Wess Mitchell, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, the administration’s top diplomat focused on Europe and Eurasia, has warned that Europe’s energy dependence on Russia is unacceptable for the United States. That official was addressing the Atlantic Council’s “Championing the Frontlines of Freedom, Erasing the Grey Zone” event on October 18. According to him, the competition between the great powers has returned to become “the defining geopolitical fact of our time.”
Through their lack of vigilance, European and American officials have allowed the growing Russian and Chinese influence in that region to “sneak up on us.”
“Western Europeans cannot continue to deepen energy dependence on the same Russia that America defends it against. Or enrich themselves from the same Iran that is building ballistic missiles that threaten Europe,” the assistant secretary emphasized. Adding, “It is not acceptable for US allies in central Europe to support projects like Turkstream 2 and maintain cozy energy deals that make the region more vulnerable to the very Russia that these states joined NATO to protect themselves against.”
Something else that was highly interesting was his mention of Belarus along with Ukraine and Georgia as allies. The assistant secretary believes that
“[t]he new principle is respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the allies: Ukraine, Georgia and even Belarus. Washington expects states to respect the rights of their neighbors.”
This makes one wonder if the Belarusian government knows it has been granted a new status. The official also mentioned Iran, which should not be allowed to sell oil to Europe because it has refused to abandon its ballistic missile program. Washington calls “on our allies to follow our lead and strengthen their laws to better screen foreign investments in their countries for national security threats.”
So, the US laws are flawless, its allies are not viewed as equal partners because they must follow America’s lead, or, in other words, do what they are told, and it’s up to Washington, not the national governments and parliaments, to decide what investments they need and where that money should come from. The leaders of the Central and Eastern European states should find it awkward, being rebuked for having overlooked “the foundational importance of the nation-state and national sovereignty,” while allowing unfriendly China and Russia to move in.
“Our allies in Central Europe must not be under any illusions that these powers are their friends,” Mr. Mitchell explained.
Obviously, he is quite sure that the governments of these nations are unable to grasp who is their friend and who is not. They are as naïve as small children. It’s good that the US is right here ready to enlighten them.
This highly-placed diplomat went on to explain that the United States should be seen as the protector of sovereignty, as it “rejects Russia’s territorial aggression against its neighbor Ukraine and [rejects] China’s predatory ‘debt-mongering’ throughout Central and Eastern Europe.”
Unlike its rivals, America does not seek dependencies, but rather independent states that should be “willing and able to share the burden of Western defense.” So, here is what independence à l’américaine is like, with its friends and allies absolutely free to comply with their protector’s instructions offering specific guidance about exactly how much they have to pay for defense, what investments to bring in, who to be friendly with, and how they should properly view the situation in their own region. Whatever happens in Central and Eastern Europe, everything has to revolve around the US.
“The United States has long had a tradition of not interfering in the details of European integration,” Mr. Mitchell assured us. Of course, telling the UK PM to sue the EU and thus expedite Brexit can certainly not be seen as interfering in European integration. Suggesting to French President Macron that he take France out of the EU is another example of noninterference. The Assistant Secretary expressed confidence that the allies could “beat back its competitors in Europe” with a little help from their American friends.
Also addressing the Atlantic Council’s October 18 conference, US Special Representative for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, revealed that Washington plans to stiffen the sanctions regime against Moscow “every month or two” to make it more amenable over Ukraine. The new policy suggests increasing the sanctions periodically, over time. Those remarks came after Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Valdai Club in Sochi that he hoped that a government more friendly toward Russia emerges from the Ukrainian presidential election that will be held on March 31.
Mr. Volker defied logic. On the one hand, he cited his “estimation… that the chances of their changing position now are lower then they were even a year ago.” Nevertheless, the best strategy for the West is to maintain pressure on Moscow through those economic sanctions —i.e., sticking to the very same measures that have proven to be useless, given that the “chances of their changing position now are lower.” So, the US and its allies should continue to implement a policy doomed to failure! But the ambassador states,
“I think we need to keep on track. I believe that sanctions do have an impact and we see evidence of that in Russia.”
What a bizarre way to convince his listeners!
“This is a shockingly big and important humanitarian catastrophe that no one talks about. We have over 10,000 people killed,” exclaimed this official who represents a nation that has just sent Ukraine, a country notorious for the corruption in its military ranks, a shipment of lethal arms so that it can kill more of its own citizens or let the weapons systems fall into the wrong hands and be used to kill other people outside of Ukraine. The “wrong hands” could use those weapons against US military. With this kind of people you never know.
There is no penetrating insight, no reading between the lines, no wasting time on anything like analysis, and no attempts to find the logic in anything that’s said — nothing like that is required. It’s easy to understand highly-placed US State Department officials. You guys do what you are told, or else. And, just in case, don’t forget that your best friend and closest ally overseas carries a big stick to force you to march in step. These speeches are delivered from time to time to ensure that their “dear allies” remember that. The Atlantic Council’s podium fits the bill.
*
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 month’s prize for dangerous moves and disingenuous press releases goes to the US State Department for its October 18 notice, headlined “On the Merging of US Embassy Jerusalem and US Consulate General Jerusalem”. The release was a statement by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announcing that the US consulate in East Jerusalem was being closed and its functions were being transferred to the US embassy in Jerusalem — that was the dangerous part. The disingenuous part was the secretary’s claim that this move had no political meaning since it was merely a cost-saving measure.
Here is the beginning of the release:
“I am pleased to announce that following the May 14 opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem, we plan to achieve significant efficiencies and increase our effectiveness by merging US Embassy Jerusalem and US Consulate General Jerusalem into a single diplomatic mission. I have asked our ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, to guide the merger.
“We will continue to conduct a full range of reporting, outreach and programming in the West Bank and Gaza as well as with Palestinians in Jerusalem through a new Palestinian Affairs Unit inside US Embassy Jerusalem. That unit will operate from our Agron Road site in Jerusalem.
“This decision is driven by our global efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations. It does not signal a change of US policy on Jerusalem, the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. As the president proclaimed in December of last year, the United States continues to take no position on final status issues, including boundaries or borders. The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties.”
There is so much that is wrong and misleading with this announcement that I scarcely know where to begin in critiquing it. But let me start with the claim that this is just an effort to “improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations”.
Surely the secretary must know that the Jerusalem consulate is not just another consular office. As for the “functions” described in the statement — namely, “reporting, outreach and programming” — missing is the historic role that the consul general played as the official point of contact between the Palestinians in the occupied territories and the US government. The US embassy in Tel Aviv dealt with Israel and Israeli affairs, while the consulate served as the “de facto embassy to the Palestinians”. Even in difficult times, the US consul general and the consulate remained open to receiving Palestinians and hearing their concerns. It has been the sole point of contact for Palestinians (and, I might add, for visiting Palestinian-Americans) seeking assistance from the US government. Now Palestinians are left with the US embassy in Israel as the sole American address in their region.
It has been difficult enough for Palestinians to secure a permit from the Israeli occupation authority allowing them access to the consulate’s current East Jerusalem location. Visiting the embassy in West Jerusalem will be even more problematic. This guarantees that ordinary Palestinians will, for all intents and purposes, no longer have contact with official US representatives. Seen in this light, the move is bigger and more serious than a matter of “efficiency”. One might suggest that if that were in fact the concern, why did the US not close its consulate in Haifa?
Closing the East Jerusalem consulate and moving its “functions” to the US embassy to Israel tells Palestinians that the US no longer sees them as a separate people deserving of their own direct access to the US. This is in line with a host of other recent US moves, which add up to denying independent peoplehood and self-determination to Palestinians. (These US actions include: questioning the “legitimacy” of Palestinian refugees and cutting all US assistance to them, ordering the closure of the Palestine Office in Washington, and acquiescence to Israel’s “Jewish Nation-State” law which declares that only the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in the “land of Israel”.) What closing the consulate in East Jerusalem says to Palestinians is that they are not seen by the US as a separate people but as a “minority community” whose interests are of secondary importance to those of Israel.
It is also not believable for the secretary to claim that this move “does not signify a change of US policy on Jerusalem… [or] the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem”. For decades, the US claimed that by maintaining a consulate in East Jerusalem, the US was sending the message that it continued to recognise that portion of the city was occupied territory. It is important to note that United States Ambassador to Israel David Friedman has been shaping US policy on this issue ever since he assumed his post. He has ordered that the Palestinian territories no longer be referred to as “occupied” and recent State Department publications reflect this. It is also important to note that the press statement making the announcement about the move makes no mention of “East Jerusalem”, as if in Friedman’s and the State Department’s new lexicon the city is already one and it is Israeli.
It is also disingenuous for the secretary to claim that the US “takes no position on… borders” because, as a result of US sins of commission and omission, they have allowed Israel to determine the shape of the map of Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories. Cutting all US assistance to Palestinian hospitals and other institutions in East Jerusalem, acquiescing to Israel’s prohibition on any meetings between US officials and Palestinian officials in East Jerusalem and US silence in the face of aggressive Israeli annexationist policies in and around Jerusalem, the construction of the separation wall denying Palestinian access to the city, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the construction of Israeli settlements positioned to strangle Palestinian life in Jerusalem, all have contributed to giving Israel carte blanche to shape the future borders of the city on their terms.
For years, supporters of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have been warning that we are “five minutes before midnight”. Recent actions by the Trump administration have firmly moved us well past midnight.
Maybe, to be perfectly honest, the sign the US places over its Jerusalem embassy should read “Welcome to the One State Solution”, because that is what we now have. And, by the way, it is an apartheid state and the US has aided and abetted its creation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
A ministerial committee in Israel’s parliament voted on Sunday to advance a bill that would cut subsidies to cultural organisations accused of not showing “loyalty” to the state, the culture minister said.
The proposed legislation, denounced by artists and freedom of speech activists, was proposed by Culture Minister Miri Regev and supported by Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon.
The decision by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation means that the bill will be fast-tracked to a full cabinet vote before being introduced in the Knesset as a government bill, the Times of Israel said.
It would give the finance and culture ministries the power to slash subsidies to any institution presenting work that denies Israel’s existence as a democratic and Jewish state or that marks the state’s independence day as a national day of mourning, AFP reported.
For Palestinians, the anniversary marks the Nakba or “catastrophe” in Arabic – when more than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forcefully expelled during the establishment of Israel in 1948.
The draft law would also see funding cut over work that attacks the state flag, or incites racism or terrorism.
Regev said in a news release:
“Freedom of expression is a guiding light for us and a central value in the life of the State of Israel as a democratic state, but preserving freedom of expression does not allow incitement against the Jewish and democratic State of Israel.”
Still, left-wing politicians criticised the bill.
Knesset opposition leader Tzipi Livni said the
“demand for loyalty in art is another step in silencing expression and forcing culture to be a mouthpiece for the government,” the Times of Israel reported.
Regev, a member of Israel’s ruling right-wing Likud party, is no stranger to controversy and has repeatedly clashed with the country’s largely left-leaning cultural elite.
Last year she slammed the Israeli drama Foxtrot, which won the Venice Film Festival’s second-highest prize, for spreading untruths about the Israeli army.
She was not invited to September’s Ophir Awards – Israel’s version of the Oscars – where Foxtrot won the best picture prize.
She instead appeared live on her Facebook page to criticise the movie and members of Israel’s Film and Television Academy.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Human rights campaigning organisation Liberty has called on Nottingham City Council to abandon plans which will penalise some of the city’s most vulnerable people – and anyone trying to help them.
The organisation responded to a consultation on the council’s proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), which closed on Wednesday 3 October.
The council proposed a package of measures which ignore Home Office guidance by essentially banning homelessness – and then criminalise charitable acts in the city.
As drafted, the PSPO prohibits people from obstructing entrances or exits of buildings and hindering street cleaning operations or the free passage of pedestrians. It also bans asking others for money or other items, even when this is only implied by a person’s conduct. Whatever that means.
The combined effect of these bans would make it near-impossible for homeless people to avoid breaking the law.
The PSPO would also make it a criminal offence to distribute free matter – defined as “any item, material substance, object or thing” – effectively criminalising acts of kindness towards those in need.
If introduced, the PSPO would give police and council officers the power to issue on-the-spot penalties of up to £100. If unable to pay, those in breach could face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000. One would have to ask that if a homeless person was unable to afford a £100 fine, why ould they suddenly be able to afford a fine ten times that amount.
Lara ten Caten, Lawyer for Liberty, said:
“The council’s plans ignore Home Office guidance, inappropriately dismiss poverty as antisocial behaviour and will make it near-impossible for any homeless person to avoid breaking the law. They will punish some of the most vulnerable people in Nottingham, pushing them into the criminal justice system for trying to survive.
“The council may try to argue that their intention is not to criminalise homelessness – but that will be the effect of this PSPO regardless. They should be helping those in need – not outlawing acts of charity in a bid to airbrush their streets. We hope they will rethink these cruel and counter-productive plans.”
Trying to ban poverty
Councils can use PSPOs to ban any activity they consider has a detrimental effect on the lives of those living in an area. Liberty is calling for the power to create PSPOs to be scrapped, arguing that they are far too widely drawn and ripe for misuse and abuse.
In December 2017, the Home Office issued guidance designed to stop councils using PSPOs to target homeless people – but the trend of local authorities doing so has continued throughout 2018.
Nottingham City Council’s proposals could see a homeless person issued with a fine or faced with criminal prosecution simply for being on the street. They could also be penalised if they are given money or food they did not even ask for – and the donor might suffer the same fate.
Liberty believes the draft PSPO if implemented, risks breaching residents’ fundamental rights, protected by the Human Rights Act. The Act requires the council not to behave in a way which would disproportionately affect people’s rights.
One should ask these officials about the worldwide recognition that Nottingham is known for – Robin Hood. He happens to be a chap who as folklore would have it – robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, in fact, he robbed the very people who are attempting to outlaw being poor, whereas, these officials are doing the opposite.
The irony is lost on them!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Die Produktion der neuen B61-12 US-Atombombe, die die in Italien und anderen europäischen Ländern eingesetzte B-61 ersetzt, beginnt in weniger als einem Jahr. Dies wurde offiziell von der National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) angekündigt. Das zeigt, dass die abschließende Überarbeitung des Projekts nun erfolgreich war und die Phase der Freigabe diesen Monat im Pantex-Werk in Texas beginnt. Der Produktionsbeginn wird für den September 2019 genehmigt.
Im März 2020 wird die erste Produktionseinheit mit der Herstellung einer Serie von 500 Bomben beginnen. Ab diesem Zeitpunkt, d.h. in etwa anderthalb Jahren, werden die Vereinigten Staaten die anti-russische Stationierung der ersten Atombombe mit einem Präzisionsleitsystem in ihrem Arsenal in Italien, Deutschland, Belgien, den Niederlanden und wahrscheinlich einigen anderen europäischen Ländern beginnen. Die B61-12 ist mit einer Durchschlagskraft ausgestattet, die für die Explosion unter der Erde gebaut wurde, um Bunker zu zerstören, in denen Kommandozentralen untergebracht sind.
Da Italien und die anderen Länder den USA unter Verstoß gegen den Atomwaffensperrvertrag die Stützpunkte, die Piloten und die Flugzeuge für den Einsatz der B61-12 anbieten, wird Europa, als die Frontlinie der sich entwickelnden nuklearen Konfrontation mit Russland, bald einem größeren Risiko ausgesetzt sein.
Im gleichen Moment tritt eine noch gefährlichere Situation ein – die Rückkehr der Euromissiles, also der Atomraketen, die denen ähneln, die in den 80er Jahren von den USA in Europa eingesetzt wurden, mit dem offiziellen Ziel, sich gegen sowjetische Raketen zu verteidigen.
Diese Kategorie von bodengebundenen Atomraketen mit mittlerer Reichweite (zwischen 500 und 5.500 km) wurde mit dem INF-Vertrag von 1987 beseitigt. Aber 2014 beschuldigte die Obama-Regierung Russland, mit einem Marschflugkörper (# 9M729) experimentiert zu haben, dessen Kategorie durch den Vertrag verboten war. Moskau leugnete, dass die Rakete gegen den INF-Vertrag verstoßen habe, und beschuldigte Washington seinerseits, in Polen und Rumänien Rampen für Abfangraketen (Elemente des “Schildes”) installiert zu haben, die zum Start von Marschflugkörpern mit Atomsprengköpfen verwendet werden könnten.
Die von Washington gegen Moskau gerichtete Anschuldigung, die durch keine Beweise gestützt wird, ermöglichte es den USA, einen Plan auf den Weg zu bringen, der darauf abzielt, wieder bodengebundene Mittelstreckenraketen in Europa einzusetzen. Die Obama-Regierung hatte bereits 2015 angekündigt, dass “die Vereinigten Staaten angesichts der Verletzung des INF-Vertrags durch Russland den Einsatz von Bodenraketen in Europa in Betracht ziehen”. Dieser Plan wurde von der Regierung Trump bestätigt – im Haushaltsjahr 2018 genehmigte der Kongress die Finanzierung eines “Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramms für einen Marschflugkörper, der von einer mobilen Straßenbasis aus gestartet werden könnte”.
Der Plan wird von den europäischen Verbündeten der NATO unterstützt. Der jüngste Nordatlantikrat, auf der Ebene der europäischen Verteidigungsminister, an dem Elisabetta Trenta (M5S) für Italien teilnahm, erklärte, dass der “INF-Vertrag wegen der Aktionen Russlands” in Gefahr sei, indem er Russland beschuldigt, “ein störendes Raketensystem einzusetzen, das ein ernsthaftes Risiko für unsere Sicherheit darstellt “. Daraus ergibt sich die Notwendigkeit, dass die „NATO stabile, vertrauenswürdige und effiziente Nuklearkräfte aufrechterhalten muss“ (was erklärt, weshalb die Mitglieder der Allianz den Vertrag der Vereinten Nationen über das Verbot von Kernwaffen geschlossen abgelehnt haben).
Damit wird der Grundstein für einen europäischen Einsatz von bodengebundenen US-Mittelstreckenraketen an den Grenzen des russischen Territoriums gelegt. Das ist, wie wenn Russland in Mexiko Atomraketen einsetzen würde, die auf die Vereinigten Staaten gerichtet sind.
Fuzileiros navais americanos, desembarcados de ‘tiltrotors’ e de helicópteros do navio de assalto anfíbio, Iwo Jima, “colocaram en segurança” o aeroporto de Keflavík, na Islândia, aonde chegaram de Sigonella, aviões Poseidon P-8A para a caça aos submarinos inimigos. Assim, teve início em 17 de Outubro, o exercício NATO, Trident Juncture 2018, cuja fase principal decorre de 25 de Outubro a 7 de Novembro, na Noruega central e oriental, nas áreas adjacentes ao Atlântico Norte (até à Islândia) e ao Mar Báltico (incluindo os espaços aéreos da Suécia e da Finlândia).
Participam nos mesmos, as forças armadas dos 29 países membros da NATO, além de dois parceiros, a Suécia e a Finlândia. Ao todo, cerca de 50 mil homens, 65 navios enormes, 250 aviões, 10 mil tanques e outros veículos militares. Se fossem colocados em fila, uns junto aos outros, formariam uma coluna de 92 km de comprimento.
O Comandante do exercício, um dos maiores dos últimos anos, é o Almirante norte-americano, James Foggo. Nomeado pelo Pentágono como os seus antecessores, ele comanda ao mesmo tempo a Força Conjunta Aliada (JFC Nápoles), com sede em Lago Patria (Nápoles), as Forças Navais USA na Europa e as Forças Navais USA para a África, com o quartel general em Nápoles Capodichino. O Almirante comanda o Trident Juncture 2018 do ‘Mount Whitney’, o navio almirante da Sexta Frota, transferido de Gaeta para o Atlântico Norte: um quartel general flutuante, também ligado à rede global de comando e controlo do Pentágono, através da estação MUOS, de Niscemi.
Isto confirma a importância dos comandos e das bases USA/NATO, em Itália, não só para o Mediterrâneo, mas para toda a “área de responsabilidade” do Comandante Supremo Aliado, na Europa, que é sempre um general americano, actualmente, Curtis Scaparrotti, nomeado pelo Presidente dos Estados Unidos: esta área geoestratégica, a partir de 2002, “foi alargada para cobrir todas as operações da NATO, independentemente da sua localização geográfica”.
O objectivo oficial do Trident Juncture 2018 é “assegurar que as forças da NATO estejam prontas para responder a qualquer ameaça, seja qual for a direcção donde provenha”. No entanto, basta observar o mapa, para compreender que a intensidade máxima do exercício de guerra está concentrada numa direcção: para Leste, contra a Rússia. O Almirante Foggo reafirma que está iniciada a “Quarta Batalha do Atlântico”, depois daquelas que ocorreram nas duas guerras mundiais contra os U-Boot (submarinos) alemães e aquela que sucedeu, durante a Guerra Fria, contra os submarinos soviéticos: esta é conduzida contra a Rússia, nova “potência marítima agressiva”, cujos “submarinos, cada vez mais sofisticados, ameaçam a capacidade da NATO de exercer o controlo marítimo do Atlântico Norte e, consequentemente, das linhas de comunicação marítimas entre os Estados Unidos e a Europa”. Invertendo os factos, o Almirante disse que a Rússia “desafia a presença USA e a NATO” não só no Atlântico, mas também “no Mar Báltico e no Mar Negro”, ou seja, nos mares em que banham a Rússia europeia.
Descobre-se assim, para além da finalidade militar, a outra utilidade da Trident Juncture 2018: Uma maxi psy-op (gigantesca operação psicológica) para alimentar a ideia de que a Europa está ameaçada por uma Rússia cada vez mais agressiva. Na Suécia, país parceiro da NATO, foi distribuído um manual de sobrevivência a 4,8 milhões de famílias sobre como se preparar para a guerra, fazendo armazenamento de víveres e de outros géneros essenciais, aprendendo como se comportar quando soarem as sirenes de alarme que anunciarão o ataque russo. A NATO prepara-se assim, para incorporar para todos os efeitos, também a Suécia, país que já é “neutro”.
Con un dispiegamento di circa 50mila uomini ha preso il via l’esercitazione Nato Trident Juncture 2018 che si svolge nella Norvegia centrale e orientale, nelle aree adiacenti del Nord Atlantico (fino all’Islanda) e del Mar Baltico (inclusi gli spazi aerei di Svezia e Finlandia). Vi prendono parte le forze armate dei 29 paesi membri della Nato, più Svezia e Finlandia
Marines Usa, sbarcati da convertiplani ed elicotteri della nave da assalto anfibio Iwo Jima, hanno «messo in sicurezza» l’aeroporto di Keflavík in Islanda, dove sono arrivati da Sigonella aerei Poseidon P-8A per la caccia ai sottomarini nemici. Così ha preso avvio il 17 ottobre l’esercitazione Nato Trident Juncture 2018, la cui fase principale si svolge dal 25 ottobre al 7 novembre nella Norvegia centrale e orientale, nelle aree adiacenti del Nord Atlantico (fino all’Islanda) e del Mar Baltico (inclusi gli spazi aerei di Svezia e Finlandia). Vi prendono parte le forze armate dei 29 paesi membri della Nato, più quelle di due partner, Svezia e Finlandia. Complessivamente, circa 50mila uomini, 65 grandi navi, 250 aerei, 10 mila carrarmati e altri veicoli militari. Se questi fossero messi in fila, l’uno accosto all’altro, formerebbero una colonna lunga 92 km. Comandante dell’esercitazione, una delle maggiori degli ultimi anni, è l’ammiraglio statunitense James Foggo. Nominato dal Pentagono come i suoi predecessori, egli comanda allo stesso tempo la Forza Congiunta Alleata (Jfc Naples) con quartier generale a Lago Patria (Napoli), le Forze Navali Usa in Europa e le Forze Navali Usa per l’Africa, con quartier generale a Napoli Capodichino. L’ammiraglio comanda la Trident Juncture 2018 dalla Mount Whitney, nave ammiraglia della Sesta Flotta, trasferita da Gaeta al Nord Atlantico: un quartier generale galleggiante, collegato alla rete globale di comando e controllo del Pentagono anche attraverso la stazione Muos di Niscemi.
Ciò conferma l’importanza dei comandi e delle basi Usa/Nato in Italia non solo per il Mediterraneo, ma per l’intera «area di responsabilità» del Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa, che è sempre un generale statunitense, attualmente Curtis Scaparrotti, nominato dal presidente degli Stati uniti: tale area geostrategica, a partire dal 2002, «si è estesa per coprire tutte le operazioni Nato, indipendentemente dalla loro loro collocazione geografica».
Obiettivo ufficiale della Trident Juncture 2018 è «assicurare che le forze Nato siano pronte a rispondere a qualsiasi minaccia da qualsiasi direzione provenga». Basta dare uno sguardo alla carta geografica, però, per capire che la maxi esercitazione di guerra è focalizzata in un’unica direzione: ad Est, contro la Russia. L’ammiraglio Foggo sostiene che è iniziata la «Quarta battaglia dell’Atlantico», dopo quelle delle due guerre mondiali contro gli U-Boot tedeschi e della guerra fredda contro i sottomarini sovietici: essa viene condotta contro la Russia, nuova «potenza marittima aggressiva», i cui «sottomarini sempre più sofisticati minacciano la capacità della Nato di esercitare il controllo marittimo del Nord Atlantico e, di conseguenza, le linee di comunicazione marittima tra gli Stati uniti e l’Europa».
Rovesciando i fatti, l’ammiraglio sostiene che la Russia «sfida la presenza Usa e Nato» non solo nell’Atlantico, ma anche «nel Mar Baltico e nel Mar Nero», ossia nei mari su cui si affaccia la Russia europea. Si scopre così, oltre quella militare, l’altra finalità della Trident Juncture 2018: una maxi psyop (operazione psicologica) per alimentare l’idea che l’Europa è minacciata da una Russia sempre più aggressiva.
In Svezia, paese partner della Nato, è stato distribuito a 4,8 milioni di famiglie un manuale di sopravvivenza su come prepararsi alla guerra, facendo scorte di viveri e altri generi essenziali, imparando a come comportarsi quando suoneranno le sirene di allarme che annunceranno l’attacco russo. La Nato si prepara così a inglobare a tutti gli effetti anche la Svezia, già paese «neutrale».
It has taken the US military/security complex 31 years to get rid of President Reagan’s last nuclear disarmament achievement—the INF Treaty that President Reagan and Soviet President Gorbachev achieved in 1987.
The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was ratified by the US Senate on May 27, 1988 and became effective a few days later on June 1. Behind the scenes, I had some role in this, and as I remember what the treaty achieved was to make Europe safe from nuclear attack by Soviet short and intermediate range missiles, and to make the Soviet Union safe from US attack from short and intermediate range US nuclear missiles in Europe. By restricting nuclear weapons to ICBMs, which allowed some warning time, thus guaranteeing retaliation and non-use of nucular weapons, the INF Treaty was regarded as reducing the risk of an American first-strike on Russia and a Russian first-strike on Europe, strikes that could be delivered by low-flying cruise missiles with next to zero warning time.
When President Reagan appointed me to a secret Presidential committee with subpoena power over the CIA, he told the members of the secret committee that his aim was to bring the Cold War to an end, with the result that, in his words, “those God-awful nuclear weapons would be dismantled.” President Reagan, unlike the crazed neoconservatives, who he fired and prosecuted, saw no point in nuclear war that would destroy all life on earth. The INF Treaty was the beginning, in Reagan’s mind, of the elimination of nuclear weapons from military arsenals. The INF Treaty was chosen as the first start because it did not substantially threaten the budget of the US military/security complex, and actually increased the security of the Soviet military. In other words, it was something that Reagan and Gorbachev could get past their own military establishments. Reagan hoped that as trust built, more nuclear disarmament would proceed.
Now that President Reagan’s remaining achievement has been destroyed, what are the consequences of the Trump administration’s concession to the profits of the US military/security complex?
There are many, none good.
The massive US military/security complex profits will increase as more increasingly scarce American resources flow into the production of intermediate range missiles in order to counter “the Russian threat.” The Republicans will want to pay for this by cutting Social Security and Medicare. I am unsure that the Democrats would be any different.
The Zionist neoconservatives now have their hope rekindled of re-establishing American and Israeli hegemony with an undetected first strike nuclear cruise missile attack on Russia.
More pressure will be on Putin’s government from Alexei Kudrin, the Jewish Lobby, and the billionaire oligarchs put in place by Washington and Israel during the Yeltsin years when Russia was degraded to an American vassal state. These Russian traitors are so powerful that Putin has to tolerate them. With neoconized Washington doing everything it can possibly do to damage the Russian economy and to draw Russian resources off from economic and infrastructure needs to military spending, Kudrin and the Western-supported elements of the Russian media will, with their demands to accommodate Washington, encourage Washington to put yet more pressure on Russia with the intention of forcing Russia into a vassal status with the Germans, British, French, and the rest of Europe, along with Canada, Australia, and Japan.
The Russian government, by its meek response to extraordinary provocations, continues to encourage more provocations, as the provocations cost the US and its vassals nothing. The Russian government’s toleration of traitors, such as Kudrin, does not convince Western peoples that Russia is an open, free speech society. Instead, they believe Kudrin, not Putin. Americans believe that Putin is a thug who stole $50 billion and is one of the world’s richest men. I heard this yesterday from my own cousin. The Western media never paints a correct picture of life in Russia. The only achievement of the Russian government’s non-confrontational response to the West and toleration of treason within its own government is to convince Washington that Putin can be overthrown, just like the pro-Russian president of Ukraine and the presidents of Honduras, Brazil, Argentina.
In the 20th century Americans, or that small percentage that is sentient, were influenced by dystopic novels such as Kafka’s The Trial, Orwell’s 1984, and Huxley’s Brave New World. We identified these novels with life in the Soviet Union, and we feared being conquered and subjectged to such life. It was a long time before I realized that the “Soviet threat” was a hoax, like Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” like “Iranian nukes,” like “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” like . . . you can provide the examples.
The vast majority of the peoples in the world have no idea what is happening. They are trying to find or to keep jobs, to provide housing and food, to find the money for a mortgage or car or credit card payment in the US, and in much of the world water to drink and a bit of food to eat. They are stressed out. They have no energy to confront bad news or to figure out what is happening. They are abandoned by governments everywhere. Outside of Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, where is there a government that represents the people?
Even in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, are there governments that actually believe in themselves instead of in Western propaganda?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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
Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman phoned Jamal Khashoggi and tried to convince him to return to Riyadh, just moments before the dissident journalist was killed in the kingdom’s Istanbul consulate, a new report claims.
The prince contacted Khashoggi shortly after he was detained inside the consulate, Turkish pro-government paper Yeni Safak reported on Sunday, citing its own sources. According to the publication, Mohammad bin Salman, known in the West by his initials MBS, attempted to convince the journalist over the phone to return to his homeland, Saudi Arabia. Once close with the Saudi elites, Khashoggi fled the kingdom last year in fear of possible prosecution.
'Nothing happens in Saudi Arabia without MbS [Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman] knowing it' – Sen. Lindsey Graham https://t.co/UPevrEPq1T#Khashoggi
The journalist declined the prince’s offer to fly to Riyadh, thinking he would be arrested and killed there, and was then murdered by the Saudi hit-team after the talk with MBS ended, the paper wrote.
More than two weeks have passed since Khashoggi disappeared after entering the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Saudi officials claim that he was killed in a “fist fight” which broke out in the consulate building. The officials have yet to provide details on the incident and are still determining where Khashoggi’s body is.
Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeirstated earlier that Khashoggi’s death was a “tremendous mistake” and MBS was “not aware” of his killing.
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir on Jamal Khashoggi: "We want to make sure that we know what happened and we want to make sure that those responsible be held to account." https://t.co/ZNhIXzUPC9pic.twitter.com/YjrhiGzKBe
Meanwhile, Turkey is conducting a separate investigation into the case. Ankara insists that the Saudis had planned to murder the journalist and dispatched an assassination squad to take him out. Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to reveal further details soon.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Russian strategists must be rubbing their hands with glee as they watch the West sacrifice its strategic and highly profitable relationship with Saudi Arabia all because of Jamal Khashoggi, knowing full well that their country is more than capable of replacing its rivals in every single sphere of cooperation that they pull out of with Riyadh, which would resultantly reinforce Russia’s position as the supreme “balancing” force in 21st century Eurasia.
Suiciding A Slew Of Strategic Partnerships
It almost looks at this point like the West wants Russia to replace its strategic role in Saudi Arabia, at least judging by the self-inflicted damage that they’ve done to their own interests over the past couple of weeks since Jamal Khashoggi’s killing in his country’s Istanbul consulate. The circumstances surrounding it are unclear, but it’s looking ever more likely that a hostile “deep state” faction was behind his murder just like the author surmised in his earlier piece titled “Khashoggi Mystery: Rogue Killers Or Rogue Royals?”, though that still can’t be known for certain. Even so, it’s interesting to observe how many Western countries and companies decided to pull out of the Kingdom’s upcoming Future Investors Initiative, which is regarded as the so-called “Davos in the Desert”.
Even more stunning is the fact that many influential voices on both sides of the Atlantic are now calling for a suspension of their already agreed-upon weapons deals with Saudi Arabia, although Trump has thus far has been impervious to this pressure on the basis that one dead dissident isn’t worth sacrificing $110 billion worth of deals and potentially half a million jobs at home. The EU thinks differently, however, and Merkel announced that she’ll freeze arms shipments to Saudi Arabia as well as encourage her partners in the bloc to follow suit. All of this has combined to contribute to an environment of uncertainty where the Kingdom is no longer sure whether it can rely on its decades-long strategic partners, especially in respect to the military sphere.
Russia To The Rescue
Trump will probably hold firm and do whatever he can to retain his country’s strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, but the ruling royals must realize at this point that he could always change his mind depending on domestic political considerations, to say nothing of overall international considerations. The Saudis don’t seem interested in making the first move away from America but will undoubtedly find a way to asymmetrically retaliate if the US ends up sanctioning it after the midterms. Bearing this backdrop in mind, the only responsible thing for Saudi Arabia to do is seek to strengthen its much more reliable relationship with its newfound non-traditional Russian partners, with whom it’s in the midst of a fast-moving and full-spectrum rapprochement.
Russia’s desire to become the 21stcentury’s supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia has seen it clinch a variety of military, energy, economic/investment, and diplomatic deals with Saudi Arabia in spite of the two previously being heated rivals during the 1980s War on Afghanistan and the early 2010s War on Syria, but both Great Powers have pragmatically matured to the point of understanding the need to turn the page on their storied relationship and start anew in the New Cold War. So close have they become in recent years that President Putin even agreed to provide Saudi Arabia with S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as Kornet-EM anti-tank missile systems, TOS-1A “Buratino” heavy flame systems, AGS-30 grenade launchers, and Kalashnikov AK-103 assault rifles during King Salman’s historic visit to Moscow in October 2017.
No Yielding Over Yemen
It doesn’t matter much to Russia that most of these munitions will probably be used in the War on Yemen since Moscow supports the Saudi position and is solidly behind the internationally recognized Yemeni government of President Hadi, which it still backs despite his unpopularity and purely because of the international legal principle of being against the Houthis’ militant overthrow of his government. Russia, unlike Western states, doesn’t place any political conditions on the purchase of its military equipment such as prohibiting their use in Yemen since Saudi Arabia’s activities there aren’t under UNSC sanctions. Moscow has expressed concern over mounting civilian casualties and is in favor of a political solution, but it has no interest imposing its desired vision on any of the warring parties.
Think what one may about that position, it’s nevertheless consistent with international law, for better or for worse. No resolutions were ever passed by the UNSC forbidding the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, so while one may disagree with the ethics of doing so, there’s nothing “illegal” about it even though a convincing argument can be made that the entire War on Yemen is illegal and that the UNSC should have sanctioned Saudi Arabia and its allies because of it. Be that as it may, they didn’t, which is why Russia has no qualms about possibly expanding its weapons sales to Saudi Arabia to replace any contracts that the Kingdom might end up cancelling with its unreliable so-called “Western partners”, but it’s not all about Moscow making a quick buck.
“Military Diplomacy”, OPEC+, And Big Business Investments
Russia considers “military diplomacy” to be part and parcel of its envisioned 21st-century “balancing” act, to which end it regularly sells arms to competing pairs of countries such as Armenia & Azerbaijan, India & China, and China & Vietnam in order to maintain the strategic equilibrium between them that could hopefully prevent one side from gaining an edge over the other and aggressively commencing a war because of it. This contrasts with the US’ position of deliberately benefiting one side at the expense of another in order to spark this scenario to the benefit of its preferred regional partner. Considering the Mideast’s complicated geopolitics, it makes sense from Russia’s perspective why its strategists would like to include Saudi Arabia in its “military diplomacy” network for replicating this model between it and Iran.
Moving beyond the military realm and into the energy one, Russia and Saudi Arabia are already dominating the global oil market through their OPEC+ partnership, but this will increasingly come under threat as the US continues its rise as a formidable challenger to both of them. In regards to the economic/investment sphere, the large-scale exodus of Western participants from the forthcoming “Davos in the Desert” bodes extremely well for Russia because it allows the country’s businessmen to stand apart from the pack and draw attention to the fact that there aren’t any political strings attached to their prospective deals. This is extremely important because it could reassure Riyadh that whatever agreements it reaches with Russia would be respected no matter what happens inside of the Kingdom itself.
“Sword Dancing” For The S-400s?
The Russian President’s Special Representative for the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, said as much at the beginning of this week when he remarked that
“the situation around the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi does not affect the planning of contacts between Moscow and Riyadh, including at the top level.”
Accordingly, it’s only natural that presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskovreaffirmed that “preparations for the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Saudi Arabia are ongoing” after the Russian leader was invited to travel to the Kingdom by King Salman last year, where he last visited in 2007 when he received the prestigious Order of King Abdulaziz that was later also bestowed upon the likes of Obama and Trump.
President Putin is probably holding off on his visit until a number of big-ticket deals are officially clinched between the two Great Powers to serve as a productive reason for him to go there, such as finalizing the S-400 agreement and possibly even winning the bid to construct 16 nuclear power plants in the Kingdom. Furthermore, given the intense backchannel diplomacy between Russia and Saudi Arabia over Syria, it can’t be precluded that President Putin might be waiting for the fruits of their efforts to lead to a breakthrough in the Arab Republic that he can celebrate with King Salman, though it’s unlikely that he’d allow the media to capture him on camera performing a “sword dance” like Trump did if he was invited by his jubilant host to do so.
Concluding Thoughts
Russia is poised to reap the rewards of the West’s self-inflicted damage to its strategic and highly profitable relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been unprecedentedly undermined by the killing of a single dissident even though they ignored the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemen. The trans-Atlantic divide between the US and the EU couldn’t be sharper in this context because Trump is doing all that he can to resist “deep state” and grassroots pressure to cancel his country’s $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia while Merkel is leading the way in trying to get all EU countries to immediately suspend their weapons contracts with the Kingdom. The unexpected political instrumentalization of these agreements has put Saudi Arabia on edge and prompted it to strengthen ties with its non-traditional partners in Russia instead.
To its pragmatic credit, Russia hasn’t once interfered with any of the many controversial events that characterize Saudi domestic politics, instead consistently remaining loyal to its policy of political non-interference in domestic affairs unless the interests of its compatriots are at stake. While this stance might have earned it heavy criticism in some corners for supposedly “turning a blind eye to Saudi crimes”, it’s nevertheless proven its strategic effectiveness by attracting Saudi Arabia’s attention as Riyadh seeks to replace many of its former “Western partners” with Russia after the sudden rift that developed between them. If the current trajectory continues, then the two Great Powers might very well be on their way to clinching a formal strategic partnership that could see President Putin travel to Riyadh as part of a victory lap for signing the most symbolic agreements.
*
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.
Québec solidaire’s 10 members of the National Assembly, elected October 1, took their oath of office on October 17 in two parts.
The oath of allegiance to the Queen, required by the British North America Act (now the Constitution Act) in order to take their seats in the Assembly, was conducted behind closed doors, presided over by the secretary of the Assembly.
In a public ceremony held in the former chamber of the Legislative Council (the appointed upper house abolished in the 1960s) the 10 MNAs pledged their “real” loyalty “to the people of Quebec.” Then, to the acclaim of many supporters of Quebec sovereignty, both QS and non-QS, they promised to introduce a bill to abolish the oath to the Queen, described by the party’s co-leader Manon Massé as “anti-democratic” and “archaic.”
Although symbolic, it was an auspicious gesture reflecting Québec solidaire’s determination to present a real progressive alternative to the new government of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), sworn into office the following day.
A Repositioning of Quebec’s Economic Elite
Winning 37.4% of the popular vote – 25.8% of the eligible electorate, given the high abstention rate – the Coalition Avenir Québec holds 74 seats, a comfortable majority of more than 60% of the 125 in the National Assembly. Once again, the undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system produces a result quite unrepresentative of the voters’ choices. Doubts are widespread, therefore, that the CAQ will adhere to its pre-election pledge to institute some form of proportional representation which, had it applied to the October 1 results, would have held it to minority government status. There is less doubt, however, about how the CAQ will use its parliamentary majority to implement its unabashedly pro-business and ethnically divisive program.
Québec solidaire’s 10 member caucus of the National Assembly. Manon Massé (at the microphone) is one of the co-spokespersons. (Source: The Bullet)
Founded seven years ago, the party is an amalgam of former Liberal and PQ supporters assembled around a core element, the former right-wing Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ), which split from the Quebec Liberal party in the early 1990s in the wake of the demise of the Meech Lake attempt at constitutional reform. It supports some vaguely articulated form of Quebec autonomy but not independence. The CAQ is very much the instrument of François Legault, a former Parti québécois minister and before that a prominent businessman, founder and CEO of Air Transat. He personally selected the party’s candidates. At least 32 of the party’s deputies – 43% of its caucus – are from the business and managerial milieu.1 And well over half of Legault’s cabinet, announced October 18, are business people or journalists in mainstream or business media.
The party is the product of a repositioning of the nationalist sector of Quebec’s economic elite after the narrow defeat of the 1995 referendum on sovereignty, writes Bernard Rioux, an editor of the left-wing on-line journal Presse-toi à gauche. Successive PQ leaderships led the way, postponing their hopes for a sovereign Quebec to an indefinite future while aligning their party increasingly with neoliberal globalization, support of free trade and privatization of public enterprises, establishment of fee-based public services, reduced taxation of the wealthy, continued exploitation of fossil fuels and concentration of media ownership. Legault, having abandoned the PQ, simply aligned his new party with the federalism of the vast majority of the Québécois bourgeoisie, which sees the Quebec government as its prime instrument for gaining a strengthened role within the Canadian ruling class and through it with global capitalism.
Rioux summarizes the CAQ’s agenda for its four-year mandate. Among promised measures:
Privatization of public services, especially in education and health care, for example by continuing the expansion of private clinics allowed by both PQ and Liberal governments.
Greater inequality in the distribution of wealth through tax reductions for business.
Support for gas and oil exploration and exploitation, and rejection of any plan for environmental transition to renewable energy sources. Legault supported the Energy East pipeline project, cancelled for now following mass protests.
Regressive nationalism that caters to white male identity. During the election campaign Legault promised a 20% reduction in immigration quotas and threatened to expel applicants for citizenship who failed to pass tests on language skills and Quebec “values” within three years. Since the election he has promised to prevent state employees in “positions of authority,” including teachers and not just cops, prison guards and judges, from wearing signs denoting religious belief. In this he expands the scope of the Liberal government’s Bill 62, which prohibited citizens from wearing face coverings when receiving or dispensing public services – a measure clearly aimed at Muslim women in particular. (Now law, it has yet to take effect pending a constitutional challenge.)
The CAQ promises a pro-business orientation that will wean Quebec off federal “equalization” payments that offset relatively low government revenues with income derived from higher-income provinces such as the petro-province Alberta. At present Quebec gets the lion’s share of such payments, almost $12-billion or about 62% of the total Ottawa gives the six have-not provinces. Overall federal transfer payments, including cash for health care and social programs, total $24.3-billion, or 22% of Quebec government revenues in the current fiscal year. However, the CAQ’s fiscal framework, tabled during the election campaign, projected federal transfers of $25.6-billion in 2022-23, the final year of the CAQ’s mandate. Indeed, it is hard to see how significant progress in reducing this dependency on federal transfers can be achieved without huge cutbacks in government expenditures. The CAQ promises to cut at least 5,000 employees from the public payroll, but that might be only a beginning.
The CAQ’s right-wing anti-immigrant populism has some parallels with the new parties that have emerged in Europe in recent years, as well as with the Trump conquest of the Republican party. These formations are most successful in channeling working-class voters’ discontent over their declining economic status toward a scapegoating of immigrants and other vulnerable populations that distracts from the deepening capitalist austerity they implement. Their electoral success reflects the failure of the old reformist and social-democratic left to present a credible alternative to the rightward drift of capitalist politics.
However, the CAQ does differ somewhat from other right-wing populist formations in Canada such as Doug Ford’s “Progressive Conservatives” in Ontario or Jason Kenney’s merging of Wild Rose with his Conservatives in Alberta. These parties are known more for their virulent rejection of environmental regulation, verging on climate change denialism, than for attacks on immigrants and ethnic minorities. Canadian capitalists generally encourage limited immigration in order to compensate for the shortages in skilled and low-wage labour they face. The CAQ’s seeming indifference to climate change resonates with its Ontario and Alberta counterparts, while its focus on ethnic identity and immigration issues is its main difference with the Quebec Liberals. The Canadian ruling class as a whole can congratulate itself in any case on the emergence for the first time since the Parti québécois was founded 50 years ago of a new party of governmental alternance that is not “separatist.”
As for the Quebec Liberal party (PLQ), the other party of alternance, it suffered the worst election defeat in its 151 year history. Although the party won 25% of the popular vote, it won only 12% of the vote among the Francophone electorate. It finished fourth in 33 of the 125 ridings and behind Québec solidaire in more than 40.2 Almost all of its 29 MNAs represent predominantly Anglophone and Allophone (immigrant) ridings on the island of Montréal. Ironically, the main cause of voter hostility to the party related to the harsh austerity program it applied, particularly in the first three years of its mandate. Since Legault’s CAQ promises much the same, popular discontent may rise before long.
Shift to the Left Within the Pro-Sovereignty Spectrum
The combined PQ-QS share of the popular vote (respectively 17% and 16%) was roughly equivalent to the percentage of Québécois supporting independence in recent years, and about the same as in the previous election, in 2014. But it represented a sea change within the movement.
For the PQ it was the worst result since the party was founded 50 years ago; for QS, it was a major breakthrough. QS gained 7 seats, 4 at the expense of the PQ and the other 3 from the PLQ. The PQ was wiped off the map in Montréal, while QS is not only the second party there but won four seats outside the metropolis: two in Quebec City, one each in Sherbrooke and Abitibi. Although the two parties each have ten seats (the PQ picked up one on a recount, and will rank third in the National Assembly ahead of QS because its popular vote is larger) the PQ is still a major force within the pro-sovereignty movement. It boasts 80,000 members compared with QS’s 20,000. The PQ ranked second in the popular vote in 34 ridings, QS was second in 14.
However, QS was stronger among voters under the age of 35, according to exit polls. And when the Quebec Electoral Officer sponsored a mock vote during the campaign in more than a thousand high schools and youth organizations, QS won the most support among the 81,375 young people who voted: 26.15%, followed by the PLQ and CAQ (just over 22% each) and the PQ (15.37%).
Some PQ leaders, realizing the party’s error in its venomous attacks on QS during the election campaign, are now openly suggesting their party should seek “convergence” with QS. And they are not alone.
Claudette Carbonneau, a former president of the CSN union central and now chair of OUI Québec, a united front of sovereigntist parties and trade unions, said an exploration of prospects for convergence should be high on the agenda of the Assises nationales de concertation (national joint-action conference) the coalition plans to hold soon on the future of the independence project:
“If QS and the PQ don’t find an original way to combine their efforts around some essential issues, they will condemn themselves to a certain marginality with respect to climate change, the urgency of a massive reinvestment in our public services, without overlooking their responsibility to bring about independence, indissociable from these objectives.”3
Pierre Dubuc, editor of the left publication L’aut’journal, goes further. Acknowledging “the strategic adroitness of QS” in bringing independence to the fore and giving it substance through the fusion with Option nationale last year,4Dubuc deplores the fact that once again the division of the independentist and progressive vote paved the way to putting the Right in power. Failing the advent of proportional representation, he says, “it is overridingly important that independentists and progressives unite within a single party,” albeit one that “allows the expression of different tendencies.” Dubuc thinks the PQ decline began when Pauline Marois in 2010 banned the presence of a left-wing “political club” within the PQ, the SPQ Libre, which he founded and led as its Secretary. Dubuc has operated politically for almost two decades as a harsh critic of Québec solidaire and its predecessors for “splitting the independence vote.” He still cannot bring himself to acknowledge the futility of his own attempts to reform the Parti québécois.
The election results reopened a deep division within the Bloc Québécois, the pro-sovereignty party in the federal Parliament. The call by the party’s MPs to support the PQ candidates, and not QS,5 led one member of the BQ national bureau to resign. Jocelyn Beaudoin, the membership representative on the bureau, charged in a letter to the party’s executive that the Bloc had decided not to choose between the parties in the election “knowing that if it did it would divide the members.” It was a major lack of political judgment, he said. “At the first opportunity we might have had… to adopt a constructive approach, the party shoots itself in its foot.”
The Bloc’s vice-president Gilbert Paquette, for his part, charged that the MPs had committed a “strategic error” in not first consulting the party’s leadership bodies before issuing their statement. That statement, and Gilles Duceppe’s attack on Manon Massé, had “reinforced the impression that the Bloc sees itself as a kind of appendix of the Parti québécois,” Paquette charged in a letter to the BQ executive and MPs. Both Paquette and Beaudoin, the latter a former president of Option nationale, were strong supporters of Martine Ouellet, the BQ leader forced out by the party’s MPs earlier this year because of her insistence that the MPs fight for Quebec independence and not be content with defending “the interests of Quebec” in the federal Parliament.
The Bloc is currently trying to refound itself in a process due to conclude in January that was seen as a first stage toward a reunification of sovereigntist forces both federally and provincially.6
No doubt pressure will continue to build on QS to coalesce with the PQ. But for now QS is focused on constituting itself as “the real official opposition” to the CAQ government. “We are a new political movement… and that can’t be reduced to inter-relations with the PQ,” said QS spokesman Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. “QS is not a sub-category of the PQ,” he told a press conference. “So all the mathematical calculations where you try to add the votes are without foundation.”
“In 2017 we decided as we had done two times previously to run candidates in all the ridings because what we defend is based on the peoples’ struggles for social justice and control of their destiny, and for a Quebec that belongs to those who inhabit it.7
“The PQ abandoned this terrain a long time ago, and has proved this a hundred times. Its anti-union laws in the 1980s, the neoliberal austerity of [PQ premier Lucien] Bouchard in 1999, the secret contracts [PQ premier Pauline] Marois’ government signed with [the oil company] Petrolia on Anticosti Island and the return to zero deficit of [PQ finance minister] Marceau, the cuts in social assistance by [PQ minister] Agnès Maltais, the total abdication of that government when dealing with the mining companies, and its continuation of [Liberal premier Jean] Charest’s Plan Nord. And to complete things, the charter of Quebec values that divided Quebec in order to win votes, and stigmatized an entire part of the population and Muslim community in particular.”
Talk about a convergence between the PQ and QS is essentially a false debate, Frappier argues.
“The change in alternance of the neoliberal parties with the election of the CAQ and the failure of the PQ in relation to the project of Quebec sovereignty presents us with an inescapable observation. The future of Quebec society can only proceed through a political party that is linked to social mobilization for control of its fate and in opposition to right-wing policies. The only party in the running is now Québec solidaire.
“The social change needed to fight against control by the oil companies, multinationals, financial institutions, against corruption and tax evasion, can only be realized by a left party like Québec solidaire. It requires as well the mobilization of the population conscious of the role it must play, of the trade unions, of the women’s movements, the ethnocultural communities, environmental groups and other social movements…
“We must emerge from the cycle of defensive struggles and defeats that have characterized politics for decades.”
Source: The Bullet
And ‘a party of the streets’?
With its ten MNAs, Québec solidaire will be focused very much in coming months on shaping its parliamentary intervention, developing expertise in various policy fields, and learning how to make its principles and program relevant and understandable to a much wider audience. However, as Frappier argues, the party also faces a huge challenge in developing the other component of “a party of the ballot box and the streets.” Much can be said about this, but here I will simply draw attention to three texts, available on line, that can help to orient this needed debate in QS.
“Parliamentary action and social struggles – The experience of the Portuguese Left Bloc” is an important contribution by a founding leader of a party that has many similarities to Québec solidaire in a country not much larger than Québec. Francisco Louçã is a Left Bloc member of the Portuguese parliament and a former Bloc candidate in the 2005 presidential election. With just over 10% of the popular vote, the party has 19 seats in the Assembly of the Republic under a system of proportional representation.
By electing MPs, Louçã writes, “the Bloc has taken a leap forward, becoming a reference party for the popular struggle.” Institutional representation requires close attention to developing technical skills and professional teams to support the party’s parliamentary work, which now includes municipal action. But “this has a significant cost: a significant part of our most experienced activists are taken up in institutional involvement.”
“These institutional machines therefore absorb much of our activist capacity. It is never clear in advance whether or not this will lead to adaptation to the system, but this institutional standardization generates pressure in this direction. These possible forms of adaptation may be varied: resignation to very limited measures in the name of maintaining the positions acquired; refusal to criticise the institutions or their management in the name of possible future agreements; the idea that politics advances in small steps; fear of public opinion which leads to not presenting a socialist alternative which leads to other institutional forms; desire to avoid the risk of conflict for fear of losing. All these forms of adaptation distort a left-wing policy based on popular representation.”
The Bloc has made little progress on representation within the social movements, he adds. It needs to build organized forces in the unions and workplaces, and figure out how to get young people to “join us and find ways of training and political action.” And Louçã explains the relation between this question and the struggle for socialism, which the Bloc sets as its goal.
“Capitalism is a mode of production, of reproduction of the conditions of production and of representation of the conditions of production and reproduction. This definition underlines the essential point: there is no capitalist production without the system reproducing itself and for this reason it mobilizes its representation, which is based on the alienation of work, social relations, life, relations with nature, but also in the alienation of electoral representation and voting. The separation of the worker from the product of their work, from the control of their life, from their social and even electoral power is the foundation of the conformism on which bourgeois hegemony is based. That is why left-wing politics is a social movement and aims to strengthen itself in the perspective that its ideas and proposals also have an impact on elections; that is why it does not give any ground in the dispute over hegemony; that is precisely why the socialist strategy can only triumph in the social struggle…
“[T]he success of this electoral option does not demonstrate that representation is a sufficient condition for socialist politics. Designed as an instrument to accumulate forces, it is useful. Conceived as a form of conditioning and loss of critical sense and social alternative, it fails. The left only exists through social protagonism, through conflict or strategic intervention in class struggle. In other words, it needs to be part of the class movement. This is how it always measures its strengths.”
What this can mean in terms of Québec solidaire is discussed in a recent article by Alexandre Leduc, a staff advisor to the Quebec Federation of Labour and a leader of QS in the Montréal riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who was elected to the National Assembly on October 1. Leduc identifies two major aspects to the work of a QS riding association: support and animation [which can be translated as initiation].
“The role of support,” he writes, “is aimed essentially at publicizing and participating in actions already organized by groups or citizens’ coalitions. This requires little organizational effort but it does not help to put the party up front.”
However, the examples of support he presents later in his piece include such activities as preparing briefs on local issues; calling on party members to support artists fighting eviction from their loft studio; joining in the massive protests of parents who formed human chains around public schools to defend their facilities against government cutbacks and urging these citizens to continue the fight in other areas such as health care and culture; and joining with workers facing factory closures in a fight to reopen them as worker cooperatives. It is unclear why Leduc thinks the party as such gains little credibility or support from such efforts.
“The role of animation,” he writes, “allows an association to organize political action on its own basis and subsequently reap the benefits. In this way, the association builds its credibility among the groups and citizens in its neighborhood or region.”
As an example, he cites the association’s circulation during the 2012 provincial election campaign of a petition to get the public transit agency to improve service on two bus routes, an action undertaken in the absence of any mobilization on this issue by others. The petition was successful, and the service was improved.
The distinction between support and animation seems a bit formal to me. The common ingredient in both is the party’s identification of a goal that advances or defends social policy or a public service, a willingness to work toward that goal, and wherever possible to work with others in fighting for it. Where other forces are involved, the party can also link the immediate goal with its broader program of fundamental social change.
Finally, I think QS would benefit greatly by reviving and debating a draft proposal on “Québec Solidaire and the social movements” that was submitted by the QS Policy Commission for discussion at a party convention a few years ago; it was then withdrawn from the convention agenda ostensibly for later debate but since then shelved indefinitely. I think it presents some valuable ideas on how the party might structure its intervention in the social movements, including the trade unions. It is appended to the following article: “Quebec election: A seismic shift within the independence movement?”
Program Development
On two key programmatic issues, in my view, Québec solidaire needs to give further thought. One is its strategy for Quebec independence. While progress has been made on the linkage between the party’s program – its projet de société – and Quebec sovereignty, and with it the mandate of its proposed Constituent Assembly, there is still no thinking about the strategic issues facing the movement during the Assembly’s proceedings and following a successful referendum ratifying the draft constitution elaborated by the Assembly. QS needs to confront the reality of a federal state determined to thwart any moves that challenge its integrity. This is a complex issue and I will address it in a subsequent article. It should be on the agenda in the general review and updating of the QS program that the party plans to carry out in 2019.
An immediate issue however is the need to correct the party position on secularism.
Quebec’s new premier, François Legault, threatens to implement as a priority the CAQ’s plans to prohibit the wearing of “religious signs” among state-employed persons in positions of “coercion” (cops, prosecutors, judges and jail guards) or “authority” (including elementary and secondary school teachers, and perhaps others).
Québec solidaire has waffled on this issue for many years. The party claims to adhere to the principle of separation of church and state. In 2009, the resolution adopted at the party’s first convention on program stated that the party distinguishes between the need for state neutrality toward religious belief or lack of belief, and the freedom of individuals “to express their own convictions in a context that favours exchange and dialogue.” As I reported at the time:
“Delegates voted in favour of allowing ‘state agents’ (employees and officials) to wear religious insignia (a crucifix, hijab, whatever), but added some caveats that leave much to subjective interpretation and enforcement by employers: ‘provided they are not used as instruments of proselytism’ and do not interfere with their droit de réserve (duty of discretion), or ‘impede the performance of the duties or contravene safety standards.’ Delegates rejected other resolutions that would impose no such restrictions or, alternatively, would impose secular dress codes on civil servants, and they rejected as well a proposal to refer the whole issue for further decision at a later convention.”
While these caveats were problematic, QS leaders in subsequent years went further and began adapting to other parties’ attempts to impose dress codes not only on state employees but on citizens from minority ethnic communities.
In 2011, the sole QS member of the National Assembly, Amir Khadir, voted with the other parties for a PQ motion to ban Sikhs from entering the legislature because their ceremonial kirpans were to be deemed “weapons.” Ironically, the motion was prompted by an incident a month earlier when four members of the World Sikh Organization were turned back by security guards when they came to testify to a parliamentary committee in favour of the right of Muslim women to wear face coverings when receiving government services – which a Liberal government bill then under debate would have denied.
In 2013, when the National Assembly was again debating the PQ government’s now-infamous Charter of Values, QS leader Françoise David tabled a bill that if adopted would have enacted a “charter of secularism” that banned “state agents” from wearing signs indicative of personal religious belief. David described this as an “historic compromise.”
Although in 2017 the three QS MNAs voted against the Liberal government’s bill 62 prohibiting citizens from wearing face coverings when receiving or dispensing public services, they called instead for adoption of a “genuine” charter of secularism. QS leader Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois said their position was a “compromise”that takes a harder line than the Liberals in that it would bar people who wear overt religious symbols such as turbans and hijabs from working as judges, jail guards and cops.
These positions, which clearly violate the QS program adopted by the membership, have prompted a number of protests from defenders of civil liberties, including a very strong “Open Letter” addressed to the party by a number of QS members including prominent human rights lawyers.
Unfortunately, during their swearing-in on October 17, the new QS MNAs told reporters that they intend to support the “compromise” that would ban religious signs for persons in authority. But at least one – Catherine Dorion, representing Québec-Taschereau – said later she was not really sure what her position would be.
These issues should be on the agenda of the QS National Committee meeting, now scheduled to take place December 7-9. The party’s reaction to Legault’s forthcoming legislation will be an early test of the adherence to basic democratic principles of its new parliamentary deputation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Richard Fidler is a member of Solidarity Ottawa and a member of Québec solidaire. He blogs at Life on the Left.
See Richard Fidler, “Solidaires Score Important Breakthrough in Quebec Election,” The Bullet, October 2, 2018. When former BQ leader Gilles Duceppe attacked QS leader Manon Massé, the Quebec City BQ endorsed two QS candidates who were former leaders of Option nationale, now a part of Québec solidaire. The Bloc’s MPs then issued an endorsement of the PQ candidates.
Marie Vastel, “La bisbille au Bloc continue,” Le Devoir, October 5, 2018: “The Quebec election revealed that the cleavage between the two camps that opposed the BQ old guard to Martine Ouellet and her allies – closer to the ON legacy with their desire to do more in promoting sovereignty – had not completely disappeared.”
As we speak, NATO is in the middle of deploying 50.000 troops, 250 aircraft, 65 vessels and 10.000 vehicles all across Norway’s territory, as well as in some areas in Sweden, Finland, Iceland and other Baltic countries. More than 30 NATO members are participating in this exercise named Trident Juncture 18, the largest ever of its kind, surpassing all previous NATO exercises in Norway such as Cold Response (11 nations), Dynamic Mongoose (8 nations) and the Arctic Challenge (9 nations). Although NATO states that Trident Juncture 18 is to show that “it is capable of deterring any adversary, not anyone in particular, no particular adversary”, it should be obvious that the currently growing tension between the West and Russia stands as the main reason that can justify the sheer ampleur of this years’ deployment drill.
Over the last decade, but especially the last 4 years, relations between Russia and the West have been worsening by the day – a current geopolitical climate that echoes all the way to the Arctic – historically a major military theater during the height of the Cold War. So are we amidst a new and revived Cold War, or what is this growing militarization of the Arctic supposed to be telling us? Right in the middle between NATO and Russia, Norway stands as a hotspot for a pending conflict.
Norway’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy: Arctic Cooperation
As priorly mentioned, the Arctic was a heavily militarised area throughout most of the Cold War, but experienced an explosion in transnational cooperation once the war ended. This can be seen in the formation of the Arctic Council in 1996 and the Barents Euro-Arctic Region in 1993, among with many other similar organisation, that operate to desecuritise and demilitarize the Arctic through cooperation on common issues such as climate change, environmental concerns, indigenous rights, shipping, resource management and more. Over the last three decades, these organisations have helped improve the Russo-Western relations by means of collaboration, something that for long had been an absolute priority of Norwegian foreign policy goals.
Norway decided to join NATO at its very foundation in 1949, only 4 years after the Soviets liberated Norway from Nazi occupation during WWII, to the obvious disapproval of the USSR. Given its strategically important hence vulnerable geographical position, Norway decided to limit its role in NATO during the Cold War as an information and intelligence provider only, in order to avoid provoking the Soviets too much – a role that Norway continues to play even after the Cold War has ended. This was seen for example in 1999, when the Raytheon-made Globus II radar moved from California to Vardø, a small Norwegian town only 28 km away from the Russian border. The radar is currently administered by the Norwegian Intelligence Services, and although NATO state that the radar is being used for space surveillance and research only, its location so close to the old Soviet military town of Murmansk should tell enough about its intended aim.
Vardø locals have expressed concerns regarding the Globus II station, with Lt. Col. Tormod Heier, faculty adviser at the Norwegian Defense University College in Oslo going so far as saying : “Russiaviews Vardø as a high-value target. In a crisis it will be one of the first places to be blown up”. As of 2017, the Norwegian government is working on a Globus III radar station in Vardø, supposed to replace the older Globus I radar and expected to be operational within the next 2 years. In a growing conflict between the two old nemeses Russia and America , Norway’s policy of Arctic de-escalation is proving to be increasingly difficult to achieve. Using Trident Juncture 18 as a way to bring Finland and Sweden closer into its ally circle, NATO is showing that it has very specific expansionist aims in the Arctic and Baltic Sea region, not unlike the rest of the world.
Russia Doubles Down
Ever since the end of the Cold War, Russia has repeatedly been shot down every time it has attempted to get closer with the West. When the German reunification deal was negotiated, Russia was promised that NATO would not extend an inch eastwards towards ex-Soviet nations in exchange for Russia agreeing to reunify Eastern Germany with the the rest of the country- a promise that was obviously never kept. In 2001, Putin expressed a desire for Russia to join NATO, an olive branch the West arrogantly rejected as well. Instead NATO continues its expansion Eastward, with 21 EU nations now being a part of NATO as well, surrounding Russia on almost all fronts.
Back in 2002, the US announced that it was leaving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT) signed in 1972, and again announced in 2018 that it was leaving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) signed in 1982. Both treaties were signed during the Cold War as part of the detente strategy plans, yet remained extremely relevant in the post-Cold War world as well. The US then helped overthrow Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 while steering one of Russia’s oldest allies, Ukraine, away from it and towards NATO and the West. NATO was founded as a Cold War alliance that should technically have ended when the war did, yet it has instead only grown bigger and stronger, as it capitalized on the extremely weakened, newly-capitalistic Russia of the 1990’s – a country in such shambles it was incapable to assert itself as a dominant world power in the post-Soviet world.
Putin’s popularity among Russians rose as a direct result of a decade of national shame that inflicted the Russians during Yeltsin’s 1990s. With a very patriarchal authoritarian style of democracy, Russians traditionally seek in their leader someone who can stand up to Western powers rather than bending to their every will – hence it doesn’t come as a surprise that Putin is doubling down on NATO’s wargames in the Arctic.
Russia has massively been rearming its navy in the Kola Peninsula, with around 50 new reinforced large weapons bunkers for both nuclear missiles and conventional long-range high-precision cruise missiles currently being built in Severomorsk, only 100 km from the Norwegian border. Ahead of the Trident Juncture 18 mission, Russia decided to extend their own Eastern venture, the Vostok-2018 military drill, all the way to the Arctic as well. Vostok-2018 is the largest military exercise conducted on Russian soil since 1981, involving a stunning 300.000 troops, 1.000 aircrafts, 36.000 tanks, and a previously unseen and surprising cooperation with China and Mongolia. Flexing its muscles ahead of the Trident Juncture 18 mission, Russia had in August already sent 8 ships to sail the Barents Sea. In September they showed off their new mobile coastal defense system by shooting missiles off the base of Kotelny, and this October they sent nuclear submarines and strategic bombers sailing on a combat training mission in the Barents Sea. Russia is trying to send a resisting message that it refuses to stand iddly by while NATO operates at its doorstep – a message that NATO only sees as an opportunity to further increase its own militarization ahead of what they perceive as being a rising Russian aggression.
The Anti-Russian Lobby at the Heart of it All
One could question how we have gotten to this point in history, one where it feels like we are amidst a second yet more serious Cold War – at least according to Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton. Relations between the West and Russia started going South in the post-9/11 political climate, perfectly timed with Putin coming to power and refusing to support the Iraq war. Along with his differing views on the Caucasus conflict, Putin showed a willingness to again stand up to NATO and Western powers – something Yeltsin hadn’t done for an entire decade. This trend of Russian revival continued when Russia decided to intervene in Syria and when it annexed Crimea. What the world heard through these actions, was that Russian sovereignty was reborn and ready to have a say in global affairs once again. Needless to say, many powerful people didn’t like that one bit.
In its quest for hegemony, NATO is hardly accepting any form of bi- or multipolarity. With the rising of Russia and China as increasingly stronger military powers, NATO feels the need to show that it still stands as the sole global power above all other. There is in the US a quite prominent anti-Russian lobby which has been pushing ever since the end of the Cold War for keeping the tension with Russia at a high level (Tsygankov, 2009). In doing so, the US has a ‘boogyman’ it can use to justify massive arms sales, NATO expansion and military interventions, all in the name of deferring Russian influence abroad – just as it did during the Cold War when pretending to fight communism everywhere from South America, Asia and the Middle East.
Now for the last 2 years, every single major liberal media outlet has been pushing the Trump-Russia conspiracy – also known as Russiagate – on an incessant daily basis which has led a lot of Americans to believe that they’re currently engaged in an information and cyber war against Russia. Few in the general public are questioning the effects that the imposed sanctions and the EU and NATO expansion have had on the Russia-West relations, watching the unfolding actions of the authoritarian Russian president as if they were happening in a vacuum, devoid of any outside influence whatsoever. ‘Putin is a madman’ seems to be the only publicly accepted rhetoric to explain the worsening relations, the West devoiding itselves of all and any blame or involvement in what is currently happening. Obama mockingly told Romney during one of their 2008 presidential debate when Romney stressed the danger Russia posed to America, that “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years”. So exactly what has happened, for what was only 10 years ago a sign of political naivity and foolishness, to today having become a completely legitimate concern in the US and EU? Journalist and blogger Caitlin Johnstone provides a possible answer in her tweet from July 2018:
If you don't remember thinking much about Russia prior to the 2016, and now you think about it a lot more, that's your first clue that you've been propagandized. It's the same country it was in 2015. The threat it poses hasn't changed, only the narrative has.
Our general lack of introspection, historical retrospection and media criticism is driving us towards a conflict that is totally unnecessary and with potentially sever consequences on a global scale.
The Future of Arctic Geopolitics
The future of the Arctic depends entirely on what kind of narrative we in the West decide to adopt towards Russia. As Russian influence becomes an ever more crucial talking point, especially right around the coming midterm elections, it could have disastrous consequences if politicians start arguing about who can be the “toughest on Russia” in order to gain political points (Basulto, 2015). Arctic cooperation, resilience and prosperity can hardly be achieved if we once again divide our planet in half due to a complete fictional and arbitrary fight of ‘good vs. evil’, or ‘Western democracy vs. Russian authoritarianism’. Unfortunately in today’s political climate, simply attempting to lower tension to a level of sober sanity will stamp you straight away as a Russian stooge or Putin apologist.
As Stephen Cohen told neocon journalist Max Boot during a debate on CNN, after having been accused of “apologising for Russia”, Cohen replied :
“When people like you call people like me, and not only me, but people more eminent than me, apologists for Russia because we don’t agree with your analysis, you are criminalizing diplomacy and detente and you are the threat to American national security”.
Acts such as criminalizing diplomacy, expelling Russian diplomats en masse, blaming Russia for meddling in elections and poisoning ex-agents on foreign soil while holding little to no evidence, is the kind of behaviour that will only worsen relations overall – while slowly transforming the Arctic back to its prior role as a military theater, instead of the peaceful region that it has been for almost 30 years now.
In the midst of it all, Norway can only brace itself for what is to come. Although drills such as Trident Juncture 18 will work to secure Norway and help it react to any forthcoming Russian threats, one could maybe question why we in the first place have reached a point where such measures are seen as necessary. If keeping relations with Russia on the positive side is one of Norway’s top foreign policy concerns, which it has attempted to do through Arctic cooperation, maybe the wiser path would be to keep the Arctic as military-free as possible. This would be something which the whole world would most likely benefit from as well. No one has anything to gain from a new Cold War in Arctic.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jonathan Sigrist is a student at the University of Tromsø in Northern Norway, currently studying the geopolitical, environmental, cultural and economic relations between the Arctic nations (The US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland and Iceland), as well as the future of the Arctic’s role in global politics. He has lived in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and France, and is a fervent observer and critic of US and NATO foreign policy.
Sources
Basulto, D. (2015) “Russophobia: How Western Media Turns Russia Into the Enemy”, Dominic Basulto
Tsygankov, A (2009) “Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy”, Palgrave Macmillan US
Barely reported by the Western media, Russia has launched a series of war games in Europe and the Far East together with several of its allies. These war games are largely in response to NATO’s military buildup on Russia’s Western frontier, in Eastern Europe, The Baltic States and Scandinavia.
They also coincide with Donald Trump’s decision to repeal the 1987 INF agreement signed between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. The Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty (INF), “aimed to eliminate short and medium range nuclear missiles.”
We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history. The broader public must be informed, particularly in NATO countries. It is crucial to restore sanity in international diplomacy to prevent the unthinkable.
Examine the overlapping chronology of these war games. (September-December 2018).
The structure of military alliances has shifted. Russia and China have harnessed the support of two of Washington’s (former?) allies, namely India and Pakistan, both of which are now full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
October 25, 2018. NATO War Games. Largest since Cold War
NATO war games under Operation Trident Juncture commence on October 25, 2018. Trident Juncture 2018 is NATO’s largest exercise since the Cold War.
Around 50.000 troops, 250 aircrafts, aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, 64 vessels and 10,000 vehicles will participate to Nato’s collective defence scenario (Article 5) from 25 October to 7 November 2018.
All Nato’s members as well as NATO partners Finland and Sweden will participate. (See Global Research, October 21, 2018)
***
September 13, 2018. Russia-China-Mongolia War Games in Eastern Siberia. Russia’s Largest War Games Ever
Russia, China and Mongolia undertook The Vostok-2018 drills in eastern Siberia close to China’s border. The exercise was on on massive scale involving 300,000 Russian forces. “The exercises, … involve more than 1,000 military aircrafts as well as up to 36,000 tanks, … China sent about 3,200 troops, 900 combat vehicles, and 30 aircrafts to join the drills” Al Jazeera, September 13, 2018)
September 30, 2018. Russia-Serbia Air Drills
Together with Serbia, Russia launches air drill: “Pilots of Russia’s Aerospace Defence Forces and the Serbian Air Force and Air Defence will conduct a joint tactical flight exercise BARS-2018 on the territory of the Republic of Serbia.”
The drills will see the militaries from both countries practice intercepting aerial targets, air-to-air engagements and mid-air manoeuvres.
Aircraft will also carry out tactical strikes on ground targets and a search-and-rescue mission.
According to the Russian military, some of its most state-of-the-art planes and choppers will be used, including MiG-29 twin-engine jet fighter aircraft and Mi-8 medium twin-turbine helicopters.
The drills come as Russia revealed it had created one of the world’s most advanced missiles to date.
The Kremlin has boasted about its R-37M missile, which will turn the country’s air force into one of the world’s most fearsome and has a greater range than any belonging to the US military. (Daily Star, UK, September 30, 2018)
October 20, 2018: Russia-India Military Exercises Involving Land Forces, Navy and Air Force
India and Russia initiated a 10-days military exercises involving land forces, navy and air force. The war games were launched in the eastern military district of Russia. The timing of these war games coincides with the onslaught of those conducted by NATO in Scandinavia and the Baltic States.
The exercise Indra, which will be held in Russia from October 19 to 29, will primarily focus on achieving coordination between forces of the two countries in a tri- services integrated theatre command scenario, military sources said.
Of significance, the Russia-India war games are also marked by the establishment of joint command and control structures between the two countries.
What is at stake is a geopolitical realignment. We are no longer dealing with a bilateral military cooperation agreement. India has not only entered Russia’s military orbit, it is now a full member together with Pakistan of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
In recent developments, the SCO is evolving towards a de facto collective security arrangement with Russia and China playing a central role.
In turn, India is slated to acquire Russia’s S400 state of the art air defense system.
December 2018: India-China Joint Military Exercise
It is worth noting that India and China have also reasserted their intent to build upon a military cooperation within the framework of the SCO:
“India and China have agreed to resume the joint military exercise, Hand-in-Hand, which was suspended after the Doklam face-off. In sync with the renewed efforts by both countries to reset ties, the military exercise will take place in the second week of December in Kunming, China.”
October 22, 2018: Russia-Pakistan Joint Military Training
Coinciding with the Russia-India war games (which started on October 20), Russia is also involved in a joint training exercise with Pakistan which started on Monday October 22.
Russian Army Contingent arrived in Pakistan to participate in Pak-Russia Joint Training Excercise ‘Druzhba-III’. This is 3rd exercise as part of Pak-Russia bilateral training cooperation. The 1st Exercise was held in Pakistan during 2016 while 2nd in Russia during 2017. pic.twitter.com/Qbu8zx7tQl
What this ultimately suggests is that neither Pakistan nor India are no longer Washington’s trusted allies.
But also, the conflict between India and Pakistan, which dates back to the British empire, is in the process of being resolved under the auspices of the SCO.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Nevada on Saturday, President Donald Trump said Washington will repudiate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and develop intermediate range nuclear missiles. “We’ll have to develop those weapons,” he said. “We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.”
With this decision, Washington is scrapping the entire nuclear arms control framework that emerged from the Cold War. In 2001, Washington repudiated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, so it could begin working on a “Star Wars” anti-ballistic missile system to shoot down enemy ballistic missiles. Now it is scrapping the 1987 treaty that bans US or Russian manufacture and deployment of nuclear missiles with ranges of 500-5,500 kilometers (310-3,420 miles). For the first time since 1972, there is to be no treaty limiting the major powers’ deployment of nuclear arms.
Washington is aggressively stoking a nuclear arms race, with Russia and China first in its gun-sights, which would provoke stepped-up missile deployments across Europe and East Asia. It points to the immediate and growing risk of nuclear war between the major powers.
Trump blamed his decision to scrap the INF treaty on Moscow and Beijing:
“Russia has violated the agreement. They’ve been violating it for many years and I don’t know why President Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out. … Unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and they say, ‘Let’s all of us get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons,’ but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable. So we have a tremendous amount of money to play with with our military.”
Moscow condemned Trump’s statement as “blackmail” against Russia. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told TASS:
“At first glance, I can say that apparently the INF Treaty creates problems for pursuing the line towards the US total domination in military sphere…This would be a very dangerous step, which, I’m sure, won’t be just understood by the international community, but arouse serious condemnation of all members of the world community.”
Ryabkov said he would discuss it with US National Security Advisor John Bolton, who supports killing the INF treaty. Bolton arrived yesterday in Moscow for two days of talks starting today.
Trump’s attempt to blame Moscow and Beijing for his decision is a transparent political fraud. The US repudiation of nuclear arms control treaties is part of a longstanding, aggressive foreign policy aiming to exploit US military supremacy in the aftermath of the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union to counterbalance the effects of its accelerating economic decline in world affairs. The 2001 repudiation of the ABM treaty was part of the Bush administration’s turn to war, including the illegal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, to dominate the Eurasian landmass.
The Democratic Party escalated this policy, launching wars in Libya and Syria while initiating a “pivot to Asia” to confront China in Barack Obama’s first term. In his second term, together with its European allies, Obama backed a far-right coup in Ukraine that toppled a pro-Russian government and provoked an all-out military confrontation with Russia in Eastern Europe. Washington and its European allies have deployed tens of thousands of troops on the very borders of Russia.
The coup in Ukraine and the resulting escalation by Washington and the European imperialist powers in Eastern Europe set the world on course towards nuclear war. Amid the NATO military build-up against Russia, Washington first alleged in July 2014 that Moscow was developing a ground-launched cruise missile system violating the INF treaty. Recently, on October 2, US Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison took the extraordinary step of threatening to bomb Russia to “take out” these missiles, after again denouncing Russia for violating the INF treaty.
It is not Russian but US aggression that is driving Washington’s decision to scrap the INF treaty. In fact, powerful factions of the US military and foreign policy establishment have been campaigning for years to scrap the INF treaty—not because of Russia, but to threaten China.
After Obama launched the “pivot to Asia” in 2011, Beijing sought to develop intermediate-range missiles capable of hitting US aircraft carriers and military bases in the Western Pacific, to deter Washington from using them to attack China. As the balance of power in that region shifted ever more in China’s favor, voices in US ruling elite began to call for scrapping the INF treaty, using tensions with Russia as a cover for a policy designed to target China.
In 2014, the National Interest published an article, “China’s Missile Forces Are Growing: Is It Time to Modify the INF Treaty?” It wrote that “forward-based missile forces could be a partial solution to emerging operational problems in the Western Pacific.” However, the INF treaty bans Washington and Moscow from having the type of missiles the Pentagon would deploy to the Western Pacific to target China. So, it added,
“How might Washington leverage current tensions with Moscow to improve its long-term military posture vis-à-vis Beijing? One option is to abrogate INF.”
Admiral Harry Harris, who recently stepped down as commander of the US Pacific Fleet to become the US Ambassador to South Korea, became an aggressive proponent of renegotiating or scrapping the INF treaty. Last year, Harris said that he considered arms control “problematic,” as the INF treaty limits “our ability to counter Chinese and other countries’ cruise missiles, land-based missiles.”
Testifying to the US Senate this March, Harris made clear that scrapping the INF treaty was critical to trying to re-establish full US military dominance of the Pacific Ocean.
“We are at a disadvantage with regard to China today in the sense that China has ground-based ballistic missiles that threaten our basing in the western Pacific and our ships,” he said. “We have no ground-based capability that can threaten China because of, among other things, our rigid adherence … to the INF treaty.”
Washington’s repudiation of nuclear arms control as it seeks to maintain global military dominance is a warning to the working class in America and worldwide.
With the major powers pledged to spend massive sums on their arsenals of missiles and nuclear warheads, led by Washington, who pledged in 2014 to spend $1 trillion to modernize its nuclear arms, untold social resources are being squandered on creating conditions for a nuclear war. Governments internationally are determined that the costs of this insane policy are to be borne by workers, through austerity and attacks on living standards.
The construction of an anti-war movement based in the working class is a critical necessity, objectively posed by the rapid development of the danger of wars that could end in a nuclear conflagration.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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
In 1994, Jordan became the second Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, Egypt the first in 1979.
Neither country recognized Israel as a Jewish state, nor was the provision part of the 1993 Oslo Accords or Bush/Cheney’s 2003 Roadmap for Peace.
One-fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs. Yet they’re mistreated like fifth column threats. On Sunday, Jordan’s King Abdullah said he’s pulling out of the 1994 treaty’s provision to let Israel lease Baqura and Ghamr agricultural land from Amman for 25 years, the lease expiring next year. (see map below)
Without explaining the reason for his decision, he said
“(w)e are practicing our full sovereignty on our land. Our priority in these regional circumstances is to protect our interests and do whatever is required for Jordan and the Jordanians.”
The Netanyahu regime was informed of his decision as the renewal deadline approaches later this week. Reportedly Abdullah was strongly pressured by Jordanian parliamentarians not to renew the leases, wanting the areas returned to full Jordanian sovereignty.
Most Jordanians want the territories in question reclaimed by Abdullah, days earlier protesting in Amman to demand it.
They’re hostile to Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians, the status of Jerusalem illegally claimed by the Jewish state as its exclusive capital, and for a 2017 shooting incident by an Israeli embassy security guard, killing two Jordanian nationals.
At the time, Israel recalled its ambassador, withdrew its embassy staff, and appointed a new envoy last February.
In September, Jordanian media reported that Israel paid $5 million in compensation to the families affected by last year’s shooting incident, as well as to another family of a Jordanian judge, lethally shot by Israeli border guards in 2014 at the Allenby Bridge crossing between both countries.
In response to Abdullah’s announcement, Netanyahu said
“(w)e will enter into negotiations with Jordan to extend the existing agreement, but the entire agreement from a comprehensive perspective is important and dear to both countries.”
Jordan’s Foreign Ministry sent a formal notice to the Netanyahu regime, explaining Abdullah’s decision.
Central Arava Regional Council head Eyal Blum said ending the lease agreement for the territory in question will hurt Israeli farmers – Israel likely to compensate them by stealing more Palestinian land for their use.
Separately, the Netanyahu regime delayed the illegal demolition of Khan al-Ahmar bedouin village, wanted for exclusive Jewish development and use.
Notably its seizure along with Abu Nuwar village will divide the West Bank in two, isolating one Palestinian part from the other – driving a final stake through the heart of a two-state solution the US and Israel reject despite falsely claiming otherwise.
Both villages are targeted for destruction and displacement of their residents. Delaying demolition won’t change Netanyahu regime plans.
“Khan al-Ahmar will be evacuated,” he roared, adding: “That’s the decision of the (rubber-stamp) court. That’s our policy, and it will be carried out. I have no intention of delaying indefinitely, unlike what the press is reporting, but for a limited and short period.”
Israel’s High Court didn’t order evacuation and demolition, only ruling that the state may do it at its discretion, no matter the harm to its longstanding legal residents.
*
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.”
We’re already two years past the crystal anniversary and eight years short of the silver one, or at least we would be, had it been a wedding — and, after a fashion, perhaps it was. On October 7, 2001, George W. Bushlaunched the invasion — “liberation” was the word often used then — of Afghanistan. It was the start of the second Afghan War of the era, one that, all these years later, still shows no signs of ending. Though few realized it at the time, the American people married war. Permanent, generational, infinite war is now embedded in the American way of life, while just about the only part of the government guaranteed ever more soaring dollars, no matter what it does with them, is the U.S. military.
This October 7th marked the 17th anniversary of that first of so many still-spreading conflicts. In league with various Afghan warlords, the U.S. military began moving into that country, while its Air Force launched a fierce campaign, dropping large numbers of precision munitions and hundreds of cluster bombs. Those were meant not just for al-Qaeda, the terror outfit that, the previous month, had dispatched its own precision air force — hijacked American commercial jets — to take out iconic buildings in New York and Washington, but the Taliban, a fundamentalist sect that then controlled most of the country. By early 2002, that movement had been ejected from its last provincial capital, while Osama bin Laden had fled into hiding in Pakistan. And so it began.
The 17th anniversary of that invasion passed in the heated aftermath of the Kavanaugh hearings, as the president was rallying his base by endlessly bashing the Democrats as an “angry mob” promoting “mob rule.” So if you weren’t then thinking about Afghanistan, don’t blame yourself. You were in good company.
On October 8th, for instance, the front page of my hometown newspaper had headlines like “Court Showdown Invigorates G.O.P. in Crucial Races” and “20 Dead Upstate as Limo Crashes on Way to Party.” If you were old like me and still reading the paper version of the New York Times, you would have had to make your way to page seven to find out that such an anniversary had even occurred. There, a modest-sized article, headlined “On 17th Anniversary of U.S. Invasion, 54 Are Killed Across Afghanistan,” began this way:
“Kabul, Afghanistan — At least 54 people have been killed across Afghanistan in the past 24 hours, according to a tally based on interviews with officials on Sunday — 17 years to the day [after] American forces invaded the country to topple the Taliban regime. The violence was a reminder that the war has only raged deadlier with time, taking a toll on both the Afghan security forces and the civilians caught in the crossfire…”
And that, really, was that. Little other mention anywhere and no follow-up. No significant commentary or major op-eds. No memorials or ceremonies. No thoughts from Congress. No acknowledgement from the White House.
Source: New Eastern Outlook
Yes, 3,546 American and NATO troops had died in those long years (including seven Americans so far in 2018). There have also been Afghan deaths aplenty, certainly tens of thousands of them in a country where significant numbers of people are regularly uprooted and displaced from their homes and lives. And 17 years later, the Taliban controls more of the country than at any moment since 2002; the U.S.-backed Afghan security forces are reportedly taking casualties that may, over the long run, prove unsustainable; provincial capitals have been briefly seized by insurgent forces; civilian deaths, especially of women and children, are at their highest levels in years (as are U.S. and Afghan air strikes); al-Qaeda has grown and spread across significant parts of the Middle East and Africa; a bunch of other terror outfits, including ISIS, are now in Afghanistan; and ISIS, like al-Qaeda (of which it was originally an offshoot), has also franchised itself globally.
In other words, 17 years later, what was once known as the Global War on Terror and is now a set of conflicts that no one here even bothers to name has only grown worse. Meanwhile, the military that American presidents repeatedly hailed as the greatest fighting force in history continues to battle fruitlessly across a vast swath of the planet. Afghanistan, of course, remains America’s “longest war,” as articles regularly acknowledged some years ago. These days, however, it has become so eternal that it has evidently outgrown the label “longest.”
(Un)Happy Anniversary indeed!
Wedded to War
If you consider this the anniversary of a marriage made in hell, then you would also have to think of the war on terror that started in Afghanistan as having had a brood of demon children — the invasion of Iraq being the first of them — and by now possibly even grandchildren. Meanwhile, the first actual American children born after the 9/11 attacks can now join the U.S. military and go fight in… well, Afghanistan, where about 14,000 American military personnel, possibly tens of thousands of private contractors, and air power galore (as well as the CIA’s drones) remain active indeed.
And keep in mind that Americans aren’t the only people wedded to war in the twenty-first century. However, when it comes to the others I have in mind, it’s not a matter of anniversaries ignored, but anniversaries that will never be. Let’s start with a recent barely reported incident in Afghanistan. On October 5th, either the U.S. Air Force or the Afghan one that has been armed, trained, and supported by the U.S. military destroyed part of a “wedding procession” in Kandahar Province, reportedly killing four and wounding eight, including women and children. (By the way, on the day of the 17th anniversary of the war, an Afghan air strike reportedly killed 10 children.) We don’t know — and probably never will — which air force was responsible, nor do we know if the bride or groom survived, no less whether they will marry and someday celebrate their 17th anniversary.
All we know and probably will ever know is that, in the melee that is still Afghanistan, the obliteration of that wedding procession was just one more scarcely noted, remarkably repetitive little nightmare to which Americans will pay no attention whatsoever. Admittedly, when directly asked by pollsters 17 years later, a near majority of them (49%) do think that U.S. goals still remain unmet in that country and, according to other recent polls, somewhere between 61% and 69% of Americans would support the withdrawal of all U.S. forces there. That, however, is anything but a stunning figure given that, in 2011, a Washington Post-ABC News poll indicated that two-thirds of Americans believed the Afghan war “no longer worth fighting.” Evidently it’s now simply no longer worth giving a moment’s thought to.
Essentially unnoticed here, the destruction of wedding parties by U.S. air power has, in fact, been a relative commonplace in these years of endless war across the Greater Middle East. The first time American air power obliterated a wedding in Afghanistan was in late December 2001. U.S. B-52 and B-1B bombers mistakenly took out much of a village in Paktia Province killing more than 100 civilians while wedding festivities were underway, an event barely noted in the American media. We do not know if the bride and groom survived. (Imagine, however, the non-stop media attention if a terrorist had attacked a wedding in this country and killed anyone, no less the bride or groom!)
The second incident we know of took place in Khost Province in Eastern Afghanistan in May 2002 while a wedding was underway and villagers were firing in the air, a form of celebration there. At least 10 people died and many more were wounded. The third occurred that July in Oruzgan Province when the U.S. Air Force dropped seven 2,000-pound bombs on a wedding party, again evidently after celebratory firing had taken place, wiping out unknown numbers of villagers including, reportedly, a family of 25 people. In July 2008, a missile from a U.S. plane took out a party escorting a bride to the groom’s house in Nuristan Province, killing at least 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, including the bride. The next month in Laghman Province, American bombers killed 16 Afghans in a house, including 12 members of a family hosting a wedding. In June 2012, in Logar Province, another wedding party was obliterated, 18 people dying (half of them children). This was the only one of these slaughters for which the U.S. military offered an apology.
And that’s just what I happen to know about wedding parties in Afghanistan in these years. Don’t forget Iraq either, where in May 2004 U.S. jets attacked a village near the Syrian border filled with people sleeping after a wedding ceremony, killing at least 42 of them, including “27 members of the [family hosting the wedding ceremony], their wedding guests, and even the band of musicians hired to play at the ceremony.” Of that attack, the man who was then commander of the U.S. 1st Marine Division and is now secretary of defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, said dismissively, “How many people go to the middle of the desert… to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization?”
And don’t forget the 15 or so Yemenis on the way to a wedding in December 2013 who were “mistaken for an al-Qaeda convoy” and taken out by a U.S. drone. As I’ve written elsewhere, since September 11, 2001, we’ve been number one… in obliterating wedding parties. Still, we’ve had some genuine competition in recent years — above all, the Saudis in their brutal American-backed and -supplied air war in Yemen. From an incident in September 2015 in which their missiles killed more than 130 Yemenis at a wedding reception (including the usual women and children) to a strike on a wedding in April of this year that took out the groom, they’ve run a close second to the U.S. And then there’s ISIS, which, from Afghanistan to Turkey, seems to have a knack of its own for sending its version of a precision air force (suicide bombers) to take out weddings.
All of these, of course, represent anniversaries that will never be, which couldn’t be sadder. In truth, if you live in any of the battle zones of the still-expanding war on terror, you should probably think twice about getting married or at least having a wedding ceremony. Since Americans don’t focus on such moments in our never-ending conflicts, they have no way of seeing them as the heart and soul of the twenty-first-century American way of war. And of course there’s always the question that General Mattis raised to take into account: What are you going to do with people who insist on getting married in the desert — other than slaughter them?
Afghan Previews?
Only days after the 9/11 attacks, every member of Congress but one voted in favor of the Bush administration’s authorization of military force that opened the way not just for the Afghan invasion, but so much else that followed. The sole no vote came from Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA), who warned that “a rush to launch precipitous military counterattacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women, children will be killed.” How right she proved to be.
By now, there is the equivalent of unending “towers” of dead women and children in the Greater Middle East, while millions of Afghans and others have been displaced from their homes and record millions more sent fleeing across national boundaries as refugees. That, in turn, has helped fuel the “populist” right in both Europe and the U.S., so in a sense, Donald Trump might be said to be one result of the invasion of Afghanistan — of, that is, a twenty-first-century American push to unsettle the world. Who knows what else (and who else) America’s wars may produce before they end, as they will someday?
Here, however, is one possibility that, at this point, isn’t part of any thinking in this country but perhaps should be. In the wake of America’s first Afghan War (1979-1989), the Red Army, the stymied military forces of the other Cold War superpower, the Soviet Union, finally limped out of that “bleeding wound” — as Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called Afghanistan. They would return to a sapped, fragmenting empire and a country that would implode less than two years later.
In that post-Afghan moment of victory — the end of the Cold War — nothing of the Russian experience was recognized as instructive for the last superpower on planet Earth. Here’s my question, then: What if that first Afghan War was the real-world equivalent of a movie preview? Someday, when the second Afghan War finally ends and the U.S. military limps home from its many imperial adventures abroad as the Red Army once did, will it, too, find an empire on the verge of imploding and a country in deep trouble?
Is that really beyond imagining anymore? And if it were so, wouldn’t that be an anniversary to remember?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
“If protection rackets represent organised crime at its smoothest, then war risking and state making – quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of legitimacy – qualify as our largest examples of organised crime. Without branding all generals and statesmen as murderers or thieves, I want to urge the value of that analogy. At least for the European experience of the past few centuries, a portrait of war makers and state makers as coercive and self-seeking entrepreneurs bears a far greater resemblance to the facts than do its chief alternatives.” — “War Making and State Making as Organised Crime”,Charles Tilly in “Bringing the State Back In” Cambridge University Press; 1985
“Governments will use whatever technology is available to them to combat their primary enemy – which is their own population…They (governments and corporations) take whatever is available, and in no time it is being used against us, the population. Governments are not representative. They have their own power, serving segments of the population that are dominant and rich.” —Noam Chomsky in conversation with Fiona Harvey, The Guardian 2013.
At a time when the elite political class and wealthy middle class of Britain are working to reverse the democratic decision to leave Europe, it is worth looking closely at the condition of democracy in Britain, an island that contributed significantly to political inclusiveness and empowerment historically, through the Magna Carta in 1215 and Habeas Corpus in 1679. These two acts elevated the common man from position of objectified serf, subject to power, to a position in which the citizen had a degree of autonomy and an (albeit highly controlled, stratified and mediated) stake in the political process.
We should look closely at the current impasse of Brexit, observing the manner in which the media and political leaders are subverting the political process, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Britain’s citizens, and also both mystifying and propagandising the process of how political influence is wielded, disseminated, and acted upon.
Given that Britain’s political class are so vociferous and propagandistic in their criticism of Putin, with their accusation that he is meddling in Britain’s ( and America’s) political process, it is arch and contradictory then, that they are uncritical when George Soros openly interferes with Britain’s democratic process : The Guardian reported in February 2018 that Soros had contributed 400,000 Pounds to the Best For Britain campaign group, a think tank and pressure group devoted to keeping Britain in the EU, openly acting against the majority’s vote in favour of leaving the EU.
A closer look at Soros’ actions give us an insight into how power functions across borders and nations and boundaries in unity with other state bodies, who, in a functioning democracy should be serving the will of the majority, but are simply serving the interests of the elites and corporations: what would the Western media say if Putin openly interfered with the Brexit vote? And yet, it is deemed perfectly acceptable for Soros to both contribute to and campaign for the Remain side.
Think tanks and pressure groups function to coerce and re-direct the democratic process in service of wealthy interest groups and individual ambitions, not to further it.
Tony Blair – the man who took Britain into an illegal war in Iraq that killed and maimed millions and created a tragic refugee crisis that transformed the world, is also actively campaigning to reverse the democratic decision to leave the EU, with The Guardian reporting in December 2017 that “Tony Blair confirms he is working to reverse Brexit.’
When interviewed on BBC Radio 4 and questioned as to whether he was disregarding the will of the British people he replied
“the will of the people is not something immutable. People can change their mind if the circumstances change…So when the facts change, I think people are entitled to change their mind.”
The implication here is that the powerful get to tell us what ‘the facts’ are and they also get to tell us when those ‘facts’ change and how they are going to act on those changes. The democratic will is something that is ‘not fixed’; rather it is malleable — and can be ignored. ‘The facts’ are fluid and there to be manipulated by the powerful in a post-truth epoch.
Alastair Campbell with Tony Blair
Alastair Campbell, Tony’s Blair’s spin doctor who promoted and cheer-led the devastating war on Iraq also encourages the British public to resist Brexit and to march for a second Referendum with the intention of keeping Britain in the EU. It is ironic that prior to the war on Iraq in 2003, the British public marched on the streets in record numbers to show their resistance to the war – Alastair Campbell and the other warmongers in the British cabinet ignored them and ignored the British peoples’ democratic participation in the political process by simply storming ahead and declaring war on Iraq anyway.
Now, Alastair Campbell axiomatically expects the Remain demonstrators’ protest to be respected and acted upon, whilst he was content to contemptuously ignore and override those millions of Britons who marched against the Iraq War in 2003.
But even if Britain is allowed to leave the EU, its democracy and opportunities for employment and social mobility are still in a poor state: according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2018 opportunities for home ownership have halved in the last twenty years for those on middle incomes. According to 2018 reports in The Guardian the numbers of homeless people dying on the streets of Britain has doubled in the last five years. The Independent reports that figures for the homeless are at a record level, with statistics showing that on any night, 4,751 people are sleeping rough on Britain’s streets.
Those forced to seek food from charities such as food banks are also at record level: almost four million adults use food banks, and statistics from Trussell Trust also show that children are increasingly represented, with four million living below the poverty line. Child homelessness has increased 80 % since 2011.
Then there is the criminalised and marginalised economy that the poor are increasingly compelled to participate in should they which to provide for their families – journalist Diane Taylor reported in 2015 in The Guardian that, according to one of the largest ever surveys of the sex trade undertaken in Britain, in excess of 70% of Britain’s sex workers had previously been employed in the healthcare sector, in the education sector, or had worked for charities.
Over a third had university qualifications and 17 % were qualified to post graduate level: the grim clasp of austerity in Britain is not only impacting the underclass – it is now effecting the middle classes.
Slavoj Žižek’s observations on the dual nature of conventional and concealed state power are pertinent here : “State power itself is split from within and relies on its own obscene spectral underside : public state apparatuses are always supplemented by their shadowy double, by a network of publicly disavowed rituals, unwritten rules, institutions, practices and so on…So the problem is not simply the marginals who lead the spectral half-existence of those excluded by the hegemonic symbolic regime; the problem is that this regime itself , in order to survive , has to rely on a whole gamut of mechanisms whose status is spectral, disavowed, excluded from the public domain…the opposition between state and civil society is thoroughly ambivalent.” (Slavoj Žižek“Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues On The Left” Verso Booksn1999)
In 2014, the Office for National Statistics in the first ever survey of its kind calculated how much sex workers and drug traffickers contributed to the British economy revealing – astonishingly — that these underground trades made approximately the same contribution to the British economy as did the farming and agricultural sector and they contributed almost as much money as did book and newspaper publishers combined, augmenting the economy by £9.7bn in 2009.
In 2018 Britain has been struggling with a knife crime surge, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reporting 39,332 knife offences, the highest number recorded, with 100 killed in London alone — London has more deaths from stabbings than New York.
Acid attacks are also increasing: reports in The Independent newspaper in 2017 cite police studies that show Britain has one of the highest number of acid attacks in the world.
In October 2018, the National County Lines Coordination Centre revealed more statistics which showed the extent to which children were being coerced into the criminal economy, with each county lines foray making £5,000 a day for participants, with profits of £7million made in total amongst them all.
Organised gangs ferry heroin and crack from major urban centers to suburban and satellite towns, doubling the number of gangs in Britain to 1,500 in the last year — these gangs groom children to sell drugs, and they are estimated to collectively earn £7million a day, totaling £2.5billion a year.
And yet this is a war on the poor and vulnerable that is not restricted to wealthy and privileged states like Britain : it is a voracious and rapacious trend worldwide, illustrating that the relationship between the haves and the have-nots has not changed since the birth of the Industrial Revolution, when wealthy land and factory owners preyed on the weak and vulnerable, and the exploitative relationship has not moved beyond that established by the colonial power structures – looking beyond Europe, we see the same oppressive relationships imposed upon those devastated and uprooted by austerity, war and violence.
Those deracinated by globalisation and disenfranchised by commercial forces and interests are then in turn compelled to prop up and support the very same forces that scattered and disempowered them in the first place : in May 2018, the Financial Times ran an article with the headline “Refugee camps are an untapped opportunity for ( the ) private sector…( and the ) World Bank urges private sector interest in refugee camps,” in which the newspaper callously opined that impoverished refugees’ “economic activity (was) held back by restrictions on property ownership, employment and access to capital’’
The coerced and persecuted victims of capital (in this case the refugees) are transformed by unscrupulous business opportunists into subservient producers of surplus value.
And the refugee is caught up in such a relationship, limited by it and ensnared by it because he or she has nowhere else to run to.
Refugee camps and their inhabitants are reduced to yet another business opportunity: Kakuma refugee camp is recently the subject of attention as a focus for such economic interest.
Kakuma Refugee Camp
It should be noted that Kakuma is one of the poorest areas in Kenya and the Kakuma refugee camp has 60,000 occupants, many of whom are children and unaccompanied minors.
The United Nations Refugee agency reports that the number of people scattered and uprooted by war and conflict is at the highest level ever recorded in human history, with 65 million people expelled from their homes.
That means one in each 113 people in the world is a refugee.
The poorest sectors of society are forced to prop up the very forces of capital and exploitation that uprooted them in the first place — if they wish to survive.
The poorest amongst us are compelled to submit to a global hierarchy that does not serve the interests of most human beings on our planet. The powerful, the think tanks, the armies, the employers and the criminals that serve them discipline the workforce in an epoch of mass austerity.
Refugees then, are victims of capital and empire that are scattered with the intention of destabilising first their own communities and homelands, leaving them open to the robbery of their mineral wealth at the hands of proxy forces as we see in Libya and Iraq, and as a secondary effect, the refugees are then used to destabilise the workforce of the countries they are compelled to move to by undercutting local working class labour wages.
It is such coercive, engineered mass migration that Kelly Greenhill explores in her study “Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy” (Cornell University Press, 2011)in which she analyses case studies of refugees who are the victims of globalisation, that in turn are then used as part of a causal process of consequences that further serves the disruptive and exploitative aims and goals of capital.
Children are also rendered vulnerable in the most fundamental of human interactions — that of providing sustenance and nutrition — in August 2018, The Independent reported that weed-killing chemicals were found to be present in children’s food, including breakfast cereals and snack bars targeted at child consumers. In a report carried out by Prof Meharg of Queen’s University Belfast he warned parents of the dangerous levels of arsenic in children’s rice products.
It is not only refugees, the homeless and children that fall into the crosshairs: Once protected by universal health care brought about by Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge’s post war consensus in Europe, the vulnerable, the old and the weak are also now becoming economic targets, preyed upon by pharma executives — in a 2018 report by Dave Crow of the Financial Times, a pharma executive claimed he had a “moral requirement to sell the product at the highest price” when Nostrum Laboratories upped the cost of antibiotics from $474.75 to $2,392 per bottle. Nostrum Chief Executive Nirmal Mulye commented “I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can...to sell the product for the highest price,” going on to say that he worked in “this business to make money… This is a capitalist economy and if you can’t make money you can’t stay in business.”
Divide and conquer is part of the strategy that disempowers the vulnerable and weak, rendering them open to further disenfranchisement — the British have long been skilled in this art : as long as the weak are unable to form a united resistance, the rich will be safe. Studying the literature regarding the British rule in India is instructive since British rule pivoted upon ensuring the weak were divided. General Sir Charles Napier’s memoirs stressed that unity amongst a populace had to be avoided if the powerful were to secure their privilege, writing of the Indians the British ruled over that “the moment these brave and able natives learn how to combine they will rush on us simultaneously and the game will be up” (Life of General Sir Charles Napier. W.N. Bruce, London, 1835) and with Lord Elphinstone commenting presciently that ‘‘Divide et impera’ was the old Roman motto and it should be ours.”
At the time of British rule in India, Major-General Sir H.T. Tucken also emphasised endless division of the ruled as a means of control, condoning “anything, in short, to divide and so neutralise the strength of the castes and nationalities’’
Proxy forces are always useful to power, getting others to do ‘the dirty work’ and to further the strategy of divide and rule as we can clearly observe by the West’s current use of proxy forces in Syria, Mali, Libya and Yemen. General Sir Charles Napier envisaged such a role for the Gurkhas in British-ruled India, writing of them at the time that “the Gurkha will be faithful, and for low pay we can enlist a large body of troops whom our best officers consider equal in courage to European troops. Even as a matter of economy this will be good; but the great advantage of enlisting these hill-men will be that with 30,000 or 40,000 Gurkhas added to the 30,000 Europeans, the possession of India, will not depend on opinion, but on an army able with ease to overthrow any combination among Hindeos ( sic) or Mohammedans or both.”
Getting cheap labour and ensuring ethnic division is indispensable to those interested in divide and conquer and setting the weak against the weak, thus ensuring control and the means of exploitation.
A cursory look at the current political epoch shows us the same scenario – Alt-Right warring with Anti-fa, right wing nationalists, fighting with progressives, Sunni warring with Shia, Salafi proxies killing Sufi sects in Mali and levelling their ancient cultural centres, scholarly libraries and shrines, street level conservative patriot groups like the EDL and their assorted supporters fighting the liberal progressives, whilst on the campuses, radical feminists fight LGBT male transitioners.
The struggle between Brexiteers and Remainers, between Afro-Caribbean machete gangs and their nemeses, between drug dealers and their prey in the inner city ghettos, between feminists and LGBT transitioners, between right wing street gangs and anarchists, German nationalists and refugees on the run, is emblematic of a far deeper malaise –
In the words of Nafeez Ahmed in “Celebrating the Hidden Holocaust”,
“Don’t be fooled into believing that this war is over. The war has shifted and expanded in multiple directions. And increasingly, it has crept into the homeland, into the hearts and minds of the American people, the British people, and so on. The starkest evidence of it is its very invisibility. In the comforting illusion of an annual celebration, that sanitizes a global system whose trajectory of relentless extraction is accelerating us toward an uninhabitable planet by end of century. It’s not just that we’re complicit in this trajectory. It’s that, now, they—the system—is coming for us. We’re the cannon-fodder. We’re the consumers. We’re the ones that are plugged into a system that knows only the path of endless, cancerous growth, like blind cogs in a machine, beholden to clickbait, addicted to retail therapy, running after the next high, because we cannot bear the silence and awkwardness of our own selves.
So guess what.
We’re the Nazis.
And we’re the Natives.
And we’re next in line.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
G. Whitfield is a university lecturer, researcher and copy-editor who also writes about culture and art.
Trump is a geopolitical know-nothing, a businessman turned politician, America’s first realty TV president.
He’s captive to corporate interests and sinister political forces controlling him, capitulating to them virtually straightaway, likely after his electoral triumph – before entering office in January 2017.
He knows nothing besides what’s fed him by manipulative handlers, along with Fox News disinformation rubbish, his favorite TV channel.
A novice on the world stage, he dislikes details he lacks interest in, prefers information fed him in brief form. His obsessive TV watching, phone conversations, and tweeting reflect his dislike for detailed printed material.
He’s likely unaware of the human toll of his disastrous geopolitical agenda. Pulling out of the JCPOA and now the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty risk greater conflicts and chaos than already, a major risk he’s likely mindless about.
The historic, vitally important Reagan/Gorbachev 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty provisions required the elimination of all nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges of 310 – 620 miles (short-range) and 620 – 3,420 miles (intermediate range), along with their launchers.
Compliance is monitored by technical means, on site inspections and cooperative measures. The agreement was the first bilateral treaty designed to reduce nuclear arms. Previous ones only established ceilings.
Falsely accusing Moscow of breaching the treaty began months after the Obama regime’s coup d’etat in Ukraine, replacing democratic governance with Nazi-infested fascist tyranny.
Trump’s pullout further escalates bilateral tensions and hostility, a hugely dangerous arms race likely to follow at a time US imperial madness poses a major threat to world peace.
Moscow categorically rejects false US accusations of alleged INF breaches, including about its newest 9M729 missile. No evidence suggests it exceeds INF limits. Russia considers US claims otherwise baseless.
Russian upper house Federation Council International Committee chairman Konstantin Kosachev said
Moscow will “respond not to the very fact of Washington’s withdrawal from the treaty but rather to its practical steps when it is free to do whatever it wants,” adding:
As Vladimir Putin said,
“Russia has all the military technical premises for that, its reaction (to) be rapid. I know what I am talking about, but this is classified information so far. I am sure the Americans are fully aware of that as well.”
“We had a special (Federation Council) meeting. The military proved that neither this (9M729) missile modification nor any other modifications have ever violated the treaty. This missile technically cannot violate the treaty as it has different characteristics.”
“The Americans keep on indulging in these games as the actual goal of such games is not to catch Russia in violations and compel it to abide by the treaty but to invent a pretext to ruin that treaty” – part of its belligerent imperial strategy.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov slammed Trump’s announced INF pullout, saying the US “act(s) clumsily and harshly” time and again, adding:
Russia has no choice “but to take retaliatory measures, including ones of military and technological nature.”
“We are treating with concern and condemnation the United States’ new attempts to force Russia to make concessions in the sphere of international security and strategic stability via blackmailing.”
“The Russian side has repeatedly said that the US side has no reasons for accusing Russia of allegedly violating this treaty.”
“After all these years, they have failed to substantiate their fanciful claims by clear explanations why they are doing this.”
Years of negotiation went into achieving the Soviet Russia/US INF Treaty, a landmark/partial nuclear disarmament agreement, defusing Cold War tensions.
At the time, Secretary of State James Baker promised NATO wouldn’t expand “one inch eastward” toward Russia’s borders, a pledge broken by Washington since the late 1990s by inclusion of former Soviet republics and Warsaw republics into US-dominated NATO.
Russia’ Foreign Ministry earlier called Washington’s Eastern European Aegis Ashore anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe deployment a flagrant INF violation, saying:
Their deployment in Romania with another planned in Poland breaches the letter and spirit of the agreement.
“(They) incorporate vertical launch systems similar to Mk-41 universal systems that are capable of launching intermediate-range (Tomahawk) cruise missiles…”
Since Soviet Russia’s yearend 1991 dissolution, Washington repeatedly breached INF mandates, continuing missile tests prohibited by the treaty.
It’s boosting production and use of unmanned offensive vehicles, falling under the INF’s definition of ground-based cruise missiles.
“Notably, we have been pointing (out US) violations of the INF Treaty for 15 years. But there is no constructive reaction,” said Russia’s Foreign Ministry months earlier, adding:
“While implementing its anti-missile plans, the United States must be guided…by the generally recognized principle of inadmissibility of strengthening its own security at the expense of other states.”
“Notably, Washington has repeatedly reiterated this principle in corresponding international formats” – falsely accusing Moscow of INF violations, ignoring its own.
Treaties the US agrees to are for other countries to observe, not itself. Its reckless actions “wrecked the pillars of the global strategic stability, Russia’s Foreign Ministry stressed, adding:
Washington’s deployment of its missile-defense system “adversely impacted the system of international security, dramatically complicated relations not only in the Euro-Atlantic but also in the Asia-Pacific region, and turned into one of the most serious obstacles on the path of further gradual nuclear disarmament as it creates dangerous opportunities for the resumption of the nuclear arms race.”
“(A)n anti-missile umbrella may give rise to a calamitous illusion of invincibility and impunity and hence tempt hotheads in Washington into new dangerous unilateral steps on global and regional problems in bypassing of the United Nations Security Council and contrary to common sense…”
Washington “demonstrates no readiness for cooperation and reckoning with Russia’s concerns.”
(It) refused to even discuss its own guarantees that missile-defense systems that are being deployed in Europe are not aimed against Russia.”
US rage for world dominance risks possible East/West confrontation – potentially with nuclear weapons, a possible doomsday scenario if occurs.
*
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.”
By now all international media resources; newspapers, magazines, TV channels, and internet social media, are busy reporting the gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi; a Saudi reporter, who was loyal to the regime until he turned against Muhamad bin Salman (MBS) and his suppressive policies.
Once MBS was announced crowned prince in 2015 and started his war against Yemen, critic Khashoggi found it safer for himself to leave Saudi Arabia. He moved first to UK and later to USA. In his writings Khashoggi harshly criticized the policies of the young prince. Eventually he was lured to the Saudi consulate in Turkey, where he was reported murdered and butchered into small pieces that were buried in different parts of Turkey’s wilderness.
Understanding Saudi culture and the practices of the Saudi royal family, one will come to the logical conclusion, supported by the events and evidences, that MBS has ordered the murder of Khashoggi. The Saudi royal family is notorious in assassination and sentencing to death all alleged criminals and political activists, who dare to criticize their policies. The streets of capital Riyadh have been the witness of so many public gruesome beheadings; 158 in 2015, 154 in 2016, 146 in 2017 and 73 in 2018 as of July 17.
Although the royal family denied any involvement or knowledge of Khashoggi’s murder and had promised to conduct an investigation in the murder, in investigation led by the prime suspect; MBS himself, the Saudi Kingdom was met with harsh condemnations and calls for punishment. Saudi Arabia started to feel the repercussions of such calls when international banks, corporations, investors, major media outlets and world leaders started to pull out of the Saudi Future Investment Initiative (FII); a massive economic conference colloquially known as “Davos in the Desert”, hosted by MBS himself on October 23-25. The initiative is part of MBS’ ambitious “2030 Programme” to make the Saudi kingdom less reliant on oil.
Jim Yong-kim of World Bank, Christine Lagarde of International Monetary fund, Stacey Cunningham president of New York Stock Exchange, John Flint CEO of HSBC, as well as Credit Suisse, and Standard Chartered decided not to attend at Davos. Investment companies such as Uber, Mastercard, Virgin Group, JPMorgan Chase, Ford Motor Comp., Viacom Inc, and private equity firms such as Blackstone, BlackRock and Bain Capital are pulling out of Davos. Media outlets such as Bloomberg, CNN, New York Times, CNBC, The Economist, Financial Times and Los Angeles Times among others decided not to attend. Antonio Guterres; Secretary General of the UN, and Audrey Azoulay of UNESCO expressed their deep concern about the murder and called for investigation and punishment of the perpetrators. Many world leaders condemned Khashoggi’s murder and called for reprimanding the kingdom. Many European politicians and American senators called for halting the sale of weapons to the kingdom.
A lot of “hooplas” for the murder of one person, yet dead silence for the murder of millions others, including women and children, in the seventy years old Zionist occupied Palestine, in the eight years old American/Israeli/Gulf states war against Syria and in three years old Saudi/Emirati war against Yemen.
Zionist Jewish terrorist groups and militias, similar to al-Qaeda and ISIS, had occupied Palestine in 1948, perpetrated numerous massacres against civilian Palestinians, razed to the grounds hundreds of Palestinian towns, ethnically cleansed almost 800 thousand Palestinians, and established a colonial state of Israel. In 1967 those Zionist Israeli Jews again perpetrated more war crimes and occupied the rest of Palestine, destroyed more towns, massacred more Palestinians and built more illegal colonies. Although these Israelis entered into peace treaty with the Palestinians they are still ethnically cleansing and murdering in cold blood Palestinians, usurping their land, and expanding and building more colonies in violation of all peace treaties and in violation of UNSC resolutions. Israeli crimes against Palestinians, as well as other Arab states such as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, have never stopped, but rather are increasing in number, in intensity and in ferocity.
Due to their narcissist elitist racist religious belief that they, alone and no other nation, are god’s chosen people, Israeli Jews act as if they enjoy a divine impunity that allows them to perpetrate genocidal crimes against Palestinians and against other nations in violation of all human norms and beyond all international laws and conventions. Nurturing this Jewish narcissistic belief are the encouragement, unconditional support, and the immunity and protection Israel enjoys from some western states, specifically the USA and UK, who brag about being champions of human rights, beacon of freedom and democracy, and holding the torch of justice for all.
The US had used its Veto power to protect Israel from at least 44 UNSC resolutions. On top of those Israel has violated 300 other resolutions regarding its occupation of Palestine. To make matters worse the US leads other western countries in describing the Israeli genocidal crimes against Palestinians as “self-defense” and every Palestinian defensive and peaceful reaction as terrorist attacks.
Israel is encouraged to continue its ethnic cleansing and massacre of Palestinians. The latest Israeli erasure of Palestinian villages is going on now in Khan El-Ahmar village. The villagers are the Bedouin Jahalin tribe, who became homeless refugees after being forcefully expelled from their original village in the Negev in 1952 by the Israeli army. They rebuilt new homes and a local children school in Khan El-Ahmar under the Jordanian rule. At the present, Israel is in the process of demolishing the whole village in order to gain more land to expand its illegal Maale Adumim colony a short distance away. Palestinians are conducting daily sit-ins to prevent the demolition of the village and to prevent a second Nakba to its inhabitants.
Israeli genocidal crime of Palestinian civilians is still an ongoing process. Israeli Jews consider Palestinians as the descendants of Amalekites; the worst enemy of ancient Israel. Jewish god ordered the Jews to wipe off Amalekites off the earth. This order is still ingrained in the Jewish psyche, who keep reminding their off springs of this order. On the walls of the holocaust memorial in the Hague hangs a plaque with a text in Dutch and Hebrew from Deuteronomy 25: 17-19 stating “Remember what Amalek has done to you … blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.”
Present Israeli Jews are still in the process of “plotting out the remembrance of Amalek (Palestinians) from under heaven” as can bee seen recently in the Gaza Strip. Israel has turned Gaza Strip into the largest ever concentrated prison camp (worst than Nazi concentration camps) for its two million inhabitants; mostly refugees who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine during the 1948 Nakba. For the last twelve years these Palestinians have been starved into sickness, their water been poisoned, their electricity was cut, their fishing marine space has been extremely limited, their towns, their homes and their fields were severely bombed with the devastating bombs including the illegal white phosphorous bombs in Israel’s wars of aggression in 2008-2009 and again in 2014, and their women and children are being shot dead daily.
After seventy years passage of UNSC resolution 194 stating that these Palestinian refugees have the legitimate right to return to their towns and homes they were kicked out of, but none of the international legal organization nor any other country helped them implement this resolution, these Palestinian refugees decided to peacefully march back to their towns in what was dubbed“The Great Return March”. This march started on Friday 30th of last March and has been going on every Friday since then; so far, a total of 30 march attempts. Unfortunately, Israeli army snipers stood in their way, and have murdered in cold blood 212 Palestinians including teen agers, women, paramedics and reporters, and had injured a total of 22,000 others causing a lot of limb amputations due to their use of the explosive hollow pointed bullets, poisonous gas and stun grenades. Yet, despite the obvious fact that Israel is the number one rogue state in the world, Nikki (Nimrata) Haley; the American ambassador to the UN, had the audacity to describe this Israeli army killing fields against civilians in Gaza as the most restrained army in the whole world.
“No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.” She stated.
Yet, none of the self-proclaimed peace-loving justice-calling world leaders, media outlets, banking systems, investors and corporations, who boycotted Saudi Davos in the Desert initiative as a reprimand to Saudi murder of one person; Jamal Khashoggi, have lifted a finger, uttered a word or boycotted Israel for the latest murder of hundred Palestinians nor for the razing of any Palestinian village. Are the lives of these hundreds of Palestinians, and the lives of hundreds of thousands who were murdered since 1948, not worth one life of a Saudi reporter?
There is no puzzle in this picture. International humanity is dead while hypocrisy is thriving and the ultimate goal and justification is money. The Saudi royal family is a filthy rich oppressive theocratic dictatorship, who had been protected in the past by the British and in the present by the American administration. For such protection the Saudi family has to pay and they pay dearly in different forms as in military weapons deals and economic privileges to foreign investing corporations. Trump expressed this situation openly and eloquently when he described Saudi Arabia as “a milk cow which would be slaughtered when its milk runs out.”
All these political and economic pressure exerted by world leaders, bankers, investors and media outlets are merely more attempts to milk Saudi Arabia as much as possible in more weapons deals and more economic privileges. Saudi Arabia has a lot of milk; money, unlike the Israeli case where the USA is Israel’s milking cow.
What goes for the case of Palestinian victims goes also for the Syrian and Yemeni victims. The world leaders and corporations who are milking Saudi Arabia are the same perpetrators committing, though covertly, war crimes against Syria and Yemen.
When comparing the international reactions to the murder of one person; Khashoggi in this case, with the reactions to the heinous war crimes against millions of innocent people in Palestine, Syria, Yemen or in any other place around the globe for that matter, one cannot help but question the validity of the famous proverb that “justice will always prevail”. Are we cheating ourselves and our children when we assert the fallacy that evil will be defeated and justice will always prevail at the end? Studying the history of Mankind, one discovers that those, who had the military power to assert their rights and their own form of justice even if they contradict the rights and justice of others had always prevailed, and those, who lacked military power had no chance to assert their own rights and had always perished. This proves that the rule of law, even the laws approved on internationally, is irrelevant, and that might is right still prevails in this world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
On October 21, Jordan’s king Abdullah bin al-Hussein announced that his country had decided to terminate the Peace Treaty annexes on Baqura and al-Ghamr, which allowed Israel to use these town areas.
“Baqura and al-Ghamr are Jordanian territories. They will remain as such, and we exercise full sovereignty over our territories …Our priorities amidst current difficult regional conditions are to protect our interests and exert all possible efforts in the interest of Jordan and Jordanians,” the Jordanian King said during a meeting with political figures at Al Husseiniya Palace, according to the Jordanian News Agency (Petra).
Two annexes of the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan allowed Israel to lease 405 hectares of Baqura and al-Ghamr and a small area known as the “Island of Peace” near the Sea of Galilee. However, the lease was limited to 25 years only.
King Abdullah During a meeting with political figures at Al Husseiniya Palace, By Petra
In his first comment on the issue, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that his country will negotiate with Jordan to extend the lease of Baqura and al-Ghamr under the 1994 treaty. Netanyahu’s statement indicates that Israel is not willing to give up on the areas easily.
“[Israel] will enter negotiations with it [Jordan] on the possibility of extending the current arrangement,” the Reuters news agency quoted Netanyahu as saying.
The U.S., which is among the main backers of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, has not commented on the Jordanian King decision so far. Amman is one of the key allies of Washington in the Middle East. However, this will not stop the Trump administration from developing its hardcore pro-Israeli policy and supporting Netanyahu blindly on the issue.
Considering complicated social and economic situation in Jordan, this will likely lead to creation of another point of tensions in the region. The Jordanian population has already held a series of rallies demanding the return of the nation’s land leased to Israel.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
On Saturday, October 20, at around 7:00 pm, three vehicles carrying Israeli occupation authorities intercepted the car of the governor of Jerusalem, Mr. Adnan Ghaith, pulling him out of the vehicle and taking him to an unknown location. Governor Ghaith was in Beit Hanina, north of Jerusalem, at the time of the abduction. Now, Governor Ghaith has been transferred to the Ofer Detention Center, Prison and Military Court, in the occupied West Bank village of Beitunia.
“This is a new step taken by the Israeli Occupation against the Palestinian presence in Jerusalem,” PLO Secretary General Dr. Saeb Erekat said in a statement, according to the PNN.
“Israel is further violating its own commitments and obligations regarding Palestinian institutions in the city. Since August 2001, when Israeli commandos closed the Orient House, in Jerusalem, dozens of Palestinian institutions have been closed in an attempt at provoking a Palestinian politicide in Jerusalem. The threats and detentions against Palestinian political and community leaders, including the abduction of Governor Ghaith, should only be taken as part of Israel’s plan to eliminate any foundations for a political solution based on two-states on the 1967 border,” Erekat added.
After the Trump Administration’s illegal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the Israeli government has escalated its aggression against the Palestinian people, including in and around the occupied Palestinian capital, Erekat said.
“This includes forcible transfer of civilian population, home demolitions, colonial-settlement expansion and persecution of Palestinian civil society and political leaders.”
In conclusion, Erekat demanded the governor’s immediate release.
“We call upon the international community to take a firm stand on the case of Governor Ghaith as well as on the issue of the Palestinian institutions. East Jerusalem remains occupied under international law, with Israel, the occupying power, not having any right to disrupt the Palestinian political, economic, cultural and social life in the city. We consider the abduction of Governor Ghaith not only to be a further Israeli violation and aggression against the Palestinian people but a reminder to the international community of the need to take concrete measures to save East Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Palestine.”
The Palestinian Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners commission has submitted a request to the Ofer Military Court, demanding release of the governor of Jerusalem, Adnan Ghaith, who was kidnapped yesterday, by Israeli intelligence, in the Beit Hanina area of Jerusalem.
The Commission explained that it applied for the urgent release of the governor Ghaith, after the decision of the occupation to extend his detention for 96 more hours, and transferred him to Ofer military court to be presented to a military judge.
The purpose of the request for the urgent release is to extract a decision to present Governor Ghaith to the court in the coming hours, and to prevent the opportunity of procrastination by the occupation until the extension period expires 96 hours (4 days).
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jewish congressmen and other officials in the Democratic Party are increasing their efforts to make sure that candidates running for office in November toe the line on support for Israel. The Republicans meanwhile are seeking to portray themselves as the party of Israel, even though most Jews don’t vote for them, and are exploiting the fact that the Democratic Party now includes many genuine progressives who are deeply disturbed by the way Israel behaves. Put it all together and it suggests how Israel has managed to insert itself in the American political system on both sides of the aisle in Congress and elsewhere.
Ironically, those seeking to restore Israel-philia among the Democrats are claiming that they are seeking to “de-politicize the Israel issue.” Actually, what they are trying to do is just the opposite, to politicize it to such an extent that no one will touch it. They seek to make unlimited support for Israel the unspoken rule for everyone in politics, without any debate or conditions. The Republicans, for their part, are seeking political advantage in districts where there are significant Jewish voters or where the issue will resonate, making the Democrats appear to be soft on Israel’s security. Either way, the knee-jerk support for the Jewish state, which does not serve the actual interests of most Americans and damages national security, is being given protected status, as if it were part of the Bill of Rights.
The debate over the Israel issue as part of the upcoming election has not exactly been out in the open, but it has been discussed in the New York Times “A New Wave of Democrats Tests the Party’s Blanket Support for Israel” as well as in a recent article in Mondoweiss headlined “Several Democratic candidates take stands against BDS, amid signs that Israel is becoming politicized.” At stake is the ability of American Jews from both major parties to maintain the U.S. political system and government’s uncritical support for Israel.
One might well ask if there has ever been in all of history the denial of the interests of a large powerful state to placate a weak and extremist client and the answer would have to be “no,” though never before has there been a tiny minority in any country that possessed anything near the power that American Jewry has, power that is frequently employed on behalf of Israel. Some might call the dual loyalty, which George Washington warned against as a “passionate attachment” in his farewell address, to be treasonous.
The alleged progressives who are being particularly targeted include Ilhan Omar, of Somali descent, who is running for Congress in Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib, of Palestinian background, in Michigan. Both oppose military assistance to Israel due to its repression of the Palestinians and both are supporters of the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, running for Congress in New York, has drawn the most attention as she is a member of a group that supports BDS and she has described the “occupation of Palestine.” She has already begun to waver, conceding that she has to study the issue more.
Perhaps the most interesting candidate is former journalist Leslie Cockburn, running in Virginia’s fifth district in rural Rappahannock County, who has written a book “Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship,”but she is already backtracking. She has been labeled a “virulent anti-Semite” by her Republican opponent and is now pledging support for all “existing commitments” to Israel.
Anyone in national politics who even suggests that the Palestinians are human beings that are being severely punished by a powerful Israel had best watch his or her back. On October 8th Congressman Eliot Engel of New York spoke regarding Ocasio-Cortez and the three other liberals who have criticized Israel. Engel told a New York synagogue gathering that had been organized and promoted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that all Democrats “need to be educated” in support of Israel.
“We are going to continue to work in Congress to make sure that we have overwhelming support for Israel on both sides of the aisle… I am certainly cognizant of the fact that people who are coming in as far as I’m concerned on the Democratic side, will be educated and need to be educated. But we have overwhelming support for Israel in the Congress. And… it will continue that way. We will maintain it that way.”
Representative Ted Deutch of Florida has also joined the discussion, insisting that the majority of candidates “will continue…strong support for America’s relationship with the lone democracy in the Middle East…Democrats have been helping to lead the fight against anti-Semitism and BDS, and strengthening our security relationship with Israel.” His colleague Brad Sherman of California characterizes the possible dissidents as coming from the “extreme left or our party who adopt slogans.”
Sherman is wrong about the Democratic Party demographics. There was somewhat of a revolt at the Democratic Party nominating convention in 2016 when a plank supporting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was clearly rejected by the rank and file in a floor vote but passed anyway by the leadership. Meanwhile, a January Pew Research Center poll revealed that the party members are more likely to support Israel than Palestine by a margin of only two per cent. And that was before the slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza by Israeli snipers.
A Democratic gubernatorial candidate who has apparently already drunk the koolaid is Ben Jealous of Maryland, who has spoken out about his opposition to BDS and has also described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in completely ridiculous terms as “a resource…to me as we achieve our education, healthcare and economic goals.” Another Democratic gubernatorial prospect in Florida Andrew Gillum has also seen the light, boasting of his state’s record in preventing “investing or doing business with companies participating in boycotts of Israel.”
Help is also coming from outside. Peggy Shapiro of pro-Israel activist group StandWithUs sees anti-Israel views exploiting “human rights language” to find “a landing space in our political system…mak[ing] it easier to mislead well-meaning people.”
The reality is that Israel is no democracy and is as guilty of human rights violations as are the Saudis and much more so than the Iranians, both of whom are regularly excoriated, but it is invariably given a pass for its behavior. Assassinating the character of anyone who falls foul of the Israel agenda in any way is routine and is not limited to politicians, witness last week’s smearing of Jamal Khashoggi by Israel’s supporters, keen to help Israel’s current friend the Saudi monarchy by falsely depicting Khashoggi as radical Islamist and a terrorism-supporter. Josh Block, the CEO of The Israel Project has tweeted linking Khashoggi to various terrorist entities. On Oct. 18, Block disputed a New Yorker article labeling Khashoggi a journalist commenting “Uh, U mean frontman for Islamists & paid spook for Qatar, Turkey & Turki al Faisal, whose ‘journalism’ was a cover for his real work, just as he wrapped his Islamist ideas in flowery language of ‘human rights’ as he praised Hamas & called for Israel to be destroyed by violence.”
Ironically, Israel’s friends carry out character assassination on opponents without any recognition that what they do is clearly perceived as unacceptable behavior by most Americans who actually follow developments in the Middle East. It has taken a long time, but one major political party has finally begun to see the light on Israel and the damage it does to the United States. To be sure, that recognition is currently at the base level, but eventually, it will work its way up through the system. It will undoubtedly be refreshing to have four or five new voices in Congress that are unafraid to speak the truth about Israel.
*
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 M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
After our nation illegally/immorally invaded and destroyed much of Iraq, we set up a mega city for our new embassy. The Bush gang named it ‘The Green Zone’, a fortified city in itself. The invaders/occupiers were able to keep most of the angry insurgents away from it, as our corporate predators made a meal out of the reconstruction of a once vibrant and economically solvent sovereign nation. Forget about the fact that we got rid of Saddam Hussein, as he was just another one in the long line of gangster thugs that our empire placed in power years earlier.
Well, this Two Party/One Party empire has succeeded in their plans for my beloved country. They created, over the span of decades, a Feudal Green Zone for their plunder and pillage. Yes, Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but he or no other leader we have had was willing or able to free the serfs. Our embedded politicians from both parties, with the aid of the embedded mainstream media, have made sure of that. We have a class of super rich that have even outshined those of the infamous Gilded Age (1870- 90) when the serfs had to scramble to stay afloat.
Right to work laws and restrictions on collective bargaining, among other actions, have destroyed the union movement so much that only less than 15% of private sector workers belong to a union. Our military spending has risen since the (so called) end of the Cold War to over 50% of our federal tax revenue. Translated:
No decent money for viable National Health Care devoid of the predatory private insurance industry; No decent money for real infrastructure upgrades;
No decent money for a better ‘safety net’ for all of us (Look how many mentally ill Americans are no longer in safe facilities and on our streets as homeless beggars):
No decent spending increases for our public education system: No viable and complete public spending on electoral politics, to get ALL private money OUT;
No decent money spent for public banking and community owned and operated residential and commercial ‘Non Profit’ rental property (to compete with and break the corporate predatory rental industry)… need I go on?
Instead, we have my fellow Americans fighting over this phony electoral scam… each and every election cycle. Yes, this writer knows that the Far Right Wing AKA Republicans are the ‘evil of two lessers’ and more obvious in their wrath. Yet, look at my ideals in the paragraph above this one, and ask yourself: ‘Will the Democrats support them?’ The sad answer is that they, the Right Wing party, will not! So, each election cycle will bring out the anger and frustration of my fellow serfs… and the empire will keep churning along. Yes, because this new ‘Trump led’ Far Right Wing is completely ‘off the reservation’ so much, that, with the cards we have been dealt, many of us may have no choice but to vote for the lesser evil to stop the momentum… but the bleeding will still continue until more serfs say ‘No More’ ! Just one man’s honest analysis.
*
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 A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected]
With dazzling clarity, French President Emmanuel Macron addressed the UN General Assembly in a remarkable speech highlighting:
“Now we must tackle the deep causes of our imbalances, we must look together at the weaknesses of our international order and – beyond the crises I’ve just mentioned – look at the deep inequalities that have set in. For me, this is the crux of our problem today: what is rekindling nationalism and doubts about our Assembly? What is generating crises everywhere? These deep inequalities that we have been unable to resolve.
Ten years ago, when the financial crisis broke out, we took emergency measures but we did not solve the deepest problem, we did not curb the trend towards the hyper-concentration of wealth on our planet and we did not really provide an answer to all those who were left behind by globalization. All those who were marginalized and frustrated by the humiliations they had suffered harboured a despair whose price we are collectively paying today….We owe an answer, my friends, to the 265 million children, more than half of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa, who have no access to schooling, to the girls who enjoy fair access to education in less than 40 percent of all countries. We owe an answer to the 700 million children who live in the regions most exposed to the effects of climate change, who are the victims of floods, drought, rising waters, diminishing resources. ..We owe an answer to the 783 million people who live below the poverty line, who suffer from hunger or chronic malnutrition, to those who don’t have access to basic care…….The time when a club of rich countries could alone define the world’s inequalities is long gone, because the fate of every country belonging to it is inseparable from that of every member of this Assembly. Yes, we must tackle present-day inequalities today because they’re at the root of the evil I was denouncing at the beginning of my speech. We must tackle inequalities of destiny. It’s a moral aberration as much as a reality which is untenable. It is unacceptable not to enjoy the same opportunities depending on the country you are born in, not to be able to go to school in countries because you are a woman, not to access to certain basic care….Six hundred and twenty million more children in the world need to be provided with schooling between now and 2030, included 444 million Africans. …Education and health care won’t just be the pillars of our societies in the 21 century; they will be the basic components of our economies too.”
Following this address, President Macron gave one of the most democratic press conferences in United Nations memory. Charismatic, unpretentious, without a phalanx of security guards, or a spokesperson to cherry-pick journalists known to ask flattering questions, and exclude those raising controversial issues, Macron arrived alone at the podium, stating simply:
“Ministers, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am available for you.”
Journalists freely asked a series of questions on a variety of subjects, and I asked Macron directly to elaborate on his impassioned and realistic identification of inequality as one of the root causes of the crisis in the world today, and asked Macron how he would solve this appalling injustice. And, as a follow-up question, I asked for Macron’s comment regarding the concept of a “Global New Deal” called for by the late UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I added that since Macron deplored the disintegration and increasing violence in the world today, what would he think of this possibility of a new, more progressive and egalitarian social and economic order.
Macron replied that he would address inequalities by increasing investment in education, health, agriculture and economic opportunities. He added that regarding the concept of a “Global New Deal,”: “In Europe the Prime Minister of Sweden and Kofi Annan launched a very similar idea, “ and Macron added “I support that precisely.” He added:
“We need a more comprehensive and consistent view of development. It is necessary to reform, in depth, global organization of trade, and not sign trade deals with countries not compliant with the Paris agreement on environment. We need more consistent day to day social commitments, new social rules and standards.”
I later, privately, asked President Macron if he thinks the increasing inequality in the world is contributing to the increase in terrorism. He replied:
“Of course. This inequality causes great frustration, humiliation and desperation that often inevitably results in terrorism.”
French President Macron appeared on the cover of Time Magazine on November 20, 2017, with a headline stating: “The Next Leader of Europe…If Only He Can Lead France.” Macron also appeared on the May, 2018 cover of Forbes Magazine, as a leader of the “free market.” His very progressive remarks at the United Nations would appear to be in contradiction with his reputation as an exponent of “neoliberalism,” which is the economic framework which spawns those very global inequalities Macron detests and devotes a huge section of his United Nations speech denouncing, as the cause of global disasters today and, if not redressed, tragedy in the future. This seeming contradiction within Macron’s position may ultimately be resolved by the very force of Macron’s personality and intellect: he is young and fortunately extremely intelligent, and there are aspects of his personality which may compel him to make the difficult choice which has already led him to support the concept of the global new deal. He is fully aware that such a global deal requires the very restructuring of the global financial order, and there is little doubt that he possesses the agility to choose the more humanitarian, and ultimately the more sustainable arrangement involved in the construction of the global new deal hailed by Kofi Annan. According to the Time magazine article, Macron is unswervingly committed to the course he considers correct, regardless of ferocious opposition, and has demonstrated this personally, which gives promise that he can ultimately prevail over those economic and politically reactionary forces which are today causing such misery throughout the world, and endangering the very survival of humanity.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.
Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.
We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.
If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.
For those of us critically attending at US foreign policy and world politics in general, the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil could hardly seem outside the scope of interest and –even more important–, influence of the US “Deep State”.So far, some indirect links have been shown, obviously in independent media, between Bolsonaro and the propaganda and psychological war tactics related to the CIA and other subsidiaries of the US Executive, generally linked to Wall Street and business interests. Let’s try and add some new –and more direct–, context and ties.
The far-right candidate who won the first round of elections in Brazil a few weeks ago –with an impressive advantage–, even when represented as a political “outsider”, has in fact been for decades the senatorial representative of a reactionary military elite and, more recently, a Pentecostal conservative population following charismatic leaders with enormous influence among the Brazilian middle and lower classes. They basically tell their flock who to vote for.
Bolsonaro has called for coups, political assassinations and violent repression against minorities and the poor for almost 30 years. He is not an outsider, but the media is playing along, regarding him as an “enemy” of corruption and crime when in fact his intended policies mean the legalization of state violence and other nefarious forms of crime. None of them new or “anti-establishment”, but pretty much the opposite. His core followers seem to feel empowered these days by his first round victory, and the attacks on opponents and minorities are dangerously rising in frequency with fatal consequences, as the killing of a black capoeira teacher last week, Moa de Katende, an Afro-Brazilian cultural figure, for being in favor of the leftist Fernando Haddad. The LGTB community is also a main target.
Even when Bolsonaro, who is also an ex-military, tries to appear more civilized to gather more votes from the political center, some of his core followers are racist gun-lovers ready to form paramilitary militias and raid the favelas in a way resembling Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.
As Glen Greenwald noted right after the first round of elections,
“…it is virtually impossible to overstate the threat level posed to democracy and human rights in the world’s fifth most-populous country as a result of last night’s election”.
One of Bolsonaro’s most voted subordinates, Rodrigo Amorim, pictured himself ripping a billboard honoring Marielle Franco, the black activist for gay rights who was murdered earlier this year and whose killing is unsolved, which is a very common trait in Latin America regarding activists of all sorts. Besides the picture of their great achievement, the high school bullies turned politicians wrote: “Get ready left-wingers: your days are numbered if we’re in charge”. As Greenwald noted, the politician later erased the threat.
The conservative, right-wing media –among other traditional actors we will review below–, have a share in the forthcoming –and already ongoing–, bloodshed, the only question is: how big?
The Economist –among other “usual suspects” from the Western propaganda machine–, stated that the military would act as a “moderating influence” on an eventual Bolsonaro government. An excellent article by Jacobin magazine examines why the opposite is truth by reviewing some of Bolsonaro’s military advisors’ exploits and killings in Haiti.
The Council of the Americas: the unseen hand
Bolsonaro travelled to New York and other important US cities in the second half of 2017. There he met business leaders and power brokers at the Council of the Americas (COA). This non-governmental institution is tied to the Council on Foreign Relations, where corporate leaders, bankers, all sorts of oligarchs and top-tier intelligence agents –the almost legendary, former CIA director Allen Dulles, was the Council’s director for many years before joining the agency–, as well as “ruling class” journalists and pundits gather to undemocratically decide where the world should go while maintaining status quo and corporate hegemony.
Only a month after visiting the COA in New York, Bolsonaro named neoliberal Paulo Guedes as his official economy advisor, after having accepted his complete incompetence on the matter. In fact, the economic “ideas” of this long time Brazilian senator had passed from calling for the execution of a former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, for privatizing state businesses to call for the privatization of “everything”.
He is a demagogue ready to cater to economic power –both local and international–, in order to enjoy carte blanche to impose “law and order” on the streets, which seems to be his foremost concern and surest path to popularity. In Bolsonaro’s and his supporter’s simple minds, crime and poverty are solved with bullets. Refusing to consider any bigger context behind these scourges, his ideas are as simple as giving the police free hand to “shoot first and ask questions later”, in a country that yearly witnesses the death of at least 5 thousand people by police officers, many of them innocent bystanders. In sum, an all-out war against the poor in a continent that has already seen its share of it.
The meetings at New York with the COA, as well as the appointment of Guedes, a Chicago economist who was a university teacher in Pinochet’s Chile, started rallying business leaders and foreign investors to the candidate, although many weren’t saying it out loud. His stabbing on September the 6th, nevertheless, saw a surge in the value of the Real and optimism in the local markets as business leaders understood that the attack would increase Bolsonaro’s chances for the presidency. His first round victory only added hope to the banking and financial class.
But what and whom exactly is behind the Council of the Americas?
A conduit for elite propaganda and black money
The COA long history of meddling in Latin American democracies in connivance with US government and a Latin American business and political elites make it a fundamental player in Brazil’s present political climate and soon to be decided destiny. Brazilian would be far-right president’s travel to New York went almost unnoticed in mainstream media and most independent media, as it happened when Bolsonaro wasn´t such a real threat and “Lula” was comfortably leading polls. With so little coverage of his trip to meet with the Council of the Americas, it isn’t a big surprise that nobody seemed to look into that institution’s historical exploits in Latin America.
Seymour Hersh, the most important investigative journalist alive, researched the dealing of the CIA in Chile in the sixties and seventies against the Salvador Allende socialist government in his 1982’s Atlantic Monthly article “The price of power”. As he skilfully uncovered back then, the Kennedy administration instructed David Rockefeller to create the seemingly independent “Business Group for Latin America”, which subsequently renamed itself as the Council of the Americas. The institution’s charter was to counter the spread of leftist governments after the Cuban revolution, as Hersh explains.
Americas Quarterly (AQ), the Council’s publication, as we will see below, remains a very influential source of mainstream media discourse to explain why the best political candidates for the Latin American/ U.S. business classes are actually the best candidates for the whole of its impoverished societies.
On the verge of Allende’s election victory in 1970’s Chile, local and American business communities, tied by common interests and property over corporations such as the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT), Anaconda Copper or Pepsico, started many efforts, directed by the CIA, headed in those years by Richard Helms and directly under Richard Nixon’s close aide, Henry Kissinger.
As anyone with some knowledge in these dealings would know, intelligence agencies need to launder and send abroad hundreds of thousands and mostly millions of dollars when operating anywhere around the globe. In this case, the Council of the Americas served as one of the conduits for CIA money later used to pay for media propaganda, covert operations and political and military bribes. Other covert conduit was the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), as Hersh revealed. One of the Chilean heads of the international plot against Allende was Agustin Edwards, owner of the conservative newspaper “El Mercurio”, another council member. His network received almost 2 million dollars during the years the CIA and the business community were struggling with Allende, to unleash a brutal propaganda and psychological war campaign directed at the Chilean population. In the chaos and disinformation, the military coup would take place and the “communists” would be blamed.
As we briefly mentioned, associated with the Business Group for Latin America/ COA were important senior executives from Anaconda Copper, in care of the bulk of Chile´s mining industry back then, ITT and Pepsico. Donald Kendall, CEO of Pepsico, was a very close friend –and contributor– to Richard Nixon’s political career. Kendall named “El Mercurio’s” Agustin Edwards vice-president for Pepsico in 1970, according to Hersh’s 1982 investigation. The massive lobby includes more than 200 transnational corporations. Most COA members have vested interests in Brazil and the rest of Latin America as well, which includes maintaining considerable pools of cheap labor and ownership over natural resources.
As further proof of the COA’s “deep” agenda, a former CIA agent called Enno Hobbing, who participated in the 1954 coup that toppled Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz and then helped the CIA in 1970’s Chile as a liaison between the agency and the council, was subsequently appointed as the latter’s own principal operations officer.
In the media realm, as it would be foreseeable, the COA’s publication, Americas Quarterly, and his executive editor, Brian Winter, enjoy a wide international audience. His opinions are circulated among corporate media around South America and Europe and repeated by tens of pundits around the world, making clear –and selling–, the Americas business elite’s take on politics (without stating so, of course). Readers around the world are not informed by Winter about the COA’s past or even the nature of its interests in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America.
“Rede Globo”: a product of Brazilian darkest days
“Brazil’s hegemonic media network, Rede Globo, was actually created with the assistance of and funding of Rockefeller-associated Time-Life Publishing in the United States. It became a powerful instrument of societal control during the dictatorship following its launch in 1964”. (Brasil Wire, 03/20/17)
This is exactly what is missing in corporate journalism regarding the rise of Bolsonaro: Brazilian right-wing, conservative media’s role in normalizing his candidacy as a viable, acceptable alternative to political corruption and street crime. A bit of the fairly documented past, regarding Rede Globo’s beginnings and subsequent exploits, should suffice.
As the UK’s Channel 4 documentary “Beyond Citizen Kane” (banned in Brazil) showed in 1993, Globo’s Rio de Janeiro operation started in the first years of the Brazilian dictatorship with an investment of six million dollars by American media giant Time-Life, owned in those days by the legendary conservative –and CIA collaborator–, Henry Luce. For a better idea of the magnitude of that investment for Brazil in the 60’s, consider that the initial investment for the network enterprises in a different city of Brazil were around 300 thousand dollars.
An Al-Jazeera news program hosted by Canadian journalist Richard Gizbert, from September 2017, made a rare exception in the chorus of predictable media omissions. After underlining the loose regulations enjoyed by Brazilian media giants, he adds:
“Globo and the military government that took power in Brazil in a 1964 coup had a symbiotic relationship. Globo backed that coup and supported the military dictatorship right through until 1985”.
The dictatorship smiled back at the most influential network in the country, reaching an audience way above its competence, and its owner, Roberto Marinho, whom on time became the most powerful citizen in Brazil. Still today, many rural Brazilians with no access to the internet understand the outside world through the opaque lens of Globo.
Once, Globo told his viewers, back in 1984 when the dictatorship’s power was waning, that a street gathering of hundreds of thousands demanding democracy was actually a celebration of Sao Paulo’s anniversary. Among many other exploits by the Brazilian propagandists, when “Lula” da Silva had to debate the rightist –and media favorite–, Fernando Collor de Melo, back in his beginnings as a politician, Globo’s heavily-edited version of the debate severely diminished his possibilities at the polls. The network’s colossal reach has been traditionally unparalleled in the biggest country in South America and the 5th most populated in the world.
Although Globo and its many newspapers, radio and TV stations do compete with a number of other media, as Al-Jazeera’s Gizbert notes:
“All of them (are) owned by wealthy families or individuals. However, plurality in media ownership here has failed to deliver a plurality of views. Media owners in Brazil are, without exception, white and conservative. They compete for audiences, but do so mostly from a same political and social points of view”.
This is so in a country where more than half of its citizens are black or have, at least in part, African roots. As in the rest of Latin America, where media ownership follows the same rules and tendencies toward ownership concentration are strong, the fact that such ownership could represent the voice and interest of the many remains to be seen.
Finally, and taking in consideration Rede Globo’s historical link with the also conservative Time-Life, a recent opinion piece into the subject of Bolsonaro by Time magazine’s Ian Bremmer should be an interesting read:
“…And even if Bolsonaro wins, Brazil is no banana republic. Despite its dysfunctions and social problems, this is a country with strong political institutions. (…) Brazil’s institutions, unlike those of so many other countries where corruption continues unabated, have the means to hold powerful people accountable and to check the excesses of government. If he wins, that will also apply to Jair Bolsonaro”.
This, sadly, completely contradicts reality, as the “Car Wash” case critically showed. In the past, on the other hand, military culprits of mass killings have proven hard to prosecute, joining the rest of the hemisphere, where military juntas supported and trained by Washington endured little to no jail time for their torture and killing of both innocent and combatants throughout the sixties and well into the seventies and eighties. Guatemala alone saw the slaughtering of around 200 hundred thousand indigenous people.
Other voices were also brought to the subject recently, as the New York Review of Book’s Vincent Bevins, who explains: “Apologists for Brazil’s military regime plead that state murders numbered ‘only’ in the hundreds, but those numbers refer to documented urban cases and ignore entirely the thousands of indigenous people who were reportedly slaughtered as the military regime rushed to develop the Amazon”.
Conclusion
October 28 could mark a breaking point in more than 20 years of Brazilian democracy. Bolsonaro’s core, militarized, conservative constituency would be an extremely dangerous one to empower, as recent attacks have shown. Mainstream media and corporate journalism in general completely downplay the danger awaiting by the end of this month, while also ignoring its own part in the rise of the far-right leader. Media corporations in Brazil and elsewhere have enormous vested interest in the results, having taken part in the spurious ouster of Dilma Rousseff and jailing of ‘Lula’, as well as selling any alternative to the Partido dos Trabalhadores as desirable.
In the meantime, they keep diverting the attention from a corrupt system and establishment (as a whole) to corrupt politicians and street criminality, while leaving out the economic and structural sources of the dramatic material inequalities scourging Brazil today and fueling social division and anger. This seems to be the corporate media’s game in these days of anger and populism: to divert attention away from its preferred economic model’s destructiveness.
As many times in the recent past of Latin America, the business classes resort to fascism, with its promises of far-right liberalization for the rich few and mass repression for the poor many, with corporate media as its propaganda arm.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Far from operating in a purely economic sphere, the action of market forces is also manifested in the geo-political dimension. Hence, the behaviour of the financial sector is not exempt from this logic, especially taking into account the density and worldwide reach of modern finance.
In fact, it can be argued that the intersection between geo-politics and finance is one of the key drivers whose impacts are reshuffling the global balance of power within the international system. Therefore, as a grand strategy issue, it sparks deep implications for states’ national security.
Therefore, the need to understand this organic symbiosis highlights the pertinence of transgressing the traditional disciplinary barriers between international relations and economic science, in order to generate an adequate paradigm with explanatory usefulness for assessment, forecasting and prescriptive purposes. Accordingly, geo-financial analysis – a product of the aforementioned hybridisation – reveals the reflection of these developments in processes related to power, conflict, hegemony and strategic intelligence, amongst others.
The Financial Power of Nation States and its Components
From a long-range perspective, the financial capabilities at the disposal of national states are not just about stockpiling wealth or resources which can be used to fund conventional military mobilisations; they can also be harnessed as vectors for the direct projection of national power in the pursuit of geo-political interests.
Thus, states’ power in the geo-financial field can be assessed through quantitative indicators, such as degree of financial development, magnitude of foreign currency reserves, amount of precious metals reserves, level of currency internationalisation, control of commodity exchanges, investment banking, sovereign wealth funds and credit ratings. Nevertheless, it is also appropriate to evaluate qualitative factors – financial diplomacy and monetary ‘soft power’– because of their importance when it comes to exerting influence.
Moreover, anchoring a certain currency to international energy trade – since it involves resources which are vital for the survival and functional performance of modern economies – represents a formidable synergy that combines geo-political and financial advantages for the issuing state’s national interests. In fact, its enduring and exclusive position as a petrocurrency is one of the factors that have underwritten the multi-dimensional strength of the US dollar. Nonetheless, the on-going rivalry in this regard –where there is a strategic convergence between currencies and hydrocarbons – is becoming increasingly intense and, therefore, so are the resulting challenges for the reigning petrocurrency’s coveted privileges.
In this context, the international financial system turns out to be a fierce competitive arena where the hierarchical equilibrium amongst the predominant currencies mirrors the balance of geo-political might amongst the major powers. Of course, the highly dynamic nature of both determines that correlations between the two realms are constantly being rearranged. Accordingly, the relative positions held by currencies of the leading powers are not static.
Financial Warfare
Nowadays, war is not only waged through conventional military mobilisations. In fact, in a setting of planetary economic interconnectedness, it is possible to fight through financial channels and instruments, in order to achieve geo-political interests.
This kind of ‘unorthodox’ confrontation can be carried out in a relatively covert way and in legally ambiguous spaces, so it is not always easy to discern the identity of the contenders involved. Furthermore, both state and non-state actors participate in these highly complex dynamics.
Despite the innovative format of conflicts fought in this peculiar battleground, some strategic principles of conventional warfare still apply, such as power projection, the use of asymmetric attacks and deceptive tactics, as well as the existence of centres of gravity and operational theatres, even though the corresponding dynamics are thus evidently shaped by the parameters pertaining to the geo-financial battlefield. Thus, the upgrade of unconventional warfare doctrines is a resulting must.
Concerning typologies, there are several kinds of financial strikes against geo-political enemies, including speculative attacks, currency dumping, sanctions, aggressive monetary policies, manipulating the prices of commodities, hostile credit ratings, debt traps, infiltration and/or sabotage, financial siege and Blitzkrieg. This reality emphasises the importance of deepening the concept of national security, so that it does not overlook geo-financial criteria, in order to develop the ability of envisaging and designing defensive measures.
The disruptive potential of financial warfare can reach devastating proportions. A financial strike can be even more lethal than the actual detonation of a nuclear weapon, especially if it is executed along with force multipliers –such as cyber-attacks, spread of disinformation or special operations–. Without the need to fire a single shot, a national state can be vanquished, the whole fabric of a certain society can be undermined and, in its most extreme form, even a civilizational setback can be triggered.
The Evolution of Monetary Hegemony
Throughout history, the issuance of global reserve currencies is a quintessential attribution of the major powers in the international system. This symbiotic arrangement exemplifies how geo-political and financial means nourish each other. A factor that reinforces this type of hegemonic configuration is that the circulation of a currency with worldwide reach not only entails advantages for the issuer. To a certain extent, it is also some sort of global public good.
Interestingly, since the times of the Athenian silver drachma, the long-term trends illustrate that there is a strong correlation between the development of substantial –military and trade– naval capabilities and the issuance of dominant currencies. As demonstrated by the case of the American dollar –issued by today’s leading sea power–, this correlation has proved to be enduring.
Nevertheless, hegemonic positions are not perpetual in the financial realm. A loss of confidence in the credibility of the top currency, a conflict of outstanding proportions which disrupts the global geo-political balance of power, the implementation of unsustainable monetary policies in the long run or the growing strength of a competitive challenger might derail the supremacy of a reigning currency.
On the other hand, institutional frameworks play a prominent role in the rise, consolidation, management, decline or transition of monetary hegemonies. Accordingly, the control of the main international financial organisations is a cause of rivalry amongst the powers that are both capable of and interested in boosting their own currencies towards leading positions.
In the grand scheme of things, the hegemonic trajectory of the US dollar –not unlike overall US national power– is being put in the crosshairs. Even though some analysts foresee its continuous superiority well into the 21st century, it is not unwise to consider alternative prospective scenarios in case its supremacy is eventually compromised, such as its replacement by other national currency, some sort of geo-financial multi-polarity, the rise of a multilateral currency, the restoration of the gold standard –or a variant thereof– or even systemic meltdown.
The Role of Strategic Intelligence
Given their ramifications and growing significance in the domain of national security, these phenomena are catching the attention of strategic circles from both state and non-state actors. Consequently, strategic intelligence represents an effective tool for addressing these circumstances, particularly since it offers a long-range analytical usefulness and an interdisciplinary worldview.
For starters, there is an increasing sense of situational awareness amongst the greatest powers’ intelligence communities, perception which is starting to be echoed in their conceptual frameworks, strategic planning processes and execution of operational activities. Likewise, the financial sector is also adapting methodologies derived from intelligence activities, in order to develop the necessary institutional capabilities.
Another instance is that the implementation of monetary policy, essential attribution of modern central banking, is gaining a broader degree of strategic depth, because it is nowadays being formulated not just based on precise technical concerns, but also taking into account geo-political criteria and carried out with the assistance of intelligence methods. As a result, contemporary currency strategists must have a proficient understanding of geo-political factors.
Furthermore, states are employing experience and best practice borrowed from conventional financial intelligence –as is traditionally used in law enforcement– and market intelligence –originally designed by and for the private sector– in the development and optimisation of pertinent mechanisms and procedures for the sequential phases of the intelligence cycle, for both offensive and defensive purposes in the singular geo-financial sphere. This trend embodies the conceptual, institutional and methodological evolution of classical notions that have prevailed in the field of national security.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
José Miguel Alonso Trabanco is an independent researcher based in Mexico specialising in geo-political and geo-economic affairs as key factors that determine how the global balance of power behaves and evolves. He holds a degree in International Relations from the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Studies. He is in the process of completing a Master’s Degree in National Security and Strategic Intelligence.
Is China a new imperial power threatening some of the developing economies in Asia and Africa? This is a perception that is being promoted through the media by certain China watchers in universities and think-tanks mainly in the West, various politicians and by a segment of the global NGO community.
The peddlers of this perception argue that by giving out loans for development to poor countries China is snaring them in a debt trap. It is a trap that ensures that they are perpetually under China’s control. Is there such a debt trap? To find out, we shall look at three Asian countries before we turn to Africa.
Pakistan has taken loans from China for projects under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The US 50 billion CPEC is a network of infrastructure projects that are currently under construction throughout Pakistan that will connect China’s Xinjiang province with Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. A number of these projects will strengthen Pakistan’s energy sector which is vital for its economic growth. They will help to reduce its severe trade deficit. Debt servicing of CPEC loans which will only start this year amounts to less than 80 million.
Pakistan’s largest creditors are not China but Western countries and multilateral lenders led by the IMF and international commercial banks. Its foreign debt “is expected to surpass 95 billion this year and debt servicing is projected to reach 31 billion by 2022-2023.” There is evidence to show that its creditors “have been actively meddling in Pakistan’s fiscal policies and its sovereignty through debt rescheduling programs and the conditionalities attached to IMF loans.”
The media does not highlight this which is in fact Pakistan’s real debt trap. Neither does it inform the public that CPEC loans are for projects that are of immense and direct value to the Pakistani people. Their value will be further enhanced when the new Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan visits China on 3rd November and broadens the CPEC to emphasise cooperation in agriculture and social sector development.
Distortions and half-truths have also coloured media accounts of China’s relationship to the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota. The construction of the port was a Sri Lankan idea, not a Chinese initiative.The Sri Lankan government reached out to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and Japan among others to finance its construction. For different reasons, its request was turned down. It was only then that the government approached China which agreed to help.
As Hussein Askary and Jason Ross point out in an EIR study of 30th August 2018, contrary to media reports, Hambantota on the southern coast of Sri Lanka has tremendous potential. It is “located just 6-9 nautical miles from one of the busiest and most important commercial shipping lines on the planet.”The Chinese built port was opened for commercial use in 2010.
Unfortunately, usage was below par. Because of poor revenue, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority was forced to sign an agreement whereby a Chinese state-run enterprise “took a 99 year lease of 70% of the port and 85% ownership of the port and industrial area with the obligation to continue investing in upgrading the facilities there — The purpose of this deal was to relieve Sri Lanka off the burden of this debt.”
In the case of our third example, Malaysia, which witnessed a change of government in May 2018, major infrastructure projects funded by Chinese state companies could not be implemented because the nation is in a financial crunch. Besides, the projects were obviously lopsided favouring the Chinese companies more than their Malaysian partners. In announcing his decision, Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, made it very clear that the lop-sidedness was due more to the previous Malaysian government than to its Chinese counterpart.
From the three cases in Asia, it would be patently wrong to label China a new imperial power. A quick look at Africa will reinforce this view. The “majority of African debt is not held by China but by Western countries and such Western-backed institutions as the IMF and World Bank.”
Nonetheless, many African states have Chinese debt. This in itself is not a problem — provided loans are utilised for the public good. In this regard, infrastructure financing under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — building ports, railways and fibre-optic cables — appears to be a major component of China’s involvement in Africa. The four billion dollar Addis-Ababa-Djibouti Railway which began commercial operations earlier this year would be one such example. The 3.2 billion Madaraka Express railway between Nairobi and Mombasa in Kenya would be another case in point.
The exception in Africa is perhaps the tiny East African state of Djibouti.In the last two years, it has borrowed 1.4 billion from China. This is more than three-quarters of Djibouti’s GDP. It is alleged that China has leveraged upon this to open its first overseas military installation in Djibouti.It should be noted at the same time that Djibouti also hosts the largest US military base in Africa.
Djibouti aside, Chinese ventures in Africa have been almost totally economic. The quid pro quo for the Chinese it is true has been access to the continent’s rich natural resources. But it is always access, never control. Control over the natural resources of the nations they colonised was the driving force behind 19th century Western colonialism. Control through pliant governments and, in extreme cases, via regime change continues to be a key factor in the West’s — especially the US’s — quest for hegemony over Africa and the rest of the contemporary world.
It is because China’s peaceful rise as a global player challenges that hegemony that the centres of power in the West are going all out to denigrate and demonise China. Labelling China as a new imperial or colonial power is part of that vicious propaganda against a nation, indeed a civilisation that has already begun to change the global power balance. It is a change — towards a more equitable distribution of power — that is in the larger interest of humanity. For that reason, the people of the world should commit themselves wholeheartedly to the change that is embracing all of us.
*
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. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) Malaysia. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
In the year 1960 during the Madagascar’s independence process, it was geostrategically important for General De Gaulle to demand that Mayotte, Reunion and Scattered islands (in French Îles Éparses) be left as French soil. According to the General, it was important for French interests that France remains a military-political and commercial dominant force especially in the Mozambique Channel in Eastern Africa. On this understanding which can be called the “De Gaulle doctrine”, this is an indirect existence. Even today, the French presence around Madagascar gives the appearance of the island being under embargo.
An independence referendum was held in Comoros on 22 December 1974. The overall result was a strong “yes” vote, with 94.57% of voters voting for independence.
Mayotte in 1974, which was part of Comoros, it was decided by the UN to ban the second time French referendum. Nevertheless after the ‘manipulated’ 1976 referendum Eparses Islands accepted French domination.
Difficult to accept that decision, not recognized by Comoros shows the Eparses islands in the French government territory as “parts” of Mayotte geographically. It is important that first of all Mayotte has to clarify its legal status with the Comoros Islands, while their attachment to France is controversial in the legal sense.
Europa, Bassas da İndia and Juan de Nova particularly in Mozambique Channel, is important because it is located in strategically important regions of the middle of the channel.
Today the Eparses islands, which become a crisis between Madagascar and France and the center of the discussion, are Juan de Nova Island.
Although the number of French troops on the islands is symbolic, the airport and military troops on the island have actually turned the island into a military base. The fact that civilian entrances to the island are subject to long process and permits issued by the authorities of Reunion have made it impossible to reach the island.
The island, therefore, is home to only French soldiers and some biologists. A French Coast Guard maintains routine patrols around the island.
As is known, the International Montego Bay Convention gives the authority to control 200 nautical miles of marine resources outside the territorial waters of a country. This arrangement allowed France to control a marine area of 425,000 square kilometers, including a total of %70 of the Mozambique Channel.
The texts are ambiguous in limiting the Exclusive Economic Zones ‘EEZ’ within the 400 nautical miles zone applicable to all parties in the Mozambique Channel. In particular, it should be emphasized that Juan de Nova is 150 km from the Malagasy coasts on the continental landscape of Madagascar, and Malagasy naturally fits into the EEZ. French and Madagascar EEZ’s have been overlaid in principle for this reason. Therefore, a conflict area has been established in the region. The arrest of the Malgash fishermen, who engaged in fishing at the region in 2008 by French security forces shows that France is unwilling to solve the problem through diplomatic methods.
On the other hand, the issue of Eparse islands is not limited to its geostrategic significance. At the beginning of the year 2000, the balance of economic development after the gas and oil reserves discovered in the Mozambique Channel, began to change completely.
However, according to the report of the French Senate No. 299 published in 2003, there are no natural gas and oil reserves in the region. Worse still, the report suggests that the ecological system would not be able to extract oil in the region attached to the Eparse islands.
According to the French government, around 15,000 sea turtles and the ‘monitoring natural life’ of Juan de Nova Island are the main reasons for Paris’s interest in this region.
However, the discovered reserves around Mozambique, Tanzania, Comoros, and even Madagascar are known even by the public. From this point of view, the importance of the Mozambique Channel is well understood.
Following the gas discoveries, let’s compare the political and economic developments in Madagascar first and Mozambique afterwards. The coup attempt in 2006 later on the political crisis in 2009 and ongoing embargo has cut the country’s ties with the outside world. During the years of embargo, the country’s weak economy was brought to a standstill. Although this period was anti-French, developments were shaped according to France’s strategy. The instability in Madagascar politics resulted in the absence of the necessary political will to solve the problem of the Eparse islands.
Mozambique became one of the new centers of investment in Africa after the discovery of natural gas reserves in the early two thousands. During the last 10 years as a result of natural gas exploration activities by the largest energy companies from the USA, Italy, South Africa, China 5.7 trillion cubic meters of natural gas was discovered.
Parallel to these developments, Mozambique, one of the world’s poorest countries, has received more than 30 billion dollars of foreign investment in the last 6 years.
The US-based Anadarko and Italy-based Eni companies total investment cost for natural gas to be launched in the northern part of the country are about 30 billion dollars. With the introduction of liquefaction plants and terminals starting from 2022, Mozambique is expected to be one of the world’s leading exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
By the way, while there are rich oil reserves in Madagascar, it should be noted that there is no serious oil reserve in Mozambique.
The process for gas reserves on the coasts of Mozambique has been different. The most important difference is there is no French influence in Mozambique. The problem of the Eparse islands is directly related to Mozambique, Mauritius, and Comoros.
The Eparse subject, on the other hand is indirect interest for Mozambique, Republic of South Africa and Tanzania. Definitely, Antatananarivo administration should work together with neighbor countries on these issues.
In addition, the colonial heritage language of France is one of the most important problems. The problem of the Eparse islands is known not only by the French, Madagascar, Comoros, and at least by the public in Mauritius. Therefore, the world is not aware of the problem outside of the French-speaking regions. It is important that this issue is raised in other languages and foreign media in larger platforms. Gas and oil prices are predicted to increase in the near +future; Madagascar’s gas production will gain even more importance.
Mozambique’s multi-dimensional foreign policy can be implemented by Madagascar. The possibility of Madagascar’s co-operation with actors such as China, Russia and Turkey in the field of the energy sector will certainly be a serious trump card against France. This ammunition should definitely be used.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
In one of the most profound developments in the central bank gold market for a long time, the Hungarian National Bank, Hungary’s central bank, has just announced a 10 fold jump in its monetary gold holdings. The central bank, known as Magyar Nemzeti Bank (MNB) in Hungarian, made the announcement in Budapest, Hungary’s capital.
The details of Hungary’s dramatic new gold purchase are as follows:
Before this month, Hungary’s central bank held 3.10 tonnes of gold.
During the first two weeks of October, the Hungarian National Bank purchased 28.4 tonnes of gold.
This gold purchase raised the central bank’s gold holdings from 3.1 tonnes to 31.5 tonnes, i.e. a 1000% or 10-fold increase.
The Hungarian central bank had not altered its gold reserves since 1986, i.e. 32 years ago.
The 28.4 tonnes of gold was purchased in ‘physical form’, and ‘its repatriation has already taken place‘ to Hungary.
Interestingly, Hungary now holds the same amount of gold as it held 70 years ago.
Some of the newly purchased gold bars of the Hungarian central bank. This gold has also been repatriated to Hungary.
In conjunction with today’s announcement in Budapest, the Hungarian National Bank put together a very interesting press release on its website (in Hungarian), which I have translated and edited, and which I think is worth reading in its entirety. Therefore, I have replicated it below, adding some bold and underlining in places. The press release is as follows:
“Budapest, October 16, 2018 – In view of the long-term national and economic strategy goals, the Monetary Council of the National Bank of Hungary has decided to increase the gold reserves of the country.
As a result, in October 2018 the Bank’s precious metal holdings were raised from the previous 3.10 tonnes to 31.5 tonnes, a tenfold increase.
This is the first time that the Hungarian National Bank has bought gold since 1986.
Following the substantial increase in the Bank’s gold reserves in physical form, its repatriation has already taken place. The possession of precious metal within the country is in line with international trends, supports financial stability and strengthens market confidence in Hungary.
In keeping with the historical role of gold, gold remains one of the safest instruments in the world, and, even under normal market conditions, provides a stability and confidence-building function.
With current holdings of 31.5 tonnes gold reserves, valued at approximately $ 1.24 billion, this size of holdings approaches the historical level that was held by our country at the time of the “golden train”. Within the overall international reserves of the Bank, the share of gold reserves has now risen to 4.4%, which corresponds to the average of non-euro area Central and Eastern European countries.
The role of gold reserves in the nation and in the nation’s economy strategy is becoming more and more appreciated while both the possession and the increase of nations’ precious metals holdings appears to be decisive international trends.
This gold purchase process, based on the strategic decision of the Hungarian National Bank, has increased the domestic gold reserves to 31.5 tonnes. The raising of the gold reserve and the returning of the gold in physical form to Hungary took place in the first half of October 2018.
Increasing and repatriating gold reserves can be considered a significant step in economic history. Since the founding of the Hungarian National Bank in 1924, gold reserves have been maintained, but the stock of that gold has fluctuated considerably over the decades, depending on the purpose of why it was held.
At the end of World War II, Hungary received some 30 tonnes of gold bars and gold coins on the MNB’s legendary “gold train” in the Spital am Pyhrn in Austria. This amount was fully returned to the country after the war while providing cover for the introduction of the new currency of the country, the Forint, thus supporting financial consolidation and the stabilization of the post-war Hungarian economy.
At the end of the eighties, Hungary’s gold reserves, driven by short-term investment objectives, fluctuated between 40 and 50 tons and then, at the time of the change of regime (between 1989 and 1992), the ruling central bank executives decided to reduce to a minimum level of about 3.1 tons, which was the level at the end of September 2018.
With the decision of the MNB today in October 2018, the holdings of 31.5 tonnes of gold reserves is now the same as the level of the stabilization period of 1946.
Gold reserves are held for short-term investment and / or long-term stability purposes by national central banks. The current decision of the Hungarian National Bank was led by the goal of stability, and there are no investment concerns behind the holding of gold reserves.
Gold is not only for extreme market environments, structural changes in the international financial system, and deeper geopolitical crises. Gold also has a confidence-building effect in normal times, that is, gold can play a role in stabilizing and defending.
Gold is still considered to be one of the world’s safest assets, whose characteristics can be attributed to gold’s unique properties such as finite supply of physical gold, and lack of credit and counterparty risk given that gold is not a claim against a specific partner or country.
Over the past few years, more and more countries have decided to continue to play a decisive role in the use of gold as a traditional reserve asset, and have raised their gold reserves. This course of action was followed by Poland [a neighbor of Hungary], in spite of the fact that Poland had already one of the highest gold reserves in the region.
When raising domestic gold reserves to 31.5 tonnes, the MNB also paid attention to the international and regional role played by gold in central bank reserves. As a result, the Hungarian gold reserve have now increased to 4.4% which is in line with average international reserve ratio for gold for the Central Eastern European region central banks. This move from the end of the international rankings to the middle of the rankings has progressed, both in terms of size and proportion of gold reserves.
On the occasion of the announcement, the National Bank of Hungary has also published a “Golden Book”, which gives an insight into decisive historical periods of Hungary’s gold, such as centuries of golden coins, the rescue of our national treasures by gold trains, and the recent homecoming of the country’s gold reserves.” [end of press release]
Note that Hungary is a member of the European Union (EU), and therefore the Hungarian National Bank is a member of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB). However, as Hungary is not a member of the Eurozone and does not use the Euro, the Hungarian National Bank is not a member central bank of the European Central Bank (ECB). With Hungary recently under attack from the European Parliament in September, the timing of this new gold purchase by Hungary’s central bank in early October is very interesting, to say the least.
Poland, Austria, Germany, Netherlands, and now Hungary
In addition to this new Hungarian gold purchase, Reuters is reporting that updated data from the IMF shows that Poland continued to increase its gold purchases in September 2018, raising its gold reserve holdings by 4.4 tonnes during the month to 117 tonnes. This follows similar gold purchases that the Polish central bank made in the summer, when the bank bought two tonnes of gold in July and seven tonnes of gold in August.
With almost all of Poland’s gold held at the Bank of England, a relevant question now is how long before Poland also sees fit to repatriate its gold in physical form away from the fractionally-backed LBMA controlled gold trading centre of London. Another of Hungary’s close neighbors, Austria, has itself spent the last 3 years repatriating 140 tonnes of its gold from the Bank of England in London and has nearly completed this repatriation operation now.
Add to this the high-profile Germany Bundesbank gold repatriation program in recent years, and a similar gold repatriation exercise from the Netherlands central bank, and the trend is clear: central banks in Europe have been flocking to shore up their international reserves with gold, because, as in the words of the Hungarian central bank “Gold is still considered to be one of the world’s safest assets”.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
On July 2, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of the recently formed Morena Party swept to victory in Mexico’s presidential election with 53 per cent of the vote, the first time since 1982 that a candidate won more than half the vote. His closest competitor, Ricardo Anaya of the National Action Party (PAN), took 22 per cent, while José Antonio Meade, candidate for the PRI though not a member of the party, finished with 16 per cent. Morena also replaced the PRD as the leading party in Mexico City, capturing the Mayor’s office and a majority of the local assembly. Mexico City’s Mayor is often considered the second most important political figure in the country.
AMLO was ahead in polls throughout the campaign, but even so, the breadth of the victory, including majority control in both houses of Congress, caught many observers by surprise, although apparently not Mexico’s political class. Prior to the election, and at the invitation of López Obrador, many previous stalwarts from the opposition abandoned their parties to run on the Morena ticket. Even important elements of the business class joined the Morena effort, led by Monterrey industrialist Alfonso Romo, who will serve as AMLO’s Chief of Staff. During his first two presidential runs, López Obrador faced opposition from a united business class. This time he made sure to highlight his pro-capitalist credentials in the proper forums, guaranteeing that he would not challenge privatization of petroleum or the construction of a new airport. These will likely be Mexico’s biggest boondoggles ever.
After six years under PRI President Enrique Peña Nieto, probably Mexico’s most unpopular President, preceded by 12 years of PAN leadership that resulted in historic violence related to an uncontrollable “war on drugs,” Mexicans were ready for change. But will they get it?
New Party, New Affiliations
In Mexico, politics is practically synonymous with corruption. López Obrador ran on a platform denouncing corruption, electoral fraud and economic mismanagement, yet many Morena candidates came straight out of the PAN, PRD and PRI. AMLO himself started his political career in the PRI in his home state of Tabasco, then moved to the PRD for his first two presidential runs and his stint as Mexico City mayor, before founding Morena (Movimiento Regeneración Nacional) in 2014.
Almost immediately AMLO’s former party, the PRD, began to see defections. By July 2017, some 45,000 PRD militants had renounced their membership to join Morena. Even founders of the PRD abandoned the party, including Rey Morales Sanchez, a party leader in Oaxaca; Pablo Gomez, arrested during the 1968 student movement and later a career politician holding elected posts at the federal level and in Mexico City; Dolores Padierna, another career politician based in Mexico City; Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, a former PRIista (as are many PRDistas) who held many government posts under both parties; and even Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, widely considered the founding father and moral leader of the party. Party switching is not uncommon in Mexico, where political leaders are often interested in government positions that pay high salaries and offer opportunities for illicit enrichment no matter the party banner, but party switching at this level has no precedent. With the formation of Morena, the PRD became a shadow of its former self, to the point where the ostensibly leftist party aligned itself with the right-wing National Action Party (PAN) in this year’s presidential election and many state-wide races.
This spurred further defections, both from the PRD and the PAN, resulting in some surprising alignments as former PANistas joined the populist Morena. The PAN is similar to the Republican Party (before Trump) in the U.S. with its base in big business, the petty bourgeois, and the religious right. Tatiana Clouthier, daughter of the founding father of the PAN, became AMLO’s campaign manager. PAN stalwarts, particularly in northern historically conservative states like Nuevo Leon, filled Morena electoral ballots at local and state levels. Defections included former party leader Manuel Espino Barrientos, the political operator behind the election fraud that cost AMLO the presidency in 2006, and his successor German Martinez. PAN Senator Gabriela Cuevas quit after party officials could not guarantee her a federal representative’s position in the future. This proved to be a common reason for party resignations. Shrinking party influence is leading to reduced budgets and less electoral posts, inspiring power-hungry politicians, often in the prime of their careers, to seek out López Obrador. He filled Morena with opportunists, leading some observers to question Morena’s ability, or even will, to make serious political changes.
The PRI, historically Mexico’s most powerful party at all three levels, did not escape the defection parade. In February, Enrique Ochoa, president of the PRI, used the racial epitaph “prietos” to characterize the thousands of PRI militants who were leaving for Morena. With his party in rapid decline, he resigned his post in May, at the height of the presidential campaign.
Other PRI leaders joined AMLO, including Esteban Moctezuma, former Secretary of Interior under Ernesto Zedillo and an arch enemy of the Zapatista movement; Manuel Bartlett, former Secretary of Interior under Miguel de la Madrid, former Governor of Puebla, and the main operator behind the electoral fraud in 1988 that brought PRIista Carlos Salinas de Gotari to the presidency; Armando Guadiana, a major mine owner in northern Mexico; and even the family of Elba Esther Gordillo, the disgraced and (until recently) imprisoned former head of Mexico’s powerful teacher’s union, the SNTE. In a political class known for corruption, Gordillo is a case apart – a multi-millionaire aligned, at times, with the PRI, the PAN and now, apparently, Morena.
Tamaulipas, a northeastern border state and long a bastion of the PRI and PAN, is exemplary of the electoral composition of Morena. The mayoral candidate for Reynosa, Tamaulipas’ biggest city, was a former PANista from the local assembly and brother-in-law to the PAN Governor. Morena’s contenders for the cities of Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros and Tampico were all ex-PRI. Omar Salomon, a local Morena activist, claimed “imposition” of candidates went too far and Morena was at risk of being overrun by opportunists.
“Leftist” or “Populist”?
López Obrador has been considered a “Leftist” by the mainstream press. The Zapatista movement disagrees, characterizing López Obrador as the furthest right of the three main candidates. It is probably accurate to call him a populist nationalist with modest tendencies toward redistribution to stabilize a decaying society without threatening the fundamentals of capital accumulation. As Mexico City Mayor from 2000 to 2005, he was best known for three programs designed to keep everyone happy. His “segundo piso” was a massive highway infrastructure project that sped the trip from tony suburbs to downtown Mexico City. His re-development of the historic city center provided real estate tycoons, particularly Carlos Slim, one of the world’s wealthiest men, with unparalleled opportunities for gentrification and immense profits. His small monthly cash handouts to single mothers, seniors and handicapped citizens were straight out of the PRI clientelist playbook but without the corporatist organizational intermediaries. AMLO built a direct and uncharacteristically personal relationship with his “viejitos” who eventually formed part of Morena’s electoral base.
Mexico’s chattering class, pretty much across the political spectrum, is concerned about Morena’s overwhelming victory. Along with two smaller allied parties, Morena will control the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. They also won five of nine governor’s races, including the crown jewel of Mexico City where a quarter of the nation’s population lives, and Veracruz, the second most populous state. In Morelos, famous soccer star Cuauhtemoc Blanco beat the sitting PRD governor, and Morena candidates also won in Tabasco and Chiapas. López Obrador is the undisputed leader of Morena and his political agenda dominates the party – up to a point.
While AMLO presents a clean public persona (he drives an older model sedan, lives in a modest apartment and eschews a personal security detail), the same cannot be said of his many new allies imported from the PRI, PAN and PRD. Mexican politics is widely understood as a path to wealth and López Obrador knows how to play the game. During his years as Mayor of Mexico City, AMLO surrounded himself with some questionable characters. Perhaps best known was Rene Bejarano, AMLO’s principal political operator in the Mexico City Legislative Assembly and the husband of Dolores Padierna. In 2004, Bejarano was videotaped accepting wads of cash from businessman Carlos Ahumada, most likely for AMLO’s presidential campaign. He spent eight months in jail before being exonerated (well-connected political operatives seldom spend much time in prison, whatever their crimes), then spent the next 13 years keeping a low profile as a PRD agent, and, at least publicly, at a healthy distance from AMLO. López Obrador claimed Bejarano was working “on his own” when he accepted the money, a claim that is difficult to reconcile with the facts. In any case, now he’s back, supporting his old boss and with a likely future in an AMLO administration.
Even if López Obrador wants to clean up Mexican politics, with so many experienced politicians accustomed to having their fingers in the honeypot, it would seem unlikely. AMLO is promising superficial reforms, including reducing the salaries of government officials, but this kind of high publicity/low impact change is unlikely to have much of a profound effect. Government spending greases the political machine. “Si no hay obras, no hay sobras” (if there are no government programs, there are no extras) is a widely repeated truism. As President, he’ll try to manage an ideologically disparate coalition, including business-oriented PANistas, neoliberal PRIistas, and corporativist PRDistas. Even his own electoral coalition includes the liberal Labor Party (PT) and the conservative religious Social Encounter Party (PES), which is opposed to gay rights and abortion. López Obrador may not have a choice but to allow corruption to buy political peace.
Dangerous “Leftist”
For the moment, let’s assume AMLO can tame rampant government corruption. That still leaves the much more important “legal” robbery known as capitalism that allows a small class of owners to steal from workers. This kind of corruption is called exploitation, but AMLO never addresses it. López Obrador may be the most dangerous of “leftists,” the kind that is convinced heart and soul that capitalism is not only inevitable, but can be just and productive for the majority of humanity under the right political conditions – and it just so happens that he has the secret recipe. Hence, his political program is populist (bread and circus for the masses), nationalist (though a particularly narrow form of nationalism in which he occupies the center of attention), and adamantly pro-capitalist (favoring those members of the capitalist class who are willing to support his brand of populism).
For U.S. residents, this formula sounds familiar, though Trump provides relatively more circus and less bread for the masses. Trump’s nationalism has characteristics distinct from AMLO’s as well, particularly its international aspects. Mexico doesn’t play at the level of U.S. tariffs, military interventions and America-first alliance building/destruction.
In today’s post-neoliberal world, pro-capitalism requires a strong nationalist tint, not unlike Germany under Nazi influence. Neoliberalism, defined by free trade and its accompanying international institutions like the IMF and World Bank, can no longer deliver annual growth rates of 4 per cent. Capitalist classes around the world are looking inward for their survival (read continued exploitation of labor), though with 2 per cent (or less) growth rates, they must face increasingly restless populations. The global South is a source of raw materials and a home for environmental destruction, walled off from the “developed” world where immigrant populations become scapegoats. Trump simply dismisses immigrants and minorities, while López Obrador will apparently try to buy them off with modest handouts, though he is likely to dismiss rural residents sitting atop important natural resources (read indigenous communities) if they won’t play ball.
Either way, capitalism hasn’t much future. The cyclical crises of over-production are historically resolved by war (World War II “rescued” the capitalist class from the Great Depression, but another world war might destroy us all), decapitalization of the working class (note the great recession of 2007 and post-crisis wage stagnation, which both raise the question, ‘can the working class be squeezed any more?’), externalization of costs (not a long term viable option because of the burgeoning environmental crisis), or conquering new markets (there aren’t many left, and in any case, Mexico is among the conquered, not the conquering).
López Obrador and Trump are not the only leaders who harbor these kinds of populist-nationalist tendencies. Michel Temer in Brazil, Mauricio Macri in Argentina, and even Vladimir Putin in Russia are exemplary. England’s Brexit is, at its heart, a nationalist anti-immigrant strategy, and other European countries are not far behind. Each case has its own peculiarities, but each country faces an international context that defines limited options. The response, so far, has been an ugly nationalism built on walls, both legal and physical, and scapegoats.
As is generally the case, the most thoughtful and comprehensive critique comes from Mexico’s true Left (since when did pro-capitalists like López Obrador become part of the Left?) in the form of the Zapatista movement. Subcomandante Galeano recently remarked, “Faith, or the new faith that is developing at this moment, requires a [domineering] individual [read López Obrador – or Trump] and a mass that will follow him. This has happened in other parts of the world at other moments, and now it is happening here.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Tom Hansen, of the Autonomous University of Social Movements, is the International Education Director of the Mexico Solidarity Network. From 1988 to 1997 Tom was the Director of Pastors for Peace. From 1987 to 1988 he organized the first national material aid caravan to Latin America as National Coordinator of the Veterans Peace Convoy to Nicaragua. He has a doctorate in rural development from the UAM-Xochimilco in Mexico City.
The response of the Trump administration and many U.S. politicians to Khashoggi’s disappearance is largely being guided by the military-industrial complex — in this case Lockheed Martin — but masquerading as a response motivated by “human rights.”
The disappearance and alleged murder of Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi continues to strain relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia. On Saturday, President Donald Trump warned the Saudis of “severe punishment” if the Saudi government was found to have been responsible for the journalist’s alleged murder.
The Saudi government has vocally denied any involvement even though Khashoggi disappeared within the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and responded to Trump’s threats by vowing an even “stronger” response if the Gulf monarchy is ultimately targeted by the United States. The exchange of threats caused Saudi stocks to sustain their biggest one-day loss since 2016 when trading opened and has brought the upcoming three-day Future Investment Initiative (FII) in Saudi Arabia much unwanted negative publicity.
However, there is considerable evidence pointing to the fact that the U.S.’ response to the Khashoggi affair is likely to be determined, not by any Saudi government responsibility for Khashoggi’s fate, but instead whether or not the Saudis choose to follow through with their promise to purchase the $15 billion U.S.-made THAAD missile system or it cheaper, Russia-made equivalent, the S-400. According to reports, the Saudis failed to meet the deadline for their planned THAAD purchase and had hinted in late September that they were planning to buy the S-400 from Russia instead.
While the U.S.’ response to the alleged murder of the Saudi journalist is being cast as a U.S. government effort to defend press freedom and finally hold the Saudi government to account for its long litany of human-rights abuses, there is every indication that the U.S. is not in fact seeking to punish the Saudis for their alleged role in Khashoggi’s apparent murder but instead to punish them for reneging on this $15 billion deal to U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the THAAD system.
Khashoggi’s disappearance merely provided a convenient pretext for the U.S. to pressure the Saudis over abandoning the weapons deal by allowing the U.S. to frame its retaliation as a “human rights” issue. As a result, it seems likely that, if the Saudis move forward with the latter, the U.S. and the Trump administration the Saudi government guilty of involvement in Khashoggi’s disappearance while, if they move forward with the former, the media frenzy and controversy surrounding the Saudi national will likely fizzle out and, with it, Trump’s threats of “severe punishment.”
Ultimately, the response of the U.S. political class to the Khashoggi affair is just the latest example of a U.S. government policy being motivated by the military-industrial complex but masquerading as a policy motivated by concern for “human rights.”
Why the sudden concern over the Saudi government’s atrocious human rights record?
As the Khashoggi saga has drawn on since the Saudi journalist disappeared earlier this month, some observers have noted that the corporate media and the U.S. government’s sudden preoccupation with Saudi Arabia’s human-rights record, particularly in regards to journalists. Indeed, just last Wednesday, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) announced that 15 Saudi journalists and bloggers had been arrested over the past year and noted that “in most cases, their arrests have never been officially confirmed and no official has ever said where they are being held or what they are charged with.”
In addition, Saudi Arabia has helped kill tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians in the war it is leading against that country, with most of those civilian casualties resulting from the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign that routinely targets civilians. The Saudi-led coalition’s blockade of food and medicine into Yemen has also brought the country to the brink of famine, with nearly 18 million now at risk of starving to death — including over 5 million children, while thousands more are dying from preventable diseases in the country.
While murdering a journalist by “hit squad” in a diplomatic compound on foreign soil — as is alleged to have Khashoggi’s fate — would certainly set a dangerous precedent, Saudi Arabia leading the genocide against the Yemeni people is arguably a much worse precedent. However, little concern over the Saudis’ role in this atrocity in Yemen has been raised by those pushing for action to be taken against Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi’s “inhumane” fate. So, why the sudden concern?
Go ask the families of the kids killed by US bombs in Yemen about our "moral standing" https://t.co/wEPMXKEFpl
The world is shocked about the reports of #JamalKhashoggi's death while Saudi Arabia is responsible for the deaths of 100s of 1000s Yemenis, but it takes the death of 1 journalist to get world's attention?#Yemen. pic.twitter.com/cpGL1QiHSY
Despite it being a well-known fact that the Saudi government routinely imprisons journalists and activists and is leading a genocidal war against its southern neighbor, the Trump administration has now adopted a harsh tone towards the Saudis, with concerns over Khashoggi’s disappearance serving as the “official” excuse.
“there’s something really terrible and disgusting about that if that were the case [that Saudi Arabia had been involved in Khashoggi’s murder], so we’re going to have to see. We’re going to get to the bottom of it and there will be severe punishment.”
“There will be severe punishment.” – President Trump on what will happen if Saudi Arabia is found to be behind the disappearance of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi pic.twitter.com/aE4581jHqY
Other powerful figures in the U.S. political establishment have called for dramatic action to be taken against the Saudi government, particularly the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). For instance, John Brennan, former CIA Director under Obama and current cable news pundit, lobbied in a recent Washington Post op-ed to dethrone MBS for his alleged role in Khashoggi’s fate.
Brennan also notably called upon the U.S. to impose “immediate sanctions on all Saudis involved; a freeze on U.S. military sales to Saudi Arabia; suspension of all routine intelligence cooperation with Saudi security services; and a U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the murder.”
Another prominent figure in Washington pushing for action to be taken against the Saudis over Khashoggi’s disappearance is Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham recently stated that there would be “hell to pay” if the Saudi government was found to be responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance and alleged murder. Notably, the top contributor to Graham’s 2020 re-election campaign is U.S. weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Given that human-rights concerns among the U.S. power establishment have only emerged after the disappearance of this one journalist and such concerns regarding the Saudis other grave human-rights abuses continue to go unvoiced by these same individuals, something else is likely driving Washington’s sudden concern over alleged Saudi state-sanctioned murder.
So what has protected the Saudi government from U.S. retribution over its repeated human-rights abuses in the past? Though Saudi Arabia’s vast oil wealth is an obvious answer, a recently leaked State Department memo revealed that U.S. weapon sales to the Gulf Kingdom were the main and only factor in the Trump administration ’s continued support for the Saudi-led coalition’s disastrous war in Yemen. Those lucrative weapon sales, according to the memo, led Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “rubber stamp” the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign in Yemen despite the fact that the coalition has continued to bomb civilian buses, homes and infrastructure in recent months.
If the Saudis were to back away from a major, lucrative deal with U.S. weapon manufacturers, such an act would likely result in retribution from Washington, given that weapons sales to the Gulf Kingdom are currently the driving factor behind Washington’s “concern” with the Saudi government’s poor human-rights record.
This is exactly what happened and it took place just two days before Khashoggi disappeared inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
The Saudis back out of a US deal and eye the rival’s wares
Last year, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and praised its crown prince for finalizing a massive weapons deal with the United States at a value of over $110 billion. However, it emerged soon after that this “deal” was not contract-based but instead involved many “letters of interest or intent.” Over a year later, the Washington Postrecently noted that many of the planned weapons deals have yet to be finalized.
One of those agreements was the planned $15 billion purchase of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD), which is manufactured by U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin. The deadline for the Saudis to finalize that deal passed on September 30, just two days before Khashoggi’s disappearance on October 2. However, a Saudi official told the Post that the Saudi government is still “highly interested” in the deal but “like any military purchase, there are negotiations happening which we hope will conclude in the quickest means possible.”
Yet, not only has Saudi Arabia apparently backed out of the $15 billion deal to buy Lockheed’s THAAD, it is also actively considering buying the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system instead and has also refused U.S. government requests to disavow its interest in the Russian-made system.
Indeed, on September 21, Saudi ambassador to Russia Raid bin Khalid Krimli stated:
Our cooperation with Russia continues and grows. And during King Salman’s historic visit [to Russia] we have signed 14 agreements that began to be implemented. There were four agreements in the military field; three of them began to be implemented. As for the fourth … there is discussion of the technical issues. Because the system itself is modern and complex.”
The fourth deal to which he alludes appears to be the S-400. The Saudi ambassador also stated the he hoped “nobody will impose any sanctions on us” for making the purchases with Russia — further suggesting that the system he was discussing was the S-400, given that the U.S. sanctioned China for purchasing the system soon before the Saudi ambassador’s comments.
Interestingly, soon after the Saudis’ failure to stick to the planned deal with Lockheed, Trump began to publicly criticize the Saudis for “not paying” their fair share. Speaking at a campaign rally in Mississippi on October 3 – one day after Khashoggi’s disappearance in Istanbul and three days after Saudi Arabia “missed” the Lockheed Martin deadline, Trump stated:
“I love the king [of Saudi Arabia], King Salman, but I said: ‘King, we’re protecting you. You might not be there for two weeks without us. You have to pay for your military, you have to pay.”‘
More recently, this past Saturday, Trump told reporters that he did not want to risk the bottom line of the U.S.’ top weapons manufacturers in determining the Saudis’ “punishment:”
I tell you what I don’t want to do. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these companies. I don’t want to hurt jobs. I don’t want to lose an order like that [emphasis added]. And you know there are other ways of punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.”
However, if the Saudis do follow through with the purchase of the S-400, Lockheed Martin will lose $15 billion as a result. It will also endanger some of other potential contracts contained within the $110 billion weapons contract that Trump has often publicly promoted. With Trump not wanting to “lose an order like that,” some analysts like Scott Creighton of the Nomadic Everyman blog have asserted that the Khashoggi scandal is being used as a “shakedown” aimed at pressuring the Saudis into “buying American” and to force them to disavow a future purchase of the Russian-made S-400.
Would the U.S. use such tactics against a close ally like the Saudis over their potential purchase of the Russian-made S-400? It would certainly fit with the U.S.’ recent efforts to threaten countries around the world with sanctions for purchasing that very missile defense system. For instance, in June, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell threatened Turkey with sanctions if Turkey purchased the S-400. Those threats were followed by the September decision made by the Trump administration to sanction China for its purchase of the S-400 system.
Notably, it was right after China was sanctioned for purchasing the S-400 that the Saudi ambassador to Russia told Russian media that “I hope nobody will impose any sanctions on us” for purchasing the S-400.
However, U.S. sanctions against the Saudis may now be in the works after all, with Khashoggi’s disappearance as the pretext. Indeed, as previously mentioned, former CIA director John Brennan, among other powerful figures in Washington, is calling for sanctions against the Saudi government and Trump himself stated on Saturday that “severe punishment” could soon be in the Saudis’ future.
Yet another piece of this puzzle that cannot be ignored is the fact that Khashoggi himself has ties to the CIA, as well as to Lockheed Martin through his uncle Adnan Khashoggi, one of Saudi Arabia’s most powerful weapons dealers.
Khashoggi’s deep connections to CIA, Saudi Intelligence suggest his “disappearance” may be something more
Following his disappearance, Khashoggi has been praised by establishment and non-establishment figures alike, from Jake Tapper to Chris Hedges, for being a “dissident” and a “courageous journalist.” However, prior to his scandalous disappearance and alleged murder, Khashoggi did not receive such accolades and was a very controversial figure.
[Khashoggi is a] representative of the shadowy world of collaboration that sometimes exists between journalism and the intelligence agencies, in this case involving the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia and the United States. It has been virtually confirmed by official circles within the Al Saud family that Khashoggi was an agent in the employ of Riyadh and the CIA during the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.”
Indeed, Khashoggi doubled as a journalist and an asset for the Saudi and U.S. intelligence services and was also an early recruit of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was also the protégé of Turki Faisal Al-Saud, the head of Saudi intelligence for 24 years, who also served as the Saudi ambassador to Washington and to the United Kingdom. Khashoggi was “media advisor” to Faisal Al-Saud during his two ambassadorships. Notably, Khashoggi became a regime “critic” only after internal power struggles broke out between former Saudi King Abdullah and Turki Faisal al-Saud.
Supporters of King Abdullah accused Khashoggi at the time of having recruited and paid several journalists on behalf of the CIA while he was editor of the leading English-language magazine in Saudi Arabia, Arab News, a post he held from 1999 to 2003.
More recently, Khashoggi strongly supported the Muslim Brotherhood during the “Arab Spring” and backed the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton regime-change efforts that spread throughout the Middle East, including the regime-change effort targeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
However, under King Salman, the Muslim Brotherhood’s presence in Saudi Arabia came under threat and was suppressed. This led Khashoggi to leave and seek refuge in Turkey.
Perhaps most significantly, prior to his disappearance, Khashoggi was “working quietly with intellectuals, reformists and Islamists to launch a group called Democracy for the Arab World Now.” AsMoon of Alabama notes, these projects that Khashoggi was involved in prior to his disappearance “reek of preparations for a CIA-controlled color revolution in Saudi Arabia.”
Not only does Khashoggi share ties to the CIA and the Saudi intelligence services (services that often collaborate), but his family is well-connected to global power structures, including Lockheed Martin.
Indeed, as previously mentioned, Khashoggi’s uncle is none other than Adnan Khashoggi, the notorious Saudi arms dealer who was an important player in the Iran-contra affair and was once Saudi Arabia’s richest man. Adnan Khashoggi was deeply connected to Lockheed Martin, as demonstrated by the fact that, between 1970 and 1975, he received $106 million in commissions from the U.S. weapons giant with his commission rate on Lockheed sales eventually rising to 15 percent. According to Lockheed’s former Vice President for International Marketing, Max Helzel, Adnan Khashoggi “became for all practical purposes a marketing arm of Lockheed. Adnan would provide not only an entry but strategy, constant advice and analysis.”
Adnan Khashoggi also had close ties to the Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan White Houses, with the latter likely explaining why he was acquitted for his role in the Iran-contra scandal. Also notable is the fact that Adnan Khashoggi sold his famed yacht to none other than Donald Trump for $30 million. Trump later called Adnan Khashoggi “a great broker and a lousy businessman.”
Given Jamal Khashoggi’s past and present connections to the CIA and his family’s connections to Lockheed Martin and powerful players in the U.S. political establishment, the possibility emerges that Khashoggi’s disappearance may have in fact been a set-up in order to place pressure on the Saudi government following its decision to renege on its plan to purchase Lockheed’s THAAD system. This theory is also somewhat supported by the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had known in advance of an alleged Saudi plot to capture Khashoggi but ignored its duty (via ICD 191) to warn Khashoggi of the apparent threat against him. Furthermore, the claims that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul have — so far — been entirely based on claims from U.S. and Turkish intelligence and no evidence to support the now prevailing narrative of murder has been made public.
If a “set-up” were the case, Khashoggi’s CIA links and his apparent efforts at pushing a CIA-controlled “color revolution” in Saudi Arabia suggest that his disappearance could also have been intended for use as a pretext, not necessarily to punish the Saudis over the S-400, but to remove MBS from his position as crown prince and replace him with former crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who was ousted by MBS last year and also holds close ties to the CIA. Such a possibility cannot be ignored.
However, the Trump administration’s willingness to cooperate with the faux outrage regarding Khashoggi is much more likely to be motivated by the weapons-deal drama given the administration’s close ties to MBS.
Of course, it is equally likely that this was not a set-up given that MBS is undeniably authoritarian and relentlessly pursues his critics and perhaps thought that his close relationship with Trump would allow him to act with impunity in targeting Khashoggi. However, MBS’ pursuits of his critics in the past were more readily accepted by the West — like the so-called “corruption crackdown” last December. Either way, the Saudi government’s role in the alleged murder of Khashoggi is being capitalized on by the CIA and other elements of the U.S. political scene and military-industrial complex for its own purposes, as these groups normally turn a blind eye to Saudi government atrocities.
Tracking the political typhoon
Though the U.S. tactic to strong-arm Saudi Arabia seems clear, it is a situation that could dangerously escalate as both MBS and Trump have proven over the course of their short tenure that they are stubborn and unpredictable.
Furthermore, the timing of this situation is also troubling. In early November, the Trump administration’s efforts to punish countries importing Iranian crude oil will take effect and Trump is set to lean heavily on the Saudis to prevent a dramatic oil price increase due to the supply shock the removal of Iranian oil from the market will cause. Notably, the Saudis are working closely with Russia to keep oil prices from spiking.
Is the U.S. willing to risk the dramatic jump in oil prices, which themselves could have major domestic economic consequences, in order to keep the Saudis from buying the S-400? It’s hard to say but the coming battle of wills between Trump and MBS could well have truly global consequences.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Acknowledgment: The author of this article would like to thank Scott Creighton of the Nomadic Everyman blog for his assistance in researching aspects of this investigation.
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.
As HMS BrexitBrittania looks ever more likely to head in the same southerly direction as mothership Titanic, there is one backstop where all parliamentarians can agree – The City of London, often referred to as Britain’s second empire, must be saved at all costs.
The somewhat right-leaning Economist magazine even ran an article amongst the many that litter the financial pages of those that care to look just a week ago, that roundly aimed its cross-hairs at Britain’s own swamp of bottom feeders – the bankers and their armies of facilitators that inhabit The City of London – all supported by Her Majesties own territories of tax havens.
In the same week that, according to a British report, 18 of the 20 leading European banks, including four French ones, have already been sanctioned for money laundering offences we also find out that – “almost every big cross-border corruption case in recent years has had a connection to Britain or its palm-fringed overseas territories.”
For instance, it appears that British limited-liability partnerships were the vehicle of choice for suspicious clients of Danske Bank, which is embroiled in the laundering of as much as €200bn ($230bn).”
The reason why London is so important is that it is the centre of the world’s money laundering operations. But you knew that. The trouble is, so does everyone else.
With all the Russian money sloshing around London, you would think that Theresa May, who has made such an effort to deflect all of her problems by blaming new convenient bogeyman Russia that seizing their assets in London including property, cars, art, wine and cash would, far from inflicting any damage to the economy, be useful to the treasury who is about to clobber the taxpayer to pay for the end of austerity. Or fund the NHS shortfall. Or social services, housing crisis, elderly care crisis or indeed, just a general end to the crisis of daily life that the banks bought to one-third of the entire population in the first place.
In 2016, Britain became the very first G20 country to launch a public register of companies’ beneficial owners. Hooray, I hear you say, some proper action of accountability at last. It was designed to shed light on the shell companies behind which wrongdoers often hide – like the aforementioned Danske case. But hang on a minute – the system relies on self-reporting. And, if Mr Oligarchovich does get caught red-handed by shopping himself in a rare fit of morality, the fines are, wait for it, drumroll ……… about £1,000. Mr Oligarchovich can be fined that for forgetting to pay for a TV licence. Fines like that, as The Economist says “makes the British Virgin Islands look robust.” Inevitably, therefore, the honest comply and criminals lie.
Should it be any surprise that under Theresa May’s watch as Home Secretary that we let in so many of these corrupt Russians in the first place? In fact, today the second highest number of visas given for what they call ‘tier 1’ investors – those that can pump £2m into government bonds or other UK invested assets, are Russians. So after laundering billions of ill-gotten gains through the London banks, they can then get visas for their entire family and buy homes in London to protect them from just as or even more corrupt characters in their homeland.
In the meantime, The National Crime Agency, whose responsibility it is to collar these guys has a budget that shrinks every year and leaves them with about a dozen qualified senior investigators – in other words – none. Not forgetting it can take years to bring a single case and even if they do, they face Mr Oligarchovich’s lawyers in the Old Bailey. He’s hired the best that laundered money can buy – unsurprisingly, lawyers from London.
In 2015, the Treasury and Home office admitted that money laundering was so serious that it was, even then a strategic threat to the stability of the nation. The boss of the NCA said that “hundreds of billions of dollars are laundered through UK banks and their subsidiaries each year.” Terror finance is just one of a long list of heinous crimes that The City of London facilitates.
So where is the risk, other than a few oligarchs, terrorists, traffickers or gun runners on the loose in the watches gallery of Harrods? The City of London generates a trade surplus of 3% of GDP and pays roughly ten per cent of the country’s taxes. Britain could lose any part of that if laws elsewhere are changed, which they are slowly doing, especially in the EU and America.
In the meantime, Craig Murray has a word or two about corrupt money and the City of London.
On the face of it, the Unexplained Wealth Order against Zamira Hajiyeva shows the UK cracking down on the torrent of corrupt money that gushes into the City of London every single second. But dig deeper.
Hajiyev’s husband had fallen out of favour with the appallingly kleptocratic Aliev regime in Azerbaijan – a dictatorship whose corruption can be measured by the infallible indicator that Tony Blair is currently working for it. Hundreds of billions have been plundered from Azerbaijan’s oil revenue by the Azeri oligarchs.
So is the British government going after the very substantial assets in the UK of the ruling Aliev family? No. Is it going after the very substantial assets in the UK of the oligarchs surrounding the Aliev family? No. It is only going after almost the only Azeri oligarch who fell foul of the regime, and is taking an action which the Baku dictator will applaud rather than decry.
While her father was still dictator of Uzbekistan, Gulnara Karimova was subject to seizure of looted wealth and investigation in Switzerland, France and Sweden, among others. In the UK, where she had a home and very substantial assets, no action whatsoever.
What are we to make of Theresa May’s huffing and puffing about the Skripal affair, when the UK’s richest resident is Alisher Usmanov, who is Vladimir Putin’s old flatmate, right hand man in the media and business world and chairman of Gazprominvestholdings? There is no chance whatsoever any action will be taken against Usmanov, who acquired his assets in the most dubious manner imaginable. Usmanov is far too entrenched in the City.
These people interact with the British “elite” in any number of surprising ways. Claudia Winkleman’s husband made big money from producing a vanity film project for the Azeri dictator’s daughter. Former Foreign Secretary Dr David Owen is Usmanov’s factotum in the UK. Just two of many thousands of links that tie the UK’s gilded elite in with the looted wealth.
The Conservative Party has directly received donations totaling over £3 million from Russian oligarchs. That buys a lot of influence. But more important still is the influence of the City of London, where wideboy bankers grow rich on the World’s most sophisticated and “respectable” money laundering operation. While the Tories are determined to bluster us into a new cold war to benefit the military, industrial and security complex, none of the sanctions taken to date and none that will be taken have had any serious deleterious effect on the holders of the hundreds of billions of money looted from the Russian people during the Western mandated and organised privatisation of Russia’s mineral and industrial assets. Even as false rage over Salisbury fills the airwaves, the oligarchs are privately being reassured their money and lifestyles are safe.
And of course, the appalling Saudi Regime can imprison and execute as many dissidents and feminists as it wishes, and western governments and media will still applaud its “modernisation programme”. Western governments will still lust after lucrative arms deals to supply the bombs that blow apart Yemeni schoolchildren. And the Saudi regime can gruesomely murder as many journalists as they wish abroad, with no fear whatsoever of any action against them by the UK.
In a United Kingdom dominated by the cesspit that is the City of London, it is not just that money talks. It is that nobody else is heard.
*
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 UK must demand from the European Union the share of the EU’s capital assets to which we have contributed over 46 years.
Although “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” the European Union demands exit payments from the UK to cover the full 7 year “multiannual financial framework” up to the end of 2020 – even though we will have “left” nearly 2 years earlier.
We are committing to paying the amounts committed to before the end of 2020 but for which cash will be paid in later years. HM Treasury estimates that the UK will make around 60% of settlement payments by the end of 2021 leaving 40% to pay. Indeed as regards pensions and some other matters one Government estimate is that we will be paying small amounts up to 2064!
The EU also demands that the UK will no longer participate in the Galileo satellite system “for security reasons” even though the UK has already contributed 1.4bn Euros to the project and the EU wants to continue to benefit from UK intelligence and security information after we leave.
In other words the EU wants to keep the UK’s historic capital contributions but demand payments into the budget when we do not benefit.
Commitments on current and capital accounts should be treated the same. In other words if the UK has to pay for the “benefits” of the EU even after we have left, the EU must pay for the benefits the UK paid for and which they will continue to benefit from in the future – in other words our capital contribution.
Indeed the EU accepts this principle by accepting that the UK will receive (eventually) a re-payment of its subscribed capital to the European Investment Bank. In corporate affairs when an investor or owner leaves he can sell his shares and thus get back his share of the capital he has contributed to.
So what are the capital assets of the EU to which the UK has contributed over the last 46 years? As at 31st December 2017 there are on the European Union’s balance sheet the following capital assets to which the UK could claim it has contributed by its budget contributions over 46 years:
Property plant and equipment 10,745m
Investments 581m
Financial Assets 59,980m
Total 71.306 billion Euros
Although today the contribution to the EU budget is about 12% of the total it was of course much greater in the past when there were fewer member states, we received no rebate and, after Germany, we were the second biggest paymasters. I think it excessively fair to take 12.5% as being the long run average of UK contributions. The Government has said:
“HM Treasury used the Commission’s forecast that the UK’s share of contributions to the EU budget in 2018 will be 12.7%, and assumed that it will remain at this level in 2019 and 2020. It estimated that the resulting average of the financing shares between 2014 and 2020 was also 12.7%”
12.5% of the EU assets of 71.306bn Euros is 8.9bn Euros. Adding the 1.4bn Euros contribution to the Galileo Satellite system the total to be reclaimed as an integral part of the financial settlement is 10.3bn Euros.
It is extraordinary that no such calculation has been made by the UK Government and no such claim made in the long drawn out negotiations – even as an offset against the proposed £39 billion “divorce settlement”.
There Can be No Question of a Transition Period
If no agreement can be reached then there is certainly no need to have a transition period to implement a non agreement. WE simply adopt WTO rules and trade with the EU like the over 160 countries in the world who are not EU members. There should be no question of the 2 extra years budget contributions which May and Hammond want to pay.
AS the former Cabinet Minister Peter Lilley wrote on this website there was no need for a transition period since it would just involve the postponement of critical decisions. It certainly has so far!
A “transition period” will not help solve the Irish border “problem” (it is a sudden need to carry on trading which will force the EU and the Irish Republic to find the solution). During that “transition” we will have no MEPs, no EU commissioners and it seems from the Treasury figures, no rebate! The bill for the 2 extra years will be £35bn to £39bn.
If during that time the UK economy flourishes then its payments to the EU will rise – even though it is no longer a member!
Embrace “No Deal” Now
I agree with John Redwood who has succinctly summarised the present situation:
As far as the EU is concerned the only thing on offer before we leave is a penal Withdrawal Agreement. There is nothing in the draft of that Agreement that guarantees something better in a possible Future Partnership Agreement.
As the government has failed to table a free trade agreement during the two years four months they have been negotiating, accepting the EU’s false sequencing of the talks (“pay to leave first then we might talk about trade” – RA) , there will not be one on offer before March 29, 2019.
The day after we leave trade will continue under World Trade Organisation rules – which apply tariffs (should we wish) to the massive EU exports to the UK and to the much smaller UK exports to the EU. Government revenue from the tariffs can be used to reduce the burden on exporters (already benefiting from the fall in the pound) and consumers by adjusting VAT. The WTO prohibits any political interference with trade and the imposition of non tariff barriers.
Either before or shortly afterwards the EU will be forced to come to the table and grant the UK similar trade terms as they have to Canada and are promising Japan – over 90% of trade tariff free. Given normal self interest by both sides his will be simple since we (unlike Canada or Japan) already trade on tariff free terms.
May Must Go
In order to have the clear sighted trade aims and refusal to kowtow to the EU agenda the Government needs relief from its catastrophic leadership. Theresa May has taken the Remainer logic and applied it supinely to the Brexit case, thus negating Brexit. She has been weak, naively and ludicrously accommodating of her so called “EU partners”. This naivety is best summarised by her Brexit negotiator Dominic Raab who has said:
“For all that Brexit has strained our relationship, the UK and EU still share the same values and face common challenges.”
Nothing could be further from the truth as regards the political establishments of the EU, France and Germany (but increasingly not their peoples) as the devastating evidence in the books “Europe’s Full Circle”, “And into the Fire” and “Fascist Europe Rising” (see “Books” on this site) demonstrate.
May has compromised virtually every single principle she herself set out – no single market, no customs union, no European Court jurisdiction, no free movement, return of fishing and agricultural policy etc.
Even worse she has proposed a long transition period during which the EU would delay, take our money, keep passing laws without our being able to vote on them and apply ever more pressure on the UK, still effectively trapped in the EU, having given up all leverage by paying the vast divorce bill.
She must go.
*
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 Freenations.
All US new millennium charges against Russia were and remain baseless, no evidence supporting them presented because none exists.
Since early 2018, the US intelligence community falsely accused Russia of attempting to influence the outcome of November midterm elections, including through social media.
In February, DNI Dan Coats lied under oath during congressional testimony, falsely claiming “the US is under attack” by Moscow.
He falsely claimed Russian hackers are scanning US electoral systems, using bot agents to sow social discord.
Then-CIA director Mike Pompeo made similar accusations. As secretary of state, he claimed the US wasn’t adequately protected against alleged Russian electoral interference.
In August, Senator Jeanne Shaheen falsely accused Russia of trying to compromise her reelection campaign.
At the same time, Senator Bill Nelson falsely accused the Kremlin of penetrating Florida’s election systems ahead of the November midterms.
On October 19, the Justice Department charged Russian national Elena Khusyaynova with attempting to interfere with upcoming November elections.
Falsely accusing her of conducting “information warfare against the United States,” the DOJ claimed she used social media to try influencing US public opinion ahead of 2016 elections and upcoming ones.
The charge came one day before John Bolton meets with Russian officials in Moscow. He’s expected to say the US intends abandoning the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. More on this below.
The DOJ claims Khusyaynov is involved in a so-called Project Lakhta to “sow discord in the US political system and to undermine faith in our democratic institutions,” according to US attorney Zachary Terwilliger.
He accused Khusayayonov of using its $35 million budget to buy domain names for trolls to post inflammatory content on issues including “immigration, gun control and the Second Amendment, the Confederate flag, race relations, LGBT issues, the Women’s March, and the NFL national anthem debate,” among others.
The last time the DOJ indicted alleged Russian hackers came days before July 16 Putin/Trump summit discussions in Helsinki.
Khusayayonov’s indictment said nothing about a Kremlin conspiracy to influence the outcome of November midterms.
It came on the same day the DNI, DOJ and FBI warned about unspecified “ongoing campaigns” by Russia, China and Iran to influence next month’s elections – no evidence backing the clearly spurious claims.
The NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN, and other US major media all reported the above accusations without due diligence checking, the way they always operate, repeating the official narrative on US adversaries – no matter how spurious, deceiving their readers and viewers instead of informing them accurately.
On Friday, a shameful NYT editorial claimed America’s elections could be hacked without providing any evidence proving it.
It’s editors lied saying ahead of “the 2016 presidential election, Russian hackers tried to infiltrate voting systems in dozens of states,” adding (t)hey succeeded in at least one, gaining access to tens of thousands of voter-registration records in Illinois.”
“(W)hether or not (Russian or other foreign) hackers manage to gain access to voting systems, they have already achieved their main goal, which is to sow pervasive doubt over the integrity of American elections.”
“(T)he Russians show no signs of slowing their efforts to disrupt American elections through disinformation campaigns.”
The Times and other US major media “show no signs of” shifting from disinformation and Big Lies, to journalism the way it’s supposed to be.
It’s available only through alternative sources, mainly online, a state-sponsored social media censorship campaign aiming to undermine them.
No evidence indicates foreign interference in US elections any time earlier or planned.
What reason would another nation want to interfere in the US electoral process?
Each cycle, things always turn out the same way. Dirty business as usual wins every time under duopoly governance with two extremist right wings, taking turns controlling the White House and Congress – reflecting fantasy democracy, not the real thing.
Last week, Russia’s US envoy Anatoly Antonov debunked the Trump regime’s claims about alleged Kremlin INF violations, stressing:
“(W)e do not see any clear facts or arguments that could lead to conclusions of violations,” adding:
The US appears intending to use its unfounded accusation as a pretext for abandoning the INF treaty – “while obviously blaming Russia” for its action.
Antonov accused the Trump regime of flagrant INF violations by deploying its Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in Romania, intending to do the same in Poland.
“They are intended for offensive purposes, including use of sea-based intermediate-range Tomahawk cruise missiles,” he explained, a clear INF breach, adding:
“If we were to deploy such missiles near the US territory, wouldn’t it be taken in the United States as a direct threat to its national security?”
No explanation was given to Moscow for Washington’s action, said Antonov. It’s also increasing production of assault drones, Moscow believes is an INF violation because of the weapons they carry.
The INF treaty prohibits development, deployment, and testing of ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles able to strike targets between 300 and 3,400 miles distant, the US a repeated violator.
US accusations of alleged Russian violations lack proof corroborating them.
Russia’s US embassy debunked them, saying
“(d)espite the readiness to constructively cooperate on the issues related to cybersecurity, repeatedly voiced by our country, some politicians and bureaucrats in Washington prefer using unfounded accusations without presenting any proof.”
“It was possible to expect that the upcoming midterm elections would also become a convenient excuse for new attacks against Russia and attributing the continuation of meddling to us.”
In early October, Mike Pence falsely accused China of “mobiliz(ing) covert actors, front groups, and propaganda outlets to shift Americans’ perception of Chinese policies,” accusing Beijing of interfering in upcoming midterm elections, adding:
“As a senior career member of our intelligence community recently told me, what the Russians are doing pales in comparison” to China’s actions, he claimed – citing no evidence proving it.
China and Russia strongly debunked US accusations against their countries. There’s likely no end of them coming ahead, strategically timed when announced.
Responding to Washington’s phony accusation against Khusyaynova, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the following:
“Demonstrating hostility to Russia and contempt for the whole world, (Trump regime hardliners) will only receive an increasingly tough response,” adding:
“The US is obviously overrating its abilities. Washington is fabricating a pretext for imposing the notorious sanctions once again against our country.”
“After spreading lies regarding the mythical ‘hand of Moscow’ for more than two years, since the latest presidential election, Washington is now trying to play the same card in the lead-up to the upcoming election day of November 6 in the US.”
A Final Comment
As expected, Trump on Saturday announced his regime will pull out from the INF Treaty over phony allegations of Russian violations.
In response, Russian upper house Federation Council Defense Committee member Frants Klintsevich said the following:
“US President Donald Trump’s decision to leave the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is not surprising to us but we hoped that the common sense would prevail. It is obvious that the United States has no evidence proving Russia’s violations of the treaty’s provisions,” adding:
US regime hardliners want to “drag us, like the Soviet Union, into an arms race. It will not succeed. I have no doubts that our country will manage to ensure its security under any circumstances.”
Russian Federation Council Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Konstantin Kosachev said Trump’s announced withdrawal risks “complete chaos in terms of nuclear weapons.”
Washington notoriously breaches treaties it agreed to uphold – including hundreds with Native Americans, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2001, the Biological Weapons Convention Protocol in 2001, the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty in 2004, along with the JCPOA last May and INF Treaty yesterday by Trump, saying:
“We are going to terminate the agreement, and then we are going to develop (new) weapons,” claiming Russia violated the treaty, citing no evidence proving it because none exists.
All of the above and much more provide clear evidence that the US can never be trusted to keep its word. Trump’s pullout from two important treaties is a major blow to world security and stability.
*
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.”
This speech by Vladimir Putin coincides with the commencement of the largest NATO war games in Scandinavia, the Baltic states and Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War.
It also coincides with Trump’s announcement to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF agreement, signed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan in 1987.
Meanwhile, major changes in military alliances are occurring, with several of America’s staunchest allies establishing military cooperation agreements with Russia and China.
The World is at a dangerous crossroads.
Russia is presented by the Western media as a threat to Global Security.
Below are selected statements from Putin’s speech focussing on a number of issues.
Putin addresses the war in Syria and the defeat of terrorism. He also focusses on the anti-Russian campaign in the US, Britain and the EU.
He recalls his meetings with Donald Trump.
He outlines in detail Russia’s military capabilities as well as Moscow’s strategies in the case of an attack directed against the Russia Federation.
It is important to assess the statements of Vladimir Putin in relation to the ongoing geopolitical crisis. .
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 22, 2018
****
Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 15th anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. in Sochi on October 18. This year’s theme is The World We Will Live In: Stability and Development in the 21st Century.
The plenary session moderator is Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club.
***
Plenary session moderator Fyodor Lukyanov: Good afternoon, friends,
Let’s begin our final session. As per tradition, we have President of Russia Vladimir Putin here as our guest.
Plenary session moderator Fyodor Lukyanov: Good afternoon, friends,
Let’s begin our final session. As per tradition, we have President of Russia Vladimir Putin here as our guest.
Mr President, in case you have forgotten, you are here for the 15th time. How are you?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to speak to the permanent participants of our meeting. It is true, 15 years is quite something. I believe that the Valdai Club, as we called it because the first events took place in Novgorod, has become a good international platform over these years, a platform for professionals who are interested in global politics, the economy, culture as well as the work of media. Of course, in relation to Russia.
As a rule, these are experts on Russia. And we would like very much for people who work with Russia to have such a platform, so that we could meet and you could hear our position on all matters of interest for you, your countries, and for us, for Russia, not in someone’s retelling, but firsthand, from me and my colleagues.
These discussions have always presented different and sometimes even opposite points of view. I think that this is the advantage of this discussion club; we call it a discussion club because where there is only one, right point of view, there is no place for discussion.
Truth is born from comparing different approaches to the same phenomena and various assessments. Thanks to your participation, we can reach this result.
I see many world-famous politicians in this hall; here, on my right; and I would like to welcome them all, including the President of Afghanistan and our colleagues from the EAEU. I can also see scientists, cultural figures and journalists. I hope that today’s meeting will also be not only useful but interesting as well.
However, I am a bit confused about the format today. Usually we have several people on this stage, and the discussion lasts for quite some time. Of course, I am ready to fly solo, as the organisers suggest, but I hope that it will not take four or five times longer than usual.
Thank you and let’s just skip the long welcoming remarks and go straight to our conversation, our work and our discussion.
Warfare with the use of aviation and military hardware and so on, a huge number of militant groups on the territory of this country, with militants coming mostly from terrorist organisations based abroad, including Al-Qaeda who were active in this country.
Thank God, we got rid of this but we have not eradicated terrorism per se. Of course, terrorism still poses a great threat to our country as well, which was why we launched these operations in Syria.
Terrorism is a great threat to our neighbours, including Afghanistan – I see President [Hamid] Karzai here. If he is given the floor, he will tell us what is going on in his country today – this is also a serious threat. I mean that we have not defeated terrorism globally, of course, but we have delivered a tremendous blow to it and have certainly drastically changed the situation at home – in the Russian Federation – for the better.
…
[Terrorism in Syria]
But we have largely ruled out that risk by our actions, because we did a lot of damage to the terrorists in Syria. Many of them were eliminated, and some of them, thank God, decided they wanted out: they laid down their arms after losing faith in the principles they considered right. This, I would say, is the most important outcome.
The second, no less important thing, is that we have preserved Syrian statehood and in this sense helped stabilise the region. We talked about this in some detail with the President of Egypt just yesterday; he shares this position, and it is shared by many other countries. Therefore, I believe we have generally achieved the goals we had set for ourselves in starting the operation in the Syrian Arab Republic; we have achieved a result.
Look, after all, for some years before us, countries that agreed to participate in these anti-terrorist operations, most often voluntarily, and maybe even with less than perfect goals and objectives – what result have we seen in the previous three years? None. While we have liberated almost 95 percent of the entire territory of the Syrian Republic. This is my first point.
Second. We supported Syria’s statehood, prevented the state from collapsing. True, there are still many problems. Now we see what is happening on the left bank of the Euphrates. Probably, our colleagues know: this territory is under the patronage of our American partners. They rely on the Kurdish armed forces.
But they have obviously left a loose end: ISIS remains in several locations and has begun to expand its area of influence recently. They took 130 families hostage – almost 700 people.
…
[Military Deescalation in Syria]
The demilitarised zone, on which we agreed, is being created in the Idlib de-escalation zone with a depth of 15–20 kilometres. Not all heavy weapons have been withdrawn yet, and not all members of the terrorist organisations ISIS and Jabhat an-Nusra have left, but our Turkish partners are doing their best to fulfil their obligations.
…
[Russia-Gate]
Are we the ones creating problems? No. Instead, we are being accused of things. They say that Russia was “highly likely” to have done this or that, intervened at one place and wreaked havoc at another. But, no one believes it is necessary to produce any evidence.
For me it is clear, and I have said this: this is the result of the internal political struggle in the Western world as a whole. Now they are fighting over the conditions for Britain’s exit from the EU; the Democrats and the Republicans are fighting in the United States, and there is controversy among the Republicans themselves. So someone has apparently decided that playing the anti-Russia card would be a very convenient way to resolve domestic political problems. This is bad for everyone.
I hope this will pass, but apparently we need to wait for internal political crises to be resolved. Whether this will happen after the Congressional election or not, I do not know yet, but maybe. Or maybe it will happen in 2020, with the next US presidential election, and then he will no longer have to constantly deal with those who speculate with anti-Russia rhetoric.
Were our meetings with President Trump harmful or helpful? I believe that, despite the attempt to discredit these meetings, they nevertheless were more positive than negative. Why? Because we can see what is happening there.
We can certainly see, we know how to read after all, we look at what is happening there in the domestic political landscape. Still, it is better to communicate and interact with each other than, forgive my language, engage in a never-ending dogfight.
Our meetings have hardly improved US domestic politics, I guess. Probably because, again, there are those who are always trying to play this card in the domestic political struggle.
…
[Meetings with Donald Trump]
Fyodor Lukyanov: Several books about Donald Trump have been released, one after another.
Vladimir Putin: We will read them.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, they are very interesting. They create this image of a person who only listens to and hears himself. When you meet with him, does he listen to you?
Vladimir Putin: This is not true. Maybe he behaves this way with someone else – but then they are to blame. We have a comfortable professional dialogue with him. Of course he listens. And not just listens, I see that he reacts to the arguments I make. He may disagree with something I say, just as I would disagree with something he might say. We have different views on some things, different approaches, but this is a normal discussion between partners. I do not share the opinion of those who say that he speaks like a wood grouse calling out and never listening. That is not true.
[Nuclear Capabilities. Missile Defense]
Look, we live in a world where security relies on nuclear capability. Russia is one of the largest nuclear powers. You may be aware, I have said it publicly, we are improving our attack systems as an answer to the United States building its missile defence system. Some of these systems have already been fielded, and some will be put into service in the coming months. I am talking about the Avangard system. Clearly, we have overtaken all our, so to speak, partners and competitors in this sphere, and this fact is acknowledged by the experts. No one has a high-precision hypersonic weapon. Some plan to begin testing it in one or two years, while we have this high-tech modern weapon in service. So, we feel confident in this sense.
Naturally, there are many other risks, but they are shared risks, such as environment, climate change, terrorism, which I mentioned, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we are unable to put an effective end to this, it is not clear where it will lead to, and in whose hands this deadly weapon may end up.
So, in this sense, nothing has changed. We are not going anywhere, we have a vast territory, and we do not need anything from anyone. But we value our sovereignty and independence. It has always been this way, at all times in the history of our state. It runs in the blood of our people, as I have repeatedly said. In this sense, we feel confident and calm.
Fyodor Lukyanov: With regard to us not going anywhere and not needing anything, clearly, there are people who will disagree with you.
Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.
[Crimea]
Fyodor Lukyanov: They will say, “What about Crimea?”
Vladimir Putin: Crimea is our land. We are still not going anywhere. Why is it our land? Not because we went there and took it. Even if someone decides to argue with me, the dispute will immediately come to a dead-end. Everyone is democratic here, right? What is democracy? Democracy is the power of the people. How is it exercised, this power of the people? It is exercised through referendums, elections and so on. People came to a referendum in Crimea and voted for independence, first, and then for being part of Russia.
…
Let me remind you for the hundredth time that there was no referendum in Kosovo, only the parliament voted for independence, that was all. Everyone who wanted to support and destroy the former Yugoslavia said: well, thank God, we are fine with that. Here, however, they disagree. Ok then, let’s have a discussion, go over the UN documents, see what the UN Charter is all about, and where it talks about the right of nations to self-determination. This will be an endless discussion. However, we proceed based on the will expressed by the people who live on that territory.
…
[Media]
Look, there are senior executives from our television company Russia Today sitting across from me. What is happening in some countries where they operate? They are being banned. What does this mean? It means those who do so are afraid of the competition. This is what it means. We do not close anyone here, whereas they are faced with conditions that preclude their operation as mass media. Someone is making it hard for them. That means we are winning. We have just one radio station, and we are not a monopoly on this information field. We do not have global media like CNN, Fox News, BBC and so on. We do not have these. We have just one fairly modest channel. Even if it causes so much heartburn and fear of it being able to influence minds, then we are winning this competition. By the way, in France, I know, they don’t really like it, but if I ever have a chance to be in Paris, invite me, and I will come see you, see what is going on there and how things are with work.
…
[Russia. Our National Identity]
Our national identity is what makes us who we are. It is our culture and history.
The preservation of the people, which you just said when you mentioned Solzhenitsyn, is not just about physical preservation, although, maybe, this is, above all, what Solzhenitsyn had in mind, but also about our identity as a people, otherwise we will simply erode and cease to exist. The history of mankind offers us similar examples. We will just be unable to recall the names of those peoples, who have already disappeared from our consciousness. There were lots of them. But why should we follow those examples? We want to be the Russians, or the Tatars, or the Jews, who live here, or the Mordovians, etc. We have 160 ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation. So why should we let ourselves be eroded? We treasure it and we must talk about it. We must strengthen our identity.
…
[Russia, A Multiethnic State]
Russia developed as a multi-ethnic state first, and then as a multi-religious state. But it has lived for a thousand years and remained stable primarily because a very tolerant relationship was initially established between all the ethnic groups within the state and the representatives of different religions. This is the groundwork for Russia’s existence. And if we want Russia to remain as it is, to develop and gain strength, while Russians remain a state-forming nation, then the preservation of this country serves the interests of the Russian people. But if we huff out this caveman nationalism and throw mud at people of other ethnic groups, we will destroy this country – something the Russian people are less than interested in. I want Russia to survive, including in the interests of the Russian people. In this context I have said that I am the most proper and true nationalist and a most effective one too. But this is not caveman nationalism, stupid and idiotic and leading to the collapse of our country. This is the difference.
…
[Nuclear Weapons Doctrine, A Reciprocal Counter Strike if Russia is Attacked]
I will remind you of what I have said. I have said that our nuclear weapons doctrine does not provide for a pre-emptive strike. I would like to ask all of you and those who will later analyse and in one way or another interpret my every word here, to keep in mind that there is no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine. Our concept is based on a reciprocal counter strike. There is no need to explain what this is to those who understand, as for those who do not, I would like to say it again: this means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory. I am not revealing a secret if I say that we have created a system which is being upgraded all the time as needed – a missile early warning radar system. This system monitors the globe, warning about the launch of any strategic missile at sea and identifying the area from which it was launched. Second, the system tracks the trajectory of a missile flight. Third, it locates a nuclear warhead drop zone.
Only when we know for certain – and this takes a few seconds to understand – that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a counter strike. This would be a reciprocal counter strike. Why do I say ‘counter’? Because we will counter missiles flying towards us by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor. Of course, this amounts to a global catastrophe but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we are sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against us. Well, yes, this is what it is. But then any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable and they will be annihilated. And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to paradise while they will simply perish because they won’t even have time to repent their sins.
This week I spoke to Swiss Congolese historian, activist and coordinator of the Congolese movement Likambo Ya Mabele Bénédicte Kumbi Ndjoko about recent developments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
***
Ann Garrison: On February 12, 2018, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported that there were 4.49 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and 630,500 refugees in neighboring countries. The IDP population had nearly doubled in the previous year alone, mainly as a result of clashes and armed attacks. It sounds like conditions on the ground in Congo are getting worse, much worse.
Bénédicte Kumbi Ndjoko: Congo is indeed in a critical situation. We know how much its people have suffered since the genocides in Rwanda and all the displacement they caused, then by the wars that Rwanda and Uganda waged against Congo from 1996 to 1997 and then from 1998 to 2003, with the support of the US, UK, and their allies. Today some observers speak of Congo as a post-conflict country, but it’s still in a low-intensity conflict, off and on, hot and cold. A conflict that drags on like this can become even deadlier than declared war, as it has in the North and South Kivu Provinces bordering Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi. More than a million of the 4.49 million internally displaced people are in North Kivu Province.
In the past two years the situation has also deteriorated in the Kasai region, where people are being exterminated or displaced to Angola. There has also been an increase in attacks against the populations of the former Katanga Province, which was split into the Tanganyika, Haut-Lomami, Lualaba and Haut-Katanga Provinces in 2015. Congo and its people are not on the brink of the abyss, they have long since fallen into it.
“People are being exterminated in the Kasai region or displaced to Angola.”
AG: It’s hard to know what to say about so much suffering. What would you most like to say about it here?
BKN: Suffering should inspire compassion, but compassion should inspire reflection. Is the person who looks at a suffering human being able to ask himself if he is not involved in one way or another in the suffering of the individual in front of him? Can he or she grasp the causes of the crimes perpetrated against that human being and the political implications that arise from these acts? If we stop at the suffering of the Congolese people, we won’t be able to address its particularities and causes. It will be no different than the depressing and fatalistic images that have shaped the image of Africa in people’s minds. We must examine Western governments’ imperial aggression against Congo and Africa as a whole.
AG: Dr. Denis Mukwege, the Congolese gynecologist who became known as “the man who heals women” for treating the victims of brutal rape in eastern Congo, finally won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Does that give you any hope?
BKN: I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Mukwege in person. I saw this man with women from all over the world who had all been raped during conflicts. They came from Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Syria, and Iraq. I could see how this man spoke to these women, the concern he had for them and his way of telling them that their word counted. He has all my admiration.
That said, it seems to me that there is also something cynical about presenting him with the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s an organized, staged reality that obliterates the imperial aggression in Congo and encourages a global consensus to stop the rapes but continue the war. It makes the Western Nobel Peace Prize audience feel good about themselves and their compassionate response to the victims of African savagery. This was reinforced by Nadia Murad, the Iraqi rape survivor who shared this year’s Peace Prize with Dr. Mukwege. She said that she would continue as a global advocate for victims of rape and torture, and for persecuted minorities, like the Kurdish Yazidi minority she belongs to.
“The Nobel Peace Prize encourages a global consensus to stop the rapes but continue the war.”
The deeply political discourse imposed by the Nobel Committee is intended to bolster, not disturb, the dominant order. It is part of the Western will to write official history, where the important thing is constructing a discourse on the woman, on the brutalities she has to suffer. It’s a discourse wholly accepted in Western societies because of the feminist struggles. In this discourse, Dr. Mukwege is the man of an inter-world, a Black man who is meant to become white. He is like the white man who knows how to defend the rights of women against the barbarism of uncivilized men—Black in this case—who are essentially defined by their savagery.
AG: Male rape is also a weapon of war in Congo and elsewhere. It’s rarely reported, though it was given some attention in “The Nobel committee shines a spotlight on rape in conflict ,” an October 11 “Economist” report that said it’s hard to estimate its frequency because so many men fear to report it because they’re so humiliated and may fear being accused of the crime of homosexuality. Uganda’s Refugee Law Project explained this profoundly in their film Gender Against Men, which I recommend to anyone reading this. The rape of both men and women as a weapon to destroy community makes it more clear that there is an ongoing genocide against the Congolese people, not just “femicide.” Could you talk about how the singular focus on violence against women hides that?
BKN: I have always been disturbed by the speech of Margaret Wallström, the former UN Special Envoy for violence against women and children in conflict. In 2010, after a stay in Congo, she claimed that this country was the rape capital of the world, and urged the Security Council to act to stop it. This statement associated the crime of rape with a specific nation, Congo, and with all the male individuals within. The word “capital” typically refers to the most central location, the brain and heart of a nation, the carrier of the cultural values. So one of Congo’s cultural values would be rape?
This perception of a pathological Congolese society filled with male rapists is also shared by a lot of Western women who campaign for Congolese women, like Eve Ensler. They even go so far as to call what is happening in Congo a femicide, a war against women. This portrays the Congolese male as an atavistic rapist.
“The perception of a pathological Congolese society filled with male rapists is also shared by a lot of Western women who campaign for Congolese women.”
The extreme focus on Congolese women’s bodies is not intended to defend them but is part of a broader discourse on the savagery of Congolese men and Black African male populations in general. Congo is the world capital of rape. Congo is the capital of a savage nation in the heart of Black Africa where Congolese men rape women to destroy them. Who could regret seeing such a deviant society cleared off the face of the earth?
UN envoy Margaret Wallström didn’t call for an end to the imperialist war waged against Congo and Africa in general. She said nothing about the imperial powers who commissioned the war crimes, including rape, against the Congolese people. She did not call on the Security Council to establish a tribunal to prosecute the crimes that were evidenced in the 2010 UN Mapping Report on Human Rights Abuse in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993-2003 , which revealed most significantly the crimes of longstanding US ally Rwanda. Instead, she called Congo the rape capital of the world and called on the Security Council to intervene against savage Congolese men.
AG: Some people have proposed that Dr. Mukwege, the most internationally recognized moral authority in Congo, should head a transitional government there. They include our mutual friends Patrick Mbecko and Jean-Claude Maswana, both of whom are highly respected Congolese scholars and activists. What do you think of that idea, and how do you imagine “transitional government” in Congo?
BKN: The fact is that I often wonder what people mean when they say that they want a transitional government. I’m sure that our friends Patrick Mbeko and Jean-Claude Maswana have very specific ideas on what it means, but when I read many other Congolese on “transition,” it seems that this is a kind of magic bag that would help us get rid of President Joseph Kabila, his troops, and the Rwandan occupiers. It does not in any way address, for example, the problem of neocolonialism or the case of the so-called Congolese opposition. The latter are, in my opinion, people who must be removed from the political sphere in Congo. They have flagrantly participated in sustaining Kabila’s tyrannical reign, even when the so-called constitution didn’t allow him to stay in power anymore. In addition, they never had the courage to explain to the population what role Rwanda and Uganda were playing in Congo’s tragedy. Are we going to include them in that transitional government? The transition presented this way has no appeal to me, even if it is led by Dr. Mukwege.
“Only a deep and radical rupture would give us the possibility of rebuilding the Congo state.”
I instead subscribe to the thought of another of my friends, Father Jean-Pierre Mbelu. For him, we cannot speak of transitional government in Congo, because it presupposes that there has been a form of democracy that should be restored after a period of crisis. The problem of Congo, however, cannot be summed up by a political crisis. The country is rather subjected to a permanent coup d’etat, and only a deep and radical rupture would give us the possibility of rebuilding the Congo state.Calling for transitions has been the solution that the international community has wanted to systematize in several African countries, including Congo, but its results leave much to be desired. The transition away from Kabila puts, in my opinion, too much weight on Kabila. It does not insist enough on revealing who created Kabila and does not inform us on the type of government and society we want to build after Kabila.
AG: Liberal Democrats and even leftists in the US are now so horrified by Donald Trump that our politics have been largely reduced to pro- and anti-Trump politics. You have the same problem regarding Kabila in Congo, don’t you?
BKN: Yes, and it is an eminently dangerous position because it means in fact no choice. It is an enclosure in a dichotomous circle that does not allow any escape or possibility to imagine other systems than the ones that exist. In this case, we are in the middle of a democratic illusion. Democracy according to this meaning is the right to be for or against. It is the right to change between two sides of the same coin while the ideology that creates the coin remains unchanged. This refers to the fundamental problem posed by capitalism. It is indeed a system that organizes a non-choice, that creates the illusion of choice for the benefit of the oligarchies that rule us. The tragedy of countries like ours is that they run after what they believe to be democracy, a binary system where it is only possible to be pro- or anti-X. It is even sadder because we’ve forgotten that this binary system never existed on the African continent prior to colonization but forms of real democracy did, especially in the Kongo Kingdom.
AG: Kabila should go, as Trump should, but what other forms of organizing are needed to alleviate the suffering and put Congolese on a path to claim their country’s enormous wealth and potential?
BKN: If we think about change, we need to understand that we all live within the context of globalized capitalism. We need also to understand that capitalism appears in different shapes and forms according to the space it is targeting. In Congo, it creates permanent chaos so as to maintain people in that chaos, with no boundaries to the violence because the state exists only as the most minimal simulacra of Western institutions. These are the prerequisites for plundering the country, draining it of its minerals and other natural resources, some of which have been declared strategic for US security. It not only kills and displaces Congolese but also dismantles their communities and so disorients them that they are unable to understand the global capitalist world and the role that Congo is relegated to within it. It all but eliminates their capacity to defend themselves. One must understand and broaden the understanding of this to fight back effectively and bring about change.
The individual alone, even if he or she understands what is at stake, cannot change anything, but Congo is hammered again and again with the idea that only an individual can change the course of events, so people are waiting for that particular individual. It is therefore not surprising to see the extreme focus on who will be the next president. That focus is fundamentally disorientating. It is a key element of the collaboration between the national comprador class and the imperialists, which summarizes the political history of the Congo since its independence.
“Political sovereignty can be regained only at a democratic community level, where pro-poor and rights based policies can be elaborated and ultimately shape the future of Congo.”
So we need to reverse things in a way that distributes power from the base to the top. It is therefore important not for the individual but for the communities to gain a level of control over different aspects of their daily lives. This means that we need strong base-building organizations that will be able to generate power and undertake collective actions to challenge the existing order. Such commitment requires that Congolese come to understand that power as it exists is a social construct put in place by the colonizers 500 years ago. Political sovereignty can be regained only at a democratic community level, where pro-poor and rights based policies can be elaborated and ultimately shape the future of Congo. And again, Congo has in its past known those forms of community-based organizations, so they have to be recovered and adapted to defeat the realities of neoliberalism as differentiated from formal colonialism and neocolonialism.
It will also be necessary to organize self-defense forces because we must not be fooled. Those who exploit us have weapons, and they are not ready to let go of Congo. This must be a war of liberation.
AG: Lastly, could you break down the latest developments in Rwanda’s ongoing occupation of Congo? Rwandan political prisoners Victoire Ingabire and Kizito Mihigo were released earlier this month. Then, last week, Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo won her bid to head the International Organization of La Francophonie . Also last week, a French prosecutor asked a French judge to dismiss charges against Rwandan Patriotic Army officers for assassinating Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira in 1994.
BKN: These last two years, Kabila, who is the proconsul of Kigali in the Congo, has worked to strengthen the Rwandan occupation of the country by appointing senior Tutsi officers in the national army and appointing men like Azarias Ruberwa at the head of the Ministry for Decentralization, which Congolese call the ministry for balkanization. This shows that Rwandan President Paul Kagame and those surrounding him have no intention of withdrawing from the Congo, a country whose wealth allows them to build big shiny buildings in Rwanda’s capital, then point to them and as proof of Rwanda’s economic growth even though most Rwandans are still very poor and the country still relies on foreign aid for 40% of its annual budget.
Rwanda’s shiny surface and the widespread fable about Rwandan economic growth also give Kagame credibility among Africans, and this is why the appointment of Mushikiwabo has been rather well received in Africa. Most Africans are, like the rest of the world, ill-informed about Rwandan realities. They have interpreted Mushikiwabo’s appointment as the victory of an African leader against Europe, France in particular. They forget that France plays the leading role in La Francophonie and France chose Mushikiwabo. [See “The ugly facts about the Francophonie.” When France says that they want a particular person to lead the organization, they more often than not get their way.
“Rwandan President Paul Kagame and those surrounding him have no intention of withdrawing from the Congo.”
Having Mushikiwabo as president is a way for France to regain the influence in Central Africa that it lost to the United States after Bill Clinton’s arrival in the White House. In this French/Rwandan bargain—because that is what it is—Kagame must have demanded that the long-running French investigation of his attack on Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana’s plane be permanently closed because it was an aggravating refutation of the panegyric that he is Rwanda’s savior. Some call this a victory for Rwandan diplomacy, but it’s more like a small hit man in the middle of an international mafia using blackmail to achieve his ends. On the French side of the bargain, it helps them reestablish France’s access to the immensely rich Congolese subsoil.
It is also important for France not to appear to be associated with a brutal regime that imprisons female opponents. Thus Kagame was forced to release political prisoners Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza and Diane Rwigara to polish his image.In a country that boasts of having worked so hard on the advancement of women, these high-profile female political prisoners, both of whom attempted to challenge Kagame for the presidency, hugely stained his image. But the good news is that these two women refused to keep silent about what was happening in Rwanda after their release. They presage a much more difficult future for Kagame and the deadly system he put in place. It is therefore a great joy to see these women free again and more determined than ever. They are among the leaders and organizers that this long suffering region has hoped for.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prizefor her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The US is increasing its pressure on Ecuador to evict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from its London embassy, where he took political asylum in June 2012. He would then be arrested immediately by British police and subjected to extradition proceedings to face trumped-up espionage charges in the US that could see him jailed for life or even executed.
On Wednesday, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee sent a threatening letter to Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno insisting that he “hand over” Assange to the “proper authorities” as a precondition for improving relations with the United States.
In a bipartisan letter, Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, and former Foreign Relations Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, declared:
“We are very concerned with Julian Assange’s continued presence at your embassy in London and his receipt of Ecuadorian citizenship last year.”
Engel’s role makes even more explicit the leading part being played by the Democrats in the drive to lock away Assange for good and silence WikiLeaks itself. In June, on the eve of a visit to Ecuador by Vice President Mike Pence, 10 Democratic Party senators called on the Trump administration to demand that the Ecuadorian government renege on the political asylum it provided Assange six years ago.
Written in bullying and contemptuous language, the Engel-Ros-Lehtinen letter warns that any further “significant progress” and “warming” in Washington’s relationship with Moreno’s government on a “wide range of issues,” including “economic cooperation” and financial aid, depends on Ecuador terminating Assange’s political asylum.
The letter effectively confirms that if Assange is forced to leave the embassy, on whatever pretext, the British government will deliver him into the hands of the US. Prime Minister Theresa May’s government has repeatedly refused to give Assange an assurance he will not be extradited to the US.
“On numerous occasions, Mr. Assange has compromised the national security of the United States,” the letter states. “He has done so by publicly releasing classified government documents along with confidential materials from individuals connected to our country’s 2016 presidential election.”
The thousands of secret US files published by WikiLeaks document US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, anti-democratic plots and interventions around the world, and massive global surveillance and computer hacking by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies.
The letter also refers to the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory concocted by the US spy agencies and the Democrats to accuse WikiLeaks of aiding Russian “interference” to secure Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. In reality, WikiLeaks published documents, which it insists were not provided by Russia, proving that top Democratic Party officials sought to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the primary elections and that Hillary Clinton gave speeches to Wall Street bankers pledging to protect their interests.
The letter brands Assange “a dangerous criminal and a threat to global security,” who “should be brought to justice.” The truth is that Assange and WikiLeaks have courageously continued to publish leaked documents that expose the truly “dangerous criminals”—the US ruling class and its allies, and their illegal invasions, assassinations, regime-change operations and mass surveillance.
As for “justice,” the American intelligence, detention and judicial agencies have a documented record of torture, frame-ups, show trials and incarceration of “enemy combatants” without trial.
The letter adds: “Most recently, we were particularly disturbed to learn that your government restored Mr. Assange’s access to the Internet.” This is also a false assertion.
Last Friday, under the guise of partially restoring Assange’s right to access the internet and receive visitors, Moreno’s government sought to impose a new “special protocol” that provides a pretext for terminating the asylum that the previous Ecuadorian government of Rafael Correa granted him in 2012.
Anyone seeking to visit Assange would have to give the Ecuadorian embassy three days’ notice and wait for written authorisation by the head of the embassy, which could be arbitrarily refused or cancelled without any reason being given. Visitors would have to provide the Ecuadorian authorities with full ID details and either hand over or clear all mobile phones and other communications devices.
Assange, whose health has been severely compromised by being trapped inside the tiny embassy for six years, would have to submit to compulsory quarterly medical evaluations that could provide the pretext for a forced “medical evacuation.”
Far from restoring Assange’s basic democratic rights, the protocol would reinforce the political silencing imposed by Ecuador in March. In direct violation of the right to asylum, it seeks to forbid him from making any comments that criticise or could offend any government, particularly those with “good relations” with Ecuador.
Assange would have to “comply scrupulously” with a “prohibition” on carrying out any “activities that could be considered as political and interference in the internal affairs of other States, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other State.”
The protocol states that failure to comply with any of its obligations “will entail, in addition to other possible consequences, the termination of the asylum of Mr. Julian Assange.”
One of the possible grounds for a US application to extradite Assange may well be an indictment against the WikiLeaks editor by the Mueller investigation into purported “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential election. A concerted effort has been waged by US intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and media outlets such as the New York Times and the Guardian to slander Assange as an agent of both the Putin regime and the Trump campaign because WikiLeaks published the damning exposures of Clinton.
In what may be related to the attempt to link WikiLeaks with Russia, Moreno’s government this week released documents purporting to reveal that it sought to get Assange out of its embassy last December by naming him as a political counsellor to the country’s embassy in Moscow.
British authorities, however, flatly rejected a request for Assange to be given an Ecuadorian diplomatic ID card. According to the documents, a letter dated December 21, 2017 from Britain’s Foreign Office said UK officials “do not consider Mr. Julian Assange to be an acceptable member of the mission.”
Russia’s embassy said on Twitter that the material was “another example of disinformation and fake news.” The embassy repeated its denial of similar reports produced by the Guardian last month. WikiLeaks associate and former British whistle-blower Craig Murray has also publicly rejected claims that Assange wanted or requested to go to Russia.
The files were made public on Tuesday at the instigation of right-wing opposition legislator Paola Vintimilla, whose Social Christian Party opposed the former Correa government’s decision to grant Assange nationality. Assange, an Australian citizen, was compelled to turn to Ecuador in 2012 because the Labor Party-led government in Australia fully lined up with the Obama administration and denied him his right to assistance and protection against persecution.
Under Moreno, who assumed the presidency in May 2017, Ecuador’s government has turned against WikiLeaks and Assange as part of its efforts to reforge relations with Washington. The decision to cut off his communication and visitation rights on March 28 this year was taken one day after the US and Ecuador held top level military talks. Moreno has since repeatedly threatened to repudiate Assange’s political asylum in an apparent effort to pressure him into “voluntarily” leaving the embassy.
As the conspiracy against the WikiLeaks editor escalates, the World Socialist Web Site reiterates its call for all defenders of democratic rights to fight for the unconditional freedom of Julian Assange. It is an essential component of the broader struggle in defence of freedom of speech and an independent and critical media in opposition to the growing censorship of oppositional views by governments and corporate giants such as Facebook and Google.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
French army forces deployed in Syria intend to establish a military base in the US-occupied region in Raqqa.
The Arabic-language Baladi News website affiliated to the terrorists reported on Thursday that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are busy with drilling operations in an area stretching from the Brigade 17 region to Sahlat al-Banat region in Northeast of Raqqa city and from Sahlat al-Banat region to the North of the Sugar plant in Northern Raqqa.
It added that operations to build the walls and construction of buildings in the area will start after drilling operations, noting that a military base is due to be set up for the French forces with the aim of supporting the SDF in Raqqa.
According to the report, the US military troops are in talks with the SDF to further equip al-Tabaqah airbase in Western Raqqa and turn it into their new military base in the region next year.
Sources in the past few months said that the French army has sent weapons, military equipment and forces to Raqqa.
A joint military convoy of the US and French forces was sent to al-Tabaqah airbase in July as tensions increased between civilians and the US-backed forces in Raqqa.
Local sources in Western Raqqa reported that a military convoy of the US and French forces have been dispatched from the town of al-Tabaqah to its airbase.
They added that the convoy consisted of 7 trucks, carrying military equipment, noting that the SDF had declared curfew in al-Tabaqah.
*
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 alleged torture, dismemberment and killing of Saudi citizen and US permanent resident Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul has triggered justifiable outrage throughout the United States and around the world. But amid the outcry over Khashoggi’s death, many media and public figures still fail to acknowledge the war crimes Saudi Arabia is committing in Yemen with US assistance.
Khashoggi, a columnist for The Washington Post, had written critically about the Saudi government and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Post reported that Mohammed had recently attempted to lure Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia in an operation resembling an extrajudicial “rendition,” where a person is forcibly removed from one country and taken to another for interrogation. Bloomberg reported that the United States knew the Saudis planned to seize Khashoggi because US intelligence services had intercepted communications between Saudi officials discussing the plan. According to Turkish sources, participants in Khashoggi’s killing and dismemberment were Saudi operatives.
Six days after Khashoggi’s disappearance, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman made the astounding claim,
“If Jamal has been abducted and murdered by agents of the Saudi government … [i]t would be an unfathomable violation of norms of human decency, worse not in numbers but in principle than even the Yemen war.”
“People are a lot more comfortable with a Predator [drone] strike that kills many people than with a throat-slitting that kills one.”
In fact, Saudi Arabia is committing war crimes in Yemen and the US government is aiding and abetting them.
Saudi-US War Crimes Committed in Yemen
The Saudi-led coalition is bombing Yemen in order to defeat the Houthi rebels who have been resisting government repression. This war is the culmination of a long-standing grievance the Houthis have had with the state, which was weakened during the Arab spring. Yemen is strategically located on a narrow waterway that links the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea.
In August, the coalition dropped a 500-pound, laser-guided MK 82 bomb on a bus at a market in Dahyan, killing 51 people, including 40 children. The bomb was manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a leading US defense contractor. Provision of that bomb was part of a US-Saudi arms deal last year.
The August bombing conducted with US-manufactured weapons was not an isolated incident. In 2016, the coalition used a similar bomb to kill 155 people at a funeral in Sana’a.
By furnishing a bomb with knowledge it would likely be used to commit a war crime, US leaders could be tried for aiding and abetting a war crime under customary international law. They supplied the bomb used in the August 2018 bus attack, knowing a similar one was used in the 2016 funeral bombing.
Trump Administration Lies to Congress About Attempts to Minimize Civilian Casualties
“that the governments of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure resulting from military operations of these governments [in Yemen].”
“the administration’s assurances contradicted virtually every other independent review of the war, including the recent report by a group of UN experts and several Human Rights Watch investigations that found the Saudi coalition culpable of war crimes.”
On August 28, the Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, documented the likely commission of war crimes by parties to the war in Yemen. The group of experts concluded that coalition airstrikes have caused most of the direct civilian casualties, hitting residential areas, weddings, funerals, markets, detention facilities, medical facilities and civilian boats.
The Trump administration is lying to Congress about the coalition’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties. The Wall Street Journal quoted a classified memo revealing that Pompeo certified Saudi-Emeriti compliance with the minimization requirement, notwithstanding opposition by several military and regional experts at the US State Department, “due to a lack of progress on mitigating civilian casualties.”
A new law requires that the administration certify to Congress every six months that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are doing enough to minimize civilian casualties or the US will cease refueling operations in Yemen. Pompeo’s certification was motivated by a desire to protect a forthcoming $2 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, according to the classified memo.
US leaders are mindful of their potential liability for aiding and abetting Saudi-UAE war crimes in Yemen, according to documents acquired by Reuters pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Pushback From Congress on US Assistance to Saudi Arabia
In March, a bipartisan resolution that would have ended US support, including refueling and targeting assistance, for Saudi military actions in Yemen, was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 55-44. A similar resolution was voted down in the House of Representatives. The resolutions invoked the War Powers Resolution, which allows the president to introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only after Congress has declared war, or in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” or when there is “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), co-sponsor of the Senate bill, stated, “Some will argue on the floor today that we’re really not engaged in hostilities, we’re not exchanging fire. Please tell that to the people of Yemen, whose homes and lives are being destroyed by weapons marked ‘Made in the U.S.A.,’ dropped by planes being refueled by the U.S. military on targets chosen with US assistance.”
On October 10, a bipartisan group of 22 senators sent a letter to Trump, triggering the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which requires the president “to determine whether a foreign person is responsible for an extrajudicial killing, torture, or other gross violation of internationally recognized human rights against an individual exercising freedom of expression, and report to the Committee within 120 days with a determination and a decision on the imposition of sanctions on that foreign person or persons.”
The letter states that Khashoggi “could be a victim of a gross violation of internationally recognized human rights, which includes ‘torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person.’”
It calls on Trump to impose sanctions on “any foreign person responsible for such a violation related to Mr. Khashoggi,” including “the highest ranking officials of the Government of Saudi Arabia.”
The timing of this scandal is tricky for congressional Republicans. Several GOP Congress members are demanding an aggressive US response if Saudi Arabia is responsible for Khashoggi’s killing. But with the November 6 midterm elections less than three weeks away, many could face a backlash with voters if they distance themselves from Trump.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and an advisory board member of Veterans for Peace. The editor and contributor to The United States and Torture: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, Cohn testified before Congress about the Bush interrogation policy. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
In a move that sounds straight out of a sci-fi paperback, China is planning to launch the first artificial ‘moon’ into orbit in order to replace street lights and reduce energy costs.
Chinese scientists say the man-made moon, which is essentially an illuminated satellite, will be in orbit by 2020. It will be eight times brighter than Earth’s moon and will shine down on the city of Chengdu, the capital of the southwestern Sichuan province.
It’s hoped the innovation will replace the need for streetlights and will reduce annual electricity costs by up to 1.2 billion yuan ($173 million).
Residents shouldn’t worry that it will “light up the entire night sky,”Wu Chunfeng, chief of the Tian Fu New Area Science Society, said to China Daily.
“Its expected brightness, in the eyes of humans, is around one-fifth of normal streetlights,” he said, adding that it could even assist emergency services during blackouts and natural disasters.
The ‘moon’ will only illuminate a 50-square-kilometer area, as it’s much closer to Earth than our real moon. It will sit about 500km (310 miles) away, compared to the moon’s 380,000km (236,000 miles).
If the project proves successful, China plans to launch three more moons around the country by 2022.
“The first moon will be mostly experimental, but the three moons in 2022 will be the real deal with great civic and commercial potential,” Wu said.
Before it makes its city debut, however, the moon will have to be tested in an uninhabited desert so that its light beams don’t interfere with people or Earth-based space observation equipment.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
New York University students heckled and disrupted an appearance by Henry Kissinger on Tuesday, accusing the former US Secretary of State of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Whereas there are untold numbers of Western-created refugees throughout the world, what author Franz Fanon appropriately named “The Wretched of the Earth”, Canada has chosen to prioritize the “White Helmets” evacuated from Syria.
Norway is hosting these upcoming massive exercises because of its geographic position astride both the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans, the latter of which is becoming more militarized after the US recently resurrected its Second Fleet for patrolling this region in response to what it claims is an uptick in Russian submarine activity there.
The seventh anniversary of the killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on October 20, 2011 provides us with an opportunity to reassess those dramatic events which caused a major step backwards in the country’s development. With the fall of its leader, the country’s power hierarchy collapsed, leading to the disintegration of both government authorities and the armed forces.
Russia had offered a separate deal to the rebranded Nusra Front faction, Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS), occuping areas of Dara’a. According to the report in Enab Baladi, the former Emir of HTS, the infamous Abu Jaber, turned down the Russian proposal. Abu Jaber had originally been one of the founding commanders of the “moderate” extremist group, Ahrar Al Sham, responsible for a number of brutal ethnic cleansing massacres in Syria.
New York University students heckled and disrupted an appearance by Henry Kissinger on Tuesday, accusing the former US Secretary of State of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Kissinger, now 95, was wheeled into NYU’s Stern School of Business on Tuesday evening, where he appeared as part of the school’s speaker series ‘In Conversation with Mervyn King.’
Meanwhile, protesters – some of them members of the International Socialist Organization – gathered outside to denounce Kissinger’s checkered history of bloody foreign policy positions, including his support for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the 1970s, under whom some 80,000 political opponents were jailed and at least 3,000 executed.
Inside, Kissinger was repeatedly interrupted by left-wing protesters, with the first shouting
“Henry Kissinger, on behalf of the International Criminal Court, you are a war criminal, you have committed genocide against the people of the world!” before being escorted out by security.
“Henry Kissinger, you have blood on your hands,” another protester piped up. “What about the people of Chile? Live with the results of what you’ve done.”
Like the first interruptor, the second was removed, as the crowd’s boos and jeers became louder. The same thing happened when a third protester spoke up.
“You deserve to answer to war crimes!” another shouted, before telling the venerable statesman “You deserve to go to jail and then rot in hell!”
Heckling and chanting continued as Kissinger departed the event later that evening.
Throughout Kissinger’s long diplomatic career, he was lauded for easing US relations with the Soviet Union and China, as well as negotiating the end of the Vietnam War. However, he has also been criticized for orchestrating a US-sponsored coup in Chile, giving the Argentinian junta free rein to commit mass murder and human rights abuses after the 1976 coup, and supporting Pakistan’s genocide against Bangladesh in 1971.
Kissinger also oversaw the escalation of the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia, which devolved into a four-year bombing campaign that killed as many as 100,000 civilians. Worse, it cleared the way for Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge to take power in Cambodia’s ensuing power vacuum, and commit genocide of an estimated 1.5 million people.
Several student groups had called on NYU to cancel the invite-only event, writing:
“When this man is publicly celebrated as a wise sage of diplomacy, national security, and foreign affairs, his despicable hawkishness is implicitly endorsed.”
The university responded that
“The free exchange of diverse ideas and viewpoints is a fundamental value at NYU. As such, an invited speaker should be able to be heard without disruption.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
There is no American who has fought with more tenacity, courage and integrity to expose the crimes of corporate power and to thwart the corporate coup d’état that has destroyed our democracy than Ralph Nader. Not one. There is little he has not tried in that effort. He has written investigative exposés on the unsafe practices of the auto industry; published best-sellers such as “Who Runs Congress?”; founded citizen action and consumer groups; testified before countless congressional committees; written a raft of environmental and worker safety bills that were passed in Congress under the now defunct liberal wing of the Democratic Party; and, when he was locked out of the legislative process by corporate Democrats, been a candidate for president. He even helped organize the first Earth Day.
His latest assault is a fable called “How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress.” (And though at times the prose can be a bit stilted and the scatological jokes on par with the humor of the average 10-year-old—the rats crawl up out of the toilet bowls as congressional leaders are taking a dump—Nader is deadly serious about the revolt the rats engender.)
The key in Nader’s story to the citizens retaking control of Congress and the government is sustained mass nationwide demonstrations and rallies. These demonstrations, like all protests that are effective, are organized by full-time staff and steadily build in numbers and momentum. The demonstrations are funded by three enlightened billionaires. I don’t share Nader’s faith—also expressed in his other foray into fiction, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us”—in a renegade wing of the oligarchy funding the overthrow of the corporate state, but he is right that successful movements need to be sustained, grow in size and power, have dedicated organizers and amass significant cash and resources so they do not disintegrate.
Nader writes in his new book:
Protests rise and fall in the ether for the most part. They generally don’t ripple out from the core group of concerned people who originate them. Experts on crowds attribute this to little planning, minuscule budgets, poor leadership, and the lack of focus which induces protest fatigue among the core before they make an impact. The core never convincingly answers the questions, “Just How Far Do the Majority of Our Fellow Citizens Want To Go and How Do They Expect to Get There?”
Another explanation for the lackluster showing of protest movements in this country is that American politicians, over the past twenty-five years, have learned to quietly dismiss big rallies, demonstrations, and even temporary “occupations,” because they have gone nowhere. The lawmakers never consider them when making decisions. Remember, too, that in Washington, giant rallies, such as those against the Iraq War, for the environment or for a jobs program were traditionally held on weekends when neither the members of Congress nor the journalists were around. These crowds are lucky to get a picture in the Sunday newspapers. The lack of publicity curtails any impact they might have had. The smaller gatherings, even those by Veterans for Peace, get zeroed out completely, rating at best a paragraph squib deep in the paper.
The demonstrations for the restoration of our democracy take place in cities around the country. They also see enraged citizens pour into Washington, D.C., to surround and occupy the Capitol and the headquarters of other government agencies and institutions to demand a return to democratic rule. The ruling elites become afraid.
Indeed, it is only when the elites become afraid of us that there will be any hope of destroying corporate power. Politics, as Nader understands, is a game of fear.
As Nader points out, elected officials have surrendered their constitutional power to do the bidding of corporations in return for corporate money. It is a system of legalized bribery. The consent of the governed has become a joke. Politicians in the two ruling parties are the agents of corporate exploitation and oppression, the enemies of democracy. They no longer hold public hearings at the committee level. They govern largely in secret. They pass bills, most written by corporate lobbyists, and appoint judges to protect corporations from lawsuits by those these corporations have wronged, injured or defrauded. They deny our standing in the courts. They divert money from the country’s crumbling infrastructure and social services to sustain a war machine that consumes half of all discretionary spending. They run up massive deficits to give tax cuts to the ruling oligarchs and orchestrate the largest transference of wealth upward in American history. They suppress the minimum wage, break unions and legalize the debt peonage that corporations use to exact punishing tribute from the citizenry, including from young men and women forced to take on $1.5 trillion in debt to get a college education. They revoke laws, controls and regulations that curb the worst abuses of Wall Street. They abolish our most cherished civil liberties, including the right to privacy and due process. Their public proceedings, as was evidenced in the one held for new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, are shameless political theater that mocks the democratic process.
“Congress itself is a clear and present danger to our country,” Nader writes. “It feasts on raw global corporate power and is oblivious to various fateful degradations of life on the planet.” He calls Congress “a concentrated tyranny of self-privilege, secrecy, exclusionary rules and practices.”
Nader warns that any uprising has to be swift to prevent the ruling elites from organizing to crush it. It has to capture the public imagination. And it has to have a sense of humor. He writes of the fictitious uprising in “How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress”:
A contingent from New York and New England, led by nurses and students, delivered a truck load of “Wall Street Rats” with the sign explaining that they would obviously be welcomed by the Congress that had refused to pass a Wall Street speculation tax, such a sales tax would have provided $300 billion a year that might have been utilized to provide healthcare and reduce the student loan burdens. Millions of postcards were being sent showing one giant black rat on the Capitol Dome with a sign saying, “You Didn’t Listen to Them—The People—But Now You’re Going To Listen To Us.” This was only a sliver of the corrosively critical anthropomorphism attributed to the rats and their imagined political agenda. They had become the voice of the public! Little statuettes of [House Speaker] Blamer, [Minority Leader] Melosay, and [Senate Majority Leader] Clearwater, wearing crowns upon which lolled a pompous rat, were selling like hotcakes. Poster art rose to new heights of imaginative, symbolic, and real-life portrayals of what was increasingly being called the perfidious “Withering Heights” of Washington, DC.
The calendar was filled with non-stop street action: rallies, soapbox speeches, marches, and sit-ins at zoos where the protesters said the rats should be given luxury cages as reward for their heroic takeover. The media couldn’t have enough of it. Ratings soared and increasing print, radio, and TV time was being devoted to what was making a very deep impression everywhere. Protests—across the country, red state, blue state, north, south, east, and west—were moving into mobilization stages with overdue specific demands for justice, fairness, and participation qua citizens replacing control qua wealth as the sine qua non of government functioning. And, the most ominous sign of all for incumbents: there were early indications of candidates, holding the same beliefs as the protesters, readying challenges to the lawmakers in the upcoming primaries.
Petitions were circulating on the Internet demanding the members go back to their jobs regardless of the rat infestation. Millions of workers show up every day at jobs far more dangerous. They don’t cower in fear. If they did, they would have their pay cut or be fired by their bosses. The petition pointed out that Members of Congress were getting paid while they stayed home in bed. Outrageous! These petitions contained common left/right demands—the kind that really scare politicians.
No revolution will succeed without a vision. Nader lays out the basics—a guaranteed living wage, full government-funded health insurance, free education including at the university level, the prosecution of corporate criminals, cutting the bloated military budget, an end to empire, criminal justice reform, transferring power from the elites to the citizenry by providing public spaces where consumers, workers and communities can meet and organize, breaking up the big banks and creating a public banking system, protecting and fostering labor unions, removing money from politics, taking the airwaves out of the hands of corporations and returning them to the public and ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry while keeping fossil fuels in the ground to radically reconfigure our relationship to the ecosystem.
He writes of the popular convergence on the centers of power:
Meanwhile, by car, bus, rail, plane and even by bicycles and by foot, people of all ages, backgrounds, and places continued to pour into Washington. They filled the restaurants and the motels. They usually had to find a room in a city where there were few affordable apartments but many large, under-inhabited houses whose longtime owners wanted to make some money to pay for their property taxes and repairs. So they were renting to the new arrivals.
The ways these visitors made their voices heard were quite imaginative. There was a cavalcade of horseback riders in a procession down Constitution Avenue resplendent with the signs, “Pass this …” or “Pass that …” always ending with the ominous “or Else.” One horseman was using his trumpet to raise the emotional level of the demonstration, which was fully covered in the press. Others joined the daily “resign … or else” rally going on at the backside of the Capitol while mini-demonstrations were becoming daily events in front of the White House and at other major government buildings containing departments and agencies. Even those agencies in the suburbs, such as the Pentagon, the CIA, the Patent Office, or the Food and Drug Administration, where the employees had thought they would be beyond reach, did not escape the rallying.
It is a wonderful vision. I hope it comes to pass. But even if it does not, we should try. Appealing to the ruling elites and the two corporate political parties, as well as attempting to have our voices and concerns addressed by the corporate media, which has blacklisted Nader, is a waste of time. The corporate state will be overthrown by a citizens’ revolt or we will continue to barrel toward a political and ecological nightmare. Nader dares to dream. We should too.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Chris Hedges is a Truthdig columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers University, and an ordained Presbyterian minister.
Whereas there are untold numbers of Western-created refugees throughout the world, what author Franz Fanon appropriately named “The Wretched of the Earth”, Canada has chosen to prioritize the “White Helmets” evacuated from Syria.
As with similar colonial narratives, the lies wrapped around this operation constitute war propaganda. White Helmets are not “saviours” to be protected. In fact, they are — in some instances by their own admissions – terrorists.
Investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley explains in “Syria: The White Helmets and Armed Group Leader in Daraa Al Balad”[1] that
“if a White Helmet faction is led by Nusra Front (many are according to Al Mahamid), then it follows that the whole group will be Nusra Front. The White Helmets in Dara’a were originally led by a member of the FSA – Abdellah Assarhan. Following Al Mahamid’s logic then all members of the Dara’a White Helmets will be FSA and involved in furthering the sectarian aims of the FSA in Dara’a.”
When Beeley asked if a White Helmets member might be Nusra Front (al Qaeda), Al Mahamid admitted,
“Of course!They might be Nusra Front and run a White Helmet center so this means all his colleagues are also Nusra Front … “
Additionally, White Helmets operatives told Beeley that 50% of the evacuees were terrorist leaders and ISIS fighters.[2]
Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, for her part, told the Global and Mail[3] that,
“…the fact that a group of White Helmets and their families were able to escape Syria and are now finding refuge around the world is a real example of not cursing the darkness, and lighting a small candle …”
Evidence-based reality paints a far different picture.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
A member of the 15-man team suspected in the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi has died in an accident back in Saudi Arabia, according to Turkish media, prompting suspicion of a cover up.
Meshal Saad al-Bostani, a 31-year-old lieutenant in the Saudi Royal Air Force, is believed to have died in a ‘suspicious car accident’ in the Saudi capital Riyadh, sources told the Turkish Yeni Safak – the one that earlier covered the shocking details of the murder.
A still taken from a Turkish police CCTV video, released by the Sabah newspaper, identified Bostani as he passed through Istanbul’s Ataturk airport on October 2.
He, along 14 other Saudi citizens allegedly arrived and left Turkey on the same day and are alleged by Turkish police to have tortured and murdered Khashoggi after he entered the Saudi consulate.
The unconfirmed death of Bostani has already prompted accusations on social media that a cover up was underway by those who orchestrated Khashoggi’s disappearance.
In the Name of Allah, I posted about 2 days ago that members of that hit team would soon be killed. –They need to go to the Turkish consulate, local news media INTERPOL for safety (Then tell the truth about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman plot)
These fears have also been voiced in Turkish media, with Daily Hürriyet columnist writing Thursday that Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consul-general Mohammad al Otaibi could be “the next execution.”
On Wednesday, it was reported that the consul-general returned to Saudi Arabia on October 16, before authorities searched his residence as part of their investigations.
In reports of an unreleased recording documenting Khashoggi’s alleged murder and dismemberment, Otaibi is believed to have said “do it somewhere else outside or I will be in trouble,” to Khashoggi’s interrogators.
He was reportedly told to “shut up if you want to live when you are back in Saudi Arabia.”
*
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 prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, released a statement on Wednesday, with regard to Palestine. She refers to the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, stating that “extensive destruction of property without military necessity, as well as population transfers in an occupied territory constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute.”
She expressed her concern for the planned eviction, and displacement of the nearly two hundred residents of Khan al-Ahmar.
The following are quotes taken from the International Criminal Court:
Article 8 War Crimes
Article 8 (2)(a)(iv) : Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity, and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Article 8 (2)(b)(vii) : Attacking or bombardment by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives.
Article 8 (2)(b)(viii) : The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
The prosecutor also expressed alarm at the violence along the Gaza border with Israel, which she claims is “perpetrated by both sides,” and although the case is only preliminary, she is “watching the situation in Palestine closely”. In the context go the Gaza protests and Israel’s response, we can look at the Geneva Conventions, and see more of Israel’s crimes.
Article 8 (2)(b)(xviii) : Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices.
Article 8 (2)(b)(xix) : Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
Article 8 (2)(b)(xx) : Employing weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare that are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict.
Also in the context of the Gaza protests, as well as well as the nearly 12 year blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel.
Article 6 Genocide
Article 6 (a) : Killing members of the group.
Article 6 (b) : Causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group.
Article 6 (c) : Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about it’s physical destruction in whole or in part.
According to WAFA, Mr. Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of the Executive Committee of Palestine Liberation Organization, sent a letter to the prosecutor and related more evidence against Israel with regards to the historical and “ongoing colonial settlement activity in the Palestinian city of Hebron.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Until recently the United States viewed the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, as a major threat to regional stability in the Middle East. Barack Obama made it a mission to roll back ISIS’s territorial and propagandistic gain, and Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to “kick ISIS’s ass.” The United States expended considerable effort, both military and political, in a campaign to defeat the terror group in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Syria.
But there is also no doubt that the bulk of the effort came from Iran, not the United States. Without Iranian involvement, ISIS would still have a formidable presence in both Iraq and Syria.
ISIS was born out of the ashes of the American invasion of Iraq. Their rise was the logical extension of a process that saw the fabric of secular Sunni society torn asunder by an American occupier unwilling to further empower a Sunni ruling elite that had been loyal to Saddam Hussein. Washington failed to understand the resentment engendered within the Sunni community when Iraq’s Shia, some of whom were beholden to Iran, came to power.
Traditional Sunni tribal power structures were eviscerated as a result, only to be replaced with radicalized Sunni youths beholden to only themselves. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was al-Qaeda in name only—its mission wasn’t to export jihad to the West, but to free Iraq from the grips of an American and Iranian occupation.
America’s campaign against AQI never resulted in that movement’s destruction. Instead, the United States, in an effort to free itself of the burden of war created when it invaded Iraq in the first place, withdrew from Iraq in 2012, leaving the final phase of AQI’s destruction in the hands of the Iraqi government. This period coincided with the start of the civil unrest in Syria and the creation of a radicalized Islamist opposition to Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. The willingness to cede large swaths of Syrian territory to Islamist forces as a means of destabilizing Assad created the conditions for the birth of ISIS in the deserts of both central Syria and western Iraq.
When ISIS advanced on the Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, the American-trained and -equipped Iraqi army was unable to halt its advance. Soon the major city of Mosul fell to ISIS, and its forces pushed down the Tigris River valley to the outskirts of Baghdad.
The story of Iraq’s struggle to form a viable resistance to ISIS in the aftermath of the fall of Mosul is little known, and even less appreciated, by the United States. The formation of so-called “Popular Mobilization Forces,” or PMF—organized at the behest of Iraq’s senior Shia leadership, and trained, equipped, and led by Iran—was the single most important factor behind the halting of ISIS’s drive on Baghdad and its eventual eviction from Iraqi territory.
Western media have paid a disproportionate amount of attention to the actions of a select few American-trained Iraqi security forces, which, with ample support from U.S. airpower and advisors, helped end fighting in and around Mosul. All the while, they’ve ignored that the lion’s share of the fighting was done by the Iranian-directed PMF. This fact was not lost on the Iraqi people, many of whom (though not many of the Sunnis) hold the PMF in the highest regard. This sentiment has propelled many of the senior leadership of the PMF into political prominence in Baghdad.
For Iran, the ISIS phenomenon is not limited to Iraq. It is seen as part and parcel of a concerted effort undertaken by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Arab nations to overthrow Assad in Syria, diminish the power and influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and roll back Iranian influence in both Syria and Iraq. ISIS’s geographic presence in Syria, concentrated as it was in the central and northeastern deserts, made it a secondary target compared to the al-Qaeda affiliates operating in and around Aleppo and Damascus.
As the Syrian government, with the assistance of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, gained the upper hand in the fight against the American- and Saudi-backed al-Qaeda groups, however, the importance of ISIS as a source of anti-regime resistance grew. While ISIS never had the power to challenge Damascus directly, the efforts undertaken by the Syrian coalition to defeat ISIS diverted resources needed in the larger fight. As such, the continued existence of a viable ISIS presence on Syrian soil was deemed an acceptable outcome by the United States as it sought to contain Iran’s presence on Syrian soil.
ISIS in Syria lingers on, despite the fact that U.S. military power could ensure its almost immediate elimination. The reason for the stay of execution is not entirely clear, but it could well be that the U.S. sees ISIS as a useful foil against Iran. Efforts by the United States to roll back Iran’s presence inside Syria have recently become more volatile in the wake of fiery rhetoric from senior Trump administration officials and actions undertaken by Iran to harden their positions. The American policy of Iranian rollback includes the re-imposition of economic sanctions and support for opposition groups opposed to the Iranian theocracy.
The latter point is very sensitive. This sensitivity has only been heightened by remarks from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman suggesting that any struggle for influence between Riyadh and Tehran ought to take place “inside Iran, not in Saudi Arabia,” and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s encouraging Iranian Arab minorities to rise up in opposition to the Iranian government.
A few days later, Iranian rockets were launched, not against American targets in Basra, but locations in Syria linked to ISIS. While the Iranian strike was in clear retaliation for the Ahvaz attack, the rockets were emblazoned with slogans hostile to the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. This made it clear that the strike was meant for a broader audience. Among those who took notice were the American forces located a mere three miles away from the targets struck by the Iranians.
Rising tensions and strong rhetoric, if not carefully managed, could easily lead to an unintended—and dangerous—escalation of hostilities. This could test President Donald Trump’s uncertain appetite for direct conflict. Moreover, the American effort to stir up an Iranian opposition could do more to unite competing power factions within Iran’s leadership, and unite Iranians behind that leadership, than to divide and weaken the Iranian polity. The Trump administration seems to operate under the delusion that Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, are operating in different spheres with somewhat disparate interests. U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between Rouhani and Khamenei will not only prove fruitless, but backfire, closing the door to any potential negotiations and cementing a hardline response that will have Rouhani, the IRGC, and the supreme leader united in their opposition.
The United States is engaged in a dangerous double game with ISIS that is not only hypocritical in the extreme—given the 9/11 attacks on American soil that precipitated this whole sorry affair—but counterproductive to American national security interests. It has both empowered and legitimized the very Iranian theocracy it seeks to contain.
Rather than relying on ISIS as a foil to blunt Iranian influence in Syria and terrorize its citizenry at home, the Trump administration should recognize the positive role that Iran has played in defeating ISIS. It should build upon that recognition to craft a wider regional peace process that both recognizes the realities inherent in Syria today and reduces the tensions that prompt Iran to lean forward in such an aggressive manner. Unfortunately, such thinking seems beyond the capabilities of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. As such, America will continue to pursue poorly thought out policies with no chance of success without any thought to either cost or consequence.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
Featured image is from Michael Wick / Shutterstock
Around 50.000 troops, 250 aircrafts, aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, 64 vessels and 10,000 vehicles will participate to Nato’s collective defence scenario (Article 5) from 25 October to 7 November 2018.
All Nato’s members as well as NATO partners Finland and Sweden will participate.
NATO casually describes Trident Juncture as a peacemaking endeavour, as means to defending Scandinavia against Russia:
The drills will take part in Central Norway, in the North Atlantic including Iceland, in the Baltic Sea and in the airspace of Finland and Sweden.
The aircrafts will operate from four Norwegian air bases, from northern Finland and from Kallax in northern Sweden.
In the Finnish archipelago more than 40 surface vessels will simultaneously hold naval exercise called Northern Coasts, which is connected to Trident Juncture.
Although the majority of Finns are against NATO membership, there is almost no public debate as to why Finland is participating.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Turkey has recently signed a military cooperation agreement with Kuwait, member of the six-state Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). According to the agreement, signed during the Turkey-Kuwait Military Cooperation Committee meeting, the two countries are planning to share their military experiences and coordinate their activities beginning in 2019.
The GCC alliance includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Turkey already has a military base in Qatar, another GCC member state.
Editor of the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al-Youm, Abdul Bari Atwan, wrote that the Kuwaiti-Turkish accord could lead to deployment of Turkish troops in Kuwait.
“The accord doesn’t rule out deployment of Turkish troops in Kuwait and purchase of Turkish weapons, including armored vehicles, along the lines of the Qatar-Turkey accord that defends Doha against Gulf countries.”
Turkey’s efforts to sell defense industry products to Kuwait are not a secret. Turkey participated in the 2017 Kuwaiti Defense and Aeronautics Fair with 23 companies.
Kuwait-Turkey agreement came in the backdrop of close Turkish ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkish moves to become a shield for Qatar against the Saudi-United Arab Emirates alliance, the decision by Riyadh to assist Kurds in Syria and the tensions that erupted with this month’s disappearance of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.
Tellingly, Kuwait-Turkey agreement follows Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Ben Salman’s brief unsuccessful visit to Kuwait on September 30, 2018. This was his first formal visit as Saudi crown prince to a Gulf Cooperation Council country since becoming the heir apparent.
A source at Kuwait’s emiri court told Reuters that the visit took place in a highly tense atmosphere, and that no political or economic agreements were signed by the two sides. The Kuwaiti daily al-Rai al-Youm, quoted a high-level source as saying that the visiting Saudi prince and his delegation appeared visibly displeased and angry. He only exchanged a few inconsequential words with the Kuwaiti ruler, and headed for his private plane along with his delegation as soon as the dinner was over, and flew back to Riyadh.
According to Kristin Smith Diwan, a senior resident scholar at the Washington-based Arab Gulf States Institute, the visit had gone badly, and that key issues – the proposed reopening of production in the Neutral Zone oil fields or the Qatar crisis – had generated disputes.
A top priority of the visit was discussions to restart production in oilfields located in the Neutral Zone shared by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The need to increase oil capacity has intensified as Iranian oil output drops under the pressure of U.S. sanctions, and Venezuelan oil production continues to slide. The administration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump has been publicly hounding OPEC, and swing producer Saudi Arabia, to provide the additional production necessary to smooth oil markets, Diwan said adding:
“With questions mounting as to whether Saudi Arabia has the spare capacity needed to meet these demands, the untapped potential of the Neutral Zone oilfields of Wafra and Khafji loom large. The fields could contribute half a million barrels toward the 1.5 million barrels of additional output sought by Saudi Arabia. Production was halted in the Neutral Zone over the course of late 2014 and spring of 2015 due to disputes that have never been fully understood. The complex situation in which the two national oil companies jointly manage the fields alongside foreign oil groups with equity stakes seems to have raised difficult issues of sovereignty. It appears that the meetings in Kuwait have thus far failed to resolve the issue, with Bloomberg reporting that talks stalled over the role of Chevron.”
According to al-Rai al-Youm, the crisis over the oilfields began when Kuwait refused to issue visas to maintenance technicians from the Chevron corporation who had been sent to supervise work on the fields to increase their output and oversee further exploration in the area. Their company had positioned equipment on the Kuwaiti side without consulting the Kuwaiti government. The Saudi government responded by halting production from both fields on the pretext of undertaking maintenance. This maintenancehas lasted for four years, shutting the fields down and costing Kuwait some $18 billion in lost production.
Relations between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have not been good for the past 15 months, Abdel Bari Atwan said, adding:
“They have been merely ‘proper’, due to Kuwait’s neutrality in the Gulf Crisis and its failure to send significant numbers of troops to fight in Yemen as part of Operation Decisive Storm. Its warplanes played a merely symbolic role in that war. Tensions increased as a result of Kuwait maintaining diplomatic relations with Iran. It also condemned the recent shooting in Ahvaz that caused the deaths of 85 people, unlike Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which indirectly supported the attack. Their media outlets justified it and hosted guest commentators who backed it and deemed it to be a legitimate act of resistance and not terrorism.”
Lebanese researcher Ali Mourad said Kuwaitis are seriously worried about being invaded. He told Al-Monitor,
“Kuwaitis need a regional force like Turkey to deal with Saudi ill intentions. They are truly afraid of a Saudi invasion because of a hegemony crisis in the oil fields, Kuwait’s ties with Qatar and the blank check Trump has issued to MBS [Mohammed bin Salman].”
Mourad said,
“Because of his prevailing fears, Amir of Kuwait Sheikh Al-Sabah went to Washington in September 2017 to beef up ties with Trump. For the past three years the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington has been hosting the Kuwaiti National Day receptions at the Trump International DC hotel. They are of course trying to take steps to free themselves from Saudi hegemony.”
Mourad added,
“But the situation is not the same nowadays. Kuwaitis fear a critical threat from a rogue clique in Saudi Arabia. This is why they call MBS ‘little Saddam.’ Amir Sheikh Sabah is in a weak position. This is why he is looking for alliance with Turkish President Erdogan. This is not really what they want but they have no other choice. As a regional force they can’t ask for help from Iran. There is no regional power other than Turkey.”
*
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 morning the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, promised that the UK’s “response will be considered” if the Saudi authorities are linked to the disappearance of journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. He refused to end arms sales to the regime, claiming that the UK has “a very strict arms sale control mechanism.”
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 licenses (Aircraft, helicopters, drones)
£1.9 billion worth of ML4 licenses (Grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures)
Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:
“For decades now, the Saudi authorities have committed terrible atrocities against Saudi people, and for the last three and a half years they have used UK arms to wage a terrible war against Yemen.
No matter how bad the situation has got, Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt and their predecessors have prioritised arms sales over human rights.
We hope that the current pressure will force the government into taking action, but it should never have come to this. It shouldn’t take the disappearance of a journalist for the UK to reconsider its relationship with the Saudi regime.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on UK Arms to Saudi Arabia: “It Shouldn’t Take the Disappearance of a Journalist for the UK to Reconsider Its Relationship with the Saudi Regime”
The Trump regime’s one-sided support for Israel is deplorably hard-edged.
Earlier this year, it cut off most US funding for Palestinians. All funding through UNRWA for its refugee population ended, a flagrant assault on their rights and welfare.
In September, the State Department closed the PLO office in Washington after operating for 24 years.
At the time, John Bolton said closure was because “Palestinians refusing to take steps to start direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel” – a bald-faced lie.
It’s because Palestinians haven’t unconditionally surrendered to unacceptable US and Israeli demands. The move severed formal US diplomatic relations with Palestinians.
Trump regime hardliners want Palestinians severely punished for refusing to abandon their fundamental rights.
The latest blow came Thursday. Pompeo announced what he called the merger of Washington’s Jerusalem embassy with its consulate in the city, downgrading the status of Palestinians more than already.
He lied calling the move a way “to achieve significant efficiencies and increase our effectiveness.”
He lied claiming the merged facilities don’t “signal a change of US policy on Jerusalem, the West Bank, or the Gaza Strip.”
He lied saying the Trump regime “is strongly committed to achieving a lasting and comprehensive peace that offers a brighter future to Israel and the Palestinians.”
Washington and the Jewish state deplore peace and stability, why endless regional wars rage, why Palestinians are terrorized by apartheid rule, why suffocating Gaza blockade continues.
Merging the two diplomatic facilities has nothing to do with either greater efficiency or pursuing Israeli/Palestinian conflict resolution.
It has everything to do with unacceptable Trump regime toughness against Palestinians, contempt for their fundamental rights.
Israeli deputy diplomacy minister/former envoy to the US Michael Oren, notorious for supporting apartheid viciousness, shamefully called the move a great day for Israel, Jerusalem, and the US.
PLO secretary general Saeb Erekat responded to the action as follows, saying:
“The decision of the United States to end the consulate’s existence…has nothing to do with efficiency, but a lot with the desire to please the ideological American team, which is primed to dismantle the foundations of the international system and US foreign policy in order to reward Israel for its violations and crimes,” adding:
The Trump regime “is making clear that it is working together with the Israeli government to impose Greater Israel with no Palestinian sovereignty.”
Palestinian MK Ahmad Tibi called the move “a negative development,” aiming to undermine Palestinian sovereign rights, killing any chance for a two-state solution the US and Israel long ago rejected.
Up to now, the US Jerusalem consulate served as a de facto Palestinian embassy. Merging it with the US embassy closes its mission. It recognizes exclusive (illegal) Israeli control over the city, hardening occupation harshness more than already.
Separately on Tuesday, Trump’s Zionist ideologue envoy to Israel David Friedman broke longstanding precedent by visiting an illegal West Bank settlement, showing overt support for what demands condemnation.
It was also more evidence of Trump’s contempt for resolving the longstanding Israeli/Palestinian conflict equitably – supporting Jewish state lawlessness, dismissive of Palestinian rights.
Before becoming US envoy, Friedman headed an extremist fundraising group involved in raising tens of millions of dollars for one of the most radicalized West Bank settlements.
His appointment by Trump signaled one-sided regime support for Israel, Palestinian interests to be ignored.
*
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.”
If you read anything today, read Andre Damon’s analysis of the concertedeffort by the state and its corporate partners—the very essence corporatism, fascism as Mussolini described it—to once again dominate the narrative as it did before the internet and the web.
Damon critiques a paper put out by the Atlantic Council. The author, John T. Watts, a former Australian Army officer and consultant to the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, writes that in order for the state to regain its monopoly over the narrative, it must engage in censorship.
The problem, according to Watts, is that “Technology has democratized the ability for sub-state groups and individuals to broadcast a narrative with limited resources and virtually unlimited scope… In the past, the general public had limited sources of information, which were managed by professional gatekeepers.”
Damon clarifies:
In other words, the rise of uncensored social media allowed small groups with ideas that correspond to those of the broader population to challenge the political narrative of vested interests on an equal footing, without the “professional gatekeepers” of the mainstream print and broadcast media, which publicizes only a pro-government narrative.
“The most striking element of the document, however, is that it is not describing the future, but contemporary reality. Everything is in the present tense. The machinery of mass censorship has already been built,” Damon writes.
If the dismemberment murder of Jamal Khashoggi demonstrates anything, it is that the state will use the most extreme measures to maintain its monopoly of power.
The uninformed may argue this would never happen in America. Granted, the liquidation of serious opposition to the neoliberal regime usually does not require murder and dismemberment, although it has resorted to assassination in a number of cases (the murders of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton come to mind).
The state always wars against dissent. From the Palmer Raids to COINTELPRO and beyond, there is a mechanism waiting in the shadows to undermine, sabotage, and eliminate political dissent.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
During his recent visit to New Hampshire on 3/20/18, President Trump declared once again that the US is facing a ‘drug epidemic’. This time he advocated the death penalty for criminal drug dealers as the solution to a national crisis that has killed over 1 million Americans since the 1990’s (when the blockbuster prescription opiate Oxycontin was first released on the market).
Trump promised that the Justice Department would develop the most severe penalties for criminal drug traffickers, by which he meant foreigners. He argued that his proposed “Wall” (between the Mexican- US border) would cut the flow of drugs responsible for the ongoing addiction of millions of US citizens – as though the prescription opiate addiction epidemic resulted from a foreign invasion, and not corporate decisions from Big Pharma.
President Trump’s claim that 116 ‘drug deaths’ occur every day (42,000 a year) is a major underestimate. In 2017, alone over 64,000 drug overdose deaths were reported in official statistics (with many unreported cases signed off as natural or undetermined, especially in counties too poor to afford autopsies and expensive forensic toxicology). Another 4 million Americans, at least, are currently addicted to opioids and at risk for overdose.
In comparative terms, more American workers have been killed or devastated by narcotics (mostly via prescription) in 2017 alone, than in the entire decade of the Vietnam War with its 58,000 dead and 500,000 wounded. In 2017, 40,000 Americans died in motor vehicle accidents and another 39,000 by gun violence – and these statistics are not broken down to include vehicular accidents due to drug intoxication or gun violence over drugs. Prescription or illegal opiates, alone or mixed with other sedative drugs, like Valium, or alcohol, are the most prominent and preventable cause of premature death in the United States today.
This pattern is unique to the United States, where the irresponsible medical prescription of highly addicting narcotics has been the primary portal of entry into the degrading life of addiction for millions. Despite President Trump’s claims, the addiction crisis is not a product of urban Afro-American street dealers or Mexican narco-traffickers: This uniquely American crisis has been created and fueled by billionaire-owned US pharmaceutical corporations, which produced, distributed and wildly profited from legal narcotics.
They were aided by the irresponsible prescription practice of tens of thousands of doctors and other ‘providers’ who introduced millions of vulnerable patients to the world of narcotic dependency – including youngsters with sports injuries and workers with job-related pain. These are physicians and medical providers who rarely stopped to examine their own responsibility, even when their otherwise healthy patients overdosed or were destroyed by addiction. It is especially outrageous that doctors and ‘Big Pharma’ worked hand in hand for over 20 years to create this epidemic, enjoying wild profits and almost total legal immunity. Few have dared to openly question their irresponsibility and greed. In the poorest and most vulnerable areas of this country, the most irresponsible and unaccountable incompetence has replaced real medical care and created a health care apartheid.
The Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (FDA) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have protected the corporate drug traffickers and ensured the manicured and cultured narco-bosses the highest rates of return on their products. These polished pushers have their names engraved on the walls of museums and opera houses around the country.
The majority of Presidential, Federal, State and municipal candidates from both major parties have received millions of dollars in electoral campaign funds from these huge legal narcotic manufacturers and distributors, as well as from physicians and other representative of the ‘pain-treatment industry’. Over the past decades, politicians have openly or secretly opposed or weakened legislation designed to address this crisis.
Why not just ask President Trump to direct his Justice Department to impose the death penalty on the board of directors of the big corporate narcotic manufacturers or distributors or on the CEOs of major ‘pain clinics’ or on the owners of local rural ‘health centers’ that drove the villagers of West Virginia into their life-destroying downward spirals?
When will the DEA finally storm the medical centers to arrest the over-prescribing ‘providers’ of narcotics and benzodiazepine tranquilizers (a very common deadly combination)?
When will the SWAT teams seize the vacation homes of the CEOs of major US hospitals where the convenient and fake ideology of promising a ‘pain-free’ experience (‘make it Zero on the Pain Scale’) led to the generalized promotion of highly addicting narcotics for minor injuries, arthritic pain, or chronic back discomfort due to work or obesity? Responsible alternatives existed and were used in the rest of the world – largely untouched by this prescription-fueled crisis.
No doubt what President Trump has in mind is something else: the expulsion of Latin American workers under the pretext of going after the drug dealers and the even more massive incarceration of petty street dealers in the African American community.
Trump will then turn to further monitoring and arresting small-scale American marijuana farmers, who earn a basic income from growing a product that many believe is safe, non-addicting, and significantly reduces demand for dangerous narcotics.
As ugly as this all seems, the complicity of the political, economic and the medical elite in exponentially spreading deadly narcotics among the poor, working class and downwardly mobile middle class, points to a deeper and more sinister policy goal: the systematic elimination of millions of American workers made redundant in the new economy. This is a ‘gentler genocide’, where millions of workers die prematurely seeking an escape from pain as they have been replaced by a new technology and a new ideology: Robots, artificial intelligence and digitalization have rendered them disposable, while the out-sourcing of work to low paid overseas laborers and immigrants have guaranteed unimaginable profits for the elite decision makers.
This highly profitable process, benefiting the political, pharmaceutical, financial, police and judicial elites, conveniently blames the victims, a significant proportion of whom come from the poor and working class in this country, including white rural and small town addicts, especially youth, stuck at minimum wage jobs with no prospects of a decent future – injured construction workers, 15% of whom abuse prescription narcotics for work-related injuries, as well as the marginalized petty drug dealers from the urban slums and desperate Latino immigrants forced to accommodate the cartels. These people have little rights and are easily monitored, incarcerated, expelled and just written-off in one-line obituaries.
The narcotic-fueled genocide had grown out of a calculated corporate strategy meant to cull and subdue a huge population of potentially restive marginalized workers and their families, blaming the overdosing victims for their own ‘irresponsible’ choices, their reliance on prescription opiates, their lack of access to competent medical care, and their untimely deaths as though this were all a collective suicide as the great nation marches forward.
The higher the death toll among marginalized Americans, the greater the reliance on political distractions and racist deceptions. President Trump loudly blames street-level retail distributors, while ignoring the links between tax-exempt mega-billionaires who have profited from the shortened life-expectancies of addicted workers (scores of billions of dollars already saved in future pension and health care expenses) and the millions fired for addiction and denied jobless benefits and treatment. Trump has yet to even mention the actions of the legal pharma-medical industry that set this in motion.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party leaders denounce the worker-victims of addiction and their communities as ‘irresponsible and racist’, for having believed the populist rhetoric of candidate Trump. Trump’s most intense rural areas of support coincided with areas of the worst opioid addiction and suicide rates. Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton wrote off scores of millions of vulnerable Americans as ‘deplorables’ and never once addressed the addiction crisis that grew exponentially during her husband’s administration.
Since the implementation of NAFTA during the 1990’s, scores of millions of American workers have been relegated to unstable, low paid jobs, deprived of health benefits and subject to grueling work, prone to physical and mental injuries. Workplace injuries set the stage for the prescription narcotic crisis. Even worse, today workers are constantly distracted by electronic gadgets at the workplace, with their orders from above arriving digitally. These highly profitable gadgets have created enormous distractions and contributed to workplace death and injuries. The plaything of choice for the masses, the I-phone, has added to the addiction crisis, by increasing the rate of injury. This mind-numbing distraction, produced abroad at incredible profit, has played an unexplored role in the increase in premature death in the US.
The corporate narcotic elites, like the ultra-cultured Sackler clan owners of Perdue Pharmaceuticals, and their allies in the finance sector, support the diverse ideological distractions fashioned by their politician pawns: Eager to please her donor-owners, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats blame the working class for their backwardness and genetic propensity to addiction and degradation. Meanwhile, President Trump and the Republicans blame ‘outside’ suppliers and distributors including Mexican narco-cartels, illegal immigrant traffickers, black urban street dealers and now point to overseas Chinese fentanyl labs – as though the entire crisis came from the outside. Trump’s approach flies in the face of the unquestionable source of most narcotic addiction in the US: Irresponsible prescribing of highly addicting legal narcotics.
No other industrialized country is experiencing this scale of addiction and pre-mature death. No other industrialized country relies on a private, for-profit, unregulated system of delivering medical care to its citizens. Only the US.
Both elite political parties avoid the basic issue of the long-term, large-scale structural imperatives underlying the transformation of the US work places. They refuse to address the marginalization of tens of millions of American workers and their families, made disposable by corporate economic and political decisions.
The US corporate elite are completely incapable of developing, let alone favoring, any policy that addresses the needs of millions of surplus office and factory workers and their family members replaced by new technology and ‘global’ economic policies. The American financial and political elite is not about to support an economic, political and cultural ‘GI’ bill to save the scores of millions shoved to the wayside in their rush to obscene wealth and power.
The unstated, but clearly implemented, ‘final solution’ is a Social Darwinian policy of active and passive neglect, the unleashing of profitable prescription narcotics into the population of vulnerable disposable workers, offering them a convenient, painless way out – the opioid solution to the over-population problem of redundant rural and small town ‘Helots’. The political elite’s willing complicity with Big Pharma, the medical profession, the financial oligarchs and the prison-industrial complex has transformed the country in many ways. Shortened lives and depopulation of rural and small town communities translates into lower demand for public services, such as schools, health care, pensions and housing. This is guaranteeing a greater concentration of national wealth in the hands of a tiny elite. The financial press has openly celebrated the projected decrease in pension liabilities as a result of the drop in worker life expectancy.
The ongoing mass genocide by opioids may have started to arouse popular discontent among working people who do not want to continue dying young and miserable! Social services and child protective services for the millions of orphaned or abandoned children of this crisis have been demanding real policies. Unfortunately, the usual platitudes and failed policies prevail. Drug education and ‘opioid addiction treatment’ programs (currently among the largest expense in some union health plans) are pointless Band-Aids when confronted by the larger policy decisions fuelling this crisis. Nevertheless, thousands of health care professionals are beginning to resist corporate pressure to prescribe cheap opioids – and fight for more expensive, but less dangerous, alternative for addressing their patients’ pain. Even if all medical providers stopped over-prescribing narcotics today, there are still millions of addicts already created by past practice, who seek the most deadly street drugs, like fentanyl, to feed their addiction.
Politicians now publicly denounce ‘Big Pharma’, while privately winking at the lobbyists and accepting millions from their ‘donor-owners’.
Public critics in the corporate media are quick to condemn the workers’ susceptibility to narcotic addiction but not the underlying causative imperatives of global capitalism.
Mainstream academics celebrate corporate technological advances with occasional neo-Malthusian warnings about the dangers of millions of redundant workers, while ignoring the profit-driven role of narcotics in reducing the social threat of excess workers!
Finally the role of an elite and respected profession must be re-evaluated in a historic context: In the 1930’s German doctors helped develop an ideology of ‘racial hygiene’ and a technology to demonize and eliminate millions of human beings deemed redundant and inferior, through overwork in slave camps, starvation and active genocide – serving the ambitions of Nazi expansionism and deriving significant profit for select individuals and corporations. US physicians and the broader medical community have less consciously assisted in the ongoing ‘culling of the herd’ of American laborers and rural residents rendered superfluous and undesirable by the decisions of a global oligarchy increasingly unwilling to share public wealth with its masses. There are similarities.
Once prosperous, industrial cities and towns, as well as rural villages, in the US have seen marked declines in populations and a premature death crisis among those who remain.
A crucial Pentagon report on the US defense industrial base and “supply chain resiliency” bluntly accuses China of “military expansion” and “a strategy of economic aggression,” mostly because Beijing is the only source for “a number of chemical products used in munitions and missiles.”
Russia is mentioned only once, but in a crucial paragraph: as a – what else – “threat,” alongside China, for the US defense industry.
The Pentagon, in this report, may not be advocating total war against both Russia and China – as it was interpreted in some quarters. What it does is configure the trade war against China as even more incandescent, while laying bare the true motivations behind the sanctioning of Russia.
The US Department of Commerce has imposed restrictions on 12 Russian corporations that are deemed to be “acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the US.” In practice, this means that American corporations cannot export dual-use products to any of the sanctioned Russian companies.
There are very clear reasons behind these sanctions – and they are not related to national security. It’s all about “free market” competition.
At the heart of the storm is the Irkut MC-21 narrow-body passenger jet – the first in the world with a capacity of more than 130 passengers to have composite-based wings.
AeroComposit is responsible for the development of these composite wings. The estimated share of composites in the overall design is 40%.
The MC-21’s PD-14 engine – which is unable to power combat jets – will be manufactured by Aviadvigatel. Until now MC-21s had Pratt & Whitney engines. The PD-14 is the first new engine 100% made in Russia since the break up of the USSR.
Aviation experts are sure that an MC-21 equipped with a PD-14 easily beats the competition; the Airbus A320 and the Boeing-737.
Then there’s the PD-35 engine – which Aviadvigatel is developing specifically to equip an already announced Russia-China wide-body twinjet airliner to be built by the joint venture China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corp Ltd (CRAIC), launched in May 2017 in Shanghai.
Aviation experts are convinced this is the only project anywhere in the world capable of challenging the decades-long monopoly of Boeing and Airbus.
Will these sanctions prevent Russia from perfecting the MC-21 and investing in the new airliner? Hardly. Top military analyst Andrei Martyanov convincingly makes the case that these sanctions are at best “laughable,” considering how “makers of avionics and aggregates” for the ultra-sophisticated Su-35 and Su-57 fighter jets would have no problem replacing Western parts on commercial jets.
Oh China, you’re so ‘malign’
Even before the Pentagon report, it was clear that the Trump administration’s number one goal in relation to China was to ultimately cut off extended US corporate supply chains and re-implant them – along with tens of thousands of jobs – back into the US.
This radical reorganization of global capitalism may not be exactly appealing for US multinationals because they would lose all the cost-benefit advantages that seduced them to delocalize to China in the first place. And the lost advantages won’t be offset by more corporate tax breaks.
It gets worse – from the point to view of global trade: for Trump administration hawks, the re-industrialization of the US presupposes Chinese industrial stagnation. That explains to a large extent the all-out demonization of the high-tech Made in China 2025 drive in all its aspects.
And this flows in parallel to demonizing Russia. Thus we have US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke threatening no less than a blockade of Russian energy flows:
“The United States has that ability, with our Navy, to make sure the sea lanes are open, and, if necessary, to blockade … to make sure that their energy does not go to market.”
The commercial and industrial demonization of China reached a paroxysm with Vice-President Mike Pence accusing China of “reckless harassment,” trying to “malign” Trump’s credibility and even being the top US election meddler, displacing Russia. That’s hardly attuned to a commercial strategy whose main goal should be to create US jobs.
President Xi Jinping and his advisers are not necessarily averse to making a few trade concessions. But that becomes impossible, from Beijing’s point of view, when China is sanctioned because it is buying Russian weapons systems.
Beijing also can read some extra writing on the trade wall, an inevitable consequence of Pence’s accusations; Magnitsky-style sanctioning of Russian individuals and businesses may soon be extended to the Chinese.
After all, Pence said Russia’s alleged interference in US affairs paled in comparison with China’s “malign” actions.
China’s ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, in his interview with Fox News, strove for his diplomatic best:
“It would be hard to imagine that one-fifth of the global population could develop and prosper, not by relying mainly on their own efforts, but by stealing or forcing some transfer of technology from others … That’s impossible. The Chinese people are as hard-working and diligent as anybody on earth.”
That is something that will be validated once again in Brussels this week at the biennial ASEM – Asia Europe – summit, first held in 1996. The theme of this year’s summit is “Europe and Asia: global partners and global challenges.” At the top of the agenda is trade, investment and connectivity – at least between Europe and Asia.
Washington’s offensive on China should not be interpreted under the optics of “fair trade,” but rather as a strategy for containing China technologically, which touches upon the absolutely crucial theme: to prevent China from developing the connectivity supporting the extended supply chains which are at the heart of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
We don’t need no peer competitors
A glaring giveaway that these overlapping sanctions on Russia and China are all about the good old Brzezinski fear of Eurasia being dominated by the emergence of “peer competitors” was recently offered by Wess Mitchell, the US State Department Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs – the same post previously held by Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland.
This is the original Mitchell testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And this is the redacted, sanitized State Department version.
A crucial phrase in the middle of the second paragraph simply disappeared: “It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.”
That’s all the geopolitics Beijing and Moscow need to know. Not that they didn’t know it already.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
October 20th, 2018 by The Palestinian Information Center
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak on Friday said that he had killed 300 Palestinians “in only three and a half minutes”.
“When I was defense minister, more than 300 Hamas members were killed in only three and a half minutes,” Barak said in statements to the Hebrew TV channel Seven.
Barak criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said that he has repeatedly capitulated to Hamas because he does not have a strategy.
In commentary on Barak’s statements, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said that the Israeli leader’s confessions about killing 300 Palestinians in about three minutes confirm that Israel is a terrorist entity led by a group of murderers.
Abu Zuhri wrote on Twitter that the international community must react immediately to these dangerous confessions.
*
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 sudden interest in the S-300 is because Russia has, in recent weeks, given the Syrian government enough of the advanced systems to cover their entire airspace. This was done after Israeli attacks along the coast led to the shoot-down of a Russian surveillance plane.
For Israel in particular, the S-300 is seen as threatening to curb their ability to attack Syria with impunity, despite Netanyahu government claims that they’ll keep attacking. Since the deliveries there have been no reports of Israeli warplanes violating Syrian airspace, whereas this was happening multiple times weekly before the deliveries.
Ukraine has S-300s as a throwback to its previously close ties with Russia. Though most of the nation’s systems have fallen into disrepair, their military’s experience with them means they may have some insight in ways to counter the system.
This may be easier said than done, however, as the S-300 has a massive amount of range, and even if not foolproof, any aggressive action against the Syrian systems would likely lead to both a Russian reaction and a serious risk of aircraft being destroyed in the fight.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
NATO’s upcoming Trident Junction 18 drill in Norway will be held at the end of the month and is expected to see the participation of 40,000 troops.
The US and its allies have been making a big deal about Russia’s Arctic interests for over the past decade since the country planted its flag under the North Pole in 2007, which was Moscow’s dramatic way of asserting its UN-submitted claims to the region on the basis that the Siberian-originating undersea Lomonosov Ridge’s extension all the way to that point makes it Russian territory. The Arctic is poised to become increasingly important in world affairs over the coming decades because the progressive melting of polar ice is allowing for the year-round establishment of the Northern Sea Route between Western and Eastern Eurasia that will cut traditional shipping times in half. Not only that, but the region also has the world’s largest untapped oil and gas reserves, as well as copious mineral deposits, thus making it extra strategic.
Norway is hosting these upcoming massive exercises because of its geographic position astride both the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans, the latter of which is becoming more militarized after the US recently resurrected its Second Fleet for patrolling this region in response to what it claims is an uptick in Russian submarine activity there. America is also doubling its Marine deployment to Norway and moving its base of operations there closer to the Russian border, which prompted the UK to announce that it plans to follow suit as well by building a base in the country for hosting the 800 troops that it wants to dispatch there. Not only are these moves designed to test Russia’s mettle and continue the trend of NATO’s creeping military presence towards its borders, but there might also be a distinctly anti-Chinese motivation behind them too.
The People’s Republic is expected to rely on the Northern Sea Route for a large share of its bilateral trade with the EU in the future, so there’s a certain strategic logic inherent in the US flexing its muscles to show that it will still retain control over part of this trade route in spite of Russia’s dominating position in the center of it. There are practically no realistic prospects that China could ever militarize this route, but the message that the US wants to send is that it can do so at the North Atlantic juncture in order to cut off maritime trade between the two halves of Eurasia in the event of any crisis in American-Chinese relations, the same as it could also do in the Strait of Malacca and Suez Canal.
The point is to put pressure on China and get it to “compromise” with the US on a new trade deal out of fear that refusing to do so will leave its maritime trade routes forever vulnerable to external disruptions.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
A cursory warning was left by renowned physics professor Stephen Hawking regarding a future where a race of superhumans, manipulating their DNA, would taking control of their own evolution. The warning came just before his death in March of this year.
Before he died in March, the Cambridge University professor predicted that people this century would gain the capacity to edit human traits such as intelligence and aggression. And he worried that the capacity for genetic engineering would be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.
To be clear, Professor Hawking wasn’t warning about the technology in and of itself, but its monopolization by a handful of wealthy interests.
The Threat of Technological Monopolies
When we look at any chapter in human history, disparity in technology has always led to tragic episodes of exploitation, violence, atrocities and even genocide. The invention and use of firearms by Western Europeans against tribes everywhere from Asia and Africa to North and South America provide us one look at how huge advantages in technology have been abused against those who lack access to it.
The invention of the atomic bomb gave the United States a period of time where it held a virtual monopoly over nuclear weapons. It eagerly used not one, but two atomic bombs on the already defeated Japanese at the end of World War II. Before America’s nuclear monopoly was finally broken up by first Soviet and then Chinese nuclear weapon tests, the US had considered using further nuclear weapons during the Korean War and at at least two junctures during the Vietnam War.
Today, corporate monopolies over the very sort of biotechnology that will give rise to the race of superhumans Professor Hawking warned about, are already a source of constant, steeply controversial use and abuse.
Whether it is deceptive business practices by large agricultural corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Bayer peddling unsafe genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or pharmaceutical corporations seizing, then price gouging charity and publicly-funded breakthroughs like gene therapy, we can already see attempts being made to concentrate biotechnology in the hands of the wealthy, and it already being eagerly abused against those without access or control over it.
It Has Already Started
The Washington Post article would elaborate further, quoting from Professor Hawking:
Humanity, he wrote, was entering “a new phase of what might be called self-designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. We have now mapped DNA, which means we have read ‘the book of life,’ so we can start writing in corrections.”
Initially, he predicted, these modifications would be reserved for the repair of certain defects, such as muscular dystrophy, that are controlled by single genes and therefore make for relatively simple corrections.
“Nevertheless, I am sure that during this century people will discover how to modify both intelligence and instincts such as aggression,” Hawking wrote.
There would be an attempt to pass laws restricting the genetic engineering of human traits, he anticipated. “But some people won’t be able to resist the temptation to improve human characteristics, such as size of memory, resistance to disease and length of life,” he anticipated.
Hawking would also point out that, obviously, unimproved humans would be unable to compete and that significant political problems would result amid this growing disparity.
It is already possible to modify human DNA, and not necessarily before birth, but in living, breathing individuals. The process of gene therapy is the targeted editing of DNA through the use of viruses reprogrammed to, instead of hijacking a human cell and making copies of itself as it does in nature, inserting edited DNA designed to serve a specific purpose.
For example, researchers at Penn State University and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia were able to edit the T-cells of leukemia patients who had otherwise terminal cancer, according to the New York Times.
The edits made the patients’ immune system capable of seeing and destroying cancer cells throughout their bodies. Patients who were not responding to chemotherapy and would have otherwise certainly died in days, have been put in so-far permanent remission.
But if edits can transform ordinary immune systems to be cancer-conquering, future breakthroughs could accomplish everything from further improvements of our immune systems, to regenerative medicine (regrowing healthy cardiac cells in aging hearts as this study attempted to do in the UK).
Where would the limit be and was Professor Hawking’s fears unrealistic or unfounded?
The breakthrough at Penn State, funded entirely by charity and public funds, was later hijacked by pharmaceutical giant Novartis who would go on to raise the price for the FDA-approved therapy several times higher than even costs during the highly customized and experimental research and development phase. Similar fates await other breakthroughs, paid for by the public and then scooped into the “hands of the wealthy,” just as Professor Hawking warned.
It is clear that future breakthroughs improving human strength, intellect and longevity will likewise also be scooped up by these well-positioned biotechnology monopolies if nothing is done. While Professor Hawking’s warning sounded like a far-fetched warning about threats in the distant future, we are already seeing that dark future take shape right now.
The Geopolitics of Human Gene Editing
Human resources are what defines any nation and forms the cornerstone of its wealth and security. Healthy, well-educated and intelligent populations make strong nations. Thus, a nation with segments of its population possessing superhuman abilities, augmented by gene editing, would possess an obvious advantage over other nations or even over other segments within their own nation lacking these traits.
We, right now, have people walking among us who have had their genes edited to fight diseases like leukemia. A biotechnology startup, BioViva, has already tested gene therapies on its founder and CEO Elizabeth Parrish as a means of defeating human aging, the South China Morning Post reported.
It’s not a matter of if, or even when, because it has already begun. The real question is, when will such editing and gene therapies start having an impact on economics and security, and what are nations doing to build the fundamental necessities to both leverage this technology and defend against those abusing it?
Nations like China have invested heavily in biotechnology and gene therapy, providing a counterbalance to what was at one point a clearly North American and European monopoly. Individuals and small organizations around the globe are currently building up a community of opensource research and development, to further ensure this technology ends up in as many hands as possible.
While some may fear runaway “proliferation,” we should stop and think about why the US stopped dropping atomic bombs on other nations. It was not from self-restraint but from the threat of retaliation from nations who eventually acquired nuclear weapons as well. What emerged was a dangerous but effective balance of power that has prevailed for decades since.
A similar balance of power is required for biotechnology, a technology so powerful and with implications so profound that it may redefine our very humanity.
Nations would benefit from investing in education to build up a workforce capable of researching, developing and effectively utilizing this emerging technology. Nations would benefit from investing in start ups and cultivating independent institutions capable of producing breakthroughs to give nations parity with current leaders in biotechnology.
Professor Hawking was a brilliant man in life, and provided us with a somber but essential warning as he departed us. We will ignore the looming threat of biotechnology and human gene editing being monopolized at our own peril.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Politics can, after a time, becomes a myopic exercise of expedient measures and desperate hope. Politics, raw and crude, is at its best at points where survival matters. Conversely, it can illustrate human vices in raw fashion, low points of idiocy and the disaster of folly.
The Morrison government in Australia risks succumbing to another march of folly. Having arisen from a decision to summarily execute its leader (politically speaking), Malcolm Turnbull’s replacement looks wooden, a hulk of swaying confusion in search of a purpose. No perspective to exploit is beyond Scott Morrison’s purview, be it psychologically ruined children on Manus Island or the prospect of disturbing relations with a move of the Australian embassy to Jerusalem.
The latest shot to Morrison’s less than tranquil ship has come from the abrupt move to consider Jerusalem as the new seat of Australia’s representation, one made simultaneously with a not so considered contemplation of repudiating the Iran nuclear deal. Some figures, cocooned by security and a cultivated sense of obliviousness, felt it sensible. Colin Rubinstein, executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council felt it politically savvy. “Look at his backbench. Look at his ministry. If you took a poll I think you’d find a lot of support.”
A cruder rationale lurks behind the decision: an attempt, made at short notice, to shore up the Jewish vote in the federal seat of Wentworth, vacated by Turnbull in the aftermath of the Liberal Party’s leadership challenge. The good, irate citizens of that seat are being asked whether to return a Liberal member to Canberra, a point complicated by a competitive field of candidates and dollops of anger.
In this instance, a leaked briefing or bulletin by the Australian domestic intelligence service on the possible disturbance of any such announcement found its way into the public domain. Marked “Secret” and “AUSTEO” (Australian eyes only), it received distribution on October 15, a day before Morrison floated the idea of an embassy relocation.
The ASIO Bulletin is sombre and reflective, no doubt aware that the Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem came with much blood (dozens of Palestinians slaughtered along with 2,400 injured during protests in May):
“We expect any announcement on the possible relocation of the Australian embassy to Jerusalem, or consideration of voting against Palestinians in the United Nations, may provoke protest, unrest and possibly some violence in Gaza and the West Bank.”
The document also noted that,
“possible Australian interests may be the target of protest activity following any announcement.”
Morrison, having been caught off guard (why would you listen to cautious intelligence officials?) sought a second opinion from ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis to placate critics. “I want to… reassure Australians that ASIO has no evidence at this time of any planned violence in response to the government’s announcement on 16 October and the matter was fully discussed by Cabinet.”
Another (failed) element of Morrison’s Jerusalem botching stems from attempts to minimise the reaction from various Muslim states to the prospects of moving Australian diplomats from Tel Aviv. One state, Australia’s northern neighbour with the largest Muslim populace on the planet, came to mind.
Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi had been rather busy on the WhatsApp program conveying notes of concern to Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne, a point that was dismissed by the Morrison government as small beer. A spokesman for Senator Payne went so far as to call the exchange part of a “constructive discussion.”
The messages, also leaked, suggested that the term “constructive” had been rather worn. The action would, according to Marsudi, prove a “slap” to “Indonesia’s face”. Irritated at the timing of the announcement (Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki was visiting Jakarta), Payne’s counterpart wondered: “Is it really necessary to do this on Tuesday?”
Payne’s spokesman, briefed to soften the agitation, explained his boss’s position:
“Minister Payne emphasised that there had been no change to Australia’s commitment to the Middle East peace process and to a durable and resilient two-state solution that allowed Israel and a future Palestinian state to exist side by side, within internationally recognised borders.”
This did little to calm Marsudi, who badgered Australia’s ambassador Gary Quinlan for two meetings in three days to explain why the contents of her conversation with Payne had made their merry way into the public domain.
The statement from the Council of Arab Ambassadors in Canberra, signed by Egyptian ambassador Mohamad Khairat as head of the Council, did much to blow off any suggestions that Morrison’s grand idea would not be damaging.
“The two-state solution means nothing without an equitable resolution of these final-status issues. In the absence of functioning peace process, the sensible course of action would be for Australia to recognise the State of Palestine based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.”
The waters of diplomacy have been muddied, and Morrison is keen to find convenient scapegoats. The Victorian Labor government has been accused of leaking the ASIO bulletin to The Guardian Australia, though this vaguely libellous accusation ignores the genuine possibility that staff on Morrison’s own side might well have done so. According to an ASIO spokesman, Lewis had spoken to the Australian Federal Police head Andrew Colvin and “formally referred this matter to the AFP for investigation.”
This entire tie-up revealed a standard perversion in Australian attitudes to classified information: the disclosure of WhatsApp messages between representatives of a foreign country is frowned upon but less egregious than a sober, relevant document warning government officials about the consequences of an expedient foreign policy decision. The latter informs an otherwise ignorant public about a government making policy on the hop; the former is a disclosure of tittle-tattle and anger, useful in exposing hypocrisy. Both, at this terminus of the Morrison government, reveal a slide into imminent electoral extinction.
*
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]
Can you 
