Making the Arctic Safe for Neoliberalism

October 2nd, 2018 by Kurt Nimmo

Let’s put aside for a moment the nonsense about Russia hijacking the vote with Facebook ads and focus on the endgame.

The neoliberal economic order is based on natural resource and market dominance, so it’s no surprise when it reacts violently to efforts by others to map out resource acquisition. 

Case it point: US partner in global crime the United Kingdom is sending 800 commandos to the frozen wasteland that is the North Pole to confront Russia as it searches the large expanse of ice and snow for natural resources. Russian energy titans Gazprom and Rosneft were granted rights to develop hydrocarbon deposits in the region. The British Royal Marine commandos will operate alongside their US, Dutch, and Norwegian counterparts. 

It’s believed 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil lies beneath the frigid waters of the Arctic. 

Russia will not be allowed to tap this immense reservoir if the US and its partners have anything to say about it. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the US control territory in the Arctic, but not Britain, which absurdly declares the region is its “backyard.” 

NATO is in on the effort to prevent Russia from tapping additional hydrocarbons. It participated in a Norwegian-led Cold Response exercise in the Arctic earlier this year. The ultimate objective is to militarize the Arctic and prevent Russia or any country not part of the neoliberal economic arrangement from staking out territory and developing its natural resources. 

“The United States is anxious to militarize the Arctic Ocean. It has to do it via its relations with Canada and it is also seeking to do it via NATO, through the participation of Norway and Denmark in NATO. And now it is calling upon Sweden and Finland to essentially join NATO with a view to establishing a NATO agenda in the Arctic,” Michel Chossudovsky of the Center for Research on Globalization told RT, the Russian news network recently forced to register as a foreign agent in the United States. 

In September, Russia announced it will maintain a long-term stay in the Arctic after its military presence there came to an end with the fall of the Soviet Union. A Russian task group departed the port of Severomorsk. 

“The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will fully implement the task of permanent military presence in the Arctic to secure the legal access of the country to resources and spaces of this region. This will be a constant presence,” Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov said. 

In 2016, the Pentagon told Congress locking down Arctic resources for the exclusive use by transnational energy corporations is part of the US national security policy. 

“It is also in the DoD’s interest to shape military activity in the Arctic region to avoid conflict while improving its capability to operate safely and sustain forces in a harsh, remote environment in anticipation of increasing accessibility and activity in the Arctic in the coming years,” the Pentagon’s Strategy to Protect United States National Security Interests in the Arctic Region report states. 

In addition to blocking Russia from developing this bounty of hydrocarbons, the US and its partners are working on multiple fronts to degrade the Russian economy and pile up military forces along its western border. Sanctions were imposed after the Russian-speaking people of Crimea voted to separate from the Ukrainian fascists who took over the country with direct assistance from the State Department. The US calls this vote by the people of Ukraine annexation. 

The US exploited the bogus UK poisoning of the Skirpals to further impose sanctions. From the State Department, dated September 27 and posted to the Federal Register:

“The Department of State, acting under authority delegated to the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Order 12851, has determined pursuant to Section 306(a) of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical weapons in violation of international law or lethal chemical weapons against its own nationals.” 

The State Department sanctions, masquerading as an attempt to protect the innocent, are directly aimed at the Russian economy and its national security. 

“A State Department official said the main impact of the new measures will be on access by Russian state-owned and state-funded enterprises to goods and technology with national security value. The official said the move would hit key parts of Russia’s aviation and oil and gas sectors, among others,” reports Bloomberg. 

In other words, the US and its partners want to make certain Russia cannot realize its national security objectives, thus softening it up for the endgame—a “color revolution” that will bring it back into the neoliberal fold, as it was during the disastrous rule of Boris Yeltsin, basically a useful idiot for the West and neoliberalism. 

In early September, Russia and China announced joint military exercises and additional bilateral relations. In the lead-up to the Moscow International Security Conference in April, China said it has Russia’s back. Chinese Defense Minister Wei Feng declared “the Chinese side has come to show Americans the close ties between the armed forces of China and Russia.” 

Now, in addition to accusations Russia is involved cyber attacks, annexation, physical attacks (the Skripals) and thus endangering “democracy,” we have the prospect of war over hydrocarbons in the frozen Arctic. 

If the US continues to push its economic warfare scheme against Russian and China (sanctions, a trade war), eventually the Chinese and Russians will react. The three largest militaries in the world are now edging closer to a final thermonuclear showdown. Meanwhile, the US is racing to reignite the Cold War, which was mostly national security state theater. 

*

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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The United Nations has declared Sept. 12 the International Day for South-South Cooperation. This year’s celebration marks the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action for technical cooperation among developing countries. The adoption of this action plan highlights the importance of cooperation and solidarity among countries of the South. 

South-South Cooperation (SSC) in international development initially was shaped by the “global South” countries’ shared experience of colonialism, underdevelopment and oppression. Helping each other has been perceived as a way to convey solidarity among the countries in question and to alter asymmetrical relations dominated by the global North. Recent development shows a new direction of SSC that is not only driven by the aspect of solidarity but has become more pragmatic and strategic for emerging southern powers. 

Through the SSC initiatives, southern donors desire to improve their regional and global reputation, to garner support from other South countries in international forums and to pursue their own broader economic agenda.

As a pioneer of South-South solidarity in 1950s that has delivered overseas aid since 1967, Indonesia is also part of the Southern donors contributing to South-South Cooperation. Hosting the Bandung Conference of 1955, where representatives from 29 governments of Asian and African nations gathered to discuss the role of the developing countries in the Cold War, Indonesia clearly played a crucial role in the emergence of SSC.

Decades later, in 2018, Indonesia allocated Rp 1 trillion (US$67 million) in endowment funds for its overseas aid activities, according to 2017 data from the Foreign Ministry. This figure has grown significantly from $15.8 million disbursed in 2016. For comparison, Indonesia spent only $57.4 million for its SSC programs between 2000 and 2015. This shows that SSC plays an increasingly important role in   Indonesia’s foreign policy under President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. 

As part of its efforts to advance its role in SSC, Indonesia introduced a significant reform of SSC policies in 2010 that restructured overseas aid institutions, aligned SSC with national development and foreign policy goals and increased funding for SSC initiatives. This includes the establishment of a National Coordination Team of South-South and Triangular Cooperation (NCT) involving the National Development Planning Ministry (Bappenas), the Foreign Ministry, the Finance Ministry and the State Secretariat. 

Yet, NCT is only the first step for Jakarta in achieving its main objective to strengthen Indonesia’s global new role.  To improve coordination and overcome fragmented authority in Indonesia’s SSC policies, the government has begun to develop a single, specialized agency to plan, manage and monitor Indonesia’s SSC. The centralized agency was expected to be established by last year, but consensus among the SSC key stakeholders regarding such coordination is still pending.  

Furthermore, questions remain several years after the establishment of the NCT.  These include how to deal with domestic resistance despite growing international demand for Indonesia’s new global role; and whose interests should be served to advance Indonesia’s role under the SSC framework? How can programs be effectively carried out while securing domestic support at the same time?   

To generate domestic support, it is urgent to design the SSC framework in line with domestic objectives. The ministries stress that SSC is crucial to enhancing Indonesia’s profile, protecting its sovereignty and facilitating access to non-traditional markets.

Indonesia may also utilize its SSC framework in its efforts to cope with the rise of protectionism, as reflected in the United States’ new tendency to focus on domestic issues and with stricter environmental and quality standards, which currently cannot be met by Indonesian producers in its traditional markets. 

Improving its role through the SSC framework is an alternative way for Indonesia to expose itself for possible economic cooperation outside other means. Strengthening SSC can also be a way to divert Indonesia’s exports away from its traditional export markets to developing countries.

Domestic support for Indonesia’s global role through the SSC framework can be generated through the engagement of the private sector and civil society, which is still minimal. The government also projects SSC as a platform to facilitate access of Indonesia’s private sector to other developing countries’ markets. 

Jakarta needs to focus on what it does best in delivering programs under the SSC framework. Indonesia is regarded quite successful in dealing with some crucial issues faced by many developing countries, including curbing population growth through family planning, managing foreign aid and establishing democratic governance.

“Asia has no alternative but to become truly multilateral, pan-continentally. This is impossible without its champions of multilateralism – India, Indonesia and Japan…“ is a famous claim of professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic, restated in his ‘Indonesia – Pivot to Asia’ lectures. “South-south cooperation – as launched in Bandung 1955 – is an indispensable to this quest to ‘Asian century’” – professor reminds us – “south-south is not a choice but necessity, more survival than a policy option”. 

Hence, let us conclude: Indonesia can also provide technical assistance and capacity-building on these critical issues. Indonesia’s rich historio-political and socio-cultural experience in dealing with economic development and democratization are modalities that should be fully exploited in advancing South-South cooperation. 

In short, discovering and achieving a consensus among the agencies responsible for the national coordination team of south-south and triangular cooperation can be an entry point in improving Indonesia’s standing in global politics.

*

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

Early version of the text appeared in Jakarta Po.

Poppy S. Winanti is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia/Jogjakarta.

Rizky Alif Alfian is a Researcher at the Institute of International Studies, Department of International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia/Jogjakarta.

The moment long feared is fast approaching in Gaza, according to a new report by the World Bank. After a decade-long Israeli blockade and a series of large-scale military assaults, the economy of the tiny coastal enclave is in “freefall”.

At a meeting of international donors in New York on Thursday, coinciding with the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, the World Bank painted an alarming picture of Gaza’s crisis. Unemployment now stands at close to 70 per cent and the economy is contracting at an ever faster rate.

While the West Bank’s plight is not yet as severe, it is not far behind, countries attending the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee were told. Gaza’s collapse could bring down the entire Palestinian banking sector.

In response, Europe hurriedly put together a €40 million aid package, but that will chiefly address Gaza’s separate humanitarian crisis – not the economic one – by improving supplies of electricity and potable water.

No one doubts the inevitable fallout from the economic and humanitarian crises gripping Gaza. The four parties to the Quartet charged with overseeing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – the United States, Russia, the European Union and the UN – issued a statement warning that it was vital to prevent what they termed “further escalation” in Gaza.

The Israeli military shares these concerns. It has reported growing unrest among the enclave’s two million inhabitants and believes Hamas will be forced into a confrontation to break out of the straightjacket imposed by the blockade.

In recent weeks, mass protests along Gaza’s perimeter fence have been revived and expanded after a summer lull. On Friday, seven Palestinian demonstrators, including two children, were killed by Israeli sniper fire. Hundreds more were wounded.

Nonetheless, the political will to remedy the situation looks as atrophied as ever. No one is prepared to take meaningful responsibility for the time-bomb that is Gaza.

In fact, the main parties that could make a difference appear intent on allowing the deterioration to continue.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ignored repeated warnings of a threatened explosion in Gaza from his own military.

Instead, Israel is upholding the blockade as tightly as ever, preventing the flow of goods in and out of the enclave. Fishing is limited to three miles off the coast rather than the 20-mile zone agreed in the Oslo accords. Hundreds of companies are reported to have folded over the summer.

Intensifying the enclave’s troubles is the Trump administration’s recent decision to cut aid to the Palestinians, including to the United Nation’s refugee agency, UNRWA. It plays a critical role in Gaza, providing food, education and health services to nearly two-thirds of the population.

The food budget is due to run out in December, and the schools budget by the end of this month. Hundreds of thousands of hungry children with nowhere to spend their days can only fuel the protests – and the deaths.

The Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, headquartered in the West Bank, has no incentive to help. Gaza’s slowly unfolding catastrophe is his leverage to make Hamas submit to his rule. That is why the Palestinian Authority has cut transfers to Gaza by $30 million a month.

But even if Abbas wished to help, he largely lacks the means. The US cuts were imposed primarily to punish him for refusing to play ball with US President Donald Trump’s supposed “deal of the century” peace plan.

Israel, the World Bank notes, has added to Abbas’s difficulties by refusing to transfer taxes and customs duties it collects on the PA’s behalf.

And the final implicated party, Egypt, is reticent to loosen its own chokehold on its short border with Gaza. President Abdel Fattah El Sisi opposes giving any succour either to his domestic Islamist opponents or to Hamas.

The impasse is possible only because none of the parties is prepared to make a priority of Gaza’s welfare.

That was starkly illustrated earlier in the summer when Cairo, supported by the UN, opened a back channel between Israel and Hamas in the hope of ending their mounting friction.

Hamas wanted the blockade lifted to reverse Gaza’s economic decline, while Israel wanted an end to the weekly protests and the damaging images of snipers killing unarmed demonstrators.

In addition, Netanyahu has an interest in keeping Hamas in power in Gaza, if barely, as a way to cement the geographic split with the West Bank and an ideological one with Abbas.

The talks, however, collapsed quietly in early September after Abbas objected to the Egyptians. He insisted that the Palestinian Authority be the only address for discussions of Gaza’s future. So, Cairo is yet again channelling its energies into a futile attempt at reconciling Abbas and Hamas.

At the UN General Assembly, Trump promised his peace plan would be unveiled in the next two to three months, and made explicit for the first time his support for a two-state solution, saying it would “work best”.

Netanyahu vaguely concurred, while pointing out: “Everyone defines the term ‘state’ differently.” His definition, he added, required that not one of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank be removed and that any future Palestinian state be under complete Israeli security control.

Abbas is widely reported to have conceded over the summer that a Palestinian state – should it ever come into being – would be demilitarised. In other words, it would not be recognisable as a sovereign state.

Hamas has made notable compromises to its original doctrine of military resistance to secure all of historic Palestine. But it is hard to imagine it agreeing to peace on those terms. This makes a reconciliation between Hamas and Abbas currently inconceivable – and respite for the people of Gaza as far off as ever.

*

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 version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Video: CIA Documentary: “On Company Business” (1980)

October 1st, 2018 by Allan Francovich

Rare award winning CIA documentary, On Company Business painfully restored from VHS.

“Inside the CIA: On Company Business” PARTS I, II & III (1980) is a gripping and penetrating look inside the world’s most powerful secret institutionalized conspiracy organization.

This rare, long suppressed, award-winning documentary series by the late Great American Allan Francovich is an absolute must for anyone studying the activities of the CIA 1950-1980.

This Complete Series includes:

  • PART I: THE HISTORY
  • PART II: ASSASSINATION
  • PART III: SUBVERSION

Ex-CIA Spies Phillip Agee and John Stockwell risk all to expose the CIA Frankenstein in full relief, its perfidy and anti-democratic, anti-union methodologies.

Understand how elite New York-London financiers were able to successfully subvert the American System by using the CIA as one in a bag of fascist, bloody tools to transform the USA into a tyrannical Empire the Founding Fathers flatly rejected. Don’t expect any stands for human rights or one man one vote from these amoral operatives. See Richard Helms, William Colby, David Atlee Phillips, James Wilcott, Victor Marchetti, Joseph B. Smith, and other key players in a uniquely American tragedy of truly historic proportions.

“Inside the CIA: On Company Business”, one of the most important American films ever made, is a vital and dramatic examination of the CIA and US foreign policy.

*

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

This effort seems to be a bit of camping out on the part of director Bruce Beresford, whose list of cinematic achievements include Driving Miss Daisy and Breaker Morant.  There are many smiles, a few distributed tears and occasional sighs of regret, but generally speaking, little by way of controversial stings.  Ladies in Black, in other words, is all entertainment punctuated by the enthusiastic retelling of sun-drenched stories that afflict the lives of women working in a Sydney department store.  

The film, based upon the 1993 novel Women in Black by Beresford’s University of Sydney contemporary Madeleine St John, takes its audience to the Sydney of 1959, distant from the world and on the cusp of change.  An insular Anglo-Celtic civilisation has become the home to various “reffos” (refugees, as they are locally termed), which becomes the shorthanded reference to all those of “Continental” background.

The scenes are charmingly executed, and beneath the shimmering and the handsome shine are those tensions that lay bare minor prejudices and major faults.  This does not impress some of the critics, with Rebecca Harkins-Cross less charitable than most.  “Beresford,” she writes stingingly in The  Monthly, “is flogging a delusion of the egalitarian land o’plenty, where masculine cruelty is unconsciously writ by bumbling blokes, and xenophobia can be fixed by the discovery that salami is, of course, delicious.”  But the film’s purpose is not to chide or reproach, nor plough the depths of sociological insight.  It shows both the efforts on the part of those who found love and safe living away from conflict and the pains of post-war Europe and the response of careful, cautious accommodation on the part of Australians.

The reverse is only lightly touched upon: Australians yearning for cultural nourishment away from stifling wowserism, the tyranny of the dull and the pro-British apologetics of Prime Minister Robert Menzies.  The latter particularly irritated historian Manning Clark, who described Menzies as “a tragedy writ large” in the service of “alien gods”.

This did not, as Gerard Henderson defensively wrote in 2011, trouble those immigrants who saw the Australia of the 1950s as far from boring.  This, he suggested, was a confection of “the middle-class left-wing intelligentsia” and those irritating stone throwing academics tenured at tax payer’s expense.

Central to the cast is Angourie Rice’s Lesley (who prefers to go by the name of the unambiguously feminine Lisa), a voracious reader who takes time during the school holidays to be an temp at the fashion store Goode’s.  Her encounter with Julia Ormond’s Magda leads to tender enlightenment.  Being Slovenian, Magda wears her knowledge of fashion heavily on the subject of high end gowns, ultimately hoping to establish her own shop.

There are a few barbs directed at relations between the sexes.  The Hungarian Rudi (Ryan Corr) is seeking an Australian flame to build his life with (she must be “strong and healthy”) and is happy to do his bit as a European Henry Higgins, educating any ignorant partner he might meet.  Australian men are seen as gormless and bound to dash down to the pub after work for a brew while European men – the continental ones, that is – cook and have more than a passing acquaintance with music. Magda, for her part, is not impressed by Australian women, whom she regards as essentially untutored, the good ones having done the sensible thing in fleeing to London or Paris.

The cultural depictions are also delightfully striking.  How an Australian Christmas is celebrated varies among the groups: such sweets as the lamington feature for the Anglo-Australians who spend time in the scorching outdoors; the Hungarian feast, held indoors, is replete with dishes of the old country paired with matching wines.

There are moments of incongruity wrapped inside a certain, sympathetic nostalgia.  Lisa’s father (Shane Jacobsen), who labours in the printing presses of the Sydney Morning Herald, is congratulated by a crowd of fellow male workers about having a gifted daughter.  (Her grades, being exemplary, do not quite sink into his conservative head.)  One fellow worker professes to having two of his girls going to the University of Sydney and loving it.  Lisa’s father, for his part, remains conventional, seeing tertiary education as fairly needless to a member of the fairer sex.

The general sentiment on refugees is a salutary reminder in the film that echoes Australia’s dramatically violent approach to certain new arrivals since the late 1990s.  The policy of the Australian government during the 1950s, still governed by White Australia strictures, was to permit refugees from Europe, notably from southern and central Europe, from entering en masse. These, in time, formed a resilient backbone of industrial development. The modern approach stresses the penal over the constructive, the discriminatory over the progressive.  While the film stresses the merits of those “reffos”, an alert audience will note the jarring contrast.

*

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. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nostalgia and Sunshine: Bruce Beresford’s “Ladies in Black”. Sydney in 1959

Video: Facebook and the New Face of Regime Change

October 1st, 2018 by Kurt Nimmo

Facebook and the National Endowment for Democracy have agreed to stop the spread of what the United States government and its corporate media denounce as misinformation, that is to say information in conflict with the establishment narrative.

.

.

*

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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Iraqi politicians have agreed on a new prime minister, Adel Abdel Mahdi, to replace Haidar al-Abadi, after over four months of difficult work. Adel Abdel Mahdi is an experienced politician who almost became prime minister in the 2000s when Moqtada al-Sadr suddenly turned against him and, overnight, promoted Nuri al-Maliki for his first term in office.

The choice of Abdel Mahdi comes despite the fact that, according to sources close to the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the US envoy Brett McGurk “did everything in his power to discourage Iraqi politicians, Sunni, Shia and Kurds, from adopting a candidate in harmony with Iran”.

Up to this day, the Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani has not approved Barham Saleh for the presidency, a position allocated for Kurds (Speaker for Sunni and prime minister for Shia).

The choice of Barham Saleh is contested by the many in the Talbani entourage and the Barzani clan who support Fouad Hussein for the Presidency. This office is the most vexing for all camps, including Iran and the US as they attempt to shape the new government. Barham Saleh has been promoted by Brett McGurk (during his last visit to the late Jalal Talabani’s wife) and by General Qassem Soleimani according to the source. Nevertheless, Iran and the Hezbollah envoy to Iraq are both trying to avoid upsetting Masoud Barzani.

The relationship is complicated. Despite the presence of US intelligence HQ, a US base in Kurdistan, and the Israeli relationship with Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran still hopes for some influence with Barzani. This is why a marathon of negotiations is ongoing to convince the Kurdish leader to accept an important ministry, in return for accepting Barham Saleh as President, so that Iraq’s leadership may constitute a harmonious team accepted by all players.

The future President will most likely be elected by the parliament, as was the case for the speaker, as happens when there is no previous agreement on one single name. There are seven candidates so far but only three are expected to enjoy support unless Barham is agreed upon at the last minute by all Kurds.

Contrary to what US-linked politicians in Iraq maintain, Iran is not trying to impose on Iraq a candidate who is totally on its side and an enemy of the US. It did work against the US candidate Haidar Abadi. Soleimani and Hezbollah aimed to promote Adel Abdel Mahdi who is accepted by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, by Iraqi politicians (even if Nuri al-Maliki refused to support him until a couple of days ago), by Iran and by the US.

“Officials from the United Nations, diplomats and many Iraqi politicians were carrying various indirect messages from the US to Soleimani in Iraq that the US is not aiming to cripple Iran from Mesopotamia but is willing to allow a smooth Iraqi government”, said a source within Soleimani’s inner circle.

On the other hand the same source said that Iraqi politicians

“were threatened by the US diplomats in Iraq to be scheduled on a blacklist, to halt all financial and humanitarian support and collaboration, to confiscate their wealth abroad or even to lift US protection from some provinces so the Shia of PMU can kill you all”.

All this if they would not support Abadi or the list he was leading. Top US official in Iraq who asked anonymity denied the claim.

The source close to Soleimani believes “the US envoy to Iraq has failed in his attempt to twist the Iraqi politicians’ arms and legs to promote a candidate hostile to Iran. Abadi placed all his cards in the US basket. That brought him down like a rock. He tried to pull Moqtada onto his side but he was left with his only ally Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim, the man who already choose the US-Gulf camp long ago”, said the source.

Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr took a hostile position against Qassem Soleimani even though he met him just after the parliamentary election results were reported. He has suffered from seeing his group – that he inherited from his late father – divided (Asaeb Ahl al-Haq, Kataeb Sayyed al-Shuhada’, Harakat al-Nujabaa and others) and financed by Iran. Nevertheless, he is not against Iran in favour of the US or any other country of the Middle Eastern region. Indeed, there are ongoing efforts and future plans to reconcile Moqtada with Iran soon, particularly after the beginning of US president Donald Trump’s full embargo on Iran next November. The situation in the Middle East requires that Iraqi politicians no longer be divided and rebuild the country stronger for the benefit of its regional allies. Iran’s aim was the selection of a new prime minister who enjoys good relationships with France and Europe and is accepted by the US.

Abdel Mahdi is known to be faithful to his country and will maintain a balanced relationship between Iran and the USA. Abdel Mahdi is expected to ask the parliament to decide regarding the US unilateral sanctions on Iran, one of the main pending decisions that has prevented Abadi from winning a second term when he supported the US unilateral embargo against Iran.

A few years ago, I spent an evening with the Vice President of Iraq Abdel Mahdi on a private occasion in Karbala on the 15thof Shaaban, in the presence of a very few top Iraqi politicians, including the late Sayyed Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. He was very critical of the way al-Maliki was running the government and said: “We are better off reopening our offices in Damascus because Iraqi politicians today don’t know how to rule but are good at playing the opposition”.

Abdel Mahdi’s election is not contested by the Marjaiya in Najaf with whom he maintains an excellent relationship. As an economist, he has once saved the former Iraqi Finance Minister Rafi al-Issawi who told me over a dinner:

“Al-Maliki called me asking for few billion dollars to be immediately under his disposal in forthcoming days at the latest. I told him it is impossible because I don’t have a bank with money to pull out a couple of billions for you, nor do I have a pocket big enough to contain this much money”, al-Issawi told me.

When no further reasoning was possible, al-Issawi sought help from Adel Abdel Mahdi. Abdel Mahdi explained to al-Maliki the long procedure entailed in presenting an approved budget, not a matter of a few days or weeks.

“Adel saved my life. Al-Maliki didn’t understand anything, I bet, but at least he is off my back now”, said Rafei.

It looks like the US won’t finally put pressure on Iraq, and it is unlikely that Trump will impose sanctions on the Iraqi government in November in parallel with the Iran sanctions set to begin in November. Trump, or rather his team, don’t want to lose Iraq completely to Iran and thus is expected to allow Iran to trade with Iraq the trade exchange has reached $4bn 165 million for the first six months this year). This is already a weakness in Trump’s plans for sanctions!

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq Will Have a President and Prime Minister Who Take Account of Both Iranian and US Interests
  • Tags: , ,

How the American Media Was Destroyed

October 1st, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

In my September 24 column, “Truth Is Evaporating Before Our Eyes,” I used the destruction of the CBS news team that broke the Abu Ghraib story and the story of President George W. Bush’s non-performance of his Texas Air Force National Guard duties to demonstrate how accusations alone could destroy a Peabody Award winning, 26 year veteran producer of CBS News, Mary Mapes, and the established news anchor Dan Rather.

I have many times written that it was President Bill Clinton who destroyed the independent US media when he permitted 90 percent of the US media to be concentrated in six mega-corporations that were in the entertainment and other businesses and not in the news business. This unprecedented concentration of media was against all American tradition and destroyed the reliance that our Founding Fathers placed on a free press to keep government accountable to the people.

Until I read Mary Mapes book, Truth and Duty (St. Martin’s Press, 2005), I was unaware of how this monopolization of the media in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and American tradition had proceeded to destroy honest reporting.

Here is what happened. The Texas Air National Guard was a place the elite placed their sons to avoid the Vietnam War draft. Copies of documents written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian describing George W. Bush’s ability to jump the large waiting list hoping to avoid the war, Bush’s non-compliance with National Guard requirements and Bush’s unauthorized departure to another state were given to CBS. The CBS team worked for many months to confirm or discredit the documents. The information in the documents proved to be consistent with the interviews of people acquainted with George W. Bush’s time in the Texas National Guard.

It was a carefully prepared story, not a rushed one, and it fits all the information we now have of Bush’s non-performance.

The problem for the CBS news team, which might not have been realized at the time, was that the documents were copies, not originals that experts could authenicate as real beyond question. Therefore, although the documents were consistent with the testimony of others, no expert could validate the documents as they could originals.

The Republicans seized on this chink in the armor to turn the issue away from the truthfulness of the CBS 60 Minutes report to whether or not the copies were fakes.

CBS had two other problems. One was that Viacom, its owner, was not in the news business, but in the lobbying business in Washington wanting to enrich the company with legislative perks and regulatory permissions. Truthful news from CBS, exposing US torture in the face of the Bush regime’s denials and showing that Bush was too privileged to be held accountable by the Texas National Guard, was damaging Viacom’s highly paid lobbying effort.

When the right-wing bloggers took after CBS, the Viacom executives saw how to get rid of the troublesome CBS news team. Viacom executives refused to support their reporters and convened a kangeroo count consisting of Republicans to “investigate” the 60 Minutes story of Bush’s failure to comply with his obligations to the Texas National Guard.

Viacom wanted to get rid of the independent news constraint on its lobbying success, but Mary Mapes and her lawyers thought truth meant something and would prevail. Therefore, she subjected herself to the destructive process of watching the orchestrated destruction of her career and her integrity.

CBS’ other problem was that, with or without justification, CBS and Dan Rather were regarded in conservative Republican circles as liberal, a designation equivalent to a communist. For millions of Americans the controversy was about liberal CBS trying to harm George W. Bush and leave us exposed to Muslim Terrorism. In right-wing minds, Bush was trying to protect America from Muslim terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and CBS was trying to smear President Bush.

Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, and the CBS news team were too focused on news to take into account the dangerous situation in which they were operating. Therefore, they walked into a trap that served Dick Cheney’s Middle Eastern wars, which served Halliburton and Israel, and into a trap that served conservative hatred of “liberal” news.

Why didn’t the American media defend CBS’ careful reporting? The answer is that this was a time when TV news media was dying. The Internet was taking over. The rest of the media saw in the demise of CBS a chance to gain that market and have a longer life.

So the rest of the media took up the fake news that 60 Minutes had presented a report based on fake documents. The media did not realize that they were signing their own death warants. Neither did the right-wing bloggers that the Republicans had sicced on CBS. Today, these bloggers are themselves shut off from being able to express any truth.

Truth in America is being exterminated, and the destruction of CBS news was the starting point. As Mary Mapes reports in her book, as soon as Viacom was entirely rid of 60 Minutes with the firing of the entire staff, on the very next day Viacom held a triumphant annual investor meeting. Chairman Sumner Redstone was awarded a a $56 million paycheck for 2004. Chief operating officers, Les Moonves and Tom Freston “each pocketed a whoopping fifty-two million for the year.”

And the CBS news team went without mortgage, car, or health insurance payments.

Mapes writes:

“Just a few years ago, this kind of corporate executive largesse was unherd of. Now, these media Masters of the Universe have taken over the public airwares and they have one obligation: making a profit.”

Ever a larger one, which requires protecting the government and the corporate advertisers from investigative reporting.

The consequence today is that the American media is totally unreliable. No reader can rely on any report, not even on a New York Times obituary.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

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

The annual meeting between defense officials of both countries was scheduled for mid-October, a sign of heightened bilateral tensions.

In response to illegally imposed US sanctions on Beijing over its purchase of Russian SU-35 combat aircraft and S-400 missile defense systems,the deputy head of China’s Central Ministry Commission (CMC) summoned the US embassy’s acting military attache. He called US sanctions a breach of international rules and standards, a hegemonic action harming bilateral military relations.

Beijing recalled naval commander Shen Jinlong. He was participating in the 23rd International Seapower Symposium – co-hosted by the US Chief of Naval Operations and the White House at the US Naval War College in Newport, RI.

According to Chinese media, Beijing demands that the US “immediately redress its wrongs and withdraw related sanctions.” Huang said China’s military reserves the right to take further countermeasures.

Its National Defense Ministry spokesperson Wu Qian said

“(w)e demand the US side immediately correct its wrongdoing and withdraw the so-called sanctions. Otherwise, the US side must bear the consequences caused by this act.”

On Friday, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned US Ambassador Terry Branstad, demanding the rollback of unacceptable Trump regime actions.

In his Friday General Assembly address, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed strong support for multilateralism, criticizing US policies, saying:

“What we see today is that international rules and multilateral mechanisms are under attack, and the international landscape is filled with uncertainties and destabilizing factors,” adding:

“China’s answer is clear-cut. All along, China has upheld the international order and pursued multilateralism.”

Addressing Trump’s hostile General Assembly address, he stressed that “(m)ultilateralism is under fire precisely when we need it most.” It’s vital in dealing with geopolitical challenges.

He warned that Beijing won’t be blackmailed on trade. In his UN address, Trump shamefully accused China of meddling in US November midterm elections, citing no evidence because there is none.

Yi stressed four principles:

  • replacing confrontation with mutual cooperation on all major issues;
  • upholding international rules, norms and standards, especially honoring international treaties, conventions, and other agreements;
  • upholding, defending and preserving fairness and justice in international affairs; and
  • working together to deliver real results, according to UN Charter and World Trade Organization principles.

Yi stressed that China pursues peaceful, cooperative development. He called for denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, along with fully observing and implementing the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal.

Beijing will continue defending its sovereign rights and interests, he said. It “will open still wider to the world.”

Yi claimed his country’s Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation is “the largest platform for international cooperation.”

It calls for over $1 trillion in longterm investment. Chairman of China’s largest construction machinery manufacturer XCMG said

“One Belt, One Road makes our internationalization strategy like a tiger with wings added.”

It conflicts with Trump’s America First agenda, including Pompeo’s Indo-Pacific Economic Vision, announced in July to compete with China regionally.

Bilateral relations are greatly strained politically, economically and militarily, notably over Trump’s trade war.

Washington demands all other countries bend to its will, a hostile agenda risking greater war than already.

Its provocative military buildup close to Sino/Russian borders could lead to devastating confrontation. Catastrophic nuclear war is possible by accident or design.

Washington’s hell bent rage for unchallenged dominance is the greatest threat to world peace.

A Final Comment

US war secretary Mattis cancelled a China trip scheduled for later this month to meet with his counterpart General Wei Fenghe, a further sign of strained relations.

Late Sunday, an unnamed US official said the trip is off. The State Department, along with China’s defense and foreign ministries issued no comments. Nor did the US embassy in Beijing.

*

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 Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Trump’s ‘trade war’ with allies, including Mexico-Canada, was and remains a phony trade war. A war of words for the purpose of consumption of Trump’s domestic political base before the November midterm elections. Trump has been playing his ‘economic nationalism’ card that helped win him his election once again. The US-Canada deal will be announced this week as well. Trump will exaggerate and lie about both to his domestic political base, but the terms of both the Mexican and Canadian trade deals will show hardly any change.

US-Mexico Trade Details Before Final Document

As with So. Korea, an early look at the Mexico-US deal late last week showed token changes on autos and steel. No tariffs, just phony quotas on car imports to US. (Trump has recently also quietly exempted other big steel importers to the US (Brazil, etc. from the 25% tariffs he announced last March). Mexico deal details will show few if any tariffs, some quotas well above current actual levels so they have no effect, and the US-Trump backing off the threat to change how disputes are resolved over trade issues. Trump essentially agreeing to the Mexico (and Canada) positions that no changes should be made to the past process.

Mexico has apparently not agreed to slow imports of autos and steel to the US. Just to raise North American auto parts content to 75% from 62.5%, and to raise Mexican auto workers wages to $16/hr. (but only on 40% of Mexican auto workers)!

Mexico is also bragging of a ‘side deal’ with US also just signed, outside NAFTA, in which current tariffs get locked in for years to come.

In other words, the US-Mexico agreement is A PHONY TRADE DEAL–just like So. Korea! (Canada will now fall into the same deal. All the talk about separate agreements for Mexico and Canada has collapsed. It has always been just a smokescreen by Trump).

Canada-US Deal Early Look

Late in the day news for Sunday, Sept. 30, is that US and Canada just agreed to a trade deal, with Canada remaining with Mexico in NAFTA. No change in the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism.Canada agrees to let US diary farmers access a whopping 3.5% of its market (offset by Canadian price subsidies to them for the 3.5%).

On Autos, Canada agrees to not export more than 2.6 million cars to the US. But Canada only importing 2 million now, so it raise imports another 600,000. Moreover, the 2.6m quota takes effect only if US imposes 25% auto tariffs on Canada and globally as well in the future–which it will never do.So no tariffs on autos or steel from Canada. ANd the auto quotas are fictitious.

According to Reuters news service,

“The quota (2.6m) would allow for significant growth in tariff-free automotive exports from Canada above current production levels of about 2 million units”.

And apparently no change in Canada steel and aluminum imports to the US:

“the deal failed to resolve US tariffs on Canada’s steel and aluminum exports, the Canadian Sources said”.

What that means is that Canada keeps importing steel and aluminum to US as before.

Deals show that Trump is desperate to sign something before the November elections, as a show of his ‘economic nationalism’ and ‘America First’ themes. So now So. Korea, Mexico and Canada have agreed to softball deals with the US to changes in their free trade agreements with the US. (Meanwhile Trump backs off threats to Europe and quietly exempts other economies like Brazil from his previously announced steel and aluminum tariffs last March).

Canada and Mexico stock markets surging on the news, and the currencies are rising in the wake of the news of deals reached on trade with both by Trump.

*

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

Jack Rasmus is author of the book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, August 2017, and the forthcoming book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US policy from Reagan to Trump’, 2019, also by Clarity Press. He blogs at jackrasmus.com, hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio network, and tweets at @drjackrasmus. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mexico -US -Canada NAFTA Trade Agreement Reached — A Phony Trade War!
  • Tags: ,

The United States, along with its allies, will implement a “strategy of isolation” in Syria if President Bashar Assad maintains the political process aimed at ending the war in Syria, an American diplomat was quoted as saying.

US Special Representative for Syria Jim Jeffrey said Washington would work with countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East to impose tough international sanctions on Syria if Damascus did not want to cooperate to change the constitution before the elections.

“If the regime does that, we believe that then we can go after it the way we went after Iran before 2015 – with really tough international sanctions,” Jeffrey said, referring to secondary sanctions against Tehran for its nuclear program.

In addition, the diplomat assured that not even the UN Security Council could contain this plan of the United States.

“Even if the U.N. Security Council won’t pass them we will just do it through the European Union, we will do it through our Asian allies, and then we will make it our business to make life as miserable as possible for that flopping cadaver of a regime and let the Russians and Iranians, who made this mess, get out of it,” Jeffrey said, quoted by Reuters.

However, it is highly questionable of the United States has enough pull on the whole of the EU to make such a threat a reality. As the global economy constitutes a complex network of trading partners, it will be only moderately difficult to get around any embargos masquerading as sanctions. Syrian goods can be sold through intermediaries who are critical to US allied countries, and goods produced around the world will not have much difficulty arriving in Syria.

The Syrian authorities consider the United States military presence in its territory to be illegal, and consensus interpretation of international law confirms this view.

Despite this, then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced last January that US forces will remain in the Arab country and that in the future there will be no place for President Bashar Assad. In the same speech, Tillerson stated that the US and its allies do not intend to cooperate in rebuilding the Syrian-controlled areas of Damascus.

Assad’s allies Russia and Iran, as well as China, have made some investments in the country, but they want other countries to share the burden.

Western countries have said they will not approve reconstruction funding for Syria, or drop sanctions, without a political settlement. U.S. sanctions are already making it hard for foreign companies to work there.

One of the odd points in all of this, is the fact that Syria today is a largely war ravaged country, the issue of ‘sanctions’ seems moot. Sanctions have been on Syria for more than 7 years, and it was these sanctions in part which then worsened the situation, giving some element of credibility to the western sponsored ‘opposition’ in the early stage of the conflict.

Among the most important facts that history will have to hold fast to, is that there was never a legitimate opposition that waved or used the seditionary and colonial flag of the French Mandate – the Green/white/black tri-color. There has always been a civil society and electoral opposition in Syria, ranging from free market liberals, to communists, moderate Sunni groups, to the Syriac nationalists of the SSNP. Given that Syria is a typical ‘developmental state’, it is expected that the weakness of a sovereign civil society gives rise to harsher police and regulatory methods over civil society.

Assad ushered in a series of civil society reforms six years ago, and these met the demands of the legitimate opposition, who have long since been brought back into the fold of Syrian civil and political society and structures. What we have seen ever since is a coordinated mercenary, sectarian, and Salafist invasion force orchestrated by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.

*

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

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.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Military Plans Thwarted, Washington’s “Strategy of Isolation” in Syria: Assad Government Now to be Made ‘as Miserable as Possible’ with Sanctions

“A reminder that the Trump administration is diverting money away from Head Start, the National Cancer Institute, the HIV/AIDS programs, maternal and child health programs, and the CDC to pay for these human rights abuses.”

With detention facilities overflowing due to President Donald Trump‘s monstrous immigration policies—which have sent the number of children detained by the U.S. government soaring to a record 12,800—the Trump administration is reportedly carrying out dead-of-night “mass transfers” of children from foster homes and shelters to a crowded Texas tent camp, where they have no schooling and limited access to legal services.

According to the New York Times, more than 1,600 “migrant children have been roused in the middle of the night in recent weeks and loaded onto buses with backpacks and snacks for a cross-country journey to their new home: a barren tent city on a sprawling patch of desert in South Texas.”

The Times continued:

Until now, most undocumented children being held by federal immigration authorities had been housed in private foster homes or shelters, sleeping two or three to a room. They received formal schooling and regular visits with legal representatives assigned to their immigration cases.

But in the rows of sand-colored tents in Tornillo, Tex., children in groups of 20, separated by gender, sleep lined up in bunks. There is no school: The children are given workbooks that they have no obligation to complete. Access to legal services is limited.

While the Tornillo tent camp was originally opened for just a short period in June to accommodate the growing number of children the Trump administration was ripping from their parents’ arms and locking up, the “pop-up city” was expanded last month to be able to hold 3,800 children.

“A reminder that the Trump administration is diverting money away from Head Start, the National Cancer Institute, the HIV/AIDS programs, maternal and child health programs, and the CDC to pay for these human rights abuses,” Melissa Boteach of the Center for American Progress pointed out, citing a recent Yahoo News report that found the White House is taking hundreds of millions of dollars from key programs to fund its mass detention and deportation policies.

Citing shelter workers who requested anonymity for fear of being fired, the Times reported on Sunday that the transfers from shelters throughout the country to the Tornillo tent camp “are carried out late at night because children will be less likely to try to run away. For the same reason, children are generally given little advance warning that they will be moved.”

“Obviously we have concerns about kids falling through the cracks, not getting sufficient attention if they need attention, not getting the emotional or mental health care that they need,” said Leah Chavla, a lawyer with the Women’s Refugee Commission, told the Times in an interview. This cannot be the right solution. We need to focus on making sure that kids can get placed with sponsors and get out of custody.”

While the Trump administration’s mass separation and detention of immigrant families sparked outrage at home and throughout the world earlier this year, the fact that hundreds of children remain separated from their families months after the White House’s “zero tolerance” policy supposedly ended has slipped from the headlines amid the day-to-day chaos of the Trump era.

“Please remember there are 13,000 migrant children in detention. We can’t forget about them,” immigrant rights activist Julissa Arce wrote in response to the Times report.

*

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

Featured image is from Creative Commons.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Horrific’ Immigration Policy: In Dead of Night, Trump Administration Transferring Children to Tent Camp with No Schooling and Limited Legal Services

Venezuela’s Socialism…And Ours

October 1st, 2018 by Rep. Ron Paul

This week we witnessed the horrible spectacle of Nikki Haley, President Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations, joining a protest outside the UN building and calling for the people of Venezuela to overthrow their government.

“We are going to fight for Venezuela,” she shouted through a megaphone, “we are going to continue doing it until Maduro is gone.”

This is the neocon mindset: that somehow the US has the authority to tell the rest of the world how to live and who may hold political power regardless of elections.

After more than a year of Washington being crippled by evidence-free claims that the Russians have influenced our elections, we have a senior US Administration official openly calling for the overturning of elections overseas.

Imagine if President Putin’s national security advisor had grabbed a megaphone in New York and called for the people of the United States to overthrow their government by force!

At the UN, Venezuela’s President Maduro accused the Western media of hyping up the crisis in his country to push the cause for another “humanitarian intervention.” Some may laugh at such a claim, but recent history shows that interventionists lie to push regime change, and the media goes right along with the lies.

Remember the lies about Gaddafi giving Viagra to his troops to help them rape their way through Libya? Remember the “babies thrown from incubators” and “mobile chemical labs” in Iraq? Judging from past practice, there is probably some truth in Maduro’s claims.

We know socialism does not work. It is an economic system based on the use of force rather than economic freedom of choice. But while many Americans seem to be in a panic over the failures of socialism in Venezuela, they don’t seem all that concerned that right here at home President Trump just signed a massive $1.3 trillion dollar spending bill that delivers socialism on a scale that Venezuelans couldn’t even imagine. In fact this one spending bill is three times Venezuela’s entire gross domestic product!

Did I miss all the Americans protesting this warfare-welfare state socialism?

Why all the neocon and humanitarian-interventionist “concern” for the people of Venezuela? One clue might be the fact that Venezuela happens to be sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves. More even than Saudi Arabia. There are plenty of countries pursuing dumb economic policies that result in plenty of suffering, but Nikki and the neocons are nowhere to be found when it comes to “concern” for these people. Might it be a bit about this oil?

Don’t believe this feigned interest in helping the Venezuelan people. If Washington really cared about Venezuelans they would not be plotting regime change for the country, considering that each such “liberation” elsewhere has ended with the people being worse off than before!

No, if Washington – and the rest of us – really cared about Venezuelans we would demand an end to the terrible US economic sanctions on the country – which only make a bad situation worse – and would push for far more engagement and trade. And maybe we’d even lead by example, by opposing the real, existing socialism here at home before seeking socialist monsters to slay 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.

As a settler-colonial country, Israel has industriously sought to erase the existence of the people indigenous to the land it occupies, so as to better appropriate aspects of their culture that make it “local”, rather than implanted. 

Since food is historically a place-based cultural production, Israeli cuisine prides itself not on bagels, lox or gefilte fish – all European in origin – but rather on falafel, hummus, olive oil and the modest but delicious tomato and cucumber salad that accompanies most Palestinian meals.

More recently, Israel has expanded the reach of its cultural theft beyond the historic borders of Palestine, to various Arab countries around it. This theft, arrogantly acknowledged as such, was on display in July in Tel Aviv, where a startup gallery opened its first exhibition, brazenly entitled “Stolen Arabic Art”.

The gallery explained:

“We are showing the works in the exhibition in Israel without the artists’ knowledge or consent, acutely aware of this act of expropriation. By delineating these political and geographic boundaries we wish to call attention to Israel’s exclusion from the Middle East family.”

Holding artworks hostage

Organisers claim this “exclusion” is in part due to the success of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel until it stops violating international law and the human rights of Palestinians.

“We wish to promote a shared reality marked by open dialogue and exchange throughout the Middle East, without wars, occupation, or any borders,” the exhibit description says.

In an interview with Hyperallergic, a New York-based website devoted to discussions of art and culture, exhibition curator Omer Krieger said the goal was to take the artwork “hostage,” thus forcing the artists to “negotiate”.

“We want to break the boycott … I hope that the artists will appreciate the sophistication of this action, that they will understand its purpose and create contact with us,” Krieger said.

Krieger is best known for his work from 2011 to 2015 as the artistic director of the Under the Mountain art festival in Jerusalem. According to Hyperallergic, that project, funded by right-wing patrons and the Israeli government, was criticised for art-washing the city’s violent reality, including the ethnic cleansing of its Palestinian population.

Exhibit organisers clearly fail to understand that they cannot endear themselves to “the Middle East family” by violating artists’ rights to their own intellectual work. Indeed, it is precisely Israel’s history of theft, dispossession and appropriation that has led to its exclusion. More of the same crimes cannot help.

Yet, more of the same is happening in another artistic realm, as one Israeli publishing house, recently published an anthology of short stories by 45 women from various Arab countries and the global Arab diaspora without their consent. The anthology, entitled Hurriya(“Freedom”), was not advertised as a book of “stolen stories”, even as the publisher reportedly later acknowledged that many of the authors had never been asked permission to include their work.

‘We take it as their salvation’

Palestinian writer Khulud Khamis, who lives in Haifa, says she first became aware of the theft when she was invited to participate in a panel discussion of the book. As she browsed its table of contents, she suspected that the included authors had not been informed that their work would be translated, and reached out to them.

Among the authors are renowned writers such as Tunisia’s Farah el-Tunisi, Algeria’s Ahlam Mosteghanemi and Kuwait’s Buthaina al-Issa. The book cover also reportedly featured stolen art by Lebanese artist Hussein Bleibel.

Khamis used her Facebook page to expose this appropriation, and many of the authors included in the anthology expressed extreme displeasure at the theft of their intellectual property. The publishing house has since removed the title from its online catalogue.

As Khamis was organising online, reaching out to the included authors, activist Roni Felsen said she contacted the publishers – only to be told that the editor believed they were doing these women a favour; indeed, saving them!

Felsen posted details of her conversation with the publishers, who apparently told her:

“These women are putting a call out to the world … Who will hear the cries of these women? In the past, these women could cry out in their kitchen … or in the field, heard only by God maybe? Now somebody is taking these cries, translates them and voices them here in Israel … It’s important to us that the voices of these women are heard …We take it as their salvation.”

How exactly does stealing women’s stories and translating them – poorly, according to Khamis, who is fluent in Hebrew – without consulting them, “save” these women’s lives?

As Khamis told Hyperallergic:

“These writers are not screaming in their kitchens or in the fields, and they are definitely not waiting for the white male saviour to ‘save’ them. These are all strong women – activists, human rights defenders, many of whom hold advanced degrees in various fields. Their creative works have been recognised both nationally and internationally.

“Taking the writers’ words and creations, translating and publishing them into Hebrew – without their knowledge or consent – is the very opposite of ‘saving’ them. They [the publishing house] have robbed these women of their agency, silenced them, and disregarded their right to make a choice regarding their works.”

The heart of colonialism

Theft is at the core of every colonial enterprise. The museums of the former imperial powers are full of art stolen from former colonies, from Africa to Asia and beyond.

By stealing from various Arab countries, Israel is confirming what it is: an outsider with no respect for cultural boundaries and a start-up colonial nation with aspirations to imperial grandeur, rather than what it so desperately wants to be seen as: just one of the “locals”.

The publication of an anthology of Arab women’s writing, edited and translated without their permission, displays a particularly offensive aspect of imperial hubris. This attitude was most aptly described by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, a classic essay in postcolonial studies that references “white men saving brown women from brown men”.

The included authors – the standard term, “contributors”, would be wrong in this context – are taking effective action, as opposed to “crying out” in their kitchens. The only thing they may be screaming about is the theft of their intellectual property.

*

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

Nada Elia is a diaspora Palestinian writer and political commentator, currently working on her second book, Who You Callin’ ‘Demographic Threat?’ Notes from the Global Intifada. A professor of gender and global studies (retired), she is a member of the steering collective of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI).

Featured image is from Flickr.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Food, Art and Literature: How Israel Is Stealing Arab Culture

Two weeks ago the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave a landmark ruling against the UK government’s mass surveillance program, stating that it violated human rights and offered “no real safeguards” to the public.  This surveillance programme, according to the Strasbourg court, allowed the British intelligence agencies’ to violate the right to a private and family life with “insufficient oversight” over which communications were chosen for examination. Of equal importance the ECHR found that the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), also known as the Snoopers’ Charter, did not give enough protection to journalistic sources which would violate the rights to freedom of expression guaranteed in UK and EU laws and would discourage whistle-blowing.   In its judgment of the case, Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15), the court concluded that police and security services had breached citizens’ right to privacy by intercepting communications data in bulk, with little oversight of when these powers could be used, just as NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden had revealed.

In its judgment, the ECHR expressed concern that “intelligence services can search and examine ‘related communications data’ apparently without restriction’ – data that identifies senders and recipients of communications, their location, email headers, web browsing information, IP addresses, and more.” This means that Internet service providers must store details of everything we do online for twelve months and render it accessible to dozens of public bodies to include everything from browsing records to data on private citizens, search engine activity, to every phone call to text message and geographical location we have held in any of our electronic devices.  The IPA also requires that tech companies hand over the data that they possess to intelligence agencies.

Yet, what does this mean for those of us who just use our computers for work and our mobiles for texting friends to meet up for drinks? Surely, this does not affect us, right?  Wrong.

The catch is that we are all implicated, to include the simple text message to confirm dinner plans. Do you use a social media account? Do you have photos on your mobile and laptop that you have or have not posted online? Did you rate a restaurant on Google? All this information to include your list of Facebook friends are being mined by the government along with all the tracking information that your many apps provide, your bank, credit card and financial details, biographical information, your resume, your medical records, and all the information in the world that you store on these devices which you might even deem harmless. In this day and age there is no such thing as harmless information. At that, there is no such thing as privacy when the government believes it has already rewritten the IPA in measure with the previous court’s instruction.

As many are concerned with the interception of personal data and parents are reading online privacy and safety guide for kids, the government’s secret interception, processing and storing data of millions of people’s private communications, should alarm each and every one of us.  The current form of the IPA means that any information that you have in the UK can be shared with secret intelligence agencies like the CIA, and well beyond. With which other countries does the US also share information under similar secret legal frameworks?  Also important to consider here are the impediments to tech development that are under threat such as when then Prime Minister David Cameron threatened to ban Snapchat, WhatsApp, and any other encrypted messaging services unless these companies provided the government with backdoor access to user data. Such measures actually deter technology since most tech companies are aware that the minute they undermine their users’ privacy, their company will not last.

In short, by stripping away our privacy, the government is undermining everything that keeps us free: our expression, our right to protest and to fair trials, our legal and patient confidentiality, our free press. And one can argue our individuality is at stake whereby everything we do, consume, record, and say is potentially up for monitoring and scrutiny, as are those with whom we interact.  As Edward Snowden stated, “Because privacy isn’t about something to hide. Privacy is about something to protect. That’s who you are.”

We need to prize our privacy and human right not to be spied upon in this day and age where governments are pulling out the “terrorism” card in order to goad its citizens into surrendering one of the qualities which makes us most human.

*

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 Vigo is a scholar, film-maker and human rights consultant. Her latest book is Earthquake in Haiti: The Pornography of Poverty and the Politics of Development (2015). She can be reached at: [email protected]. Read other articles by Julian.

Tory-supporting media have been portraying Britain’s socialist Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as a Soviet fellow-traveller. Meanwhile, Hilary Wainwright notes, Labour’s shadow chancellor and close Corbyn ally sets out a vision that breaks with the old bureaucratic state model.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell can usually barely breathe a word about nationalisation without setting off a media frenzy, so it’s strange that his most interesting comments yet on the subject passed with so little comment.

Speaking in February about the Labour Party’s proposed new economics, McDonnell said:

“We should not try to recreate the nationalised industries of the past … We cannot be nostalgic for a model whose management was often too distant, too bureaucratic.”

Instead, he said, a new kind of public ownership would be based on the principle that “nobody knows better how to run these industries than those who spend their lives with them”.

Democratic vision

Maybe the media’s silence on this profoundly democratic vision of public ownership is not so surprising. It directly contradicts the attempt to warm up Cold War scares of a secretly pro‑Soviet Labour leadership, whose public ownership plans are the first step towards imposing a command economy onto the unsuspecting British people.

This new thinking about public ownership opens up a rich seam of new economic thinking: beyond both neoliberalism and the post-war social-democratic settlement.

Neoliberalism says the market knows best, but the Fabian-inspired model of the 1945 welfare state — for all its considerable merits — still left workers with no role in the management of Britain’s newly nationalised industries. Beatrice Webb, one of the leading Fabians, declared her lack of faith in the “average sensual man”, who can “describe his grievances” but not “prescribe his remedies”. She wanted public industries to be run by “the professional expert”.

In practice, this often meant the same old bosses from the private firms being brought back to run the public version, along with an ex‑general or two.

Underlying Labour’s “new politics” is a new and very different understanding of knowledge — even of what counts as knowledge — in public administration, and hence of whose knowledge matters.

For industries to be run by “those who spend their lives with them” means recognising the knowledge drawn from practical experience, which is often tacit rather than codified: an understanding of expertise that opens decision-making to wider popular participation, beyond the private boss or the state bureaucrat.

As McDonnell put it, we need to “learn from the everyday experiences of those who know how to run railway stations, utilities and postal services, and what’s needed by their users”.

Preston model                                        

McDonnell’s speech was preceded by an equally innovative conference in Preston, driven by a desire to learn directly from the work of Preston Council and local co‑ops and trade unions. His commitment to this politics, like Corbyn’s, comes from a lifetime of seeing the mostly untapped wisdom at the base of the labour movement.

There is an extraordinary wealth of knowledge that ordinary trade union members hold about their work, and their ideas about better ways to organise it.

There are echoes here of past struggles, such as the Lucas Aerospace workers’ plan for socially useful production in the 1970s and its follow up in the London industrial strategy of the Greater London Council, just before it was abolished by Margaret Thatcher.

There are echoes too of a forgotten phrase in Labour’s old Clause Four, which was committed not only to common ownership but to “the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service”.

It was a phrase that mostly gathered dust even before the whole clause was scrapped in the mid-1990s. But now we have a Labour leadership that truly believes in the people’s capacity for “popular administration”.

Of course, it will not be easy devising new forms of participatory public ownership capable of drawing not only on workers’ knowhow in any given industry, but on the knowledge of users, customers and surrounding communities as well. But Labour is now throwing open the doors to those who would like to put forward their own ideas about public ownership that is very much not in the old style. Instead it involves a redefinition of what “the public” means.

Trade unions, local authorities and social movements of different kinds are being invited to lend their creative intelligence to this end. The Preston model is just one example of this.

The failures of privatisation and the intensity of social need, together with issues such as the urgency of climate change, have led a new generation to devise new strategies and find allies: not only to protest, but to collaborate on real alternatives that can exist here and now.

Trade unions are generally weaker than in the past, so local groups of Momentum (which help organise supporters of Corbyn’s project) and Labour branches can go some way to filling the gap by developing practical alternatives at local level.

Cooperating for transformation

The co-operative movement, for example, is undergoing a new lease of life as private enterprise fails to meet social and environmental needs. Unemployed people — especially young people – increasingly see collaboration as the only way to ethically make a living.

They are finding that the same technologies that have been used by big tech firms to fragment work can be redesigned as tools of social collaboration.

These experiments, born of necessity, can be the basis of a transformative force that could both help Labour to win the next election and form the basis of a new democratic economic order when Labour takes office.

This recognition of workers as not simply an interest to be defended but as knowledgeable, creative allies in the process of production of social wealth, considerably strengthens Labour’s claim to be the party with which voters can best entrust the economy.

It enables today’s Labour Party to break from the implicit pact that private enterprise should be allowed to run production, while the state looks after redistribution — the one supposedly efficient, the other supposedly fair. This foundation stone of the post-war consensus effectively left Labour one-handed and vulnerable to attack as the party of spending, rather than creating wealth.

And as questions of organising production were left to capitalist owners, it undermined Labour’s strong claim, as the party of labour, to be the real party of wealth creation. After all, money (capital) without labour is unproductive. Labour, on the other hand, can be productive without private capital, through co-labouring (i.e. cooperation) and through public funds and co‑ordination.

A new socialism?

When the Tories ask whether Labour can be “trusted with the economy”, this new economics answers: Labour is not another set of experts to be trusted, the commissars of a central plan or the champions of a special interest. Rather it rests on the active support of, and trust in, those on whom the wealth and social well-being of society depends. For the many, by the many.

And the party of business can no longer claim to have a monopoly of wisdom on creating social wealth, nor can it credibly dismiss Corbyn’s Labour as simply the revival of old-style state socialism. The leadership’s vision is of a radically democratic government sharing power with knowledgeable and productive supporters.

This opens up the possibility of developing a “new socialism” based on self-government rather than rule from above. Now that, surely, is a story for a media genuinely curious about where a Corbyn-led government will lead.

*

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

Slightly abridged from Red Pepper.

Hilary Wainwright is a member of Red Pepper’s editorial collective and a fellow of the Transnational Institute. Her latest book, A New Politics from the Left, is out now, published by Polity Press.

Featured image is from the author.

The opposition pulled off a surprise win in the Maldives’ presidential elections last weekend.

Ibrahim Mohamed Solih trounced President Abdulla Yameen by a 16-point margin even though the US, India, and many Western countries fearmongered that the incumbent would resort to vote rigging in order to remain in power. It’s for this reason why many of them refused to send election observers because they felt that this would “legitimize” the fraudulent activity that they wrongly assumed would occur, but the infowar concerning this unrealized scenario didn’t stop there. In fact, the US and India also appeared to have meddled in the election through provocative statements that could have contributed to shaping the ultimate outcome.

For instance, the US threatened to sanction Maldivian officials if any suspected fraud occurred, which could have been interpreted by the population as a signal that further economic restrictions might thenceforth be imposed more broadly upon them, too. Not only that, but an influential member of India’s ruling BJP, Subramanian Swamy, channeled the spirit of the late John McCain by publicly appealing for his country to invade its much smaller southern neighbor in the name of “democracy” and “human rights”. This undoubtedly had an effect on the electorate, many of whom were already dissatisfied with Yameen as it was, and the consequences will probably be far-reaching.

The US and India seem to have worked in tandem to shape the international conditions in which the Maldivian election occurred, just as they did three and a half years prior in January 2015 when Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa was unexpectedly deposed in a scenario just like this one. Similarly to Sri Lanka at the time, the strategic situation surrounding the Maldives is much larger than the small island state because of its New Cold War implications concerning the Chinese-Indian competition over the Indian Ocean. Yameen was regarded as a close Chinese partner and committed his country to the Silk Road, something that drew India’s ire to no end given the Maldives’ strategic location “right on its doorstep” and astride some of the world’s most important Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC).

The new government will probably move swiftly to pardon former president and notorious critic of China Mohamed Nasheed as it pivots towards India, though it shouldn’t be taken for granted that the Maldives will automatically turn into an “Indian satellite” as a result. China avoided this outcome with Sri Lanka by shrewdly engaging with the post-Rajapaksa government of President Sirisena, so it’s possible that it could pull off the same diplomatic feat with the post-Yameen Maldives too. Another point is that the Maldives’ security services were considered to be very closely aligned with the incumbent, so it’s unclear whether the country’s “deep state” will go along with any pivot that subjugates them to their larger northern neighbor.

Through a combination of what might be “deep state” wars and deft Chinese diplomacy, the Maldives might avoid losing its strategic independence after this shock electoral upset and the country’s seemingly impending consequent pivot towards India, but as with everything in International Relations, nothing can be entirely assured.

*

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 Oriental Review.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen and Chinese President Xi Jinping

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pivot towards India or China? The Maldives Might Not Become an Indian Satellite, at Least Not Yet

Adelson’s massive expenditures in federal elections this cycle are being made because he believes that Republican control of the House and the Senate is vital to maintaining right-wing and pro-Zionist policies and his influence in Washington and at the White House.

According to publicly available campaign finance data, Sheldon Adelson – the conservative, Zionist, casino billionaire –is now the biggest spender on federal elections in all of American politics. Adelson, who was the top donor to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Republican Party in 2016, has cemented his role as the top political donor in the country after giving $55 million in recent months to Republicans in an effort to help the party keep its majority in both houses of Congress.

Adelson’s willingness to help the GOP stay in power is likely born out of his desire to protect the massive investment he placed in the party last election cycle. In 2016, the Republican mega-donor gave heavily to the Trump campaign and Republicans, donating $35 million to the former and $55 million to the top two Republican Super PACs — the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund — during that election cycle.

Adelson’s decision to again donate tens of millions of dollars to Republican efforts to stay in power is a direct consequence of how successfully Adelson has been able to influence U.S. policy since Trump and the GOP rode to victory in the last election cycle.

A New York Times article on Adelson, titled “Sheldon Adelson Sees a Lot to Like in Trump’s Washington,” notes that Adelson “enjoys a direct line to the president.” Furthermore, Adelson and Trump regularly meet once a month “in private in-person meetings and phone conversations” that Adelson has used to push major changes to U.S. policy that Trump has made reality — such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and cutting aid to Palestinian refugees, among others.

Adelson’s new title as the top spender in all U.S. elections shows that he, along with his wife, is willing to spend big to keep that direct line open in the months and years ahead. Citing sources close to the Adelsons, the Times writes that the Adelsons’ massive expenditures in federal elections this cycle are being made because he and his wife believe that “Republican control of the House and the Senate is so vital to maintaining these [right-wing and pro-Zionist] policies” and their influence in Washington and at the White House.

“Pleased as punch”

The fact that Adelson is “pleased-as-punch” with Trump’s performance as president should hardly come as a surprise, given that the president has fulfilled his campaign promises that were of prime importance to Adelson, while many of his other campaign promises – namely those that were populist or anti-war in nature – have rung hollow.

These Adelson-promoted policies include the moving of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Adelson had aggressively promoted and even helped to finance, as well as removing the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. Another recent policy move bearing Adelson’s fingerprints is the U.S. decision to withdraw its funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), as Adelson once infamously stated that “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian.”

As previously mentioned, The New York Times recently noted that the cutting of aid to Palestinians, the U.S.’ removal from JCPOA, and the Jerusalem embassy move all resulted from private in-person meetings and phone conversations between Adelson and Trump.

Adelson has also been successful in stocking the Trump administration with politicians he has long supported as well as his confidantes. Adelson-supported appointees include Nikki Haley, long-time recipient of Adelson campaign funds who now serves as U.S. ambassador to the UN; Mike Pompeo, former CIA director who has advocated for bombing Iran and now serves as secretary of state; and John Bolton, a close confidante of Adelson, who is now national security adviser.

Adelson was also instrumental in removing Pompeo and Bolton’s predecessors, Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster, from their respective posts, owing to their support for JCPOA and their alleged “anti-Israel” positions. Speculation has recently grown that Secretary of Defense James Mattis may share their fate for similarly opposing Adelson’s positions.

Yet, upon closer examination, these Adelson-driven personnel and policy moves enacted by Trump seem to merely be the foundation for the so-called “Adelson agenda,” a set of convergent goals that could potentially result in thousands of deaths in the Middle East and embroil the U.S. in yet another regime-change war.

To show that “we mean business”

While Adelson’s top-donor status has allowed him unprecedented access to the Trump administration and has resulted in dramatic changes to U.S. policy, there is every indication that the worst is yet to come. This is because, while the Adelson’s past efforts to influence Trump administration policy have had undeniably negative effects, they have yet to embroil the U.S. in another regime-change war or lead to the destruction of entire nations.

Yet, the current path the administration is treading at Adelson’s behest — particularly regarding Iran, Syria and Palestine — has the potential to unleash havoc in the Middle East and beyond, in a way not yet seen during Trump’s young presidency.

Indeed, one need only look at Adelson’s past statements on Iran to understand just how dangerous this man’s influence is to any prospect of peace in the Middle East.

As an example, during the negotiations that eventually led to the Iran nuclear deal, Adelson publicly advocated for a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran without provocation, so the U.S. could “impose its demands [on Iran] from a position of strength.”

More specifically, Adelson’s “negotiation” plan involved the U.S. dropping a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert and then threatening to drop “the next one […] in the middle of Tehran” to show that “we mean business.” Tehran, Iran’s capital, is home to nearly 9 million people with 15 million more in its suburbs. Were Tehran to be attacked with nuclear weapons, an estimated 7 million would die within moments.

Furthermore, any sort of diplomatic engagement with Iran, according to Adelson, is “the worst negotiating tactic I could ever imagine.”

In other words, Adelson’s vision for engaging Iran considers the dropping of nuclear weapons on a country, including its heavily populated capital city — for no reason other than to show that the U.S. “means business” — a reasonable tactic.

With the Trump administration now applying “maximum pressure” to Iran, Adelson’s vision for engaging the Islamic Republic is of critical importance. For instance, if this “maximum pressure” campaign — currently a combination of draconian sanctions, bullying Iran’s trading partners, and covert CIA-driven regime-change operations — ultimately fails, Adelson is likely to push Trump towards more drastic “negotiation” tactics in order to force Iran into a “new treaty” designed by and for pro-Israel interests that seek to eliminate Iran as a regional player. Given that many entities– including Europe, China and Turkey — are rejecting U.S. calls to isolate Iran, this is a likely scenario that must be considered.

As his past statements make clear, Adelson — in such a case — is likely to pressure Trump to use military tactics, such as preemptive bombings, to force Iran to yield. Even though such a move would likely embroil Iran, the U.S. and potentially other important nations in a major war, Trump has shown that he has so far been willing to take Adelson’s “advice” regardless of consequences, including international backlash or even war.

Meet your new overlord: Adelson driving both US and Israeli policy behind the scenes

Beyond the fact that Adelson’s unprecedented influence on U.S. politics is set to create much more instability than past policies he has promoted, lies another unsettling truth: for less than $150 million — pocket change for such a plutocrat — Adelson has effectively bought the presidency and Congress. His role as top political donor has given him a “direct line” to the president and unprecedented access to the Republican party, who are beholden to his desires and whims as their paymaster.

Indeed, crossing Adelson — as shown by the high-profile firings of McMaster and Tillerson — has its steep price, and obeying Adelson now seems to be the most essential step that Trump and other Republicans must follow to stay in power.

Furthermore, Adelson is also the primary driver behind Israeli policy, given his role as a key donor to and long-time backer of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his role as owner and funder of Israel’s most widely circulated Hebrew-language newspaper, Israel Hayom. Thus, when considering critiques of U.S. politics as unduly influenced by Israel, Adelson’s role is again clear as day. If Israel is driving the U.S.’s foreign policy, it is not only because Adelson wills it but because Adelson is personally driving the policies of both the U.S. and Israel.

In 2014, a Princeton University study demonstrated that — beyond any doubt — the U.S. is an oligarchy, beholden to the interests of the rich and the powerful, not the interests of the majority of its citizens. Though the presence and power of the oligarchy is nothing new, what is notable is that a massive chunk of it is now under the control of a single individual — a man who has repeatedly shown that he has no empathy or respect for human life and is entirely on board  with totalitarianism. Indeed, Adelson has made it clear time and again that he is no fan of democracy.

Americans, meet your new, unelected overlord — Sheldon Adelson — because, as long as the U.S. political system is “hostage to his fortune,” he’s not going anywhere.

*

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

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

Bipartisan hardliners in Washington oppose these countries and all other sovereign independent states.

Peace and cooperative relations with them defeat US imperial interests – served by endless wars, instability and chaos.

In his UNGA address, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem affirmed his country’s commitment to eliminate US-supported terrorists, along with ending foreign occupation of northeast and southwest areas.

Things have come a long way from Syria’s darkest days, most of the country liberated. Much remains to be accomplished before its long-suffering people can breathe free again, Washington aiming to prevent it, bent on regime change.

Al-Moallem blasted nations hostile to his country’s liberating struggle, notably the US, NATO, Israel and the Saudis.

The so-called US coalition “has fought everything but terrorism,” he explained.

“Instead, it has proved that its goals are almost the same as those of terrorist groups, mainly fostering chaos, death and destruction.”

It raped and destroyed Raqqa, massacring countless thousands of defenseless civilians on the phony pretext of combating ISIS it supports.

It’s terror-bombing is all about wanting pro-Western puppet rule replacing Syrian sovereign independence, using cutthroat killer terrorists as imperial foot soldiers.

Syria’s liberating struggle replicates what’s gone on in other US war theaters, wanting sovereign states colonized and controlled.

Their governments seek peace, stability, and normalized relations with other nations, unattainable objectives as long as Washington wages endless wars of aggression.

Syria today “is safer and more stable, thanks to the achievements against terrorism, and given the government’s unrelenting efforts to rehabilitate areas destroyed by terrorism and bring back normalcy,” al-Moellem explained, adding:

“The situation (in much of the country) is now suitable for the voluntary return of the Syrian refugees to their homeland which they fled due to terrorism and the unilateral coercive economic measures which targeted them in their livelihoods.”

Damascus prioritizes the safe return of all internally and externally displaced refugees.

Al-Moallem said nations uninvolved in aggression against Syria are welcome to participate in its reconstruction. Others are “not welcomed and not invited…”

Syrians alone have “final stay in any matter related to the Constitution and any other sovereign affair” – free from foreign interference not easily achieved.

Damascus condemns use of CWs, terrorists and their sponsors alone guilty of using them many times, Assad and government forces falsely blamed for their high crimes.

‘’Every time Syria declared willingness to receive professional and objective teams to conduct investigations into chemical weapons allegations, these countries would place hindrances because they already knew that the findings will not be compatible with their vicious goals and intentions,” al-Moallem stressed.

Syria supports the right of people everywhere to be free from aggression and foreign domination.

Image result for Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho at the UNGA

In his USGA address, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho said his country’s nuclear disarmament depends on guaranteeing its security, along with reciprocal good faith steps by Washington not forthcoming so far.

He rejected hollow US promises, mixed signals, and unacceptable pressure, hoping for a second Kim/Trump summit.

“(D)eadlock” with Washington persists because Trump regime hardliners rely on “coercive methods that prevent trust building,” holding Pyongyang hostage to its unacceptable demands along with “slandering” its government, said Ri.

Believing “sanctions can bring us (to) our knees is a pipe dream of people who don’t know us,” he stressed.

Measures taken since Kim/Trump June summit talks have been one-way, good faith shown by Pyongyang along, not Washington.

Ri called on the Trump regime to follow through on promises made in June summit talks.

In October, Pompeo will visit Pyongyang to prepare for a second summit. He and Bolton are the problem – systematically unraveling things both leaders agreed on.

Hostility and betrayal defined US policy toward North Korea throughout its post-WW II history.

Washington breached earlier agreements, not Pyongyang – eager for rapprochement and normalized relations, what the US consistently rejected.

Is this time different with the most extremist ever US regime in power? Since June, US relations with North Korea deteriorated badly.

Instead of stepping back from the brink on the peninsula, Trump regime hardliners show intractable bad faith – pressing their demands in return for hollow promises sure to be broken like every time before.

*

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 Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Gandhi’s Despair and the Struggle for Truth and Love

October 1st, 2018 by Robert J. Burrowes

‘When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it – always.’ M.K. Gandhi

As we remember Gandhi Jayanti on 2 October, the Mahatma’s 149th birthday and the International Day of Nonviolence, there is plenty of room for despair.

Never before has the Earth and its many inhabitants been under siege as they are now, more than 100 years after Gandhi started warning us of the predicament in which we are embroiled and presenting his strategy for addressing it before it spiraled out of control.

Whether it is the threat of nuclear war, the ongoing wars in many parts of the world and particularly the Middle East, the multiple and synergistic threats to the global environment or the ongoing climate catastrophe, the Earth is under assault on all fronts and its precious lifeforms (human and otherwise) are being killed outright in vast numbers and driven to extinction at the rate of 200 species daily. And the evidence is rapidly accumulating that humans themselves will be extinct by 2026 as well. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

Moreover, unlike the tyrants to which Gandhi was referring, the current ‘tyrant’ is a global elite that has acquired extraordinary power to kill and destroy as they pursue their insane compulsion to accumulate and control resources at the expense of life. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

So are we to give up in despair? To quit without a fight? Or even delude ourselves that nothing needs to be done? Obviously, these were not ways that Gandhi would contemplate because, as noted in his words cited above: ‘the ways of truth and love have always won’. Although, as Gandhi did not bother to add: we must struggle, relentlessly, to ensure that truth and love prevail.

And, fortunately, there are many people around the world who agree with him.

Tackling the pervasive violence in our world requires a comprehensive strategy involving many campaigns focused on a wide range of peace, justice and environmental issues, and substantial mobilization. There is no single or simple path. Let me tell you about some of the people engaged in this effort and the nature of their commitment, together with what connects their involvement.

Remarkable activist and progressive journalist Abby Martin, based in the USA, was formerly creator and presenter of the investigative news program ‘Breaking the Set’ and is now creator and presenter of its successor program ‘The Empire Files’. With the support of her fine team, Abby researches and presents reports from ‘inside history’s biggest empire… recording a world shaped by war & inequality’ so that the truth is exposed for all to see. Abby, who is also an artist, interviews a wide range of people from ‘ordinary’ activists to progressive intellectuals to political leaders to penetrate the veil of obscurity cast by the global elite’s corporate media. You can watch Abby’s terrific programs, providing insight into how our incredibly violent world works, on her website ‘The Empire Files’. You can also read about the latest attack on her work and how you can help in the article ‘US Sanctions Shut Down “The Empire Files” with Abby Martin’. Keep fighting Abby! We are with you all the way.

Ina Curic in Romania writes illustrated children’s books designed to teach children a variety of lessons for living an empowered, socially and environmentally conscious life. Her book Queen Rain, King Wind: The Practice of Heart Gardening was published in May and Anagrania’s Challenge: Turning Conflict into Opportunity has just been published. Anagrania’s Challenge is a beautifully created story that offers clear and simple guidance on three subjects vital to our shared future on Earth: what we need to be ourselves, what we need to be healthy, and that acceptance of uniqueness and creatively dealing with conflict are essential if we are to live together and celebrate the benefits and advantages of our differences. If you are looking for children’s books that promote nonviolent living and conflict resolution, you will have trouble finding better books than those by Ina. You can read about Ina, as well as how to obtain her books, on her website Imagine Creatively.

Pakistani Canadian Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja is a scholar who writes searing critiques of international relations exposing the deep conflicts driving global events. Two of his recent articles are ‘World Affairs and Insanity as Entertainment: Are We at the End of Human Morality?’ and ‘Mankind Must Know: The UNO and Global Leaders are a Menace to Peace and Problem-Solving’.

Moreover, in support of his son Momin, a computer science graduate and IT entrepreneur, who has been unjustly imprisoned since 2004 on terrorism charges (and facing a sentence of life plus 24 years), Mahboob has created a website to raise awareness of Momin’s struggle for justice and freedom, and organized a petition for those who wish to express their support for him.

Edith Rubinstein in Belgium is definitely an ‘activist senior’. Now 86 and in a center of recuperation following a severe depression and bout of unconsciousness earlier this year, Edith still has her computer and continues her work as an activist.

‘Because I am an activist since a very long time, a feminist, a woman in Black, and I translated free Ecofeminism from Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva…. Since many years, I have translated alternative articles and finally it made me sick.’ In fact, Edith admits, ‘I am completely “abnormal”. Somebody who feels bad to live in a world where hundreds of thousand people are killed or die … because they have nothing to eat anymore and nobody seems to care…. I feel very bad to live in this kind of world. Yes, terrible what is happening in the Congo! But unfortunately it is not the only case. And I am very scandalized by the behavior of the Western World!!!!’

Zakia Haddouch in Morocco continues to report the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of people in that country as she and other activists continue their various struggles to bring some semblance of justice to Moroccan affairs. One prominent issue is the ongoing debate in relation to ‘the forced military service (for both young female and male subjects and I don’t say citizens). It was lately decreed by the king.’ Another struggle is taking place in the wake of the death of Mohcine Fikri on 28 October 2016, who was crushed to death in a rubbish truck trying to recover merchandise confiscated by a policeman. Following this event, Hirak (literally ‘The Movement’) was born and it quickly mobilized widespread support for its vigorous protests. While most of Hirak’s concerns are about local issues, it draws upon a national repertory of nonviolent actions fueled by the experiences of activists around the country. Between October 2016 and May 2017, and faced with social unrest of an unprecedented vitality which increasingly challenged him personally, Mohamed VI remained silent. However, when Hirak leader Nasser Zefzazi – who has never failed to stress nonviolence and advocate self-restraint – interrupted a sermon on 26 May 2017 in which an imam claimed the social movement was tantamount to a ‘fratricidal struggle or even civil war within Islam’, the government took this pretext to clamp down on Hirak. Many activists were jailed – over 200 so far – and demonstrations are now systematically broken up. Zefzazi was among those arrested (on 29 May 2017) and, along with other members of Hirak, subsequently jailed for 20 years. The repression has nipped in the bud any hopes for resolving the crisis quickly. But this doesn’t mean that Zakia and other activists have been intimidated into silence or inaction.

Daniel Dalai reports modestly about his visionary initiative Earthgardens in Guatemala. Earthgardens provides opportunities for girls to realize and practice their inherent leadership potential, particularly as part of Eco-Teams in preserving natural biodiversity.

‘More and more 3rd world governments are proving to be a colossal waste of money as corrupt politicians get rich without addressing local needs. The Sembradores’ model of Girl Power is gaining acceptance as people realize girls are more efficient, more concerned, and less corruptible in solving the simple problems of local needs. Clean water, cheap electricity, food production, and tourist development are urgent needs in many parts of the globe. You may become a volunteer working with children or an Eco-Team assessor in Latin America or Africa.’ Please contact Kate Teggins <[email protected]> The beautiful Earthgardens website has just been updated and the stunning photos alone will tell you much about what these remarkable girls are doing. See Earthgardens.

Young Nigerian Idowu Jawando has been reflecting deeply on the shocking state of our world and his own role in fixing that.

‘Over here in Lagos civilization advances steadily with all its domination and exploitation, squeezing the juice out of all of us. But yet here and there, traces of a smile, the fragrance of love releases its perfume… things seem bearable for a while. The big question on my mind is this: Can civilization be deconstructed? A part of me thinks: Yes of course, it is the actions of individuals that create this world, these same individuals also have the power to take everything down. But how about the police, the armies, the nuclear weapons and what-have you? Things are the way they are because of force. And most especially the threat of starvation too. It forces us into activities and relationships not of our choosing. Civilization uses and discards the people, over and over, squeezing them like lemons.

‘Will the global leaders who are driven to this insane struggle for power and profit suddenly grow a compassionate nature, one that has no doubt been lost a long time ago? You and I know they won’t. With all the disasters that go on, we still see them stripping the earth bare of its life, still forcing people into precarious situations. We find ourselves at a quandary. I personally find myself in a very stifling situation, but I try my best not to let it define, instead I study it as one would study a dangerous toy….

‘Indeed I have found that tenderness impacts strength and courage in others, this is something I have seen in my own existence. But can one be tender to an oppressor? I guess if there was a mass refusal of this world and all its mechanisms, there will be a lot of headway. Such a situation in my own thinking, won’t be one of making demands to any government, but collectively and individually deciding how we want to live our beautiful mortal lives and what we want the world around us to reflect: the ugliness of mindless profit-seeking or co-creative play with earthly life.

‘Many just go through life unquestioningly, accepting the state of things as normal; as well, the walls that prevent us from truly connecting with one another, is one major obstacle. The education, religious systems only encourage people to be followers, never masters of themselves…. I will keep thinking about this. I realize it might take my whole life and then more, to tackle the evils of the world. But it would please me if I am moving inch by inch and encouraging others to do the same. The torch of freedom must never be extinguished. But must pass from generation to generation.’

Each of the inspiring individuals mentioned above is a signatory of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’. If you feel inclined to join this worldwide movement to end violence in all of its manifestations, you are welcome to sign the Charter pledge too.

Like those individuals mentioned above, signatories of the Nonviolence Charter come from a diverse range of backgrounds. They live all over the world (in 105 countries). They represent a wide range of genders, races, religions, classes and abilities. And they work on a phenomenal variety of issues with an increasing number recognizing the need to work on ending violence against children. As Gandhi noted:

‘If we are to reach real peace in this world and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with children.’

This requires us to understand the cause of violence, including violence against children – see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’ – and to consider making ‘My Promise to Children’. In some cases, it means undertaking the personal healing necessary to nurture children powerfully. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

Recognizing, as Gandhi put it, that ‘Earth provides enough to satisfy every [person’s] needs, but not every [person’s] greed’, others are tackling the full range of environmental and climate challenges by participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

And given the elite insanity that drives violence in many contexts, still other signatories are engaged in nonviolent struggles – see Nonviolent Campaign Strategy – or national liberation struggles – see Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy – to tackle violence in these contexts.

So if you are inclined to ponder the meaning of Gandhi’s life, you just need to picture a man dressed simply in khadi, walking to the sea to collect salt in defiance of the law of the British occupying power.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. once noted:

‘The enemy is violence.’ But for Gandhi: ‘The enemy is fear.’

This is because it is fear that drives violence but also fear that prevents us responding strategically and nonviolently to the violence in our world. As Gandhi observed: ‘You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing there will be no results.’

So as humans are beckoned to extinction within the next few years, Gandhi would remind us that ‘The future depends on what we do in the present.’

What will you do?

*

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

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

Who exactly is the NDP making friends with in Israel?

In refusing to heed a call from 200 well-known musicians, academics, trade unionists and NDP members to withdraw from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group (CIIG) the party leadership cites the need for “dialogue”. But, when Jagmeet Singh, Hélène Laverdière, Murray Rankin and others call for “dialogue” they don’t specify who they are talking to.

A quick Google search of CIIG’s Israeli partner — the Israel-Canada Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group — shows that all 13 of its members have expressed views or proposed laws that most NDP members would consider odious. Below is a snapshot of the Israel-Canada Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group members — none of whom are from parties that represent Palestinian citizens of Israel — that Canadian MPs are creating relationships with:

Robert Ilatov proposed a bill in May to stop “harassment by left-wing operatives of Israeli soldiers” by criminalizing those who film Israeli troops repressing Palestinians. The bill states: “Anyone who filmed, photographed, and/or recorded soldiers in the course of their duties, with the intention of undermining the spirit of IDF soldiers and residents of Israel, shall be liable to five years imprisonment.” Born and raised in the former Soviet Union, Ilatov also sponsored a bill to strictly limit the call to prayer from mosques and, in another attack against the 20-25% of Muslim and Christian Israelis, said it should be mandatory for judges to sing Israel’s national anthem and adhere to “the idea of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.”

Yisrael Eichler called the assimilation of US Jews a “quiet Holocaust” and labelled criticism of men who refuse to sit next to women on El Al flights “anti-Semitic” and a form of “terrorism”. In 2009 Eichler demanded a “stop [to] this wave that is turning Israel into a refuge for Russian and African non-Jews as well as criminals who flee from their native countries.” In an anti-Jewish outburst, Eichler called a fellow Knesset member “a Jewboy who tattles on his fellow Jews.”

Yoav Ben Tzur told the Knesset in 2017: “it is time to stop being afraid. It is time to apply the law to Judea and Samaria [illegally occupied Palestinian West Bank] as an inseparable part of the state of Israel.” In a stunt that required a major military mobilization and led to a Palestinian being killed, Tzur was part of a mass prayer at Joseph’s Tomb near the occupied Palestinian city of Nablus.

Yitzchak Vaknin told the Centre for Israel and Jewish affairs in 2013: “I do not support negotiations on Jerusalem at all. Jerusalem is our capital and of course we are forbidden to speak on Jerusalem because if we speak about Jerusalem then we can discuss any other city in Israel.” In 2011 Vaknin co-sponsored a bill to annex the illegal Jewish settlements of Beitar Illit, Ma’ale Adumim, Giv’at Ze’ev, Gush Etzion and Efrat to the municipality of Jerusalem. Vaknin also co-sponsored two bills  to forbid gay pride parades and in 2014 Vaknin called South Africa’s Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein “erev rav”, a derogatory term translated as “mixed multitude” or “mixed mob” of non-Jews who followed the Biblical Hebrews from Egypt and made their lives miserable.

Elazar Stern told Belgian newspaper L’Echo in January that “all embassies should be” in Jerusalem and that Europe should “stop supporting Palestinian terrorism.” Stern co-sponsored a recent bill calling on Israel to withhold some Palestinian customs duties it gathers as the occupying power.

Nachman Shai repeatedly justified the killing of Palestinians during his time as the Israeli military’s chief spokesman between 1988 and 1991. In 2015 he ran to chair the explicitly racist Jewish National Fund/Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael and called the term leftist “a stain.”

Tali Ploskov proposed a bill to deter Israeli human rights groups that give tours detailing the mistreatment of Palestinians by increasing the penalty on unlicensed tour guides. She also co-sponsored a bill designed to fight the “legal intifada” by raising the fees for Palestinians to petition Israel’s top court and another law empowering the Minister of the Interior to revoke the residency status of Palestinians in occupied Jerusalem for “Breach of Allegiance”.

Mickey Levy, then commander of the Jerusalem police, ordered the 2002 execution of a Palestinian who had been captured and disarmed before he could detonate a suicide vest. Levy said Israel should stop returning the bodies of Palestinians they kill in acts of resistance and that their families should be expelled to Gaza “if they have relatives there.” When Arab Knesset member Hanin Zoabi called Israeli soldiers “murderers” in 2016, reports the Jerusalem Post, Levy “rushed at Zoabi, nearly reaching her before he was stopped by Knesset ushers, shouting ‘You are filth!’ several times.”

Oded Forer initiated the April impeachment of Haneen Zoabi from the Knesset and legislation to disqualify Arab Knesset candidates for “calling Israel racist and calling upon countries to boycott and sanction it.” Saying “the [Arab] Joint List continues to prove that its MKs do not belong in the Knesset,” Forer claimed “the Knesset has become a place for terrorists and their supporters to sit in without fear.” Forer also submitted a bill — largely targeting tenured professors — that could impose up to 10 years in prison for those who incite violence against the state.Forer said: “the expansion of incitement to public events has become a real danger. Calls for incitement and for harm to be caused to the State of Israel should not be heard among the masses and certainly not in events and places financed with the money of Israeli taxpayers.”

Meirav Ben-Ari said the government should “help” Jews living in a Tel Aviv neighbourhood with many Africans. “You go to the south of Tel Aviv, it’s a different state,” Ben-Ari said. “It’s like Sudan mixed with Eritrea mixed with Darfur.” Ben-Ari added that she doesn’t go there because it’s too dangerous. In 2015 she called for the prosecution of an Arab member of the Knesset. “A member of Knesset who acts against the Knesset and the State of Israel, his immunity should be reconsidered.”

Sharren Haskel wrote recently about “Palestinians’ desire to obliterate the Jewish future in the Middle East” and told CBC she “would love to see Canada move its embassy” to Jerusalem. In July Haskel initiated a government program “to prevent miscegenation” (romantic relationships between Jews and non-Jews). Using a Hebrew word that literally translates as “assimilation,” but is commonly used as a euphemism for miscegenation, she told Israel Hayom paper: “Young [Jewish] men and women from all over the world will arrive and form relationships with local young men and women, in order to prevent assimilation and strengthen the connection to Judaism.”

In this article I detail some of the views of the two chairs of the Israel-Canada Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group. The more openly racist and anti-Palestinian of the two, Anat Berko just put forward a bill to jail individuals who display Palestinian flags at demonstrations and expressed support for a former soldier who shot and killed a wounded Palestinian in Hebron in 2016.

Which is the best way for the NDP to promote justice and peace? To accept and normalize such views and policies by making friends with these politicians? Or to withdraw from the CIIG to send a message that the State of Israel is currently on a path that is unacceptable to the NDP and its members?

Please ask [email protected],murray. [email protected][email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] to withdraw from the Canada–Israel Interparliamentary Group.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s NDP Will be Judged by the Friends They Keep in Israel

This book is a personal account of a US American professor about his volunteering with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) against the Israeli occupation in Palestine in the summer of 2014. His eyewitness report tells the story about oppression, subjugation and the daily sufferings and injustices of the Palestinians People under the Israeli occupation regime.

Right from the outset, Richard Hardigan, a University professor from California, sets the record straight: There can’t be a balanced or neutral point of view concerning the Israeli/Palestine conflict. When helpless children are beaten up, or a civilian population is crushed by military might, “neutrality is not an option.” Quoting Bishop Desmond Tutu said: 

“if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Having taught at different universities in Egypt, the author traveled by bus to Israel visiting the occupied territories. What he saw was a shock and made a deep impression on him. He visited Hebron where a few hundred settlers guarded by more than 3 000 heavily armed soldiers make the life over the original inhabitants a living hell. He traveled to Qalqilia, a city surrounded by an Apartheid Wall that destroyed economic growth. He saw the ghetto wall surrounding Bethlehem. He also had to experience waiting in line in the blistering sun crossing Qualandya checkpoint experiencing himself the arrogance and the sense of superiority of young Israeli soldiers that the Palestinians have to endure daily.

This book gives daily accounts, starting on 17 June till 26 July 2014. His visit coincides with the events before the military onslaught on the Gaza Strip where 2 000 people were killed. The author experienced the daily humiliations ant the brutality of the occupation at first hand. His report corrects the illusions way too many have about “beautiful Israel,” its intentions, policies, and practices. Despite the rampant injustices and hardship the People of Palestine have to suffer on a daily basis, Hardigan can see no sign of surrender; on the contrary, their resistance and determination to fight for their rights are resilient. The mere existence of the Palestinian People disapproves David Ben-Gurion‘s saying:

The old will die and the young will forget.  

The daily reports reveal a depressing and inhumane reality of which the Western readers, especially the American ones, have not the faintest idea. For Hardigan, to end the occupation is to convince Israel’s benefactor, the US government. The people in the US have to be informed of what is going on with American help and sufficient financial support. But under the Trump administration, this is a hopeless cause. Hardcore Zionist has hijacked US Middle Eastern policy and to try to blackmail the Palestinian leadership into submission to sign a document of unconditional surrender. Despite their collaboration with the Israeli occupier, not even Mahmud Abbas is willing to sign such a document.

To understand the described unbelievable sufferings of the Palestinians, one can’t understand the ignorance of Western societies and their dance attendance on Israeli politicians who come on state visits. Especially Netanyahu and his security establishment have to be shown the red card. 

The book is excellently written. It gives a different view then the mainstream media. It should be widely spread. It has to get to the ordinary folks in the US. If Americans knew about the misuse of their Dollars, change might come about in Palestine.

*

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. Ludwig Watzal is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


The Other Side of the Wall: An Eyewitness Account of the Occupation in Palestine

Author: Richard Hardigan

Publisher: Cune (January 8, 2018)

ISBN-10: 1614572038

ISBN-13: 978-1614572039

Click here to order.

.

.

“We are dealing with a criminal undertaking at a global level … and there is an ongoing war, it is led by the United States, it may be carried out by a number of proxy countries, which are obeying orders from Washington … The global war on terrorism is a US undertaking, which is fake, it’s based on fake premises. It tells us that somehow America and the Western world are going after a fictitious enemy, the Islamic state, when in fact the Islamic state is fully supported and financed by the Western military alliance and America’s allies in the Persian Gulf. … They say Muslims are terrorists, but it just so happens that terrorists are Made in America. They’re not the product of Muslim society, and that should be abundantly clear to everyone on this floor. … The global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity.” (source) (source)

The quote above comes from prominent author and Canadian economist Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, who is Professor emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa’s Emeritus Professor of Economics, at the International Conference on the New World Order in Kuala Lumpur (2015), organized and sponsored by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation. You can find a full video of that conference at the end of this article.

“What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea, a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace, and security, freedom, and the rule of law.” – George Bush Sr. (source)

“I think his (Obama’s) task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a New World Order can be created.” – Henry Kissinger, CNBC

The conference featured numerous speakers, such as Dr. Thomas PM Barnett, an American military geostrategist and Chief Analyst at Wikistrat. He has also held numerous insider positions, one of them being adviser to former Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. President of the International Movement for A Just World, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, and Former Editor of the Japan Times, Yoichi Shimatsu, were also in attendance, and the event was headed by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who was the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia (for 22 years) and is currently the President of Perdana Global Peace Foundation. [currently the Prime Minister of Malaysia]

It’s great to see a number of academics and professionals come together to create awareness about what seems to be a global military agenda towards a massive surveillance state and a new world order — more specifically, a one world government.

The New World Order 

Prior to ‘credible’ people coming forward in an attempt to create awareness about the New World Order agenda, it was considered a conspiracy by most. It’s quite disturbing that a conference like this does not receive any mainstream media attention, and it’s even more disturbing that it would need to be aired on mainstream television in order to be taken seriously by the masses. The grip that corporate media has on the minds of the masses is strong, and it does a great job at keeping the world ignorant and oblivious to events and concerns being raised by many experts, in various fields, from all over the world.

The New World order is the supposed goal of a handful of global elitists who are pushing for a one world government and a heightened national security state. In order to accomplish this goal, this group uses false flag terrorism and the fear of global threats to impose increased security measures on domestic populations (like Bill C-51) to justify the invasion of other countries (like Iraq and 9/11, for example).

False flag terrorism is run by covert operations designed to deceive and manipulate in such a way as to appear as though they had been carried out by groups, nations, or entities other than those who actually planned and executed them.

“All three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition.” – Professor Lynn Margulis, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and National Academy of Science member, one of many academics who has been very outspoken regarding 9/11 (source) (source)

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” – Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook

This ‘group’ has been using foreign threats to heighten security, take away our rights, and invade other countries. Virtually the  entire world is now covered with United States military bases, with the exception of Russia and a few other countries. And we’ve been warned about this before; Eisenhower warned us to guard against the rise of misplaced power and the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex. President Kennedy warned us about a group that thrives off of the potential of an increased need for security, and how it would be seized upon by those “anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”

“Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda affiliated organizations, including the Islamic State, are not independent organizations, they are sponsored, and they are sponsored by the United States and its allies. It is documented that prior to 2011, there was a process of recruitment of mujahideen to fight in Syria, and this was coordinated by NATO and the Turkish high command. This report is confirmed by Israeli news sources and unequivocally, we are dealing with a state-sponsorship of terrorism, the recruitment of mercenaries, the training and the financing of terrorism.” – Dr. Michel Chossudovsky (source)

Are we seeing the same thing with ISIS? It seems the path towards a New World Order isn’t really possible without a constant threat of war and terrorism.

Who is this group? Well, Dr. Chossudovsky believes it originates with those who control the US, Israel, and other allies, but who is controlling these countries and this massive global agenda?

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many, and various, and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks.” – John C. Calhoun, 7th Vice President of the United States, from 1825-1832. He was also a political theorist during the first half of the 19th century. (source)

You can view more statements like the one above from various presidents and politicians HERE.

The New World order also deals with legislation that we never really hear about. For example, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad stated that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was strategically aimed at dominating the world economy, and marks another step closer to the global dominance of those who orchestrated it.

Think about it for a moment, if there is a group of people using various governments to force their will upon the world, heighten the national security state by means of manufactured false flag threats and more, what are we dealing with here? If the same people who are portrayed as patriotic — men and women defending their land and fighting for their country — are actually pursuing terrorists that were created and funded by their own government, what is really going on here? And why do so many politicians, academics and professionals spend their time trying to notify the world, without a peep from mainstream media?

*

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 tragic episode that caused the death of 15 Russian air force personnel has had immediate repercussions on the situation in Syria and the Middle East. On September 24, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu informed allies and opponents that the delivery of the S-300 air-defense systems to the Syrian Arab Republic had been approved by President Vladimir Putin. The delivery had been delayed and then suspended as a result of Israeli pressure back in 2013.

In one sense, the delivery of S-300 batteries to Syria is cause for concern more for Washington than for Tel Aviv. Israel has several F-35 and has claimed to have used them in Syria to strike alleged Iranian weapons transfers to Hezbollah. With the S-300 systems deployed in an updated version and incorporated into the Russian command, control and communications (C3) system, there is a serious risk (for Washington) that Israel, now incapable of changing the course of events in Syria, could attempt a desperate maneuver.

It is no secret that Greece purchased S-300s from Russia years ago, and that NATO and Israel have trained numerous times against the Russian air-defense system. Senior IDF officials have often insisted that they are capable taking out the S-300s, having apparently discovered their weaknesses.

Tel Aviv’s warning that it will attack and destroy the S-300 battery should not be taken as an idle threat. It is enough to look at the recent downing of Russia’s Il-20 surveillance aircraft to understand how reckless a desperate Israel is prepared to be. Moreover, more than one IDF commander has over the years reiterated that a Syrian S-300 would be considered a legitimate target if threatening Israeli aircraft.

At this point, it is necessary to add some additional information and clarify some points. Greece’s S-300s are old, out of maintenance, and have not had their electronics updated. Such modern and complex systems as the S-300s and S-400s require maintenance, upgrades, and often replacement of parts to improve hardware. All this is missing from the Greek batteries. Secondly, it is the operator who uses the system (using radar, targeting, aiming, locking and so forth) that often makes the difference in terms of overall effectiveness. Furthermore, the system is fully integrated into the Russian C3 system, something that renders useless any previous experience gleaned from wargaming the Greek S-300s. No Western country knows the real capabilities and capacity of Syrian air defense when augmented and integrated with Russian systems. This is a secret that Damascus and Moscow will continue to keep well guarded. Yet two years ago, during the operations to free Aleppo, a senior Russian military officer warned (presumably alluding to fifth-generation stealth aircraft like the F-35 and F-22) that the range and effectiveness of the Russian systems may come as a surprise.

The following are the words of Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu concerning the deployment of the S-300 to Syria and its integration with other Russian systems:

“Russia will jam satellite navigation, onboard radars and communication systems of combat aircraft, which attack targets in the Syrian territory, in the Mediterranean Sea bordering with Syria. We are convinced that the implementation of these measures will cool hotheads and prevent ill-considered actions threatening our servicemen. Otherwise, we will respond in line with the current situation. Syrian troops and military air defense units will be equipped with automatic control systems, which have been supplied to the Russian Armed Forces. This will ensure the centralized management of the Syrian air defense forces and facilities, monitoring the situation in the airspace and prompt target designation. Most importantly, it will be used to identify the Russian aircraft by the Syrian air defense forces.”

If the Israelis will follow through with their reckless attempts to eliminate the S-300 (if they can find them in the first place, given that they are mobile), they will risk their F-35s being brought down. The US military-industrial complex would suffer irreparable damage. This would also explain why Israel (and probably the US) has for more than five years put enormous pressure on Moscow not to deliver the S-300 to Syria and Iran. The US State Department’s reaction over the future purchase by Turkey and India of the S-400 confirms the anxiety that US senior officials as well as generals are experiencing over the prospect of allies opting for the Russian systems. This would allow for a comparison with weapons these allies purchased from the US, leading to the discovery of vulnerabilities and the realization of the US weapons’ relative inferiority.

Given Tel Aviv’s tendency to place its own interests above all others, it would not be surprising to find them using the possibility of attacking the S-300 with their F-35s as a weapon to blackmail Washington into getting more involved in the conflict. For the United States, there are two scenarios to avoid. The first is a direct involvement in the conflict with Russia in Syria, which is now unthinkable and impractical. The second – much more worrying for military planners – concerns the possibility of the F-35’s capabilities and secrets being compromised or even being shown not to be a match against air-defense systems nearly half a century old.

An illuminating example of how the United States operates its most advanced aircraft in the region was given in eastern Syria around Deir ez-Zor. In this part of Syria, there is no threat from any advanced air-defense systems, so the US is often free to employ its F-22 in certain circumstances. The Russian military has repeatedly shown radar evidence that unequivocally shows that when Russian Su-35s appear in the same skies as the F-22, the US Air Force simply avoids any confrontation and quickly withdraws such fifth-generation assets as the F-22. The F-35 is not even ready in its naval variant, and has yet to be deployed on a US aircraft carrier near the Middle Eastern theater or the Persian Gulf; nor is it present in any US military base in the region. The US simply does not even consider using the F-35 in Syria, nor would it risk its use against Russian air defenses. Israel is the only country that so far may have already used these aircraft in Syria; but this was before the S-300 came onto the scene.

The F-35 program has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will soon reach the exorbitant and surreal figure of over 1 trillion dollars. It has already been sold to dozens of countries bound by decades-long agreements. The F-35 has been developed as a multi-role fighter and is expected to be the future backbone of NATO and her allies. Its development began more than 10 years ago and, despite the countless problems that still exist, it is already airborne and combat-ready, as the Israelis insist. From the US point of view, its employment in operations is played down and otherwise concealed. The less data available to opponents, the better; though the real reason may lie in a strong fear of any revelation of potential weaknesses of the aircraft damaging future sales. At this time, the Pentagon’s marketing of the F-35 is based on the evaluations provided by Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, and on the tests carried out by the military who commissioned it to Lockheed Martin. Obviously, both Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force have no interest in revealing any weaknesses or shortcomings, especially publicly. Corruption is a big thing in Washington, contrary to common assumptions.

The combination of Israel’s ego, its inability to change the course of events in Syria, coupled with the loss of its ability to fly throughout the Middle East with impunity due to Syria now being equipped with a superior air defense – all these factors could push Israel into acting desperately by using the F-35 to take out the S-300 battery. Washington finds itself in the unenviable position of probably having no leverage with Israel over the matter ever since losing any ability to steer events in Syria.

With the Russian air-defense systems potentially being spread out to the four corners of the world, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and who knows how many other countries waiting in the queue, Russia continues to increase its export capacity and military prestige as it demonstrates its control of most of the Syria’s skies. With the introduction of the the S-500 pending, one can imagine the sleepless nights being spent by those in the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin’s headquarters worrying about the possibility of an F-35 being taken down by an S-300 system manufactured in 1969.

*

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

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

Selected Articles: The World Is Sinking. Dictatorship by Democracy

October 1st, 2018 by Global Research News

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

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

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.

In Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member

*     *     *

Trump’s Middle East Policy Takes a Kicking at UN Assembly

By James Reinl, October 01, 2018

At one of several events about Iran’s missile-building and support for foreign militias, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was heckled by a woman audience member who was expelled after yelling: “We’re sick of you killing these Iranians.”

Rod Rosenstein

Donald Trump, The Manchurian Candidate and The Russia Probe. The Rosenstein Comey Mueller Intrigue

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 30, 2018

The outcome of the Rosenstein affair is uncertain. It is intimately related to the history of Russia-Gate which was launched prior to the November 2016 elections. Russia-Gate consisted in presenting Trump as a Manchurian candidate controlled by the Kremlin.

Mass Murder, Violence and the U.S. Social Structure

By Vince Montes, September 30, 2018

C. Wright Mills had warned about the excessive bureaucratization in the social sciences during his time, but he could not have envisioned the tremendous amount of fragmented analyses that occurs when attempts to understand the structure of U.S. society.

Global Wealth Concentration: The Global Power Elite Drive Amazon Share Value to a Trillion Dollars 

By Peter Phillips, September 30, 2018

Exciting news for capitalism was the recent achievement of trillion-dollar value for both Amazon and Apple, making them the first corporations to obtain such a lofty status. Amazon’s skyrocketing growth makes its CEO, Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person with an $160 billion net worth.

Security, Safety, Security! Dictatorship by Democracy

By Peter Koenig, September 30, 2018

Does anybody have an idea on what this security and safety industry – the machines and apparatuses, and ever newly invented security gadgets – cost? – And the profit they bring to the war and security industry – and their shareholders, many of whom are former high-ranking US and other western government officials? – The airport security business alone is estimated at between US$ 25 and 30 billion per year.  

Bombing Libya: The Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis

By William Blum, September 30, 2018

The world will long remember the present immigrant crisis in Europe, which has negatively affected countless people there, and almost all countries. History will certainly record it as a major tragedy. Could it have been averted? Or kept within much more reasonable humane bounds?

*

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 not only information that they need – in this Age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it…What they need, and what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves…what may be called the sociological imagination.”  C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, 1959

“’Our own death is indeed, unimaginable,’ Freud said in 1915, ‘and whenever we make the attempt to imagine it we can perceive that we really survive as spectators.’  It is thus the very habit of military situations that turn them theatrical.  And it is their utter unthinkableness: it is impossible for a participant to believe that he is taking part in such murderous proceedings in his own character.  The whole thing is too grossly farcical, perverse, cruel, and absurd to be credited as a form of ‘real life.’  Seeing warfare as theatre provides a psychic escape for the participant: with a sufficient sense of theatre, he can perform his duties without implicating his ‘real’ self and without impairing his innermost conviction that the world is still a rational place.  Just before the attack on Loos, Major Pilditch testifies to ‘a queer new feeling these last few days, intensified last night.  A sort of feeling of unreality as if I were acting on a stage….’”   Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory 

“The society whose modernisation has reached the stage of integrated spectacle
is characterised by the combined effect of five principal factors: incessant technological renewal, integration of state and economy, generalised secrecy, unanswerable lies, and eternal present . . . .”  Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

“Hi-diddle-dee-dee

An actor’s life for me..

Hi-diddle-dee-dum

An actor’s life is fun”

 Walt Disney, “Pinocchio”

It was 100 years ago this November 11th when World War I ended.  This “War to End All Wars,” resulted in the death of approximately 9 million soldiers and 9 million civilians. The brilliant leaders who waged this war – the crème de la crème – men who, in their own warped minds, possessed impeccable logic and rigorous reasoning, expected the war to be over in a few months.  It lasted four years. Like their more current American counterparts before they launched the war against Iraq in 2003, they expected a “cakewalk” or a “slam-dunk” (the former term is racist and the latter a sports term, perfect unconscious verbiage for the slaughter of “lesser” humans).  All these principals were data demented, they had lined up their little toy ducks in a row and expected a neat and logical outcome.  Or so they said. The new weapons would make quick mincemeat of the enemy. Technology would expeditiously destroy to expeditiously save.  Nothing has changed in one hundred years

Such instrumental logic and its positivistic data reductionism has now deeply infected the popular mind, as common sense has been destroyed by government and mass media propaganda so blatantly ridiculous that only a hypnotized person could believe it.  But so many have been hypnotized and follow the repetitious and overwhelming streaming of each day’s markedly ad hoc “news,” following the Pied Piper to their doom via the wizardry of digital technology.  Raptly attentive to the “politainment” that passes for journalism, they pin ball between alleged assertions of fact cobbled together with tendentious and faulty logic and theatrical displays of emotion meant to manipulate an audience of spectators in the national theatre of absurdity.  It is all show and tell in which the audience is expected to react emotionally rather than think, with images and feelings having replaced concentrated reflection, and facts and evidence having disappeared like a coin from a magician’s hand.

This technological surround-sound theatre has reduced everything to play-acting, with audiences and their puppeteers playing reciprocal parts.  Theodor Adorno analogizes thus:

Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies. The sound film, far surpassing the theatre of illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film, yet deviate from its precise detail without losing the thread of the story; hence the film forces its victims to equate it directly with reality. The stunting of the mass-media consumer’s powers of imagination and spontaneity does not have to be traced back to any psychological mechanisms; he must ascribe the loss of those attributes to the objective nature of the products themselves, especially to the most characteristic of them, the sound film. They are so designed that quickness, powers of observation, and experience are undeniably needed to apprehend them at all; yet sustained thought is out of the question if the spectator is not to miss the relentless rush of facts.

Meanwhile, the real business of murder, mayhem, and economic exploitation continues apace. As one “small” example of a fact relegated to oblivion by our mainstream media, in Gaza this past week, Israeli occupation forces killed Nasser Azim Musabeh (12), Mohammed Nayef Ai (14), Mohammed Ali Mohasmmed Anshasi, (18), Iyar Khalil Al-Sha’er (18), Mohasmmed Bassam Mohammed (24), Mohammed Walid Haniyeh (23), and Mohammed Ashraf Awawdeh (23). But such facts don’t matter since these dead young people were already reduced to invisible people not worthy of a mention.

Rather, pseudo-debates and pseudo-events are created by media and political magicians whose goal is to confuse the audience through information (data) and emotional overload into thinking that they are “freely” choosing what is always the same, to paraphrase Theodor Adorno. It is a conjurer’s act of mind manipulation in support of a repressive political and economic ideology built on false dichotomies.  The political/media empire creates its own “reality” that the captivated audience takes as reality, as their emotions swing from outrage to laughter and their electronic clickers jump them from show to show, from CNN or Fox or the New York Times to Saturday Night Live in the land where there is no business but show business.  “Amusing ourselves to death,” as Neal Postman so aptly put it.  To which I would add: As we put others to death outside the show.

The other day I was in a library and was looking through a large book of World War I photographs from the Imperial War Museum that I found lying on a table.  They were arranged chronologically from the start of the war in 1914 to its end in 1918.  Fascinating photos, I thought.  I went through the book page by page, examining the photos one by one, beginning with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by a young guy, on through the photos of stiff British war-hawk leaders in double-breasted suits, through photos of the trenches and the new weapons until I reached photos of the treaty to “end” it.  By the conclusion, I felt exhausted and knew nothing new. Photos as data.  Click, click, click: How many are enough? It was like spending an hour with the mainstream corporate media, and much of the alternative press. It was like a black and white movie in no motion.  Same old, same old, as a young man I know often says when I ask him what’s new.  Same old data via photographs.  War is hell.  Ditto.   Bodies get blown to bits and decompose in mud.  Ditto.  Heads get separated from necks and blood pours forth.  Ditto.  War is hell.  Ditto.  Great leaders meet and end the carnage.  Ditto.  

Ditto Data Dada.  I had to imagine the subsequent pages and years as these great leaders, so disgusted by war, prepared for the next one, and the one following, etc. Ditto, data, dada.

I understood then why the first famous Dadaist piece of art that emerged from absolute disgust with the data driven crazies who started and waged WW I was Marcel Duchamp’s 1917 “Fountain,” a porcelain urinal signed by R. Mutt, a message to tell the “great” leaders to piss off. 

But Dadaist art, like all avant-garde art, gets quickly sucked into the maw of the entertainment complex, which is another name for the propaganda complex.  As the word media means etymologically – magicians – these sorcerer’s have developed and use every bit of black magic to engineer the consent of the bewildered herd, to blend the words of two of America’s key propagandists from the past: Edward Bernays, Freud’s American nephew and President Woodrow Wilson’s master propagandist for WW I, and the famous journalist Walter Lippman.  Bernays put it straight and succinctly: 

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of engineering of consent.  The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process.  It affects almost every aspect of our daily lives.

Last week I attended a production of the play Annie in a community theatre in a liberal town in the northeast.  The show was sold out, and I was there because my lovely granddaughter was performing in the play, one whose story and music I was very familiar with.  The show was delightful and the audience was enraptured by the performances and the wonderful music.  If you are not familiar with the story, it is about an 11 year old orphan named Annie who, in 1933 when FDR has assumed the presidency, is in search of her biological parents.  Together with other orphans in a NYC orphanage, she is treated miserably by a character named Miss Hannigan.  By the play’s end, Annie is adopted by a wealthy man to presumably live happily ever after. 

At one point in the play, this wealthy man brings Annie to Washington D. C. to meet his friend, President Roosevelt. He says to FDR, Franklin, you need to do something and get my factories humming again. In this scene, Roosevelt and his cabinet, the wealthy man, and Annie sing the very upbeat song – “Tomorrow” – which Roosevelt loves since it offers hope in the dark time of the great depression.  Everyone sings the stirring song, many in the audience silently singing along and the mood in the theater elevates.  By the play’s end Annie is adopted by the wealthy man, whose name is Daddy Warbucks.  This super-capitalist billionaire with a mansion on Fifth Avenue and a heart of gold has made his riches making weapons for WW I, though this is not spelled out in the show.  I kept wondering what the audience of liberal-minded people were thinking, or if they were, about the strange fact the hero of the show was a man with a war-monger’s name whose factories had produced armaments that had created tens of thousands of war orphans and who was urging the liberal Roosevelt to get his munitions factories up and running again in 1933.  I suspected they weren’t thinking about this at all and that the work of subtle propaganda was being magically induced at an unconscious level.  For how could such a nice, caring guy, who adopts the cute Annie and who sings such tuneful songs, be a killer?  

I guiltily thought: I shouldn’t be thinking such thoughts, as I also thought how can I not think them.  Emotionally I felt one thing, and intellectually another.  This was the classic double-bind.

Upon further reflection, I realized that this is how the finest propaganda works.  It splits people in two and works subtly.  Emotionally you are pulled one way, and intellectually another, if you are thinking at all. There are certain connections you are not supposed to make or verbalize, when to oppose the powerful sway of the media’s emotional appeals is considered a betrayal of your humanity and certain victims, such as a cute orphan or acceptable victims, even when that doesn’t follow logically.

But in the Magic Theatre that is American life, false choices are the essence of the show. Democrats vs. Republicans, Clinton vs. Bush, Bush vs. Obama, Obama vs. Trump, liberals vs. conservatives, and on and on endlessly.  It’s Dada, my friends, all theater.  The next election will change everything, right?  “The sun’ll come out/Tomorrow, So ya gotta hang on/‘Till tomorrow/ Come what may.”  

Only when we leave the theatre can we see the real play.  But that’s a bold act for which no Oscars, Tonys, or Emmys are handed out.  And outside the theater’s warm embrace, it’s cold, and you feel like an orphan looking for a home, no matter how much blood-money purchased it. But don’t go in; it’s a trap.

*

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

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Note: The following paper was delivered in part at the Workers World conference on the Chinese Revolution held on August 29, 2009 in Detroit. We are republishing this document in 2018 in recognition of the 69th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution of October 1949.

We should note that in recent years the role of the People’s Republic of China largely characterized by Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative has changed dramatically in relation to what is reviewed and analyzed in this article. 

***

Since the Chinese Revolution and the ascendancy of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in October of 1949, the role of this nation in the struggle of colonized, semi-colonized and neo-colonized countries has been tremendous. One of the significant contributions of the revolution of 1949 is that it took place in a nation that had been subjected to the domination of both British and Japanese imperialism during the 19th and 20th centuries.

China under the British was reduced to near-slave status with the vast wealth of tea and other agricultural products along with the control of its waterways falling for many decades under the control of these foreign powers. A decades-long political, military and ideological struggle provides tremendous lessons as well as inspiration to other historically colonized territories throughout the world. Colonialism and imperialism rendered China to an underdeveloped country despite its vast achievements dating back at least two thousand years in history.

With specific reference to the African continent, there had been contact with China dating at least to the first century B.C. Although opinions differ, Chinese historical accounts written by Si Machien indicate that the Emperor Wuti of the Han Dynasty dispatched envoys westward in an effort to form alliances with friendly peoples in order to develop resources in their struggles against the Huns in the north.

A number of envoys landed in countries formerly known in China as Pathia, Babylonia, Seleuid Media and Likan. It is the contention of some historian that Likan was the name given to the city of Alexandria in Egypt, which became a trading center under Greek rule and was later annexed by the Roman Empire. Later a French sinologist named Pelliot also believed that Likan was actually Alexandria. Another Chinese historian Feng Chenjun agreed with Pelliot’s conclusions regarding ancient contact with Egypt. Later Joseph Needham in his book entitled Science and Civilization in China claims that Likan was ancient Egypt.

Former President of the West African nation of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, in a speech before the First Conference of Africanist held in Accra beginning on December 12, 1962, discussed the role of Arab and Chinese explorers and scholars in chronicling African history prior to the advent of the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism. He states in this address that: “The Arabs and the Chinese discovered and chronicled a succession of powerful African kingdoms. One of these kingdoms was that of Ghana, the pomp of whose court was the admiration of that age–and also of ours.” (Speech at the Congress of Africanists, published in Revolutionary Path, 1973, p. 207)

Nkrumah continues by pointing out also that “The Chinese, too, during the T’ang dynasty (AD. 618-907), published their earliest major records of Africa. In the 18th century, scholarship connected Egypt with China; but Chinese acquaintance with Africa was not confined to knowledge of Egypt only. They had detailed knowledge of Somaliland, Madagascar and Zanzibar and made extensive visits to other parts of Africa.” (Revolutionary Path, p. 208)

In recent times during 2003, a Chinese map of Africa dating back to 1389 was uncovered in the South African Parliament. The Da Ming Hun Yi Tu, an amalgamated map of the Great Ming Empire, illustrates the shape of the African continent, including the Nile River in north and east Africa as well as the Drankensberg Mountains located in South Africa. This artifact proves that long before the western Europeans entered this far south on the continent, the Chinese had made contact and conducted geographic surveys of the territories.

Historian Fred Burke writing in 1970 pointed out that the Chinese scholar Tuan Ch’eng-shih noted during the ninth century that a region in Africa known as Po Pa Li had not been dominated by any foreign power. For whatever reason, Burke doubted direct contact between Chinese explorers and the African continent prior to the early 1400s. He believed that Chinese knowledge of Africa was gathered through intermediaries from the Arab, Indian, Malay and Indonesian peoples.

Nonetheless Burke does state that “Mogadishu, the capital of modern-day Somalia, became a major port of call for early Chinese merchants. A number of references are made to this African port in the histories of the Ming dynasty. In 1427 Mogadishu sent an ambassador to China, and three years later it is reported that a large fleet of Chinese junks dropped anchor in the harbor. Early Chinese coins and crockery have been found along the East Africa coast.” (Africa, Fred Burke, 1970)

Leading into the period of slavery and colonialism, China had limited contact with western states. However, between 1839 and 1860 the British imperial forces attacked Chinese ports and massacred untold numbers of people. This was designed to guarantee the proliferation of the opium trade which was a major source of profits for the British colonial occupation.

Within this process the British imperialists stole millions of pounds from the Chinese while taking control of Hong Kong and other territories on the mainland. They eventually took control of Chinese ports by force and made them major centers of British trade.

The Treaty of Nanking was imposed in 1842 which tied the development of China to the colonial interests of Britain. In 1857 the British through force of arms installed an Inspector General of Customs. These developments lead to the massive theft of Chinese wealth utilized for the purchase of opium. As a result the internal industries within China such as handicraft production were ruined. This created the conditions for the collapse of the Manchu government that was under bombardment from the British navy. The Chinese officials who did survive were corrupted through the opium trade that eventually eroded the civilization that had been in existence for centuries. The British ruled the region by force for almost eight decades when in 1925 the Chinese nationalists won some concessions related to the collection of tariffs.

In Africa, the colonialists had penetrated the continent beginning in the early 15th century seeking trade routes and slave labor. The establishment of colonies in the western hemisphere by Portugal, Spain, France, Holland and Britain necessitated the importation of millions of Africans as chattel labor. In 1884-85 the imperialist states met in Berlin to carve up the continent based upon their own economic and political interests. Even though slavery had been outlawed by the conclusion of the 19th century, the specter of colonialism and imperialism continued, creating the conditions for the Spanish-American war during the turn of the 19th and 20th century, the Russian-Japanese war of the same period and moreover, the World War of 1914-1918.

All during this period, anti-colonial struggles would erupt throughout imperialist-dominated territories. Greater industrialization in Russia and China would lead to upheavals. In Russia the first socialist revolution would occur in 1917. In China, the rise of the nationalist movement, trade unions and the communist party would provide opportunities for struggles against both the British imperialists and the Chinese bourgeoisie.

Unfortunately, the failure of the communist party to seize power in 1927 led to the massacres of revolutionaries. It would take an invasion of China by Japan and the displacement of British imperialism during the 1930s as well as another world war between 1939-1945 to further weaken European and Japanese imperialism creating the conditions for the eventual triumph of the Chinese revolution in 1949.

The Cold War and the Invasion of Korea

In the aftermath of World War II the struggle of colonized peoples for self-determination and independence accelerated. In Asia and Africa the war was viewed by many people as having weakened imperial centers of power in Italy, France, Britain, Japan and Germany. During the period leading up to the war in the 1930s there was an upsurge in political consciousness and activities among labor and within the African-American communities across the country.

The formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) that grew out of the major strikes in San Francisco, Minneapolis and throughout the south in 1934, began to challenge the ruling class approach to the problems of mass unemployment and displacement during the Great Depression. The Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the seizure of Spain by the fascists ignited internationalism among the African-American people.

During World War II there were challenges to the racism in the labor market through the March on Washington Movement of 1941 as well as the race riots that erupted in Detroit, Los Angeles and other cities during 1942-43. Hundreds of thousands of African Americans were drafted into the United States military and served in Europe, Africa, Asia and the South Pacific. This was true as well of peoples throughout Africa and Asia who were colonized by the French and the British but were required to serve within their militaries during an international war.

It was this process of serving within the imperialist armies in racially segregated units during the war that contributed to the radicalization that swept the colonial territories and the oppressed communities within the United States. During 1946 there was increased militancy among the African American people and other sections of the working class. The same process was taking place in Asia and Africa with the independence struggles in India that became formally free of British imperialism in 1947 and the year before with the Rand Miner’s strike in South Africa that won massive solidarity within the African American community in the United States.

In both Vietnam and Korea, the territories had won their independence from Japanese, and in the case of Vietnam, French colonialism as well, still had to face the-then dominant role of U.S. imperialism at the conclusion of the war. The French, backed by Washington, did not want to relinquish control of Vietnam and the United States sought to totally dominate the Korean peninsula. In 1949, the Chinese revolution took power under the leadership of the Communist Party. Despite the independent character of the Chinese revolution, there were two major states committed to socialism and the support of other struggles, movements and parties around the world that aspire to the ideals shared by proletarian internationalists globally.

The Chinese Communist Party through Mao Tse-tung had articluated its view of the character of the struggles of colonized and oppressed peoples as far back as 1940. Under the title of “There is no third way”, a document taken from a larger worked called “On new democracy’, states that “A change occurred in the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution after the outbreak of the first imperialist world war in 1914, and after the founding of a socialist state on one sixth of the globe through the Russian October Revolution in 1917.

“Before these events,” the document continues, “the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution belonged to the category of the old bourgeois-democratic world revolution and was part of that revolution. After these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution changed its character and now belongs to the category of the new bourgeois-democratic revolution, and, so far as the revolutionary front is concerned, forms part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution….” (Published in Chieh-fang, 98-9, February 20, 1940)

In 1939 Mao stated in a speech that the war would inevitably weaken the imperialist states and in the long run strengthen the struggles of peoples for independence. According to this lecture “Wars between imperialism and mutual weakening of imperialisms…constitute a favorable condition for movements of popular liberation in all countries, for movements of national liberation in all countries, for China’s war of resistance, for the building of communism in the Soviet Union. From this standpoint, the darkness that reigns in the world is only provisional and the future of the world is bright. Imperialism will surely perish, and the liberation of the oppressed people and of the oppressed nations will surely be achieved….” (Lecture delivered to cadres at Yenan, September 1939)

In 1948 with the installment of a puppet pro-U.S. government in South Korea, the struggle escalated to unite the peninsula. Kim Il-Sung led the fight against Japanese occupation through the Korean Worker’s Party that was allied with the Soviet Union. The talks between the U.S., Britain and the USSR at the conclusion of the war did not resolve the question of Korean independence and unity. When Koreans staged uprisings against the U.S.-backed regime in Seoul, their efforts were supported by the Korean People’s Army under the direction of the Worker’s Party led by Kim Il-Sung.

The United States declared these developments an invasion and dispatched additional warships to the region. The KPA in the beginning months of the war which started in June 1950 overran the puppet forces and their U.S. sponsors. After a United Nations declaration authorizing force against the DPRK, the United States led the intervention into the Korean peninsula. A counter-offensive by the UN forces threatened the existence of the DPRK as well as the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China.

The PRC decided to directly intervene in the struggle to repel the imperialist invasion of Korea. Mao was reported to have written to Stalin saying that “If we allow the United States to occupy all of Korea, Korean revolutionary power will suffer a fundamental defeat, and the American invaders will run more rampant, and have negative effects for the entire Far East.”

As a result the People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) was formed and deployed in Korea. The subsequent events over the next two years resulted in an armistice agreement that ended the fighting but did not bring about peace. The armistice collapsed during 2008 as a result of continuing U.S. imperialist provocation and aggression against the DPRK.

The failure of U.S. imperialism to realize its goal of destroying the socialist state in the DPRK had a profound impact on the way in which the world peoples viewed the dominant power to emerge after the Second World War. In 1954, at the battle of Dien Bein Phu in Vietnam, the French colonial forces were defeated and forced to negotiate a withdrawal from this country. The U.S. under Eisenhower would continue to prop-up the reactionary forces in the south that eventually lead to what is known as the “Vietnam War” after 1961.

China and the Bandung Conference (1955)

The Afro-Asian conference in Bandung, Indonesia illustrated China’s enhanced role within the emerging forces of both continents. Chou En-lai attended the conference and diplomatically sought to counter the propaganda against communism that was being fostered by the United States and other imperialist countries in the West. Some of the leading figures in the independent movement of the governments of Africa and Asia were Nehru of India, Sukharno of Indonesia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and the still colonized, but soon to be independent, Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah.

China endorsed the resolution passed by the Bandung Conference and pledged its support to the anti-colonial struggles still being waged throughout both continents. A follow-up conference in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1961 resulted in the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The Non-Aligned Movement still exist today and was recently chaired by revolutionary Cuba.

African-Americans, the Cold War and McCarthyism

Inside the United States, the fight against the right-wing and racist onslaughts after World War II was challenged by the left and the African-American progressive forces. The independence of the former colonial and semi-colonial territories in Asia and Africa was welcomed by anti-imperialist activists within the African-American community in the United States.

The Council on African Affairs, founded during the Great Depression to oppose colonialism and to provide political and material support to the national liberation movements in Africa, escalated its activities towards the conclusion of World War II and in its aftermath. The Council, which was led by people such as William Alphaeus Hunton, Paul Robeson and W.E.B. DuBois, saw the national liberation movements as part and parcel of the world’s effort to end racism and economic exploitation.

Other groups such as the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) sought to highlight the fight to end institutional racism and national discrimination in the postwar period. The CRC submitted a document to the United Nations in 1951 entitled “We Charge Genocide” which chronicled the ongoing violence and repression against the African-American people.

In 1948-1949, attacks were made against leftists, many whom were members of the Communist Party and other organizations that they supported. Paul Robeson was targeted when he spoke out before Congress opposing a bill that would require Communists to register as foreign agents. Later in 1949, Robeson’s participation in the Paris Peace Conference resulted in greater repression against this accomplished artists, writer and activists. The repressive actions against Robeson coincided with the indictments of other African-American leftists in the United States during 1949-50.

 Abayomi Azikiwe with DuBois poster in background 2009

Abayomi Azikiwe with DuBois poster in background 2009

W.E.B. DuBois, who through his then companion and colleague, Shirley Graham, became more involved in the anti-imperialist and international peace movements. Graham, who was a renowned playwright, biographer and activists who worked with both the NAACP and the Communist Party, was the daughter of a Methodist minister who had known DuBois from the time she was a child. DuBois was indicted in 1950 for advocating a foreign ideology and failing to register as an agent of another state. His defense campaign was led by Shirley Graham who later became his wife.

Although DuBois was not convicted of these charges, he and Shirley Graham DuBois’ passports were seized and they came under intense scrutiny by the federal government. Both the Council on African Affairs and the Civil Rights Congress were declared subversive and forced out of existence. Leading activists within the Left and the anti-imperialist movements were forced out of their professions, sent to prison or driven into exile. It would be eight years before the DuBois’ and others like Paul Robeson would be allowed to travel outside the United States.

When the DuBois’ passports were restored, they traveled to both the Soviet Union and China. The DuBois’ were greeted by Mao Tse-tung in early 1959 during their visit to the People’s Republic of China. At a 91st birthday commemoration in China DuBois made a speech at a state-sponsored banquet which was broadcast through the national media.

On March 5, 1959, DuBois was quoted as saying that “Come to China, Africa, and look around. You know America and France and Britain to your sorrow. Now know the Soviet Union and its allied nations, but particularly know China. China is flesh of your flesh and blood of your blood. China is colored, and knows to what the colored skin in this modern world subjects its owner. In my own country for nearly a century I have been nothing but a nigger.” (“Du Bois, 91, Lauds China,” New York Times, March 5, 1959)

The Chinese Revolution and the African-American National Question, 1959-1976

After the visit of W.E.B. DuBois and Shirley Graham DuBois in 1959, other indications of the significance attributed by the Chinese revolution to the struggles waged among African-Americans, Africans and the peoples of the developing world remained evident. Inside the United States, despite the suppression of the CRC and the CAA and other groups, the civil rights movement gained greater momentum after 1955.

In 1955, the Montgomery Bus Boycott would last for a year where African-Americans led a movement of thousands that would gain national and international recognition. In 1957 the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his colleagues. This same year the first civil rights bill was passed since Reconstruction during the late 1860s and 1870s.

The state-sanctioned terror of the immediate postwar period was being broken through the civil rights movement that was led by the African-American people. Yet the U.S. government still refused to take measures that would guarantee the civil and human rights of the African-American people.

In 1960, the students took the lead in the civil rights movement with the emergence of the sit-ins that involved thousands of college and high school students largely in the segregated South. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was formed in April 1960 and continued to work in the South over the next seven years to win concessions related to access to public accommodations, jobs and voter registration.

This intensification of the civil rights struggles in the South was paralleled on the African continent and in other geo-political regions of the world. In Cuba, the July 26th Movement would seize power in early 1959 and claim the genuine political and economic independence of Cuba leading to the development of a socialist state in the Caribbean just 90 miles off the coast of the United States.

In a document entitled “The peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America should unite and drive American imperialism back to where it came from” states that on May 7 (1960), in Chengchow, Comrade Mao Tse-tung received public personages, workers for peace, trade union, youth and student delegations, and delegates from twelve African countries and regions who were then visiting China….”

The document continues by saying that “Comrade Mao Tse-tung, on behalf of the 650 million Chinese people, expressed full sympathy and support for the heroic struggle of the African people against imperialism and colonialism. He also expressed sympathy and support for the patriotic and just struggles of the South Korean people and the Turkish people against U.S. imperialism and its running dogs.”

Then in the same publication, it notes that on the following day, May 8, Mao Tse-tung “received friends from eight Latin American countries then visiting China…. Comrade Mao Tse-tung thanked them for their friendship for the Chinese people. The Chinese people, he said, just like the Latin American people, had long suffered from imperialist oppression and exploitation. Relying on their own unity and support from the peoples of various countries, the Chinese people had carried on hard and prolonged struggles and ultimately had overthrown the rule of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism in China. The Cuban people, the people of Latin America, and the people of the whole world, he said, are all friends of the Chinese people; and imperialism and its running dogs ia our common enemy, but they are a tiny minority.” (Mao Tse-tung, 1960)

Between 1960 and 1963, the African-American struggle for civil rights and self-determination gained momentum and strength. In 1963, thousands of African-Americans engaged in mass actions throughout the north and southern regions of the United States. During the spring and summer of that year, the violent repression of the local and state governments against these demonstrations was not effectively opposed by the federal government. In Detroit in June 1963 and later in August in Washington, hundreds of thousands would march in support of the passage of a comprehensive civil rights bill and the destruction of all vestiges of racial discrimination.

Other forces within the African-American nation would emerge alongside the SCLC and SNCC. The Nation of Islam, and its militant spokesperson Malcolm X would call for a greater emphasis on self-defense and self-determination of the African people in the U.S. Robert F. Williams of the NAACP in Monroe, North Carolina emphasized the formation of rifle clubs to defend the African-American people from racist terror. Williams was driven into exile in 1961 by the racists in North Carolina and the FBI. He would first land in Cuba and later visit and eventually take up residence in the People’s Republic of China along with his wife Mabel and their children.

At a gathering of visitors from Africa on August 8, 1963, Chairman Mao Tse-tung stated that “An American Negro leader now taking refuge in Cuba, Mr. Robert Williams, the former President of the Monroe, North Carolina Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has twice asked me for a statement in support of the American Negroes’ struggle against racial discrimination. On behalf of the Chinese people, I wish to take this opportunity to express our resolute support for the American Negroes in their struggle against racial discrimination and for freedom and equal rights.” (Statement Calling on the People of the World to Unite to Oppose Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism and Support for American Negroes in Their Struggle Against Racial Discrimination)

On the character of the burgeoning civil rights struggle in the U.S. during 1963, this same statement continues by pointing out that “The speedy development of the struggle of the American Negroes is a manifestation of the sharpening class struggle and national struggle within the United States; it has been causing increasing anxiety to U.S. ruling circles.” (Mao’s statement, August 8, 1963, p.4)

In an appeal to the international community, the statement goes on to stress that “I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colors in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practiced by U.S. imperialism and support the American Negroes in their struggle against racial discrimination. (Mao Statement, p.5)

According to Mao, “In the final analysis, a national struggle is a question of class struggle. In the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles among the whites who oppress the Negro people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are inflicting oppression, aggression and intimidation on the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world.”

This statement goes on to say that “We are in the majority and they are in the minority. At most, they make up less than 10 percent of the 3,000 million population of the world. I am firmly convinced that, with the support of more than 90 percent of the people of the world, the American Negroes will be victorious in their just struggle. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the thorough emancipation of the black people.”

In an address delivered Liu Ning-I, Representative of the People’s Organization of China and President of All-China Federation of Trade Union said that “The struggle of the American Negroes against racial oppression and for freedom and equal rights are a component part of the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations the world over. This revolutionary struggle springing up in the heartland of U.S. imperialism is of very great significance to the common struggle of the people of the world against imperialism headed by U.S. imperialism, and gives a powerful support to the fighting peoples of different countries.” (Liu Ning-I statement, 1963)

Robert F. Williams, the former NAACP leader in Monroe, North Carolina and editor of the Crusader newsletter, stated in a speech on October 10, 1963, that “The same savages who rain death and destruction on the innocent women and children of Cuba, the same savages who rain death and destruction on the helpless women and children of south Viet Nam, the same savages who supply the implements of death and destruction to South Africa and Portugal, are the same who blow off the heads of little black girls in the homes and churches of Birmingham, Free World U.S.A. U.S. racism is a cancerous sore that threatens the well-being of humanity. It can only be removed and a cure effected by a surgical operation performed by the great masses of world.”

In a statement from John D. Marks, who in 1963 was a national executive committee member of the African National Congress, stated at a rally in China on August 12, 1963 that ‘The struggle of the American Negroes is directly linked up with the general struggle against imperialism headed by the United States of America and therefore the realization of their victory is only possible with the final defeat of American imperialism. Because the struggle of the Negro peoples for political, economic and social equality is a just struggle, and has the support of all the peoples of the socialist camp, the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and those progressive forces inside the capitalist countries including the United States, their victory is inevitable.”

In another statement delivered at the same August 12, 1963 rally, a delegation from the Basutoland Congress Party stressed that “The position of the people of African origin in the United States deserves the attention of all democratic freedom-and peace-loving people all over the world. The discrimination practiced against the people of African origin in America is an instrument of oppression and exploitation such as is practiced by the imperialists in Africa, Asia and Latin America against the indigenous people.”

The statement continues by saying that “The people of Basutoland support whole-heartedly the rightful struggle of the Negroes in America. We could list a thousand actions of barbarism which have been conducted against the people of African origin in America, which actions are cursed by all the peace-loving peoples of the world.”

In 1963, the U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by forces to the right of him within the government, military and the ruling class. The continuing escalation of the U.S. imperialist war against the people of Vietnam took a decisive leap during 1964-65.

Democratic successor to JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson, could not reconcile the escalation of the war against the Vietnamese people with the stated aims of alleviating poverty and racial discrimination in the United States. After 1963, the African-American struggle began to place more emphasis on self-defense, urban rebellion and the armed actions of the masses. Between 1963 and 1967, hundreds of rebellions would erupt throughout the country.

In 1965, the militant African-American leader Malcolm X was assassinated in New York City. Malcolm had broken with the Nation of Islam over his desire to become more directly involved in the national liberation struggles of the African-American people. Malcolm X made numerous statements during 1964 in support of the Chinese revolution and its support of the various efforts to win independence and justice throughout the world. When China launched its first atomic weapons test, Malcolm X hailed this achievement and said the strengthening of China would assist the liberation of oppressed peoples internationally.

During 1966 and 1967, the Black Power movement would make significant gains among the African-American people, especially the workers and youth. In 1967, over 160 rebellions swept the United States prompting the state and federal government to dispatch thousands of National Guard and Army units in urban settings like Detroit and Newark, New Jersey.

In 1966-67, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was formed in the Bay Area of California. The founders of the party, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale would sell the famous Red Book quotations from Chairman Mao as a fundraiser for the organization where they purchased their first guns utilized to patrol the streets of Oakland. The Black Panther Party would adopt the Chinese emphasis on armed struggle as the most secure method of guaranteeing liberation and socialism.

On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee while assisting a sanitation workers strike in that city. King was framing a new conception for the African-American struggle by linking the movement against racism and poverty with the anti-war efforts that were gaining momentum throughout the U.S.

In the aftermath of the assassination of King and subsequent rebellions in over 100 cities throughout the U.S., Chairman Mao Tse-tung issued a message on April 16, 1968 entitled “Statement by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the The Communist Party of China, in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression. The statement read in part that “The storm of Afro-American struggle taking place within the United States is a striking manifestation of the comprehensive political and economic crisis now gripping U.S. imperialism. It is dealing a tellling blow to U.S. imperialism, which is beset with difficulties at home and abroad.” (Chairman Mao, 1968)

China-Africa Cooperation poster from 1972

China-Africa Cooperation poster from 1972

In 1971, leaders of the Black Panther Party would be invited to China for high-levels meetings with the Communist Party and government officials. This took place during the same period that representatives of the U.S. government made arrangements to visit the PRC. Between 1972 and the death of Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese foreign policy continued to strengthen its contact with the leadership of U.S. imperialism. After the death of Mao in 1976, the shift in Chinese foreign policy became evident. By early 1979, the PRC and the U.S. established diplomatic relations.

Over the last three decades China underwent major changes in its economic and foreign policy imperatives. In the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square incidents of 1989, the Chinese leadership under Deng Tsao-ping, revealed its strategy of large scale infusion of western capital for several decades aimed at achieving substantial economic growth.

Although it has appeared from time to time over the last thirty years that relations between U.S. imperialism and the PRC have undergone substantial changes, the American ruling class still harbors no love for China. During the Tiananmen Square incidents of 1989, the U.S. sought to support the opposition forces that threatened destabilization and civil war. China as a result of the economic changes that have taken place since the 1980s, has outstripped growth rates within the United States and other imperialist states.

In 1999, the U.S. military bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia during the onslaught against the Molosevic government and the attempts to break-up the last remaining European socialist state. In China, youth trashed the American embassy and relations were strained for months to come. Eventually a U.S. spy plane was forced down over China, where the aircraft was dismantled and returned to the Pentagon.

With the U.S. imperialists facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the role of China is still very significant. The PRC controls over a trillion dollars in U.S. debt through ownership of treasury bonds. China relations with various African states targeted for regime-change by U.S. imperialism has drawn the displeasure of both the Bush and Obama administrations.

China and the African Revolution

After the conclusion of World War II, the national liberation struggles in Africa gained tremendous momentum. The seizure of power by progressive forces within the military in Egypt led to the ascendancy of Gamel Abdel Nassar as the leader of government. In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal leading to war with Britain and Israel. The independent path pursued by Egypt during this period provided great inspiration to both the peoples of the Middle-East and the African continent.

China-African American Liberation poster

China-African American Liberation poster

In Sudan and later Ghana in 1956-57, the yoke of British colonialism was broken. In Ghana, the people under the leadership of the Convention People’s Party sought to place pan-africanism and socialism as the cornerstones of both domestic and foreign policy. Other states would gain independence during this period including the former French colony of Guinea which sought a path similar to the one set down by the PRC.

In 1960, 18 African states gained national independence from France, Britain and Belgium. During 1954-1961, the Algerian National Liberation Front waged a protracted armed and political struggle against French imperialism. Algeria gained its independence in 1962. Franz Fanon, an African born in Martinique played a significant role in the course of the revolution in Algeria. In 1963, the Organization of African Unity was established with 33 member-states.

In late 1963 and early 1964, Chou En-lai visited several African countries in an effort to enhance China-African relations. On December 14, 1963, Chou En-lai stated in Cairo that “This is my first visit to the African continent and I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay my tribute to all the new emerging independent African states and their peoples, and to all the struggling peoples in Africa. The Asian and African peoples have always supported each other in their struggles, and I am convinced that the Asian and African peoples united together will certainly continue to win new victories in their common cause of striving for and safeguarding national independence and defending world peace.” (Afro-Asian Solidarity Against Imperialism, 1964, pp. 3-4)

In Algeria on December 25, 1963, Chou En-lai paid tribute to the heroic armed struggle of the Algerian people that won the national liberation of this North African state that fought French imperialism for over 130 years. Chou En-lai said that “The great victory of the revolutionary struggle of the Algerian people shows that the new-born revolutionary forces, though seemingly weak at first, can ultimately defeat the outwardly strong but decadent counter-revolutionary forces. The Algerian revolutionaries have been able to overcome obstacle after obstacle and carry the national liberation struggle from victory to victory because they have correct leadership, have confidence in the strength of the people while scorning the strength of the enemy, and uphold the anti-imperialist revolutionary line while combating the capitulationist line which does not oppose imperialism but is opposed to revolution.” (Afro-Asian Solidarity Against Imperialism, pp. 66-67)

During a visit to Ghana on this same tour, Chou En-lai stated that “The national liberation movement in Africa has become an important force in the contemporary struggle of the people of the world against imperialism, and has made outstanding contributions to the cause of safeguarding world peace.”

Chou En-lai then links the struggles of the African people taken away from the continent during slavery and those that were currently fighting for national liberation in their homeland. The Chinese leader said that “The castle where we are now joyously assembled was a centre where a few centuries ago, the Western colonialists plundered and traded in Negroes. Chairman Mao Tse-tung says, ‘The evil system of colonialism and imperialism grew up with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, it will surely come to its end with the thorough emancipation of the black people.'” (Afro-Asian Solidarity, p. 137)

Later during Chou En-lai’s visit to the West African state of Guinea, he stressed the need for self-reliance in the independence movement. The Chinese leader stated during a speech in Guinea that “The people of the Asian and African countries deeply realize that in order to achieve independence, the people should mainly rely on their own struggle and that in order to develop the national economy and build up their own countries after independence, the people should also primarily rely on their own efforts. Self-reliance and energetic endeavors to bring about prosperity this is a line which consists in placing confidence in and depending on the masses of the people to develop the national economy and realize complete independence.” (Afro-Asian Solidarity, p. 196)

The East African state of Tanzania was heavily influenced by the People’s Republic of China. Under the leadership of the African National Union and President Julius Nyerere, the country issued the Arusha Declaration, a socialist document, in 1967. The theme of the Arusha Declaration was to place emphasis on national self-reliance, the uplifting and empowerment of the peasantry as well as the realization of socialism based on the concrete conditions existing in Tanzania.

During the mid-1970s, the Chinese built the TanZam railway lines that assisted the developments within the trade and transport industries in three two east and central African states of Tanzania and Zambia. Later the Chinese assisted the people of Mozambique in their struggle aimed at winning national independence through armed struggle.

As a result of the ideological and political struggle between the USSR and the PRC after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 and the intensification of this struggle during 1956-1963, greater competition developed in regard to overtures and relations sought within the African continent by the two socialist states.

This ideological struggle worked against the people of Angola during the 1970s, when initially the PRC supported the reactionary forces that were opposed politically by the MPLA, the legitimate liberation movement in that southern African country that broke free of Portuguese colonialism in 1975. After recognizing this error, the PRC suspended all aid to the UNITA organization at the conclusion of 1975.

By 1983, the PRC was once again playing a significant role in assisting the national liberation struggle in South Africa, still under settler-colonialism and apartheid. In an interview with the-then African National Congress leader Oliver Tambo in regard to China’s support for the armed struggle to end apartheid in the sub-continent, Tambo spoke on a recent visit to the PRC saying that “It was the third time that the ANC has sent a delegation to the People’s Republic of China. The first time was in 1963. I was leading both. (Journal of African Marxists, No. 5, March 1984)

Tambo continued in the interview by stating that “Between 1975 and 1983 is quite a bit of time, and over that time relations have not grown. So part of the purpose of this invitation was simply to strengthen relations between the ANC and the People’s Republic of China. That’s how we saw our visit.

“We think we emerged from our discussions feeling that our relations had been deepened and we got assurances of China’s all-round support: political and material. In fact, as I have said elsewhere, we asked for support related to our armed struggle and got a promise of weaponry and generally a willingness to assist and support.”

In regard to how the Sino-Soviet dispute effected relations between the PRC and the ANC, Tambo said in the interview that “I think that in the sixties this was a factor, but in 1975 we resolved that question. The Chinese accepted the fact that we have nothing against the Soviet Union.  That the Soviets were close friends of ours, and that friendship with anyone else was not conditional upon our weakening relations with the Soviet Union. They accepted that in 1975.”

China, Africa and the World Today

There has been considerable comment and reaction to the role of Chinese foreign policy in the current period. With rapid growth of the Chinese economy over the last two decades, the socialist state has become a rival of the United States, Britain, Japan and other imperialist countries. The opening of Chinese markets to western products and the mass production of consumer goods for export to the industrialized countries has created substantial growth within their national economy.

As the economic growth rates of the United States have shrunk over the last decade and the increasing problems of structural unemployment and poverty along with the widening gap between rich and poor has become more evident, there has been increasing tensions between Beijing and Washington. The U.S. industries have downsized and outsourced tens of millions of manufacturing and service industry jobs to production facilities off shore.

Workers and the oppressed in the U.S. have seen their real wages decline over the last several decades while the military-industrial complex has grown since the beginning of the 21st century carrying out wars of occupation and aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Haiti and Somalia. Surrogate wars are also being carried out against the people of Palestine, Colombia, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Since the beginning of the Bush administration the purported threat of “international terrorism” has been utilized to justify large-scale military and security expenditures. The Pentagon budget is in excess of $700 billion annually. Current debates within the U.S. ruling circles never question the cost, size and social impact of these ever-growing military expenditures. The wars that are being waged in the current period are all directed against the former colonial, semi-colonial and modern-day neo-colonial states. All of these states are viewed as strategic to the aims and objectives of U.S. imperialism.

Iraq, which contains one of the largest known oil reserves in the world, has been the focus of attention for the U.S. ruling class for many years. Afghanistan, where the resistance to imperialism is growing every week, more and more lives and resources are being lost through the war of occupation. Both the Iraq and Afghan occupation are economic in nature although the corporate media attempts to frame the public discussions surrounding these wars as matters of national security for the people of the United States.

In Africa, China has increased its economic and political relations with numerous states. With specific reference to Sudan and Zimbabwe, two states that have been targeted by the U.S. for destabilization and regime-change, China has developed close bonds of friendship and mutual cooperation.

In Sudan, where the civil conflict in the Darfur region has been utilized as a mechanism for the interference in the internal affairs of Africa’s largest geographic nation-state, the United States and Israel has sought to utilize the fighting there to justify aggressive policies. Sudan is one of the emerging oil-producing states that have maintained for the last two decades policies both domestic and foreign that are independent of the U.S. Although the Obama administration has appointed a special envoy to Sudan, they are still working through the State Department, the Pentagon and the State of Israel to undermine the national sovereignty of this central African country.

Zimbabwe’s history over the last 120 years is one of European settler-colonialism and the struggle for national liberation. The liberation movements in Zimbabwe, which grew in strength during the 1970s and realized independence for this southern African state in 1980, were never supported by the U.S. and the former colonial power of Britain. Efforts by the ZANU-PF government under President Robert Mugabe to reclaim the historical land base of the people have been met with extreme hostility by imperialism which has imposed sanctions on this emerging nation.

The role of Chinese foreign policy has been crucial in the defense of both Sudan and Zimbabwe. Economic relations between Sudan and China have been essential in creating growth inside the country. In Zimbabwe, the economic and political assistance from China has helped to stave off a total collapse that has been engineered by British and U.S. imperialism operating in concert with domestic enemies of genuine national independence.

China has also increased its level of cooperation with the Latin American states of Venezuela and Cuba, both of which are maintaining and anti-imperialist and socialist domestic and foreign policy. Recent economic agreements between Venezuela and China in areas of oil and technology are key to the development aims of both states. At the same time economic and political relations between Cuba and China have improved since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eastern European socialist countries two decades earlier.

The world today is facing the worst economic crisis in decades. The U.S. capitalists have over the last year attempted to prevent a total financial meltdown. The Bush and Obama administrations instituted so-called economic stimulus programs that have had virtually no impact on the economic well-being of working people and the oppressed inside the U.S. Yet, according to recent reports, the stimulus program initiated by China, which reinvested approximately 13% of its gross domestic product back into its economy has had noticeable impact.

As the economic crisis worsens in the United States and throughout the world, there will be greater tensions in both the international arena and within the capitalist states as well. There is no future for workers and the oppressed under capitalism and imperialism. Only socialism and socialist economic planning can provide a way out of the economic crisis for the majority of people throughout the world. Consequently, the struggle for socialism is the only viable solution to the world economic crisis in the modern period.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China and the Struggle of Oppressed Nations for Self-Determination, National Liberation and Socialism

It was not just US President Donald Trump getting laughed at in the UN General Assembly this week. On Iran, Palestine and other Middle East issues, Washington has drifted away from its global allies and partners, veteran diplomats told Middle East Eye.

At one of several events about Iran’s missile-building and support for foreign militias, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was heckled by a woman audience member who was expelled after yelling:

“We’re sick of you killing these Iranians.”

As he exited that meeting at a Manhattan hotel, Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s ambassador to Washington, was trailed down the street by another activist calling him a “war criminal” over his country’s US-backed military deployment in Yemen.

But, according to UN analysts, these public embarrassments were overshadowed by a growing international resentment of a Trump administration that is struggling to rally allies and partners behind its policy goals in the Middle East.

“Last year, there was an uncertainty over who Trump was. Was it real? Was it an act? Now, everybody has a year more of understanding of this man and very few countries, very few leaders, are buying into the show,” Daniel Kurtzer, a former US diplomat, told Middle East Eye.

“Behind closed doors, they have to face the reality that what Trump has said publicly is now the laughing stock of the international community.”

US goals

Washington’s main goal at this year’s UN General Assembly was to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically and to justify Trump’s decision to scrap the 2015 nuclear deal over the objections of co-signatories Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Iran and the European Union.

In his keynote to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump bashed a “brutal regime” for spreading “mayhem across the Middle East”, led by clerics who “plunder the nation’s resources” while its economy freefalls.

Trump urged “all nations to isolate Iran’s regime” by joining Washington’s re-imposition of sanctions in November to curb its oil exports and staunch cash-flows that he said fund illicit nuclear and ballistic missile technology.

Later, the State Department tried to rally support by releasing a 48-page report called “Outlaw Regime: A Chronicle of Iran’s Destructive Activities,” which examines its alleged support for militant groups, missile programme, illicit financial schemes and other issues.

On Wednesday, Trump presided over UN Security Council talks that were slated to single out Iran. But US diplomats had already faced blowback from other members on the 15-nation body, and reframed the event to cover weapons proliferation more generally.

EU works against US

That was not the only resistance Trump met at the UN headquarters. Within hours of him leaving the UN’s marble dais, European Union members announced plans to skirt US sanctions and enable legal trade with Iran.

In what was widely seen as an uncharacteristic rebuke of Washington, French President Emmanuel Macron chided its “survival-of-the-fittest approach” to world affairs. Addressing the Security Council, Macron said Washington’s approach to Iran was inadequate.

“We are all united around this table that Iran must not be able to arm itself with nuclear weapons,” said Macron, sitting just a few feet away from Trump. But, he added, “sanctions and containment” are not sufficient.

Macron’s decision to meet privately with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, to discuss keeping the nuclear deal alive, was widely seen as a snub to Trump. The same went for Rouhani’s face-time with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, another US ally.

In this climate, Rouhani turned the tables on Trump under the spotlight of a UN address. He told Trump to “stop bullying” Tehran and painted the US as a rogue nation that was taking a wrecking ball to the rules-based global order.

Later, Rouhani cited International Atomic Energy Agency findings that Iran was sticking to the uranium-enrichment controls set by the 2015 deal, and said it was Washington – not Tehran – that had breached a UN Security Council resolution.

“What’s important is that today, other than one or two countries, no one is supporting America,” Rouhani told reporters at a news conference later in the week. “It’s a historic political isolation that is rare for America.”

Behind-the-scenes

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas used similar tactics when addressing the UN on Thursday against the backdrop of the West Wing pushing a peace process that is widely viewed as favouring Israel over the Palestinians.

This past year, Trump has slashed funding for Palestinian refugees, shuttered the PLO representative office in Washington and upended years of negotiations by recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

On Thursday, Abbas urged the US to backpedal, telling the 194-nation hall:

“With all of these decisions, this administration has reneged on all previous US commitments, and has undermined the two-state solution.”

There was more action behind the scenes. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki spoke of “open war” with the White House after private talks with envoys from some 40 European, Arab and other governments in defiance of Trump’s peace-making efforts.

World powers appeared to have their back, by stumping up cash for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, which was defunded by a Trump administration that sought to put pressure on Abbas.

On Thursday, the agency’s commissioner-general Pierre Krahenbuhl‏ thanked Kuwait, the EU, Germany, Norway, France, Belgium and Ireland for coming up with $122m, reducing the deficit to $68m and lessening its worst-ever financial crisis.

Addressing world leaders, Macron swiped at Trump’s tactics, saying that “trampling on the legitimate rights” of the Palestinians with “unilateral initiatives” would not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Of course, the US was not wholly without allies. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered UN members alleged evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear site. Before talks with Trump, he said the president’s decision on Jerusalem had “touched our hearts”.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir backed Trump’s censure of Iran. US diplomats also negotiated a joint statement with Arab and European allies on war-ravaged Syria that called for a new constitution and “free and fair UN-supervised elections”.

But overall, former US diplomats saw Washington’s global clout wane this week. Jon Alterman, a former State Department official, told MEE that foreign leaders were working against Trump and trying to “replace the US without confronting it”.

Heather Conley, also a former State Department official, told MEE of European overtures to Moscow and Beijing to keep the Iran nuclear deal afloat, but also noted limitations in whether they could “meaningfully balance against the US and its policies”.

Kurtzer, formerly Washington’s ambassador to Israel and to Egypt, said that while Trump has become a joke on the world stage, the annual parley in midtown Manhattan was only important “to a small group of policy makers”.

“Nobody is watching Abbas’s UN speech, they’re watching the Kavanaugh hearings”, said Kurtzer, referencing a sex scandal involving a Supreme Court candidate that has dominated US media coverage throughout UN week.

*

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: Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki speaks with reporters at New York Grand Hyatt (MEE/James Reinl)

Mass Murder, Violence and the U.S. Social Structure

September 30th, 2018 by Vince Montes

C. Wright Mills had warned about the excessive bureaucratization in the social sciences during his time, but he could not have envisioned the tremendous amount of fragmented analyses that occurs when attempts to understand the structure of U.S. society.

The focus on recent mass murders in public places such as at the Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut are clear examples. According to the Gun Violence 2017 website, there were 346 mass shootings (446 deaths/1803 injuries) incidents and as of September 22, 2018, there are 42,123 mass shootings for 2018 (10,628 deaths/20,805 injuries).

Mass murders create a public stir, an outcry for all the obvious reasons such as because they tend to occur in public places like schools, which violates a sense of safety, the innocence of the victims are not contested, and there is a tremendous amount of media coverage of the tragedy.

The definition of the problem that accompanies these incidents are usually narrow and focused on the perpetrators as troubled individuals and/or relate to gun regulation. However, a deeper analysis of mass murder does not view mass murder as a separate category from murder and violence and moves beyond a focus on the individual and/or gun policies to an understanding how social structure shape individual behavior.

According to Mills, the state is the most dominating form power in world history and, as such, a major fact in the life of every man and women.[10] The most important relations in the U.S. are with the state and its corresponding interests of the military and corporations that are accepted by politicians and the public.[11]

The focus on recent mass murders in public places are clear examples of fragmented analysis because it does not include other tragic cases of violence such as the fact the 14,070 people were murder in the U.S. (figures for 2016). Just as the circumstances and innocence of the victims play a role in the media coverage of the mass murders in the U.S. so does the race, class, and geography of the victims.

Some mass murders are considered tragedies that are difficult for the media to ignore, as lead stories that pull on every emotional string, generating sympathy because this type of violence is a shock and is not supposed to afflict the middle class, mostly white America. Of course, the Pulse Night Club in Orlando and the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston stand as examples that challenge this dichotomy.

Nevertheless, the deep embedded socialized thinking is murder is an urban phenomenon that occurs in streets of cities such as Chicago with the most and Baltimore with the second most, respectively, 650 and 343 murders in 2017. However, the cities with the highest murder rates in 2017 were St. Louis at 64.6 and Baltimore at 55.2., and if the murder rate was aggregated to specific low-income and non-white neighborhoods they would be much higher.[1] This “murder inequality” tends to normalize murder in the inner cities as something that the lower classes and mostly non-whites engage in as the consequence of supposed “deflected” culture or biology. Thus, the perception is that it is not a problem with the structure of society but a problem of the individual or “kinds-of-people.”[2]

However, on the contrary, murder in the inner-city, largely fits the definition of state crimes of omission. The concept of state crimes of omission is important because it focuses on state’s “failure to protect the rights and to serve the needs of all persons subject primarily to the territory of a particular state.”[3] Essentially, this miscarriage creates chaos and the conditions of despair, anxiety, and animosity that are associated with violence, self-destruction, and crime to name some of its byproducts.  As a result, increased policing and the militarization of policing of poor and racial minority communities is a consequence of unequal relations and its enforcement.

In addition, the focus on mass murder is highly selective because it only concerns itself with mass murder in the U.S. and not the state-sanctioned mass murder or the murder that occurs around the world – i.e., the killing of 4 or more individuals (not including the murderer). The mass murders that occur as regular, routinized state violence in which the U.S. government is an active participant such as in its “war on terror,” which murders are conveniently left out of media coverage and removed from outcry and critical discussion.

War and Mass Murder

In fact, the U.S. state only keeps records of its own dead and does not keep count of the countless number of people deemed civilian or combatant for that matter. In 2015, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War release one of the only comprehensive studies on the number of Middle Eastern people killed since September 11, 2001. This study’s conservatively estimated that the “war on terror” has directly or indirectly killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, totaling around 1.3 million. These figures do not include the other nations like Somalia, Syria, and Yemen where the U.S. has either operated counterinsurgency operations or bombing campaigns.  As in foreign occupations and counterinsurgency operations, the distinction between innocent civilian and insurgent is not of considered vitally important to the foreign force, as Nick Turse (2013) illustrates with the U.S. war in Vietnam.[4] Both the murder victims of the U.S. state and the murder victims on the streets of the U.S. are seen as undeserving of public sympathy. However, the recent mass murders in the U.S. are viewed as entirely different and seen in an exclusive category of murder and violence.

Turse explains how the U.S. forces in Vietnam operated under what was called the cross-over point – i.e., a strategy that involves “the killing of more enemy than the Vietnamese could supply.” (FN) The adoption of a model was based on bureaucratic efficiency designed to maximize the body count of the “enemy,” which ultimately led to a war against an entire people. The Vietnamese, for example, were engaged in a national liberation struggle and the notion that the U.S. was fighting against the spread of communism overlooked this point. The body count became the marker of success and the rationale that if it is Vietnamese and dead; it is VC (i.e., Vietnamese Communist).

Within this situation, circumstances of these killings didn’t matter, the unarmed farmer fleeing U.S. troops or villagers (women, children, and the elderly) were all seen as the enemy. This is very instructive because it demonstrates the power that top officials have within the U.S. government and military institutions have on the rank-and-file of its armed forces to dehumanize a people and legitimize such a system of killing.  Although the “war on terror” is different on many levels to what occurred in Vietnam, what appears very similar is the way in which the institutions within the U.S. state have also dehumanized a people and legitimatizes a system of killing Arabs and Muslims as “terrorists.” These institutions do not only have the capacity to convert its armed forces into carrying out these types of orders, but many individuals in society find themselves within the dominant institutional orders – i.e., the political, corporate, and military institutional orders, which are coordinated in meeting their overall objectives of the state.

Terrorism

The “terrorist,” self-radicalized or otherwise appears to similarly be depicted as the mass murderer in that both devoid of all rational motives. The psychological and the political realms are difficult for the media and the U.S. state to navigate in an attempt to deny any political understanding of the causes behind such actions. Similar to the perpetrator of U.S. mass murder is the narrative of the “terrorist” as a pathologically deranged individual.  However, only in the sense that the “terrorist” political grievances tend to be articulated in religious beliefs and are associated geographically with the Middle East, which has experienced U.S. state interference.

To see the “terrorists” as a rational calculated actor whose use of violence to attain a political goal would mean taking their grievances seriously and seeing their actions as a form of Chalmers Johnson’s (2004) calls blowback to U.S. foreign policies. If we closely examine the category of violence and include the “terrorist” we can see that their actions are also traceable to the actions of the U.S. state. The “war on terror” has included military invasions and occupations, drone assassinations, and the kidnappings and torture of Arabs and Muslins. As a result, many Muslims, as well as others, view this as a war on Islam insomuch that it is like all imperialist projects because it utilizes ethnic-racial ideologies to justify foreign expansion.

What appears to be strikingly clear is that the focus on mass murder in the U.S. does not only produce fragmented analyses but is diversionary. This can be seen in the aftermath of a mass murder the focus is on the killer, his mental health, and his so-called easy access to guns, or assault weapons. An emphasis on the individual clearly distracts attention away for the U.S. state, which ultimately absolves it of any culpability for the creation of the conditions that engendered this particular behavior. Recently, this can be seen in the guided public discourse along very narrow parameters in which the victims, their families, and some politicians advocate for enacting universal background checks, “red flag” gun laws, age requirements for assault weapons, and/or banning modifications.

Even the activism that target politicians who receive NRA endorsements and campaign contributions appear diversionary and misguided in the sense that it does not address the arms industry as being an essential element of what C. Wright Mills referred to as permanent war economy in which interlocking interests between the political, corporation, and military elite comprise of what Fred J. Cook (1962) called the warfare stateIn other words, as we will see, this is but a tip of the iceberg in understanding how deeply embedded war, war-making,  violence, and coercion are in the social structure. The above changes may seem vitally important in terms of preventive measures, but they do not address what it is about U.S. society, or more specifically what is it about the social structure that creates the conditions in which individuals feel the need to kill their fellow citizens at such alarming rates.

It is difficult to view these tragedies as simply the problem of particular unhinged individuals, and how to keep guns out of their hands. In fact, Mills provides an example of distinguishing between personal troubles and social issues of social structure when he considered unemployment,

When, in a city of 100,000, only one man is unemployed, that is his personal trouble, and for its relief, we properly look to the character of the man, his skills, and his immediate opportunities. But when in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 million men are unemployed, this is an issue, and we may not hope to find its solution within a range opportunities open to any one individual. The very structure of opportunity has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.[5]

Mills’ focus on the social structure was because he believed that individuals “must be aware of that malaise and the frustrations they experience in their inner lives are linked to the big picture of society, to those problems residing at the level of social structure.”[6] So if we consider in a population of approximately 323 million people (figures for 2016), there were 15,070 murder victims, with 11,004 killed by firearms and 4,066 killed by knives, blunt objects, and other means of murder can one reason that this is a personal trouble related to a particular individual?

A fuller picture would extend beyond mass murder and consider all category murder. In 2016, there were 31,076 deaths as the result of homicides, suicides, legal intervention, and unintentional shootings.[7]  More than 85 people a day are killed with guns and more than twice that number are injured with them.  It is clear that murder is high in the U.S. when compared to similar high-income nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). For example, in a study that compared U.S. violent death rates with other high-income OECD countries found that men in the U.S. are approximately 9 times more likely to be homicide victims than their male counterparts in OECD counties, and women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of murder than their respective counterparts. The total homicide rate in 2010 in the U.S. was 5.3 per 100.000 compared to the highest among high-income countries in the OECD, the Czech Republic 2.6 and Finland at 1.9. Yet, this may not rise to the threshold required to think beyond the individual. However, if when we include FBI UCR statistics from 2016, the victim of murder, which includes mass murder with a reported violent crime such as rape, robbery, and aggravated assault we now have 1,248,185, with a rate of 386.3 per 100,000. Although there are plenty of studies and arguments that suggest that gun accessibility make all forms of violence more possible such as murder and suicide, we should, however, see violence as a more complex phenomenon that does, in fact, include firearms but is grounded in the social structure analysis.

Source: FBI

The above statistics are presented as seemingly unconnected as is how 1 in 5 people in the U.S. are taking at least one psychotropic medication for depression and other forms of mental illness. However, according to an article by Bruce Levine, “The Politics of Suicide and Depression,” rather than looking at the conditions that correlate with mental illness, the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse Mental Health Association (SAMHSA) makes public announcements in order to guide more people into treatment.  Yet, according to Levine SAMHSA’s national survey results actually reveal that:

…suicidality, depression and mental illness are highly correlated with involvement in the criminal justice system, unemployment, and poverty, and occur in greater frequency among young people, women, and Native Americans. Shouldn’t researchers be examining American societal and cultural variables that are making so many of us depressed and suicidal? At the very least, don’t we as a society want to know what exactly is making physically healthier teenagers and young adults more depressed than senior citizens?

It is clear to Levine that the psychologizing of mental illness is problematic and that the real question should be what is it about U.S. society that makes people so depressed and wants to kill themselves (and for the purpose of this inquiry kill others). Rather than see mental illness as an independent variable in explaining a whole host of problems such as murder and other violent acts, we should also see it as a dependent variable.

Returning to Mills’ sociological imagination example cited above on unemployment, which he differentiates between personal troubles and social problems of social structure, arguing that one could not hope to find an explanation for unemployment in an individual when millions are unemployed. In a similar vein of reasoning, using the above cursory view of the murder of self and others (with or without a firearm), victims of violent crimes, and large numbers of individuals taking psychiatric medication one could not hope to find an explanation within the psychology of an individual. One would undoubtingly have to look at the political and economic forces that shape the social structure of the society.

By viewing mass murder as a personal trouble and/or a problem of gun restrictions is to engage in fragmented analyses that does very little to illuminate the problem of social structure. It is from within the classical tradition that we explain the structure of U.S. society and the variety of individuals that prevail in it. Mills states,

When a society is industrialized, a peasant becomes a worker; a feudal lord is liquidated or becomes a businessman…. [Or] When wars happen, an insurance salesman becomes a rocket launcher; a store clerk, a radar man; a wife lives alone; a child grows up without a father.[8]

In a similar understanding to Mills’ emphasis on the influence that social structure has on the individual, we ask what happens to the individual when a society militarizes permanently overtime and is increasingly reliant on violence and coercion to maintain its political order? In other words, does a nation’s dependence on violence and coercion to maintain its global power and national stratification system require a particular kind of individual capable of fulfilling the continuation of the political order?  It would appear that such a nation would need to socialize willing and obedient participants and to desensitize its population to the carnage it perpetuates as it continues to monopolize the means of violence and attempts to regulate non-state sanctioned use.

The recent focus on mass murder is a selected analysis that represents fragmented analysis and ultimately serves to divert attention away from the U.S. state. If most violence is properly categorized and conceptualized to include all the categories listed than most of them can be connected to the state. So for the purpose of this inquiry, we will not concern ourselves with the “bad apple” perspective, which is based on dispositional attributions –i.e., the explanation of how defected and deranged murderer who goes on a killing spree or commits violent acts.[9] Our primary concern should be on attempting to understand the particular impact that the social structure has on the individual. And in so doing, we should attempt to explain the social structure of the U.S. and explore the ways in which the institutions of the state play a role in shaping the character of the social structure that creates the need and the conditions for violence.   

The despair that grows up alongside the misappropriation of human and economic resources to human development to feed the military and policing apparatuses create the fertile grounds for alienation and anomic conditions. By all accounts, these actions constitute a state crime of omissions. It is these conditions that can be considered contributors for such acts as violence, murder, mass murder, and suicide. In addition, all the millions of individuals called on to, directly and indirectly, uphold the institutional rules have internalized the values and norms of the state. In other words, once the genie of violence is let out and is free to roam; it is difficult to put individuals to put it back into the lamp. It is not easy to turn on and off the switch of violence after receiving a constant diet of socialization about the importance of military-police state-sanctioned violence, with all its symbolic glory, honorific statuses, and reverence. After all, violence is one of the important ways that the U.S. state maintains its status quo. As a result, it is an imperative that the social structure produces a particular character willing to carry out the role assigned to it by the state and its authority. Of course, this is a difficult situation for the individual because they need to be able to navigate the blurred boundaries of “legitimate” state sanction violence and “illegitimate” freelance violence.  Finally, the historical record of the U.S. state illustrate that the cessation of violence has never been its objective; its goals has always been to regulate and perfect its use.

*

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

Vince Montes is a lecturer in sociology at San Jose State University. Earned a Ph.D. at the New School for Social Research. Recent articles appear in Radical Criminology, The Political Anthropologist, Dissident Voice, and Global Research.

Notes

[1] Mirabile, Francesca and Daniel Nass “What’s the Homicide Capital of America? Murder Rates in U.S. Cities, Ranked.” The Trace.  April 26, 2018. https://www.thetrace.org/2018/04/highest-murder-rates-us-cities-list/

[2] Some sociological theories are considered kinds-of-people theories because although they go beyond psychological and biological explanations  for crime/deviance and focus on the social class, ethnicity, race, geography, and gender, these theories nevertheless tend to blame the victim because they do not address the crimes of the elite, the state, or the capitalist system. See Eitzen, D. Stanley, Maxine Baca Zinn, Kelly Eiten Smith. 2012. In Conflict and Order, 12 edition, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 165, 177-180.

[3] Barak, Gregg. 2011. “Revisiting Crimes by Capitalist State.” Pp. 35-48 in State Crime, edited by D. L. Rothe & C. W. Mullins. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

[4] Turse, Nick. 2013. Kill Everything that Moves. New York, NY: Picador Books.

[5] Mills, C. Wright. 1959 [2000]. The Sociological Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 9.

[6] Trevino, Javier. A. 2012. The Social Thought of C. Wright Mills. Thousand Oaks, LA: Sage, p 165.

[7] National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2016, for National, Regional, and States, http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html (hereinafter WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2016.

[8] Mills, C. Wright. 1959 [2000]. The Sociological Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 3.

[9] See Phillip Zimbardo’s analysis in The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (2007). He illustrates the various levels of analyses and why his work has evolved to understanding the “barrel maker” – i.e., the political, economic, and legal power that creates the situation that corrupts the individual (pp. 7-120.)

Both the UK and the US Now Overtly Honor Al Qaeda

September 30th, 2018 by Eric Zuesse

The United Kingdom is resettling Al Qaeda’s Syrian medical unit, called the “White Helmets,” as “refugees” in UK. The White Helmets organization is funded by UK’s MI6 and America’s CIA, and is headed by Raed Saleh, who was prohibited from visiting the US because he’s a terrorist. These jihadists won’t just have UK honors (and they already have: a Hollywood Oscar-winning ‘documentary’ full of lies about how ‘heroic’ the White Helmets are), but, presumably, they’ll also obtain UK citizenship.

“The Syria White Helmets Exposed as US UK Agents” is a 4-minute video about them. It’s an entirely accurate representation regarding their personnel and funding-sources. It even shows Al Qaeda in Syria executing a civilian; and, then, White Helmets — this ‘humanitarian organization’ — collecting his corpse just seconds later, as part of their ‘heroic’ work, for the US-and-allied invaders of Syria.

The invading nations use Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch to train and lead ‘our’ boots-on-the-ground fighters to overthrow Syria’s secular, non-sectarian, Government, which is headed by the secular Shiite Bashar al-Assad. These US-Saudi-Israeli-allied proxy fundamentalist-Sunni-jihadist boots-on-the-ground do the actual dirty-work of killing people for their sponsoring aristocracies.

In this particular instance the executioners are al-Nusra itself, which is Syria’s Al Qaeda branch, and in that video they have eliminated yet another person that the US and UK aristocracies want to be eliminated. The great independent investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley has written numerous articles (such as this) providing detailed documentation of how US and UK billionaires have funded the propaganda selling throughout the world the campaign to overthrow Syria’s Government.

Though the invading countries call this a ‘civil war’ in Syria, it’s actually a war that wouldn’t even exist but for the work, since 2009, of CIA and MI6 and those others from Western ‘democracies’, which are making suckers of their own nations’ citizens — Americans, British, and citizens of the other invading countries — via their lying ‘news’-media, none of which will publish the truths that this 4-minute video is showing. So, the aristocrats’ publics are kept ignorant of such reality.

The Syria White Helmets Exposed as US UK Agents Embedded with Al Nusra and ISIS from vanessa beeley on Vimeo.

US State Department document dated 22 October 2010 — prior to the “Arab Spring” — and sent to all US Embassies in the Arab world, funneled funds to the Muslim Brotherhood and other “moderate Islamists” who sought regime-change, instead of “stability” there.

On 17 April 2011 (which was before Jeff Bezos owned) the Washington Post headlined with shocking honesty “US secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show”, and reported on the “Movement for Justice and Development [MJD], a London-based network of Syrian exiles.

Classified US diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria.” The cables had just been published by Wikileaks. Furthermore, “the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010.” Obama had not cut off George W. Bush’s anti-Syrian aggression. There was no doubt that MJD was a regime-change-in-Syria organization:

“The group, which is banned in Syria, openly advocates for Assad’s removal. US cables describe its leaders as ‘liberal, moderate Islamists’ who are former members of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Then, on 21 November 2011, Sibel Edmonds at her Boiling Frogs Post bannered “BFP Exclusive: Syria- Secret US-NATO Training & Support Camp to Oust Current Syrian President” and she reported that,

The joint US-NATO secret training camp in the US air force base in Incirlik, Turkey, began operations in April-May 2011 to organize and expand the dissident base in Syria. Since then, in addition to Col. Riad al-Assad [no relation to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad], several other high-ranking Syrian military and intelligence officials have been added to operations’ headquarters in the US base. Weekly weapons smuggling operations have been carried out with full NATO-US participation since last May. The HQ also includes an information warfare division where US-NATO crafted communications are directed to dissidents in Syria via the core group of Syrian military and Intelligence defectors.

One Wikileaked document from the private-CIA firm Stratfor on 7 December 2011 reported the agent’s extensive discussions with the Pentagon and allied foreign militaries, and said that

“[Special Operations Forces] teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground [in Syria] focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway.”

(In other words, finding non-jihadists to take down Assad was proving to be far more difficult than had been anticipated.)

Creating a Syrian civil war was then just a hope, and, “the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”

But that hoped-for sectarian split-up of Syria likewise failed to materialize. Syria’s Government was too widely supported by the population. Consequently, US President Barack Obama made one other attempt to use the Muslim Brotherhood to get the ‘rebellion’ going. But this effort also failed. So, by the time of December 2012, Obama finally turned to al-Nusra. Here’s how that happened:

On 10 December 2012, the Telegraph bannered “Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group” and reported that,

“Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda. A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting ‘brigades’ and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda.”

As a direct consequence of that decision by the ‘moderate rebels’ whom the US was backing, Obama committed his Administration to use Al Qaeda in Syria, al-Nusra, to train and lead the ‘moderate rebels’ (all jihadists other than ISIS), America’s proxy-fighters to bring down Syria’s Government. Obama continued that policy to the very end of his Presidency. His goal was to replace Assad with a dictator who would be controlled by the Saud family (who own Saudi Arabia), which family the CIA has been trying, ever since 1949, to place in control over Syria. Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, continues this policy.

What is more despicable than this treachery, from our own governments, in our own era?

Countries are being invaded by ours; these invaded countries haven’t invaded nor even threatened ours, but nonetheless we accept these invasions by ‘our’ governments and pay taxes to make these murderous invasions possible.

Such aggressor-governments as ours do not actually represent us, but we tolerate them, decade after decade, as they slaughter people abroad, and blow up the US federal debt to pay for the aristocracy’s voracious and vicious operation of global conquest, which they call ‘humanitarian’, though they know it’s the opposite.

These governments represent only their respective aristocracies, the controlling owners of their international corporations. Like every aristocracy, each aristocracy portrays, as being ‘the nation’s enemy’, not itself (that aristocracy), but whatever foreign governments the given aristocracy aims to conquer. Each invading country’s ‘news’-media play differing segments of their own domestic population — Blacks, Whites, men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc. — against each other, so that none will blame the actually tiny number of aristocrats, who, behind the scenes, control that vile government and produce the problems (such as the bombings and jihadists that have produced the refugee-crisis in Europe) and the enormous ongoing injustices throughout the world.

The US and UK governments, and their Saudi and Israeli and other allies, don’t care about the welfare of their respective publics — the public who pay the taxes to support the given aristocracy’s invasions and military occupations and also its coups (that one having cost US taxpayers at least $5 billion and destroyed the target-country).

Even after lying (or “deceiving”) their publics into invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 on the basis of lies, and then repeating this in Libya in 2011 on the basis of lies, and then repeating it yet again now in Yemen on the basis of lies, the public seemingly don’t learn, they don’t repudiate all politicians and ‘news’-persons who have assisted this with their lies.

After doing this a certain number of times, the publics themselves increasingly share in their respective aristocracy’s and its ‘news’-media’s evil. The public’s role becomes then no longer mere negligence, but increasingly also complicity, in what their aristocracy (and its lying ‘news’-media) is doing to the world. All that the aristocracy have to do is to fool their respective public by means of their ‘news’-media — the media these aristocrats own and control, just as they own and control the government itself. And thus those lies produce the public’s complicity, by making the public the aristocracy’s mental slaves working to support that aristocracy’s foreign ventures, which slaughter and displace millions of people and destroy their countries, by faked ‘civil wars’ etc. Our governments are so ‘humanitarian’, spreading ‘democracy’ — lies.

On September 24th, the UK Government headlined “News Story: White Helmets resettlement”, and reported: “The UK will support White Helmets volunteers and their families, who were evacuated from Syria, under the government’s Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme.” These jihadist mercenaries are now ‘vulnerable persons’, no longer merely ‘heroes’. The Government can even claim this, in public. They’re then implying that their public are total fools. Will British citizens actually believe that these Al Qaeda affiliates are suitable to become their fellow-citizens?

How much longer will the populations in the invading countries continue to tolerate their aristocratic masters? Have things not gotten to the point where it is clear what those masters are doing? How much longer will their hypocrisy continue to succeed?

Al Qaeda jihadists are now being invited, as ‘heroes’, to become UK citizens. Is that not enough? More than enough? Way too much?

The problem isn’t those Al Qaeda affiliates. It is the UK Government that’s doing this traitorous action. The Deep State, the international aristocracy, runs not only the US but the UK and many other governments, just like the CIA secretly protected and brought to America leading Nazis after World War II. This is typical of the lying and psychopathy that’s done to serve billionaires. For example, Goldman Sachs’s Socially Responsible Investing Fund is actually invested in extremely anti-environmental exploitative mega-corporations, directly contradictory to the Fund’s promises to investors.

The White Helmets is  just another example of such lying and psychopathy.

**

NOTE: On September 25th, UK’s new anti-Tony-Blair (i.e., anti Deep-State) Labour Party voted to ban arms-sales to the US-UK-Saud ally Israel, because of Israel’s barbaric treatment of Palestinians; so, one cannot yet say that all political options short of an actual revolution have quite been exhausted.

Though UK’s aristocracy hates this post-Blair Labour Party, that Party does have a chance to win power, but only if the public recognize that their own nation’s aristocracy itself is their nation’s enemy. In Israel, America’s Associated Press reported this Labour Party vote as if that vote were an anti-Semitic act, aimed against Jews, instead of an act of basic decency aimed against Israel’s Government. How much of a fool does one have to be to trust such ‘news’-media? The ‘news’-media might as well be owned directly by the weapons-makers as be owned by those firms’ owners who own also the ‘news’-media that control the voters. It’s the same Deep State that rules in many countries. It thrives on wars, on lies, and on oppression, both at home, and abroad. It needs to be replaced by democracy (not the current fake variety), in all countries it now rules.

*

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

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Twitter.

Exciting news for capitalism was the recent achievement of trillion-dollar value for both Amazon and Apple, making them the first corporations to obtain such a lofty status. Amazon’s skyrocketing growth makes its CEO, Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person with an $160 billion net worth.

Driving the engine of global wealth concentration are giant transnational investment management firms. In 2017, seventeen trillion-dollar investment companies collectively controlled $41.1 trillion of capital. These firms are all directly invested in each other, making them a huge cluster of centralized capital managed by just 199 people, who decide how and where that wealth will be invested. 

In the case of Amazon, the top investment management corporations are: Vanguard $56.7 billion, BlackRock $49.5 billion, FMR $33 billion, Capital $33 billion, State Street $29 billion, and most of the other trillion-dollar Giants and many others who hold 58.6% of Amazon shares. 

So, while Bezos is a large tree in the forest, the forest itself is groomed by a few hundred global power elites making investment decisions that drive the concentration of wealth into coffers of the 1%. These elites interact through non-governmental policy-making organizations—privately funded by large corporations—that include the Council of Thirty, Trilateral Commission, and the Atlantic Council. Their role is to facilitate, manage, and protect the free flow of global capital. They do this by providing policy recommendations and instructions to governments, intelligence services, security forces, NATO, the Pentagon, and transnational governmental groups including the G-7 G-20, World Bank, IMF, and International Bank of Settlements. 

The biggest problem global power elite investors face is that they have more capital than there are safe investment opportunities, which leads to risky speculative investments, permanent war spending, and the privatization of the public commons.

The world’s total wealth is estimated to be close to $255 trillion, with the United States and Europe holding approximately two-thirds of that total; meanwhile, 80 percent of the world’s people live on less than $10 per day, the poorest half of the global population lives on less than $2.50 per day, and more than 1.3 billion people live on only $1.25 per day. 795 million people on the planet are suffering from chronic hunger, according to the United Nations World Food Program.  Each year, poor nutrition kills 3.1 million children under the age of five. Each day 25,000-30,000 people die from starvation or malnutrition, a staggering total of more than ten million such fatalities each year. Chronic hunger is mostly a problem of distribution, as one third of all food produced in the world is wasted and lost. 

So, while the global power elite can manifest a Bezos, they cannot or will not address the crisis of inequality and mass death in the world today. In 2017, 2.3 million new millionaires were created, bringing the total number of millionaires around the globe to more than 36 million. These millionaires represent 0.7 percent of the world’s population and they control more than 47% of global wealth. At the same time, the world’s bottom 70 percent only control 2.7% of the total wealth.

The danger is that global power elites will fail to recognize the inevitability of economic and/or environmental collapse before making the necessary adjustments to prevent millions of deaths and massive civil unrest. Without significant corrective adjustments by the global power elites, mass social movements and rebellions, coupled with environmental collapse, will inevitably lead to global chaos and widespread war. We must institute a simple guiding principle of thinking of the future of our grandchildren and their grandchildren when making decisions about the use of global capital resources.

Seventy years ago, after World War II ended, people throughout the world were motivated to find ways to permanently prevent such terrible bloodshed from ever again taking place. As the United Nations was forming, a Commission on the moral principles necessary for sustainable peace, made up of eighteen nations, met at Hunter College in New York City in 1946. They began what two years later would become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved unanimously by the United Nations in December 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document that social movements can easily adopt as a statement of moral principles for actions of resistance to wealth concentration and global inequality. It is equally important as a document of principles for the global power elite to use as a guide for corrective actions needed in the world today. 

It is no longer acceptable to believe that global power elites can manage capitalism to grow its way out of the gross inequalities we all now face. The environment cannot accept more pollution and waste, and civil unrest is inevitable. We need to pressure global capital elites to step up and insure that trickle-down becomes a river of resources that reaches every child, every family, and all human beings. These changes are required for nothing less than humanity’s long-term survival.

*

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

Peter Phillips is a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University, where he has taught since 1994. He teaches courses in Political Sociology, Sociology of Power, Sociology of Media, Sociology of Conspiracies and Investigative Sociology. He served as director of Project Censored from 1996 to 2010 and as president of Media Freedom Foundation from 2003 to 2017. He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 


Giants: The Global Power Elite

Author: Peter Phillips

Publisher: Seven Stories Press (August 21, 2018)

ISBN-10: 1609808711

ISBN-13: 978-1609808716

Click here to order.

.

.

Security, Safety, Security! Dictatorship by Democracy

September 30th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

The other day, checking in at a European airport for an international flight – within about an hour it took to deposit my luggage, going through airport security, the metal detectors, body screening machines, the automatic passport reading procedure, waiting at the gate and finally boarding – I have heard or read the words security and safety, honestly speaking, more than a hundred times. There are now countless primitive videos – in fact, insultingly primitive videos – that show you the precise procedures to follow to keep you safe and secure. All you have to do is follow them to keep your life safe and in secure hands. It is a constant indoctrination that we are in danger and that the democracy around us keeps us safe. 

Some paper in my shirt pocket and a handkerchief I didn’t remove from my pocket – had to go through a special ‘dust reader’; my hands were also ‘dusted off’ and the special tissue used for it also went through the ‘reader’- only then, when indeed the result was negative, was I free to collect my things – and get redressed. I wondered aloud how many valuable items, like cell phones, laptops, cameras and-so-on – ‘disappear’ – or get ‘lost’ in the hassle, and I could not shut up making my comments about the nonsense – the George Bush invented 9/11 endless war on terror, that itself was based on a false flag, i.e. the  self-imposed 9/11 – and that prompted this forced submission to an ever-more degrading and harassing security procedure. About three security agents descended on me – this time politely, I must say, assuring me that all this was for my own safety. Naturally. How could it be different. We want you to be safe and secure, Sir. Bingo. It’s difficult to protest against so much protective kindness.

Does anybody have an idea on what this security and safety industry – the machines and apparatuses, and ever newly invented security gadgets – cost? – And the profit they bring to the war and security industry – and their shareholders, many of whom are former high-ranking US and other western government officials? – The airport security business alone is estimated at between US$ 25 and 30 billion per year.  

What can I say. These airport security employees have jobs; they have been trained to use these billions-worth devices to intimidate and harass people into fear, into obeying, into blindly – no questions asked, following the dictate of democracy. Most of these security agents don’t know much about what they are doing. They have a noble job: protecting the world from terrorists, a job that keeps them proudly off an ever-growing mass of unemployed, or underemployed, lowly-paid workers. Free thinking is not allowed, lest you are pushed out into the cold, to join the ranks of beggars, of the socially unfit, who depend on government handouts.

Once on the plane – I couldn’t believe my eyes. There was a flight attendant by the name of “security and safety”. Well that was her title, instead of a real name. Lovely, I thought. It doesn’t stop. Security and safety brainwashing permeate every fiber 24/7 of our lives. 

Security and safety über alles! – Heil to the neocons, heil to the neonazis that have taken over the reins of our every-day life. And I’m not talking about the political parties of the extreme ‘right’ in France or Germany, they are just puppets for the invisible elite, for those ‘deepstaters’ that pull the strings behind the Trumps, Macrons, Merkels and Mays of this world. – Of course, it’s all for your security, my security, at best, for national security – not theirs, the ones who impose these nonsensical rules, rules that serve strictly for no other purpose than to oppress the common citizen, to brainwash the populace into believing that they are under a constant threat of attack. 

Back to the airport. At the hand baggage x-ray control, where everybody has to put their cosmetics in a transparent plastic bag, pull out their laptops, tablets and cameras, and are being told what items are not allowed on board, ridiculous stuff, absolutely hilariously ridiculous – if it wasn’t that serious – and all for your own safety, naturally – I was being pushed aside for a service man who delivered a case of bananas to the restaurant in the waiting hall. His bananas had to be cleared by the x-ray machine. Imagine! – They could be objects of terror, maybe even weapons of mass destruction – WMDs.

The real WMDs that kill millions on an every-day basis, in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan – and the list goes on – nobody talks about. They have become common staple of our “secure” and “safe” world. The UN during the ongoing Annual Meeting in New York, declared Yemen a country governed by terror – yes, the Yemenis, who are starved to death like no other nation in recent history, with – also according to the same UN – 5 million children at high risk of death by famine. Not the Saudis, or the United States of America, or the UK, the French, the Spaniards, who feed the Saudis with war planes and bombs, with real weapons of mass destructions – are the terror nations. No, its Yemen. What world have we ended up with?

We are governed by a bunch of criminals and crooks, who benefit from our ignorance and mentally challenged brains. In the submissive west, the utterly brainwashed and by now almost brainless populace is reminded that we are screened for security purposes, for our own security. Every time the screws of security are tightened a little more, the arms are twisted a bit further, just a tiny bit – never forget, its only for our security and safety. By the time, my dear fellow citizens, we realize that our arms are broken and our skulls and brains smashed beyond repair, it’s too late.

As we are reminded by our masters that keep us secure and safe, we are also reminded that we are living in the only democracy that exists on the planet, namely wester style democracy. Never mind, this democracy is often, most often in fact, imposed to the rest of the world by sledgehammer, or even by WMDs. We, of course, don’t know that; we are made believe, that all those countries that are being ‘regime-changed’, or destroyed for the sake of democracy are being destroyed for the betterment of their citizens living conditions. That’s what we are made believe. There is no other set of nations – with a thousand years of horrific history of exploitation, killing, raping, looting, lying – than the west. And the west, to this day, continues lying and manipulating peoples’ minds in a more sophisticated way than even Goebbels could have dreamed of.

Can you imagine – the “Peru Six”, the neocons – very close to neonazis – of the Americas – (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Perú and Canada), of course all in the pockets of Washington – have had the unbelievable audacity to file a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice of The Hague against Venezuela for torturing and oppressing her people to the point that 2 million had to leave the country. This is such a flagrant multiple lie – it is actually a crime against humanity, against the only – yes, the very only real democracy left in the west, Venezuela – to make one’s stomach churn. 

The maximum 500,000 to 700,000 Venezuelans, who, according to UNHCR and the International Organization of Migration, have migrated to neighboring countries, because of the foreign imposed – yes totally foreign imposed, by sanctions of the US and the EU – plus shamefully neutral Switzerland – horrendous economic conditions of the country. The Maduro Government is struggling to reverse that situation by de-linking Venezuela’s economy from the dollar economy, by creating new alliances with the east, in particular China and Russia. And as there are signs that the wheel may be turning favorably for Venezuela, some of the migrants are already returning.

But can you imagine what these six Latin American Washington bootlickers do to the reputation of Venezuela? And they may actually be welcome in The Hague, especially after John Bolton, Trump’s neocon “Security Adviser” – again Heil-Heil Security! – has warned the judges of this once-upon-a-time noble-intentioned international court, to beware and behave, and never pursue (war) crimes committed by the United States and Israel, meaning in clear text – obey and do what is in the interest of the exceptional nation(s), or else. So, the ICJ may actually be compelled to consider the malicious and totally fake and deceitful complaint of the Peru Six seriously.   

And all that under the name of democracy. 

Wake up, dear co-citizens! – Its high time. We are living in an abject Security Dictatorship, called Democracy. It imposes an ever-increasing militarization, becomes an ever more brutal police state – or better, an association of brutal police states, to be sure, that if and when you wake up, your awakening will be smashed with visceral power of a legalized, totally legitimate Security Dictatorship. If we don’t act now – and acting starts at these dreadful, humiliating and harassing security stupidities we accept everyday at airports around the world – we will be fried for good. Stand up folks! Stand up for your rights and against the day-in-day-out brainwashing of keeping you secure. Let’s take back our security sovereignty – we and only we, as citizens, colleagues and comrades, are responsible for our own security. Let not security and safety be imposed by criminal, warmongering, children-killing Security Democracies – namely our western governments.

*

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

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.  Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

The world will long remember the present immigrant crisis in Europe, which has negatively affected countless people there, and almost all countries. History will certainly record it as a major tragedy. Could it have been averted? Or kept within much more reasonable humane bounds?

After the United States and NATO began to bomb Libya in March 2011 – almost daily for more than six months! – to overthrow the government of Muammar Gaddafi (with the completely phoney excuse that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States and NATO were thus saving the people of that city from a massacre), the Libyan leader declared:

“Now listen you people of Nato. You’re bombing a wall, which stood in the way of African migration to Europe and in the way of al Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You’re breaking it. You’re idiots, and you will burn in Hell for thousands of migrants from Africa.”

Remember also that Libya was a secular society, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, all destroyed by America while supporting Saudi Arabia and various factions of al Qaeda. It’s these countries that have principally overrun Europe with refugees.

Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, had a tyrant side to him but could in important ways be benevolent and do very valuable things. He, for example, founded the African Union and gave the Libyan people the highest standard of living in all of Africa; they had not only free education and health care but all kinds of other benefits that other Africans could only dream about. But Moammar Gaddafi was never a properly obedient client of Washington. Amongst other shortcomings, the man threatened to replace the US dollar with gold for payment of oil transactions and create a common African currency. He was, moreover, a strong supporter of the Palestinians and foe of Israel.

In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the prime moving force behind the United States and NATO turning Libya into a failed state, where it remains today. The attack against Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had “championed”, convincing President Obama in “what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as Secretary of State.”

The American people and the American media of course swallowed the phoney story fed to them, though no evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. The nearest thing to an official US government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.   Keep this in mind when reading the latest accusations against Russia.

The US/NATO heavy bombing of Libya led also to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists.

*

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

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War IIRogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power . His latest book is: America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Despite the losing position of the US in its bid to destroy and divide Syria, the illegally occupying Atlanticist power is apparently making a statement that it intends to make its eventual exit as lucrative for the military industrial complex as possible. Today FRN has confirmed that the US is going to be building a new military base in the Al Qaim region which sends some extremely important signals, internally in the US. At issue is the organization of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) as a ‘for profit’ enterprise which forms a whole leg of the economy on its own.

Rather than being a total loss ‘cost’, it is a subsidy which was historically parlayed into a ‘revenue positive’ enterprise as it opened up ‘new markets’ for investment by the entire US economy, its industrial barons and Wall Street speculators and bankers. However, the era of using the military to open up markets is generally over, and now the speculative part alone, aided by fake news and skewed investment newsletters and falsified numbers at quarterly share-holder meetings, is all that generally remains.

That means that the present US military adventures are creating a speculative bubble, which works short-term for the MIC and some of the industries that the MIC promises to open up for general investment (through occupation of other countries’ resources), but mid-to-long term will be exposed as having accomplished next to nothing. A prime example of this is the occupation of the Al Qaim region. In short, as we will explain, the US MIC is ‘conning’ the US economy at large, as the MIC itself has transformed into a pyramid/Ponzi scheme of its own.

According to a source of the Iraqi Kurdish forces known as Peshmerga, the US has built a new military base in the Al Qaim region, on the border between Syria and Iraq.

Al Qaim

The US military was reportedly also preparing to set up a military base of strategic importance in the mountains of Sinjar in Iraq’s northern Mosul province. However, Iraqi general Najim Jabouri denied information on the construction of the base.

Now the situation is different, as the commander of a Peshmerga subunit, Xelil Sirvan, confirmed the fact, stating that “[…] according to the evidence, the US has built a new base in the important strategic region of Al Qaim, Anbar province, on the border between Syria and Iraq. The Americans are increasing the military presence in the region, so additional Iraqi troops have been sent to the Al Qaim region, strengthening security at the border.”

The new base is being used as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces operation in the Hejin region on the Syrian side of the border, a member of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the region said.

In addition, a senior military official indicated that the Iraqi Armed Forces were in charge of defending the border between Syria and Iraq before possible attacks by ISIS.

It is worth mentioning that the important strategic region, Al Qaim, is located along the border between Syria and Iraq and was liberated from ISIS in November 2017. This is an interesting point, because the Syrian Democratic Forces evolved out of the U.S backed Kurdish forces, but was rebranded as a successful international media campaign was able to demonstrate that the so-called FSA was, or had become, little more than a collection of defected Syrian officers leading international mercenaries and Salafists.  This was no different in function than the Iraqi ISIS composed of suddenly ‘Naqashbandi former Iraqi Ba’athist officers and Sunni rebels’.

The mythology of ‘liberation from ISIS’ by U.S backed forces has also been a fascinating one. By and large, it has been exposed that the low-level small arms exchanges and skirmishes between various U.S backed forces were by and large a simulacrum, made chiefly for television (Al Jazeera, etc.), in order to explain why the U.S was suddenly occupying a part of Syria. Recall that the U.S intervention in Syria was never officially premised upon overthrowing the Damascus government, or to divide the country, but rather to ‘fight ISIS’.

This means that the rebranding from Kurdish forces into the ‘SDF’ allows the U.S to deploy this army much further south than the word ‘Kurdish’ would seem to have previously allowed for.

In reality, the strategic significance of the Al-Qaim region is, in terms of justifying empire for the MIC and the US economy along holographic ‘speculative’ lines, frankly limited to two realms – it controls a major road way which allows for the easy military transport of Iraqi and Syrian forces to reinforce each other – now specifically against the US occupation, should events go that way, as it appears they eventually would now.

Second, it happens to sit right upon the presently defunct (due to sabotage and war-damage), Iraq-Syria gas and oil pipeline. Compare the map below to the map above, of the pipeline, the road way, and the US base being built right now.

This means the US is trying to give speculative signals that its going forward with this part of its occupation and partition plan. As FRN has noted numerous times, the US goes forward with constituent parts of its plans irrespective of whether other critical parts for the plan to work are effectively in place. This is for several reasons, among them it is important to report back to shareholders and investors that ‘things are moving forward as planned, despite less important set-backs here and there’. In reality, this ‘strategic position’ will prove not to be, as Syria and Iraq have been sorting alternatives to the present pipeline for quite some time. This defunct pipeline will remain defunct, and will not serve a strategic purpose for the US, even though the US will effectively sell it as such to MIC shareholders. The swindle is in full effect. Second, in terms of vehicle and soldier mobility, the increase of the use of air by Syria, Iraq, and Iran is also connected to the general decline of US air superiority. The US does not own the skies above ‘Syraq’ and will not, and therefore the strategic significance of road-ways is diminished.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump spoke on Tuesday at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York. Emphasizing the need for a new UN-led peace process in Syria, Trump threatened to react if Damascus used chemical weapons.

The US president said Washington is seeking “a political solution that will honor the will of the Syrian people.” Attacking Tehran for its assistance to Syria in its fight against terrorism, Trump noted that the solution to the conflict in Syria must “face the corrupt dictatorship in Iran.”

This is highly problematic, and indicates that the Russian, Syrian, and Iranian leadership have had a correct analysis since 2013/14, that the only way this conflict will come to an end is with a political settlement. The U.S is digging in to various parts of Iraq and Syria, including their massive base in Iraq which is called the ‘U.S Embassy’. All together, this means that there will be some high level horse trading if the U.S is ever to be finally extracted from sovereign Syria and Iraq, or it will have to take a series of large-scale and humiliating military defeats which compels a positive political resolution.

The U.S has presently some 800 military bases around the world, and yet many are under an impression that this creates a more costly manner of maintaining power. Rather, given the high cost of living in the U.S, propped up by a government backed banking system, ‘too big to fail’, there is not a price correction mechanism that can see real-estate prices reach their real equilibrium.  This makes housing for soldiers much more expensive than it would be otherwise, and so having a forward deployed military, even under conditions of hostile occupation, is cost effective in terms of the salary/wage commitments to US personnel serving in the military.

Mid to long term, the US dollar will increasingly become an internal currency within the US which has dwindling purchasing power in global markets, as important countries like China increasingly dump US T-bonds. The US will ultimately be forced to either spend its weakened currency to purchase support in various parts of the empire, or it will have to deploy its own increasingly stretched and demoralized military into far-flung regions of its collapsing empire. The second option may work in terms of the use of its own dollar to some extent, but here we are faced with the problem of personnel.

Ultimately the US will require some ‘Marian Reforms’, and change the way that its ‘generalissimos’ are paid. The stock-ownership options within military-industrial-complex firms will have to ultimately be a relic of the past, and the MIC itself will no longer be able to function as it does today. Rather, costs will have to be controlled, the MIC will not be able to function as its own leg of the speculative/investment economy – wherein it presently extraordinarily over-bills for regular costs, making the generals who own stock also very wealthy and prone to make infamous errors of judgment in terms of troop deployment and foreign adventures. This over-billing then, in turn, makes these MIC firms able to invest in other parts of the global economy, making the MIC itself a government financed wing of the economy, not subject to market correction. Presently the US military functions as a ‘ go-to mechanism of socialism-for-the-rich of war and conquest’ rather than a conservative institution of last resort.

The US’s signals that it intends to maintain a serious occupation in Syria means that it is presently reassuring the MIC stock holders, and creating a series of uninformed and speculation based decisions at the level of military planners themselves. By having the generals in on the stock ownership, there is lacking the important fire-wall between sober military analysis and the speculative arm of the economy. Prior to WWII, this division was more clear, and military planners would have been in the position to butt heads with Wall Street and speculators investing into the arms industry. Today, as co-owners with lucrative stock options, America’s generals are first among those to call for strategically retarded decisions,  on the sole basis of tax expenditure for war, converted into private ‘profits’ which in fact are subsidies brought in at the financial expense of tax-payers, and the blood expense of the occupied and innocent around the 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.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Occupation, Bound for Conflict: US Builds New Military Base on Syrian-Iraq Border

Recognise Palestine and stop Israel’s blatant atrocities to stand a chance of ending terrorism.

Scroll down for complete text of  Mahathir’s presentation at the UN General Assembly

Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said the present war against terrorism would only be elongated if the root causes were not addressed.

“This present war against the terrorists will not end until the root causes are found and removed and hearts and minds are won.

“What are the root causes? In 1948, Palestinian land was seized to form the state of Israel. The Palestinians were massacred and forced to leave their land.

“They tried to fight a conventional war with help from sympathetic neighbours. The friends of Israel ensured this attempt failed. More Palestinian land was seized.

“Frustrated and angry, unable to fight a conventional war, the Palestinians resort to what we call terrorism,” Dr Mahathir said at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, today.

No country and individual, he said, was safe because of this.

“To fight the ‘terrorists’, all kinds of security measures, all kinds of gadgets and equipment are deployed. Big brother is watching. But the acts of terror continue.”

He said the world had done nothing to stop Israel’s indiscretions.

“The world does not care even when Israel breaks international laws, seizing ships carrying medicine, food and building materials in international waters. The Palestinians fired ineffective rockets which hurt no one.

“Massive retaliations were mounted by Israel, rocketing and bombing hospitals, schools and other buildings, killing innocent civilians including school children and hospital patients.”

Ironically, he said the world rewarded Israel including deliberately “provoking Palestine by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel”.

“It is the anger and frustration of the Palestinians and their sympathisers that cause them to resort to what we call terrorism. But it is important to acknowledge that any act which terrify people also constitute terrorism.

“And states dropping bombs or launching rockets which maim and kill innocent people also terrify people. These are also acts of terrorism.

“Malaysia hates terrorism. We will fight them. But we believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to remove the cause.

“Let the Palestinians return to reclaim their land. Let there be a state of Palestine. Let there be justice and the rule of law. Warring against them will not stop terrorism. Nor will out-terrorising them succeed.”

Dr Mahathir also criticised the Myanmar government and Aung San Suu Kyi for the massacre of the Rohingyas.

“I believe in non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. But does the world watch massacres being carried out and do nothing? Nations are independent. But does this mean they have a right to massacre their own people, because they are independent?” he asked.

Watch below the full speech of Dr. Mahathir at the UNGA.


The following is Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s speech at the general debate of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York

Madam President,

1. I would like to join others in congratulating you on your election as the President of the Seventy-Third (73rd) Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

2. I am confident with your wisdom and vast experience; this session will achieve the objectives of the theme for this session. I assure you of Malaysia’s fullest support and cooperation towards achieving these noble goals.

3. Allow me to also pay tribute to your predecessor, His Excellency Miroslav Lajcak, for his dedication and stewardship in successfully completing the work of the 72nd Session of the General Assembly.

4. I commend the Secretary-General and the United Nations staff for their tireless efforts in steering and managing UN activities globally.

5. In particular, I pay tribute to the late Kofi Annan, the seventh Secretary-General of the UN from 1997 – 2006, who sadly passed away in August this year. Malaysia had a positively strong and active engagement with the UN during his tenure.

Madam President,

6. The theme of this 73rd Session of General Assembly, “Making the United Nations Relevant to All People: Global Leadership and Shared Responsibilities for Peaceful, Equitable and Sustainable Societies” remains true to the aspiration of our founding fathers. The theme is most relevant and timely. It is especially pertinent in the context of the new Malaysia. The new Government of Malaysia, recently empowered with a strong mandate from its people, is committed to ensure that every Malaysian has an equitable share in the prosperity and wealth of the nation.

7. A new Malaysia emerged after the 14th General Election in May this year. Malaysians decided to change their government, which had been in power for 61 years, i.e., since independence. We did this because the immediate past Government indulged in the politics of hatred, of racial and religious bigotry, as well as widespread corruption. The process of change was achieved democratically, without violence or loss of lives.

8. Malaysians want a new Malaysia that upholds the principles of fairness, good governance, integrity and the rule of law. They want a Malaysia that is a friend to all and enemy of none. A Malaysia that remains neutral and non-aligned. A Malaysia that detests and abhors wars and violence. They also want a Malaysia that will speak its mind on what is right and wrong, without fear or favour. A new Malaysia that believes in co-operation based on mutual respect, for mutual gain. The new Malaysia that offers a partnership based on our philosophy of ‘prosper-thy-neighbour’. We believe in the goodness of cooperation, that a prosperous and stable neighbour would contribute to our own prosperity and stability.

9. The new Malaysia will firmly espouse the principles promoted by the UN in our international engagements. These include the principles of truth, human rights, the rule of law, justice, fairness, responsibility and accountability, as well as sustainability. It is within this context that the new government of Malaysia has pledged to ratify all remaining core UN instruments related to the protection of human rights. It will not be easy for us because Malaysia is multi-ethnic, multireligious, multicultural and multilingual. We will accord space and time for all to deliberate and to decide freely based on democracy.

Madam President,

10. When I last spoke here in 2003, I lamented how the world had lost its way. I bemoaned the fact that small countries continued to be at the mercy of the powerful. I argued the need for the developing world to push for reform, to enhance capacity building and diversify the economy. We need to maintain control of our destiny.

11. But today, 15 years later the world has not changed much. If at all the world is far worse than 15 years ago. Today the world is in a state of turmoil economically, socially and politically.

12. There is a trade war going on between the two most powerful economies. And the rest of the world feel the pain.

13. Socially new values undermine the stability of nations and their people. Freedom has led to the negation of the concept of marriage and families, of moral codes, of respect etc.

14. But the worse turmoil is in the political arena. We are seeing acts of terror everywhere. People are tying bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in crowded places. Trucks are driven into holiday crowds. Wars are fought and people beheaded with short knives. Acts of brutality are broadcast to the world live. Masses of people risk their lives to migrate only to be denied asylum, sleeping in the open and freezing to death. Thousands starve and tens of thousands die in epidemics of cholera.

15. No one, no country is safe. Security checks inconvenience travellers. No liquids on planes. The slightest suspicion leads to detention and unpleasant questioning.

16. To fight the “terrorists” all kinds of security measures, all kinds of gadgets and equipment are deployed. Big brother is watching. But the acts of terror continues.

17. Malaysia fought the bandits and terrorists at independence and defeated them. We did use the military. But alongside and more importantly we campaigned to win the hearts of minds of these people.

18. This present war against the terrorist will not end until the root causes are found and removed and hearts and minds are won.

19. What are the root causes? In 1948, Palestinian land was seized to form the state of Israel. The Palestinians were massacred and forced to leave their land. Their houses and farms were seized.

20. They tried to fight a conventional war with help from sympathetic neighbours. The friends of Israel ensured this attempt failed. More Palestinian land was seized. And Israeli settlements were built on more and more Palestinian land and the Palestinians are denied access to these settlements built on their land.

21. The Palestinians initially tried to fight with catapults and stones. They were shot with live bullets and arrested. Thousands are incarcerated.

22. Frustrated and angry, unable to fight a conventional war, the Palestinians resort to what we call terrorism.

23. The world does not care even when Israel breaks international laws, seizing ships carrying medicine, food and building materials in international waters. The Palestinians fired ineffective rockets which hurt no one. Massive retaliations were mounted by Israel, rocketing and bombing hospitals, schools and other buildings, killing innocent civilians including school children and hospital patients. And more.

24. The world rewards Israel, deliberately provoking Palestine by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

25. It is the anger and frustration of the Palestinians and their sympathisers that cause them to resort to what we call terrorism. But it is important to acknowledge that any act which terrify people also constitute terrorism. And states dropping bombs or launching rockets which maim and kill innocent people also terrify people. These are also acts of terrorism.

26. Malaysia hates terrorism. We will fight them. But we believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to remove the cause. Let the Palestinians return to reclaim their land. Let there be a state of Palestine. Let there be justice and the rule of law. Warring against them will not stop terrorism. Nor will out-terrorising them succeed.

27. We need to remind ourselves that the United Nations Organisation, like the League of Nations before, was conceived for the noble purpose of ending wars between nations.

28. Wars are about killing people. Modern wars are about mass killings and total destruction countrywide. Civilised nations claim they abhor killing for any reason. When a man kills, he commits the crime of murder. And the punishment for murder may be death.

29. But wars, we all know encourage and legitimise killing. Indeed the killings are regarded as noble, and the killers are hailed as heroes. They get medals stuck to their chest and statues erected in their honour, have their names mentioned in history books.

30. There is something wrong with our way of thinking, with our value system. Kill one man, it is murder, kill a million and you become a hero. And so we still believe that conflict between nations can be resolved with war.

31. And because we still do, we must prepare for war. The old adage says “to have peace, prepare for war”. And we are forever preparing for war, inventing more and more destructive weapons. We now have nuclear bombs, capable of destroying whole cities. But now we know that the radiation emanating from the explosion will affect even the country using the bomb. A nuclear war would destroy the world.

32. This fear has caused the countries of Europe and North America to maintain peace for over 70 years. But that is not for other countries. Wars in these other countries can help live test the new weapons being invented.

33. And so they sell them to warring countries. We see their arms in wars fought between smaller countries. These are not world wars but they are no less destructive. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, whole countries devastated and nations bankrupted because of these fantastic new weapons.

34. But these wars give handsome dividends to the arms manufacturers and traders. The arms business is now the biggest business in the world. They profit shamelessly from the deaths and destructions they cause. Indeed, so-called peace-loving countries often promote this shameful business.

35. Today’s weapons cost millions. Fighter jets cost about 100 million dollars. And maintaining them cost tens of millions. But the poor countries are persuaded to buy them even if they cannot afford. They are told their neighbours or their enemies have them. It is imperative that they too have them.

36. So, while their people starve and suffer from all kinds of deprivations, a huge percentage of their budget is allocated to the purchase of arms. That their buyers may never have to use them bothers the purveyors not at all.

Madam President,

37. In Myanmar, Muslims in Rakhine state are being murdered, their homes torched and a million refugees had been forced to flee, to drown in the high seas, to live in makeshift huts, without water or food, without the most primitive sanitation. Yet the authorities of Myanmar including a Nobel Peace Laureate deny that this is happening. I believe in non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. But does the world watch massacres being carried out and do nothing? Nations are independent. But does this mean they have a right to massacre their own people, because they are independent?

Madam President,

38. On the other hand, in terms of trade, nations are no longer independent. Free trade means no protection by small countries of their infant industries. They must abandon tariff restrictions and open their countries to invasion by products of the rich and the powerful. Yet the simple products of the poor are subjected to clever barriers so that they cannot penetrate the market of the rich. Malaysian palm oil is labelled as dangerous to health and the estates are destroying the habitat of animals. Food products of the rich declare that they are palm oil free. Now palm diesel are condemned because they are decimating virgin jungles. These caring people forget that their boycott is depriving hundreds of thousands of people from jobs and a decent life.

39. We in Malaysia care for the environment. Some 48% of our country remains virgin jungle. Can our detractors claim the same for their own countries?

Madam President,

40. Malaysia is committed to sustainable development. We have taken steps, for example in improving production methods to ensure that our palm oil production is sustainable. By December 2019, the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standard will become mandatory. This will ensure that every drop of palm oil produced in Malaysia will be certified sustainable by 2020.

Madam President,

41. All around the world, we observe a dangerous trend to inward-looking nationalism, of governments pandering to populism, retreating from international collaborations and shutting their borders to free movements of people, goods and services even as they talk of a borderless world, of free trade. While globalisation has indeed brought us some benefits, the impacts have proven to be threatening to the independence of small nations. We cannot even talk or move around without having our voices and movement recorded and often used against us. Data on everyone is captured and traded by powerful nations and their corporations.

42. Malaysia lauds the UN in its endeavours to end poverty, protect our planet and try to ensure everyone enjoys peace and prosperity. But I would like to refer to the need for reform in the organisation. Five countries on the basis of their victories 70 over years ago cannot claim to have a right to hold the world to ransom forever. They cannot take the moral high ground, preaching democracy and regime change in the countries of the world when they deny democracy in this organisation.

43. I had suggested that the veto should not be by just one permanent member but by at least two powers backed by three non-permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly should then back the decision with a simple majority. I will not say more.

44. I must admit that the world without the UN would be disastrous. We need the UN, we need to sustain it with sufficient funds. No one should threaten it with financial deprivation.

Madam President

45. After 15 years and at 93, I return to this podium with the heavy task of bringing the voice and hope of the new Malaysia to the world stage. The people of Malaysia, proud of their recent democratic achievement, have high hopes that around the world – we will see peace, progress and prosperity. In this we look toward the UN to hear our pleas.

I thank you, Madam President.

(Source: New Straits Times)

*

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

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s certification that the Saudi-led military coalition in the Yemen war was taking adequate steps to avoid inflicting civilian casualties may have achieved a new low in U.S. foreign-policy ethics. There is abundant evidence of multiple atrocities that Riyadh and its United Arab Emirates (UAE) junior partner have committed and continue to commit. The coalition’s war strategy has created a famine as well as a cholera epidemic . Attacks on civilian targets are far too numerous to list. An especially appalling incident occurred in August when coalition aircraft attacked a school bus , killing forty children.

Pompeo’s certification was necessary to meet the requirements of a congressional statute. Otherwise, the U.S. military would have had to curtail its refueling of coalition aircraft involved in Yemen military operations. As part of its obsession with countering Iranian influence in the Middle East, Washington has backed the Saudis in their campaign to destroy Yemen’s nominally pro-Iranian Houthi faction. The latest certification preserves the pretense that Saudi and UAE forces are not committing war crimes and that the United States is not a willing accomplice in those war crimes.

The certification requirement for U.S. aid, especially military assistance, is, and usually has been, a cynical farce to neutralize or (at least dampen) potential public outrage at assisting odious regimes. For decades, U.S. administrations have certified compliance with human-rights standards by aid recipients when those recipients have not come even close to meeting that standard.

Just days before his action regarding Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Pompeo issued a certification allowing the release of $1.2 billion in U.S. military assistance to Egypt, despite human-rights concerns that had held up previous funding. As in the case of Saudi Arabia, the dictatorship of Abdel Fatah el-Sisi in Egypt [supported by Washington] has amassed an atrocious human-rights record . Since taking power in a 2013 military coup, Sisi has executed hundreds of political prisoners and jailed thousands more. Yet except for a brief pause, U.S. military aid, including the sale of F-16 jet fighters and Apache attack helicopters , has continued under both the Obama and Trump administrations.

Brazen executive branch contempt for congressional efforts to restrict U.S. aid to allied regimes guilty of human-rights abuses is not confined to the Middle East. Nor is it a recent phenomenon. In July 2003, for the fifth time in three years, the U.S. State Department certified Colombia’s compliance with statutory human-rights conditions originally contained in Public Law 108-7 (which authorized foreign assistance for fiscal year 2003). As Human Rights Watch reported :

“Between 2002 and 2008, members of the Colombian army committed extrajudicial executions or ‘false positives,’ claiming them as combat deaths. Human-rights defenders documented thousands of such executions, taking advantage of an information law to get listings of cases opened by the Prosecutor General’s Office.”

Such atrocities went on for years while U.S. officials blandly certified that the Colombian government met the human-rights standards that Congress had mandated. In 2012, human-rights organizations submitted a list of six hundred killings with the names of victims, dates, locations and more than fifty culpable military units to the State Department. “Six months later, the Department denied U.S. aid to ten of the identified military units,” but approved continued aid to all of the others.

A similar grotesque mismatch between Washington’s human-rights certifications and the realities on the ground characterized the Reagan administration’s Central America policy during the 1980s. Foreign-aid legislation for El Salvador stipulated, as of 1981, that the administration would need to certify semi-annually that the country was worthy of receiving U.S. military aid, and such certifications were duly issued. But the administration’s requests and supplemental requests for military assistance continued to balloon through 1985 when military aid to El Salvador reached $128.25 million.

An even more appalling case involved U.S. aid to Guatemala. A series of military regimes ruled that country after a successful CIA-orchestrated coup against the elected government in 1954. Military forces waged a counter-insurgency war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives over the next four decades—a campaign of systematic brutality and slaughter that reached its peak during the 1980s. But the Reagan administration routinely certified that the Guatemalan government met basic human-rights standards and U.S. aid could continue to flow. One critic noted:

“Sadly, the legislation has not served its purpose.” Indeed, “grievous human-rights violations, attributable to the army, continue to terrorize the Guatemalan people.”

The lament that the legislation had not served its purpose could be applied to most of the certification requirements over the decades. Pompeo has carried on a long and dishonorable tradition. Congress may have intended that the requirement for certifying compliance with human-rights standards by U.S. aid recipients would pressure those regimes to avoid egregious abuses. If that truly was the intent, and not just empty congressional posturing to placate constituents who take human-rights seriously, then clearly that strategy has failed miserably.

Congress needs to make a crucial decision. It either must overrule administrations that issue bogus certifications and continue aiding regimes that commit horrid human-rights abuses, or it needs to stop pretending that it cares about America being an accomplice to such atrocities. If members of Congress intend to get serious about enforcement, the place to start is Yemen. Congress needs to cut off all military assistance to Saudi Arabia and the UAE immediately. Beyond that issue, the legislative branch must insist that certifications accurately reflect reality. Americans have had more than enough toleration of cynical creative fiction from administrations over the decades.

*

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

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of more than seven hundred articles on international affairs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Farcical “Certifications” Enable the War Crimes of Allies

It is calculated that in addition to the secret arsenal of up to 400 nuclear warheads, according to American Scientists, the Israeli state also reportedly possesses chemical and/or biological WMD, making it a dangerous nuclear hegemon that poses a potential threat not only to the Middle East but also to Europe.  Neither France nor Britain nor Germany can equal Israeli state nuclear weaponisation on both land and sea.

This calculation is based on the fact that the state of Israel is the only WMD state to refuse to be a party to either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) which are international arms control treaties that outlaw the production, stockpiling, and use or transfer of chemical or biological weapons and their precursors.

These conventions are administered by the OPCW international, intergovernmental Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons  based in The Hague, Netherlands to which virtually every U.N. member state is a party, with the exception of Israel.

Furthermore, the state of Israel is the only nuclear weapons state in the world that is undeclared and which is also outside of the inspection of the U.N. and the authority of the Security Council.

It is armed and funded by the joint efforts of the Christian and Jewish Zionist Lobby of the US Congress together with the Trump White House but Israel also receives military equipment and assistance from the UK and some other European states such as Germany.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has unilaterally altered the balance of power in the region by supplying Netanyahu with a fleet of German-built and subsidised, state-of-the-art submarines reported to have been retro-fitted with cruise-missile nuclear weapons.  These undersea war vessels of the Israeli navy are uninspected by the UN or the IAEA and are now assumed to be covertly patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and the Iranian Gulf with their dangerous armaments.

We now have the ludicrous position whereby heavily nuclear-armed Israel is accusing non-nuclear Iran of being armed and dangerous in a transparent effort to destroy the Iranian economy. The U.N. Security Council needs to take urgent action before we are all in danger from a nuclear war provoked by Netanyahu with co-operation from the dysfunctional Trump White House.

At this time of writing, Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA provisions of the EU/UNSC Iran deal and the reason why Netanyahu is peddling such fabricated nonsense before the U.N. is because he sees the opportunity to persuade a gullible incumbent of the White House to submit to Zionist pressure to bankrupt the Iranian oil industry so that Israel can achieve its dangerous objective of becoming the hegemon of the 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.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel: The Nuclear Hegemon That Poses a Potential Threat to Europe

The Earth Is the Common Home of All Inhabitants

September 30th, 2018 by Riccardo Petrella

The first vast work of “worldwide” occupation and predation of the Earth and its inhabitants was that begun in the sixteenth century by a number of European states (Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, England and France). After the First World War, new actors – no less conquerors and predators than the former (in particular, the United States, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany) – extended and intensified the work of occupation and exploitation of the planet and the world.

Today, “thanks” also to China, India, Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other “minor” actors (South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Egypt, etc.), we can say that the work of conquest and of predation is truly “global”, planetary. Even the space that unites the Earth with the rest of the solar system and beyond does not escape this work, well foreseen (I hope I’m wrong) by Asimov, Matrix and Stars Wars.

The new wave of land (and water) grabbing – certainly the most striking form of current occupation and predation – is no longer based solely on processes of violent conquest and the force of arms, but is more profound and pernicious because appropriation takes place above all through legal means of high value insofar as “legitimated” – claim those who dominate – by science! I am referring to patents on the living.

For the first time in human history, since 1980 and following a unilateral decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the right of private intellectual property on the living for profit has been declared legitimate. Despite the strong opposition of many citizens, in 1998 the European Union also approved a directive that legalised the private patentability of the living.

In the space of a few years, the world of business and finance has succeeded in obtaining the recognition of several tens of thousands of patents on cells, molecules, bacteria, genes (also human), plant species, animals and microorganisms. The financial holdings of large industrial and commercial multinational agricultural, seed, chemical, pharmaceutical, energy, mining companies have become the effective owners/masters of the living of the Earth.

The Earth has never been a “common home”. Today, it is even less so. Yet the possibilities of building the Earth as a “common home” are greater than before. Why?

The “common home” that can exist

The gap between the two “homes” is only apparently paradoxical. The “common home that does not exist” is a strong reality because the predatory capacities of the dominant social groups are actually enormous, based on political legitimacy, given by elected representatives, and juridical legitimacy, acquired thanks to the rules set by the dominant themselves.

On the other hand, the possibilities of building the “common home that can exist” have become considerable because three new collective consciences have been shaped and strengthened in recent years.

The first lies in the fact that, beyond the differences which are also essential and manifold existing between among human beings and between them and the other inhabitants of the Earth (animal, plant and microbial species), human beings think, perceive and have learned – thanks also to the progress made by cellular and molecular biology and other fields of knowledge – that they are an integral part of the great evolution which, over millennia, has united all the inhabitants of the Earth in a global community of life of the Earth.

The second is the realisation that the life of the Earth must not be safeguarded and cured mainly to guarantee and improve the safety of the existence of the human species but of the whole of the global community of life.

Example: it is right and true to affirm that human beings (like the other living species) have a right to the quantity of good water necessary and sufficient for life. But it is also true and right, for the vast majority of today’s human beings, to affirm that water as such has the right to an existence in a good ecological state appropriate for allowing bodies and water systems to regenerate themselves.

Pollution and contamination of water are acts of violence against life. Human right to safe water, but also the right of water to life. This is the principle which, for the first time in human history, gave the legal basis for recognition in 2017 of five rivers as juridical persons holding rights and duties.

This comes in the context of strong trends over the past two decades in favour of the “rights of nature”, the “rights of animals”, the “rights of plants”, the right of genes to integrity, and so on.

The third is represented by the observation that of all the living species inhabiting the Earth human beings are the only ones who have become capable of destroying life on the planet we know. Therefore they are also the only ones able to cure, protect and safeguard life on Earth and of the Earth, and to perpetuate it.

From here, the planetary responsibility for life is in the hands of Humanity, that is of the consciousness of human beings as inhabitants of the Earth in the name of all the other inhabitants of the Earth.

How to build the common home?

First of all by de-constructing the alleged pertinence and legality given to structural factors (conceptions, visions, choices, policies, mechanisms, institutions, etc.) that prevent humanity from working towards construction of the common home.

Of these, the factors that stand out above all are theses elaborated and imposed by the dominant groups on the naturalness (and therefore inevitability) of the processes of destruction of life, such as: war, domination, exclusion, rejection of the other, impoverishment, inequality.

They have convinced peoples that both war and impoverishment/poverty are “natural” phenomena/processes inherent in human nature and can in no way ever be eliminated from human history. The overwhelming majority has been convinced that peace can only be a temporary and local absence of war and that lasting and universal peace would be pure illusion, a “utopia”, they say, that is “unrealisable”.

The same applies to “poverty”: poverty has always “existed”, there is poverty and there will always be poverty. The only realistic thing possible is to try to reduce the drama of the state of poverty, reduce its diffusion and the number of poor people. It is useless, they say, to try to eradicate the causes because they are found in human nature.

Elsewhere (see books like “A New Narrative of the World” or “In the Name of Humanity”) and for a long time I have demonstrated the falsity and mystification of these theses and of corresponding collective social practices, highlighting instead the nature of social construction of the phenomena and of the processes of war and impoverishment by unjust societies. So much so that today in particular, war has become above all a great planetary business and impoverishment of the many – compared with enrichment of the few – is considered the inevitable sacrifice to be paid by the weakest, by the least “adaptable” and by  the least profitable on the altar of economic growth and monetary wealth.

These falsehoods must be fought against urgently and decisively in all fields, with the contribution in particular of artists, young people, women, peasants, workers and the world of education (teachers). The world of media, of religions and of businesses has largely contributed to the development and diffusion of such theses. Today a minority is trying to dissociate itself.

The Earth is not a large mine of natural resources (such as human resources or energy resources) and artificial tangible and intangible resources (such as medicines, robots, drones and artificial intelligence) to be exploited in order to extract the highest financial value for the owners of the available capital invested.

For the entire class of those who dominate it makes no sense to talk about the Earth and its “resources” in terms of “common home”. For them. the Earth has to be seen as a source of wealth, free of competition and rivalry among all its inhabitants (humans) in access and hoarding and in the capacity for extraction.

In this context we need to delegitimise the profound culture inspired by the American ruling classes since the end of the 18th century, which have attributed value supremacy to the principle of freedom of conquest and private property with respect to the principle of social justice which is considered of low value. It is necessary to debunk the mystifying myth of the universal model America, of the liberating America, of the America that creates the future of a better world, a mystification common to all American leaders except those who are black.

Second, by building the foundations and supporting pillars. Among the foundations, three principles have to be re-invented (re-enchant the world):

– the principle of equality among all human beings with respect to universal human rights, a principle which has been denied over the last three decades by those who dominate who affirm instead that rights have to be deserved and that rights entail access to “economic” goods and services, the costs of which must be paid individually by “consumers” or users;

– the principle of fraternity among all human beings translated into respect and empathy towards the other inhabitant members of the global community of life. Every human being participates in human history and in the history of the Earth as an inhabitant. Inhabiting makes the experience of the other and of living together an expression of the human condition and the foundation of human communities.

One learns, even if with difficulty, to recognise in the other (an increasingly enlarged reality with the passing of the centuries) a living person with whom one must learn to live together.

It is in this context that we forge our individual, and above all collective, identity; the inhabitant learns to become fraternal and build the common home, first locally then gradually, and in this day and age, at the level of the global common home. The inhabitant is a vast reality that manifests itself at all levels of human organisation from the local/village to the Earth/planet level.

Historically, the citizen has given a specific identity to the inhabitant, starting from the city/polis, then the peculiarities, as well as the rights and duties, have been circumscribed. A delimitation that became closure at the time of nation-states, to the extent that the non-national citizen was considered stateless and treated as a second-class being. The “cosmopolitan” has no juridical recognition either at the level of the city or of the Earth. Even today, the citizen encloses the inhabitant in the “local house” (village or city, region) or in the national house with all the derivations we know.

– the principle of global responsibility of human beings with respect to life, in the name of the other inhabitants of the Earth. Today, globalisation of the human condition has facilitated the recognition of the Earth as a place of global life, which has paved the way for a revaluation of the concept of the inhabitant of the Earth and the awareness of the responsibility for the life for all human beings and other inhabitants of the Earth by humanity.

The inhabitant of the Earth can be the source of a great positive process of building the citizen as a resident of the global common home. No longer a citizen extractor and consumer of the resources of the planet in rivalry with other citizens on global markets in order to ensure their survival and their power. But a citizen respectful of the security of all the expressions of life of the global city-Earth.

On this basis, among the pillars we propose “support” for:

a) a new vision and practice of the processes of generating rights and responsibilities.
In 2018, the year in which the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is being celebrated, it is indispensable to rethink the vision of rights in a perspective of collective, community, shared and participated rights extended to all inhabitants of the Earth.

The UDHR is fundamentally centred on individual rights, it consecrates the right of private ownership of the resources of the Earth, its culture has a Western orientation, it is subjected to a “national” oligarchy that excludes non-nationals and fragments citizens, it does not clearly define duties, it does not specify the role of citizen participation in the protection, control and defence of rights, and it is deeply anthropocentric.

A considerable effort that is constructive, participatory and cooperative remains to be made in the coming years and decades. There must be no lack of audacity;

b) in close connection with the foregoing, promotion of the security and protection and care of the world’s common public goods.

The first pillar is structurally destined to be fragile and therefore insecure in the absence of the promotion and protection of a set of global common public goods, in particular (to start the processes of construction of the common home) water, seeds and knowledge. The choice of these three global common goods is dictated by the fact that they are, together with the sun and the air, the crucial non-replacable goods for the life of the Earth and its inhabitants.

In this sense, the pillar of common goods means that the principle of the private ownership of the living and of artificial intelligence and the principle of the monetisation of nature are unacceptable for creation of the common home, just as it is not possible to maintain the principle of absolute and warlike national sovereignty over the Earth’s resources.

International and inter-governmental multilateralism will not allow good progress on the path of building humanity and the common home because it will not prevent “national” security wars for resources, the hoarding of resources, or competitiveness over/exclusion from the resources of the Earth.

Also in this field, there can be no lack of audacity.

*

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

Professor Emeritus Riccardo Petrella at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium). Co-promoter of the Agora of Inhabitants of the Earth. Founder and president of the University of the Common Good which opened in 2001.

Featured image is from Creative Commons/Flickr.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Earth Is the Common Home of All Inhabitants

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ address to the UN General Assembly was disappointing. It repeated the same phrases used in his last eight speeches. Nothing new at all. The same appeals for international sympathy. Even the wording of his complaints about Israel’s failure to respect agreements was unchanged. And his declaration that the US is not an honest broker but biased towards Israel we have heard a million times before.

So it was neither strange nor surprising that the chamber was almost empty of delegates and delegation heads, and that the warm applause came mostly from the Palestinian delegation.

US President Donald Trump will not heed Abbas’ demands that he rescind his recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Nor will East Jerusalem be capital of a Palestinian state, because there will be no Palestinian state at all. Not according to the US’ ‘Deal of the Century’, which has rapidly begun entering the implementation stage – with US support, the collusion of some Arabs, and Palestinian security coordination.

The US and Israel will not fret about Abbas’ threats regarding their non-compliance with the agreements signed with them. Nor will that arouse the sympathy of UN member-sates. So long as he continues talking Mother Theresa-like about peace, renouncing violence, and joining the fight against terrorism in any part of the world – as he affirmed in his speech – nobody will listen to him or take him seriously.

It was regrettable that the Palestinian president used the UN podium to discuss the agreements he signed with the Hamas movement and threaten not to abide by them. That is the only one of his threats he will actually carry out: to cut off what remains of the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s aid to the Gaza Strip. This amounts to around $90 million in electricity subsidies and salaries, the vast majority of which go to members of Fateh, the PA’s party. Is this the place to make such threats? Does the world benefit from hearing them?

The international community will not thank Abbas for promising not to resort to violence or revert to ‘terrorism” i.e. legitimate resistance to occupation. How could such thanks be forthcoming from UN delegates when so many of their countries gained their freedom through resistance, not by imploring and lamenting the loss of their rights at international forums.

Abbas has been saying for the past ten years or so that peaceful popular resistance is the only option. We ask: Where is this resistance? Why do the PA’s security forces repress all political activists and throw them in jail, or inform on them to the occupation authorities to facilitate their arrest?  Enough lies and deception, please. Respect your people’s intelligence, and their martyrs and prisoners.

We ask President Abbas: Why did the US administration cut off all aid to schools, hospitals, PA institutions and UNRWA, while increasing its aid to the Palestinian security forces, at a time when he announced a boycott of any meeting or dialogue with the US? What good did this boycott do in this case?

The fault does not lie with UN, the US, or Israel. It lies with President Abbas, his leadership and administration, his Authority, his security coordination, and his speechwriters and cheerleaders. When Palestinian leaders chose the course of resistance and sacrifice, the US and Israel and the West in its entirety sought to meet and negotiate with them, recognized them, and feared them.

This farce needs to be ended at once, and the actors stripped of their masks. It has gone too far, and the Palestinian people, both in the homeland and the diaspora, must not remain silent about this situation.


President Abbas’s full speech at the UNGA.

Jerusalem is not for sale, and the Palestinian people’s rights are not up for bargaining in the name of God, the most merciful and beneficiant, excellency Ms. Maria Fernanda Espionaza, president of the UN General Assembly and your excellency Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, peace be upon you.

Peace be upon you, we will stay and we will maintain our faith in peace. We will maintain peace and we will achieve our indepdent state with peace because God is with us and our cause is just and our people have sacrificed a lot and because you lovers of peace and God is always against those who are plaguing us with injustice and God is enough.

In these days, last year, i came before you- appealing for freedom, independence and justice for my oppressed people who are suffering under the yolk of the Israeli occupation for more than 51 years and today I return as this colonial occupation continues to suffocate us, undermining our serious unwavering efforts to build the instituitions of our cherished state which this August, the General Assembly recognized in 2011.

This year, ladies and gentlemen, the Palestinian National Council, the parliament of the state of Palestine convened and renewed the legitimacy of our national institutions through the election of a new leadership for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

This parliament undertook important decisions whereby I have to review the agreements– political, economic and security alike– that have been reached with the Israeli government and to review the future of the Palestinian National Authority which unfortunately has been rendered without authority.

The parliament also instructed me to suspend the Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel until Israel recognizes in its turn the State of Palestine on the fourth of June, 1967 borders. I was also instructed to approach international courts, including the International Criminal Court (the ICC) to investigate Israel’s breaches of treaties and the aggressions by the Israeli occupying forces and settlers against our people, on our land and our holy sites.

And you might note, ladies and gentlemen, that the Israeli settlers and even the Israeli army on every single day– they are committing acts of blasphemy against our holy sites, especially Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Ladies and gentlemen, last July Israel adopted a racist law that  crossed all the red lines and it was called the “Nation-State Law of the Jewish People.” This law denies the connection of the Palestinian people to their historic homeland and the dismisses their right to self-determination and history and hertiage as well as the UN resolutions relevant to the Palestine question and the agreements concluded with Israel.

This law will inevitably lead to the creation of one racist state, an apartheid state, and thus nullifies the two-state solution. Israel practices discrimination but actually this law comes as the epicenter of this discrimination. This law discriminates against the Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel, granting the right to self-determination exclusively to Jews in Israel, thus legalizing discrimination against those Arab citizens who constitute 20% of the population of Israel.

In addition to other non-Jews who have immigrated to Israel, thus they are stripped of the rights of citizenship. At least 5% of the current population of Israel are immigrants, they are non-Jews. They are Christians and Muslims who immigrated from the former USSR, they have also been stripped from the rights to citizenship.

This law constitues a gross breach and real danger, both politically and legally and reminds us of the apartheid state that existed in South Africa. Thus, we reject this law and condemn it in the strongest terms. And we call on the international community and this assembly to condemn it and reject it as a racist, illegal law and null and void.

The United Nations had condemned the apartheid South African state in several resolutions in the past, bearing in mind that thousands of Jews and Israeli citizens have rejected and protested against this law. 56 Knesset members out of 120 voted against it. Because they believe that it’s a racist law. That’s why I call upon the UN to follow the same line, to follow in the footsteps of a number of Israeli citizens who rejected this law altogether in letter and in spirit.

This racist law, ladies and gentlemen, talks about what is called ‘the Land of Israel.’ Can you ask the Israeli government what exactly constitutes the land of Israel? What are the borders of the State of Israel? I challenge anyone to tell us what they are. Where are the borders of the State of Israel? Please bring me a map and just show where are the borders of Israel. This racist law consitutes another stigma on Israel and anyone who can censor it and condones such acts.

This law is just like other Israeli laws that legislated theft, piracy and confiscation of the land, property and funds of the Palestinian people.

We have always positively and fully engaged with the various initiatives of the international community that have aimed at achieving  resolve the conflict between us and the Israelis, including the Arab Peace Initiative which was recognized by the Security Council in its resolution 1515 of 2013.

We continued on this path with the administration of President Trump from the start of his tenure with the same positive engagement and we welcomed his launching of the initiative of peace and I have met with him numerous times.

We awaited his peace initiative with utmost patience but we were shocked by his decisions and actions that completely contradict the rule and committment of his administration towards the peace process. So in November 2017 his administration issued a decision to close the PLO office in Washington, DC. He then announced his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and thus transferred his country’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and he even boasts that he has removed the issues of Jerusalem refugees, settlements and security off the negotiation table.

All such decisions threaten the Palestinian national cause and constitute an assault on international law and relevant UN resolutions. The US administration went even further in its assault by cutting assistance to the Palestinian National Authority, the UNRWA and Palestinian hospitals in occupied East Jerusalem. Then they’re speaking now about humanitarian aid. Even the humanitarian aid has been cut off.

With all of these decisions this administration has reneged on all previous US committments and even undermined the two-state solution and revealed its false claims about the humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people.

It’s really ironic that the American administration still talk about what they call the deal of the century, but what is left for this administration to give to the Palestinian people? Only humanitarian solutions, because when they remove off of the negotiation table Jerusalem, refugees and security- what is left?

What is left as a political solution? The U.S. Congress continues to insist on considering the PLO, which is recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by the overwhelming majority of countries of the world including Israel, as a terrorist organization.

And by the way, the PLO is recognized by Israel; however, the U.S. Congress claims that the PLO is a terrorist organization at a time when the State of Palestine cooperates with the majority of countries of the world, including the U.S., to combat terrorism.

Then why is this animosity against the Palestinian people who are suffering under the yolk of an occupation duly supported by the U.S.? I would like to tell them, our positions are firm and clear for all to see and we challenge you if we have committed a single mistake in our long journey– however the Congress comes out of the blue to say that the PLO is a terrorist organization. How come?

For years we have affirmed our readiness to the U.S. administration to establish a Palestinian-American committee that will examine the legal and political status of the PLO as a means of proving to them that the PLO is committed to achieving peace and combating terrorism as well as to also demonstrate that the Congress legislation regarding the PLO is arbitrary, unlawful and unjustified and deliberately ignores the offical agreement with the U.S. administration to combat terrorism; an agreement which we have also concluded with 83 other countries.

We have protocols with 83 countries under the heading or the title of ‘Combating Terrorism’ including the U.S., however the Congress calls us terrorists.

Despite of all of this and from this platform I renew my call to President Trump to walk back his decisions regarding Jerusalem, refugees and and settelements. Which contravene with international law and UN resolutions as well as the understandings that we have reached in order to salvage the prospects of peace and to achieve stability and security for future generations.

By the way, this is an example of those understanding, this is a letter duly signed between the U.S. administration and Palestine regarding all these causes that are now just igonred. Ladies and gentlemen, consistent with our committment to peace and the two-state solution and the path of negotiations to achieve, a path we have never refused and i do challenge you to tell me about any single time where we refused to come to the negotiation table.

To the contrary. We have been invited more than once by more than one country here and they told us, they invited us to sit with Netanyahu and in every single time I accepted and I do challenge you to tell me that I have refused once or if they have, on the other hand, accepted once.

So we have never refused these negotiations with a view to rescuing the peace process and I came before the Security Council on the 20th of February this year and presented an initiative calling for the convening of an international peace conference based on the relevant UN resolutions and the internationally-endorsed terms of reference and parameters. Such a conference should involve broad international participation that includes regional and international stakeholders led by the parliament members of the Security Council and the Quartet.

We shall circulate this initiative in its entirety to you and hope you will support it. Here I reiterate that we are not against negotiations, in the least, and we have never rejected negotiations on any single day and we will continue to extend our hands for peace. We only believe in peace. Peace is the only path. We don’t believe in terrorism and violence. And we spared no occasion to reiterate this belief. Then what?

If you’re speaking about UN resolutions, okay, these UN resolutions had not… not a single UN resolution has been respected by Israel. Then you are speaking about negotiations and solutions? What kind of negotiations and solutions? Peace in our region cannot be realized without an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and with all the holy sites.

Some people try to outsmart us and they say okay, your capital is in East Jerusalem. No, I’m sorry– this is a manipulation of words. This means here or there or whichever region that are surrounding Jerusalem. No. Our capital is East Jerusalem and not in East Jerusalem.

And please don’t try to outsmart us. Whether Abu-Dis or in East Jerusalem and then you can pick and choose an area here or there. No. East Jerusalem which has been occupied in 1967 is our capital. There’s no peace otherwise and there is no peace with a state of temporary borders. By the way, they invented this idea of state with temporary borders. Okay, we will give you a state but with unknown borders.

You know what, this is exactly a state like Israel with unknown borders. And then let us talk. No. You want a state with very well-defined borders and rights and then we can co-exist with the Israelis, but otherwise no.

Here you are 183 states. Plus another country that has recognized us which is Colombia. However, this will, I will continue and this will come in my speech. I thus call upon all the countries of the world that have not yet recognized the state of Palestine this long overdue recognition. I can no longer see a convincing reason for the continued delay of the recognition of Palestine by some countries.

In this context, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in 2019 the State of Palestine will chair the Group of 77 and China. By the way, ten minutes ago I met in another conference room his excellency President Sissi who announced that we have been freely elected by 144 countries to chair the Group of 77 and China.

Nevertheless, there are some countries saying that we recognize both countries, or maybe we recognize Israel but we don’t recognize Palestine. So what? If you claim that you recognize the two states and you recognize Israel but you don’t recognize Palestine then this is a conundrum. What’s your interest?

It’s unacceptable and we tell these countries– yes, you have to recognize Palestine. This doesn’t mean that we will not go for negotiations; on the contrary. This will bolster our international position and we will be able with your support to go to negotiations when you recognize the State of Palestine and this recognition should not be unilateral. You should not only recognize one state and not the other.

No. You have to recognize both states. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you again that Israel has not implemented any one of the hundreds of General Assembly resolutions. There are 705 resolutions issued by the General Assembly since 1947 to date and Security Council resolutions since 1948 to date not a single resolution has been implemented by Israel and unfortunately I would like to be very frank and honest.

Israel is supported by the US because the General Assembly and other countries– when we ask them, they just agree, when we ask them, they gave us 139 votes and 42 were actually abstained. Those who opposed were only four countries. Until when Israel will act with impunity? Until when Israel will act and rebel as it likes supported by whomever it likes?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are resisting the Israeli occupation by way of legitimate means that have been decided by your international organization. We, the only means which we used is the peaceful, popular resistance. Is this illegal? On the other hand, the settlers are using arms against Palestinians?

They barge cities and towns and villages with arms. I’m not here speaking about the IDF. I’m speaking about the Israeli settlers. But we will continue to refuse using and reject violence and we reject all kinds of arms and we will never accept using weapons and we call upon the world to pursue the efforts of nuclear disarmament and even traditional disarmament.

Now we have a problem in Khan al-Ahmar. Israel is adamant on destroying this region and this region has been populated for more than 50 years but if it destroys this village it is thus destroying the unity of the West Bank. It will be divided into north and south. Do you agree to this? Do you condone this? Not to mention the aggressions against Al-Aqsa. Do you remember the aggressions, the assault against Al-Aqsa?

Now we are told that the Israeli supreme court will issue a decision to divide Al-Aqsa, spacially and time-wise. For sure this is totally unacceptable and I’m sure that those with chivalry, dignity and peace lovers will not accept this and Israel should bear the brunt. Such thuggery should come to an end. Because it makes no sense. Every single day a decision is passed by that court as if we don’t exist.

We managed to get a resolution from the UN for international protection because every day we are attacked and we are incapable of protecting ourselves; okay, a resolution was passed but who will implement this resolution? And very honestly it’s insufficient for the General Assembly to pass a resolution that remains without implementation exactly like other resolutions.

The General Assembly should also respect its resolutions but to pass a resolution and then we applaud the resolution and we cheer it and then what? Please guide us, tell us how can we implement such resolutions? This is your responsibility.

In support to our people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through legitimate institutions we refuse that this support  be considered as a substitute for a solution. Because humanitarian aid, you know what, our cause has many humanitarian aspects but without a political solution- really we don’t need such humanitarian aid. Don’t fool us and tell us that you are helping us. Actually we are after the right to self-determination of our people.

Full stop. No single people on earth does not enjoy the rights to self-determination. We are 13 million Palestinians all over the world. Why are we denied the right to self-determination? By the way, this will not harm anybody. We need to establish our independent state which will live side by side with the Israeli state. Where is the mistake here? Where is the crime here?

We continue to exert genuine, serious efforts to end the divison and to achieve reconciliation, despite the many obstacles to ahieving these aims we continue to uphold our responsibilities towards our people to date. We express our appreciation to our Arab brethern, in particular the Arab Republic of Egypt, for the efforts undertaken to end this division, hoping that they will be rendered successful.

We made an agreement with an Egyptian sponsorship on the 12th of October and the agreement is so simple: The Palestinian government will carry out its responsbilities in Gaza and in the West Bank. Then we will build our state on the basis of unified law, unified authority, unified regime and only one single legitimate armed forces. We reject the idea of militias. However, this agreement has not been accepted and so far it has not been approved.

Maybe in the coming few days we’ll witness the last round of talks and then maybe we will take another action. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to conclude as follows: The Palestinian people, 13 million human beings, unless we are not viewed as human beings by some. We are not redundant. Notwithstanding how big a population is, it’s not redundant. Why are we treated as redundant people that should be got rid of? This is totally unacceptable.

However we are patient and we are steadfast and we believe in peace. But we just need to be viewed as humans. We are not redundant. We have concluded agreements with the U.S. administration and the U.S. administration has reneged on all these agreements. However, we are committed and we will abide by our part of the agreement. However, if they reneged on these agreements we will not abide. Thereby, it takes two to tango so an agreement should be respected by both parties. I will respect it from A-Z. However, if the U.S. administration fails to respect the agreement we will not be able to hold our part thereof.

The U.S. acts as a mediator. However, now we view the U.S. with new eyes. The U.S. cannot be a mediator single-handedly. We have the Quartet. Okay, they can join the Quartet. Any country can join the Quartet whether it’s in Europe, the U.S., the Americas, Africa, even the Arab countries. Anyone can join the Quartet to act as mediators between ourselves and the Israelis. But the U.S. alone? No, because they are too much biased to Israel.

There are also agreements with Israel starting with the Oslo agreement and the Paris agreement and all these agreements have been abrogated by Israel and we call upon Israel to re-engage in these agreements. Otherwise, we will not hold our part of those agreements. We have also concluded agreements with Hamas.

Our brothers in Egypt know that we held our side of the agreement but Hamas failed to fulfill its obligations according to the agreement. That’s why we will not bear any responsibility in this regard and I would like this to be totally crystal clear.

We will not bear any responsibility if Hamas insists on refusing to abide by the agreement. In spite of all this and despite all this injustice from the world we will never resort to violence or terrorism. We will continue to combat violence and terrorism all over the globe. We will never accept any aggression against any country, whether this country recognizes us or doesn’t recognize us, loves us or dislikes us.

There’s a very important point: The U.S. administration said that the number of refugees is 40,000 only. I want to know the formula whereby you calculated this number. Just go to UNRWA, they definitely don’t want to go back to UNRWA– they want to obliterate it altogether– the UNRWA was established in 1949 to help refugees until their question is solved and to this date this cause has not been solved, until now, out of 13 million we have six million refugees. Not 40,000 as per the U.S. administration. Such facts just come out of the blue. What is the formula of calculation? They just calculated and decided to remove the UNRWA from the picture?

Finally, I call upon our people to remain patient, steadfast and to continue to sacrifice until we achieve indepedence and self-determination and to establish an indepedent state with Jerusalem as its capital and not in Jerusalem. I pay tribute to all freedom-loving countries and peoples and our martyrs and I would like to tell all Palestinians: Israel considers them as criminals.

Why? In Israel there are thousands who are used to assaulting everybody and they’re considering? Why is the man who killed Rabin is a hero while our people are criminals? I pay tribute our hero martyrs and prisoners of war. I would like to tell you all that soon the dawn of freedom and independence will shine and occupation will go into the darkness of history and peace be upon you.”

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Madam President Haley?

September 30th, 2018 by Kurt Nimmo

For months now, indeed for over a year, the corporate media has tossed around the prospect of Trump’s UN ambassador Nikki Haley becoming president. They say it is entirely possible Americans will vote for this woman. She’s perceived as tough with the latch of a bull dog, relentlessly confronting Iran, Venezuela, and other enemies of the neoliberal order. 

I am convinced my fellow Americans will vote for Haley. Most vote with superficialities in mind and can’t be bothered to bone up on geopolitics. This is what happened with Donald Trump. Americans voted for him because he talked the talk about taking down the globalist racket that has shipped their jobs overseas and allowed impoverished Mexicans to rush over the border in search of work and handouts. 

It was obvious Trump would be unable to do what he said on the campaign trail. He sent mixed messages—get US troops out of the Middle East while advocating bombing Syria and Iran, stealing oil, and killing suspected terrorists and their families—while all the while focusing with idiot savant obsession on a wall that will never be built, a wall in response to neoliberal policies that have wiped out the Mexican farmer and hobbled economic growth in country where the elite takes all but a few crumbs left for the campesinos. But not even Mexico, with more than fifty percent of the population in poverty, can compete with the authoritarian slave labor camp known as China. 

This is why Trump needs his wall, a supposed backstop preventing desperate Mexicans from entering the country in search of agricultural work and welfare state handouts in the United States. Trump has given lip service to dismantling international corporatist trade deals, but thus far nothing has changed. The wall is a mirage in the desert. 

People will vote for Haley for the same reason. She will make all kinds of promises, few achievable and many undesirable and even absurd. Most Americans will not notice. They will follow the corporate media, which shapes their opinions.

Here’s what the script readers will not tell the largely disenfranchised American public: Nikki Haley is a Zionist. Everything in her world orbits around Israel. She knew, even as a school girl, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv. Haley—and Sec. State Pompeo and especially neocon madman adviser to the president Bolton—believe the epicenter of the evil and terror in the world emanates from Iran, never mind Iran has not thought about nukes in over a decade and a half (around the time Bush and his neocons invaded a sanctions-wracked Iraq). The last time Iran (then Persia) crossed its borders to attack a neighbor was in 1798 when the shah invaded Basra.

The US feigns outrage over Iran’s relationship with Iraq while conveniently ignoring the fact 60% of the country is Shi’a, and less the 30% Sunni. The Wahhabi Sunnis in Riyadh have been driven insane by the presence of a small Zaidiyyah sect (a Shi’a offshoot) that emerged from Sa’dah in northern Yemen in the 1990s. This wasn’t much of a problem for Saudi Arabia until the Houthis overthrew the US and Saudi client Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. He fled to a Riyadh airbase and was embraced by Saudi Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. What followed—with the help of the US—was a series of war crimes resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis. Undoubtedly, for Saudi Arabia, this isn’t a problem—the Houthis are infidels, unbelievers, lowly and death-deserving kafara. For Saudi Arabia, there isn’t a humanitarian crisis in Yemen because, according to the austere and violent nature of Wahhabism, the Houthis are on the receiving end of Allah’s wrath. 

If Nikki Haley is elected president—and more than a few see this as a distinct possibility—the relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia will intensify and—if Bolton doesn’t convince Trump to bomb Iran before 2020—there will be a war, possibly involving Russia and China. 

The neocons weathered a two-term Obama and are now enduring the weathervane and geopolitical imbecile Trump, a man they hate so passionately many are teaming up with Democrats to dethrone him. 

That won’t be a problem for Nikki. She understands how the game is played. Israel is a top priority. Smashing Iran, in similar fashion to Iraq before it, is at the very top of the neocon creative destruction agenda. 

Madam Haley will reorient US foreign policy and set it straight on a path to the ultimate destruction of not only Iran and Syria, but the United States as well. Empires invariably fall and Nikki Haley is an ideal candidate to oversee the destruction of America. 

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Madam President Haley?

Russia and the Taming of the Israelis

September 30th, 2018 by Israel Shamir

Russia’s unexpected decision to supply Syria with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems and to integrate Syria’s air defence within the Russian command calls for a quick reassessment of our views. It turned out that Russia is able to learn and respond in an unanticipated way. Yes, in the immediate aftermath of the Il-20 downing, the Russian reaction had been weak. The Russians agreed with Israelis that the plane had been hit by a Syrian S-200 missile. They provided the Israeli military with an opportunity to offer and defend their version of events, while Putin spoke of a “tragic chain of events”, apparently exculpating his Israeli partner.

I must admit I had thought that the Russians would accept the Israeli explanations, and the case would rest. This was the view of pro-Kremlin writers and bloggers, and they often know the mind of the Russian authorities. These guys and gals do not get their instructions directly from the Kremlin, nor do they have a consistent view of Russian interests nor an opinion of their own; usually they try to guess what the Kremlin will do next and build a defence line for it. If you watch them, you’ll get an idea of what the expectation.

They took a rather pro-Israeli line. Whoever called for a stronger response to the Israeli provocation, was called an “anti-Semite firebrand”. This is not as deadly a marker in Russia as it is in the West, but it still is not a great compliment, either. Some pro-Kremlin writers blamed the Syrians; so did the liberal opposition to Putin. Julia Latynina, the pet Russian writer of Western liberals, a Putin nemesis, a recipient of the Defender of Freedom Award, with hundreds of references in the Guardian and the New York Times, called the Syrians – “apes”. (The Russian anti-Putin liberals are racist beyond belief but they love Jews).

A pro-Kremlin English-language writer said that the Iranians (sic!) were to be blamed; perhaps they pushed the button and destroyed the Il. And Syrians surely were guilty as hell. He also ferociously attacked the experts who spoke of Israeli responsibility and called them “antisemites”. The chief editors of the Russian semi-official media apparently thought Putin wanted to forget about the whole business of the downed Il-20 as fast as possible. They promptly erased it from their agenda. Incredibly, on the next day the Russian media was practically free from any reference to the disaster. Only the hard old men of the opposition grumbled in their marginal online journals: “We are lost,” “Putin obeys his oligarchs,” “The Jewish lobby in Moscow won”, “Putin cares more of his Jewish friends than of the Russian soldiers”. But they were premature.

In Israel, the Ministry of Defence people rubbed their hands and said: We bombed all, we are bombing and we shall bomb as we find fit. They advised the Russians to blame Syria and accept the Israeli version of events. Israeli social networks rejoiced. But their joy was premature, too.

The first signal of something amiss was sent when the Russians refused to receive an Israeli high-level delegation in Moscow. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Lieberman proposed to fly to Moscow personally, but they were rebuffed. Only a military delegation led by the Israel Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin was allowed to come and present their version. It was found wanting. The Russian Ministry of Defence produced ample evidence that the Israelis knowingly caused the loss of the plane with all hands. Netanyahu had made a person-to-person call to President Putin, it was of no avail.

Apparently Putin was upset on a personal level with the Israeli attack. He is known for hating betrayal. He considered Netanyahu to be almost a personal friend, and the downing of the plane by this erstwhile friend grieved him a lot, so people close to the Kremlin intuit. There are less personal interpretations. In the same time the ruling (Putin’s) party United Russia suffered humiliating defeats in governors’ elections. 70% to 30% the incumbents were voted out, and representatives of strongly anti-Western coalition of Nationalists and Communists conquered those three districts. In the Armed Forces, the idea of letting bygones be bygones was rejected out of hand. The army demanded a stronger response.

Putin is the most pro-Western ruler Russia is likely to have; his successor will probably be more rigid to Western demands, while pro-Western elements (“liberals”) have a snowball-in-hell chance to come to power in Russia via the election booth. That’s why Putin has to watch his step to keep in line with his base, as any ruler does. He didn’t want to spoil relations with Israel, but freedom of action had to be denied to the Israeli Air Force.

There was a lull when the disaster of the downed plane completely disappeared from media, Russian or Western. It was not mentioned by the New York Times, it was not mentioned by the Russian newspapers. And after that, unexpectedly, the Russian Defence Minister Mr Shoygu made his announcement. Russia responded adequately, closing the sky over Syria, or at least over Western Syria, and activating its powerful GPS-jamming system off the Syrian coast. Israel has lost its right to bomb Syria at will.

The Russians said it will take them two weeks to deliver, install and make the system operative. I have heard that the system of up to eight S-300 had already been delivered by massive airlift a few days ago, with cargo planes landing in Syria every few minutes. Probably two weeks will be needed to install and activate the system.

Now in Israel the response was of two kinds. The hot heads said Israel is not worried by S-300; they know how to deal with it, and if necessary, Israeli commandos will come and sabotage the system just in time for a massive air attack by Israeli bombers. Sensible people said Israel should try to repair relations with the Russian military. The Russians did a lot of what the Israelis asked them for, including removal of Iranian forces from the vicinity of Israeli borders (rather, armistice lines). A thorough investigation of the air disaster may uncover the mistakes and convince the Russians that they aren’t likely to occur again.

Netanyahu sounded like he was trying to minimise the strife with the Russians. After meeting with President Trump in New York, he said that he came with specific requests “and I received everything I wanted from him [Trump]. Our goal is to preserve the connection with Russia and on the other hand to defend Israel’s security against these threats.”

So, for good or bad, Israel is not going to break relations with Russia, and Russia is not going to go further, beyond sealing Syria’s sky for Israeli raids. If Israeli leadership will keep its fingers away from Syria, things may cool down. Otherwise, the results will be quite unpredictable.

In Israel, there aren’t many people at the top, apart of Netanyahu and Lieberman, who cherish their country’s involvement with Russia. For Israelis, Putin is one of many unsavoury leaders from Idi Amin to Orban their country has to play ball with. Russia is not popular with ordinary Israelis who prefer America or Germany. A lot of Israelis will be pleased with breakup of this connection. Immediately after the Russian decision had been announced, Haaretz had made its feelings clear: “In recent years, Russia has been caught lying or spreading disinformation about its role in a number of incidents, the most recent being its involvement in the U.S. presidential elections, the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain, and the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So it’s hard to believe that anyone but Syria and Iran will adopt the Russian version of last week’s events.” This is not a way one’s partner is usually described.

More conspiratorially minded Israelis opined that beyond downing of the Il, there was an Air Force plot against Netanyahu and Lieberman who are unpopular within the top echelon of IDF. Others say it was an American Secret Service plot to undermine Russian-Israeli connection.

For otherwise, why did the Israelis do that? Were they just careless and brutal, as is their wont? They didn’t give a damn about the Russians, and considered them a lesser breed, whose life is of little importance. This is a possible reading, quite consistent with their general attitude to strangers considered to be children of a lesser God.

On the other hand, it is possible that the whole Israeli raid had been staged to down the reconnaissance plane and to leave the Russians without its real-time intelligence data. In 1967, the Israelis bombed and sunk the USS Liberty, an electronic spy ship, the then equivalent of Il-20, for they did not want to have foreign eyes and ears in the area. But then, there was an ongoing full-scale war between Israel and Egypt, and the USS Liberty had been attacked just before the planned Israeli invasion of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Could it be that Israelis expected an attack by France, England and the US upon Syria on that night, an attack that did not materialise thanks to the Russian-Turkish agreement on Idlib? There was a British plane and a French frigate in the vicinity, and a whole lot of American ships.

The agreement on Idlib was a very important event, though Il-20 displaced it out of our collective memory. Putin and Erdogan reached a working compromise, thus avoiding almost unavoidable large scale hostilities. The White Helmets had already prepared a film with staged chemical attack upon Syrian children, but the agreement had made the attack improbable in the first place. It is possible that the American coalition assault had been postponed in the last moment, when the Russian plane had been already downed.

However, all is well that ends well. Russian decision to create practically a no-fly zone is a good decision, good for all. It is good for Russians as they learned that their Commander-in-Chief can make strong decisions. It is good for Syria, as they will suffer less of the Israeli bombardments. And it is really good for Israel, as this naughty child, a spoiled brat, a darling of America had to be forbidden to bother neighbouring children. The automatic missile defence system will provide a threat of spanking. The kid had been told that he is not allowed to kill neighbours. With its excessive aggressiveness multiplied by impunity, Israel has been spoiled, as anybody would. With this block, Israel can still become a mensch, and for this chance, thank you, Russia.

Will Tel-Aviv use this chance? The US will try to frustrate the Russian taming of Israel. John Bolton and Mike Pompeo already declared that no one may interfere with Israel’s divine right to freely bomb Syria. Will the Israeli lobby in America be able to neutralise Moscow’s decision and unhinge Israeli soul once again? Will they convince Putin to postpone his decision like they did in April, and a few years ago? I do not think so.

We can congratulate the leadership of Russia on the consistent, justified and well-balanced decision that may yet tame the Jewish shrew.

*

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 first published on The Unz Review.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia and the Taming of the Israelis

The AE911Truth team recently returned from an inspiring series of events we held on September 11, 2018, in the heart of the nation’s capital.

We were joined by a handful of eloquent and moving speakers — including British 9/11 family member Matt Campbell — and by dozens of dedicated activists from the Washington, D.C., area. The latter are fortunate to be stationed where they can speak their message face-to-face with elected officials who’ve failed, for 17 long years, to properly investigate the crimes at the World Trade Center.

This is the story of how we came together to remember the nearly 3,000 people who were murdered that day and to reassert the worldwide demand for 9/11 truth and justice.

Morning at the White House

Our first action of the day was at 10:00 AM outside the White House, led by our intrepid operations manager, Andrew Steele. Why the White House? Because Donald Trump — then candidate Trump — promised on February 15, 2016, that under his watch we would “find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.”

The DC911Truth Crew

Karl Golovin, Lou Wolf, and Diana Castillo are among the dozen ever-present, hard-working crew of DC911Truth. They were a part of AE911Truth’s action at the White House on September 11th, exhorting the president to get to the bottom of 9/11 as promised.

Thus, we came to implore the President to make good on his promise and to hold the FBI accountable for its refusal to investigate the use of explosives in the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers (and this despite the FBI’s former assistant director of counterterrorism acknowledging, in writing, the “thorough research and analysis” of AE911Truth).

While in front of the White House, we distributed 1,000 palm cards to tourists, which informed them of the Bobby McIlvaine Act and the pressing need for an unbiased investigation of the WTC destruction.

“We had to be right there in front of the White House,” observed Steele. “If not to wake up our sleeping President, then at least to educate the hundreds of tourists there, who seemed especially eager to listen.”

Agreed Diana Castillo of the DC 9/11 Truth group: “This is what we need to be doing, not only in D.C. but around the world.”

My sense, based on the reactions of onlookers, is that the world is ready. All we need is the right catalyst — a major political event of some kind — and the dam will break.

Afternoon at the Capitol Building

Our first-ever rally at the U.S. Capitol, which we titled 9/11 Justice for All, took place at 2:00 PM. We ignored the forecast of thunderstorms and went ahead undaunted.

Richard_Gage at Rally

Richard Gage led off the afternoon rally. Behind him stood photos of several 9/11 victims whose families are campaigning with AE911Truth for a new WTC investigation.

And we could not have chosen a better spot at the Capitol: right there on the west lawn directly in front of the massive marble steps leading up to the House and Senate chambers.

I opened the event by explaining our main reason for being at the Capitol: “We need to be visible, right here in front of our 535 members of Congress who were elected to represent us, but who so far have been negligent in seeking — or even being willing to listen to — the truth about 9/11.” Yes, we are raising the stakes!

We were thrilled to have Lionel of “Lionel Media” give the first of the afternoon’s powerful speeches. With his usual penetrating wit, Lionel lit up the stage by skewering both those who are unwilling to ask the most basic questions about 9/11 — such as, “Where’s the plane?” (think Shanksville) — and those who ridicule other people for daring to ask such questions.

Lionel at Rally

Lionel urged the crowd to never be afraid of asking taboo questions and to never be intimidated by those who ridicule anyone for asking such questions.

According to Lionel, many people refuse to look deeper than the official 9/11 narrative on the grounds that there isn’t a coherent alternative theory of “whodunit.” But he countered that argument with this line of legal reasoning: “Before I get to who did it, I got to get to what it was they did?! It’s a simple question. . . . All I’m saying is that we need more of an investigation. And that’s all we’re asking for.”

After Lionel spoke, I provided a summary of my recent pungently worded letter to President Trump, which had been sent in concert with letters from 25 other 9/11 Truth leaders and researchers. In it, I admonished him to pursue his correct hunch — arrived at on the day of 9/11 — that “explosives had been placed in the building.” I also recited 16 questions from my letter that point to the indisputable evidence of controlled demolition, which cannot be explained by the government’s premise of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse.

Then I introduced Matt Campbell, who lost his brother Geoff on the 106th floor of the North Tower 17 years ago and who traveled all the way from the U.K. to the U.S. capital. Matt was there on behalf of all the 9/11 family members who have endorsed the Bobby McIlvaine Act.

In his speech, he stirringly invoked the successful struggle of the Bloody Sunday families as inspiration and guidance for the 9/11 family members and activists who continue against all odds to fight for truth and justice.

Matt Campbell

9/11 family member Matt Campbell, assisted by AE911Truth’s Ted Walter, honored the 9/11 victims by reading statements from surviving loved ones.

Matt ended his remarks with a rousing quote from Irish activist, journalist, and politician Eamonn McCann: “In the end, that might be the legacy of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign, the extent to which it enables people elsewhere faced with impossible odds to look at the Bloody Sunday campaign and say of their own campaign, ‘Let’s keep on — this might just f–king work.’”

Next Matt read a series of heart-wrenching statements from other 9/11 family members who could not be in attendance that day. They included Bob McIlvaine, whose son Bobby was killed by an explosion while entering the North Tower’s lobby before the building came down. It is in Bobby’s honor that the above-mentioned proposed legislation for a new WTC investigation has been named.

Bill Brinnier, a New York architect, then took the stage to honor his best friend, Frank DeMartini, who was the construction manager at the World Trade Center and was killed on the 88th floor of the North Tower.

Bill spoke about his friendship with Frank with great fondness and about the 9/11 Truth community’s need for perseverance. He also drew from the technical knowledge he had acquired during his frequent visits with DeMartini to the World Trade Center. And he described his journey from uneasy acceptance of the official explanation to his current position of challenging that false explanation with everything he’s got.

Architect and AE911Truth petition signer Bill Brinnier spoke fondly of his best friend Frank DeMartini, who was construction manager at the World Trade Center and who died on 9/11.

Congressional Office Buildings

At the conclusion of our rally, we organized our “troops” and enlisted 16 volunteer “soldiers” to head over to the six Senate and House office buildings.

Rally Groups

AE911Truth’s Andy Steele and Ted Walter organized the crowd into six separate groups for the purpose of delivering our literature to all 535 congressional offices immediately after the 2:00 PM rally concluded.

With only an hour to go before legislators’ offices closed for the day, we delivered our petition (signed by more than 3,000 architects and engineers) and literature about the Bobby McIlvaine Act to all 535 members of Congress (plus six delegates).

This marks the second year in a row, and the fourth time since AE911Truth’s founding in 2006, that we’ve hand-delivered our materials to every senator and representative. Our goal, as it has been since we launched the Bobby McIlvaine Act on September 11, 2017, is to find at least one legislator with the moral fortitude to introduce the Act, trusting that this one act of courage will be the catalyst that sparks a nationwide conversation.

Richard Gage and Josh Willis

Richard Gage and dedicated AE911Truth volunteer Josh Willis took part in the coordinated effort to deliver our petition and Bobby McIlvaine literature to all 535 members of Congress in one hour. Josh has repeatedly visited and contacted his local congressman, Rep. Roger Williams of Texas, since the launch of the Bobby McIlvaine campaign.

If you haven’t already done so, you can easily contact your congressperson and two senators on our Bobby McIlvaine webpage. We’re counting on you to take this simple action that could make the difference in getting the Bobby McIlvaine Act introduced.

Evening at Busboys and Poets

After our afternoon at the Capitol was over, we rushed over to our evening venue, Busboys and Poets — quite possibly the trendiest joint in Washington’s entertainment district! We kicked off the night with the rousing music of Jordan Page, the avant-garde, patriot singer-songwriter. And, as we suspected he would, he brought the house down!

Jordan Page

Jordan Page was clearly the hit of the evening event at Busboys and Poets.

Not surprisingly, the crowd favorite was Jordan’s song about World Trade Center Building 7, which pulsated with the catchy chorus, “What ever happened to Building 7? . . . Each and every war was founded in deception.”

Most of our speakers from earlier in the day — Matt Campbell, Bill Brinnier, and I — each took the stage once again. We were joined by other speakers, including Oscar Abudara Bini, an Argentine researcher of many false-flag attacks that have spanned the past 15 years (he flew all the way from South America to D.C. to share his research!) and Robert David Steele, who coordinated the delivery of 26 letters to President Trump from leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement (mentioned above).

Richard Gage and WTC7

Richard Gage, AIA, insists that every 9/11 Truth advocate needs to know the details about the controlled demolition of Building 7, which he calls “the smoking gun of 9/11!”

Late Night on the Radio

Last but not least, George Noory of Coast to Coast AM radio got an earful of the WTC evidencelate into the night of the 9/11 commemoration. Actually, it was 9/12 by the time I awoke at 3:00 AM Eastern with the goal of ensuring that a nationwide audience of two million listeners would hear the truth about 9/11 through this far-reaching interview.

Richard Gage Coast to Coast

Though he’s a friend of 9/11 Truth, Noory nevertheless peppered me with a barrage of tough questions right up front. As in my previous interviews with him, I responded with straightforward, succinct answers about the WTC forensic evidence and its difficult-to-admit implications. Most of the callers were supportive of our work and asked outstanding questions.

Marching Onward

In his speech earlier in the day, our friend, colleague, and leading 9/11 family advocate Matt Campbell articulated the very reason we continue to fight 17 years later: “Whenever the authorities are involved in murder and its subsequent cover-up, it’s only through the determination and perseverance of family members and individuals that truth and justice can have any chance of prevailing, even when the chances of succeeding appear to be slim.”

I know Matt is right, for I have you to thank for your determination and perseverance! Please visit our Bobby McIlvaine page to find out how you can be a part of this winning, world-changing campaign.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 17th Anniversary: 9/11 Family Members, Technical Experts Stand Tall for Truth and Justice at U.S. Capitol

China’s top refiner Sinopec is halving its oil imports from Iran as of September, bowing to pressure from the United States, which is seeking to bring Iranian oil exports down to zero with the sanctions returning in November, Reuters reported on Friday, quoting people familiar with the issue.

Sinopec will reduce its imports from Iran to around 130,000 bpd, based on Reuters calculation on the prevailing supply contracts between the Chinese company and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).

China has previously stated that it would not stop buying Iranian oil despite U.S. efforts to have the Iranian exports down to zero. But Beijing is also said to have agreed not to increase its oil purchases from Iran. Iran, for its part, is keen to keep its single biggest oil customer—China—when U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports kick in.

Analysts have so far assumed that China will keep buying Iranian oil and be pretty much the only certain meaningful customer of Iran, because the other major buyer, India, is even more hard-pressed by the United States to wind down purchases from Tehran.

Sinopec—listed in Hong Kong, but more importantly, also in New York—is now facing direct pressure from the United States to curtail Iranian oil imports.

According to one of Reuters’s sources, U.S. officials visited Sinopec in Beijing in August and demanded steep reductions of oil imports from Iran.

“This round is completely different from last time. Then it was more of a consultative tone, but this time it’s almost like an ultimatum,” the source told Reuters.

Last month, Chinese refiners and oil traders were said to have started to switch to using Iran-owned tankers for almost all their crude oil imports from Tehran, in order to keep Iranian oil flowing to China.

But shipping and insurance sources told Reuters on Friday that Iran faces difficulties in insuring its own ships because western re-insurance firms are quitting their Iranian businesses.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

The raging feud between Saudi Arabia and Canada has hit the United Nations. 

On the margins of the 2018 UN General Assembly session in New York City this week, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister equated Canada’s call for the release of Saudi women’s rights activists to his own country demanding “the immediate release and independence of Quebec”.

Adel al-Jubeir called on Canada to apologise for demanding the activists’ release, and to stop treating the kingdom as “a banana republic” if it wanted to resolve the diplomatic dispute between the two countries.

In August, Saudi Arabia froze new trade with Canada, blocked grain imports, expelled Canada’s ambassador and ordered all Saudi students home after Ottawa called for the release of activists detained for urging more rights for women.

“It is outrageous from our perspective that a country will sit there and lecture us and make demands. ‘We demand the immediate release’… Really?” Jubeir said at an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday, as reported by Reuters.

“We demand the immediate independence of Quebec and the equal granting of rights to Canadian Indians,” which Canada refers to as the First Nations indigenous people, the minister then added, sarcastically making the comparison to illustrate his point.

“You can criticise us about human rights, women’s rights… others do and that’s your right,” said Jubeir.

“You can sit down and talk about it, but demand the immediate release? What are we, a banana republic? Would any country accept it? No! We don’t,” the minister added.

The dispute arose from Canada’s criticism over the arrests, including that of prominent women’s rights campaigner Samar Badawi.

Her brother Raif Badawi, a prominent blogger, is serving a 10-year sentence and has been publicly flogged for expressing dissenting opinions online. His wife and children live in Canada and are Canadian citizens.

A number of women’s rights activists, who campaigned for the right to drive and an end to the kingdom’s male guardianship system, have been targeted in a government crackdown in recent months, human rights’ groups say.

‘Say you made a mistake’

Jubeir said Canada could easily resolve the situtation by apologising for its actions.

“We don’t want to be a political football in Canada’s domestic politics. Find another ball to play with,” he said.

“It’s very easy to fix. Apologise and say you made a mistake.”

Canadian foreign minister Chrystia Freeland said on Tuesday that she hoped to meet with her Saudi counterpart this week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

However, the minister said that Ottawa would not be changing its fundamental position.

“Canada will always stand up for human rights… we feel a particular obligation to women who are fighting for their rights around the world,” she said.

“And we feel a particular obligation to people who have a personal connection to Canada.”

Germany and Saudi Arabia agreed earlier this week to end a diplomatic dispute between their countries.

The spat started last November when Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s foreign minister at the time, condemned “adventurism” in the Middle East, comments seen as an attack on increasingly assertive Saudi policies, notably in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia is scheduled to speak on Friday at the UN General Assembly – and it remains to be seen whether Canada will again be the target of its ire, but this time on a larger stage.

*

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 State of Palestine has filed a lawsuit against the United States at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the main judicial body of the United Nations, for violating international law by moving its embassy in Israel to the occupied city of Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Riyad Malki said on Saturday.

Malki added in a statement that the case was based on Palestine’s membership in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries, specifically the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

He said the foreign ministry, in preparing its case, submitted a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICJ to settle all disputes that have come up or may come up as per the decision of the United Nations Security Council and the procedures and statute of the Court.

Malki said that based on the procedures to file a lawsuit with the ICJ, he sent a letter last May to the US State Department asking it not to move its embassy to Jerusalem because this step would violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Security Council resolutions.

He explained that due to failure of the US to respond to the letter and its non-compliance with international law, it was informed in a written memorandum dated July 4 of the existence of a legal dispute as per the rules and procedures of the ICJ.

With the passage of the legal period and after meeting all conditions to file a lawsuit against the US, the lawsuit has been formally filed with the ICJ’s Registrar to prosecute the United States, said Malki.

The Foreign Minister said that in the lawsuit against the US, the ICJ was asked to declare that moving the embassy to occupied Jerusalem constituted a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and to order the United States to take its diplomatic mission out of Jerusalem and comply with its international obligations in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as well as taking the necessary measures to comply with its obligations and refrain from taking any future steps that may violate its obligations and provide the necessary guarantees for non-repetition of its unlawful action.

Malki stressed that taking this step is an exercise of the sovereign right of the State of Palestine as a member state of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and other related conventions, which is another legal right used by Palestine to defend its rights and interests against illegal actions and measures.

“We defend our rights and our people without hesitation and reject all forms of political and financial extortion,” he said, expressing his belief that it is now possible to use the legal tracks that have been denied to the Palestinian people for decades.

He pointed out that the State of Palestine has taken many important steps to address the recent illegal measures taken by the current US Administration, particularly with regard to Jerusalem, and the Israeli Government with respect to colonial settlements and targeting of civilians, as well as steps at the Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and now the International Criminal Court.

“This step comes in line with the policy of the State of Palestine, which aims to preserve the character of the holy city of Jerusalem with its unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions,” said Malki. “The international community and international law have consistently rejected all attempts by Israel, the Occupying Power, to change the character and status of Jerusalem since all resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council have consistently affirmed that any action or decision aimed at changing the status or demographic character of Jerusalem is null and void and has no legal value.”

*

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 namely the Russians who have prevented world war and any use of nuclear weapons, while it is the leaders of the United States Government-Military-Industrial-Deep State-Media Complex that does all it can to rule the world by using war and threatening world war with nuclear weapons.”

– Ron Ridenour (from the author’s preface to The Russian Peace Threat) [1]

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

– Matthew 7: 3-5 (King James Bible)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
In a speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, delivered January 19 2018, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced the nation’s latest National Defense Strategy, The first in ten years, Secretary Mattis indicated that the thrust of the nation’s policy had shifted away from fighting terrorism toward countering the threat posed by Russia and China.

“We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.” [2]

The strategic document to which he refers describes these rival states as wanting “to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.” It claims China is “leveraging” through “military modernization” and “predatory economics” to “coerce” its neighbours and “reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage.” Russia on the other hand is threatening peace and stability through its use of its veto power at the UN Security Council, its apparent ability to “subvert democratic processes” in other countries using new technologies, and through its “expanding and modernizing nuclear arsenal.” [3]

These accusations seem rather shocking considering they constitute an apt description of U.S. involvement internationally. Witness, for example:

  • the use of the U.S. petrodollar to “leverage” financial markets around the world to its advantage. [4]
  • (ab)use of the UN Security Council veto that rivals in frequency that of the U.S.S.R / Russia. [5]
  • The 7-800 military bases it is known to operate and/or control worldwide. [6]
  • A history of meddling in the elections of foreign countries dating back to 1945. [7]
  • Nuclear warhead stockpiles estimated at 6,550, near parity with the Russians (6,850) and well ahead of the next major nuclear power France (300). [8]

The Russian threat appears to have become inflamed in the public consciousness with the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin to the presidency. President Putin has been accused of promoting, aiding and abetting Russian and pro-Russian terrorists in the east of Ukraine. He has been blamed along with the Assad government for the “ruthless bombing” of Syrian civilian targets. He supposedly intervened in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the benefit of Republican candidate Donald Trump. He allegedly sent operatives to poison a former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter with a neurotoxin. [9][10][11]

Most maliciously, authorities invariably deflect criticism of U.S. policy by attempting to link dissenting publications with Russia.

Given that the U.S. appears to be just as self-serving and law defying as Russia is accused of being, what is the reality behind the unrelenting anti-Russian propaganda campaign? That question is at the heart of this week’s installment of the Global Research News Hour.

In the first half hour, past guest Dmitry Orlov returns to the show to bring us up to speed on some of the latest developments. The Russian-American commentator addresses some of the actions in recent months including the Skripal affair and the stand-off with Israel over the shooting down of a Russian plane. He compares and contrasts the two countries’ military postures and their differing objectives. He also examines the impacts of the sanctions regime and its implications for international political and economic relations.

Our second guest, Ron Ridenour, expands on the theme of his latest book, The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert, which provides a historical context for the renewed cold war, deconstructs the propaganda depicting Russia as a menace, and details some of America’s far from benevolent records over the past century. He also hints at where the path to peace may lie.

Dmitry Orlov is a Russian-American writer, blogger and geopolitical analyst based in Moscow. He has degrees in Computer Engineering and Linguistics and has worked in the fields of high energy physics, internet commerce, advertising and network security. He is the author of Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects and Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a Grip on the Technologies that Limit our Autonomy, Self-sufficiency and Freedom. His blog site is cluborlov.com.
Ron Ridenour is a long-time anti-war, solidarity, and radical activist. He has lived in many countries and worked as a journalist- editor-author-translator for four decades, including for Cuba’s Editorial José Martí and Prensa Latina (1988-96). He has published six books about Cuba, as well as Yankee Sandinistas, Sounds of Venezuela, and Tamil Nation in Sri Lanka. He is based in Denmark. His website is Ronridenour.com
LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with Dmitry Orlov, September 29, 2018

Global Research: We’re joined by Dmitry Orlov. He is a Russian-American writer, blogger, and geopolitical analyst. His work has centered around the political, economic, and ecological and political decline and collapse in the United States, and he’s also the author of numerous articles. His books include Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects and Shrinking The Technosphere: Getting A Grip On The Technologies That Limit Our Autonomy Self-Sufficiency, And Freedom. He joins us here from Moscow. Thanks so much for coming back to the show Dimitri.

Dmitry Orlov: Good to be with you Michael.

GR: Now I think the first thing I wanted to bring up is some of the recent news. There was the… Recently the shooting down of a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance plane by Syrian forces, but it was, the Russian military has argued that this is actually a result of Israeli actions, just, sort of, I guess you say shadowing that plane, and it was in response to that incident that a number of S-300 missile systems were moved into Syria.

I know that there’s beeen commentary by…The Saker, for one, said that this is a de facto no-fly zone over Syria. Now we know that things have not been going so well up to now for US imperial aims in the country. I’m wondering what, how significant this latest event is in the overall context of what we’ve been seeing?

DO: Well it’s a bit of a wake-up call for the Israelis because Russia has been extremely accommodating in everything that comes, when it comes to Israel’s security concerns. There is the realization that the rhetoric coming from Tehran has been, you know, quite virulent, you know, Iran is still telling itself that it has the goal of destroying Israel. There’s no way that Israel can avoid responding to such a provocation, and the fact that there are now Iranian troops close to the Israeli border, and that there is weapons manufacturing going on on Syrian territory is something that is a concern to them that the Russians have to allow Israel to take care of its own security concerns.

But the Israelis have acted most irresponsibly because they gave less than a minute warning that this attack was coming. They misnamed the targets, and they misbehaved in the airspace in the sense that they couldn’t have not seen this big lumbering propeller plane that was absolutely no threat to anyone, and they knew that there would be some anti-aircraft fire and drew it not on themselves but on this plane. There are some other, you know unfortunate mishaps that occurred, which are all coming out as a result of the investigation, so it’s still early to say.

But the response was basically to, you know, a dressing-down from Russia to Israelis, saying you cannot do this anymore, and the response was to arm the Syrians with a more up-to-date air defense system which was probably already in place. It was just handed over to Syrian command.

I don’t think that this is a major development. I think Russia and Israel are going to patch things up. I don’t think Israel is going to stop attacking, stop attacking things, on the ground in Syria, that, you know, actions that they see as provocative. They are very fearful of precision rockets, precision weapons being built in Syria that can be smuggled into Syria or even fired, smuggled into Israel, or even fired into Israel from Lebanon or from Syria itself.

GR: Yeah, I mean I think that there’s been a long-standing observation that the US drive to upset or instigate regime change within Damascus, it ain’t working. Even the balkanization project, the idea that balkanizing it in ways that favor the US, NATO, and their imperial lackeys if you want to put it that way, it seems to be in some turmoil. What options would you say the US has at this point? Short of a declaration of surrender?

DO: Well there is, there will be no declaration of surrender. Let’s not kid ourselves. Basically, what the US does in Syria, similar to what it does everywhere else, it generates activity. It generates activity in order to be in a position to order more weapons systems, more munitions, basically chew through more materiel, because that’s what the contractors require, and those contractors, military contractors, finance various congressional campaigns. That’s the entire political ecosystem, and what happens on the ground is sort of a sideshow.

Now in terms of strategic objectives, whatever they are, the US definitely isn’t achieving them. There’s that encampment they have in Al-Tanf in the south, there are a few other locations in the north where they’re playing along with the Kurds, which is poisoning their relationship with Turkey. They did completely destroy Raqqa and made absolutely no effort to clean it up, to restore it, so there are still rotting bodies there buried under a piles of rubble, and it’s been many months. It’s basically a humanitarian atrocity that they’ve perpetuated in Raqqa, but they’re not achieving anything except wasting money and war materiel. And I think that that is actually their goal at this point is to generate military activity.

GR: Well, it’s an interesting point. I mean, we’re not just talking about imperial control of resources and strategic areas but also that idea of just using military activity as a way of generating money for the major military contractors, defense contractors, and affiliated interests. Which kind of brings me to another dynamic in play, the US military. It’s huge, at least in terms of the amount of money it spends, more than about 10 time – more than the next 10 countries combined. Russia doesn’t spend nearly as much, but yet they’re much more strategic and efficient in the way they utilize and spend money on their military.

DO: In terms of purchasing parity it’s one Russian dollar to 10 U.S. dollars in defense spending. That’s really the ratio. The US has to spend ten times more than Russia to get the same or inferior results. There are a lot of reasons behind this.

GR: So in terms of that parity, would you say that Russia is a effectively now a rival of the US militarily? Can they counterbalance the US in every Realm?

DO: Oh, no, absolutely not. Basically, Russian posture, the Russian posture is to make sure that the US and NATO have absolutely no plan whatsoever to attack Russia, or to attack Russia’s allies. Perish the thought. But other than that, Russia’s posture is completely defensive, and American posture, because there is no need to defend the American homeland from anyone, nobody is planning to attack the United States, is purely offensive.

Now, it takes ten times more resources to attack than to defend. That is generally understood as a principle. And so, the US is trying to pursue a policy that really leads it to not any kind of victory or even a stand off, it leads them to national bankruptcy, nothing more.

GR: Well, what about the economic dynamics that have been playing out lately? The sanctions that are being leveled against Russia and Iran? And I’m wondering how that’s playing out within the EU, because the US is allied with the European Union, but European Union interests are being affected by sanctions, and so I’m wondering, are we seeing a potential breakup of that alliance? While there are efforts, there have historically been efforts to break up an alliance between Russia and China, I’m wondering if, which of those alliances is more fragile, if I could put it that way.

DO: It’s really hard to figure out what is going to snap first. There’s definitely a huge amount of tension between Washington and the European Union. There is a huge amount of tension building up within the European Union itself, because the whole liberal juggernaut that started bringing in unlimited quantities of migrants into Europe, you know that is definitely running into a huge, huge problem, huge conflict that is internal to the EU.

Now, the relationship between the EU and Russia has not really been all that badly damaged by Washington and by these sanctions that the Europeans have gone along with willy-nilly, many of them complaining all along the way. And, definitely, in terms of, for instance, energy cooperation between the EU and Russia is back on track because there are really no other options that the EU has to supply itself with natural gas other than to do business with Russia, and at this point that means also to circumvent the Ukraine because nobody really wants to do business with the Ukraine anymore. It’s basically a sort of poisoned chalice at this point.

You know, in terms of what the sanctions have done to the Russian economy, yes, they cost them a couple of percentage points of GDP growth, but the beneficial effect of those sanctions is often underestimated. It really woke Russia up to the fact that it has to become self-sufficient in many areas, and it has become self-sufficient in numerous areas and is working very hard to achieve self-sufficiency in more areas and to find new trading partners that aren’t going to sanction them. So, the sanctions have really woken up the Russians to the fact that the Americans are not their friends, will never be their friends, and have prompted them to act accordingly.

GR: The US economic situation, they have an unsustainable debt crisis. It doesn’t look like they’re ever going to be able to crawl out of it, they don’t have the ability to maintain the, their current trajectory. I mean, we’re probably looking at another stock market crash, probably sooner rather than later, and I think the writing is on the wall in that regard. That’s bound to affect the way the US comports itself in the world, even though they won’t say it out loud. I mean, you suggested that earlier.

So when it comes to that economic dimension, and other countries are no doubt aware of the unsustainability of the US economic situation, so how do you see things playing out? Are things going to come apart in a disastrous way? Or are there going to be sort of sneaky…people moving away to that secondary pole, the Russia-China-Iranian axis, if you will. Economically, how are people, how are the competitor nations going to respond to what appears to be the inevitable demise of the…and collapse of the US economy?

DO: Well, I think the writing has been on the wall for a really long time now. It’s just a question of when, and nobody knows the answer. And the big task in front of many countries in the world right now, and it’s a huge task, is de-dollarization. You have something like a hundred and eighty different currencies that all use the US dollar to trade with each other, that all have price lists in dollars, that convert to dollars in order to trade with each other and then convert back and use the fact that there’s this gigantic pool of dollar liquidity that they can tap into anytime they need to.

But the downside of that is that anytime anyone trades using the US dollar, they become part of the US jurisdiction and become subject to American sanctions. And it used to be that the US was sort of a good citizen – good global citizen – allowing itself to benefit from the fact that everybody uses the US dollar. Now, there’s huge benefit to the US. But in return it pretty much allowed people to use the dollar as they wished. But now, with Trump specifically, with his trade policies, the US requires other countries to use the dollar in America’s economic interests and to their own detriment. And that’s when everybody wakes up and notices.

But then the task is to de-dollarize, and it’s a huge task, because China is not really ready to replace the dollar with its own yuan. Nobody really expects China to step in and play such a huge role so quickly. China generally takes a long time to make such adjustments and takes many small steps. And nobody else really wants to do it either.

So, we’re in a period where there will be lots of half measures, there will be a lot of forced measures taken if the situation deteriorates suddenly. But I think that there’s a really good chance that there will be a lot of damage to international trade and to international supply chains if this dollar liquidity evaporates, because the only two ways, and it’s actually one and the same way, out of this crisis that the US has put itself into with its completely unsustainable rate of growth of its indebtedness, is either a deflationary collapse or an inflationary collapse or some combination of both.

So that you have, you know, falling prices on some things and hyperinflation in other areas. There’ll be huge economic distortions, and the rest of the world will simply have to co-exist. They have a hoard of dollars, they use that hoard of dollars in order to trade with each other, they have contracts signed that are all in dollars. So, how do you de-dollarize that? It’s a gigantic task.

GR: Yeah, I’m kind of interested in your take on the way…the media messaging around these realities, because they seem to be extremely diversionary. I mean there’s the long-standing… Well the…Russiagate, the attacks on Trump that we’ve been seeing in an ongoing way, I mean there’s certainly a lot of ridiculousness around that and particularly the… what we’ve seen recently about this Skripal affair.

And this… What they’re trying to explain, that there’s these two ex.. this spy was somehow assassinated by these two Russian agents, and that story seems to have been falling apart the more you look into it. Although they seem to be, like Theresa May and her allies, seem to be doubling down on this failing narrative. What is your take about the way the media continues to propel this mythology about Russia and its onerousness … its toxicity on the world stage? Is this a manifestation… Are you seeing a manifestation of your long-standing thesis about collapse, collapse of Empire?

DO: Well, I think that basically the West, the collective West, has run up against Russia as a sort of immovable object that is completely indigestible, unprocessable for it. And coinciding with that is just a catastrophic decrease in the quality of Western leadership. Whether you look at Trump, whether you look at Theresa May, or Emmanuel Macron, or just about all of this recent crop of European leaders, with few exceptions, they’re all just absolutely incapable of being even coherent, never mind formulating some strategy or plans. They’re failing, and everybody sees that they’re failing, and they can’t stop themselves. They just go on with whatever narrative they’ve concocted.

With the Skripal affair, it’s preposterous throughout. There’s absolutely no evidence behind the British story, and there are a lot of facts that are just completely contradictory and negate the narrative that has been voiced. And so the Russians are happy to basically sit back and ignore all of that. They know that there will be sanctions, these sanctions have nothing to do with chemical weapons, they have nothing to do with anything except one fact: Russia is sitting on a stockpile of energy resources that will last it for hundreds of years.

And it has enough to export for as long as it sees fit. But really, it wants to become independent of energy exports, and that is a big problem for the West because the West has absolutely no strategy to become independent of Russian energy imports. There’s nothing they can do about it except basically do whatever Russia is willing to do for them, to basically agree to cooperate with Russia.

They’re basically jumping up and down mad that they have this problem that they can’t solve. They can’t attack Russia militarily. They’re trying to attack Russia economically, but that’s not working. They’re trying to isolate Russia, and as a result of that Russia is strengthening ties with countries all over the world. You know the SCO organization is now almost half of the world’s GDP, almost half of the world’s population. And it’s a security organization that Russia is part of.

You know, they try to stage little provocations like the little training exercises along the Russian border in the Baltics that are supposed to frighten Russia. Now if NATO attacked Russia, Russia would have them arrested. It doesn’t really make sense as a plan, but it makes sense as an internal narrative, something that these incompetent Western leaders can tell their own people.

GR: Dimitry, I think we got to leave it there, but I really want to thank you. I really value your unique out-of-the-box thinking and the insights that you share with us and our listeners. Thanks so much for joining us.

DO: Thank you, Michael.

GR: We’ve been speaking with Dmitry Orlov, Russian-American engineer, writer, and blogger. You can see more of his articles at the site cluborlov.com.

-end of transcript-

Global Research News Hour Episode 230

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

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. Ron Ridenour (2018), The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert p.xiii, Punto Press Publishing, New York, NY
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_fSu7dNIZY
  3. Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge (p.2); https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
  4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/crisis-of-the-u-s-dollar-system/3482
  5. https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick
  6. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564
  7. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-elections-of-at-least-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481
  8. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
  9. https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-criminal-inhumanity-syria/
  10. John Walcott (Dec. 11, 2016), ‘Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials’, Reuters; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B
  11. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/uk-charges-russians-skripal-novichok-nerve-agent-attack-180905101911944.html

Ten Modern Methods of Mind Control

September 29th, 2018 by Nicholas West

This article was first posted on Global Research in January 2015.

The more one researches mind control, the more one will come to the conclusion that there is a coordinated script that has been in place for a very long time with the goal to turn the human race into non-thinking automatons.  For as long as man has pursued power over the masses, mind control has been orchestrated by those who study human behavior in order to bend large populations to the will of a small “elite” group.

Today, we have entered a perilous phase where mind control has taken on a physical, scientific dimension that threatens to become a permanent state if we do not become aware of the tools at the disposal of the technocratic dictatorship unfolding on a worldwide scale.

Modern mind control is both technological and psychological.  Tests show that simply by exposing the methods of mind control, the effects can be reduced or eliminated, at least for mind control advertising and propaganda.  More difficult to counter are the physical intrusions, which the military-industrial complex continues to develop and improve upon.

1. Education — This is the most obvious, yet still remains the most insidious.  It has always been a would-be dictator’s ultimate fantasy to “educate” naturally impressionable children.  No one has been more instrumental in exposing the agenda of modern education than Charlotte Iserbyt — one can begin research into this area by downloading a free PDF of her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, which lays bare the role of Globalist foundations in shaping a future intended to produce servile drones lorded over by a fully educated, aware elite class.

2. Advertising and Propaganda — Edward Bernays has been cited as the inventor of the consumerist culture that was designed primarily to target people’s self-image (or lack thereof) in order to turn a want into a need.  This was initially envisioned for products such as cigarettes, for example.  However, Bernays also noted in his 1928 book, Propaganda, that “propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.” This can be seen most clearly in the modern police state and the growing citizen snitch culture, wrapped up in the pseudo-patriotic War on Terror.  The increasing consolidation of media has enabled the entire corporate structure to merge with government, which now utilizes the concept of propaganda placement.  Media; print, movies, television, and cable news can now work seamlessly to integrate an overall message which seems to have the ring of truth because it comes from so many sources, simultaneously.  When one becomes attuned to identifying the main “message,” one will see this imprinting everywhere.  And this is not even to mention subliminal messaging.

3. Predictive Programming — Many still deny that predictive programming is real.  I would invite anyone to examine the range of documentation put together by Alan Watt and come to any other conclusion.  Predictive programming has its origins in predominately elitist Hollywood, where the big screen can offer a big vision of where society is headed.  Just look back at the books and movies which you thought were far-fetched, or “science fiction” and take a close look around at society today.  For a detailed breakdown of specific examples, Vigilant Citizen is a great resource that will probably make you look at “entertainment” in a completely different light.

4. Sports, Politics, Religion — Some might take offense at seeing religion, or even politics, put alongside sports as a method of mind control.  The central theme is the same throughout: divide and conquer.  The techniques are quite simple: short circuit the natural tendency of people to cooperate for their survival, and teach them to form teams bent on domination and winning.  Sports has always had a role as a key distraction that corrals tribal tendencies into a non-important event, which in modern America has reached ridiculous proportions where protests will break out over a sport celebrity leaving their city, but essential human issues such as liberty are giggled away as inconsequential.  Political discourse is strictly in a left-right paradigm of easily controlled opposition, while religion is the backdrop of nearly every war throughout history.

5. Food, Water, and Air — Additives, toxins, and other food poisons literally alter brain chemistry to create docility and apathy.  Fluoride in drinking water has been proven to lower IQ; Aspartame and MSG are excitotoxins which excite brain cells until they die; and easy access to the fast food that contains these poisons generally has created a population that lacks focus and motivation for any type of active lifestyle.  Most of the modern world is perfectly groomed for passive receptiveness — and acceptance — of the dictatorial elite.  And if you choose to diligently watch your diet, they are fully prepared to spray the population from the above.

6. Drugs — This can be any addictive substance, but the mission of mind controllers is to be sure you are addicted to something.  One major arm of the modern mind control agenda is psychiatry, which aims to define all people by their disorders, as opposed to their human potential.  This was foreshadowed in books such as Brave New World.  Today, it has been taken to even further extremes as a medical tyranny has taken hold where nearly everyone has some sort of disorder — particularly those who question authority.  The use of nerve drugs in the military has led to record numbers of suicides.  Worst of all, the modern drug state now has over 25% of U.S. children on mind-numbing medication.

7. Military testing — The military has a long history as the testing ground for mind control.  The military mind is perhaps the most malleable, as those who pursue life in the military generally resonate to the structures of hierarchy, control, and the need for unchallenged obedience to a mission.  For the increasing number of military personal questioning their indoctrination, a recent story highlighted DARPA’s plans for transcranial mind control helmets that will keep them focused.

8. Electromagnetic spectrum  — An electromagnetic soup envelops us all, charged by modern devices of convenience which have been shown to have a direct impact on brain function.

In a tacit admission of what is possible, one researcher has been working with a “god helmet” to induce visions by altering the electromagnetic field of the brain.

Our modern soup has us passively bathed by potentially mind-altering waves, while a wide range of possibilities such as cell phone towers is now available to the would-be mind controller for more direct intervention.

9. Television, Computer, and “flicker rate”— It’s bad enough that what is “programmed” on your TV (accessed via remote “control”) is engineered; it is all made easier by literally lulling you to sleep, making it a psycho-social weapon.  Flicker rate tests show that alpha brain waves are altered, producing a type of hypnosis — which doesn’t portend well for the latest revelation that lights can transmit coded Internet data by “flickering faster than the eye can see.”  The computer’s flicker rate is less, but through video games, social networks, and a basic structure which overloads the brain with information, the rapid pace of modern communication induces an ADHD state.  A study of video games revealed that extended play can result in lower blood flow to the brain, sapping emotional control.  Furthermore, role-playing games of lifelike war and police state scenarios serve to desensitize a connection to reality.  One look at the WikiLeaks video Collateral Murder should be familiar to anyone who has seen a game like Call of Duty.

10. Nanobots — From science fiction horror, directly to the modern brain; the nanobots are on the way.  Direct brain modification already has been packaged as “neuroengineering.” A  Wired articlefrom early 2009 highlighted that direct brain manipulation via fiber optics is a bit messy, but once installed “it could make someone happy with the press of a button.”  Nanobots take the process to an automated level, rewiring the brain molecule by molecule.  Worse, these mini droids can self-replicate, forcing one to wonder how this genie would ever get back in the bottle once unleashed. Expected date of arrival?  Early 2020s.

A concerted effort is underway to manage and predict human behavior so that the social scientists and the dictatorial elite can control the masses and protect themselves from the fallout of a fully awake free humanity. Only by waking up to their attempts to put us to sleep do we stand a chance of preserving our free will.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ten Modern Methods of Mind Control

Israel gets away with murdering Palestinians and other horrific human rights abuses because the international community fails to hold it accountable.

Peaceful Gazan Great March of Return protests began on March 30, continuing each Friday, yesterday for the 27th consecutive time, the horrific death and injury toll mounting.

According to Gaza’s health ministry, Israeli forces Friday 28, 2018 killed seven Gazans, including two children, injuring over 500 others, around 90 from live fire.

Ministry spokesman Dr. Ashraf al-Qedra said “the types of injuries, and the deliberate use of sniper fire against the protesters, reflect one of the bloodiest and most brutal military assaults against the processions in the Gaza Strip, since the massacre of May 14” when Israeli forces massacred 60 Palestinians, including six children, injuring over 2,700 others.

On Friday, 35 children, four women, four medical workers, and two journalists were wounded, including from live fire.

At least 10 Palestinians sustained serious wounds, some life-threatening.

Since March 30, Israeli forces killed nearly 200 Gazans, around 20,000 others wounded, nearly half from live fire, including by exploding dumdum bullets, able to inflict fist-sized wounds and destroy internal organs.

According to Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) field workers,

“border area(s) witnessed heavy deployment of the Israeli forces this week as the latter heavily fired live bullets, increasing the number of causalities,” adding:

“The Israeli forces continued to use upon highest military and political echelons excessive force against the peaceful demonstrators who posed no threat or danger to the life of Israeli soldiers in the areas of demonstrations.”

Actions since March 30 have been peaceful, protesters courageously putting themselves in harm’s unarmed. Israeli claims otherwise are bald-faced lies, trying to unjustifiably justify cold-blooded murder.

Thousands of Gazans turned out yesterday, including women, children and the infirm, peacefully protesting against suffocating blockade responsible for protracted humanitarian crisis conditions.

Gathering around 300 meters from the border fence, demonstrators displayed Palestinian flags. They chanted slogans, sang national songs and set tires ablaze.

Some threw stones and launched flaming kites cross-border. Countless numbers were harmed by toxic tear gas inhalation, the same pattern repeating each Friday.

Lethal and other brute force against defenseless civilians flagrantly violates the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Fourth Geneva, and other international law.

Israeli officials have never been held accountable for decades of high crimes, including premeditated wars of aggression. They enjoy world community immunity to keep committing what no just societies tolerate.

On the same day, Israeli forces invaded Ahed Tamimi’s Nabi Saleh village, kidnapping three Tamimi family children, two aged-11, the other aged-12.

They’re held at an unknown location incommunicado, denied access to their parents and legal counsel.

Israeli forces abduct, traumatize, and brutalize Palestinian children as young as age-six, holding them in seclusion, harshly interrogating them for days, forcing them to sign confessions in Hebrew they don’t understand for offenses they didn’t commit or are too minor to matter.

According to Defense for Children International Palestine (DCIP), up to 700 Palestinian children are kidnapped, detained, and prosecuted in rubber-stamp military tribunals annually.

Most are charged with stone-throwing. Imprisonment up to 10 or 20 years can follow, depending on the child’s age.

The vast majority of victims experience physical violence during arrest, detention and interrogation.

Abductions nearly always occur pre-dawn by dozens of heavily armed soldiers. Victims are terrorized, traumatized, beaten, sleep-deprived, and otherwise harshly abused – physically, emotionally, and verbally, leaving permanent scars.

According to DCIP, child fatalities in Occupied Palestine are at a record-high this year – other than when Israeli wars of aggression were waged.

“Israeli forces have operated with near complete impunity for so long that unlawful killings and other flagrant violations of international law have become the norm,” DCIP’s Accountablity Program director Ayed Abu explained, adding:

“Impunity combined with the rise in Israel’s use of live ammunition as a method of quelling demonstrators since 2014 means there is no legal mechanism that will halt this bloodshed.”

Last May, Israel’s Supreme Court OK’d use of live fire against peaceful Palestinian protesters. It rejected petitions by the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Yesh Din, Gisha, and HaMoked.

Justices called use of live fire in accordance with Israeli law, falsely claiming Palestinian protesters endanger Israeli soldiers, civilians and security.

A joint Adalah/Al Mezan statement said the following in response to the ruling:

“The Israeli Supreme Court completely ignored the broad factual basis presented to it by the petitioners, which includes multiple testimonies of wounded and reports of international organizations involved in documenting the killing and wounding of unarmed protesters in Gaza,” adding:

Justices “refused to watch video clips, documenting Israeli shootings of demonstrators and, rather than actually examining the case, fully accepted the claims presented to it by the state.”

“The extreme nature of the ruling is also highlighted by the striking absence of any mention of the casualty figures that had been presented to the court.”

Israel’s High Court unjustifiably justifying live fire against peaceful Palestinian demonstrators flagrantly violates core international law.

World community indifference to fundamental Palestinian rights lets Israel get away with murder and other flagrant human rights abuses time and again.

*

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 Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 27th Straight Bloody Friday in Gaza. Israeli Forces Kill Children

History and Political Thought: South Slavic Ideologies, Greater Croatia

September 29th, 2018 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

Read Part I, II, III.

An importance and influence of P. R. Vitezović’s ideological concept

P. R. Vitezović’s works had a great impact on the development of the South Slavic national ideologies, national consciousness, and nationalism. Paradoxically but true, P. R. Vitezović influenced at the great degree the 18th century Serbian and Bulgarian national movements. His heraldic manual under the title Stemmatographia, sive Armorum Illyricorum delineatio, descriptio et restitution (Vienna, 1701), in which coats of arms of all “Illyrian” (i.e., according to him, Croatian) historical provinces were presented, was translated into the Slavonic-Serbian language, adapted and expanded in the mid-18th century by the Serbian patriot of the Bulgarian ethnic origin from South Hungary, Hristifor Žefarović (1700–1753). Nonetheless, previously to P. R. Vitezović, the examples of coats of arms of Illyria (i.e. the Balkans) were available in Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia (Basel, 1544) and revised by the Italian version in 1575. A very idea of the Illyrian (i.e. the Balkan or the South Slavic) unity could be found exactly in S. Münster’s Cosmographia, where the lands of Carinthia, Carniola, Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina are described as the Illyrian provinces.

P. R. Vitezović used, in addition to S. Münster’s Cosmographia, as a basis for his own armorial manual, a heraldic work of the Herzegovinian nobleman and admiral in the Spanish navy service, Petar Ohmučević (known in Spain as Don Pedro) from 1596. P. Ohmučević’s version of unified Pan-Illyrian Empire of Stefan Dušan Almighty (a Serbian ruler from 1331 to 1355) was illustrated by coats of arms of the following “Illyrian” lands: Macedonia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Rascia, and Littoral. P. Ohmučević’s armorial manual was used and extended by Mavro Orbin (Mauro Orbini) from Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in his famous work where coats of arms of Bulgaria, Slavonia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Dalmatia, Serbia, Croatia, Rascia and Littoral were considered as historical provinces of South Slavic Empire of Stefan Dušan who was the most famous, mighty and glorified South Slavic ruler as the Emperor of Serbia from 1346 to 1355 (Banac 1993: 218–225).[i] Nevertheless, in P. R. Vitezović’s interpretation, all of these coats of arms were heraldic insignias of the Croatian historical and ethnolinguistic provinces. These insignias were followed in P. R. Vitezović’s armorial work by the next arms of the Croatian lands: Bohemia, Muscovy, Poland-Lithuanian Republic, Ukraine, Carinthia, Carniola, Istria, Moldavia, Transylvania, Wallachia, Lower and Upper Austria, Prussia, Venice, Hungary, Albania, Celta, Crete, Dacia, Dardania, Epirus, Greece, Japodia, Liburnia, Mysia, Pannonia, Romania, Scythia, Baltic Slavonia, Thessaly, Odrysia, Thrace, and Triballia. The real purpose of P. R. Vitezović’s armorial was to demonstrate his idea of Pan-Croatianism, according to which, all Slavs were the ethnolinguistic Croats and subsequently, a Greater Croatia (but no longer the Illyrian Empire of Stefan Dušan) had to be established under the Habsburg scepter.

However, while S. Münster’s and P. Ohmučević’s Illyrian heraldic manuals were for Vitezović the Croatian, for H. Žefarović the same S. Münster’s and P. Ohmučević’s Illyrian coats of arms were the Serbian. Subsequently, H. Žefarović’s Stemmatographia (Σтемматографϊа) (Vienna, 1741) of coats of arms of all “Serbian” historical-state lands which had to belong to revived Serbian Empire of Stefan Dušan, contributed to the growth of both Serbian national awareness and nationalism. H. Žefarović presented a triumphant mighty Emperor Dušan surrounded by 24 Balkan coats of arms that represented a unified Serbian Empire (i.e. the Balkan Empire). The message was that all the lands of S. Dušan’s crown (but in fact the whole Balkans) should be politically united into a single (Serbian) state. The shorter version of the Σтемматографϊа circulated among the Austrian and Ottoman Serbs at the beginning of the 19th century having a strong impact on the idea of the restoration of the Serbian medieval state during the time of the First Serbian Uprising against the Turks (1803–1813) and after that as well (Ćorović 1993: 556; Mladićević 1994: 54–59).

The 19th– and 20th-centuries state and national coats of arms of Croatia and Croats and Serbia and Serbs were modeled according to Vitezović-Žefarović drawings. H. Žefarović’s Σтемматографϊа, which was based on P. R. Vitezović’s Stemmatographia…, became one of the most influential ideological and programmatic “lighthouses” for the Serbs in their struggle for the national unification. P. R. Vitezović created in his Stemmatographia…, according to the drawing of Mavro Orbin, the coat of arms of Bulgaria, and invented a completely new coat of arms of Romania. Shortly, P. R. Vitezović’s “Illyrian” heraldry became one of the most influential contributors to the iconography of the Balkan nationalism. Both P. R. Vitezović’s and H. Žefarović’s heraldic manuscripts were the sources of national identities for the succeeding Croatian and Serbian generations (Banac 1991b; Banac 1993). H. Žefarović’s collection of “Illyrian” (i.e., the Serbian) coat of arms clearly conveyed the notion that adherence to the Orthodox Christianity made for the Serbs a nationhood and suggesting that the Serbian historical-national task was to unite all the lands of old Illyricum under a single coat of arms of Serbia.

Nevertheless, P. R. Vitezović ideologically mostly influenced the development of the Croatian nationalism particularly in the 18th and the 19th centuries. His armorial and ideological Pan-Croatianism was a historical construction and a political program. During these two hundred years, his ideological influence extremely benefited to the Croatian resistance against the Hungarian claims on historical-state rights over the provinces of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia but, unfortunately, also to the creation of the extreme anti-Serbian feelings and the policy of Croatian genocide on the Serbs in the 20th century. Nevertheless, at the turn of the 19th century, P. R. Vitezović’s writings were in great demand by the Croats and were reprinted in many occasions. During the whole 19th century, P. R. Vitezović’s Croatia rediviva… was playing a role of “a Bible of the Croatian national policy” and nationalism too (Šišić 1934: 46; Banac 1993). For example, several the most significant and influential 19th-century Croatian politicians (some of them the leaders of the Croatian national revival movement – the Illyrian Movement) as Ljudevit Gaj (1809–1872), Ivan Derkos (1808–1834), Janko Drašković (1777–1856), Ante Starčević (1823–1896), and Eugen Kvaternik (1825–1871) were rather familiar with P. R. Vitezović’s work, which crucially influenced their ideology of a Pan-Croatianism. For Lj. Gaj, A. Starčević, and E. Kvaternik (“the fathers of Croatian nation”), the names of separate South Slavic nations were only synonyms for the common ethnic name of the Croats (Gaj 1835: 1; Gaj 1965: 299–301; Starčević 1971; Kvaternik 1971). Further, for I. Derkos and J. Drašković, the Orthodox Serbs from Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, and the Military Border were only ethnolinguistic Croats (Derkos 1832; Drašković 1832).

The insignia (coat of arms) of the Illyrian Movement, invented by Lj. Gaj, was a Morning Star that was inspired by P. R. Vitezović’s work as well. Ljudevit Gaj still sincerely believed in the Illyrian proto-homeland of all Slavs and moreover found “evidence” for this hypothesis in the large number of the Czech, Polish, and Russian coats of arms. For him simply the “Illyrian” (i.e., the Croatian) Morning Star became “only common coat of arms of all our (i.e., the Slavonic-Croatian) tribes and lands” (Gaj 1863, 194). A. Starčević and E. Kvaternik, the founders of the most nationalistic Croat political party – the Croatian Party of Rights, denied the legitimacy of any other term and name of the Balkan Slavs than the “Croat” one. In other words, all South Slavs were speciums of Croatian gens. In conclusion, the modern Croatian national-political ideology of Lj. Gaj, A. Starčević, and E. Kvaternik was directly derived from P. R. Vitezović’s Croatocentric terminology, ideology and viewpoints of the Balkan and world affairs.

P. R. Vitezović’s conception of linguistic nationhood that the language was the pivotal national identifier, significantly influenced the South Slavic Romanticist’s linguistically based definitions of nationhood. This new approach had a considerable impact to South Slavic national ideologists especially during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.[ii] Ultimately, P. R. Vitezović’s idea of Lithuanians’ (as “Slavic” people) Balkan origin based on ethnolinguistic determination of the nation was shared by famous Lithuanian 19th–20th-century linguist and national worker Jonas Basanavičius, who claimed after many years of scientific investigation and comparison of contemporary Lithuanian and old Thracian languages that Lithuanian ancestors migrated from the Western Balkan province of Thrace (being of ancient Thracians’ origin) to the Baltic littoral (Basanavičius 1898, 8–15, 21, 34−35, 74). Still, the Balkan region of Thrace was a part of P. R. Vitezović’s Croatia rediviva or unified Croatia populated by ethnolinguistic Croats from the time of Antique onward.

It can be given a final conclusion that P. R. Vitezović by following the main idea of the medieval and Renaissance South Slavic writers upon the Slavic matters, who apotheosised Slavism, transformed the message of one of them, Vinko Pribojević, that historical task of the Slavic nation was to rule the world (“ut totius orbis habenas regeret” (Pribojević 1951, 78) into the new futurological anticipation that ethnolinguistic Croats had a historical destiny to rule the globe. Shortly, while Pribojević was speaking in the favor of world Slavic Empire, P. R. Vitezović introduced a concept of the ethnolinguistic ecumenical Croatian state.

Conclusion

Pavao Ritter Vitezović (1652–1713), an aristocrat of the German origin of the Dalmatian city of Senj, was the first South Slavic national ideologist who extended the Croatian ethnic name not only to all Balkan Slavs but rather to all Slavs. Using several different medieval historical sources upon the Slavic settlement on the Balkan Peninsula and many of South Slavic literal and historical works that recorded a popular tradition about the Balkan-Illyrian origin of all Slavic people, P. R. Vitezović concluded that legendary Slavic progenitors – the brothers Czech, Lech and Rus’ – should be understood as the persons of the Croat ethnolinguistic origin. Identifying the brothers as the Croats, P. R. Vitezović concluded that in fact, the entire Slavic population in the world descended from the Croat origin.

During the last stage of the Great Vienna War (1683–1699), between the Christian Alliance against the Ottoman Sultanate, when the struggle between Venice and the Habsburgs for the division of the South Slavic lands emerged, P. R. Vitezović wrote a memorandum to the Habsburg Emperor in order to refute any Venetian claim on the territory of the “Croatian” historical lands. His work about limites totius Croatiae (“the borders of whole Croatia”) demonstrated the borders of a Greater Croatia, which was divided into two parts: Croatia Septemtrionalis (North Croatia) northward from the Danube River, composed by Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, and Croatia Meridionalis (South Croatia) that was the Balkan Peninsula with Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Albania, Epirus, Thessaly, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Thrace. The Balkan Croatia was further subdivided into Croatia Alba (White Croatia) and Croatia Rubea (Red Croatia). A trans-Danubian Croatia was subdivided into Sarmatia: Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, and Venedia: Bohemia, Moravia, and Lusatia. Shortly, the 17th-century Croatian usage of the terms “Illyrian” and “Croat” as the synonyms, P. R. Vitezović simply extended to all Slavs understanding them as the people of the Croat origin. In other words, every Slavic nation was seen as specium of the Croatian gens.

The ideology of Pan-Croatianism created by Pavao Ritter Vitezović, who developed the ancient theory upon derivation of all Slavs from the Balkans, was a historical construction and a political program as a protest against long-time fragmentation of alleged Croatian historical and ethnic territories, but it was at the same time politics against territorial pretensions on alleged Croatian historical-ethnic space by the Republic of St. Marco. Finally, P. R. Vitezović attempted by his writings to obtain a Habsburg political-military support for the creation of a unified or Greater Croatia, i.e. Croatia rediviva. P. R. Vitezović’s arguments were both historical and ethnolinguistic that helped him to appropriate a vast territory of Europe, from the Adriatic and the Black Sea to the Ural Mt and the Baltic Sea, to the Croatdom. Surely, he did not envisage any kind of a unified South Slavic state under the name of Yugoslavia or so, but he only designed a united Pan-Croatian political community paving the ideological road for the Habsburg expansionistic policy at the Balkans and Central Europe in the future.

P. R. Vitezović considered the whole territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a Croato-Slavic land primarily due to the fact that his knowledge about Poland and Lithuania, for the most part, came from the writings of pro-Polish and pro-Slavic authors who saw Lithuania as the Slavic territory. Lithuania at that time was very much Polonized through the spreading of the Polish language and culture. In addition, P. R. Vitezović’s apprehension of Lithuania as a Croato-Slavic land came from the facts that the Slavic languages, among the others, were languages of the official correspondence within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and what is more important, that a majority of Lithuania’s population was of the ethnic Slavic origin. Subsequently, according to his Croatocentric doctrine, a “Slavic” Grand Duchy of Lithuania was actually populated by ethnolinguistic Croats and, therefore, had to belong to a Greater Croatia rediviva.

Finally, we can agree with Simpson Catherine Anne that for P. R. Vitezović the value of the past was equal to that of the present, i.e. the past and the present are juxtaposed and intertwined, and that he occasionally subordinated the present to the past in the light of his national and political ideals (Simpson 1991: 94–107). It explains why in P. R. Vitezović’s historiographic discourse there is no clear distinction between the past and the present. Also, Blažević Zdenka was right that “both function as argumentative axes around which the functional and transtemporal Croatia as a discursive articulation of Vitezović’s worldview is being build” (Blažević 2000: 230). Clearly, P. R. Vitezović’s “metahistorical” Croatia as “temporalized narrative space” produced by historical discourse” (Velčić 1991: 111) would not be made to fit the geographic boundaries of its contemporary toponym.

*

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 Oriental Review.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former University Professor, Director of Democracy Rooting Centre, Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine On Global Politics Since 2014 (www.global-politics.eu). Contact: [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] For the Serbs, Emperor Dušan was a representative of the national statehood, glory, and power. At the time of the Ottoman occupation, the Serbian national dream and political ideology were framed within the idea to re-establish the Empire of Stefan Dušan (Stanojević 2015: 50−58). About the Empire of Stefan Dušan, see (Stevanović 2001).

[ii] See, for instance in (Banac 1983, 448–474; Sotirović 2000, 7–24).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History and Political Thought: South Slavic Ideologies, Greater Croatia

The rising African Great Power of Ethiopia might prospectively export electricity to Saudi Arabia upon the completion of its Grand Renaissance Dam and thus become the next de-facto member of the GCC+.

“Friendly Competition”

The Gulf Cooperation Council Interconnection Agency’s (GCCIA) Ahmed Ali Al-Ebrahim told Climate News that the regional integration organization will undertake a two-year feasibility assessment to examine the possibility of building an electricity cable between Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia via Yemen (and then either Djibouti or Eritrea) in order to have the landlocked giant power the Kingdom’s economy upon the completion of its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) sometime in the coming future. The proposal is enterprising enough to warrant a deeper analysis about its grand strategic implications, which would turn the rising African Great Power into a de-facto member of the GCC+, the informal expansion of the Gulf Monarchies’ platform for multilaterally engaging with the rest of the world.

Ethiopia appears to be the object of “friendly competition” between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, especially seeing as how both of their leaders are separately hosting and rewarding their Ethiopian and Eritrean counterparts following their historic peace agreement, though this dynamic actually stabilizes the country much more than it undermines it. Yemen is also the object of “friendly competition” between the GCC’s two leaders, though it’s of an entirely different nature because of the armed conflict that they’re waging there. Even so, the outcome of that war and the informal separation of spheres of influence between them will greatly determine which of the two Red Sea-bordering states the prospective electricity cable will pass through.

Yemen In The Way

Saudi Arabia is fighting to reclaim hegemonic control over the entirety of its southern neighbor’s territory, though the UAE cleverly undermined its “big brother’ by backing the South Yemeni separatists against the unpopular “official” government of President Hadi and the North Yemeni Houthi rebels. This wouldn’t ordinarily be relevant to the Horn of Africa’s transregional integrational plans had Djibouti not entered into a recent tiff with the UAE over control of its national port after evicting the Emirates from it earlier this year. This means that Abu Dhabi is extremely unlikely to greenlight an electricity cable through its de-facto “eight emirate” of South Yemen to Ethiopia via Djibouti unless the latter “makes amends” for what it did, which probably won’t happen.

Image result for ethiopia grand renaissance dam

Moreover, the North Yemeni Houthis have fought the GCC-led “coalition” to a standstill in their home region, thereby making it politically impossible that the de-facto rulers of this part of the war-torn country would approve of their nemesis snaking a cable through their territory to either Eritrea or Djibouti. The obvious workaround would be for Saudi Arabia to cut Yemen entirely out of the equation and simply commit to the extra costs of a longer undersea cable from its own border to Eritrea’s en route to Ethiopia, which might realistically end up being the final solution to the integrational conundrum posed by the Yemeni conflict. In the event that the cable is laid one way or another, then it would lead to two primary regional outcomes.

Egypt & The GCC+

The first is that Egypt’s concerns that GERD would ever be weaponized against its national interests would be further allayed than they already recently have been by the fact that its chief financial patrons are cooperating with the project through the planned electricity cable. This would reinforce the incipient trust between these two Great Powers and contribute to a strengthening of (GCC-facilitated) intra-African relations as a result. Relatedly, Ethiopia would join Egypt as a de-facto member of the GCC+, which would represent the organization’s deepest expansion into the Horn of Africa after the UAE set up bases in Eritrea and the breakaway Somali region of Somaliland to wage the War on Yemen.

Importantly, by becoming the center of “friendly competition” between a variety of Great Powers – whether Saudi Arabia and the UAE like in this instance, or even also China and the US more broadly – Ethiopia can position itself as too valuable for any of them to destabilize without harming their own regional interests. This is more significant of a strategy than ever before considering that Prime Minister Abiy is facing the greatest test of his premiership thus far after the “Flag War” in Addis Ababa and subsequent need to decide upon which of the two competing nationalisms (or perhaps a “hybrid” thereof) that the country will embrace as it works towards an “Ethiopian Renaissance”.

Concluding Thoughts

All told, the proposal for Ethiopia to export GERD’s electricity to Saudi Arabia is a very promising one that epitomizes “win-win” outcomes for this pair of countries and their broader regions as a whole. Saudi Arabia will able advance its ambitious Vision 2030socio-economic series of projects that aim to move the Kingdom away from its oil-related dependencies and towards more sustainable models, while Ethiopia will become a crucial pillar of the GCC’s post-oil planning (which could then expand beyond electricity to include more agricultural exports too) and thus safeguard its national security by becoming much too important of a country for them to destabilize like they’ve done to others. This will benefit both the Gulf and the Horn of Africa, thus strengthening their transregional integration prospects.

*

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.

The creation of demilitarisation zone in northern Syria was announced last week. The joint decision of Moscow and Ankara was supported among a number of pro-Turkish groups. However, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Huras al-Din, and the Turkistan Islamic Party armed groups have rejected the Idlib agreement.

It’s obvious, that the agreement between Russia and Turkey is a temporary project aimed at stopping the bloodshed and restoring sovereignty. Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad in an interview with Al-Watan newspaper reaffirmed the Syria government’s resolve to recapture Idlib from terrorists by any means necessary.

While the parties that have agreed are trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, the terrorists seek to seize the ‘last opportunity’ to earn some money. Their fate has already been determined, and they would need significant resources to take shelter in Turkey. Therefore, slavery, drug smuggling as well as trafficking of artefacts is still flourishing in the province.

First of all, the drug smuggling brings considerable profit to the various terrorist groups. Initially, the drugs are smuggled from Lebanon, and then they are packaged in Idlib and sent to Turkey via Afrin. There the psychotropic substances are transported by sea to Europe.

The same method is used by HTS for the illegal sale of human organs to the European continent. The locals who refuse to join the ranks of the terrorists are being kidnapped and smuggled to the Turkish towns of Antioch and Kiliss. The illegal surgery on the transplantation of donor organs [source to be confirmed] under the auspices of the Turkish officials is being carried out there.

Besides, the radicals trade artefacts, are still in high demand among collectors around the world. During the Syrian war, they plundered hundreds of historical and cultural sights and turned the ancient town of Sarmada, located not far from Turkey into a black market.

Within the framework of creating the demilitarisation zone, mechanisms are envisaged to suppress the financing of militants in Idlib province. In turn, the Syrian Arab Army initiated a large-scale liberation operation. The government forces started patrolling the nearby areas in the southeast of the province for further creation of humanitarian corridors.

These measures have already yielded positive results. The terrorists’ network of underground tunnels used for bypassing observation posts was discovered by the Syrian servicemen not far from the Abu Duhur crossing. Moreover, last week the elite Tiger Forces took captive a terrorist named Abu Yahya, who tried to commit a terrorist attack at the border crossing when the locals were leaving the demilitarisation zone.

After being interrogated, the captive said that he had been fought in the ranks of HTS in a unit of 300 fighters.

“I was trained in a camp near Saraqib along with my brothers for committing single terrorist attacks. I was quite impressed to see the White Helmets activists being trained there too”, Abu Yahya added.

The captive also reported that the U.S., Britain, and Turkish military instructors separated terrorists for the groups and taught them various disciplines as explosives engineering, artillery bombardment, urban battles, and preparation of suicide bombers. Most likely the White Helmets were trained the proper handling of chemicals for the upcoming chemical weapons provocation.

The HTS field commanders make every effort for setting up a defense position. By oppressing the locals and smuggling, the terrorists earn a big sum of money and recruit new fighters under the black banners. The longer Idlib matter is being resolved; what is more difficult is the restoration of control over the region for the Syrian army.

It’s quite difficult to establish how the situation will be developed in Idlib as Russia and Turkey have entirely different interests in Syria. However, the results of their efforts should turn into the elimination of Idlib hornet’s nest.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Demilitarization Zone in Northern Syria: What Is Going On in the Idlib Hornet Nest?

Lavrov Slams Western Unilateralism at UN General Assembly

September 29th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

In his UN General Assembly address and remarks to reporters in New York, Lavrov diverged from his usual measured approach when discussing geopolitical issues.

He slammed US-led Western unilateralism without naming countries or their ruling authorities.

Calling Western sanctions against Russia “political blackmail,” he criticized baseless accusations against his country, along with denouncing “overt endeavors to undermine democratically elected governments” – referring to Syria and other sovereign states attacked by the US and its imperial partners.

His address was reminiscent of Putin’s 2007 Munich Security Conference tough talk, enraging Washington at the time.

“When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” he stressed, adding:

Unipolarity and other imperial notions of world supremacy reflect “Cold War bloc thinking.”

A world with “one master, one sovereign” is unacceptable…pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

“(T)his certainly has nothing in common with democracy…(W)e are constantly being taught about democracy (by the West). (T)hose who teach us do not want to learn themselves.”

“(T)he unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.”

‘(T)he model itself is flawed because…(u)nilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems.”

They create major ones, plunging the world “into an abyss of permanent conflicts,” along with “greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.”

“One state…first and foremost the United States” imposes its will on other nations politically, economically and militarily.

Abuses by a dominant nation forces others to react defensively, producing an arms race menacing everyone.

Putin denounced what he called illegitimate military operations, flagrantly violating UN Charter principles and other international law.

He urged working together cooperatively to resolve differences. US militarism near Russia’s borders threatens its security.

Provocative US-led NATO actions undermine mutual trust. Where is Washington’s commitment to non-proliferation matching Russia’s pledge, Putin asked?

In his Friday UN General Assembly address, Lavrov slammed “unilateral approaches” on major world issues – including Middle East peace, the Iran nuclear deal, climate change, and others.

He said if Washington values nation state sovereignty, it should stop (illegally) interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.

He warned of a “desire of some Western states to retain their self-proclaimed status as world leaders and to slow down the irreversible, objective process of establishing multipolarity,” adding:

“These powers do not hesitate to use any methods, including political blackmail, economic pressure and brute force.”

Clearly he referred to Washington and its key NATO partners. He “warn(ed) terrorists and their sponsors (in Syria) that new provocations involving chemical weapons are unacceptable.”

He urged conflict resolution, rebuilding the Syrian Arab Republic, aiding millions of displaced refugees return home, and reconstructing war-torn areas without “double standards.”

Addressing the endless Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he said

“(d)espite the complexity of the situation in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya, we must not lose sight of the age-old Palestinian problem.”

“A fair solution is crucial if we want the entire Middle East to recover. I want to warn against a one-sided approach and attempts to monopolize the peace process.”

“We will make every effort, including in the within the Middle East Quartet, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”

“Mutually acceptable initiatives must lay the groundwork for a peaceful and secure co-existence of the two nations, Israel and Palestine.”

One-sided US support for Israel, along with disdain for Palestinian rights, prevents conflict resolution.

The Netanyahu regime categorically rejects Palestinian self-determination the way it should be – within pre-1967 borders. So does Washington despite claims otherwise.

Lavrov stressed Russia’s commitment to preserving the JCOPA Iran nuclear deal, Trump’s unilateral pullout a flagrant violation of the international treaty.

Russia’s foreign minister slammed illegally installed Kiev putschists, saying their “sponsoring nations must bring their proteges back to their senses, push them to end the blockade of the Donbass and to stop discriminating against national minorities across Ukraine.”

Russia is committed to furthering political and economic cooperation among all nations, notably stressing the development of a “Greater Eurasian Partnership.”

At his Friday news conference, Lavrov again slammed interference by Washington and its imperial partners in the internal affairs of other nations.

He stressed support for the sovereign independence of all countries, calling multilateralism vital in today’s world where geopolitical issues are “cross-border ones.”

There’s no ambiguity about “who is calling for meddling and who isn’t,” he stressed.

US-led Western countries pressure, bully, threaten and blackmail other countries to enforce their will, an agenda threatening world peace.

“(D)ictate and coercion” belong in the dustbin of history, mutual cooperation among all nations replacing it, Lavrov stressed.

*

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 Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lavrov Slams Western Unilateralism at UN General Assembly

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies continues their slow advance on ISIS positions in the al-Safa area in the al-Suwayda-Rif Dimashq desert. The SAA reportedly ambushed at least two groups of ISIS members killing six terrorists and destroying a vehicle.

Nonetheless, most of the area remains in the hands of ISIS. At least 15 SAA troops have been killed in the clashes there.

A unit of the Syrian Air Force Intelligence Directorate (SAFID) cracked down an ISIS cell in the village of al-Harrah in western Daraa detaining. According to reports, five suspects were detained, at least one SAFID servicemember was killed and an unknown number of terrorist was eliminated during the operation.

In western Aleppo, Nour al-Din al-Zenki arrested several members of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) accusing them of carrying out several attacks in the town of Darat Izza. Members of the group also captures several Hayat Tahrir al-Sham positions at the al-Shikh Barakat mount. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham responded by deploying additional reinforcements in the area.

Some sources speculated that a new round of tensions between various militant groups in Idlib and western Aleppo has been caused by the recent Turkish-Russian agreement to impose a demilitarized zone there.

During a House Armed Services Committee subcommittee hearing on September 26, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Robert Karem accused the Assad government and Russia of turning Idlib into the terrorist stronghold in Syria.

“There is no dispute that Idlib has become a hornet’s nest of multiple terrorist organizations. Regrettably, this is the product of the Russian and Regime approach to consolidating control on the ground in Syria. They have used de-escalation zones and local negotiated deals to purge areas in Syria and used Idlib as a dumping ground. And they have allowed the free transit of the worst terrorists to go to Idlib,” he stated hinting that the Pentagon’s official attitude is that efforts of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance are allegedly leading to the growth of the terrorist threat in the war torn country.

On September 27, speaking at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once again stated that Israel is adamant in its will to act in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in order to deter what he described as “Iran’s aggression”.

He also made new allegations on Iran’s nuclear program claiming that there is a secret “atomic warehouse” near Tehran, which is capable of containing as much as 300 tons of “nuclear-related material.”

“Today I am disclosing for the first time that Iran has another secret facility in Tehran, a secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and material for Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program,” Netanyahu stated adding that the data had been allegedly obtained as a result Israeli forces’ raid on Iran’s alleged “nuclear atomic archive”. A part of this data was presented by Netanyahu in April 2018 with similar claims that Iran has not abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Meanwhile, the US has renewed its efforts to create the so-called Arab NATO to confront the Iranian influence in the Middle East.

According to U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Arabian Gulf Affairs Tim Lenderking, the new entity will be entitled the Middle East Strategic Alliance and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Egypt and Jordan would become the core of the bloc.

These developments show that the US-Israeli bloc is set continue its military, diplomatic and economic efforts in an attempt to reshape the current balance of power in the Middle East and to counter the growing Iranian influence.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Pentagon Says Russia, Assad Turned Idlib into Terrorist Stronghold

Fragility of Middle East Alliances Becomes Ever More Apparent

September 29th, 2018 by James M. Dorsey

A podcast version of this story is available on Soundcloud, Stitcher, TuneIn and Tumblr.

Three recent developments lay bare the fragility of Middle Eastern alliances and a rebalancing of their priorities: the Russian-Turkish compromise on an assault on the rebel-held Syrian region of Idlib, the fate of troubled Abu Dhabi airline Ettihad, and battles over reconstruction of Syria.

These developments highlight the fact that competition among Middle Eastern rivals and ultimate power within the region’s various alliances is increasingly as much economic and commercial as it is military and geopolitical. Battles are fought as much on geopolitical fronts as they are on economic and cultural battlefields such as soccer.

As a result, the fault lines of various alliances across the greater Middle East, a region that stretches from North Africa to north-western China, are coming to the fore.

The cracks may be most apparent in the Russian-Turkish-Iranian alliance but lurk in the background of Gulf cooperation with Israel in confronting Iran as well as the unified front put forward by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Russia, prevented, at least for now, a rupture with Turkey, by delaying an all-out attack on Idlib despite Iranian advocacy of an offensive. Turkey, already home to three million Syrians, feared that a Syrian-Russian assault, would push hundreds of thousands, if not millions more across its border.

If Iran was the weakest link in the debate about Idlib, it stands stronger in its coming competition with Russia for the spoils of reconstruction of war-ravaged Syria.

Similarly, Russia appears to be ambivalent towards a continued Iranian military presence in post-war Syria, a potential flashpoint given Israel’s opposition and Israeli attacks that led earlier this month to the downing of a Russian aircraft.

By the same token, Turkey, despite its backing of Qatar in its 15-month-old dispute with a Saudi-UAE-led alliance that is boycotting the Gulf state diplomatically and economically, poses perhaps the greatest challenge to Qatari efforts to project itself globally by operating one of the world’s best airlines and positioning itself as a sports hub.

Turkey, despite its failure this week to win the right to host Euro 2024 and its lack of the Gulf’s financial muscle, competes favourably on every other front with Qatar as well as the UAE that too is seeking to project itself through soft as well as hard power and opposes Mr. Erdogan because of his Islamist leanings, ties to Iran, and support of Qatar. Turkey wins hands down against the small Gulf states when it comes to size, population, location, industrial base, military might, and sports performance.

That, coupled with a determination to undermine Qatar, was likely one reason, why the UAE’s major carriers, Emirates and Etihad that is troubled by a failed business model, have, despite official denials, been quietly discussing a potential merger that would create the world’s largest airline.

Countering competition from Turkish Airlines that outflanks both UAE carriers with 309 passenger planes that service 302 destinations in 120 countries may well have been another reason. Emirates, the larger of the two Emirati carriers, has, a fleet of 256 aircraft flying to 150 destinations in 80 countries.

These recent developments suggest that alliances, particularly the one that groups Russia, Turkey and Iran, are brittle and transactional, geared towards capitalizing on immediate common interests rather than shared long-term goals, let alone values.

That is true even if Russia and Turkey increasingly find common ground in concepts of Eurasianism. It also applies to Turkey and Qatar who both support Islamist groups as well as to Saudi Arabia and the UAE who closely coordinate policies but see their different goals put on display in Yemen.

The fragility of the alliances is further underwritten by Turkish, Russian and Iranian aspirations of resurrecting empire in a 21st century mould and a Saudi quest for regional dominance.

Notions of empire have informed policies long before realignment across Eurasia as a result of the focus of the United States shifting from the Middle East to Asia, the rise of China. increasingly strained relations between the West and Russia, and the greater assertiveness of Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran.

Then president Suleyman Demirel told this author already in the 1990s in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union and the emergence of independent, mostly ethnically Turkic Central Asian republics that “Turkey’s world stretches from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China.”

In a world in which globalization is shaped by geopolitical zones rather than individual countries, Russia’s imperative is to be a region by defining itself as an Asian rather than a European power that would be on par with China, the European Union, and a US zone of influence.

“Putin does not think along national lines. He thinks in terms of larger blocks, and, ultimately in terms of the world order,” said former Portuguese minister for Europe, Bruno Macaes in a recently published book, The Dawn of Eurasia.

In doing so, Russia is effectively turning its back on Europe as it reinvents itself as an Asian power on the basis of a Eurasianism, a century-old ideology that defines Russia as a Eurasian rather than a European power.

The Eurasian Economic Union, that groups Russia, Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia, is a vehicle that allows Russia to establish itself as a block in the borderland between Europe and Asia.

Similarly, Eurasianism has gained currency in Turkey with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who enabled by the demise of the Soviet Union and the re-emergence of a Turkic world, projects his country as a crossroads between Europe, Africa and Asia rather than a European bridge to Asia.

In that vein, Turkish columnist Sinan Baykent projected this week’s fence-mending visit to Germany by Mr. Erdogan and his proposal for a summit on Syria of Turkish, Russian, German and French leaders as a Eurasian approach to problem solving.

The meeting between Mr. Erdogan and German chancellor Angela Merkel was meant “to pave the way for a Eurasian solution for the region… There is a new axis forming today between Berlin, Moscow, Ankara, Tehran and maybe Paris… All of these countries are fed up with American unilateralism and excessive policies displayed by the Trump administration.,” Mr. Baykent said.

If Turkey and Russia’s vision of their place in the world is defined to a large extent by geography, Iran’s topology dictates a more inward-looking view despite accusations that it is seeking to establish itself as the Middle East’s hegemon.

Iran is a fortress. Surrounded on three sides by mountains and on the fourth by the ocean, with a wasteland at its centre,” noted Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence platform.

Gulf fears are rooted not only in deep-seated distrust of Iran’s Islamic regime, but also in the fact that the foundation of past Persian empire relied on control of plains in present-day Iraq.

As a result, the manoeuvring of Gulf states, in contrast to Turkey and Russia, is driven less by a conceptual framing of their place in the world and more by regional rivalry and regime survival. Countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE walk a fine line focusing geopolitically on an increasingly unpredictable United States and economically on China and the rest of Asia, including Russia, Korea and Japan.

What the plight of Idlib, potential change in aviation and competition for reconstruction contracts highlight is the brittleness of Middle Eastern alliances that threatens to be reinforced by economics becoming an increasingly important factor alongside geopolitics.

“Stakes for all parties are starting to divert from each other in Syria and the prospects of cooperation with Russia and Iran are becoming more challenging,” said Turkish columnist Nuray Mert commenting on the situation in Idlib.

Her analysis is as valid for Idlib as it for the prospects of many of the Middle East alliances.

*

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: The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa and just published China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom  He is a frequent contributor to global Research. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fragility of Middle East Alliances Becomes Ever More Apparent

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have committed perjury under oath during Senate confirmation hearing testimony.

He may have lied about his knowledge of and/or involvement in Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiretapping, torture and other lawless programs.

Did he lie as well in response to Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusations?

Ahead of her Thursday Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, Ford said Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down and sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers in the 1980s.

By letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, she said what’s going on now “are all the ills that I was trying to avoid. Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and my terror about retaliation,” adding:

“Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room.”

“They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.”

“Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.”

“They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth, I feared he (might) inadvertently kill me.”

“At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.”

“After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me.”

“Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.”

“I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6, I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information.”

“It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.”

In response to Ford’s compelling accusations, the American Bar Association (ABA) urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the confirmation process until an FBI investigation into Ford’s charges is conducted and completed.

By letter to committee chairman Grassley and ranking minority committee member Feinstein, ABA president Robert Carlson said the following:

“The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI,” adding:

A Supreme Court appointment is “too important to rush to a vote. Deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court.”

Whether Carlson’s letter makes a difference ahead a scheduled Friday confirmation vote will be known in the coming hours.

Separately, two more women accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault while he was in high school or college.

Accusations this serious against anyone demand an investigation to determine who’s truthful and who’s not. It’s especially vital with a Supreme Court seat at stake.

If accusations by Ford and other women are verified as genuine, a sexual predator should never be allowed on the nation’s High Court.

Nor should war crimes by presidents and other US officials be tolerated.

But it happens repeatedly, indicating Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed even if guilty of perjury and sexual assault.

It’s further proof that lofty principles US officials claim to value is pure fantasy.

One more point. If majority Senate members reject Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, Trump will surely nominate another right-wing hardliner.

No one favored by Republicans or undemocratic Dems today approaches the stature William Brennan, William Douglas, Thurgood Marshall or Louis Brandeis.

America’s most distinguished and respected jurists are no longer considered Supreme Court material – more evidence of how low things in the nation have sunk.

*

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 Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Bar Association (ABA) Calls for Investigating Sexual Assault Charges Against Judge Kavanaugh
  • Tags:

Tortured Solutions: Ecuador, the UK and Julian Assange’s Fate

September 29th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The pulse of negotiations, a flurry of communications, and the person central to this is one who threatens to go nowhere – for the moment.  But go somewhere these parties would wish Julian Assange to do.  For six years, cramped within a space in London a stone’s throw away from Harrods, one he has made his tenuous home, a citadel of sporadic publishing and exposes; for six years, an unruly, disobedient tenant whose celebrity shine has lost its gloss for certain followers and those who did, at one point, tolerate him.

The landlords have lost patience, and Lenín Moreno is willing to call in the arrears.  He has made it clear that, whilst Assange has been subjected to an unacceptable state of affairs (“Being five or six years in an embassy already violates his human rights”), he should also be moved on in some form with the British authorities.  How that moving takes place is producing a host of large, ballooning questions.

Ultimately, the current Ecuadorean leadership finds little to merit Assange’s effort.  He intrudes into the political affairs of other countries with audacity; he disturbs and interrupts the order of things with relish and, for those reasons, ought to be regarded with suspicion. 

“I don’t agree with what he does,” Moreno is on record as saying.  “It is somewhat disgusting to see someone violating people’s right to communicate privately.” 

Moreno, despite being classed as a protégé of his predecessor Rafael Correa, has done his level best to spruce up the country’s image for the United States whose Vice President, Mike Pence, duly acknowledged on a visit in June this year. He has moved on former figures within the previous administration, including Correa, claiming instances of corruption and crime.  Previous contracts made with Chinese companies are also being scrutinised for their value. 

Moreno is prudish and inaccurate on the issue of private communications and the WikiLeaks experiment. What he ignores is the driving rationale for the spicy vigilantism of the publishing outfit, an attempt to subvert a certain order of power that was crying out for a revision. This revision, applied through the lens of transparency, would arm the weak and powerless with knowledge while defending their privacy.  The powerful and brutish, on the other hand, must be kept exposed, under a form of public surveillance and permanent review.  Transparency for the powerful; privacy for the powerless.   

The asymmetrical order of information, however, lauds the reverse of this. States are patriarchs beyond scrutiny; they dispense, with occasional bad grace, the odd favour that entitles the public to see its activities.  Freedom of information statutes and regulations give the impression that the public are, somehow, entitled to see material that is supposedly their resource. (How condescending to tell citizens that they have a resource that can only be accessed carefully, via suspicious gatekeepers obsessed with national security.)  

In return, these gorged bureaucracies conduct surveillance upon their citizens with a sneering conviction, and ensure that a fictional public interest is deployed against those who would dare air the cupboard of skeletons. 

The current state of negotiations are blurry.  On Wednesday, Moreno claimed that Ecuadorean and British officials were nattering over permitting Assange to leave the embassy “in the medium term”.  His lawyers have been notified of the process, but nothing else is forthcoming.   

What tends to be written about Assange is itself a product of the dissimulation that he has attempted to banish from political conservation.  His variant of the Midas touch is less turning things to gold than simulacrums of truth.  A piece on the Australian SBS site notes how, “Previous sexual assault charges filed against him in Sweden have been dropped.”  The stopper here is that he was never charged, being merely a subject of interest who needed to be questioned.  The rest is an awkward, concocted silence.

Assange, more significantly for the geopolitical boffins, took a dump in the imperium’s gold water closet, and now faces the consequences.  It has come in drips and drabs: cutting off internet access on March 27; restricting visitors and the access of journalists.  Moreno himself has suggested that Assange stop what he does best: express unsavoury opinions.  Should Assange promise “to stop emitting opinions on the politics of friendly nations like Spain or the United States then we have no problem with him going online.”  Turning Assange into a eunuch of public affairs is a top priority.    

Moreno’s predecessors have shaken their heads in disbelief at the treatment being dished out to the Australian publisher.  To ban visitors, argued Correa, was “a clear violation of his rights.  Once we give asylum to someone, we are responsible for his safety, for ensuring humane living conditions.” (It should be noted that Correa himself authorised a temporary suspension of internet access to Assange in 2016, a brief measure taken to stem the publisher’s zeal in attacking Hillary Clinton during the US presidential elections.) 

This will be a slow torture, a cruel process of breaking down resistance.  The issue in such cases is to avoid going potty and losing all sense of bearing.  Should Assange even maintain a sense of psychic composure after this relentless attempt to dissolve his will, history should record it as one of those infrequent secular miracles that the human spirit can provide.

* 

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. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tortured Solutions: Ecuador, the UK and Julian Assange’s Fate

Iran’s nuclear program is the most intensively monitored on the planet. It has no military component, no credible evidence suggesting otherwise.

All the huffing, puffing and posturing histrionics by Netanyahu and other Iranophobes can’t refute cold hard facts.

IAEA officials have unimpeded access to all Iranian sites designated for inspection.

Twelve consecutive agency reports unequivocally affirmed full Iranian compliance with JCPOA provisions. No Islamic Republic nuclear weapons program exists. No credible evidence suggests its leadership or military intends one.

Claims otherwise are bald-faced lies. On Thursday, Netanyahu once again used the UN General Assembly as a platform to turn truth on its head about Iran.

He was silent about Israel’s open secret. It’s the only nuclear armed and dangerous regional state. The whole world knows what he and other Israeli officials won’t openly admit.

In a 2012 General Assembly address, Netanyahu made a fool of himself before a world audience. His cartoon bomb presentation on Iran bombed.

So did his Wednesday presentation, a litany of beginning-to-end Big Lies.

Netanyahu:

“We opposed (the JCPOA) because the deal paved Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal.”

“And by lifting the sanctions, it fueled Iran’s campaign of carnage and conquest throughout the Middle East.”

“We oppose it because the deal was based on a fundamental lie that Iran is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.”

Fact: The world community, including leaders and diplomats attending the UNGA session, knows all of the above accusations are disgraceful bald-faced lies.

Not a shred of credible evidence supports them. Plenty of evidence debunks them, notably from IAEA inspectors.

Watch below Netanyahu’s speech at the UNGA.

Last May, coincidentally with Trump’s JCPOA pullout, Netanyahu claimed Israel has thousands of incriminating documents, charts, presentations, photos and videos, showing Tehran lied for years to the international community.

Without credible evidence backing his announcement, he falsely claimed Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program called Project Amad – to “design, produce and test 5 warheads, each of 10 kilotons TNT yield for integration on a missile.”

He turned truth on its head, claiming Iran built a secret underground facility for developing nuclear cores and implosion systems.

Intensive IAEA inspections refuted him, an agency statement repeatedly stating that

“Iran is (fully) implementing its nuclear-related commitments.”

Time and again, Netanyahu turns truth on its head about Iran. His dissembling wore thin long ago. His Wednesday theatrics once again backfired, a clearly understood exercise of Iranophobic deception – new accusations as fabricated as earlier ones.

Netanyahu:

“Today I’m disclosing for the first time that Iran has another secret facility in Tehran. A secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and material for Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program.”

Fact: Not a shred of credible evidence supports his fabricated accusation.

Press TV called his Wednesday theatrics a “new vaudeville” act “without providing any proof to support his claims” because none exists.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif blasted him, saying

“the boy who can’t stop crying wolf is at it again.”

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said his presentation failed to mention full Iranian compliance with JCPOA provisions.

In late August, Netanyahu disgracefully threatened Iran with “atomic annihilation,” adding “our enemies know very well what Israel is capable of doing” – virtually admitting that the Jewish state is nuclear armed and dangerous.

At the time, Zarif tweeted:

“Iran, a country without nuclear weapons, is threatened with atomic annihilation by a warmonger standing next to an actual (Dimona) nuclear weapons factory,” adding:

His remarks were “beyond shameless…No arts and craft show will ever obfuscate that Israel is only regime in our region with a secret and undeclared nuclear weapons program — including an actual atomic arsenal.”

“Time for Israel to fess up and open its illegal nuclear weapons program to international inspectors.

Israel refuses to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran a signatory country since 1968 when NPT was opened for signatures.

The Islamic Republic fully complies with its provisions. The US and Israel flagrantly breach them unaccountably.

*

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 Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The recently published, U.S.-financed report on South Sudan’s brutal conflict is just another dramatic illustration of how the U.S. publicly laments violence it has helped to create and perpetuate while obfuscating the sordid legacy of its foreign interventions.

A new report financed by the U.S. government on the state of South Sudan’s civil war has found that the conflict has resulted in the deaths of nearly 400,000 people since it began five years ago, indicating that past statistics had severely underestimated the death toll.

Yet, while the U.S.-funded report bemoans the situation in Africa’s youngest country, it fails to acknowledge the U.S.’ role in igniting the conflict, which largely resulted from the U.S.’ 2011 intervention in Sudan that led to the country’s partition and later to the current chaos that has now claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

The report, published by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by the U.S. Institute of Peace, revealed on Wednesday that at least 382,900 people in South Sudan have died as a result of the conflict in the country. About half of the deaths resulted from ethnic violence while the remaining deaths were caused by the increased risk of disease and reduced access to health care — underscoring the drastic effect the fighting has had on the country’s infrastructure.

The statistics provided in the report are astronomical compared to past estimates of the death toll resulting from the conflict, as past estimates claimed that the death toll stood at around 50,000. Yet, as the new report reveals, the actual death toll is more than seven times higher than past estimates.

Illuminating but leaving much in the dark

While the U.S.-funded report seems to be the first of its kind to more accurately record the massive toll the war has taken on the people of South Sudan, it unsurprisingly fails to acknowledge the U.S.’ role in perpetuating as well as creating the conflict.

Image result for Stephen Hadley

This is likely a result of the U.S. Institute of Peace having funded the project, as that organization — much like the related organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — promotes the role of the U.S. as benevolent global hegemon in “managing international conflicts.” In other words, the USIP — currently headed by former National Security Adviser under George W. Bush and Raytheon board member Stephen Hadley (image on the right)— sees American foreign interventions, including military interventions, as not only positive but necessary.

Yet, the conflict of South Sudan, which is undeniably the result of U.S. policy, has hardly had positive results. As The New York Times noted in 2014, South Sudan – as well as its brutal civil war – “is in many ways an American creation, carved out of war-torn Sudan in a referendum largely orchestrated by the United States, its fragile institutions nurtured with billions of dollars in American aid.”

Indeed, the creation of South Sudan at America’s behest was the ultimate result of long-standing U.S. efforts to exploit the decades-old conflict between Sudan’s northern and southern elites in a bid to weaken the Sudanese government, whose growing ties to China and the Soviet Union threatened American access to Sudan’s oil fields as well as American hegemony in Africa.

Soon after the state’s creation, civil war broke out, officially the result of a straightforward power struggle between U.S.-backed President Salva Kiir and his former deputy, Riek Machar, with the violence subsequently taking on an ethnic component.

Yet, a major reason for the perpetuation of the ethnic violence and high death toll of the conflict is the policies of President Kiir, whose government utilized a “scorched earth” campaign and has sought to use “population engineering” to forcibly relocate ethnic minorities. Kiir, and officials in his government have also directly ordered mass killings and property seizures against civilians.

In addition, Kiir’s rival, Machar, also has a long history of ethnic massacres and mass murder under his belt. The U.S., having thrown its support behind Kiir and Machar after elections in 2011, was well aware of the fact that it had effectively backed mass murderers taking control of the country after helping to create it. Many analysts have pointed out that Machar apparently instigated the country’s civil war at Washington’s behest after the Kiir government began to work closely with China, particularly in South Sudan’s oil sector.

Furthermore, the U.S. has continued to exacerbate the situation in South Sudan, as it wages a barbaric proxy war between the U.S. and China over the new nation’s considerable oil reserves. While a recent “peace deal” between the two factions supporting Kiir and Machar in the conflict has given some hope, the reality of the conflict as a battle between powerful U.S. and Chinese oil interests instead suggests that such peace efforts are likely doomed to fail.

Thus, in a sense, the recently published, U.S.-financed report detailing the jarring death toll of South Sudan’s “civil war” is just another dramatic illustration of how the U.S. publicly laments violence it has helped to create and perpetuate, while obfuscating the sordid legacy of its foreign interventions.

*

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

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

Western interference in all things Bosnian is hardly news. Not today, not yesterday, not 26 years ago, when the then-US ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman, encouraged Bosnian Muslim fundamentalist leader Alija Izetbegovic to reject a peace plan – accepted, incidentally, by the very same Bosnian Serb leaders soon to be demonized by the unipolar West as “aggressors” on their own land – that had a good chance of preventing the outbreak of a bloody, three-and-a-half-year civil war that produced about 100,000 dead and many more wounded and homeless people in this former federal republic of ex-Yugoslavia.

But it is news when such a charge comes out of the mouth of Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, who, although eager to keep and develop good relations with Russia and China, has over the years remade himself into an essentially pro-Western politician, whose main ambition is to integrate his country and the rest of the Balkans into the EU, torpedoes be damned. Thus, Vucic’s announcement that, as soon as the October 7 general elections in Bosnia were over, he would present “astonishing evidence of the most brutal interference of certain Western powers in the elections in Republika Srpska” (one of two entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a majority Orthodox Serb population, taking up 49% of the country, the other being the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dominated by Muslims and Catholic Croats), is a fairly reliable sign that the West has truly outdone itself, even by its own standards of “democracy export,” going so far, in Vucic’s words, that certain Western ambassadors were calling opposition candidates and threatening them not to switch allegiances, otherwise they would “answer both for real and imagined crimes.”

The first accusations of US meddling in the upcoming Bosnian general elections could already be heard back in May, when the Bosnian Serb government presented evidence to the UN Secretary-General regarding US State Department and USAID media financing designed to influence the elections, to the tune of more than $12 million. Then in June, President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik similarly accused the British government, referring to its decision to send 40 intelligence specialists to, as British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson (he of the “go away and shut up” Russia fame) put it, counter “malign external influence” – as “meddling in internal affairs” and “an act that borders on intrusion into this country.” In August, Dodik once again pointed his fingers at the Americans, charging that they were interfering in the upcoming elections by funneling “anti-corruption” funds to local, anti-government NGOs. And then in the first days of September, Dodik reproached the outgoing US ambassador to B-H, Maureen Cormack for – you guessed it – “flagrantly meddling in political processes and elections in Bosnia,” having lobbied for US sanctions against the vice-president of Dodik’s party, Nikola Spiric and his family, for alleged corruption – during the 2014 (!) election campaign. In Spiric’s own words, Cormack “made a desperate move 28 days before the general election in order to help her puppets from Sarajevo – the Alliance for Change.”

Dodik went even further, opining that Cormack was, in fact, the ambassador of George Soros, and that the real reason behind the sanctions against Spiric was his “refusal to support the anti-Serbian agenda of the B-H Intelligence-Security Agency… and participate in a commission that was supposed to legalize eavesdropping” of him, current Republika Srpska Prime Minister Zeljka Cvijanovic, Serbian President Vucic and other officials of Serbia and Republika Srpska. Earlier in the month, before the sanctions against Spiric had been announced, Zeljka Cvijanovic had already publicly accused the B-H agency of illegally eavesdropping on “around 70” officials from Serbia and Republika Srpska.

So the stage is set for, to say the least, eventful elections in the (former) unipolar world’s model democratic and multi-ethnic protectorate, Bosnia and Herzegovina, still “supervised” by a de facto viceroy in the form of a “High Representative,” with a “constitutional court” in which three of the nine judges are foreigners, and unwieldy and paralyzed institutions that are producing a “fatalistic cynicism” amongst its populace. That is, if regular elections even take place. For, there are increasing fears that there is a (naturally) Western scenario for preventing or voiding the elections in Republika Srpska in order to block the victory of Dodik and his ruling coalition. According to sources cited by Serbian Sputnik, two scenarios are in play: according to the first, the elections would be sabotaged in advance if it was judged that Dodik is too strong, while, according to the second, the election results would not be recognized should Dodik’s party gain the majority of the vote. Mass demonstrations would be incited in either case, with the lead role being played by the British, due to the “weakening” of America’s Balkan policy under Donald Trump.

The mass demonstration scenario is not unrealistic. Demonstrators in varying numbers have been occupying the main square of Banja Luka, the Republika Srpska capital, for months, accusing the government of complicity in the death of 21-year old David Dragicevic, even though they have yet to produce concrete evidence (doesn’t that sound familiar) for their claims. The victim’s father has even threatened that there would be “no election in Republika Srpska until the murder of David and other children is solved.” The demonstrations are obviously well financed, and are supported and occasionally attended by members of the pro-Western opposition. And, considering that, on the eve of the elections, Dodik is slated to visit Russia and meet its president, Vladimir Putin (Russia has consistently upheld the integrity of B-H, as provided for by the Dayton Peace Accords of 1995, and the absolute equality of its three constituent peoples, which was reiterated during Sergey Lavrov’recent visit to the country) it will indeed be exceedingly difficult for the end-of-history West to refrain from trying to “teach” the Balkan deplorables at least one more lesson in “democracy.” Because all the previous ones there and elsewhere – Syria, Libya, Iraq instantly come to mind – have produced such wonderful results…

*

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

Aleksandar Pavic is an independent analyst and researcher.

Featured image is from the author.

The scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology has issued a rare “Expression of Concern” and requested corrections to articles it published that failed to fully disclose Monsanto’s role in reviews of glyphosate’s cancer risks.

The journal said all five articles it published in a 2016 supplemental issue titled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate” failed to include an accurate disclosure of the pesticide-maker’s involvement.

The five articles at issue were all highly critical of the 2015 finding by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen.

“It’s deplorable that Monsanto was the puppet master behind the supposedly ‘independent’ reviews of glyphosate’s safety,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These papers were manufactured as a way to counteract the World Health Organization’s findings on glyphosate’s cancer risks. They could mislead the public in dangerous ways and should be completely retracted.”

The documents revealing Monsanto’s role in the reviews came to light during a trial that culminated last month when a jury found that exposure to glyphosate products was a “substantial” contributing factor to the terminal cancer of a California groundskeeper, who was subsequently awarded $289 million in damages.

Those documents exposed that Monsanto improperly edited the articles and directly paid some of the authors a consulting fee for their work.

In an October 2017 letter to the publisher, the Center for Biological Diversity and three other national environmental health groups demanded the articles be retracted.

The Declaration of Interest statement that was originally published with the papers:

  • Failed to disclose that at least two panelists who authored the review worked as consultants for, and were directly paid by, Monsanto for their work on the paper;
  • Failed to disclose that at least one Monsanto employee extensively edited the manuscript and was adamant about retaining inflammatory language critical of the IARC assessment — against some of the authors’ wishes; the disclosure falsely stated that no Monsanto employee reviewed the manuscript.

Additionally, multiple internal emails from Monsanto indicated the pesticide maker’s willingness to ghostwrite or compile information for the authors of the reviews, dictate the scope of one of the reviews, and identify which scientists to engage or list as authors of the reviews.

In an email sent yesterday to the Center, a representative from the publisher of the articles, Taylor and Francis, wrote:

“We note that, despite requests for full disclosure, the original Acknowledgements and Declaration of Interest statements provided to the journal did not fully represent the involvement of Monsanto or its employees or contractors in the authorship of the articles.”

Despite the misconduct that Taylor and Francis acknowledged in the Expression of Concern, the publisher has refused to issue a retraction for the papers, in contradiction to its own Corrections Policy, and has allowed the title of the supplemental issue to retain the phrase “an independent review.”

“This peek behind the Monsanto curtain raises serious questions about the safety of glyphosate,” said Donley. “Monsanto’s unethical behavior and the publisher’s response undermine scientific integrity and ultimately public health.”

Evidence continues to mount about the toxicity of glyphosate, not only to humans, but to the broader environment. Glyphosate was recently found to make honeybees more susceptible to infection from pathogens, implicating it as a contributing factor in worldwide bee declines.

*

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