ISIS has captured 700 hostages, including US and European citizens, in Syria and is killing 10 people a day, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the Valdai Discussion Club’s 15th Annual Meeting on October 18. He criticized US forces for this “catastrophic” failure adding that the terrorists “have delivered ultimatums and made certain demands, threatening … to shoot ten people every day.” According to Putin, the terrorists already started carrying out their threats and executed ten hostages two days ago.
On October 17, the Russian news agency TASS reported citing a military diplomatic source that the hostages were captured by ISIS in the province of Deir Ezzor during a failed advance of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led coalition.
On October 18, the SDF repelled an ISIS attack near the village of al-Baghuz al-Fawqani in the Euphrates Valley. During the recent clashes in the Hajin pocket, the SDF destroyed a suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device and 15 ISIS members. 2 SDF members also died.
According to the Syrian state media, US-led coalition warplanes bombed civilian buildings in the village of al-Susah killing and injuring multiple civilians. The US-led coalition is often avoiding to comment on such reports. However, even Amnesty International says that Washington is hiding the real number of civilian casualties as a result of its operations in Syria.
Meanwhile, Russia and Turkey informed the UN that the timeline for the implementation of the Idlib de-confliction agreement had been expanded. One of the key problems behind the delay is the unwillingness of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) and similar terrorist groups to withdraw from the agreed demilitarized zone.
*
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 “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
It is understandable people are outraged over the murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Meanwhile, few are outraged over the murder of thousands in Yemen and the prospect of the worst humanitarian crisis in recent memory. The United States in directly involved in killing innocents in Yemen.
Trump wants to sell billions of dollars of armaments to the Saudis and these will be used to kill more people in Yemen. The president says cranking out bombs, missiles, tanks, fighter jets, etc. will create jobs for Americans.
In other words, if you want to support your family and stay off the public dole, you have to participate in mass murder.
The average American, however, is at best vaguely aware of the role the US plays in Yemen. When was the last time you read a report about these warcrimes in The New York Times or saw a report on CNN? It’s the job of the corporate media to keep these grisly realities safely hidden or at best seriously underreported.
Hypocrisy reeks from the White House, Congress, and the suites of the corporate media. Saudi Arabia has persecuted and executed critics for decades, yet the murder of one journalist—who wasn’t even a serious critic of the medieval regime—outrages the public.
If most Americans knew the truth about the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam, they would want nothing to do with the Saudis despite their bounty of oil. Instead, the attention of the American people is steered toward Iran, described as the top sponsor of terrorism, when in fact the top sponsors of terror are the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
Dozens of unarmed people are killed by Israeli snipers—including medics and children—for the crime of protesting ill-treatment at the hands of what can only be described as an apartheid and racist government.
Back in April, Israel’s trained murderers killed Yasser Murtaja, a photojournalist who worked for the BBC and Vice. Not a word from Trump or his raft of neocons on Murtaja’s death, nor the wounding of half a dozen other journalists deliberately targeted by the IDF.
Trump tells us there will be a “deal of the century” between Israel and the Palestinians, a deal arranged by his son-in-law, a confirmed Zionist sharing a relationship with Bibi Netanyahu, the Likudnik prime minister of Israel.
Previous Israeli leaders have called the Palestinians “beasts on two legs” and “crocodiles.” General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, said all Palestinians must be killed if they don’t agree to become slaves. Israel Koenig declared the Israeli government must use terror, assassination, intimidation, the cut off of all social services, and land confiscation to ethnically cleanseGalilee of its Arab population. There are dozens of quotes like this from Israeli leaders and academics.
In Saudi Arabia, the government will chop your head off it you consume alcohol, are involved in a consensual homosexual relationship, heterosexual adultery, consume illegal drugs, or engage in other nonviolent behavior. Because Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a penal code, judges can sentence a person to death for almost anything.
Trump has ignored—or is quite possibly ignorant—the crimes committed by these two rogue regimes. His main news source is reportedly Fox News, so it makes sense he knows nothing about this. Everything he needs to know is provided by his son-in-law and his neocon national security adviser, the psychopath John Bolton.
No, the US government will not punish Saudi Arabia for its behavior. Trump believes “rogue killers” are responsible for the murder of Khashoggi. It looks like the blame will be placed Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, a top aide to Mohammed bin Salman, the boy prince who tortures his relatives and steals their wealth.
MbS may be replaced by his younger brother Prince Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US, but this will change absolutely nothing.
The pathology of the Saudi regime is rooted in the Wahhabi brand of Sunni Islam. For the Wahhabi, all who do not follow their austere and violent religion are infidels deserving death, especially the Shi’a. In the demented mindset of the Saudi royals, famine and targeting civilian buses are entirely justified because, like Israel, Saudi Arabia is a racist and religiously intolerant state. For the racist and religious zealot, those outside the tribe are crocodiles, cockroaches in bottles, and beasts walking on two legs.
The Khashoggi affair will eventually fall out of the news cycle and it will soon be business as usual between Trump and MbS or whomever his replacement may or may not be.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
As a columnist for the Washington Post, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi frequently criticized his home country’s government—denouncing the country’s treatment of women and most recently, in his final column published Wednesday, calling on Saudi officials to embrace press freedom.
But as critics accuse President Donald Trump of conspiring with the Saudis to cover up Khashoggi’s suspected murder, one journalist on Wednesday highlighted an article published in the Independent, weeks after Trump was elected in November of 2016—noting that Khashoggi’s criticism of the Saudis wasn’t the only thing that led the government to ban his work from appearing in his home country.
While the move was likely fueled by his outspoken criticism of the monarchy and its policies, the journalist was only blacklisted from working in the kingdom after criticizing Trump.
Los Angeles Times columnist Virginia Heffernan posted about her realization late Wednesday after coming across the Independent article.
Just now realizing: Khashoggi was banned in KSA was not because he was critical of Mohammad bin Salman, the devastation of Yemen, Wahhabism, or the Salafi movement. It was because, ON NOVEMBER 10, 2016, in DC, Khashoggi mildly criticized…Donald Trump. https://t.co/GeFh0nlJ0l
Citing the Middle East Eye’s reporting, the Independent published a story saying that Khashoggi spoke at the Washington Institute on November 10, 2016—the day after Trump won the presidential election—remarking that Trump’s Middle East stances were “contradictory.”
Soon after, a Saudi government source was quoted by the Middle East Eye as saying,
“The author Jamal Khashoggi does not represent the government of Saudi Arabia or its positions at any level, and…his opinions only represent his personal views, not that of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
By early December, Saudi authorities had banned Khashoggi “from writing in newspapers, appearing on TV, and attending conferences” in the kingdom, leading the author to a self-imposed exile.
To several political observers on Twitter, the revelation that the Saudis had so directly come to the defense of Trump gave new meaning to the fact that the president is now attempting to shield Saudi Arabia from the international outrage that’s exploded in the 16 days since Khashoggi disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul—especially following reports that U.S. intelligence agencies had known of a Saudi plan to detain Khashoggi.
Mounting evidence has pointed to a murder by a “hit team” with links to MBS, but the Trump administration has criticized those accusing the Saudis of involvement, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling reporters,
“We ought to give them a few more days” to complete their own investigation and issuing a reminder that the Saudis “are an important strategic alliance of the U.S. and we need to be mindful of that as well.”
Here’s an unsettling historical footnote that now seems rather significant: Saudi Arabia banned Jamal Khashoggi for criticizing… Donald Trump. https://t.co/wfdbL4IzM0
Major element of this to remember: #Khashoggi was banned in 2016 from working in media in Saudi Arabia… because he criticized Trump. So the Saudis murdered a journalist they previously banned for speaking badly about Trump, & now Trump refuses to condemn them for it.
Comments Off on While President Continues to Play Dumb on Murder, 2016 Reporting Shows Saudis Only Blacklisted Khashoggi After Journalist Criticized… Trump
A billboard at a construction site, with a photo of an Ottoman-style mosque with four minarets and the flag of Turkey, was erected recently in the center of Pristina, the capital of Kosovo. With less than 2 million people, Kosovo, which declared its independence from Serbia in 2008, is the home of over 800 mosques. Now the Islamic Community of Kosovo is building the “Central Mosque” at an estimated cost of $35- $40 million. Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) is financing the project.
The Diyanet also financed the building of a similar mosque on a 10,000-square-meter parcel of land on George W. Bush Street in Tirana, Albania, the largest mosque in the Balkans, along with dozens of other mosques across neighboring countries. Turkey’s president Erdogan has put in the field two state organizations, Diyanet and the Turkish Development Agency (TIKA), as vehicles through which Turkey could enhance its Islamic influence in the Balkans.
Diyanet is the official state institution whose role is “to execute the works concerning the beliefs, worship, and ethics of Islam, enlighten the public about their religion, and administer the sacred worshiping places.” Diyanet is also responsible for the religious affairs of the Turkish diaspora. In Germany alone, it administers 970 mosques with imams trained by the organization.
Austria was the first country to realize that the mosques built with Erdogan’s money are used for political purposes to promote his Islamic agenda. In June 2018, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz ordered the closing of seven mosques built by Diyanet, and deported 60 imams and their families with ties to Turkey as part of the ‘fight against political Islam.’
In February 2016, German law enforcement revealed that clerics from the organization were involved in espionage against Gülen’s followers. Two years ago, Cumhuriyet, an independent Turkish newspaper, reported that Diyanet was very active in collecting intelligence, specifically on the activities of Gülen sympathizers in 38 countries across Europe, including Germany and the Balkans. Accusations of espionage by the organization have existed since the 1990s, but these revelations pointed to far more extensive operations than were previously thought.
Meanwhile, Diyanet has extended its religious program to countries whose connection to Ottoman history is tenuous by building over 100 mosques outside Turkey. The president of Diyanet, Ali Erbaş, said that they have extremely strong relations with Balkan countries and stressed that this cooperation will continue in the future, especially in relation to religious education, services, and publications. He emphasized the importance and affinity of Turkey to the Balkans and added,
“The Balkans have a special place for us. Our historical ties will continue as they have done in the past.”
Ironically, while most of the Balkan countries suffer from unemployment, lack of foreign investments, and rampant poverty, Erdogan’s investments are focused on mosques and religious educational institutions at a time when Kosovo’s unemployment rate is 30%.
Lulzim Peci, former Ambassador of Kosovo to Sweden and Executive Director of the Kosovo Institute for Policy Research and Development (KIPRED), is one of the most critical voices in Kosovo against Erdogan’s political Islamic scheme. He agrees that the mosques built in Kosovo are political establishments to promulgate Erdogan’s Islamist vision.
“In the case of Kosovo and Albania, the tens of millions of dollars invested in building mosques has to do with the symbol of Turkish supremacy and influence, not only religious but also political”, says Peci.
Erdogan’s enormous investments in Ottoman symbolism are designed to influence the mindset of the population in Kosovo and increase the pro-Turkish-Islamist sentiments on the present and future generations. The Islamic ideology that Diyanet promotes caused wide-spread indignation even in Turkey. Diyanet stated that girls can become pregnant and therefore get married at the age of 9 years old, and boys at the age of 12. Thus, the concerns over Diyanet activities are not limited to building mosques, but its cultural and societal influence based on radical Islam.
One day following the failed coup in Turkey, crowds of Albanians and Bosniaks in Macedonia, Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo demonstrated in support of Erdogan and his government.
“It clearly visualized the potential and mechanisms that Erdogan has in the Balkans and the Diaspora, on which he capitalizes and uses whenever he wants”, says Xhemal Ahmeti, a historian and expert on Southeast European issues.
“Unfortunately, Albanian mosques thus, are confirming the thesis of Swiss Islamist Saida Keller-Messahli in her book Islamic Centrifuge in Switzerland, where Albanian mosques in fact are radical centers serving this kind of Islamic agenda for the radicalization of Albanian Muslims in favor of Erdogan’s politics”, says Ahmeti.
Visar Duriqi, a Kosovo journalist specializing in religious affairs, said that the project for the construction of the mosque with Turkish funds sends a clear political message by Erdogan to the effect that he has control over this region.
“Kosovo” says Duriqi “is a country that does not need more religious buildings, certainly not ones funded by Erdogan.”
Mosques are increasingly being used to spread political Islamic ideologies to a point where only limited room is left for actual prayers.
“It is no longer a question of whether those establishments are necessary, because the goal is to build as much as possible in order to strengthen the political influence from the Middle Eastern countries and Erdogan’s Turkey”, says Xhelal Neziri, an experienced investigative reporter from Macedonia.
In the countries with majority Christian populations in the Balkans, such as Serbia, Macedonia, and Croatia, Turkey is investing in major development projects, while in Albania the investments are geared mainly toward building Islamic religious institutes.
“It has been shown that the most powerful and sustainable influence in this region, especially among Albanians, is made precisely through the instrumentalization of the religion”, says Neziri.
To be sure, anyone who even scarcely follows Erdogan’s ambitions in the Balkans cannot escape the conclusion that the Turkish leader had a specific, well-articulated Islamic agenda which he is determined to entrench in the psyche of the Balkan people by building mosques and appointing imams that follow his doctrine. It is part and parcel of Erdogan’s vision to restore elements of the Ottoman Empire under his leadership.
Erdogan himself and many other Turkish officials have openly spoke about their dream that by 2023, the centenary of modern Turkey, the country will enjoy as much sway and influence that was once enjoyed by the Ottomans. Erdogan uses Diyanet as one of his main vehicles to that end.
For the Balkan states, this will certainly turn out to be nightmarish unless they prevent Erdogan from exploiting them in the name of Allah, while debasing Islam to serve his long-term menacing plot.
*
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. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected] Web: www.alonben-meir.com
Arbana Xharra authored a series of investigative reports on religious extremists and Turkey’s Islamic agenda operating in the Balkans. She has won numerous awards for her reporting, and was a 2015 recipient of the International Women of Courage Award from the US State Department.
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.
The “triumph of the February 17th Revolution and the fall of the dictatorship” was initially greeted with euphoria, but this mood was not enough to prevent the country from falling apart. The victors, who had seized power with the support of NATO and an unlikely coalition of various armed groups, were unable to prevent the country’s descent into chaos. That coalition split apart in 2014, and the country has effectively been split in two ever since. There are now two opposed “territories”, one headed by Tripoli in the west of Libya, the other headed by Tobruk, in the east. Each has its own government, parliament and armed forces.
What is more, the capital, Tripoli, is controlled by four main armed groups, which, together, prop up the Government of National Accord, headed by Fayez al-Sarraj. Their official role is to guarantee security, serve as a police force, and guard the airport, government organisations and prisons etc. According to many experts in the region, these armed groups have built up an unprecedented level of control over both public and private organisations. They are involved in business and a wide range of illegal schemes: these include various forms of smuggling, especially of oil.
This situation gives rise to rivalry with other armed groups which came to Tripoli as victors after the collapse of the regime, but these newcomers have been sidelined as time has passed.
They were angered by Facebook posts in which commanders of pro-government militias showed off their luxury cars and flats. That explains why, at the end of August, the commanders of 7 brigades from Tarhuna, 45 km south of the capital, adopted the slogan “An end to corruption!” and moved their forces against the alliance of four armed groups.
Despite calls by the Government of National Accord for peace, serious armed clashes have broken out in several parts of Tripoli – the worst eruption of violence in the city in the last four years. Between August and the end of September, 115 people were killed and 383 wounded in these clashes. Thousands of families have fled to avoid the fighting between groups of militants.
As a result, the UN has declared a state of emergency in the capital. In the view of these events, it is hardly surprising that the UN special envoy to Libya, Ghassan Salame, recently declared that the planned general elections, the result of several years of negotiations by the UN, are unlikely to take place on the intended date of December 10 this year.
It seems as if the combined efforts of the UN, a number of European countries and Libya’s Arab neighbours to reconcile the two factions based on the Libyan Political Agreement signed in 2015 in Shkirat are doomed to failure. (The Shkirat Agreement called for the creation of national transitional state bodies, elections to the newly-formed parliament, presidential elections, etc.)
Another problem is that Libya still lacks charismatic leaders who could unite society and persuade it to accept the necessary compromises. The existing political elites are all pulling in different directions.
It is hard to see how things could have been otherwise. The UN’s efforts to broker and implement an agreement was hampered by the fact that the politicians’ authority was limited by their dependence on armed groups and their “godfathers”.
Libya since the fall of Gaddafi has been a tragic example of how a country which used to be stable, and which is rich in oil reserves, can be brought to its knees by internal conflict. Libyans’ standard of living has fallen dramatically. People are weighed down by the problems of everyday life: a shortage of cash in the economy, power cuts and interruptions to the water supply, a lack of flour in the shops, endless queues at bakeries, etc.
And, at an international level, the country is faced with potential threats from its neighbours in North Africa and the Middle East. The authorities are unable to effectively police the country’s borders, which extend over 6 000 km. In 2017 the majority of the 200 000 migrants who travelled across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe started their journey in Libya.
Seven years ago, Western politicians and the media cheered on the militants and celebrated their victory over the “dictator”. This enthusiasm has long since vanished. Reality has confounded all those optimistic predictions and naive hopes. They lack the will or the power to sort out the chaos.
Nevertheless, the same countries that intervened in the internal conflict in Libya under the pretext of “fighting against dictatorship and for democracy” were keen to unleash a similar situation in Syria. The government, army and people of Syria, with their allies, have been able to resist that policy and prevent the breakup of their country and its transformation into another Libya.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Yury Zinin, Leading Research Fellow at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.
The October 15 deadline agreed to by Turkey, Russia and Iran for Turkey to evacuate all heavy weapons and jihadist groups along a 15-20 km demilitarised demarcation line around Idlib and its rural area, including rural Latakia, has come and gone. Nevertheless, despite serious Turkish pressure on jihadists to leave Syria or move out of the demilitarised zone to spare Idlib an imminent attack by the Syrian Army and Russia, jihadists remain in their barracks. All the same, Damascus and Moscow consider the time unpropitious for a large attack on the city. Thus, a further delay has been accorded to Turkey to continue its efforts. Any attack on Idlib, the first US line of defence in Syria, has been postponed.
But why is this the USA’s first line of defence in Syria? Simply because Syria has been freed and only the regions of the northern cities of Idlib and al-Hasaka (and a small part of Deir-ezzour east of the Euphrates) are still occupied.
In September, Russia, Iran and Syria decided to liberate the entire Syrian territory, starting from Idlib and ending in al-Hasaka where the US occupation forces are based and unwilling to leave anytime soon. This is why Washington sees Idlib as its first line of defence and this is why the US wanted to hit Syria under a false pretext of the “use of chemical weapons” to prevent the liberation of Idlib by Damascus forces. Moscow and Damascus understood US intentions and decided to call off all military preparations in order to prevent a US attack on Syria. The date set for a wide scale attack on Idlib was abrogated; Syria and its allies decided to stand down and give Turkey the opportunity to try and stand in between the belligerents. This decision helped avoid a possible confrontation between the two superpowers, Russia and the US, with their militaries facing each other down in the Levant.
Meanwhile, Syria’s allies prepared three lines of defence: the first facing Tal el-Eiss, the second at “the apartment 3000” and the third at the entrance of the city of Aleppo. They had received solid intelligence that al-Qaeda and other jihadists had gathered around 10,000 men and were preparing to launch an attack against Aleppo. The Russian-Turkish deal stopped the imminent attack. Turkey was given an extension and an unspecified span of time to control Idlib. Syria and its allies will wait for the most opportune moment to attack the city if the US backs down from war in Syria and circumstances become more congenial.
Sources close to decision makers in Syria said: “There is no doubt the entire Syrian territory will return to the control of the Syrian government, including Idlib and al-Hasaka. The Qunietra and Nasib crossing between Syria and Jordan has reopened. Soon the borders between Syria and Iraq will re-open now that there is a new prime minister in Iraq”.
“The Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari visited Syria not only to reopen the border crossing between the two countries but also to bring Syria back to the Arab League. Iraq believes that Saudi Arabia and its allies are no longer willing to continue the war in Syria and they have stopped financing jihadists and rebels. Syria will deal with the two occupiers (Turkey and the US) and end this war”, said the source.
The first step is expected to be made official by Amman, willing to resume its pre-2011 relationship with Damascus by sending its diplomats to Syria in the coming days. According to the source,
“the Jordanian step has been approved by the Gulf and western countries in the hope of detaching Syria from Iran”.
“Those who open their borders and airports to jihadists from all over the world to come and fight in Syria, and those who emptied their prisons to send all inmates to establish a terrorist platform in the Levant to create a fail state have decided to change their policy and re-establish diplomatic ties with Damascus. We don’t oppose this move but we won’t forget because we have paid a very heavy price due to these “old friends” who destroyed our country”, said the source.
“There is no doubt,” – continues the source – “that the number of allied troops has been dramatically reduced in Syria. Iran has reduced its costs and reduced to a minimum the presence of its allies on the ground (Afghan, Iraqi, Pakistani and other). However, no one can force Iran to leave the Levant in exchange for financial support to rebuild the country. Only idiots believe we can exchange the relationship between Syria and Iran for tens or hundreds of billions or sell the Golan Heights for any price. The Syrian-Iranian strategic bond is much stronger than what people can imagine”.
Middle Eastern leaders and the Arab League are prepared to receive back among them the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as they acknowledge that the regime change operation has failed. Turkey has been given more time and the liberation of Idlib has been postponed. The jihadists and rebels are not yet convinced that the war is over and haven’t yet realized that no country will supply them with weapons any longer. They are only buying time and their fate is sealed. In al-Hasaka Kurdish militants will come to understand that the US forces can’t stay for long. The US base at al-Tanaf will be abandoned mainly because the al-Rukban refugee camp – 80,000 to 90,000 refugees supplied by the US and surrounded by the Syrian and Iraqi armies – has become a burden and because the al-Bu Kamal crossing will reopen soon. It is time for the Kurds to understand that they can only survive by coming to terms with Damascus.
*
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 Saudi Stops Funding Terror in Syria as the Arab League Prepares to Resume Ties with Damascus: The Time Is Not Yet Ripe for Retaking Idlib
“If you shout at us we will cry, we are so sensitive” Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid told me on the 20th September 2018. Al Mahamid is the leader of the still-functioning White Helmet center in Dara’a Al Balad to the south of Damascus in Syria. Al Mahamid had donned his white helmet for the camera before he spoke to us about the role of these White Helmets who had remained in Dara’a Al Balad, when other White Helmet members had boarded the buses for Idlib with Nusra Front or for Israel and Jordan as part of the special evacuation organised by the members of the US Coalition.
The journey to this White Helmet center had been a circuitous one. I traveled with my translator and a Syrian journalist working independently on this trip. Since July 2018 a tenuous ceasefire had been negotiated between the armed groups and members of the Russian Reconciliation team. Conditions included the surrendering of heavy and medium weapons. (De-escalation zones had previously been established in mid 2017). Russia secured the right of admission to liberated areas for the Syrian Arab Army and the withdrawl of extremist groups from areas close to the Jordanian borders. The Al Nassib border crossing, for example, would come back under the management of the SAA. While some groups occupying areas in the countryside and city of Daraa accepted the Russian conditions, Dara’a Al Balad was one of the areas that chose to continue with a ‘policy of confrontation’.
“..military factions have refused the offer entirely and choose confrontations, especially in Dara’a al-Balad and the towns of Saida, elmiathin, Nasib, el-Emtaih, al-Naimah, el-Taebah, arriving at the western countryside of Tafas, Nawa and its surrounding. The concerned factions include “al-Thawra Army”, “First Artillery Regment” “Osod al-Sunna”, “Falojat Horan Brigade”, “Thuwar al- Jaidour” and “al-Bunyan al-Marsous”.” ~ taken from a report in Enab Baladi in July 2018
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. The carnage in Al Zara in the suburbs of Homs was carried out by this group in May 2016, targeting a predominantly Alawite community. One of the more horrifying images to emerge from this bloodthirsty rampage was one depicting Ahrar Al Sham militants standing over the corpses of brutally murdered women. Despite these repugnant sectarian crimes against the Syrian people, the US administration refused to comply with Russian demands that Ahrar Al Sham be designated a “terrorist” group.
Sheikh Abdullah Muhaysini with SAA captives at Abu Duhur Air Base. (Photo: Syria Comment)
In January 2017 Abu Jaber resigned from Ahrar Al Sham altogether and five major extremist groups merged into the rebranded HTS with Abu Jaber as their Emir. In October 2017, Abu Jaber was replaced as Emir by Mohammed Al-Joulani. During its formation, HTS had also released a statement “saying that six leading jihadi scholars have joined the newly formed group.” One of these was Sheikh Abdullah Mohammed Al Muhaysini, a Riyadh educated and financed zealot, one of the most extreme and bloodthirsty ideologues operating in Syria. The US administration designated Muhaysini a terrorist in 2016.
The UK Intelligence propaganda construct, and multi-million-dollar US Coalition-financed White Helmet group has consistently demonstrated its ties to these terrorist and “moderate” extremist groups in Syria. White Helmet operatives have been filmed with Muhaysini in the countryside of Northern Hama/Idlib, welcoming terrorist factions evacuated from Daraya as part of the Syrian Government’s Amnesty and Reconciliation deal, in August 2016 . Muhaysini has often endorsed and supported the White Helmets, describing them as “no different to the Mujahadeen (armed groups)” in September 2016.
Muhaysni talks about White Helmets: "They are no diff from the Mujahideen". Thanks, Sheikh that's what we've been saying all along #Syriapic.twitter.com/kjEXqULCGx
In March 2017, while Emir of HTS, effectively Al Qaeda, Abu Jaber praised the White Helmets as the “hidden soldiers of the revolution”. The White Helmet billionaire funded PR industry and their supporters in corporate media have tried, unsuccessfully, to distance the White Helmets from their ties with HTS.
This introduction will provide important background to the claims and statements made by the White Helmets and FSA commander, Adham Alkarad whom I also met in Dara’a Al Balad in September 2018 while inside the White Helmet headquarters.
Entering Daraa – Dara’a Countryside, Al Omari Mosque, Al Manshia and Dara’a Al Balad
Members of armed group Shabab Al Sunnah in Al Manshia, Dara’a Al Balad. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
After discussions with the Syrian Arab Army and Russian Military Police officials we entered areas of the countryside of Daraa and Daraa City , accompanied by members of one of the armed groups that had accepted Russian/Syrian ceasefire conditions, Shabab Al Sunnah. We visited the Ramsa border with Jordan which is for vehicles only and was one of the main supply routes from Jordan to the assorted armed groups occupying Daraa City and the surrounding areas.As we hear so often during these trips, the members of Shabab Al Sunnah confirmed that Nusra Front had been the dominant force in the province.
The Ramsa border with Jordan. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
Logo of the “Sons of Al Aqsa” brigade in the border checkpoint at Ramsa border with Jordan. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
Air Defence Base
The road into the Air Defence Base in the Dara’a Countryside
After the border with Jordan, we headed north-west to the Air Defence Base that had been the scene of the massacre of the SAA soldiers defending the base by members of the Al Bunyan Al Marsous military operations group that was made up of 17 armed factions including HTS, Ahrar Al Sham and various divisions of the “moderate” FSA. The motto of the group was “Death and No Humiliation”. On 20th June 2017, the base was overrun by extremist groups. The majority of the SAA soldiers were brutally murdered. To our knowledge four soliders were taken captive and the bodies and captives were brought back to an area very close to the White Helmet center in Dara’a Al Balad.
Image taken from Twitter showing Air Defence Base under attack and on point of capture June 2017.
SAA bodies, killed at the Air Defence Base, were piled up in the back of a truck before being brought back to Dara’a City. (Photo: Screenshot from video)
A White Helmet operative was videoed clambering over the broken and bloody bodies of the soldiers while one of the armed group members held a severed head aloft in triumph. Another video was also released showing the militants laughing and manhandling the bodies piled on top of one another in the back of the truck. I will cover this incident in more detail later in the article and demonstrate that the White Helmets and HTS/FSA were responsible for a hideous war crime, one of many ignored by the colonial media cartel in the West.
The Air Defence Base now back under the control of the SAA since July 2018. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
The Air Defence Base had then been taken over and occupied by HTS/Nusra Front, again according to the Shabab Al Sunnah fighters, before its liberation by the SAA in 2018.
The road into the Air Defence Base. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
The road into the base was still strewn with the remnants of destroyed tanks and armoured vehicles, the burned out remains of a rocket launcher pick-up truck was turning to ash behind a bank of earth. Inside the base we could see the familiar HTS graffitti and logos of the military groups on the walls of the huts and corrugated metal portakabins. It was a strange experience to walk around the base in the company of fighters who very possibly participated in the “moderate” offensive that had claimed the lives of the SAA defenders whose bodes had then been so abused and dehumanized.
Al Manshia
A street in Al Manshia district. The Graffitti reads ‘Islamic State’. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
After visiting the Air Defence Base, we drove through the Al Manshia district of Dara’a Al Balad. In 2014 Al Manshia was still under control of the SAA and it came under concerted attack from the “moderate” FSA forces. These militants, power multiplied by the US Coalition, pounded Al Manshia with tank and mortar fire, they dug tunnels under SAA positions, packed them with explosives and detonated them. For the FSA the taking over of Al Manshia was strategically important as it secured control over all of Dara’a Al Balad (Old City) and opened the road to Dara’a al-Mahatta (New City) for the armed groups. It was also a battle to prevent SAA control over the Nassib border crossing with Jordan and to secure the crossing for the supply of equipment for the armed groups. Battles in Al Manshia raged back and forth and in February 2017, the FSA combined forces with Ahrar Al Sham and HTS (Al Qaeda) to conduct another major offensive against the entrenched SAA. One month later the SAA pushed back against the Nusra Front-led forces and retook part of Al Manshia. Final SAA liberation of the Manshia district took place in July 2018.
In the early days of the Syrian conflict, the reporting was heavily weighted in favour of the “rebels” and was being led by the likes of the BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN who lionised the armed groups while holding the Syrian government almost entirely responsible for the loss of life as the sectarian mob violence that they whitewashed threatened civilians and security forces alike and chaos reigned, particularly in Dara’a. I will not be going into depth in this article but recommended reading (or viewing) on the reality of what happened in Dara’a can be found here, here and here.
“The Omari Mosque was the scene of backstage preparations, costume changes and rehearsals. The Libyan terrorists, fresh from the battlefield of the US-NATO regime change attack on Libya, were in Deraa well ahead of the March 2011 uprising violence. The cleric of the Omari Mosque was Sheikh Ahmad al Sayasneh .[…] However, the visitors from Libya did not make themselves known to the cleric, as that would blow their cover. Instead, they worked with local men; a few key players who they worked to make their partners and confidants. The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign Libyan mercenaries/terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and directed from Jordan.” ~ Steven Sahiounie, The Day Before Deraa:How the War Broke out in Syria.
Independent journalist Eva Bartlett interviewed a Dara’a priest, Father Gerges Rizk in May 2018. He also explained the geopolitical context of what was really behind the “protests” in Daraa. WATCH:
These relentless extremist-group campaigns to dominate the district have left Al Manshia scarred and battered. Driving through the neighbourhood we saw the familiar bullet-strafed and mortar- fractured buildings, collapsing into the rubble that was strewn haphazardly across much of the devastated area. I filmed our journey through Al Manshia to the Al Omari Mosque, still accompanied by the Shabab Al Sunnah fighters. At one point we draw level with them to ask them to slow down so I can film. The final part of the video is as we arrive at the back of the Al Omari mosque. Watch:
Al Omari Mosque
We pulled up behind the Al Omari Mosque which was the scene of the allegedly “peaceful” protests that rocked the centre of Dara’a and became the beacon of Western media sensationalism and “rebel”-biased fervour in the early days of the Syrian conflict. We followed the Shabab Al Sunnah fighters into the courtyard of the Mosque and we had time to wander among the archways and to film the damage that had been done to the historic site.
We stopped to speak to this 13 year old boy, Ahmed, who was happy to be back at school since the ceasefire took effect in Dara’a Al Balad. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
Walking around the Mosque was reminiscent of entering the Omayyed Mosque in the Old City of Aleppo immediately after its liberation from the extremist gangs that had occupied it for almost five years and converted it into a sniper’s nest and military centre. There was still a sense of brooding tension and I felt the same again inside the Al Omari Mosque. A young boy who is seen in the video (and photo above) did stop to tell us that life was better now that the ceasefire had come into effect, he was glad to be back in school and to see an end to the violence that had wracked his neighbourhood for so many years.
Video footage taken inside the Al Omari Mosque. Watch:
The White Helmets of Dara’a Al Balad
The White Helmet center in Dara’a Al Balad. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
The Shabab al Sunnah fighters had picked up on the fact we wanted to speak to the White Helmets so they obliged by bringing us to the only functioning White Helmet center remaining in Daraa and Quneitra according to the members we spoke to in the center. It was explained to them that I was an independent British journalist by my translator. The Center was a small building in the grounds of what looked like a school complex.
The White Helmet center is the pin showing how close the center is to the Al Omari Mosque.
Satellite image showing the buildings that made up the White Helmet center in Dara’a Al Balad.
When I asked what the larger building was, I was told it had previously been a school that had been taken over by Nusra Front/HTS, so again it appears that the White Helmets were operating in close proximity to the terrorist group. This close collaboration was also evident in East Aleppoand in Eastern Ghouta based upon testimony from civilians who had lived under the occupation of the extremist groups partnered by the White Helmets.
The Nusra Front occupied building – the White Helmet center was on the other side of the ground in front of this building. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
When I visited the Christian town of Al Skeilbiyyeh in September, I was also shown a White Helmet and Nusra Front center in Al Madiq Citadel that was the tallest building in an area fully occupied by a combinaton of Ahrar Al Sham, Nusra Front (HTS) and Jaish Al Islam according to the National Defence Forces who were defending their town against attacks by these groups. The NDF also told me that the majority of these terrorist groups and the White Helmets had arrived together following their evacuation from Eastern Ghouta in March/April 2018.
The White Helmet center shared with Nusra Front in Al Madiq Citadel around 700 meters from the Al Skeilbiyyeh NDF front lines. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
Throughout the various SAA allied military campaigns to liberate areas of Syrian territory, it is customary for the White Helmets to relocate with their Nusra Front counterparts during the reconcilation and evacuation process. Therefore, it was a rare opportunity to speak to White Helmets who had chosen to remain in an area still under control of the armed groups but under the partial supervision of the Syrian government and the Russian Reconciliation teams.
Entering the White Helmet center video footage. WATCH:
Conversations with White Helmets – Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid
The leader of this White Helmet center was a character who introduced himself as Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid. Once he had ascertained that I was a British journalist, he appeared to want to present an image that would impress me. At one point he put on his white helmet before launching into a defence of the White Helmet reputation . He insisted that even though they had been funded by the British government, they were not influenced by British policy. Al Mahamid did make the point, however, that they were pressured to follow British policies and he makes the distinction between serving “friends and enemies” which immediately suggests a degree of bias rather than his proclaimed neutrality:
“When I say that we are independent it means that we do not follow any one, when some come to me and say that you should follow British policies I say to them, no. We serve all people, our friends and our enemies.” ~ Al Mahamid
During his initial display of neutrality Al Mahamid was clearly on a drive to persuade me of the White Helmet good reputation. When questioned about the White Helmet involvement in executions carried out by HTS and associated groups in Dara’a, Al Mahamid was quick to echo the White Helmet party line which presents these White Helmets who do collaborate in crimes committed against Syrian civilians and SAA prisoners, as being “bad apples“, who are “sacked” for “misconduct” – rather than criminal thugs who collaborate in torture, execution and the punishmentof those who do not comply with their sectarian ideology or who have remained loyal to Syria’s government and army.
“..we have fired members only because they attended some sort of executions, because we save lives and we do not help anyone to kill any one because it is against humanity and notice that all White Helmet members are full of humanity and sensitive to the extent if you shout at them they cry. So our work is plain humanitarian work, and when we used to bring soldiers here, we used to respect them and treat them as one of us, because all Syrians are losing.” ~ Al Mahamid (emphasis added)
Al Mahamid was asked about the White Helmet connections to Nusra Front (HTS) bearing in mind the praise heaped upon the White Helmets by Abu Jaber and Muhaysini. Again, Al Mahamid was adamant that their White Helmet center had no such affiliation, despite being next door to the Nusra Front buildings. In his eagerness to present the case for their center he was quick to say that it was very possible that other White Helmet groups in Syria were affiliated to Nusra Front and made up of Nusra Front militants. The question was – “do you think that some White Helmet members or centers acted in a different way from other White Helmet centers, East Aleppo or other cities?”
“Of course, here we do not belong to any one, but someone in the Western area, for example, might be Nusra front. “
Al Mahamid was asked again – “so White Helmet members may also be Nusra Front?”
“Of course! They might be Nusra Front and run a White Helmet center so this means all his colleaguesare also Nusra Front , but not in my area.” ~ Al Mahamid (emphasis added)
An interesting point is made here by Al Mahamid. If a White Helmet center is run by a Nusra Front member then all his colleagues will also be Nusra Front. This vindicates claims made by myself and other independent analysts that any area occupied by Nusra Front will be dominated and controlled by Nusra Front. Nusra Front is a brutal, ideologically supremacist organisation, so it would make perfect sense that if a White Helmet group is led by a prominent member of Nusra Front, the members are likely to adhere to the same ideology and to follow the same practices of extreme sectarian hatred and violence.
AbdulAziz Maghrabi seated centre, with Ahrar Al Sham & Abu Amara fighters. (Photo: Maghrabi’s Facebook page)
Case in question is the leadership of the White Helmets in East Aleppo. Abdulaziz Maghrabi was not only an armed member of Nusra Front but had also been an armed member of the Turkish-backed Al Tawhid brigade which invaded East Aleppo in 2012. Maghrabi also demonstrated allegiance to Abu Amara, the Nusra Front protection corps in East Aleppo. Maghrabi was photographed, on a number of occasions, working with both Nusra Front fighters and Abu Amara groups.
“There are some (armed) factions connected with Israel, those factions were gathered by Israel in Quneitra and were told that you will leave with the White Helmets. By the way the number of White Helmets in the southern area are 635, but those who left were 800. This means that there are (armed) factions who work with Mossad and they were extracted alongside the White Helmets. But for us here, we stood against this and demanded that the record of the White Helmet members to be reviewed because not all who left were White Helmets. Because not all those who left were White Helmets, there were people who left from Quneitra. There were terrorists, some left from the Yarmouk Basin”
“You mean ISIS” we asked
“Exactly!”
“So ISIS left with other armed factions alongside the White Helmets?”
“What happened is that Israel told the factions it supports to leave with the White Helmets. But here in this center were 38 members but no one left.”
“So, those who left – where were they from?”
“They were from Quneitra and the FSA and armed factions who are supported by Israel. This what we witnessed, I do not deny the fact that around 50 % of those who left to Israel were White Helmets but the rest were factions supported by Israel.”
#Quneitra – Maadeh Nassar "The Commander of the 'Golan Knights Brigade", Ahmad Al-Nuhas Commander of the "Brigade of the Sword of the Levant", Alaa Halaki "Commander of the Ababel army" and Abu Ratib Nassar, leader of the 'Golan Knights Brigade" escape to #Israel today morning. pic.twitter.com/tPe2OSAGrG
Video: following the tracks of the armed groups and the White Helmets into Israeli occupied Syrian territory. WATCH:
During my time in the south, I had also visited Quneitra and followed in the tracks of the armed groups and White Helmets as they were evacuated from Syria into the Israeli-occupied Syrian territory of the Golan heights and, from there, were transported to Jordan. Of the estimated 800 who escaped Syria by this Israel-facilitated route, allegedly only 442 made it to Jordan for resettlement in the designated countries which included Canada, UK, France and Germany.
I visited one White Helmet center in Jabata Al Khashab, Quneitra which was again contained within a complex controlled by Nusra Front but also incorporating the centers of the FSA and Al-Furqan brigade. I was shown to a small room which was reportedly used as a prison and torture cell by the armed groups. The room was actually part of the White Helmet building, which I was told, was known as Station 103.
My short video on the White Helmet Station 103 opposite Nusra Front HQ. WATCH:
While at the border crossing with Israeli occupied Syrian territory we also saw the footings and remains of what had been a three storey hospital (sign reads “birth clinic”) that, I was told, had been dismantled by the armed groups before they exited Syria. Israeli food products and medicine packaging were strewn around the site. We were also told that terrorist fighters only, were treated at the hospital, no civilians. Terrorists who were seriously injured were taken into Israel for treatment before being returned to southern Syria. This was confirmation of previous reports of the collaboration between Israel and the various armed groups occupying southern Syria.
Al Mahamid’s claim that 50% of those evacuated by Israel were extremist and terrorist group leaders was also confirmed by a number of civilians living close to the areas traversed by the “special” evacuees. As always, when asking for people to identify the different groups, I was given the familiar puzzled look before they told me “they are all the same, all terrorists”. In the centers I visited in the south, it was clear that Nusra Front and the assorted extremist groups were working together.
According to eminent analyst and journalist, Sharmine Narwani, “Israel is so heavily vested in keeping Syria and its allies away from its borders, it has actively bolstered al-Qaeda and other extremists in Syria’s southern theater.”.
“Despite its U.S. and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra has been openly fighting alongside the “Southern Front,” a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded by a U.S.-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC). [..]Efforts to conceal the depth of cooperation between Nusra and the FSA go right to the top. Says one FSA commander in Daraa: “In many battles, al-Nusra takes part, but we don’t tell the (MOC) operations room about it.” ~ Are Al Qaeda Affiliates Fighting Alongside U.S Rebels in Syria’s South?
The “birth clinic” terrorist hospital, equipped and supported by Israel. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
The Israeli security fence that has been erected on illegally occupied Syrian territory in the Golan. This is the gate that was used by the White Helmets and terrorist factions in July 2018. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
White Helmet Number Two – Nidal Al Mahamid.
Nidal introduced himself as the mechanic for the White Helmet vehicles. Parked in the bay behind him was a UK-registered fire engine. Contrary to reports in Western media that the White Helmets would be systematically targeted by the Syrian government and the SAA – Nidal seemed to have no problem working under the “semi-supervision” of the government.
“I was in charge of the vehicles department at the white helmets and now under semi- supervision from the regime who provides services to areas under its control.”
UK firetruck in the Daraa Al Balad White Helmet center. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
Nidal informed me that they had been paid by the Mayday Rescue organisation but had not received any payments since June when the reconciliation negotiations were ongoing. This must raise the question – if the UK Government is financially supporting a genuine humanitarian effort for the people of Syria why would funding suddenly cease when an area is returned to the control of the Syrian state yet the organisation chooses to remain to “serve” the same people?
Mayday Rescue is the UK FCO (Foreign Commonwealth Office) sub-contractor which channels funding from the Conflict Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) to the White Helmets. The Netherlands government has recently suspended funding to the White Helmets and Mayday Rescue on the basis that neither were able to provide reassurances that the funding was not ending up in the hands of the armed extremist groups, including Al Qaeda. Mayday Rescue was founded in 2014 by James Le Mesurier, a former MI6/British Military operative who established the White Helmets in Turkey and Jordan in 2013, while working for the ARK Group.
Nidal Al Mahamid at the White Helmet center in Daraa Al Balad. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
Nidal told us that the White Helmet workers in Dara’a Al Balad were receiving $ 150 per month with an additional $ 25 for food and essentials. There had been another center on the Dam road, according to Nidal, but this was now closed down since the reconciliation agreement with the Syrian Government. This salary is considerably higher than that of a SAA soldier who takes home around $ 50 per month. Many SAA soldiers are obliged to take another job such as taxi driving to be able to take care of their families and needs. The claim has always been that the White Helmets are volunteers rather than de facto paid up employees of foreign governments led by the U.K and U.S whose long-term policy is the overthrow of the Syrian government.
“Mustafa Mahamed was the manager at this center. He joined the reconciliation. All of the administration joined the reconciliation. We stayed here. Raed Saleh was the head of the White Helmets but we didnt hear from him for 6 months.”
Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid interjected at one point that Raed Saleh had “sold them out, traded them in“. Certainly there did not seem to be any great love for the main spokesperson for the White Helmets who appears to be comfortably ensconsed in Turkey and clearly is not concerned for the White Helmets in Dara’a Al Balad.
How Impartial is Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid really?
As I was leaving the White Helmet center in Dara’a Al Balad, Abu Mohanad came after me, he wanted to reassure me that he was not “sectarian” – “I married a Shia Muslim woman” he told me with a grin on his face. It was clearly impossible to verify this curious statement. However, the research carried out into Abu Mohanad and his “affiliations” demonstrated that his performance to camera had not been an entirely honest one.
Abu Mohanad’s profile picture taken from his Facebook page.
A video and photograph posted to the page in February 2018 show Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid holding up placards and joining a demonstration in solidarity with the armed factions in Eastern Ghouta as the SAA military campaign had begun, to liberate the area from the terrorist and extremist group occupation. In the video we see a prayer for military action by the “jihadists” and armed factions in Eastern Ghouta. One of the slogans being displayed, in the video, calls for military action to take Damascus and the coastal areas in support of the Jihadists in Eastern Ghouta.
There is another slogan calling upon the sons of “Houran” (the armed groups in Daraa) to go to the aid of their Salafist counterparts in Eastern Ghouta. Abu Mohanad had emphasised his lack of political or military affiliation during his interview, yet this activity suggests otherwise. Houran is the plain that covers territory in Daraa, Sweida and extends into Jordan.
Taken from the Facebook page of Abu Mohanad. The far left sign at the back reads ” Ghouta is screaming at you faithful sons of Houran, so answer the call”
A quick scan of the “friends” of Abu Mohanad on his Facebook page reveal a number of armed members or supporters of extremist groups such as Jaish Al Islam, responsible for the atrocities in Douma that include the thousands of kidnap victims held and tortured in the “Repentance” prisons. There is a video interview with Abu Mohanad after he has been injured in Daraa in May 2018.
Screenshot from Halab Today interview with Abu Mohanad in May 2018.
In a 2015 Al Jazeera video report we see Abu Mohanad being interviewed alongside members of the White Helmet teams in what we believe to be the Dam Road center in Dara’a Al Balad. During the video we see the White Helmet members training inside the center wearing T-shirts with the FSA logo on the back.
#WhiteHelmets are "impartial". Except when they wear the Free Syrian Army logo T-Shirts in training in #Daraa 2015. 🤥🤥The propaganda loop is seriously fraying. #WhiteHelmet centers in Daraa #Quneitra were shared wth Nusra Front, FSA, Furqan Brigade and others. @21WIREpic.twitter.com/WCj13IoH0g
The leader of the White Helmets at this point is Abdellah Assarhan. Assarhan was also known as Abu Yassin. Assarhan was reportedly killed when his car was targeted in March 2017 and hisfuneral was attended by an assortment of White Helmets and extremist armed group members.
An early Facebook profile photo of Assarhan shows him wearing a T-shirt with the FSA logo. According to a Facebook tribute to Assarhan by someone who clearly knew him well, Assarhan was one of the early fomenters of the violence in Daraa – he called for the formation of the “revolutionary” armed factions at the beginning of the Syrian conflict, in the Dara’a camps.
The Air Defence Base Massacre
According to Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid, the White Helmet leader in Dara’a Al Balad the White Helmets have never participated in any violence. After putting on his white helmet he proceeded to give me this statement:
We have just worked with civilians, and I hope that those who attack the white helmets to stop, we did not take part in any fights, and we did not take part in any bloodshed, we used to save everyone, military personnel, civilians, men and women. Welcome to the White Helmets center in Dara’a”
Here is the short video footage of that speech. Watch video here.
As already mentioned the massacre of the SAA 5th Division in the Air Defence Base took place on the 20th June 2018 and was barely reported in western media circles. The loss of life among the SAA defenders of Syria and protectors of the Syrian people is deliberately marginalised or played down by the NATO-aligned media who do their utmost to dehumanise the courageous men and women who have taken up arms to defend their country against what is effectively an invasion of foreign terrorist groups financed and controlled by the US Coalition, the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel.
Collage of screenshots from the video of the White Helmet abusing the corpses of SAA soldiers.
A number of gruesome videos have emerged showing the aftermath of this massacre, none of which will be embedded in this article, out of respect for the families of the dead and mutilated SAA soldiers. In one video that was tweeted by journalist, Ali Kourani, we see a White Helmet member climbing over the corpses of the soldiers in the back of a pick-up truck. While he is picking through the bodies, an extremist militant pulls out the severed head of one of the soldiers and holds it up to camera as a victory trophy. The headless body is then kicked by the terrorist fighter as it lies suspended on the tailgate of the truck.
Another video shows the truck seeming to arrive in Dara’a City. The bloodied and broken bodies of the SAA soldiers are jostled and mocked by bystanders and armed militants. Two men lift the head of one soldier to camera and laugh, the soldier’s face is covered in fresh blood. That video has been removed from most sites including YouTube. The link to my tweet is here but the footage is extremely distressing.
Photos from the Facebook page of one of the armed groups – showing the four SAA soldiers captured during the massacre at the Air Defence Base.
In a video posted by Al Bunyan Al Marsous (BM) operations room, they take responsibility for the massacre, celebrating the bloodbath to camera. Four SAA soldiers were taken captive that day. 1. Khaled Khleif alFares from the northern countryside of Hama, Makta’a al-Hajar, Fifth brigade. 2. Yousef Ahmad al-Sajer from al-Hasakeh, Raas al-Ayn, Fifth brigade. 3. Essa Ya’koub Ahmad from the countryside of Damascus, al-Ziabiyyeh, Fifth Brigade. 4. Muhannad Khaleifeh Shehadeh from the northern countryside of Hama, Makta’a al-Hajar, Fifth brigade.
In the photos shown above we can see the BM logo in the top left hand corner of the photographs. According to the video footage I have found, these four SAA soldiers were brought back to Dara’a City close to the White Helmet center that I visited. The truck carrying the dead bodies of the martyred SAA soldiers of the Fifth Brigade also returned to the same area.
BM released another video showing three of the captives speaking to camera. The fourth captive, Muhannad Khaleifeh Shehadeh from Hama was brought to what looked like a “medical center” where he was questioned aggressively by the armed militants standing around his bed. At the end of the video link, one of the armed extremists tells the “medical” staff to “fix” the soldier, to keep him alive for interrogation. These soldiers were eventually released as part of the reconciliation deals, in July 2018.
Now lets go back to what Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid said to me while in the White Helmet center.
“So our work is plain humanitarian work, and when we used to bring soldiers here, we used to respect them and treat them as one of us, because all Syrians are losing.” ~ Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid
We have made the connection between HTS and associated armed groups and the White Helmets. We have determined that the White Helmet center was once more in the grounds of a Nusra Front- dominated complex, as were all the White Helmet centers that I visited in the south. We have ascertained the high probability that the bodies of the SAA soldiers were brought back to the vicinity of the White Helmet centers in Dara’a City. We have see that a White Helmet operative was picking through the mutilated corpses of the freshly killed SAA soldiers and we heard that he was “sacked” for participating in what was clearly a war crime.
“..we have fired members only because they attended some sort of executions, because we save lives and we do not help anyone to kill any one because it is against humanity and notice that all White Helmet members are full of humanity and sensitive to the extent if you shout at them they cry.” ~ Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid
Eva Bartlett visited Dara’a in September 2018 and she told me:
“When in Daraa city this September, two medics with the Syrian Arab Army told me of not only the terrorist disposal of kidnapped and murdered Syrian soldiers, but also that of the White Helmets. According to the medics, when the Syrian army entered Daraa al-Balad, they asked civilians who had remained there, during the terrorist occupation, about the activities of the White Helmets. Civilians told them they had seen the White Helmets collecting the body parts of Syrian soldiers killed by terrorists, and throwing them away, in bags.”
The British Government has openly said that the White Helmets provide an “invaluable reporting and advocacy role”. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (both severely compromised NGOs who align themselves with U.S and U.K State imperialist policies) have admitted (in the same document) that the White Helmets “are their most routinely reliable source for reporting”.
The British government document goes on to say “(White Helmets) have provided essential corroboration that (Russian) strikes were not targeting Da’esh but moderate opposition entities. This has provided confidence to statements made by UK and other international leaders in condemnation of Russian actions” (emphasis added).
Effectively, asking the White Helmets to provide evidence of their own organisation’s participation in war crimes and collaboration in the atrocities carried out by the “moderate” entities is a hiding to nothing. They are literally paid not to do so as it would jeapordise their role as chief “evidence” provider to corroborate British foreign policy in Syria – regime change. The White Helmets have been given immunity by the governments that are bankrolling their propaganda construct and they know this.
Despite the White Helmet history of falsification of evidence , proven by the OPCW interim reporton the alleged Douma chemical attacks that precipitated the FUKUS unlawful aggression against Syria – the White Helmets will not be held to account for enabling a criminal violation of international law by their controlling cartel of rogue nations. The corporate media has circled its wagons around the White Helmet organisation in an effort to prevent the wholesale discrediting of the group as nothing more than a terrorist auxiliary, trained in Turkey and Jordan, sustained with foreign money and upholding the violent, sectarian principles of the armed groups they associate and work with.
Adham Alkarad – Commander of the Engineering and Missile Division of the FSA
Adham Alkarad takes a selfie with one of his creations. He is best known for the Omar rocket, a 500kg rocket that targeted both Syrian military and civilians areas. (Photo: AlKarad’s Facebook page)
While we were talking to the White Helmets in Dara’a Al Balad, a van pulled up with blacked out windows. A man came out, dressed in black and wearing sunglasses. He came straight up to me to find out what we were doing at the center. Once he learned I was British, he visibly relaxed and was less aggressive in his tone. He introduced himself as Akram AlKarad (also known as Abu Qusay). Alkarad was a short man, of stocky build and spoke almost perfect english with an American accent.
As we were about to leave, we didnt have much time with AlKarad. He pulled me to one side and told me that armed groups under his control had not accepted reconciliation.
“We didnt fight 6 years for this. We didnt fight to capitulate now”
I asked AlKarad why he wanted to continue with violence after all the death and destruction that Syrians had endured for 7 years.
“We are not armed. We only have light weapons but we will keep protesting. There will be a protest in the Omari Mosque tomorrow. Why dont you come?” AlKarad asked me
When I declined, AlKarad became more insistent until eventually he told me:
“Well, if you wont come, I will call the BBC and CNN directly to make sure they cover the protests here tomorrow.” (empahasis added)
At this point the mood had become tense and we decided to leave the White Helmet center and head back to the outskirts of Daraa. When we returned to the SAA headquarters, one of the Generals told me that AlKarad had been responsible for the design and manufacture of the 500kg Omar rocket. The General took his shirt off to show me the multiple shrapnel scars that covered his torso from an attack by Alkarad’s brigade on the SAA Military HQ and surrounding civilian areas.
Taken from the Facebook page of Alkarad’s brigade – the logo is in the top left hand corner – The Engineering and Missile Battalion.
These so called “moderates” described in western media as “rebels” had an arsenal of weaponry that defies the image of “grass-roots revolutionaries” so pervasive in the West. I have compiled a series of videos produced by AlKarad and his Engineering and Missile battalion (EM) which demonstrates the fire-power that these “moderates” were able to produce and obtain. AlKarad was the leader of the EM battalion which became later the EM regiment which is part of “18 March” Brigade of the FSA.
The video clips have been taken from AlKarad and his EM regiment Facebook pages. The logo of the regiment can be seen on the majority of the clips used. WATCH:
It is also clear from the list of members of the BM operations room that Alkarad’s EM belonged to the group. Alkarad himself has posted statements from BM to his FB page, here . In May 2016 AlKarad issued a statement on his Facebook page giving civilians 3 days to evacuate areas in Daraa under the control of the SAA, before AlKarad would launch an offensive with the “Storm” surface to surface rockets. The statement ends with the chilling justification for the potential deaths of civilians in those areas “After the warning period has expired, we will be innocent in front of God”. The “Storm” rocket is a hugely destructive missile and there would be a very high likelihood of a civilian massacre yet this is not explored by the corporate media when they report on the “rebel” campaigns of devastation and terror.
Photos on the EM regiment Facebook page show the corpses of SAA soldiers early June 2017 before the attack on the Air Defence Base on the 20th June. In September 2016, AlKarad published a speech on his YouTube channel calling for intervention by Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia in solidarity with “Sunni muslims”, he also calls upon other nations to stand by the Syrian “revolution”. AlKarad reads his speech in English in a clear attempt to influence his western supporters.
An excerpt from AlKarad’s speech (English with Arabic subtitles). Watch video here.
In March 2017, AlKarad published a statement to his Facebook page, from BM, threatening the SAA soldiers and positions in Al Manshia, only two months before the attack on the Air Defence Base.
The fact that AlKarad turned up at the White Helmet center in Dara’a Al Balad so soon after we started talking to the members is indicative of his influence in the area and over the British Government “propaganda construct”. The fact that AlKarad told me he would contact CNN and BBC directly is an indication of the direct lines of contact between U.S and U.K state media outlets and the leaders of the armed groups in Syria. We have published videos showing the White Helmets sporting the FSA logo, during a training exercise. The fact that one of their early group leaders was an armed member of the FSA and a founder of the military factions in Dara’a, again suggests that the White Helmets in Dara’a had very clear partiality towards the “moderate” extremist factions who promote sectarian division to push for international intervention in Syria.
AlKarad profile picture on his Facebook page.
AlKarad’s EM regiment was a part of the Al Bunyan Al Marsous attack on the Air Defence Base. The SAA bodies and captives were brought back to Dara’a City. A White Helmet was seen particpating in and celebrating the dismemberment of those bodies. Eva Bartlett was told that civilians in Dara’a had witnessed the White Helmet operatives cutting up the bodies of SAA soldiers and putting them in plastic bags before throwing them in the rubbish dump. We see a rubbish dump in the video of the White Helmet, tweeted by Ali Kourani.
Abu Mohanad Al Mahamid interview in Daraa Al Balad. (Photo: Screenshot)
A White Helmet operative has told me 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.
It is simply not good enough to “sack” a member of the White Helmets who has participated in excecutions, torture, brutality and violence. The prima facie evidence is now strong enough that there should be a demand for a public enquiry into this organisation. The White Helmets provide the majority of “evidence” used by the British government and its allies in the U.S Coaltion, to shape their foreign policy in Syria and to support their systematic violation of international law and unlawful aggression against Syria and her allies. The White Helmets and the governments that finance them, and effectively provide them with immunity from accountability, should all be brought to justice for the crimes they have committed against the sovereign nation of Syria.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist, photographer and associate editor at 21st Century Wire. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team. Please support her work at her Patreon account.
In the midst of an ever-escalating tariff war, I do not share the view that Sino-American tensions are all about trade imbalances. The real battle is a strategic clash over innovation and technology — the Holy Grail of any nation’s prosperity.
Yes, there is a large and seemingly chronic trade imbalance between the United States and China that is growing even wider today. But this is just as much a function of America’s own macroeconomic problems as a reflection of unfair Chinese trading practices long alleged by the Washington consensus and now underscored by the shrill rhetoric of the Trump Administration.
The United States suffers from a chronic deficiency of domestic saving. Its net national saving rate was just 3% in the first half of 2018 — up a bit from the 1.9% post-crisis average (2009-17) but still less than half the 6.3% norm of the final three decades of the 20th century. Lacking in saving and wanting to invest, consume, and grow, the US must import surplus saving from abroad and run massive current account and trade deficits to attract foreign capital.
Therein lies Trump’s folly. The United States had trade deficits with 102 nations in 2017 — a multilateral problem.1 By opting for budget-busting tax cuts in late 2017, America’s already depressed domestic saving will move sharply lower in the years ahead, pushing its current account and trade gaps even deeper into deficit. Moves to rectify this imbalance with tariffs against China will only backfire. The Chinese piece of the trade deficit will shift to higher-cost trading partners, putting more pressure on American consumers. That is already happening. There can be no bilateral fix for a multilateral problem.
Trade deficits are a foil for a far more profound struggle between the US and China. A recent White House policy paper says it all: “…the Chinese State seeks to access the crown jewels of American technology and intellectual property.”2 White House advisor Peter Navarro adds that, “China has targeted America’s industries of the future … if China successfully captures these emerging industries, America will have no economic future.”3
These charges draw heavily on the March findings of a so-called Section 301 investigation conducted by the US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, a report which has become central to the national anti-China narrative.4 Unfortunately, the USTR’s conclusions are wide of the mark in four areas:5
Joint ventures. Allegations of forced technology transfers through the JV structure overlook the most basic aspect of these arrangements — two partners working together willingly, in the context of commercially and legally binding agreements, to create a business that requires a sharing of personnel, systems, and processes. That was certainly my own experience as a senior executive in a joint venture between my former employer, Morgan Stanley, and the China Construction Bank in building China’s first investment bank, CICC. At no point was I forced to turn over anything to my Chinese partners.
Allegations of stealing America’s secrets via cyberhacking were addressed in the Sunnylands Summit of 2015 between Presidents Obama and Xi; since then, cyber incursions have been sharply reduced, a point overlooked by the USTR in its emphasis on cyberhacking activity that largely predates this summit.
Outbound capture. The USTR also charges China with technology theft through its “going out” policies of acquiring US companies and their proprietary systems. Such allegations of predatory behavior are exaggerated. Tabulations by the American Enterprise Institute find that only 16 of China’s 228 outward bound global M&A deals over the decade ending in 2017 were in the technology sector; that compares with fully 51 deals in the real estate sector over the same period.6
Industrial policy. The USTR insists that China is using industrial policies, such as Made in China 2025 or AI 2030, to gain an unfair advantage in the acquisition of foreign technology. Yet from Japan to Germany to Pentagon-sponsored innovations of America’s military-industrial complex, industrial policies have been more the rule than the exception for today’s leading economies.
Unfortunately, there is a striking element of hypocrisy that runs through the USTR’s accusations of Chinese intellectual property theft. In the 19th century, Great Britain, Continental Europe and the United States all engaged in a multitude of flagrant abuses of technology transfers. There are countless examples of industrial espionage, illegal recruitment, the kidnapping of foreign workers with knowledge of proprietary production techniques, trademark counterfeiting, and the artificial protection of interlocking patents.7 This is not to say China should be excused just because others did the same. But historical context and precedent can hardly be ignored in putting today’s accusations in perspective.
The allegations leveled against China by the USTR make it sound as if the Chinese are interlopers — that they have no rightful claim to the hallowed ground of innovation that has long defined the prosperity of nations. That overlooks the simple but important fact that ancient China was the world’s preeminent innovator. From agricultural production to textile weaving, from paper and printing to missiles and gunpower, from magnetic polarity and navigational guidance to breakthroughs in civil and mechanical engineering and nautics, from discoveries of ferrous metallurgy and ceramic technology, China’s extraordinary breakthroughs in science and technology came well before the 18th and 19th century agricultural and industrial revolutions in Europe, and the United States.8 By the late 11th century, China’s per capita iron output was five to six times the European average; by the 13th century, Chinese textile spinning was operating at efficiency levels that Europe would not enjoy for another 500 years.9
The real question is not whether ancient China knew how to innovate, but why the China of the 14thcentury didn’t capitalize on its innovative culture through its own industrial revolution.
China’s lag in science and technology became especially acute in the first 75 years of the 20th century, brought on by the combination of the collapse of the late Qing dynasty, the national revolution, and the inward-looking focus of Mao Zedong. But this gap was more a function of systemic failures in China’s political system than a loss of the creative DNA of the Chinese people. The same culture that gave us magnetic polarity, gunpowder, and paper is perfectly capable of doing it again.
While the innovation debate is of critical importance to the current dispute between the US and China, it raises an even deeper question: Will China make the transition from imported to home-grown, or indigenous, innovation that is required to avoid the dreaded “middle-income trap” which has long ensnared most developing nations?10
On this count, there are five pieces of compelling evidence to believe that China will pull it off:
Silicon Valley-like hubs. Hubs provide the cultural assimilation between leading universities, venture capital investors, and serial entrepreneurs. China has established 17 tech hubs.11 The most notable include the so-called Greater Bay Area (the broader Pearl River Delta area — Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Macau, and Guangdong), Z-Park in Beijing (Zhongguancun Software Park), and the Guangzhou Innovation Hub. Comparable efforts have sprung up in Shanghai Pudong (i.e., Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park as well as the Lujiazui fintech incubation center) and, more recently, at Tsinghua University (the Tsinghua Institute for Artificial Intelligence).
Start-up companies. Hubs foster start-ups, providing incentives for a new generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. Over the past decade, the Chinese start-up culture has hit its stride. China now has over 160 “unicorns” – private companies with valuations in excess of $1 billion each — versus about 130 unicorns in the United States.12 China’s unicorns span the gamut — from the fintech of internet finance, to a vast e-commerce platform, to online travel, to cloud computing, to big data management, to new energy, and logistics. Moreover, there is also a large population of listed Chinese companies which are already on the leading edge of the global innovation curve – from e-commerce and social media giants like Alibaba, Tencent, JD.com, and Baidu, to world-class leaders in DNA sequencing and biogenetics such as BGI and Hengri, to high-speed rail, autonomous vehicles, and artificial intelligence, where China and the United States are the global leaders in what could well be this century’s most important technology gambit.
Strategy and governance. The lessons of ancient China are not without interest in assessing the future of Chinese innovation and technological development. Then, as now, success hinges on implementation and effective governance to catalyze the creative spark of entrepreneurs and innovators. China’s two high-profile industrial polices, Made in China 2025 (MIC2025) and Artificial Intelligence 2030 (AI2030), are clear signs that modern China will differentiate itself from its ancient past.
China’s innovation DNA. China’s DNA as an unparalleled historic innovator is very much evident today. Chinese educational reforms are now turning out more than 5 million graduates per year in the so-called STEM areas (Science, Technology, Engineering.13 And it’s not just quantity — the quality is increasingly impressive. From nanoscience and nanotechnology, to quantum networking, to stem-cell research and regenerative medicine, to gene editing and the genetics of cancer research, to AI-related breakthroughs that put China, at most, only one year behind the United States in this key leading edge area. The new innovators of modern China speak volumes to the nation’s own “crown jewels” — as do the added synergies coming from some 350,000 Chinese students studying in American universities, many specializing in science and technology.
R&D. US National Science Foundation data put Chinese spending on overall research and development of $409 billion in 2015 (in international dollars) — nearly double that of 2010 and second only to America’s $497-billion; significantly, fully 84% of overall Chinese R&D expenditures is earmarked for “experimental development,” making China the global leader in this leading-edge category. Equally compelling, the NSF also reports that in 2016 China surpassed the United States as the world’s leader in academic science and engineering publications.14
This evidence takes us to an even bigger question: Is China coming full circle — from an ancient civilization that once led the world in innovation and technology to a modern nation now focused on research, scientific development, indigenous innovation, and commercialization of these activities? By fixating on IP theft, cyberhacking, and forced technology transfer, and ignoring their contribution to US as well as Chinese technological advances, the USTR’s stress on the dark side of Chinese innovation allows for literally no consideration of this possibility. That may well be one of America’s most egregious blunders.
Let me end where I started, with the clash. Much has been made over the race for technological supremacy as the decisive factor in the struggle for economic dominance between China and the United States. There is, however, an alternative perspective. Each economy needs the productivity payback from technology and innovation for its own purposes – China to avoid the middle-income trap and the United States to counter the risks of economic stagnation that might well arise from another productivity slowdown that now appears to be under way.15 Resolving the innovation dilemma does not imply defeating the other in the arena of global power. This contrast between the zero-sum imagery of the conflict and a win-win outcome of mutual success is of great potential importance in understanding and ultimately resolving the strains in the US-Sino relationship.
This alternative interpretation leads to a very different set of issues — not just for China but also for the United States. As an American, I will put it bluntly: Is the China fixation of the US Trade Representative, to say nothing of the more extreme charges of Peter Navarro and President Trump, the real challenge that the United States needs to face in the years ahead?
In the end, America’s race, like that of most nations, is more with itself than with any purported foreign adversary. America’s scapegoating of China would make Don Quixote blush. It is a convenient excuse for ducking the tough issues of economic strategy that the United States has avoided for decades – namely, its saving and productivity imperatives. Both the US and China face formidable economic challenges in the years ahead. While the short-term economic outlook for China has become problematic, its longer-term prospects remain solid. The oppostite is the case for the United States — impressive short-term momentum but serious longer-term issues. Both nations win if they solve their own problems. They both lose if they attack the other in a destructive and diversionary trade war.
Over time, there is a growing risk that perception becomes reality. The US body politic is in danger of convincing itself that China, a nation with a long and rich heritage as a leader in technological innovation, now needs to cheat in order to regain that edge and in doing so will stop at nothing short of the outright theft of the crown jewels of America’s economic primacy, its intellectual property.
China, for its part, is increasingly convinced that it is being victimized by an American containment strategy aimed at restricting its geostrategic role as well as limiting its progress on the road to indigenous innovation, sustained development, and prosperity.
The longer the current US-China dispute persists, the deeper those convictions are likely to become ingrained on both sides of the relationship. And then, the long and tragic history of struggles between rising and ruling powers — the so-called Thucydides Trap16 — will become all the more relevant. Resolving the innovation dilemma is key to avoiding that potentially dire outcome.
This article is based on a speech recently made in Hong Kong at an AmCham China Conference event.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Stephen S. Roach, Senior Fellow, Yale Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and former Chairman, Morgan Stanley Asia.
Notes
1 See Stephen S. Roach, “A Bilateral Foil for America’s Multilateral Dilemma,” Project Syndicate, May 2018
2 See White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, “How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World,” June 2018.
3 CNBC interview with Peter Navarro, June 19, 2018
4 See Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Findings of the Investigation Into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974,” March 22, 2018
5 The four points below draw on Stephen Roach, “America’s Weak Case Against China,” Project Syndicate, April 2018
7 See Ha-Joon Chang, “Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development: Historical Lessons and Emerging Issues,” Journal of Human Development, 2001; also see, Charles R. Morris, “We Were Pirates, Too,” Foreign Policy, May 2018.
8 See Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China, Volumes I-VII, Cambridge University Press, 1954-98; also see, Colin A. Ronan, The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China, Books 1-3, Cambridge University Press 1978-86
9 See Justin Yifu Lin, “The Needham Puzzle: Why the Industrial Revolution Did Not Originate in China,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1995
10 See B. Kang, et. al., “Avoiding the Middle-income Trap: Indigenous innovative effort vs foreign innovative effort,” IDE Discussion Paper No. 509, March 2015
11 See CB Insights, Global Tech Hubs Report, 2018
12 See Torch High Technology Industry Development Center of China’s Ministry of Science and Technology jointly with Great Wall Strategy Consultants in Beijing, March 23, 2018
13 Source: N. McCarthy, “The Countries with the Most STEM Graduates,” Forbes, Feb. 2017
14 National Science Board, 2018 Science & Engineering Indicators, US National Science Foundation, Washington, DC
15 D.M. Byrne, et. al., “Does the United States have a Productivity Slowdown or a Measurement Problem?” Finance and Economic Discussion Series, Federal Reserve Board, Mar 2016
16 See Graham T. Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape the Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017
Candidates from a military-intelligence background are seeking the Democratic Party nomination in 40 percent of the congressional districts targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2018 elections. They make up the largest single occupational group running in the Democratic primaries. If the Democratic military-intelligence candidates won all 44 of the districts in which they are running—which is theoretically possible, if very unlikely—they would constitute, as a bloc, ten percent of the membership of the House of Representatives.
From the State Department to Capitol Hill
The final category of military-intelligence candidates consists of veterans of the US State Department during the Obama years, most of them former aides to Hillary Clinton. These are among the best financed and most publicized of the likely Democratic nominees. In the event of a Democratic “wave” in November, most would find themselves with seats in Congress.
Tom Malinowski, a former congressional aide and Clinton administration official, headed the Washington office of Human Rights Watch for 13 years before joining the Obama administration under Secretary of State John Kerry as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor. He is seeking the Democratic nomination in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District against incumbent Republican Leonard Lance.
Lauren Baer was a legal adviser to both Secretaries Clinton and Kerry, as well as US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She is now seeking the Democratic nomination in the 18th District of Florida, where her principal opponent is Pam Keith, a former judge advocate general in the US Navy and now legal counsel to Florida Power & Light. Both women push additional buttons for identity politics, as Baer is openly gay and Keith is African-American.
Nancy Soderberg is a longtime US foreign policy figure going back to the Clinton administration, first at the National Security Council, then as deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs, then as an alternate US representative at the UN Security Council with the rank of ambassador. She has spent much of her time since then heading private overseas operations like the International Crisis Group, while playing a prominent role in the Florida Democratic Party. She is effectively unchallenged for the Democratic nomination in Florida’s 6th Congressional District (Daytona Beach), where the incumbent Republican Ron DeSantis is running for governor.
Edward Meier was a senior adviser to the State Department. According to his campaign website, he “was responsible for coordinating the military-to-civilian transition in Iraq—ensuring our diplomats and aid workers would be safe and secure after the withdrawal of US troops. In this role, he traveled to Iraq on multiple official trips working closely with the US military and the Iraqi government. …” He went on to be director of policy outreach for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Meier fell short Tuesday in his bid for the Democratic nomination in the 32nd District of Texas, finishing fourth out of five Democrats running against incumbent Republican Pete Sessions in a suburban Dallas district Clinton carried over Donald Trump, even though he spent the most money.
Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District, where incumbent Darrell Issa is retiring.
Jacobs is the best-financed Democrat in the race, as befits the granddaughter of Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs, but at age 29 she would be the youngest congresswoman ever, and she has been snubbed in favor of several more experienced rivals by recent Democratic Party caucuses. One of her opponents is Douglas Applegate, a career Marine Corps judge advocate general with combat tours in Fallujah, Baghdad and Ramadi, who narrowly lost the 2016 race to Issa.
Talley Sergent, yet another State Department official turned Clinton campaign aide, is running in West Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Charleston, against two-term incumbent Republican Alex Mooney. A former aide to Senator Jay Rockefeller, Sergent worked on slavery and sex trafficking at the State Department, then managed Clinton’s disastrous campaign in West Virginia before becoming a public relations executive for The Coca-Cola Co.
Challenging her for the Democratic nomination is Aaron Scheinberg, West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran, deployed first as a platoon leader in the 4th Infantry Division, then as a civil affairs officer in Haswah, Iraq. Scheinberg is now executive director of The Mission Continues, a nonprofit promoting the employment of veterans, whose board of directors includes such figures as Michele Flournoy, Pentagon undersecretary in the Obama administration; Meghan O’Sullivan, Iraq director for the National Security Council under George W. Bush; and retired General Ray S. Odierno, former commander of US forces in Iraq.
Jessica Morse was Iraq country coordinator for the State Department in the course of “over a decade as a national security strategist,” according to her website. She worked for the US Agency for International Development, a longtime CIA front, then as adviser to the US Pacific Command, where she “strengthened the US-India defense relationship … and worked to counter terrorist threats in South Asia.” Her opponent for the Democratic nomination in the 4th District of California, to face Republican incumbent Tom McClintock, is another former State Department officer, Regina Bateson, who was a vice-consul in Guatemala and “studied terrorist travel and border security,” according to her campaign website.
A stealth candidate—and some celebrities
The American corporate media has been slow to comment on the extraordinary influx of military and intelligence officers into the Democratic Party’s 2018 congressional campaign. The media prefers to cover the campaign from the standpoint of secondary characteristics, focusing on the great number of women running for office, mainly as Democrats, supposedly in response to Trump’s misogyny.
An exception to this pattern was the article February 8 by the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call, under the headline, “Active-Duty Candidates Can Run—But Can They Campaign?” The article profiled a Tennessee Democratic congressional candidate, Matt Reel, who was called up from his reserve status for a five-month deployment with the 20th Special Forces Group (Green Berets). According to the article, “Even Matt Reel’s staff doesn’t know where he’s deployed.”
Image on the right: Matt Reel
Reel announced his campaign for the 7th District seat shortly after incumbent Republican Marsha Blackburn announced that she was leaving the House of Representatives to run for the US Senate seat from Tennessee currently held by Bob Corker, who is retiring. Because of the late announcements, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has not yet targeted the district and Reel is not included in the figures cited earlier in this article.
The unusual situation for Reel is that, under Pentagon rules, he cannot direct his own campaign while he is on active duty. His aides and supporters can continue to campaign, but he is barred from communicating with them in any way. Reel is not even allowed to tell them where he is, since the military deployment is covert. This truly “dark horse” candidate left his campaign having shot a few commercials and other video material, and will return a month or so before the August 2 primary.
Reel is one more example of a candidate from the “black ops” section of the military running as a Democrat. In his case, the two cannot be separated: he has been a Democratic Party functionary and a Green Beret since completing college. A former chief of staff to Alabama Representative Terri Sewell, his most recent position was deputy staff director for the Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
While Reel is considered an extreme long-shot as a candidate, running in a district won by the Republicans in 2016 by a 3-1 margin, the DCCC is heavily promoting a number of career military candidates, most of them women, as star recruits for the most competitive districts in 2018, those where a switch from Republican to Democratic control is most likely. These candidates have access to funding far beyond what would be expected for first-time candidates without huge personal resources.
Running in the 31st District of Texas is Mary Jennings Hegar, a helicopter pilot and certified military celebrity—Angelina Jolie is cast to play her in a biographical film based on her memoir, Shoot Like a Girl: One Woman’s Dramatic Fight in Afghanistan and on the Home Front. Hegar came to prominence through a lawsuit against the Pentagon policy of barring women from combat. Opposing her for the nomination to face incumbent Republican John Carter is Kent Lester, a West Point graduate and career military officer who retired as a lieutenant colonel after deployments to Panama and Bosnia, among other locations.
In Virginia’s 2nd District, which encompasses the Norfolk-Hampton Roads area with its complex of naval bases and shipyards, the DCCC has promoted Elaine Luria, one of the first Navy women to serve as an officer on a nuclear-powered ship, as its favored candidate under the “Red-to-Blue” program. Luria has “deployed six times to the Middle East and Western Pacific as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer.” She was second-in-command of a guided missile cruiser and commanded assault craft supporting a Marine Corps deployment.
Other military candidates who had already raked in more than one million dollars in campaign funds in 2017, the year before the election, and have been widely publicized in local media in their districts, include:
Mikie Sherrill, a career Navy helicopter pilot, with ten years’ active service in Europe and the Middle East, now a federal prosecutor. She reported raising $1,230,000 by December 31, 2017 for her campaign for the Democratic nomination in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, where incumbent Republican Rodney Freylingheusen is retiring.
Chrissy Houlahan, a former US Air Force captain, has raised $1,228,000 for her campaign in Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District, against incumbent Republican Ryan Costello.
Amy McGrath, a career Marine fighter pilot with 89 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, has raised $1,133,000 for her campaign in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District against incumbent Republican Andy Barr.
Some political conclusions
There is growing popular hostility to the Trump administration, but within the political straitjacket of the two-party system, it is trapped without any genuine outlet. In November 2016, faced with the choice of equally repugnant ruling class figures—Hillary Clinton, the longtime stooge of Wall Street and the Pentagon, and Donald Trump, the corrupt billionaire from the financial underworld of real estate swindling and casino gambling—millions refused to vote. But disappointment and anger over the bankrupt, right-wing policies of the Obama administration led a sufficient number of working people to vote for Trump, particularly in devastated industrial states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, that he could eke out an Electoral College victory despite losing the popular vote.
The 2018 elections could well see a similar process, but in reverse. Angered by the tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, the gutting of social programs like Medicaid and food stamps, the attacks on immigrants and democratic rights more generally, and Trump’s threats of military violence and even nuclear war, millions of working people, however reluctantly, will go to the polls to cast their ballots for the official “opposition,” the Democratic Party, which does not actually oppose Trump at all.
It is by no means certain that the Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm election on November 6. But the details presented in this report demonstrate that a Democratic victory would in no sense represent a shift to the left in capitalist politics.
In a sense, the Democratic Party’s promotion of a large number of military-intelligence candidates for competitive districts represents an insurance policy for the US ruling elite. In the event of a major swing to the Democrats, the House of Representatives will receive an influx of new members drawn primarily from the national security apparatus, trusted servants of American imperialism.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that there would be no comparable influx of Bernie Sanders supporters or other “left”-talking candidates in the event of a Democratic landslide. Only five of the 221 candidates reviewed in this study had links to Sanders or billed themselves as “progressive.” None is likely to win the primary, let alone the general election.
When the dust clears after November 6, 2018, there will almost certainly be more former CIA agents in the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives than former Sanders activists. It is the military-intelligence operatives who constitute the spine of the Democratic Party, not the Sanders “Our Revolution” group. This is a devastating verdict on the claims of the Vermont senator, backed by various pseudo-left groups, that it is possible to reform the Democratic Party and push it to the left.
The preponderance of national security operatives in the Democratic primaries sheds additional light on the nature of the Obama administration. Far from representing a resurgence of liberal reformism, as apologists for the Democrats like the International Socialist Organization claimed at the time of his election, Obama’s eight years in office marked the further ascendancy of the military-intelligence apparatus within the Democratic Party.
This is demonstrated by the subsequent role of his top personnel. Among the former Obama civilian officials who are running in the Democratic primaries for seats in the House of Representatives, 16 served in the State Department, Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security or National Security Council, while only five served in domestic agencies. One of those, Haley Stevens, was chief of staff for the Obama auto industry task force, which imposed 50 percent wage cuts on newly hired auto workers. Among the five, only Stevens is considered a likely winner in the primary.
The Democratic Party has always been a party of the American capitalist class, and that means, from the dawn of the 20th century on, it has been a party of imperialism and imperialist war, whatever the occasional “peace” noises made by its candidates for the purpose of diverting and derailing mass antiwar sentiment among the American people.
For more than a century, a major political task of the Marxist movement in the United States has been to combat illusions in the Democratic Party, particularly those engendered by its comparatively brief periods of reformist politics, under President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, and again during the Kennedy-Johnson years of the 1960s. The struggle against the Democratic Party, as well as the Republicans, remains the main focus of the effort to establish the political independence of the working class.
But the 2018 campaign represents something qualitatively different. Neither party offers any credible prospect of significant social reform. Both offer right-wing nostrums, laced with militarism, while seeking to split the working class along the lines of race, gender and national origin.
The campaign takes place in the wake of more than a year of unrelenting focus by the Democrats on the anti-Russian campaign, a narrative claiming that Trump’s victory in the presidential election was the result of Russian interference and that Trump is, for all practical purposes, a Russian stooge in the White House.
Not a shred of evidence has been provided either of Russian interference or of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump campaign. Nor is there any suggestion that there was any significant element of fraud in either the vote or its tabulation by local and state governments.
But the Democratic Party has deliberately sought to whip up and appeal to the most right-wing, McCarthyite, chauvinist sentiments. It denounces Trump not for his right-wing policies, his immigrant baiting, his consorting with fascists and white supremacists, or his tax cut bonanza for the wealthy, but because he is allegedly insufficiently committed to confronting Russia militarily in the Middle East, Central Asia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe and the Baltic.
Clinton ran in 2016 as the favored candidate of the military-intelligence apparatus, amassing hundreds of endorsements by retired generals, admirals and spymasters, and criticizing Trump as unqualified to be the commander-in-chief.
This political orientation has developed and deepened in 2018. The Democratic Party is running in the congressional elections not only as the party that takes a tougher line on Russia, but as the party that enlists as its candidates and representatives those who have been directly responsible for waging war, both overt and covert, on behalf of American imperialism. It is seeking to be not only the party for the Pentagon and CIA, but the party of the Pentagon and CIA.
This is not merely a result of the political psychology or even the career paths of those who make up the upper echelon of the Democratic Party. It has a social and class character. The Democratic Party has long abandoned even a limited role as a party pledging social reforms in the interests of working people as a whole, in favor of the promotion of privileges for sections of the upper-middle class, doled out on the basis of identity politics.
The Democratic Party proposes a certain redistribution of wealth and power within the most privileged layer of the population, while leaving the essential social structure unchanged, with society divided between the super-rich at the top, a privileged upper-middle class, perhaps ten percent or less, and below them, the vast majority of working people, whose conditions of life continue to deteriorate as the economic “recovery” from the 2008 Wall Street crash approaches its tenth year.
The upper-middle-class layer that provides the “mass” base of the Democratic Party has moved drastically to the right over the past four decades, enriched by the stock market boom, consciously hostile to the working class, and enthusiastically supportive of the military-intelligence apparatus which, in the final analysis, guarantees its own social position against potential threats, both foreign and domestic. It is this social evolution that now finds expression on the surface of capitalist politics, in the rise of the military-intelligence “faction” to the leadership of the Democratic Party.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Janjak Desalin (Jean Jacques Dessalines), said, “I Want the Assets of the Country to be Equitably Divided” and for that he was assassinated, 212 years ago today.
Nearly a million Haitians took to the streets nationwide in Haiti today, October 17, 2018. The day marked the 212th year anniversary of the assassination of Haiti’s liberator and founding father Janjak Desalin by the mulatto sons of France and their slave-making European fathers and white settler colonists. The comical colonial co-option was obvious as many of the suspected criminals/Bafyòti who are at the heart of Haiti’s neocolonial corruption and who are accused of stealing state funds, entered the demonstrations, also asking for the stolen monies to be returned and for a stop to impunity! But the people know who they are. The Haitian population assures they are mobilized in an unprecedented manner and won’t be distracted…. Haitians died today. They want the Western-imposed government out of Haiti. They want an end to impunity. The people of Haiti want the $3.8 billion PetroCaribe funds returned to Haiti with a legitimate government ruling.
Honor to Defile – Kouwon pou Defile, the warrior mother who gathered the pieces of our Liberator and held on to our dignity on that October day, 212 years ago, as Aset did for Kmt. Thank you Defile!
If I am a whole human being today I have to say: Thank you Desalin! End the Unjust System.
***
If you read the Associated Press reporting for today on Haiti, Haitians protest alleged misuse of Petrocaribe funds, you’ll see the complicit media are at it again. How is it possible that the significance of October 17th to Haitians is NEVER really mentioned in this Associated Press article for today. At least 7 Haitians died today. They did not die in vain or just because they WANTED to get shot or violent. They want the Western-imposed government out of Haiti, their resources to be used for local Haiti development, infrastructure, education and health, not flown to foreign coffers or used for the sole comfort of the few Western puppets imposed on them… But the racist Associated Press reporting fails to make any sense.
Won’t explain about the Digicel’s monopoly and role in the fake elections; won’t point to the Obama-Clinton, consultant-create fake elections that put in a far-right colonial puppet government in Haiti to services the oligarchs, sell out the country.
No real context was given other the imagery of the violent Haitians throwing rocks and burning tires. The magnitude of the popular revolt wasn’t conveyed. The AP article also fails to mention the United Nations is in Haiti making millions for 15-years training the police who shot the unarmed demonstrators and that said same United Nations also transported the doctored ballots that gave Haiti the unelected, Western-supported Jovenel Moise, the people did not elect, call “legal bandit” and the incriminated money-laundering president!
AP and their crew are a bunch of oligarchy waterboys. These racists and decontextualized articles from AP and the complicit media should not be trusted by anyone with a brain cell. Their tapping into racist imagery and stereotypes about “rioting Haitians”. But, I’ll say his name: “Janjak Desalin (Jean Jacques Desalin”) since AP cannot utter the name of the man who first put liberty into application in the Western Hemisphere, beat three European nations and was assassinated by the mulatto sons of France and their slave-making European fathers and white settler colonists, exactly 212 years ago today.
This October 17th, Haitians came out to say this system in Haiti that started at the assassination of the man who ended slavery in the Western Hemisphere, that day is when neocolonialism and the social/economic exclusion of the Black masses began. It began with endless indebtedness, unfair trade, privatization of public assets for the oligarchs’ interest, wage slavery and a black face to Eurocentricism to rule on behalf of the white oligarchs. Colonialism and imperialism in Haiti will end, the demonstrators said, using the PetroCaribe $3.8 billion theft done after the earthquake, as their latest example of neocolonial theft in Haiti.
It is reported that today’s gatherings were the largest protests and popular dissent to a colonial government, ever seen in Haiti, in terms of the sheer numbers of people who took the streets, nationwide to protest the post-earthquake embezzlement of monies in the name of “helping Haitians.”
The populace gathered at several key locations in the capital and converged at Champ de Mars, in Port au Prince to show the colonial puppets, put in power through fake elections, have NO POPULAR SUPPORT and cannot investigate themselves, indict and punish themselves for stealing monies and putting Haiti in debt that must be repaid by the oppressed and exploited Haitians majority.
The Clinton-Obama installed, puppet president, Jovenel Moise, and the other unelected narco-trafficking Parliamentarians must get out of the way, the leaders of this movement said. That’s what the people are saying. They knew the police, paid and funded by the colonists and the small white Arab/Lebanese/Syrian/Jewish (Bigio & Mev) oligarchs ruling Haiti, would shoot them. Freedom is not FREE! A lot of people got hurt today. We knew this. The battle for liberty, inclusion, and economic justice is hard in this profit over people world. It’s been interminably long for Haitians, who, after 300 years of brutal European slavery, now are at 212-years of containment in poverty while their natural resources get pillaged and plundered by Empire’s oligarchs and puppets. But, though long and horrific, for the descendants of Defile and Desalin, every day die to stop the despots, tyrants and this time say they fight to bring economic liberty to all, not just to end chattel slavery…to be replaced by wage slavery…or cloaked in humanitarian imperialism, the charitable industrial complex poverty pimping do-gooders or other such sophisticated frauds, dubbed “free trade, democracy, neoliberal economics, et al… ” We know the complicit media can’t tell our story. But FreeHaiti lives – Nou La! We’re still 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.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: ezilidanto.
Whereas Canada claims to have a “feminist” foreign policy, based on humanitarian, and civilizing considerations, “we” support al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists in Syria and beyond. How to explain this glaring contradiction?
As Canadians, we are immersed in colonial mindsets and institutions. In fact, we actively destroy human rights in Syria, and everywhere else we target militarily. Libya is very anti-feminist (and pro-slavery)[1] thanks to us. Prior to the NATO war on Libya, the country boasted the highest standard of living in Africa.[2]
Kiev is neo-Nazi infested[3] thanks to our “interventions”, and Afghanistan is very anti-feminist despite Amnesty International’s 2012 urging, ‘NATO: keep the progress going’,[4] on women’s rights in Afghanistan.
We are sold (and easily accept) the lie that Assad is a “brutal dictator”[5] presumably so Canadians will think that we are “saving” Syrians. His replacement will be ISIS/al Qaeda.
Would this be “good governance”?
We already know what western-imposed “good governance” looks like in terrorist-occupied areas of Syria. Terrorist-gangs slaughter each other and civilians, torture, behead, use coercive tactics such as hoarding of food and medicine, enslave people, selectively follow fundamentalist “interpretations” of Sharia Law, forbid regular, secular schooling for kids, train child terrorists, kidnap, engage in sex slavery, organ harvesting, and economies of plunder, use humans as shields, impose destitution, poverty, and disemployment and on and on. How are these criminal depravities “humanitarian” or “civilizing”? In what ways do they represent “democracy and freedom”?
What about “revolutions”? Are regime-change wars using proxy fanatic terrorists revolutions to be supported? Since when are al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists “rebels”?
The colonial lies are outrageous, and completely disconnected from reality, but we believe them nonetheless because our minds have been colonized by 24/7 mind-numbing colonial media and colonial political “representatives”.
Can we escape from this barbaric supremacist mindset that permeates our lives and our minds? Prof. Anderson provides some solutions.[6] He urges, for example, that we should
consider historically different views of the nation-state,
consider the importance of the principle of self-determination,
consider avoiding “systematically deceitful corporate media” and
challenge the illusions of the “western civilizing influence.”
As US-led NATO and its vassal states target one country after another for destruction, we would do well to remember that the transnational oligarchy and their policymaking circles are also targeting you and me, and their foundational ideology is the Big Lie.
*
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.
4. Prof. Tim Anderson, “Afghanistan: Amnesty International lauds war and occupation as ‘progress’ for women.” Stop The War Coalition, Sydney, 20 May, 2012. ( http://links.org.au/node/2876) Accessed 18 October, 2018.
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.
While some people are campaigning to get friends off Facebook due to its authoritarian censorship, I would also like to note that my Facebook network has been a great tool in learning about the hidden mechanisms of our time–often in high resolution, close-up details. Through Facebook posts I have learned whoMuammar Gaddafireally was, what he meant for the Libyan people, and why the West was determined to destroy Libya. I have learned how the Western governments tried to destroy Syria. I have learned the century old history of the Western project to destroy Russia. I have learned how the corporate political party duopoly sells us projects of exploitation and subjugation through their good cop/bad cop marketing scheme. I have learned how sociopolitical, economic and cultural institutions perpetuate a capitalist hierarchy according to the interests of the ruling class.
Many of us are learning the structural mechanism of how the global capitalist hierarchy places people under the rule of corporatism, colonialism and militarism, while shelling out schemes after schemes to blind us, divide us, exploit us and subjugate us. One of my FB friends, the historian Luciana Bohne described what Facebook does with the old saying which is often ascribed to Lenin: “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
We reside within the imperial framework. There are a myriad ways that we are connected to the structural mechanisms of inhumanity. The fact that we are a part of the system is a given condition. It is a challenge to recognize the overall effectiveness of our actions in serving the purpose of bringing about a structural change to forward the interests of the people in harmony with our environment, while we are also a part of the structure.
Obviously, it is a difficult task, balancing ourselves to firmly stand, when we realize that we stand on colonized ground. How do we bring about a new world as we are born into the imperial cage, never fully seeing a world truly based on sharing, mutual respect and harmony with each other and with our environment?
One thing that’s clear is that we need each other to stand straight in raising awareness of the dire necessity of systemic change. The very act of connecting to one another spreads the critical awareness we need to build, the momentum to push away the decaying order of inhumanity.
Here, again, we must weigh a delicate balance. I certainly do not suggest that we ignore blatant imperialism in forwarding short term gain. We must be able to point out false ideas even when they are presented by well known, respected figures. However, we also do not want to become ideological terrorists, who engage in character assassinations among us with guilt by association, false accusations and fabrications. Those social media suicide bombers do not see the victims as human beings. They would call names in the most hideous manner and they would baselessly accuse the targets of being government agents. They also often claim to be “socialists”. I would certainly do not wish to live in a “socialist” world filled with such unhinged people. Those people effectively divide us while giving the impression of socialism being authoritarian, undemocratic and totalitarian just as it’s advertised by the western establishment. We must not let those people colonize the ideas of socialism that directly challenge the capitalist domination. I am sure some of them are supported by the government agencies.
See how such people can cultivate doubts and suspicions among us? The marginalization and alienation imposed by the capitalist pressure, infiltrations, and direct attacks against dissidents create unhealthy mental conditions of paranoia, delusion and aggression among us. This is a force of destruction which can break us apart. The western authorities have known it, have known how to cultivate it for generations. We must be aware of it.
How Much is Your Story?
The capitalist system places different values to different ideas, stories, and things according to how well they fit within the interests of the ruling class. It is not just the people who are put in a hierarchical order according to their usefulness. For example, the media, schools, academic fields and society in general systematically value stories that reinforce the official narratives, while diminishing, or outright attacking obstacles that may hinder the integrity of the system. Isolated incidences, personal anecdotes, or systematic tendencies within certain contexts can be amplified or attenuated to give us an illusion of “reality” to manipulate our perception.
From this perspective, we should note that the mainstream media has been very keen on advertising the sinister aspect of Facebook for some time. The establishment always attempts to manipulate major forces in our society by such interventions. With the case of Facebook, however, we also know that it closely resembles a terminated government funded social media program, and that Facebook officials have been willingly working with the imperial establishment in implementing policies. We certainly must have a realistic expectation toward it as well.
One of the most appropriate examples of the manipulation today would be how Russia has been portrayed in our society. The western establishment has been going all the way back to 1917 to demonize the trajectory of Russia as something that can be simply described as “evil”. Our school programs, entertainment, literature, music, movies, you name it, every layer of our society is embedded with some sort of bits and pieces indicating that “Stalin was a brutal dictator”, “communism never worked”, “socialism is undemocratic”, “evil is evil” and so on and so forth. The Western governments have certainly put enormous efforts in setting the trajectory of anti-USSR/Russia as a hegemonic agenda to break Russia apart in extracting its resources while incorporating its people in the western capitalist order. The demonization has been a necessary step for the imperial assault.
For example, in one of our Facebook exchanges on the topic, author John Steppling provided me with an article in which a Soviet history expert Professor Grover Carr Furr of Montclair State University says:
“The professor pointed out that historian Robert Conquest (the author of “The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purges of the 1930s” who passed away on August 3, 2015) had been working for the British Information Research Department (IRD) since its establishment and up to 1956. The IRD, originally called the Communist Information Bureau, was founded in 1947, when the Cold War era began.
“[The IRD’s’] main task was to combat Communist influence throughout the world by planting stories among politicians, journalists and others in a position to influence public opinion,” Professor Furr explained.
Conquest’s work was to contribute to the so-called “black history” of the Soviet Union, the professor noted, “in other words, fake stories put out as fact and distributed among journalists and others able to influence public opinion.”
“His book The Great Terror, a basic anti-communist text on the subject of the power struggle that took place in the Soviet Union in 1937, was in fact a recompilation of text he had written when working for the secret services. The book was finished and published with the help of the IRD. A third of the publication run was bought by the Praeger Press, normally associated with the publication of literature originating from CIA sources,” Professor Furr pointed out.
The professor remarked that to our days Conquest remains one of the most important sources of material on the Soviet Union for anti-communist and Russophobic historians.
The propagandist activity, masquerading as scholarship, was aimed against the USSR and coordinated by US/British intelligence.
Furr noted that Conquest periodically met with heavy criticism from prominent Western scholars, which blasted him for “consciously falsifying information” about the Soviet Union. In fact Conquest just used any source that was hostile to Stalin and the USSR, turning a blind eye to the fact whether it was reliable or not.”
Another example involves the case of celebrated Soviet defector and author Alexander Solzhenitsyn. His book “The Gulag Archipelago”–detailing atrocious stories of the Soviet prison system–became a huge hit in the West, while Solzhenitsyn himself was subsequently awarded a Nobel Prize. However, beneath the official approval by the establishment, his reputation is quite questionable to say the least. Renouned American intellectual Gore Vidal even describes him thus: “He is a bad novelist and a fool. The combination usually makes for great popularity in the US.” Furthermore, according to this article (which also quoted Vidal):
“Solzhenitsyn defected to the West and settled in Vermont for a time. He was a staunch supporter of U.S. imperialism, urging at one point for the U.S. to return to Vietnam and finish the job on the commies there. In time, Solzhenitsyn began to pine away for the glory days of the Tsar and his anti-Semitism became increasingly apparent to the point where even his previous imperialist backers had to abandon him. The only people who seem to invoke his name these days are nutbags from the far right like Alex Jones.”
The atmosphere concocted by the establishment to define certain countries as unconditionally evil gives a special meaning to stories from those countries. Those stories, whether they are true or false, fundamentally differ in their meaning within the imperial framework compared to, for example, someone from Africa talking about the French colonial atrocities of massacres and mutilations, a black youth talking about police shootings in the US, a Palestinian child talking about losing his or her entire family by Israeli bombing and so on.
The imperial theater gives special roles to stories from the imperial targets. You might remember a sobbing young girl describing how Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators, which, of course, turned out to be a completely fabricated story. However, it firmly served in reinforcing the western colonial war momentum against Iraq, which ended up killing millions.
Such a dynamic has played a crucial role in building the momentum for propping up a Western puppet government in Ukraine, which has killed over 10,000 eastern Ukrainian people so far, where the majority speak Russian.
Moreover, in the 1990s, the US backed destruction of USSR by Boris Yeltsin, who was openly described by US government officials as a US agent, brought about tremendous hardship for the people of Russia while turning sufferings into profits for Wall Street and “Russian Oligarchs”.
“Between 1992 and 2000, there were between five and six million “surplus deaths,” 170,000 people were murdered, the GDP fell by 50% (more than during German occupation in WW II), 70 million fell into poverty, death rates increased by 60%, like countries at war, life expectancy decreased in males to 57, abortions increased spectacularly, birth rates fell , , , suicides, tuberculosis, measles, diphtheria (eradicated in the 1930s) . . . In short (and this was supposed to be a short post) Russia, under “shock-therapy” “reforms” became the site of an economic genocide.”
More recently, the demonization of Russia has become legal ground for a legislative action. Diana Johnstone points out the utter absurdity of the richest man in Russia Mikhail Khodorkovsky–who was jailed in Russia for engaging in criminal financial schemes to acquire public assets while giving financial opportunities to his western allies– blatantly influencing US politics by being a part of the momentum in enacting the Magnisky Act. All this has been going on without an objection from any US officials, meanwhile, the US government is accusing Russians of “political interventions”. She concludes in her article:
“U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world sought by the State Department. Indeed, the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from and put themselves in power. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.”
Indeed, discussing about undeniable evidence of falsification of facts by the western governments would most certainly attract people with personal anecdotes stating the hardships of their Cuban family members, Russian grand parents or North Korean relatives. I don’t wish to minimize anyone’s sufferings. However, what is the point of reinforcing the imperial aggression directed against their own country peoples when it is obvious that those stories are being spoken in the context of revealing blatant lies and deceptions concocted by western governments?
I certainly do understand the sentiment for the personal stories, and some of those people are certainly concerned about the situations they describe. However, we must also point out that in the capitalist order, our experiences, facts, myths, propaganda, counter propaganda, ideologies, religions and the rest of the elements, which construct our psychological-scapes, are not rooted to the actual communities and their peoples. The elements are removed from the people and places—their material facts, beliefs, values, norms and their environment, replaced in the commodified environment, and they act as currencies within the hierarchical power structure. The process often distorts the meanings and facts over time. Here is Luciana Bohne telling such a story on her Facebook wall:
Capitalist hierarchy surrounds us with structural violence, inflicts active targeted assaults, and induces divisions and conflicts among us. It is imperative that we are aware of the dynamics in our struggles for a better tomorrow.
Now, having said all this, I would like all of you to ponder upon the fundamental trait of social media like Facebook. While we drag around our national identities, narratives told by regional authorities, our personal circumstances and our personal interests, we are facing each other as people in a virtual space. We instantly communicate regardless of time, space and borders. This has not happened in the history of mankind. This might be a tiny glitch in the neo-feudal era of capitalism. But this is an image of our species having a perspective of our own—regardless of our places in the global capitalist hierarchy. Could it inspire us to have real momentum for a future beyond the capitalist order? Could I suggest that when we argue with our fellow humans in this space, we take a moment and remind ourselves that we are in the special place in the special time for our species. I will certainly do so myself, and I hope you do too.
*
Hiroyuki Hamadais an artist. He has exhibited throughout the United States and in Europe and is represented by Bookstein Projects. He has been awarded various residencies including those at the Provincetown Fine Arts Work Center, the Edward F. Albee Foundation/William Flanagan Memorial Creative Person’s Center, the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture, and the MacDowell Colony. In 1998 Hamada was the recipient of a Pollock Krasner Foundation grant, and in 2009 and 2016 he was awarded a New York Foundation for the Arts Fellowship. He lives and works in New York.
There would be far-reaching implications for the US if the incoming Mexican government goes through with the current Defense Minister’s suggestion to legalize opium for medicinal use.
This so-called “solution” has long been discussed and is seen by some as a pragmatic approach for lessening the heavy carnage caused by the country’s drug war over the past decade, which has killed more than 200,000 people since it first began in 2006. The concept is simple enough and it’s that the country’s opium farmers, which have made Mexico the world’s third-largest supplier of this drug, would sell their harvests to government-approved entities for use in scientific studies and medicine instead of giving them to the cartels, though this would require that the state provide adequate protection to both the farmers and their crops. This is a lot easier said than done because the security services are thought to be deeply infiltrated by the cartels, and many citizens live in fear of what would happen if these forces found out that they were cooperating with the government.
Mexico would therefore probably have to go through with what President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, popularly known by his initials as AMLO, previously proposed in calling for a ceasefire with the cartels and even bestowing amnesty on non-violent members of these gangs in order to restore national stability. For as risky of a policy as it may be, it’s not impossible for it to succeed to the benefit of most Mexicans as a whole, though that doesn’t mean that it would also be in the US’ national interests to see this plan unfold. The country has been so ravaged by the collateral damage caused by the rampant use of hard drugs within its society, which includes crime waves and overdoses, that the legalization of opium for medicinal use in Mexico might make its drug crisis many orders of magnitude worse if there aren’t proper border security measures in place beforehand.
Unless Mexico is successful in purging its security forces and the state in general of the cartels’ pernicious influence, which is highly unlikely, then the US’ southern neighbor will practically transform into one of America’s greatest Hybrid War threats overnight if this legalization proposal is ever implemented. The expected large-scale export of opium or its manufactured heroin product from Mexico into the US would ravage local communities even more than they already are and could contribute to the drug being even more easily and cheaply available than ever before, thus leading to more addictions that people will have to battle for the rest of their lives, to say nothing of the consequent crime wave that might follow. There’s simply no way that legalizing opium for any purposes in Mexico is good for the US’ so-called “soft security” if its southern neighbor remains totally corrupt and strict border security isn’t in place.
It can therefore be expected that the US will either pressure Mexico to keep opium cultivation illegal or will try to find a way to shield itself from the catastrophic consequences if this happens.
*
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.
There are 57 candidates for the Democratic nomination in 44 congressional districts who boast as their major credential their years of service in intelligence, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the State Department, or some combination of all three. They make up the largest single occupational group running in the Democratic primaries that began March 6 in Texas and extend through mid-September, selecting the candidates who will appear on the general election ballot on November 6.
Aside from their sheer number, and the fact that more than 40 percent, 24 of the 57, are women, there are other aspects worth considering.
Agents, but no longer secret
First: The number of candidates who openly proclaim their role in the CIA or military intelligence. In years past, such activities would be considered confidential, if not scandalous for a figure seeking public office. Not only would the candidates want to disguise their connections to the spy apparatus, the CIA itself would insist on it, particularly for those who worked in operations rather than analysis, since exposure, even long after leaving the agency, could be portrayed as compromising “sources and methods.”
This is no longer the case. The 2018 candidates drawn from this shadow world of espionage, drone murders and other forms of assassination positively glory in their records. And the CIA and Pentagon have clearly placed no obstacles in the way.
We’ve already reviewed the cases of Elissa Slotkin, running in Michigan’s 8th District, who served three tours with the CIA in Baghdad, and Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, running for the Democratic nomination in the 23rd District of Texas. There are many others.
Abigail Spanberger, seeking the Democratic nomination in a district in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia, has the following declaration at the top of her campaign website: “After nearly a decade serving in the CIA, I’m running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District to fight for opportunity, equality and security for all Americans. My previous service as a law enforcement officer, a CIA officer, and a community volunteer has taught me the value of listening.” Indeed!
Abigail Spanberger’s campaign website
Spanberger worked for the CIA as an operations officer, in which capacity, “She traveled and lived abroad collecting intelligence, managing assets, and overseeing high-profile programs in service to the United States.” Her opponent for the Democratic nomination is a career Marine Corps pilot, Dan Ward, in one of nearly a dozen contests involving multiple military-intelligence candidates.
Jesse Colvin, running in the 1st District of Maryland, spent six years in Army intelligence, including four combat deployments to Afghanistan and a year near the Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea. According to his campaign biography, “I am a proud graduate of the US Army’s Ranger Course, the premier leadership school in the military. I am even more honored to have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment—the Army Rangers. Rangers lead in many key roles throughout the Special Operations Forces’ (SOF) community, and I am lucky to have served and led with men and women of this caliber.”
His biography continues:
“As a Ranger, my four combat deployments in Afghanistan took place within a Joint Special Operations Task Force. I led intelligence teams whose work facilitated capture/kill missions of Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorist leaders. I managed a lethal drone program. I ran human intelligence sources. Every day, my team and I made dozens of decisions whose outcomes carried life and death consequences for my fellow Rangers, our Afghan partners, and Afghan civilians.”
Jesse Colvin (front right) with his unit in Afghanistan
Jeffrey Beals, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 19th District of New York, is now a school teacher, but writes on his website,
“After beginning my career as a CIA intelligence officer, I joined the State Department … I answered the call to help our country in Iraq in 2004 and became one of the longest serving US diplomats of the Iraq War. Fluent in Arabic, I faced down insurgents to set up the first diplomatic talks between our ambassador, our generals and the insurgency. I helped bring warring factions together to create a constitution for Iraq and was decorated by both the US Army and the State Department.”
Unfortunately for Beals, his fundraising, $174,000 by December 31, 2017, is dwarfed by that of another military-intelligence rival for the nomination, Patrick Ryan, a West Point graduate with two tours of duty in Iraq, “including a tour as the lead intelligence officer for an infantry battalion of 1,000 soldiers and officers responsible for ground operations in Mosul,” according to his campaign website. Ryan had raised $906,000 by December 31, and two other candidates in that district, a politically connected lawyer and a medical device manufacturer, had raised more than one million dollars each, all seeking to challenge two-term Republican incumbent John Faso in the Hudson Valley district.
Jonathan Ebel, running in the 13th District of Illinois, served four years as a naval intelligence officer, including on the staff of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He now teaches religion at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Then there is Shelly Chauncey, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 5th District of Pennsylvania, in the Philadelphia suburbs. Her website strikes a feminist note:
“Shelly served her nation for more than a decade with the Central Intelligence Agency. She began her career as a secretary and worked her way up to become a counter-intelligence officer. Shelly served as an undercover officer with the CIA in Latin America, East Asia and throughout the United States, providing logistical and counter-intelligence support to operatives abroad.”
The reference to undercover operations “throughout the United States” underscores the role of the intelligence apparatus in spying on the American people, although the CIA is, by law, prohibited from such activity.
Another campaign website touches on the domestic operations of the US spy machine. Omar Siddiqui, running in California’s 48th District, describes his background as follows: “On the front lines of national defense, Mr. Siddiqui serves as a private advisor and consultant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on issues of national security and counter-terrorism and was formerly an advisor and community partner with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Mr. Siddiqui is presently director of special projects of the FBI National Citizens Academy Alumni Association…”
Commanders and planners of the Iraq War
Barack Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and the 2008 election in large measure by presenting himself as an opponent of the war in Iraq launched under George W. Bush. Once in office, however, he retained Bush’s defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert Gates, and continued the war for another three years, as well as escalating the long-running US war in Afghanistan.
It is noteworthy in this context that so many of the military-intelligence candidates for Democratic congressional nominations boast of their roles in the war in Iraq and even, in some cases, present it as the high point of their professional and even personal lives.
Thus Elissa Slotkin, already referred to above, met her future husband, the pilot of an Apache helicopter gunship, while working as a CIA agent in Baghdad. Dan McCready, a Marine Corps veteran turned “clean energy” multi-millionaire, backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the Democratic nomination in the 9th District of North Carolina, even claims to have found Jesus in Iraq, where he was baptized in water from the Euphrates River.
The Iraq War veterans are either officers, giving them command responsibility in one of the great crimes of the 21st century, or served in special forces units like the Army Rangers and the Navy SEALs, engaging in covert operations that were among the bloodiest and most brutal of the war, or had high-level responsibility at the Pentagon or the National Security Council.
Daniel Helmer, running in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District against five other well-financed candidates—including former State Department official Alison Friedman, who has already topped the $1 million mark—says remarkably little about what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq, although his photograph in military fatigues is on the front page of his website. But Helmer boasts perhaps the most extensive list of endorsements by retired national security officials of any candidate in the country, including eight generals and admirals, two former deputy directors of the CIA, Avril Haines and David Cohen, and Michele Flournoy, former under secretary of defense for policy. What he did to earn their support is left to the imagination.
Richard Ojeda, elected as a West Virginia state senator in 2016, is now seeking the Democratic nomination in the 3rd Congressional District, covering the southern third of the state. As the WSWS has reported, Ojeda has based his political career on more than two decades in the US Army Airborne, including repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he reached the rank of major. His last post was as executive director of Army recruiting in Beckley, seeking to convince youth in West Virginia and Virginia to become cannon fodder for the Pentagon.
Josh Butner, running in the 50th District of California against Republican Duncan Hunter, Jr., “served for 23 years in the United States Navy where he saw multiple combat deployments, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The career Navy SEAL says almost nothing about what he actually did in the top military assassination unit, but that is to be expected. His campaign website features the slogan “Service, Country, Leadership,” alongside a photograph of Butner in desert fatigues.
Dan Feehan is running to succeed incumbent Democrat Tim Walz in the 1st Congressional District of Minnesota, after Walz announced his candidacy for governor of that state. From 2005 to 2009, according to his campaign biography, Feehan “served as an active duty soldier and completed two combat tours of duty as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” He then joined the Obama administration, first as a White House aide, then as an acting assistant secretary of defense in the Pentagon.
Andy Kim, running in the 3rd District of New Jersey, has actually raised more money than the incumbent Republican, Tom MacArthur. Kim worked at the Pentagon and as a strategic adviser to generals David Petraeus and John Allen while they were in command of US forces in Afghanistan. He then moved to the National Security Council, where he was Obama’s director for Iraq for two years.
Maura Sullivan, seeking the Democratic nomination in New Hampshire’s 2nd District, where incumbent Democrat Carol Shea-Porter is retiring, was a Marine Corps officer, rising to the rank of captain and deploying to Fallujah, Iraq, scene of some of the bloodiest battles and most horrific US war crimes of that war. She too joined the Obama administration as a civilian administrator at both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Pentagon.
Jason Crow is running in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District against incumbent Republican Mike Coffman, where he was selected by the DCCC as one of its top candidates in the “Red-to-Blue” program. He is a veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division, leading a paratrooper platoon during the invasion of Iraq. He then joined the Army Rangers and served two tours in Afghanistan “as part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force,” where he rose to the rank of captain.
Matthew Morgan had a 20-year career in the Marine Corps “where I would deploy routinely overseas, culminating in several senior staff roles where I’d provide counsel to numerous military leaders, including the secretary of defense.” He did two tours in Iraq and also worked in counterterrorism on the Horn of Africa. Now he is the unopposed candidate for the Democratic nomination in Michigan’s 1st Congressional District, which has switched back and forth between the two big business parties and is currently held by first-term Republican Jack Bergman.
To be continued
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Two F-15 warplanes of the US-led coalition accidentally struck a unit of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which was involved in the SDF advance on ISIS in the Euphrates Valley, the Russian news agency Sputnik reported on October 17. The strike reportedly killed 6 SDF members and inured 15 others. ISIS terrorists also attacked SDF positions following the incident, according to the report.
Despite initial claims by the SDF leadership that the terrorists in the area will soon be defeated there are no signs that the operation will be finished in the near future. The Russian side even claims that the US-led coalition is using the Hajin pocket to justify its illegal presence in the country. So, nobody is hurrying to defeat the terrorists.
The Trump administration is preparing to impose sanctions on Russian and Iranian companies involved in the reconstruction of Syria, NBC News reported on October 16 citing defense officials.
According to the report, these sanctions will be a part of further political, diplomatic and economic pressure to force Iran out of Syria and deal with the growing Russian influence.
The NBC News report also claimed that right now the US military is not seeking an open confrontation with Iranian forces in the war-torn country. Nonetheless, it’s obvious that Israel, a key US ally in the region and another support of the large-scale anti-Iranian strategy, will not abandon its attempts to strike alleged Iranian and Iran-linked targets in the war-torn country even despite the recent delivery of Russian-made S-300 air defense systems to the Syrian military.
According to multiple reports circulating in Israeli media, Israel and the US have sent a secret military delegation to Ukraine to train against and test Russian-made S-300 missile defense systems. According to reports, servicemen of the Ukrainian military instructed their US and Israeli counterparts on the capabilities of the air defense system as well as allowed US and Israeli specialists to test it in various possible scenarios.
According to reports, F-15 warplanes have trained against the S-300 in the framework of the Clear Sky 2018 international exercise which includes Israeli and US pilots. It wasn’t immediately clear if the Israeli pilots were flying or merely observing from the ground. However, on October 16, a US pilot and his Ukrainian counterpart died in the crash of a Ukrainian Su-27 warplane.
*
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 establishment of a republic… means insurrectionary war, it means the desolation of a thousand households. When the question shall arise, it will be determined… by balls from cannon and from musket, by grape and shrapnel, by bayonet and by the sword.” — Sir Alfred Stephen, NSW Legislative Council , June 16, 1887
The republic has tended to be a dormant idea in Australian politics for decades. The People’s Advocate, a Sydney-based publication, was unduly optimistic in its June 17, 1854 note which spoke of, “The independence of the Australian colonies” being more than an “abstract idea. It is certainly approaching as it is the dawn of tomorrow’s sun.” Occasional flashes of republican sentiment can be found in the historical record, but these have been, in the main, suppressed in favour of a monarchy housed in residences ten thousand miles away.
In 1999, the Republic idea was essentially buried by vote, a feat not without some genius on the part of the then Prime Minister, John Howard. Sensing that more than a few Australians were keen to detach the British dominion from its monarchical moorings, Howard first initiated a “people’s convention” which, he sensed, would botch up any prospect of advancing a decent model to vote upon. The Republican grouping, distant and smug, was (and here, history is instructive) led by the now deposed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Pro-monarchist groups such as Australians for Constitutional Monarchy pursue a line not merely paradoxical but absurd. The British Crown is raised to the level of sacrosanct mother, protector, and unifier. How this squares with sovereignty is a baffling exercise of self-delusion, but one happily embraced by such individuals as Gregory R. Copley, President of the International Strategic Studies Association based in Washington, D.C.
As the globe is fractured by bursts of populist dissatisfaction, suggested Copley at the Annual Conference of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy held at the New South Wales Parliament earlier this month, monarchy was indispensable. “It is an appropriate time, then to ask where Australia would be today, without the enduring presence of the Crown – our most visible icon of sovereignty and unity – in Australian life.” In a paean to monarchical systems of government, Copley goes dew-eyed at the fate of monarchies in the 20th century, whose collapse “was the precursor of today’s global framework.” This unfortunate turn of events left “a global strategic framework which was inherently fragile.”
The visit by Prince Harry and his new wife, Hollywood second (third?) tier actress Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, has turned the Australian public – or a good part of it at least – to a grotesque, gibbering sight. This is not sovereignty extolled but emotional slavery demonstrated, the psyche imprisoned in a historical, hereditary system of government. There have been scenes of imbecilic insensibility as the couple do the rounds. Young mothers, with their barely sentient offspring, have been waiting at strategic points for the young couple as they arrive at various venues. Bad weather has proven no deterrent.
People of all age groups have gathered, phones at the ready, to take those snaps that will be shared with the enthusiastic dissemination of a nymphomaniac with venereal disease. Hours have been expended in the hope to gain a fleeting glance of the royal candy. Even more unforgivably, nominally respectable journalists have taken to holding flags in anticipation, becoming the very spectacle they are covering.
The words of the Dubbo speech by Prince Harry have been poured over with a reverence befitting subjects rather than citizens, an immaturity that does much to dispel notions of a firm egalitarian sensibility. The prince was, after all, speaking to “the salt of the earth”, the “backbone of this country.” Harry had turned shrink – or at least a patient healed by one. The rural occupants of Australia’s farming communities, earth’s salt and national backbone, duly listened. “We know that suicide rates in rural and remote areas are greater than in urban populations and this may be especially true among young men in remote regions.” He spoke of “one huge community and with that comes an unparalleled internal support and understanding.”
The Duke and Duchess were being portrayed as the accessible royal couple, and those who dare venture into the outback. “The best part about visiting country Australia,” claimed the prince, “is the people.” Well and good, but Harry was merely following a scheduled pattern stretching back to 1954 when his grandmother made Dubbo a stopping point to visit her subjects, all part of visiting “her people”.
Former residents made their return just to see another royal visit. The Dubbo-born sisters Elizabeth Atkin and Sharon Askew (nee Hind) expressed their gushing desire to revisit some family folklore, given that their grandmother had been asked to prepare a posy of flowers for Queen Elizabeth on that Dubbo tour. “It’s because of this history and it is important to us,” explained Atkin, “it has become your family folk-law.” The Daily Liberal, one of the papers covering the events in Dubbo enticed readers to search through any pictures that might have been snapped of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex during their “Picnic in the Park”. “See if… you’re in our pictures.”
Some local must always be selected for the occasion, the point where the royal meets subject, and that subject, it so happens, was Luke Vincent of Buninyong Primary School. Of immediate interest to the child was the Prince’s beard – the royal facial hair within hand’s reach. Principal Anne van Dartell was beside herself in ecstatic observation; Luke’s mother, Danielle Sparrow, “just started crying and shaking” being “happy because that’s just Luke and the love he shows.” The lachrymose campaign had taken hold. “That’s our Lukey, the Lukey-love-effect, he’s just full of lots of love.”
The visit had brought out the obsessives, the surveillance vultures keen to capture every single moment of the tour. An Instagram fan page dedicated to the couple notes with somewhat creepy insistence each “special moment”, a “pretty much minute by minute” account on “cute” scenes. The vanquishing of any Australian republic, without bayonet, cannon or musket, has been assured, not merely because of a continued desire to see monarchy as the tit of reassurance, but its youth as modern celebrities of a social media world which has sacralised them as creatures to be revered rather than mocked.
*
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]
During the early morning hours of Sunday October 7, members of Unite Here Local 24 in Detroit went on strike against the Westin Book Cadillac Hotel located downtown on Washington Blvd.
The union is striking against the corporation which owns these hotels in eight different cities across the United States demanding higher wages and better working conditions. An entry on the Unite Here website says:
“Thousands of hotel workers in eight U.S. cities say they’ll remain off the job until a new contract is reached with Marriott International. About 7,700 employees of the world’s largest hotel chain are now walking picket lines in Boston, Detroit, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, as well as two cities in Hawaii.”
In Detroit, the Unite Here employees are asking for $2.00 more per hour. One worker said in a statement to the press that his salary has only increased by 70 cents per hour over the last ten years when the hotel was re-opened amid the Great Recession.
A dominant corporate media narrative in Detroit is that the city is experiencing a major upsurge in business development in the downtown and midtown districts.Many new restaurants have opened along with expanded hotel space largely servicing conventions and tourists.
However, this purported “boom” in business profitability in downtown and midtown does not take into consideration the wages and conditions of employment for workers in the hospitality industry. Neither does this line of thinking recognize the rising cost of living within the downtown and midtown areas as it relates to housing availability, the skyrocketing of rents and other problems associated with the lack of public transportation.
On Tuesday October 9, Unite Here Local 24 called for a support rally to boost their demands surrounding the strike. Some 500 members and officials of other unions as well as community people came downtown to walk the picket line and speak out against the practices of the Westin Book Cadillac Hotel.
Detroit Unite Here on Strike at the Westin Book Cadillac Hotel
Various unions were represented including the UAW, Metro AFL-CIO, Michigan Education Association (MEA), SEIU, among others. Speakers at the October 9 rally in front of the Westin Book Cadillac Hotel assailed the corporation for not giving the workers a raise.
With the lowering of the official jobless rate in the U.S. to 3.7 percent many workers believe that there should be a significant increase in real wages. Unfortunately, this has not been the case at all.
Even an article in the pro-corporate CNBC network stated in July that:
“The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, at least in the United States. The top 1 percent of families took home an average of 26.3 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent in 2015, according to a new paper released by the Economic Policy Institute, a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. This has increased since 2013, showing that income inequality has risen in nearly every state.”
Demands for higher wages among service employees have been taking place now for the last five years. The Fight for $15 campaign in Michigan recently staged a series of demonstrations on October 2 in conjunction with other workers across the country.
Detroit Unite Here Local 24 President addresses strikers and the community on Oct. 9, 2018
Members of Fight for $15 in Detroit blocked traffic along Woodward Avenue leading to over 20 arrests. Earlier that same day in Flint, a vehicle struck a crowd marching through the city calling for $15 per hour in minimum wages and union representation. The Flint law-enforcement authorities claimed that the incident was an accident which resulted in the taking of eight people to hospital for injuries.
Water Shut-offs and Unaffordable Housing Worsens the Plight of the Working Poor
Compounding the slave-wages paid to many workers in the hospitality and other industries is the inhumane policy of widespread water shut-offs in Detroit. Although this has been a problem for many years, the situation reached critical proportions during the imposition of emergency management and bankruptcy in 2014.
Demonstrations, legal challenges and other opposition activities prompted some initial reforms in the summer of 2014 when the City of Detroit declared a brief moratorium on water shut-offs allowing many households to make arrangements for the payment of arrears and the resumption of their services. However, these inadequate measures do not address the underlining reasons for the crisis which is the usurious bond issuances of financial institutions which drained hundreds of millions of dollars from the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department (DWSD) system.
Water services are still being shut-off at an alarming pace. Rate charges are far too high for a city which is still ranked as the most impoverished among major municipalities in the U.S. Additional drainage fees, commonly referred to as a “rain tax”, are tantamount to extortion since the refusal to pay these costs can result in the termination of services.
A regionalized Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) was also illegally established in 2014 absent of any public debate or referendum on the restructuring. Decisions made by bank-led emergency management officials to disconnect the City of Flint from the DWSD resulted in the poisoning of the water in that city where thousands have been inflicted with elevated lead and copper related diseases along with a Legionnaires outbreak that killed several people.
Just recently in Detroit, the newly-created Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) announced that it was shutting off water fountains in buildings due to lead levels discovered through testing. At present students are drinking from packaged bottles and portable commercial tanks. There are no feasible plans to replace fountains, lead service lines or other possible sources of the contamination because the new school district crafted by the conservative state legislature cannot sell bonds to fund improvements to the system.
On October 4 an inter-faith coalition of clergy held a demonstration and press conference downtown. The participants marched from the Detroit Riverfront at the Underground Railroad Monument to the Spirit of Detroit right outside City Hall.
Detroit Inter-faith rally and march to end water shut-offs at the Underground Railroad Monument on the Detroit River, Oct. 4, 2018
The spokespersons for the alliance demanded a water affordability program for the city. Rev. Dr. JoAnn Watson, a former member of the Detroit City Council and author of an affordability plan while she was in government, noted that the city was surrounded by fresh water and consequently there was no need for shut-offs.
Another major aspect of the Detroit economic crises is the systematic relocation of people out of many areas of the city. An example of this phenomenon is the attempt to evict residents from the Park Avenue House Apartments downtown.
Residents received a “30-day Notice to Quit” in early October from the management company running the building saying the apartment had been sold to new owners and everyone had to move. A brief investigation by the Detroit Free Press revealed that there was no evidence of a change in ownership. This building is one of the few remaining in the downtown area where the rents are affordable for low-income residents of the city.
At the same time, there are the continuing problems related to property tax foreclosures. The Moratorium NOW! Coalition has waged a campaign over the last three years to halt property tax foreclosures since they are based on illegal assessments fostered by predatory lending of the banks extending from the late 1990s to the beginning of the Great Recession.
Although a class action lawsuit filed by the Michigan ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was settled out of court in July, the outcome of the settlement was so narrow that it merely focused on those who were eligible for poverty tax exemptions in the city. Even at this level, it would take a Moratorium NOW! Coalition effort which mobilized community activists to canvass those facing eviction forcing the city administration of corporate-Mayor Mike Duggan to extend the deadlines for participation in the purported “buy-back program”.
Nonetheless, approximately 1,000 owner-occupied homes were placed on the market for sale in the auction which takes place every September and October. Even more egregious is the fact that hundreds of millions in Federal Hardest Hit Funds, which should have gone towards keeping people in their homes, were siphoned off to the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA) for the purpose of tearing down homes at inflated costs resulting in what appeared to be “no-bid” contracts approved by the DLBA and the Duggan administration.
Despite the fact that the DLBA and the Duggan administration are being investigated for these practices by the federal government, the funds have still not been utilized for what should have been the intended objectives of stabilizing neighborhoods in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Almost all of the so-called “developmental investments” in Detroit are centered in the downtown and midtown districts leaving the neighborhoods and small business areas where the majority of the African American population resides, to rot and suffer from continuing over taxation and abandonment.
Moratorium NOW! Coalition Calls for Teach-In on October 28
The City Lab project is scheduled to come to Detroit for a conference at the Westin Book Cadillac beginning on October 28. This is the same hotel where the United Here Local 24 workers have been on strike for nearly two weeks.
City Lab is yet another effort to remake urban areas in the U.S. and worldwide in the image of Wall Street. The conference is sponsored by Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Atlantic publications. Invited speakers include corporate CEOs such Mary Barra of General Motors whose headquarters is located in downtown Detroit.
The program advanced by City Lab provides no real promise for the majority Black and working class residents of Detroit. It is more of the same top-down approach to urban development whose outcomes will result in further gentrification and dislocation of the nationally oppressed, working class people and impoverished.
Moratorium NOW! Coalition will host an alternative “Teach-In on City Lab: Real Detroiters Speak Out” on October 28 from 1:00-5:00pm at the St. Peter’s Episcopal Church near the downtown area. The event will feature four panel discussions aimed at addressing the underlying causes of the housing, water services, educational and wealth transferal crises impacting Detroit.
This Moratorium NOW! Coalition Teach-In will emphasize the need for the mass mobilization and organization of the people to fight against the racist and anti-worker policies of those currently running the city. After the Teach-In participants will demonstrate outside the Westin Book Cadillac in protest against the City Lab Conference.
Recognizing that the ongoing strike by service workers at the hotel where City Lab is scheduled to occur could result in a public relations disaster for the Bloomberg and Atlantic conference, the Detroit News reported on October 15 that the big expensive gathering will be moved to another location if the labor dispute is not resolved. Whether the strike is settled by October 28 or not is almost a secondary issue. The contradictions developing in the city of Detroit and around the U.S. will continue to result in the widening gulf between the have and have nots.
Only a fundamental transformation of the political and economic system in the U.S. can alter the current social situation.This so desperately needed change must be initiated by those most impacted by contemporary problems facing growing numbers of people inside the country.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
There’s little doubt about Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman’s dirty hands all over Jamal Khashoggi’s elimination.
Turkey claims to have key incriminating evidence, proving kingdom culpability, indicating high level responsibility.
In The Prince, Machiavelli explained how rulers should distance themselves from state-sponsored criminality – shift blame onto convenient patsies.
The Saudis are likely to follow this principle. Its Istanbul consul general Mohammed al-Otaibi was recalled to the kingdom and sacked – step one in shifting blame.
Clearly no one at his level would order the disappearance and killing of a former Saudi insider/turned critic on his own, notably a US resident in a foreign country.
Reportedly Otaibi is under investigation for the Khashoggi incident. He and perhaps others dispatched from the kingdom to Istanbul will likely be blamed for what happened, an attempt to shield the crown prince (MBS) from culpability.
According to the Turkish Yeni Safak broadsheet, Khashoggi was killed in minutes after entering the consulate, his fingers severed. Beheading and dismemberment followed, according to a cited audio recording.
Reportedly the consulate and consul general’s residence were bugged, enabling Turkish intelligence to monitor what went on inside.
Otaibi reportedly was heard on tape saying: “Do this outside. You’re going to get me in trouble.” One of the Saudi officials involved in the incident was heard telling him: “Shut up if you want to live when you return to” the kingdom.”
Asked about the incident when in Turkey, Mike Pompeo said “I don’t have anything to say about that.” His spokeswoman Heather Nauert said he hadn’t heard the alleged audio.
Ankara hasn’t released it or video evidence of Khashoggi’s slaying it claims to have. Washington and perhaps EU governments have their own.
Riyadh failed to comment publicly on the incident – other than king Salman and MBS telling Trump they have no knowledge about what happened – what’s clearly untrue.
The Trump regime is providing cover for the Saudis, intending to keep US relations with the kingdom unchanged.
According to Middle East analyst Simon Henderson, “(t)he US is organizing a diplomatic clean-up operation for MBS and (his) regime,” clearly what’s going on.
In his last Washington Post column, Khashoggi said Middle East regimes “continue silencing the media at an increasing rate” – failing to explain Western print, electronic and social media self-censor, the way all totalitarian regimes operate worldwide.
On Wednesday, Turkish forensic investigators finished examining the Istanbul consulate and official residence of its consul general.
According to the Turkish prosecutor’s office, samples were recovered with no further elaboration.
It’s unknown if Khashoggi’s DNA or blood traces were found. Unnamed sources said evidence discovered indicated what happened to him.
The forensic search included the consulate’s garage and garden, investigators seen leaving the premises with boxes and bags, their contents unrevealed.
According to Turkey’s interior ministry, results of the investigation will be “shared with the world.”
The notion of Saudi self-investigation about what happened is all about wanting blame shifted from king Salman, MBS, and other key officials to lower-level ones.
There’s little doubt about kingdom responsibility for Khashoggi’s fate at the highest level.
There’s no doubt about Western/Saudi relations remaining unchanged once the current furor fades.
A Final Comment
According to the Arabic-language al-Ahd broadsheet,
“signs of a political deal among Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the US in Khashoggi’s assassination case have appeared in the past three days,” adding:
“Possibly they want to implement a plot like the Lockerby case and say that three (Saudis) abducted Khashoggi, and then put them on trial to exonerate” king Salman and MBS.
What’s coming by the kingdom will likely be something like the above scenario.
Whether it’s enough for MBS to remain crown prince remains to be seen. His involvement in what happened clearly showed he’s inept, failing to consider the potential consequences of his action.
*
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.”
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.
“Global Research is the leading research source on the fundamental issues of war and peace, imperialism and resistance, on the financial crises and the alternatives… Prof Chossudovsky has provided a forum for cutting edge critical essays which challenge the principle pundits of the mass media.”— Prof. James Petras
Seven of the 15 men suspected of being involved in an operation to kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi belong to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s personal security and protection detail, Middle East Eye can reveal.
Three powers tussling over image and appearance; all engaged in a wrestle over how best to seem the least hypocritical. US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi already seems to have found his name into the books of martyred dissidents, but we have no body, merely an inflicted disappearance suggesting a gruesome murder.
Citing unnamed sources, media reports claim Riyadh will say he died during a botched interrogation and plan to abduct him, what happened conducted without kingdom permission, parties involved to be held responsible.
Trump’s claim that “rogue killers” might have been responsible for Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s possible murder is likely only half of the story in the sense that this operation probably wasn’t ordered by Riyadh but might have been undertaken at the behest of rogue royals who want to topple the Crown Prince.
British billionaire Richard Branson has also announced that his Virgin Group would suspend its discussions with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund over a planned $1bn investment in the group’s space ventures in light of events involving Jamal Khashoggi.
Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, whether he was kidnapped by Saudi agents during a visit to the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul to obtain proof of his divorce or murdered on its premises, threatens to severely disrupt the US-Saudi alliance that underwrites much of the Middle East’s fault lines.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi traveled to Russia in the middle of October for a three-day visit that culminated in a meeting with his Russian counterpart in Sochi. The trip was important in showcasing the progress that Russian-Egyptian relations have made since Sisi assumed office in 2014 following a successful coup against Muslim Brotherhood-backed leader Mohamed Morsi who came to power after the so-called “Arab Spring”. Relations between these two historic partners had frayed since the death of Old Cold War hero Gamal Abdel Nasser and his replacement with pro-American leaders Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. What had previously been one of the USSR’s most strategic partnerships gradually become one of its most inconsequential ones, which was regarded as a geopolitical pity by many in Moscow and even some of those in Cairo as well.
That all changed with Sisi’s usurpation of power in 2013 and subsequent victory in national elections a year later. The former Minister of Defense must have been privy to the proof that Morsi’s brief government was backed by the US and some of its regional allies such as Turkey and Qatar, both of whom are led by governments that are very closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. This would explain why Sisi sought to expand relations with Russia after becoming president because he wanted to send a message to the US that its previous patronage of a man who Cairo regards as the face of one of the world’s most dangerous terrorist groups won’t be without geopolitical consequences. That said, Sisi is also smart enough to know that it’s best to “balance” between Great Powers instead of pivot from one to the other.
Resurrecting the historic Russian-Egypt Strategic Partnership has therefore been one of Sisi’s geopolitical priorities because it gives his country a comfortable amount of flexibility on the international arena and shows the rest of the world that he’s not the American puppet that Mubarak was. This is very important for boosting Egyptian national prestige and legitimizing his rule as the leader that the country needs for transitioning into the emerging Multipolar World Order. That’s not to say that Sisi is entirely independent, however, because he’s still very closely tied to the Gulf Monarchies who have patronized his government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, mostly because they approve of his tough approach to the Muslim Brotherhood (which they also regard as terrorists) and also because of their desire to retain influence over the world’s most populous Arab state.
That hasn’t stood in the way of stronger Russian-Egyptian ties, though, and if anything it might have even facilitated them in the past year since Moscow and Riyadh entered into their game-changing OPEC+ cooperation with one another. The Kingdom no longer has any reason to regard Russia as “infringing on its sphere of influence” like it may have previously thought was happening a few years ago when the two Great Powers were still at loggerheads over Syria, but the rapprochement between them has also led to an ever more pronounced betterment of Russian-Egyptian relations, too. As it stands, Moscow and Cairo are cooperating very closely in the military sphere and have accordingly also begun to coordinate their regional policies in the Mideast, too. This is very important, but the real significance of their reestablished strategic partnership rests in its economic potential.
Egypt will forever occupy a crucial geostrategic position along global maritime trade routes because of its control over the Suez Canal, which has only grown in the few years since it expanded this waterway to include a second canal. Russia was granted the right to construct an industrial zone there, which will enable it to finally reassert some of its economic influence in the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden region that it previously enjoyed during the Old Cold War, though only with the passage of time, of course. What Egypt has in fact provided Russia with is an opportunity to more easily export products throughout this part of the world, which links up with its newfound role in Syria and reunification with Crimea to create a series of Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) that are necessary to its revival as a Great Power of hemispheric relevance.
Arms, diplomatic coordination, and investment might be all that Egypt really needs from Russia in order to help “balance” between Great Powers, while its counterpart required a geostrategic foothold in the Red Sea from where it could step back into its Soviet-era footprints in order reassert itself as a trans-regional Great Power. Each country therefore gains from the other because they provide one another with strategic support that none of their other partners were capable of, which has resulted in the reestablishment of their historic strategic partnership. None of this would have been possible, let alone during the brief time that it happened, had it not been for Sisi’s visionary outreaches to Russia, which have allowed Egypt to prove that it still retains some degree of independence in spite of its financial bondage to the GCC and existing partnership with the 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.
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.
October 18th, 2018 by Metropolitan Community Clinic at Helliniko
The Metropolitan Community Clinic at Helliniko opened its doors in December of 2011. Since that time, it has become abundantly clear that the austerity measures resulting from the 1st memorandum, signed by the then Prime Minister George Papandreou brought catastrophe to Greek society. Since then we have denounced (and recorded) the effects of austerity on public health and knew that those results would be seen in health indicators. Seven years later and with the 3rd memorandum signed and obligations to the state that will carry on to 2060, a study from the respected British medical journal “The Lancet” shows exactly that. The study is entitled “The burden of disease in Greece, health loss, risk factors, and health financing, 2000–16: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016”
To sum up their findings:
Increased mortality in the general population from 997.8 per 100,000 persons in 2010 to 1,174.9 in 2016 – an increase in mortality by 17.8%
Cases of tuberculosis have increased amongst Greek citizens.
Cases of HIV have almost doubled between 2010 – 2012 because the program of distributing free syringes to drug addicts was abandoned to save the cost.
Increase in cases of severe depression and suicide
The study analyses the increase in deaths in the general population by age (Greece is indicated with blue color) and notes that the increase in deaths “coincided” with the reductions in spending in the public health sector from 2010 onwards.
Additionally there has been an increase in drug side effects, self-harm and many types of cancer found in all ages. New-borns and children less than 5 years of age die from illnesses that are treatable such as neonatal haemolytic disease and neonatal sepsis. There have been significant increases of cases of self-harm among adolescents and young adults. Increased mortality in people aged 15–49 years due to HIV, several treatable neoplasms, all types of cirrhosis, neurological disorders (e.g., multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease), chronic kidney disease, and most types of cardiovascular disease except for ischemic heart disease and stroke.
To sum up:
Newborns die due to treatable illnesses
Teenagers and young adults have higher rates of suicide
Teenagers and young adults are dying from illnesses related to bad nutrition, alcohol abuse, smoking as well as treatable illnesses
“Forzes” in an article on the Lancet study commented:
“The rise in deaths from self-harm among young adults is particularly striking. This is the human cost of Greece’s appallingly high youth unemployment rate. At the height of the crisis, in 2013, it was 58.21% – over half of all young adults. Even now, despite half a million young people leaving the country, it is over 40%. Greek young adults face a stark choice – leave, or face a lifetime of unemployment. It is hardly surprising that self-harm and suicide have increased.”
“But despite this epidemic of despair, the largest mortality increases are not among young adults, but among babies and the very elderly. This speaks to a crisis in healthcare.”
The Lancet study clearly states that from 2008 until 2014 spending on the Greek Public Health System shrank from 9.8% of the GDP in 2008 to 8.1% in 2014, and currently it is at 6%! And additionally, the GDP shrank more than 25% during the same period (which means that public expenditure is 4.5% compared with 9.8% in 2008!)
The Lancet study further states:
“Since the implementation of the austerity programme, Greece has reduced its ratio of health-care expenditure to GDP to one of the lowest within the EU, with 50% less public hospital funding in 2015 than in 2009. This reduction has left hospitals with a deficit in basic supplies, while consumers are challenged by transient drug shortages.”
All of the above is the best explanation of why Greek public hospitals have literally dissolved, with immense shortages in materials, medication and personnel. The only reason the hospitals have not utterly collapsed is the dedication of the doctors and nurses work full out to the point of exhaustion and beyond to cover personnel and supply deficiencies.
This evidence bears witness to the fact that austerity kills. And it kills based on policies implemented by all governments since 2010.
Who will answer from the Greek Ministry of Health and who will justify?
The list of thousands waiting up to four months to start their cancer treatments while they literally melt away.
For the inexcusable shortages of medications, requiring the public hospitals to search, beg and borrow in order to cover the needs of their patients.
And to find out the real access that uninsured patients have to the Greek public health service, we would as the Minister of Health:
How much money has been spent on the hospitalization and diagnostic tests of uninsured patients?
How many electronic prescriptions (prescriptions recognized in the health system and subsidized by the system) for CT scans, MRI’s, or scintigraphy were issued to uninsured patients and how many exams were finally conducted?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Any attempt by the British government to use frozen Libyan assets in England to compensate IRA victims of weapons and explosives smuggled into Northern Ireland from Libya would be in breach of United Nations resolutions, a senior Libyan diplomat has insisted.
As an Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) Bill proceeds through Westminster to allow a portion of about £10-12 billion (€11.4 – €13.6 billion) of frozen assets to be used to assist IRA victims, the Libyan chargé d’affaires to the, UN Elmahdi S Elmajerbi stated that such action would be legally, ethically and morally wrong.
“The [Libyan] government of national accord is confident that the government of the United Kingdom will uphold its responsibility to stop such a Bill,” said Mr Elmajerbi in a letter to the UN Security Council.
Lord Empey of the UUP who introduced the private members’ Bill and DUP MP Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, who has campaigned for several years to try to win some £1.5 billion (€1.71 billion) in compensation from the Libyan authorities for IRA victims, have acknowledged that Mr Elmajerbi appears to be correct in his legal interpretation.
Lord Empey, however, argued that the British government could use its veto on the security council to gain commitments about compensation before it would agree to the unfreezing of the Libyan assets in England.
Mr Elmajerbi said a number of UN resolutions dictated that such frozen assets when released must be used “for the benefit of the people of Libya”
“The passing of such a Bill is a clear violation of the related Security Council resolution and would place the government of the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under security council resolutions,” he added.
Lord Empey’s Bill has passed through the House of Lords and is due to be addressed in the House of Commons later this month.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Getting to the bottom of the Jamal Khashoggi disappearance is a bit like peeling an onion. It is known that Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul on October 2nd to get a document that would enable him to marry a Turkish woman. It is also known, from surveillance cameras situated outside the building, that he never came out walking the same way he entered. The presumption is that he was either killed inside or abducted, though the abduction theory would have to be based on a Consulate vehicle leaving the building with him presumably concealed inside, something that has not been confirmed by the Turks. If he was killed inside the building and dismembered, as seems likely, he could have had his body parts removed in the suitcases carried by the alleged fifteen official Saudis who had arrived that morning by private jet and left that afternoon the same way. The supposition is that the fifteen men, which may have included some members of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s bodyguard as well as a physician skilled in autopsies who was carrying a bone saw, constituted the execution party for Khashoggi.
There are certain things that should be observed about the Turks, since they are the ones claiming that the disappearance of Khashoggi may have included a summary execution and dismemberment. The Turkish intelligence service, known by its acronym MIT, is very good, very active and very focused on monitoring the activities of foreign embassies and their employees throughout Turkey. They use electronic surveillance and, if the foreign mission has local employees, many of those individuals will be agents reporting to the Turkish government. In my own experience when I was in Istanbul, I had microphones concealed in various places in my residence and both my office and home phones were tapped. A number of local hire consulate employees were believed to be informants for MIT but they were not allowed anywhere near sensitive information.
As Turkey and Saudi Arabia might be termed rivals if not something stronger, it is to be presumed that MIT had the Consulate General building covered with both cameras and microphones, possibly inside the building as well as outside, and may have had a Turkish employer inside who observed some of what was going on. Which is to say that the Turks certainly know exactly what occurred but are playing their cards closely to see what they can derive from that knowledge. The two countries have already initiated a joint investigation into what took place. Turkey’s economy is in free fall and would benefit from “investment” from the Saudis to create an incentive to close the book on Khashoggi. In other words, Turkey’s perspective on the disappearance could easily be influenced by Saudi money and the investigation might well turn up nothing that is definitive.
Saudi Arabia, for its part, has a couple of cards to play also even if it did kill and dismember Khashoggi under orders from the Crown Prince. First of all, the system of petrodollars, which basically requires nearly all purchases of petroleum to be paid in dollars, is underwritten by the Saudis. Petrodollars in turn enable the United States to print money for which there is no backing knowing that there will always be international demand for dollars to buy oil. The Saudis, who also use their own petrodollars to buy U.S. treasury bonds, could pull the plug on that arrangement. That all means that the United States will be looking for an outcome that will not do too much damage to the Saudis.
Second, Saudi Arabia is in bed with Israel in opposition to Iran. This means the Israel Lobby and its many friends in Congress will squawk loudly about Khashoggi but ultimately shy away from doing anything about it. It already appears that a cover story is halfway in place to explain what happened. It is being suggested that a “rogue” element from Saudi Arabia might have carried out without the knowledge of the Crown Prince an interrogation or abduction attempt that went too far. Donald Trump speculated on Monday that that might be the case, suggesting that it may already be part of the official line that will be promoted. Those who know Saudi Arabia well, however, consider a high-level assassination not ordered by the Crown Prince directly to be extremely unlikely, but that does not necessarily mean that a cover story including that feature might not be successfully floated.
In regional terms, Saudi Arabia is also key to Trump’s anticipated Middle East peace plan. If it pulls out from the expected financial guarantees aspect, the plan will fall apart. Riyadh is also committed to buy tens of billions of dollars’ worth of American arms, an agreement that could be canceled if Washington begins to pressure the Saudis for answers. Beyond that, Saudi Arabia could stop pumping oil or fail to increase production when Iranian oil becomes subject to U.S. sanctions early next month, driving the price per barrel up dramatically for everyone. The Saudi government has already indicated that it will respond forcefully to any attempts to punish it over Khashoggi and there is no reason to doubt the seriousness of that threat.
There are, of course, possible impediments to selling the fake news narrative. Some early reports suggested that Khashoggi’s fiancé had observed and possibly recorded the execution inside the consulate using the victim’s Apple wristwatch linked to an iPad in her possession. If that is true, the release of such material to the media will create worldwide demand to learn the truth that will be difficult to control. Also, there are unconfirmed reports that U.S. intelligence knew in advance of Saudi plans to abduct Khashoggi, which could prove embarrassing to the Trump administration and could narrow its options.
The trick will be to see how a bit of extreme brutal behavior by the Saudis can be manipulated by all interested parties to produce a solution that doesn’t damage anyone too much. It will undoubtedly be far from the truth, but truth doesn’t necessarily matter much these 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.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and email [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Over 1300 days of Saudi-led aggression against Yemen, the number of victims has changed exponentially, while the International Community and the UN silent towards what’s happening!
A human-made disaster, killing and starvation, airstrikes, lack of food and medicine, blockade with no purpose other than to annihilate Yemen and its people!!
Preliminary result of Saudi-led aggression of more than (15,185) civilian deaths, including (3527) children and (2277) women.
At least (23,822) civilians injured, including 3526 children, and 2587 women who still suffer from lack of medicines, medical supplies and treatment due to the siege by Saudi Arabia and its allies.
The Legal Center also estimates the death of 160,000 Yemeni citizens from children, patients, and the wounded as a result of lack of basic medicines and medical services.
The center further noted that the Saudi military aggression has also caused the death of nearly 2,200 Yemenis from cholera.
Two in five of the Yemeni population, around 12 million people, are expected to face the worst famine in 100 years in coming months due to the escalating war and a deepening economic crisis, the World Food Program (WFP) said Monday.
It highlighted that aerial assaults being conducted by the Saudi-led alliance have resulted in the destruction of 15 airports and 14 ports, and damaged 2,559 roads and bridges in addition to 781 water storage facilities, 191 power stations and 426 telecommunications towers.
The statement went on to say that the incessant Saudi-led bombardment campaign has destroyed more than 421,911 houses, 930 mosques, 888 schools, 327 hospitals and health facilities plus 38 media organizations, halted the operation of 4,500 schools and left more than 4 million people internally displaced.
In addition, the Saudi-led coalition has targeted 1,818 government facilities, 749 food storehouses, 621 food trucks, 628 shops and commercial compounds, 362 fuel stations, 265 tankers, 339 factories, 310 poultry and livestock farms, 219 archaeological sites, 279 tourist facilities and 112 playgrounds and sports complexes.
The Legal Center for Rights and Developments in Yemen then called on the United Nations to shoulder its responsibilities concerning protection of human rights and the rules of international humanitarian law in Yemen.
The center finally asked the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to conduct a professional and impartial investigation into the crimes being perpetrated against civilians in Yemen.
*
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 Wednesday afternoon, detonation of an unidentified explosive device filled with metal fragments, along with indiscriminate live fire by masked gunmen armed with assault rifles at Crimea’s Kerch Polytechnic College reportedly killed at least 20 people, dozens of others injured, at least 16 in serious condition.
According to Crimea’s government,15 students were killed, including the attacker, six of them minors, and five adults.
Only one gunman was identified. See below. An eyewitness explained what happened as follows, saying:
“There was a blast and then the shooting. We started jumping out of the windows. (School) children’s bodies were lying all over the place.”
Another eyewitness said
“(t)here was a blast. All the glass shattered. (T)hen armed people started running around, opening doors and shooting at everyone.”
A survivor said
“(m)y friend was killed right in front of me. I saw her fall and simply stop moving. I saw boys dropping dead and blood spilling around.”
Another student said
“(w)e were standing outside with friends. Then there was an explosion. All the windows blasted out. We ran, climbed over the fence. There were more explosions or some similar noise. We just ran as far as we could.”
Source: RT.com
The blast reportedly happened on the targeted building’s ground floor, shootings on the second floor. How multiple gunmen with assault rifles weren’t spotted right away before opening fire wasn’t explained so far.
According to Russia’s Investigative Committee spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko,
“(i)nvestigators have promptly established the identity of a young man who had arrived at the college immediately before the incident and who, proceeding from a video recording, was holding a rifle in his hand.”
“He turned out to be Vladislav Roslyakov, a fourth-year student from the college. His body with a gunshot wound was found in one of the college’s rooms.”
The identity of other gunmen involved are unknown so far. Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s Federal Security Service and other agencies to fully investigate what happened and determine responsible parties.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said
“(w)e are expecting information on this from the competent bodies.”
According to Crimean Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov, the identified gunman “acted alone,” adding “there is no other data.” His account conflicts with eyewitness saying multiple masked gunmen were involved.
Following the incident, Kerch and Crimea are on high alert, wary of further incidents.
Kerch Polytechnic College’s director said multiple gunmen shot students and teachers, dead and wounded bodies strewn throughout the area attacked.
Russian authorities initially called the incident a terrorist attack, later changing it to multiple homicides.
If a number of masked gunmen were involved as eyewitnesses and the college’s director claim, clearly the initial classification was accurate.
Russian investigators will likely determine accountability for what happened. It’s unknown if it was a Kiev provocation.
Ukrainian forces increased attacks on Donbass in recent days, likely orchestrated by Washington. Is the Crimean incident connected to Kiev aggression?
*
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.”
After the recent purge of over 800 independent media outlets on Facebook, the Supreme Court is now hearing a case that could have ramifications for any future attempts at similar purges.
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that could change free speech on the Internet forever.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, the case that it has agreed to take, will decide if the private operator of a public access network is considered a state actor, CNBC reported.
The case could affect how companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and YouTube are governed. If the Court were to issue a far-reaching ruling it could subject such companies to First Amendment lawsuits and force them to allow a much broader scope of free speech from its users.
The Court decided to take the case on Friday and it is the first case that was taken after Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court.
DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez claimed that they were fired from Manhattan Neighborhood Network for speaking critically of the network. And, though the case does not involve the Internet giants, it could create a ruling that expands the First Amendment beyond the government.
“We stand at a moment when the very issue at the heart of this case — the interplay between private entities, nontraditional media, and the First Amendment — has been playing out in the courts, in other branches of government, and in the media itself,” the attorneys from MNN wrote in their letter to the Court asking it to take the case.
The Court could either rule in MNN’s favor, rule against it in a narrow scope that does not affect other companies, or it could rule in a broad manner that would prevent the abilities of private networks and Internet companies to limit or censor speech on their platforms.
Censorship, Free Speech or Enforcing Company Policy
It comes at a time when Facebook has purged around 800 independent media pages in one day. The media outlets ranged the spectrum from far left to far right and many that either had no political affiliation or were not extreme in their politics. Facebook claimed that the pages were engaged in “inauthentic behavior” and as a private company it does not have to answer to anyone regarding how it enforces its terms of service.
ACLU attorney Vera Eidelman said Facebook, as a private company, can enforce their terms however it sees fit, but that could result in serious free speech consequences.
“Drawing the line between ‘real’ and ‘inauthentic’ views is a difficult enterprise that could put everything from important political parody to genuine but outlandish views on the chopping block,” Eidelman said. “It could also chill individuals who only feel safe speaking out anonymously or pseudonymously.”
The MNN case could change that and force Facebook, and other companies, to protect users First Amendment rights.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Carmine Sabia Jr. is a Christian Conservative political pundit, writer, radio host and editor who covers political news and current events.
China and Japan – the two main holders of the US Treasury securities – have trimmed their ownership of notes and bonds in August, according to the latest figures from the US Treasury Department, released on Tuesday.
China’s holdings of US sovereign debt dropped to $1.165 trillion in August, from $1.171 trillion in July, marking the third consecutive month of declines as the world’s second-largest economy bolsters its national currency amid trade tensions with the US. China remains the biggest foreign holder of US Treasuries, followed by long-time US ally Japan.
Tokyo cut its holdings of US securities to $1.029 trillion in August, the lowest since October 2011. In July, Japan’s holdings were at $1.035 trillion. According to the latest figures from the country’s Ministry of Finance, Japanese investors opted to buy British debt in August, selling US and German bonds. Japan reportedly liquidated a net $5.6 billion worth of debt.
Liquidating US Treasuries, one of the world’s most actively-traded financial assets, has recently become a trend among major holders. Russia dumped 84 percent of its holdings this year, with its remaining holdings as of June totaling just $14.9 billion. With relations between Moscow and Washington at their lowest point in decades, the Central Bank of Russia explained the decision was based on financial, economic and geopolitical risks.
Turkey and India have followed suit. Like Russia, Turkey has dropped out of the top-30 list of holders of American debt following a conflict with Washington over the attempted military coup in the country two years ago. While India remains among the top-30, the country has cut its US Treasury holdings for the fifth consecutive month, from $157 billion in March to $140 billion in August.
Earlier this week, Goldman Sachs said that US policy of sanctions and tariffs against major economies, including Russia, China and Iran, dragged down the dollar’s share of global central-bank reserves. Meanwhile, the data from the International Monetary Fund confirms that the US dollar’s share in the global central-bank reserves dropped to 62.3 percent from April to June, while holdings in the euro, yen and yuan gained as a share of allocated reserves.
*
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 International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, issued a statement Wednesday reminding Israel that the demolition of Bedouin village Khan al-Ahmar, in the occupied West Bank, would constitute a war crime.
“I have been following with concern the planned eviction of the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar in the West Bank. Evacuation by force now appears imminent, and with it, the prospects for further escalation and violence,” Bensouda, who is reviewing Israel’s aggressive expansion of illegal Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank, wrote in the statement.
“It bears recalling, as a general matter, that extensive destruction of property without military necessity, and population transfers in an occupied territory constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute,” the statement said.
International human rights groups have already warned Israel that the demolition and forcible transfer of a population under occupation is a war crime but that hasn’t stopped Israel’s high court from upholding the green light on the demolition. The European Parliament has also condemned the planned demolition as a breach of the well established international humanitarian law.
Bensouda’s reminder comes days after Israeli occupation forces entered the Bedouin village with bulldozers prompting confrontations with the members of the Jahalin tribe that live in Khan al-Ahmar and international activists that are resisting Israel’s attempt to displace the over 30 families that have lived there since the 1950s, when they were expelled from the Naqab (Negev) desert.
NOW IN KHAN AL AHMAR: 3 people arrested after Israeli forces arrived to the village to escort bulldozers in infrastructures preparation for the upcoming demolition of the village. #Khanalahmar By: Oren Ziv and Ahmad al-Bazz/Activestills.org pic.twitter.com/XpvVH7cTr0
Israel and Palestinian activists have argued the demolition is part of a plan to connect the settlements of Ma’ale Adumim and Kfar Adumim with the occupied city of East Jerusalem, which Israel has illegally annexed.
According to Israeli authorities, the village was built illegally. However, the United Nations has shown that it is nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits. Between 2010 and 2014, Israel approved only 1.5 percent of all permit requests by Palestinians.
Bensouda also warned she will “continue to keep a close eye” on the developments in Gaza, where Palestinians demanding the end of the occupation and their right as refugees to return home, have sustained weekly protests since March 30.
Israel’s response to the protests have been widely condemned for use of excessive force and what human rights groups have called a “shoot to maim or kill” policy. Since the Great March of Return began in March, Israeli forces have killed at least 205 Palestinians and wounded over 18,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Israel is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction. Despite this, Israelis suspected of committing crimes on Palestinian territories could face charges.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Bedouins await the imminent demolition of their village, which they have vowed to resist. (Source: Activestills.org)
The B61-12, the new US nuclear bomb which replaces the B-61 deployed in Italy and other European countries, will begin production in less than a year. The announcement was made officially by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). It reveals that the revision of the final project has now been completed with success, and the qualification stage will begin this month at the Pantex Plant in Texas. Production will be authorised to begin in September 2019.
In March 2020, the first unit of production will begin fabricating a series of 500 bombs. As from that time, in other words in about a year and a half, the United States will begin the anti-Russian deployment in Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland and probably certain other European countries, of the first nuclear bomb in their arsenal with a precision guidance system. The B61-12 is designed with penetrating capacity, built to explode underground in order to destroy bunkers housing command centres.
Since Italy and the other countries, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are offering the USA the bases, the pilots and the aircraft for the deployment of the B61-12, Europe will soon be exposed to a greater risk as the front line of the developing nuclear confrontation with Russia.
An even more dangerous situation appears at the same moment – the return of the Euromissiles, meaning the nuclear missiles which are similar to those deployed in Europe in the 1980’s by the USA, with the official aim of defending against Soviet missiles.
Source: PandoraTV
This category of ground-based nuclear missiles of intermediate range (between 500 and 5,500 km) were eliminated with the INF Treaty of 1987. But in 2014, the Obama administration accused Russia of having experimented with a cruise missile (# 9M729) whose category was forbidden by the Treaty. Moscow denied that the missile violated the INF Treaty and, in turn, accused Washington of having installed in Poland and Romania launch ramps for interceptor missiles (elements of the “shield”), which could be used to launch cruise missiles bearing nuclear warheads.
The accusation aimed by Washington at Moscow, which is not supported by any evidence, enabled the USA to launch a plan aimed at once again deploying in Europe ground-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. The Obama administration had already announced in 2015 that “faced with the violation of the INF Treaty by Russia, the United States are considering the deployment of ground-based missiles in Europe”. This plan was confirmed by the Trump administration – in fiscal year 2018, Congress authorised the financing of a “programme of research and development for a cruise missile which could be launched from a mobile road base”.
The plan is supported by the European allies of NATO. The recent North-Atlantic Council, at the level of Europe’s Defence Ministers, which was attended for Italy by Elisabetta Trenta (M5S), declared that the “INF Treaty is in danger because of the actions of Russia”, which it accused of deploying “a disturbing missile system which constitutes a serious risk for our security”. Hence the necessity that “NATO must maintain nuclear forces which are stable, trust-worthy and efficient” (which explains why the members of the Alliance rejected en bloc the United Nations Treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons).
So the grounds are being laid for a European deployment, on the borders of Russian territory, of ground-based intermediate-range US nuclear missiles. It’s as if Russia were deploying in Mexico nuclear missiles pointed at the United States.
*
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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Translated by Pete Kimberley
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
There is an emerging orthodoxy, rooted more in fiction than fact, that the 15-year regime of the Ontario Liberals somehow swung the ideological and policy spectrum sharply to the left. But this is a gross misinterpretation of actual history. While the Liberals did indeed implement a hodgepodge of policies that might selectively register as ‘progressive’, their time in power was never about a wholesale repudiation of the Conservative’s Common Sense Revolution but rather about deepening and extending it in ways that were more palatable to a public increasingly fed up with the uncompromising and aggressive style of their Conservative predecessors. In other words, it was continuity, not change, that defined the Liberals’ time in power.
Those at the centre of this historical re-imagining are increasingly recasting the Liberals’ time in government as an extreme left interregnum inconsistent with the ‘progressive’ conservative values of Ontario. They point to all day kindergarten, the expansion of prescription-drug and dental benefits, the subsidization of tuition fees for some post-secondary students, proposed pension reform, modest increases to high-income earners’ taxes, changes to labour legislation, and some investments in new infrastructure and social programs as key illustrations. But these new investments barely made up for inflation and population growth, let alone a reversal of the fiscal legacy of the Harris Conservatives.
Through their first term (2003-07), modest savings were made through the privatization of services formerly covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) like chiropractic therapy, physical rehabilitation and optometry exams. The Dalton McGuinty government also spearheaded the expansion of private healthcare clinics, introducing a graduated healthcare premium that ranged from $60 to $900 per year depending on income level. But this was the calm before the storm.
Decade of Austerity
As the tailwinds of the 2008 recession swept across Ontario, the Liberal government responded with a plan outlining a decade of austerity. The major policy plank of this program was the Open Ontario Plan (OOP), which called for, among other things, tax relief, the privatization of public assets and services, and wage concessions from public sector workers. To give a few examples, the general corporate income tax (CIT) rate was cut 28 per cent, the preferential small business CIT rate was cut 36 per cent, and the tax rate on the first $37,106 of personal taxable income was reduced by more than 16 per cent, while those earning up to $80,000 per year saw a tax cut of 10 per cent. Altogether, tax cuts during this time eroded some $500-million in annual revenue generation making Ontario’s tax regime among the lowest across the OECD.
The omnibus Open for Business Act introduced over 100 amendments to legislation across ten ministries whose stated objective was to create a more competitive business climate. The Liberals solicited CIBC World Markets and Goldman Sachs to come up with a plan to monetize the province’s $60-billion worth of public assets. The idea behind “SuperCorp” was to combine Ontario’s Crown assets, including nuclear power plants, power generation facilities, 29,000 kilometres of electrical transmission and distribution lines, six-hundred plus liquor stores and gaming operations.
The Liberals also established the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services headed by former TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond. The Commission recommended cuts deeper than those of the 1990s followed by the sale of public assets and privatized service delivery. In following through on some 80 per cent of the Drummond Commission’s recommendations, the Liberals eroded an additional $300-million in public revenue by 2015-16. The “crowning irony” for the Liberals was that after a decade in power they had succeeded in cutting the size of government down to when they had taken over from their Conservative predecessors.
In 2013, amid a barrage of scandals, both Premier McGuinty and Finance Minister Dwight Duncan stepped down in what was portrayed as a period of renewal. Kathleen Wynne emerged as new party leader and Premier of Ontario, positioning herself as the “social justice” and “activist” premier against the old guard. In practice, however, much of the Harris-McGuinty legacy continued.
Privatization – Full Steam Ahead
Public-private-partnerships (P3s) proliferated, even though the Auditor General found that Ontario could have saved up to $8-billion through traditional public procurement. Premier Wynne launched a blue-ribbon panel headed by president and former CEO of TD Bank, Ed Clark, to advise the government how to privatize public assets such as the OLG and LCBO, which together bring in more than $4.5-billion annually.
Catching her own party off guard, Kathleen Wynne kickstarted the asset sell-off with Hydro One, which was estimated to bring in close to $750-million in annual public revenue. Under Wynne’s plan, the Liberals sold-off 60 per cent ownership stake bringing in roughly $4-billion in one-off monies while maintaining a 40 per cent public ownership. The Financial Accountability Office (FAO) found that the sale of Hydro one was roughly equivalent to five years of continued public ownership.
Far from progressive public policy, it has been tax cuts and austerity that has prevailed in Ontario over the last decade. Little wonder then that Doug Ford and Co. have stoked the fires of deficit hysteria given the reluctance of the Liberals to deal with the revenue side of government expenditures. The reality is that when it comes to the provinces context matters, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world.
2018’s election saw Wynne herself boasting that Ontario was now “the leanest government in Canada” when it came to per capita program spending. What wasn’t mentioned though was that among the provinces, Ontario was dead last when it came to per capita public revenue, second smallest when it came to the per capita size of Ontario’s public sector as measured by employees, and second-lowest in North America (after Alabama) when it came to corporate tax rates.
Of course, real ideological and policy differences exist between the Liberals and Conservatives. But to refer to the Liberal decade and a half in power as progressive in any meaningful sense of the term is more than just an historical misreading, it’s ideological and political gamesmanship at its worst. With the Ford Conservatives in power, Ontario has now come full circle. In an increasingly unequal and divided province, the time has come to explore what truly progressive politics, and not just those “for the [rich] people,” might actually look like.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Seven of the 15 men suspected of being involved in an operation to kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi belong to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s personal security and protection detail, Middle East Eye can reveal.
The suspects went and ate dinner at the Saudi consul-general’s residence after murdering and dismembering Khashoggi inside the consulate, a source in the Istanbul Prosecutor General’s office also told MEE on Wednesday as Turkish police finally gained access to the building on Wednesday.
Most of them are high-ranking officers who accompanied the crown prince on diplomatic visits to the UK and France earlier this year.
MEE has obtained a document from the Saudi Interior Ministry detailing their ranks, dates of birth, passport and telephone numbers and when they accompanied bin Salman on trips abroad. All of them are members of the crown prince’s Special Security Force.
MEE is not publishing the document in order to protect the safety of its sources.
Confirmation that these seven members were high-ranking members of the crown prince’s close protection team and travelled with him on high profile visits regularly will complicate efforts currently under way to distance bin Salman from the murder investigation in Istanbul.
Three suspects visited UK
At least three of them accompanied bin Salman on his visit to the UK in March. They are First Lieutenant Dhaar Ghalib Dhaar Al-Harbi,Sergeant Major Walid Abdullah Al-Shihri, and Abdul Aziz Muhammad Musa Al-Hawsawi.
At least two of them accompanied the crown prince to France in April. They are Major General Mahir Abdul Aziz Muhammad Mutrib and Colonel Badr Lafi Muhammad Al-Oteibi.
Middle East Eye called phone numbers with Saudi dialling codes in the document for the seven men but most of the numbers had been disconnected. One of the numbers rang unanswered. Another number was answered by a man who said he was not the individual named in the document.
Turkish media published the names and photos of the 15 suspects last week after Turkish sources close to the investigation told Middle East Eye and other media outlets that prosecutors suspected Khashoggi had been killed and dismembered shortly after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.
Several of the suspects arrived at Ataturk airport on commercial flights in the early hours on 2 October, while others arrived on a private jet from Riyadh later that morning. A second private jet landed in Istanbul that afternoon, when three suspects also flew in on commercial flights.
The suspects checked into two hotels near to the Saudi consulate but all left the country within hours of their arrival. Thirteen of the 15 suspects left Istanbul aboard the two private jets on the evening of 2 October, while the final two left on commercial flights in the early hours of 3 October.
Saudi officials have denied any knowledge about Khashoggi’s disappearance and initially said that he had left the consulate building shortly after arriving. Following publication of the names of the 15 suspects, the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV network described them as “tourists”.
However, CNN reported earlier this week that Saudi Arabia was preparing to admit that Khashoggi had died during a botched interrogation or attempted abduction amid growing international revulsion about the reported circumstances of the journalist’s suspected death.
Suspected ‘coordinator’
Mutrib, the highest ranked officer among the seven named on the interior ministry document, has been identified by investigators as the “coordinator of the operation”, according to MEE’s Turkish sources.
They say that Mutrib chartered the two private jets for the mission and was one of two suspects to travel on diplomatic passports.
Mutrib has previously been identified by the New York Times as a diplomat assigned to the Saudi embassy in London based on a British foreign office diplomatic list dating from 2007.
The newspaper also tracked down photographs of Mutrib standing guard next to the Crown Prince during visits to Spain, France and the US.
In this document Mutrib is referred to as a “communications engineer” and a “security companion” of the crown prince.
Two of the names on the list are not identified as having accompanied bin Salman on his visits to London and Paris.
Both, however, are high-ranking. They are Major Nayif Hasan Saad Al-Arifi, and Brigadier General Mansour Othman Aba Hussein. Both are described as “support officers (security and protection) for the Saudi Crown Prince”.
Autopsy specialist
An eighth man, identified on audio tapes whose content was disclosed to MEE as performing the dismemberment of Khashoggi while he was drugged but still alive, is Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy.
Tubaigy had two senior posts. One was as the chairman of the forensic evidence department within Saudi General Security. The second was chairman of the Scientific Council of Forensic Medicine within the Saudi Commission for Health Specialities.
This is the Saudi equivalent of the General Medical Council, the UK’s medical regulator, and in such a senior post Tubaigy would be an examiner of doctors wanting to qualify as specialists in forensic medicine, and would decide on whether doctors trained abroad were qualified to work as forensic specialists in Saudi hospitals.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Tubaigy had published research on dissection and mobile autopsies and said that his presence among the suspects “suggests that killing might have been part of the original plan”.
The latest revelations about bin Salman’s close links to seven of the 15 suspects are likely to further raise suspicions about what the crown prince knew, and whether an operation involving high-level members of his own security detail could have been sanctioned without his knowledge or express orders.
Officially the crown prince, who is also defence minister, controls all three of Saudi’s armed forces, the defence ministry, the national guard, and the interior ministry.
On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump tweeted that bin Salman had “totally denied any knowledge of what took place” in Istanbul and had launched a “full and complete investigation into this matter”.
…during the call, and told me that he has already started, and will rapidly expand, a full and complete investigation into this matter. Answers will be forthcoming shortly.
Trump spoke to bin Salman during a visit to Riyadh by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo which came with the White House’s close alliance with the Saudi royal coming under growing scrutiny over Khashoggi’s disappearance.
The British foreign office told MEE that it would have to ask Saudi officials to confirm members of the crown prince’s delegation during bin Salman’s visit to London.
MEE has contacted Saudi embassies in London and Washington for comment.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
“Do this outside. You will put me into trouble.” — Mohammad al-Otaibi, Saudi consul, to Saudi agents, Istanbul, October 2, 2018
It smells, but anything wedged between the putrefaction of Saudi foreign policy, the ambition of Turkish bellicosity, and the US muddling middleman is bound to. Three powers tussling over image and appearance; all engaged in a wrestle over how best to seem the least hypocritical. US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi already seems to have found his name into the books of martyred dissidents, but we have no body, merely an inflicted disappearance suggesting a gruesome murder.
The journalist, a notable critic of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was last seen on October 2 entering the residence of the Saudi consul-general in Istanbul, ostensibly to obtain a document necessary for his upcoming nuptials. A senior Turkish official put forth a brutal scenario on Wednesday based on obtained audio recordings. Saudi operatives, probably numbering 15 from the intelligence services and the Royal Guards, were waiting for Khashoggi’s arrival at 1.15 pm. Within a matter of minutes, Khashoggi was dead, decapitated, dismembered, his fingers removed. The entire operation took two hours.
The New York Timespondered how the brutality was inflicted. “Whether Mr. Khashoggi was killed before his fingers were removed and his body dismembered could not be determined.” The Saudi consul Mohammad al-Otaibi was revealed to be squeamish and worried, suggesting the agents ply their craft elsewhere. The reply from one of the company was curt and unequivocal: “If you want to live when you come back to Arabia, shut up.” A Saudi doctor of forensics, Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, a worthy addition to the crew, got to work disposing of the body. His advice to any companions feeling wobbly: listen to music, soothe the savage breast.
A danse macabre has developed between the various power players. US president Donald Trump has asked his Turkish counterparts for any audio or video evidence that might shed light on the journalist’s fate. To date, these have been drip fed with tantalising timing, disturbing the White House’s neat and comfortable acceptance of the account put forth by Riyadh. But Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, an individual never shy to exploit a jingoistic moment, has remained cautiously reticent.
This is where the world of image, supposition, and make-believe, comes into play. The procuring of evidence is being resisted. Trump asks, but does not expect any. The Turkish side, thus far, supplies crumbs, finding their way into selected news outlets such as the Daily Yeni Şafak. Trump, for his part, remains non-committal, even indifferent to what might emerge. “I’m not sure yet that it exists, probably does, probably does.”
The picture is patchy, gathered from audio surveillance, intercepted communications and a miscellany of sources, but on this point, Ankara remains ginger. US intelligence officials have so far suggested that circumstantial evidence on the involvement of Crown Prince Mohammed is growing.
Trump’s game with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of hedging and hoping: hedging on the issue of blood-linked complicity, and hoping that the sordid matter will simply evaporate in the ether of the next event. “I just want to find out what’s happening,” he deflected. “I’m not giving cover at all.” But he has again fallen victim to the characteristic, off colour corker: allegations against the Saudis might be analogously seen with those of sexual assault against now confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent. I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I’m concerned.” US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also shown a marked reluctance to go near any details, telling the press that any facts on Khashoggi will not be discussed.
Politicians in the United States have been attempting to add tears and remorse to the equation, though these dry quickly. Rep. Eric Swalwell Jr. from California suggested that the explanations were needless. “If someone was killed in your home, while you were in it, and 15 days later you’re still coming up with an explanation… forget it. We already know.” US Rep. Paul Ryan and Senator Orrin Hatch are chewing over the prospect that Khashoggi’s fate might have been occasioned by an “interrogation gone wrong”.
The one person to again blow the cover off any niceties, to destroy the façade of propriety in what is otherwise a grizzly affair is the US president. He has avoided funereal respects and regrets. He has avoided referencing any idyllic notions of a free press. The all-powerful dollar and arms sales remain paramount. “You’ve got $100 billion worth of arms sales… we cannot alienate our biggest player in the Middle East.” And just to show that a love of God and the foetus won’t deter evangelicals from embracing a ghoulish Arab theocracy, Pat Robertson has added his hearty support. “For those who are screaming blood for the Saudis – look, these people are our allies.”
Whatever happens regarding Khashoggi, the relationship between Washington and Riyadh is assured. Turkey, from first signs, is avoiding open confrontation. Murder, alleged or otherwise, can take place in certain circumstances, however brazenly executed. The brutality against Khashoggi, should it ever come to be properly aired, is but another footnote in the program of a kingdom indifferent to suffering, from the saw doctor to the jet. And business remains business.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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]
This is the edited version of a panel presentation by the same title that took place in Toronto, Canada on October 13, 2018 The Event was sponsored by a number of progressive organizations
***
I think this is a very important and timely topic to cover in order to have a broad context and hopefully contribute some useful thinking to the topic.
We live in times of dramatic changes, as I see it.
I am sure many are noticing that we are moving from a unipolar to a multipolar geopolitical world where important new players have something to offer.
If we are noticing this, I am sure that the United States is also paying attention.The U.S. knows that it is losing its hegemony to other powers like China and Russia. Many other countries are taking notice. Venezuela is certainly one of them.
The U.S. is showing a reaction to that inevitable occurrence and what we are seeing are the struggling gasps of a dying empire that is imminent when measured in historical time.
This will not be a peaceful death, unfortunately. The dying empire will not die in peace.
I think this image might help us understand what is happening today.
Warfare tools
There was a time – say, last century – when we used to call conflictive relationships among nations by their direct descriptive name.
We had wars that countries declared to each other and sent soldiers to kill each other. They would even “announce” their wars. They had, and still do, what is called “rules of engagement”… but this was no engagement to be married… It was truly an “engagement to be destroyed”.
Then we had invasions where one nation would attack another nation to kill their people – a kind of war that was not announced.
We even had the so-called Cold War that was nothing else than a permanent threat of war.
Today we have quite a wide range of “conflictive relationships” among countries. But it’s interesting to see the corresponding proliferation of terminology that we have come to use in describing those conflicts.
We have:
Undeclared wars. And here we have to be careful how we use the term “war”. For example, there is no war in Syria. There is a war on Syria. Semantic is important here.
New Cold War. I don’t know what’s new about it. It’s still a permanent threat of war.
Infowar. The production of false news with media participation in order to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of a government.
Economic war. This is the one that is caused through sanctions, and I’ll come back to that.
Incitation to commit political crimes. For example, the life attempt against president Nicolas Maduro and other high officials last August 4.
Incitation to mutiny. Repeated calls to the military to overthrow a government.
Coups. We still have those…with a soft touch now.
We have Soft Coups. These are the ones that have been at play in Latin America in the last few years. They oppress and kill people all the same.
Terrorism. The ultimate destructive tool to be used against another nation. And it is being used by the U.S. widely, not only in the Middle East but also in Latin America and other regions.
Finally, we have the most contradictory of all aggressions: Lawfare.
This is quite a repertoire of warfare tools that can be used in any combination with the single goal of imposing a regime change.
I recognize some of these tools were also used in the last century, but maybe not to the extent they are used today. Certainly, today they have become part of the new narrative about conflicts. They have achieved a level of recognition and acceptance that makes those actions extremely dangerous.
That is why it is important to be aware of them.
All of these actions are a form of warfare, and all have embedded an element of illegality. They are not used as legitimate self-defense. They are used to subvert democracy.
They extend the notion of weapons to situations where everything can be “weaponized” (notice the new terminology) with total disregard to legality, morality, humanity and ethical considerations.
As someone who is anti-war, I reject all implications of warfare especially when a war is carried out by a bully entity against smaller and weaker contenders.
Let’s take a closer look at lawfare and sanctions.
Lawfare
Wikipedia gives the following definition of the term:
“Lawfare is a form of war consisting of the use of the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them.” [1]
It is believed that a U.S. General by the name of Charles Dunlap used the term for the first time in 2001. He defined “lawfare” as the “use of law as a weapon of war,” which he described as “the newest feature of 21st century combat.” [2]
Another similar definition of lawfare says that it is “the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends”.
A law expert said,
“lawfare is about more than just delegitimizing a state’s right to defend itself; it is about the abuse of the law and our judicial systems to undermine the very principles they stands for: the rule of law, the sanctity of innocent human life, and the right to free speech.”
All these definitions seem to have a consensus on the blatant contradiction: lawfare is not for the pursuit of justice; it is not the application of the law. It is just the opposite. It is the breaking down of the legal and constitutional order of another state for political gain.
Reportedly, the majority of U.S. laws that have come out after 9/11 constitute today the new tools used to repress any resistance in the name of national security, not only in the U.S., but also in other countries.
But we know that other countries are also misusing their own laws in a cruel copycat fashion to repress any internal resistance. We all think of the cases against Cristina Kirchner, Dilma Rousseff, Luiz Inácio Lula, Rafael Correa, and others.
Sanctions as economic war
Something we need to know about sanctions is that the United Nations can also impose and apply sanctions on countries. And it does.
At last count, 12 countries are sanctioned by the UN. More than half are African countries. Sanctions include asset freezes; travel bans, and arms embargoes.
No Latin American country is currently being sanctioned by the UN; certainly not Venezuela.
Imposing sanctions seems to be the assumed privilege of the U.S. based on its doctrine of exceptionalism. And the UN allows this to happen in spite of its own stated principles such as:
The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. [Remember, the purpose is to pursue peace]
The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered. [Remember, Venezuela has persistently asked to dialogue, even to meet with Donald Trump]
The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.
I believe that the UN is a dysfunctional institution. We have seen many times the ineffective work of the UN. Despite the purpose of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security, we see a proliferation of wars, conflicts, and interventions every day.
Despite the intention, the United Nations is not a democratic institution by design from inception.
The UN is definitely not a democratic institution when we have a body like the Security Council – with such an important responsibility as to apply sanctions according to Article 41 of the Charter – which is ruled by a handful of self-appointed permanent members that have a veto power. Security Council permanent members are: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
In addition, Article 25 says: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council…
The misuse of the veto, the lack of accountability and the unfair representation at the UNSC – for example, not a single African or Latin American country is a permanent member – have all emasculated an organization that is meant, at least on paper, to uphold international law and achieve peace and global security.
If this was a country we lived in, we would have a Junta of five people – never elected; they or their successors are there in perpetuity – ruling our country, and we would have to agree to let that happen and would have to obey their decisions against the will of the majority.
This is the model of democracy that the United Nations gives to other nations.
Right now, in this kind of UN chaos, nothing prevents any country to impose sanctions unilaterally on another country if they so decide.
I have proposed an idea that all sanctioned States should start an international movement similar to the Non Aligned Movement founded in 1961. This could be called the Block of Sanctioned States Movement – the BoSS movement. I hope it catches on.
Are sanctions illegal?
Simply put, yes they are. They are against international law. Of course some disagree.
In spite of what I said about the United Nations, many States accept that only the UN has the legal right to impose sanctions. Mind you, it would have to be a drastically reformed UN.
At least there would be more eyes supervising the legal application of sanctions. And hopefully – emphasis on hopefully – there would be stronger accountability to provide evidence of any accusation against a legitimate government.
Currently there is no evidence that there is a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela!
The UN knows that, by the way, and does nothing. In the meantime, the U.S. is using infowar to create false evidence. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. are unilateral and are only based on domestic U.S. laws. The U.S. can legislate all they want within their jurisdiction but that does not make sanctions on another country legal when they break international law.
Sanctions are a form of intervention to pursue national goals.
Let me quote a paragraph from the Venezuela Report of last July:
“The policy of imposing unilateral coercive measures, known as “sanctions” … violates the Charter of the United Nations, and conceals an aggressive model of intervention…Beyond the rhetoric that justifies it in the name of “democracy”, sanctions are an instrument of war, designed to make people suffer in order to bend sovereign States.” [3]
Notice that Venezuela is calling sanctions by its full name: “Unilateral coercive measures”. That’s what they are.
It is important to know that Venezuela has responded with the most advanced economic strategy to this economic war by sanctions and the parallel foreign-induced inflation.
Venezuela has targeted the essence of the damaging effect of sanctions: the U.S. financial system itself that imposes the U.S. dollar as the world reference currency. The latest Venezuelan monetary reconversion has set an economic recovery path by which the Venezuelan economic system is not measured in terms the U.S. dollar but by the value of its own oil resources linked to a crypto currency, the Petro.
I called this a monetary revolution within the Bolivarian Revolution. It minimizes the impact of the U.S. sanctions, but most importantly it has already set an example to other nations. [4] [5]
Legal Trojan horses
It is often the case in international agreements; legislation or charters that “exceptions” are introduced, which invalidate the main thrust of the agreement or charter. I have already referred to the UN that establishes a Security Council with powers over the whole assembly of nations as such an exception.
This is what I call a legal Trojan horse that facilitates the lawfare.
I want to give an example of a legal Trojan horse in international legislation that is closer to home in Latin America, in relation to the OAS.
Lima Group
Last February the illegitimate Lima Group, with no OAS authority, used Article 19 in Chapter 4 of the 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter to prevent Venezuela from participating at the OAS Summit in Lima, Peru. They quoted the following bit from the article:
“…any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a state of the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that state’s government in the Summit of the Americas process.”
But they conveniently omitted in that quote of Article 19 the very relevant beginning of the article that says,
“Based on the principles of the Charter of the OAS and subject to its norms…”
Therefore the 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter does not supersede, does not invalidate or cancel out the 1948 OAS Charter. It recognizes it explicitly.
If we read the principles of the 1948 OAS Charter, the relevant article – Article 19 of Chapter 4 (not to be confused by the coincidence of the same article numbers in the two different pieces of documents) – says:
“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.”
In my view the 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter is the Trojan horse introduced to weaken the OAS Charter of 1948.
I do not believe that the team of international lawyers in 2001 would have made such a gross error to have missed the most relevant article of the OAS Charter that prevents precisely what’s at the essence of all U.S. actions: Intervention!
I am inclined to believe that this was an intentional planting of confusion and attack. A true Trojan horse.
What to do?
I know what not to do. I don’t think we should all become international lawyers or experts to fight back lawfare and illegal sanctions. But we must be sufficiently aware to have a working knowledge of the implications of those interventions in Latin America.
Today we cannot lose Venezuela. We need to maintain the Bolivarian Revolution alive. I don’t say this because I am a Venezuelan and a Chavista. I say this for the sake of democracy and the rule of law in Latin America.
We have worked hard to keep the Cuban Revolution alive. We can do it. Tomorrow it might be Bolivia’s turn needing our solidarity.
Once we understand that interventions in internal affairs of another country are illegal – by tribunal decision or by people’s majority decision – we may use those arguments in our solidarity work wherever and whenever necessary.
I think that the “Canada-U.S. campaign to end sanctions against Venezuela” underway now is a great action that can bring us all together. [6] Venezuela and Latin America need us.
We only have a decaying U.S. empire to take on. We can do it if we stick together.
*
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 is the edited version of a panel presentation by the same title that took place in Toronto, Canada on October 13, 2018 The Event was sponsored by:
The Louis Riel Bolivarian Circle
Venezuela Solidarity Committee Toronto
Colombian Action Solidarity Alliance (CASA)
Socialist Action
NDP Socialist Caucus
Casa Salvador Allende
Toronto Association for Peace and Solidarity (TAPS)
Victor Jara Cultural Group
Communist Party of Canada (Ontario)
Hugo Chavez Peoples Defense Front (HCPDF)
Canadian-Cuban Friendship Association Toronto
Canadian Latin American and Caribbean Policy Centre (CAL&C) Common Frontiers
Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Network (LACSN)
***
Nino Pagliccia is an activist and writer based in Vancouver, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” http://www.cubasolidarityincanada.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
China and India are actively competing with one another in East Africa, though this struggle for influence has largely failed to attract significant global attention. Both Great Powers are reluctant to recognize this in order to preserve their superficial and largely limited partnership through BRICS, while the US and its Mainstream Media partners don’t want to “jump the gun” and pressure India into this role too much to the point where its leadership backtracks in order to “save face” and deflect accusations of being an “American proxy”. This is therefore a very sensitive topic, albeit one that deserves further investigation because of its geostrategic implications, particularly as they relate to Great Power competition more broadly and Africa’s rising role in the world more specifically.
China needs Africa as a market to sell its overproduced goods to in order to sustain domestic economic growth, while India needs the continent in order to grow into a Great Power with a truly transregional reach. Accordingly, China unveiled its One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity in 2013 in order to meet this pressing strategic demand, while India followed up last year in 2017 with the “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” that it plans to construct together with Japan. China’s focus is on building physical infrastructure and issuing no-strings-attached loans to fund these megaprojects, while India intends to improve the capacities of Africa’s citizenry by investing in job training programs, education, and healthcare.
Military Motivations
These connectivity initiatives are complementary to one another in principle but end up being competitive in practice due to the New Cold War pressures being put upon each Great Power. A security dilemma has progressively developed between them as China’s naval base in Djibouti was politicized by the Western Mainstream Media and government officials as supposedly being the first step in a continental-wide military expansion. As such, India was encouraged to stake out an overseas military facility in the Seychelles, which it – just like China – claims isn’t aimed against anyone. Clearly, however, the Indian move was in response to the Chinese one and was more than likely supported by New Delhi’s new “Western partners” who have an interest in “containing” China and turning the South Asian state into its chief rival all across the Indian Ocean Rimland.
None of this will ever be openly admitted by any party because of the sensitivity involved in officially recognizing this for what it truly is, but it’s difficult to come to any different conclusion when considering the seemingly coordinated moves that were just described. One action appears to have beget an equal and reciprocal reaction in this Great Power rivalry, though with one of the parties – in this case, India – being encouraged to do this by its third-party partners who have a shared interest in “containing” China. To be clear, one prospective Indian military facility isn’t going to “contain” much when it comes to China’s involvement in Africa, but the point to focus on is that it’s a start and could portend the unveiling of a more robust policy from New Delhi in the near future, one which might even come to receive multilateral support from others.
There’s another driving force behind the Chinese-Indian “Great Game” in East Africa, and it’s the fear – whether justified or not – that China’s New Silk Road ports might one day come to have a dual purpose in laying the basis for the speculated expansion of the country’s military footprint in Africa. This narrative might have been introduced as part of a weaponized infowar operation to justify the establishment of anti-Chinese military bases in the continent by countervailing powers such as India, especially when it comes to convincing its people of the perceived need for their government to take such an unprecedented move in the first place. Whatever the origins of this prediction, it’s evidently served its purpose by catalyzing a self-sustaining cycle of competition between China and India in East Africa, one which began in the economic sphere but is now rapidly taking on military dimensions.
The relationship between military moves and informational warfare campaigns to justify the first-mentioned has already been extensively studied by other researchers, though public knowledge is lacking about how this plays out in the case of the Chinese-Indian “Great Game” in East Africa, ergo the need for others to delve much deeper into this topic. It might be difficult to arrive at objective conclusions, however, given that each “side” has their own self-interested stake in controlling every dimension of this narrative, including in the academic realm, which is where the utility of Russian researchers could come in handy given Moscow’s excellent relations with both Beijing and New Delhi. Going forward, it would be a service to all who are interested in this field if more neutral observers such as those in Russia invested the time and effort into producing material on this topic, since it would greatly aid in the world’s understanding of the military-infowar relationship in the given context.
The Three Theaters Of Rivalry
The East African realm of competition that China and India are competing over is a geographically extensive one that runs from the Horn of Africa all the way down to the Mozambique Channel and can correspondingly be broken down into three separate theaters. The first one begins in the north and is centered on Ethiopia, one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and an aspiring Great Power. China built the Djibouti-Addis Ababa Railway (DAAR) in order to connect this landlocked giant to the global marketplace, but Beijing and its national companies of course don’t have exclusive monopolistic rights to its use. This means that India and other countries could utilize this megaproject in order to enhance their trade ties with the country, which will ideally lead to a “win-win” outcome where Ethiopia can continue its development and therefore become a more sizeable marketplace for China’s overproduced goods as well.
The same logic holds true for Kenya and Tanzania, the two coastal states of the East African Community (EAC), where China is also building connective infrastructure projects. Beijing is behind the Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya and the Central Corridor in Tanzania, both of which aim to deepen the connectivity between these host countries and their organizational counterparts of Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi. Tanzania is already linked to Zambia via the Cold War-era TAZARA project that represents China’s first-ever Silk Road investment in the modern era and which holds the potential for being expanded deeper into the mineral-rich southeastern reaches of the Congo one day too. Kenya and Tanzania are also more stable and developed than Ethiopia, making them much more attractive destinations for Chinese and Indian investment and the most suitable launching pads for their economic strategies in the continent.
Lastly, Mozambique has a special place in the Chinese-Indian “Great Game” in East Africa because of its enormous offshore energy reserves in the north, some of which it shares with Tanzania. In and of itself, Mozambique doesn’t have much to offer to any potential partners because of its rampant underdevelopment and comparatively small population, which is why its energy potential becomes disproportionately important. China and India are both craving new sources of supply, and it remains to be seen whether Mozambique will balance between these two Great Powers or sell more of its reserves to one or the other. In addition, any prospective reserves exported from Mozambique to either of these two would have to pass very close to the Seychelles, demonstrating a degree of prudence on behalf of India’s decision makers or their foreign patrons in choosing this country for an overseas base.
As it currently stands, the competition between China’s New Silk Road and India’s “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” is amicable at the moment and has yet to develop into anything too dramatic, but it must be accepted that the rivalry between these two has only just begun and is still in its early stages. According to the dynamics of chaos theory, it’s precisely at this time when the contours of any complex system and its working processes are formed, meaning that these moves will likely set the trajectory for how the rivalry between China and India will play out in East Africa in the coming years. Bearing that in mind, it’s possible to forecast the general direction in which events will unfold, relying on the observation that China’s strategy is to focus more on “hard” development while India’s is to take care of its “soft” counterpart.
China is hoping that the “head start” that it has over India in investing in Africa will lead to preferential trading arrangements with its partners, specifically those in East Africa who are its initial points of contact with the continent for geopolitical reasons. Beijing has sought to win their loyalty through no-strings-attached loans, but as an added “insurance policy” and as evidenced from the Sri Lankan case, it has no qualms about trading in the debt owed to it for the physical assets that it built because of those very same loans, which might have unintentionally given “credence” to the narrative that it has dual military intentions in mind for those facilities. There’s a certain believability to that, however, since China will inevitably be compelled to protect its Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) just like all other Great Powers have done in history who depended on maritime trade for their growth.
India, meanwhile, could carve out a valuable niche for itself and Japan – and perhaps even their other “Quad” allies of the US and Australia – by delivering on the expectations that are placed upon it in developing East Africa’s “soft” infrastructure and enhancing the competitiveness of its population. China has thus far either neglected to adequately invest in this sphere or hasn’t done so in as competitive of a manner as to make much of a difference on the large scale that’s needed, though that could obviously change in the future. China is developing all the necessary “hard” infrastructure routes in East Africa and leaving none to its rivals so it will sooner or later end up expanding its influence into their “soft” infrastructural realm, whereas they’ll be hard-pressed to do the reverse in stepping on China’s toes.
Only time will tell which of the two sides will ultimately succeed in building better competencies among the East African population, but India might have an edge over China in this regard because it can rely on its partners to assist it, whereas Beijing has usually been reluctant in allowing even friendly countries to enter the economic space that it’s staked out for itself. That might also have to change in the future if China wants to keep up with its rivals, so it’s entirely possible that it might enter into multilateral coordination with its Russian, Turkish, and Pakistani partners in order to streamline investments and outreach activities that more robustly counterbalance the broad support that India is poised to receive. East Africa will benefit from this peaceful competition because it will compel all foreign stakeholders to offer their national partners the best deals possible otherwise their opponents will seize those opportunities.
Another “Scramble For Africa”?
The multilateralization of the Chinese-Indian “Great Game” in East Africa through the involvement of their partnered Great Powers could result in one of two outcomes. The first is that it stabilizes their competition by preserving a strategic balance of power between them and advances “win-win” solutions that give all players a stake in regional stability. This would be the preferred scenario for Africa, and quite frankly, each of the involved parties. The second one, though, is that the risks of destabilization exponentially increase as rival powers come into closer contact with one another in this shared three-theater space, potentially leading to inadvertently hostile competition between them that inevitably forces the weaker African objects of their geopolitical competition to “choose sides”. The logical result of this dangerous development would be that African unity begins to unravel, particularly in the continent’s leading integrational organization of the East African Community
Maintaining stability and a balance of strategic power under these challenging and increasingly unpredictable circumstances would necessitate formal or informal agreements between the competing Great Powers in this sphere, therefore amounting to a de-facto 21st-century version of the “Scramble for Africa”, with each “bloc” accusing the other of seeking to exploit their African partners in a neo-colonial fashion. The aggregate damage that an intensified infowar campaign based on this highly sensitive narrative could cause might ultimately end up being counterproductive to all parties by getting Africans to conceive of them as exploiters who don’t have their genuine interests in mind, even if they do as per the self-interested explanations discussed at the beginning of this analysis. The society-wide cynicism that this could naturally produce might detract from Africans’ willingness to enthusiastically seize the developmental opportunities that each “side” is offering, which would be to their detriment if the deals are legitimately in their interests.
The best proposal that could be made in light of these likely scenarios is for China and India to progressively involve their partners in support of their respective East African projects but not to do so too quickly in order to avoid upsetting the regional balance and inadvertently inciting an even more pronounced security dilemma than already exists. This, however, is an unenforceable suggestion that requires coordination and trust from both sides, which is presently lacking in general and especially when it comes to East Africa. The most probable development, therefore, is that the multilateralization of the Chinese-Indian “Great Game” in East Africa will speed up instead of slow down, and that it might end up becoming somewhat uncontrollable in the coming years. That doesn’t mean that anything dramatic is necessarily bound to happen, but at the same time, such eventualities can’t be discounted either.
“Black Swans”
Even though it may seem like the current state of the Chinese-Indian “Great Game” in East Africa is the epitome of the “win-win” paradigm of International Relations, it shouldn’t be overlooked how “Black Swan” events separate from those connected to the multilateralization these two Great Powers’ rivalry could unexpectedly complicate everything if they lead to the sudden onset of domestic unrest – defined in this context as large-scale protests (Color Revolutions), “rebel” insurgencies, and terrorist offensives – or regional conflict like another Congolese Civil War. These high-impact events are conceptualized as Hybrid Wars, and they might be sparked or guided ex-post-facto by the US in order to disrupt any perceived advantage that Washington may believe that Beijing has in the three competitive theaters of this region. The worst-case scenario would be that a security crisis prompts China and India to fall into the trap of “mission creep” by militarily responding in order to protect their assets, after which the security dilemma between them might become unmanageable and finally explode.
This is unlikely to happen anytime soon, except perhaps in the Congolese case, but there are still some regional fault lines that shouldn’t nevertheless be overlooked. The regular unrest driven by Ethiopia’s largest and centrally positioned plurality of the Oromo people raises concern about the country’s future stability if its new government doesn’t enact adequate reforms at the pace and scope that this influential minority group wants. Likewise, Ethiopia is surrounded by regional problems, whether the credible threats of an Egyptian airstrike over the contentious Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, Eritrea’s reported assistance to all manner of rebel groups within the country, the consummate failed state of South Sudan, and the still-simmering Somalian conflict. The East African Community countries, although comparatively less at risk than Ethiopia, are also beset with identity-centric challenges to their stability and the threat of terrorist groups such as Al-Shabaab, though they’re more likely to be affected in the military and migrant sense by any prospective Third Congolese War if one ever breaks out.
Another issue to keep in mind is that piracy might emerge near the Mozambique Channel as non-state actors try to profit from ransoms after taking LNG tankers and other ships hostage. This is admittedly unlikely but can’t be ruled out because the central government barely has any presence in some parts of Mozambique, especially in the Muslim-inhabited north, and the nearby island nation of the Comoros is full of desperate people who could easily be recruited into such schemes. Just like what happened in the waters around Somalia over a decade ago, an outbreak of piracy of the Mozambican and perhaps even Tanzanian coasts as well would trigger the militarization of this waterway and encourage extra-regional states like China, India, and their Great Power partners to scramble for naval bases in the area. New Delhi could already be ahead of Beijing if its base deal with the Seychelles passes through parliament and it leverages its recently concluded LEMOA-like “logistics” pact to use France’s naval facilities in the region, but China’s checkbook and suspected dual-use intentions of its nearby port projects could bring it back into the game.
Conclusion
Having touched upon all of those scenarios, the odds of them happening appear to be slim at the present moment, and none of the examined East African states apart from Ethiopia and Kenya to a slight degree show any serious signs of domestic instability that could interfere with either China or India’s investments there in the near future. The Chinese and Indian military presences in the region will probably expand with time and be publicly justified by the need to protect their SLOCs, but they should nevertheless be monitored for signs that either of them are preparing to counter the other or intervene in any potential conflict. Thus, the “Great Game” between China and India in this part of the Indian Ocean Rimland will probably remain stable, albeit tense, for some time, and could possibly be leveraged to the advantage of each local player so long as they’re clever enough to play one of them off against the other to their country’s self-interested benefit, though the multilateral militarization of this region must through the introduction of each Great Powers’ partners to this competition could unexpectedly jeopardize regional 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.
Andrew Korybko presented the above text on 18 April, 2018 at a conference about “Russian-African Relations In the Context Of Africa’s ‘Turn To The East’” that was hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of African Studies, and which was later published in the book “Поворот Африки На <<Восток>> ИИнтересы России” (“The Pivot Of Africa To The ‘East’ And The Interests Of Russia”). This article was also 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.
All images in this article are from Eurasia Future (except the featured image on top left).
So maybe Oswald really did shoot JFK with an old Italian army rifle — that now-famous Carcano. But I seriously doubt it. I just can’t picture a Marine Corps trained rifleman selecting such a weapon to shoot anybody. That’s because Italian weapons of the World War II era had a lousy reputation, and most Marines would’ve been aware of that.
Lee Harvey Oswald spent three years in the US Marine Corps, leaving it in September 1959. That was shortly after I enlisted, my time in the USMC overlapping his by a few days. I served for four years, and received my discharge a few months before the assassination. That was over fifty years ago now, nevertheless, Marine Corps training is pretty unforgettable. Having been in the USMC about the same time as the alleged assassin, I handled the same weapons and fired on the same type of rifle range as he did. In this essay I’d like to say a bit about Marine Corps weapons training of that era and how those rifle range realities conflict with the official story.
“The most dangerous thing in the world is a Marine with his M1 rifle,” our Drill Instructors told us from day-one. The M1 Garand was the standard U.S. military rifle at that time, and the Marine Corps took intense pride in training us to use it well. Whatever our military task might’ve been, whether truck driver, cook, office clerk, infantry or radar operator, as Marines we were riflemen first of all.
We were issued the M1 during our first week in boot camp, but before we ever got to the firing range, we spent many weeks learning to dismantle and reassemble it, memorizing the name of every part and understanding its function. Terms like “trigger-housing-group” or “bolt locking lug” still come to mind after all these years. We also spent a huge amount of time on the manual of arms, practicing “right shoulder arms,” “present arms,” all that parade ground stuff. So we all came to know that rifle very, very well. All that was down pat before they ever let us fire it.
Actually, weapons training did not generally start there. Most guys I knew in the USMC came from gun culture, typically starting out in early childhood with a BB gun, later a .22 caliber target rifle, and eventually deer rifles and shotguns. So the USMC was kind of like advanced training in weaponry, where guys learned the fine points of marksmanship, also fired light and heavy machine guns as well as pistols. These guys generally liked guns, visited gun shows, and would often spend hours talking about weapons, discussing which firearm they would choose for this or that task. For long range sniper shooting one needs a very accurate weapon, the first choice being unanimously the 1903 Springfield rifle. The second choice would’ve been a Mauser. The Carcano was not in the running.
(Both the Springfield and the Mauser were ancient, but they were known to be accurate and reliable, and most importantly, in the USMC gun culture of the early 1960s, those two rifles were considered legendary.)
Oswald apparently had some interest in guns. According to his brother, the two of them hunted rabbits with .22 caliber rifles. While in Russia he reportedly joined a gun club. As for the Carcano that he allegedly owned, some gun buffs do acquire all sorts of antique and exotic firearms, and it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that he may have possessed a Carcano. What I cannot believe is that he would’ve considered it a serviceable weapon for the crime of the century — or if he had, I’m sure that President Kennedy would’ve survived the day.
In dismissing the Carcano, I don’t mean to say that Italian craftsman aren’t capable of making quality products. They indeed are. In all sorts of things from clocks to autos, Italian craftsmen have a reputation for excellence. They make good firearms too.
Carcano rifle (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Nevertheless, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy with a Carcano. Yes, a Carcano! It’s hard to imagine a more bizarre story. While it served to promote the image of Oswald as an unhinged nutcase, an important element of the official narrative, it clashes with rifle-range realities.
Within the brief space of less than ten seconds, according to the Warren Commission, Oswald fired three shots, two of which hit the president, a moving target. That would’ve been phenomenal marksmanship, even with a state-of-the-art sniper rifle. Your average Marine is a good shot, but not that good. According to records that were made public, Oswald was about average.
Accurate shooting requires time and concentration; the faster one shoots, the less one hits. USMC marksmanship training included slow firing at 200 and 500 yards, and rapid fire at 300 yards. For rapid fire we were given sixty seconds to fire ten rounds. Our task also included reloading a clip since the magazine only held eight rounds. Being semiautomatic, the M1 would fire as fast as we could pull the trigger — theoretically that is. In reality, the recoil knocks the rifle off target, so each time we fired we had to find the target and line up the sights all over again. That eats up time, precious seconds. Those are physical limitations on how fast anyone can shoot and expect to hit anything. With an average of six seconds for each of those ten shots, it might seem that we had plenty of time, but in reality, those sixty seconds ran by very, very quickly, and accuracy was greatly diminished.
Unlike the semiautomatic M1 Garand, the Carcano has a bolt action, making it much slower to operate. And, that particular Carcano was equipped with a telescopic sight, which makes rapid fire even more difficult. It’s slower to resight a telescopic sight than an ordinary metal one. (Consider also the report that the telescopic sight on Oswald’s Carcano was defectively mounted — which would render any sort of accuracy impossible.)
The marksmanship attributed to Oswald in that Texas town is beyond anything he could’ve done on a USMC rifle range. It was more like what we were used to seeing on the silver screen. Shooting from the hip, Hollywood cowboys could knock a tin can out of the sky; almost every western had a scene like that. And so does the official story of what happened that November day in Dallas. Such are the legendary exploits of superheroes and arch-villains.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
A year ago the US led Coalition played a leading role in the battle for the Syrian city of Raqqa. Coalition forces carried out thousands of air and artillery strikes upon the city that left hundreds dead and helped destroy 80% of the city. A year after this war of annihilation US and UK governments are in complete denial about the war crimes they committed in the battle for Raqqa.
On 10 September the US Department of Defence sent its ‘final response’ to Amnesty International stating that the US refuses to accept any liability for civilian deaths caused by its air/artillery strikes and that it would not compensate families of the ceased or survivors. Nor would the US be prepared to investigate the massive loss of civilian life that was caused by its massive and indiscriminate bombing of the city.
The UK whose air force claims that it struck 216 ISIS targets in Raqqa has also issued the same blithe statements denying any culpability for the deaths of civilians. On 15 October Amnesty International noted that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)* is still, “repeating ‘incredible’ claim its own Raqqa air strikes killed zero civilians.
On 24 September Airwars, founded by investigative journalist Chris Woods, issued a damning report on the claims of the UK government that its air force has not killed any civilians in Raqqa or Mosul:
“It is the view of Airwars that the Ministry of Defences claim of zero civilian harm from its actions at Mosul and Raqqa represents a statistical impossibility given the intensity of fighting, the extensive use of explosive weapons, and the significant civilian populations known to have been trapped in both cities,”
Amnesty Internationals new Secretary General, Kumi Naidoo, has just returned from a field visit to Raqqa. Hehas responded to the mendacious statements of the US and UK governmentsdeclaring:
“Disturbingly, the Pentagon does not even seem willing to offer an apology for the hundreds of civilians killed in its ‘war of annihilation’ on Raqqa. This is an insult to families who – after suffering the brutality of IS rule – lost loved ones to the Coalition’s cataclysmic barrage of firepower.’’
He further added that:
“One year after the battle ended, the obstacles to justice are still insurmountably high for victims and their families. It is completely reprehensible that the Coalition refuses to acknowledge its role in most of the civilian casualties it caused, and abhorrent that even where it has admitted responsibility, it accepts no obligation towards its victims.”
The people of Raqqa whose city was destroyed by the precision strikes of the Coalition military have largely been left to fend for themselves. The US and its UK partner in the coalition of the killing seem unwilling to help rebuild the basic infrastructure of a city that they played a such a major role in destroying. Water, electricity, medical and phone services need to be fully restored never mind the tens of thousands of homes, schools, hospitals and government buildings that need to be rebuilt.
Journalist Patrick Coburn, who has covered the conflict in Syria since its inception, visited Raqqa in June this year and observed:
“The claim by the coalition that its air strikes and artillery fire were precisely targeted against ISIS fighters and their positions is shown up as a myth as soon as one drives into the city. I visited it earlier in the year and have never seen such destruction. There are districts of Mosul, Damascus and Aleppo that are as bad, but here the whole city has gone.’’
According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, there has been, “large-scale destruction throughout the city, a critical level of explosive hazard contamination amidst insufficient resources for surveying and removal of explosive hazards, as well as a shortage of public services.”
Civilians have to contend with large amounts of unexploded Coalition ordinanceand mines left by ISIS fighters which have killed or injured over 1,000 civilians since the battle for Raqqa ended.
Widespread looting by Kurdish troops and criminal elements together with mass unemployment are major problems that the local population have to contend with.
As we approach the centenary of World War One corporate politicians in the US and UK will shed crocodile tears and lament the tragic loss of life involved in that conflict. This will be accompanied by pious declarations that we should never let such slaughter take place again. Of course, such sanctimonious sentiments don’t apply to the slaughter of civilians when it is carried out by America and Britain in pursuit of keeping their citizens “safe from the threat of terrorism’’.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Note
*I contacted the MoD for a comment and was told by its spokesperson that the UK was not responsible for any civilian deaths in Raqqa. He assured me that I would receive a statement of the MOD’s position via email but it did not materialise.
When a scientist who studies the essential role insects play in the health of the ecosystem calls a new study on the dramatic decline of bug populations around the world “one of the most disturbing articles” he’s ever read, it’s time for the world to pay attention.
The article in question is a report published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that in addition to annihilating hundreds of mammal species, the human-caused climate crisis has also sparked a global “bugpocalypse” that will only continue to accelerate in the absence of systemic action to curb planetary warming.
“This study in PNAS is a real wake-up call—a clarion call—that the phenomenon could be much, much bigger, and across many more ecosystems,” David Wagner, an invertebrate conservation expert at the University of Connecticut, said in response to the new report. “This is one of the most disturbing articles I have ever read.”
Authored by Bradford Lister of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Andres Garcia of National Autonomous University of Mexico, the study found that
“[a]rthropods, invertebrates including insects that have external skeletons, are declining at an alarming rate.”
“We compared arthropod biomass in Puerto Rico’s Luquillo rainforest with data taken during the 1970s and found that biomass had fallen 10 to 60 times,” the researchers write. “Our analyses revealed synchronous declines in the lizards, frogs, and birds that eat arthropods. Over the past 30 years, forest temperatures have risen 2.0 °C, and our study indicates that climate warming is the driving force behind the collapse of the forest’s food web. If supported by further research, the impact of climate change on tropical ecosystems may be much greater than currently anticipated.”
As the climate crisis intensifies, Lister and Garcia continued,
“the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in Puerto Rico are expected to increase, along with the severity of droughts and an additional 2.6–7 °C temperature increase by 2099, conditions that collectively may exceed the resilience of the rainforest ecosystem.”
A truly scary new study finds that insect populations in protected Puerto Rican rainforests have fallen as much as 60-fold. https://t.co/NXMIKMCD3p
“Holy crap,” Wagner of the University of Connecticut told the Washington Post when he learned of the 60-fold drop of bug populations in Puerto Rico’s Luquillo rainforest. “If anything, I think their results and caveats are understated. The gravity of their findings and ramifications for other animals, especially vertebrates, is hyperalarming.”
The latest disturbing evidence of the destruction the climate crisis is inflicting across the globe comes just a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the world must cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 in order to avert global catastrophe as soon as 2040.
“Unfortunately, we have deaf ears in Washington,” concluded Louisiana State University entomologist Timothy Schowalter, who has studied the Luquillo rainforest for decades.
*
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
I’m sitting in the departure lounge at Poland’s Krakow airport, waiting for the flight to Edinburgh. Sitting opposite is a young woman with a pink mobile phone resting against her crutch and a plastic bottle of Coca Cola standing in the same place. The first, slowly destroying her brain and reproductive capacity and the second slowly destroying her gut and nervous system.
She has ear pieces extensions coming from her mobile and wears a vacant, somewhat resigned expression on her face. Unaware no doubt, that she is steadily shortening her life expectancy.
It’s a pretty crowded place. The usual array of dominant global corporations display their latest wears in the neon lit sterile corridors that have become the stereo typical environment of international airports the world over. Each processed, packaged product on offer is displayed as ‘irresistible’.
The air in this place is ‘conditioned’, but so is everything. Including the pall of microwaved electronic smog which ensures that no one’s brain is working as it should.We are all anaesthetized.
Manufactured electricity is the dominant energy here, humming and buzzing through the power points of hundreds of appliances, screens and WiFi hot spots. Airports like this pretty much symbolise the normalisation of madness. The less than human techno-dependent totems of the modern computer led era, that creep on and on in their homogenisation of planetary diversity.
The young lady opposite pears at the screen of her cell phone. Suddenly some small glimmer of an expression animates her face. Someone is texting a message to her. I wonder what it says? Maybe “How are you darling – just got back home and found your little brother playing ‘war games 3’ on his new App. Daddy is mowing the lawn – again! Have a great flight and don’t forget to text us when you arrive! Luv, mum.” Her face returns to neutral and she replaces the phone back in its original life sapping position.
Outside the window, various and sundry robotic like vehicles manoeuvre around the acres of tarmacadam that form the terminals of international airports. Not a tree in sight. A few seats down from me, a baby is sitting on its mother’s lap, musing meditatively on whatever it is that babies muse upon. Suddenly a beautiful smile lights up its face. A subtle aura of redemption hangs in the air – and for just a moment – sheer joy penetrates the small space in which this baby exudes her moment of unprocessed pleasure. How good it is to see and feel the power of the human spirit rising up amidst this restless place of concrete, wires, glass and plastic.
Earlier, on the way through security, I am taken aside for having alerted the X ray machine. A security officer takes a pair of tweezers with a tab on the end and scans my hands and wrists. How strange, I think, to be scanning here … until I remember that more and more mortals now have chips in their wrists which would no doubt alert the scanning machine. It occurs to me that maybe I have been ‘chipped’ unknowingly, and am being permanently monitored by big brother’s centralised bureau of investigation. Not impossible by any means, but more likely the reason for the red light to blip on, was a piece of steel inserted into my lower leg by the Polish bone surgeon who fixed my broken ankle a year ago.
Some thirty minutes later, on board the plane, the human side of life manages to interject once again, this time in the form of the flight steward; a jovial soul with a broad Scottish accent and twinkling smile. Laughter breaks-out as he explains why, due to incoming passengers overindulging themselves, there is a lack of sandwiches on board for the return trip. The frisky steward, well into the later stages of his professional career, reminded me of the milkman I once hired to deliver my unpasteurised Guernsey milk and cream to local residents of South Oxfordshire. He was a Glaswegian (from Glasgow) and almost no one understood a word he was saying – including me – so thick was his accent.
But let us thank God that such eccentric individuals remain at large in today’s corporate dominated, politically correct, standardised society. All is not lost, in spite of every attempt being made to drive us into submission to a soulless virtual reality existence. In fact, increasingly there are signs of new life springing up where they might least be expected – as in a routine commercial airline flight between Krakow and Edinburgh. There are always trees that, given only the slightest glimpse of light, manage to grow through the concrete designed to keep them out. Those able to be ‘human’still probably form the majority on this planet; but the pressures to conform to the cyborgian Orwellian agenda are relentless – and warmth of heart is often the first casualty in this drive for domination at the hands of a banker led military industrial ‘new world order’.
The flight is uneventful, thankfully. People settle-in to the usual occupations that preoccupy passengers packed like sardines into noisy and distinctly primitive two centimetre thick pressurised aluminium tubes, jet propelled through the upper atmosphere courtesy of huge volumes of synthesisedkerosene.
We bump down on the tarmac of Edinburgh airport and come to rest at the docking gate. Everyone leaps to their feet as though responding to refrains of God Save the Queen. There is the usual unseemly cavalcade towards the passenger exit point, with the mobile phones once again out in force; twitting and tweeting like a flock of startled birds.
But then something distinctly different – the walkways to customs formalities are completely free of advertising. There is none of the usual frenetic electromagnetic buzz; no mass produced music. People seem to slow down. At passport control an almost palpable hush fills the hall. Couples are taken through together, passing smoothly through the gates. One can almost touch the sense of something real. One can almost smell ‘the tangle of the isles’. Almost sense the not so distant highlands; the lochs, sea, seaweed, the heather – and the proud piper in the glen.
For those who know these parts, a little shiver passes down the spine. Do we not hear the distant refrain of bagpipes calling us again to arms? Ancient, ancient land of barren rugged granite hills – peppered with cascading mountain streams. The haunting, almost treeless landscape, laid waste by man in former times, but still exuding a compelling magnetic power.
Heading out of Edinburgh and beating a path across the bleak and beautiful highlands towards the Western Isles, Jadwiga declares the scene to be “A sad kind of beauty.” “Here you can see the pride of those who held-on and who refused to be ‘developed’” she mused. “A terrible beauty” quoth I, a Scotsman by dint of my forebears of the clan Rose ofKilravock.And as we journey on, so this little tale of humanity and inhumanity comes to rest. The moral, should you call for it, is this: where man has, for whatever reason, failed to install the tearing and tormenting attributes of modernity, so lives on a call upon our deeper senses to rise again and breath anew. Play on, ye pipers at the gates of dawn!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Julian Rose is an international activist, writer, organic farming pioneer and actor.In 1987 and 1998, he led a campaign that saved unpasteurised milk from being banned in the UK; and, with Jadwiga Lopata, a ‘Say No to GMO’ campaign in Poland which led to a national ban of GM seeds and plants in that country in 2006. Julian is currently campaigning to ‘Stop 5G’ WiFi. He is the author of two acclaimed titles: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life and is a long time exponent of yoga/meditation. See Julian’s web site for more information and to purchase his books www.julianrose.info. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The G-20 in Buenos Aires on November 30 could set the world on fire – perhaps literally. Let’s start with the US-China trade war. Washington won’t even start discussing trade with China at the G-20 unless Beijing comes up with a quite detailed list of potential concessions.
The word from Chinese negotiators is not at all bleak. Some sort of agreement could be reached on about a third of US demands. Debate on another third could ensue. But the last third is absolutely off-limits – due to Chinese national security imperatives, such as refusing to allow the opening of the domestic cloud computing market to foreign competition.
Beijing has appointed Vice-Premier Liu He and Vice-President Wang Qishan to supervise all negotiations with Washington. They face an uphill task: to pierce through President Donald Trump’s limited attention span.
On top of it, Beijing demands a “point person” with the authority to negotiate on behalf of Trump – considering the mixed-message traffic jam out of Washington.
Now compare this with the message coming from the research institute fabulously named Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era under the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC): the US has started the “trade friction” essentially “to hinder China’s industrial upgrading.”
That’s the consensus at the top.
And the clash is bound to get worse.Vice President Mike Pence accused China of “meddling in American democracy,” “debt diplomacy,” “currency manipulation,” and “IP theft.” The Foreign Ministry in Beijing dismissed it all as “ridiculous.”
It’s enlightening to pay close attention to what Foreign Minister Wang Yitold the Council on Foreign Relations – as diplomatically as possible: “China will follow a path of development different from historical powers.” And China will not seek hegemony.
From the point of view of the US National Security Strategy, that’s irrelevant; China has been framed as a fierce competitor and even a threat. President Xi Jinping will not cave in to Washington’s trade demands. So expect a possible non-meeting between Xi and Trump in Buenos Aires.
The threat of a nuclear first strike
Things look even hairier on the Russian front. For all of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Taoist patience, Moscow’s diplomatic circles are exasperated by serious American threats – as in the US Navy possibly enforcing a blockade to restrict Russia’s energy trade. Or worse: the ultimatum that Russia must stop developing a missile that according to Washington violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, otherwise the Pentagon will destroy it.
This is as serious as it gets – because it amounts to committing to a US nuclear first strike.
In parallel, BP CEO Bob Dudley told the Oil & Money conference in London that any additional US sanctions against top Russian energy companies would be disastrous.
“If sanctions were put on Rosneft or Gazprom or Lukoil like what happened with Rusal, you would virtually shut down the energy systems of Europe, it is a bit of an extreme thing to happen,” he said.
On the BRICS front, Russia and India deftly maneuvered on their own and managed to squash some US geostrategic planning against the three major poles of Eurasia integration: Russia, China and Iran.
The Quad – US, Japan, Australia, India – was conceived to box in China across the Indo-Pacific, in parallel to confining Russia’s margin of maneuver. The Quad is not exactly in sterling form after India decided to buy Russian S-400 missile systems. Trump has promised revenge.
On top of the S-400 deal, Russian companies will be building six additional nuclear reactors in India, at a cost of $20 billion each, over the next decade. Rosneft signed a 10-year deal to sell India 10 million tons of oil a year. And India will continue to buy oil from Iran, paying for it in rupees.
On the EU front, it’s all about Germany. There are few illusions in Berlin about the EU’s wobbly future. The export-centered German economy is focused on Asia. Germany is doubling down on solidifying an Asian-style model – a few large companies that are national champions able to turbo-charge exports. The US market – under protectionist winds – now is just an afterthought.
Toxic tropics
Then there’s the Brazilian tragedy. President Mauricio Macri ruined Argentina with a neoliberal shock. The nation is now a hostage of the IMF.
A possible scenario is a G-20 in which Argentina will be learning how to deal with a fascist leading its close neighbor and top trade partner, Brazil.
Former paratrooper Jair Bolsonaro may be xenophobic and mysoginistic, but is certainly not a nationalist. The self-billed tropical “Messiah” routinely salutes the US flag. His economic hit man is a Chicago Boy bent on selling the country out – much to the delight of “investors” and “market” experts from New York and Zurich to Rio and Sao Paulo.
Forget about creating jobs or even attempting to solve Brazil’s immense social problems: acute social inequality, pressing investments in health and education, urban insecurity. Bolsonaro’s only “policy” is to weaponize the population in a Mad Max remix.
Everything under Bolsonaro should proceed under the unmitigated reign of a Hobbesian “free” market. Forget about any possibility of a moderating state intervention in the complex relations between Capital and Labor.
This is the apex of a complex process unleashed years ago in Brazil via think tanks such as the Atlas Network, loads of money and, last but not least, an evangelical/neo-pentecostal tsunami.
The pillars of the Brazilian carnage are powerful agro-business and mineral exploitation interests, toxic Brazilian mainstream media, evangelicals, a financial sector totally subservient to Wall Street, the weapons industry, the completely politicized judiciary, the police, intel services, and the armed forces.
And the stars of the show are of course the Beef-Bible-Bullet combo – with their scores of Congress members – overseen by the Goddess of the Market.
Neoliberalism never wins elections in Brazil. So the only way to implement “reforms” is via a sub-Pinochet. Expect widespread social-environmental havoc, indiscriminate killing of rural and native Brazilian leaders, an unmitigated bonanza for the weapons industry, banks celebrating Christmas every week, abysmal cultural repression, total denationalization of the economy, and workers and pensioners paying for all these “reforms.” Call it business as usual.
Bolsonaro’s fascist tendencies were normalized not only by the powers that be in Brazil. Argentina’s Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie qualified him as a “center-right” politician.
Beijing and Moscow – for BRICS reasons – and the EU in Brussels are appalled by Brazil’s descent into the maelstrom. Russia and China were counting on a strong Brazil contributing to a multipolar world as during the time of Lula, who was a major BRICS driving force.
For the EU, it is hard to stomach a fascist leading their top trading partner in Latin America, and the heart of Mercosur. For the Global South as a whole, the implosion of Brazil, one of its leaders, is an unmitigated tragedy.
Now picture Washington as a raging compendium of threats and sanctions. An EU fractured to the hilt – denouncing Asian illiberalism while impotent to fight the “rise of the deplorables” at home. BRICS in disarray, with two in a serious clash with Washington, one out of the game and one on the fence – among the top four. The House of Saud rotting from the inside. Iran not even at the G-20 table. Time to sing What a Wonderful 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.
Requesting the International Criminal Court investigate Venezuela’s government is a significant escalation in Ottawa’s campaign of interference in the domestic affairs of another country.
Supported by five like-minded South American nations, it’s the first time a member state has been brought before the ICC’s chief prosecutor by other members.
In Canada the campaign to have the ICC investigate the Nicolás Maduro government began in May.
“I would like to see the states from the G7 agreeing to refer the matter of crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court for a prospective investigation and prosecution,” said Irwin Cotler at an Ottawa press conference to release a report on purported Venezuelan human rights violations.
The former Liberal justice minister added,
“this is the arch-typical example of why a reference is needed, as to why the ICC was created.”
Cotler was one of three “international experts” responsible for a 400-page Canadian-backed Organization of American States (OAS) report on rights violations in Venezuela. The panel recommended OAS secretary general Luis Almagro submit the report to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC and that other states refer Venezuela to the ICC. In a Real News Network interview Max Blumenthal described “the hyperbolic and propagandistic nature” of the press conference where the report was released at the OAS in Washington. Cotler said Venezuela’s “government itself was responsible for the worst ever humanitarian crisis in the region.”
Worse than the extermination of the Taíno and Arawak by the Spanish? Or the enslavement of five million Africans in Brazil? Or the 200,000 Mayans killed in Guatemala? Or the thousands of state-murdered “subversives” in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, etc.? Worse than the tens of thousands killed in Colombia, Honduras and Mexico in recent years? Worse than the countless US (and Canadian) backed military coups in the region?
Or perhaps Almagro, who appointed Cotler and the two other panelists, approves of the use of military might to enforce the will of the rich and powerful. He stated last month:
“As for military intervention to overthrow the Nicolas Maduro regime, I think we should not rule out any option … diplomacy remains the first option but we can’t exclude any action.”
Even before he mused about a foreign invasion, the former Uruguayan foreign minister’s campaign against Maduro prompted Almagro’s past boss, former president José Mujica, to condemn his bias against the Venezuelan government.
For his part, Cotler has been attacking Venezuela’s Bolivarian government for a decade. In a 2015 Miami Herald op-ed Cotler wrote that “sanctions” and “travel-visa bans …isn’t enough.” The US government “must increase the pressure on Maduro to respect the fundamental human rights of all Venezuela’s people.” The next year Venezuela’s obstructionist, opposition-controlled National Assembly gave Cotler an award for his efforts, notably as a lawyer for right-wing coup leader Leopoldo Lopez. When he joined Lopez’ legal team in early 2015 the Venezuelan and international media described Cotler as Nelson Mandela’s former lawyer (a Reuters headline noted, “Former Mandela lawyer to join defense of Venezuela’s jailed activist”). In response, South Africa’s Ambassador to Venezuela, Pandit Thaninga Shope-Linney, said,
“Irwin Cotler was not Nelson Mandela’s lawyer and does not represent the Government or the people of South Africa in any manner.”
In 2010 Cotler called on a Canadian parliamentary committee to “look at the Iranian connection to Chávez”, asking a representative of Venezuela’s tiny Jewish community:
“What evidence is there of direct Iranian influence, or involvement, on Chávez and the climate of fear that has developed? Is there any concern in the [Jewish] community, with some of the Iranian penetration that we know about in Latin America with respect to terrorist penetration, that it’s also prospectively present for Venezuela?”
Image on the right: Irwin Cotler
A year earlier “Mandela’s lawyer” accused president Hugo Chavez of anti-Semitism. Cotler co-presented a petition to the House of Commons claiming an increase in state-backed anti-Semitism in Venezuela. At the time Cotler said Venezuela had seen a “delegitimization from the president on down of the Jewish people and Israel.” These unsubstantiated accusations of anti-Semitism were designed to further demonize a government threatening North American capitalist/geopolitical interests.
As for the sincerity of his commitment to ending humanitarian crises, Cotler has devoted much of his life to defending Israeli human rights violations, including its recent killing of unarmed protesters in Gaza. His wife, Ariela Zeevi, was parliamentary secretary of Likud when the arch anti-Palestinian party was established to counter Labour’s dominance of Israeli politics. According to the Canadian Jewish News, she was a “close confidant of [Likud founder Menachem] Begin.”
Cotler was no doubt angered by Chavez’s criticism of Israel. In 2009 Venezuela broke off relations with Israel over its assault on Gaza that left 1,400 Palestinians dead. Beyond Israel, Cotler has made a career out of firing rhetorical bombs at the US and Canada’s geopolitical competitors and verbal pellets at its allies.
Of course, it is not surprising to see such hypocrisy from someone leading a hypocritical Canadian campaign to destabilize and overthrow an elected government.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Venezuela has just taken the next step in its quest to “free” itself from the tyranny of US dollar hegemony. One year after the country said it would stop accepting US dollars as payment for its (ever shrinking) oil exports (saying the country’s state-run oil company would accept payment in yuan instead), Venezuelan Vice President for Economy Tareck El Aissami said Tuesday that Venezuela will officially purge the dollar from its exchange market in favor of euros.
While we’re sure that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro would love to frame this as his latest gesture of defiance against tyrannical imperialist overreach by Washington, which he has blamed for aggravating the country’s humanitarian crisis by waging an “economic war” against the oil-rich nation, remember that the US effectively blocked the Venezuelan government from transacting in dollars last year when it imposed restrictive sanctions on the Maduro regime and the country’s state-run oil company, PDVSA. Maduro started the process of moving the country’s DICOM system of official tiered exchange rates in September 2017 when he declared that Venezuela would use a “new system of international payments.”
“Venezuela is going to implement a new system of international payments and will create a basket of currencies to free us from the dollar,” Maduro said in an hours-long address to a new legislative superbody, without providing details of the new mechanism.
“If they pursue us with the dollar, we’ll use the Russian ruble, the yuan, yen, the Indian rupee, the euro,” Maduro declared.
The sanctions have largely excluded Venezuela from international capital markets and the US dollar-based financial system, forcing Maduro’s regime to rely on money-for-oil loans extended by China.
Maduro and many senior members of his government have been personally singled out for sanctions by the Treasury Department, a punishment that Maduro has called “an honor.”
To help seed the Venezuelan financial system with euros, the country’s cash-strapped central bank is planning to auction 2 billion euros some time between November and December.
The American “financial blockade” of Venezuela affects both the country’s public and private sectors, including pharmacy and agriculture, and shows “just how far the imperialism can go in its madness,” the vice president said.
Venezuela’s floating exchange rate system, Dicom, “will be operating in euro, yuan or any other convertible currency and will allow the foreign exchange market to use any other convertible currency,” El Aissami said.
The vice president added that all private banks in Venezuela are obliged to participate in the Dicom bidding system.
Even if it’s insignificant relative to Russia and China’s plans to create an alternative global financial system based on rubles and the yuan, this move is one more blow against US dollar hegemony, and one more step into the open arms of China, which has helped keep Maduro’s teetering regime afloat in the face of an assassination attempt and an aborted US-backed coup.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ net worth exceeds $100 billion – while around 350,000 US company workers struggle to survive on poverty wages, along with enduring deplorable working conditions for maximum productivity at company fulfillment centers.
Last March, company worker James Costello, employed at an Indianapolis warehouse, described conditions as follows:
“(W)e’re expected to push out at least around 20,000 packages, sometimes higher, sometimes lower.”
“It can get unsafe when we have 30,000 or more packages because the other part of the job is loading them into vehicles, and it’s hard to get them all pushed out.”
“Packages get stacked up so people end up tripping. People try to lift heavier packages by themselves and get sprains and other injuries, including to their back.”
“Small injuries like that are not covered by Amazon. You can go home but it’s an unexcused absence.”
“If you are severely injured, insurance will cover it, but only if it can be proven that the injury took place during working hours.”
“At the Plainfield, Ind., facility someone was killed during peak season last year. They got killed by a lift.”
“They were pulling packages, and the lift came down while they were at the bottom underneath it. This demonstrates both a lack of proper safety training and a lack of equipment maintenance.”
Lots of injuries occur, he explained. Many go unreported. People work injured, needing the pay, unable to take uncompensated time off.
When someone is injured, they bear the burden to prove it, often not easy because the company shuns payouts.
Workers are on their feet throughout their shifts, permitted one 15-minute break if work under eight hours daily. If longer, they get an optional unpaid 30-minute meal break.
Workers are pushed to meet quotas, discouraged from taking bathroom breaks, told by superiors it’s not “productive.”
Failure to meet quotas multiple times risks termination. Workers feel exploited. They’re constantly monitored, including when getting a drink of water or going to the bathroom.
Talking is discouraged, workers told they have to be more productive. Benefits are meager. Costello said he gets none because he can’t afford to pay his portion of the cost.
Many workers have no benefits. Others with them aren’t fully covered. Many need other jobs and food stamps to survive.
Turnover is high. Many workers quit or get fired for not making quotas. Some are let go before a pay raise, then rehired at less compensation.
Amazon is not a safe company to work for, he stressed, nor free from racial discrimination. No company locations are unionized, management adamant against it.
The company is like Walmart, exploiting workers for maximum productivity and company profits, way under-compensating them.
On October 2, Amazon announced a “new $15 minimum (hourly) wage…effective…November 1,” adding:
“New $15 minimum wage includes associates employed by temp agencies.”
“More than 250,000 Amazon employees, as well as more than 100,000 seasonal holiday employees, and their families will benefit from the new, higher pay.”
Reportedly, workers paid over $15 an hour will get an added $1 hourly increase.
CEO Bezos claimed management “listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead,” adding:
“We’re excited about this change and encourage our competitors and other large employers to join us.”
Hold the cheers. Increased hourly pay for all company workers comes at the expense of lost bonuses and stock awards – resulting in less compensation overall, greater company profits, why Bezos is “excited” about the change.
Major media largely reacted the same way. The Wall Street Journal called it “goodwill gained with politicians and workers (to) outweigh any hit to profitability, and such a move gives Amazon a possible advantage in hiring tens of thousands of workers during a competitive holiday season and in a low-unemployment environment.”
Senator Bernie Sanders embarrassed himself saying:
“This is what the political revolution is all about.”
“Today I want to give credit where credit is due, and that is that Mr. Bezos and Amazon have done the right thing. This is a significant step forward for many thousands of Amazon employees.”
Sanders like others cheering the move ignored Amazon’s plan to take more back from workers than it’s giving them, decreasing their overall compensation.
“(b)efore the raise, warehouse workers received anywhere from two to three Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) awards, vesting in full after two years.”
“Sitting at around $2,000 a share, Amazon stock is traditionally touted as a massive value-add for employees when determining base wages.”
“On top of that, employees also received monthly bonuses through the company’s Variable Compensation Pay (VCP) program, with the ability to earn up to 8 percent of their monthly income.”
According to Yahoo! Finance, the typical Amazon worker earned $1,800 to $3,000 annually through its variable compensation program. Bonus earnings could double during peak months.
An anonymous worker said an additional $1 in hourly pay amounts to $2,080. It comes at the expense of “a few thousand dollars more from the incentive programs” the company eliminated.
Last year, the media Amazon worker earned $28,446 or roughly $13.68 an hour. An extra $1.32 per hour increases their median annual income to around $30,000.
For a family of four in most US cities, it’s poverty-level income, federal guidelines indicating otherwise way unrealistic.
For decades in America, worker pay lagged inflation the way it should be calculated, not how it is to way understate reality.
People who eat, drive cars, pay rent or high mortgage obligations, have medical expenses, pay college tuition and fees, as well as heat and/or air-condition residences know more about inflation than mainstream talking head economists.
Working class Americans are overworked, underpaid and exploited while corporate giants and high-net-worth households never had things better.
Inequality in the country continues growing no matter which right wing of duopoly governance is in power.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.”
Two of Africa’s most influential extra-regional Great Powers are competing for influence in this East African archipelago, and the resolution of its current crisis will determine which of them comes out on top.
The Comoros is probably one of the most geopolitically curious countries in the world by virtue of its location, history, and international relationships. This former French colony off the coast of East Africa is nowadays very close to China and also counts itself as the southernmost member of the Arab League. It’s experienced over 20 coup attempts in its slightly more than 40 years of independence, some of which were carried out by the infamous French mercenary Robert Denard, and was recently in the news for a shady citizenship scheme where it sold $100 million worth of passports to people from the Mideast. Although being regarded in the past as one of Iran’s few international partners, it decisively shifted its allegiance to Saudi Arabia after breaking ties with the Islamic Republic in January 2016 over Tehran’s contemporaneous tensions with the Wahhabi Kingdom. Taken together, this makes Comoros uniquely positioned at the intersection of French, Chinese, and Saudi geopolitical interests.
Constitutional Context
The three-island archipelago was once again thrown into a sudden crisis earlier this week after protesters from the island of Anjouan blocked off some of the roads in the eastern regional capital in response to a controversial referendum that passed earlier this summer. President Azali Assoumani, who came to power in a 1999 coup and previously served two terms in office, was reelected in 2016 and succeeded in pushing forward his proposal to radically reform the constitution in July after 92% of voters out of a 62% turnout agreed to it. As an oversimplified backgrounder into the complicated domestic politics of this tiny, impoverished, but densely populated country, the capital-hosting northwestern island of Grande Comore currently holds the Comoros’ rotating presidency that was agreed upon in the 2001 constitution that followed the Fomboni Agreement which resolved Anjouan’s 1997-2001 separatist crisis.
The origins of that conflict are extraordinarily complex, but they mostly have to do with local political rivalries that emerged during the Comoros’ chaotic and unquestionably imperfect so-called “democratic transition” in the 1990s. The constitutional compromise that was reached was that each of the country’s three main islands of Grande Comore, Ajouan, and Mohéli would receive broad autonomy along the lines of Bosnia’s two constituent entities, and like that war-torn Balkan country, they’d have their own regional presidents but also participate in a rotating nationwide presidency, too. This arrangement has proven to be exorbitantly expensive and government salaries were previously estimated to account for a whopping 80% of the country’s budget. Assoumani wanted to streamline governance in order to cut down on costs and enable the government to reinvest its resources in one of the world’s most impoverished populations.
Assoumani vs. Abdou
The problem is that his successful motion to change presidential term limits and remove the rotational presidency deprived the Anjouan leader of assuming control of the country in 2021 like he and his people had assumed would happen per the Fomboni Agreement. Furthermore, the country’s second-most populous island had previously fallen back into the throes of separatism for a brief period from 2007-2008 that was only resolved through an African Union-backed military intervention, and Assoumani risks triggering a revival of those sentiments after making moves to implement the results of this summer’s referendum. Of note, the opposition called for a boycott of the vote and claimed that the president’s suspension of the Constitutional Court earlier this year before the poll was held therefore made it illegal. The latest reports coming in from the archipelago show that the country might be on the verge of another separatist crisis.
The government alleges that Anjouan governor Salami Abdou is responsible for orchestrating an “operation of destabilization”, which has included “boats with armed men” sailing from the nearby French overseas department of Mayotte to fan the flames of violence on the island. Importantly, the Comoros officially lays claim to Mayotte on the grounds that the French illegally separated the once-unified colony after the easternmost island still under its control overwhelmingly voted to remain with Paris instead of choose the path of independence like the rest of its ethno-religious compatriots in the archipelago did back in 1975. This was reaffirmed in 2009 when 95% of the 61% of participating locals voted to upgrade their status from an overseas collectivity to overseas department, which observers explained by their desire to retain access to France’s much better welfare system and economy that has made Mayotte the destination of many illegal Comorian immigrants.
Satellite-Tracking Stations & Offshore Energy Extraction
Another interesting wrinkle in all of this is that Anjouan previously requested to rejoin France during the initial days of its de-facto independence in 1997 for what can be presumed are these very same reasons but was politely rebuffed by Paris probably because it didn’t take on what it may have considered to be an economically unproductive burden, even though there was speculation that the Comoros’ former colonizer was tacitly supporting the island during its second 2007-2008 separatist crisis with the central government. Mixed in with all of this neo-colonial intrigue is the China factor, which has increasingly become just as – if not more – significant than the French one. The People’s Republic is now considered to be the Comoros’ top strategicpartner after being the first country to recognize its independence and correspondingly invest in its capabilities over the decades. This has since seen China construct state-of-the-art and much-needed infrastructure as well as help eradicate diseases there.
Somewhat conspiratorially but still reasonably, it’s been claimed that China is only paying attention to such an economically insignificant and politically unstable country as the Comoros because of the strategic interests that it has in possibly building a satellite-monitoring station along the equator and prospecting in the LNG-rich waters off the Tanzanian and Mozambican coasts where plenty of offshore gas deposits have already been found. In the worst-case scenario, China’s preeminent position in the Comoros could allow it to exert influence over those neighboring deposits and keep an eye of nearby naval activity there, thereby justifying its comparatively paltry but nevertheless locally impactful investments there. All of this could be offset, however, if Assoumani is successfully framed by the West as a “power-hungry pro-Chinese dictator irresponsibly putting the country’s territorial integrity at risk” through his “provocative” and “illegal referendum” that might lead to sanctions against him or worse.
“Patriot”, “Dictator”, Or “Patriotic Dictator”?
It’s at this point where it’s worthwhile explaining what Assoumani had in mind with his referendum and antecedent suspension of the Constitutional Court. In his view, the Fomboni Agreement – like the Dayton Accords before it in Bosnia – made the Comoros functionally ungovernable and incapable of long-term planning, which is why he felt that reforms had to inevitably be carried out even if he had to go directly to the people through a referendum by undermining the judicial branch of the “deep state” that might have had self-interested reasons for impeding him. It should be remembered that, for better or for worse, the country doesn’t have a Western democratic tradition and heavy-handed authoritarian tactics are the norm, though he should have foreseen that his brazen attempt to change the law in as dramatic of a fashion as he did and irrespective of the overall support of the electorate that he achieved would have consequences.
It’s difficult to imagine that he thought that the people of Anjouan would take this political “affront” against their island’s autonomy laying down, so the resultant Color Revolution unrest and speculative support thereof from the nearby French overseas department of Mayotte (whether coordinated by the French government or carried out independently by the huge population of illegal Comorian immigrants there) shouldn’t have been unexpected. There’s no telling what Paris’ true intentions would be in clandestinely provoking or passively exploiting this naturally occurring unrest when it previously refused to re-annex Anjouan when it had the chance two decades ago, though one possibility might be that it wants to encourage a rapidly escalating HybridWar that could in turn be used to trigger Western condemnation of the government prior to sanctioning it and subsequently advancing a regime change scenario to remove its Chinese-friendly leadership for the aforementioned speculative reasons.
Concluding Thoughts
The Comorian Crisis has only just begun, but it’s already looking to be more geostrategically significant than any of the other ones that the country has experienced in its over forty of years of independence because of the New Cold War stakes that are involved vis-à-vis China and France. If the rumor mill is even partially correct and China does indeed have some degree of satellite-tracking and/or energy extraction interests in the Comoros, then this would make its latest destabilization (however unsurprising in hindsight as it may be) part of the larger trend of attempting to “roll back” the country’s influence, although it must objectively be said that the current crisis was avoidable despite there being convincing arguments in favor of the president’s controversial referendum. The Comoros’ ignoble history of more than 20 coup attempts points to the possibility of the situation rapidly moving in that direction once again with unpredictable consequences for its lasting stability.
The four most important developments for international observers to keep an eye on are:
whether Anjouan attempts to secede once more;
whether the West attempts to pressure Assoumani through sanctions and other coercive means to cancel the results of his successful referendum and/or step down
the level of support (including military) that the African Union provides to or against Assoumani (the former in potentially repeating the 2008 anti-separatist operation if Anjouan secedes again and the latter in relation to a French-backed “Lead From Behind” regime change operation against him);
and the level of support that China and Saudi Arabia extend to Assoumani to assist him in surviving potentially forthcoming Western-imposed sanctions and/or restoring the Comoros’ sovereignty over Anjouan if the island decides to secede again.
There’s of course also the possibility that Assoumani might be deposed by a military coup and the situation will be resolved in the West’s presumed favor sooner than later, though that can’t be taken for granted in spite of the country’s history. From what it looks like, he seems to be genuinely popular among some of the people (at least those from his home island of Grande Comore, which is also the country’s most populous and importantly the seat of the national capital) and isn’t known to employ mercenaries who could suddenly stab him in the back for the right (foreign-/French-paid) price. Another scenario is that the national government reasserts control over Anjouan and the Color Revolution fails to evolve into a Hybrid War that could then be used to trigger sanctions and everything else that might follow. Nevertheless, this curious country and its ongoing crisis still deserve to be monitored because of its New Cold War relevance.
*
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.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand,” abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass declared 161 years ago.
Last week saw that truth on broad display as Amazon, facing growing political and organizing pressure, announced it was setting a minimum wage of $15/hour for its US workforce and also raising wages in England.
The company’s declaration followed months of mounting bad publicity for Amazon. US workers have been speaking out in greater numbers about the punishing pace of work, high injury rates, and a plantation mentality on the warehouse floor. A British journalist went undercover at Amazon and wrote a book describing workers forced to pee in bottles and extraordinarily high rates of depression. (Ironically, Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain is selling remarkably well on the Amazon site.)
Amazon workers in Germany, Poland, and Spain struck on Amazon’s Prime Day in June, protesting appalling working conditions.
Back in the US, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) went after the company for paying such poor wages that much of its workforce is dependent on public benefits like food stamps, housing subsidies, and Medicaid.
And Amazon’s wage concession followed continued high-visibility mobilizations by Fight for $15 against McDonald’s and other corporate targets.
Naturally, Amazon executives sought to pivot talk away from corporate concession and towards business enlightenment.
“We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and CEO.
Fellow billionaire Nick Hanauer teamed up with union leader David Rolf to heap praise on the company.
“Amazon has smartly chosen to lead the way into the real economy, where we solve the problems, build the things, and pay the wages that truly make America great,” Hanauer and Rolf wrote just hours after the company made the announcement.
Even Sen. Sanders, Amazon’s erstwhile nemesis, felt compelled to pile on, congratulating Bezos personally in a tweet.
So much for the back-slapping and public optics. The view from the warehouse floor is a little more complicated. For while the raise certainly is a product of sustained pressure on the company, it’s not the game-changing largesse that Amazon’s public relations department would have us believe. In low-wage states like Kentucky and South Carolina, to be sure, the raises may amount to $2 or $3 an hour or more. But many Amazon warehouse workers, particularly on the coasts, already were paid close to $15/hour.
Amazon warehouse workers. Photo credit: Scott Lewis
Indeed, setting a $15 minimum wage for 350,000 Amazon workers likely will cost the company less than one tenth of one percent of its net worth: A pittance.
Oct. 2 was the big announcement day. When a New Jersey fulfillment center manager excitedly announced the raise to a gathering of night-shift Amazon workers, the room remained silent, reported one of the workers. It was only when human resources staff started clapping aggressively that others gamely joined in, he said.
His colleagues will accept the raise since they have bills to pay, but because of the punishing pace,
“Workers hate the company. People feel they’re treated like they are slaves,” he explained.
Workers at an Amazon warehouse outside Seattle, Washington, attributed the raise to Sen. Sanders’ advocacy and “people speaking up in an organized way,” according to a part-time distribution center worker. But the issues for Amazon’s workers go far beyond low wages, he said. The constant push for impossible levels of productivity, a lack of respect from supervisors, rampant workplace injuries, and continual burnout and workforce churn are what angers workers the most.
Hands off Labour Law Rally, Toronto, October 15, 2018. [Photo: @rankandfileca]
Those issues share a common root: A business model that implacably demands that workers submit to inhumane levels of exploitation. Unlike in Europe, where many Amazon workers have organized into unions, struck, and won modest gains, US workers aren’t yet unified in sufficient numbers to make big demands on the corporate giant.
Will the splashy wage announcement head off incipient worker organizing? Quite to the contrary, asserted the Seattle worker. It will build confidence in organizing because it shows workers that the company will respond to pressure, he said.
It will take a lot more escalation to win meaningful change. The Amazon workers I’ve talked to over the last year agree that the company won’t fix the appalling conditions until it is forced to do so. That will happen when workers build union organization and, united with consumers and allies, prove they can disrupt Amazon’s operations and hit the company’s bottom line.
That may sound like a pipe-dream. But consider that 100 years ago the titans of the emerging production economy—think basic steel, auto, and electrical industries—seemed omnipotent and untouchable. It took years of struggle, including many tough battles and devastating losses, before the wave of 1930s plant occupations and strikes led by socialists and radicals of various stripes forged new industrial unions. In doing so, they boosted not just working conditions in the production sector, but propelled a broader social movement that organized and won public works jobs, Social Security, labor rights, minimum wages, and other gains of the New Deal era.
Significantly, too, the same factors that shaped the meteoric growth of basic industry 100 years ago—the tremendous economies of scale achievable in mass production, the deployment of cutting-edge technologies, and the application of precise scientific management of production and distribution, including a just-in-time employment model—are core elements of Amazon’s business model today.
The challenge, then as now, is for workers to recognize that as with the industrial monopolies of the last century, Amazon’s extraordinary sweep of power also is its Achilles heel—provided that workers organize. Alone, the Amazon warehouse worker is among the weakest of laborers in America; together in large numbers, they have the power not just to transform what it means to be a warehouse worker, but to help drive a new social movement in our country.
It’s worth recalling that in November 2012, much of the political punditocracy was aghast when a relatively small coterie of New York City fast-food workers first hoisted picket signs demanding $15 and a union. Such an unrealistic demand! Now, six years later, more than nineteen million low-wage US workers have won raises through legislation and workplace organizing as a result, directly or indirectly, of the Fight for $15 movement.
And yet, even with these gains, workers aren’t making it. Nearly eighty percent of full-time American workers say they live paycheck-to-paycheck, seventy-one percent are in debt, and most workers are unable to build up savings to get through a medical, employment, or housing crisis. America is, today, a nation of spectacular wealth enjoyed by the gilded one percent while tens of millions daily teeter on the brink of financial ruin and destitution.
Many of those desperate workers, indeed, already are paid $15 an hour. It’s just not nearly enough to live on.
Over the last six years, we’ve seen corporations like Target, Walmart, and Costco make economic concessions in an effort to forestall demands for something more valuable and radical—real worker power. Now, Amazon has fallen in line with its corporate siblings.
The pundits’ praise for Bezos is utterly misplaced. Praise should go to the workers, who endure brutal conditions, who have just achieved a modest yet remarkable concession from Amazon, and who, step by step, are struggling and learning to build worker power inside the behemoth. We must support them, because their success in this years-long battle will lift us all.
So, let’s be clear: $15 is not nearly enough. It’s time to raise a new banner, a much bolder one that demands an end to brutal working conditions and obscene profiteering, and a societal commitment to rights, security, and power for all workers.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
“It is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Hermann Goering, head of the Nazi army’s equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Head of the Luftwaffe (April 18, 1946).
“Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press– in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years.” — Adolf Hitler
“’The Jewish people are to be exterminated’ says every party member. That’s clear, it’s part of our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, right, we’ll do it. The wealth that they had, we have taken from them. I have issued a strict command…that this wealth is as a matter of course to be delivered in its entirety to the Reich.” — Heinrich Himmler (1943)
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels, German Nazi “Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment”
“The rank and file is usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly… it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” — Joseph Goebbels
“This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed, were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees.” — Rudolf Hoess, SS commandant at Auschwitz
“The people want wholesome dread. They want to fear something. They want someone to frighten them and make them shudderingly submissive.” — Ernst Rohm, chief of the SA, later murdered on Hitler’s orders during the Night of the Long Knives, 1934
”The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.” — Joseph Mengele, MD, Nazi “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz
“Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy (1922 – 1945)
”We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people that wanted to kill us…And we have suffered no harm from it in our inner self, in our soul, in our character.” — Heinrich Himmler (1943)
“It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them…What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
“Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” — Adolf Hitler
“The fascist state must not forget that all means must serve the ends; it must not let itself be confused by the drivel about so-called ‘freedom of the press’…it must make sure that (the media) is placed in the service of the state.” — Adolf Hitler
“An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.” — Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of his homeland security group, the Gestapo
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord.” — Adolf Hitler
“The streets of our country are in turmoil! The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting! Communists are seeking to destroy our country! Russia is threatening us with her might! Our republic is in danger, yes, danger from within and without! WE NEED LAW AND ORDER!” — Original quote from Adolf Hitler (indistinguishable from the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan two generations later)
“Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice.” – Benito Mussolini
”Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who COUNT the votes decide everything.” — Joseph Stalin
“First we will kill all the subversives, then we will kill their collaborators, then…their sympathizers, then…those who remain indifferent, and finally, we will kill the timid.” — Iberico Saint Jean (1977), right wing fascist governor of the Province of Buenos Aires, threatening those who failed to show the necessary enthusiasm for Argentina’s newly formed but un-elected military government, that gained power by coup d’etat.
“The conflict is for us a holy war against Communist aggression to free the peoples of Asia from the Red peril and assure peace in the Far East…Our struggle aims to find peace in new order and in a great and just spirit…New and strong foundations are being laid for world peace and the welfare of humanity.” —Matsuzo Nagai, Japanese Minister of Transport, November 25, 1936, in a message to Joseph Goebbels
“It is not necessary to bury the truth. It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
“Altruism is a great evil…while selfishness is a virtue.” — Ayn Rand, atheist author of Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead and The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand is the hero of the American Libertarian Party, Tea Party, and many members in the Republican Party, as well as several ex-presidential candidates such as David H. Koch, Bob Barr, ex-US House member Ron Paul, current Senator Rand Paul, and recent GOP Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI and probable co-conspirator in the JFK and MLK assassinations, as well as other acts of extra-judicial violence.
“The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful.” — Dick Cheney, Vice-President during both George W. Bush administrations – West Point lecture, June 2002
***
I have lived through the authoritarian-lite, law and order, pro-militarist, pro-corporate administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump, I have been acutely aware of the existence of characteristics of classical fascism because of my own reading of the history of fascism. I have a couple of shelves full of books about the history of militarist/fascist states like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Fascist Japan. I also have biographies about characters like Adolf Hitler,Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering, Benito Mussolini and any number of studies of fascism.
The following four paragraphs come from one of the articles that I have written about fascism:
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Violently opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left-right spectrum.
Fascists regarded World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. All citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and provide economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.
Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascist-leaning movements urge large budgetary outlays for war-making and “defense”.
“All fascist movements are based on hyper-nationalism,” Stanley said.
He said that hyper-nationalism may be racially, ethnically, or religiously based, and that it is always patriarchal and always anti-gay. The end goal of fascist politics, he said, is for an authoritarian leader or party to seize power and maintain power for as long as possible by altering reality to fit their warped vision of the world.
Stanley identified ten characteristics that define fascist political movements.
“I observe all ten pillars in the United States today,” he said.
1. A mythic past. “Fascism always promises to return us to a mythic past” Stanley said. For Hitler, that meant returning to the past of the Holy Roman Empire, when Germans ruled over non-Germans; for Mussolini, that meant the Roman Empire itself.
This past is a place where the patriarchy rules supreme, where in-group men are warriors and in-group women are mothers and wives. This past is mythic, Stanley said: it is fake. It never really was, except in the words of fascist politicians.
2. Propaganda. Stanley said fascist politicians always revert to anti-corruption campaigns, even when they themselves are transparently corrupt. He said the Nazis were among the most corrupt regimes in history, plundering the wealth and property of European Jews, and yet still waged a merciless propaganda campaign that promised to rid the continent of corruption supposedly introduced by Jews.
Trump branded Clinton as “Crooked Hillary” and promised to “drain the swamp,” despite his long history of underhanded business and political dealings. Vladimir Putin, the same time that he is reviving mid-20th century Russian fascist thinker Ivan Ilyin, consistently lambasts the European Union as fascist.
3. Anti-intellectualism. “The enemy of fascism is equality,” Stanley said. He said universities are continually attacked by fascist politicians as hotbeds of cultural and political Marxism. He said these politicians uphold a mythical “common man” as always knowing what is right and deride women and racial and sexual minorities who seek basic equality as in fact seeking political and cultural domination.
4. Hierarchy. As opposed to liberal democracies, which are based on freedom and equality, fascism enshrines a dominant group’s traditions as the unequivocal rule.
5. Victimhood. Throughout fascist politics, the dominant group always portrays itself as victims. Stanley said the Nazis said they were the victims of the minority Jews. He said that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán held an international conference on the persecution of Jews in October 2017, during which he declared that Christians are the most persecuted group in the world.
6. Unreality. Fascist politicians rely on conspiracy theories instead of facts to justify their calls for power. “When ‘Birtherism’ came,” Stanley said, “everyone should have been terrified.”
7. Law and order. The fascist politician promises a regime of law and order not to punish actual criminals, but to criminalize “out groups” like racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. “Right now,” Stanley said, “we’re seeing criminality being written into immigration status” in the United States. He said fascist politicians thrive on launching purportedly specific attacks against certain segments of a population, like “criminal” immigrants or Jews, and then broadening that definition to include the entire group.
8. Sexual anxiety. Stanley said the fascist politician always foments panic around the threat of rape perpetrated by out-group men against in-group women. “The particular threat is rape,” he said, “and then you create fear among people by talking about rape, and then you try to attack people’s diminished sense of traditional manlihood by fomenting fear about sexuality.”
9. Sodom and Gomorrah. Fascist politicians always locate virtue in the countryside and in small towns, and never in cities with their mixtures of people, races, “decadence” and permissiveness.
10. Arbeit macht frei. (“Work Makes You Free”) Fascist politicians identify out groups as lazy, attack welfare systems and labor organizers, and promote the idea that the group on top is hard working, the groups on the bottom are lazy and drains on the state and should be forced to work, ideally for free.
Here is a 5-minute version (Great Summary with video clips):
Here is a 12-minute interview (no video clips) with Thom Hartmann:
And here is the October 11, 2018 DemocracyNow! interview with Dr Stanley:
Fascism Anyone?
By Laurence W. Britt
The following article is from the Spring 2003 issue of Free Inquiry Magazine, volume 22 Number 2, Page 20
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging
everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by proto-fascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later proto-fascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and proto-fascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or
proto-fascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic
and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and proto-fascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s
behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to
ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Sources
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler’s Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
Laurence Britt’s novel June 2004 depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists.
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a writer on subjects related to political, historical and economic issues, wrote the article above about fascism. It appeared in Free Inquiry magazine, a journal of humanist thought. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism.
Dr. Kohls is a retired family physician from Duluth, MN, USA. Since his retirement from his holistic mental health practice he has been writing his weekly Duty to Warn column for the Duluth Reader, northeast Minnesota’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns, which are re-published around the world, deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s over-drugging and Big Vaccine’s over-vaccination agendas, as well as other movements that threaten human health, the environment, democracy, civility and the sustainability of all life on earth.Many of his columns have been archived at a number of websites, including
The fate of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hangs in the balance. The common perception is that everything depends on which way President Donald Trump moves – go by his own preference to bury the scandal over Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance or give in to the rising demand that Saudi-American relations can no longer be business as usual. Trump’s mood swing suggests he is dithering.
Yet, it is Turkey – more precisely, President Recep Erdogan – who is the real arbiter. The Turks have let it be known that they are in possession of materials that expose Khashoggi’s murder. But the official position is that the onus is on the Saudis to prove that Khashoggi left their consulate in Istanbul alive.
The Saudis responded with alacrity by mooting the proposal to form “a joint action team” with “brotherly” Turkey. Turkey agreed and a Saudi team arrived in Turkey on Friday. But Riyadh and Ankara are apparently at odds. Meanwhile, reports appeared that Turkish intelligence has recordings of Khashoggi’s purported killing. Ankara has not disclaimed these reports.
Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Saturday,
“There is consensus on forming a joint working group with Saudi Arabia… It is natural for everyone to show awareness of the case and want it to be clarified.”
However, he stressed that Turkey’s own investigation will proceed independently and it is “getting deeper”. He regretted that Saudi cooperation was not optimal. Equally, the spokesman of the ruling Justice and Development Party Omer Celik warned ominously against any “cover-up”:
“The president is following the matter closely. Turkey’s independent investigation is ongoing. It is a very critical matter. There are speculative claims that a respectful journalist was killed. Such an action is an attack on all the values of the democratic world. It involves the Republic of Turkey directly. This individual went missing on our soil. He entered the premises and did not re-emerge. It will eventually become clear how he went missing, what happened and who organized it. The disappearance of Khashoggi cannot be covered up. “
Cavusoglu, who is on a visit to London, also hinted he might raise the issue with his British counterpart. Significantly, Turkish analysts and circles close to the ruling party have taken an openly hostile stance vis-à-vis Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MBS).
Their narrative harks back to the persistent Turkish allegation that MBS and the UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed have been the cats paw of the US and British and Israeli intelligence in the various hot spots in the Middle East – Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. – and even had a hand in the failed coup attempt against Erdogan two years ago.
According to this narrative, Istanbul was probably chosen as the venue of the ghastly incident, since Erdogan has been giving refuge to fugitives who oppose the two Gulf regimes – alluding to Khashoggi’s friendship with Erdogan and their shared affinity with the Muslim Brotherhood. Ibrahim Karagul, leading editor and a staunch supporter of Erdogan, wrote,
“Turkey must call Salman and Zayed to account… It must ask them to pay for the crimes they committed against our country… They think they can do anything with money and buy everyone… Our file is ready. We are going to hold them responsible not only for the Jamal Khashoggi incident, but for many things, including the July 15, 2016 coup attempt, financing terrorism against our country, arming the PKK and Daesh, the war they are carrying on against our country in northern Syria, and their cooperation in multinational attacks, including the assassination attempt on our president.”
The fact that the Saudi investigation team is headed by Prince Khalid Al Faisal, the third son of King Faisal (and a senior member of the al Turki clan), underscores that the House of Saud senses an existential moment. To be sure, Erdogan is playing his cards shrewdly. He is keeping an uncharacteristically low profile himself and speaking only the bare minimum that is necessary, but has let media leaks continue in a steady stream that has inflamed the western opinion against the Saudi regime.
Trump is having a hard time coping with Erdogan’s “maximum pressure”. On Saturday, he resorted to the “Art of the Deal”. On the sidelines of the release of the American pastor by a Turkish judge on October 12, Trump laid it on a bit thick:
“This is a tremendous step towards having the kind of relationship (with Turkey) which can be a great relationship. We feel much differently about Turkey today than we did yesterday. And I think we have a chance of really becoming much closer to Turkey and maybe having a very, very good relationship.”
Making nice with Erdogan becomes important. Trump has reason to worry that his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s close ties to the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE may come under scrutiny at some point during the investigation into the Khashoggi affair.
Indeed, many possibilities open in front of Erdogan. Quite obviously, it presents him with just the reason to re-engage with the Trump administration from a perspective of being on the right side of history. But the big question is, what is Erdogan’s agenda? To be sure, his “neo-Ottomanism” is on a roll, now that Saudi Arabia has painted itself into a corner.
Clearly, the US-backed alliance between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel and Egypt to contain Iran does not make a new regional order. Erdogan will now assert Turkey’s leadership role in the Muslim Middle East. Importantly, he is known to champion the Muslim Brotherhood as the charioteer of a New Middle East.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
M. K. Bhadrakumar is former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. Devoted much of his 3-decade long career to the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran desks in the Ministry of External Affairs and in assignments on the territory of the former Soviet Union. After leaving the diplomatic service, took to writing and contribute to The Asia Times, The Hindu and Deccan Herald. Lives in New Delhi.
In recent weeks the White House has embraced the contemporary version of the world’s most murderous regimes.President Trump has embraced the Saudi Arabian “Prince of Death” Mohammad bin Salman who has graduated from chopping hands and heads in public plazas to dismembering bodies in overseas consulates – the case of Jamal Khashoggi.
The White House warmly greeted the electoral success of Brazilian Presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, ardent champion of torturers, military dictators, death squads and free marketers.
President Trump grovels, grunts and glories before Israel, as his spiritual guide Benjamin Netanyahu celebrates the Sabbath with the weekly murders and maiming of hundreds of unarmed Palestinians, especially youngsters.
These are President Trump’s ‘natural allies’.They share his values and interests while each retains their particular method of disposing of the cadavers of adversaries and dissenters.
We will proceed to discuss the larger political-economic context in which the trio of monsters operate.We will analyze the benefits and advantages which lead President Trump to ignore and even praise, actions which violate America’s democratic values and sensibilities.
In conclusion, we will examine the consequences and risks which result from Trump’s embrace of the trio.
The Context for Trump’s Tripler Alliance
President Trump’s intimate ties with the world’s most unsavory regimes flows from several strategic interests.In the case of Saudi Arabia, it includes military bases; the financing of international mercenaries and terrorists; multi-billion-dollar arms sales; oil profits; and covert alliances with Israel against Iran, Syria and Yemen.
In order to secure these Saudi assets, the White House is more than willing to assume certain socio-political costs.
The US eagerly sells weapons and provides advisers to Saudi’s genocidal invasion, murder and starvation of millions of Yeminis.The White House alliance against Yemen has few monetary rewards or political advantages as well as negative propaganda value.
However, with few other client states in the region, Washington makes do with Prince Salman ‘the salami slicer’.
The US ignores Saudi financing of Islamic terrorists against US allies in Asia (the Philippines) and Afghanistan as well as rival thugs in Syria and Libya.
Alas when a pro-US collaborator like Washington Post journalist and US resident Jamal Khashoggi was assassinated, President Trump was forced to adopt the pretense of an investigationin orderto distance from the Riyadh mafia.He subsequently exonerated butcher boy bin Salman: he invented a flagrant lie-blaming ‘rogueelements’in charge of the interrogation,—read torture.
President Trump celebrated the electoral victory of Brazilian neo-liberal fascist Jair Bolsonaro because he checks all the right boxes:he promises to slash economic regulations and corporate taxes for multi-national corporations.He is an ardent ally of Washington’s economic war against Venezuela and Cuba.He promises to arm right-wing death squads and militarize the police.He pledges to be a loyal follower of US war policies abroad.
However, Bolsonaro cannot support Trump’s trade war especially against China which is the market for almost forty percent of Brazil’s agro-exports. This is especially the case since agro-business bosses are Bolsonaro’s principal economic and congressional supporters.
Given Washington’s limited influence in the rest of Latin America, Brazil’s neo-liberal fascist regime acts as Trump’s principal ally.
Israel is the White House’s mentor and chief of operations in the Middle East, as well as a strategic military ally .
Under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has seized and colonized most of the West Bank and militarily occupied the rest of Palestine; jailed and tortured tens of thousands of political dissidents; surrounded and starved over a million Gaza residents; imposed ethno-religious conditions for citizenship in Israel, denying basic rights for over 20% of the Arab residents of the self-styled ‘jewish state’.
Netanyahu has bombed hundreds of Syrian cities, towns, airports and bases in support of ISIS terrorists and Western mercenaries.Israel intervenes in US elections, buys Congressional votes and secures White House recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the jewish state.
Zionists in North America and Great Britain act as a ‘fifth column’ securing unanimous favorable mass media coverage of its apartheid policies.
Prime Minister Netanyahu secures unconditional US financial and political support and the most advanced weaponry.
In exchange Washington considers itselfprivileged to serve as foot solders for Israeli targeted wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia . . . Israel collaborates with the US in defending Saudi Arabia , Egypt and Jordan.Netanyahu and his Zionist allies in the White House succeeded in reversing the nuclear agreement with Iran and imposing new and harsher economic sanctions.
Israel has its own agenda :it defies President Trump’s sanctions policies against Russia and its trade war with China.
Israel eagerly engages in the sales of arms and high-tech innovations to Beijing.
Beyond the Criminal Trio
The Trump regime’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Brazil is not despite but because of their criminal behavior.The three states have a demonstrated record of full compliance and active engagement in every ongoing US war.
Bolsonaro, Netanyahu and bin Salman serve as role models for other national leaders allied with Washington’s quest for world domination.
The problem is that the trio is insufficient in bolstering Washington’s drive to “Make the Empire Strong”.As pointed earlier, the trio are not completely in compliance with Trump’s trade wars; Saudi works with Russia in fixing oil prices.Israel and Brazil cuts deals with Beijing.
Clearly Washington pursues other allies and clients.
In Asia, the White House targets China by promoting ethnic separatism.It encourages Uighurs to split from China by encouraging Islamic terrorism and linguistic propaganda.President Trump backs Taiwan via military sales and diplomatic agreements.Washington intervenes in Hong Kong by promoting pro-separatistpoliticians and media propaganda backing ‘independence’.
Washington has launched a strategy of military encirclement and a tradewar against China .The White House rounded-up Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and South Korea to provide military bases which target China.Nevertheless, up to the present the US has no allies in its trade war.All of Trump’s so-called Asian‘allies’ defy his economic sanctions policies.
The countries depend on and pursue trade with and investments from China.While all pay diplomatic lip service and provide military bases, all defer on the crucial issues of joining US military exercises off China’s coast andboycotting Beijing.
US efforts to sanction Russia into submission is offset by ongoing oil and gas agreements between Russia , Germany and other EU countries.US traditional bootlickers like Britain and Poland carry little political weight.
More important US sanctionspolicy has led to a long-term, large-scale strategic economic and military alliance between Moscow and Beijing.
Moreover Trump’salliance with the ‘torture trio’ has provoked domestic divisions.Saudi Arabia’s murder of a US resident-journalist has provoked business boycotts and Congressional calls for reprisal.Brazil’s fascism has evoked liberal criticism of Trump’s eulogy of Brazilia’s death squad democracy.
President Trump’s domestic electoral opposition has successfully mobilized the mass media, which could facilitate a congressional majority and an effective mass opposition to his Pluto-populist (populist in rhetoric, plutocrat in practice) version of empire building.
Conclusion
The US empire building project is built on bluster, bombs and trade wars.Moreover, its closest and most criminal allies and clients cannot always be relied upon.Even the stock market fiesta is coming to a close.Moreover, the time of successful sanctions is passing.The wild-eyed UN rants are evoking laughter and embarrassment.
The economy is heading into crises and not only became of rising interest rates.Tax cuts are one shot deals – profits are taken and pocketed.
President Trump in retreat will discover that there are no permanent allies only permanent interests.
Today the White House stands alone without allies who will share and defend his unipolar empire.The mass of humanity requires a break with the policies of wars and sanctions.To rebuild America will require the construction, from the ground-up, of a powerful popular movement not beholden to Wall Street or war industries.A first step is to break with both parties at home and the triple alliance abroad.
*
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 Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
I maintain that regardless of the political, strategic, demographic, and regional vicissitudes, the two-state option remains the only viably sustainable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the one-state solution is simply a non-starter. I also maintain that successive Israeli governments, irrespective of their political leanings, perpetuated the occupation. They created what is effectively an apartheid state in the West Bank by applying different laws, different roads to travel, and a different security apparatus, all designed to suppress the Palestinians.
The Israeli public is wrapped up with the illusion that the status quo can be maintained for another 50 years, or even indefinitely. The public has become complacent to the point where the conflict with the Palestinians is no longer an issue that warrants any special attention.
Right-wing Israeli governments in particular have portrayed the Palestinians as the perpetual enemy committed to the destruction of the country, and there is not much that can be done other than to keep them at bay by force.
Netanyahu changes his narrative to suit the political moment, but he cannot change the facts on the ground. The harsh policies Israel is applying to the occupied territories designed to force the Palestinians to give up in despair and leave has failed. In the process, Israel precipitated the rise of a new generation of Palestinian extremists who not only outnumber those who have left by far, but, unlike their elders, are determined to resist the occupation at all costs.
All the talks about the creation of a confederation between the Palestinians, Jordan, and potentially Israel will go absolutely nowhere. The Palestinians must have their own state first, and join such a confederation as an equal and independent partner if and when they desire.
More than any other administration, Trump’s has enabled Netanyahu to act as he pleases against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with impunity. Trump is providing Netanyahu with the political support that allows him to maintain his addiction to the occupation.
Given that only the US can persuade, pressure, or coerce Israel to agree to a two-state solution, the US must bear the moral responsibility to act to save Israel from the slippery slope that endangers its very survival while pushing the Palestinians to a point of no return. A wake-up call is overdue for both Israel and the 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. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected]Web: www.alonben-meir.com
The cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan—a nation under the military control of US and NATO forces for more than twelve years—has risen to an all-time high, according to the 2013 Afghanistan Opium Survey released Wednesday by the United Nations.
According to the report, cultivation of poppy across the war-torn nation rose 36 per cent in 2013 and total opium production amounted to 5,500 tons, up by almost a half since 2012.
“This has never been witnessed before in the history of Afghanistan,” said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, the outgoing leader of the Afghanistan office of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which produced the report.
***
The U.S. military has allowed poppy cultivation to continue in order to appease farmers and government officials involved with the drug trade who might otherwise turn against the Afghan Karzai government in Kabul. Fueling both sides, in fact, the opium and heroin industry is both a product of the war and an essential source for continued conflict.
Public Intelligence has published a series of photographs showing American – and U.S.-trained Afghan – troops patrolling poppy fields in Afghanistan. Public Intelligence informs us that all of the photos are in the public domain, and not subject to copyright, and they assured me that I have every right to reproduce them.
We produce these photos and the accompanying descriptions from Public Intelligence without further comment.
U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Noel Rodriguez, a team leader with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 6, communicates with an adjacent squad while on patrol in Sangin, Helmand province, Afghanistan, May 1, 2012. Marines patrolled to provide security in the area and interact with the local populace.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will see each other during an upcoming summit, which will be their first meeting since last month’s tragedy.
The Israeli premier said that he spoke to President Putin on 7 October, which just so happened to be the Russian leader’s birthday, and announced that they’ll meet face-to-face sometime soon. There’ll surely be a lot for them to talk about when they do, though, since Moscow has already gone through with its promised shipment of S-300s to Syria that Tel Aviv warned earlier this year might prompt it to destroy these defensive anti-air systems if Damascus uses them against its aircraft whenever they engage on bombing missions in the Arab Republic. The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged that Israel’s previous claim of carrying out over 200 bombings there in the past 18 months alone was true but remarked shortly after last month’s tragedy that they only informed Moscow in advance through the so-called “deconfliction mechanism” created just prior to Russia’s 2015 anti-terrorist intervention in only around 10% of these total attacks.
That will probably change now that the S-300s are in Syria, though that development in and of itself doesn’t exactly mean what many people might think that it does either. The Russian military is still in possession of these systems and training their Syrian counterparts over a three-month period on how to use them, after which it’s almost been left deliberately ambiguous whether they’ll be fully transferred to their host’s control or not. Russian spokespeople have said on numerous occasions that the S-300s are being shipped to Syria strictly to ensure the safety of their troops there, which leaves open the conceivable possibility that a so-called “compromise” might be reached between Russia and Israel to have Moscow retain control over these systems instead of giving Damascus full and independent control over them, which might further an incipient rapprochement between Russia and Israel and prevent the regional situation from becoming more unpredictable.
Israel has made it clear that it will not stop attacking IRGC and Hezbollah positions in Syria that it believes pose a threat to its national security, while Syria will probably defend itself with the S-300s if it does, potentially sparking a larger war despite this being its sovereign right. Understanding this dynamic, reports have recently surfaced that Russia is trying to mediate between Iran and Israel in Syria in order to prevent Tel Aviv from partaking in any more strikes in the first place, which might be why President Putin said earlier this month that Moscow is “pursuing a goal that there would be no foreign forces of third states in Syria at all” after the end of the war. Ideally, Russia will try to facilitate a so-called “gentlemen’s agreement” between the two regional adversaries, which could be part of what President Putin discusses with Netanyahu during their forthcoming summit.
*
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.
Facebook purged more than 800 accounts last week, continuing its scorched-earth campaign of eradicating dissent as Americans prepare to go to the polls. The social media platform is nicely settling into its role as official censor, working hand in glove with the imperialist Atlantic Council to silence all popular voices to the left and right of neoliberal orthodoxy. As the boundaries of acceptable political discourse narrow online, Big Tech has been drafted to do Big Brother’s dirty work – the methodical dismantling of First Amendment protections behind the smokescreen of private enterprise.
On Thursday, the social media platform issued a press release explaining that the offending pages were engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” – self-promoting with fake accounts and circular links, a practice common to many news pages on Facebook – and even admitted that such behavior was “often indistinguishable from legitimate political debate.” There was no explanation of how they distinguished the behavior of, say, a progressive antiwar blog from a Washington Post columnist, or why they would censor the former and not the latter.
Establishment media outlets like the New York Times eagerly parroted the press release, dismissing the purge victims as dishonest spammers preying on impressionable users, even opining that there was something awfully Russian about the whole business, as if the Kremlin had invented clickbait.
But many of the deleted pages were genuine alt-media sites with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of followers – from AntiMedia and Free Thought Project on the Left to Nation in Distress and RightWingNews on the Right. Popular pages dedicated to exposing the horrors of the American police state like Cop Block and Police the Police also got the boot. When they took to Twitter to protest, many were removed from there as well – AntiMedia and Free Thought Project had their Twitter accounts suspended within hours of the Facebook purge, as did AntiMedia publisher Carey Weidler.
One Twitter user received a followup message thanking them for a report against AntiMedia they did not make, indicating there might be more going on here than meets the eye. The message is especially intriguing given recent admissions from Facebook that at least 90 million accounts may have been hacked. If certain entities are spoofing abuse reports in order to have pages deplatformed whose politics they disagree with – or actually hacking third parties in order to use their accounts to report those pages – users need to know (I have personally heard from a few others who received these messages – if this has happened to you please send me your story, with screenshots if possible).
I just got a notification that my “report” of @antimedia was successful, however, not only do I not recall reporting it, I don’t know of it at all – they aren’t on my block list, where anyone I’ve reported ends up – should I be CONcerned? pic.twitter.com/HDhOUyGDmD
Facebook’s press release states that “people will only share on Facebook if they feel safe and trust the connections they make here.” Facebook has proven since the very early days that they are anything but trustworthy – from Mark Zuckerberg’s eager collaboration with the NSA’s PRISM program to the partnership with the pro-NATO Atlantic Council to the platform’s ultimate admission that basically everyone’s data has been compromised at this point. Anyone who “shares” on Facebook at this point is deliberately ignoring reams of proof that the platform is not “a place for friends.”
While Facebook has always been in the pocket of the security state, its alliance with the Atlantic Council earlier this year ushered in an Orwellian new era. A press release gushed that the think tank, which boasts such esteemed warmongers as Henry Kissinger,Brent Scowcroft, and Condoleezza Rice on its Board, would serve as the “eyes and ears” of Facebook so the platform could play a “positive role” in ensuring democracy was practiced correctly in the future. Since then, its news feed has been cleansed of actual news and political writers have seen their audience numbers plummet as their posts are hidden for running afoul of proprietary algorithms.
In August, hundreds more accounts got the axe after cybersecurity firm FireEye linked them (very tenuously, in some cases) to Iran and Russia. The smoking gun? “Coordinated inauthentic behavior” geared toward “shaping a message favorable to Iran’s national interests.” Anti-war activists were put on notice. One need only post “anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes” to have one’s Facebook account – which Zuckerberg wants to see become an internet drivers’ license – yanked for failure to toe the line.
As Americans, denial is our national pastime, and plenty of Facebook users will remain on the platform until they themselves are caught in the wrongthink dragnet. The use of “spam” as the rationale for removing these pages is no accident – like “hate speech,” the term inspires a visceral negative reaction while lacking a definite meaning.
Spammers are less than human – often automated bots that seem to exist just to irritate us. We do not care what happens to spammers, any more than we care what happens to the “haters” we hear about in the news but have never met. The mainstream media encourages this mentality by smearing the deplatformed users as the equivalent of 2016’s Russian trolls – worse, because they’re essentially betraying their government by promoting wrongthink in their fellow Americans.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand why the media establishment might be cheering on and enabling Big Tech’s censorship of alternative voices. As the election approaches, the establishment is panicking because they have been unable to fully regain control of the discourse.
Having long since jettisoned fact-checking and journalistic integrity in order to more effectively fearmonger, mainstream media lacks any concrete advantage over the competition, and more people than ever are turning to independent media for their news. As a result, the establishment has lost every single pitched information battle since the election. Kavanaugh’s confirmation? The media wanted to see him strung up by the balls without so much as an indictment, let alone a trial, even though as a Bush minion he was effectively one of theirs, but he’s now ensconced in the Supreme Court. The Helsinki summit? The media shrieked for a solid week that Trump had sold the nation out to Putin for a football and a pat on the head; missing evolutionary link John Brennan all but called for a military coup, but nothing happened. Both media events revealed just how impotent they have become regarding their ability to change the facts on the ground.
This is not to say they have no influence, however. The nation remains crippled by the military-industrial leeches sucking it dry through multiple wars, many undeclared. The media marches in lockstep cheering on every increase in military spending, every missile dropped on a Yemeni wedding party or Syrian child. Americans have become hyper-partisan even in our personal lives, a self-perpetuating feedback loop the media set off in 2016 with a dozen “Boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse like Trump? Dump that scumbag!” articles, no doubt due for a revival with thoughtful meditations on how we should avoid family at Thanksgiving if they voted the wrong way a few weeks before. The establishment media and Big Tech are collaborating to foster this ugly with-us-or-against-us climate, forcing us to choose between a “blue wave” or “red wave” when both are repulsive tides of sewage, reassuring us all will be well if we just hold our noses and vote the party line.
Only independent media permits sanity and reality to intrude on the delusional fantasy fed us by the ruling class. Dismissing the victims of the latest Facebook purge as “spammers” is the cowardly act of a dying species. The New York Times, CNN, and the rest of the hagiographers of hegemony must join the rest of the dinosaurs in history’s tarpits.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Helen Buyniskiis a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
An extremely noteworthy and negative event took place in early October, largely unreported by the corporate-controlled media: in a coordinated purge, Facebook and Twitter deactivated the accounts of hundreds of independent media pages, some of them with hundreds of thousands or even millions of followers, just a few weeks prior to a major election.
Articles describing this coordinated purge of accounts can be found here, here, and here. Lee Camp and Eleanor Goldfield’s overly profanity-laden but still substantive discussion of this important topic can be heard (or downloaded) here.
The fact that the personal Twitter accounts of some of the individuals associated with the pages that were purged from Facebook were simultaneously suspended for no specific reason (such as the Twitter account of Anti-Media editor Carey Wedler, discussed here) is a particularly ominous development and demonstrates that last week’s deletion of accounts was coordinated across two major platforms for publication and political expression.
One standard response to this outrageous action by Facebook and Twitter (and to similar coordinated censorship involving Google and its YouTube platform in previous months) is that “these are private companies, and they can do what they want.”
This opinion is so widespread that it is raised as a possible counter-argument by both Carey Wedler in her video linked above and in the podcast by Lee Camp and Eleanor Goldfield, although in both cases they argue that the “private companies can do whatever they want” assertion is invalid.
Carey, Lee and Eleanor are correct: the argument that private companies such as Facebook and Twitter can do whatever they want is invalid, although the counter-arguments offered in the video and podcast linked above are somewhat tentative.
It should be blatantly obvious that this coordinated act of political censorship is morally reprehensible and in fact patently illegal — notwithstanding the fact that both Facebook and Twitter are private corporations.
However, many in the “alternative” community are somewhat conflicted on this issue, because of the widespread adoption of the seductive but badly mistaken ideology of libertarianism, which believes there is little that cannot and should not be privatized, and rejects the idea that the government of the people should act as a counterbalance against the privatization of that which properly belongs to the public itself. As Professor Michael Hudson says in this regard, “Libertarianism thus serves as a handmaiden to oligarchy as opposed to democracy” (see full quotation on page 142 of his essential text, J is for Junk Economics, which is quoted in previous posts such as this one and this one).
The solution to the dilemma is to realize that the airwaves (or, more precisely, the electromagnetic spectrum) are part of the public domain: they are the gifts of the gods — or, if you prefer, the gifts of Nature — to all the people, not to a privileged few. Professor Hudson, who is deeply versed in the history of economic thought and in the counterattack that was launched by the proponents of “junk economics” against classical economics beginning at the end of the nineteenth century and on through the twentieth century, gets to the heart of this issue in a lengthy but extremely thought-provoking discussion that was recorded in 2004 with Standard Schaefer of Counterpunch, entitled “How Privatization Sterilizes Culture.”
Note that this interview was recorded in 2004, the very year that Facebook was initially launched and long before Facebook was the media giant that it has since grown to become. Indeed, Facebook was not even opened up to the general public until 2006 — and the very first generation of the iPhone (which would radically transform internet use and the power of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter) was not even launched until 2007. Twitter was not created until 2006 either.
In that 2004 interview, Professor Hudson declares that “the air waves are a natural monopoly” and that “like public land, water and the air itself, these frequencies are in the public domain.”
The government, which in a democracy or a democratic republic should represent the people, has a vested interest in preserving the public domain for the use of all of the people. However, as Professor Hudson explains in that interview, the government failed to perform that duty during the first half of the twentieth century, and auctioned off the spectrum (the “airwaves”) at fire-sale prices to be privatized, primarily to those with inside connections.
In Professor Hudson’s 2004 interview, linked above, he explains that this pattern of giving away the public domain mirrors the giveaway of public land to the railroads during the nineteenth century (and created the same kind of multi-billion dollar wealth for those who benefit from these giveaways). Professor Hudson notes that the electromagnetic spectrum is technically not “owned” by the tech and telecom companies who license that spectrum from the government, but that they are paying 1920s prices for that spectrum, and that the government does not charge taxes anywhere near appropriate to the value of the public resource (the spectrum) that they are essentially giving away.
The classical economists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as Professor Hudson explains in J is for Junk Economics and in his other books, articles, and interviews, saw the gifts of nature (including “land, water, mineral rights, airwaves” etc, as he writes on page 60) as belonging to the public, and that these gifts were “best administered in society’s long-term interest via government or a community, not monopolized by rentiers as the ultimate takeover objective of finance capital,” which is exactly what has taken place in so many areas of society today under neoliberalism (accelerating, as Professor Hudson points out, after 1980).
Thus, the electromagnetic spectrum is a gift of Nature (or of the gods), just as are the air we breathe, the water in the streams and rivers and lakes, the growing power of the soil to produce crops and trees and lumber, the mineral wealth under the soil, the ports and harbors along the coastline, and indeed even the rays of sunlight which give life to every living creature and growing thing on our planet.
It does not belong to Facebook.
It does not belong to Google.
It does not belong to Twitter.
It does not belong to Amazon.
It is a gift of Nature (or the gods) to all the people of the land, just as are the rivers and mountains and forests and the air we breathe.
The government — which represents the people, according to the founding documents of this nation — does not just have a right to administer that electromagnetic spectrum in society’s long-term interest: it has an absolute duty to do so.
Facebook and Twitter, it should be pointed out, would not have much of a business without access to the electromagnetic spectrum over which their websites are broadcast — and they are using that electromagnetic spectrum at the pleasure of the people, whose will is supposed to be represented by the government of the people, in a democracy or democratic republic such as that envisioned by the founding documents of this country.
Obviously, the government can be captured by corrupt forces of cronyism who give away what rightfully belongs to the people (and which by rights cannot be given away to be privatized for the benefit of just a few) — and this exact form of cronyism and the pattern of giving away of the public domain to a few well-connected insiders has played itself out over and over in our nation’s history (including in the examples cited by Professor Hudson in the above-linked interview).
However, the solution for that cronyism is for the people to wake up, and exercise their right to demand that such illegal giveaways be reversed. And, in the case of corporations who are using the public platforms they have built on top of what is, in fact, the public domain to abridge the freedom of speech, and the press, and the right of the people “peaceably to assemble,” the people must demand that their representative government put an immediate stop to such illegal behavior by those companies — which in this case includes Facebook and Twitter.
The supreme law of the land, enshrined in the Constitution, acknowledges that the freedom of speech, and of the press, and of the right to peaceably assemble are inalienable rights. Those rights are now being threatened, as a result of the egregious and lamentable giveaway of the public domain (discussed at greater length in the Michael Hudson interview) and the abject failure of the elected government (over the course of the past 100 years) to properly administer that public domain in the best interest of society and the people at large.
Because of that privatization, and that abdication, companies such as Facebook and Twitter have in large part become the public forum for the expression of ideas and political opinions. They must not be allowed to abridge the right of the people to peaceably assemble, or to express their ideas in a peaceable manner in the public forum.
I would argue that this struggle goes all the way back to the destruction of the ancient wisdom that was given to all societies on earth in remote antiquity. The ancients understood that the gifts of flowing fresh water, or of the produce of the harvest, came from the invisible realm — the realm of the gods. The story in Greek myth of the giving of the olive tree to the people of Athens, by the goddess Athena, is a good example which illustrates this principle.
Staying with ancient Greece, they likewise understood the bounty of the harvest to be a gift from the goddess Demeter, and the riches of mineral wealth locked away beneath the soil to be given by the god of the Underworld. If we had to identify the god with whom the bounty of the electromagnetic spectrum would have been understood to be associated, it would most likely be Zeus himself (see image above).
The advent of literalist Christianity, and especially the series of events which led to its installation across the Roman Empire, led directly to the overturning of this understanding in the territories over which Rome exercised power — and eventually to centuries of feudalism, during which the gifts of the gods to all the people were usurped for a small, well-connected segment of the population. The classical economists, with their focus on taxing rentier privilege and natural monopolies, wanted to undo the oppressive structures that characterized the feudal system — and they were making significant progress in that direction throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, before the rentiers struck back.
But the cause of these rentiers and privatizers is ultimately doomed, because they do not have a leg to stand on. Their cause is not merely unjust — it goes against the law of the universe itself. That which properly belongs to the gods, and which is given by the gods to the people of the land, cannot ever really be sold-off, or given away. It does not belong to the privatizers, who cannot claim to own the rivers, lakes, forests, aquifers, oil reserves, fresh air, or electromagnetic spectrum, any more than they can claim to own the sun itself.
To claim otherwise is to go against the deathless gods themselves — and that path is always shown to be a path of folly and of ultimate destruction, in the timeless wisdom of the ancient myths, scriptures and sacred stories given to the ancestors of every man and woman on this planet.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
David W. Mathisen is the author of eight books about the connections of the world’s ancient myths to the stars. His website can be found at www.starmythworld.com.
I have just received confirmation from the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau that both the European Arrest Warrant and Interpol Red Notice remain in the names of Boshirov and Petrov, with the caveat that both are probably aliases. Nothing has been issued in the name of Chepiga or Mishkin.
As for Bellingcat’s “conclusive and definitive evidence”, Scotland Yard repeated to me this afternoon that their earlier statement on Bellingcat’s allegations remains in force: “we are not going to comment on speculation about their identities.”
It is now a near certainty that Boshirov and Petrov are indeed fake identities. If the two were real people, it is inconceivable that by now their identities would not have been fully established with details of their history, lives, family and milieu. I do not apologise for exercising all due caution, rather than enthusiasm, about a narrative promoted to increase international tension with Russia, but am now convinced Petrov and Boshirov were not who they claimed.
But that is not to say that the information provided by NATO Photoshoppers’R’Us (Ukraine Branch) on alternative identities is genuine, either. I maintain the same rational scepticism exhibited by Scotland Yard on this, and it is a shame that the mainstream media neither does that, nor fairly reflects Scotland Yard’s position in their reporting.
Still less do I accept the British government’s narrative of the novichok poisoning, which remains full of wild surmise and apparent contradiction. No doubt further evidence will gradually emerge. The most dreadful thing about the whole saga is the death of poor Dawn Sturgess, and the most singular fact at present is that Boshirov and Petrov are only wanted in relation to the “attack on the Skripals”. There is no allegation against them by Scotland Yard or the Crown Prosecution Service over the far more serious matter of the death of Sturgess. That is a fascinating fact, massively under-reported.
I remain of the view that the best way forward would be for Putin to negotiate conditions under which Boshirov and Petrov might voluntarily come to the UK for trial. The conditions which I would suggest Russia propose are these:
1) A fully fair and open trial before a jury.
2) The entire trial to be fully public. No closed sessions nor secret evidence and no reporting restrictions.
3) No restrictions on witnesses who may be called, including the Skripals, Pablo Miller, Christopher Steele and other former and current members of the security services.
4) No restrictions on disclosure – all relevant material held by government must be given to the defence.
I strongly suspect that, if a trial would bring to public light something of the extent of the convoluted spy games that were being played out in Salisbury, we would find the British Government’s pretended thirst for justice would suddenly slam into reverse.
Sadly, it currently seems highly improbable that either justice will be served or the full truth be known.
*
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 recent UN global warming conference under auspices of the deceptively-named International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded its meeting in South Korea discussing how to drastically limit global temperature rise. Mainstream media is predictably retailing various panic scenarios “predicting” catastrophic climate change because of man-made emissions of Greenhouse Gases, especially CO2, if drastic changes in our lifestyle are not urgently undertaken. There is only one thing wrong with all that. It’s based on fake science and corrupted climate modelers who have reaped by now billions in government research grants to buttress the arguments for radical change in our standard of living. We might casually ask “What’s the point?” The answer is not positive.
The South Korea meeting of the UN IPCC discussed measures needed, according to their computer models, to limit global temperature rise tobelow 1.5 Centigrade above levels of the pre-industrial era. One of the panel members and authors of the latest IPCC Special Report on Global Warming, Drew Shindell, at Duke University told the press that to meet the arbitrary 1.5 degree target will require world CO2 emissions to drop by a staggering 40% in the next 12 years. The IPCC calls for a draconian “zero net emissions” of CO2 by 2050. That would mean complete ban on gas or diesel engines for cars and trucks, no coal power plants, transformation of the world agriculture to burning food as biofuels. Shindell modestly put it, “These are huge, huge shifts.”
The new IPCC report, SR15, declares that global warming of 1.5°C will “probably“ bring species extinction, weather extremes and risks to food supply, health and economic growth. To avoid this the IPCC estimates required energy investment alone will be $2.4 trillion per year. Could this explain the interest of major global banks, especially in the City of London in pushing the Global Warming card?
This scenario assumes an even more incredible dimension as it is generated by fake science and doctored data by a tight-knit group of climate scientists internationally that have so polarized scientific discourse that they label fellow scientists who try to argue as not mere global warming skeptics, but rather as “Climate Change deniers.” What does that bit of neuro-linguistic programming suggest? Holocaust deniers? Talk about how to kill legitimate scientific debate, the essence of true science. Recently the head of the UN IPCC proclaimed, “The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.”
What the UN panel chose to ignore was the fact the debate was anything but “over.” The Global Warming Petition Project, signed by over 31,000 American scientists states,
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
‘Chicken Little’
The most interesting about the dire warnings of global catastrophe if dramatic changes to our living standards are not undertaken urgently, is that the dire warnings are always attempts to frighten based on future prediction. When the “tipping point” of so-called irreversibility is passed with no evident catastrophe, they invent a new future point.
In 1982 Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” He predicted lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” In 1989 Noel Brown, of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP), said entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. James Hansen, a key figure in the doomsday scenarios declared at that time that 350 ppm of CO2 was the upper limit, “to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.” Rajendra Pachauri, then the chief of the UN IPPC, declared that 2012 was the climate deadline by which it was imperative to act: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” Today the measured level is 414.
As UK scientist Philip Stott notes,
“In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. …Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s…By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years…Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million. In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988)…”
Flawed Data
A central flaw to the computer models cited by the IPCC is the fact that they are purely theoretical models and not real. The hypothesis depends entirely on computer models generating scenarios of the future, with no empirical records that can verify either these models or their flawed prediction. As one scientific study concluded,
“The computer climate models upon which “human-caused globalwarming” is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedlyunreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex.”
Coupled refers to the phenomenon that the oceans cause changes in the atmosphere and the atmosphere in turn affects the oceans. Both are complexly related to solar cycles. No single model predicting global warming or 2030 “tipping points” is able or even tries to integrate the most profound influence on Earth climate and weather, the activity of the sun and solar eruption cycles which determine ocean currents, jet stream activity, El ninos and our daily weather.
An Australian IT expert and independent researcher, John McLean, recently did a detailed analysis of the IPCC climate report. He notes that HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change.” But McLean points to egregious errors in the HadCRUT4 used by IPCC. He notes, “It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a first-year university student.” Among the errors, he cites places where temperature “averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.” In another place he found that for the Caribbean island, St Kitts temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions. TheHadCRUT4 dataset is a joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. This was the group at East Anglia that was exposed several years ago for the notorious Climategate scandals of faking data and deleting embarrassing emails to hide it. Mainstream media promptly buried the story, turning attention instead on “who illegally hacked East Anglia emails.”
Astonishing enough when we do a little basic research, we find that the IPCC never carried out a true scientific inquiry into the possible cases of change in Earth climate. Manmade sources of change were arbitrarily asserted, and the game was on.
Malthusian Maurice Strong
Few are aware however of the political and even geopolitical origins of Global Warming theories. How did this come about? So-called Climate Change, aka Global Warming, is a neo-malthusian deindustrialization agenda originally developed by circles around the Rockefeller family in the early 1970’s to prevent rise of independent industrial rivals, much as Trump’s trade wars today. In my book, Myths, Lies and Oil Wars, I detail how the highly influential Rockefeller group also backed creation of the Club of Rome, Aspen Institute,Worldwatch Institute and MIT Limits to Growth report. A key early organizer of Rockefeller’s ‘zero growth’ agenda in the early 1970s was David Rockefeller’s longtime friend, a Canadian oilman named Maurice Strong. Strong was one of the early propagators of the scientifically unfounded theory that man-made emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens civilization, so-called Global Warming.
As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted an agenda of population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to “save the environment.” Some years later the same Strong restated his radical ecologist stance: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Co-founder of the Rockefeller-tied Club of Rome, Dr Alexander King admitted the fraud in his book, The First Global Revolution. He stated, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Please reread that, and let it sink in. Humanity, and not the 147 global banks and multinationals who de facto determine today’s environment, bear the responsibility.
Following the Earth Summit Maurice Strong was named Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan. He was the key architect of the 1997-2005 Kyoto Protocol that declared manmade Global Warming, according to “consensus,” was real and that it was “extremely likely” that man-made CO2 emissions have predominantly caused it. In 1988 Strong was key in creation of the UN IPCC and later the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit which he chaired, and which approved his globalist UN Agenda 21.
The UN IPCC and its Global Warming agenda is a political and not a scientific project. Their latest report is, like the previous ones, based on fake science and outright fraud. MIT Professor Richard S Lindzen in a recent speech criticized politicians and activists who claim“the science is settled,” and demand “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” He noted that it was totally implausible for such a complex “multifactor system” as the climate to be summarized by just one variable, global mean temperature change, and primarily controlled by just a 1-2 per cent variance in the energy budget due to CO2. Lindzen described how “an implausible conjecture backed by false evidence, repeated incessantly, has become ‘knowledge,’ used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.” Our world indeed needs a “staggering transformation,” but one that promotes health and stability of the human species instead.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from NEO.
Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
List Price: $25.95
Special Price: $18.00
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis we provide, free of charge, on a daily basis? Do you think this resource should be maintained and preserved as a research tool for future generations? Bringing you 24/7 updates from all over the globe has real costs associated with it. Please give what you can to help us meet these costs! Click below to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.
We are very grateful for the support we received over the past seventeen years. We hope that you remain with us in our journey towards a world without war.
On October 15, a first deadline in the roadmap for implementation of the Idlib demilitarization agreement passed. According to this agreement, militant groups had to withdraw all their heavy weaponry and equipment from the declared 15-20km deep zone and halt any actions against Syrian government forces.
When Banksy’s Girl with Balloonwas shredded at Sotheby’s (a sort of art styled seppuku), it was subsequently, and all too quickly, transformed into Love is in the Bin. Technicians in the room did not seem too fussed by the occurrence, and diligently went about their business of retouching the new piece for the market amidst nervous laughter and much tittering.
After a string of suspicious incidents involving Russia’s venerable Soyuz rocket system, several prominent American newspapers have attempted to poison the last remaining area of significant cooperation between Russia and the United States.
Disaster. Crisis. Once oil-rich nation. This is the go-to rhetoric of the government of Canada, and now also, of the CBC which is nothing but a mouthpiece of the government when it comes to their so-called reporting about the country of Venezuela.
The US-led coalition used white phosphorus (WP) munitions while delivering air strikes against the Syrian province of Deir Ez-Zor on Oct. 13. The attack resulted in civilian casualties. Last month, WP munitions were also used by two US Air Force (USAF) F-15s in an attack on the town of Hajin in Deir-ez-Zor.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Il piano fu preannunciato tre anni fa, durante l’amministrazione di Barack Obama, quando funzionari del Pentagono dichiararono che «di fronte all’aggressione russa, gli Stati uniti stanno considerando lo spiegamento in Europa di missili con base a terra» (v. il manifesto del 9 giugno 2015).
Ora, con l’amministrazione Trump, esso viene ufficialmente confermato. Nell’anno fiscale 2018 il Congresso degli Stati uniti ha autorizzato il finanziamento di «un programma di ricerca e sviluppo di un missile da crociera lanciato da terra da piattaforma mobile su strada».
È un missile a capacità nucleare con raggio intermedio (tra 500 e 5500 km), analogo ai 112 missili nucleari Cruise schierati dagli Usa a Comiso negli anni Ottanta. Essi vennero eliminati, insieme ai missili balistici Pershing 2 schierati dagli Usa in Germania e agli SS-20 sovietici schierati in Urss, dal Trattato sulle forze nucleari intermedie (Inf), stipulato nel 1987. Esso proibisce lo schieramento di missili con base a terra e gittata compresa tra 500 e 5500 km. Washington accusa ora Mosca di schierare missili di questa categoria e dichiara che, «se la Russia continua a violare il Trattato Inf, gli Stati uniti non saranno più vincolati da tale trattato», ossia saranno liberi di schierare in Europa missili nucleari a raggio intermedio con base a terra.
Viene però ignorato un fatto determinante: i missili russi (ammesso che siano a raggio intermedio) sono schierati in funzione difensiva in territorio russo, mentre quelli statunitensi a raggio intermedio sarebbero schierati in funzione offensiva in Europa a ridosso del territorio russo.
È come se la Russia schierasse in Messico missili nucleari puntati sugli Stati uniti. Poiché continua la escalation Usa/Nato, è sempre più probabile lo schieramento di tali missili in Europa. Intanto l’Ucraina ha testato agli inizi di febbraio un missile a raggio intermedio con base a terra, realizzato sicuramente con l’assistenza Usa.
I nuovi missili nucleari statunitensi – molto più precisi e veloci dei Cruise degli anni Ottanta – verrebbero schierati in Italia e probabilmente anche in paesi dell’Est, aggiungendosi alle bombe nucleari Usa B61-12 che arriveranno in Italia e altri paesi dal 2020.
In Italia, i nuovi Cruise sarebbero con tutta probabilità di nuovo posizionati in Sicilia, anche se non necessariamente a Comiso. Nell’isola vi sono due installazioni Usa di primaria importanza strategica. La stazione Muos di Niscemi, una delle quattro su scala mondiale (2 negli Usa, 1 in Australia e 1 in Sicilia) del sistema di comunicazioni satellitari che collega a un’unica rete di comando tutte le forze statunitensi, anche nucleari, in qualsiasi parte del mondo si trovino.
La Jtags, stazione di ricezione e trasmissione satellitare dello «scudo anti-missili» statunitense, che sta per dvenire operativa a Sigonella. È una delle cinque su scala mondiale (le altre si trovano negli Stati uniti, in Arabia Saudita, Corea del Sud e Giappone).
La stazione, che è trasportabile, serve non solo alla difesa anti-missile ma anche alle operazioni di attacco, condotte da basi avanzate come quelle in Italia. «Gli Stati uniti – spiega il Pentagono nel rapporto «Nuclear Posture Review 2018» – impegnano armi nucleari, dispiegate in basi avanzate in Europa, per la difesa della Nato. Queste forze nucleari costituiscono un essenziale legame politico e militare tra Europa e Nord America». Legandoci alla loro strategia non solo militarmente ma politicamente, gli Stati uniti trasformano sempre più il nostro paese in base avanzata delle loro armi nucleari puntate sulla Russia e, quindi, in bersaglio avanzato su cui sono puntate le armi nucleari russe.
In Virginia’s 2nd District, which encompasses the Norfolk-Hampton Roads area with its complex of naval bases and shipyards, the DCCC has promoted Elaine Luria, one of the first Navy women to serve as an officer on a nuclear-powered ship, as its favored candidate under the “Red-to-Blue” program. Luria has “deployed six times to the Middle East and Western Pacific as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer.” She was second-in-command of a guided missile cruiser and commanded assault craft supporting a Marine Corps deployment.
