemen, notoriously known as a gun society before the ongoing conflict, ranked second last year with around 53 guns owned per 100 residents.

About 100,000 Americans are gun violence victims annually – countless others irreparably harmed. Nothing is done to curb or prevent what’s shocking and intolerable.

Federal as well as most state and local regulations are weak and ineffective. Inner city and other communities nationwide are unsafe.

Gun violence touches every segment of society – occurring on streets, in homes, at work, in schools, at shopping areas, and numerous other locations – including in places of worship.

It’s just a matter of time before another bloody incident like Pittsburgh’s occurs – because nothing is done to prevent them.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Massacre in Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue

Former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, slams the Times and UK FCO lynch mob, comprehensively: [Foreign & Commonwealth Office FCO]

“A ‘cabal’ is at work to deceive the British people about Syria. So says The Times. But the conspirators are not those spoken of by ‘The Thunderer’ on 27 October in a harrumphing editorial and full page of articles about a ‘cabal’ of British clerics and peers who have had the temerity to visit Syria and not join in the usual Assad-bashing. Rather the real ‘cabal’ if there is one groups the FCO, which appears to have inspired the attacks by The Times and is quoted hysterically accusing the visitors to Syria of ‘endangering peace’ no less, the Murdoch-owned press, and dubious Syrian ‘activists’ anxious to disrupt an upcoming panel discussion of Syria in the House of Lords.

Taking a mandatory time out from fawning over Saudi royalty, the FCO accuses Baroness Cox’s group of being foreign policy amateurs, in contrast perhaps to the FCO geniuses who helped to bring us the Iraq war and who in 2012 predicted the ‘imminent’ demise of Asad. The group are also castigated for abetting evil. The FCO is well placed to recognise such evil, having connived for years with the House of Saud to inflict unspeakable suffering on the people of Yemen.

Were it not also sinister, it would be hilarious that the mighty panjandrums of the FCO with their acolytes in The Times have felt forced to crack down on the 81 year old Baroness Cox and a group of clerical pensioners and peers who just happen to hold different views on Syria. It’s as though Noel Coward had been asked to imagine the scenario, transposing the treatment of dissidents in Putin’s Russia to London drawing rooms. It is absolutely pathetic.

The timing of course is not unconnected with the panel discussion on Syria due to take place in the House of Lords next week under the aegis of a think tank which breaks the usual establishment mold of UK think tanks, the European Centre for the Study of Extremism. This is being attacked by a Syrian activist purporting to have been ‘the last doctor out of Aleppo’ when in fact he has been accused of not using his real name, not even being a qualified doctor, and consorting with jihadi beheaders of small boys.

The game being played here is the establishment attempt to close down all discussion of Syria which might veer away from the official narrative. It is bullying and it stinks.”

*

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 the source.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peter Ford Responds to the UK FCO-Media Lynch Mob on Syria

The Latest Mail Bomb Scare. An Orchestration?

October 28th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

I appreciate readers’ confidence that I can explain the mail bomb scare that has been blamed on Cesar Sayoc.  I have not followed this story and regret that I don’t have an explanation to provide.

Stephen Lendman raises the question whether Sayoc is a real culprit or a patsy for an operation orchestrated for political reasons.  

This seems to me to be, at our present state of information, a legitimate question.  If the security agencies and the Democratic National Committee were willing to orchestrate a fake “Russiagate” scheme against Trump for political reasons, why not also a fake bomb attack on Democrats?  Just as the presstitutes went along with “Russiagate” despite the absence of any evidence, RT reports that the US media is blaming “Trump’s ‘hateful rhetoric’ for the packages.” 

While driving I listened to a large part of the press conference, and the affair struck me as an orchestration.  Every agency involved was present, from the Postal Service to the FBI and Secret Service, the directors of which praised the expert professional performance of their agencies in intercepting the bombs.  It seemed to me overdone, especially in view of the FBI’s admission that they could not say that the bombs were functional.  Why would a bomber send non-functional bombs?

There are other things to notice and to wonder about.  Photos of the packages, if these are the actual mailed packages and not someone’s construction used to cast doubt on the official story, do not show postage sufficient to cover the weight of a bomb.  Also, all the anti-Democrat stickers on Sayoc’s van seem very new and unfaded to have spent much time in the Florida sun.  

Whether one likes Trump or not, it is clear that the establishment wants rid of him.  He was elected by the “deplorables,” that part of the population that has been left behind by the elite who manage things in their interest alone.  The elite are scared that such an electoral outcome could happen again.  A defeat of Trump is a defeat of the populist forces that put him in office.

There is no doubt that Americans have been fed a constant stream of lies to justify political agendas, for example, Serbia, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, iranian nukes, Libya, Russian invasion of Ukraine, and there are so many unanswered questions about mass shootings such as the one in Las Vegas that suspicion of official stories are on the rise.  How does one justify believing a government that will lie in order to justify aggression abroad and police state measures at home?

It is entirely possible that Sayoc is an incompetent culprit and that suspicion of the official story is a consequence of the government playing fast and loose with the truth in the past. It is also a legitimate question whether the US government, by which I do not mean simply the Trump administration, is worthy of the trust of the American people. Democracy doesn’t work without public confidence in government.  The sacrifice of public confidence to political agendas destroys the basis of political life. 

From an astute reader: 

“We know every detail of this guy’s life within hours and it is presented with photos and all in the NYT.  And a symbol – the White Van, almost as good as a White Helmet.”

Another question has come in: 

“Who mails bombs to people who don’t open their own mail?”

*

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 blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

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

Is the targeted individual a legitimate suspect or a convenient patsy? Most likely the latter, but it remains an open question. How could an ordinary person access mailing addresses of prominent Trump critics sent harmless mail bombs?

On Friday, Justice Department office of public affairs director Sarah Flores tweeted: “We can confirm one person is in custody” – identified as Cesar Sayoc Jr., arrested in Plantation, Florida.

A white van belonging to him was also seized as potential evidence. On Friday, two more non-exploding mail bombs were discovered, 14 so far in total.

The latest ones were sent to former Obama DNI James Clapper, Dem Senator Cory Booker, and major Dem donor Tom Steyer. Sayoc reportedly has a prior arrest record, making him an ideal patsy.

Beginning on October 22, harmless mail bombs began to be delivered to prominent undemocratic Dem Trump critics.

None exploded. No one was hurt, the mailings intended to sow fear, create alarm, and make headlines.

They likely intended to influence the outcome of the November midterm elections, “undemocratic Dem”  forces likely behind them, hoping to regain control of the House and/or Senate.

A separate article called the staged mailings reminiscent of post-9/11 anthrax attacks.

They killed five people, injured 17 others, and temporarily shut down Congress, the Supreme Court, and other federal operations. 

Army scientist Dr. Steven Hatfill was wrongfully implicated as a “person of interest” but was never charged. 

His home was repeatedly raided by FBI agents, his phone tapped, and he was subject to intensive surveillance for more than two years

He sued the Justice Department and was awarded $4.6 million for violating his privacy, leaking false and inflammatory information, costing him his job and reputation for blasting his name all over the media for days. 

At an August 2002 news conference, he strongly denied involvement in the anthrax attacks he had nothing to do with.

Six years after being wrongfully named a “person of interest,” the Justice Department exonerated him, US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor, saying by letter to his lawyer Thomas Connolly:

“(W)e have concluded, based on laboratory access records, witness accounts and other information, that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the particular anthrax used in the attacks, and that he was not involved in the anthrax mailings.”  

In 2008, the FBI named biodefense researcher Bruce Ivins as the “anthrax killer,” no formal charges ever filed against him. No evidence suggested his culpability.

He and Hatfill were targeted as convenient patsies, wrongfully shifting state-sponsored blame onto them.

In his important book on the anthrax attacks, titled “The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy,” Graeme MacQueen connected the incidents to 9/11. 

Evidence in his book sheds important light on dark forces behind the anthrax attacks, explaining:

They were carried out by multiple perpetrators, not a “lone wolf,” as falsely claimed, a state-sponsored conspiracy. Responsible parties were Washington insiders?  The 9/11 and related anthrax attacks were the beginning of Washington’s global war OF terror, not on it, raping and destroying one country after another – what false flags are all about, diabolical aims in mind for launching them.

Is Sayoc a convenient patsy like Steven Hatfill and Bruce Ivins, falsely charged with harmless mail bombs he had nothing to do with? The fulness of time will tell.

*

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.

Selected Articles: Canada’s Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia

October 28th, 2018 by Global Research News

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis? Do you think this resource should be maintained and preserved as a research tool for future generations? Bringing you 24/7 updates from all over the globe has real costs associated with it. Please give what you can to help us meet these costs! Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

We are very grateful for the support we have received over the past seventeen years. We hope that you remain with us in our journey towards a world without war.

*     *     *

Ottawa Should End Paradoxical Arms Deal with Saudis

By Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, October 28, 2018

After years of justified public opposition to the deal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally said earlier this week that he might consider freezing or cancelling the deal. CJPME calls the government to take this step immediately. If not now, CJPME questions when the Canadian government would ever consider sanctioning the Saudi government given its unlawful behaviour with Khashoggi, with the war in Yemen, its treatment of activists, women and minorities, and other issues.

Mumia Abu Jamal and the Prison Industrial Complex

By Michael Welch, October 27, 2018

Long prison sentences in the United States are having a minimal impact on crime prevention, and given the financial and negative social costs, “the nation should revise current criminal justice policies to significantly reduce imprisonment rates.”

Trump Surrenders to John Bolton on Russia and Arms Control

By Scott Ritter, October 27, 2018

Although unspoken, both Bolton and Trump appear to be trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China. They’re doing so as those two nations are coming together to craft a joint response to what they view as American overreach on trade and international security. While the Russian concerns over Chinese INF capabilities might have held true a decade ago, that doesn’t seem to be the case any longer.

Khashoggi versus 50,000 Slaughtered Yemeni Children

By Peter Koenig, October 27, 2018

The European Parliament has asked yesterday (25 October) for an immediate embargo on the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, hence sanctioning the Kingdom of rogue Saudi Arabia which is joining the United States and Israel as the main purveyor of crime throughout the Middle East and the world.

History of World War II: Did Mussolini’s Fate Prompt Hitler to Kill Himself?

By Shane Quinn, October 26, 2018

By the middle of 1933, and now more than a decade in control, Mussolini planned to launch attacks against first Yugoslavia, and then France no less. Any such ventures would likely have been doomed to failure. Italy was further hampered by being a resource-poor country, lacking the raw materials essential in conducting lasting wars. Mussolini only cancelled the invasions after learning that French intelligence had cracked some of his military codes.

The Importance of Alternative Media. The Mass Media and our Present Crisis

By John Scales Avery, October 25, 2018

The media are a battleground where reformers struggle for attention, but are defeated with great regularity by the wealth and power of the establishment. This is a tragedy because today there is an urgent need to make public opinion aware of the serious problems facing civilization, and the steps that are needed to solve these problems.

*

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: Canada’s Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia

Bolsonaro : Canalha de Estimação de uma Sociedade Doente

October 28th, 2018 by Edu Montesanti

“Os militares são a classe de vagabundos mais bem remunerada que existe no País”, capitão sublevado do Exército, 
Jair Bolsonaro, em 1987, quando planejava explodir bombas nas dependências de sua própria instituição
Demagogo da vez não foge de debates por falt do que dizer como muitos afirmam, até porque clara patologia do poder do capitão nacional do falso moralismo manifesta-se através de sua principal adversária (ou aliada, considerando milhões de reducionistas por excelência que a aceitam): a fala e seus excessos. Presidenciável representante das tragicocircenses Forças Armadas tão corruptas quanto tudo o que condenam, foge das batalhas de ideias como o capeta da cruz porque sua campanha eleitoral, assim como a própria biografia militar e política, baseia-se em mentira e na mesma corrupção que tanto diz combater. O que sobra em verborragia, falta em estatura moral e intelectual

Mal caráter profissional cujo excesso de incontinência verbal com indiscriminadas ameaças e agressões permeiam apenas mentalidades profundamente ignorantes, histéricas e discriminadoras. Frágeis alicerces, perfeito retrato do Brasil preponderante deixado pelos milicos em 1985, herança maldita muito além da terrível dívida externa. Mais um rato de esgoto da política nacional e, outrossim, covarde antes de tudo intelectualmente – ou “cagão”, como se diz na velha Laranjal Paulista sobre canalhas deste nível, a ponto de louvar “tio Adolf”. Documentado, pois: pares milicos consideram a vaca fardada contemporânea um CCCC – ou 4Cs: “Canalha, corno, contrabandista e covarde”. Quem somos nós para discordar desta “bela reputação” de Jair Bolsonaro, segundo os que melhor o conhecem?

“O conhecimento não só amplia como multiplica nossos desejos. Portanto, o bem-estar e a felicidade de todo Estado ou Reino requerem que o conhecimento dos trabalhadores pobres fique confinado dentro dos limites de suas ocupações, e jamais se estenda […] além daquilo que se relaciona com sua missão.

“Quanto mais um pastor, um arador ou qualquer outro camponês souber sobre o mundo e o que lhe é alheio ao seu trabalho e emprego, menos capaz será de suportar as fadigas e as dificuldades de sua vida com alegria e contentamento”, A Fábula das Abelhas: Vícios Privados, Benefícios Públicos, compêndio sobre filosofia moral de Bernard de Mandeville (1670-1733)

Raso intelectualmente, violento nas palavras e nos atos cujo esfaqueamento sofrido em plena campanha presidencial (obviamente condenável) nada mais foi a tempestade colhida pelos agitados ventos que celebremente produz, o que de melhor sabe fazer. Afinal, na falta de argumento a ignorância usufrui da agressividade e da ofensa como modo de ataque, segundo palavras de Agni Shakti

Profunda ignorância refletida na completa falta de projeto para o Brasil, inclusive envolvendo sua farrapa bandeira, a seguranca pública que apenas engana os mais incautos: nada além da posse universal de armas, tortura e assassinato indiscriminados, institucionalizados e clandestinos de acordo com suas vontades e as de seus milhões de raivosos seguidores que, alegremente, aplaudem-no sedentos por preenchimento de um vazio que apenas produz o efeito reverso sobre tudo o que dizem combater.

Que esperar, pois, de um país pobre de alma, o que menos lê no mundo – a uma media de três linhas anualmente –, que ano a ano tira as piores notas internacionais em língua matter, na simples interpretação de textos, em matemática básica e nas ciências elementares? Normalmente, absolutamente nada; porem, conforme disse certa vez George Carlin, nunca se deve subestime o poder dos imbecis em grandes grupos.

Vaca Fardada de Estimação

“Quando ouço falar em cultura, logo pego meu revólver”, Joseph Goebbels, ministro de Propaganda de Adolf Hitler

Se não bastassem todas essas muito resumidas (e na medida do possivel, polidamente descritas) característas que marcam Jair Messias Bolsonaro dotado de rara psicopatia, a besta arreada de estimação das multidões que, em entrevista às figuras dos perfeitos idiotas do CQC disse que se alistaria ao Exército de Adolf Hitler (!) ao enaltecer “positivas qualidades” de “tio Adolf (seu bisavô foi soldado do nazista), recebeu neste domingo (14) através de video circulado na Internet apoio bastante proporcional de nada menos que Guilherme de Pádua (!), aquele ator da Rede Globo dos anos 90 que, no início daquela década, chocou o Brasil ao assassinar com a esposa a dezenas de tesouradas a colega da novela De Corpo e Alma, Daniela Perez sem que até hoje se saiba ao certo os motivos da profunda barbaridade (muito provavelmente, ciúme por parte da cônjuge).

Tal apoio, mais um emblema da inglória e paradoxalmente exitosa campanha presidencial, da carreira política e militar e, evidentemente, da própria biografia de Bolsonarinho, a “vaca fardada” preferida dos brasileiros no século XXI (como dizia de si mesmo o general Olympio Mourão Filho, figura central do golpe militar de 1964). Vergonhosamente para o Brasil mais uma vez, ao mesmo tempo que simplesmente Marie Le Pen (!), da extrema-direita da França, condenou Bolsonarinho: segundo a líder reacionária francesa, um radical que fala barbaridades, seguindo assim diversas manifestações recentes da direita mais radical da Europa contra este que lidera as pesquisas presidenciais brasileiras..

Desde o primeiro semestre de 2016, mais especificamente no patético circo parlamentar armado para a votação do impedimento da então presidente Dilma Rousseff que causou mescla de risos e espanto em todo o mundo, inacreditado com o que assistia (lembrando que, em sua votação pela cassação da Dilma, Bolsonarinho fez apologia da tortura para a alegria pobre de milhões de brazucas, adeptos do Pão e Circo com uma boa dose de terror sobre a vida alheia), o Brasil está atolado em um poço do qual não sai e afunda-se cada vez mais através da atual ratazana-em-chefe desse imundo esgoto, o miserável Michel Temer, asqueroso mais impopular da história político-mafiosa tupiniquim igualmente da preferência, a época, das classes média e alta mais ignorantes do planeta em mais um de seus inúmeros desservicos histericos a Nação, que de novo tapava histericamente seus já moribundos ouvidos a todas as advertências que apontavam ao que daria o Brasil, em um breve futuro.

Nas mãos dessa gente, de trágica imbecilidade à trágica imbecilidade anda este País que glorifica a estupidez. Um bando de fantoches da grande imprensa, esta marionete das oligarquias nacionais (especialmente agronegócio, banqueiros, indústria armamentista e farmacêutica, além das milionárias e algumas até bilionárias empresas gospel-religiosas que arrastam consigo milhões e milhões de fieis adoradores da mais primitiva mediocridade, negócio religioso que depende fundamentalmente de mentalidades reduzidas e cheias de fobias para sobreviver, tanto quanto do lucro financeiro) e internacional.

Bolsonaro segundo Colegas Milicos: “Canalha, Corno, Contrabandista e Covarde”

“Você não deve se acovardar nas ações, porque o remorso da consciência é indecente”, Nietzsche

No ultimo dia 6, o sitio Diário do Centro do Mundo (DCM) publicou dossier contendo informações do alto-comando do Exército desde o julgamento do capitao Jair Bolsonaro nos anos 80, até o início da vida parlamentar, na década seguinte.

Antes de se passar por algumas dessas informações, favor retirar a família da sala: nada pro-família, em nada pró-vida, nada pró-religião, nada pró-bons costumes desde o primeiro casamento do dito-cujo, segundo o relatorio militar. Como, aliás, em nada pró-vida, nem pró-religião, nem pró-liberdade em sua essência nem sequer superficialmente, até os dias de hoje. Mais um grave engodo à brasileira, assombrando o planeta.

A investigação militar sobre Bolsonaro, que no início dos anos 90 repercutiu no jornal carioca Tribuna da Imprensa, incluiu “relatos da jornalista Cássia Maria Rodrigues, atuando então na revista Veja, que disse ter sido ameaçada de morte por Jair Bolsonaro”, de acordo com o documento sobre o qual teve acesso o DCM.

Em determinado trecho, Bolsonaro colocado na parede:

Ao invés de fazer croqui de bombas [Bolsonaro preparava atentados à bomba para promover sua campanha por aumentos de salários], escreva quantas vezes você foi ao Paraguai trazer muamba. Conte sobre os seus problemas no Mato Grosso [fronteira com Paraguai].

Para em seguida qualificar o atual presidenciavel de “mercenario, corno e contrabandista. Sobre a segunda antivirtude, o DCM elegantemente preferiu nao discorrer:

Também há menções ofensivas a Rogéria Nantes Braga, então esposa de Bolsonaro. O militar autor da carta, fazia acusações de cunho pessoal à Rogéria, que a reportagem preferiu não publicar por não trazer conteúdo de interesse público. Mas não fizeram assim os colegas e comandantes de Bolsonaro que pregaram a carta na parede do quartel.

Rogéria é mãe dos três filhos mais velhos do capitão reformado e foi eleita vereadora do Rio sob influência do marido em 1992. Depois, se separaram, e Bolsonaro disse que foi porque ela não o estava mais consultando antes de decidir seus votos e outras ações na Câmara Municipal do Rio de Janeiro.

Outro milico, o então chefe do Estado Maior das Forças Armadas em 1991, general Jonas de Morais Correia Neto, chama-o, ele mesmo, Jair Bolsonaro, de “embusteiro, intrigante e covarde”, por “inventar e deturpar visando aos interesses pessoais e da política”, o que também virou reportagem na Tribuna da Imprensa à época.

Em outubro daquele mesmo ano, quando Bolsonaro já era deputado federal então pelo PDC-RJ (Partido Democrata Cristão), suas frequentes visitas ao antigo emprego, para fazer propaganda política e angariar votos, contrariaram de tal maneira seus ex-comandantes que estes proibiram a entrada de Jair Bolsonaro nos quartéis do Rio de Janeiro. É que, de acordo com o Comando de Operações Terrestres (Coter) do Exército Brasileiro, Jair Bolsonaro estava insuflando a revolta na tropa”, observou o DCM.

A conclusão do relatório aponta que Bolsonaro passou a atuar na esfera dos militares sem “representatividade” ou “delegação” para tanto, questionando e acusando autoridades “de forma descabida” e contrariando as regras de hierarquia e ordem das Forças Armadas.

Deve-se lembrar, contudo, que as próprias Forças Armadas que condenaram Bolsonaro, as mesmas sobre as quais este oportunista (para dizer o mínimo) se apoia e diz seguir em termos disciplinares e morais, encontra-se hoje assim como nos 21 anos de ditadura, longe, muito longe de ser exemplo de retidão e patriotismo: entreguistas desavergonhadas, camufladas em profundo cinismo sobre forte apelo moralista, foram recentemente acusadas pelo Ministério Público (sob silencio ensudercedor da grande imprensa) de ter desviado nada menos que R$ 191 milhões – o que acabou terminando, como sempre quando tal instituição está em questão – em pizza tanto quanto quando suas aliadas politicas estão envolvidas.

Para que nao reste duvidas, o capitão sublevado do Exército, Jair Bolsonaro, afirmou em off a jornalista Cassia Maria em 1987, quando planejava explodir as tais bombas em protesto aos altos escaloes das Forvas Armadas: “Os militares são a classe de vagabundos mais bem remunerada que existe no País”.

Corrupção Patológica

“Não há nada mais adoecedor e imbecilizador, que o perpétuo aprendiz de um ensino que não produz efeitos práticos em sua vida”,
Caio Fábio (psicanalista)

Antes disso, veio a tona na midia a meteorica multiplicacao do patrimonio de Bolsonaro: em sete mandatos como deputado federal, o capitao da reserva que em 1988, ano em que ingressou a politica, declarava possuir um Fiat Panorama, uma moto e um pequeno terreno em Resende (RJ) no valor de pouco mais de R$ 10 mil corrigidos.

A casa em que Bolsonaro vive, na Barra da Tijuca adquirida com preco bem abaixo do valor de mercado que misteriosamente gerou prejuizo a sua antiga proprietaria, apresenta “serios indicios” de terem sido adquiridas atraves de operacao que envolveu lavagem de dinheiro, segundo o Coaf (Ministerio da Fazenda), e o Conselho Federal dos Corretores de Imoveis (Cofeci).

Enquanto em 2008 Bolsonaro deu um grande salto declarando R$ 1 milhao, hoje em dia o presidenciavel que tem apenas a politica como profissao, junto dos tres filhos – tambem politicos – e dono de imoveis no Rio na cifra de R$ 15 milhoes, alem de carros, um jet ski e aplicacoes financeiras que chegando a R$ 1,7 milhao.

O atual candidato a presidente pelo PSL nunca respondeu a questionamentos da imprensa sobre estes fatos, e dois de seus filhos, Flavio e Carlos, responderam alguma vez de maneira muito vaga, sem nenhuma objetividade.

Ja dizia François de la Rochefoucauld (1613-1680): “A hipocrisia é uma homenagem que o vício presta à virtude”. Contudo, no final, até Bolsonaro acaba acima do bem e do mal e, ainda mais desgracadamente para o Brasil: como o mocinho pateticamente salvador de uma pátria em vertiginoso naufrágio – e vai daí, para muito pior.

Covardia como Maior Aliada da Ignorância

“A burrice goza de um imenso poder de inércia”, Barbara Tuchman

Diante disso tudo (ainda muito pouco sobre Bolsonarinho), alguém ainda pode alegar que o “valentão” da politica nacional recusa-se a comparecer a debates por simplesmente não ter o que dizer? Os próprios milicos, que o conhecem muito melhor que qualquer um de nós, tratou de antecipar o que melancolicamente assistimos hoje, no momento mais delicado, pelo menos, dos últimos 34 anos: ausenta-se da batalha de ideias por ser um covarde, antes de mais nada intelectualmente. Não há a menor estatura moral. Ou como dizemos em minha velha Laranjal Paulista, em situações desta natureza: cagão!

O estágio da ignorância e da crise moral chegou a um nível tao agudo no Patropi, que até fugir do debate e liderar pesquisas para a Presidência da Republica, tornou-se normal – em nome da moral!

Em epítome, diz o filosófo que cada povo tem o governo que merece. Será?

Salve-se quem puder!

Edu Montesanti

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Bolsonaro : Canalha de Estimação de uma Sociedade Doente

The origins of the Invictus Games (“For our Wounded Warriors,” goes the slogan) lies in war.  Wars that crippled and caused depression and despair. The games became a project of grand distraction and worth, a form of emotional bread for servicemen and women.  Do not let wounds, mental or physical, deter you.  Move to the spirit of William Ernest Henley, an amputee who, during convalescence, penned those lines which speak to a Victorian stubbornness before adversity: “I am the masters of my fate;/I am the captain of my soul.”

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, was supposedly inspired by a trip to the United States in 2013 by how, as the Invictus Games Foundation explains, “sport can help physically, psychologically and socially those suffering from injuries and illness.”  The games came into being next year, embodying “the fighting spirit of wounded, injured and sick Service personnel and personifies what these tenacious men and women and achieve post injury.”

As they opened in Sydney, something rather troubling lurked in the undergrowth of those keen to promote the games.  This was an occasion for the sponsors to hop on in numbers, to insist on that piffle called values. 

“We are excited,” goes the organisers’ statement, “to be on the journey to our Games with the fantastic support of our family of Invictus Games partners.  Their support not only helps us deliver a great Games, but also builds initiatives that inspire connected, healthy and active lifestyles for those facing mental health and physical challenges.”   

Names like Saab, Leidos, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are prominent corporate entities that stud the show, a sort of murderous family of patrons.  (You were victims of our products; we are thinking of you.)   

Company statements attempt to link the Invictus show to the myth of company values and mutual benefit, a point bound to leave those aware of any nexus between arms production and casualty celebration queasy: the company produces the murderous hardware – war is business and stock value after all – but it also brings back the injured into the fold.   

Jaguar Land Rover, for instance, notes “a commitment to furthering their legacy of support to the armed forces by helping former military personnel transition into civilian careers through job opportunities.”  The company was proud in recruiting “over 700 ex-service men and women since 2013, creating opportunities to employees globally seeking bright futures in the automotive industry.” 

Boeing, for its part, cheers “these warrior-competitors, honour their families, and help educate Australians about the contributions and sacrifices of military personnel here in Australia and around the world.”  As it backs the Invictus Games, the company’s own website smoothly advertises its role in serving “the US Air Force, US Navy, the Marines and many US allies by producing and integrating precise, long-range and focused munitions.” 

There are always various moments the promoters could look to in terms of how these warrior competitors perform. What mattered was turning up, and providing a good show of heart string pulling and tear jerking reaction.   

During the Sydney Invictus games, several opportunities presented themselves.  There was the wheelchair tennis player Paul Guest, whose PTSD was triggered by the whirring of an overheard helicopter.  Dutch veteran Edwin Vermetten, a fellow competitor, was on hand to comfort him as paralysis took over, offering support by singing Let it Go from the movie Frozen.  “We saw what mateship really looks like,” reflected the Duke of Sussex at his closing speech. 

Prior to its opening, Nick Deane, writing in New Matilda, was troubled by the games’ throbbing sub-text, its colosseum air and undertone of manipulation.  “There is a whiff of triumphalism in this (it is in the name of the games).  Their spirit may be unconquered but they have, without exception, been severely beaten.  Giving them a special name does not alter that.”   

Servicemen and women for Australia, in particularly, were being celebrated, but had suffered in wars that lacked the backbone of necessity, lending a heavily tragic air to the proceedings.  “In an objective assessment of them,” Deane notes, “no service personnel [participating] can legitimately claim to have been wounded in the defence of Australia.”  

That entire spirit goes to those who promote the games: the very companies who prove indispensable to the military industrial complex that creates its global casualties.  It is they who are also unconquerable, forever leaving behind the broken in their wake, they who place those in, to remember the words of William Ernest Henley, “a place of wrath and tears” where “the Horror of the shade” looms. 

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]

Featured image is from Australian Network on Disability

According to polls, Brazilians are about to make a great mistake by voting for Bolsonaro – the Tropical Trump. There are indications that the gap with PT Haddad is getting narrow, but Brazilians have to move fast until Sunday to save Brazil from a human catastrophe. 

This is outside rightwing or leftwing ideology. This is about preventing Brazil from falling into a cruel dictatorship and a police state according to the promise that Bolsonaro himself has made.

The consequences of a Bolsonaro presidency go beyond the borders of Brazil. It will have a major negative impact on the whole Latin American region as a major trade player.

Bolsonaro has made statements that qualify him as “racist”, “fascist”, “misogynist”, “xenophobic”, “white supremacist”, and “military puppet”. A single one of these labels should be enough to disqualify him as an honest politician, much less as a president.

Brazilians might wake up Monday morning in a country that will have turned the clock to 40 years ago with a military dictatorship.

Brazilian voters must resist the temptation of imposing an authoritarian regime under the illusion that it will fight corruption and violence. Only a truly democratic government can be called to be accountable to fight social ills. That is not what Bolsonaro is promising. I urge Brazilians to reflect!

Democracy is not just voting. Democracy is building a peaceful and just society for all.

*

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.

Nesta selvagem campanha “eleitoral” promovida por Jair Bolsonaro – idiota preferido da casta dominante tupiniquim – o cafajeste sistema de “justiça” (pasmem!), tão usurpador do poder nacional quanto o sistema político, confirma a quem ainda tinha alguma dúvida que possui bem claras tendências, mesmas de sempre desde tempos de escravidão (como se esta tivesse terminado no País do Imponderável).

Se não bastassem as próprias evidências no contexto da grande palhaçada denominada Operação Lava Jato, patético espetáculo midiático condenado por especialistas em direito em todo o mundo que, internamente, causa estrago apenas na fachada do sistema enquanto se dedica, com mortal ódio, peculiar discriminação e afinco seletivo, a criminalizar o campo progressista brasileiro e terminar de arruinar a indústria nacional. Ao mesmo tempo, escancarando a porta do armário para a Besta Nazi-Fascista, que sempre rondou o Brasil.

Para coibir o Bolsolão e até mesmo, amparado na lei, cassar a candidatura “exótica” deste ser tosco que se recusa a participar de debates dedicando-se a ameaçar indiscriminadamente, e envolvendo-se em escândalos de abuso de poder econômico e difusão de noticias falsas do covarde Bolsonaro, onde está agora o ativismo anticorrupção representado pelo justiceiro tipo-exportação, arrogante e arbitrário Sergio Moro, repugnante lambedor de botas que consta na coleção WikiLeaks de telegramas secretos rebolando oculta, obediente e assanhadamente diante de seus tão admirados teachers?

Onde estão os carteis blindadores dos piores bandidos do Brasil, Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, Supremo Tribunal Federal, Ministério “Público” (pasmem!). e outros picadeiros falidos, expositores da maior vergonha nacional em nome da moral e da ordem?

O Brasil é famoso mundialmente por ser o amontoado de terras onde se predomina a máfia detentora do poder institucional, prostitutos do Estado de direito travestidos de gente decente em ternos, gravatas e os mais finos vestidos que apenas causam deslumbres nos mais ingênuos, capazes de tornar até traficantes de drogas “peixes pequenos”.

Onde está agora, ó Krishna, toda aquela “indignação”, esquizofrenia anticorrupção da grande mídia de imbecilização das massas e da própria sociedade excessivamente cínica, inerte, ignorante como poucas no globo, hipócrita em seu eternamente cômodo papel de fantoche como subproduto daquela, que esta mesma mergulhada em profundo falso moralismo acusa de manipuladora, na maior cara-de-pau?

Multidão atolada compulsivamente em uma moral e intelectualmente promíscua relação de amor dependente e ódio com os supra-sumos showmen e showwomen midiáticos, no fundo deslumbrada diante de quem apenas lhe perpetua o colonialismo cultural através da sutil imposição do cabresto da ausência de pensamento, fazendo-se pensar por ela.

Era tudo uma grande farsa! As oligarquias, incluindo os impiedosos barões da mídia de propaganda acompanhados de seus milhões de macacos de auditório esbanjando todos, uma vez mais na história deste falido país, sua velha e bem conhecida intolerância às diferencas.

Da Patota da ‘Justiça’ aos Vira-Latas do PT

Saindo do espectro dessa asquerosa patota da “Justiça” e seu bando de capachos e propagandistas – a canalhada da grande mídia –, certamente grande parte da tal de “esquerda” tupiniquim vestiu muito da carapuça acima. E o fez bem.

Em particular o Partido dos Trabalhadores, nisso tudo é mais culpado que vítima considerando os treze anos gozando dos deslumbres com o poder formando alianças mais espurias contra o que existe de pior – e contra os quais berra desesperado agora. Como se isso fosse democracia!

Treze anos, somados aos dois e meio desde que o PMDB de Temer (escolhido a dedo por Luiz Inácio) buscando desesperadamente por seu “grande” e único “projeto” de Brasil: vencer as eleições e retomar o poder. Bravo, PT! Não tomando exemplo nenhum da primeira queda, novamente caiu de bumbum nessa!

Nestes dois anos e meio desde que levou um previsível pé nos fundilhos por parte das oligarquias nacionais e internacionais, Luiz Inácio fez campanha em 2017 abraçado entusiasticamente com ele, o rei do agronegócio e da pilantragem mais descarada, emaranhado em casos de corrupção: Renan Calheiros – além de um dos mentores do golpe de Estado jurídico-parlamentar-midiático contra a “companheira” Dilma.
Aliás, sobre “companheiras” e “companheiros” lembremo-nos que o próprio José Dirceu, poucos anos após sua prisao pela Ação Penal 470 (Mensalão), qualificou Luiz Inácio e Dilma, exatamente, de “covardes”.

O PT também banalizou o jogo democrático, usou e abusou da politicagem mais baixa!

Em seus treze anos no poder nacional, apenas para resumir em um centésimo suas traquinagens – e chorem lágrimas de sangue por remorço, petistas! –, Luiz Inácio, quando gozava de enorme popularidade no poder desta Republiqueta de Bananas, vomitou filosofia barata exatamente aos milicos em contraposição aos vizinhos Uruguai, Argentina e Chile, que puniram seus gorilas: “Passado é pasado!”, ou seja, esqueçamos todos os crimes contra a humanidade da milicaiada golpista que até hoje chocam o mundo – inclusive pela impunidade dentro de casa. E “ai” de quem discordasse do, então, melhor amigo dos milicos!!

Mais adiante, em meados de 2013 a presidente Dilma não apenas perdeu a maior chance de chamar a sociedade em peso para si ao se manter omisamente calada diante dos clamores multitudinários por reforma política, como criou a profundamente reacionária Lei mentirosamente denominada Antiterrorismo, engodo que apenas serve para reprimir manifestações populares – algo que o PT e a democracia brasileira carecem fatalmente hoje – a fim de blindar os usurpadores do poder.

Abriu-se mão de reforma judiciária, midiática, enfim, novamente se optou por ficar ao lado das mesquinhas oligarquias.

O PT foi o governo que mais “investiu”, milhões e milhões de reais em tralhas historicamente golpistas como Rede Globo, Veja e outros lixos da imprensa comercial.

Não se precisava possuir diploma na área de Ciências Políticas para prever tragédias contra a democracia, em um futuro muito breve. E assim foi até o melancolico fim, com Haddad fazendo média com o pires na mão diante de ninguém menos que Eunicio de Oliveira! Até o fim, negaram realizar a urgente e honrosa mea culpa. Arrogância e demagogia no DNA, como diz Ciro Gomes.

Da mesma maneira que o bolsonarismo tende a ser mais agressivo que os 21 anos de ditadura militar, o PT novamente no poder, se vencesse estas eleições seria ainda mais dócil com o submundo da política, ou seja, governaria na posição em que Napoleão perdeu a guerra de maneira ainda mais orgíaca diante da oligarquía brasileira e d’alem mar, do que ocorreu em comparação aos treze anos em que esteve, arrogantemente, no poder.

O PT passou treze anos patrulhando soberanamente, de maneira nada democrática as críticas construtivas, atacando agressivamente os que advertiam que se daría com os burros do poder n’água com qualificações do tipo “esquerda radical”, acusava os critcos – sobretudo quando esas críticas tratavam da despolitização da sociedade brasileira – de sofrer do “complexo de vita-latas” tapando o sol da nossa fragilidade com a bem conhecida peneira da hipocrisia, dentre ataques muito mais graves.

Amarga ironia do destino: os petistas necessitam hoje, desesperadamente, deste setor tão atacado pelo partido quando gozava do poder – e das massas as quais não se preocupou em politizar. Em um beco sem saída, buscaram bem ao estilo cãezinhos vira-latas amparo em todos os setores políticos, a semelhança tambem dos caninos de rua, chutados para todo o lado.

Terminaram esquecidos, levados pela fría e cruel carrocinha da apatia, mais letal arma de destruição em massa – como em abril de 1964, doença saudada pelos donos do poder que mata o Brasil atualmente.

Por isso tudo, o PT é mais culpado que vítima neste cenário caótico. Tanto quanto a propria sociedade brasileira como um todo, em plena era da informação.

Triste, mas assim a fragilíssima democracia perdeu no Brasil.

Edu Montesanti

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Bolsolão, ‘Justiça’ Cafajeste e Complexo de Vira-Latas do PT

Ottawa Should End Paradoxical Arms Deal with Saudis

October 28th, 2018 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) calls on Canada to end, once and for all, its arms trade with Saudi Arabia. The brazen murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi authorities in Istanbul further highlights the brazen and repressive attitude of the Saudi leadership. CJPME believes that Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian and oppressive practices have, for far too long, betrayed Canada’s purported support for human rights and international law. Learning that Canada faces a penalty of $1 billion if it suspends the arms deal is just one more sign that the paradoxical sale should be terminated.

In the face of Saudi Arabia’s atrocities, Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada wrote,

“[w]hat Saudi Arabia has heard, repeatedly, from Canada and governments everywhere is silence.”

After years of justified public opposition to the deal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally said earlier this week that he might consider freezing or cancelling the deal. CJPME calls the government to take this step immediately. If not now, CJPME questions when the Canadian government would ever consider sanctioning the Saudi government given its unlawful behaviour with Khashoggi, with the war in Yemen, its treatment of activists, women and minorities, and other issues.

Even despite the Harper and Trudeau governments’ arguments that the Saudi Arms deal was great for the Canadian economy, a poll in November, 2017 nevertheless found that 73 percent of Canadians opposed the deal.

“This deal is morally and legally bankrupt,” asserted Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “Canada selling arms to Saudi Arabia is no different than a drug dealer selling cocaine to teenagers. We’re looking to make a few bucks through the misery and destruction of the lives of others.”

CJPME reminds the government that, under Canada’s current arms control regulations, Canada is barred from selling arms to countries if there is a “reasonable risk” that such arms would be used in committing human rights abuses. As such, fear of a penalty – whatever the size – cannot force the Canadian government to break its own laws. Of course, it is surprising that the Canadian government would enter into a contract which contained penalty clauses with Saudi Arabia in the first place, knowing full well that the Saudis might fall afoul of Canada’s export controls. CJPME points out that, with legislation on arms control pending before Parliament with bill C-47, now would be a good time to strengthen Canada’s export control laws.

*

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 Campaign Against Arms Trade

Mumia Abu Jamal and the Prison Industrial Complex

October 27th, 2018 by Michael Welch

“As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow. We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.”

Michelle Alexander, from The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Long prison sentences in the United States are having a minimal impact on crime prevention, and given the financial and negative social costs, “the nation should revise current criminal justice policies to significantly reduce imprisonment rates.” That was the conclusion of a 464 page report put out in 2014 by the U.S. National Research Council under the aegis of the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

Among the facts cited in the report:

  • The overall prison population in the U.S. has risen from about 200,000 in mates in 1973, to 1.5 million in 2009 – principally due to mandatory sentences, lengthy sentences for repeat and violent offences, and the intensified criminalization of drug-related activity.
  • The U.S. prison population (2014) stands at 2.2 million – in a country with one quarter of the world’s population and only 5 percent of its population.
  • Nearly 1 in 100 adults is in prison or jail, which is 5 to 10 times higher than rates in Western Europe and other democracies.
  • Of those incarcerated in 2011, about 60 percent were black or Hispanic.
  • Black men under age 35 who did not finish high school are more likely to be behind bars than employed in the labor market.
  • In 2009, 62 percent of black children 17 or younger whose parents had not completed high school had experienced a parent being sent to prison, compared with 17 percent for Hispanic children and 15 percent for white children with similarly educated parents.
  • The imprisonment rate for blacks (2010) is 4.6 times higher for blacks than for whites.

The racialized character of imprisonment in Canada mirrors its U.S. counterpart.

From a June 2018 Statistics Canada report:

  • In 2016-17, Canada spent over $4.7 billion on operating expenses for adult correctional services. By comparison, the federal government had budgeted in 2017 for $11.2 billion for affordable housing over 11 years. [2]
  • Indigenous adults account for 28 percent of admissions to provincial/territorial correctional services, and 27 percent for federal services despite Indigenous peoples making up only 4.1 percent of the overall population. This is an increase of 7-8 percent over the previous decade.
  • Indigenous youth accounted for 46 percent of admissions to correctional services in 2016-17, despite Indigenous peoples making up only 8 percent of the overall youth population.
  • In the jurisdictions for which data was available, Indigenous youth admitted to correctional services increased from 21 percent to 37 percent from 2006-7 to 2016-17.

Author and academic Michelle Alexander, quoted above, argued in her provocative 2010 book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, that America’s system of mass incarceration has functioned as an instrument of social control, disenfranchising a good third of the black male population effectively equivalent to the racially segregationist laws of the pre-Civil Rights era.

As to the Canadian situation, renowned Mi’kmaq lawyer and Ryerson University Professor Pam Palmater called Canadian prisons as “essentially the new residential schools,” a reference to a century long genocidal practice of using government sponsored religious schools to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian society.

The mythology surrounding the prison systems in both the United States and Canada are at the thematic core of this week’s Global Research News Hour broadcast.

Following our regular review of GR articles, we hear about a crucial hearing in the case of former death row prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal. Documentary evidence has come to light suggesting judicial bias on the part of a former Supreme Court Judge presiding over Mumia’s appeals in the late 90s and early 2000s. Establishing such impropriety in a formal court hearing would clear the ground to launch a new appeal process for the former journalist and Black Panther Party member, now having served over 37 years behind prison bars. Long time Mumia supporter Suzanne Ross updates listeners on next steps.

Listeners wishing to show their solidarity with Mumia are encouraged to download and sign the New International Letter to Larry Krassner, and email it to the District Attorney. The link, and more details of the case can be found at freemumia.com.

In the second half hour, University of Winnipeg Assistant Professor Bronwyn Dobchuk-Land debunks the mythology about Canada’s prison system fulfilling the function of public safety and deterring aberrant social behaviour. She connects the current model of policing and imprisonment with our society’s embrace of capitalism, and the country’s colonial past, and describes what a process of abolition of the carceral system might look like.

Suzanne Ross is a New York City based clinical psychologist, a long-time anti-imperialist activist and representative of International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Bronwyn Dobchuk-Land is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Winnipeg. Her research centres around the politics of prisons, policing, colonialism, and the carceral state in Manitoba and beyond. This has included a focus on community-level responses to violence, criminalization, and community policing; and community-based crime prevention programming.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time. 

Notes: 

  1. Alexander (2010), The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, published by The New Press, New York City, NY; http://newjimcrow.com/ 
  2. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/22/what-the-2017-federal-budget-means-for-you.html

The Trump Regime Has Launched a Nuclear Arms Race?

October 27th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

In response to the Trump regime’s unilateral Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty pullout, former Soviet Russia President  Mikhail Gorbachev  (image below) said the move signals the beginning of a nuclear arms race, saying:

“Over 30 years ago, President Ronald Reagan and I signed in Washington the United States Soviet Treaty on the elimination of intermediate-and shorter-range missiles.”

“For the first time in history, two classes of nuclear weapons were to be eliminated and destroyed” under terms of the landmark agreement.

In July 1991, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) followed, proposed by Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan – signed by Soviet Russia’s president and GHW Bush.

It prohibits both countries from deploying more than 6,000  nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs and bombers.

In 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and GHW Bush signed START II – banning use of  multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

It never became effective. In January 1996, Senate members overwhelmingly rejected it by an 87 – 4 vote.

In April 2000, Russia ratified START II, withdrawing from the treaty in June 2002 because of Bush/Cheney’s ABM Treaty pullout.

In April 2010, New START, calling for further strategic nuclear disarmament, was ratified by Russia and the US, signed by then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama.

For Washington, rhetoric changed, not policy, nuclear disarmament not envisioned or planned, upgraded US weapons to replace outdated ones.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) pillars were disregarded – namely, non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use.

Nor did Obama and undemocratic Dems intend restoring the important ABM Treaty, abandoned by Bush/Cheney in June 2002.

Bush/Cheney’s 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations remains in force. Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review was more about warmaking than prevention.

It’s all about removing the distinction between defensive and offensive deterrents, including the menacing triad of land and sea-based strategic bombers, land-based missiles, and ballistic missile submarines, as well as robust research development and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain unchallengeable offensive and defensive systems.

US missile defense is misnamed. It permits first-strike use of nuclear and conventional weapons, notably against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea if denuclearization fails.

Last year, Trump called new START a bad treaty for capping deployment of nuclear warheads he wants increased – despite no US enemies since WW II ended, just invented ones, unjustifiably justifying endless imperial wars, along with provocative actions against Russia, China, Iran and other countries.

Trump claimed new START advantaged Russia over the US, saying Moscow outsmarted Obama on “START Up,” the mischaracterization he used.

In his October 25 op-ed, Gorbachev said “(t)here are still too many nuclear weapons in the world” – even though their numbers are far below earlier peak levels.

Upgraded thermonukes likely have far greater destructive power. Trump’s announced INF pullout threatens a nuclear arms race over his stated “intention to build up (US) nuclear arms,” Gorbachev explained.

The stakes are potentially too ominous to ignore. Trump’s JCPOA and INF Treaty pullouts risk greater wars than already.

Gorbachev slammed what he called the Trump regime’s intent “to release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles,” adding:

“The United States has (effectively) destroy(ed) the entire system of international treaties and accords that served as the underlying foundation for peace and security following World War II.”

“There will be no winner in a ‘war of all against all’ — particularly if it ends in a nuclear war.”

“And that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. An unrelenting arms race, international tensions, hostility and universal mistrust, will only increase the risk.”

Gorbachev hopes Russia, the UN, especially Security Council members, and rest of the world community “will take responsible action (f)aced with this dire threat to peace…”

“We must not resign, we must not surrender,” he stressed.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Trump Regime Has Launched a Nuclear Arms Race?

Originally published: Reports from the Economic Front (October 2, 2018)

China’s growth rate remains impressive, even if on the decline. The country’s continuing economic gains owe much to the Chinese state’s (1) still considerable ability to direct the activity of critical economic enterprises and sectors such as finance, (2) commitment to policies of economic expansion, and (3) flexibility in economic strategy. It appears that China’s leaders view their recently adopted One Belt, One Road Initiative as key to the country’s future economic vitality. However, there are reasons to believe that this strategy is seriously flawed, with working people, including in China, destined to pay a high price for its shortcomings.

Chinese growth trends downward

China grew rapidly over the decades of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s with production and investment increasingly powered by the country’s growing integration into regional cross-border production networks. By 2002 China had become the world’s biggest recipient of foreign direct investment and by 2009 it had overtaken Germany to become the world’s biggest exporter. Not surprisingly, the Great Recession and the decline in world trade that followed represented a major challenge to the county’s export-oriented growth strategy.

The government’s response was to counter the effects of declining external demand with a major investment program financed by massive money creation and low interest rates. Investment as a share of GDP rose to an all-time high of 48 percent in December 2011 and remains at over 44 percent of GDP.

But, despite the government’s efforts, growth steadily declined, from 10.6% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2016, before registering an increase of 6.9% in 2017. See the chart below. Current predictions are for a further decline in 2018.

Beginning in 2012, the Chinese government began promoting the idea of a “new normal”—centered around a target rate of growth of 6.5%. The government claimed that the benefits of this new normal growth rate would include greater stability and a more domestically-oriented growth process that would benefit Chinese workers.

However, in contrast to its rhetoric, the state continued to pursue a high grow rate by promoting a massive state-supported construction boom tied to a policy of expanded urbanization. New roads, railways, airports, shopping centers, and apartment complexes were built.

As might be expected, such a big construction push has left the country with excess facilities and infrastructure, highlighted by a growing number of ghost towns.  As the South China Morning Post describes:

Six skyscrapers overlooking a huge, man-made lake once seemed like a dazzling illustration of a city’s ambition, the transformation of desert on the edge of Ordos in Inner Mongolia into a gleaming residential and commercial complex to help secure its future prosperity.

At noon on a cold winter’s day the reality seemed rather different.

Only a handful of people could be seen entering or exiting the buildings, with hardly a trace of activity in the 42-storey skyscrapers.

The complex opened five years ago, but just three of its buildings have been sold to the city government and another is occupied by its developer, a bank and an energy company. The remaining two are empty–gates blocked and dust piled on the ground.

Ordos, however, was just one project in China’s rush to urbanize. The nation used more cement in the three years from 2011 to 2013 than the United States used in the entire 20th century. . . .

Other mostly empty ghost towns can be found across China, including the Yujiapu financial district in Tianjin, the Chenggong district in Kunming in Yunnan and Yingkou in Liaoning province.

This building boom was financed by a rapid increase in debt, creating repayment concerns. Corporate debt in particular soared, as shown below, but local government and household debt also grew substantially.

The boom also caused several industries to dramatically increase their scale of production, creating serious overcapacity problems. As the researcher Xin Zhang points out:

Over the past decade, scholars and government officials have held a stable consensus that “nine traditional industries” in China are most severely exposed to the excess capacity problem: steel, cement, plate glass, electrolytic aluminium, coal, ship-building, solar energy, wind energy and petrochemical. All of these nine sectors are related to energy, infrastructural construction and real estate development, reflecting the nature of a heavily investment-driven economy for China.

Not surprisingly, this situation has also led to a significant decline in economy-wide rates of return. According to Xin Zhang:

despite strong overall growth performance, the capital return rate of the Chinese economy has started to be on a sharp decline recently. Although the results vary by different estimation methods, research in and outside China points out a recent downward trend. For example, two economists show that all through the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, the capital return rate of the Chinese economy had been relatively stable at about 0.22, much higher than the U.S. counterpart. However, since the mid-1990s, the capital return rate experienced more ups and downs, until the dramatic drop to about 0.14 in 2013. Since then, the return to capital within Chinese economy has decreased even further, creating the phenomenon of a “capital glut”.

In other words, it was becoming increasingly unlikely that the Chinese state could stabilize growth pursuing its existing strategy. In fact, it appears that many wealthy Chinese have decided that their best play is to move their money out of the country. A China Economic Review article highlights this development:

Since 2015, the specter of capital flight has been haunting the Chinese economy. In that year, faced with the threat of a currency devaluation and an aggressive anti-corruption campaign, investors and savers began moving their wealth out of China. The outflow was so large that the central bank was forced to spend more than $1 trillion of its foreign exchange reserves to defend the exchange rate.

The Chinese government was eventually able to dam up the flow of capital out of its borders by imposing strict capital controls, and China’s balance of payments, exchange rate and foreign currency reserves have all stabilized. But even the largest dam cannot stop the rain; it can only keep water from flowing further downstream. There are now several signs that the conditions that originally led to the first massive wave of capital flight have returned. The strength of China’s capital controls might soon be put to the test.

Chinese leaders were not blind to the mounting economic difficulties. Limits to domestic construction were apparent, as was the danger that unused buildings and factories coupled with excess capacity in key industries could easily trigger widespread defaults on the part of borrowers and threaten the stability of the financial sector. Growing labor activism on the part of workers struggling with low salaries and dangerous working conditions added to their concern.

However, despite earlier voiced support for the notion of a “new normal” growth tied to slower but more worker-friendly and domestically-oriented economic activity, the party leadership appears to have chosen a new strategy, one that seeks to maintain the existing growth process by expanding it beyond China’s national borders: its One Belt and One Road Initiative.

The One Belt, One Road Initiative

Xi Jinping was elected President by the National People’s Congress in 2013. And soon after his election, he announced his support for perhaps the world’s largest economic project, the One Belt, One Road Initiative (BRI). However, it was not until 2015, after consultations between various commissions and Ministries, that an action plan was published and the state aggressively moved forward with the initiative.

The initial aim of the BRI was to link China with 70 other countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Oceania. There are two parts to the initial BRI vision: The “Belt”, which seeks to recreate the old Silk Road land trade route, and the “Road,” which is not actually a road, but a series of ports creating a sea-based trade route spanning several oceans. The initiative was to be given form through a number of separate but linked investments in large-scale gas and oil pipelines, roads, railroads, and ports as well as connecting “economic corridors.” Although there is no official BRI map, the following provides an illustration of its proposed territorial reach.

One reason that there is yet no official BRI map is that the initiative has continued to evolve. In addition to infrastructure it now includes efforts at “financial integration,” “cooperation in science and technology,”, “cultural and academic exchanges,” and the establishment of trade “cooperation mechanisms.”

Moreover, its geographic focus has also expanded. For example, in September 2018, Venezuela announced that the country “will now join China’s ambitious New Silk Road commercial plan which is allegedly worth U.S. $900 billion.” Venezuela follows Uruguay, which was the first South American country to receive BRI funds.

Xi’s initiative did not come out of the blue. As noted above, Chinese economic growth had become ever more reliant on foreign investment and exports. And, in support of the process, the Chinese government had used its own foreign investment and loans to secure markets and the raw materials needed to support its export activity. In fact, Chinese official aid to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 surpassed the value of all World Bank loans to these countries. China’s leading role in the creation of the BRICs New Development Bank, Asia Infrastructural Investment Bank and the proposed Shanghai Cooperation Organization Bank demonstrates the importance Chinese leaders place on having a more active role in shaping regional and international economic activity.

But, the BRI, if one is to take Chinese state pronouncements at their word, appears to have the highest priority of all these efforts and in fact serves as the “umbrella project” for all of China’s growing external initiatives. In brief, the BRI appears to represent nothing less than an attempt to solve China’s problems of overcapacity and surplus capital, declining trade opportunities, growing debt, and falling rates of profit through a geographic expansion of China’s economic activity and processes.

Sadly this effort to sustain the basic core of the existing Chinese growth model is far from worker friendly. The same year that the BRI action plan was published, the Chinese government began a massive crackdown on labor activism. For example, in 2015 the government launched an unprecedented crackdown on several worker-centers operating in the southern part of the country, placing a number of its worker-activists in detention centers. This move coincided with renewed repression of the work of worker-friendly journalists and activist lawyers. The Financial Times noted that these actions may well represent “the harshest crackdown against organized labor by the Chinese authorities in two decades.”

And attacks against workers and those who support them continue. A case in point: in August of this year, police in riot gear broke into a house in Huizhou occupied by recent graduates from some of China’s top universities who had come to the city to support worker organizing efforts. Some 50 people were detained; 14 remain in custody or under house arrest.A flawed strategy

To achieve its aims, the BRI has largely involved the promotion of projects that mandate the use of Chinese enterprises and workers, are financed by loans that host countries must repay, and either by necessity or design lead to direct Chinese ownership of strategic infrastructure. For example, the Center for Strategic Studies recently calculated that approximately 90% of Belt and Road projects are being built by Chinese companies.

While BRI investments might temporarily help sustain key Chinese industries suffering from overcapacity, absorb surplus capital, and boost enterprise profit margins, they are unlikely to serve as a permanent fix for China’s growing economic challenges; they will only push off the day of reckoning.

One reason for this negative view is that in the rush to generate projects, many are not financially viable. Andreea Brinza, writing in Foreign Policy, illustrates this problem with an examination of European railway projects:

If one image has come to define the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s ambitious, amorphous project of overseas investment, it’s the railway. Every few months or so, the media praises a new line that will supposedly connect a Chinese city with a European capital. Today it’s Budapest. Yesterday it was London. They are the newest additions to China’s iron network of transcontinental railway routes spanning Eurasia. But the vast majority of these routes are economically pointless, unlikely to operate at a profit, and driven far more by political need than market demand. . . .

Chongqing-Duisburg, Yiwu-London, Yiwu-Madrid, Zhengzhou-Hamburg, Suzhou-Warsaw, and Xi’an-Budapest are among the more than 40 routes that now connect China with Europe. Yet out of all these, only Chongqing-Duisburg, connecting China with Germany, was created out of a genuine market need. The other routes are political creations by Beijing to nourish its relations with European states like Poland, Hungary, and Britain.

The Chongqing-Duisburg route has been described as a benchmark for the “Belt,” the part of the project that crosses Eurasia by land. (The “Road” is a series of nominally linked ports with little coherence.) But paradoxically enough, the Chongqing-Duisburg route was created before Chinese President Xi Jinping announced what has become his flagship project, then “One Belt, One Road” and now the BRI. It was an existing route reused and redeveloped by Hewlett-Packard and launched in 2011 to halve the time it took for the computing firm’s laptops to reach Europe from China by sea. . . .

Unlike the HP route, in which trains arrived in Europe full of laptops and other gadgets, the containers on the new routes come to Europe full of low-tech Chinese products—but they leave empty, as there’s little worth transporting by rail that Chinese consumers want. With only half the route effectively being used, the whole trip often loses money. For Chinese companies that export toys, home products, or decorations, the maritime route is far more profitable, because it comes at half the price tag even though it’s slower.

The Europe-China railroads are unproductive not only because of the transportation price, as each container needs to be insulated to withstand huge temperature differences, but also because Russia has imposed a ban on both the import and the transport of European food through its territory. Food is one of the product categories that can actually turn a profit on a Europe-China land run—without it, filling China-bound containers isn’t an easy job. For example, it took more than three months to refill and resend to China a train that came to London from Yiwu, although the route was heavily promoted by both a British government desperate for post-Brexit trade and a Chinese one determined to talk up the BRI.

Today, most of the BRI’s rail routes function only thanks to Chinese government subsidies. The average subsidy per trip for a 20-foot container is between $3,500 and $4,000, depending on the local government. For example, Chinese cities like Wuhan and Zhengzhou offer almost $30 million in subsidies every year to cargo companies. Thanks to this financial assistance, Chinese and Western companies can pay a more affordable price per container. Without subsidies, it would cost around $9,000 to send a 20-foot container by railway, compared with $5,000 after subsidies. Although the Chinese government is losing money on each trip, it plans to increase the yearly number of trips from around 1,900 in 2016 to 5,000 cargo trains in 2020.

Another reason to doubt the viability of the BRI is that a growing number of countries are becoming reluctant to participate because it means that they will have to borrow funds for projects that may or may not benefit the country and/or generate the foreign exchange necessary to repay the loans. As a result, the actual value of projects is far less than reported in the media. Thomas S. Eder and Jacob Mardell make this point in their discussion of BRI activities with 16 Central and Eastern European countries (the 16+1):

Numbers on Chinese investment connected to the Belt and Road Initiative tend to be inflated and misleading. Only a fraction of the reported sums is connected to actual infrastructure projects on the ground. And most of the projects that are underway are financed by Chinese loans, exposing debt-ridden governments to additional risks. . . .

Depending on the source, BRI is called either a 900 billion USD or an up to 8 trillion USD global initiative. Yet only a fraction of the lower number is backed up by actual projects on the ground. BRI investments in 16+1 countries are similarly plagued by confusion over figures and a tendency towards inflation.

Media reports often arrive at their figures for the sum of “deals announced” by collating planned projects based on vague Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) and expressions of interest by Chinese companies. Many parties share an interest to push Belt and Road-related figures upwards: local officials in BRI target countries like to impress constituencies, journalists like to capture readers, and Chinese officials are keen to cultivate the hype surrounding BRI.

The Banja Luka–Mlinište Highway in Bosnia Herzegovina, for example, is strongly associated with 16+1 investment. Sinohydro signed a preliminary agreement on implementing the project in 2014, for 1.4 billion USD, and this figure was then widely reported in English-language media. Four years later, though, final approval for an Export-Import Bank loan financing the highway section was still pending. This highway is actually one of the projects emerging in the region that we have fairly good information on, but the preliminary nature of the agreement is not reflected in media reports on the project.

Also in 2014, China Huadian signed an agreement on the construction of a 500MW power station in Romania, reportedly for 1 billion USD. Talks faltered, appeared to resume in 2017, and there has been no progress reported since. It is unclear whether and when this project will materialize, but it is the sort of “deal” counted by those totting up the value of Chinese investment in 16+1 countries. An even larger figure–1.3 billion–was reported in connection with Kolubara B, though it was later claimed that a cooperation agreement with Italian company Edison had already been signed, three years prior to the expression of interest by Sinomach.

Another important point is that Chinese “investment” in the region–and this very clearly emerges from the MERICS database–often refers to concessional loans from Chinese policy banks. This is financing that needs to be paid back, with interest, whether the project delivers commensurate economic benefits or not.

As with Belt and Road projects elsewhere in the world, loans made by Beijing to CEE countries create potential for financial instability. Smaller countries, which might lack the institutional capacity to assess agreements (such as risks associated with currency fluctuation), are particularly vulnerable.

The Bar-Boljare motorway in Montenegro illustrates this point. It is being built by the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) with an 809 million EUR loan from Exim Bank. The IMF claims that, without construction of the highway, Montenegro’s debt would have declined to 59% of GDP, rather than rising to 78% of GDP in 2019. It warns that continued construction of the highway “would again endanger debt sustainability.”

The motorway is typical of many BRI projects in that it is being built by a Chinese state-owned company, using mostly Chinese workers and materials, and with a loan that the Montenegrin government must pay back, but which a Chinese policy bank will earn interest on. On top of this, Chinese contractors working on the highway are exempt from paying VAT or customs duties on imported materials.

Because of these investment requirements, many countries are either canceling or scaling back their BRI projects. The South China Morning Post recently reportedthat the Malaysian government decided to:

Cancel two China-financed mega projects in the country, the US$20 billion East Coast Rail Link and two gas pipeline projects worth US$2.3 billion. Malaysian Prime Minister said his country could not afford those projects and they were not needed at the moment. . . .

Indeed, Mahathir’s decision is just the latest setback for the plan, as politicians and economists in an increasing number of countries that once courted Chinese investments have now publicly expressed fears that some of the projects are too costly and would saddle them with too much debt.

Myanmar is, as Reuters reports, one of those countries:

Myanmar has scaled back plans for a Chinese-backed port on its western coast, sharply reducing the cost of the project after concerns it could leave the Southeast Asian nation heavily indebted, a top government official and an advisor told Reuters.

The initial $7.3 billion price tag on the Kyauk Pyu deepwater port, on the western tip of Myanmar’s conflict-torn Rakhine state, set off alarm bells due to reports of troubled Chinese-backed projects in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, the official and the advisor said.

Deputy Finance Minister Set Aung, who was appointed to lead project negotiations in May, told Reuters the “project size has been tremendously scaled down”.

The revised cost would be “around $1.3 billion, something that’s much more plausible for Myanmar’s use”, said Sean Turnell, economic advisor to Myanmar’s civilian leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

A third reason for doubting the viability of the BRI to solve Chinese economic problems is the building political blowback from China’s growing ownership position of key infrastructure that is either the result of, or built into, the terms of its BRI investment activity. An example of the former outcome: the Sri Lankan government was forced to hand over the strategic port of Hambantota to China on a 99-year lease after it could not repay its more than $8 billion in loans from Chinese firms.

Unfortunately, Africa offers many examples of both outcomes, as described in a policy brief survey of China-Africa BRI activities:

In BRI projects, Chinese SOEs overseas are moving away from ‘turnkey’ engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) projects, towards longer term Chinese participation as managers and stakeholders in running projects. China Merchants Holding, which constructed the new multipurpose port and industrial zone complex in Djibouti, is also a stakeholder and will be jointly managing the zone, in a consortium with Djiboutian port authorities, for ten years. Likewise, SOE contractors for new standard gauge railway projects in Ethiopia and Kenya will also be tasked with railway maintenance and operations for five to ten years after construction is completed. . . .

Beyond transportation, the BRI is spurring expansion of digital infrastructure through an “information silk road”. This is an extension of the ‘going out’ of China’s telecommunications companies, including private mobile giants Huawei and ZTE, who have constructed a number of telecommunications infrastructure projects in Africa, but also the expansion of large SOEs such as China Telecoms. China Telecoms has established a new data center in Djibouti that will connect it to the company’s other regional hubs in Asia, Europe, and to China, and potentially facilitate the development of submarine fibre cable networks in East Africa. . . .

Countries linked to the BRI, including Morocco, Egypt, and Ethiopia, have also been singled out [as] ‘industrial cooperation demonstration and pioneering countries’ and ‘priority partners for production capacity cooperation countries’; these countries have seen a rapid expansion of Chinese-built industrial zones, presaging not only greater trade but also industrial investment from China. . . .

However, the rapid expansion in infrastructure credit that the BRI offers also brings significant risks. Many of these large infrastructure projects are supported through debt -based finance, raising questions over African economies’ rising debt levels and its sustainability. For resource-rich economies, low commodity values have strained government revenues and precipitated exchange rate crises—both of which constrain a government’s ability to repay external borrowing.

In Tanzania, the BRI-associated Bagamoyo Deepwater Port was suspended by the government in 2016 due to lack of funds. The port was originally a joint investment between Tanzanian and Chinese partners China Merchants Holding, which would construct the port and road infrastructure, along with a special economic zone. While project construction has continued, funding constraints have meant that the government has had to forego its equity stake. This represents a case where African governments may risk losing ownership of projects, as well as the long-term revenues they bring.

Adding to political tensions is the fact that many BRI projects “displace or disrupt existing communities or sensitive ecological areas.” It is no wonder that China has seen a rapid growth in the number of private security companies that serve Chinese companies participating in BRI projects. In the words of the Asia Times, these firms are:

Described as China’s ‘Private Army.’ Fueled by growing demand from domestic companies involved in the multi-trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, independent security groups are expanding in the country.

In 2013, there were 4,000-registered firms, employing more than 4.3 million personnel. By 2017, the figure had jumped to 5,000 with staff numbers hovering around the five-million mark.

What lies ahead?

The reasons highlighted above make it highly unlikely that the BRI will significantly improve Chinese long-term economic prospects. Thus, it seems likely that Chinese growth will continue to decline, leading to new internal tensions as the government’s response to the BRI’s limitations will likely include new efforts to constrain labor activism and repress wages. Hopefully, the strength of Chinese resistance to this repression will create the space for meaningful public discussion of new options that truly are responsive to majority needs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Impressive Economic Growth. A Critical Look at China’s Belt and Road Initiative

Twelve years ago this month, WikiLeaks began publishing government secrets that the world public might otherwise never have known. What it has revealed about state duplicity, human rights abuses and corruption goes beyond anything published in the world’s “mainstream” media. 

After over six months of being cut off from outside world, on 14 October Ecuador has partly restored Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s communications with the outside world from its London embassy where the founder has been living for over six years.

The treatment – real and threatened – meted out to Assange by the US and UK governments contrasts sharply with the service Wikileaks has done their publics in revealing the nature of elite power, as shown in the following snapshot of Wikileaks’ revelations about British foreign policy in the Middle East.

Conniving with the Saudis

Whitehall’s special relationship with Riyadh is exposed in an extraordinary cable from 2013 highlighting how Britain conducted secret vote-trading deals with Saudi Arabia to ensure both states were elected to the UN human rights council. Britain initiated the secret negotiations by asking Saudi Arabia for its support.

The Wikileaks releases also shed details on Whitehall’s fawning relationship with Washington. A 2008 cable, for example, shows then shadow foreign secretary William Hague telling the US embassy that the British “want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.”

A cable the following year shows the lengths to which Whitehall goes to defend the special relationship from public scrutiny. Just as the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War was beginning in 2009, Whitehall promised Washington that it had “put measures in place to protect your interests”.

American influence

It is not known what this protection amounted to, but no US officials were called to give evidence to Chilcot in public. The inquiry was also refused permission to publish letters between former US President George W Bush and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair written in the run-up to the war.

Also in 2009, then prime minister Gordon Brown raised the prospect of reducing the number of British nuclear-armed Trident submarines from four to three, a policy opposed in Washington. However, Julian Miller, an official in the UK’s Cabinet Office, privately assured US officials that his government “would consult with the US regarding future developments concerning the Trident deterrent to assure there would be ‘no daylight’ between the US and UK”. The idea that British decision-making on Trident is truly independent of the US is undermined by this cable.

Image: US troops leave their base in Tikrit, Iraq, on 21 November 2003 (AFP)

The Wikileaks cables are rife with examples of British government duplicity of the kind I’ve extensively come across in my own research on UK declassified files. In advance of the British-NATO bombing campaign in Libya in March 2011, for example, the British government pretended that its aim was to prevent Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s attacks on civilians and not to overthrow him.

However, Wikileaks files released in 2016 as part of its Hillary Clinton archive show William Burns, then the US deputy secretary of state, having talked with foreign secretary William Hague about a “post-Qaddafi” Libya. This was more than three weeks before military operations began. The intention was clearly to overthrow Gaddafi, and the UN resolution about protecting civilians was simply window dressing.

Deception over Diego Garcia

Another case of British duplicity concerns Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean, which is now a major US base for intervention in the Middle East. The UK has long fought to prevent Chagos islanders from returning to their homeland after forcibly removing them in the 1960s.

A secret 2009 cable shows that a particular ruse concocted by Whitehall to promote this was the establishment of a “marine reserve” around the islands. A senior Foreign Office official told the US that the “former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve”.

A week before the “marine reserve” proposal was made to the US in May 2009, then UK foreign secretary David Miliband was also conniving with the US, apparently to deceive the public. A cable reveals Miliband helping the US to sidestep a ban on cluster bombs and keep the weapons at US bases on UK soil, despite Britain signing the international treaty banning the weapons the previous year.

Miliband approved a loophole created by diplomats to allow US cluster bombs to remain on UK soil and was part of discussions on how the loophole would help avert a debate in parliament that could have “complicated or muddied” the issue. Critically, the same cable also revealed that the US was storing cluster munitions on ships based at Diego Garcia.

Spying on the UK

Cables show the US spying on the Foreign Office, collecting information on British ministers. Soon after the appointment of Ivan Lewis as a junior foreign minister in 2009, US officials were briefing the office of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about rumours that he was depressed and had a reputation as a bully, and on “the state of his marriage”.

Washington was also shown to have been spying on the UK mission to the UN, along with other members of the Security Council and the UN Secretary General.

In addition, Wikileaks cables reveal that journalists and the public are considered legitimate targets of UK intelligence operations. In October 2009, Joint Services Publication 440, a 2,400-page restricted document written in 2001 by the Ministry of Defence, was leaked. Somewhat ironically, it contained instructions for the security services on how to avoid leaks of information by hackers, journalists, and foreign spies.

The document refers to investigative journalists as “threats” alongside subversive and terrorist organisations, noting that “the ‘enemy’ is unwelcome publicity of any kind, and through any medium”.

Britain’s GCHQ is also revealed to have spied on Wikileaks itself – and its readers. One classified GCHQ document from 2012 shows that GCHQ used its surveillance system to secretly collect the IP addresses of visitors to the Wikileaks site in real time, as well as the search terms that visitors used to reach the site from search engines such as Google.

Championing free media

The British government is punishing Assange for the service that Wikileaks has performed. It is ignoring a UN ruling that he is being held in “arbitrary detention” at the Ecuadorian embassy, while failing, illegally, to ensure his health needs are met. Whitehall is also refusing to offer diplomatic assurances that Assange will not be extradited to the US – the only reason he remains in the embassy.

Image: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange speaks to the media from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy in London on 19 May 2017 (AFP)

Smear campaigns have portrayed Assange as a sexual predator or a Russian agent, often in the same media that have benefitted from covering Wikileaks’ releases.

Many journalists and activists who are perfectly aware of the fake news in some Western media outlets, and of the smear campaign against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, are ignoring or even colluding in the more vicious smearing of Assange.

More journalists need to champion the service Wikileaks performs and argue for what is at stake for a free media in the right to expose state secrets.

– Mark Curtis is a historian and analyst of UK foreign policy and international development and the author of six books, the latest being an updated edition of Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Julian Assange Should Be Thanked – Not Smeared – for Wikileaks’ Service to Journalism

In September, IMF staff visited Ukraine to discuss the next tranche of its $17.5 billion loan programme, first approved in March 2014 (see Observer Spring 2014Spring 2015Winter 2016). As no funds have been received from the IMF since April 2017 and Ukraine’s debt obligations are expected to peak between 2018-2020, “alarm bells” have started ringing about Ukraine’s ability to meet rigid IMF conditionality and service its growing debt, according to news agency Reuters.

The negotiations have been put under increased pressure since the Ukrainian government extended its special obligations for its national oil company Naftogaz in August. This would require it to sell gas to intermediaries at reduced prices, thereby further delaying meeting IMF conditionality under its current loan programme to increase gas prices, according to Ukrainian UA|TV.With an election due to take place next year and IMF-mandated fuel price hikes facing strong public opposition, the recent experiences of protests against IMF-demanded policies in Jordan, Haiti and elsewhere highlight the government’s delicate position (see Observer Summer 2018).

The current loan programme has already decreased energy consumption in Ukraine by 30 per cent, significantly diminishing living standards across the country, as reported by women’s rights organisations to the UN Human Rights Council in May last year (see Observer Summer 2017). Considering that one third of IMF arrangements between 2006 and 2015 contained structural conditionality pertaining to energy price subsidies, in his most recent report on the IMF, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, called on the IMF to “embrace a politically and socially sustainable social protection policy” to address the harmful impacts of energy subsidy reforms, rather than see this “largely as a question of marketing”, by emphasising “communication strategies, sequencing and ‘depoliticization’ as solutions” (see Observer Summer 2018).

IMF myopic on corruption

While IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde kept up pressure to increase energy prices by calling the subsidy reforms “critical to allow the completion of the pending review under Ukraine’s IMF-supported program” in a July statement, she also commended Ukraine for adopting the law on the High Anti-Corruption Court. The adoption of the law was another high-profile loan conditionality, that the Fund claimed, “will contribute to delivering the accountability and justice that the people of Ukraine demand of their public officials.” Its adoption was preceded by the fulfilment of another IMF loan condition; namely that the government pass a law aimed at speeding up the privatisation of more than 3,000 state-owned companies, which was adoptedby Ukrainian lawmakers in January according to Reuters.

In a statement following his visit to Ukraine in May, the UN independent expert on foreign debt and human rights, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, speaking about IMF loan conditions relating to corruption, underlined that, “fighting corruption requires a holistic approach which covers not only investigations and sanctions but also a proper regulation to minimise the economic incentives to become corrupt”. He went on to say that “most of my interlocutors seem to share the perspective that moving from over-regulation to deregulation would undoubtedly foster economic growth and prevent corruption. However, I disagree with this view. Comparative experiences show that private actors require effective regulation also, in particular to ensure human rights compliance.” He continued, “This is only achievable with robust legislation and independent public institutions that prevent market abuses, ensure the rule of law and tackle economic and social inequality in order to promote inclusive sustainable growth.”

In April, the IMF unveiled a new framework for “enhanced” engagement on corruption and governance issues, prompting London-based NGO Transparency International to call on the IMF to consistently address spill-over risks of gaps in anti-money laundering frameworks. The IMF and World Bank’s ‘good governance agendas’ have long been criticised for missing the significant role their own policies play in growing global corruption by pushing rapid privatisation of public enterprises, thus eroding state capacity for good governance (see Update 18). Nick Hildyard with London-based civil society organisation The Corner House commented that, “The IMF casts corruption as a pathology exclusively of the public sector. The definition thus renders ‘uncorrupt’ (and legal) a range of corrupting (or potentially corrupting) forms of power mongering – not least those fermented by the IMF’s own privatisation programmes.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine: Between a Rock and IMF Conditionality. Spiralling External Debt

Declaring that “there is a new strategic reality out there,” President Donald Trump’s hardline national security advisor John Bolton announced during a visit to Moscow earlier this week that the United States would be withdrawing from the 31-year-old Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. “This was a Cold War bilateral ballistic missile-related treaty,” Bolton said, “in a multi-polar ballistic missile world.”

“It is the American position that Russia is in violation,” Bolton told reporters after a 90-minute meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Russia’s position is that they aren’t. So one has to ask how to ask the Russians to come back into compliance with something they don’t think they’re violating.”

Left unsaid by Bolton was the fact that the Russians have been asking the U.S. to provide evidence to substantiate its allegations of Russian noncompliance, something it so far has not done. “The Americans have failed to provide hard facts to substantiate their accusations,” a Kremlin spokesperson noted last Decemberafter a U.S. delegation was briefed NATO on the allegations. “They just cannot provide them, because such evidence essentially does not exist.”

Bolton’s declaration mirrored an earlier statement by Trump announcing that “I’m terminating the agreement because [the Russians] violated the agreement.” When asked if his comments were meant as a threat to Putin, Trump responded, “It’s a threat to whoever you want. And it includes China, and it includes Russia, and it includes anybody else that wants to play that game. You can’t do that. You can’t play that game on me.”

Trump appears to have surrendered to the anti-arms control philosophy of John Bolton, who views such agreements as unduly restricting American power. (Bolton was also behind the 2001 decision by President George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an act the Russians viewed as inherently destabilizing.) By involving China, which was not a signatory to the INF Treaty, into the mix, the president appears to be engaging in a crude negotiating gambit designed to shore up a weak case for leaving the 1987 arms control agreement by playing on previous Russian sensitivities about Chinese nuclear capabilities.

In 2007, Putin had threatened to withdraw from the INF Treaty because of these reasons. “We are speaking about the plans of a number of neighboring countries developing short- and mid-range missile systems,” Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, said at the time, citing China, India and Pakistan. “While our two countries [the U.S. and Russia] are bound by the provisions of the INF treaty there will be a certain imbalance in the region.”

Although unspoken, both Bolton and Trump appear to be trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China. They’re doing so as those two nations are coming together to craft a joint response to what they view as American overreach on trade and international security. While the Russian concerns over Chinese INF capabilities might have held true a decade ago, that doesn’t seem to be the case any longer.

“The Chinese missile program is not related to the INF problem,” Konstantin Sivkov, a member of the Russian Academy of Missile and Ammunition Sciences, recently observed. “China has always had medium-range missiles, because it did not enter into a bilateral treaty with the United States on medium and shorter-range missiles.” America’s speculations about Chinese missiles are “just an excuse” to withdraw from the INF Treaty, the Russian arms control expert charged.

Moreover, China doesn’t seem to be taking the bait. Yang Chengjun, a Chinese missile expert, observed that the U.S. decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty would have a “negative” impact on China’s national security, noting that Beijing “would have to push ahead with the modest development of medium-range missiles” in response. These weapons would be fielded to counter any American build-up in the region, and as such would not necessarily be seen by Russia as representing a threat.

Any student of the INF Treaty knows that the issue of Russia’s national security posture vis-à-vis China was understood fully when the then-USSR signed on to the agreement. During the negotiations surrounding INF in the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviets had sought to retain an INF capability in Asia as part of its Chinese deterrence posture. Indeed, the Soviet insistence on keeping such a force was one of the main reasons behind the “zero option” put forward by the U.S. in 1982, where a total ban on INF-capable weapons was proposed. The U.S. knew that the total elimination of INF systems was a poison pill that Russia simply would not swallow, thereby dooming future negotiations.

Mikhail Gorbachev turned the tables on the Americans in 1986, when he embraced the “zero option” and called upon the U.S. to enter into an agreement that banned INF-capable weapons. For the Soviet Union, eliminating the threat to its national security posed by American INF weapons based in Europe was far more important than retaining a limited nuclear deterrence option against China.

The deployment of Pershing II missiles to Europe in the fall of 1983 left the Soviet leadership concerned that the U.S. was seeking to acquire a viable nuclear first-strike capability against the Soviet Union. The Soviets increased their intelligence collection efforts against U.S. targets to be able to detect in advance any U.S./NATO first-strike attack, as well as a “launch on detection” plan to counter any such attack.

In November 1983, when the U.S. conducted a full-scale rehearsal for nuclear war in Europe, code-named Able Archer 83, Soviet intelligence interpreted the exercise preparations for the real thing. As a result, Soviet strategic nuclear forces were put on full alert, needing only an order from then-general secretary Yuri Andropov to launch.

The Soviet system had just undergone a stress test of sorts in September 1983, when malfunctioning early warning satellites indicated that the U.S. had launched five Minuteman 3 Intercontinental missiles toward the Soviet Union. Only the actions of the Soviet duty officer, who correctly identified the warning as a false alarm, prevented a possible nuclear retaliatory strike.

A similar false alarm, this time in 1995, underscored the danger of hair-trigger alert status when it comes to nuclear weapons—the launch of a Norwegian research rocket was interpreted by Russian radar technicians as being a solo U.S. nuclear missile intended to disrupt Russian defenses by means of an electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear air burst. Russia’s president at the time, Boris Yeltsin, ordered the Russian nuclear codes to be prepared for an immediate Russian counter-strike, and was on the verge of ordering the launch when Russian analysts determined the real purpose of the rocket, and the crisis passed.

The Europeans had initially balked at the idea of deploying American INF weapons on their territory, fearful that the weapons would be little more than targets for a Soviet nuclear attack, resulting in the destruction of Europe while the United States remained unharmed. To alleviate European concerns, the U.S. agreed to integrate its INF systems with its overall strategic nuclear deterrence posture, meaning that the employment of INF nuclear weapons would trigger an automatic strategic nuclear response. This approach was designed to increase the deterrence value of the INF weapons, since there would be no “localized” nuclear war. But it also meant that given the reduced flight times associated with European-based INF systems, each side would be on a hair-trigger alert, with little or no margin for error. It was the suicidal nature of this arrangement that helped propel Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan to sign the INF Treaty on December 8, 1987.

This history seems to be lost on both Trump and Bolton. Moreover, the recent deployment of the Mk-41 Universal Launch System, also known as Aegis Ashore, in Romania and Poland as part of a NATO ballistic missile shield only increases the danger of inadvertent conflict. Currently configured to fire the SM-3 surface-to-air missile, the Mk-41 is also capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles which, if launched in a ground configuration, would represent a violation of the INF Treaty. The U.S. Congress has authorized $58 billion in FY 2018 to fund development of an INF system, the leading candidate for which is a converted Tomahawk.

If the U.S. were ever to make use of the Mk-41 in an anti-missile configuration, the Russians would have seconds to decide if they were being attacked by nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Putin, in a recent speech delivered in Sochi, publicly stated that the Russian nuclear posture operated under the concept of “launch on warning,” meaning once a U.S. or NATO missile strike was detected, Russia would immediately respond with the totality of its nuclear arsenal to annihilate the attacking parties. “We would be victims of an aggression and would get to heaven as martyrs,” Putin said. Those who attacked Russia would “just die and not even have time to repent.”

“We’ll have to develop those weapons,” Trump noted when he announced his decision to leave the INF Treaty, adding “we have a tremendous amount of money to play with our military.” Nuclear deterrence isn’t a game—it is, as Putin noted, a matter of life and death, where one split second miscalculation can destroy entire nations, if not the world. One can only hope that the one-time real estate mogul turned president can figure this out before it is too late; declaring bankruptcy in nuclear conflict is not an option.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Surrenders to John Bolton on Russia and Arms Control

A US Poseidon-8 reconnaissance plane operated 13 unmanned aerial vehicles that attacked Russia’s Hmeymim airbase in Syria on January 6, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Colonel General Alexander Fomin said at a plenary session of the Beijing Xiangshan Forum on security on October 25.

“Thirteen UAVs moved according to common combat battle deployment, operated by a single crew. During all this time the American Poseidon-8 reconnaissance plane patrolled the Mediterranean Sea area for eight hours,” Colonel General Alexander stated adding that when the UAVs faced Russian “electronic warfare screen, they moved away to some distance, received the corresponding orders and began to be operated out of space and receiving help in finding the so-called holes through which they started penetrating.”

Despite this, seven UAVs were downed, and control over six drones was gained through electronic warfare systems.

Colonel General Fomin also emphasized that it’s needed “to put an end to the provision of money, weapons, equipment and various substances to terrorists, including chemical ingredients used during the so-called chemical attacks that are later blamed on the Syrian government.” He noted that most of these tools and means were produced in foreign countries, particularly NATO member states.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman vowed that Israel “will not accept any restrictions” on Israeli freedom of operation in Syria. Liberman commented on the recent reports by Israeli media that Russia wants to reshape the format of the Moscow-Tel-Aviv contacts and demands Israel to provide earlier warning of strikes.

After the incident with the Russian IL-20 military plane in Syria, Moscow already noted that Israel ignores the existing hot-line agreement and provides a false and untimely info on its actions in the war-torn country. The Russian Defense Ministry openly pointed out that the IL-20 plane was downed by Syrian air defense fire because of “hostile actions” of Israel. In response, Russia supplied S-300 systems to the Syrian military.

This week Israel’s ImageSat International has released a group of satellite images alleging that the deployment site of the Syrian S-300 system is located near the village of Masyaf in the province of Hama.

The situation remains tense in the Idlib demilitarization zone where militant groups continue shelling targets in the government–held area. The situation is especially complicated in the countryside of Aleppo where the Syrian Army is even forced to carry out active retaliatory strikes.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Military Plane Operated UAVs That Attacked Russian Airbase in Syria

Lost Lightning: The Missing Secrets Of Nikola Tesla

October 27th, 2018 by Global Research News

A mystery surrounds Tesla. His contributions, which were great and many, have descended into obscurity. Why?

Nikola Tesla, a Serbian scientist born in Croatia, was a humanitarian, a US patriot, and yes, an unbridled genius, though he has often been personified as the quintessential mad scientist. Perhaps his only real misdeed was being born ahead of his time.

Tesla’s idea was to be able to provide power equally to all people on Earth. At this time there are 2 to 3 billion people on this planet that can’t go home at night and turn on the lights. The people that can’t are living in poverty.

Tesla saw that there was a division between the haves and the have-nots. And he was determined to make electrical power equally available to all people on this planet… as a gift.

This is the story of the man that time forgot and the US government which did no justice to him.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lost Lightning: The Missing Secrets Of Nikola Tesla

First published in May 2018, this is part of our series on the unaccounted for $21 Trillion in taxpayer money. As unbelievable and absurd as that sounds, the actual total of unaccounted for money at the Pentagon is most likely significantly more than $21 trillion. The First ever “full-scope audit” of the Pentagon is presently underway. Read the first report from this series here.

*

According to the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, $21 Trillion in Taxpayer Funding Is Unaccounted For.

To help people comprehend the scale of this, $1 Trillion is $1000 Billion. This means that $21,000 Billion in taxpayer money has gone missing.

Image: a stack of one trillion dollars. Multiply that by 21

How can this be possible?

We outlined the “Unaccountable System of Global War Profiteers” in detail here.

For further understanding, we are featuring another mind-blowing Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) report.

The following are highlights from the DOD IG “Summary of DOD Office of the Inspector General Audits of Financial Management”:

  • The financial management systems DOD has put in place to control and monitor the money flow don’t facilitate but actually “prevent DOD from collecting and reporting financial information… that is accurate, reliable, and timely.” (p. 4)
  • DOD frequently enters “unsupported” (i.e. imaginary) amounts in its books (p. 13) and uses those figures to make the books balance. (p. 14)
  • Inventory records are not reviewed and adjusted; unreliable and inaccurate data are used to report inventories, and purchases are made based on those distorted inventory reports. (p. 7)
  • DOD managers do not know how much money is in their accounts at the Treasury, or when they spend more than Congress appropriates to them. (p. 5)18
  • Nor does DOD “record, report, collect, and reconcile” funds received from other agencies or the public (p. 6),
  • DOD tracks neither buyer nor seller amounts when conducting transactions with other agencies. (p. 12)
  • “The cost and depreciation of the DOD general property, plant, and equipment are not reliably reported….” (p. 8);
  • “… the value of DOD property and material in the possession of contractors is not reliably reported.” (p. 9)
  • DOD does not know who owes it money, nor how much. (p. 10.)
It gets worse; overall:
  • “audit trails” are not kept “in sufficient detail,” which means no one can track the money;
  • DOD’s “Internal Controls,” intended to track the money, are inoperative. Thus, DOD cost reports and financial statements are inaccurate, and the size, even the direction (in plus or minus values), of the errors cannot be identified, and
  • DOD does not observe many of the laws that govern all this.

It is as if the accountability and appropriations clauses of the U.S. Constitution were just window dressing, behind which this mind-numbing malfeasance thrives.

Technically, this is a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, a statute carrying felony sanctions of fines and imprisonment.

Congress and the Pentagon annually report and hold hearings on DOD’s lack of financial accountability and sometimes enact new laws, but many of the new laws simply permit the Pentagon to ignore the previous ones; others are eyewash.

If you have a system that does not accurately know what its spending history is, and does not know what it is now (and does not care to redress the matter), how can you expect it to make a competent, honest estimate of future costs?

It is self-evident that an operation that tolerates inaccurate, unverifiable data cannot be soundly managed; it exempts itself from any reasonable standard of efficiency.

Recall, also that the errors in cost, schedule and performance that result are not random: actual costs always turn out to be much higher than, sometimes even multiples of, early estimates; the schedule is always optimistic, and the performance is always inflated.

The Pentagon, defense industry and their congressional operatives want – need – to increase the money flow into the system to pretend to improve it.

Supported by a psychology of excessive secrecy, generated fear and the ideological belief that there is no alternative to high cost, high complexity weapons, higher budgets are easier to justify, especially if no one can sort out how the Pentagon actually spends its money.

The key to the DOD spending problem is to initiate financial accountability. No failed system can be understood or fixed if it cannot be accurately measured.

And yet, there is no sense of urgency in the Pentagon to do anything about it.

Indeed, in the 1990s, we were promised the accountability problem would be solved by 1997. In the early 2000s, we were promised it would be solved by 2007; then by 2016; then by 2017….

The question must be asked: if nothing has been done by the Pentagon to end the accountability problem after more than 20 years of promises, is top management simply incompetent, or is this the intended result of obfuscation to avert accountability?

A spending system that effectively audits its weapon programs and offices would also be one that systemically uncovers incompetent and crooked managers, false promises and those who made them.

It would also necessarily reveal reasons to dramatically alter, if not cease, funding for some programs, which of course would make lots of people in industry, Congress, and the executive branch unhappy.

The current system and its out of control finances mortally harm our defenses, defraud taxpayers, and bloat the Pentagon and federal budgets.

Any reform that fails to address this most fundamental problem is merely another doomed attempt that will only serve to perpetuate a system that thrives on falsehoods and deception.

William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, summed up the accountability crisis at the Pentagon by saying:

“Call it irony or call it symptomatic of the department’s way of life, but an analysis by the Project on Government Oversight notes the Pentagon has so far spent roughly $6 billion on ‘fixing’ the audit problem — with no solution in sight.

If anything, the Defense Department’s accounting practices have been getting worse.”

The above post was an excerpt from The Pentagon Labyrinth, 10 Short Essays to Help You Through It. It was written by, “10 Pentagon Insiders, Retired Military Officers and Specialists With Over 400 Years of Defense Experience.” The section we featured is from Essay #8, Decoding the Defense Budget: The Ultimate in Cooked Numbers, by Winslow T. WheelerReport Full PDF Here *

*

This article was originally published on Changemaker.media.

 

Khashoggi versus 50,000 Slaughtered Yemeni Children

October 27th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

The European Parliament has asked yesterday (25 October) for an immediate embargo on the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, hence sanctioning the Kingdom of rogue Saudi Arabia which is joining the United States and Israel as the main purveyor of crime throughout the Middle East and the world. France still said they will apply sanctions only if it is proven that Riyadh was indeed involved in the killing of the controversial Saudi journalist. Madame Merkel at least days ago said that Germany would no longer supply the Saudis with arms – as a result of the heinous crime committed on Jamal Khashoggi.

No doubt, it was a horrible murder that took place in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, with Jamal Khashoggi’s body possibly sawed to pieces, and according to latest accounts, buried in the Consulate’s backyard. And all that now admitted, executed by order of Riyadh. To soften the blow, for business purposes, some European countries would like to argue that it may not have been a premeditated assassination, but possibly a mortal “accident”, which would of course change the premises and lessen the punishment – and weapon sales could continue. It’s all business anyway.

Europe has no morals, no ethics no nothing. Europe, represented by Brussels, and in Brussels by the non-elected European Commission (EC), for all practical purposes is a mere nest of worms, or translated into humans, a nest of white-collar criminals, politicians, business people and largely a brainwashed populace of nearly 500 million. There are some exceptions within the population and fortunately their pool of ‘awakened’ is gently growing.

Even Switzerland, a neutral country according to her Constitution, not a member of the EU, but a staunch adherent to the (non-) European Union through more than 110 bi-and multilateral contracts, it was revealed yesterday, is assisting in Saudi Arabia converting the Swiss built (civilian) Pilatus helicopter into a ferocious war machine. Pilatus has always had that reputation of its controversial convertibility and was particularly known within Switzerland for that reason – but now, they surpass the limit of the tolerable, by helping the criminal and warmonger Saudis to mount a flying war machine in their, the Saudi’s, country – totally against Swiss law and against the Swiss Constitution, but fully tolerated by the Swiss Government.

Back to the real issue: It took the horrendous murder of a famous Saudi-critical and Saudi-national journalist, for the Europeans to react – and that, mind you, grudgingly. They’d rather follow Donald Trump’s line, why lose 110 billion dollars-worth of arms sales to the Saudis, for the murder of a journalist. – After all, business is business. Everything else is a farce.

For three and half years, the Saudi’s have waged a horrendous war on Yemen. They have slaughtered tens of thousands of Yemenis – according to the UN Human Rights Commission more than 50,000 children died by Saudi air raids with UK supplied bombs, and US supplied war planes – through lack of sanitation and drinking water induced diseases, like cholera – and an even worse crime, through extreme famine, the worst famine in recent history – as per UNICEF / WHO – imposed by force, as the Saudi’s with the consent of the European allies closed down all ports of entry, including the moist important Red Sea Port of Hodeida.

The European, along with the US, have been more than complicit in this crime against humanity – in these horrendous war crimes. Imagine one day a Nuremberg-type Court against war crimes committed in the last 70 years, not one of the western leaders, still alive, would be spared. That’s what we – in the west – have become. A nest of war criminals – war criminals for sheer greed. They invented a neoliberal, everything goes market doctrine system, where no rules no ethics no morals count – just money, profit and more profit. Any method of maximizing profit – war and war industry – is good and accepted. And the  west with its fiat money made of hot air, is imposing this nefarious, destructive system everywhere, by force and regime change if voluntary acceptance is not in the cards.

And we, the people, have become complicit in it, as we are living in luxury and comfort, and couldn’t care less what our leaders (sic-sic) are doing to the rest of the world, to the so-called lesser humans, who live in squalor as refugees, their homes and towns destroyed, bombed to ashes, no schools, no hospitals, and to a large extent no food – yes about 70 million-plus refugees are everyday on the move, most of them from the west-destroyed Middle-East. Why should we worry? We live well. To the contrary, these refugees they could steal our jobs. Let them not invade our luxury havens. Rather keep bombing their countries into rubble.

Yemen, strategically highly sought-for, should, of course, not be governed by the Houthis, a socialist-leaning group of revolutionary Muslims which is part of the Shia Zaidi, a branch of the Shia Imamiya of Iran. They finally became sick and tired of the decades-long Washington manipulation of their government. And who better than the stooges of Saudi Arabia to do the dirty job for Washington? – And, yes, they don’t have to do it alone. Weapon supplies come from all over Europe, mainly the UK, and France, also Spain, and for a while also from Germany – and well, neutral Switzerland.

No matter that tens of thousands of children are killed, that according to the Human Rights Commission, up to 22 million Yemenis (out of about 30 million population), are in danger of severe famine, and that includes at least 8 million children – children who have for the most part no more access to schools, health services and food – an entire generation or more without education, a well-planned and premeditated gap in society, as is the case in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. By killing and depriving children of basic needs, the west is creating a widening gap of educated people, of people that can and would otherwise fight for their countries, for their societies. But – they are gone. That makes it so much easier for the west just to take over – their strategic position, their natural resources and suck empty the social safety funds accumulated by their labor force.

Isn’t that a thought for the illustrious populace who live in western luxury, to lean back in their fauteuils and think about? – What if, one day the tables are reversed – and we, the west would face justice? – Is anybody in the west bold and realistic enough to see such a picture? – And as we see these days – history is advancing in giant steps. It’s the 21stCentury – Artificial Intelligence (AI) has more than made inroads in our society. And what if – if those that we consider inferior and our enemies, are in fact a few steps ahead of us in AI science – and could reverse the picture rather rapidly?

And while we wonder why Saudi-slaughtered Yemenis does not raise a fuss in the western media, but the Saudi killing of a journalist does, all-the-while our linear IMF provided projections increase western GDP by fantastic numbers by 2030, irrespective of the 20% unemployment thanks to AI, that some predict – all these contradictory figures are unimportant, while we can make a killing from killing Yemeni children. But it takes the Khashoggi killing that might stop – if only temporarily, and if only we are lucky – the Saudi war machine. The population of Yemen is unimportant. Why?

Why does it take the assassination of a journalist – granted, a horrendous and grisly murder by his own country’s government – no matter how controversial Jamal Khashoggi was, he has been writing for our western MSM, for the truth tellers, such as the Washington post and the NYTimes. That may have helped making him more important than 50,000 slaughtered and maimed Yemeni children – more important in the sense that only through his abject murder, the European – maybe – will react and ‘sanction’ the Saudis.

But even that is not sure – as the Transatlantic Master Trump, has many trumps up his sleeve, that he may offer or coerce the EU puppets into following his heinous example and spare Riyadh from any punishment, especially as far as weapons are concerned. After all its business. Dead children are just that, dead Yemenis, a generation less to worry about.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Khashoggi versus 50,000 Slaughtered Yemeni Children

Brazil: The Collapse of Democracy? Rise of the Far Right

October 27th, 2018 by Alfredo Saad-Filho

Brazil will elect its new President on 28 October 2018. Since the judicial-parliamentary coup that removed elected President Dilma Rousseff, of the Workers’ Party (PT), the new administration (led by her former Vice-President, Michel Temer) has advanced its agenda of neoliberal ‘reforms’. The economic crisis has continued unabated, and the campaign for the destruction of the PT has intensified, leading to the imprisonment of former President and PT founder Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.1

Finally, the Armed Forces have increasingly intervened in political life, particularly through the occupation of peripheral areas in Rio de Janeiro. Their close articulation with the Judiciary is encapsulated in the appointment of General Fernando Azevedo e Silva as ‘advisor’ to the President of the Supreme Court, and in statements that would be scandalous in less turbulent times, such as the thinly-disguised demand for Lula’s incarceration issued by Army Commander General Eduardo Villas Boas.

The co-ordinated shift of public institutions toward an exceptionally excluding variety of neoliberalism was challenged by attempts to rebuild the left through Lula’s campaign for the presidency and, in particular, through his convoy around the country in early 2018, which led to his steep rise in the opinion polls.

Given the likelihood that the coup against Dilma Rousseff would end in Lula’s victory at the polls, it is not surprising that the cancellation of the elections was mooted. However, this would not be necessary. The coup plotters managed to sentence Lula to more than twelve years in prison despite the lack of evidence and, subsequently, to bar his candidacy, in a blatant demonstration of lawfare against him and his party. The escalating conflict between a radicalizing ‘alliance of privilege’ in power, and the attempted responses by the PT and the left, consolidated Lula’s position not only as the unquestioned leader of the democratic camp but, also, as the most talented leader in Brazilian political history. In contrast, a string of anonymous figures and insignificant personalities took turns leading the alliance of privilege.

The Coup: Authoritarian and Antidemocratic

The coup was, then, closely associated with a grave loss of representativeness of the main political actors, and an increasingly bitter dispute between the powers of the Republic. The consequence was the leakage of legitimacy toward individuals, especially ‘avenging’ judges standing up against corruption. The Army is the only institution that has managed to avoid the miasma of illegitimacy, which has given recent developments a strongly authoritarian and antidemocratic trend. In short, one of the peculiarities of the rise of neoliberal authoritarianism in Brazil is the absence of strong leadership, solid parties and organized movements around right-wing nationalist programs: the Brazilian coup is a social force independent of the individuals supposedly in positions of command.

Examples include the destruction of Aécio Neves, who kicked off the coup by recklessly challenging the outcome of the 2014 elections, the imprisonment of former Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies Eduardo Cunha, who launched the impeachment process, the implosion of Geraldo Alckmin’s presidential candidacy in 2018 (the man who had everything to be the candidate of capital-in-general but captured less than 5% of the vote), the ruin of a long list of Temer’s advisors, and the implosion the main centre-right parties, the PSDB and the PMDB.

The coup has escaped the control of its creators, and they were consumed in the flames that they had stoked. The incineration of traditional center-right forces fertilized the ground for the candidacy of the far-right extremist Jair Bolsonaro (not by coincidence a retired Army captain) – something that until a few weeks before the election seemed even more unlikely than the triumph of Donald Trump in the USA. However, when contrasted with his tropical twin, Trump offers an example of mental stability, political moderation and personal refinement.

Examination of the unfolding of the political crisis in Brazil suggests a tragedy in four acts, briefly described below.

The Global Context

The world is going through a mounting tide of authoritarian neoliberalism, as the outcome of three converging processes: the crisis of economies, political systems and institutions of representation after the global financial crisis that started in 2007; the decomposition of neoliberal democracies, and the kidnapping of mass discontent by the far right.

The diffusion of neoliberalism has eliminated millions of skilled jobs, especially in the advanced capitalist economies, as entire professions either disappeared or were exported to cheaper countries. Around the world, employment opportunities in the public sector have declined because of privatizations and the contraction of state agencies and state-owned enterprises; employment stability has declined, and wages, labour relations and living conditions have tended to deteriorate. The informal workers have suffered severe losses, both directly and through the declining availability of opportunities for stable employment. In turn, formal workers are afraid that their jobs may be exported while, at the same time, they must endure increasingly stressful and precarious work. Similar pressures are felt by an indebted, impoverished, anxious, and increasingly vulnerable middle class. Around the world, the remnants of previously privileged social strata lament their inability to secure better material circumstances for their offspring. The political counterpart of these economic processes is that, under neoliberalism, the workers tend to become increasingly divided, disorganized, and politically impotent. Their political influence has declined almost inexorably.

The transformation of social structures, institutions and laws has also tended to evacuate the political sphere across participation, representativeness and legitimacy, making the ‘losers’ increasingly unable to resist neoliberalism, and even to conceptualize alternatives to this system of accumulation.2 These processes help to explain the worldwide decline of left-wing parties, their supporting organizations, trade unions, and other forms of collective representation. While this has supported the consolidation of neoliberalism, it has also promoted mass disengagement from conventional politics, created powerful tendencies toward apathy and anomie, and undermined the ideological hegemony and political legitimacy of neoliberalism: with the erosion of the credibility of traditional parties, leaders and organizations, the institutional paths to dissent have contracted sharply.

Large social groups are aware of their losses under neoliberalism and, increasingly, distrust the ‘democratic’ institutions that systematically support the reproduction of neoliberalism and bypass their dissatisfactions. These groups are systematically led by right-wing politicians and the mainstream media to blame ‘the other’ for the disasters inflicted by neoliberalism – especially the poor, immigrants, foreign countries, and minority religions.

The rise of authoritarian neoliberalism has been compared to the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s but, despite important similarities, these processes are fundamentally distinct. In particular, authoritarian leaders in Austria, Egypt, Hungary, India, Italy, Poland, Russia, Thailand, Turkey and elsewhere took power not through street clashes between their militias and a strong communist movement, but by means of political tricks, expensive publicity, modern technologies, planned agitation and brute force. They seek to impose a radically neoliberal programme justified by a conservative and nationalist discourse. This is not a policy drawing upon mass organization, but the ploy of ambitious swindlers, power-hungry demagogues, and political illusionists exploiting the fractures in the neoliberal order.

The paradox of authoritarian neoliberalism is that it promotes the personalization of politics through ‘spectacular’ (often fleeting) leaders, operating in the absence of intermediary institutions (parties, trade unions, social movements and, ultimately, the law), and who are strongly committed both to neoliberalism and to the expansion of their own personal power. Interestingly, these leaders promote economic programmes that harm their own political base, as they promote radicalized forms of globalization and financialization that increase further the power of the neoliberal elite. Society is divided even more deeply, wages fall, taxes becomes more regressive, social protections are eroded, economies become more unbalanced, and poverty tends to grow. Mass frustration intensifies, fueling an unfocused discontent: authoritarian neoliberalism is intrinsically unstable, and it creates conditions supporting the rise of contemporary forms of fascism.3

From the Politics of Alliances to the Rise of the Far Right

The political history of Brazil in the last 15 years can be read off from the power struggles between clashing alliances. Between 1999 and 2005, Lula and the PT built an ‘alliance of losers’, including groups having in common only the experience of losses under neoliberalism. They included the urban and rural unionized working class, especially the skilled manual and office workers, the lower ranks of the civil service and sectors of the professional middle class; large segments of the informal working class; several prominent capitalists, especially among the internal bourgeoisie; and right-wing oligarchs, landowners, and local politicians from impoverished regions.

Between 2005 and 2013, Lula and Dilma Rousseff led an ‘alliance of winners’, including those groups that had won the most during the PT administrations; in particular, the internal bourgeoisie, most formal sector workers, and large segments of the informal working class. In contrast with the alliance of losers, the alliance of winners has a narrower top, due to the loss of support from the internationalized bourgeoisie, the mainstream media and the middle class, and a massively larger base, especially among the informal workers.

The Rousseff administration recomposed its base of support and, between 2013-14, relied on a ‘progressive alliance’ including mainly the organized formal workers, a large mass of disorganized working poor, and leftist groups organized into parties, social movements and NGOs. Once again, the alliance had narrowed at the top and widened at the base. This was sufficient to secure Rousseff’s re-election in 2014, but the disorganized support of the poor would prove to be unable to sustain her in power. The following years were marked by the weakening and erosion of the progressive alliance, culminating in the impeachment of the president when her mass support had become extremely low.

In contrast, the opposition has clustered around a growing ‘neoliberal alliance’ or an elite-led ‘alliance of privilege’. It includes the internationalized bourgeoisie, the vast majority of the urban middle class and small and mid-sized entrepreneurs, the mainstream media and sections of the informal workers, many of them having benefitted greatly during the PT governments, and clustered around ultra-conservative evangelical sects. The capture of the Executive by the alliance of privilege, with the support of a large mass of the poor, was part of a process of demolition of democracy, seeking to destroy any political space by which the majority could control any part of the state, or any tool of public policy.

The Improbable Rise of Jair Bolsonaro

Five years of political tensions and degradation of democracy culminated in the 2018 presidential elections. The electoral process revolved around the confrontation between two political phenomena of great historical significance. On the one hand, the extraordinary political talent of Lula, who, even from jail, managed to put together an alternative candidate and outsmart his potential competitors in the center-left, paving the way for Fernando Haddad’s exponential growth in opinion polls.

However, Lula’s political acumen was unable to stem the tide of a far right mass movement led by an obscure Deputy who emerged far ahead in the first round of the elections. Despite frequent comparisons with U.S. President Donald Trump (who had a successful career on TV, if not in business), Jair Bolsonaro stands out for having failed at everything he tried to do before the elections, whether as a military officer (frustrated career), terrorist (amateur) or Federal Deputy (ineffective). Despite this history of fiascos, Bolsonaro made enormous gains, both among capital – desperate for any viable alternative to the PT – and among the workers (especially the informal working class), who flocked to Bolsonaro in the millions during the campaign.

Mass support for the incompetent fascist was supported by four platforms: the fight against corruption (the traditional way in which the right gains mass traction in Brazil, for example, in 1954, 1960, 1989 and 2013); conservative moralism (pushed by the evangelical churches); the claim that ‘security’ can be achieved through state-sponsored violence (which resonates strongly in a country with over 60,000 murders per year, in addition to tens of thousands of other violent crimes), and a neoliberal economic discourse centred on slashing a (presumably corrupt) state, that is parasitical upon the ‘honest’ citizens. The rupture of the progressive alliance and the haemorrhage of poor voters toward Bolsonaro is the Brazilian version of the process of consolidation of an electoral majority for authoritarian neoliberalism in other countries.

Defeating the PT and overthrowing Dilma Rousseff were, then, part of a wider process of displacement of the political center of gravity in Brazil upwards (within the social pyramid), and to the right (in terms of the political spectrum). These shifts have created, for the first time in more than half a century, a far-right mass movement with broad penetration in society. This not only drained the potential support for the PT candidate, but also led to the implosion of the traditional center-right parties, which were devastated by the rise of Jair Bolsonaro. Political chaos has seized the country.

The Impasse

In the short term, the Brazilian political impasse implies that the administration to be inaugurated in 2019 will be inevitably unstable, and over time, the 1988 Constitution is likely to become unviable, leading to the disintegration of democracy.

Any elected president would have serious difficulties governing with a sluggish economy, a hostile Congress, an overly autonomous Judiciary making a habit of trespassing into the other republican powers, excited Armed Forces, and a Constitutional amendment setting a ceiling on fiscal expenditures for the next 20 years (which will slowly throttle public administration). At the level of popular mobilization, since 2013 the streets are no longer the monopoly of the left; they now include large masses on the far right, surrounded by a violent fringe.

A centre-left president would find a state in worse situation than Lula found it in 2003, because of the institutionalization of the neoliberal reforms imposed by the Temer administration. These constraints would make it difficult to govern without a constitutional reform; however, a constituent assembly would inevitably be dominated by the right, which would seek to impose an even worse Constitution than the current one: the left is discredited, disorganized, and institutionally immobilized.

A far-right president, with no experience of government, without the support of a stable party structure, and unprepared in every way, will have to confront History: Presidents Janio Quadros and Fernando Collor were also elected by elite alliances that had traded common sense for a victory at the polls; both administrations were cut short.

In a decentralized political system, authoritarian leaders face grave difficulties to govern, regardless of their legitimacy or social basis. Further, the ‘coalition presidentialism’ instituted by the Brazilian Constitution demands continuous negotiations in Congress, always running the risk of breaking the law, especially when the President has few reliable allies at the top, or is being challenged by a mass opposition.

In addition to these broad principles, the 2018 elections have led to five specific lessons. First, the political centre of gravity in Brazil has shifted to the right. From the south to the centre-west, passing through the prosperous south-east, the right-wing electorate has achieved a solid majority. Given the importance of these regions, the left is electorally hemmed in. Second, Bolsonaro’s rise derives from the combination of class hatred in a society bearing huge scars from centuries of slavery, recent right-wing insurrections, and transparent U.S.-led intervention in the Brazilian political process. Third, since 2013, Brazilian politics has been defined by a convergence of dissatisfactions that has consolidated a neoliberal alliance around an economic and political programme that is economically excluding and destructive of citizenship.

Fourth, the Brazilian right is deeply divided. While the left, in defensive mode, can unite under Lula’s shadow, the right – surprisingly, given its hegemony over the institutions of the state and its ability to overthrow Dilma Rousseff – cannot generate leaders worthy of note, nor unify around its own programme of radical neoliberal reforms. Its traditional political parties are imploding, leaving in power a rabble of inexperienced, inept, idiosyncratic, and reactionary politicians.

Fifth, the worst economic contraction recorded in Brazil’s history and the most severe political impasse in the past century have degraded profoundly Brazilian democracy, and made it impossible for any plausible composition of political forces to stabilize the system of accumulation. The tendency, then, is for these impasses to be resolved by extra-constitutional means. This will be an inglorious end to a democratic experiment that has marked two generations, and that achieved unquestionable successes. Unfortunately, it has proved impossible to resolve the conflict between neoliberalism and democracy in Brazil, inside the political arena built in the transition after the military dictatorship. •

I am grateful to Tanaya Jagtiani and Lecio Morais for their valuable contributions to this piece. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes

  1. Noam Chomsky correctly described Lula as “the most prominent political prisoner in the world” (accessed 16 October 2018).
  2. See M. Boffo, B. Fine and A. Saad-Filho, “Neoliberal Capitalism: The Authoritarian Turn,” Socialist Register 2019, pp.247-270.
  3. “Neoliberalism … has helped create the conditions for the re-emergence of the far-right whilst, at the same time, the far-right has focused on attacking what it sees as the symptoms of neoliberalism through racializing its social, political and economic effects … It is not then that neoliberalism causesracism in the sense that racism is an organic dimension of it, but rather that neoliberalism is grounded on a collective socio-economic insecurity that helps facilitate a revival of pre-existing racialized imaginaries of solidarity” (N. Davidson and R. Saull, “Neoliberalism and the Far-Right: A Contradictory Embrace,” Critical Sociology, 43(4-5), 2017, pp.715-716.

Alfredo Saad-Filho is Professor of Political Economy in the Department of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London. His research interests include the political economy of neoliberalism, industrial policy, alternative macroeconomic policies, and the labour theory of value and its applications.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil: The Collapse of Democracy? Rise of the Far Right

       Bankers, agro-business elites, commercial mega owners, manufacturing, real estate and insurance bosses and their financial advisers, elite members of the ‘ruling class’, have launched a full-scale attack on private and public wage and salary workers,and small and medium size entrepreneurs (the members of the ‘popular classes’).  The attack has targeted income ,pensions, medical plans, workplace conditions, job security, rents, mortgages, educational costs, taxation,undermining   family and household cohesion.

     Big business has weakened or abolished political and social organizations which challenge the distribution of income and profits and influence the rates of workplace output.  In brief the ruling classes have intensified  exploitation and oppression through the ‘class struggle’ from above.

       We will proceed by identifying the means, methods and socio-political conditions which have advanced the class struggle from above and, conversely, reversed and weakened the class struggle from below.

Historical Context

          The class struggle is the major determinant of the advances and regression of the interests of the capitalist class.  Following the Second World War, the popular classes experienced steady advances in income, living standards, and work place representation. However by the last decade of the 20th century the balance of power between the ruling and popular classes began to shift ,as a new ‘neo-liberal’ development paradigm became prevalent.

      First and foremost, the state ceased to negotiate and conciliate relations between rulers and the working class:  the state concentrated on de-regulating the economy, reducing corporate taxes, and eliminating labor’s role in politics and the division of profits and income.

        The concentration of state power and income was not uncontested and was not uniform in all regions and countries.  Moreover, counter-cyclical trends, reflecting shifts in the balance of the class struggle precluded a linear process.  In Europe, the Nordic and Western European countries’ ruling classes advanced privatization of public enterprises,  reduced social welfare costs and benefits, and pillaged overseas resources but were unable to break the state funded welfare system.  In Latin America the advance and regression of the power, income and welfare of the popular class, correlated with the outcome of the class and state struggle.

      The United States witnessed the ruling class take full control of the state, the workplace and distribution of social expenditures.

     In brief, by the end of the 20th century, the ruling class advanced in assuming a dominant role in the class struggle.

      Nevertheless, the class struggle from below retained its presence, and in some places, namely in Latin America, the popular classes were able to secure a share of state power – at least temporarily.

Popular Power:  Contesting the Class Struggle from Above

      Latin America is a prime example of the uneven trajectory of the class struggle.

      Between the end of World War Two and the late 1940’s, the popular classes were able to secure democratic rights, populist reforms and social organization.  Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela were among the leading examples.  By the early 1950’s with the onset of the US imperialist ‘cold war’, in collaboration with the regional ruling classes launched a violent class war from above, which took the form of military coups in Guatemala, Peru, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil.  The populist class struggle was defeated by the US backed military- business  rulers who, temporarily imposed US agro-mineral export economies.

      The 1950’s were the ‘golden epoch’ for the advance of US multi-nationals and  Pentagon designed regional military alliances.  But the class struggle from below rose again and found expression in the growth of a progressive national populist industrializing coalition,and the successful Cuban  socialist regime and its followers in  revolutionary social movements in the rest of Latin America throughout  the 1960’s.

      The revolutionary popular class insurgency of the early 1960’s was countered by the ruling class seizure of power backed by military-US led coups  between 1964-1976  which demolished the regimes and institutions of  the popular classes in Brazil (1964), Bolivia (1970), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976) , Peru (1973) and elsewhere.

Pinochet Military Junta, Chile 1973

     Economic crises of the early 1980s reduced the role of the military and led to a ‘negotiated transition’ in which the ruling class advanced a neo-liberal agenda in exchange for electoral participation under military and US tutelage.

      Lacking direct military rule, the ruling class struggle succeeded in muting the  popular class struggle by co-opting the center-left political elites.  The ruling class did not or could not establish hegemony over the popular classes even as they proceeded with their neo-liberal agenda.

          With the advent of the 21st century a new cycle in the class struggle from below burst forth.  Three events intersected:  the global crises of 2000 triggered regional financial crashes, which in turn led to a collapse of industries and mass unemployment, which intensified mass direct action and the ouster of the neo-liberal regimes.  Throughout the first decade  of the 21stcentury, neo-liberalism was in retreat.  The popular class struggle and the rise of social movements displaced the neo-liberal regimes but was incapable of replacing the ruling classes.  Instead hybrid center-left electoral regimes took power.

     The new power configuration incorporated popular social movements, center-left parties and neo-liberal business elites.  Over the next decade the cross-class alliance advanced largely because of the commodity boom which financed welfare programs, increased employment, implemented poverty reduction programs and expanded  investments in infrastructure.  Post-neoliberal regimes co-opted the leaders of the popular classes, replaced ruling class political elites but did  not displace the strategic structural positions of the business ruling class..

      The upsurge of the popular class struggle was contained and confined by the center-left political elite, while the ruling class marked time, making business deals to secure lucrative state contracts via bribes to the ruling center-left allied with the conservative political elite .

      The end of the commodity boom, forced the center-left to curtail its social welfare and infrastructure programs  and fractured the  alliance between big business leaders  and center-left political elites.  The ensuing economic recession facilitated the return of the neo-liberal political elite to power.

     The big business ruling class learned their lessons from their previous experience with weak and conciliating neo-liberal regimes.  They sought authoritarian and, if possible rabble rousing political leaders, who could dismantle the popular organizations, and gutted popular welfare programs and democratic institutions, which previously blocked the consolidation of the neo-liberal New Order.

The Neo-Liberal  New Order

      The neo-liberal “New Order” differed substantially from the past in several significant features.

      First neo-liberal programs under the New Order were based on highly repressive leaders – they did not merely depend on ‘market discipline’ and state promoted programs.  Authoritarian political regimes established a framework to finance, protect and promote the consolidation of neo-liberal systemic changes.

     Secondly, political ascendancy of the New Order relied on a coalition of ruling class elites, conservative upper middle-class property and professional groups and downwardly mobile lower middle classes fearful of personal and economic insecurity and the breakdown of the old social order.

      Thirdly, the New Order was led by a demagogic leadership that called on  direct political intervention, by  retired and active military and police officials backed by armed landowner militia , lumpen street fighters ( private gangsters) willing to intimidate leftist workers, landless peasants and unemployed trade unionists.

     Fourthly the New Order elites mobilized the mass base of religious fundamentalists by targeting ‘marginal groups’(gays, people of color, feminists,immigrants etc) who were portrayed as enemies of  the family,nation and religion.

      Fifthly ,the New Order deflected popular discontent to leftist corruption,immorality and impotence to combat crime in the streets.

       The New Order is built on perpetuating neo-liberal ruling elites by destroying the political,social and economic institutions and rules of the previous electoral order(‘democracy’).

In a word , big business led class struggle from above was not interested in free market ‘reforms’, the want it all-power ,profits,and privilege-without obligations,regulations or constrains.

The Future of the Neo-Liberal “New Order”

     The  authoritarian New Order has gained powerful patrons in rulers like US Presidents Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.  They have neo-liberal allies in Argentina, Central America , Europe , Asia and the Middle East.  They have embraced a powerful message of political-military bullying of traditional allies , economic warfare against dynamic competitors and a glorified vision of national grandeur to its mass followers.

      Initially, the business elites prosper,  the stock markets rise, taxes are  lowered and state subsidies fuel euphoria and hopes among the masses that ‘their turn is next’.  Profits and  police state ‘law and order’, link the business elite with the affluent middle class.

      The combative popular classes are demoralized and disoriented by failed leaders and the retreat of social movements and trade unions from the  class struggle

      In contrast the international alliance of the authoritarian big business neo-liberals has a vision of globel , regional and national power.

     However sustaining their advance is conditional on dynamic economic growth and overcoming cyclical economic crises; on subverting class struggle from below; on finding substitute adversaries, as older ones lose thru mystifying appeals.

      The corruption of upwardly mobile middle-class rabble rousers will disillusion their voluntary followers. Arbitrary  police and military repression usually extends to extortion and intimidation beyond the drug slums to the middle and working-class neighborhoods.

      The authoritarian New Order usually begins to decline through ‘internal rot’ – uber- profiteering and flagrant abuse of work.

      The rightist rhetoric turns against itself as its followers engage in invidious distinctions.  The ruling class looks to shed its authoritarian shock troops and replace them with technocrats., free marketeers and malleable bourgeois politicians.  The left and center-left looks to attract a new generation of followers in the street protests and seeks to form alliances with readily available opportunist politicians.  A new political cycle takes shape – but will a new popular class struggle emerge?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Business Strikes Back: The Class Struggle from Above. The Neo-Liberal “New Order”

Elements responsible for both incidents had a specific objective in mind.

In his important book on the anthrax attacks, titled “The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy,” Graeme MacQueen connected the incidents to 9/11.

Falsely blamed on Muslim jihadists and their backers, the incidents were used to launch Washington’s global war OF terror, not on it.

They unjustifiably justified passage of the police state USA Patriot Act, trampling on the Bill of Rights.

The legislation was written, on the shelf, ready to go long before 9/11 – awaiting a pretext to introduce and enact what no free society would tolerate.

The measure changed 15 US laws – for the first time creating the crime of domestic terrorism, defined as “acts dangerous to human life.”

Henceforth, anti-war/global justice demonstrations, environmental or animal rights activism, civil disobedience, resisting tyranny, and dissent of any kind may be called “domestic terrorism.”

Other police state laws, presidential executive orders, national security and homeland security presidential directives, along other freedom-destroying actions followed – notably joint House/Senate Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

It launched endless US-led wars of aggression, smashing one country after another, wanting their governments replaced by pro-Western puppet rule – 17 years later continuing with no end of them in prospect.

Graeme made a compelling case, connecting the anthrax attacks to 9/11 – both state-sponsored, both transformational, most Americans none the wiser about how they were deceived. The deception continues to the present.

The mail bombs also likely had a specific purpose, unexplained by major media – sent only to Trump critics, including Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, John Brennan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, George Soros, CNN, and actor Robert De Niro.

None exploded. No one was hurt. Like 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, they aimed to transfix the nation on what happened, create alarm, and sow fear.

The earlier incidents aimed to launch US forever wars and destroy fundamental civil liberties.

The mail bombs were likely all about influencing the upcoming November 6 midterm elections, undemocratic Dem dark forces likely behind them, hoping the incident translates into winning back House and/or Senate control – wanting elements connected to or supporting Trump blamed for what happened.

James Fetzer explained the mail bombs stunt as follows, saying they suspiciously “turn(ed) up in the US mail delivered within close proximity of one another to prominent Democrats,” adding:

They appear “to be a desperate stunt by the Democrats to gain sympathy and trash Trump before the midterm elections, which are going very badly for them.”

“Liberal extremists have made horrific threats against the president in the past…Madonna shared her dreams of ‘blowing up the White House’ and comedian Kathy Griffin has held (what simulated) the severed head of Donald Trump.”

Relentless Trump bashing throughout the 2016 presidential campaign and since he took office by Dems and major media (notably the NYT, CIA-connected Washington Post and CNN) makes it appear that the mail bomb incident was a “ ‘false flag’ political event” connected to the November midterms?

On Thursday, NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd said “I have this fear that it could be some Russian operation,” adding the mail bombs incident “is dividing us.”

The phony accusation is related to Hillary Clinton and other prominent Dems, falsely accusing Trump of “collusion” and “ties with the Kremlin,” despite not a shred of evidence suggesting it.

Reuters reported that the design of the mail bombs sent resemble similar ones distributed in propaganda material by ISIS and al-Qaeda. Neither group claimed responsibility for sending them.

Saying “political violence ha(s) no place in the United States,” along with calling for unity in the wake of the mail bombs incident harming no one, Trump ignored Washington’s war on humanity at home and abroad.

His regime escalated what it inherited from the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama.

Endless US wars of aggression he decried while campaigning rage. Extreme US hostility toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and other sovereign independent states risk greater imperial madness than already.

Major media transfixing the nation on the mail bombs political stunt diverts attention from what’s most important to report.

Fake bombs hurt no one. Real ones massacre countless numbers of civilians and others in all US war theaters.

The carnage continues daily, largely unreported, most Americans mindless about what’s going on.

Their attention is diverted to bread and circuses, along with incidents like fake mail bombs, intended to scare and likely achieve a political aim, not cause harm.

That’s how manipulating the public mind works.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mail Bombs to Trump Critics Reminiscent of Post-9/11 Anthrax Attacks?

“Regrettably, though, the idea of the benevolent autocrat, the just dictator, is being revived in the Arab world.“ Jamal Khashoggi (1958-2018), Saudi Arabian journalist, a permanent resident of the United States and a Washington Post Global Opinions contributing columnist, assassinated by the Saudi government of Mohammed bin Salman (1985- ), in Istanbul, Turkey, on Tues. Oct. 2, 2018. (In a keynote speech at a conference in April 2018 organized by the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in Washington D.C.)

They [The Saudis] had a very bad original concept, it was carried out poorly, and the cover-up was one of the worst in the history of cover-ups. (…) Very simple, bad deal; should never have been thought of. Somebody really messed up. And they had the worst cover-up ever. And where it should have stopped is at the deal standpoint.

Whoever thought of that idea [of assassinating Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi], I think, is in big trouble, and they should be in big trouble.” Donald Trump (1946- ), current American President, (statement made to reporters, on Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2018, in the Oval Office)

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher.

***

As a politician, Donald Trump is the image of the United States government, which attempts to maintain the American military-industrial complex. He needs “enemies”. He seems to need “enemies” to establish his own political identity and to possibly deflect attention from his own flaws. He has no adversaries; he has “enemies”, whom he brands “enemies of the people”.

This is not a trivial matter because this is a totalitarian rhetoric. Indeed, some violent, oppressive and fascist dictators and demagogues have been known to use the epithet in the past. We think of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in Nazi Germany, Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) and Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) in the old USSR. Their aim: to stir up political hate and to delegitimize their “enemies” and anybody who dared to criticize their totalitarian governments. Mind you, those were bona fide dictators. That Donald Trump casually uses violent political rhetoric to delegitimize his opponents should be a source of concern for anyone who values democracy.

Donald Trump has called the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, an “enemy”, going so far as accusing her of being crooked, without advancing any evidence for such a serious accusation. He has also called the free press and journalists his “enemies”. He brands them as “fake news media”. He has often attacked athletes and Hollywood stars in the same manner, and he has insulted scores of others. Trump has bullied everybody else, including the Fed Chairman who should have politely told him that his reckless pro-cyclical economic policies are politically motivated and are contrary to good economic management.

That politician Donald Trump can get away with such rowdy and incoherent behavior is most astonishing. At the United Nations, in September, he was openly laughed at, and he has become a source of derision and fear around the world. His blind supporters do not see that, but the world does.

In a true democracy, leaders do not vie for absolute power for themselves or their family, and do not consider those who run for office in free elections as being “enemies”, but as legitimate opponents. Calling political adversaries who advance different political proposals “enemies” is the language of dictators and autocrats.

On the other hand, President Donald Trump seems to have a penchant, if not an open admiration, for autocrats and totalitarian leaders in other countries. For example, he has professed to be an admirer of communist China President-for-life Xi Jinping, going as far as publicly joking that this was “great” and that “maybe, we’ll have to give that a shot some day!” Donald Trump has also been cozy with North Korean dictator Kim Jung-un, with Turkish autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with Philippines dictator-to-be Rodrigo Duerte and with other similar junta autocrats or tyrants while turninga blind eye to their records of brutality and oppression. The world is now witnessing this with astonishment, because it is a throwback to the 1930s, when many democracies were replaced by dictatorships.

Donald Trump’s Special Relationship with the murderous regime of Saudi Arabia Prince Mohammed bin Salman

However, nothing beats the efforts Donald Trump made to jump to the defense of the Saudi government and to cover up the assassination and dismemberment (with a bone saw) of Saudi journalist and U.S. permanent resident Jamal Khashoggi. That odious crime was carried out by a Saudi 15-man kill commando in the Saudi Arabia Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on October 2, 2018. Initially, Trump said that he talked to Prince Mohammed bin Salman who assured him that “he had not given the order” for Khashoggi’s assassination, even though some of the killers were members of his entourage and were his bodyguards. Then, Trump went out of his way to say “he believed” bin Salman’s denials, as if an alleged killer would admit such a barbarous crime!

When the Saudi government came up with the most outlandish fabrication that the journalist had died in a “fistfight” with a 15-man kill commando who had come from Saudi Arabia to assassinate him, Trump declared that the Saudi claims were “credible”, even though the entire world met such claims with derision. Indeed, it defies logic and common sense that in a totalitarian religious state like Saudi Arabia, paid agents of the government would take it upon themselves to assassinate and dismember a known critique of the regime, and do that in a foreign country, without an explicit go ahead from the very top.

However, when the dismembered parts of the journalist’s body were found in the garden of the Saudi consul general’s home in Istanbul, and when the Turkish government declared that it had evidence that Khashoggi’s assassination inside the Saudi Consulate was premeditated and carefully planned, and that “from the person who gave the order, to the person who carried it out, they must all be brought to account”, Trump’s attempt to cover up bin Salman’s crime became untenable.

Then, Trump stated that the killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul was “a bad deal” (sic) and that “someone really messed up.” He went on to announce cosmetic “sanctions” against the members of the killing commando, but without mentioning the higher-ups who ordered the killing and especially, without implicating the alleged culprit, Mohammed bin Salman.

Donald Trump seems to place emphasis on the way the Saudis have “botched” the crime, not that they had “committed” the crime in the first place. Some say that Donald Trump is an amoral and immoral person, being unable to rely on any personal ethics to distinguish right from wrong, in order to assess a situation. This could be a vivid example.

Conclusion

As days go by and President Donald Trump reels from crisis to crisis, my assessment of the man from day one stands, i.e. that ruthless businessman Trump’s imperial presidency is “a threat to American democracy and an agent of chaos in the world”.

 

Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, and of  “The New American Empire”, and the recently published book, in French « La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018 ».

Dr. Tremblay’s sitehttp://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/

Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on About Politicians who Befriend Criminals in Power. Donald Trump Needs “Enemies”

As pressure continues to mount over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Washington and London are weighing their next moves

As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) comes under increasing pressure over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, policymakers in Washington and London have one overriding priority: to preserve the House of Saud, a military and economic ally in which they have invested so much. Yet, if Mohammed bin Salman cannot be retained, the UK and US will likely work to ensure some face-saving transfer of power to one of his relatives.It has already been reported that members of the ruling family have begun discussing the possibility of replacing the crown prince. But there is also a little-known precedent for a Western role in the removal of a Saudi leader.

Promoting a palace coup

Declassified British files show that Britain previously covertly supported a palace coup in Saudi Arabia involving Mohammed bin Salman’s forebears in the House of Saud. The coup occurred as long ago as 1964, but has eerie echoes to the present. It helped then Crown Prince Faisal oust his older brother King Saud, who had ruled since 1953 and was backed by the British to preserve the House of Saud.

Faisal, like bin Salman now, had by the late 1950s become the real force in Saudi Arabia and was running the government. But in December 1963, King Saud attempted to reassert his power by deploying troops and guns outside his palace in Riyadh. A tense standoff with forces loyal to Faisal continued into 1964, when Saud demanded that Faisal dismiss two of his ministers and replace them with the king’s sons.

Britain backed the 1964 palace coup for a particular reason: it viewed King Saud as incompetent and opposed to introducing the political reforms necessary to keep the House of Saud from being overthrown

However, crucial support for Faisal was provided by the National Guard, the then 20,000-strong body responsible for protecting the royal family. The commander of the National Guard at the time was Prince Abdullah, who would later become king until his death in 2015, when he was succeeded by his half-brother, King Salman – the father of Mohammed bin Salman.

Who was the force then behind the Saudi Arabian National Guard? Then, as now, it was Britain, which had a military mission in the country following a Saudi request in 1963. The declassified files show that two British advisers to the National Guard, Brigadier Kenneth Timbrell and Colonel Nigel Bromage, drew up plans on Abdullah’s express wish for the “protection of Faisal”, “defence of the regime”, “occupation of certain points” and “denial of the radio station to all but those supported by the National Guard”.

King Faisal at Jeddah, 1965

These British plans ensured Faisal’s personal protection, with the aim of ensuring that full power would be transferred to him, which duly occurred when Saud was forced to abdicate.

Preserving the House of Saud

Britain backed the 1964 palace coup for a particular reason: It viewed King Saud as incompetent and opposed to introducing the political reforms necessary to keep the House of Saud from being overthrown. Frank Brenchley, the charge d’affaires in the British embassy in Jeddah, wrote that “the sands of time have steadily been running out for the Saudi regime”, the major factor then being the nationalist revolution in neighbouring Yemen and the intervention of Egyptian troops there, which challenged Saudi authority in Arabia.

Brenchley noted that, in contrast to Saud, “Faisal knows that he must bring about reforms quickly if the regime is to survive. Hampered everywhere by a lack of trained administrators, he is struggling to speed evolution in order to avert revolution”.

British training of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), including arms exports to it, was greatly expanded after 1964. Today, Britain has dozens of military personnel advising the SANG and a major project helping it with “communications”. The SANG’s role remains overwhelmingly focused on promoting “internal security” – that is, preserving the House of Saud.

The US has an even bigger training and “modernisation” programme for the SANG – worth $4bn – and is now more likely to play a similar role to that of Britain in 1964.

Echoes in Yemen

What also has echoes from the past is that in the mid-1960s, Britain was conniving with the Saudis in a war in Yemen that was as brutal as the present one. A popular coup in September 1962 by republican forces deposed the imam, Muhammad al-Badr, who had been in power for a week after the death of his father, a feudal autocrat who had ruled since 1948. The imam’s forces took to the hills and declared an insurgency, while Britain and Saudi Arabia soon began a covert war to support them that lasted throughout the 1960s.

The British establishment’s fear was that the popular republican government in Yemen, backed by Nasser’s Egypt, would threaten the House of Saud and spread to the other British-controlled feudal sheikhdoms in Arabia. By the time the war fizzled out in 1969, the death toll might have been up to 200,000. Then, as now, human lives were seen as insignificant to London and Riyadh when compared with high policy.

The British-backed palace coup in 1964 also reinforced the role of Wahhabist ideology in the country. In March 1964, the Saudi religious leadership (the ulema) issued a fatwa sanctioning the transfer of power to Faisal as being based on sharia law; two days later, King Saud abdicated.

Reflecting on the coup, then British Ambassador Colin Crowe noted that “what may also be serious in the long-term” about the transfer of power to Faisal, “is the bringing of the ulemainto the picture, and they may exact a price for their support”. His comments proved prescient as the alliance between Wahhabism and the House of Saud would go on to promote extremism, involving the backing of terrorist forces, in various places around the world.

The friend and ally

The British government has condemned Khashoggi’s killing and supports an investigation. But it is still referring to Riyadh as a “friend and ally” and emphasising its “important strategic partnership” involving the military and trade. But how likely is it that a Saudi leader with blood on his hands can really keep up the pretence to the Western public that things are improving in the region?

London and Washington will need a revolution in their thinking to become part of the solution rather than remaining part of the problem

London and Washington may end up preferring a repeat of 1964: to put another “Saudi” in power. Yet, much better for Saudis and the world would be something altogether different, as recently argued by Madawi Al-Rasheed: allowing people the experience of participating in government and decision-making, including freedom of speech, in a gradual transformation of Saudi Arabia into a democratic system.

In this, London and Washington will need a revolution in their thinking to become part of the solution rather than remaining part of the problem.

Mark Curtis is a historian and analyst of UK foreign policy and international development and the author of six books, the latest being an updated edition of Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam. Mark Curtis is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Photo: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on 23 October 2018 (AFP)

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will the US and UK seek a Palace Coup against Mohammed bin Salman?

The US Defense Department is expected to approve as early as next week the deployment of 800 to 1,000 active duty troops, mostly from the Army and Air Force, to the US-Mexico border, according to Trump administration officials.

While media reports indicated that details have not been finalized, this is the most concrete indication so far that the Pentagon plans to deploy troops domestically against the “caravan” of thousands of Central American migrants, mostly families with women and children that are currently crossing Mexico and seeking to reach the US.

The comments made by the US officials and media commenters sought to minimize the significance of the deployment, stating that the troops will be composed of engineers, aviation support, doctors and lawyers. Troops can still carry arms, CNN cites a military official, but “solely for self-defense.”

However, the unofficial announcement comes exactly one week after Trump first threatened to “call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” He called the caravan an “onslaught” and said that the impoverished workers and peasants are “hardened criminals,” while making unfounded and racist claims that “Middle-Easterners” have joined it.

On Thursday morning, Trump restated his threat to deploy the military on Twitter, calling it a “National Emergency” and adding, “They will be stopped!” The previous night at a rally in Wisconsin he said the military was “all set” to be sent against the migrants.

Such a move would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the armed forces from carrying out domestic law-enforcement activities, excluding the National Guard. While US officials speaking to CNN denied that troops would deal directly with the caravan, a myriad of provocations can be construed to justify their direct intervention, which could turn into a massacre of unarmed workers and children on the basis of “self-defense.”

Last weekend, at the Guatemala-Mexico border, about 400 Mexican antiriot police began an assault against the migrants by tackling and shooting tear-gas canisters against the defenseless families seeking to cross the bridge toward the port of entry. Some migrants responded by throwing rocks, sandals and other objects, which led to an even more aggressive attack by the police.

While not confirming the deployment, Captain Bill Speaks, spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, wrote in an email to Military Timesthat the Department of Defense will “ensure the safety and security of the CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] personnel involved in border security operations.”

The troops are expected to join the 2,100 National Guardsmen already deployed across the US-Mexico border in late May.

The move is bound up with Trump’s efforts to exploit the caravan to ramp up nationalist and xenophobic sentiments ahead of the November 6 midterm elections in the United States.

The caravan has become a massive demonstration of workers. As they marched into Mexico, the 7,000-strong caravan chanted “Migrants are not criminals! We are international workers!” Mexican workers and peasants have warmly welcomed them with food, supplies and lifts.

The domestic deployment of the military against immigrants is a serious warning to the entire working class in the United States and internationally, immigrant or native-born alike. The ruling class is ready to respond to any defiance to the foundations of capitalist rule by proclaiming a “national emergency” and employing deadly repression.

As the Pentagon escalates its military confrontations against its main geopolitical rivals, the US ruling class is preparing to suppress all political dissent. The domestic deployment of troops is a precedent for waging total war against rivals abroad and social opposition at home.

On Tuesday, US Vice President Mike Pence told the media that the Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernández, had assured him that the caravan was being “organized by leftist organizations and financed by Venezuela,” which Trump has referred to repeatedly as “socialist.” Such arguments seek to characterize the migrants as a “foreign invasion” to create a ready-made pretext for a violent attack against the migrants.

The Mexican and Guatemalan authorities have also deployed their militaries to stop the caravan. The Guatemalan government reported that it has sent back about 4,000 Honduran migrants. It placed military personnel and barbed wire at the main highway into the country from Honduras, at Agua Caliente. However, about 2.500 Hondurans who crossed into Guatemala on Tuesday successfully repelled the Guatemalan police and military officials who were requesting documentation and seeking to make arrests. According to the Guatemalan Prensa Libre, they simply marched forward as a group.

The current Central American caravan across southern Mexico and Guatemala is estimated at 14,000 migrants, according to the Mexican El Universal, with additional contingents planned. The main body leading the caravan yesterday left the town of Mapastepec in the Mexican state of Chiapas, about 95 miles from the Guatemalan border.

The migrants are at least 1,000 miles from the US border. There can be long pauses to regroup as the caravan faces the efforts of Mexican authorities to divide, detain and deport the migrants. It is therefore uncertain when it will reach the US and how large it will be.

The fascistic policy of the Trump administration builds on measures previously supported and implemented by the Democratic administration of Barack Obama, which presided over more deportations than any other. While Trump has taken these policies to a new level, the parallels of both administrations include family separations, the deployment of the National Guard to the border, the expansion of surveillance and physical barriers at the border, the deportation of minors, and the buildup and use of the Mexican armed forces as an extension of the US border patrol.

Policies such as the separation and prolonged detention of migrant families violate US and international law, constituting torture and crimes against humanity. Moreover, the attempted deportation of a Salvadoran mother and daughter in August in the middle of an ongoing hearing demonstrates the sheer lawlessness with which the government is carrying out its policies.

Trump’s threat to force migrants to apply for asylum in Mexico before reaching the US is another breach of US and international law.

The response of the Democratic Party to Trump’s onslaught against immigrants was characterized by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who told Democratic candidates this month that insisting on criticizing Trump’s anti-immigrant policies was a “waste of energy.” Even after Trump’s threats against the caravan, Democratic leaders kept accusing Trump for “changing the topic.”

The Democrats have instead focused their electoral appeals on stoking militarism and anti-Russia hysteria to portray Trump as “too soft” on Russia. In addition to seeking to compel Trump to adopt a more aggressive stance against Russia, this campaign has been used to attack basic democratic rights, including through internet censorship.

Democratic legislators have led an offensive for pressuring the Ecuadorian government to hand over WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, calling him a “threat to global security,” while seeking to incriminate him as an actor in the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Without WikiLeaks, Americans and the world would not know the extent of the lies and US cover-up of the Honduran military coup of June 28, 2009 that installed a regime even more pliant to US demands and further worsened the social crisis behind the mass migration.

After the coup in 2009, the State Department insisted to the press that it did not know “who did what to whom.” However, a cable released by WikiLeaks dated July 24, 2009 from the US embassy in Honduras and sent to the Obama’s White House and Hillary Clinton’s State Department explores legalistic rationalizations “for a solution” to justify the overthrow. It concludes that the event “constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup” and that the “Forced Removal [of President Manuel Zelaya] by Military was Clearly Illegal.”

The months and years that followed saw a dramatic intensification of the use of death squads and the military to repress social opposition against the coup and the resultant wave of corporate tax cuts, tax exemptions, cuts to environmental and labor regulations, and corrupt concessions that chiefly favored US and local corporations. A 2014 report by the US think tank Center for Economic and Policy Research measuring the impact of the overthrow found that poverty had increased 13.2 percent and extreme poverty 26.3 percent in the first two years after the military coup.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump to Deploy Hundreds of Troops to the Border against Central American Migrants

Key hospitals across England depend on the European Union for more than one in five doctors or nurses, new analysis reveals, as Brexit uncertainty deepens the NHS crisis.

Senior figures in the NHS warn they may soon not be able to fill these posts as recruitment from the EU has dried up, with knock-on effects on waiting times, operating theatre capacity and beds.

A Bureau analysis of NHS staffing shows certain trusts and specialist hospitals are heavily dependent on EU nationals, specifically for their frontline staff. Some of the most exposed include heart and lung specialists Royal Brompton and Harefield Trust and Great Ormond Street children’s hospital in London, heart specialist Royal Papworth in Cambridgeshire, Oxford University Hospitals and the Isle of Wight NHS Trust.

While across the whole of NHS England 5% of all staff are EU nationals, at eight NHS trusts they make up more than 20% of doctors or nurses. And in 92 trusts, more than 10% of doctors or nurses are from the EU.

Meanwhile recruitment from the EU has “plummeted”, said Danny Mortimer, chief executive of NHS Employers, warning that if numbers of nurses continued to fall then waiting times would go up dramatically.

“We would have to close capacity because we couldn’t man the beds or run the theatres. Costs would go up because we had to rely on agency staff and they are more expensive.”

The question mark over what will happen when Britain leaves the EU has accelerated a staff crisis that was already well underway, particularly within nursing. There are now 41,000 nursing vacancies across England and annual staff turnover is more than 15%.

There is also a shortage of doctors, with 11,500 vacancies recorded in the latest figures from NHS Improvement, up from 10,800 the year before.

Brexit is just one factor impacting NHS recruitment and retention. A weak pound is making salaries much less of a draw, say analysts, and perceived anti-immigrant sentiment heightened by the Windrush scandal is also putting people off, said Mortimer.

When it comes to doctors, the trust outside London relying most heavily on the EU is Royal Papworth, a specialist heart hospital in Cambridge. We found 24% of its doctors are EU nationals. It was one of a number of specialist hospitals which had significant numbers of EU doctors, including Christie’s cancer hospital in Manchester (14%).

There is more concern about general and regional hospitals than specialist institutions, however, as it’s hoped the opportunity to work in world-renowned units will continue to attract high-calibre staff from around the world no matter what the outcome of Brexit.

A spokesperson for Royal Papworth Hospital said: “We continue to recruit proactively in the EU. Of course we are keen to know what leaving the European Union will mean for EU staff wanting to work in the UK.”

Uncertain status

Responding to the Bureau’s findings, a Department for Health (DoH) spokesperson said the number of EU nationals working in the NHS had increased since the referendum.

The DoH spokesperson said the “NHS is preparing for all situations”, but stressed that EU staff in the NHS “will be among the first to be able to secure their settled status”.

The number of EU doctors working in England has seen a small increase, rising 1.4% since 2017, but the number of EU nurses has dropped by 6%.

And in terms of recruitment of frontline staff, particularly nurses, since the referendum the NHS “absolutely has seen applications from within the EU just drop,” said Mortimer. “Like a stone.”

The government has previously said it is “publicly committed to the EU Settlement Scheme which will allow any EU citizen currently residing in the UK to register to remain here indefinitely, with broadly the same rights as now.”

The government has also talked of retaining high-skilled, high-paid workers, on salaries of over £30,000 per year, or perhaps £50,000 – there is no established policy at this time. However, given nurses earn an average of £28,000 per year in the UK, the vast majority would not meet the proposed criteria.

Mortimer from NHS Employers says hypothetical guarantees of settled status are not enough to retain staff. “Windrush has dented confidence for some of our EU colleagues,” he said. “They see a community that was given guarantees 60 years ago about their futures and they see those promises not being honoured.”

The government’s statements do not appear to have reassured EU nurses that are already in England, or those considering joining the NHS. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register shows new arrivals from the European Economic Area (EEA) fell by nearly 90% from 2015/16 to 2017/18, while the number leaving the register increased by a nearly a third.

Half of EEA nurses leaving the register said that “Brexit has encouraged me to consider working outside the UK,” according to the NMC.

The UK currently lets doctors and nurses from outside the EU into the UK under the Tier 2 visa system, the main visa route for skilled workers. There are caps on numbers for certain professions but doctors and nurses were given an exemption from that cap last June following campaigning by NHS organisations and medical groups.

There was alarm last week when the Home Secretary Sajid Javid said this exemption was temporary, in a letter to the Migration Advisory Committee. However the exemption is likely to continue, according to Dayan from the Nuffield Trust, “because nurses are so emotive and the shortage so bad.”

Mortimer believes anti-immigrant sentiment is putting off prospective staff from coming to work in the NHS: “Politicians have to recognise that the way in which they talk about migration isn’t just a theoretical thing, it impacts on the way people feel.”

No overnight fix

It’s less than ten months since the NHS emerged from the worst winter crisis on record. To take just one marker as an example, from December 2017 to March 2018 there were more trolley waits of more than four hours than the total amount in the same months from 2010 to 2014 combined.

On Monday, trade association NHS Providers said this winter would be even tougher. It highlighted the major role staff shortages have in driving this crisis, with a “double negative effect” – services cannot be expanded to the extent needed and existing staff are put under much greater pressure.

“Historically the UK has always relied on international recruitment to address domestic supply problems,” the report pointed out, warning that the decision to leave the EU combined with new language tests introduced in 2016 had “resulted in a significant cut to the supply line of EU workers.”

Dr Andrew Goddard, president of the Royal College of Physicians, questioned how the health service would cope with any more pressure on staffing. “With research indicating the workforce is at breaking point, anything that impacts the NHS’s ability to recruit talented, hardworking professionals is a major risk,” he said. “We know there are no overnight fixes.”

EU frontline workers were vital to the NHS’s ability to keep its services up and running, said Mortimer. “We can’t afford to lose a single colleague from the EU,” he said. “We are short across the board.” 

The Bureau has been investigating the possible impacts of Brexit, to identify areas where there could be dislocation to vital sectors of the economy. One such areas is the NHS. The Bureau has no position on Brexit itself.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brexit Risk: More than a Fifth of Doctors or Nurses at Some Hospitals Are from the EU

Frequent oil spills, GMO seeds, chemical, and other toxins poison planet earth worldwide – humanity’s survival threatened by ecocide or nuclear war.

BP’s 2010 Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill was considered the world’s most disastrous marine incident of its kind.

Millions of barrels of toxic hydrocarbons devastated large parts of the gulf, harming its sea life and ecology, along with causing a healthcare crisis for countless numbers of offshore residents in affected states.

Another little reported Gulf of Mexico oil spill may be worse, ongoing for 14 years, millions of barrels of toxic oil leaked, an estimated 700 barrels more leaking daily, no end of leakage in prospect.

EcoWatch said Taylor Energy Company’s Platform 23051 sank in Gulf of Mexico waters from a mudslide caused by Hurricane Ivan in September 2004.

It’s been leaking oil daily from then to now, explaining:

Up to 29,400 gallons “of oil per day spews from multiple wells around the platform, according to a recent government-commissioned study,” adding:

“This environmental horror story is amplified as the Trump administration plans to open up US coastal waters to offshore drilling and as hurricanes are predicted to become more destructive due to climate change.”

In December 2017, environmental watchdog Sky Truth estimated the cumulative spill to that time at up to nearly four million barrels of crude, saying the following:

“The Taylor Energy site perfectly captures the dysfunction of offshore oil development: In 2004, an underwater mudslide caused by Hurricane Ivan toppled one of the company’s platforms and buried the damaged wells attached to it on the seafloor.  Reports of oil on the surface at the site of the wreckage followed shortly after and a secretive clean-up effort ensued,”

adding:

By 2011, only nine of 25 damaged wells were found and plugged. Crude oil continues leaking from the site. A Greenpeace statement said “(t)his oil leak could last 100 years.”

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said if left unchecked, leakage could continue for decades until oil in the underground reservoir is depleted.

For six years, Taylor Energy failed to report the spill. Environmental groups discovered it. Initially the company lied, claiming leakage of only two barrels daily. It’s hundreds of times this amount.

EcoWatch said Taylor Energy “spent hundreds of millions trying to stop the leak. (It’s hard) capping the affected wells that are deep underwater and buried beneath 100 feet of mud.”

The company “mostly ceased to exist…president William Pecue…its last remaining employee.”

In 2008, the firm was “sold to a joint venture of South Korean companies,” the same year a $666 million trust was established for cleanup, a failed undertaking so far.

The so-called “Taylor leak” is located around 10 miles of Louisiana’s coast. Sky Truth president John Amos said it’s another “great example of what I call a dirty little secret in plain sight.”

Green Economic Institute founding fellow/health and environmental issues journalist Oliver Tickell said “(t)he company and the American regulators managed to keep the entire incident pretty quiet” for years, adding:

“It’s one of those long-running accidents, which is less exciting from a reporting point of view.”

“But, over the course of 14 years, with as many as 700 barrels a day being leaked into the Gulf, it adds up to being of the same kind of order as (the 2010) Deepwater Horizon spillage.”

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Worst Ever Ecological Disaster? The Gulf of Mexico Taylor Energy Platform

A Chance for the US to Distance Itself from Saudi Arabia

October 26th, 2018 by Gareth Porter

The murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi now seems very likely to prompt Congress to impose some sanctions on the Saudi government, and it may finally act to end the active US role in the Saudi-UAE war on Yemen.  

Perhaps more significantly, some senior Democratic Party figures in Congress have called forthe first serious reconsideration of the whole US-Saudi “special relationship”, citing the need for fundamental changes in the relationship.   

A political cover

Such a critical reappraisal is long overdue. For decades the United States has been providing political-diplomatic cover for Saudi policies that have caused far more disastrous consequences for the United States and for the entire Middle East than any of the countries that Washington has designated as “adversaries”.

More than any other American ally, the way Saudi Arabia operates is completely at odds with the values the US professes to champion and embody. The Saudi ruling elite is not only proudly anti-democratic but upholds an extreme interpretation of Islam that has made it the primary source of violence and instability in the Middle East over the past decade.

The US alliance with Saudi Arabia must be understood not in terms of normal geopolitical interest but in terms of the bureaucratic interests of the CIA and the Pentagon

The main rationale for maintaining a “special relationship” with such an unsavoury regime has long been that the Saudis have assured “access” to oil at affordable prices. Many in the US political and national security elites have continued to embrace that argument, but fundamental changes in the global economics of oil – and especially the rise of the shale oil industry in the United States – have ended that former Saudi role in regulating the global oil market.

The world’s demand for oil has receded dramatically since 2014, creating a severe budget deficit problem for Saudi Arabia. As a result, the Saudis are afraid that any cut in production would cause the Kingdom to lose market share and benefit their competitors.

The new case for the US-Saudi alliance is that Saudi Arabia is the regional counterweight to Iranian expansion. But the recklessly aggressive Saudi behaviour in Syria and Yemen has done far more to benefit al-Qaeda, destabilise the region and harm US interests than to counter Iranian influence – real or imagined.

Heavy costs

The glaring contradiction between the supposed benefits of an alliance with the House of Saud and the actual heavy costs associated with it goes back to the US-Saudi collaboration between 1979 and 1988, supporting Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In 1979, a Saudi national, Osama bin Laden, moved to Afghanistan to join the fighters and support them logistically and financially. In 1988, he founded al-Qaeda.

The Saudi regime’s fear of bin Laden’s popularity among its citizenry prompted it to cover up the reality of al-Qaeda terrorism, even after it struck inside Saudi Arabia itself. But more importantly, the US government tolerated that Saudi cover-up of terrorism.

In November 1995, four veterans of the Saudi jihadist force in Afghanistan with ties to bin Laden bombed the office of the program manager of the Saudi National Guard, which the US military was training, killing six American servicemen and wounding 42. That should have signaled a crisis in the alliance, but nothing happened.

Then came the bombing of Khobar Towers in june 1996, which killed 19 Americans and wounded 372. FBI Director Louis Freeh, the man in charge of the US investigation of the bombing, quickly accepted then Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s position that Iran was behind the bombing and ruled out any investigation of the bin Laden organisation. CIA Director George Tenet supported that decision.

The recklessly aggressive Saudi behaviour in Syria and Yemen has done far more to benefit al-Qaeda, destabilise the region and harm US interests than to counter Iranian influence – real or imagined

A former FBI official involved in the investigation revealed to this writer that when the FBI arrived at the scene to investigate the bombing in Saudi Arabia, they found the Saudi government was bulldozing the crime scene. And US intelligence intercepted secret orders from the Saudi interior ministry to provincial officials to obstruct the investigation.

Bin Laden actually confirmed his network’s responsibility for the bombing in two interviews he gave to the London-based newspaper Al Quds al Arabi in October and November 1996. The leadership of the FBI and CIA nevertheless supported the Saudi regime’s claim that it was an Iranian operation, thus effectively protecting the al-Qaeda network in the Kingdom. Two terror bombings that should have ended the “special relationship” thus gave al-Qaeda the opportunity to strike successfully on 9/11.

Covert operations

Even after the 9/11 attacks, Saudi Arabia remained the leading source of funding for al-Qaeda, as Hillary Clinton noted in a classified 2009 paper. And as the US treasury department concluded in 2008, the Saudi government was still not taking steps to halt such funding, despite the Americans urging them to.

The Obama administration gave the alliance with the Kingdom new importance by responding to pressure from its Saudi allies – as well as Turkey and Qatar – with a CIA programme to support the supply of arms to opposition forces in Syria. It was a covert US operation managed by the CIA but funded by the Saudi government – an arrangement that revived a familiar pattern of past Saudi-CIA collaboration.

For the CIA, the payoff was the freedom to carry out an operation that was “off the books” in terms of funding.

But the cost to the interest of US in halting terrorism and to the stability of the Middle East as a whole were enormous. Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and its closest allies got a large share of the weapons, because the supposedly “moderate” forces were militarily dependent on Nusra.

Image: Osama Bin Laden (L) and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud (R) (AFP)

And the new threat to the regime of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad eventually provoked both Iranian and Russian military intervention, which the Obama administration should have anticipated from the start but didn’t. The end result of the US-Saudi operation was to wreck Syrian society for the foreseeable future and to give an al-Qaeda affiliate a political-military foothold in Syria.

A rare opportunity

Then in March 2015, the Obama administration signed on to another Saudi scheme – a Saudi-UAE air war to destroy the Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen and restore a Saudi-backed government. The Obama administration not only gave its approval to the war in advance but then provided diplomatic cover for Saudi policies of preventing food and other humanitarian goods from reaching the civilian population.

The result has been a humanitarian catastrophe. Yemen’s ability to function as a society will be compromised as long as the war continues.

The US alliance with Saudi Arabia must be understood not in terms of normal geopolitical interest but in terms of the bureaucratic interests of the CIA and the Pentagon, which have dovetailed well with those of the House of Saud.

Although US officials would not disclose the amount of the Saudi contribution to the CIA’s covert programme to arm and train Syrian opposition forces, the total effort cost “several billion dollars”, according to New York Times sources.

For its part, the Pentagon and its arms contractor allies have already gotten contracts worth $14.5bn with the promise of $110 bn to come – depending on US compliance with Saudi interests. Equally important, it has gotten access to a naval facility in Bahrain (officially designated as “a major non-NATO ally” in 2002) over which the Saudis hold sway and which the Saudi regime will now certainly threaten to terminate if the US puts too much pressure on it.

Those interests have been sufficient to keep the two powerful national security institutions committed to the alliance. In the wake of the grisly Khashoggi murder and the likelihood of a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, however, a rare opportunity has arisen for Congress to act independently of those institutions and impose restrictions on ties with the Saudis that have wrought primarily terrorism and ruin in the Middle East.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Trump holds a chart of weapon sales as he welcomes Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office, 20 March, 2018 (Reuters)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Chance for the US to Distance Itself from Saudi Arabia

Canada’s paper of record pulled another layer off the rotting onion of propaganda obscuring the Rwandan tragedy. But, the Globe and Mail has so far remained unwilling to challenge prominent Canadians who’ve crafted the fairy tale serving Africa’s most ruthless dictator.

Two weeks ago a front-page Globe article added to an abundance of evidence suggesting Paul Kagame’s RPF shot down the plane carrying President Juvénal Habyarimana, which sparked the mass killings of spring 1994. “New information supports claims Kagame forces were involved in assassination that sparked Rwandan genocide”, noted the headline. The Globe all but confirmed that the surface-to-air missiles used to assassinate the Rwandan and Burundian Hutu presidents came from Uganda, which backed the RPF’s bid to conquer its smaller neighbour. (A few thousand exiled Tutsi Ugandan troops, including the deputy minister  of defence, “deserted” to invade Rwanda in 1990.) The new revelations strengthens those who argue that responsibility for the mass killings in spring 1994 largely rests with the Ugandan/RPF aggressors and their US/British/Canadian backers.

Despite publishing multiple stories over the past two years questioning the dominant narrative, the Globe has largely ignored the Canadians that shaped this Kagame-friendly storyline. I’ve written a number of articles detailing Roméo Dallaire’s important role in this sordid affair, but another widely regarded Canadian has offered significant ideological support to Kagame’s crimes in Rwanda and the Congo.

As Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF in the late 1990s Stephen Lewis was appointed to a Panel of Eminent Personalities to Investigate the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and the Surrounding Events. Reportedly instigated by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and partly funded by Canada, the Organization of African Unity’s 2000 report, “The Preventable Genocide”, was largely written by Lewis recruit Gerald Caplan, who was dubbed Lewis’ “close friend and alter ego of nearly 50 years.”

While paying lip service to the complex interplay of ethnic, class and regional politics, as well as international pressures, that spurred the “Rwandan Genocide”, the 300-page report is premised on the unsubstantiated claim there was a high level plan by the Hutu government to kill all Tutsi. It ignores the overwhelming logic and evidence pointing to the RPF as the culprit in shooting down the plane carrying President Habyarimana and much of the army high command, which sparked the mass killings of spring 1994.

The report also rationalizes Rwanda’s repeated invasions of the Congo, including a 1,500 km march to topple the Mobutu regime in Kinshasa and subsequent re-invasion after the government it installed expelled Rwandan troops. That led to millions of deaths during an eight-country war between 1998 and 2003.

In a Democracy Now interview concerning the 2000 Eminent Personalities report Lewis mentioned “evidence of major human rights violations on the part of the present [Kagame] government of Rwanda, particularly post-genocide in the Kivus and in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” But, he immediately justified the slaughter, which surpassed Rwanda’s 1994 casualty toll. “Now, let me say that the [Eminent Personalities] panel understands that until Rwanda’s borders are secure, there will always be these depredations. And another terrible failure of the international community was the failure to disarm the refugee camps in the then-Zaire, because it was an invitation to the génocidaires to continue to attack Rwanda from the base within the now- Congo. So we know that has to be resolved. That’s still what’s plaguing the whole Great Lakes region.”

An alternative explanation of “what’s plaguing the whole Great Lakes region” is US/UK/Canada backed Ugandan/RPF belligerence, which began with their invasion of Rwanda in 1990 and continued with their 1996, 1998 and subsequent invasions of the Congo. “An unprecedented 600-page investigation by the UN high commissioner for human rights”, reported a 2010 Guardian story, found Rwanda responsible for “crimes against humanity, war crimes, or even genocide” in the Congo.

Fifteen years after the mass killing in Rwanda in 1994 Lewis was still repeating Kagame’s rationale for unleashing mayhem in the Congo. In 2009 he told a Washington D.C. audience that “just yesterday morning up to two thousand Rwandan troops crossed into the Eastern Region of the Congo to hunt down, it is said, the Hutu génocidaires.”

A year earlier Lewis blamed Rwandan Hutu militias for the violence in Eastern Congo. “What’s happening in eastern Congo is the continuation of the genocide in Rwanda … The Hutu militias that sought refuge in Congo in 1994, attracted by its wealth, are perpetrating rape, mutilation, cannibalism with impunity from world opinion.”

In 2009 the Rwanda News Agency described Lewis as “a very close friend to President Paul Kagame.” And for good reason. Lewis’ has sought to muzzle any questioning of the “RPF and U.S.-U.K.-Canadian party line” on the tragedy of 1994. In 2014 he signed an open letter condemning the BBC documentary Rwanda’s Untold StoryThe 1,266 word public letter refers to the BBC’s “genocide denial”, “genocide deniers” or “deniers” at least13 times. Notwithstanding Lewis and his co-signers’ smears, which gave Kagame cover to ban the BBC’s Kinyarwanda station, Rwanda the Untold Story includes interviews with a former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), a former high-ranking member of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda and a number of former Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) associates of Kagame. In “The Kagame-Power Lobby’s Dishonest Attack on the BBC 2’s Documentary on Rwanda”Edward S. Herman and David Peterson write: “[Lewis, Gerald Caplan, Romeo Dallaire et al.’s] cry of the immorality of ‘genocide denial’ provides a dishonest cover for Paul Kagame’s crimes in 1994 and for his even larger crimes in Zaire-DRC [Congo]. … [The letter signees are] apologists for Kagame Power, who now and in years past have served as intellectual enforcers of an RPF and U.S.-U.K.-Canadian party line.”

Recipient of 37 honorary degrees from Canadian universities, Lewis has been dubbed a “spokesperson for Africa” and “one of the greatest Canadians ever”. On Africa no Canadian is more revered than Lewis. While he’s widely viewed as a champion of the continent, Lewis has backed Africa’s most bloodstained ruler.

It is now time for the Globe and Mail to peel back another layer of the rotting onion of propaganda and investigate Canadian connections to crimes against humanity in Rwanda, Congo and the wider Great Lakes region of Africa.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Dictator Kagame Unmasked, It Is Time to Reveal the Canadian Connection

European Parliament Right to Call for an Arms Embargo against Saudi Arabia

October 26th, 2018 by CAAT - Campaign Against Arms Trade

-European parliament has renewed calls for an arms embargo against Saudi forces

-Saudi-led bombardment has inflicted a humanitarian catastrophe on Yemen

-UK has licensed almost £5 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since Yemen war began in March 2015

Earlier today, members of the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm its call for a European-wide embargo against Saudi Arabia, and a political solution to the ongoing conflict in Yemen. The Parliament originally voted to support an arms embargo on February 25, 2016.

The vote is not legally binding, but it sends a strong message to member states that have continued to arm Saudi Arabia despite the humanitarian crisis that has been inflicted on Yemen.

The vote follows recent pledges from the German government to review arms sales to the Saudi regime. Over recent weeks there has also been u-turn from the Spanish government, which in September promised to block the sale of missiles to Saudi Arabia, before reversing its position days later.

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:

“We are always being told that the European Union stands for human rights, equality and democracy, but European governments have poured billions of pounds worth of arms into one of the worst war zones in the world. These arms sales have had deadly consequences.

The Saudi-led war and blockade has created a terrible humanitarian crisis, and European governments, including the UK, have supported it from day one. Theresa May and other key leaders must end their support for the Saudi regime and its terrible bombardment.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on European Parliament Right to Call for an Arms Embargo against Saudi Arabia

When the Tories were elected to govern Ontario this past June, it was a day that many were both dreading and expecting.

The Ontario government has finally unveiled their legislation that would repeal the gains workers made from Bill 148. In an emergency action coordinated by the $15 and Fairness campaign, 500 workers were out in the streets of Toronto yesterday evening, to send a message to Premier Ford that the actions he and his party have taken to repeal Bill 148 has betrayed workers across the province.

The Bill freezes the minimum wage at $14 and only indexes it to inflation beginning in October 2020.

The ten personal emergency leave (PEL) days, two of which are paid, becomes 8 PEL days that are proscriptive (3 for sickness, 3 for family emergency, 2 for bereavement). None of those PEL days are paid. The requirement for workers to provide doctor’s notes in order to take these emergency leave days have returned. For workplaces with over 50 employees, these measures are worse than what existed before Bill 148.

“Doctors and nurses are busy enough without the additional task of writing sick notes, which will cost taxpayers hundreds of dollars,” says Dr. Kate Hayman, emergency doctor involved in the Decent Work and Health Network. “Let’s call this policy what it is. It’s bad for workers, and it’s bad for the health of every Ontarian. From a government that promised to listen to doctors and end hallway medicine, I expected better.”

The 3 hour pay guarantee for on call and shift work for workers not called in, or for shifts cancelled within 48 hours is among the long list of gains made that will no longer come into effect January 1, 2019.

Equal pay for equal work for part-time, casual, contract, and temp workers has also been scrapped, with the equal pay for equal work provision reverting back to gender equity provisions, rather than for the type of work done. Further, workers will no longer have the provision that put the onus on the employer to prove that workers are not employees in order to prevent job misclassification.

Rules that lowered the threshold of union cards needed to be signed to get employee lists, sector-specific card check, and sector-specific protections against contract flipping has also been eliminated.

Impacts on Workers

Given the estimated inflation rate between January 2018, the last increase in the minimum wage and October 2020, workers will be looking at a real wage cut of $0.80 to $1.00 by the time indexing comes into effect.

Molaka Barbin is one of the many food service industry workers that was counting on the planned increase to the minimum wage. “The $15 and Fairness campaign is good for us. $15 is good for us, and good for everyone. Now, I feel very sad. Everywhere, prices are increasing.”

Scrapping paid PEL days will keep workers going to work, even if they’re sick – which will undoubtedly harm public health and put further strain on our public health system. Mandating reasons for each set of PEL days requires workers to jump through more hoops to get them approved, which further adds to the stress that workers and their families will have to deal with. Nadira Bedum, a Toronto based $15 and Fairness organizer said:

“Not only me, but my community – Regent Park is disappointed. When I talked to workers yesterday, they were shocked. 2 paid sick days allows workers who are sick, whose kids are sick to stay home without any stress. Now, there’s no choice for workers.”

The scrapping of equal pay for equal work provisions in Bill 148 sends a message to employers to continue to attack the most vulnerable workers who are not in full-time employment. Since proving job classification is no longer on the onus of the employer, an increase in misclassification is expected, especially since it’s unlikely for the government to increase workplace inspections.

While Bill 148 did not grant card check in all workplaces, it was still a step forward. Rolling back these changes will have a negative effect on union density, with studies showing that union organizing increased significantly in Ontario when the Bob Rae NDP government introduced card check. Once the Harris government came into power and reversed that legislation, organizing decreased significantly.

Contract flipping, which has been used to break unions, (most notably at Pearson Airport) has long been an issue when it comes to backdoors to union busting. Now with the repeal of provisions preventing it, the government is explicitly sending a message to businesses that it is okay. Under the new legislation, contract flipping will increase and intensify.

What This Means for Unions

Ford’s decision to repeal major sections of Bill 148 is a clear attack on workers, and on unions who will face increasingly difficult organizing conditions, making it harder to gain new members.

“The attacks on unions are unforgivable. It is only through unions that people have the ability to organize and fight back. This is unethical and absolutely goes against any of the teachings Ford professes to support.” said Reverend Dr. Cheri DiNovo.

The key issue moving forward is how unions will respond. The lessons of the Harris years should be obvious. Solely focusing on electoral politics will not work. Labour’s response to Ford’s anti-worker agenda will require mobilizing and deep organizing in communities. The work that the Fight for $15 and Fairness campaign has done in communities has accomplished huge gains for workers and made Bill 148 a reality.

“The determination of the people that make this movement never fail to inspire me. We sent a clear message that if this government thinks workers are going to go quietly, we’ve got another plan for them,” said Pam Frache, coordinator of the $15 and Fairness campaign. “Everything we’re doing right now is about laying the foundation for resistance yet to come. We’re going to keep fighting, keep mobilizing and keep speaking out – and we’re going to win.”

But with such a hostile government, the tactics will have to become more confrontational in order to leverage the pressure needed to make Ford and the Tories retreat. There were several missed opportunities in the fightback against Harris where the government looked like it was going to reverse course, but the pressure was throttled in favour of negotiation and electoralism. Now, we must learn from our past mistakes and build a broad and militant front in order to protect what we have already gained. Without that we won’t be able to make gains in the future.

“The threat is on the table at Queen’s Park. They are threatening poverty wages for the foreseeable future for the most vulnerable workers in the province. They’re threatening paid sick days, which has real life consequences. We’re still asking for Doug Ford to stand up to the big business lobbyists, and to stand with the people.” •

This article first published on the Rank and File website.

Chloe Rockarts is a young worker, unionist, #15andfairness organizer and contributor to Rank and File. Follow her tweets at @chloerockarts.

Gerard Di Trolio is a writer on labour and politics. Follow his tweets at @GerardDiTrolio.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Repeal of Workers’ Rights in Ontario? Ford Government Takes on Bill 148, But There is Resistance

The Apocalypse Not Now

October 26th, 2018 by Edward Curtin

It was balmy and breezy by the bench where I sat outside a public library east of Atlanta, Georgia, brooding about the state of the world.  It seemed like the end times, and I had just attended a fire and brimstone sermon, not perused the mainstream and alternative press. I had just spent a few hours on the internet, noting so many articles that announced that the world as we know it was coming to an end, or maybe just the world. 

The American Empire was collapsing, the U.S.A. was a failed state, climate change would soon destroy the world if nuclear war didn’t do it first, etc.  Many of these articles were predicting that soon the elites who run the U.S. would be getting their comeuppance because of hubris and overreach and, like the Roman Empire, the die had been cast and disaster was on the horizon.  Such prognostications were appearing in publications that covered the political spectrum.  All of it was fear-inducing, notwithstanding one’s political beliefs.  Left, right, and center had reasons to be depressed or elated by the claims, depending on one’s politics and existential reality.  And, need I surmise, the writers of these jeremiads were probably writing from a position of personal privilege, not scrounging for their next meal.

And it was a beautiful mid-October day.  The benches by the adjacent church were full of homeless people, their meagre belongings arrayed at their feet.  The susurrant sound of the leaves of the sycamore tree that formed a sacred canopy above me was lulling me to sleep.  In my half-asleep state, I, a northerner, was dreaming I was a Georgian civilian hiding behind the enemy’s lines, those lines being General Sherman’s Union Army’s artillery that was arrayed a few miles to my west and was shelling Atlanta.  And in this reverie I was also aware that, as I wouldn’t have been in 1864, that Sherman would soon leave Atlanta and lead his troops on the savage “march to the sea” that would earn him the appellation as the American father of total warfare that would become America’s tactic from World War I until the present day, a form of warfare that has brought apocalyptic death and destruction to millions around the globe.  Lost and frightened in this half-dreaming state with my eyes closed, I was startled by a thud and dim awareness of a shadow to my left. 

Awakening, I saw that a homeless man had sat next to me. We said hello.  “Sorry to give you a fright,” he said, “but all the benches by the church are taken.”  We got to talking.  He told me that he had been homeless for almost two years, that he had originally been from Indiana, where he had graduated from the University of Indiana, and that when he was laid off he was unable to pay his mortgage and had lost his small house.  He looked to be in his late thirties, with a scruffy beard and a very tired face.  His name was Paul.

Among his tattered belongings, I was surprised to see an old paperback copy of a book sticking out of a side pocket of one of his bags.  I knew the title – Raids on the Unspeakable – by the anti-war Trappist monk, Thomas Merton, who died in a very mysterious manner in Bangkok, Thailand fifty years ago this December 10.  Merton’s death was the third that year of prominent and influential anti-war fighters:  Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy having earlier been assassinated by forces of the American national security state.  Nineteen sixty-eight had been a very bad year for peace and peace-makers.  It was a year of endless war and strife, a time when everything seemed to be collapsing.  And here we are.

Paul told me he had picked the book out of a box of books that had been set out for garbage pickup.  He said he had read a few of the essays and one in particular had struck him.  It is called “Rain and the Rhinoceros.”  I knew and loved the essay and was startled by the serendipity of our meeting.  He said the reason the essay struck home to him was because he had grown up on a farm in Indiana and had spent much of his youth outdoors.  He loved the natural world, and his mother and grandmother had early introduced him to the “Hoosier Poet,” James Whitcomb Reilly, whose poems he had memorized.  He proceeded to recite a stanza from one of them for me, as I, mesmerized, watched his expressive face light up. 

Oh! the old swimmin’-hole! When I last saw the place,

The scenes was all changed, like the change in my face;

The bridge of the railroad now crosses the spot

Whare the old divin’-log lays sunk and fergot.

And I stray down the banks whare the trees ust to be—

But never again will theyr shade shelter me!

And I wish in my sorrow I could strip to the soul,

And dive off in my grave like the old swimmin’-hole.

Then his face grew dark again, tired and forlorn.  He said that when he lost his home, the last piece of mail he opened was his water bill, and it was sky high.  He thought it appropriate that since he couldn’t afford a home, he couldn’t afford water, the water of life that should be free.  And that’s what so resonated for him in the Merton essay.  Merton’s opening paragraph, which he opened to show me, goes like this:

Let me say this before rain becomes a utility that they can plan and distribute for money. By “they” I mean the people who cannot understand that rain is a festival, who do not appreciate its gratuity, who think that what has no price has no value, that what cannot be sold is not real, so that the only way to make something actual is to place it on the market. The time will come when they will sell you even your rain. At the moment it is still free, and I am in it. I celebrate its gratuity and its meaninglessness.

“When they will sell you even your rain,” he said sadly.  “They sold me a bill of goods.  The American dream!  What a bad joke, here I am, a college graduate, not a drunk or drug addict, and I’m living in a tent in the woods in a ravine by a golf course.  Some nights I think they make it rain on me for fun, as if to say: here’s your free water, you loser.”

He asked about me, and I told him who I was and why I was there.  I mentioned the end-of-the-world articles I had been reading earlier, realizing as I did that I was saying a dumb thing to this this poor guy whose world was in tatters already.

Then he taught me this, as if he were Socrates asking questions.  I paraphrase:

If you were Merton’s “they,” those who rule the American Empire and your oppressed subjects were restless and awakening to their plight, what message would you want to convey to keep the peons from rebelling?  What strategies, short of direct violence, would be most effective in rendering even the relatively well-off middle class passive and docile?  What, in other words, is the most effective form of social control, outside economic exploitation and fear of penury, in a putative democracy when all the controlling institutions have lost the trust of most of the population?

Then, without skipping a beat, he answered his own questions.  You would, he said, tell them that the sky is falling, the empire is collapsing, that the rich rulers are going to get theirs when the system collapses on itself and that this is in the process of happening right now.  So sit back and watch the show as it closes down.  The end is near.

Then he said he had to go.  Lunch was being served at the nearby soup kitchen and if you didn’t get there early, they sometimes ran out of food. 

As he walked away, I thought of my vast ignorance and the society of illusions and delusions that I was living in, a constant streaming theater of the absurd.  I wanted to cry for this man and all people, even myself, as he disappeared around the corner.  He seemed to carry his loneliness in the old backpack that weighed him down.  As he turned the corner, he looked back and waved, a smile on his face.  I felt overcome, and when I recovered my bearings, I noticed he had left the book on the bench.  But by then he was long gone.  I opened it to a page that was dog-eared, and read these words of Merton, another solitary man in the woods, his solitude a choice, not, like Paul, an imposed necessity, at least the living arrangement part:

It is in the desert of loneliness and emptiness that the fear of death and the need for self-affirmation are seen to be illusory. When this is faced, then anguish is not necessarily overcome, but it can be accepted and understood. Thus, in the heart of anguish are found the gifts of peace and understanding: not simply in personal illumination and liberation, but by commitment and empathy, for the contemplative must assume the universal anguish and the inescapable condition of mortal man. The solitary, far from enclosing himself in himself, becomes every man. He dwells in the solitude, the poverty, the indigence of every man.

Next to this paragraph was the word “Paul,” written in blue ink.

It was such an achingly beautiful day.  I got up and left the book on the bench, as I too walked away, after writing “Ed” in black ink next to Paul’s blue. 

We are all bruised, aren’t we?  But often times those bruised the most have the most to give. 

This is Paul’s gift.

Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Apocalypse Not Now

This analysis is made by Pentapostagma Enimerosis and translated exclusively for SouthFront

As Turkey escalates in the Eastern Mediterranean the real question is how determined Greece is to respond.

Greece is confronting a huge diplomatic and military dilemma after Turkey sent a seismic vessel to the eastern Mediterranean to allegedly explore the existence of natural gas deposits.

The vessel began investigating on Tuesday night (16.10.2018) before withdrawing temporarily after the Greek Navy sent a strict radio alert.

After the incident, Turkey sent three frigates and two patrol ships there to protect the movements of their own seismographic ship.

Turkey, however, seems to be pushing tension by sending Barbaros Hayreddin Pasa vessel to explore in an area that includes part of the continental shelf of Greece.

If Barbaros returns to Greek waters, however, Athens will face a dilemma: either issue another radio alert or increase its naval presence in the region to reach strategic balance.

Such a move could, however, scale the situation dangerously, something that would have undefined implications.

Greece is willing to avoid the second option, as it could fuel a sensitive area in which foreign naval warships, including US and Russian ships, are powered.

Diplomatic and military tensions between Greece and Turkey increased sharply this year, as Ankara pursued the arrest and imprisonment of two Greek soldiers.

A few days ago, Turkey issued a NAVTEX announcing that it was planning to investigate the existence of natural gas within and around the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus.

The tensions rose on Thursday (18.10.2018) when the Turkish media announced that there was an “incident” between Barbaros and the Greek frigate “Nikiforos”. The incident was denied by the Greek headquarters and Turkey was accused for spreading propagandistic news.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry, for its part, announced that Turkey exercised its sovereign rights to investigate the existence of natural gas, while underlining that the Greek sovereignty in the region is unrealistic and detrimental to bilateral relations and regional stability.

This in itself constitutes the creation of a dangerous situation that may turn into a “military confrontation” in the Mediterranean.

ExxonMobil is gearing up to investigate the existence of natural gas deposits in Cyprus, a move that could further exacerbate tensions between Washington, Ankara and Athens.

Diplomatic relations between Turkey and the United States have also deteriorated considerably this year due to continued US support to the Kurds in Syria, the subsequent Turkish invasion of the north, and the imprisonment of Pastor Andrew Brunson and other Americans with allegations of involvement in terrorist organizations.

A few days ago, on 20.10.2018, the turkish press has publicly announced that the new UAV surveillance aircraft has been tested and completed and its radius is now 200 km.

This translates immediately that all the disputed areas of the Cypriot and most of the Greek EEZ are within the range and are now targets of Turkish UAVs.

The Turks want to control the movements of Greek ships in the area at any moment, as well as the presence of one or two Greek submarines operating in the Mediterranean, which are one of Greece’s most important leverages against the Turkish Navy.

According to the Turkish website Meteksan Defense, it is reported that the C-Band Data Link System has been developed to provide communication between the Turkish UAVs and their ground control stations over 200 kilometers.

The system can be used in UAVs flying at high, medium and low altitudes, and will be used to transmit the data in live time for uninterrupted and, in particular, making in-time decisions during a crisis.

This means that in the area of ​​the current crisis in the Mediterranean, we will soon see Turkish UAVs, which will “comb” the whole region while they will also provide extremely valuable information to Ankara.

However, there has been a great deal of concern in the Greek general staff for dealing with the threat from unmanned aircraft used by the Turkish Armed Forces in the Eastern Aegean and Thrace.

The latest achievement of the Turkish defense industry is the UCAV AKINCI, which was developed by Baykar Company and is scheduled to carry out its first flight in 2019 and will enter into a wartime operation in 2020.

This is the new truly important upgrade to Turkey’s intelligence gathering area, with the presence of unmanned aircraft, which with the current available technology offer the ability to monitor and track targets of interest, not only within the Greek FIR but also within the National Airspace (LRU).

The main advantage of all these UAVs is that they are unmanned, so there is no reason to lose staff if they reach dangerous targets and they provide extremely valuable information in real time.

In case of any possible Turkish operation, many of our military units in the islands and Evros and now in Cyprus will become “targets” of Turkish unmanned aircrafts.

Meanwhile, within the boundaries of the Greek continental shelf, the frigate of the Hellenic Navy continues to travel, overseeing the Turkish research vessel Barbaros.

According to information from sources in Nicosia, there is calm in the area despite the provocative presence and behavior of the Turkish Navy and seismic vessel, while Barbaros seems to be outside the boundaries of the Greek continental shelf.

But the Turks are estimated to have just measured international reactions in the past few days, and after the CN-235 spy planes are preparing to send a UAV with a clear mission to continue monitoring Greek military personnel and submarine units.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkish Surveillance UAVs over the Greek Navy in the Mediterranean Region – Greece’s Military Dilemma