Global Research

According to Russian academic Alexander Lukin, hardline US policies toward Russia and China could “lead to confrontation.”

It already has politically and economically. The threat of possible military confrontation remains. Lukin believes the US is “very clearly a declining power,” its influence waning despite its strength, adding:

China accomplished what Soviet Russia failed to achieve. It “created an economically effective model without political dependence on the West. There are already countries which are interested in more cooperation with China than with the US and its allies.”

The Trump regime aims to limit China’s growth, trade disputes a pretext. Washington’s real aim is wanting China co-opted, submissive to its will, an objective it won’t achieve. The country is proudly independent and intends staying this way.

The same goes for Russia. Both nations want cooperative relations with all other countries, including the US, short of subservience.

On Monday, China’s Information Office of the State Council (CIOST) released a white paper, titled “The Facts and China’s Position on China-US Trade Friction,” saying:

“Thanks to economic globalization, economies, particularly the larger ones, are highly interdependent.”

“Ultimately, trade wars unilaterally initiated by the US administration will not only hurt other economies but also undermine US interests.”

The white paper highlights what it calls “six key facts about China-US trade and economic relations,” including:

— “the gap in trade in goods alone is not a good indicator of China-US trade and economic relations;

— the discussion of fair trade should not be detached from the principle of mutual benefit of the World Trade Organization (WTO);

— the accusation that China forces technology transfer is against the spirit of contract;

— China’s huge efforts and achievements with regard to (intellectual property) protection should not be dismissed;

— the Chinese government’s encouragement to Chinese business to go global should not be distorted as a government attempt to acquire advanced technologies through commercial mergers and acquisitions;

— China’s subsidy policy complies with WTO rules and should not be attacked.”

Trade protectionism is mutually harmful. Trump regime tariffs on Chinese products increase their cost for US businesses and consumers, resulting in thousands of lost jobs – a hugely counterproductive policy.

Whoever is advising Trump on economic and trade with China is a fifth column threat to bilateral interests.

In early May, the US National Taxpayers Union warned the executive and Congress that tariffs on imports from China and other countries would drive up costs and harm the economy.

They’ll automatically trigger countermeasures, assuring losers, not winners, the way all trade wars turn out – foolhardy to initiate. Yet they foolishly erupt at times like now.

Offshoring of US jobs and operations to China and other low-wage countries are to blame for America’s huge trade deficit

Blame US industries for their policies, not recipient countries like China and others.

Trump regime economic trade policies toward Beijing are undermining decades of bilateral efforts to resolve differences equitably, according to the CIOST.

The white paper blamed Trump’s America First agenda for “unilateralism, protectionism and economic hegemony, making false accusations against many countries and regions, particularly China, intimidating other countries through economic measures such as imposing tariffs, and attempting to impose its own interests on China through extreme pressure.”

The Trump regime imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese products, vowing another $267 billion more if Beijing retaliates.

Imposing sanctions on China for buying Russian aircraft and S-400 missile defense systems resulted in Vice Premier Liu He cancelling his scheduled September 24 visit to Washington, hoping to resolve trade differences after four failed attempts.

Like all countries, China wants and deserves respect in bilateral relations with America and other nations.

Its new white paper stressed it, saying

“(t)he door for trade talks is always open, but negotiations must be held in an environment of mutual respect. (They) be carried out under the threat of tariffs” – or unacceptable sanctions.

US tactics most often rely on pressure, threats, and bullying to get its way – even with allies.

It usually works with nations easy to push around – not powerful ones like China and Russia, able to retaliate strongly against unacceptable toughness.

According to the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Trump is expected to instruct his trade representative Robert Lighthizer to begin preparing tariffs on all remaining Chinese imports.

If implemented and responded to by Beijing as expected, a full-blown trade war will follow with no foreseeable resolution any time soon.

World markets are sure to react negatively to what Western ones have largely ignored so far – because of “a material impact on global growth,” economist Brian Coulton explained.

How seriously depends on how far Trump regime trade hawks intend pushing things for how long.

*

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.

Featured image is from Stansberry Churchouse.

The minimal U.S. press coverage accorded to last Monday’s shooting down of a Russian intelligence plane off the coast of Syria is, of course, a reflection both of lack of interest and of Israel’s involvement in the incident. If one had read the New York Times or the Washington Post on the morning after the shoot-down or watched the morning network news it would have been easy to miss the story altogether. The corporate media’s desire to sustain established foreign policy narratives while also protecting Israel at all costs is as much a feature of American television news as are the once every five minutes commercials from big pharma urging the public to take medications for diseases that no one has ever heard of.

Israel is, of course, claiming innocence, that it was the Syrians who shot down the Russian aircraft while the Israeli jets were legitimately targeting a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” Seeking to undo some of the damage caused, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express his condolences. He also sent his air force chief to Russia on Thursday to provide a detailed report on what had occurred from the Israeli perspective.

But that story, however it will be spun, is inevitably only part of the tale. The narrative of what occurred is by now well established. The Russian aircraft was returning to base after a mission over the Mediterranean off the Syrian coast monitoring the activities of a French warship and at least one British RAF plane. As a large and relatively slow propeller driven aircraft on a routine intelligence gathering mission, the Ilyushin 20 had no reason to conceal its presence. It was apparently preparing to land at its airbase at Khmeimim in Syria when the incident took place. It may or may not have had its transponder on, which would signal to the Syrian air defenses that it was a “friendly.”

Syrian air defenses were on high alert because Israel had attacked targets near Damascus on the previous day. On that occasion a Boeing 747 on the ground that Israel claimed was transporting weapons was the target. One should note in passing that Israeli claims about what it is targeting in Syria are never independently verifiable.

The Israelis for their part were using four F-16 fighter bombers to stage a surprise night attack on several sites near Latakia, close to the airbase being used by the Russians. They came in from the Mediterranean Sea and clearly were using the Russian plane to mask their approach as the Ilyushin 20 would have presented a much larger radar profile for the air defenses. The radar systems on the F-16s would also have clearly seen the Russian plane.

The Israelis might have been expecting that the Syrians would not fire at all at the incoming planes knowing that one of them at least was being flown by their Russian allies. If that was the expectation, it proved wrong and it was indeed a Syrian S-200 ground to air missile directed by its guidance system to the larger target that brought down the plane and killed its fourteen crew members. The Israelis completed their bombing run and flew back home. There were also reports that the French frigate offshore fired several missiles during the exchange, but they have not been confirmed while the British plane was also reportedly circling out of range though within the general area.

There was also a back story. The Israelis and Russian military had established a hotline, similar to the one that is used with the U.S. command in Syria, precisely intended to avoid incidents like the Ilyushin shoot-down that might escalate into a more major conflict. Israel reportedly used the line but only one minute before the incident took place, leaving no time for the Russian plane to take evasive action.

The Russian Ministry of Defense was irate. It saw the exploitation of the intelligence plane by the Israelis as a deliberate high-risk initiative. It warned

“We consider these provocative actions by Israel as hostile. Fifteen Russian military service members have died because of the irresponsible actions of the Israeli military. This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership. We reserve the right for an adequate response.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin was more conciliatory, saying the incident was a “chain of tragic circumstances.” He contrasted it with the Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane in 2015, which was planned and deliberate, noting that Israel had not actually attacked the Ilyushin. Though the Putin comments clearly recognize that his country’s relationship with Israel is delicate to say the least, that does not mean that he will do nothing.

Many Israelis are emigres from Russia and there are close ties between the two countries, but their views on Syria diverge considerably. As much as Putin might like to strike back at Israel in a hard, substantive way, he will likely only upgrade and strengthen the air defenses around Russian troop concentrations and warn that another “surprise” attack will be resisted. Unfortunately, he knows that he is substantially outgunned locally by the U.S., France, Britain and Israel, not to mention Turkey, and a violent response that would escalate the conflict is not in his interest. He has similarly, in cooperation with his Syrian allies, delayed a major attempt to retake terrorist controlled Idlib province, as he works out a formula with Ankara to prevent heavy handed Turkish intervention.

But there is another dimension to the story that the international media has largely chosen to ignore. And that is that Israel is now carrying out almost daily air attacks on Syria, over 200 in the past 18 months, a country with which it is not at war and which has not attacked it or threatened it in any way. It justifies the attacks by claiming that they are directed against Iran or Hezbollah, not at Syria itself. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that any peace settlement in Syria include the complete removal of Iranians, a demand that has also been repeated by the United States, which is also calling for the end to the Bashar al-Assad government and its replacement by something more “democratic.”

Aggressive war directed at a non-threatening country is the ultimate war crime as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunals that followed after the Second World War, yet the United States and its poodles Britain and France have not so much as squeaked when Israel kills civilians and soldiers in its surprise attacks against targets that it alone frequently claims to be linked to the Iranians. Washington would not be in much of a position to cast the first stone anyway, as it is in Syria illegally, bombs targets regularly, to include two major cruise missile strikes, and, on at least one occasion, set a trap that reportedly succeeded in killing a large number of Russian mercenaries fighting on the Syrian government side.

And then there is the other dimension of Israeli interference with its neighbors, the secret wars in which it supports the terrorist groups operating in Syria as well as in Iran. The Netanyahu government has armed the terrorists operating in Syria and even treated them in Israeli hospitals when they get wounded. On one occasion when ISIS accidentally fired into Israeli-held territory on the Golan Heights it subsequently apologized. So, if you ask who is supporting terrorism the answer first and foremost should be Israel, but Israel pays no price for doing so because of the protection afforded by Washington, which, by the way, is also protecting terrorists.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation for the Israeli action. Netanyahu might have considered it all a win-win either way, with the Russian plane masking and enabling the Israeli attack without consequence for Israel or, perversely, producing an incident inviting retaliation from Moscow, which would likely lead to a shooting war with the United States after it inevitably steps in to support Israel’s government. In either case, the chaos in Syria that Israel desires would continue and even worsen but there would also be the potential danger of a possible expansion of the war as a consequence, making it regional or even broader.

It’s the same old story. Israel does risky things like attacking its neighbors because it knows it will pay no price due to Washington’s support. The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington. What Israel is really thinking when it seeks to create anarchy all around its borders is anyone’s guess, but it is, to be sure, in no one’s interest to allow the process to continue. It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in 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.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

The Russian military has established a no-fly zone over the Latakia province of western Syria, Russian Senator and former Air Force commander Viktor Bondarev stated on Monday.

“The establishment of a no-fly zone over the Russian military base in Latakia will prevent a repeat of the IL-20 aircraft tragedy,” Bondarev told the Russian Federation’s Council this evening.

“After creating a no-fly zone in Latakia, it is necessary to announce that any unauthorized objects in the sky over Hmeimim Airport will definitely be eliminated,” he added.

The Russian senator would add that the S-300 will not only be deployed at the Hmeimim Airbase, but also, in several parts of the country.

Earlier this evening, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke on the phone to discuss the current situation in Syria.

Reports from Moscow indicated that Putin informed Netanyahu that Russia does not accept Israel’s version of the events that took place on the night of the September 17th.

Russia expects its relations with Israel to remain the same, despite the upcoming delivery of the S-300 air defense system to Syria.

*

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

On Monday by phone, Putin informed Assad of his intention to supply Syria’s military with sophisticated S-300 air defense systems within two weeks.

They’re able to intercept and destroy multiple hostile aircraft, ballistic, and other missiles at distances of over 250 km (over 155 miles).

Installing electronic countermeasures along Syria’s coastline to jam satellite navigation, aerial radar systems, and communications of hostile aircraft will significantly bolster Syrian defenses as well.

Washington and its NATO partners use the phony pretext of combating ISIS these countries support as the reason for their military activities in Syria.

Israel claims its terror-bombing is all about combating an Iranian and Hezbollah threat that doesn’t exist. They’ve never targeted the Jewish state aggressively. Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries – what the US, NATO and Israel do repeatedly.

In 2013, Putin went along with Netanyahu’s request not to supply S-300s to Syria’s military. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said

“(n)ow the situation has changed, and we are not to blame.”

After Israeli “criminal negligence” led to the September 17 downing of a Russian IL-20 reconnaissance plane, Shoigu said the incident wouldn’t go unanswered. Indeed not!

Putin told Netanyahu that beefing up Syrian air defense capabilities is all about “preventing any potential threat to the lives of Russian servicemen,” his obligation as president.

US/Israeli pressure and threats aren’t likely to get him to back off this time. Russia’s Defense Ministry is especially furious about the downing of its aircraft, killing 15 crew members, likely more greatly angered by Israel’s arrogant denial of responsibility for what happened.

Indisputable facts debunk the IDF’s fabricated account of the incident, making the situation worse, exacerbated further by Israeli arrogance and veiled threats, compounded by Washington’s.

A statement by Netanyahu’s office said

“(t)he prime minister said providing advanced weapons systems to irresponsible actors (sic) will magnify dangers in the region, and that Israel will continue to defend itself and its interests.”

Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton called Russia’s move a “major mistake,” adding it’ll cause “significant escalation” of  tensions.

Washington’s military presence in Syria won’t end, he vowed, “as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies and militias.”

Iranian military advisors alone are in Syria legally at the request of Damascus, no combat troops. Hezbollah forces also operate lawfully in the country, invited by Assad to combat ISIS and other US-supported terrorist groups.

Relatively few Iranian military forces operate outside their own territory – none aggressively.

Hundreds of thousands of US combat troops are deployed in scores of countries on every continent – along with countless numbers of so-called private military contractors (PMCs), operating unaccountably, and terrorist groups used as imperial foot soldiers.

Pompeo said he’ll raise the issue of Syria’s hardened defense capabilities with Sergey Lavrov at the UN General Assembly this week, adding:

“We are trying to find every place we can where there is common ground, where we can work with the Russians.” They’ll be held “accountable” when working against US interests.

Syria’s envoy to Russia Riyad Haddad said his nation’s military vitally needs S-300s “to defend Syrian land from Israel’s aggressive actions.”

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said hardening Syria’s defense capabilities isn’t aimed at America, Israel or any other nations. It’s to protect Russian forces and other personnel in the country.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov called supplying Syria’s military with S-300s the “right” thing to do.

The Saker said Russian measures “will establish an unofficial no-fly zone over Syria,” adding:

The IL-20’s downing “fundamentally undermined Israel’s relationship with Russia.” I believe it changed the relationship short of going this far.

The status quo up to now ended. Events ahead will show to what extent Russia’s moves changed the dynamic in Syria.

US-led NATO and Israel can still attack Syrian targets but not as easily as before once Russia’s moves are implemented.

Their tactics will likely change. Militarily they have lots of options. They’re not about to back off from their regime change objective.

*

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

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.

Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) announced on that they have set up sukkah’s, which are temporary tents constructed for use during the week-long Jewish holiday of Sukkot, in the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar, east of Jerusalem.

RHR decided to set up sukkah’s at the Bedouin village to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, also known as the Feast of Tabernacles, to show solidarity with the residents and as a protest against Israel’s planned demolition of the village.

RHR said, in a statement,

“We will express solidarity with our Bedouin brothers and we will live as they do for a little bit. We will remember that our forefathers lived as free human beings for 40 years in the Sinai Desert.”

“We will sit during Sukkot in the Judean Desert during the seven days of the holiday. We will live a life of confidence in our temporary quarters, together with members of the Jahalin tribe, who have been living in this vulnerable situation for years.”

RHR joins local and international activists along with residents of Khan al-Ahmar, who have started an open sit-in at the village, protesting the Israeli High Court’s approval of the demolition at the beginning of the month.

Although international humanitarian law prohibits the demolition of the village and illegal confiscation of private property, Israeli forces continue their planned expansion by forcing evictions and violating basic human rights of the people.

Israel has been constantly trying to uproot Bedouin communities from the east of Jerusalem area to allow settlement expansion in the area, which would later turn the entire eastern part of the West Bank into a settlement zone.

*

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

Featured image is from Ma’an News Agency.

The Indian leader who established a reputation for himself as a fearsome fighter against so-called “black money” might see his political downfall brought about by a fast-moving corruption scandal that reportedly implicates him in the illegal transfer of billions of dollars of foreign funds to one of his cronies. 

Indian Prime Minister Modi has been implicated in a multibillion-dollar “black money” scandal after none other than former French President Hollande recently told reporters that one of his country’s leading defense firms had no choice but to conclude an over $8 billion warplane deal with a preassigned Indian partner who just so happens to be one of Modi’s chief sycophants. The two countries reached an agreement in 2015 for France to provide 36 Rafale jets to India, but questions almost immediately began to swirl after it was discovered that Dessault decided to partner with Ambani instead of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) like practically everyone expected it to. In order to understand why this is so scandalous, a bit of background information needs to be explained. 

France24 published an excellent report about this last month titled “French Rafale jets deal sparks political storm in India” and from which the following summary is based. Basically, the deal was suspicious from the get-go because it didn’t follow Modi’s famous “Make In India” policy of demanding domestic production as part of all major foreign deals, with France instead agreeing to “offset” (in Indian political-legal parlance) its commitment by reinvesting half of the price of the deal into the Indian defense industry afterwards. Anil Ambani, the owner of the Reliance group and one of India’s richest men who never shied away from displaying his almost over-the-top public affection for Modi, ‘coincidentally’ created his company’s first-ever defense subsidiary less than two weeks before the Rafale deal was signed. 

None of Ambani’s companies had any previous experience in building warplanes, unlike HAL, yet “Reliance Defence” was ‘selected’ by Dessault as the recipient of the funds (half of the over $8 billion contract) that it agreed to reinvest into the Indian defence industry. It’s since been revealed by former President Hollande that

“We did not have a say in this. It was the Indian government that proposed this service group, and Dassault negotiated with Ambani. We did not have a choice. We took the interlocutor that was given to us.”

The opposition Congress party jumped on this new information to demand that an investigation be commenced on national security ground, arguing that Modi jeopardized his country’s security by forcing France to reinvest billions of dollars into an inexperienced company owned by one of his cronies. 

The hypocritical stench of “black money” corruption is everywhere, made all the more repugnant by the fact that Modi railed for years against “crony capitalism” and the illegal procurement of money yet supposedly had no problem rewarding one of his chief sycophants’ newly created companies with billions of dollars of foreign funds that should have instead been reinvested in a much more experienced company better suited to advancing India’s national security interests. This scandal has the chance of toppling his premiership if it’s proven in the court of law that he passively knew what was happening or even played some degree of an active role in knowingly facilitating it. Even barring a criminal conviction, this embarrassing episode runs the risk of ruining Modi’s domestic reputation as an “anti-corruption reformer” and hurting the BJP’s future electoral 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.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made a historic announcement, committing to an “era of no war” during the two leaders’ joint press conference held on Wednesday in Pyongyang, North Korea. 

The announcement was made at the Paekhwawon State Guesthouse on the second day of a three-day summit between the two leaders who both expressed hopes in containing the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula.

Among the pledges made by North Korea include the closure of a key missile test facility in the presence of “international experts” and the possibility of the destruction of its primary nuclear complex, which is reportedly dependent on whether the United States will agree on some corresponding measures.

Kim and Moon reiterated their vow to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula, a promise they first delivered at their earlier summit in April.

“The world is going to see how this divided nation is going to bring about a new future on its own,” said Kim.

The two leaders also indicated a potential historic fourth meeting in the South Korean capital of Seoul in the near future.

Should Kim follow through with their signed agreement which stated he would travel to Seoul “as soon as possible,” he will be the first ever North Korean leader to do so.

A 17-page accord was also signed by both administrations’ defense ministers in which they vowed to “cease all hostile acts against each other.”

“The era of no war has started,” said Moon. “Today the North and South decided to remove all threats that can cause war from the entire Korean peninsula.”

According to CNN, here are the other pledges that the two countries have agreed to pursue:

• Submission of a joint bid to host the 2032 Summer Olympics.
• Creation of rail and road links between North and South within the next year.
• Stopping any military drill aimed at each other along the Military Demarcation Line, which divides the two countries, by November 1.
• Removal of 11 guard posts in the demilitarized zone by the end of the year.
• Normalization of the Kaesong Industrial complex and Kumgang tourism project as soon as the conditions allow.

Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump took to Twitter to express his excitement over the historic announcement.

Kim Jong Un has agreed to allow Nuclear inspections, subject to final negotiations, and to permanently dismantle a test site and launch pad in the presence of international experts. In the meantime there will be no Rocket or Nuclear testing. Hero remains to continue being……..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2018

….returned home to the United States. Also, North and South Korea will file a joint bid to host the 2032 Olympics. Very exciting!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2018

*

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.

And we suckers walk! Anyone who even occasionally checks current events knows how much money is spent on presidential elections. Each new cycle breaks the previous record, and on and on. Well, the ‘buck’ (no pun intended) doesn’t stop there. The total cost of running for A) President, B) Senator and C) House Representative in the 2016 cycle reached $6.5 Billion! How many roads and bridges could have been fixed and renovated for that money? Let’s look at the Congressional winners in previous election cycles: In 2008 the winners of House seats spent on average $1.1 million. The winners of Senate seats spent on average $6.5 million. Moving on to the 2012 cycle and the numbers jumped to $1.6 million and $10.4 million respectively. Now this was candidates running as either Republican or Democrat… not 3rd Party. Do you think a 3rd Party candidate would ever have a chance? I still have that bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you think so.

Things are so regressed that all the news talk shows always refer to election races, mostly close ones in the polls, to how much money each candidate has raised… hardly ever about issues. Of course, on the always forgotten issues of military spending and foreign policy, the Two Party/One Party duopoly agree more than not. When a libertarian or true progressive candidate are the only folks speaking of that horror… no one can hear them! Why? They are hardly on the boob tube, in person or through campaign ads.

No money! Boy, the Fat Cats who run this empire have it down to a science: Keep the duopoly powerful and never give the suckers an even break, as in the 2008 election regarding health care. You see, Obama sounded sincere about wanting Medicare for All and a ‘Public Option’ giving we suckers under 65 a chance to have what senior citizens have (by paying in of course, but less than the private insurer way). Those of us who looked beyond the hype and spin knew that his opponent McCain received around $7+ million from the health care industries, while Mr. Hope and Change got…. over $21 million! And what we suckers got was ObamaCare, which was another way of saying that the private insurance industry got tens of millions of new customers, with high deductibles and co pays.

Bottom line: The only hope for this Republic to become what they say we already are, but are not, a democracy, is to have Total public funding of ALL elections. I don’t care if it is for dogcatcher, NO private money in elections! Period! Oh, they say we cannot do that due to the 1976 Supreme Court ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo. The court ruled against laws that restricted private money in elections, citing that ‘Money is free speech’. Really? Maybe they should have stated it as it is: The super rich have lots of free speech. Well, as former Senator Bill Bradley once said: “We have many amendments to the Constitution, why not one more?” Folks, sit back and watch another election cycle go by and see how big money runs the show. If working stiffs out there, regardless of labeling themselves as conservative or progressive, stop supporting this decayed electoral system….

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected]. 

A rift among Idlib militant groups is growing over the demilitarization zone agreement reached by Turkey and Russia earlier this month.

On September 22, the National Front for Liberation (NFL) released on official statement declaring its support to the agreement. The group stated that the agreement had prevented an “unjust war” and described Turkey as its ally. The NFL added that it does not trust Russia, the Syrian government and Iran accusing them of multiple violations of ceasefire agreements.

The NFL is currently the biggest coalition of Turkish-backed militant groups in northern Syria. It was established on May 28, 2018 from 11 various groups in an attempt to consolidate Turkish influence in the province of Idlib. Thus, the group pretends to be a provider of Turkish policy in the area.

The NLF is the second notable militant group, which supported the agreement. On September 20, Jaysh al-Izza made a similar move.

Another part of Idlib militants is not hurrying up to accept an idea of the 15-20km demilitarized zone, which is set to be established between the militant-held and government-held parts of Idlib by October 15. Al-Qaeda-affiliated Horas al-Din said in an official statement that it officially rejects the agreement describing it as a “conspiracy”.

Horas al-Din, which was established on February 27, 2018 from 7 al-Qaeda affiliated groups, is one of the most influential factions in Idlib, alongside with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda).

While multiple media activists and outlets linked to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham have criticized the demilitarization zone deal, the group is yet to release an official statement on this issue – most likely because negotiations between the group and Turkish special services are still ongoing behind the scenes.

On September 22, the Turkish military deployed a commando brigade in Idlib province in order to reinforce its observation posts. During the past few weeks, the Turkish military deployed additional battle tanks and armoured vehicles there with a similar purpose.

These moves may indicate that Ankara is really going to make an attempt to force Idlib militants to obey the demilitarization zone deal.

On September 20, the Kurdish Hawar News Agency reported that the Turkish military had deployed hundreds of armored vehicles, battle tanks and trucks on the border with the northern Syrian town of Tell Abyad, which is now controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Syrian sources expect that Ankara are going to force Kurdish units of the US-backed group to withdraw from the town in a Manbij-like move.

Meanwhile, the SDF has continued its operation against ISIS in the Hajin pocket in the Euphrates Valley. The SDF, backed by US-led coalition air power and artillery are advancing on Susah and Shajlah.

On September 23, the Russian Defense Ministry held an additional press briefing revealing details of the IL-20 shootdown off Syrian coast, which took place on September 17. Defense ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov once again confirmed that Moscow sees Israel as the side responsible for the tragedy. The reasons are actions of Israeli F-16 warplanes hiding behind the IL-20 from Syrian air defense fire, the misinformation on the strikes provided by Israel and multiple violations of the Russia-Israel deconfliction agreement by Israel.

Konashenkov emphasized that

“the hostile actions committed by the Israeli Air Force against the Russian Ilyushin Il-20 aircraft cross the line of civilized relations.”

At the same time, Israel continues blaiming Syria, Iran and Hezbollah for the September 17 incident as well as rejecting data provided by the Russian military.

This situation shows that a visit of top Israeli military delegation to Moscow last week has not allowed the Israeli leadership to de-escalation the tensions erupted with Russia. If the situation remains same, it will likely impact an expected diplomatic solution of the Syrian crisis in a negative way for Israel.

*

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

A terrorist attack on a military parade targeting civilians and military personnel alike left at least 29 dead and up to 70 more wounded in Iran’s southwest region of Ahvaz. 

At the same time, in New York City, US political figures including US President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudolph Giuliani attended and expressed open support for “revolution” in Iran at the 2018 Iran Uprising Summit organized by Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

MEK is a terrorist organization that has previously killed US service members and civilian contractors, but was removed from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list in order for the US to more openly and directly support the terrorist front’s efforts to destabilize and overthrow the Iranian government.

West Refuses to Call Ahvaz Attackers Terrorists 

The Iranian government has blamed the Al Ahvaziya terror organization for the September 22 attack.

According to the BBC, Al Ahvaziya has also taken credit for the attack – yet the BBC – along with other media fronts across the West as well as Western governments – has refused to characterize Al Ahvaziya as a terrorist organization and instead depicted it as an “anti-government Arab group.”

The BBC’s article, “Iran blames Gulf foes for deadly Ahvaz attack,” would claim:

A spokesman for the Ahvaz National Resistance, an umbrella group that claims to defend the rights of the Arab minority in Khuzestan, said the group was behind the attack.

Yet the same BBC in 2006 after a similar attack in Ahvaz, Iran would clearly characterize the group’s activities as terrorism and would even quote the UK Foreign Office who condemned the attack as terrorism while denying accusations the British government had been covertly backing the terrorists.

The BBC in its 2006 article titled, “Iran accuses UK of bombing link,” would claim:

A UK Foreign Office spokesman in London has denied the accusation, saying Britain condemned terrorism. 

“Any linkage between HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) and these terrorist attacks is completely without foundation,” said the official. 

The failure of the US and British governments to now wholly condemn the recent Ahvaz attack as an act of terrorism carried out by what is undeniably a terrorist organization, alone raises suspicions. However, US policy papers have revealed a long-term open conspiracy to back armed militancy in Iran, just as the US, UK, and their allies have been exposed currently doing in nearby Syria as well as Libya in 2011.

Ahvaz attack

US-backed Iranian “Revolutionaries” are Terrorists – Says US  

As Iran grieved in the wake of the Ahvaz attack, US politicians hosted MEK terrorists in New York, vowing to overthrow the Iranian government.

Reuters in their article, “Trump lawyer Giuliani says Iran’s government will be overthrown,” would report:

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said that U.S. sanctions on Iran are leading to economic pain that could lead to a “successful revolution” contrasting with administration comments that government change in Tehran is not U.S. policy.

“I don’t know when we’re going to overthrow them,” said Giuliani, who spoke in his own capacity though he is a Trump ally, at an Iran Uprising Summit held by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, which opposes Tehran’s government.

Reuters would intentionally avoid naming the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and MEK as the event’s organizers – and would even crop a photo for their article of Giuliani speaking to hide the NCRI’s logo.

While defenders of US support for MEK claim the group has reformed itself, US policy papers reveal that MEK was delisted specifically so the US could more openly use the group to carry out armed subversion against the Iranian government on Washington’s behalf.

It should be noted that Giuliani, current National Security Adviser John Bolton, and many other prominent US politicians had lobbied for, and attended MEK events long before the US State Department delisted it as a foreign terrorist organization.

The Brookings Institution in a 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), under a chapter titled, “Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority And Opposition Groups,” would openly admit (emphasis added):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S.  proxy  is  the  NCRI  (National  Council of Resistance of  Iran),  the  political  movement  established  by  the  MeK  (Mujahedin-e  Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.  

Brookings would elaborate regarding its terrorist background, stating (emphasis added):

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MeK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main  political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed  credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on  Iranian civilian and  military targets between 1998 and 2001.

Brookings also mentions MEK’s attacks on US servicemen and American civilian contractors, noting:

In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran.

Brookings would also emphasize (emphasis added):

The group itself also appears to be undemocratic and enjoys little popularity in Iran itself. It has no  political base in the country, although it appears to have an operational presence. In particular, its  active participation on Saddam Husayn’s side during the bitter Iran-Iraq War made the group widely  loathed. In addition, many aspects of the group are cultish, and its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, are revered to the point of obsession.  

Brookings would note that despite the obvious reality of MEK, the US could indeed use the terrorist organization as a proxy against Iran, but notes that:

…at the very least, to work more closely with the  group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign  terrorist organizations. 

And while Al Ahvaziya is accused of carrying out the Ahvaz attack, it should also be noted that MEK “networks” specifically in Ahvaz have helped promote and carry out violence ranging from riots to arson for months – openly admitted to by MEK “network” accounts across social media – illustrating a synergy of terrorism, agitation, subversion, and propaganda functioning as an analogue to Western-backed terrorists and their supporters operating in Syria.

Additionally, at the New York City “Uprising Summit,” MEK leader Maryam Rajavi would admit to MEK organizing riots through “resistance units.” In her official message, now posted on various MEK websites, should would openly admit:

Today, the ruling mullahs’ fear is amplified by the role of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and resistance units in leading and continuing the uprisings. Regime analysts say: “The definitive element in relation to the December 2017 riots is the organization of rioters. So-called Units of Rebellion have been created, which have both the ability to increase their forces and the potential to replace leaders on the spot.”

The roadmap for freedom reveals itself in these very uprisings, in ceaseless protests, and in the struggle of the Resistance Units.

Update: U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday that the Russian plans to supply Syria with a S-300 missile system would be a “significant escalation” by Moscow and hopes it will reconsider. His statement follows the Russian announcement from early Monday that Russia will supply the surface-to-air missile system to Syria in two weeks, one week after Moscow blamed Israel for indirectly causing the downing of a Russian military plane in Syria, despite strong Israeli objections.

* * *

It appears Israel has paid a huge price for last week’s attack on Syria which led to the accidental “friendly” fire downing of a Russian reconnaissance plane with 15 personnel on board as the door could now be forever shut on striking targets in Syria with impunity. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) has announced plans to deliver its advanced S-300 air defense system to Damascus within two weeks.

Prior plans to deliver the system, which is considered vastly more effective and can strike at a greater range than Syria’s current S-200 and others, were nixed after Israeli threats that delivery would constitute a “red line” for which Israel must act.

The Russian MoD acknowledged this and said the situation has “changed” upon announcing its intent to follow through on what Syria has already purchased:

“In 2013 on a request from the Israeli side we suspended the delivery to Syria of the S-300 system, which was ready to be sent with its Syrian crews trained to use it,” the MoD statement said.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said early Monday,

“A modern S-300 air defense missile system will be supplied to the Syrian Armed Forces within two weeks. It is capable of intercepting air assault weapons at a distance of more than 250 kilometers and hit simultaneously several air targets.”

Significantly, Syria’s systems will be integrated with Russian systems via the S-300, in order to prevent instances of “blind” firing (or failure to have friend or foe identification capabilities).

Russia had in previous statements blamed Israel for the last Tuesday incident in which a Russian Ilyushin-20 reconnaissance plane was accidentally brought down by an aging Syrian S-200 defense system after Russia had scrambled its jets to respond to an attack by four Israeli F-16s on Syrian government targets.

Shoigu said the S-300 system will prevent such future mishaps:

“The command posts of Syrian air defense forces and units will be equipped with automated control systems only supplied to the Russian armed forces. This will facilitate centralized control over all forces and resources of the Syrian air defense, monitor the situation in the air, and ensure operative issuance of orders.”

He added that,

“Most importantly, we will guarantee the identification of all Russian aircrafts by the Syrian air defense systems,” according to TASS.

Russian MoD presented a detailed 3D timeline of Il-20 downing in Syria on September 17. pic.twitter.com/efaJZnqmYB

— Military Advisor (@miladvisor) September 23, 2018

The Russian-made S-300s are widely acknowledged to be far superior in their capability and reach than Syria’s current S-200 system. If installed — something which Russia has promised will happen in two weeks time — Syria might very well become nearly untouchable.

Israel has long claimed to be acting primarily against Iran inside Syria, often firing from over “neutral” Lebanese airspace, but additional new electronic countermeasures to be erected along with the S-300 system will hinder this, per RT:

The third measure announced by the Russian defense ministry is a blanket of electronic countermeasures over Syrian coastline, which would “suppress satellite navigation, onboard radar systems and communications of warplanes attacking targets on Syrian territory.”Shoigu said the measures are meant to “cool down ‘hotheads’ and prevent misjudged actions posing a risk to our service members.” He added that if such a development fails to materialize, the Russian military “would act in accordance to the situation.”

All of this is precisely the game-changer that Israel’s leadership has long worried about as they’ve sought to maintain “freedom of action” in Syria, according to prior statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As a Haaretz report noted previously, the range of the new defense system will give Damascus the ability to detect potentially hostile aircraft from point of origin:

“With Putin’s S-300, Assad’s army could even ‘lock-on’ IAF aircraft as they take off from bases within Israel.” 

And as one Israeli defense analyst put it,

“Israel should be worried.”

*

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 Zero Hedge.

Il contratto di governo, stipulato lo scorso maggio dal Movimento 5 Stelle e dalla Lega, ribadisce che l’Italia considera gli Stati uniti suo «alleato privilegiato». Legame rafforzato dal premier Conte che, nell’incontro col presidente Trump in luglio, ha stabilito con gli Usa «una cooperazione strategica, quasi un gemellaggio, in virtù del quale l’Italia diventa interlocutore privilegiato degli Stati uniti per le principali sfide da affrontare». Allo stesso tempo però il nuovo governo si è impegnato nel contratto a «una apertura alla Russia, da percepirsi non come una minaccia ma quale partner economico» e addirittura quale «potenziale partner per la Nato».

È come conciliare il diavolo con l’acqua santa. Viene infatti ignorata, sia dal governo che dall’opposizione, la strategia Usa di demonizzazione della Russia, mirante a creare l’immagine del minaccioso nemico contro cui dobbiamo prepararci a combattere. Tale strategia è stata esposta, in una audizione al Senato (21 agosto), da Wess Mitchell, vice-segretario del Dipartimento di stato per gli Affari europei e eurasiatici: «Per fronteggiare la minaccia proveniente dalla Russia, la diplomazia Usa deve essere sostenuta da una potenza militare che non sia seconda a nessuna e pienamente integrata con i nostri alleati e tutti i nostri strumenti di potenza».

Accrescendo il bilancio militare, gli Stati uniti hanno cominciato a «ricapitalizzare l’arsenale nucleare», comprese le nuove bombe nucleari B61-12 che dal 2020 verranno schierate contro la Russia in Italia e altri paesi europei. Gli Stati uniti – specifica il vice-segretario – hanno speso dal 2015 11 miliardi di dollari (che saliranno a oltre 16 nel 2019) per la «Iniziativa di deterrenza europea», ossia per potenziare la loro presenza militare in Europa contro la Russia. All’interno della Nato, sono riusciti a far aumentare di oltre 40 miliardi di dollari la spesa militare degli alleati europei e a stabilire due nuovi comandi, di cui quello per l’Atlantico contro «la minaccia dei sottomarini russi» situato negli Usa.

In Europa, gli Stati uniti sostengono in particolare «gli Stati sulla linea del fronte», come la Polonia e i paesi baltici, e hanno tolto le restrizioni per fornire armi a Georgia e Ucraina (ossia agli Stati che, con l’aggressione all’Ossezia del Sud e il putsch di Piazza Maidan, hanno innescato la escalation Usa/Nato contro la Russia). L’esponente del Dipartimento di stato accusa la Russia non solo di aggressione militare, ma di attuare negli Stati uniti e negli Stati europei «campagne psicologiche di massa contro la popolazione per destabilizzare la società e il governo». Per condurre tali operazioni, che rientrano nel «continuo sforzo del sistema putiniano per il dominio internazionale», il Cremlino usa «l’armamentario di politiche sovversive impiegato in passato dai Bolscevichi e dallo Stato sovietico, aggiornato all’era digitale».

Wess Mitchell accusa la Russia di ciò in cui gli Usa sono maestri: hanno 17 agenzie federali di spionaggio e sovversione, tra cui quella del Dipartimento di stato. Lo stesso che ha appena creato una nuova figura: «il Consigliere senior per le attività maligne della Russia», incaricato di sviluppare strategie inter-regionali.

Su tale base, tutte le 49 missioni diplomatiche Usa in Europa e Eurasia devono mettere in atto, nei rispettivi paesi, specifici piani d’azione contro l’influenza russa. Non sappiamo qual è il piano d’azione dell’ambasciata Usa in Italia. Lo saprà però, quale «interlocutore privilegiato degli Stati uniti», il premier Conte. Lo comunichi al parlamento e al paese, prima che le «attività maligne» della Russia destabilizzino l’Italia.

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

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

*     *     *

Before Pointing its Finger at Russia and Syria, the U.S. Should Answer for Its Own Chemical and Biological Weapons Record

By Brian Kalman, September 24, 2018

Ambassador Nikki Haley has warned Syria, Iran and Russia that they will be held accountable for their pre-determined use of chemical weapons in Idlib on innocent civilians. No evidence was provided to support her threats. The United States carried out cruise missile strikes on two previous occasions, and each time provided no evidence to prove their assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in attacking civilians, nor was any rational reason given for such an obviously irrational decision on the part of the Syrian state.

Don’t Share This! EU’s New Copyright Law Could Kill the Free Internet

By Neil Clark, September 24, 2018

Its new copyright legislation, passed last week, clamps down quite severely on sharing things online. The dynamism of the internet is at threat. When Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, warns us of the dangers the new law poses, we should all sit up straight and pay attention.

UK Begged Trump Not to Declassify Russia Docs; Cited “Grave Concerns” Over Steele Involvement

By Zero Hedge, September 24, 2018

The British government “expressed grave concerns” to the US government over the declassification and release of material related to the Trump-Russia investigation, according to the New York Times. President Trump ordered a wide swath of materials “immediately” declassified “without redaction” on Monday, only to change his mind later in the week by allowing the DOJ Inspector General to review the materials first.

Tensions Grow as China, Russia and Iran Lead the Way Towards a New Multipolar World Order

By Federico Pieraccini, September 24, 2018

Military and economic tensions are increasing due to the ramped up warlike stance of the US establishment. The impossibility of halting the shifting world order in favour of prolonging the unipolar moment has left the US deep state reaching for any available weapon at hand, taking no heed of the dangers and consequences of such a reckless foreign policy.

Obtaining Nuclear Weapons Comes at a Great Psychological Price

By Shane Quinn, September 24, 2018

There is surely a severe cost afflicted on any nation that successfully acquires a nuclear arsenal. Not merely a financial burden but, more significantly, a psychological price that is paid by those who attain, safeguard and threaten the deployment of nuclear weapons. Their possession warps the persona of a state’s leaders, ensuring they become reckless, malevolent and unpredictable.

Shutting Down Free Speech in America: Government and Lobbyists Work Together to Destroy the First Amendment

By Philip Giraldi, September 24, 2018

During the past several years, there has been increased pressure coming from some in the federal government aided and abetted powerful advocacy groups in the private sector to police social and alternative media. It is a multi-pronged attack on the First Amendment which has already limited the types of information that Americans have access to, thereby narrowing policy options to suit those in power.

The business and mainstream press this month, September 2018, has been publishing numerous accounts of the 2008 financial crash on its tenth anniversary. This month attention has been focused on the Lehman Brothers investment bank crash that accelerated the general financial system implosion in the US, and worldwide, ten years ago. Next month, October, we’ll no doubt hear more about the crash as it spread to the giant insurance company, AIG, and beyond that to other brokerages (Merrill Lynch), mid-sized banks (Washington Mutual), to the finance arms of the auto companies (GMAC) and big conglomerates (GE Credit), to the ‘too big to fail’ banks like Bank of America and Citigroup and beyond. These ‘reports’ are typically narrative in nature, however, and provide little in the way of deeper historical and theoretical analysis.

Parallels & Comparisons 1929 & 2008

It is often said that the initial months of the 2008-09 crash set the US economy on a trajectory of collapse eerily similar to that of 1929-30.  Job losses were occurring at a rate of 1 million a month on average from October 2008 through March 2009.  One might therefore think that mainstream economists would look closely at the two time periods—i.e. 1929-30 and 2008-09—to determine with patterns or similar causes were occurring. Or to a deep analysis of the periods immediately preceding 1929 and 2008 to see what similarities prevailed.  But they haven’t.

What we got post-2009 from the economic establishment was a declaration simply that the 2008-09 crash was a ‘great recession’, and not a ‘normal’ recession as had been occurring from 1947 to 2007 in the US. But they provide no clarification quantitatively or qualitatively as to what distinguished a ‘great’ from ‘normal’ recession was provided. Paul Krugman coined the term, ‘great’, but then failed to explain how great was different than normal. It was somehow just worse than a normal recession and not as bad as a bonafide depression. But that’s just economic analysis by adverbs.

It would be important to provide a better, more detailed explanation of 1929 vs. 2008, since the 1929-30 crash eventually led to a bona fide great depression as the US economy continued to descend further and deeper from October 1929 through the summer of 1933, driven by a series of four banking crashes from late 1930 through spring 1933 after the initial stock market crash of October 1929.  In contrast, the 2008-09 financial crash leveled off after mid-2009.

Another similarity between 1929 and 2008 was the US economy stagnated 1933-34—neither robustly recovering nor collapsing further—and the US economy stagnated as well 2009-12.  Upon assuming office in March 1933 President Roosevelt introduced a pro-business recovery program, 1933-34, focused on raising business prices, plus initiated a massive bank bailout. That bailout stopped further financial collapse but didn’t generate much real economic recovery. Similarly, Obama bailed out the banks (actually the Federal Reserve did) in 2009 but his recovery program of 2009-10, much like Roosevelt’s 1933-34, didn’t generate real economic recovery much as well.

After the failed business-focused recoveries, the differences between Roosevelt and Obama begin to show.  Roosevelt during the 1934 midterm elections shifted policies to promising, then introducing, the New Deal programs. The economy thereafter sharply recovered 1935-37. In contrast, Obama stayed the course and doubled down on his business focused recovery program in 2010. He provided $800 billion more business tax cuts, paid for by $1 trillion in austerity programs for the rest of us in August 2011.

Not surprising, unlike Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’, which boosted the economy significantly starting in 1935 after the midterms, Obama’s ‘Phony Deal’ recovery of 2009-11 resulted in the US real economy continuing to stagnate after 2009.

The historical comparisons suggest that both the great depression of 1929-33 (a phase of continuous collapse) and the so-called ‘great’ recession of 2008-09 share interesting similarities. Both the initial period of the 1930s depression—October 1929 through fall of 1930—and the roughly nine month period of October September 2008 through May 2009 appear very similar: A financial crash led in both cases to a dramatic follow on collapse of the real economy and employment.

Unemployed men outside a soup kitchen opened by Al Capone in Depression-era Chicago, Illinois, U.S., 1931 (Source: Public Domain)

But the 1929 event continues on, deepening for another four years, while the latter post 2009 event levels off in terms of economic decline.  Thereafter, similar pro-business subsidy policies (1933-34) and (2009-11) lead to a similar period of stagnation. Obama continues the pro-business policies and stagnation, while Roosevelt breaks from the business policies and focuses on the New Deal to restore jobs, wages, and family incomes and recovery accelerates.  Unlike Roosevelt who stimulates fiscal spending targeting household incomes, Obama focuses on further business tax cutting—i.e. another $1.7 trillion ($800 billion December 2010 plus another $900 billion in extending George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another two years—thereafter cutting social programs by $1 trillion in August 2011 to pay for the  business tax cuts of 2010-11.

The policy comparisons associated with the recovery and non-recovery are clearly determinative of the comparative outcomes of 1935-37 and 2010-11, as are the comparisons of the business-focused strategies 1933-34 and 2009-10 that resulted in stagnant recoveries.  But the political outcomes of the policy differences are especially divergent and interesting.

No less interesting are the political consequences for the Democratic Party.  Roosevelt’s 1934 campaigning on the promise of a New Deal resulted in the Democrats sweeping Congress further than they did even in 1932. They gained seats in 1934 so that by 1935 they could push through the New Deal that Roosevelt proposed despite Republican opposition. In contrast, Obama retained, and even deepened, his pro-business programs before the 2010 midterms which resulted in the Democrats experiencing a massive loss in Congress in the 2010 midterm elections. Thereafter, the Democrats were stymied by a Republican House and Senate that blocked everything. Obama nonetheless kept reaching out and asking for a compromise with Republicans, but the Republican dog bit his hand with every overture.

Obama pleaded with American voters for one more chance in 2012 and they gave it to him. The outcome was more of the same of naïve requests for compromise, rejection, and a continued stagnation of the US economy.  Republicans meanwhile also deepened their control of state and local level governorships, legislatures, and local judiciary throughout the Obama period.

The final consequence of all this was Trump in 2016 as the Obama Democrats promised more of the same in the 2016 presidential election. We know what happened after that.

Consequences for US Midterm 2018 Elections 

As yet another midterm election approaches, November 2018, we are once again inundated with mainstream media projections of a ‘blue (Democrat) wave’ coming.  But they are today the same pollsters of that same media that were proclaiming in October 2016 that Trump had only a 15% chance of winning the 2016 election.  What’s changed that we should believe the pollsters, the media, and the Democrats this time around again that Democrats have the big lead?

Granted, there have been a few notable progressive victories in solid, highly urban constituencies But this does not necessarily ensure their optimistic projections. A likely greater voter turnout in these urban Congressional districts must be weighed against the continued Republican-Trump efforts to deny millions of their voting rights, the continued gerrymandered reality of Republican-led governorships and legislatures, and the massive money machine of ultra-right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers, the Mercers, the Adelmans and other radical right billionaire families behind Trump that is now cranking up to provide a wall of money for Trump sycophants running for office. And let’s not forget those millions of phony religious-moral Americans who support Trump regardless of his misogyny, racism, attacks on the press and immigrants, or his obvious disregard for the even limited democratic institutions and precedents that barely still prevail today in the US.  Like Germans who loved Hitler, but not necessarily the Nazi philosophy, they will follow him over any cliff.

Will Millenials now turn out to vote in 2018 when they didn’t in 2016? What have Democrats promised to them this time that they will believe? Why should they think Democrats are any different now? Will Latinos and Hispanics turn out this time, when the Democrats promised last February a ‘line in the sand’ for a Dreamers bill or no approval of the US debt ceiling extension—and then caved in once again?  Women and professionals (independents) tired of Trump’s antics and misogyny may come back to vote for the Dems. Maybe some union workers in the Midwest this time, who abandoned Hillary in 2016, as well. But will that be enough?

What will the public think and feel should Trump and his now converted radical Republican party maintain control of the House and Senate for another two years?  They’ve been told of the coming ‘blue wave’. But what if that wave dissipates on the reactionary shore that has been deepening in America now for decades?  What will the anti-Trump camp do? Say ‘Ok, let’s try again in 2020’? And go away further demoralized?

The opposite outcome in November—a defeat for Trump in the House—will have a similar ‘shock’ to public consciousness, only this time on the right.  What will the far right do should it appear that the Dems win the House and announce Trump impeachment proceedings? Trump’s 30% of the electorate are beholden to him only—and not to the remaining, limited democratic institutions of America.  He can do no wrong, even if it means dismantling the vestiges of democracy in America.

Should Trump lose the House and face the threat of impeachment, or even an indictment by special prosecutor Mueller, the radical right will mobilize at the grass roots. Bannon at his ilk, fueled by the money of the Mercers et. al., may well shift to popular right wing mass protests and demonstrations.  They will want to ‘warn’ the Dems and others to proceed with caution toward impeachment or face the advent of a proto-civil war in the country.  A threat of such, if not actual.

The linking of Trump, his wealthy backers, and releasing grass roots Trump supporters into a real street movement will mean yet another step toward a US fascist-like phenomenon. We are not there yet. Trump is not a fascist. To throw around the charge, as a part of the progressive left does, is like crying ‘wolf’ before it actually appears’. If and when it does appear, what should the real wolf then be called?

If Trump is not a fascist he clearly has proclivities toward tyranny and dictatorship: he obviously considers himself above the law (definition of Tyrant), as he has already declared he would pardon himself if indicted. And he clearly identifies with, and is fond of other, authoritarian strong men like Kim, Duterte, and others who rule by dictate. A crisis period Trump administration might be expected to ‘rule by executive order’, with the permission of Congress perhaps. But he is not yet a fascist (as so many progressives mistakenly declare). For that he needs a movement in the streets. Bannon, the Mercers and friends may yet give him that should he be actually impeached.

That street movement may be sufficient to scare the timid liberals and Democrats in Congress from proceeding with impeachment in all but talk should they win the House in November.  The leadership of the Democrats will likely back off, once again, should Trump-Bannon turn to the streets. Therefore Democrats, should they win the House, will be all talk and no action. We’ll hear instead the real message, the real strategy: “complete the anti-Trump change by electing a Democrat president in 2020.”  Once again, as Trump and the right leverage grass roots movements, the Dems try to funnel all discontent into their re-elections. Trump spends most of his time at rallies in the field. Obama sat on his butt in the White House and was rarely seen or heard.

But hasn’t that been the problem of the last several decades?  Republicans link up with the Teaparty, go for the juggler, release the political demons in America always simmering below the surface, mobilize right wing money bags, pervert what remains of democratic institutions, block and thwart all progressive legislation, and ‘kick ass and take names’ of the Democrats—who respond timidly, try to play by the old rules, mouth bipartisanship ad infinitum, and continually retreat in the face of the right wing onslaught.

With more than 100 of its Democrat National Committee, DNC, composed of business CEOs and business lobbyists, there’s little chance the Democratic Party will really directly confront Trump and his minions.  Should the Democrats even win the House in November, it will be mostly talk of impeachment and token moves for the media, while re-directing discontent to electing still more Dems in 2020 as the real strategy. Meanwhile, Trump and the radical right will continue to mobilize in defense—legislatively, financially, and at the grass roots in increasingly confrontational ways.

To sum  up: 1929 gave us Roosevelt and the ‘New Deal’. 2008 gave us Obama and a ‘Phony Deal’. The 2018 midterm elections and the next financial crisis, which is no more than 2-3 years away, may give us Trump’s ‘Final Deal’.

Whether Trump survives November, and his now transformed in-his- image Republican party continues to shield him and allow him to deepen his radical policies, or whether the Democrats take the House and commence talking impeachment proceedings—the result in either case will be a shattering of public consciousness from its prevailing mode once again, as occurred in November 2016. Either way, the next two years will undoubtedly prove more politically unsettling and economically destabilizing than the last.

The Next Crisis 

The next financial crisis—and subsequent severe contraction of the real economy once again—is inevitable.  And it is closer than many think, mesmerized by all the talk of a robust US economy that is benefiting the top 10% and not the rest. Why so soon?

The answer to that question will not be provided by mainstream economics. They are too busy heralding the current US economic expansion—which is being grossly over-estimated by GDP and other data and which fails to capture the fundamental forces underlying the US and global economy today, a global economy that is growing more fragile and thus prone to another major financial instability event.

The forces which led to the 2008 banking crash were associated with property bubbles (US and global) and the derivatives markets which allowed the bubbles to expand to unsustainable levels, derivatives which then propagated and accelerated the contagion across financial markets in general once the property bubbles began to collapse.

A protester on Wall Street in the wake of the AIG bonus payments controversy is interviewed by news media. (Source: CC BY 3.0)

The 2008 crash was thus not simply a subprime housing crisis, as most economists declare. It was just as much, perhaps more so, a derivatives financial asset (MBS, CMBs, CDOs, CDSs, etc.) crisis.

More fundamentally than the appearance of a collapse in prices of subprime mortgages, and even derivatives thereafter, 2008 was a crisis of excess credit and debt that enabled the boom in subprimes and derivatives to escalate to bubble proportions.

But subprimes and derivatives were still the appearance, the symptoms of the crisis.  Even more fundamentally causative, the 2008 crash had its most basic origins in the massive liquidity injections by the central banks, led by the US Fed, that has occurred from the mid-1980s to the present.  The massive liquidity provided the cheap credit that fueled the excess debt that flowed into subprimes and derivatives by 2008. (And before than into tech stocks in 1998-2000, and before that into Asian currencies (1996-97), and into Japanese banks and financial markets and US junk bonds and savings & loans in the 1980s, and so forth).

Excessive debt accumulation is not the sole cause of financial crises, however. It is an enabling precondition. Enabling the debt in the first place is the excess liquidity and credit. That liquidity-credit-debt buildup is what occurred in the 1920s decade leading up to the October 1929 stock crash.  It’s what occurred in the decades preceding 2008, especially accelerating after the escalation of financial derivatives in the 1990s.

Excessive debt creates the preconditions for the crisis, but the collapse of financial asset prices is what precipitates the crisis, as the excessive debt built up cannot be repaid (i.e. principal and interest payments ‘serviced).  So if liquidity provides the debt fuel for the crisis, what sets off the conflagration is the collapse of prices that lights the flame.

The collapse of stock prices in October 1929 precipitated the subsequent four banking crashes of 1930-33. The collapse of property prices (residential subprime and also commercial) in 2006-07 precipitated the collapse of investment banks in 2008, thereafter quickly spilling over to other financial institutions (brokerages, insurance companies, mutual funds, auto finance companies, etc.) after the collapse of Lehman Brothers investment bank in September 2008.

Today in 2018 we have had a continued debt acceleration since 2008. As estimated by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Geneva, Switzerland, total US debt has risen from roughly $50 trillion in 2008 to $70 trillion at end of 2017.  The majority of this is business debt, and especially non-financial business debt. That’s different from 2008 when it was centered on mortgage debt. It is also potentially more dangerous.

The US government since 2008 has also increased its federal debt by trillions, as it continued to borrow from investors worldwide in order to ‘finance’ and cut business-investor taxes and continue escalation of war spending since 2008. US household debt also rose further after 2008, as the lack of real wage and income growth over the post-2008 decade has resulted in $1.5 trillion student debt, $1 trillion plus in auto and in credit card debt, and $7-$8 trillion more in mortgage debt.   Globally, according to the BIS, non-financial business debt has also been the major element responsible for accelerating global debt levels—especially borrowing in dollars from US banks and investors (i.e. dollarized debt) by emerging market economies, as well as business debt in China issued to maintain state owned enterprises and to finance local building construction.

So the debt driver has continued unabated as a problem since 2008, and has even accelerated. Financial asset bubbles have appeared worldwide as a result—not least of which is the current bubble in US stocks. This time it’s not real estate mortgages. It’s non-financial business and corporate debt that is the likely locus of the next crisis, whether in the US or globally or both.

Since 2008 US and global debt bubbles have been fueled once again—as in the 1920s and after 1985 by the excess liquidity provided by the US central bank, and other advanced economy central banks. The central bank, the Fed, alone has subsidized US banks and investors to the tune of $6 trillion from 2009 to 2016, as a consequence of its QE and near zero interest rate policies.

Since 2008, excessive and sustained low interest rates for investors and business have resulted in at least $1 trillion a year in corporate debt buildup, as corporate bond issues have accelerated due to ultra cheap Fed money. The easy money has allowed countless ‘junk’ grade US companies to survive the past decade, as they piled debt on debt to service old debt. Cheap money has also fueled corporate stock buybacks and dividend payouts to investors, which have been re-funneled back into stock prices and bubbles. So has the doubling and tripling of corporate profits from 2008 to 2017 enabled record buybacks and dividend distributions to shareholders.

Most recently, in 2017-18 the subsidization locus has shifted to Trump tax cuts that have artificially boosted US profits by a further 20% and more.  As data has begun showing in 2018, most of that is now being re-plowed back into stock buybacks and dividend payouts—this year totaling more than $1.4 trillion, after six years of already $1 trillion a year in buybacks and payouts. That’s more than $7 trillion in distribution by corporate America in buybacks and dividends to its wealthy shareholders.

Where’s the mountain of money provided investors all gone? Certainly not in raising wages for workers. Certainly not in paying more taxes to government. It’s been diverted into financial markets in the US and globally—stocks, bonds, derivatives, currency, property, etc.—into mergers & acquisitions in the US, or just hoarded on balance sheets in anticipation of the next crisis approaching.  Or sent into emerging markets (financial markets, mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, expanding production, etc.) when they were booming 2010-2016.

So where will the financial asset prices start collapsing in the many bubbles that have been created globally and in the US so far—and thus precipitating once again the next financial crisis? The BIS has been warning to watch US corporate junk bonds and leveraged loan markets. Watch out for the new derivatives replacing the old ‘subprimes’ and CDSs—i.e. the Exchange Traded Funds, ETFs, passive index funds, dark pools, etc.   Watch also the US stock markets responding to US political events, to a real trade war with China perhaps in 2019, a continuing collapse of emerging market economies and currencies, to a crisis in repayment of non-performing bank loans in Italy, India and elsewhere, or a tanking of the British economy in the wake of a ‘hard’ Brexit next spring, or Asian economies contracting in response to China slowing or its currency devaluing, or to any yet unseen development.  Collapsing prices in any of the above may be the origin of the next financial asset contraction that will spread by contagion of derivatives across global markets.  And the even larger debt magnitudes built up since 2008 may make the eventual price deflation even more rapid and deeper. And the new derivatives may accelerate the contagion across markets even faster.

The financial kindling is there. All it now takes is a spark to set it off. The next financial crisis is coming. The last decade, 2008-18, is eerily similar to the periods 1921-1929 and 1996-2007.

Only now it will come with the US challenging foreign competitors and former allies alike as it tries to retain its share of slowing global trade; with a US economy having devastated households economically for a decade; with a massive US federal debt now $21 trillion and going to $33 trillion due to Trump tax cuts; with a US crisis in retirement income, healthcare access and costs, and a crumbling education system; with an economy having created only low pay and mostly contingent service jobs; with a virtually destroyed union movement; with a big Pharma initiated opioid crisis killing more Americans per year than lost during the entire 9 year Vietnam war; with a culture allowing 40,000 of its citizens a year killed by guns and doing nothing; with an internal transformation and retreat of the two established political parties; and with a Trump and right wing radical movement ascendant and poised to move to the streets to defend itself.

*

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: Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the forthcoming book ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, 2019. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and his twitter handle is @drjackrasmus. (For a more detailed analysis of the similarities and differences between 1929 and 2008, and how Roosevelt and Obama treated the crisis differently, read the except from Dr. Rasmus’s 2010 book, ‘Epic Recession: Prelude to Global Depression’, Plutobooks, now posted on his website, http://kyklosproductions.com). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Global Economic Crisis

The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Global Research

Each of the authors in this timely collection digs beneath the gilded surface to reveal a complex web of deceit and media distortion which serves to conceal the workings of the global economic system and its devastating impacts on people’s lives.

In all major regions of the world, the economic recession is deep-seated, resulting in mass unemployment, the collapse of state social programs and the impoverishment of millions of people. The meltdown of financial markets was the result of institutionalized fraud and financial manipulation.

The economic crisis is accompanied by a worldwide process of militarization, a “war without borders” led by the U.S. and its NATO allies.

click to order directly from Global Research

This book takes the reader through the corridors of the Federal Reserve, into the plush corporate boardrooms on Wall Street where far-reaching financial transactions are routinely undertaken.

“This important collection offers the reader a most comprehensive analysis of the various facets – especially the financial, social and military ramifications – from an outstanding list of world-class social thinkers.”
-Mario Seccareccia, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

“In-depth investigations of the inner workings of the plutocracy in crisis, presented by some of our best politico-economic analysts. This book should help put to rest the hallucinations of ‘free market’ ideology.”
-Michael Parenti, author of God and His Demons and Contrary Notions

“Provides a very readable exposé of a global economic system, manipulated by a handful of extremely powerful economic actors for their own benefit, to enrich a few at the expense of an ever-growing majority.”
-David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited

click to order directly from Global Research

While China builds roads, rail, pipelines, airports, seaports, and factories across Africa, the United States finds itself resigned to selling weapons and stirring up conflicts between and within African states to disrupt the rise of the continent independent of Western hegemony.

Part of stirring up conflict involves political subversion. In Uganda, the US is propping up an opposition leader who even at the most basic, superficial level fails to conceal his allegiance to and dependence on Washington.

The Making of an Agitator: Bobi Wine’s “Political Rise” 

A media circus has developed in the West around Ugandan pop star turned politician Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu – referred to by his stage name as “Bobi Wine” – portraying him as a rising opposition leader seeking the overthrow of incumbent Ugandan strongman, President Yoweri Museveni.

While depicted as a Ugandan “opposition leader” by the Western media, fewer cases of Western meddling in African politics have been more transparent.

Wine entered politics as recently as 2017. In early 2018, he had already made a trip to the United States to enroll in the Harvard Kennedy School’s “Leadership for the 21st Century” course, described by the school’s website as:

The executive education program, Leadership for the 21st Century: Chaos, Conflict and Courage, delves into why we lead the way we do. The program offers a stimulating and challenging curriculum that invites you to learn how to exercise leadership with more courage, skill and effectiveness. 

Upon returning to Uganda, Wine’s political supporters violently attacked President Museveni’s motorcade after which he was arrested and charged with treason.

The BBC in their August 2018 article, “Uganda’s Bobi Wine: Pop star MP charged with treason,” would claim:

The authorities say opposition lawmakers led supporters to attack the president’s convoy with stones. Bobi Wine’s driver was later shot dead.

And as with all Western-sponsored agitators, the BBC has reported Western governments decrying the charges as “politically motivated” claiming:

The charges are widely viewed as politically motivated and aimed at silencing a prominent critic of the president. The US decried the “brutal treatment” of MPs, journalists and others by security forces. 

By September, Wine would fly to the US to allegedly receive “treatment” for his “injuries,” however most of his time was spent consorting with the US State Department, DC lobbyists, writing columns for the Washington Post, and grandstanding with visible US backing behind him.

In Wine’s op-ed for the Washington Post, he would claim (emphasis added):

When people are allowed to speak, allowed to protest, to organize; when terms are limited and elections are transparent; when the press is free and officials are held accountable, there are no Musevenis. This is why we are seeing increasing censorship — including blackouts of broadcasts by Voice of America, among other heavy-handed attempts to keep Ugandans in the dark.

Voice of America – of course – is US State Department-funded and directed media representing US special interests. Here, Wine suggests that without US State Department narratives, Ugandans are left “in the dark.” While depicted as a democratic opposition leader, it is safe to say any opposition movement being led from “the dark” by foreign special interests, is entirely undemocratic.

Other media sources promoting Wine include The Nation Media Group, majority owned by foreign foundations like the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development and openly partnered with Western foundations like the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and the International Press Institute.

Like in virtually every other nation around the globe the US seeks influence within, the US is doing this in Uganda not by investing in genuine economic, political, or even military partnership, but instead by simply co-opting or overwriting the nation’s institutions, including its media.

Upon returning to Uganda, Bobi Wine was again promptly arrested – with treason charges seeming somewhat understated now considering Wine’s open conspiracy with the entirety of Washington’s regime change apparatus.

The US “Cannot Ignore” Africa… 

Wine’s lawyer is notorious lobbyist Robert Amsterdam who has worked with other US-sponsored agitators ranging from Thai billionaire  Thaksin Shinawatra, to Russia’s Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

During Amsterdam’s press conference in Washington, he would fully admit to seeking further US government support for his client, Bobi Wine, claiming:

We will be meeting with Congressmen, Congresswomen, members of various departments, the State Department, included, and we will be providing them with details of what has been happening in Uganda, the brutality, the truly criminal activity and violations of human rights that are occurring daily.

Paradoxically, in an attempt to frame the Ugandan government as in league with Washington, Amsterdam would claim:

And we want the American taxpayer to know that the American taxpayer is funding this. The military equipment we are supplying to Uganda is being used in a war of terror against Uganda’s citizens.

Yet Uganda’s military receives the vast majority of its weapons from Russia and China, not the United States. What “equipment” Uganda would specifically use to “torture” the Ugandan population is never expanded upon by Amsterdam. The most likely reason for this omission of seemingly crucial details is because Amsterdam’s claims are fabricated.

The US, like its European partners, has a long history of meddling in Africa’s internal affairs, and specifically in Uganda. Amsterdam provided some clues as to why the US seeks to meddle in Uganda’s internal affairs further. He would claim (emphasis added):

This is not an isolated incident. Uganda has a storied history of political violence, an ongoing history the West has largely ignored. We cannot ignore it any longer. We cannot ignore Africa any longer. Within the last few weeks the German Chancellor was touring Africa, thank God. The Chinese have invited heads of state from all over Africa to Beijing.

It is time for America’s voice to be heard, and heard loudly…

China’s progress in Africa over the last decade has prompted an American reaction. Instead of creating alternative programs for building infrastructure and accelerating development, Washington has opted to instead overturn the entire game board at both Africa and China’s expense.

It is in no way a coincidence that Amsterdam’s prescription to coerce Uganda politically focused on a now familiar formula of sanctions, including those designed specifically for Russia but now liberally used around the globe against all obstacles to US geopolitical ambitions.

Amsterdam would cite the Magnitsky Act by name and call on the US to immediately suspend nebulous US military funding Amsterdam failed to either qualify or quantify.

Clearly, with Wine sitting in Washington DC, his DC lobbyist openly admitting they would both be consorting with members of the US Congress and the US State Department, and Wine even afforded space in the Washington Post for an op-ed, obvious accusations of Wine’s role in facilitating foreign meddling have already begun to spread within Uganda and beyond.

In response to this, Amsterdam would claim:

Now a lot of comments have been made with people saying well because he’s got an international lawyer somehow there’s some foreign agent involved. There ain’t no foreign agent involved. There is however something to note. And that is that the Museveni regime is a foreign agent of the American military with respect to its activities in Sudan and Somalia. And therefore it is Washington that has the ultimate control over what’s going on in Uganda today.

While it is true that the Ugandan government has bent to US demands particularly regarding US ambitions in Sudan and Somalia, it is clear that further pressure is being placed on the Ugandan government by the US through the use of opposition figures like Bobi Wine.

Political projection – accusing President Museveni of being a foreign agent of the United States while Bobi Wine literally sat in Washington DC and openly admitted to consorting with the US Congress and US State Department – is rarely so transparent and hypocritical.

And as if to dispel any doubt at all about the interconnected nature of Amsterdam’s work on behalf of not his client Bobi Wine, but the special interests in Washington and on Wall Street they both work for, he would link Ugandan President Museveni to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the myriad of baseless narratives spread by the West to vilify Moscow, by claiming:

The Museveni regime is taking a page from Mr. Putin’s book. They torture you, they poison you. They poisoned people in England and then they call it false news.

Uganda’s history as a British colony that would gain a tenuous independence before being pulled back and forth between great powers throughout the Cold War and up to and including today has undoubtedly left the nation with much to be desired in terms of governance. However, the governance of Uganda is the sole business of the people of Uganda.

For Bobi Wine to flee his nation and seek the aid of foreign sponsors notorious for their multitude of global, ongoing wars, torture, human exploitation – including the destruction of multiple nations in Africa specifically – and political meddling and subversion worldwide, is all the proof the Ugandan people need to know that – whatever they may think of President Museveni – Bobi Wine is worse.

Wine is worse because he is politically weaker, and because before even starting his political career, has found himself entirely dependent on Washington – the heirs of Uganda’s British colonial occupiers. Uganda’s path toward the future – like any other nation – is wrought with many dead ends, few more obvious than “Bobi Wine.”

For Africa as a continent, the danger of US meddling and attempts to reassert Western control through proxies and political and institutional subversion, remains omnipresent. Knowing the methods the West uses to accomplish its modern day colonization is the first step in defeating it.

*

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

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

The world is once again witnessing the height of U.S. hypocrisy as members of the U.S. State Department ratchet up anti-Russian and anti-Syrian rhetoric surrounding the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the UK. Ambassador Nikki Haley has warned Syria, Iran and Russia that they will be held accountable for their pre-determined use of chemical weapons in Idlib on innocent civilians. No evidence was provided to support her threats. The United States carried out cruise missile strikes on two previous occasions, and each time provided no evidence to prove their assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in attacking civilians, nor was any rational reason given for such an obviously irrational decision on the part of the Syrian state. No evidence has ever been provided to justify the clear international crime of aggression committed by the United States on these two earlier occasions. Now, the UK and the U.S. are both attempting to accuse the Russian government of using chemical weapons in an alleged attempted assassination of a Russian national on UK soil. Once again, no real evidence has been presented, only assertions and hearsay.

On Thursday September 13^th, Assistant Secretary of State Manisha Singh declared before the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee that the United States would level the most severe of sanctions against Russia, including breaking all diplomatic ties, if Russia refused to admit its guilt in perpetrating the Skripal assassination fiasco and refused to submit to International inspections by the OPCW of its alleged chemical weapons and biological weapons programs. She stated that Russia would have to meet this requirement by an arbitrary November 4^th deadline, set by the United States in accordance with a U.S. law, not an international law. H.R. 1724 – Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 specifies in part:

Title III: Control and Elimination of Chemical and Biological Weapons – Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 – Declares it is U.S. policy to: (1) seek multilaterally coordinated efforts with other countries to control the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons; and (2) strengthen efforts to control chemical agents, precursors, and equipment.

Requires the President to use the U.S. export control laws to control the export of defense articles, defense services, goods, and technologies that he determines would assist a country in acquiring the capability to produce or use such weapons.

Amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a list of goods and technology that would assist a foreign government or group in acquiring chemical or biological weapons. Requires a validated export license for the export of such items to certain countries of concern.

Requires the President to impose certain sanctions against foreign persons if he determines that they knowingly contributed to the efforts of a country to acquire, use, or stockpile chemical or biological weapons. Declares such sanctions to include: (1) denial of U.S. procurement contracts for goods or services from such foreign persons; and (2) prohibition against importation of products from such persons. Authorizes the President to waive imposition of such sanctions if he determines that is in the national security interests of the United States.

Amends the Arms Export Control Act to set forth similar provisions.

Requires the President to make a determination with respect to whether a country has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. Authorizes specified congressional committees to request the President to make such determination with respect to the use of such weapons.

Requires the President to impose the following sanctions against foreign countries that have been found to have used such weapons: (1) termination of assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (except humanitarian assistance and agricultural commodities); (2) termination of arms sales and arms sales financing; (3) denial of U.S. credit; and (4) prohibition of the export of certain goods and technology. Directs the President to impose at least three of the following additional sanctions unless such countries cease the use of such weapons and provide assurances that they will not use, and will allow inspections with respect to, such weapons: (1) opposition to the extension of multilateral development bank assistance; (2) prohibition of U.S. bank loans (except loans for food or agricultural commodities); (3) further export prohibitions; (4) import restrictions; (5) suspension of diplomatic relations; and (6) termination of air carrier landing rights. Provides for the removal and waiver of such sanctions.

Requires the President to submit to the Congress annual reports on the efforts of countries to acquire chemical or biological weapons.

Repeals certain duplicative provisions of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.

It is important to note that nowhere in this law is there a legal commitment made by the United States itself, to eliminate its own chemical and biological weapons capabilities. This is not an oversight, yet speaks to the imperial hypocrisy of the United States and an acknowledgement that it alone has been the largest perpetrator of chemical weapons use and proliferation for more than 50 years. It currently maintains the largest stockpile of both chemical and biological warfare agents of any nation on the planet, and continues to expand its biological weapons research and development on a scale far larger than any other country.

While the U.S. Department of Defense maintains that its massive biological research programs are meant to counter and defend against new biological weapons being developed, they are in fact developing bio-weapons in the process.

International Obligations and the OPCW

Russia is one of 192 signatories (state and non-state parties) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, along with the United States. On September 27^th, 2017 it was announced by Russia and the OPCW, that Russia had verified the total destruction of its large chemical weapons stockpile dating from the years of the Soviet Union, estimated at 39,967 metric tons of chemical agents. Russia was obligated to do this by 2020, yet was able to accomplish the task three years ahead of schedule. Under the original agreement, both the U.S. and Russia were obligated to accomplish this by 2007, but both nations required an extension of the deadline.

Although admitting to a total stockpile of 28,000 metric tons of chemical agents, the U.S. admits to destroying 90% of its chemical arsenal. The U.S. requested and was granted an extension out to 2023 to achieve verified elimination of 100% of its chemical weapons. The only other signatory of the law other than the United States not to have already met the requirements is Iraq. It must be stated that much of the chemical weapons in the Iraqi arsenal are based on the chemical warfare agents supplied to the Saddam Hussein regime during the height of the Iran-Iraq war by the United States and other western nations. Saddam used some of these U.S. supplied weapons to murder thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988. Estimates range between 3,000 – 7,000 deaths and over 10,000 injured.

Saddam Hussein was a valued asset of the United States and its Western allies for decades. Hussein pictured above with former French President Jacque Chirac and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Not only did the United States, and France for that matter, provide chemical weapons to the Saddam regime, but the U.S. intelligence agencies provided the Iraqi military with vital battlefield intelligence, including satellite imagery in aiding them in the war. The U.S. was well aware that the Saddam regime had used chemical weapons in at least four offensives during the war. Of course they knew, they had facilitated the transfer of these weapons to help the Iraqis prosecute a war of aggression against Iran. Declassified CIA documents clearly show that the United States was well aware that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons at least four times between 1983 and 1988. Iran had accused Iraq of using chemical weapons, and tried to build a case to bring before the United Nations. The United States withheld its knowledge of course, and continued to aid its ally in perpetrating these crimes against humanity.

Perhaps the most powerful photo taken of the Halabja chemical attack perpetrated against Iraqi Kurds. This woman died running with her child in an attempt to save her, yet could not escape the deadly effects of the chemical agents used. Their embrace will forever symbolize both human love and sacrifice, and unfathomable human cruelty.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley has lied through her teeth repeatedly in her statements before the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly. She has stated repeatedly that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people in Ghouta in 2013, Khan Shaykhun in 2017 and Douma in 2018, yet has not supplied one shred of evidence beyond dubious social media posts of unknown provenance. She has also stated that the United States is certain that it could only be the Syrian government, as no other party in the conflict zone could possibly possess chemical weapons. Here’s the problem with her statement. Firstly, the United States and the OPCW verified that Syria destroyed or surrendered all of its chemical weapons agents. On its official website, the OPCW states:

“Veolia, the US firm contracted by the OPCW to dispose of part of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, has completed disposal of 75 cylinders of hydrogen fluoride at its facility in Texas.

This completes destruction of all chemical weapons declared by the Syrian Arab Republic.  The need to devise a technical solution for treating a number of cylinders in a deteriorated and hazardous condition had delayed the disposal process.

Commenting on this development, the Director-General of the OPCW, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, said: “This process closes an important chapter in the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapon programme as we continue efforts to clarify Syria’s declaration and address ongoing use of toxic chemicals as weapons in that country.”

Secondly, the OPCW and the UN have both verified that opposition forces within Syria have used chemical agents as weapons on numerous occasions during the conflict. Not only has Carla Del Ponte, UN human rights investigator, former UN Chief Prosecutor and ICC attorney stated that opposition forces had used chemical weapons, but also the former OPCW head field investigator in Syria Jerry Smith stated to the BBC that he found it very unlikely that the government perpetrated these chemical attacks.. As recently as October of last year the U.S. State Department itself seemed to acknowledge the same truth in its warning to U.S. citizens traveling to Syria. The travel warning stated:

“Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons.

They have targeted major city centers, road checkpoints, border crossings, government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces, in Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr provinces.”

U.S. History of using Chemical Weapons and Supporting Those that Do

The last country in the world that should lecture anyone on the possession and use of WMDs is the United States. Not only is the United States the only country in history to ever target civilians with multiple atomic bombs, it has used chemical weapons against the populations of Southeast Asia and Iraq in the past. Now, they were smart enough not to use mustard gas and anthrax, but the accumulative effects of Agent Orange and depleted uranium in these populations has been devastating, and will not only cause great harm and pain for these populations, but will leave the land poisoned for generations.

The United States sprayed copious quantities of TCDD (dioxin tetrachlordibenzo-para-dioxin), a class 1 carcinogen all over regions of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in an attempt to defoliate the jungle environment, and thus rob their enemy of an environment they excelled at fighting in and hiding in as part of Operation Ranch Hand. Known as Agent Orange, the chemical was banned in the U.S. in 1970. Although extremely hard to quantify, the devastating effects of dioxin exposure in the Vietnamese population are easily identifiable, as the same effects were observed in U.S. veterans that returned home after exposure to the toxin. Abnormally high levels of various cancers and debilitating birth defects are present in Southeast Asian populations in areas of greatest use of Agent Orange. Dioxins remain in the soil and water table, as they do not degrade naturally. Dioxin also bio-accumulates in the fatty tissues of animals and thus remains in the food supply.

One of the many young Vietnamese born long after the war with debilitating, neurodevelopmental diseases and birth defects due to Agent Orange exposure of their parents.

The United States learned little from the crime it perpetrated in Southeast Asia, nor did it seem to care as it repeated a similar offense in two successive invasions of Iraq. Having failed to achieve its aim of defeating Iran through its brutal Iraqi proxy, even after helping the Saddam Hussein regime in chemical warfare attacks against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurdish civilians, the United States largely ignored the numerous atrocities carried out by one of its favorite dictators. The U.S. would turn on its erstwhile henchman in 1990, after Saddam decided to attack one of its favorite corrupt emirates in the region. The resulting 1991 invasion of Iraq saw the heavy use of depleted uranium armored piercing rounds. Depleted uranium is extremely dense, and thus good for piercing hardened steel or composite armor. The follow-on invasion of 2003 brought more death and destruction, and more depleted uranium.

Locations of depleted uranium munitions used by U.S. Airforce A-10 ground attack aircraft in Iraq during the 2003 invasion. Depleted Uranium is also used in anti-armor munitions utilized by all U.S. tanks and armored fighting vehicles as well, so the true breadth of distribution and employment of depleted uranium in the above map are understated.

The U.S. has not funded the reclamation and disposal of depleted uranium contaminated scrap in Iraq. The new Iraqi government has started cleaning up the approximately 350 sites identified as having depleted uranium contamination in the country, mostly around Basra and Baghdad, yet also scattered over the entire country. It is estimated that between 1,000 and 2,000 metric tons of depleted uranium used in various munitions fired during the invasion of 2003 alone. It is hard to narrow down the exact amount as the U.S. military has failed to provide any definitive numbers. Iraqi doctors have recorded and reported higher cases of cancers in adult patients and increased birth defects in children being born in Iraq since the invasion took place. The U.S. government seems determined to undermine any attempts to draw direct correlations between this recorded phenomenon and its use of depleted uranium in two successive wars in Iraq. It has also fought all attempts by U.S. war veterans suffering from various cancers and neurological diseases from their similar exposure in both wars.

Continued Support of War Criminals

Nikki Haley fails to acknowledge the historic role of the United States government’s support of some of the world’s most horrible regimes in the past. From the Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein then, to Saudi Arabia and Tahrir al-Sham now, the United States has supported many of the world’s most deplorable violators of human rights. Yet Nikki Haley has the arrogance and delusional belief that she has the moral high ground in chastising Syria and Russia before the U.N.?

Just this week U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo clarified that the Saudi and UAE have acted in good faith in taking steps to reduce civilian casualties in their military operations in Yemen and that the U.S. military would keep providing both material and direct support to both nations in prosecuting their illegal war. U.S. manufactured and supplied bombs are being used to kill civilians in Yemen regularly, amounting to an estimated 15,000 killed or injured civilians over a period of three years. This does not take into account the deaths and suffering associated with the humanitarian crisis that has resulted from the Saudi-led coalition destroying virtually all infrastructure in the Houthi controlled part of the country. I am sure that it is also just another “unintended consequence” that al-Qaeda has expanded and strengthened its position in Yemen as a direct result of the conflict. When will any member state in the U.N. finally tell Nikki Haley that the Security Council must acknowledge that al-Qaeda has always been a proxy of Saudi Arabia and the United States?

Children injured when a Saudi airstrike targeted a school bus in Saada, Yemen. A total of 51 civilians, 40 of them children below the age of 15 were killed in the strike. The United States supplies the aircraft, bombs, aerial refueling and intelligence gathering resources to support the bombing campaign.

Nikki Haley continues to claim that Russia is directly facilitating an impending humanitarian disaster and war crime in the impending Syrian military operations to retake Idlib province, destroy a host of ISIS and al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups and liberate hundreds of thousands of civilians. She said the same thing during the battle to liberate Aleppo. Her lies were revealed when the SAA and Russia finally liberated the city and Syrian civilians who were kept as prisoners there by the Islamic terrorists were finally free of the horror of their captivity. Is it no wonder that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees displaced by the conflict are now returning to their home country?

Apparently Nikki Haley sees no issue at all in Imperial America supporting Saudi Arabia and the UAE killing Yemeni civilians by the thousands in Yemen. The U.S. not only supplies the bombs, but directly provides in-flight refueling of the aircraft and the intelligence used to conduct the “precision” strikes that target schools, hospitals, funerals, and even school bus loads of children. Does this surprise anyone? U.S. coalition airstrikes against ISIL in Raqqa and Mosul killed an estimated 6,000 civilians. In Raqqa, U.S. aircraft conducted 90% of the airstrikes, and the U.S. fired at least 30,000 artillery rounds into the city. The U.S. has yet to pay any political or legal price for its indiscriminant destruction of these cities.

One of thousands of airstrikes carried out on the Syrian city of Raqqa. The U.S. led coalition was widely criticized for its blatant disregard for civilian casualties in its targeting of the city as part of its offensive to destroy ISIL. They have yet to be held accountable for the estimated 800-1,000 civilians deaths caused.

The Russian Response

Russia needs to finally accept the reality that there is nothing to be gained by negotiating, or attempting to collaborate with the United States in solving problems. It’s like a shepherd using a wolf to defend his flock, or a detective enlisting the aid of a criminal to solve a crime that the criminal is a co-conspirator in perpetrating. It is illogical in the extreme. The Russian U.N. mission needs to call out Nikki Haley and the U.S. on its own deplorable record and hypocrisy and while seeking  the aid of other member states, must also realizing that most of them are bought-off by Washington. Hasn’t Haley repeatedly threatened to stop giving money to nations that do not support her resolutions?

The Russians need to realize that they can never have a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship with the political and financial elites that control the United States. Russia will always find a friend in the American people, but Washington? This same elite despises the American people more than it does Putin or Assad. If it wasn’t for working class American citizens fed up with the U.S. establishment elite, we would likely already be in a direct war with Russia, China and Iran. I hope that the Russian political and military leadership understands this. Stop trying to placate Washington and start preparing to defend your nation. The Deep State will not stop at Ukraine or Syria. They desire the complete subjugation of Russia and a return to the Yeltsin days, or worse.

*

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

Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

All images in this article are from the author.

It’s basically a battle between billionaires Axel Springer SE and Google. But it is ordinary internet users who will fall victim to the EU’s new copyright law, which urgently needs modification.

On September 20th, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) announced it plans to replace all its coal generation with solar and wind and energy storage in the next ten years for its 460,000 customers in 32 Indiana counties.

“This creates a vision for the future that is better for our customers,” said NIPSCO president Violet Sistovaris. “It’s consistent with our goal to transition to the best cost, cleanest electric supply mix available while maintaining reliability, diversity and flexibility for technology and market changes.”

This is despite Trump administration efforts to roll back the Obama administration Clean Power Plan, and ongoing efforts to subsidize coal fired plants as somehow vital to “grid security”.

The simple fact is that coal cannot compete economically or ecologically with zero fuel cost and minimally polluting solar, wind and energy storage. The global movement away from coal and toward renewables is accelerating, driven by ecological and economic imperatives.

By June 2018, before NIPSCO and other coal closing announcements, 19.8 gigawatts of U.S. coal capacity was already scheduled to close in ten years. A survey of the 16 largest U.S. utilities already found 7 were planning to invest billions in renewables and storage and move away completely or very substantially from coal.

An Emergent Ecological Future?

Of course, it remains unclear if our efforts to reduce carbon pollution will be enough to escape climate disaster. But it is also apparent that the accelerating movement way from coal internationally reflects an important and emergent trend of moving from a self-destructive global industrialism to an ecologically sustainable future that can persist for geological time scales.

When the President of an Indiana coal utility speaks about a renewable “transition to the best cost, cleanest electric supply mix available” we are not just talking to the Sierra Club.

An ecological future, if it is to emerge, must be based, first, on economic growth meaning ecological improvement as the consequence of the pursuit of profit. That’s sustainability in motion.

Sustainability is more than just another way to make money. It is a way to seek profit and at the same time do so within the context of sustainable conduct ecologically. To fully close the circle we need to include the pursuit of social and ecological justice as an essential concomitant for economic growth in addition to making profit mean ecological improvement.

This can be institutionalized by a redefinition by law of fiduciary responsibility making the pursuit of economic growth to mean ecological improvement as well as social and ecological justice to be supported by law, regulation and fiscal policy. These can include steps such as a negative income tax or basic income, ecological regulation, ecological tax systems that send clear price signals that make sustainable goods and services less costly, gain market share, and become more profitable.

An Ecological Civilization

An ecological civilization is humanity acting to make economic growth mean the improvement of the ecosphere to maintain a self-renewing balance. An ecological civilization is based on diverse lifeways sustaining linked natural and social ecologies.

A ecological civilization is driven by social and ecological necessity.The alternative is business and pillage as usual driving us to ecological catastrophe and the collapse of civilization. An ecological transition is guided by three generative forces: sustainability, emergence and co-evolution.

Sustainability is the ability of life, the ecosphere, to respond to all influences in ways that shape the planet making it maximally suitable for all life. Sustainability is the mechanism that allowed life to withstand repeated mass extinction events and once again thrive. Sustainability will act similarly in the face of the extinction event of the Anthropocene. What is different in the 21st century is that human self-consciousness and social choice have become part of the mechanism of sustainability, a deliberate and healing social response to industrial excess.

Emergence is the sudden appearance of new forms and forces given sufficient levels of complexity, for example, appearance of solid matter in a mostly empty quantum universe given a sufficient number of atoms. Life itself is an emergent phenomena. An ecological civilization will be yet a further expression of emergent phenomena.

Industrialism in action is simplification with a focus on mass production and unlimited pollution and ecological destruction An ecological system is characterized by customized production and zero pollution and zero waste, and increasing complexity where the output of all systems become input for other processes and products. Social complexity is the basis for the emergence of sophisticated cybernetic feedback control loops to moderate actions toward ecological ends.

Co-evolution is the interaction of life and planet, the operation of multiple forces of evolution on all scales including variation, symbiosis, competition, cooperation on scales ranging from genetic to social. It was Darwin, after all, who understood the evolutionary importance of human society and its actions.

Sustainability and emergence and co-evolution are fractal in their action, operating broadly similarly on all scales from pond to planet, much as Mandelbrot sets governing the varied ragged shape of coast lines are similar whether viewed from space or on micro-scale.

The Future?

An ecological future is an emergent prospect and possibility. Its full manifestation is a matter of social choice and social action. It would be a pity if an ecological civilization is left to appear after the collapse of civilization in the 21st century in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of ecological disruption before the climate returns to friendlier norms as it finally did after the eocene thermal maximum was finally ended abut 50 million years ago by enormous mats of plants thriving in then hot arctic ocean pulling gigatons upon gigatons of carbon dioxide form atmosphere and ocean.

The successor Trumpism can be a not a return to business and pollution as usual, but the embrace of ecological means for prosperity, and for social and ecological justice for all.

*

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

Roy Morrison‘s latest book is Building An Ecological Civilization: Outline for Getting from Here to There, forthcoming in 2019.

On September 21^st, the Russian Minister of Trade and Industry Denis Manturov announced the country’s plans to start production of construction materials and cars in Syria, which are to be exported to third countries.

As cited by TASS during a press conference following the meeting of the Russian-Chinese subcommittee for cooperation in the field of industry, Manturov said that the countries are currently discussing the option of Russian production of construction materials and cars in Syria.

“We have been cooperating with Syria for a long time to supply road construction equipment, construction materials, and to organize the production there,” Manturov said.

The Trade and Industry Minister did not specify what companies will be established, who will be their key participants, under what brand will the products be produced. He did, however, confirm that it will be within the transport and energy construction industry, as well as the automotive one.

“What will come first, in view of restoration will be construction materials. The organization of production there is for the production of construction materials, which are to be used in the local market,” according to Manturov, as cited by RIA Novosti.

Manturov also expressed hope that the construction materials may be delivered beyond the Syrian market, to other countries in the region.

“If these products are to be competitive, they will have to be delivered to neighboring countries from the Syrian establishment,” the Minister said.

Russia is already looking into building its own production bases in Syria. In February, the vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Vladimir Padalko, claimed that Russian companies are discussing projects for the construction of cars and agricultural machinery in Syria.

He also specified that large automotive manufacturers will most likely not enter the country, their dealers will. He also announced that one Russian company has initiated negotiations for the construction of more than a dozen establishments for the production of reinforced concrete products.

Belarus has also announced plans to establish a car manufacturing base in Syria. Mid-January 2018, representatives of the Belarusian company MAZ held the relevant negotiations in the Syrian Ministry of Industry.

In addition to announcement regarding Syria, Manturov also spoke about the development of industry in Russia and China. According to him, Russian and Chinese industrial progress and cooperation draw dissatisfaction from the Western Countries.

“You can see for yourself the difficult geopolitical and economic situation in which our countries are. It is chiefly due to the fact that we produce large volumes of competitive products – it concerns iron and steel industry and nonferrous industry, in particular aluminum,” Manturov said at the press conference.

“The stronger the Chinese and Russian industries become, the more dissatisfaction it draws from our Western colleagues, in particular the US,” he stated.

“However, it only motivates us all the more to cooperate in the areas we discussed today. These are, in particular, metallurgy industry, aluminum, radio-electronic industry, pharmaceutics, automobile industry and new groundbreaking spheres,” Manturov reported.

“Pressure, sanctions and certain bans by the Western countries and the US push us once again toward cooperation and a search for joint solutions and products,” the Russian industry and trade minister concluded.

The announcement of industrial establishments in Syria follows the announcement of Russia’s Export Development Plan on September 12^th. Denis Manturov said that the plan envisioned the launching of 4 industrial zones abroad, all of which are to be operational within 6 years.

This is in addition to the one already functioning in Egypt.

“We are developing a program for the creation of industrial zones abroad. We should establish at least four zones in six years. We have one in Egypt, and we must form them in Latin America too – it could be Mexico, Uruguay or Paraguay, in Southeast Asia – Vietnam, Malaysia or Indonesia – and in eastern or western Africa. We will analyze where it will be advantageous,” the minister said.

*

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

Current temperature trajectories are on par with or exceed the IPCC’s dangerous projections (Figure 1). Acting as the lungs of the biosphere, over tens of millions of years the atmosphere developed an oxygen-rich carbon-low composition, allowing the flourishing of mammals. The anthropogenic release to the atmosphere to date of more than 600 Gigaton of carbon (GtC) is reversing this trend, threatening to return the Earth to conditions which preceded the emergence of modern life forms, including humans. Climate projections for the mid to late 21^st century by the IPCC (models A1B and A2)  indicate mean global temperatures rising to near 3 to 4 degrees Celsius above mean 1880-1920 temperatures. Concomitantly a transient cooling occurs in high latitude oceans due to flow of cold water from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These developments would lead to un-inhabitability of large parts of the Earth and to a further rise in extreme weather events, not least from hurricanes around the Pacific Rim and Caribbean island chains.

Tracking toward 500 ppm CO₂ a shift is taking place in the state of the atmosphere away from the conditions which allowed farming some ~11,000 years ago and from conditions which allowed the emergence of Homo erectus 1.8 million years ago. In denial of the basic laws of physics, specifically of black body radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann, Kirchhoff and Planck laws), and their manifestation in the atmosphere-ocean-land system, world “leaders” and a complicit media are presiding over a rise of carbon emissions at a rate of 2 – 3 ppm CO₂ per year, shifting the chemistry of the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate since at least 56 million years ago, when a hyperthermal catastrophe and mass extinction of species took place. 

Figure 1. Current global warming at the IPCC fastest trajectories (IPCC models A2 and A1B):  [A] Land surface temperatures (red) and ocean temperatures (blue) for 1880-2020 (NASA); [B] Modeled temperature change for 2000-2100 (IPCC); [C] Modelled land and sea temperatures for 2055-2060 with 10 years doubling time for freshwater flux from the ice sheets (Hansen and Sato 2015).

About 1980 when the dangerous rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases to 340 ppm CO₂ was realized, it may have still been possible to attempt effective mitigation by means of (A) sharp reduction of carbon emissions, and (B) attempts at down-draw of CO₂ through reforestation, soil improvement (biochar), CO₂ capture using sea weed farming, CO₂ reaction with basalt and other methods. This has not happened—instead, a plethora of economic and political panels formed, mostly to the exclusion of climate scientists, counting the costs of mitigation and adaptation, namely the price of the Earth.

With estimated carbon reserves in excess of 20,000 GtC (well over 20 times the CO₂ content of the atmosphere), further emissions can take the atmosphere to >1000 ppm CO₂, namely to Early Eocene (about 50 million years ago) or Mesozoic-like greenhouse Earth conditions, when large parts of the continents were inundated by the oceans. As stated by the renown oceanographer Wallace Broecker in 1986, “The inhabitants of planet Earth are quietly conducting a gigantic experiment. We play Russian roulette with climate and no one knows what lies in the active chamber of the gun“.  Where WWII sacrificed millions in gas chambers, global warming threatens to destroy billions, on the strength of an “economic” Faustian Bargain. 

Extreme greenhouse levels and high mean temperatures existed on Earth at several stages, but mostly the transitions between these states and cold or ice ages were gradual, allowing many species to adapt. By contrast, when climate changes were abrupt, such as due to asteroid impacts or global volcanic eruptions, many species could not adjust, with consequent mass extinctions. The extreme rate at which anthropogenic global warming is taking place means that only the hardiest species may survive, including grasses and insects and possibly species of birds, descendants of the fated dinosaurs. Human survivors may endure, as they have during the extreme climate upheavals of the glacial-interglacial cycles, which in some instances allowed them to outlast the most adverse conditions.

In perspective, once the Holocene inter-glacial climate stabilized about 11,000 years ago and excess food became available, humans were free to construct monuments for immorality and undertake atavistic orgies of death called war—ritual sacrifice of the young. Possessed by a conscious fear of death, craving omniscient and immortality, simultaneously creating and destroying, as women raise children and cultivate gardens and men go to war, the root factors which underlie the transformation of tribal warriors into button-pushing automatons remain manifest. 

The battle between life-enhancing and death-inducing agents in nature, symbolized by the Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva trinity, has always existed. At present, some, in a world buzzing with witless twits and faceless books, some 73 years following the carnage of WWII, the rise of fascism can only lead to yet another world war, this time nuclear. 

Further experiments with the Earth are underway. Once the Hadron Collider has been deemed to be ‘safe’, further science fiction-like experiments yet to be dreamt by ethics-free scientists may or may not result in a black hole. Little doubt exists however regarding the consequences of the continuing use of the atmosphere, the lungs of the biosphere, as an open sewer for carbon gases. 

From the Romans to the third Reich, the barbarism of empires surpasses that of small marauding tribes. In the name of their gods, or freedom, or progress, or human rights, empires never cease to bomb peasants in their small fields. It is among the wretched of the Earth that true charity is common, where empathy is learnt through suffering. 

Humans live in a perennial realm of perceptions, dreams, myths and legends, in denial of critical facts. Existentialist philosophy offers a perspective into, and a way of coping with, what otherwise defies rational contemplation. Going through their black night of the soul, members of the species may be rewarded by the emergence of a conscious dignity devoid of illusion, grateful for the glimpse into nature for a fleeting moment: “Having pushed a boulder up the mountain all day, turning toward the setting sun, we must consider Sisyphus happy.” (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942).

*

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

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

The British government “expressed grave concerns” to the US government over the declassification and release of material related to the Trump-Russia investigation, according to the New York Times. President Trump ordered a wide swath of materials “immediately” declassified “without redaction” on Monday, only to change his mind later in the week by allowing the DOJ Inspector General to review the materials first. 

The Times reports that the UK’s concern was over material which “includes direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele,” the former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous “Steele Dossier.” The UK’s objection, according to former US and British officials, was over revealing Steele’s identity in an official document, “regardless of whether he had been named in press reports.”

We would note, however, that Steele’s name was contained within the Nunes Memo – the House Intelligence Committee’s majority opinion in the Trump-Russia case.

Steele also had extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie, who – along with Steele – was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump called for the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly reveal more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of Justice for lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS.

Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016. Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to meet with).

Also recall that CIA/FBI “informant” (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page and Papadopoulos in London.

Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.

Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails.

Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a government-sanctioned surveillance operation. –Daily Caller

In total, Halper received over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for “research,” over $400,000 of which was granted before and during the 2016 election season.

In short, it’s understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the “witch hunt” of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a set-up from the start.

Steele’s ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.

Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele’s unauthorized contacts with the press.

He shared results of his investigation into Trump’s links to Russia with the FBI beginning in early July 2016.

The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out applications for four FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the dossier’s claims, which include that he was the Trump campaign’s back channel to the Kremlin. –Daily Caller

That said, Steele hasn’t worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious.

*

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 Zero Hedge.

“A great black cloud rises from the flaming palace. President Allende dies at his post. The military kills thousands throughout Chile. (…) Señora Pinochet declares that the tears of mothers will redeem the country. Power, all power, is assumed by a military junta of four members, formed in the School of the Americas in Panama. Heading it is General Augusto Pinochet.”

Eduardo Galeano’s words outline what happened on September 11, 1973, one of the most deeply engraved dates in the history of Chile, and of Our America. That day, after several hours of siege and bombing of Santiago de Chile’s La Moneda Presidential Palace, Chilean President Salvador Allende died under the fire of the coup plotters.

How did Allende die? The Military Junta declared the following day, September 12, 1973, that he had taken his own life.

Like a “glorious dead figure… riddled and ripped to pieces by the machine guns of Chile’s soldiers, who had betrayed Chile once more,” wrote Pablo Neruda from his deathbed on September 14.

“Under the enemy bullets, as a soldier of the Revolution,” his widow Hortensia Bussi said four days later in Mexico.

Whether the President died at the hands of the army personnel conducting the coup led by Pinochet, or took his own life before surrendering that September 11, 1973, the bullets that killed him – wherever they came from – perpetrated one of the most despicable magnicides in Latin American history.

Allende was buried secretly; only his widow was allowed to accompany his corpse. It is said that this brave, dignified man, resisted for six hours with a rifle the leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, had given him – the first gun Salvador Allende ever fired.

Forty-five years have passed since Allende’s death. That night, the coup forces delivered a brief report to General Augusto Pinochet:

“Mission accomplished. Moneda taken, President dead.”

The Popular Unity coalition and its President had been annihilated, marking the beginning of 17 years of military dictatorship.

As leader of the Chilean left, Salvador Allende won the presidential elections of 1970 and implemented a policy of nationalizations of the mining and industrial sectors. In the midst of an economic crisis in 1973, his support was confirmed in parliamentary elections, which led to the violent intervention of the army in the country’s political life.

During his first year in office, 47 industrial companies and more than half of the banking system were nationalized. With the agrarian reform, some 2,400,000 hectares of productive land were expropriated and became social property.

Salvador Allende was the first Marxist politician in the West to come to power through general elections in a democratic state.

“The most dramatic contradiction of his life was being at the same time the congenital foe of violence and a passionate revolutionary. He believed that he had resolved the contradiction with the hypothesis that conditions in Chile would permit a peaceful evolution toward socialism under bourgeois legality,” Gabriel García Márquez recalled in the article “Why Allende had to die.”

These were, in brief, his true crimes, those which imperialism and the most reactionary, extreme right of Chile and the region could not forgive the charismatic leader for, supported by the majority of the people.

The Most Conventional of Wars

A coup d’état, assassinations, a blow to democracy, a threat to sovereignty, a proxy government, a puppet, a suffering people… all this happened in Chile more than four decades ago. Yet today, we are faced with similar threats.

The reality is clear: progressive countries of the continent are victims of destabilizing attempts that seek to generate chaos in the streets, to the point of provoking the final blow.

Soft coups and unconventional warfare represent the Condor Plan of today in Latin America. This time, our enemies are not persecuting a Chile full of copper, but attacking consciences, wills, manipulating reality with falsehood and lies.

In the documents that govern the political life of the United States, unconventional warfare (abbreviated UW) is defined as “Activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force in a denied area,” as explained by the Doctor of Legal Sciences and National Security researcher Hugo Morales Karell.

“In the last decade, UW has emerged as the most feasible means used by the United States and its allies to overthrow governments contrary to their interests,” Morales continued. There have been many variants: pretexts to generate anti-government demonstrations and popular discontent due to the economic, political, and social situation of a nation, intervention in countries’ internal affairs by third countries alleging supposed humanitarian crises or human rights violations, and the promotion of a supposed internal opposition.

There are many examples, even recognized by the United States in its doctrinal documents: Albania and Latvia (1951-1955); Tibet (1955-1970); Indonesia (1957-1958); Cuba and the Bay of Pigs invasion (April 1961); Laos (1959-1962); North Vietnam (1961-1964); Nicaragua and Honduras (1980-1988); Pakistan and Afghanistan (1980-1991), and Iraq (2002-2003). To these can be added the cases of Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, in which the objective of halting the advance of the progressive left in the region is obvious.

These are the realities of today. While there may be no gunboats, drones, bombs or militarily interventions, the attacks continue. Today, well-rehearsed manipulation of young people, making use of the benefits provided by information and communications technologies and intense media campaigns to exert political pressure results, as Professor Karell stressed, in “the most conventional of wars.”

But we shouldn’t be in any doubt: imperialist forces will return again and again to the use of brutal force and the cruel assassination of leaders like Allende whenever it is in their interests and they are lacking the means to defeat the peoples and governments that are an “inconvenience” and attempt to challenge their hegemony.

*

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

Military and economic tensions are increasing due to the ramped up warlike stance of the US establishment. The impossibility of halting the shifting world order in favour of prolonging the unipolar moment has left the US deep state reaching for any available weapon at hand, taking no heed of the dangers and consequences of such a reckless foreign policy.

With the province of Idlib ever closer to being liberated from terrorists by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the tensions between the US and Syria (and Syria’s allies) are rising. Every significant military campaign by the SAA seems to be accompanied by the usual alarms and false reports emanating from the Western media and governments warning of an imminent (staged) use of chemical weapons by the SAA. Tensions are rising as several American voices, including that of the President, have expressed the desire to strike Syria over any alleged use of chemical weapons, without even waiting for any independent verification. Threats by the US, the UK and France to bomb Russian troops in Syria are voiced everyday on Western media. The insanity is reaching disturbing levels.

These developments in Syria appear to be accompanied by the persistent attempts of Ukraine and the United States to sabotage the Minsk agreements, re-igniting the conflict in order to blame it on Russia. The assassination of Aleksandr Zakharchenko, charismatic leader of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), killed a few days ago in a terrorist attack, should be seen in this light.

More false accusations against Moscow, this time of having poisoned former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the UK, follow on from allegations of Moscow interfering in the US presidential election. Added to this situation of rising tensions between great powers are the constant threats, together with economic and financial warfare, directed at Iran by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

It is not surprising that, given this context, the Russian Federation has just carried out the greatest military exercise in its history. The Vostok 2018 military exercise is extensively described by TASS:

The Vostok 2018 troop exercises have started in Russia’s Far East. Taking part in the drills are about 300,000 Russian troops, over 1,000 aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles, up to 36,000 tanks, armored personnel carriers and other vehicles, up to 80 ships and supply vessels. Exercises similar in scale have not been held since 1981 when the Zapad-81 drills that involved about 100,000 troops were held in the Soviet Union’s Belarusian, Kiev and Baltic Military Districts and in the Baltic Sea.

It should not come as a surprise that the People’s Republic of China has sent thousands of men and materiel to participate in the exercise, sending a clear message to Washington and the West. As the West’s warmongering continues, this widely controversial article in The Atlantic came out and provides the following hint:

The inclusion of a relatively small Chinese contingent in this year’s edition [Vostok 2018 military exercise] is not quite the signal of a military alliance that some see, but it has certainly made the West take notice. It’s hard to escape the symbolism when as Russian and Chinese troops were training together, Putin and Xi Jinping were holding a summit and pledging closer business and political cooperation. At a time when Washington and Europe have tried to isolate Moscow diplomatically, this is clearly intended as a message that Putin is still capable of making connections with countries not willing to follow the West.

The Eastern Economic Forum held in Vladivostok marks yet another significant point in the new Sino-Russian strategy to isolate and limit Western-induced chaos, strengthen the support for countries affected in one way or another by Washington, and expand cooperation in every direction possible. The economic ties between the two countries’ production systems deserve attention, especially in light of future agreements between the industrial giants of the two countries. The partnership is broad and goes far beyond the territories of Russia and China. Technological cooperation is expanding in regions such as Africa and South East Asia, often symbiotically offering important agreements to third countries. Civil nuclear energy and arms sales seem to be Moscow’s speciality, just as generous loans and joint development of basic resources (hospitals, schools, water networks, sewerage, motorways, ports) are Beijing’s. Such offers of assistance are important for capturing not only the attention of Third World countries keen to break free from the West’s colonial chains, but also of those countries that need to transition quickly into the new multipolar world order.

An example is Japan, with Abe also present in Vladivostok, exploring ways to balance the Chinese expansion in Asia. In reality, such a reading belongs very much to the Western way of thinking, in which everything must be seen in zero-sum terms. What many in the West struggle to understand, especially among European and American journalists and analysts, is how Washington’s attitude over recent years is actually serving to push together the four Euro-Asian giants of China, Russia, Japan and India. While maintaining sometimes strong ties with the West, the trend is decidedly different from the past. Abe was in discussion with Putin to sign the long-awaited peace agreement between the two countries. India seems increasingly anxious to expand its strategic independence, especially from an energy point of view, cooperating with Iran and ignoring Western sanctions, and from a military standpoint, buying the S-400 air defence system.

In general, a multipolar environment of international relations already prevails in vast areas of the planet, both from a military and economic standpoint. De-dollarization appears to be an inevitable trend for the purposes of achieving significant economic sovereignty, thereby avoiding the vulnerability of US-dollar blackmail as a destabilization tool used by Washington and the Federal Reserve. With an imminent economic crisis in the West, fuelled and exacerbated by more than ten years of artificially printed money (quantitative easing), an economic prophylactic is a priority for Washington’s declared rivals (Iran, China, Russia). The consequences for the international financial system could be much more serious than the two previous crises of 1929 and 2008, especially according to Chris Hedge in his recent analysis.

Unprecedented joint military exercises, economic cooperation as a means of diversification, strategic partnerships – these have become normal in Eurasia, especially for Russia, China and Iran, who continue to advance their formula for overcoming the chaos wrought by Washington and her Israeli and Saudi sidekicks. The prevailing modus operandi of Western policy-makers for countries they cannot control seems to be to sic onto them the dogs of chaos and destabilization in order to destroy them. This can be seen, for example, in the assassination of Zakharchenko in eastern Ukraine (Donbass) by the Kiev junta, probably even employing elements of Daesh or al Qaeda; the same tools used by the US in the Middle East to sow chaos.

The situation is not different in Syria, with Washington, London and Paris intent on stopping the liberation of Idlib, a remaining pocket containing thousands of Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. Seventeen years after September 11th 2001, the United States unstintingly supports the terrorists who, according to the official story, killed thousands of its own civilians on home soil.

Logic and reason seem to have been abandoned long ago in Washington’s decision-making, even more so given that Trump has completely renounced all his electoral promises regarding foreign policy. The rapprochement with Moscow is now a distant mirage; the special relationship between Xi Jinping and Trump is just the latter’s propaganda, anxious as he is to reach an agreement with the DPRK and show some example of success to his base.

The logic of imposing more than $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese products, and then asking for strong support from Beijing in mediation with Pyongyang, seems more like the moves of a desperate person rather than those of an amateur. Even historical allies like South Korea, Pakistan, India and Turkey, as repeatedly stressed recently, fear Washington’s irrationality and politics of “America First” and are running for cover. They are diversifying energy resources and ignoring American diktats, buying armaments from Russia, cooperating with China in large infrastructure projects to connect the vast Eurasian continent, and participating in economic and financial forums to diversify funding and cooperate on a new and industrial level.

Indeed, the strategic triangle that emerges between Tehran, Beijing and Moscow, seems to draw all the neighbouring countries into a large geopolitical waltz. A transition to a multipolar reality brings many advantages to Washington’s allies, but it also brings many tensions with American oligarchs. The example of the sale of the S-400 in Ankara is an important wake-up call for the oligarchs of the American military-industrial complex, who see a potential loss in revenue. In the same way, the creation of an alternative system to SWIFT strongly reduces the centrality of American banking institutions and thus their political weight. We must also keep in mind Sino-Russian actions in Africa, which are progressively breaking the chains of Western neo-colonialism, thereby freeing African countries to pursue a more balanced foreign policy focused on their national interests.

This transition phase that we have been living in over the last few years will continue for some time. Like an already written script, the trend is easily discernible to a lucid mind free of Western propaganda. Erdogan certainly is not a person to be completely trusted, and the talks in Astana should be understood in this light, especially if viewed from the Russian-Iranian point of view. Yet such cooperation opens the door to an unprecedented future, although at present Astana seems more like an alternative to a bloody war between countries in Syria than a conversation between allies. Syria’s future will unavoidably see the country’s territorial integrity maintained, thanks to allies who are now disengaged from the Western system and are gravitating around centers of power opposed to Washington, namely Beijing, Moscow and Tehran.

The reconstruction of the country will bypass western sanctions and bring significant amounts of money to the country. In the same way Iraq, once under the rule of a dictator friendly to Washington, today openly and genuinely collaborates with Moscow, and especially Tehran, in defeating the Wahhabi proxies of Riyadh, an American ally.

The economic battle serves to complete the picture, with European allies forced to suffer huge economic losses as a result of sanctions against Russia and Iran. The tariffs on trade, especially to countries like Turkey, Japan and South Korea (although it seems that this proposal was intentionally sabotaged by a collaborator within the Trump administration), are further serving to push US allies to explore alternatives in terms of trust and cooperation.

China and Russia have seized the opportunities, offering through adroit diplomacy military, industrial and economic proposals that are drawing Washington’s historical allies into a new political reality where there is less space for Washington’s diktats.

The European establishment in some Western countries like Germany, France and the UK seems to have decided wait out Trump (this torture perhaps brought to an early end through a palace coup). But many others have instead intuited what is really happening in the West. Two factions are fighting each other, but still within the confines of a shared worldview that sees the United States as the only benevolent world power, and the likes of China and Russia as rivals that need to be contained. In such a difficult situation to manage, well-known leaders like Modi, Abe, Moon Jae-In and Erdogan are starting to take serious steps towards exploring possible alternatives to an exclusive alliance with the United States, that is, towards experiencing the benefits of a multipolar-world environment.

It is not just a question for these countries of breaking the strategic alliance with the United States. This aspect will probably not change for several years, especially in countries that have enormous military and economic ties with Washington. The path that South Korea, Turkey and Japan appear to be taking is deeply rooted in the concept of Multipolarity, which diversifies international relations, allowing countries to shop around to find the best opportunities. It is therefore not surprising to see the Japanese prime minister and the Russian president discussing at the economic forum in Vladivostok the possibility of signing a historic peace treaty. In the same way, if Turkey suffers a double political and economic attack from the US, it should not surprise us if they decide to purchase the S-400 defense system from Russia or start a full fledged campaign to de-dollarize. Such examples could be repeated, but the case of South Korea stands out. There is no need for Seoul to wait for Washington to mess things up diplomatically with Pyongyang before discussing the rebirth of relations between the two countries. Seoul is anxious to seize the opportunity for a renewed dialogue between leaders and solve the Korean impasse as much as possible. Finally, India, which has no intention of losing the opportunity for an economic partnership with Beijing and a military one with Moscow, launched the basis for a multi-party discussion between the Eurasian powers on the Afghan situation that has caused so much friction with Islamabad, especially with the new political phase that Imran Khan’s victory as Pakistan’s prime minister promises.

Washington faces all these scenarios with skepticism, annoyance and disgust, fearing losing important countries and its ability to determine the regional balance around the planet. What fascinates many analysts is the stubbornness and stupidity of US policy-makers. The more they try to prolong the US unipolar moment, the more incentive they give to other countries to jump on the multipolar bandwagon.

Even countries that probably have deep ties with the United States on an oligarchic level will have no alternative other than to modify and redesign their strategic alliances over the next 30 years. The United States continues along the path of diplomatic arrogance and strategic stupidity, mired in a civil war among its elites, with no end in sight.

Each scenario involving the US now has to be viewed with two factors in mind: not just the attempt to maintain an imperialist posture, but also an internal struggle involving its elites. This adds a further level of confusion for America’s allies and the world in general, who strain to decipher the next moves of a deep state totally out of control.

*

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.

Featured image is from the author.

The Russian Defense Minister’s announcement of his country’s countermeasures to “Israeli” recklessness in Syria shouldn’t be celebrated right away as the country’s salvation from foreign conventional aggression because the situation isn’t as clear-cut as some will expectedly simplify it as. 

Russia’s “Shield” In Syria 

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced his country’s comprehensive countermeasures to “Israeli” recklessness in Syria following what President Putin previously described as last Monday’s “chain of tragic circumstances”, which the military chief said will include the dispatch of the long-delayed S-300 air- and missile-defense systems, improved training of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and their equipping of new systems to better identify Russian planes, and electronic jamming of foreign radars, satellite navigation equipment, and aviation communications near Syria’s borders. Prime facie, it looks like Russia is finally creating the “bubble” that its most zealous supporters fantasized about (and in some cases, falsely reported) for years now, but the reality is actually a lot more sobering. 

Hypothetically speaking, the successful creation of this fabled “bubble” would be very good for Syria’s interests because it would see the country entering into a de-facto mutual defense relationship with Russia by virtue of Moscow’s military being responsible for protecting the Arab Republic from the conventional manifestation of outside aggression. This would in theory keep “Israeli” and American planes and missiles out of Syria’s skies, thus enabling the SAA to liberate the Kurdish-controlled northeast without any fear of retribution like what happened in February during the Disaster at Deir ez-Zor. So far, so good, but the fact is that Russia probably won’t commit to creating an impenetrable “bubble” because it lacks the “political will” for the World War III-style brinksmanship that this would inevitably entail. 

Bursting The “Bubble” 

All that Russia is doing is signaling to “Israel” (and also the US) that all of its forthcoming strikes in Syria must be coordinated with Moscow well in advance in order to prevent another tragic incident like what transpired last Monday night, and that the failure to do so will see Russia taking electronic countermeasures to make “Israeli” units more susceptible to Syria’s forthcoming improved aerial defense systems. It is not, as some will probably assume, discontinuing the “deconfliction mechanism” that was agreed to by both parties in September 2015 just prior to the commencement of Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention in Syria. Instead, Russia is simply doing what some might have thought it should have done three years ago, and that’s create a credible enforcement system for incentivizing “Israel” to “play by the rules” unlike it’s been doing over the past 18 months. 

The Russian Ministry of Defense stunningly acknowledged that “Israel” only notified Russia 25 out of the more than 200 times that it bombed Syria over the past 18 months, portraying this as a breach of trust after all that Moscow had done for Tel Aviv during that time. Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov continued by saying that Russia secured the withdrawal of pro-Iranian forces from areas near the “Israeli”-occupied Golan Heights, contributed to preserving Jewish graves and sacred sites in Aleppo, and even once dispatched a special forces team to search for “Israeli” remains from previous conflicts during the midst of a heated battle between the SAA and Daesh. Monday night’s tragedy was apparently the last straw, and Russia’s “Traditionalists” were able to finally convince President Putin to “rebalance” the Russian “deep state’s” foreign policy away from the “Progressive” faction and towards their own in this instance. 

Being the supreme “balancer” that it is, however, Russia isn’t by any means decisively siding with “the Resistance” against “Israel” like this decision will probably be popularly interpreted as, because there are always “loopholes” to what it’s doing. For example, the “deconfliction mechanism” is still in place, so “Israel” can still theoretically bomb Syria so long as Russia approves and is given adequate notice in advance. Even in the cases where it isn’t, there’s nothing stopping “Israel” from lobbing missiles at Syria from within its own airspace instead of sending warplanes across the border on bombing missions. These munitions could possibly be affected by Russia’s electronic jamming countermeasures, but it should be noted that Shoigu said that Russia’s response will be directed against “warplanes” and didn’t specify whether missiles will fall within its purview. 

No Russian “Human Shields”, But “Tripwires” Might Not Be Triggered Regardless 

“Israel” did previously say, however, that it would destroy the S-300s if they end up targeting its jets, which would naturally happen sometime after the next two weeks once they’re delivered to Syria, so it’s likely that Tel Aviv will “test” the limits of Moscow’s resolve and actively probe for as many “loopholes” to its “political will” as possible. To be clear, there is close to no chance that “Israel” will attack the S-300s if Russian servicemen are nearby, but there’s an equally improbable chance that Russia will order its soldiers to serve as de-facto “human shields” protecting these systems, so the S-300s might figuratively be “fair game”. Additionally, the S-300s could probably down small numbers of “Israeli” missiles with ease, but might have difficulty responding to overwhelming swarms of them. If these systems fail in defending Syria for whatever reason, then it would be a huge “embarrassment” for Russia and would undercut its competitive edge in the international arms market. 

Even in the event that they succeed in taking them all down, it’ll be very expensive for the Arab Republic and will probably result in Damascus taking out loans from Russia or trading resource contracts with it to pay for the additional armaments that it’ll need to remain readily supplied for responding to any other forthcoming attacks. Furthermore, the unanswered question that should be on the mind of most astute analysts is whether Russia cut a deal with “Israel” to more actively “manage” Iranian activity in Syria on its behalf in order to avoid “provoking” Tel Aviv and getting it to “test” the “tripwires” of Moscow’s electronic countermeasures that could inadvertently escalate the tense situation to a crisis level. After all, Russia is already “balancing” Iran in the Mideast and it knows that the “Israeli” military will not allow Syria to turn into an “Iranian base” and “existentially threaten” the self-proclaimed “Jewish State” (as Tel Aviv sees it). 

Concluding Thoughts

There are two schools of thought concerning the consequences of Russia’s response to “Israel”, with some thinking that they’ll amount to Syria’s salvation from foreign conventional aggression while others are more pessimistic about whether they’ll really change all that much. 

About the first one, the hypothetical creation of an impenetrable “bubble” over Syria would shield the country from “Israeli” and American air and missile strikes, but only on the condition that Russia has the “political will” to enforce its electronic countermeasures without allowing for any “loopholes” and Syria’s S-300s are successful in taking out all incoming threats. The second school, however, questions whether Russia truly has the “political will” to engage in the World War III-style brinksmanship that this would inevitably entail, as well as whether there will indeed be no “loopholes” whatsoever and if the S-300s (which have never been tested in a conflict) will really perform was perfectly as expected. 

The fact that Shoigu didn’t announce Russia’s withdrawal from either of the “deconfliction mechanisms” that it has with “Israel” and the US suggests that the “bubble” will indeed have more than its fair share of “loopholes”, though the “wild card” will of course be whether Syria goes along with this or not. 

*

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

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.

Every war being fought today is illegal. Every action taken to carry out these wars is a war crime.

In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact or Pact of Paris was signed and ratified by the United States and other major nations that renounced war as a way to resolve conflicts, calling instead for peaceful ways of handling disputes.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was the basis for the Nuremberg Tribunal, in which 24 leaders of the Third Reich were tried and convicted for war crimes, and for the Tokyo Tribunal, in which 28 leaders of the Japanese Empire were tried and convicted for war crimes, following World War II.

Such prosecutions should have prevented further wars, but they have not. David Swanson of World Beyond War argues that a fundamental task of the antiwar movement is to enforce the rule of law. What good are new treaties, he asks, if we can’t uphold the ones that already exist?

By Ellen Davidson

The United States is violating international law, and escalating its aggression

All wars and acts of aggression by the United States since 1928 have violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter since it was signed in 1945. The UN Charter states, in Article 2:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Yet, the United States has a long history of threatening aggression and using military force to remove governments it opposed and install friendly ones. Illegal attacks by the US since World War II have resulted in 20 million people being killed in 37 nations. For example, as we outline in “North Korea and the United States: Will the Real Aggressor Please Stand Down,”the United States used violence to install Syngman Rhee in power in the 1940’s and subsequently killed millions of Koreans, in both the South and the North, in the Korean War, which has not ended. Under international law, the “war games” practicing to attack North Korea with conventional and nuclear weapons are illegal threats of military action.

The list of interventions by the United States is too long to list here. Basically, the US has been interfering in and attacking other countries almost continuously since its inception. Currently the US is involved directly in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. The US is threatening Iran and Venezuela with attack.

The United States has 883 military bases in 183 countries and has hundreds of outposts scattered throughout the world. Lynn Petrovich recently examined the new defense budget. With regard to the Pentagon’s 2019 budget report, she writes:

“If the planet is our community, America is the bully in the neighborhood.  Reference to the word ‘lethal’ is sprinkled no less than 3 dozen times throughout The Report (‘more lethal force’ p. 2-6, ‘technology innovation for increased lethality’ p.1-1, ‘increasing the lethality of new and existing weapons systems’ p. 3-2).”

and

“Were it not for The Report’s dire (yet, fully funded) predictions for world domination, one would think this budget request was satire by The Onion.”

Included in the new budget are funds to recruit 26,000 more of our youth into the military, purchase ten more “combat ships,” build more F-35s, even though they don’t work, and “modernize” our nuclear weapons. At a time when the United States is losing power in the world and falling behind in wealth, the government voted nearly unanimously to provide $74 billion more than last year to be more aggressive. Imagine what that money could do if it were applied instead to improving public education, transitioning to a clean energy economy and a public works program to restore our failing infrastructure.

The United States empire is falling and blindly taking all of us down with it as it tries to assert its power.

By Margaret Flowers.

What to do about it

The peace movement in the United States is being revived and building alliances with peace activists in many countries, and it can’t happen fast enough. There are many opportunities for action this fall, the “Antiwar Autumn.”

The World Beyond War conference, #NoWar2018, just concluded in Toronto. The focus of the conference was legalizing peace. Among the topics discussed was how to use courts to prevent wars, stop the escalation of militarism and investigate war crimes. Professor Daniel Turp of the University of Montreal and his students have sued the Canadian government over participating in extraditing prisoners to Guantanamo, potential intervention in Iraq and providing weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Turp recommends that activists who are considering legal action first look to domestic courts for a remedy. If none exists or domestic action is unsuccessful, then it is possible to turn to international bodies such as the International Criminal Court or the United Nations. Any people or organizations can file a report or complaint with these bodies. Before doing so, it is important to gather as much evidence as possible, first hand accounts are strong but even hearsay can be grounds to trigger an investigation.

Currently, Popular Resistance is supporting an effort to ask the International Criminal Court to launch a full investigation of Israel for its war crimes. People and organizations are invited to sign on to the letter, which will be delivered by a delegation, including us, to the Hague in November.

Click here to read and sign onto the letter (please share it).

Click here to donate towards the delegation to the ICC. 

William Curtis Edstrom of Nicaragua wrote a letter to the United Nations in advance of Trump’s visit to serve as the chair of the Security Council meeting. He is requesting “hearings, debate and vote on an effective plan of action against various crimes that have been committed by people working for the government of the US that are of significance to the global community.”

This week, Medea Benjamin confronted a Trump administration official, the head of the new “Iran Action Group,” at the Hudson Institute. President Trump is planning to advocate for more aggression against Iran at the United Nations. When the US tried this in the past, it has received push back from other nations Now it is clear it is the US, not Iran, that has violated the nuclear agreement and is conducting an economic war against Iran while threatening military action. The world is likely to stand up to Trump and US threats.

Recent progress towards peace by North and South Korea show that activism is effective. Sarah Freeman-Woolpert reports on efforts by activists in South Korea and the United States to build coalitions and organize strategic actions that create the political space for peace.

Leaders of both countries met this week to discuss improving relations and finding a compromise between North Korea and the United States. President Moon will meet with President Trump at the United Nations this month. Korean activists say that their greatest concern is that Koreans finally having “the ability to shape the future of [their] country.”

When we understand that war is illegal, our task becomes clear. We need to make sure that all nations, especially the United States, obey the law. We can replace war with mediation, conflict resolution and adjudication. We can legalize peace.

From Pinterest.

Here are more actions this Antiwar Autumn:

September 30-October 6 – Shut Down Creech – week of actions to protest the use of drones. More information and register here.

October 6-13 – Keep Space for Peace Week. Many actions planned in the US and UK. Click here for details.

October 20-21 – Women’s March on the Pentagon. More information here.

November 3 – Black is Back Coalition march to the White House for peace in Africa. More information here.

November 10 – Peace Congress to End U.S. Wars at Home and Abroad. This will be a full day conference to define next steps for collaboration by activists and organizations in the US. More information and registration here.

November 11 – March to Reclaim Armistice Day. This will be a solemn march led by veterans and military families on the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day, which ended World War I, to call for celebrating Armistice Day instead of Veterans Day in the US. Click here for more information.

November 16-18 – School of Americas Watch Border Encuentro. This will include workshops and actions at the border between the US and Mexico. More information here.

November 16-18 – No US NATO Bases International Conference in Dublin, Ireland. This is the first international conference of the new coalition to close US foreign military bases. Click here for more details.

*

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

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published. They are frequent contributors to Global Research.

Brain implants are now a reality.

How long will it be before you’re ordered to have one to correct thought crime?

I put together a short video exploring this topic.

Video Production by Kurt Nimmo

.

*

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 US military industrial complex reigns like a ravenous ruler in search of new funding prospects. It has done well this year, with the Trump administration pushing the sale that the imperium needs more ruddy cash and indulgent expenditure to cope with all manner of evils.  Empire must be without equal.   

The dissenters to this program have been pitiably small, concentrated amongst such outliers as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.  Those on the GOP side of the aisle have barely squeaked but relative to the Democrats, their sounds have been spectacularly noisy.  There is, in fact, something to be said that, in the boisterous era of Donald Trump, the Democrats have shown very little by way of bucking any trend whatever in the continuingly expansive program that is US military spending.

As Peter Beinart observed in February this year, the Democrats might be moving to the left on the domestic front (a murmuring more than a lurch, it must be said); in terms of a foreign or defence policy, nothing of note comes to mind.  Terrified of being left behind in the rat race of reaction, the Democrats have, for instance, done their bit to promise funding for the border wall with Mexico, albeit offering a lesser $1.6 billion in 2019 to the $5 billion demanded by Trump. 

Beinart took note of the remarks of Nancy Pelosi, chipper in the run-up to the budget deal that dramatically increased US defence spending.

 “In our negotiations,” she enthused to fellow House Democrats in an email, “Congressional Democrats have been fighting for increases in funding for defence.” 

Defence, notably when aligned with imperial cravings, supplies its own logic.  The military industrial complex is an economy within, given the armouring rationales that make a reduction of spending heretical.  Firms and employees need to be supported; infrastructure maintained. Forget those other menial things: roads, public transport, train tracks, bridges and airports can be left to one side.  To reduce the amount would be tantamount to being treasonous, an anti-patriotic gesture. 

“It’s not just a matter of buying fewer bombs,” suggests Brian Riedl of the conservatively inclined Manhattan Institute.  “The United States spends $100,000 per troop on compensation – such as salaries, housing, health care – which also contributes to our defence budget exceeding that of countries like China.” 

As with such empires as Rome, the entire complex entails compensation, remuneration and nourishment for the industry of death and protection. 

It became clear this month that, even with short-term spending bills, this rationale would repeat itself.  Last week, the Senate considered such a bill that further supplemented the earlier budget package that would not only fund the Labor, Education and Health and Human Services departments; it would also add further largesse to the Pentagon.  By a margin of 93-7, the package was passed and the Democrats found wanting, refusing to stage any protest that might result in an expiration of government funding come September 30.

Trump, in his amoral calculations, is all for such a disruptive measure, having expressed a desire both for and against a shutting down of the government in an effort to push funding towards his pet border security projects.  “Finish the Wall!” he has intoned between sessions of hectoring, directed both at the Democrats and the GOP.

The Democrats have been weak in conviction. 

“This is necessary,” explained an unconvincing Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) of the Senate Appropriations Committee, “to ensure that we do not face a government shutdown in the event that we do not finish our work on other remaining bills.”

This supposedly necessitous state of affairs sees the Pentagon budget for 2019 receiving an outlay of $606.5 billion, an increase of $17 billion from 2018.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)’s words were those of the patriot turned fetishist.

  “After subjecting America’s all-voluntary armed forces to years of belt tightening, this legislation will build on our recent progress in rebuilding the readiness of our military and investing more in the men and women who wear the uniform.”

As for what the appropriations will fund, 13 new Navy ships will be added to the inventory, including three DDG-51 guided missile destroyers and two Virginia-class submarines.  The air arm can look forward to 93 of the previously mocked (by no less or more a person than Trump) F-35 aircraft, 58 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, 66 AH-64 Apache helicopters, 13 V-22 aircraft.  A further $1.5 billion will be set aside for upgrading 135 Abrams tanks.  

In the tactics that ultimately saw a grand capitulation on the part of the Democrats, a policy obscenity manifested itself: to avoid squabbling over non-defence spending bills, the Senate agreed to pack the military budget bill along with that of full-year funding for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Education. In wrapping these bills in the same ribbon, an abysmal reality surfaced: the military industrial complex finds a home in any legislative orientation, and will not be denied.

* 

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]

It has been barely two weeks since China joined Russia in the “Vostok” war games, the largest display of Eurasian military might since 1981 when the Soviet Union was still a global superpower, and already the US has found an opening to try and drive a wedge between China and Russia, or at least express its displeasure with their increasingly close relationship.

Amid a simmering trade dispute between the US and China, the US has imposed sanctions on a branch of the Chinese military in retaliation for China’s recent purchase of Russian combat aircraft and anti-air surface to air missiles.

The sanctions are more of a nuisance than anything else, blocking China’s Equipment Development Department from participating in the dollar-based financial system and from doing business with US businesses, while also blocking the agency and its head, Li Shangfu, from applying for US export licenses.

As Reuters adds, the US State Department said it would immediately impose sanctions on China’s Equipment Development Department (EDD), the military branch responsible for weapons and equipment, and its director, Li Shangfu, for engaging in “significant transactions” with Rosoboronexport, Russia’s main arms exporter.

The sanctions are related to China’s purchase of 10 SU-35 combat aircraft in 2017 and S-400 surface-to-air missile system-related equipment in 2018, the State Department said. They block the Chinese agency, and Li, from applying for export licenses and participating in the U.S. financial system.

It also adds them to the Treasury Department’s list of specially designated individuals with whom Americans are barred from doing business.

The US also blacklisted another 33 people and entities associated with the Russian military and intelligence,adding them to a list under the 2017 law, known as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA.

As one might expect, the sanctions provoked an outraged response from China, which demanded that the US correct its “mistake” immediately or face “consequences”, per RT.

Beijing has threatened that Washington will face “consequences” if it doesn’t withdraw the recent batch of sanctions against China over military cooperation with Russia.

China’s Foreign Ministry did not mince words, saying Washington should immediately correct its “mistakes” before it’s too late.

China, predictably, was furious, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang telling reporters in Beijing that the move seriously harmed bilateral relations and military ties.

“China expresses strong indignation at these unreasonable actions by the U.S. side and has already lodged stern representations.”

“We strongly urge the U.S. side to immediately correct the mistake and rescind the so-called sanctions, otherwise the US side will necessarily bear responsibility for the consequences,” he said, without giving details.

Geng also insisted that the purchases were part of “normal” military exchanges between Russia and China – pushing back against the US as it seeks to dictate the terms of global trade between two geopolitical rivals.

China has “normal” military exchanges and cooperation with Russia, aimed at protecting regional peace and stability, which is not against international law or aimed at any third party, Geng added.

China will continue to work with Russia to promote strategic cooperation at an even higher level, he said.

But for all of China’s indignation, one anonymous US official told Reuters that the sanctions are actually targeted at Moscow, not Beijing.

One US administration official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said the sanctions imposed on the Chinese agency were aimed at Moscow, not Beijing or its military, despite an escalating trade war between the United States and China.

“The ultimate target of these sanctions is Russia. CAATSA sanctions in this context are not intended to undermine the defense capabilities of any particular country,” the official told reporters on a conference call.

“They are instead aimed at imposing costs upon Russia in response to its malign activities,” the official said.

Meanwhile, an analyst said the sanctions would do little to impede China’s military expansion, as Beijing only relies on Russia to “plug holes” in its military offerings.

Collin Koh, a security analyst at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said the sanctions would do little to counter the evolving research and development relationship between China and Russia.

One Russian lawmaker insisted that the sales would have “zero impact” on Russian arms sales.

In Moscow, Russian member of parliament Franz Klintsevich said the sanctions would not affect the S-400 and SU-35 deals.

“I am sure that these contracts will be executed in line with the schedule,” Klintsevich was quoted as saying by Russia’s Interfax news agency. “The possession of this military equipment is very important for China.”

Security analysts in Asia said the move was largely symbolic and would only push Moscow and Beijing closer together.

“The imposition of U.S. sanctions will have zero impact on Russian arms sales to China,” said Ian Storey, of Singapore’s ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute.

Instead of discouraging their trading relationship, the sanctions will only push Russia and Beijing closer together.

“Both countries are opposed to what they see as U.S. bullying and these kind of actions will just push Beijing and Moscow even closer together,” he said, adding that Moscow needed Chinese money and Beijing wanted advanced military technology.

The US has previously taken steps to sanction China’s military: For example, under President Obama, the US DOJ indicted several military intelligence operatives for hacking into the networks of US companies. President Trump issued the sanctions on Thursday, shortly after China announced that it would cut import levies for foreign goods (except for the US). But beyond the trade war and rising geopolitical tensions between the US and Russia, the subtext of Trump’s decision is clear: If you’re going to buy arms, buy them from a US defense contractor, or face the consequences. Yet, we’re sure the mainstream media will overlook this story since it clashes with the narrative that President Trump is merely a “pawn” of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

*

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 Zero Hedge.

General Analysis of the Situation

In order to understand Turkey’s approach toward the conflict in Syria, one first needs to explain the military situation there as of September 2018.

There are localized clashes between militant groups led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in northern Latakia and southern Idlib. The Syrian Arab Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces have recently carried out a series of strikes on weapons depots, equipment and UAV workshops and key facilities belonging to militants in southern and southwestern Idlib.

These as well as deployment of additional SAA units at the contact line between the militant-held and government-held areas are described by pro-militant sources as clear sings of the upcoming SAA operation to defeat Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-like factions there.

The situation became especially complex following a September 17 announcement by Turkish and Russian Presidents that a 15-20km deep demilitarized zone between militants and government troops will be established in the Idlib de-escalation zone. All heavy weaponry, including battle tanks and artillery as well as hardline militants have to be withdrawn from the area before October 10 and the zone itself is set to be established before October 15. However, it’s still unclear how it’s possible without employing a military option to force radical militant groups, like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, to obey.

In Suweida and Rif Dimashq, the SAA is still working to eliminate ISIS cells operating in the desert area. Separate ISIS attacks on the SAA and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) happen time to time.

In those parts of Raqqa and Deir Ezzor provinces, which are controlled by the Kurdish-dominated SDF, the health care system has been totally destroyed, and no effort is being made to restore major infrastructure. Many of the areas under SDF control suffer from epidemics due to the shortage of clean water, and nearly total absence of medical services. The situation particularly bad, when it comes to restoring normal life and services. Local authorities, who should be involved in these matters, are mainly concerned with their own well-being. Kurdish leaders still view their main task as the creation of an independent enclave and later their own state in these territories. This is why their main concern is to keep the political and military dominance in the Arab-populated area.

Negotiations between Damascus and the Kurds are continuing at a slow pace. The Kurdish political leadership are seeking to get concessions from Damascus, for example some kind of federation within Syria.

Afrin, controlled by the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and Ankara proxies, is experiencing low-intensity guerilla war. Cells of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) regularly carry out bombings and hit-and-run attacks on Turkey-led forces.

The TAF has introduced additional security measures, increased the number of UAVs deployed and imposed practice of burning plots close to cities to react to YPG raids more quickly. However, the YPG continues a limited partisan war in Afrin, but without having sufficient forces to return it to own control.

At the regional level, Ankara wants to position itself as the most important player in the matter of resolving the Syrian crisis. Turkey is actively supporting only those formations in Syria, which are loyal to and affiliated with it. The purpose is to turn Syria into a country loyal to Turkey, to neutralize Kurdish armed formations, to replace the Assad government, and to create a reliable pathway for energy supplies, especially oil, to Turkey. To achieve these goals, Ankara is using the rhetoric of counter-terrorism, though in reality it will support any organization ready to help to achieve its goals.

On the local level, Turkey’s goals and tasks consist of two parts:

The first is to deal with Kurdish armed formations in northern Syria. Turkey is directly fighting Kurdish armed groups in northern Syria, mainly the YPG. The YPG is the core of the US-backed SDF. At the same time, the YPG is linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) both military and politically. [the YPG’s political wing, the PYD, is part of the Kurdistan Communities Union (also known KCK) together with PKK] Turkey alongside with the US and many other states consider the PKK as a terrorist group. Despite this, the YPG and the PYD as a dominating part of the SDF receive support from the US.

The announcement that SDF bases would be used to prepare so-called “border security forces” (BSF), which would protect SDF/YPG-occupied parts of Syria, provoked a sharply negative reaction in Ankara, which accused the US of creating a “terrorist army” on the border with Turkey.

If the BSF is successfully established, it would become an important step of the PYD/YPG, backed by the US, en route to establish a Kurdish semi-independent state within Syrian territory. This scenario is unacceptable for Turkey because such a state will pose a direct threat to its national security because of deep ties between the PYD/YPG and the PKK. This became one of the key reasons behind Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch against the YPG in the Syrian area of Afrin. Ahead of the operation the PYD/YPG leadership in Afrin has got multiple suggestions from the Damascus government to settle the situation by a peaceful way allowing the Syrian Army to deploy on the border with Turkey thus preventing the operation. However, all these suggestions have been rejected. After the start of the Turkish operation, the PYD accused Russia of colluding with Ankara to harm the Kurdish population.

From January 20 to March 24, 2018, the TAF and Turkish-backed militant groups delivered a devastating blow to the YPG in Afrin and captured most of the area. Most of the YPG members and their supporters had fled to the government-controlled part of Aleppo province. The Turkish advance stopped when its forces reached positions of the Syrian Army.

This was the second Turkish military operation carried out in northern Syria. The first one, dubbed Operation Euphrates Shield, took place in the al-Bab-Azaz-Jarabulus triangle from August 24, 2016 to March 29, 2017. The operation followed an attempt by Kurdish armed factions to link up their areas in northwestern and northeastern Syria and put an end to these plans.

The PYD is the most influential, but not the only Kurdish political party in northern Syria. In January 2018 the PYD did not participate in the Russian-backed Sochi Congress for Syrian Dialogue. Turkey was against this, though it approved presence of another Syrian Kurdish political party – the Kurdish National Council (ENKS).

The second goal is to keep and expand influence in the province of Idlib. The TAF started entering the province in October 2017 in the framework of the de-escalation zone agreement reached by Ankara, Teheran and Moscow in the Astana talks format. Since then, they have established 12 observation posts in the de-escalation zone. Russia have established 10 and Iran 7 posts near the de-escalation zone under the same agreement.

On May 28, 2018, 11 groups within the Turkish-backed part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) announced the creation of the National Liberation Front (NLF) also known as Jabhat al-Wataniya lil-Tahrir. The merger was announced by Faylaq-al-Sham, the 1st and 2nd Coastal Divisions, the 1st Infantry Division, the Free Idlib Army, Jaysh al-Nasr, the Second Army, Jaysh al-Nukhba, Liwaal-Shuhdaal-Islam, Liwa Al-Hur and the 23^rd Division. The NLF is headed by Faylaq-al-Sham leader, Colonel Fadlallahаl-Haji.

Image on the right: National Liberation Front logo

On the same day, an NLF official announced that the Turkey-created force will take over the Idlib de-escalation zone. Russia, Turkey, and Iran will monitor the situation for 6-12 months, after which a new phase will follow. All the groups in the region will be disbanded and a single army on the basis of the NLF will be created. Idlib will be governed by local Turkish-controlled councils with minimal influence from Russia and Iran, said Omar Khatzayafah.

Turkish forces and their proxies have contributed no efforts to combat Hayat Tahrir al-Sham influence, which is excluded from the de-escalation. In turn, it is carrying out active attempts to increase its influence in area and save the core of the anti-Assad forces. According to available data, Turkey is conducting active negotiations with the group’s leader, Abu Muhammed al-Julani, in an attempt to convince him to rebrand the group once again and merge with the Turkey-led “opposition”. Ankara also allowed the NFL and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to carry out a large-scale crackdown on public figures, field commanders and activists supporting an idea of possible peaceful reconciliation with the Damascus government.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham members and supporters are in Idlib

At the same time, the security situation in the militant-controlled part of Idlib province remains poor. Over the past few months, the area has been hit by multiple bombings and assassinations aimed at both civilian and militant targets.

Means Used by Turkey to Achieve Its Aims

When the Syrian conflict began, Turkey turned its own territory, particularly the border zone, into infrastructure used to this day by armed formations for training, rest, and medical support. The Istanbul-Gaziantep route, unofficially dubbed the “jihad-express”, was the main stream of jihadists heading for Syria in 2014-16. The Kilis-Azaz border crossing was also a major logistical hub for militants moving to Syria. Moreover, many Turkish border settlements were de-facto bases where militants were assembled and prepared for crossing the border.

A letter dated March 15, 2013 and signed by Turkey’s Minister of the Interior Muammer Guler, stating that Hatay province was acquiring strategic importance in the context of the transfer of militants from Turkey to Syria, deserves separate treatment. The enabling of the movement within the region, the training and provision of medical aid to wounded fighters, and their crossing of the border into Syria, was mainly conducted through this province. According to the letter, Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) and other organizations, which received corresponding authority, would coordinate the work with Hatay province leadership. When transitioning fighters through Hatay using land or air transport and with the participation of various civilian entities, heightened security measures were required. The letter notes that it is advantageous to place the fighters in hostels run by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and government hotels in the province, on direct instructions from the MIT. Similar letters were sent to the Mardin, Urfa, and Antepe provinces.

Hatay hosts the camp for SAA deserters in Apaidin, only 2km from the Syrian border. In September 2012, this camp was considered the FSA headquarters, according to Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, a member of the Republican People’s Party. At that time, there were about 300 former Syrian soldiers and police, including about 30 generals, in the camp.

In September 2013, a Deutsche Welle report mentioned that hundreds of fighters from Al-Qaeda-affiliated organizations were delivered by Turkish ambulances from Syria to the Ceylinpinar hospital, and those who suffered more serious wounds were delivered to the Balikdigol hospital in Sanliurfa province. In August 2014, the Daily Mail published an article about the border town of Reyhanli, which was part of the pipeline for militants into Syria and where Turkish border guards turned a blind eye. ISIS militants rested in the city itself before crossing the border, military uniforms, and possibly also weapons, were being sold right on the streets.

Starting in March 2015, “Syrian rebels” were trained with the help of US and Turkish soldiers at a base in Kirsehir in central Turkey. The US announced that they would fight against ISIS, but representatives of the Turkish opposition said that the trained militants would mainly fight against the Assad government.

The Turkish authorities confirmed in March 2015 the fact of a wounded ISIS field commander, who was a Turkish citizen, undergoing treatment in the hospital in Denizli.

As of 2016, the city of Antalya in Hatay hosted a training camp for FSA members, who were fighting participating in Operation Euphrates Shield.

The media more than once reported the presence of a training camp for “rebels” in Adana province, 8km from the Incirlik airbase. Turkish air force officials did not comment on these reports, and journalists had no access to the base. The official justification of this approach was that the refugees and opposition fighters ought to have free movement across the border.

Two main forces capitalizing on this situation were Jabhat al-Nusra (now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) and ISIS receiving recruits, funds and weapons through Turkish territory. Furthermore, Ankara’s ties to these groups are based not only on fighting Assad, but also on economic relations, and neither Turkish soldiers nor intelligence professionals have any illusions concerning this situation.

It’s also telling that since the start of the conflict, Turkey has sharply increased the intake of water from the Euphrates, which soon caused many Syrian cities and villages to suffer from serious shortages. As soon as the SDF took control of northeastern Syria, the intake of water reached its maximum levels. However, when ISIS was in control of this area, Turkey was keeping the water and electricity supply.

Another major feature of the Turkish collaboration with ISIS was the matter of the security of the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, which caused disagreements among the hardened Islamists within ISIS, since in their interpretation of Islam, adoration of the dead is a sign of lack of belief and of polytheism. However, for some reason the tomb was jointly guarded by ISIS militants and Turkish soldiers. One can say with absolute certainty that there existed an agreement which assigned ISIS the role of protectors in exchange for free movement of militants from Turkey to Syria and back.

More evidence is provided by interviews with ISIS fighters captured by the SDF. One of them was a Libyan named Osman. He was first sent on a short 22-day initial training in Bani-Valid, Libya. Then he was trained with other ISIS recruits in Misrata for 25 days. Days before the graduation Osman was hit from a PKM by a “comrade in arms”, which meant spending another 22 days in Misrata hospital. During that time he was given a fake Libyan passport and sent for treatment in Medicana International, a large Turkish hospital in the Melik Duzu quarter of Istanbul. Osman confirmed the existence of an air corridor from Libya to Turkey for ISIS militants from Africa, Tunisia, and other Maghreb countries, who wished to join their “brothers” in Syria. Wounded fighters were sent from Libya to Turkey on a private plane. “We were helped during boarding,” said Osman. Then I realized that everyone else is also severely wounded, some are even paralyzed.” At the Ataturk Airport in Istanbul ISIS fighters were met by ambulances. Soon all the wounded were placed in Turkish hospitals.

“We were loaded singly and in pairs, after which I found myself at Medicana International”. Osman said that all ISIS movements are under Turkish intelligence oversight. They are also concerned with ensuring the wounded militants’ security. “I once had to be examined by a neurologist, for which I had to be transported to a different hospital. On the way to the hospital I was accompanied by two intelligence officers, armed with pistols.” After the treatment which took another 4 months, he was brought to a hotel close to the hospital, then to a house in the European part of Istanbul. Three days later he was contacted by a militant called Abu Masab al-Iraqi, and they met in the Ibrahim Khalil quarter of the city where he and other mercenaries were told they were going to get tickets for a plane to Urfu. Many ISIS militants and their families and children had already assembled there. Osman indicated the particular importance of two cities, Tel Abyad and Jarablus, in supplying ISIS. This corridor funneled the biggest influx of mercenaries from Turkey to Syria under the supervision of Turkish intelligence and the army. In addition to fighters, it was also used to ship weapons, munitions and uniforms.

Another ISIS member (name unknown) said the following: “My Sudanese friend by the name Khaled Sali who was in ISIS and who lived in Azzaz, proposed I join ISIS too. I agreed because I didn’t know about other formations. He then accompanied me to Khartoum airport, from where I flew to Istanbul. There I was met by local ISIS coordinators and set me up in a hotel whose name I don’t remember. After then I was flown by a Turkish domestic airline to Gaziantep, then to Kilis on the border with Syria. My coordinator was already waiting for me in Azzaz. Crossing the border was simpler than simple. No soldiers, no police, no Turkish authorities. And if they were there, it means we crossed right under their noses.”

Israeli military intelligence head, Major-General Aviv Kochavi said in January 2014 that the cities of Karaman, Osmaniye, and Sanliurfa house Al-Qaeda camps, which are also used as staging points.

After the start of the Russian military operation in Syria, and multiple public revelations of Turkish links to the terrorists, like participation in the ISIS oil business, free movement of these terrorists across the border ceased. Otherwise the Erdogan government would have become a public sponsor of terrorism, which was unacceptable for Erdogan’s image. But the main reason for the closure of the border crossing was the series of defeats ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra suffered, Turkey’s re-evaluation of its strategy in Syria under Russian pressure, and a reduction in the flow of refugees.

Pro-Turkish groups and attempts to create a unified opposition in northern Syria

Turkey currently uses a whole range of military instruments to advance its interests. During Operation Olive Branch in January-March 2018, Turkey involved 12 following groups as a core of its proxy force: the Hamza Division, Liwa Sultan Murad, Faylaq ash-Sham, Jaysh al-Nasr, Jaysh al-Nukhba, Jabhat al-Aisalat wal-Tanmia, the 23rd Division, the 1st Coastal Division, the 2nd Coastal Division, the Free Idlib Army, the 2nd Army and Liwa Shuhada al-Islam. An estimated manpower of these groups is 31,200. Besides this, the operation also involved fighters from other groups, like Ahrar al-Sham, the Sham Legion and others. Some of these groups are now part of the National Liberation Front, created in an attempt to boost combat potential and numeric strength of pro-Turkey bloc in the province of Idlib.

HINT: A few words about the National Liberation Front in the context of Turkish policy. It is yet another attempt by Ankara to take control of a region which is the most problem-ridden de-escalation zone (Idlib), and where al-Qaeda jihadists from HTS have much influence. In the event of direct fighting against HTS, Turkey would face the risk of being bogged down in a prolonged, hard campaign. Turkish troops already have negative experiences associated with Euphrates Shield, where Turkish forces and allied Syrian militants had difficulty in expelling ISIS out of Al-Bab, suffering heavy personnel and equipment losses. In the event of an NLF success in Idlib, Turkey would avoid unnecessary losses and obtain the means of waging military operations ostensibly using a proxy. Moreover, Turkey would also get a “bridgehead” in Syria, which could be used to effectively influence the course of the conflict and the development of the situation in northern Syria.

Apart from that, the presence of NLF formations has economic significance. They protect the Aleppo-Hama road, which is the commercial route from Turkey to Jordan and to Persian Gulf states. Some of these goods will remain in Syria. With Syrian industry destroyed, Turkish goods can achieve dominance.

Another entity created in order to overcome the divisions plaguing the many groups controlled by Ankara is the Syrian National Army (SNA).

A Turkish-staged ceremony of the SNA announcement

It was intended to serve as a force against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Idlib if negotiations between Turkey and the group fail. The SNA will also participate in operations against Kurdish armed groups and will be responsible for consolidating the territories captured by Turkey-led forces. Finally, the creation of the SNA is an effort to re-brand so-called democratic activists after they have tarnished their image with war crimes or with collaboration with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

As of today, the SNA is mainly operating in the al-Bab-Azaz-Jarabulus triangle and in Afrin. When operations in northern Syria are complete, all SNA forces from Jarablus to Idlib should be under a single command.

The main force of the SNA are its 1, 2, and 3 Corps. The SNA formation is proceeding parallel to that of the National Liberation Front. The SNA, formed on May 30, 2017 as a separate force from the FSA, is a new army divided into three corps, consisting of 36 opposition groups under the aegis of the FSA. As of January 2018, it was still being formed and included 25,000 members.

The SNA has received and is receiving support from Liwa Suquoral-Shimal, Ahraral-Sharqiyya, Jaysh al-Nukhba, Faylaq ash-Sham, Liwa Sultan Suleiman Shah, Liwa Sultan Mehmed Fatih, Liwa al-Vakkas, Jabhat Shamiyah, Liwa Muntassir Billah, Liwa Sultan Murad, Jayshal-Shimal, Liwa Samarkand, the 23rd Division, the 9th Division, Fevjal-Mustafa, Liwaal-Awwal al-Magahaweer, Liwa Usudul-Fatiheen, Jayshal-Ahfad, Festaqem Kema Umrit, the Hamza Division, Liwa Asifat Hazm, Jabhat al-Aisalat wal-Tanmia, Jayshal-Nasr, Liwa Hasakah Shield, Jaysh al-Sharqiyya, Liwaal-Fatih, Liwa Sultan Osman, Rejalal-Harb, Liwa al-Shimal, the 5^th Regiment, Jaysh al-Thani and Tacammu Adl.

The first reports of the Turkey-controlled Free Syrian Police (FSP) appeared in January 2017. Police units were formed in Jarablus as part of Operation Euphrates Shield, in order to help the FSA in their rear areas. By October 25, 2017, the Turkey Police Academy had graduated 5,631 Syrian police officers in 5 different schools, according to Anadolu Agency police sources. Syrian policemen were trained to provide security and protection in regions covered by the operation. Some 20% of the participants received SWAT training.

Starting on May 10, 2018, after training in Turkey 620 FSP are ensuring security in north-west Afrin. The cadets, aged between 18 and 45, undergo a month-long training regimen, according to Anadolu. A video posted by Yeni Safak newspaper in January 2017 showed a group of security forces dressed in Turkish police uniforms, chanting “long live Turkey, long live Erdogan and long live a free Syria.”

Türkiye'de eğitim gören Suriyeli polis güçleri, Fırat Kalkanı Harekatı ile kurtulan bölgelerde görev yapacak. pic.twitter.com/lX7kITEegG

— Yeni Şafak (@yenisafak) January 22, 2017

In the autumn of 2018, the situation in Idlib and nearby militant-held areas become the main point of attention of the international media covering the conflict in Syria. The rationale for Turkey’s collaboration with Idlib armed groups is the desire to expand its own influence, while preserving the radical segment of these formations as a shock force to continue exerting pressure on the Assad government, Iran and Russia.

The pattern of working with these groups in the province is set up as follows:

• Small armed groups which did well in Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch are under nearly full operational control;
• Groups united around Ahrar al-Sham, known as the Syrian Liberation Front, are under partial control;
• Al Qaeda in Syria (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and their allies) are in a state of “fruitful cooperation”, with less than total control (less than the SLF);
• The future of small groups not included in the above categories due to their links with ISIS and al-Qaeda (for example, the remnants of Jund al-Aqsa or Hilf Nusrat al-Islam) is yet to be determined.
• ISIS cells in Idlib. Turkey and its local allies have been fighting them with varying success. The problem is that, ideologically, the core of pro-Turkish groups and their allies is quite similar to ISIS. This is made worse by the horrifying level of corruption in and violence by the security forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Syrian Liberation Front, which are the only forces capable of relatively significant action against ISIS cells.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham remains the dominant military force in Idlib, alongside the Syrian Liberation Front. The problem of the Turkish approach is that the stronger the force, the harder it is to control it “behind closed doors” without offering guarantees. Hence various “PR armies” such as the SNA. While sabotaging the fight against terrorists, Ankara is strenuously pretending it is forming the “moderate opposition”. In the short term the odds of the pro-Turkey “moderate opposition” defeating terrorism in Idlib with Ankara’s help are minimal. The Turkish stance toward a possible military operation against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies in Idlib by the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance is proof of it, if additional proof were needed.

The total amount of financing provided to militant groups in Syria from Turkey has never been assessed, but it’s in the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It has varied at different stages of conflict, and was disbursed through various sources.

In 2012-2016, the main source of financing was aid from foreign sponsors. Ankara was not too shy to use funds from the US, Persian Gulf monarchies, domestic or foreign volunteers supporting these or other groups. One should also include the CIA program worth $500 million to train “Syrian insurgents”. The 2015-16 migration crisis led to EU-Turkey negotiations on financial aid to Ankara, in return for which Turkey housed the refugees. Turkey asked for €30 billion up front, to be followed by annual payments of €3 billion, but it’s not known how much Turkey actually received, though there was an agreement on €3 billion in 2016 and another €3 by 2018. Considering the numerous world media reports on the terrible conditions for refugees in Turkey, it’s likely the money is mostly being used to finance groups fighting Assad, while refugees are given the lowest priority. Moreover, the Turkish Ministry of Defense and the MIT probably have budget items which are used to finance armed groups, though these would obviously be classified.

As the flow of jihadists and activities of volunteers declined, opposition groups fighting in Syria apparently shifted to self-sufficiency, which looks as follows: Turkey provides weapons, munitions, equipment, transportation and training. In return it receives resources from the occupied territory—oil, agricultural and industrial products. The priority is given to Turkey-manufactured goods in trade on occupied territory.

Turkey also continues to play the role of a clearing house for financing, though now to a lesser extent. One should note the widespread hawala system, an informal financial accounting system which is based on a balance of mutual credits and obligations among brokers and which is widespread in Muslim countries. The Money Services Business is also widespread in Turkey. What they all have in common is an absence of accounting transparency as understood in the West. For example: during a chat on Whats App or another messenger, an individual raising funds indicates the transfer should take place through an entity working with Western Union in Turkey. The recommended contribution varies from $500 and $9500, can be repeated, and is difficult to track. The fund-raiser provides contact information and asks the sponsor to provide a secret code after the transfer in order to collect the money in a town on the Syrian border.

Turkey uses various range of ideologically divided groups ranging from neo-osmanist and pan-turkic to ultra-radical Islamist ones, which are incompatible with the current Syrian government. This shows that in order to fulfill his own political ambitions, Erdogan is ready to make alliances with almost anybody who may serve his interests.

According to UNHCR, in April 2018 there were 3.9 million refugees from Syria in Turkey. Such a number of people cannot help but attract the attention of the Turkish military and intelligence for the purpose of ideological indoctrination and recruitment to fight a war for the new Syria, as envisioned by Erdogan.

A more detailed look at some Turkish-backed groups operating in northern Syria:

Hamza Division. Syrian nationalism. It numbered about 2,200 in September 2017 according to its own reports, and consists mostly of Arabs, Syrian Turkmen, and Kurds. It has its HQ in Mare, Aleppo province, where it operates and its commander in September 2017 was Abdullah Halawa. It cooperates with the Northern Thunder Brigade, the Mare’ Resistance Brigade, the Special Operations Brigade, the Dhi Qar Brigade and the Kurdish Falcons Brigade.

Liwa Sultan Murad. Pan-Turkishm. In 2016, it claimed to have 1,300 troops in 2016, mostly Syrian Turkmen and Arabs. Together with other Turkmen organizations, such as Liwa Sultan Suleiman Shah, Liwa Sultan Mehmed Fatih and Liwa Sultan Osman, it forms the Sultan Murad bloc. According to Turkish sources, Liwa Sultan Mehmed Fatih units undergo training in Turkey itself, though the location of the camp is unknown. It has its HQ in Al-Bab, Aleppo province. The commander as of November 2017 was Mahmoud al-Hajj Hassan.

Faylaq ash-Sham. Salafism. It has about 4,000 members, mostly Arabs. It’s based in Aleppo province, but its zone of responsibility also includes Idlib, Latakia, Hama, and Homs provinces. The commander as of early 2018 was Yasser Abdul Rahim, who was a key field commander during Operation Olive Branch. In February 2018 he was replaced by Khaldun Mador, and currently the commander is Colonel Fadlallahal-Haji. This formation served as the base for the National Liberation Front and the commander of Faylaq ash-Sham became the commander of this new formation. In June 2018 it was joined by Liwa Shuhada al-Islam, who numbers 799. It collaborates with the Army of Mujahideen, the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, and there are reports of close collaboration with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Jaysh al-Nasr. Salafism. It had 5,000 members, mainly Arabs, as of 2015. Its HQ is in Qalaatal-Madiq, Hama province and its zone of responsibility includes Idlib, Latakia, Hama, and Aleppo provinces. It was commanded by Muhammad Mansour as of early 2018. With the formation of National Liberation Front, Mansour became its deputy commander and chief of staff. The group collaborates closely with Tahrir al-Sham, Jaysh al-Izza and Ahrar ash-Sham.

Jaysh al-Nukhba. It collaborates with groups pursuing Syrian nationalism and Salafism. Its strength was 3,000, mostly Arabs, as of early 2017, according to its own statements. Its Aleppo province HQ is located in Jarablus, its Idlib province HQ in Kafr Nabl, and its zone of responsibility covers Idlib, Latakia, Hama, and Aleppo provinces. This formation is part of the Hawar Kilis Operations Room, the biggest pro-Turkey FSA group. It was commanded by Mohammed Ahmedal-Sayed in early 2017 and collaborates with Jaysh al-Nasr, Ahrar ash-Sham and the Free Idlib Army.

Jabhat al-Aisalat wal-Tanmia. Salafism. It had 5,000 members, mostly Arabs, in late 2015. Its zone of responsibility is Aleppo province and it is part of the Hawar Kilis Operations Room. The group collaborates with Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar ash-Sham.

23^rd Division. Islamic democracy. It numbered 1,400, mostly Arabs, in late 2014. Its HQ is in Qah, Idlib province and its zone of responsibility covers the northern Idlib and Aleppo provinces. Commanded by Abu Mustafa in early 2018, it collaborates with Ahrar ash-Sham, the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement and Festaqem Kema Umrit.

1st Coastal Division. Pan-Turkism. 2800 strong in 2015, it is made up of mostly Syrian Turkmen and Arabs. Its zone of responsibility covers Idlib and Latakia and as of 2014 its commander was Muhammad Haj Ali. It collaborates closely with Tahrir al-Sham, Ahrar ash-Sham and the Turkistan Islamic Party.

2nd Coastal Division. Pan-Turkism. It numbered around 500, mostly Syrian Turkmen, in 2015. Its zone of responsibility includes Aleppo and Latakia and its commander is Tarik Solak. It collaborates closely with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (in the province of Latakia) and Ahrar ash-Sham.

Free Idlib Army. Syrian nationalism. According to its own account it numbered around 6000, mostly Arabs, in 2016. It has headquarters in the towns of Maaratal-Numaan and Kafr Nabal in the province of Idlib. Its zone of responsibility covers the provinces of Idlib, Latakia and Aleppo. It includes the 13th Division, the Northern Division and the Mountain Hawks Brigade. Currently they are commanded by Suhaib Leoush. They collaborate closely with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Ahrar ash-Sham and Faylaq ash-Sham.

2^nd Army. Syrian nationalism and Islamic democracy. In June 2017 it counted around 1500 members, mostly Arabs. Its zone of responsibility covers Idlib, Latakia and Hama. It includes Division 46, Division 312, and Division 314 and its commander in June 2017 was Mohammed Khaled Khleif. There are reports that they have fought with ISIS in the North of Syria.

Liwa Shuhda al-Islam. Moderate Islam. It had around 700 members, mostly Arabs, in June 2017. Its HQ is in Idlib, Hama and Rif Dimashq. Its commander, Saeed Naqrash, was captured by unknown individuals in April 2018. The group blames Tahrir al-Sham for the kidnapping, which they deny. There are reports of close collaboration with the Islamic Union of the Soldiers of the Levant.

Turkish Diplomatic Approach Toward Northern Syria

Northern Syria is a big knot of contradictions, with every party (Syria, Turkey, Iran, Russia, and of course the US) seeking to implement their own plans.

The Assad government is still viewed as illegitimate by Ankara, though Erdogan prefers not to mention it officially if this is possible. Turkish authorities have also repeatedly claimed that Ankara is fulfilling its obligations under the de-escalation zones agreement. However, no practical steps have been made by Ankara to separate Turkish-backed “moderate” factions from the terrorist groups in Idlib or to combat the terrorists there.

Turkey considered ISIS and Kurdish armed groups to be terrorists. After ISIS suffered defeat, Kurdish armed groups remained the only point in that category. Some Kurdish leaders hoped that Erdogan may lose the presidential election and thus the Turkish stance on the Kurdish issue in northern Syria will soften. However, this has never happened.

On June 4, 2018, Ankara and Washington approved the “road map” for the town of Manbij in northern Aleppo, which is currently controlled by the Kurdish-dominated SDF. According to Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, the first phase of the “road map” would see a withdrawal of Kurdish units from the town, which would come under joint patrols of Turkish and US troops. Turkish top officials also claimed that the agreement implied creating a town administration out of local inhabitants after the Kurdish armed groups’ departure. Turkey also insisted that all Kurdish armed groups within the SDF have to be disarmed or even disbanded in the framework of the roadmap.

Nonetheless, the turn of events appeared to be at odds with Ankara’s desires. The YPG once again claimed that it had withdrawn its members from Manbij. US and Turkish forces started patrols north of the town, on the contact line between the SDF/YPG and Turkish-held areas. No Turkish troops entered Manbij. The political and military control over the town remained in the hands of the YPG-affiliated bodies. Furthermore, the US continued providing Kurdish fighters with various military supplies, including weapons and armoured vehicles, and training. No further joint US-Turkish steps to settle the Manbij issue in favor of the Erdogan government were made.

Moreover, the problem is also that for Erdogan, Afrin, Al-Bab, and Manbij are not enough. He has repeatedly vowed to completely clear Kurish armed groups from the area from Manbij to Sinjar, which means operations in Qamishli, Kobani and Haskah, the main YPG strongholds in Syria. Thus, in order to achieve own goals the Erdogan government is balancing between the US-led bloc and the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance.

From Russia’s point of view, the strategic priority is Syria’s territorial integrity and the prevention of radical islamists from coming to power. Russia is open to dialogue with a moderate part of the Syrian opposition and is ready to participate in the talks. The leadership likely understands that Turkey is a temporary ally of Russia in Syria, where the two countries together with Iran are guaranteeing the ceasefire in de-escalation zones.

Thus, some Russian experts claim that Turkey is allied with the US against Russia, which does have some basis. Turkey is in NATO, Ankara has supported and is still supporting the opposition, especially radical armed groups in Idlib, which are not willing to negotiate with Assad. The conflict of objectives between Turkey and the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance has become obvious when the SAA started preparing for a possible military operation in Idlib.

However, Turkey’s, Syria’s, and therefore also Russia’s interests coincide on the question of Syrian Kurdistan. After Russian forces were dispatched to Syria and particularly after the liberation of Aleppo in 2017, Moscow tried to act as an intermediary between the Kurds and Damascus, trying to convince the latter to create Kurdish autonomy. But the Kurdish leaders rejected talks with Damascus and instead placed their hopes in an alliance with the US. It does not matter whether they picked that option because they felt Washington was the best hope to gain quick independence for Rojava or because of a cash stimulus from US emissaries. Most likely both factors played a role. The prospect of a pro-US Kurdish “independent” state formation was extremely worrisome to Ankara, Damascus, and Tehran, prompting them to close ranks.

Thus, the Kurds have lost their chance to get a wide autonomy within Syria and become a bargaining chip in the negotiations between major players involved in the conflict.

The Astana process format also deserves a few words. In the framework of this formant, Russia, Turkey, and Iran have affirmed their determination to fight terrorism and also those organizations which are considered terrorist by the UNSC, oppose separatism aimed at undermining territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Syria and the security of neighboring countries, continue joint efforts to promote political reconciliation among the Syrians themselves in order to facilitate the earliest possible launch of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva. But the actual situation is radically different. Ankara de-facto controls part of Syria, with the fight against Kurdish armed groups and the expansion of own influence in the war-torn country being the motives. Turkey also lacks a UNSC mandate or a permission from Damascus to deploy forces in the country. These are undoubtedly violations of Ankara’s commitments to the Astana agreements and of Syria’s sovereignty. The participation of the Syrian opposition in the negotiations is also a problem. Many factions just sabotage the talks.  Moreover, there are no significant results in the realm of political decisions on the country’s future, even though they sides continue to affirm their unity in this effort. One could draw the conclusion that the Astana format is not effective and is only a platform for meetings among heads of states, since each country and Turkey in particular is pursuing its own interests.

If one examines Russian participation in the conflict, there is still no evidence that Russia plans to impose a solution for a future Syria by force. Troops and equipment are being withdrawn from Hmeimim, which indicates a gradual drawdown of the military operation and a shift towards diplomatic means. However, while it’s possible to observe the successful implementation of this approach in some separate regions of the country, it has faced significant difficulties on the regional level.

The September 17 announcement of the demilitarized zone in northwestern Syria by President Putin and his Turkish counterpart are a part of the wider strategy aimed at reaching a kind of peaceful settlement to the conflict and to de-escalate the situation. The success of this effort now depends on the ability and willingness of the sides to employ the agreement on the ground and to force radical militants to demilitarize at least the 15-20km deep area.

Conclusion

In the last decade, Turkey’s foreign policy underwent significant changes which transformed its theoretical and practical foundations. The term “neo-Ottomanism” was launched in the context of Turkey’s expanding international activities in the scientific and political realm. While the international community interprets it in a number of ways, it does contain a clear ideological component. Moreover, neo-Ottomanism is the most appropriate term to describe Turkey’s foreign policy ideology and actions. Ankara seeks to become a world power, and that goal drives its activities, particularly concerning the Arab Spring and the war in Syria.

There are many potential clashes of interests between Turkey and Syria, including the Kurdish issue, mutual territorial claims, and ideological and political incompatibility. Since the very start of the protests in Syria, Turkey has rendered and continues to render help to the armed groups and political opposition. Moreover, the bilateral relations are made more complicated by the Euphrates river (nearly half the water is taken by Turkey which deprives countries downstream of water), the looting of industrial enterprises of the manufacturing center of Syria – Aleppo (equipment from nearly 1,000 factories were transported to Turkey). Ankara still believes Assad ought to leave his post, although in the last year its rhetoric concerning Assad’s legitimacy has softened. This was due to the growth of Russian influence on the theater of operations, military defeat suffered by several groups backed by Turkey, and also by the political and economic pressure exerted by Moscow after the Su-24 incident. This shaped Turkish policy toward Syria.

In the best outcome scenario for Syria, Iran, and Russia, Turkey would not plan to annex the Syrian territory it controls in the north of the country in order to avoid a negative reaction from these three states. These territories may be used as bargaining chips in order to gain preferential treatment for work in post-war Syria, thus expanding and strengthening its sphere of influence in that country and strengthening Turkey as a regional power. It’s possible that the Syrian border territories will see something akin to a trans-border protectorate, without redrawing national boundaries. Turkey has already transformed the agglomeration of its proxies into something like a unified opposition, with whom Ankara imagines Assad will discuss the future of Syria, thus giving it a place in the war-destroyed country and thus ensuring Turkey’s interests are safeguarded.

In the contemporary military and diplomatic reality surrounding the Syrian crisis, Ankara is pursuing the following tactical goals:

• To eliminate or at least disarm and limit influence of US-backed Kurdish armed groups in northern Syria;
• To strengthen a united pro-Turkish opposition Idlib and to eliminate any resistance to it, including in some scenarios the elimination of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies;
• To facilitate return of refugees from Turkey to Syrian areas under its own control;

If these goals are achieved, Ankara will significantly increase its influence on the diplomatic settlement of the crisis and on the future of the post-war Syria. The returned refugees and supporters of militant groups in the Turkish-controlled part of Syria will become an electoral base of pro-Turkish political figures and parties in case of the implementation of the peaceful scenario. If no wide-scale diplomatic deal on the conflict is reached, one must consider the possibility of a pro-Turkish quasi-state in northern Syria, confirming the thesis that Erdogan is seeking to build a neo-Ottoman empire.

*

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 South Front.

There is surely a severe cost afflicted on any nation that successfully acquires a nuclear arsenal. Not merely a financial burden but, more significantly, a psychological price that is paid by those who attain, safeguard and threaten the deployment of nuclear weapons. Their possession warps the persona of a state’s leaders, ensuring they become reckless, malevolent and unpredictable.

The atomic bomb’s arrival in August 1945 brought with it a terrible psychosis that has threatened the globe for seven decades. Nuclear weapons have unleashed the worst tendencies in humankind, revealing a suicidal, blind streak that seems to be embedded in our species’ mindset. Over the past few centuries, humans have attacked each other with increasing coldness, reaching a high point during the Second World War with 50 million or more killed.

As the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev said to America’s new president Gerald Ford in November 1974,

“Both you and I fought in World War II. That war was child’s play as compared to nuclear war”.

During the second half of World War II, military plans for aerial or ground assaults calculated death tolls in the thousands, or tens of thousands, which seemed almost apocalyptic at the time. With the atomic bomb’s invention, and from November 1952 the hydrogen bomb, the death estimates suddenly jumped to millions, then tens of millions.

The astonishing death toll increases can only have serious psychological consequences for a country’s leaders. Indeed, nuclear weapons “cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict” as a Bill Clinton era study highlighted, while they ensure a “national persona” of irrationality and sinister behavior. Nuclear weapons are consistently used akin to a gunman robbing a bank, the outlaw achieving his goals through intimidation by waving his weapon around but hardly ever firing. Consecutive US presidents have threatened disobedient states with the nuclear gun so as to achieve crucial demands.

Evidence of the madness induced by nuclear weapons was witnessed, for example, at a military conference near Omaha, Nebraska in mid-December 1960. At this meeting, in the presence of American commanders from across the world, plans were revealed whereby at least 400 million people would be killed with nuclear attacks. About 300 million would be wiped out in China, along with another 100 million or so from the Soviet Union.

Every city in both the USSR and China would be hit. The final death toll would exceed half a billion, as radioactive fallout blown on the wind would destroy the Warsaw Pact states, and also America’s NATO allies in western Europe. US General Thomas Power, commander-in-chief of Strategic Air Command, even expressed disapproval at a suggestion during the conference that only the Soviets be attacked, with communist China let off the hook.

As early as mid-September 1945, the US had outlined plans to attack 66 Soviet cities with 204 atomic bombs. Yet, in late 1945, America had possession of only two atomic devices. By the summer of 1950, the stockpile had climbed to almost 300 atomic bombs, so this stratagem was then feasible. By the time General Power was giving his speech at the Offutt Air Force Base in late 1960, the US possessed about 18,000 nuclear bombs – many of which were now of the hydrogen type, up to a thousand times more powerful than the atomic bomb.

General Power’s old colleague, General Curtis LeMay, was keen to unload nuclear bombs on the Soviets, Chinese, Cubans and North Vietnamese – living up to his Second World War nickname, “Bombs away LeMay”. As General LeMay himself said in 1968,

“I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror”.

Much of the blame for America’s nuclear plans – which continue to the current day – should not, however, be attached to military figures programmed from a young age to serve their leaders, engage in warfare and defeat the enemy.

Plans to wipe out the Chinese and Soviets, were formulated during the Dwight D. Eisenhower years of the 1950s. Eisenhower was aghast at a strategy that would kill hundreds of millions, but he accepted the risks and outlined that no other military plan be formulated, mainly for budgetary reasons.

The public had been told only the president had authority to initiate nuclear war. However, Eisenhower delegated nuclear authority to his theater commanders, who in turn permitted their own subordinates to initiate an attack, if they felt it was required. This is a policy that surely continues.

Part of the thinking behind this is that, should the White House be struck by a Soviet (later Russian) nuclear-armed missile, the president would obviously be eliminated and unable to order a retaliation. Russia would not be harmed. So, to prevent this, many fingers are placed on “nuclear buttons” – and the likelihood is such a scenario is not just the case in the US, but also among the other nuclear powers.

The true culprits in planning nuclear Armageddon are the government bosses running the country, who often hail from largely civilian backgrounds, and by definition are supposed to serve the populace. Despite Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy, also having misgivings about the unprecedented death tolls from nuclear assaults, JFK agreed as well to the “major attack options” in the early 1960s. As likewise did consecutive presidents from Lyndon B. Johnson to Ronald Reagan, and most likely until Donald Trump, who is a strong nuclear advocate himself.

As General LeMay pointed out, people are mostly against and fearful of nuclear war – many Americans have long felt it the greatest threat to humanity, ahead of even climate change. Yet government leaders have deliberately imposed the risks of nuclear war on populations, in their bid for global and regional supremacy.

The fateful path American leaders chose, in exploring nuclear research through its Manhattan Project, can be traced to decisions made by president Franklin D. Roosevelt from early 1942. Initially, America’s pursuit may somewhat have been driven by beating Hitler in the atomic race. Even during World War II, with the Soviet Union an official ally, American planners were concocting strategies to attack Russia with its developing atomic arsenal. After the Battle of Stalingrad and with Japan in retreat, it was increasingly clear to the Roosevelt administration that Russia would become its only rival at war’s end.

Furthermore, the desire to overtake Hitler in attaining the bomb was soon no longer valid. From early 1944, Allied intelligence reports were pouring in that the Nazis’ nuclear program was “idle”. In spring 1945, with the Red Army spilling into Germany from the east, as America and Britain rolled in from the west, it was crystal clear that a besieged Hitler had no atomic weapons. Nor had he seriously desired to, because of a variety of fears and prejudices, as outlined by the influential Nazi war minister Albert Speer in his postwar writings.

Yet for America, since 1920 the world’s most powerful country, it seemed a natural progression for her to own the world’s most powerful weapon. Atomic bomb production came at an initial cost of $2 billion (just under $28 billion today) that continues rising with “upgrades” to current times. The thermonuclear weapons are today over 100 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, with one exchange enough to unleash the extinction phenomenon of nuclear winter, discovered in 1983.

When president Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945, Harry Truman carried through the atomic task with zeal, buoyed by enthusiastic support from British counterpart Winston Churchill. In March 1944, US Major General Leslie Groves confided to nuclear physicist Joseph Rotblat that “the real purpose in making the [atomic] bomb was to subdue to Soviets”.

The US would utilize its new atomic weapons in demonstrating to Russia precisely who the global power was. The defeat of Japan had long become clear, and the country was already being incinerated by firestorms through conventional American assaults. Continued destruction of each Japanese city through firebombing would surely have compelled Emperor Hirohito to surrender before long, with no A-bombs required.

Charred remains of Japanese civilians after the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9–10 March 1945. (Source: Public Domain)

Now as Japan was reeling under subsequent atomic attacks, Stalin, a ruthless dictator at the pinnacle of his power, heeded the message. Indeed, during the Potsdam Conference in eastern Germany, Stalin was informed by Truman in person on 24 July 1945 of the Americans having “a new weapon of unusual destructive force”. All eyes were fixed on Stalin at this moment, such as those of US Secretary of State James Byrnes and British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, who noted with dismay the Soviet boss’s calm reaction when told of the “unusual” weapon.

Though Stalin most likely knew of America’s nuclear program long before Truman, a general rule of the Soviet leader was to retain composure and never reveal signs of weakness, particularly in front of Western diplomats. During Stalin’s many discussions with capitalist statesmen, he was loath to display surprise, agitation, anger, etc. Addressing the head of a Yugoslav delegation in January 1945, Stalin said,

“Bourgeois statesmen are very touchy and vindictive. You have to control your emotions; if you are guided by your emotions, you lose”.

Meanwhile, hours after the Hiroshima attack, president Truman described the arrival of atomic warfare as, “the greatest achievement of organized science in history”. Truman also assured the American people that “atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace”.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

President Andrzej Duda’s authoritarian government can expect a rough political ride in December, when politicians, diplomats and campaigners stream into Katowice, Poland, for the next UN summit on climate change.

Poland’s so-called climate policy – to aim for “carbon neutrality” by discounting emissions from the coal industry with carbon sucked up by its forests – will face richly-deserved criticism. How loudly that will be heard on the streets is a different matter: Poland’s parliament has banned “spontaneous” gatherings in Katowice during the summit.

Donald Trump, who last year withdrew the US from the 2015 Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will also be the target of derision, not only from demonstrators but from some politicians inside the talks. The main business at Katowice (the 24th conference of parties to the 1992 Rio climate convention, or COP24) will be to finalise a “rulebook” to monitor government promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions (“nationally determined contributions” or NDCs) made in Paris.

The Paris agreement acknowledged that global temperatures should be kept “well below” 2 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, and that 1.5 degrees is preferable. Campaigners use every phrase in the document to challenge pro-fossil-fuel policies; to resist attempts to make the global south pay the price for warming; and to promote “just transition” that combines the move from fossil fuels with struggles for social justice.

Source: The Bullet

While fighting all these battles, it’s important not to neglect the larger picture. The Paris agreement is most significant not as a beacon around which the world can gather to stop climate change, but as the outcome of a disastrous process of failure to reverse the growth of fossil fuel consumption, the main cause of warming. At Paris, the idea of binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions was finally abandoned, in favour of voluntary commitments.

While diplomats laud these commitments, the reality is downplayed: even if governments implement their promises, global average temperature is projected to reach 2.7 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100, rather than 2 degrees or 1.5 degrees.

Historical perspective is useful. Thirty years ago, in June 1988, climate scientists collectively warned that the atmosphere was warming and that greenhouse gases were the main cause. They gathered with diplomats in Toronto, Canada, to form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body.

A year earlier, in 1987, international action had been coordinated, through the Montreal protocol, to curtail the production of chlorofluorocarbons that was opening a dangerous hole in the protective layer of ozone around the earth. The Toronto conference, optimistically, urged similar coordination to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2005. The resistance proved greater.

At the Rio summit in 1992, the US insisted that there would be no binding targets for reducing emissions. Its diplomats, and even some northern NGOs, focused on deforestation, a minor contributor to global warming, to avoid talking about the major issue: fossil fuel use. To deal with that, market mechanisms could and must be used, they argued. That thinking guided the 1997 Kyoto agreement, which provided for an emissions trading systems that failed miserably to stop oil, gas and coal use galloping upwards. The 2009 Copenhagen conference failed to produce a post-Kyoto deal; Paris, with its voluntary targets, followed.

While market mechanisms were prescribed for cutting fossil fuel use, governments oversaw subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption, running to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Global total emissions from burning fossil fuels, compared to the 1988 level, not only did not fall by 20% by 2005, as envisaged in Toronto; they grew by 35%. In 2017, they were 60% above the 1988 level.

Why has the Rio process failed so disastrously, where the Montreal protocol succeeded? Certainly, politics matters. The 1992 climate change convention was signed as neoliberalism was sweeping through the most powerful countries. While the US Republicans, and major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, resisted binding emissions targets, US Democrats and European governments prevaricated. They denounced climate science denial and acknowledged the global warming threat – but nevertheless saw the market as the lever to deal with it. In 1997, Democrats and Republicans united behind a US Senate bill to kill off the principle of binding targets; it passed by 95-0.

Future historians will surely look back at the Rio process as a historic collective failure by the world’s leading states, on the scale of the slide to war in 1914. There are no easy responses to this failure. But answers must be sought outside the confines of the Rio process. It is not our framework; let’s not normalise it.

The underlying reasons for the states’ failure are of course deeper than politics. The CFCs regulated by the Montreal protocol were a marginal technology, which used to be used in fridge manufacture. But there is nothing marginal about fossil fuels. They are consumed by many of the largest technological systems – car-based transport systems, and urban infrastructure that supports them; electricity networks; industrial systems reliant on carbon-heavy materials like steel; agricultural methods that soak up gas-based fertilisers – embedded in the social and economic systems in which we live.

While writing a book on the global history of fossil fuel use, just published, I worked to understand that technology-society nexus. The fossil-fuel based technological systems have been integral to capitalism, and to the labour process it controls; capital’s expansion has driven those systems’ expansion; a technological transition away from fossil fuels will most effectively be accomplished as part of a transition away from capitalism. These profound changes are never going to be undertaken by governments.

Public discussion about reducing consumption of fossil fuels, or fuel-intensive products, all too often focus on individual households. This is misleading for three reasons. Firstly, household fuel consumption is riven by inequality. Many households in the global north consume dozens, even hundreds, of times more than those in the global south. More than a billion people, mostly in the countryside in the global south, still don’t have access to electricity.

Secondly, even those households that live within the dominant fossil-fuel-supplied energy system, with reasonably regular electricity, winter heat, motorised transport and so on – about 60% of the world population – do not control the supply of fuels. They can not easily opt for measures that could slash their fuel consumption, such as insulating housing, or providing decent public transport to reduce car use. Individuals have still less control over their indirect fuel consumption, e.g. of coal to make steel, or oil to make plastic, in the products they buy; oil used in supply chains; or gas used to make fertiliser to produce food.

Thirdly, the way those technological systems use fuels and fuel-intensive materials is historically formed. There is nothing inevitable, or efficient, about the wasteful use of plastic packaging; about city transport systems based on heavy, fuel-intensive, usually single-passenger cars; about fertiliser-heavy industrial agriculture; or even about centralised electricity networks. These technologies are used in the way they are, thanks to the social and economic systems in which they are embedded. Capitalism doesn’t just exploit technology; it shapes it.

The transition away from fossil fuels will be a transition away from capitalism towards a society that lives in harmony with nature, fashioning from it what it needs, not what feeds profit. Politically, that has to be fought for outside the UN process.

*

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

Simon Pirani is author of Burning Up: a Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, published by Pluto Press

Featured image is from Flickr.

Canada’s Charter of Rights provides the ultimate legal safety for its citizens: rights that include freedom of speech, religion, of association, and the right of citizens to enter and leave Canada.  These rights are only of use, however, if the government respects them and accepts responsibility when it has betrayed them.

Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Sudanese described as a religious healer, was accepted by Canada as a refugee in 1990; he married a Canadian woman, had a child, and became a citizen in 1995.  By the late 1990s, however, he was swept up in the security establishment’s – CSIS and FBI’s – search for “Muslim terrorists” and faced harassment by both CSIS and the Montreal police.  

Abdelrazik returned to Sudan in 2003 to see his ailing mother, a trip that turned into a six-year nightmare.  Canada’s treatment of him can only be described as vicious.  CSIS had Sudan arrest and imprison him in 2003, when he claims he was tortured.  While Canadian consular staff claimed publicly that they were trying to help him, they were actually coordinating with CSIS and FBI interrogators. CSIS and FBI agents told Abdelrazik that he would never see Canada again, and that was clearly their intent, because when Sudan released him with no charges in 2004, Canada did not allow him to return.  In brief: he was placed on the US no-fly list and, days later, the UN terror list, which froze his assets; these lists were then used as (bogus) reasons to ban his return; he was repeatedly refused emergency travel documents and when he was forced to raise money for a (subsequent) ticket to return home, his donors were threatened with charges of supporting terrorism!  His epic struggle ended in 2009 with the ruling of a Federal judge that allowed him back.

On his return in 2009, Abdelrazik filed a complaint about his treatment by CSIS as well as a $27 million civil lawsuit against the Canadian government (and a Minister) asking for an apology and compensation for its breach of his Charter rights. These challenges were in the public interest because they exposed significant problems in Canadian security oversight and in the use of secret evidence.

Abdelrazik had never been charged with any crime and the RCMP cleared him of criminal activity.  The “robust intelligence” that Jason Kenny had boasted about evaporated; CSIS’ tales about Abdelrazik’s supposed connections to al Qaeda, a criminal association with Adil Charkaoui (another CSIS victim), a bombing plot and the supposed discovery of RDX explosive in his car turned out to be fabrications for which no one would be held responsible.  

The CSIS response to Abdelrazik’s complaint was that no one was accountable; the CSIS Review Committee claimed that it didn’t know if it had jurisdiction!  The complaint exposed the freewheeling operation of a security agency without clear legal limits or effective oversight. It also demonstrated, as in the Maher Arar case, the dangers to Canadians of CSIS coordination with the FBI; the US had tried to put Abdelrazik in Guantanamo, and his name remains on the American “terror list”.  While Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Public Safety has offered further legislative safeguards, critics claim they remain woefully inadequate. 

While Stephen Harper‘s government stonewalled the compensation it owed the Canadian Muslim men who had been tortured abroad because of CSIS “mistakes”, Trudeau honored the Charter protections by several multi-million payouts in 2017.  As might have been expected, the media whipped up Islamophobic howls of outrage at the compensation to the Muslim victims, adding traumatic insult to the real injuries they had suffered.  

The angry public response caused the Liberal government, on Sept. 18, 2018, to ask Federal Court Justice Martine St-Louis to postpone “indefinitely” the hearing to compensate Abdelrazik; she “reluctantly” agreed, but ordered monthly progress reports. To Abdelrazik’s lawyer, Paul Champ, this delay after nine years was “contemptible”. 

If the Canadian government is permitted to walk away from its horrific treatment of Abdelrazik, it can walk away from its violations of any Canadian’s rights.

The media-induced outrage to the compensation ignored the root causes of the victims’ abuse: CSIS’ criminal incompetence and — more importantly — the use of secret evidence.  Those who are accused (and typically their lawyers) face a Kafkaesque situation in which they have no way of knowing what the evidence against them is, and no way of refuting it. Predictably, security agencies support the use of secret evidence because it allows them to safely make or use career- enhancing misinterpretations of evidence knowing that the sources will never be identified or penalized.  

Citizens and taxpayers should be spurred to action by the travesty of justice that secret evidence encourages — as well as the high costs legitimately associated with it.

Canadians must demand that the Liberal government honor its obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights to compensate Abousfian Abdelrazik. At the same time, they must also demand an end to the use of secret evidence as well as more accountability from CSIS.  

Protecting Abdelrazik’s rights protects the rights of all Canadians.

*

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

Karin Brothers is a freelance writer. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

During the past several years, there has been increased pressure coming from some in the federal government aided and abetted powerful advocacy groups in the private sector to police social and alternative media. It is a multi-pronged attack on the First Amendment which has already limited the types of information that Americans have access to, thereby narrowing policy options to suit those in power.

The process has been ostensibly driven by concerns over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, but it is really about who controls and limits the public’s right to know what is going on out of sight in Washington and New York City, where politics and money come together. If one is interested in the free flow of information and viewpoints that comes with the alternative media, it certainly does not look that way. Robert Parry described it as a deliberate process of “demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.”

Last October top executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter were summoned to Capitol Hill for a discussion of their role in what is alleged to be Russia’s influence on the presidential campaign and went back home contrite and promising to improve. They have indeed improved by punishing members whose views have been found to be unacceptable, blocking them and suspending their access to the sites. Meanwhile, the federal government for its part has attempted to silence independent non-U.S. based voices by declaring Russian media outlets RT America and Sputnik to be “foreign agents,” requiring them to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is an unprecedented action against a news agency and invites quid-pro-quo for U.S. media operating overseas, leaving the American public more ignorant of world affairs than it already is.

Qatar based Al-Jazeera, which has been particularly targeted by Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as “a major exporter of hate against the Jewish people,” will also be required to register with FARA to comply with the new National Defense Authorization Act. Al-Jazeera, it should be noted, has employed undercover investigative journalism to expose the corruption of Britain’s government by Israeli supported Jewish groups. It’s similar series on the activity of Zionist lobbyists in America is on hold due to threats from Jewish organizations to severely punish the network if the documentary should ever be aired.

One of the organizations most interested in limiting conversations about what is going on in the world is the ADL which claims that it is “the world’s leading organization combating anti-Semitism and hate of all kinds,” though it clearly excludes incitement or even physical harm directed against Palestinian Arabs resentful of the Israeli occupation of their country. Its definition of “hatred” is really quite selective and is focused on anyone criticizing Israel or Jewish related issues. Its goal is to have any such speech or writing categorized as anti-Semitism and, eventually, to have “hate crime” legislation that criminalizes such expressions.

It is particularly ironic that Israel, which has now declared that it is in no way subject to international law, has itself proposed across the board censorship of the most prominent social media platforms on a global scale by creating an “international coalition that would make limiting criticism of Israel its primary objective.” It would operate through a “loose coalition…[that] would keep an eye on content and where it is being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content…in any of their countries at the request of members.”

More recently, Israel has been exposed by Wikileaks as hosting a conference describing how it now has a Command Center that uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to scan the internet worldwide looking for “anti-Semitic” content. For Israel, anti-Semitic content means any criticism of its government or its behavior towards the Arabs. It reportedly pulls 200,000 posts a day and then reviews them using AI for content considered to be unacceptable. The roughly 10,000 posts determined to be anti-Semitic are then passed on to “intelligence and law enforcement agencies” in countries that have hate speech legislation for further action. The Israeli government also complains directly to the social media source to have the material taken down and works through Jewish organizations in cities and countries where there is considerable “anti-Semitic” activity to pressure governments to act even if there is no legal basis.

As most genuine independent journalism is currently limited to the alternative media, and that media lives on the internet, the ADL and those who are acting in collusion with the Israeli government are focusing on “cyberhate” as the problem and are working with major internet providers to voluntarily censor their product. On October 10th, 2017 the ADL issued a press release out of its New York City offices to explain just how far the censorship process has gone. The organization boasted of the fact that it was working with Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter “to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate.” Apple is not identified by name in the press release but one should presume that it is also involved, as well as YouTube, which is owned by Google. When you consider that the associates in this venture with ADL are vast corporations that control huge slices of the communications industry, the consequences of some kind of corporate decision on what constitutes “hate” become clear. Combatting “cyberhate” will inevitably become across-the-board censorship for viewpoints that are considered to be unacceptable, including any criticism of Israel.

ADL will be the “convener” for the group, providing “insight on how hate and extremist content manifests – and constantly evolves-online.” Which means it will define the problem, which it calls the “spew[ing] of hateful ideologies” so the corporate world can take steps to block such material. And “the initiative will be managed by ADL’s Center for Technology and Society in Silicon Valley.”

Facebook already employs thousands of censors and there is literally no limit to how far those who want to restrict material that they consider offensive will go. To be sure, most groups who want to limit the flow of information do not have the clout or resources of ADL with its $64 million annual operating budget so its “cyberhate” campaign will no doubt serve as a model that others will then follow. For ADL, reducing criticism of Israel is a much-sought-after goal. For the rest of us, it is a trip into darkness.

*

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 American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Overseen by the National Park Service, Washington’s National Mall is included in the US National Register of Historic Places.

It’s one of many districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects in the country deemed worthy of preservation for their historic significance.

It’s located between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, Capitol Hill a short distance away.

On August 18, 1963, Martin Luther King delivered his famous “I Have a Dream Speech” on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to a crowd of around 250,000 assembled on the mall, one of the largest political rallies in US history.

The Constitution’s First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

These rights are fundamental. Jefferson once said speech and other rights “cannot be limited without being lost.”

Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Texas v. Johnson (1989), and other Supreme Court rulings affirmed the same principles.

Speech, media, and academic freedoms, along with peacefully assembling to express them are inviolable. Compromising them threatens their loss. Losing them jeopardizes all other rights, what tyranny is all about.

The Trump regime’s National Park Service may alter First Amendment rights by charging fees for groups wanting to hold protests or other demonstrations on and around the National Mall – unprecedented if instituted.

Restricting public demonstrations on sidewalks in front of the White House and Trump’s Washington hotel may also be imposed.

Draft “Pay to Protest” regulations are open to public comment until October 15.

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund executive director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and the organization’s legal director Carl Messineo slammed the proposal, saying:

“For the first time, the US government wants demonstrators to pay to use our parks, sidewalks and streets to engage in free speech in the nation’s capital. This should be called what it is: a protest tax,” adding:

“This is a bold effort by the Trump administration to burden and restrict access to public spaces for First Amendment activities in Washington. If enacted, it would fundamentally alter” the most fundamental of all constitutional rights.

They include unrestricted freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The executive, Congress, and courts, are obligated to respect, protect, and preserve them, including in national parks and other public spaces nationwide.

Anti-protest laws, executive orders, and regulations exist in various states. According to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), the following are some of the most egregious:

Louisiana’s “critical infrastructure” law criminalizes what it calls “unauthorized entry” onto a pipeline site. Individuals convicted face up to five years in prison.

Similar Big Oil-backed laws were enacted in Oklahoma and Iowa. They’re under consideration in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Following months of Standing Rock anti-Dakota Access Pipeline demonstrations in 2016 and 2017, seeking to protect sacred Native American land and waterways, North Dakota enacted new laws, prohibiting what it calls riots, criminal trespass, and wearing face coverings.

A Missouri enacted law greatly restricts the right of public union employees to strike or picket, undermining fundamental labor rights, as well as free expression and peaceful assembly.

Pending legislation in Virginia, Massachusetts, Illinois, and elsewhere aim to criminalize these and similar rights.

At the federal, state, and local levels, America is on a slippery slope toward full-blown tyranny.

Abolishing, jeopardizing, or otherwise compromising fundamental constitutional rights is what totalitarian rule is all about.

*

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 historical Moon-Kim summit ended- after three days of excitement, hope and determination- at the sacred Cheon-ji (Heaven’s Lake) located at the top of Mt Baek-du where Dangun, son of Hwanung who descended from heaven to found the Korean nation more than 4,300 thousand years ago.

Through their meeting, two Koreas reaffirmed their common sacred origin and destiny.

By raising high their tightly united hands, they declared that the reunification of the North and the South is eternal

Before we discuss the contents of the joint declaration of the third Kim-Moon summit, let’s see some of the highlights of the event.

First, the composition of the delegation was meaningful. By and large three groups of people were included. First group was composed of policy decision makers including ministers and the key staff of the Blue House (Korean White House) in charge of foreign affairs and national security. The presence of this group was intended to show Moon’s strong determination to carry out the summit agreements.

The second group represented the business world represented by the heads of Samsung, Hyundai, LG, SK and other Chaebols. It was the first time that most of the heads of Chaebols (family industrial conglomerates) visited North Korea. Their presence was intended to show to the world in general, and, to North Korean in particular, the possibility of Chaebols participation in North Korea’s economic development.

The third group is composed of the heads of two liberal political parties, people representing the world of arts and culture, local government, academics, sports and NGOs. This group was given the task of exploring North-South cooperation in their respective field of interest.

In short, the composition of the delegation showed clearly Moon’s roadmap of North-South cooperation and his strong intention support it. The issue of denuclearization was an important agenda, but this issue was something that should be solved by Washington and Pyongyang. What Moon hoped to get in connection with this issue was Kim’s more concrete and practical commitment to the denuclearization. Moon got it.

There are several other highlights to be mentioned. First, when the Moon’s plane arrived, Kim Jung-un and his first lady waited at the airport; this was unusual; it had never happened before. Second, Moon and Kim exposed themselves in an open car and greeted the crowd of one hundred thousand people standing and waving the flags of the Korean peninsula along the road leading to Pyongyang. This was a first time event in North Korea. Moon stopped the car and shook hands with the crowd. The amazing thing was that there was no V-form security display by North Korean security team seen during the Panmunjom summit on April 27th and the Singapore summit on June 12th. 

These events seem to show two things.

They showed how North Korea highly regarded Moon’s role of go-between for the solution of the nuclear crisis. Moreover, Pyongyang was eager to show the world that North Korea was a safe place to visit and to live.

There was another thing to mention. Throughout the three – day event, Kim Jong-un acted as if he were a little brother of Moon Jae-in who is, of course, much older. Such behaviour of Kim showed clearly that he was not an “arrogant dictator” (as portrayed by the Western media) but a good Confucian man respecting the elders. Kim has shown that he was a humble man. It is very important to point out also that Kim wished to show to the world that North Korea is not what it was; it is now a country where people want peace and they can pursue their happiness in daily life like any other people in the world.

What also came to my attention was what happened in the evening of September 19th. Moon and his whole delegation were invited to a mass gymnastic show. There were 150,000 people including children and young people; they displayed unbelievably high level of perfection in their athletic and artistic performances. Moon was given a chance to speak for two minutes. 

Images from The Hankyoreh

He declared

“We have lived together for 5,000 years but separated only for 70 years. I urge you to end those hostilities and take a big step toward unification”. 

He continued:

“Pyongyang citizens, fellow citizens whom I love, to-day, I agree with detailed measures to get rid of fears of war and risk of armed conflict from the Korean peninsula”

When Moon finished his speech, the huge crowd shouted in one voice “Long Live!”; many cried; they clapped hand standing for long minutes.

Moon’s short speech hit the core of the hearts of Koreans and perhaps the world, because reunited peaceful Korea could mean the end of starvation of North Koreans and the end of fear of war and violence in both Koreas.

What Moon said was, for all practical purposes, his declaration of the end of the bloody Korean War and hope for the peace and prosperity on the Korean peninsula.

The Joint Declaration is rich in contents and far reaching in implications. It has six parts (see full text in Annex)

Part 1. This part deals with the plan of demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula. It has two sections: the implementation of the 4.27 Summit Declaration of Panmunjom and the creation of a joint military committee designed to insure the implementation of the military agreement. The military agreement was signed by respective defence ministers on the same day (September 18) as the main declaration.

The military agreement shows that there will be a buffer zones on land, sea and air within which no major military activities are allowed. On land, there will be the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) within Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The Agreement stipulates that within the MDL, hostile military activities such as artillery exercises will be forbidden.

On sea, both on the east coast and the west coast, there will be buffer zones of more than hundred km of length. Similarly on air, there will be air buffer zones within which no military exercises will be allowed. In addition, at the DMZ, 11 guard posts will be pulled out. Finally, the Joint Security Area (JSA) will be disarmed after the removal of mines.

The messages given by these agreements are clear; neither side wants war; they want to be free from threatening dark clouds of hostility. These agreements are telling to the world that there will be no more war in the Korean peninsula. 

They also mean a warning to Washington “Do not start a war against North Korea; South Korea will not participate in such a war!” These agreements may make the Washington hawks think twice before contemplating any dreadful hostile actions. 

However, for the time being, it will not be easy for the ROK not to participate in a US initiated war, unless Korea is free from the regime of Operation Control (OPCON) and the Combined Forces Command (CFC) which puts all South Korean Forces under US command. (See Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research September 19, 2018)

Part 2. This part is concerned with North-South economic cooperation. It has four sections: east coast and west coast railway connections; reopening of the Gaesung Industrial Complex and Mt. Gumgwang resort facilities; North-South environment cooperation with emphasis on the forest industry; and North-South cooperation for epidemic disease prevention. Most of these cooperation activities are not possible because of the US-led UN sanctions. However, both sides showed a common vision for eventual cooperation. 

The leaders of Chaebols met with North Korean team in charge of economic affairs. One of the outcomes of those meetings was that South Korean capital and technology could come to the North when the sanctions will be lifted. 

The North-South economic cooperation is, perhaps, as important to South Korea as it is so to North Korea. The potential economic growth of South Korea seems to have hit the ceiling; the rate of the growth of its exports has been declining since 2010; the annual rate of its GDP growth is below 3% for years; the rate of under-employment is as high as 14%. The situation is so bad that there is a risk of repeating the Japan’s experience of two – decades long economic slump. 

Korea has been relying, for its economic growth, heavily on exports of two groups of goods, namely, electronic products and transport equipment (cars and ships) representing more than 85% of the total value of export. These products are mostly produced by two Chaebols. The trouble is that the Chaebols are no longer competitive. In 2017, the export of ships fell by more than 50%. 

Korea needs to diversify not only the goods and services to export but also the producers of these goods and services. Korea needs to export less technology intensive goods and services produced by large firms which do not create as many jobs as the small-and medium-sized firms (SMEs) create. Korea needs to export more labour intensive goods and services produced by SMEs and this is possible through the combination of South Korea capital and North Korean rich natural resources and well disciplined and low-waged labour. Years of experiences at the Gaesung Industrial Complex prove the benefits of this approach.. 

Part 3. This part deals with humanitarian issues, namely, the reunion of separated families. There are about 55,000 separated families in South Korea.  South Korea will open a permanent office to facilitate the family reunions and introduce the use of videos for on-line meetings.

Part 4. Here, numerous areas of non-political and non – military cooperation were identified. One example was the formation of North-South integrated sport teams for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and a joint sponsorship of Summer Olympics of 2032. The famed North Korean Samjiyon Musical Group will visit Seoul in October.

Part 5. This section is the most controversial part, for it tackles the thorny issue of denuclearization. It has three sections. The first section says that North Korea will permanently dismantle the Dongchang-ri missile engine-test and launch platform under the verification of experts from relevant countries. The second sections says that the North will dismantle permanently the Yeongpean nuclear facilities as the US takes the corresponding measures in accordance with spirit of the June 12 US-DPRK joint statement. The third section states that the North and the South will closely cooperate in the process of pursuing complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Part 6. Chairman Kim will visit Seoul but Moon said if possible before the end of 2018. This means that the North will have to show expected progress in denuclearization before the end of 2018.

The joint declaration conveys some important messages. 

First, no matter what happens, the North and the South would be reunited, for it is the only way to survive as a nation and prosper together. The inter-Korea cooperation is not for the South’s philanthropic endeavour for the benefit of the North but for the common security and prosperity  

Second, both sides have made it clear that there should be no war on the Korean peninsula. This agreement has nothing to do the denuclearization of North Korea. In fact, the two leaders have declared the “End of the Korean War”. I think that Washington should pay attention to this part of the joint declaration. True, this could raise the question of the justification of the presence of GIs in South Korea. But it appears that the North could accept the presence of American forces on the Korean peninsula.

Third, the North and the South have declared a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. In other words, the North has reiterated in front of the South and, in fact, the world its firm intention of denuclearization. 

We must remember one thing; it is by no means easy for the ordinary North Koreans to accept the denuclearization, for they gave up so many things to produce nuclear weapons.

Yet, they “say”. Moon Jae-in told the crowd of 150,000 at the athletic and artistic show: «We shall have nuclear free county!» the whole crow shouted and clapped hands to show their agreement. The message is this; the North Korean people accepted denuclearization of the Korean peninsula; it means that they are ready to justify decades of sacrifices they had to endure for the development of nuclear arms; it means also that they no longer feel insecure even if they no longer have defensive nuclear arms. 

One thing  is sure is Kim’s strong desire to denuclearize his country. He would have even suggested that he would complete denuclearization before January 2021, the end of Trump’s first term.

If so, then, it is now up to Trump to do something.

It appears that Moon will give him something meaningful related to Kim’s plan of denuclearization, something which was discussed between Moon and Kim but something which has not been revealed because it is concerned with Trump-Kim relations. But, I have doubt about the usefulness of that something, because, Washington would say “It is wonderful, but not good enough!”.

The real question is whether Washington really wants denuclearization. It is probable that Trump wants it. But, it is more than possible that the Washington hardliners do not want nuclear free Korean peninsula, because the North-South tension is useful for weapon sales and the China containment strategy. There is another group that does not welcome peace on the Korean peninsula; it is the group of South Korean conservatives.

I have a message for these groups. There will be peace whether these war-promoting groups like it or not.

There will be peace on the Korean peninsula, because Moon and Kim have decided not to fight. More than 70% of South Koreans support such decision. There is another reason; the group of South Korea conservatives are now powerless. Remember this. For last 60 years, this group has been benefitting, perhaps, more than Washington military-security elite, from the North-South tension. But, we can forget them as threatening bunch

If there will be no more war, then there is no reason why the Washington elite should not accept Kim’s denuclearization plan. 

It is about the time for Washington military-security elite to give up its idea of taking advantage of the tension on the Korean peninsula and cooperate with Trump for the creation of permanent peace on the land of morning calm. 

Mr. President Trump, now, you have a good chance to produce and present a historical gift of peace to the humanity!

*

ANNEX 

The two leaders assessed that remarkable achievements had been made since the historic Panmunjeom Declaration was signed, including the two Koreas engaging in close government-level dialogue and communication as well as in nongovernmental exchanges and cooperation in various areas, and taking significant steps toward easing military tensions.

The two leaders reaffirmed the principles of self-reliance and self-determination of the Korean people and agreed to consistently and continuously advance inter-Korean ties for reconciliation, cooperation, peace and joint prosperity. They also agreed to exert joint efforts to realize, through policies, the people’s aim and hope for improved inter-Korean ties to lead to unification.

The two leaders sincerely and extensively discussed issues on further boosting inter-Korean ties to a higher level through the thorough implementation of the Panmunjeom Declaration. They also shared the view that the Pyongyang summits will become a major turning point in history.

***

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 Joseph H. Chung is co-director of the East Asia Observatory (OAE) – Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University-Montreal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

On Saturday, a terrorist attack at a military parade in Ahvaz, Iran killed at least 29 individuals, around five dozen others injured, many seriously, military personnel and innocent civilians targeted.

Mostly civilians were harmed, including women and children, the death toll likely to rise.

The terrorist attack was reportedly carried out from outside the parade perimeter – from a park overlooking the observation platform.

According to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesman General Abolfazl Shekarchi, four terrorists were involved in the incident, affiliated with the anti-Iranian (Arab separatist) Al-Ahwaz group, three killed, the other arrested but died of his wounds.

Both Ahwaz and ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. Shekarchi said terrorists involved were trained by the US (the CIA and/or special forces) and Israel’s Mossad in two Persian Gulf states, likely Saudi Arabia and the UAE if the report is accurate – both countries militantly hostile toward Iran, along with Washington and Israel.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei called the criminal assault “the continuation of plots” hatched by Washington and their regional partners in high crimes, aiming to cause chaos and destabilize Iran.

His senior advisor on international affairs Ali Akbar Velayati promised a strong response.

So did President Hassan Rouhani, saying the response will be “crushing,” adding parties involved in “providing these terrorists with propaganda and intelligence support must be held accountable.”

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Iran will respond “swiftly and decisively,” adding “(t)errorists recruited, trained, armed, and paid by a foreign regime have attacked Ahvaz. Children and journalists (are) among casualties.”

Iran holds “regional terror sponsors” and their “US (and Israeli) masters” responsible for the attack.

Ahead of parade day, the terrorists hid AK-47 assault rifles in a park along the parade route, said Shekarchi.

The incident lasted about 10 minutes, attackers wearing military uniforms, according to reports. The event commemorated the anniversary of the Iran/Iraq war, beginning on September 22, 1980 – continuing until August 20, 1988. (The Carter administration allegedly backed it covertly. War continued throughout most of Reagan’s tenure, ending in stalemate, hundreds of thousands killed on both sides, countless others injured).

Incidents like Saturday’s are well-planned in advance. The Trump, Netanyahu, and Saudi regimes were silent about it. come.

A Final Comment

In response to Saturday’s terrorist attack, Vladimir Putin said the following to Rouhani:

“Please accept the deepest condolences regarding the tragic consequences of the raid by terrorists in Ahvaz. We are appalled by this bloody crime,” adding:

“We expect that everyone involved will face a deserved punishment. This event once again reminds us about the necessity of an uncompromising battle against terrorism in all of its manifestations.”

“I would like to confirm our readiness to continue building cooperation with Iranian partners in resisting this evil.”

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad made similar comments to Rouhani, condemning “in the strongest terms this cowardly and criminal terrorist act,” adding:

“I would like to affirm once more to you and to the friendly Iranian people that we are with you with all the power we have against these terrorist acts…”

A supportive Hezbollah statement said

“(t)his crime is a direct response to the major victories achieved by the resistance front in the region.”

Yemen’s Houthi Ansarullah movement denounced the “appalling” crime.

Two important political statements were made ahead of the attacks.

1.  Ahead of the terrorist attack on Friday, Mike Pompeo warned the Islamic Republic, saying the Trump regime “will not let Iran get away with using a proxy force to attack an American interest. Iran will be held accountable for those incidents.”

Amply documented, Washington, NATO, Israel, the Saudis, and their imperial partners are the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism. (Al Qaeda, ISISI, et al)

Iran, Russia, Syria and Hezbollah are its committed adversaries, wanting the scourge of terrorism combatted and eliminated.

2. Also on Friday, ahead of the Ahvaz terrorist attack, Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted:

“It is true that there is a real threat to our region and to international peace and security. That threat is the Trump administration’s sense of entitlement to destabilize the world along with rogue accomplices in our region.”

*

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.

One of the reasons that truth is on the decline is that truth is becoming emotion-based, not evidence-based.

It is all about feelings. This seems to have begun with feminists, but teaching women to trust their feelings, that feelings are truth, couldn’t be kept just in the women’s locker room. It has spread into the men’s as well and is now also an affliction of some of the younger men.

I have learned this from readers’ emails. Some are puzzled by what seems to them to be a switch on my part from being for Putin to being against him. They want to know why I stopped liking him. In other words, they interpret my growing concern about his policy as an indication that I don’t like him anymore.

I am writing about Putin’s policy, not about my feelings for Putin. His policy of ignoring provocations made perfect sense for a while. It demonstrated to Europeans that Putin, unlike Washington, is level-headed and non-confrontational. Putin’s openess and responsible behavior was contrary to the image of “Russian threat” that Washington had put in European heads. The hope was that Europe would switch from being an enabler of Washington’s aggression to becoming an obstacle to it.

The problem with a policy of turning the other cheek is that it can encourage more provocations and that the provocations increase in intensity. The question I raised is about the policy, not about Putin. How long do you stick with a policy that is encouraging more provocations instead of achieving its intended goal?

There has been some movement from some European politicians toward a more responsible attitude toward Russia, but this might simply reflect disgust with Trump or be a ploy to encourage larger subsidies from Washington to buy them back into the fold. Is it enough movement to compensate for the ever more provocative and ever more insulting behavior of Washington and the British government toward Russia?

This is the question that I raise. It has nothing to do with my feelings for Putin. It is an expression of my concern that the intensifying provocations will result in nuclear war. Putin’s policy of mild or zero response has not resulted in Europe becoming a brake on Washington’s aggressive attitude toward Russia. Instead, Putin’s policy is inviting ever more intense provocations. Washington has now said that it is going to attack Syria if Syria attempts to liberate Idlib province. Washington is putting more sanctions on Russian elites, which will make them more hostile to Putin. Russian nationalists are becoming angry with Putin for failure to defend Russia’s honor. Putin’s policy does not seem to be a formula for success.

So the question is whether Putin should continue this policy.

I think that Putin has given the policy long enough and that he should have stopped the provocations several steps back by putting down a hard foot. This would have given the world the message that the idiot Americans and Europeans are driving the world to nuclear war. I believe that this would have sobered Europeans, part of the US Congress, and would have brought pressure from other countries on Washington to cool its jets. The only reason Washington gets away with murder is that the world permits it, and the world permits it because the world does not witness a powerful country standing up to Washington.

I might be wrong. Nevertheless, my question is in order. The Russian government, not me, needs to assess whether its policy is leading to the desired result or the opposite of the desired result.

Evidence and rational thought need to be at work, not feelings, not the material interests of the Atlanticist Integrationists and the Russian Jewish lobby that The Saker calls the Fifth column.

The question before President Putin and the Russian people is whether Russia can be a sovereign country independent of Washington’s control without going to war. My concern is that unless a hard Russian foot comes down quickly, the only alternatives are Russian surrender or nuclear war.

*

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.

Rosenstein is part of Washington cabal, wanting Trump impeached and removed from office – for the wrong reasons. True enough, The Donald is bombastic, a racist, a serial liar and a misogynist.

Philosophy Professor Kate Manne says the later trait isn’t about male hostility or hatred toward women. It’s about wanting to control and punish them for challenging male dominance – “because they’re women in a man’s world, a historical patriarchy” in America and most other societies.

There’s plenty about Trump to criticize, mainly his endless wars of aggression, exclusive support for privileged interests, and advancing the nation toward totalitarian rule – major high crimes which his critics ignore.

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, ‘dark forces” plotted against him, wanting him prevented from being elected.

Pre-inauguration, a slow-motion coup d’etat against him began, continuing throughout his tenure, wanting him impeached and removed from office, Pence a convenient puppet in waiting to replace him.

No president in US history was ever removed from office by impeachment.

Under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 4, impeachment and conviction require proving “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 2 empowers House members to impeach a sitting president. Senate members alone are empowered to try them.

Like most of his predecessors, Trump is guilty of crimes of war and against humanity and other serious offenses – unmentioned by critics. No legal basis exists, however, for charging him with obstruction of justice.

No evidence suggests it. Nothing indicates he or his team colluded improperly or illegally with anyone in Russia.

Anything related to his private sex life isn’t an impeachable offense. Nor are his views on any issues – no matter how extreme, offensive and unacceptable.

Trump’s deputy AG Rosenstein is his sworn enemy – in cahoots with other forces in Washington, wanting him impeached and removed from office.

On Friday, the anti-Trump NYT said he

“suggested last year that he secretly record (the president) in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.”

It provides procedures for replacing the president or vice president in case of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation.

Abuse of power and other high crimes are impeachable offense, not unfitness, illness or emotional disorders.

Lincoln was elected president despite suffering from lifelong depression.

Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK and Reagan were affected by illnesses during their tenure, hampering their ability to govern – none targeted for removal from office by impeachment, Kennedy removed by state-sponsored assassination.

Trump is accused of narcissism, likely applying to most seekers of high office in America and elsewhere. It’s not an impeachable offense.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment states:

“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

No evidence suggests Trump is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Unlike many of his predecessors, he’s not too ill or otherwise unable to serve.

Claiming otherwise is all about plotting a coup to remove him from office. Section 4 was never invoked against sitting presidents unable to perform his duties because of illness, no matter how serious.

Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, James Garfield, William McKinley, and Warren Harding died in office – Section 4 never invoked to remove them from office before death.

Rosenstein is a fifth column threat to an elected president, ample just cause to remove him for coup plotting.

In cahoots with undemocratic Dems and special counsel Robert Mueller, he’s involved in the diabolical Russiagate witch-hunt to delegitimize Trump for the wrong reasons – waging political war to remove him from office, along with falsely accusing Russia of meddling in the US political process.

An administration member plotting against its leader should be sacked straightaway. Rosenstein opposed Trump’s summit with Putin to improve relations.

Forces in Washington, including the deputy AG, want them kept implacably hostile, serving the interests of the military, industrial, security, media complex.

World peace, stability, and cooperative relations with all nations defeat their diabolical aim for unchallenged global dominance by whatever it takes to achieve it – endless wars of aggression their favored strategy.

According to the Times,

“(n)one of Mr. Rosenstein’s proposals apparently came to fruition,” adding he told deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe “he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment” against Trump.

“A Justice Department spokeswoman also provided a statement from a person who was present when Mr. Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire. The person, who would not be named, acknowledged the remark but said Mr. Rosenstein made it sarcastically.”

The Times claimed unnamed other DOJ officials said his proposal was serious, wanting the FBI involved in secretly wiretapping Trump.

Whether the Times-reported scenario is partly or entirely true or fabricated is unknown. Unnamed sources are always suspect.

Rosenstein denied the Times’ report. AG Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russiagate probe over legitimate contacts with Russia’s envoy to Washington Sergey Kislyak when serving as a US senator.

At the time, his spokeswoman Sarah Flores said he had over 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors in the past year, including from Australia, Britain, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, as well as Russia – part of his job as a Senate Armed Services Committee member.

Numerous other Republican and undemocratic Dems also met with Kislyak, Sessions alone unjustifiably criticized over nothing.

His recusal and national security advisor Michael Flynn ousting was all about bashing Trump and Russia.

Undemocratic Dems, other forces in Washington, hostile media  and Rosenstein’s hostility toward Trump are part of a plot to remove him from office for the wrong reasons.

Succeeding will drive another stake into the heart of the republic, things on a slippery slope toward full-blown tyranny.

The way things are going, whether Trump survives or is ousted, it’s just a matter of time.

*

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

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 first trees have already been cut, the others marked with paint: 937 trees are now being cut down in the “protected” natural area of the San Rossore Regional Park between Pisa and Livorno. The slaughtered trees are the first “collateral damage” of the massive reorganization, begun these days, of the infrastructure of Camp Darby, which contains the largest U.S. arsenal in the world outside the United States.

Even if the U.S. command promises to replant more trees than those cut, the construction of a railway and other infrastructure, fragmenting the natural habitats, will upset a vast ecosystem.

The project involves the construction of a new railway section that will connect the station of Tombolo (on the Pisa-Livorno line) to a new loading and unloading terminal. The trains will cross the Canale dei Navicelli on a new rotating metal bridge. The loading and unloading terminal, almost 65 feet high, will consist of four 575-feet-long tracks capable of accommodating nine wagons each, for a total of 36 wagons.

The terminal will be joined to the ammunition storage area by large trucks. By means of trolleys handling containers, incoming weapons will be transferred from railway wagons to trucks and those departing from trucks to railway wagons. The terminal will allow the transit of two trains per day, which will connect the base to the port through the normal lines of the Italian state railways.

The reorganization of the infrastructure, which has just begun, is based on the plan to carry out the increased transit of weapons from Camp Darby. The current connection via canal and the base road with the port of Livorno and Pisa airport is no longer sufficient.

The United States continuously supplies the 125 bunkers of Camp Darby. over a million artillery bullets, bombs for aircraft and missiles, plus thousands of tanks, vehicles and other military equipment in these bunkers (according to approximate estimates).

Since March 2017, enormous ships have been calling at Livorno on a monthly basis. The ships unload and load weapons that are continuously transported to the ports of Aqaba in Jordan, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern ports. U.S. forces and allies use these weapons in the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

You do not need to be a skilled technician to understand what the dangers are for the population of the Tuscany region. Moving thousands of high-powered explosive warheads continuously in a densely populated area involves obvious risks. Even though the project managers describe their strategy as taking into account “human health and public safety,” an accident with catastrophic consequences cannot be excluded.

Neither can anyone rule out the possibility of sabotage or a terrorist attack that could cause the explosion of an entire train loaded with bombs. This is confirmed by the fact that the plan provides for the construction of a second terminal which will be used for the operations of verification and inspection of the “suspect wagons.” Those are wagons on which a bomb could have been installed (for example, inside a container). Such a bomb, exploding on command, would cause a catastrophic chain reaction.

What have the authorities done about this danger? Instead of carrying out their duties to protect the citizens and the territory, the Region of Tuscany, the municipalities of Pisa and Livorno and the Park Authority have not only approved the strengthening of Camp Darby, but have contributed to carrying it out. The civil works carried out in recent years for real or alleged economic development projects (such as luxury shipbuilding) — in particular the works to improve the navigability of the Navicelli Canal and the rail links to the port of Livorno — are exactly those demanded for years by the command of Camp Darby.

Its most prominent representative, Colonel Berdy [U.S. Army Garrison Italy Commander Col. Erik M. Berdy], has been received in recent months with all the honours by the President of the Tuscan Regional Council, Eugenio Giani (Democratic Party), who has committed to promoting “integration between the U.S. military base of Camp Darby and the surrounding community,” by the mayor of Livorno, Filippo Nogarin (Five Star Movement) and that of Pisa, Michele Conti (League) who have expressed substantially the same position. The trees of the Park can be cut down and the bombs of Camp Darby can circulate on Italian territory, thanks to the mutual consent of the politicians of these three major parties.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Translated by John Catalinotto

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The internationally recognized president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, transferred his military powers to the coalition’s commander in coinciding with his mysterious treatment trip to the United States, according to an official military document issued by the coalition’s leadership in Marib.

The document, was declared by commander of the Saudi coalition’s forces in Marib Al-Anzi, and addressed the Chief of Staff of Hadi Forces, which includes the orders of Hadi and the commander of coalition’s forces in Yemen Turky Al-Saud.

The document asks to take the directions of the field operations from the Commander of the coalition and shall be considered the directions of His Excellency President Abdurabo Mansour Hadi, according to the text of the document.

The document states that the mandate given by Hadi to the commander of the coalition’s forces backs to May, the same month in which a US agency revealed that Hadi would travel to the United States on a treatment trip for a long time, but it was delayed before the leaving of Hadi earlier this month suddenly to the United States.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Flight MH17, Ukraine and the Civil War

By Prof. Kees van der Pijl, September 22, 2018

On the margins of D-Day celebrations in Normandy in June 2014, Poroshenko agreed with Putin to start talks on a ceasefire, for which a Russian emissary arrived in Kiev on the 8th. On 24 June the Russian Federation Council revoked the authority granted to Putin in March to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine. Moscow had already indicated it did not want the Donbass insurgency to lead to secession when it refused to honour a referendum on the issue.

The Gamification of Tyranny, The Surveillance State. America and China

By Kurt Nimmo, September 22, 2018

In China, the supposedly communist state—in fact, it is an advanced form of crony capitalist authoritarianism that Marx [and Mao] would have disapproved—is busy setting up a rating system for all citizens. According to a paper written by an academic at the Lebanese American University in Beirut, Lebanon, scores are based on professional conduct, corruption, type of products bought, peers’ own scores, and tax evasion.

Can the Downing of Russia’s IL-20 be the Beginning of the End for Israeli Hubris?

By Askiah Adam, September 22, 2018

None of us would be cheering on a war that could easily be the absolutely final one if President Putin had not defused the situation while clearly signalling that he holds Israel accountable for downing the Russian IL-20 reconnaissance aircraft even though it was shot down by a Syrian missile. If he did not why would he have signed off on the Russian MOD’s statement which squarely placed the blame on Israel.  

The 9/11 Anniversary: Conspiracy Theory or Critical Thinking?

By Prof. Graeme McQueen, September 22, 2018

On the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that let loose so much international violence, the public has a right to ask what really happened on that day. Here are eight points to ponder.

Video: The New Iron Curtain. “The Russian Menace”

By Manlio Dinucci, September 22, 2018

Latvia is presently building a metal fence, 90 kilometres long and 2.5 metres high, along its frontier with Russia. It will be finished before the end of the year, and will be extended in 2019 along more than 190 kilometres of the frontier, for a planned cost of 17 million Euros.

Rio de Janeiro’s Rocinha Favela and the Future of Urbanism

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, September 21, 2018

It is believed at least 70,000 people live in Rocinha (some estimates suggest more than double that number), living in houses made from concrete and brick. It is officially described as a neighbourhood and has very basic sanitation, plumbing and electricity. Rocinha also has shops, hairdressers, banks, art galleries and many other businesses. The word favela itself is derived from a skin-irritating plant of the spurge family: removing these plants to live in these areas was not easy so the people called the hills after the plant.

Syrian Activist Nidal Rahawi Provides Rare Insight into the Deteriorating Conditions in the Northeastern Region

By Nidal Rahawi and Sarah Abed, September 21, 2018

In this exclusive interview Syrian Nationalist/Outspoken Activist/Artist Mr. Nidal Rahawi a Qamishli native and resident, provided us with crucial direct insight into the most recent tragic events that have taken place in his hometown in north eastern Syria.

Syria’s War for Peace

By Mark Taliano, September 21, 2018

There is a great deal of discussion about saving civilian lives in Syria, as there should be. Missing from the discussion, however, is the most important point. If Western policymakers were genuinely concerned about saving civilians, they would not have waged this Regime Change war in the first place.

*

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

China will soon operate the Israeli port of Haifa if everything goes according to plan.

Haaretz reported on a conference late last month in Israel where the former navy chief of staff and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Shaul Horev warned about China’s forthcoming management of the strategic port of Haifa. The deal was agreed to three and a half years ago by the Transportation Ministry and Port Authority without what the outlet claimed was the input of either the National Security Council or the navy itself, the latter of which is supposedly concerned because Israel’s submarine fleet is based next to the port. The impending implementation of the agreement has led to the usual fear mongering about “debt traps”, military implications, and oddly enough, even whether Israel is pivoting away from the US.

What’s clearly happening is that a faction of Israel’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies – or “deep state” – wants to join China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity while the other wants to retain Tel Aviv’s stalwart pro-American foreign policy by preventing this, hence the public friction over this issue. Unlike what many in the Alt-Media Community might imagine, Israel and China have become increasingly close over the past couple of years as Beijing has developed an interest in the so-called “Red-Med Railway” proposal of connecting the two bodies of water via a high-speed railway that could eventually complement the Suez Canal or possibly one day even become an alternative to it.

Israel’s agreement to allow China to expand and then subsequently manage the port of Haifa is indicative of an influential “deep state” faction’s desire to diversify Tel Aviv’s strategic dependence on the US by pragmatically cooperating with other rising Great Powers, such as what it’s been doing lately with Russia in Syria for example. Furthermore, it appears as though this faction envisions Israel fulfilling a similar role as its new partner India in the sense of “multi-aligning” between Great Powers, which could in theory allow it to leverage the newfound “competition” over its “loyalty” in order to extract better benefits from all sides, including the US.

Should the deal not be offset by any last-minute so-called “national security” concerns by the opposing “deep state” faction and its American allies, then Israel would basically be giving the Silk Road its best-ever international endorsement, which might also have been one of the reasons why China was even interested in this opportunity in the first place. There’s also the possibility, noted by Ber Cowen at The Times Of Israel, that China has long-term ambitions of controlling the East Mediterranean port of European access for Gulf resources following any future Palestinian peace deal that results in the Arab Monarchies officially recognizing Israel and building pipelines through it in order to save on upwards of 40% of the costs that they pay for transiting through the Suez Canal.

Whatever China’s intentions are – and they certainly don’t have anything to do with locking Israel into a “debt trap” or spying on its submarines – the controversy over this agreement nevertheless points to the fact that there are two geopolitically competing “deep state” factions in Israel that are now making their Haifa feud public because each of them believes for very different reasons that it could indeed be a game-changer if the deal ends up going through.

*

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 is from the author.

Seth Anziska’s Preventing Palestine: A Political History From Camp David to Oslo is a deeply insightful and profoundly disturbing book that traces the tortuous path of Middle East peace-making during the past four decades. It was quite painful to read.

Having been a close observer and sometimes participant in many of the developments that have unfolded since the end of the 1973 War, Anziska opened old wounds while shedding new light on the painful events and acts of betrayal that have shaped recent Palestinian history.

Through all of the twists and turns of this period, the brutal wars and the diplomatic initiatives, the one constant that emerges is the Israeli determined refusal to recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood and the self-serving acquiesce to their intransigence by successive American administrations and key Arab leaders.

The culprits are many. In Anziska’s telling of this history, we can find fault with most of the parties to the conflict—all of the US administrations that were involved during this period: Israeli Prime Ministers, whether from Labor or Likud; Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak; Lebanon’s Phalange Party; and, in the end, even the PLO’s Yasser Arafat.

Digging deep into the official records of the Israelis, Egyptians, Americans, Palestinians, and others who participated in the region’s wars and various diplomatic endeavors, Anziska mines government and research center archives unearthing revealing contemporaneous accounts, minutes of meetings, and official communiques—providing the story behind the story of events as they unfolded.

Especially fascinating were: the internal debates that took place in Israeli cabinet meetings and how, at times, they would don a diplomatic mask of accommodation, while clinging to their firm refusal to surrender sovereignty of Palestinian lands or recognize the existence of a Palestinian nation; the discussions that occurred between President Carter and his aides; the frustrations expressed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s various Foreign Ministers over his betrayal of the Palestinian cause; the way Israel’s Ariel Sharon rudely manhandled US emissaries and their cowering in the face of his belligerence; the way Israel’s Menachem Begin initially sought to pose as the savior of the Christians of Lebanon only to “turn on a dime” after they refused to sign a peace agreement on Israel’s terms; the insidious plotting of a Phalange leader with the Israelis to end the Palestinian presence in Lebanon; and the short-lived, but still worth noting, instances of frustration of US Presidents Carter and Reagan and Secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker with the Israelis.

What emerges as key to the denial of Palestinian rights is the self-imposed paralysis of American decision-makers in the face of Israeli intransigence—resulting from successive administration’s fears of the domestic political fallout that might follow any pressure the United States might apply on Israel. Time and again, U.S. principals grew impatient with Israeli ploys and their hardline refusal to recognize and grant national rights to Palestinian, only to back down after advisers cautioned them of the political consequences that might result. There were no American “profiles in courage” emerging from Anziska’s book.

Carter, for example, began his term with a pledge to realize a “homeland” for the Palestinians. In line with his administration’s commitment to human rights, Carter was moved to end their suffering in exile and under occupation. The vehicle he envisioned to initiate the path toward this goal was an international all-party conference to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. Carter’s efforts were ultimately upended by a combination of: Israel’s refusal to participate in any forum that would question their claim of sovereignty over the Palestinian territories; Sadat’s resolve to achieve a separate Israeli-Egyptian peace without the Palestinians, despite his public pronouncements to the contrary; and the pressure from the American Jewish community, which caused sufficient enough discomfort within the White House to cause Carter to back away from pressing Israel to cede land or political rights to the Palestinians.

In the end, Carter acceded to the pressure and shepherded the Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. The agreement, shaped by largely by the Israelis, promised only future discussions on a vaguely worded plan for Palestinian “autonomy”—which in the Israeli lexicon meant that the Palestinians could realize control of their persons, but not control over land. The result, as Anziska notes was that at Camp David Sadat got the Sinai and Begin got the West Bank. And with Israel’s southern border secured, Begin was free to attempt to “wipe out” the PLO in Lebanon.

Throughout the next four decades the region witnessed the horrific Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon (together with the aerial bombardments that devastated Beirut and the massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps), two Palestinian uprisings, and repeated failed American efforts at peace-making. During this time, the US dithered, professing to want to solve the conflict, but refusing to apply the pressure needed to make it happen. As Anziska observes, throughout this entire period, the Israelis, while agreeing to negotiate, insisted on their exclusive sovereignty over the occupied territories and their “God given right” to settle in them. These were not topics they would discuss. In communiques, they repeatedly chided their American interlocutors rejecting the designation “occupied territories” and insisting on the terms “Judea and Samaria.” They also rejected the term “Palestinian people”, referring to them, instead, as “Arab inhabitants.”

As a result of this Israeli intransigence and the weak-kneed American response, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands only deepened. In 1977 there were about Israeli 5,000—8,000 settlers in the West Bank, by 1992 there were 100,000 settlers, and today the number exceeds 600,000.

Despite the euphoria that accompanied the September 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords, Anziska demonstrates the similarities between what Oslo provided for the Palestinians and the autonomy proposal offered by Menachem Begin at Camp David 15 years earlier. The supposed self-rule won by the Palestinians at Oslo was circumscribed by Israel’s insistence that it retain control over land, resources, security, and borders. Like Begin’s proposal at Camp David, there would be no Palestinian sovereignty and no truly independent state. Anziska cites many prominent Palestinians who called Arafat to task for his rush to sign what they termed a “flawed agreement.”

Menachem Begin, while adamantly rejecting a Palestinian state, at times,  spoke magnanimously of extending rights to the “Arab inhabitants in Judea and Samaria”—whom he saw as a “minority” living in Eretz Israel. Anziska quotes Begin saying, “What’s wrong with a Jewish majority living together with an Arab minority in peace, in human dignity, in equality of rights?”

Well, here we are in 2018, 40 years after Camp David. The Palestinian dream of an independent state is not only unrealized but is most likely unrealizable. With many Palestinians now favoring a one state solution, they may throw Begin’s words back at him and say, “There’s nothing wrong with that!” The problem for the Israelis, of course, is that the once “Arab minority” is now a majority and Israelis have only themselves to thank for digging this hole. By “Preventing Palestine”, they have given birth a new reality.

*

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

James J. Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute.

US President Donald Trump’s close ally and lawyer Rudy Giuliani spoke of “revolution” and the “overthrow” of Iran’s ruling clerics at a rally of anti-government Iranian Americans on Saturday as the administration continues its offensive against Tehran.

Giuliani spoke at the so-called 2018 Iran Uprising Summit in midtown Manhattan, hosted by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – an umbrella bloc of opposition groups in exile that seeks an end to clerical rule in Iran – and the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an anti-government Iranian religious group that used to be on the US terror list.

“I don’t know when we’re going to overthrow them. It could be in a few days, months, a couple of years, but it’s going to happen. They’re going to be overthrown, the people of Iran have obviously had enough,” Giuliani told a cheering crowd.

“The sanctions are working. The currency is going to nothing … These are the conditions that lead to successful revolution, and, God willing, non-violent revolution.”

The end of Iran’s 39-year-old clerical establishment would not echo the chaos that followed the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, thanks to the NCRI and Iran’s multi-skilled diaspora, Giuliani said in a 15-minute address.

The rally came after the Trump administration pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran in May and is ratcheting up sanctions which, officials say, are aimed at deterring Tehran’s military expansionism rather than topple its government.

‘Time for the mullahs ending’?

But some Iranian Americans see parallels to the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and say that links between the Trump administration and the NCRI, which presents itself as an Iranian government-in-waiting, are worrying.

That is not least because of NCRI’s president-elect Maryam Rajavi, who also heads the highly controversial MEK, which has a background in leftist, Islamist-style violence and fosters cult-like devotion among its followers.

“Iran is in a critical moment, with the continued protests in Iran. The time for the mullahs is ending. It is also time for the world to recognize the legitimate demands of the Iranian people for a free republic based on the separation of religion and state,” Rajavi said.

In a recorded video message, she urged the US and the UN to sanction and pressure Iran, while laying out plans to tackle poverty, improve human rights and hold free elections in Iran within six months of the mullahs being toppled.

Rajavi and Giuliani addressed and roused the crowd at the New York Sheraton, backed by Iranian rock and classical music and other speeches from former US Gen James Jones and France’s former foreign minister Bernard Kouchner.

Some 1,500 smartly-dressed Iranian Americans rallied against the regime at the New York Sheraton (MEE/James Reinl)

They made no mention of an attack on a military parade of Revolutionary Guard troops and officials in the southwestern Iranian city of Ahvaz on Saturday, in which at least 25 people were killed. Iranian leaders said US-backed Gulf states were behind the killings.

Trump supporters have spoken at NCRI events in the past, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, who, before taking his post, told the group’s members they would be ruling Iran before 2019 and their goal should be regime change.

This week, Trump is expected to heap more pressure on Iran in his speech before the UN General Assembly on Tuesday and at a Security Council meeting focused on Iran and illegals weapons flows on Thursday.

Iran has seen its rial plunge, economic turmoil and a wave of protests that has spread to 80 cities since December as US sanctions bite and additional curbs are expected to shrink Iran’s oil exports when they are imposed in November.

Ali Safavi, a card-carrying member of NCRI, said his group usually only holds a street rally during the UN’s annual meet of world leaders, but had raised its profile this year as US pressure is seeing the clerics’ grip on power weaken.

“The mullahs are on their last legs,” Safavi told Middle East Eye. Echoing Rajavi, he called for action by the UN and emphasized the secular, democratic credentials of the MEK, also known as the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI).

MEK: A controversial group

The MEK has an odd backstory. Its members joined the 1979 Islamic revolution but later broke from the ruling clerics. Based in Iraq since the early 1980s, their fighters clashed with US forces during the 2003 Iraq war, but have since renounced violence.

Many of its members remain stranded in Iraq as the group fell out of Baghdad’s favour after Saddam Hussein’s downfall. The European Union had the MEK on its list of banned “terrorist” organizations from 2002-09. The US classified the MEK as terrorists until 2012.

Rajavi and her husband, Massoud, run the group though the latter’s whereabouts are unknown. A 2009 report by the RAND Corporation noted how MEK members had to swear “an oath of devotion to the Rajavis”.

Researchers also described the MEK’s “authoritarian, cultic practices,” including “mandatory divorce and celibacy” for the group’s members and how devotion to the Rajavis replaced “love for spouses and family”.

Speaking with MEE outside the Sheraton, Sam Garshasp, an Iranian-American student who travelled from Michigan to attend the rally, referred to the strict membership rules he was ordered to follow.

“You have to be so straight, no play around, no joking. There are special rules, I’m not allowed to say it,” said Garshasp, who asked for his surname to be changed so other members would not be able to identify him.

The 21-year-old has lived in the US for five years. He wishes to see an end to clerical rule and backs Trump’s sanctions despite the hardship faced by relatives back home. He only backs the MEK with reservations.

“Are they going to make it better? And will they have our back? They have to start doing something so people can trust them and support them,” Garshasp told MEE.

The group has faced other criticisms. In 2011, a Christian Science Monitor investigation into the big hitters from across the political spectrum who speak at MEK events revealed some were paid tens of thousands of dollars to stump for the group.

The most recent public opinion survey commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), a research and lobby group, showed how 402 Iranian-American respondents held less-favourable views of Rajavi than other Iranian political figures.

Only 7 percent of respondents had favourable views of Rajavi. That was similar to the 6 percent who felt positive about supreme leader Ali Khamenei, but much lower than the 55 percent who backed President Hassan Rouhani.

Only 1 percent of respondents backed Iran’s cleric-run system, while 8 percent wanted it reformed. Most Iranian Americans (55 percent) favoured a secular democratic government and 11 percent sought the return of a Shah-like monarch.

“The people of Iran despise the MEK,” Roxana Ganji, a California-based Iranian-American pro-democracy activist who has long called for the downfall of the mullahs but questions the MEK’s democratic and ethical credentials.

“By Giuliani and Bolton going there for speaking engagements and getting paid for it and being part of Mr Trump’s administration … gives people the idea that were going to replace a terrorist government with one that’s even worse,” Ganji told MEE.

*

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 James Reinl/MEE.

”The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only. The Fascist” 

– Benito Mussolini [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

With a population of over 1.2 billion people, the Republic of India is considered the world’s most populous democracy. Yet, civil liberties and the power of the masses to direct their affairs in their own interest are being undermined if developments in recent years are any indication.

Beyond the increasing incidence of lynchings and mob violence targeting minorities, and the severe crack-downs on dissent, there is significant doubts being raised about the sanctity of the rule of law. A story surfacing in the fall of 2017 has cast suspicion on the ability of the courts to rule independently of political influence.

On December 1, 2014, a judge with the country’s Central Bureau of Investigation was reported to have died of natural causes. Judge Brijgopal Loya had been presiding over one of the nation’s most high profile cases, that of a murder implicating the president of the governing BJP party.

Two investigative reports published in November of 2017, brought to the fore doubts expressed by Loya’s family about the account of his death. These doubts were corroborated by documents accessed by the author highlighting irregularities in the overall depiction of events around Loya’s death. The family also detailed attempts at bribery and intimidation of the judge in the weeks leading up to his untimely death at the age of 48.

To date, the response of officialdom has been to try to discredit the report and downplay the revelations therein.

India is a significant power. One of the world’s largest economies and a member of the powerful BRICS alliance of nations with strategic links with both the U.S. and Russia. What does a significant deterioration of the India’s democratic rights mean within a larger geopolitical context.

These are the questions we will be exploring in a special recently broadcast live to air edition of the Global Research News Hour. Our special guest for the hour is the journalist who broke the story, Niranjan Takle. He will discuss the case, the betrayal of the journalistic community, the factors directing the BJP’s regressive agenda, the implications for foreign relations, and more.

Links to Mr. Takle’s 2017 stories can be found here:

“A family breaks its silence: Shocking details emerge in death of judge presiding over Sohrabuddin trial”

“Chief Justice Mohit Shah made an offer of Rs 100 crore to my brother for a favourable judgment in the Sohrabuddin case: Late Judge Loya’s Sister”.

Professor Radhika Desai, who is presenting Mr. Takle at his Winnipeg talk also joins us in this studio discussion.

Upcoming Canadian speaking events for Niranjan Takle:

Sunday, 23rd September

5-7 pm

Ryerson University, Room 358, Podium Building

350 Victoria Street (on north-west corner of Gould and Victoria)

Organized by India Civil Watch and Jamhoor

Supported by the Ryerson Faculty Association Equity Committee

info: [email protected]

Saturday, 29th September

4-6pm

at Alternatives

3720 Park Avenue

Montreal H2X 2J1

organized by: CERAS and India Civil Watch-Canada

info: [email protected]

Niranjan Takle is a journalist based in India. He has worked as a stringer and as a correspondent for CNN-IBN, and later as a bureau chief for Network 18’s Maharashtra (north). He worked for The Week from 2011 to 2017, only leaving after it refused to publish his story on the death of judge Loya. The Caravan published the story but has not as yet hired Takle on a permanent basis. He is currently unemployed and looking for work.

Dr. Radhika Desai is Professor at the Department of Political Studies, and Director, Geopolitical Economy Research Group, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. She is the author of Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire (2013), and Slouching Towards Ayodhya: From Congress to Hindutva in Indian Politics (2nd rev ed, 2004). She is also active with Democracy, Equality and Secularism in South Asia (DESSA) which is hosting Mr. Takle’s Winnipeg talk Saturday Sept. 22 at 1:30pm at 765 Keewatin St.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Global Research News Hour Episode 229

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. Benito Musselini (1932), ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’; http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

A Letónia está a construir uma cerca de e 90 km de comprimento, com 2,5 metros de altura, ao longo da fronteira com a Rússia, que estará concluída até ao final do ano. A mesma será prolongada, em 2019, em mais de 190 km de fronteira, com um custo estimado de 17 milhões de euros.

Uma cerca semelhante, de 135 km de comprimento, acaba de ser construída pela Lituânia, na fronteira com o território russo de Kaliningrado.

A Estónia anunciou a próxima construção de uma cerca, sempre na fronteira com a Rússia, com 110 km de extensão e 2,5 metros de altura.Custo esperado em mais de 70 milhões de euros, para os quais o governo da Estónia solicitará um financiamento da União Europeia.
O objectivo das cercas, segundo as declarações desses governos, é “proteger as fronteiras externas da Europa e da NATO”. Excluindo a motivação de que eles devem estar “protegidos” dos fluxos migratórios maciços da Rússia, não resta senão outra: as fronteiras externas da União Europeia e da NATO devem estar “protegidas” da “ameaça russa”.Visto que a cerca construída pelos países bálticos ao longo da fronteira com a Rússia tem eficácia militar praticamente nula, o seu propósito é fundamentalmente ideológico: o do símbolo físico de que, para além da cerca, há um inimigo perigoso que nos ameaça. Isto faz parte da martelada “psyop” politico-mediática para justificar a escalada USA/NATO, na Europa, contra a Rússia.

Neste contexto, o Presidente da República, Sergio Mattarella, foi para à Letónia duas vezes, a primeira em Julho, num circuito de visitas aos países bálticos e à Geórgia.No almoço oficial, em Riga, o Presidente da República Italiana elogiou a Letónia por ter escolhido “a integração dentro da NATO e da União Europeia” e ter decidido “abraçar um modelo de sociedade aberta, baseado no respeito pelo Estado de direito, pela democracia, pela centralidade dos direitos do homem”.

Isto mesmo foi declarado ao Presidente da Letónia, Raymond Vejonis, o qual já tinha aprovado, em Abril, o Projecto de Lei que proíbe o ensino do russo na Letónia, um país cuja população é quase 30% da etnia russa e o russo é usado como língua principal de 40% dos habitantes. Uma medida contrária à liberdade de um povo que, ao proibir o bilinguismo reconhecido pela própria União Europeia, discrimina posteriormente a minoria russa, acusada de ser “a quinta coluna de Moscovo”.

Dois meses depois, em Setembro, o Presidente Mattarella voltou à Letónia para participar numa cimeira informal de Chefes de Estado da União Europeia, na qual o tema dos ataques informáticos da parte de “Estados com atitude hostil” foi tratado, entre outros. (Referência clara à Rússia).Após a cimeira, o Presidente da República foi para a base militar de Ᾱdaži, onde encontrou o contingente italiano enquadrado no Grupo de batalha, fixado pela NATO na Letónia, no âmbito da “presença avançada reforçada” nas fronteiras com a Rússia. “A vossa presença é um elemento que tranquiliza nossos amigos letões e de outros países bálticos”, disse o Presidente da República. Palavras que, essencialmente, alimentam a “psyop”, sugerindo a existência de uma ameaça para os países bálticos e para o resto da Europa, proveniente da Rússia.

Em 24 de Setembro, também chegará à Letónia,o Papa Francisco, em visita aos três países bálticos.Quem sabe se, repetindo que se devem “construir pontes e não muros”, ele também dirá algo sobre a nova cortina de ferro que, ao dividir a região europeia, prepara as mentes para a guerra.Ou, se em Riga, ao depor flores no “Monumento à Liberdade”, reivindicará a liberdade dos jovens letões russos de aprender e usar a sua própria língua.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 18 de Setembro de 2018

Artigo original em italiano :

La nuova cortina di ferro L’arte della guerra

Tradução : Luisa Vasconcellos

VIDEO Por PandoraTV :

Lettland baut einen 90 Kilometer langen, 2,5 Meter hohen Metallzaun entlang der Grenze zu Russland, der noch in diesem Jahr fertiggestellt wird. Im Jahr 2019 wird er über mehr als 190 Grenzkilometer mit geschätzten Kosten von 17 Millionen Euro erweitert.

Ein ähnlicher, 135 Kilometer langer Zaun, wird von Litauen an der Grenze zum russischen Gebiet Kaliningrad errichtet.

Estland kündigte den bevorstehenden Bau eines 110 km langen und 2,5 m hohen Zauns an der Grenze zu Russland an. Erwartete Kosten von über 70 Millionen Euro, für die die estnische Regierung EU-Mittel beantragen wird.

Der Zweck dieser Zäune ist, laut Regierungserklärungen, der “Schutz der Außengrenzen Europas und der NATO”. Der Beweggrund ausgenommen, dass diese vor massiven Migrationsströmen aus Russland “geschützt” werden sollen, bleibt nur der andere: Die Außengrenzen von EU und NATO müssen vor der “russischen Bedrohung” geschützt” werden.

Da der von den baltischen Ländern entlang der Grenze zu Russland errichtete Zaun praktisch keine militärische Wirksamkeit hat, ist sein Zweck grundsätzlich ideologisch: das greifbare Symbol, dass es jenseits des Zauns einen gefährlichen Feind gibt, der uns bedroht. Dies ist Teil der politischen und medialen PSYOPS [psychologische Operationen, Anm. d. Übers.], um die Eskalation von USA und NATO in Europa gegen Russland zu rechtfertigen.

In diesem Zusammenhang reiste der Präsident der Italienischen Republik, Sergio Mattarella, zweimal nach Lettland, erstmals im Juli auf einer Besuchsreise in die baltischen Länder und Georgien. Beim offiziellen Mittagessen in Riga lobte der Präsident der Italienischen Republik Lettland für die Wahl der “Integration in die NATO und die Europäische Union” und für die Entscheidung, “ein offenes Gesellschaftsmodell anzunehmen, das auf der Achtung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit, der Demokratie und der Zentralität der Menschenrechte beruht”.

Dies wurde dem lettischen Präsidenten Raymond Vejonis verkündet, der bereits im April den Gesetzentwurf zum Verbot des Russischunterrichts in Lettland gebilligt hatte, einem Land, dessen Bevölkerung aus fast 30% russischer Ethnie besteht und in dem 40% der Einwohner Russisch als Hauptsprache verwenden. Eine libertizide [stark bevormundende, Anm. d. Übers.] Maßnahme, die durch das Verbot der von der Europäischen Union selbst anerkannten Zweisprachigkeit die russische Minderheit weiter diskriminiert, der vorgeworfen wird, “die fünfte Säule Moskaus” zu sein.

Zwei Monate später, im September, kehrte Präsident Mattarella nach Lettland zurück, um an einem informellen Gipfel der Staatschefs der Europäischen Union teilzunehmen, bei dem die Frage der Cyberangriffe von “Staaten mit feindseliger Haltung” behandelt wurde (eindeutiger Hinweis auf Russland).

Nach dem Gipfel besuchte der Präsident der Republik den Militärstützpunkt Ᾱdaži, wo er das italienische Kontingent in der von der NATO in Lettland im Rahmen der “verstärkten Vorwärtspräsenz” an der Grenze zu Russland eingesetzten Kampfgruppe traf. “Ihre Anwesenheit hier ist ein Grundbaustein, der unsere lettischen Freunde und andere baltische Länder beruhigt”, sagte der Präsident der Republik. Worte, die im Wesentlichen die PSYOP nähren und die Existenz einer Bedrohung für die baltischen Länder und den Rest Europas durch Russland unterstellen.

Am 24. September wird auch Papst Franziskus Lettland besuchen, auf einer Reise durch die drei baltischen Länder. Wer weiß, ob er, indem er wiederholt, dass wir “Brücken bauen müssen anstatt  Mauern”, auch etwas über den neuen Eisernen Vorhang sagen wird, der durch die Spaltung der europäischen Region das Denken auf Krieg vorbereitet. Oder ob er in Riga, wenn er Blumen am  “Denkmal für die Freiheit” niederlegt, die Freiheit junger Letten einfordern wird, ihre eigene Sprache zu lernen und zu benutzen.

Manlio Dinucci

(il manifesto, 18. September 2018)

VIDEO :

Übersetzung: K.R.

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 hemp makes a comeback in the U.S. after a decades-long ban on its cultivation, scientists are reporting that fibers from the plant can pack as much energy and power as graphene, long-touted as the model material for supercapacitors. …

Although hemp (cannabis sativa) and marijuana (cannabis sativa var. indica) come from a similar species of plant, they are very different and confusion has been caused by deliberate misinformation.”

Marco Torres, Global Research, August 19, 2014

.

Abby Martin takes a look at the real reason why hemp is illegal in the US, the truth might surprise you. 

The above video was originally published in March 2013.

I primi sono giàstati tagliati, gli altri marchiati con la vernice: sono 937 gli alberi che vengono abbattuti nell’area naturale «protetta»del Parco Regionale di San Rossore tra Pisa e Livorno. Èil primo «danno collaterale»della  massiccia riorganizzazione, iniziata in questi giorni, delle infrastrutture di Camp Darby, il piùgrande arsenale Usa nel mondo fuori dalla madrepatria (v. il manifesto, 11 settembre). Anche se il comando Usa promette di ripiantare piùalberi di quelli tagliati, la costruzione di una ferrovia e altre infrastrutture, frammentando gli habitat naturali, sconvolgeràun vasto ecosistema.

Il progetto prevede la costruzione di un nuovo tronco ferroviario che collegheràla stazione di Tombolo (sulla linea Pisa-Livorno) a un nuovo terminal di carico e scarico, attraversando il Canale dei Navicelli su un nuovo ponte metallico girevole. Il terminal di carico e scarico, alto quasi 20 metri, comprenderàquattro binari lunghi 175 metri capaci di accogliere ciascuno nove vagoni per un totale di 36.

Il terminal saràcollegato all’area di stoccaggio delle munizioni (Ammunition Storage Area) con grandi autocarri. Per mezzo di carrelli movimentatori di container, le armi in arrivo verranno trasferite dai carri ferroviari agli autocarri e quelle in partenza dagli autocarri ai carri ferroviari. Il terminal permetteràil transito di due convogli ferroviari al giorno, che collegheranno la base al porto attraverso le normali linee delle Ferrovie dello Stato.

 Il piano di riorganizzazione delle infrastrutture, appena iniziato, èdovuto al fatto che, in seguito all’accresciuto transito di armi da Camp Darby, non basta piùil collegamento via canale e via strada della base col porto di Livorno e l’aeroporto di Pisa. Nei 125 bunker di Camp Darby, continuamente riforniti dagli Stati uniti, èstoccato (seondo stime approssimative) oltre un milione di proiettili di artiglieria, bombe per aerei e missili, cui si aggiungono migliaia di carrarmati, veicoli e altri materiali militari. Dal marzo 2017, enormi  navi fanno mensilmente scalo a Livorno, scaricando e caricando armi che vengono trasportate in continuazione nei porti di Aqaba in Giordania, Gedda in Arabia Saudita e altri scali mediorientali per essere usate dalle forze statunitesi e alleate nelle guerre in Siria, Iraq e Yemen.

Per capire quali siano i pericoli per la popolazione toscana non occorre essere tecnici specializzati. Movimentare in continuazione migliaia di testate esplosive di enorme potenza in un territorio densamente abitato comporta evidenti rischi. Anche se i responsabili del progetto lo definiscono strategico per «la salute dell’uomo e la pubblica sicurezza», non si puòescludere un incidente dalle conseguenze catastrofiche. Nési puòescludere un sabotaggio o un attacco terroristico per provocare l’esplosione di un intero convoglio ferroviario carico di bombe. Lo conferma il fatto che nel piano èprevista la realizzazione di un secondo terminal che saràadibito alle operazioni di verifica e ispezione dei «carri sospetti», ossia di quelli su cui potrebbe essere stata installata (ad esempio all’interno di un container) una bomba che, esplodendo a comando, provocherebbe una catastrofica reazione a catena.

Che cosa hanno fatto le istituzioni di fronte a tutto questo? Invece di svolgere le loro funzioni a tutela dei cittadini e del territorio, la Regione Toscana, i Comuni di Pisa e Livorno e l’Ente Parco hanno non solo approvato il potenziamento di Camp Darby, ma hanno contribuito alla sua realizzazione. Le opere civili realizzate negli ultimi anni per progetti di sviluppo economico veri o presunti (ad esempio la cantieristica di lusso) –in particolare i lavori per migliorare la navigabilitàdel Canale dei Navicelli e i collegamenti ferroviari del porto di Livorno –sono esattamente quelli richiesti da anni dal comando di Camp Darby. Il suo massimo rappresentante, il colonnello Berdy, èstato ricevuto negli ultimi mesi con tutti gli onori dal presidente del Consiglio regionale toscano Giani (Pd), che si è impegnato a promuovere «l’integrazione tra la base militare Usa di Camp Darby e la comunitàcircostante», dal sindaco di Livorno Nogarin (M5S) e da quello di Pisa Conti (Lega) che hanno espresso sostanzialmente la stessa posizione. Gli alberi del Parco possono essere tagliati e le bombe di Camp Darby possono circolare sul nostro territorio, grazie al consenso multipartisan. 

Manlio Dinucci

Many progressives call for Canada to “do more” around the world. The assumption is that this country is a force for good, a healer of humankind. But if we claim to be the “doctors without borders” of international relations, shouldn’t Canada swear to “first do no harm” like MDs before beginning practice? At a minimum shouldn’t the Left judge foreign policy decisions through the lens of the Hippocratic oath?

Libya illustrates the point. That North African nation looks set to miss a United Nations deadline to unify the country. An upsurge of militia violence in Tripoli and political wrangling makes it highly unlikely elections  planned for December will take place.

Seven years after the foreign backed war Libya remains divided between two main political factionsand hundreds of militias operate in the country of six million. Thousands have died in fighting since 2011.

The instability is not a surprise to Canadian military and political leaders who orchestrated Canada’s war on that country. Eight days before Canadian fighter jets began dropping bombs on Libya in 2011 military intelligence officers told Ottawa decision makers the country would likely descend into a lengthy civil war if foreign countries assisted rebels opposed to Muammar Gadhafi. An internal assessment obtained by the Ottawa Citizen noted,

“there is the increasing possibility that the situation in Libya will transform into a long-term tribal/civil war… This is particularly probable if opposition forces received military assistance from foreign militaries.”

A year and a half before the war a Canadian intelligence report described eastern Libya as an “epicentre of Islamist extremism” and said “extremist cells” operated in the anti-Gadhafi stronghold. In fact, during the bombing, notes Ottawa Citizenmilitary reporter David Pugliese,Canadian air force members privately joked they were part of “al-Qaida’s  air force”. Lo and behold hardline Jihadists were the major beneficiaries of the war, taking control of significant portions of the country.

A Canadian general oversaw NATO’s 2011 war, seven CF-18s participated in bombing runs and two Royal Canadian Navy vessels patrolled Libya’s coast. Ottawa defied the UN Security Council resolution authorizing a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians by dispatching ground forces, delivering weaponry to the opposition and bombing in service of regime change. Additionally, Montréal-based private security firmGardaWorld aided the rebels in contravention of UN resolutions 1970 and 1973.

The NATO bombing campaign was justified based on exaggerations and outright lies about the Gaddafi regime’s human rights violations. Western media and politicians repeated the rebels’ outlandish (and racist) claims that sub-Saharan African mercenaries fuelled by Viagra given by Gaddafi, engaged in mass rape. Amnesty International’s senior crisis response adviser Donatella Rovera, who was in Libya for three months after the start of the uprising and Liesel Gerntholtz, head of women’s rights at Human Rights Watch, were unable to find any basis for these claims.

But, seduced by the need to “do something”, the NDP, Stephen Lewis, Walter Dorn and others associated with the Left supported the war on Libya. In my new book Left, Right: Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada I question the “do more” mantra and borrow from healthcare to offer a simple foreign policy principle: First Do No Harm. As in the medical industry, responsible practitioners of foreign policy should be mindful that the “treatments” offered often include “side effects” that can cause serious harm or even kill.

Leftists should err on the side of caution when aligning with official/dominant media policy, particularly when NATO’s war drums are beating. Just because the politicians and dominant media say we have to “do something” doesn’t make it so. Libya and the Sahel region of Africa would almost certainly be better off had a “first do no harm” policy won over the interventionists in 2011.

While a “do more” ethos spans the political divide, a “first do no harm” foreign policy is rooted in international law. The concept of self-determination is a core principle of the UN Charter and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Peoples’ inalienable right to shape their own destiny is based on the truism that they are best situated to run their own affairs.

Alongside the right to self-determination, the UN and Organization of American States prohibit interfering in the internal affairs of another state without consent. Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter states that “nothing should authorize intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”

A military intervention without UN approval is the “supreme international crime”. Created by the UN’s International Law Commission after World War II, the Nuremberg Principles describe aggression as the “supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”In other words, by committing an act of aggression against Libya in 2011 — notably bombing in service of regime change — Ottawa is responsible not only for rights violations it caused directly, but also those that flowed from its role in destabilizing that country and large swaths of Africa’s Sahel region.

If Canada is to truly be the “good doctor” of international relations it will be up to Left foreign policy practitioners to ensure that this country lives up to thatpart of the Hippocratic oath stating, “First do no harm”.

*

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

Mike Pompeo’s certification earlier this month that the Saudi coalition was working to reduce harm to civilians in Yemen was an obvious sham. According to a new report in The Wall Street Journal, Pompeo made the decision to lie for the Saudis and Emiratis because he feared it would hurt arms sales:

Mr. Pompeo overruled concerns from most of the State Department specialists involved in the debate who were worried about the rising civilian death toll in Yemen. Those who objected included specialists in the region and in military affairs. He sided with his legislative affairs team after they argued that suspending support could undercut plans to sell more than 120,000 precision-guided missiles to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, according to a classified State Department memo and people familiar with the debate.

Cutting off refueling to the coalition likely would make it extremely difficult to sell more weapons to the Saudis and Emiratis, but that is not a good reason to ignore evidence and expert advice and then lie to Congress. Opponents of the war have been trying to block arms sales to both countries for years, and this just gives them one more reason to keep trying. The U.S. should not be in the business of arming governments that we know will use them to commit war crimes, and that certainly applies to the Saudis and the UAE as long as the war on Yemen continues. The longer that the war drags on, and the more civilians that the coalition kills using U.S.-made weapons, the more politically toxic arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE will become. In the end, Pompeo’s decision to flout the law and lie to Congress will just make opposition to future arms sales that much more intense.

To their credit, most State Department officials were telling Pompeo that he shouldn’t do what he ended up doing:

The experts argued that certification would “provide no incentive for Saudi leadership to take our diplomatic messaging seriously,” and “damage the Department’s credibility with Congress,” according to portions of the memo shared with The Wall Street Journal.

The department’s experts were right on both counts, but they may have underestimated how much damage Pompeo has done with Congress by making such a transparently dishonest certification that flies in the face of all the available evidence. Unfortunately, the department experts still favored continued military assistance for the war anyway:

They urged Mr. Pompeo to instead tell Congress that he couldn’t certify that the Gulf nations were doing enough to minimize civilian casualties, but that the U.S. would continue to provide military support to the coalition because it is in America’s national security interest.

Here the experts couldn’t be more wrong. No U.S. interests are being served by enabling coalition war crimes and the mass starvation of innocent people. Our security is not threatened by the coalition’s enemies in Yemen. The only people in the country that pose any threat to the U.S. are the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) members that the coalition has been buying off and recruiting. The coalition’s war is not making the U.S. any safer, and it is actively harming what few interests we do have in the area.

USAID stands out as the only one involved in the process that had the right answer:

The U.S. Agency for International Development went even further and argued that the U.S. should halt military aid because “USAID does not believe that continued refueling support will improve either country’s approach to civilian casualties or human protections.”

There was never any chance that Pompeo was going to pay attention to this advice. This report just underscores why it is critical for Congress to do what the administration never will. Congress needs to vote for an end U.S. involvement in the war and to block all arms sales in order to pressure the Saudi coalition to stop their military 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.

Featured image is from Mark Taylor/Creative Commons.

As thousands of Detroiters have their water shut off over debt, neighbors are helping each other to access water without alerting Child and Family Services.

It’s north of 90 degrees and humid, and Rev. Roslyn Murray Bouier is sweating bullets at the Brightmoor Connection Food Pantry in Detroit as she directs more than a dozen volunteers unloading 84 cases of water from a U-Haul. It’s for Detroiters without running water.

People stand by, waiting for their turn. A mother with two young children picks up 10 cases. One woman who lives with her five grandchildren has a rash on her arms—perhaps from stress, perhaps from not having running water, perhaps both. The mother and the grandmother are terrified to talk with In These Times. They have reason: According to activists, Child Protective Services (CPS) often removes children from homes that don’t have water (although CPS, maintains that a water shutoff is never the sole reason for removal). Valerie Jean Blakely, an activist who helped organize her neighbors against a mass water shutoff, says that some parents keep their children home from school for fear they’ll let slip to teachers that they have no water and CPS will be called.

Bankrupt, Detroit implemented the shut-off policy in 2014. Since then, according to the nonprofit We the People of Detroit Community Research Collective, more than 100,000 households have had their water turned off. The shutoffs can begin fast, when a bill of just $150 is 30 days past due.

Detroit has both the highest poverty rate of any major U.S. city, at 36 percent, and among the highest water rates. According to a recent University of Michigan study, water bills in the Detroit metro area average $100 a month, about twice what federal affordability standards dictate.

The city offers a payment plan for those with past due bills to get their water back on, but many residents see it as a scam. Bouier says it requires payments as high as $200 a month, which may amount to half the paycheck of those on fixed incomes or who can only work part-time.

The city, meanwhile, has found the money to pay subcontractor Homrich—a wrecking company—$7.8 million to turn off Detroiters’ water over the next three years. Seventeen thousand homes were at risk shutoff this summer.

Lack of water, combined with the hot weather, poses health risks, especially for old people, children, the disabled and those who are pregnant, since dehydration contributes to miscarriage and birth defects. A study by the Icahn School of Medicine found that water-borne diseases, such as Hepatitis A, were more likely to occur on Detroit blocks that had experienced a water shutoff. The Detroit area is experiencing the worst Hepatitis A outbreak in the nation, which began in 2016.

The shutoffs have inspired massive local mobilization: Four emergency water stations like the one in Brightmoor have sprung up around the city. The stations take monetary and bottled water donations and annually distribute 130–150 tons of water. Volunteers even drop off water directly to the homes of those who are unable to pick it up. The drop-offs often happen at night, so nosy neighbors will be less likely to call CPS.

Detroiters are also helping each other informally. Those who have water can run foodgrade hoses to supply neighbors who don’t. Some without water simply do their own plumbing to bypass the water meter. A special tool can be used to (illegally) turn the water valve back on. Those with the tool lend it freely to neighbors.

The Michigan National Lawyers Guild reports that some people with illegal water hook-ups have been prosecuted for “malicious destruction of utility property,” a felony. Monica LewisPatrick, president and CEO of We The People of Detroit, calls for the “decriminalization of people’s access to water.”

Water isn’t meant to be “named and claimed,” she says. “Every living thing has a right to water.”

The water shutoffs are traumatic, says Blakely, but it has also brought people together. “You don’t just think about yourself, you think about everyone,” she says. “It’s awful beautiful. We come together through love and mutual aid, and make sure everyone has what they need.”

*

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

Soldiers from eight military countries, including the US, are to join forces in Ukraine next month for the country’s largest aviation exercise to date.

The Starokostiantyniv airbase, located 240 kilometers from the capital Kiev, will host 950 employees from the US, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and the United Kingdom, the Stars and Stripes reported on Wednesday.

According to the military newspaper, the exercises will train soldiers in sovereignty and air interdiction, air-ground integration, air mobility operations, aeromedical evaluation, cyber defense and other training.

The announcement of the exercises came after the Ukrainian government had spoken out on plans to create a new military base in the Azov Sea.

Kurt Volker, the US special representative for talks in Ukraine, said on Tuesday that “anywhere” where there are gaps in Ukrainian military capabilities, the US “are prepared to sit down and talk to Ukraine about their needs They can buy things through our foreign military sales.”

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but has shown interest in joining the Alliance, which has moved slowly eastward since the end of socialism in Eastern Europe. Ukraine’s interest in NATO has risen since 2014 when the pro-Western right-wing government came to power after then-President Viktor Yanukovich withdrew from the trade deal with the European Union in favor of a Russian alternative deal.

At the end of last month, US national security adviser John Bolton, upon returning from Kiev, told Reuters that Ukraine has advanced in its efforts to join NATO, however, there is much work to be done.

Bolton stressed to reporters that it is dangerous not to solve the crisis in Ukraine, referring to the vote of the Republic of Crimea in 2014 to join Russia and remain independent of Kiev. However, Putin has emphasized that the situation in Crimea is final and not open to negotiation.

*

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

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

The July Offensive and NATO Monitoring 

On the margins of D-Day celebrations in Normandy in June 2014, Poroshenko agreed with Putin to start talks on a ceasefire, for which a Russian emissary arrived in Kiev on the 8th. On 24 June the Russian Federation Council revoked the authority granted to Putin in March to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine. Moscow had already indicated it did not want the Donbass insurgency to lead to secession when it refused to honour a referendum on the issue. It did recognise the results of the Ukrainian presidential election, leading to angry accusations by Strelkov and other commanders of the insurgency. Russia, however, was responding to an apparent EU willingness to give it a breathing space. After Kiev signed the economic Association Agreement with the EU on 27 June, implementation of the DCFTA [Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement] was postponed to 31 December 2015. 

However, when Poroshenko indicated he intended to prolong the ceasefire in the last days of June in spite of his post-election promise to ‘liquidate [the insurgents] in days’, a threatening demonstration in Kiev by the Donbass and Aidar battalions and Kolomoiskiy’s Dnipro 1 demanded the immediate resumption of the civil war. Interior minister Avakov’s Kiev-based paramilitary group 17+ Sotny  was also involved in the demonstrations. Their belligerence was echoed by the war party in the US and NATO. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, lavished praise on the Kiev regime and warned Europe against caving in to ‘Russian aggression’; the EU fell in line on the 27th when it ‘called on Putin to take steps to de-escalate the violence in Ukraine’. The Polish president, Bronislaw Komorowski, even proposed suspending Russia’s UN veto power. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the West did not want the forces of compromise to prevail and gambled instead on a new offensive.

On the 30th of June, following a four-hour NSDC [National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine] meeting with Parubiy, Avakov, and others whose followers were demonstrating outside, Poroshenko declared that the ceasefire would be lifted and a new offensive launched. Valeriy Heletey, the new secretary of defence (his predecessor, Koval, was made deputy secretary of the NSDC) promised an imminent victory parade in Sebastopol. Alarmed by the prospect of a full-scale civil war, the German and French foreign ministers, Steinmeier and Fabius,  convened a last-minute meeting with their Russian and Kiev colleagues, Lavrov and P. Klimkin, in Berlin on 2 July, one day into the renewed hostilities. They reached a deal on a ceasefire, further negotiations, and OSCE control of the Ukrainian border—a provision especially threatening to the insurgency because it would cut off their supply lines. However, the US was again not represented and indignantly condemned the agreement as a ‘craven surrender to Russian aggression’. The State Department claimed that ‘Russia continues to provide [the insurgents] with heavy weapons, other military equipment and financing and continues to allow militants to enter Ukraine freely’. 

On 4 July, the ‘Breeze 2014’ NATO naval manoeuvres in the Black Sea, announced in May, commenced under the official auspices of Bulgaria. Besides the US, naval units from Britain, Romania and Turkey, Greece and Italy took part. Electronic warfare was a key component of the manoeuvres. Significantly, the French and Germans did not participate, although there were two French ships in the area, the frigate Surcouf and the signals intelligence ship, Dupuy de Lôme. In response to the NATO show of force, twenty ships of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet also began manoeuvres, including missile launches at practice targets. The alarm about an impending Russian invasion was sounded throughout, echoed by NATO command. Obviously the aim was to call for a major Western response should an event come about that signalled Russian and/or insurgent escalation, or might be construed as such. 

The new offensive went well for Kiev. Slavyansk, the gas hub where the revolt had started, was taken by its forces on 5 July. On the 7th, Artemivsk and Druzhkivka fell. On the 10th, Siversk, a village just east of Slavyansk and 100 kilometres northeast of Donetsk, was taken, suggesting a possible encirclement of the city. The next day, Poroshenko warned that the insurgents in Donetsk were in for ‘a nasty surprise’. Was this bluff or a provocation? With the NATO summit in Wales coming up in September, the trope of a ‘Russian invasion’ had become vital to the survival of the alliance after the Afghanistan debacle. Hence, the war party’s strategy, according to Mike Whitney, was to ‘lure Putin across the border and into the conflict, or the neocon plan [would fall] apart, which it will if they can’t demonise Putin as a “dangerous aggressor” who can’t be trusted as a business partner’. 

Above I already referred to the privatisation of US intelligence. Satellite surveillance is largely privatised to the DigitalGlobe corporation which had become the monopoly supplier after acquiring its one competitor, GeoEye, in 2013. It serves a range of customers including the Pentagon’s National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). Its high resolution surveillance over eastern Ukraine suggested a push through the Debaltsevo corridor in order to cut off Donetsk from Lugansk, and a southward flanking operation to allow an attack on the city of Donetsk from the rear. The maps of the areas covered were later made public by a Russian geography website, Neogeography.ru, as part of an analysis of the downing of Flight MH17. On 11 July, DigitalGlobe monitored sectors west of Donetsk and north of Druzhkivka, above the Druzhkivka-Artemivsk line captured by Kiev three days earlier. On the 12th, a wider area was surveyed, partly extending into Lugansk oblast. Apparently, a sector offering strategic depth and secure flanks was being mapped for a push towards Debaltsevo, which had already been the target of heavy fighting in May. Yet Moscow seemed unwilling to commit to the struggle directly, in spite of serious reverses for the insurgency. To cite Mike Whitney again (writing on 9 July): the United States ‘has a very small window to draw Putin into the fray, which is why we should expect another false flag incident…  Washington is going to have to do something really big and make it look like it was Moscow’s doing.’

This was published eight days before the MH17 disaster. Yet Breeze 2014, the ten-day NATO naval exercise begun on the 4th, ended without major incident. On the 14th, the US Navy’s AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf, a type of ship equipped with AN/SPY 1 radar that can track long-distance targets, left the Black Sea in compliance with the Montreux Convention, which limits to 21 days the naval presence of countries not bordering it. After the departure of Vella Gulf, other NATO ships remained in the Black Sea and were there on the day of the downing of MH17; notably, the Italian flagship frigate ITS Aviere and a number of electronic surveillance ships and minesweepers of other NATO states (but apparently none belonging to the US Navy). 

The Breeze 2014 exercise in addition included ‘the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)’ and these elements were also part of exercises throughout the previous month. On the 5th of June, a dangerous loss of transponder signals (by which a civilian plane returns a radar signal to identify itself) from more than fifty passenger planes over south Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, and Poland, turned out to have been caused by an undeclared NATO exercise in Hungary, Newfip. When the same phenomenon occurred again later that month, causing delays and flight cancellations, the German government had to inquire with NATO Air Command in Ramstein whether electronic warfare exercises from 9 to 20 June in Italy had been responsible.

*

Prof. Kees van der Pijl is fellow of the Centre for Global Political Economy and Emeritus Professor in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex.

Title: Flight MH17, Ukraine and the New Cold War (Prism of disaster)

Author: Kees van der Pijl

ISBN: 978-1-5261-3109-6

Publisher: Manchester University Press

Pages: 208

Price: £18.99

Click here to order.

Iran president Hassan Rouhani has vowed a “crushing response” after four gunmen attacked a military parade in the city of Ahwaz, killing at least 25 people, including soldiers and civilians.

The fighters opened fire on a large crowd of spectators watching the parade in the southwestern city and then attempted to attack the viewing stand for official dignitaries before being shot and wounded by security forces, the semi-official Fars news agency said.

The official state news agency IRNA said 53 people had also been wounded in Saturday’s attack and that many were in a critical condition.

“There are a number of non-military victims, including women and children who had come to watch the parade,” the agency quoted an unnamed official source as saying.

“The response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the smallest threat will be crushing,” Rouhani said in a statement on his official website.

“Those who give intelligence and propaganda support to these terrorists must answer for it.”

A video distributed to Iranian media showed soldiers at the parade, an annual event marking the start of the country’s 1980-88 war with Iraq, crawling on the ground as gunfire blazed in their direction.

“Three of the terrorists were killed on the spot and a fourth one who was injured died in hospital,” Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi, a senior spokesman for Iran’s armed forces, told state television.

At least eight members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard are among those killed, reports say. ISNA quoted Khuzestan province’s deputy governor Ali-Hossein Hosseinzadeh as saying:

“One of the martyrs is a journalist.”

Fars said the attack started at 9am local time (05:30 GMT), with witnesses saying it lasted about 10 minutes.

“Shooting began by several gunmen from behind the stand during the parade. There are several killed and injured,” a correspondent told state television.

The semi-official news agency Mehr said further shooting broke out as some of the attackers who managed to escape were being chased.

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed condolences to Iran’s president following the attack, saying Moscow was ready to boost joint efforts in the fight against terrorism, Russia’s RIA news quoted the Kremlin as saying.

Different groups claim attack

Both the Islamic State (IS) and an anti-government Arab group have claimed responsibility for the attack.

A spokesperson for the Ahwaz National Resistance told the Reuters news agency it had undertaken the assault.

Yaghub Hur Totsari, a spokesman for one of the two groups that identify themselves as the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz, said the Ahwaz National Resistance, an umbrella organization of armed movements, was behind the attack but did not specify which group.

Totsari identified one of the assailants by the initials AM, without elaborating.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the Ahwaz National Resistance was “likely” behind the attack.

Iran's ambassador to the UK @baeidinejad condemns the London-based exiled television Iran International – run by a company owned by a Saudi national – for airing an interview with spokesperson of a separatist group behind today's terrorist attack in Iran: https://t.co/7W1Dg8JB9v

— Saeed Kamali Dehghan (@SaeedKD) September 22, 2018

Later on Saturday, IS claimed responsibility for the attack, according to the group’s Amaq news agency. The group provided no evidence for the claim, Reuters reported.

Writing on Twitter, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif blamed “a foreign regime” backed by the United States for the attack.

“Terrorists recruited, trained, armed & paid by a foreign regime have attacked Ahvaz,” Zarif said in a tweet, adding: “Iran holds regional terror sponsors and their US masters accountable for such attacks.

“Iran will respond swiftly and decisively in defence of Iranian lives,” Zarif vowed, adding “children and journos” were “among casualties”.

An Iranian military spokesman said the gunmen were trained by two Gulf Arab states and had ties to the US and Israel.

“These terrorists … were trained and organised by two … Gulf countries,” Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi told the official news agency IRNA.

“They are not from Daesh [Islamic State] or other groups fighting [Iran’s] Islamic system … but they are linked to America and [Israel’s intelligence agency] Mossad.”

Yahya Rahim Safavi, a senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards official, has vowed retaliation for the attack.

“Enemies should not imagine that they can gain dignity with this sinister move. The Iranian people and the armed forces will respond to this,” he was quoted by IRNA as saying.Iran was holding similar parades in several cities including the capital Tehran and the port of Bandar Abbas on the Gulf.

State television blamed “takfiri elements,” a reference to Sunni fighters, for the attack.

Ahwaz is in the centre of Khuzestan province, where there have been sporadic protests by the Arab minority in mainly Shia Iran.

ISNA said an unnamed spokesman for the elite Revolutionary Guards security force blamed Arab nationalists backed by Saudi Arabia for the attack.

Tensions between traditional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia have surged in recent years, with the two countries supporting opposite sides in wars in Syria and Yemen and rival political parties in Iraq and Lebanon.

Attacks on the military are rare in Iran.

Last year, in the first deadly attack claimed by Islamic State in Tehran, 18 people were killed at the parliament and mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder and first leader of the Islamic Republic.

*

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 Agencia EFE.

In part I of this article we spoke with Mr. Nidal Rahawi about life under Kurdish rule and some of the most recent tragic events that have taken place. In part II we will expand on the topic of education and the imposed Kurdish curriculum in north eastern Syria.

In an article I mentioned in Part I, Romancing Rojava: Rhetoric vs. Reality the educational program being enforced by the Kurdish self-administration in the north eastern region of Syria is explained in great detail and is a must read.

“The educational program of the Kurdish self-administration has played a role in garnering moral and political support, their policies assumed to be inherently and implicitly progressive. But there has been massive resistance to them among Assyrians across Hasakah. Until the assertion of self-administrative authority, the Syrian central government provided the curriculum for both governmental schools and private schools, such as those belonging to Churches in Hasakah. Teaching was in Arabic, with classical Syriac or spoken Assyrian permitted for use up to two hours a week in classes run by churches. Assyrian and Syriac were depicted by the state not as ethno-national languages belonging to a people but as the province of church education.

In 2015, the Kurdish self-administration released a new curriculum fully steeped in their own ideology. They sought to separate each ethnic group under their control (namely Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, and Assyrians) so that each community would learn the new curriculum in their own mother tongue. The subject of Arabic nationalism—previously a source of the retroactive absorption of Assyrian and non-Arab history into an Arab racial narrative—was cancelled, only to be supplanted by another geographically and historically expansive narrative of Kurdish ethno-centrism. An Assyrian source living in Qamishli told us: “We’ve merely been granted the right to learn about Kurdish history, from a Kurdish nationalist perspective, but in our own language.” This demonstrates the irony that Kurds, once subject to chauvinistic Arab nationalist educational curricula, are now acting as the enforcers of a similarly chauvinistic model over Assyrians and others. There is no dispute that all groups in Syria should have the right to be taught in schools in their own language, but this should not come saddled with the imposition of specific political and racial narratives.”

Closure Notice sent to schools by Kurdish self-administration

Below is the English translation of the above letter that was sent by the Kurdish self-administration to the Armenian Private schools. An almost identical letter was sent to other private Christian schools in the area as well, such as the Syriac Orthodox school.

To the Private Armenian School
Based on the two letters that came to us from the Joint Presidency of the Education Commission, Al-Jazira Region, No. 290 dated 7/7/2018, and the letter No. 297 dated 9/7/2018 with attached copy and includes :

1 – Lack of progress by the school for licensing within the legal period
2 – Violating the provisions of the law by teaching curricula that are not approved by the Commission and the fact that they have recently agreed to accept students from the first grade up to the third grade preparatory, therefore the letter is directed to close the school within a maximum period of 24 hours under the responsibility of legal accountability appropriately.

Dirk Investigation and Prosecution Commission
Dirk
7/8/2018

This news report gives a well summarized overview of what took place during the demonstration on August 28th due to the latest school closures.

Here are two videos that were sent exclusively to me by one of the protesters that took part in the demonstration on August 28th, to re-open the schools that were closed by the Kurdish militias.

Video Credit: Qamishli Demonstration Participant on August 28th, 2018

Qamishli Demonstration Participant on August 28th, 2018

As was mentioned in the Romancing Rojava Rhetoric vs. Reality article, “For the PYD, enforcing a new curriculum is part of a long-term process of entrenching themselves over a dominant demographic: this process is subject to contingencies and externalities, such as negotiations over their international legitimacy and how much they are recognized and supported internally by the Syrian state. But it is tasked with a clear political goal and backed by the YPG. For Assyrians, this is a process they are forced to partake in with no clear long-term benefit.”

In an article published by the Assyrian International News Agency AINA the split in opionion between the Kurds and non-Kurds in the area is highlighted, the article states “In the Church of the Virgin Mary in Qamishli, Father Saliba Abdallah says he is sceptical about the Kurdish education system. “Who recognises this curriculum internationally? Is there a state that actually recognises the reality of this region?” asks Abdallah. While Syria’s state diplomas are accredited and recognised elsewhere, Kurdish degrees likely wouldn’t be. “The legitimacy of our schools comes from the legitimacy of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic,” Abdallah says.”

In speaking with the locals it appears that the patience they have exhibited for the past three years has been exhausted and if need be they will take matters into their own hands. Whether it be demonstrations or other means they are worried that if they do not stand up to the changes being made by the Kurdish self administrations under compulsion that future generations will pay the price.

*

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

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributes to various radio shows, news publications, and forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected]. Her articles can also be seen at The Rabbit Hole. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image is from the Mr. Rahawi via the author.

It looks like we’re headed for a brave new world where all citizens are rated on their loyalty to the state and are punished for wandering from its narrative. 

Call it the gamification of repression.

In China, the supposedly communist state—in fact, it is an advanced form of crony capitalist authoritarianism that Marx [and Mao] would have disapproved—is busy setting up a rating system for all citizens. According to a paper written by an academic at the Lebanese American University in Beirut, Lebanon, scores are based on professional conduct, corruption, type of products bought, peers’ own scores, and tax evasion.

The author left something out, however. This social credit system will also be used to marginalize and stigmatize those who criticize the state.

China’s nominally communist government says the system and its massive database will allow the trustworthy to roam freely under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.

In addition to scrutinizing online activity and acting on tips by snitches, the system will tap into China’s sprawling network of surveillance cameras, said to number around 200 million across the country. Facial recognition will ID individuals and follow their every move in search of behavior worthy of a low score. Those gaining a high score will be allowed access to credit facilities, cheaper public transport, and even shorter wait times for hospital services. They will also be banned from travel and decent employment.

Although the system isn’t slated to be fully rolled out until 2020, pilot projects are already being used to ensnare enemies of the state. For instance, the journalist Liu Hu received a negative score and was blacklisted for criticizing China’s political corruption. He is under house arrest, his social media accounts were shut down, and he is unable to travel. This is reminiscent of travel restrictions placed on dissidents in the Soviet Union.

If you think you’re free of this kind of tyranny because you live in America, think again.

Everybody knows the NSA and its contractors are collecting our most private and intimate information. Travel bans are enforced through no-fly lists and these are imposed on political activists as well as the innocent caught up in the surveillance system. You can lose your position at a university for thought considered unacceptable to a politically correct orthodoxy. The state intervenes when a business concern refuses to sell products to people the seller finds objectionable. In numerous ways, the state hinders, bans, and criminalizes behavior in parasitic fashion, the end result being overcrowded industrial prisons and a bounty in revenue generation through fines, assessments, penalties, and taxes.

Our social media accounts are scoured by the NSA, FBI, and the CIA for any sign of political misdeed. The state is able to monitor our behavior online in real-time. It has turned our cellphones into tracking devices. The tech giants often collaborate with the state and hand over our data without a constitutionally mandated search warrant. The data on our phones is surrendered at the border.

The latest signpost of ever encroaching corporatist-government fascism can be seen in the social media purge, which through evolution will ultimately remove all content from the internet deemed “extremist” by the state—and for the state that is everybody right or left who moves beyond permissible parameters set by the state.

Meanwhile, a huge internal security apparatus little different than what was used in the former Soviet Union is growing in size, arming itself to the teeth against the citizenry. It has deputized local law enforcement and showered it with all kinds of weapons, turning local police into armies controlled by the federal government.

Meanwhile, we are aghast at the behavior of China—or some of us are—and this is exploited to ramp up hostility toward China while buttressing Trump’s trade war. The ruling elite exploit the fear of China and Russia as part of an effort to check China’s move into a resource rich Africa and threaten Russia on its borders.

Most important is the project to derail China’s Belt and Road Initiative, aka the 21st-century Silk Road which poses a threat to neoliberal control of markets and the global economy. We are witnessing this being tested in the South China Sea and the China-Indochina Corridor as the US engages in provocative behavior against the Chinese navy.

Most believe we live in a democracy when in fact we live under a soft corporate-banker fascist police and surveillance state. I say “soft” because in the United States the government has mastered the art of control through media, not simply the corporate media, but also woven through the products of an entertainment industry that collaborates with the Pentagon and the CIA.

The state has done this for a very long time in America—from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the FBI’s COINTELPRO and beyond. Technology has given the state the ability to covertly destroy its political enemies, whereas previously it took a lot of footwork.

Admittedly, this isn’t in-your-face like China’s social credit system, but the end result approaches what China is after—total control of the population and the removal of all serious political opponents challenging the state’s hegemonic rule.

*

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.

“9/11 ushered in a generation of war and destruction. And yet, despite its importance, much of the event remains poorly understood. 9/11 Unmasked provides an authoritative and carefully argued exposition of key problems with the official narrative. Nearly 20 years on, it is high time mainstream journalists and academics addressed these issues.”  – Professor Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism, University of Sheffield

“Contemplate the truth of the gigantic criminal hoax that has betrayed the USA and the world.” – James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“The Consensus 9/11 Panel, on which I’ve served, harnesses to devastating effect the power of citizens to critically investigate the official narrative of 9/11.” – Dr. Graeme MacQueen, author of The 2001 Anthrax Deception

“The truth is out there hiding in “plane” sight: in videos, government reports, FOIA documents, and in the physical evidence. This book highlights many issues that the American people should know more about. We owe a debt of gratitude to these fine people for 17 years worth of continuing to seek the difficult truth about 9/11.” – Lorie Van Auken, widow of Kenneth Van Auken, who was killed at WTC 1 on 9/11, and member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission

***

David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth

9/11 Unmasked
An International Review Panel Investigation

Table of Contents

Introduction

I. The Destruction of the Twin Towers

II. The Destruction of WTC 7

III. The Attack on the Pentagon

IV. The 9/11 Flights

V. US Military Exercises On and Before 9/11

VI. The Military and Political Leaders

VII. Osama bin Laden and the Hijackers

VIII. The Phone Calls from the 9/11 Flights

IX. The Question of Insider Trading

Conclusion

Title: 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation

Author: David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth

ISBN: 9781623719746

Publisher: Interlink Books

Click here to order.

.

.

.

None of us would be cheering on a war that could easily be the absolutely final one if President Putin had not defused the situation while clearly signalling that he holds Israel accountable for downing the Russian IL-20 reconnaissance aircraft even though it was shot down by a Syrian missile. If he did not why would he have signed off on the Russian MOD’s statement which squarely placed the blame on Israel.  

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” the Minister Shoigu said. “The actions of the military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Furthermore, in declaring that he will upgrade the safety of Russian military personnel in Syria and the security of the Russian military facilities, Putin says, “These will be the steps everyone will notice.” Are these just innocuous words meant to placate or is there more to them? Will these measures be so different or unexpected that it cannot be missed. Some three days after the incident it is reported that Russian boots on the ground are all over Syria making attacks on Syrian an Iranian positions difficult because the risk of hitting Russian soldiers are increased manifold.

Opinions vary, from Israel being able to do the most diabolical things with impunity, to others arguing that Russia’s Antlanticist fifth column is too strong for Putin to ignore, while still others say there will no doubt be some form of retribution. Retribution there will be once the initial Russian MOD position is verified. If nothing else Russia must save face. 

And how can it not be verified when the undeniable fact, difficult to even justify, is the 1 minute warning given to the Russians by the Israelis of the attack on Syria’s Latakia province. That miserable minute left no possibility for the IL-20 to take evasive action. Furthermore, the Russians are saying that the IL-20’s position cannot but show up on Israeli radar. 

Israel refuses to take the blame. One pro-Israel comment piece even put forward the preposterous suggestion that Syria may have purposely targeted the IL-20 so that Israel will be blamed. And what will Damascus do if Moscow, seeing through this deception, simply up stakes and went home? It is absurd to suggest that Syria, so close to victory, will resort to such stupidity. To what purpose?

That Putin merely stated the obvious, that Israel did not shoot the IL-20, is intended to resist what is a dangerous provocation. Having reserved the right to respond, more pertinent therefore, are the measures he will put in place to safeguard both Russian lives and bases in Syria. For instance, where once he was careful to take into consideration Israeli fears of being attacked by Syria now that will no longer be a priority. The S-300, or even the S-400, may yet find its way into Syria’s air defence system with even the possibility of Russian soldiers manning them to ensure that another friendly fire will not recur, what more enemy fire.

For, the rationale of Russian presence in Syria is war on terrorism unlike that of others who seek, at least, regime change if not a perpetual war. After all, the timing of the Israeli attacks on Latakia, reportedly timed to synchronise with that of a French frigate’s attack, was suspicious. And, the 1 minute grace period was surely intended to place the IL-20 where it was, to cover the Israeli F-16s firing on Latakia. That scenario coming so soon after the postponed Idlib assault by the Syrian Arab Army backed by Russian air cover hints at instigating a conflagration that will keep the war going regardless of whether it might lead ultimately to WW3.

While Moscow is intent on decimating the terrorists that, if not put down completely might come home to haunt them, it has no wish to commit a massacre of the civilian population of Idlib, the last remaining stronghold of the Jihadists in Syria. Hence the deal with Turkey acquiesced to by Damascus. The demilitarised zone agreed to will, if Turkey keeps its end of the bargain, disarm the Jihadists and the hardcore ones ultimately “disappeared”.

While Putin’s priority in Syria is the terrorist menace, he faces a much darker enemy because these terrorist are proxy armies trained and financed by the US and its allies. If initially it was a simple matter of eliminating rogue Islamists it has now become obvious that they are part and parcel of a bigger conspiracy by the US and its allies, who chose to weaponise Islam by birthing on an unsuspecting world Islamophobia aimed at manufacturing consent for Washington’s policy of perpetual war.

Israel is an irritant, albeit a major one, but Syria’s war cannot end for as long as the the US and its allies refuse to allow peace to return. While Tel Aviv is instrumental in keeping the fires of war burning with its persistent attacks on Syria on the make believe fear of Iranian ambitions, the greater challenge is to eliminate a proxy army which its sponsors keep regenerating. 

The Israel problem can be overcome. Despite all the talk that Tel Aviv is protected by both Moscow and Washington, Golan Heights is no longer a walkover. Russia is peace-keeper and given that Syria is a staunch ally and a victory over the terrorists — some sponsored by Israel — was hard fought for costing the lives of 15 Russian airmen crew of the IL-20, territorial violations is no longer a given. Coupled this with the unbeatable S-400 air defence system, say, Israel’s wings are forever clipped.

Can this cause the unravelling of the Zionist bully? Can it then be forced to the negotiating table with the Palestinians and a fair and just solution be achieved for a free Palestine? Could this be that which Putin promised will not go unnoticed? 

*

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

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of the International Movement for a JUST World.