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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author.

Selected Articles: The World Is Sinking. Dictatorship by Democracy

October 1st, 2018 by Global Research News

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

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

By James Reinl, October 01, 2018

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

Rod Rosenstein

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 30, 2018

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

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

By Vince Montes, September 30, 2018

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

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

By Peter Phillips, September 30, 2018

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

Security, Safety, Security! Dictatorship by Democracy

By Peter Koenig, September 30, 2018

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

Bombing Libya: The Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis

By William Blum, September 30, 2018

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

*

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

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

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

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

“Hi-diddle-dee-dee

An actor’s life for me..

Hi-diddle-dee-dum

An actor’s life is fun”

 Walt Disney, “Pinocchio”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cold War and the Invasion of Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and the Bandung Conference (1955)

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

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

African-Americans, the Cold War and McCarthyism

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

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

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

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

 Abayomi Azikiwe with DuBois poster in background 2009

Abayomi Azikiwe with DuBois poster in background 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China-Africa Cooperation poster from 1972

China-Africa Cooperation poster from 1972

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

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

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

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

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

China and the African Revolution

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

China-African American Liberation poster

China-African American Liberation poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China, Africa and the World Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US goals

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

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

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

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

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

EU works against US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behind-the-scenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

September 30th, 2018 by Vince Montes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War and Mass Murder

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

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

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

Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: FBI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both the UK and the US Now Overtly Honor Al Qaeda

September 30th, 2018 by Eric Zuesse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

*

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

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

Featured image is from Twitter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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


Giants: The Global Power Elite

Author: Peter Phillips

Publisher: Seven Stories Press (August 21, 2018)

ISBN-10: 1609808711

ISBN-13: 978-1609808716

Click here to order.

.

.

Security, Safety, Security! Dictatorship by Democracy

September 30th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all that under the name of democracy. 

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al Qaim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Madam President,

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President,

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

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

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

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

Madam President,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Frustrated and angry, unable to fight a conventional war, the Palestinians resort to what we call terrorism.

23. The world does not care even when Israel breaks international laws, seizing ships carrying medicine, food and building materials in international waters. The Palestinians fired ineffective rockets which hurt no one. Massive retaliations were mounted by Israel, rocketing and bombing hospitals, schools and other buildings, killing innocent civilians including school children and hospital patients. And more.

24. The world rewards Israel, deliberately provoking Palestine by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

25. It is the anger and frustration of the Palestinians and their sympathisers that cause them to resort to what we call terrorism. But it is important to acknowledge that any act which terrify people also constitute terrorism. And states dropping bombs or launching rockets which maim and kill innocent people also terrify people. These are also acts of terrorism.

26. Malaysia hates terrorism. We will fight them. But we believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to remove the cause. Let the Palestinians return to reclaim their land. Let there be a state of Palestine. Let there be justice and the rule of law. Warring against them will not stop terrorism. Nor will out-terrorising them succeed.

27. We need to remind ourselves that the United Nations Organisation, like the League of Nations before, was conceived for the noble purpose of ending wars between nations.

28. Wars are about killing people. Modern wars are about mass killings and total destruction countrywide. Civilised nations claim they abhor killing for any reason. When a man kills, he commits the crime of murder. And the punishment for murder may be death.

29. But wars, we all know encourage and legitimise killing. Indeed the killings are regarded as noble, and the killers are hailed as heroes. They get medals stuck to their chest and statues erected in their honour, have their names mentioned in history books.

30. There is something wrong with our way of thinking, with our value system. Kill one man, it is murder, kill a million and you become a hero. And so we still believe that conflict between nations can be resolved with war.

31. And because we still do, we must prepare for war. The old adage says “to have peace, prepare for war”. And we are forever preparing for war, inventing more and more destructive weapons. We now have nuclear bombs, capable of destroying whole cities. But now we know that the radiation emanating from the explosion will affect even the country using the bomb. A nuclear war would destroy the world.

32. This fear has caused the countries of Europe and North America to maintain peace for over 70 years. But that is not for other countries. Wars in these other countries can help live test the new weapons being invented.

33. And so they sell them to warring countries. We see their arms in wars fought between smaller countries. These are not world wars but they are no less destructive. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, whole countries devastated and nations bankrupted because of these fantastic new weapons.

34. But these wars give handsome dividends to the arms manufacturers and traders. The arms business is now the biggest business in the world. They profit shamelessly from the deaths and destructions they cause. Indeed, so-called peace-loving countries often promote this shameful business.

35. Today’s weapons cost millions. Fighter jets cost about 100 million dollars. And maintaining them cost tens of millions. But the poor countries are persuaded to buy them even if they cannot afford. They are told their neighbours or their enemies have them. It is imperative that they too have them.

36. So, while their people starve and suffer from all kinds of deprivations, a huge percentage of their budget is allocated to the purchase of arms. That their buyers may never have to use them bothers the purveyors not at all.

Madam President,

37. In Myanmar, Muslims in Rakhine state are being murdered, their homes torched and a million refugees had been forced to flee, to drown in the high seas, to live in makeshift huts, without water or food, without the most primitive sanitation. Yet the authorities of Myanmar including a Nobel Peace Laureate deny that this is happening. I believe in non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. But does the world watch massacres being carried out and do nothing? Nations are independent. But does this mean they have a right to massacre their own people, because they are independent?

Madam President,

38. On the other hand, in terms of trade, nations are no longer independent. Free trade means no protection by small countries of their infant industries. They must abandon tariff restrictions and open their countries to invasion by products of the rich and the powerful. Yet the simple products of the poor are subjected to clever barriers so that they cannot penetrate the market of the rich. Malaysian palm oil is labelled as dangerous to health and the estates are destroying the habitat of animals. Food products of the rich declare that they are palm oil free. Now palm diesel are condemned because they are decimating virgin jungles. These caring people forget that their boycott is depriving hundreds of thousands of people from jobs and a decent life.

39. We in Malaysia care for the environment. Some 48% of our country remains virgin jungle. Can our detractors claim the same for their own countries?

Madam President,

40. Malaysia is committed to sustainable development. We have taken steps, for example in improving production methods to ensure that our palm oil production is sustainable. By December 2019, the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standard will become mandatory. This will ensure that every drop of palm oil produced in Malaysia will be certified sustainable by 2020.

Madam President,

41. All around the world, we observe a dangerous trend to inward-looking nationalism, of governments pandering to populism, retreating from international collaborations and shutting their borders to free movements of people, goods and services even as they talk of a borderless world, of free trade. While globalisation has indeed brought us some benefits, the impacts have proven to be threatening to the independence of small nations. We cannot even talk or move around without having our voices and movement recorded and often used against us. Data on everyone is captured and traded by powerful nations and their corporations.

42. Malaysia lauds the UN in its endeavours to end poverty, protect our planet and try to ensure everyone enjoys peace and prosperity. But I would like to refer to the need for reform in the organisation. Five countries on the basis of their victories 70 over years ago cannot claim to have a right to hold the world to ransom forever. They cannot take the moral high ground, preaching democracy and regime change in the countries of the world when they deny democracy in this organisation.

43. I had suggested that the veto should not be by just one permanent member but by at least two powers backed by three non-permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly should then back the decision with a simple majority. I will not say more.

44. I must admit that the world without the UN would be disastrous. We need the UN, we need to sustain it with sufficient funds. No one should threaten it with financial deprivation.

Madam President

45. After 15 years and at 93, I return to this podium with the heavy task of bringing the voice and hope of the new Malaysia to the world stage. The people of Malaysia, proud of their recent democratic achievement, have high hopes that around the world – we will see peace, progress and prosperity. In this we look toward the UN to hear our pleas.

I thank you, Madam President.

(Source: New Straits Times)

*

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

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s certification that the Saudi-led military coalition in the Yemen war was taking adequate steps to avoid inflicting civilian casualties may have achieved a new low in U.S. foreign-policy ethics. There is abundant evidence of multiple atrocities that Riyadh and its United Arab Emirates (UAE) junior partner have committed and continue to commit. The coalition’s war strategy has created a famine as well as a cholera epidemic . Attacks on civilian targets are far too numerous to list. An especially appalling incident occurred in August when coalition aircraft attacked a school bus , killing forty children.

Pompeo’s certification was necessary to meet the requirements of a congressional statute. Otherwise, the U.S. military would have had to curtail its refueling of coalition aircraft involved in Yemen military operations. As part of its obsession with countering Iranian influence in the Middle East, Washington has backed the Saudis in their campaign to destroy Yemen’s nominally pro-Iranian Houthi faction. The latest certification preserves the pretense that Saudi and UAE forces are not committing war crimes and that the United States is not a willing accomplice in those war crimes.

The certification requirement for U.S. aid, especially military assistance, is, and usually has been, a cynical farce to neutralize or (at least dampen) potential public outrage at assisting odious regimes. For decades, U.S. administrations have certified compliance with human-rights standards by aid recipients when those recipients have not come even close to meeting that standard.

Just days before his action regarding Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Pompeo issued a certification allowing the release of $1.2 billion in U.S. military assistance to Egypt, despite human-rights concerns that had held up previous funding. As in the case of Saudi Arabia, the dictatorship of Abdel Fatah el-Sisi in Egypt [supported by Washington] has amassed an atrocious human-rights record . Since taking power in a 2013 military coup, Sisi has executed hundreds of political prisoners and jailed thousands more. Yet except for a brief pause, U.S. military aid, including the sale of F-16 jet fighters and Apache attack helicopters , has continued under both the Obama and Trump administrations.

Brazen executive branch contempt for congressional efforts to restrict U.S. aid to allied regimes guilty of human-rights abuses is not confined to the Middle East. Nor is it a recent phenomenon. In July 2003, for the fifth time in three years, the U.S. State Department certified Colombia’s compliance with statutory human-rights conditions originally contained in Public Law 108-7 (which authorized foreign assistance for fiscal year 2003). As Human Rights Watch reported :

“Between 2002 and 2008, members of the Colombian army committed extrajudicial executions or ‘false positives,’ claiming them as combat deaths. Human-rights defenders documented thousands of such executions, taking advantage of an information law to get listings of cases opened by the Prosecutor General’s Office.”

Such atrocities went on for years while U.S. officials blandly certified that the Colombian government met the human-rights standards that Congress had mandated. In 2012, human-rights organizations submitted a list of six hundred killings with the names of victims, dates, locations and more than fifty culpable military units to the State Department. “Six months later, the Department denied U.S. aid to ten of the identified military units,” but approved continued aid to all of the others.

A similar grotesque mismatch between Washington’s human-rights certifications and the realities on the ground characterized the Reagan administration’s Central America policy during the 1980s. Foreign-aid legislation for El Salvador stipulated, as of 1981, that the administration would need to certify semi-annually that the country was worthy of receiving U.S. military aid, and such certifications were duly issued. But the administration’s requests and supplemental requests for military assistance continued to balloon through 1985 when military aid to El Salvador reached $128.25 million.

An even more appalling case involved U.S. aid to Guatemala. A series of military regimes ruled that country after a successful CIA-orchestrated coup against the elected government in 1954. Military forces waged a counter-insurgency war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives over the next four decades—a campaign of systematic brutality and slaughter that reached its peak during the 1980s. But the Reagan administration routinely certified that the Guatemalan government met basic human-rights standards and U.S. aid could continue to flow. One critic noted:

“Sadly, the legislation has not served its purpose.” Indeed, “grievous human-rights violations, attributable to the army, continue to terrorize the Guatemalan people.”

The lament that the legislation had not served its purpose could be applied to most of the certification requirements over the decades. Pompeo has carried on a long and dishonorable tradition. Congress may have intended that the requirement for certifying compliance with human-rights standards by U.S. aid recipients would pressure those regimes to avoid egregious abuses. If that truly was the intent, and not just empty congressional posturing to placate constituents who take human-rights seriously, then clearly that strategy has failed miserably.

Congress needs to make a crucial decision. It either must overrule administrations that issue bogus certifications and continue aiding regimes that commit horrid human-rights abuses, or it needs to stop pretending that it cares about America being an accomplice to such atrocities. If members of Congress intend to get serious about enforcement, the place to start is Yemen. Congress needs to cut off all military assistance to Saudi Arabia and the UAE immediately. Beyond that issue, the legislative branch must insist that certifications accurately reflect reality. Americans have had more than enough toleration of cynical creative fiction from administrations over the decades.

*

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

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of more than seven hundred articles on international affairs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Farcical “Certifications” Enable the War Crimes of Allies

It is calculated that in addition to the secret arsenal of up to 400 nuclear warheads, according to American Scientists, the Israeli state also reportedly possesses chemical and/or biological WMD, making it a dangerous nuclear hegemon that poses a potential threat not only to the Middle East but also to Europe.  Neither France nor Britain nor Germany can equal Israeli state nuclear weaponisation on both land and sea.

This calculation is based on the fact that the state of Israel is the only WMD state to refuse to be a party to either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) which are international arms control treaties that outlaw the production, stockpiling, and use or transfer of chemical or biological weapons and their precursors.

These conventions are administered by the OPCW international, intergovernmental Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons  based in The Hague, Netherlands to which virtually every U.N. member state is a party, with the exception of Israel.

Furthermore, the state of Israel is the only nuclear weapons state in the world that is undeclared and which is also outside of the inspection of the U.N. and the authority of the Security Council.

It is armed and funded by the joint efforts of the Christian and Jewish Zionist Lobby of the US Congress together with the Trump White House but Israel also receives military equipment and assistance from the UK and some other European states such as Germany.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has unilaterally altered the balance of power in the region by supplying Netanyahu with a fleet of German-built and subsidised, state-of-the-art submarines reported to have been retro-fitted with cruise-missile nuclear weapons.  These undersea war vessels of the Israeli navy are uninspected by the UN or the IAEA and are now assumed to be covertly patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and the Iranian Gulf with their dangerous armaments.

We now have the ludicrous position whereby heavily nuclear-armed Israel is accusing non-nuclear Iran of being armed and dangerous in a transparent effort to destroy the Iranian economy. The U.N. Security Council needs to take urgent action before we are all in danger from a nuclear war provoked by Netanyahu with co-operation from the dysfunctional Trump White House.

At this time of writing, Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA provisions of the EU/UNSC Iran deal and the reason why Netanyahu is peddling such fabricated nonsense before the U.N. is because he sees the opportunity to persuade a gullible incumbent of the White House to submit to Zionist pressure to bankrupt the Iranian oil industry so that Israel can achieve its dangerous objective of becoming the hegemon of the Middle East.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel: The Nuclear Hegemon That Poses a Potential Threat to Europe

The Earth Is the Common Home of All Inhabitants

September 30th, 2018 by Riccardo Petrella

The first vast work of “worldwide” occupation and predation of the Earth and its inhabitants was that begun in the sixteenth century by a number of European states (Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, England and France). After the First World War, new actors – no less conquerors and predators than the former (in particular, the United States, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany) – extended and intensified the work of occupation and exploitation of the planet and the world.

Today, “thanks” also to China, India, Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other “minor” actors (South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Egypt, etc.), we can say that the work of conquest and of predation is truly “global”, planetary. Even the space that unites the Earth with the rest of the solar system and beyond does not escape this work, well foreseen (I hope I’m wrong) by Asimov, Matrix and Stars Wars.

The new wave of land (and water) grabbing – certainly the most striking form of current occupation and predation – is no longer based solely on processes of violent conquest and the force of arms, but is more profound and pernicious because appropriation takes place above all through legal means of high value insofar as “legitimated” – claim those who dominate – by science! I am referring to patents on the living.

For the first time in human history, since 1980 and following a unilateral decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the right of private intellectual property on the living for profit has been declared legitimate. Despite the strong opposition of many citizens, in 1998 the European Union also approved a directive that legalised the private patentability of the living.

In the space of a few years, the world of business and finance has succeeded in obtaining the recognition of several tens of thousands of patents on cells, molecules, bacteria, genes (also human), plant species, animals and microorganisms. The financial holdings of large industrial and commercial multinational agricultural, seed, chemical, pharmaceutical, energy, mining companies have become the effective owners/masters of the living of the Earth.

The Earth has never been a “common home”. Today, it is even less so. Yet the possibilities of building the Earth as a “common home” are greater than before. Why?

The “common home” that can exist

The gap between the two “homes” is only apparently paradoxical. The “common home that does not exist” is a strong reality because the predatory capacities of the dominant social groups are actually enormous, based on political legitimacy, given by elected representatives, and juridical legitimacy, acquired thanks to the rules set by the dominant themselves.

On the other hand, the possibilities of building the “common home that can exist” have become considerable because three new collective consciences have been shaped and strengthened in recent years.

The first lies in the fact that, beyond the differences which are also essential and manifold existing between among human beings and between them and the other inhabitants of the Earth (animal, plant and microbial species), human beings think, perceive and have learned – thanks also to the progress made by cellular and molecular biology and other fields of knowledge – that they are an integral part of the great evolution which, over millennia, has united all the inhabitants of the Earth in a global community of life of the Earth.

The second is the realisation that the life of the Earth must not be safeguarded and cured mainly to guarantee and improve the safety of the existence of the human species but of the whole of the global community of life.

Example: it is right and true to affirm that human beings (like the other living species) have a right to the quantity of good water necessary and sufficient for life. But it is also true and right, for the vast majority of today’s human beings, to affirm that water as such has the right to an existence in a good ecological state appropriate for allowing bodies and water systems to regenerate themselves.

Pollution and contamination of water are acts of violence against life. Human right to safe water, but also the right of water to life. This is the principle which, for the first time in human history, gave the legal basis for recognition in 2017 of five rivers as juridical persons holding rights and duties.

This comes in the context of strong trends over the past two decades in favour of the “rights of nature”, the “rights of animals”, the “rights of plants”, the right of genes to integrity, and so on.

The third is represented by the observation that of all the living species inhabiting the Earth human beings are the only ones who have become capable of destroying life on the planet we know. Therefore they are also the only ones able to cure, protect and safeguard life on Earth and of the Earth, and to perpetuate it.

From here, the planetary responsibility for life is in the hands of Humanity, that is of the consciousness of human beings as inhabitants of the Earth in the name of all the other inhabitants of the Earth.

How to build the common home?

First of all by de-constructing the alleged pertinence and legality given to structural factors (conceptions, visions, choices, policies, mechanisms, institutions, etc.) that prevent humanity from working towards construction of the common home.

Of these, the factors that stand out above all are theses elaborated and imposed by the dominant groups on the naturalness (and therefore inevitability) of the processes of destruction of life, such as: war, domination, exclusion, rejection of the other, impoverishment, inequality.

They have convinced peoples that both war and impoverishment/poverty are “natural” phenomena/processes inherent in human nature and can in no way ever be eliminated from human history. The overwhelming majority has been convinced that peace can only be a temporary and local absence of war and that lasting and universal peace would be pure illusion, a “utopia”, they say, that is “unrealisable”.

The same applies to “poverty”: poverty has always “existed”, there is poverty and there will always be poverty. The only realistic thing possible is to try to reduce the drama of the state of poverty, reduce its diffusion and the number of poor people. It is useless, they say, to try to eradicate the causes because they are found in human nature.

Elsewhere (see books like “A New Narrative of the World” or “In the Name of Humanity”) and for a long time I have demonstrated the falsity and mystification of these theses and of corresponding collective social practices, highlighting instead the nature of social construction of the phenomena and of the processes of war and impoverishment by unjust societies. So much so that today in particular, war has become above all a great planetary business and impoverishment of the many – compared with enrichment of the few – is considered the inevitable sacrifice to be paid by the weakest, by the least “adaptable” and by  the least profitable on the altar of economic growth and monetary wealth.

These falsehoods must be fought against urgently and decisively in all fields, with the contribution in particular of artists, young people, women, peasants, workers and the world of education (teachers). The world of media, of religions and of businesses has largely contributed to the development and diffusion of such theses. Today a minority is trying to dissociate itself.

The Earth is not a large mine of natural resources (such as human resources or energy resources) and artificial tangible and intangible resources (such as medicines, robots, drones and artificial intelligence) to be exploited in order to extract the highest financial value for the owners of the available capital invested.

For the entire class of those who dominate it makes no sense to talk about the Earth and its “resources” in terms of “common home”. For them. the Earth has to be seen as a source of wealth, free of competition and rivalry among all its inhabitants (humans) in access and hoarding and in the capacity for extraction.

In this context we need to delegitimise the profound culture inspired by the American ruling classes since the end of the 18th century, which have attributed value supremacy to the principle of freedom of conquest and private property with respect to the principle of social justice which is considered of low value. It is necessary to debunk the mystifying myth of the universal model America, of the liberating America, of the America that creates the future of a better world, a mystification common to all American leaders except those who are black.

Second, by building the foundations and supporting pillars. Among the foundations, three principles have to be re-invented (re-enchant the world):

– the principle of equality among all human beings with respect to universal human rights, a principle which has been denied over the last three decades by those who dominate who affirm instead that rights have to be deserved and that rights entail access to “economic” goods and services, the costs of which must be paid individually by “consumers” or users;

– the principle of fraternity among all human beings translated into respect and empathy towards the other inhabitant members of the global community of life. Every human being participates in human history and in the history of the Earth as an inhabitant. Inhabiting makes the experience of the other and of living together an expression of the human condition and the foundation of human communities.

One learns, even if with difficulty, to recognise in the other (an increasingly enlarged reality with the passing of the centuries) a living person with whom one must learn to live together.

It is in this context that we forge our individual, and above all collective, identity; the inhabitant learns to become fraternal and build the common home, first locally then gradually, and in this day and age, at the level of the global common home. The inhabitant is a vast reality that manifests itself at all levels of human organisation from the local/village to the Earth/planet level.

Historically, the citizen has given a specific identity to the inhabitant, starting from the city/polis, then the peculiarities, as well as the rights and duties, have been circumscribed. A delimitation that became closure at the time of nation-states, to the extent that the non-national citizen was considered stateless and treated as a second-class being. The “cosmopolitan” has no juridical recognition either at the level of the city or of the Earth. Even today, the citizen encloses the inhabitant in the “local house” (village or city, region) or in the national house with all the derivations we know.

– the principle of global responsibility of human beings with respect to life, in the name of the other inhabitants of the Earth. Today, globalisation of the human condition has facilitated the recognition of the Earth as a place of global life, which has paved the way for a revaluation of the concept of the inhabitant of the Earth and the awareness of the responsibility for the life for all human beings and other inhabitants of the Earth by humanity.

The inhabitant of the Earth can be the source of a great positive process of building the citizen as a resident of the global common home. No longer a citizen extractor and consumer of the resources of the planet in rivalry with other citizens on global markets in order to ensure their survival and their power. But a citizen respectful of the security of all the expressions of life of the global city-Earth.

On this basis, among the pillars we propose “support” for:

a) a new vision and practice of the processes of generating rights and responsibilities.
In 2018, the year in which the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is being celebrated, it is indispensable to rethink the vision of rights in a perspective of collective, community, shared and participated rights extended to all inhabitants of the Earth.

The UDHR is fundamentally centred on individual rights, it consecrates the right of private ownership of the resources of the Earth, its culture has a Western orientation, it is subjected to a “national” oligarchy that excludes non-nationals and fragments citizens, it does not clearly define duties, it does not specify the role of citizen participation in the protection, control and defence of rights, and it is deeply anthropocentric.

A considerable effort that is constructive, participatory and cooperative remains to be made in the coming years and decades. There must be no lack of audacity;

b) in close connection with the foregoing, promotion of the security and protection and care of the world’s common public goods.

The first pillar is structurally destined to be fragile and therefore insecure in the absence of the promotion and protection of a set of global common public goods, in particular (to start the processes of construction of the common home) water, seeds and knowledge. The choice of these three global common goods is dictated by the fact that they are, together with the sun and the air, the crucial non-replacable goods for the life of the Earth and its inhabitants.

In this sense, the pillar of common goods means that the principle of the private ownership of the living and of artificial intelligence and the principle of the monetisation of nature are unacceptable for creation of the common home, just as it is not possible to maintain the principle of absolute and warlike national sovereignty over the Earth’s resources.

International and inter-governmental multilateralism will not allow good progress on the path of building humanity and the common home because it will not prevent “national” security wars for resources, the hoarding of resources, or competitiveness over/exclusion from the resources of the Earth.

Also in this field, there can be no lack of audacity.

*

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

Professor Emeritus Riccardo Petrella at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium). Co-promoter of the Agora of Inhabitants of the Earth. Founder and president of the University of the Common Good which opened in 2001.

Featured image is from Creative Commons/Flickr.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Earth Is the Common Home of All Inhabitants

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ address to the UN General Assembly was disappointing. It repeated the same phrases used in his last eight speeches. Nothing new at all. The same appeals for international sympathy. Even the wording of his complaints about Israel’s failure to respect agreements was unchanged. And his declaration that the US is not an honest broker but biased towards Israel we have heard a million times before.

So it was neither strange nor surprising that the chamber was almost empty of delegates and delegation heads, and that the warm applause came mostly from the Palestinian delegation.

US President Donald Trump will not heed Abbas’ demands that he rescind his recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Nor will East Jerusalem be capital of a Palestinian state, because there will be no Palestinian state at all. Not according to the US’ ‘Deal of the Century’, which has rapidly begun entering the implementation stage – with US support, the collusion of some Arabs, and Palestinian security coordination.

The US and Israel will not fret about Abbas’ threats regarding their non-compliance with the agreements signed with them. Nor will that arouse the sympathy of UN member-sates. So long as he continues talking Mother Theresa-like about peace, renouncing violence, and joining the fight against terrorism in any part of the world – as he affirmed in his speech – nobody will listen to him or take him seriously.

It was regrettable that the Palestinian president used the UN podium to discuss the agreements he signed with the Hamas movement and threaten not to abide by them. That is the only one of his threats he will actually carry out: to cut off what remains of the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s aid to the Gaza Strip. This amounts to around $90 million in electricity subsidies and salaries, the vast majority of which go to members of Fateh, the PA’s party. Is this the place to make such threats? Does the world benefit from hearing them?

The international community will not thank Abbas for promising not to resort to violence or revert to ‘terrorism” i.e. legitimate resistance to occupation. How could such thanks be forthcoming from UN delegates when so many of their countries gained their freedom through resistance, not by imploring and lamenting the loss of their rights at international forums.

Abbas has been saying for the past ten years or so that peaceful popular resistance is the only option. We ask: Where is this resistance? Why do the PA’s security forces repress all political activists and throw them in jail, or inform on them to the occupation authorities to facilitate their arrest?  Enough lies and deception, please. Respect your people’s intelligence, and their martyrs and prisoners.

We ask President Abbas: Why did the US administration cut off all aid to schools, hospitals, PA institutions and UNRWA, while increasing its aid to the Palestinian security forces, at a time when he announced a boycott of any meeting or dialogue with the US? What good did this boycott do in this case?

The fault does not lie with UN, the US, or Israel. It lies with President Abbas, his leadership and administration, his Authority, his security coordination, and his speechwriters and cheerleaders. When Palestinian leaders chose the course of resistance and sacrifice, the US and Israel and the West in its entirety sought to meet and negotiate with them, recognized them, and feared them.

This farce needs to be ended at once, and the actors stripped of their masks. It has gone too far, and the Palestinian people, both in the homeland and the diaspora, must not remain silent about this situation.


President Abbas’s full speech at the UNGA.

Jerusalem is not for sale, and the Palestinian people’s rights are not up for bargaining in the name of God, the most merciful and beneficiant, excellency Ms. Maria Fernanda Espionaza, president of the UN General Assembly and your excellency Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, peace be upon you.

Peace be upon you, we will stay and we will maintain our faith in peace. We will maintain peace and we will achieve our indepdent state with peace because God is with us and our cause is just and our people have sacrificed a lot and because you lovers of peace and God is always against those who are plaguing us with injustice and God is enough.

In these days, last year, i came before you- appealing for freedom, independence and justice for my oppressed people who are suffering under the yolk of the Israeli occupation for more than 51 years and today I return as this colonial occupation continues to suffocate us, undermining our serious unwavering efforts to build the instituitions of our cherished state which this August, the General Assembly recognized in 2011.

This year, ladies and gentlemen, the Palestinian National Council, the parliament of the state of Palestine convened and renewed the legitimacy of our national institutions through the election of a new leadership for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

This parliament undertook important decisions whereby I have to review the agreements– political, economic and security alike– that have been reached with the Israeli government and to review the future of the Palestinian National Authority which unfortunately has been rendered without authority.

The parliament also instructed me to suspend the Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel until Israel recognizes in its turn the State of Palestine on the fourth of June, 1967 borders. I was also instructed to approach international courts, including the International Criminal Court (the ICC) to investigate Israel’s breaches of treaties and the aggressions by the Israeli occupying forces and settlers against our people, on our land and our holy sites.

And you might note, ladies and gentlemen, that the Israeli settlers and even the Israeli army on every single day– they are committing acts of blasphemy against our holy sites, especially Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Ladies and gentlemen, last July Israel adopted a racist law that  crossed all the red lines and it was called the “Nation-State Law of the Jewish People.” This law denies the connection of the Palestinian people to their historic homeland and the dismisses their right to self-determination and history and hertiage as well as the UN resolutions relevant to the Palestine question and the agreements concluded with Israel.

This law will inevitably lead to the creation of one racist state, an apartheid state, and thus nullifies the two-state solution. Israel practices discrimination but actually this law comes as the epicenter of this discrimination. This law discriminates against the Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel, granting the right to self-determination exclusively to Jews in Israel, thus legalizing discrimination against those Arab citizens who constitute 20% of the population of Israel.

In addition to other non-Jews who have immigrated to Israel, thus they are stripped of the rights of citizenship. At least 5% of the current population of Israel are immigrants, they are non-Jews. They are Christians and Muslims who immigrated from the former USSR, they have also been stripped from the rights to citizenship.

This law constitues a gross breach and real danger, both politically and legally and reminds us of the apartheid state that existed in South Africa. Thus, we reject this law and condemn it in the strongest terms. And we call on the international community and this assembly to condemn it and reject it as a racist, illegal law and null and void.

The United Nations had condemned the apartheid South African state in several resolutions in the past, bearing in mind that thousands of Jews and Israeli citizens have rejected and protested against this law. 56 Knesset members out of 120 voted against it. Because they believe that it’s a racist law. That’s why I call upon the UN to follow the same line, to follow in the footsteps of a number of Israeli citizens who rejected this law altogether in letter and in spirit.

This racist law, ladies and gentlemen, talks about what is called ‘the Land of Israel.’ Can you ask the Israeli government what exactly constitutes the land of Israel? What are the borders of the State of Israel? I challenge anyone to tell us what they are. Where are the borders of the State of Israel? Please bring me a map and just show where are the borders of Israel. This racist law consitutes another stigma on Israel and anyone who can censor it and condones such acts.

This law is just like other Israeli laws that legislated theft, piracy and confiscation of the land, property and funds of the Palestinian people.

We have always positively and fully engaged with the various initiatives of the international community that have aimed at achieving  resolve the conflict between us and the Israelis, including the Arab Peace Initiative which was recognized by the Security Council in its resolution 1515 of 2013.

We continued on this path with the administration of President Trump from the start of his tenure with the same positive engagement and we welcomed his launching of the initiative of peace and I have met with him numerous times.

We awaited his peace initiative with utmost patience but we were shocked by his decisions and actions that completely contradict the rule and committment of his administration towards the peace process. So in November 2017 his administration issued a decision to close the PLO office in Washington, DC. He then announced his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and thus transferred his country’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and he even boasts that he has removed the issues of Jerusalem refugees, settlements and security off the negotiation table.

All such decisions threaten the Palestinian national cause and constitute an assault on international law and relevant UN resolutions. The US administration went even further in its assault by cutting assistance to the Palestinian National Authority, the UNRWA and Palestinian hospitals in occupied East Jerusalem. Then they’re speaking now about humanitarian aid. Even the humanitarian aid has been cut off.

With all of these decisions this administration has reneged on all previous US committments and even undermined the two-state solution and revealed its false claims about the humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people.

It’s really ironic that the American administration still talk about what they call the deal of the century, but what is left for this administration to give to the Palestinian people? Only humanitarian solutions, because when they remove off of the negotiation table Jerusalem, refugees and security- what is left?

What is left as a political solution? The U.S. Congress continues to insist on considering the PLO, which is recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by the overwhelming majority of countries of the world including Israel, as a terrorist organization.

And by the way, the PLO is recognized by Israel; however, the U.S. Congress claims that the PLO is a terrorist organization at a time when the State of Palestine cooperates with the majority of countries of the world, including the U.S., to combat terrorism.

Then why is this animosity against the Palestinian people who are suffering under the yolk of an occupation duly supported by the U.S.? I would like to tell them, our positions are firm and clear for all to see and we challenge you if we have committed a single mistake in our long journey– however the Congress comes out of the blue to say that the PLO is a terrorist organization. How come?

For years we have affirmed our readiness to the U.S. administration to establish a Palestinian-American committee that will examine the legal and political status of the PLO as a means of proving to them that the PLO is committed to achieving peace and combating terrorism as well as to also demonstrate that the Congress legislation regarding the PLO is arbitrary, unlawful and unjustified and deliberately ignores the offical agreement with the U.S. administration to combat terrorism; an agreement which we have also concluded with 83 other countries.

We have protocols with 83 countries under the heading or the title of ‘Combating Terrorism’ including the U.S., however the Congress calls us terrorists.

Despite of all of this and from this platform I renew my call to President Trump to walk back his decisions regarding Jerusalem, refugees and and settelements. Which contravene with international law and UN resolutions as well as the understandings that we have reached in order to salvage the prospects of peace and to achieve stability and security for future generations.

By the way, this is an example of those understanding, this is a letter duly signed between the U.S. administration and Palestine regarding all these causes that are now just igonred. Ladies and gentlemen, consistent with our committment to peace and the two-state solution and the path of negotiations to achieve, a path we have never refused and i do challenge you to tell me about any single time where we refused to come to the negotiation table.

To the contrary. We have been invited more than once by more than one country here and they told us, they invited us to sit with Netanyahu and in every single time I accepted and I do challenge you to tell me that I have refused once or if they have, on the other hand, accepted once.

So we have never refused these negotiations with a view to rescuing the peace process and I came before the Security Council on the 20th of February this year and presented an initiative calling for the convening of an international peace conference based on the relevant UN resolutions and the internationally-endorsed terms of reference and parameters. Such a conference should involve broad international participation that includes regional and international stakeholders led by the parliament members of the Security Council and the Quartet.

We shall circulate this initiative in its entirety to you and hope you will support it. Here I reiterate that we are not against negotiations, in the least, and we have never rejected negotiations on any single day and we will continue to extend our hands for peace. We only believe in peace. Peace is the only path. We don’t believe in terrorism and violence. And we spared no occasion to reiterate this belief. Then what?

If you’re speaking about UN resolutions, okay, these UN resolutions had not… not a single UN resolution has been respected by Israel. Then you are speaking about negotiations and solutions? What kind of negotiations and solutions? Peace in our region cannot be realized without an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and with all the holy sites.

Some people try to outsmart us and they say okay, your capital is in East Jerusalem. No, I’m sorry– this is a manipulation of words. This means here or there or whichever region that are surrounding Jerusalem. No. Our capital is East Jerusalem and not in East Jerusalem.

And please don’t try to outsmart us. Whether Abu-Dis or in East Jerusalem and then you can pick and choose an area here or there. No. East Jerusalem which has been occupied in 1967 is our capital. There’s no peace otherwise and there is no peace with a state of temporary borders. By the way, they invented this idea of state with temporary borders. Okay, we will give you a state but with unknown borders.

You know what, this is exactly a state like Israel with unknown borders. And then let us talk. No. You want a state with very well-defined borders and rights and then we can co-exist with the Israelis, but otherwise no.

Here you are 183 states. Plus another country that has recognized us which is Colombia. However, this will, I will continue and this will come in my speech. I thus call upon all the countries of the world that have not yet recognized the state of Palestine this long overdue recognition. I can no longer see a convincing reason for the continued delay of the recognition of Palestine by some countries.

In this context, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in 2019 the State of Palestine will chair the Group of 77 and China. By the way, ten minutes ago I met in another conference room his excellency President Sissi who announced that we have been freely elected by 144 countries to chair the Group of 77 and China.

Nevertheless, there are some countries saying that we recognize both countries, or maybe we recognize Israel but we don’t recognize Palestine. So what? If you claim that you recognize the two states and you recognize Israel but you don’t recognize Palestine then this is a conundrum. What’s your interest?

It’s unacceptable and we tell these countries– yes, you have to recognize Palestine. This doesn’t mean that we will not go for negotiations; on the contrary. This will bolster our international position and we will be able with your support to go to negotiations when you recognize the State of Palestine and this recognition should not be unilateral. You should not only recognize one state and not the other.

No. You have to recognize both states. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you again that Israel has not implemented any one of the hundreds of General Assembly resolutions. There are 705 resolutions issued by the General Assembly since 1947 to date and Security Council resolutions since 1948 to date not a single resolution has been implemented by Israel and unfortunately I would like to be very frank and honest.

Israel is supported by the US because the General Assembly and other countries– when we ask them, they just agree, when we ask them, they gave us 139 votes and 42 were actually abstained. Those who opposed were only four countries. Until when Israel will act with impunity? Until when Israel will act and rebel as it likes supported by whomever it likes?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are resisting the Israeli occupation by way of legitimate means that have been decided by your international organization. We, the only means which we used is the peaceful, popular resistance. Is this illegal? On the other hand, the settlers are using arms against Palestinians?

They barge cities and towns and villages with arms. I’m not here speaking about the IDF. I’m speaking about the Israeli settlers. But we will continue to refuse using and reject violence and we reject all kinds of arms and we will never accept using weapons and we call upon the world to pursue the efforts of nuclear disarmament and even traditional disarmament.

Now we have a problem in Khan al-Ahmar. Israel is adamant on destroying this region and this region has been populated for more than 50 years but if it destroys this village it is thus destroying the unity of the West Bank. It will be divided into north and south. Do you agree to this? Do you condone this? Not to mention the aggressions against Al-Aqsa. Do you remember the aggressions, the assault against Al-Aqsa?

Now we are told that the Israeli supreme court will issue a decision to divide Al-Aqsa, spacially and time-wise. For sure this is totally unacceptable and I’m sure that those with chivalry, dignity and peace lovers will not accept this and Israel should bear the brunt. Such thuggery should come to an end. Because it makes no sense. Every single day a decision is passed by that court as if we don’t exist.

We managed to get a resolution from the UN for international protection because every day we are attacked and we are incapable of protecting ourselves; okay, a resolution was passed but who will implement this resolution? And very honestly it’s insufficient for the General Assembly to pass a resolution that remains without implementation exactly like other resolutions.

The General Assembly should also respect its resolutions but to pass a resolution and then we applaud the resolution and we cheer it and then what? Please guide us, tell us how can we implement such resolutions? This is your responsibility.

In support to our people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through legitimate institutions we refuse that this support  be considered as a substitute for a solution. Because humanitarian aid, you know what, our cause has many humanitarian aspects but without a political solution- really we don’t need such humanitarian aid. Don’t fool us and tell us that you are helping us. Actually we are after the right to self-determination of our people.

Full stop. No single people on earth does not enjoy the rights to self-determination. We are 13 million Palestinians all over the world. Why are we denied the right to self-determination? By the way, this will not harm anybody. We need to establish our independent state which will live side by side with the Israeli state. Where is the mistake here? Where is the crime here?

We continue to exert genuine, serious efforts to end the divison and to achieve reconciliation, despite the many obstacles to ahieving these aims we continue to uphold our responsibilities towards our people to date. We express our appreciation to our Arab brethern, in particular the Arab Republic of Egypt, for the efforts undertaken to end this division, hoping that they will be rendered successful.

We made an agreement with an Egyptian sponsorship on the 12th of October and the agreement is so simple: The Palestinian government will carry out its responsbilities in Gaza and in the West Bank. Then we will build our state on the basis of unified law, unified authority, unified regime and only one single legitimate armed forces. We reject the idea of militias. However, this agreement has not been accepted and so far it has not been approved.

Maybe in the coming few days we’ll witness the last round of talks and then maybe we will take another action. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to conclude as follows: The Palestinian people, 13 million human beings, unless we are not viewed as human beings by some. We are not redundant. Notwithstanding how big a population is, it’s not redundant. Why are we treated as redundant people that should be got rid of? This is totally unacceptable.

However we are patient and we are steadfast and we believe in peace. But we just need to be viewed as humans. We are not redundant. We have concluded agreements with the U.S. administration and the U.S. administration has reneged on all these agreements. However, we are committed and we will abide by our part of the agreement. However, if they reneged on these agreements we will not abide. Thereby, it takes two to tango so an agreement should be respected by both parties. I will respect it from A-Z. However, if the U.S. administration fails to respect the agreement we will not be able to hold our part thereof.

The U.S. acts as a mediator. However, now we view the U.S. with new eyes. The U.S. cannot be a mediator single-handedly. We have the Quartet. Okay, they can join the Quartet. Any country can join the Quartet whether it’s in Europe, the U.S., the Americas, Africa, even the Arab countries. Anyone can join the Quartet to act as mediators between ourselves and the Israelis. But the U.S. alone? No, because they are too much biased to Israel.

There are also agreements with Israel starting with the Oslo agreement and the Paris agreement and all these agreements have been abrogated by Israel and we call upon Israel to re-engage in these agreements. Otherwise, we will not hold our part of those agreements. We have also concluded agreements with Hamas.

Our brothers in Egypt know that we held our side of the agreement but Hamas failed to fulfill its obligations according to the agreement. That’s why we will not bear any responsibility in this regard and I would like this to be totally crystal clear.

We will not bear any responsibility if Hamas insists on refusing to abide by the agreement. In spite of all this and despite all this injustice from the world we will never resort to violence or terrorism. We will continue to combat violence and terrorism all over the globe. We will never accept any aggression against any country, whether this country recognizes us or doesn’t recognize us, loves us or dislikes us.

There’s a very important point: The U.S. administration said that the number of refugees is 40,000 only. I want to know the formula whereby you calculated this number. Just go to UNRWA, they definitely don’t want to go back to UNRWA– they want to obliterate it altogether– the UNRWA was established in 1949 to help refugees until their question is solved and to this date this cause has not been solved, until now, out of 13 million we have six million refugees. Not 40,000 as per the U.S. administration. Such facts just come out of the blue. What is the formula of calculation? They just calculated and decided to remove the UNRWA from the picture?

Finally, I call upon our people to remain patient, steadfast and to continue to sacrifice until we achieve indepedence and self-determination and to establish an indepedent state with Jerusalem as its capital and not in Jerusalem. I pay tribute to all freedom-loving countries and peoples and our martyrs and I would like to tell all Palestinians: Israel considers them as criminals.

Why? In Israel there are thousands who are used to assaulting everybody and they’re considering? Why is the man who killed Rabin is a hero while our people are criminals? I pay tribute our hero martyrs and prisoners of war. I would like to tell you all that soon the dawn of freedom and independence will shine and occupation will go into the darkness of history and peace be upon you.”

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Madam President Haley?

September 30th, 2018 by Kurt Nimmo

For months now, indeed for over a year, the corporate media has tossed around the prospect of Trump’s UN ambassador Nikki Haley becoming president. They say it is entirely possible Americans will vote for this woman. She’s perceived as tough with the latch of a bull dog, relentlessly confronting Iran, Venezuela, and other enemies of the neoliberal order. 

I am convinced my fellow Americans will vote for Haley. Most vote with superficialities in mind and can’t be bothered to bone up on geopolitics. This is what happened with Donald Trump. Americans voted for him because he talked the talk about taking down the globalist racket that has shipped their jobs overseas and allowed impoverished Mexicans to rush over the border in search of work and handouts. 

It was obvious Trump would be unable to do what he said on the campaign trail. He sent mixed messages—get US troops out of the Middle East while advocating bombing Syria and Iran, stealing oil, and killing suspected terrorists and their families—while all the while focusing with idiot savant obsession on a wall that will never be built, a wall in response to neoliberal policies that have wiped out the Mexican farmer and hobbled economic growth in country where the elite takes all but a few crumbs left for the campesinos. But not even Mexico, with more than fifty percent of the population in poverty, can compete with the authoritarian slave labor camp known as China. 

This is why Trump needs his wall, a supposed backstop preventing desperate Mexicans from entering the country in search of agricultural work and welfare state handouts in the United States. Trump has given lip service to dismantling international corporatist trade deals, but thus far nothing has changed. The wall is a mirage in the desert. 

People will vote for Haley for the same reason. She will make all kinds of promises, few achievable and many undesirable and even absurd. Most Americans will not notice. They will follow the corporate media, which shapes their opinions.

Here’s what the script readers will not tell the largely disenfranchised American public: Nikki Haley is a Zionist. Everything in her world orbits around Israel. She knew, even as a school girl, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv. Haley—and Sec. State Pompeo and especially neocon madman adviser to the president Bolton—believe the epicenter of the evil and terror in the world emanates from Iran, never mind Iran has not thought about nukes in over a decade and a half (around the time Bush and his neocons invaded a sanctions-wracked Iraq). The last time Iran (then Persia) crossed its borders to attack a neighbor was in 1798 when the shah invaded Basra.

The US feigns outrage over Iran’s relationship with Iraq while conveniently ignoring the fact 60% of the country is Shi’a, and less the 30% Sunni. The Wahhabi Sunnis in Riyadh have been driven insane by the presence of a small Zaidiyyah sect (a Shi’a offshoot) that emerged from Sa’dah in northern Yemen in the 1990s. This wasn’t much of a problem for Saudi Arabia until the Houthis overthrew the US and Saudi client Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. He fled to a Riyadh airbase and was embraced by Saudi Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. What followed—with the help of the US—was a series of war crimes resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis. Undoubtedly, for Saudi Arabia, this isn’t a problem—the Houthis are infidels, unbelievers, lowly and death-deserving kafara. For Saudi Arabia, there isn’t a humanitarian crisis in Yemen because, according to the austere and violent nature of Wahhabism, the Houthis are on the receiving end of Allah’s wrath. 

If Nikki Haley is elected president—and more than a few see this as a distinct possibility—the relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia will intensify and—if Bolton doesn’t convince Trump to bomb Iran before 2020—there will be a war, possibly involving Russia and China. 

The neocons weathered a two-term Obama and are now enduring the weathervane and geopolitical imbecile Trump, a man they hate so passionately many are teaming up with Democrats to dethrone him. 

That won’t be a problem for Nikki. She understands how the game is played. Israel is a top priority. Smashing Iran, in similar fashion to Iraq before it, is at the very top of the neocon creative destruction agenda. 

Madam Haley will reorient US foreign policy and set it straight on a path to the ultimate destruction of not only Iran and Syria, but the United States as well. Empires invariably fall and Nikki Haley is an ideal candidate to oversee the destruction of America. 

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Madam President Haley?

Russia and the Taming of the Israelis

September 30th, 2018 by Israel Shamir

Russia’s unexpected decision to supply Syria with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems and to integrate Syria’s air defence within the Russian command calls for a quick reassessment of our views. It turned out that Russia is able to learn and respond in an unanticipated way. Yes, in the immediate aftermath of the Il-20 downing, the Russian reaction had been weak. The Russians agreed with Israelis that the plane had been hit by a Syrian S-200 missile. They provided the Israeli military with an opportunity to offer and defend their version of events, while Putin spoke of a “tragic chain of events”, apparently exculpating his Israeli partner.

I must admit I had thought that the Russians would accept the Israeli explanations, and the case would rest. This was the view of pro-Kremlin writers and bloggers, and they often know the mind of the Russian authorities. These guys and gals do not get their instructions directly from the Kremlin, nor do they have a consistent view of Russian interests nor an opinion of their own; usually they try to guess what the Kremlin will do next and build a defence line for it. If you watch them, you’ll get an idea of what the expectation.

They took a rather pro-Israeli line. Whoever called for a stronger response to the Israeli provocation, was called an “anti-Semite firebrand”. This is not as deadly a marker in Russia as it is in the West, but it still is not a great compliment, either. Some pro-Kremlin writers blamed the Syrians; so did the liberal opposition to Putin. Julia Latynina, the pet Russian writer of Western liberals, a Putin nemesis, a recipient of the Defender of Freedom Award, with hundreds of references in the Guardian and the New York Times, called the Syrians – “apes”. (The Russian anti-Putin liberals are racist beyond belief but they love Jews).

A pro-Kremlin English-language writer said that the Iranians (sic!) were to be blamed; perhaps they pushed the button and destroyed the Il. And Syrians surely were guilty as hell. He also ferociously attacked the experts who spoke of Israeli responsibility and called them “antisemites”. The chief editors of the Russian semi-official media apparently thought Putin wanted to forget about the whole business of the downed Il-20 as fast as possible. They promptly erased it from their agenda. Incredibly, on the next day the Russian media was practically free from any reference to the disaster. Only the hard old men of the opposition grumbled in their marginal online journals: “We are lost,” “Putin obeys his oligarchs,” “The Jewish lobby in Moscow won”, “Putin cares more of his Jewish friends than of the Russian soldiers”. But they were premature.

In Israel, the Ministry of Defence people rubbed their hands and said: We bombed all, we are bombing and we shall bomb as we find fit. They advised the Russians to blame Syria and accept the Israeli version of events. Israeli social networks rejoiced. But their joy was premature, too.

The first signal of something amiss was sent when the Russians refused to receive an Israeli high-level delegation in Moscow. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Lieberman proposed to fly to Moscow personally, but they were rebuffed. Only a military delegation led by the Israel Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin was allowed to come and present their version. It was found wanting. The Russian Ministry of Defence produced ample evidence that the Israelis knowingly caused the loss of the plane with all hands. Netanyahu had made a person-to-person call to President Putin, it was of no avail.

Apparently Putin was upset on a personal level with the Israeli attack. He is known for hating betrayal. He considered Netanyahu to be almost a personal friend, and the downing of the plane by this erstwhile friend grieved him a lot, so people close to the Kremlin intuit. There are less personal interpretations. In the same time the ruling (Putin’s) party United Russia suffered humiliating defeats in governors’ elections. 70% to 30% the incumbents were voted out, and representatives of strongly anti-Western coalition of Nationalists and Communists conquered those three districts. In the Armed Forces, the idea of letting bygones be bygones was rejected out of hand. The army demanded a stronger response.

Putin is the most pro-Western ruler Russia is likely to have; his successor will probably be more rigid to Western demands, while pro-Western elements (“liberals”) have a snowball-in-hell chance to come to power in Russia via the election booth. That’s why Putin has to watch his step to keep in line with his base, as any ruler does. He didn’t want to spoil relations with Israel, but freedom of action had to be denied to the Israeli Air Force.

There was a lull when the disaster of the downed plane completely disappeared from media, Russian or Western. It was not mentioned by the New York Times, it was not mentioned by the Russian newspapers. And after that, unexpectedly, the Russian Defence Minister Mr Shoygu made his announcement. Russia responded adequately, closing the sky over Syria, or at least over Western Syria, and activating its powerful GPS-jamming system off the Syrian coast. Israel has lost its right to bomb Syria at will.

The Russians said it will take them two weeks to deliver, install and make the system operative. I have heard that the system of up to eight S-300 had already been delivered by massive airlift a few days ago, with cargo planes landing in Syria every few minutes. Probably two weeks will be needed to install and activate the system.

Now in Israel the response was of two kinds. The hot heads said Israel is not worried by S-300; they know how to deal with it, and if necessary, Israeli commandos will come and sabotage the system just in time for a massive air attack by Israeli bombers. Sensible people said Israel should try to repair relations with the Russian military. The Russians did a lot of what the Israelis asked them for, including removal of Iranian forces from the vicinity of Israeli borders (rather, armistice lines). A thorough investigation of the air disaster may uncover the mistakes and convince the Russians that they aren’t likely to occur again.

Netanyahu sounded like he was trying to minimise the strife with the Russians. After meeting with President Trump in New York, he said that he came with specific requests “and I received everything I wanted from him [Trump]. Our goal is to preserve the connection with Russia and on the other hand to defend Israel’s security against these threats.”

So, for good or bad, Israel is not going to break relations with Russia, and Russia is not going to go further, beyond sealing Syria’s sky for Israeli raids. If Israeli leadership will keep its fingers away from Syria, things may cool down. Otherwise, the results will be quite unpredictable.

In Israel, there aren’t many people at the top, apart of Netanyahu and Lieberman, who cherish their country’s involvement with Russia. For Israelis, Putin is one of many unsavoury leaders from Idi Amin to Orban their country has to play ball with. Russia is not popular with ordinary Israelis who prefer America or Germany. A lot of Israelis will be pleased with breakup of this connection. Immediately after the Russian decision had been announced, Haaretz had made its feelings clear: “In recent years, Russia has been caught lying or spreading disinformation about its role in a number of incidents, the most recent being its involvement in the U.S. presidential elections, the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain, and the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So it’s hard to believe that anyone but Syria and Iran will adopt the Russian version of last week’s events.” This is not a way one’s partner is usually described.

More conspiratorially minded Israelis opined that beyond downing of the Il, there was an Air Force plot against Netanyahu and Lieberman who are unpopular within the top echelon of IDF. Others say it was an American Secret Service plot to undermine Russian-Israeli connection.

For otherwise, why did the Israelis do that? Were they just careless and brutal, as is their wont? They didn’t give a damn about the Russians, and considered them a lesser breed, whose life is of little importance. This is a possible reading, quite consistent with their general attitude to strangers considered to be children of a lesser God.

On the other hand, it is possible that the whole Israeli raid had been staged to down the reconnaissance plane and to leave the Russians without its real-time intelligence data. In 1967, the Israelis bombed and sunk the USS Liberty, an electronic spy ship, the then equivalent of Il-20, for they did not want to have foreign eyes and ears in the area. But then, there was an ongoing full-scale war between Israel and Egypt, and the USS Liberty had been attacked just before the planned Israeli invasion of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Could it be that Israelis expected an attack by France, England and the US upon Syria on that night, an attack that did not materialise thanks to the Russian-Turkish agreement on Idlib? There was a British plane and a French frigate in the vicinity, and a whole lot of American ships.

The agreement on Idlib was a very important event, though Il-20 displaced it out of our collective memory. Putin and Erdogan reached a working compromise, thus avoiding almost unavoidable large scale hostilities. The White Helmets had already prepared a film with staged chemical attack upon Syrian children, but the agreement had made the attack improbable in the first place. It is possible that the American coalition assault had been postponed in the last moment, when the Russian plane had been already downed.

However, all is well that ends well. Russian decision to create practically a no-fly zone is a good decision, good for all. It is good for Russians as they learned that their Commander-in-Chief can make strong decisions. It is good for Syria, as they will suffer less of the Israeli bombardments. And it is really good for Israel, as this naughty child, a spoiled brat, a darling of America had to be forbidden to bother neighbouring children. The automatic missile defence system will provide a threat of spanking. The kid had been told that he is not allowed to kill neighbours. With its excessive aggressiveness multiplied by impunity, Israel has been spoiled, as anybody would. With this block, Israel can still become a mensch, and for this chance, thank you, Russia.

Will Tel-Aviv use this chance? The US will try to frustrate the Russian taming of Israel. John Bolton and Mike Pompeo already declared that no one may interfere with Israel’s divine right to freely bomb Syria. Will the Israeli lobby in America be able to neutralise Moscow’s decision and unhinge Israeli soul once again? Will they convince Putin to postpone his decision like they did in April, and a few years ago? I do not think so.

We can congratulate the leadership of Russia on the consistent, justified and well-balanced decision that may yet tame the Jewish shrew.

*

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

This article was first published on The Unz Review.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia and the Taming of the Israelis

The AE911Truth team recently returned from an inspiring series of events we held on September 11, 2018, in the heart of the nation’s capital.

We were joined by a handful of eloquent and moving speakers — including British 9/11 family member Matt Campbell — and by dozens of dedicated activists from the Washington, D.C., area. The latter are fortunate to be stationed where they can speak their message face-to-face with elected officials who’ve failed, for 17 long years, to properly investigate the crimes at the World Trade Center.

This is the story of how we came together to remember the nearly 3,000 people who were murdered that day and to reassert the worldwide demand for 9/11 truth and justice.

Morning at the White House

Our first action of the day was at 10:00 AM outside the White House, led by our intrepid operations manager, Andrew Steele. Why the White House? Because Donald Trump — then candidate Trump — promised on February 15, 2016, that under his watch we would “find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.”

The DC911Truth Crew

Karl Golovin, Lou Wolf, and Diana Castillo are among the dozen ever-present, hard-working crew of DC911Truth. They were a part of AE911Truth’s action at the White House on September 11th, exhorting the president to get to the bottom of 9/11 as promised.

Thus, we came to implore the President to make good on his promise and to hold the FBI accountable for its refusal to investigate the use of explosives in the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers (and this despite the FBI’s former assistant director of counterterrorism acknowledging, in writing, the “thorough research and analysis” of AE911Truth).

While in front of the White House, we distributed 1,000 palm cards to tourists, which informed them of the Bobby McIlvaine Act and the pressing need for an unbiased investigation of the WTC destruction.

“We had to be right there in front of the White House,” observed Steele. “If not to wake up our sleeping President, then at least to educate the hundreds of tourists there, who seemed especially eager to listen.”

Agreed Diana Castillo of the DC 9/11 Truth group: “This is what we need to be doing, not only in D.C. but around the world.”

My sense, based on the reactions of onlookers, is that the world is ready. All we need is the right catalyst — a major political event of some kind — and the dam will break.

Afternoon at the Capitol Building

Our first-ever rally at the U.S. Capitol, which we titled 9/11 Justice for All, took place at 2:00 PM. We ignored the forecast of thunderstorms and went ahead undaunted.

Richard_Gage at Rally

Richard Gage led off the afternoon rally. Behind him stood photos of several 9/11 victims whose families are campaigning with AE911Truth for a new WTC investigation.

And we could not have chosen a better spot at the Capitol: right there on the west lawn directly in front of the massive marble steps leading up to the House and Senate chambers.

I opened the event by explaining our main reason for being at the Capitol: “We need to be visible, right here in front of our 535 members of Congress who were elected to represent us, but who so far have been negligent in seeking — or even being willing to listen to — the truth about 9/11.” Yes, we are raising the stakes!

We were thrilled to have Lionel of “Lionel Media” give the first of the afternoon’s powerful speeches. With his usual penetrating wit, Lionel lit up the stage by skewering both those who are unwilling to ask the most basic questions about 9/11 — such as, “Where’s the plane?” (think Shanksville) — and those who ridicule other people for daring to ask such questions.

Lionel at Rally

Lionel urged the crowd to never be afraid of asking taboo questions and to never be intimidated by those who ridicule anyone for asking such questions.

According to Lionel, many people refuse to look deeper than the official 9/11 narrative on the grounds that there isn’t a coherent alternative theory of “whodunit.” But he countered that argument with this line of legal reasoning: “Before I get to who did it, I got to get to what it was they did?! It’s a simple question. . . . All I’m saying is that we need more of an investigation. And that’s all we’re asking for.”

After Lionel spoke, I provided a summary of my recent pungently worded letter to President Trump, which had been sent in concert with letters from 25 other 9/11 Truth leaders and researchers. In it, I admonished him to pursue his correct hunch — arrived at on the day of 9/11 — that “explosives had been placed in the building.” I also recited 16 questions from my letter that point to the indisputable evidence of controlled demolition, which cannot be explained by the government’s premise of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse.

Then I introduced Matt Campbell, who lost his brother Geoff on the 106th floor of the North Tower 17 years ago and who traveled all the way from the U.K. to the U.S. capital. Matt was there on behalf of all the 9/11 family members who have endorsed the Bobby McIlvaine Act.

In his speech, he stirringly invoked the successful struggle of the Bloody Sunday families as inspiration and guidance for the 9/11 family members and activists who continue against all odds to fight for truth and justice.

Matt Campbell

9/11 family member Matt Campbell, assisted by AE911Truth’s Ted Walter, honored the 9/11 victims by reading statements from surviving loved ones.

Matt ended his remarks with a rousing quote from Irish activist, journalist, and politician Eamonn McCann: “In the end, that might be the legacy of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign, the extent to which it enables people elsewhere faced with impossible odds to look at the Bloody Sunday campaign and say of their own campaign, ‘Let’s keep on — this might just f–king work.’”

Next Matt read a series of heart-wrenching statements from other 9/11 family members who could not be in attendance that day. They included Bob McIlvaine, whose son Bobby was killed by an explosion while entering the North Tower’s lobby before the building came down. It is in Bobby’s honor that the above-mentioned proposed legislation for a new WTC investigation has been named.

Bill Brinnier, a New York architect, then took the stage to honor his best friend, Frank DeMartini, who was the construction manager at the World Trade Center and was killed on the 88th floor of the North Tower.

Bill spoke about his friendship with Frank with great fondness and about the 9/11 Truth community’s need for perseverance. He also drew from the technical knowledge he had acquired during his frequent visits with DeMartini to the World Trade Center. And he described his journey from uneasy acceptance of the official explanation to his current position of challenging that false explanation with everything he’s got.

Architect and AE911Truth petition signer Bill Brinnier spoke fondly of his best friend Frank DeMartini, who was construction manager at the World Trade Center and who died on 9/11.

Congressional Office Buildings

At the conclusion of our rally, we organized our “troops” and enlisted 16 volunteer “soldiers” to head over to the six Senate and House office buildings.

Rally Groups

AE911Truth’s Andy Steele and Ted Walter organized the crowd into six separate groups for the purpose of delivering our literature to all 535 congressional offices immediately after the 2:00 PM rally concluded.

With only an hour to go before legislators’ offices closed for the day, we delivered our petition (signed by more than 3,000 architects and engineers) and literature about the Bobby McIlvaine Act to all 535 members of Congress (plus six delegates).

This marks the second year in a row, and the fourth time since AE911Truth’s founding in 2006, that we’ve hand-delivered our materials to every senator and representative. Our goal, as it has been since we launched the Bobby McIlvaine Act on September 11, 2017, is to find at least one legislator with the moral fortitude to introduce the Act, trusting that this one act of courage will be the catalyst that sparks a nationwide conversation.

Richard Gage and Josh Willis

Richard Gage and dedicated AE911Truth volunteer Josh Willis took part in the coordinated effort to deliver our petition and Bobby McIlvaine literature to all 535 members of Congress in one hour. Josh has repeatedly visited and contacted his local congressman, Rep. Roger Williams of Texas, since the launch of the Bobby McIlvaine campaign.

If you haven’t already done so, you can easily contact your congressperson and two senators on our Bobby McIlvaine webpage. We’re counting on you to take this simple action that could make the difference in getting the Bobby McIlvaine Act introduced.

Evening at Busboys and Poets

After our afternoon at the Capitol was over, we rushed over to our evening venue, Busboys and Poets — quite possibly the trendiest joint in Washington’s entertainment district! We kicked off the night with the rousing music of Jordan Page, the avant-garde, patriot singer-songwriter. And, as we suspected he would, he brought the house down!

Jordan Page

Jordan Page was clearly the hit of the evening event at Busboys and Poets.

Not surprisingly, the crowd favorite was Jordan’s song about World Trade Center Building 7, which pulsated with the catchy chorus, “What ever happened to Building 7? . . . Each and every war was founded in deception.”

Most of our speakers from earlier in the day — Matt Campbell, Bill Brinnier, and I — each took the stage once again. We were joined by other speakers, including Oscar Abudara Bini, an Argentine researcher of many false-flag attacks that have spanned the past 15 years (he flew all the way from South America to D.C. to share his research!) and Robert David Steele, who coordinated the delivery of 26 letters to President Trump from leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement (mentioned above).

Richard Gage and WTC7

Richard Gage, AIA, insists that every 9/11 Truth advocate needs to know the details about the controlled demolition of Building 7, which he calls “the smoking gun of 9/11!”

Late Night on the Radio

Last but not least, George Noory of Coast to Coast AM radio got an earful of the WTC evidencelate into the night of the 9/11 commemoration. Actually, it was 9/12 by the time I awoke at 3:00 AM Eastern with the goal of ensuring that a nationwide audience of two million listeners would hear the truth about 9/11 through this far-reaching interview.

Richard Gage Coast to Coast

Though he’s a friend of 9/11 Truth, Noory nevertheless peppered me with a barrage of tough questions right up front. As in my previous interviews with him, I responded with straightforward, succinct answers about the WTC forensic evidence and its difficult-to-admit implications. Most of the callers were supportive of our work and asked outstanding questions.

Marching Onward

In his speech earlier in the day, our friend, colleague, and leading 9/11 family advocate Matt Campbell articulated the very reason we continue to fight 17 years later: “Whenever the authorities are involved in murder and its subsequent cover-up, it’s only through the determination and perseverance of family members and individuals that truth and justice can have any chance of prevailing, even when the chances of succeeding appear to be slim.”

I know Matt is right, for I have you to thank for your determination and perseverance! Please visit our Bobby McIlvaine page to find out how you can be a part of this winning, world-changing campaign.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 17th Anniversary: 9/11 Family Members, Technical Experts Stand Tall for Truth and Justice at U.S. Capitol

China’s top refiner Sinopec is halving its oil imports from Iran as of September, bowing to pressure from the United States, which is seeking to bring Iranian oil exports down to zero with the sanctions returning in November, Reuters reported on Friday, quoting people familiar with the issue.

Sinopec will reduce its imports from Iran to around 130,000 bpd, based on Reuters calculation on the prevailing supply contracts between the Chinese company and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).

China has previously stated that it would not stop buying Iranian oil despite U.S. efforts to have the Iranian exports down to zero. But Beijing is also said to have agreed not to increase its oil purchases from Iran. Iran, for its part, is keen to keep its single biggest oil customer—China—when U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports kick in.

Analysts have so far assumed that China will keep buying Iranian oil and be pretty much the only certain meaningful customer of Iran, because the other major buyer, India, is even more hard-pressed by the United States to wind down purchases from Tehran.

Sinopec—listed in Hong Kong, but more importantly, also in New York—is now facing direct pressure from the United States to curtail Iranian oil imports.

According to one of Reuters’s sources, U.S. officials visited Sinopec in Beijing in August and demanded steep reductions of oil imports from Iran.

“This round is completely different from last time. Then it was more of a consultative tone, but this time it’s almost like an ultimatum,” the source told Reuters.

Last month, Chinese refiners and oil traders were said to have started to switch to using Iran-owned tankers for almost all their crude oil imports from Tehran, in order to keep Iranian oil flowing to China.

But shipping and insurance sources told Reuters on Friday that Iran faces difficulties in insuring its own ships because western re-insurance firms are quitting their Iranian businesses.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

The raging feud between Saudi Arabia and Canada has hit the United Nations. 

On the margins of the 2018 UN General Assembly session in New York City this week, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister equated Canada’s call for the release of Saudi women’s rights activists to his own country demanding “the immediate release and independence of Quebec”.

Adel al-Jubeir called on Canada to apologise for demanding the activists’ release, and to stop treating the kingdom as “a banana republic” if it wanted to resolve the diplomatic dispute between the two countries.

In August, Saudi Arabia froze new trade with Canada, blocked grain imports, expelled Canada’s ambassador and ordered all Saudi students home after Ottawa called for the release of activists detained for urging more rights for women.

“It is outrageous from our perspective that a country will sit there and lecture us and make demands. ‘We demand the immediate release’… Really?” Jubeir said at an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday, as reported by Reuters.

“We demand the immediate independence of Quebec and the equal granting of rights to Canadian Indians,” which Canada refers to as the First Nations indigenous people, the minister then added, sarcastically making the comparison to illustrate his point.

“You can criticise us about human rights, women’s rights… others do and that’s your right,” said Jubeir.

“You can sit down and talk about it, but demand the immediate release? What are we, a banana republic? Would any country accept it? No! We don’t,” the minister added.

The dispute arose from Canada’s criticism over the arrests, including that of prominent women’s rights campaigner Samar Badawi.

Her brother Raif Badawi, a prominent blogger, is serving a 10-year sentence and has been publicly flogged for expressing dissenting opinions online. His wife and children live in Canada and are Canadian citizens.

A number of women’s rights activists, who campaigned for the right to drive and an end to the kingdom’s male guardianship system, have been targeted in a government crackdown in recent months, human rights’ groups say.

‘Say you made a mistake’

Jubeir said Canada could easily resolve the situtation by apologising for its actions.

“We don’t want to be a political football in Canada’s domestic politics. Find another ball to play with,” he said.

“It’s very easy to fix. Apologise and say you made a mistake.”

Canadian foreign minister Chrystia Freeland said on Tuesday that she hoped to meet with her Saudi counterpart this week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

However, the minister said that Ottawa would not be changing its fundamental position.

“Canada will always stand up for human rights… we feel a particular obligation to women who are fighting for their rights around the world,” she said.

“And we feel a particular obligation to people who have a personal connection to Canada.”

Germany and Saudi Arabia agreed earlier this week to end a diplomatic dispute between their countries.

The spat started last November when Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s foreign minister at the time, condemned “adventurism” in the Middle East, comments seen as an attack on increasingly assertive Saudi policies, notably in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia is scheduled to speak on Friday at the UN General Assembly – and it remains to be seen whether Canada will again be the target of its ire, but this time on a larger stage.

*

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

The State of Palestine has filed a lawsuit against the United States at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the main judicial body of the United Nations, for violating international law by moving its embassy in Israel to the occupied city of Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Riyad Malki said on Saturday.

Malki added in a statement that the case was based on Palestine’s membership in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries, specifically the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

He said the foreign ministry, in preparing its case, submitted a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICJ to settle all disputes that have come up or may come up as per the decision of the United Nations Security Council and the procedures and statute of the Court.

Malki said that based on the procedures to file a lawsuit with the ICJ, he sent a letter last May to the US State Department asking it not to move its embassy to Jerusalem because this step would violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Security Council resolutions.

He explained that due to failure of the US to respond to the letter and its non-compliance with international law, it was informed in a written memorandum dated July 4 of the existence of a legal dispute as per the rules and procedures of the ICJ.

With the passage of the legal period and after meeting all conditions to file a lawsuit against the US, the lawsuit has been formally filed with the ICJ’s Registrar to prosecute the United States, said Malki.

The Foreign Minister said that in the lawsuit against the US, the ICJ was asked to declare that moving the embassy to occupied Jerusalem constituted a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and to order the United States to take its diplomatic mission out of Jerusalem and comply with its international obligations in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as well as taking the necessary measures to comply with its obligations and refrain from taking any future steps that may violate its obligations and provide the necessary guarantees for non-repetition of its unlawful action.

Malki stressed that taking this step is an exercise of the sovereign right of the State of Palestine as a member state of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and other related conventions, which is another legal right used by Palestine to defend its rights and interests against illegal actions and measures.

“We defend our rights and our people without hesitation and reject all forms of political and financial extortion,” he said, expressing his belief that it is now possible to use the legal tracks that have been denied to the Palestinian people for decades.

He pointed out that the State of Palestine has taken many important steps to address the recent illegal measures taken by the current US Administration, particularly with regard to Jerusalem, and the Israeli Government with respect to colonial settlements and targeting of civilians, as well as steps at the Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and now the International Criminal Court.

“This step comes in line with the policy of the State of Palestine, which aims to preserve the character of the holy city of Jerusalem with its unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions,” said Malki. “The international community and international law have consistently rejected all attempts by Israel, the Occupying Power, to change the character and status of Jerusalem since all resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council have consistently affirmed that any action or decision aimed at changing the status or demographic character of Jerusalem is null and void and has no legal value.”

*

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

“It is namely the Russians who have prevented world war and any use of nuclear weapons, while it is the leaders of the United States Government-Military-Industrial-Deep State-Media Complex that does all it can to rule the world by using war and threatening world war with nuclear weapons.”

– Ron Ridenour (from the author’s preface to The Russian Peace Threat) [1]

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

– Matthew 7: 3-5 (King James Bible)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
In a speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, delivered January 19 2018, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced the nation’s latest National Defense Strategy, The first in ten years, Secretary Mattis indicated that the thrust of the nation’s policy had shifted away from fighting terrorism toward countering the threat posed by Russia and China.

“We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.” [2]

The strategic document to which he refers describes these rival states as wanting “to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.” It claims China is “leveraging” through “military modernization” and “predatory economics” to “coerce” its neighbours and “reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage.” Russia on the other hand is threatening peace and stability through its use of its veto power at the UN Security Council, its apparent ability to “subvert democratic processes” in other countries using new technologies, and through its “expanding and modernizing nuclear arsenal.” [3]

These accusations seem rather shocking considering they constitute an apt description of U.S. involvement internationally. Witness, for example:

  • the use of the U.S. petrodollar to “leverage” financial markets around the world to its advantage. [4]
  • (ab)use of the UN Security Council veto that rivals in frequency that of the U.S.S.R / Russia. [5]
  • The 7-800 military bases it is known to operate and/or control worldwide. [6]
  • A history of meddling in the elections of foreign countries dating back to 1945. [7]
  • Nuclear warhead stockpiles estimated at 6,550, near parity with the Russians (6,850) and well ahead of the next major nuclear power France (300). [8]

The Russian threat appears to have become inflamed in the public consciousness with the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin to the presidency. President Putin has been accused of promoting, aiding and abetting Russian and pro-Russian terrorists in the east of Ukraine. He has been blamed along with the Assad government for the “ruthless bombing” of Syrian civilian targets. He supposedly intervened in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the benefit of Republican candidate Donald Trump. He allegedly sent operatives to poison a former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter with a neurotoxin. [9][10][11]

Most maliciously, authorities invariably deflect criticism of U.S. policy by attempting to link dissenting publications with Russia.

Given that the U.S. appears to be just as self-serving and law defying as Russia is accused of being, what is the reality behind the unrelenting anti-Russian propaganda campaign? That question is at the heart of this week’s installment of the Global Research News Hour.

In the first half hour, past guest Dmitry Orlov returns to the show to bring us up to speed on some of the latest developments. The Russian-American commentator addresses some of the actions in recent months including the Skripal affair and the stand-off with Israel over the shooting down of a Russian plane. He compares and contrasts the two countries’ military postures and their differing objectives. He also examines the impacts of the sanctions regime and its implications for international political and economic relations.

Our second guest, Ron Ridenour, expands on the theme of his latest book, The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert, which provides a historical context for the renewed cold war, deconstructs the propaganda depicting Russia as a menace, and details some of America’s far from benevolent records over the past century. He also hints at where the path to peace may lie.

Dmitry Orlov is a Russian-American writer, blogger and geopolitical analyst based in Moscow. He has degrees in Computer Engineering and Linguistics and has worked in the fields of high energy physics, internet commerce, advertising and network security. He is the author of Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects and Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a Grip on the Technologies that Limit our Autonomy, Self-sufficiency and Freedom. His blog site is cluborlov.com.
Ron Ridenour is a long-time anti-war, solidarity, and radical activist. He has lived in many countries and worked as a journalist- editor-author-translator for four decades, including for Cuba’s Editorial José Martí and Prensa Latina (1988-96). He has published six books about Cuba, as well as Yankee Sandinistas, Sounds of Venezuela, and Tamil Nation in Sri Lanka. He is based in Denmark. His website is Ronridenour.com
LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with Dmitry Orlov, September 29, 2018

Global Research: We’re joined by Dmitry Orlov. He is a Russian-American writer, blogger, and geopolitical analyst. His work has centered around the political, economic, and ecological and political decline and collapse in the United States, and he’s also the author of numerous articles. His books include Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects and Shrinking The Technosphere: Getting A Grip On The Technologies That Limit Our Autonomy Self-Sufficiency, And Freedom. He joins us here from Moscow. Thanks so much for coming back to the show Dimitri.

Dmitry Orlov: Good to be with you Michael.

GR: Now I think the first thing I wanted to bring up is some of the recent news. There was the… Recently the shooting down of a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance plane by Syrian forces, but it was, the Russian military has argued that this is actually a result of Israeli actions, just, sort of, I guess you say shadowing that plane, and it was in response to that incident that a number of S-300 missile systems were moved into Syria.

I know that there’s beeen commentary by…The Saker, for one, said that this is a de facto no-fly zone over Syria. Now we know that things have not been going so well up to now for US imperial aims in the country. I’m wondering what, how significant this latest event is in the overall context of what we’ve been seeing?

DO: Well it’s a bit of a wake-up call for the Israelis because Russia has been extremely accommodating in everything that comes, when it comes to Israel’s security concerns. There is the realization that the rhetoric coming from Tehran has been, you know, quite virulent, you know, Iran is still telling itself that it has the goal of destroying Israel. There’s no way that Israel can avoid responding to such a provocation, and the fact that there are now Iranian troops close to the Israeli border, and that there is weapons manufacturing going on on Syrian territory is something that is a concern to them that the Russians have to allow Israel to take care of its own security concerns.

But the Israelis have acted most irresponsibly because they gave less than a minute warning that this attack was coming. They misnamed the targets, and they misbehaved in the airspace in the sense that they couldn’t have not seen this big lumbering propeller plane that was absolutely no threat to anyone, and they knew that there would be some anti-aircraft fire and drew it not on themselves but on this plane. There are some other, you know unfortunate mishaps that occurred, which are all coming out as a result of the investigation, so it’s still early to say.

But the response was basically to, you know, a dressing-down from Russia to Israelis, saying you cannot do this anymore, and the response was to arm the Syrians with a more up-to-date air defense system which was probably already in place. It was just handed over to Syrian command.

I don’t think that this is a major development. I think Russia and Israel are going to patch things up. I don’t think Israel is going to stop attacking, stop attacking things, on the ground in Syria, that, you know, actions that they see as provocative. They are very fearful of precision rockets, precision weapons being built in Syria that can be smuggled into Syria or even fired, smuggled into Israel, or even fired into Israel from Lebanon or from Syria itself.

GR: Yeah, I mean I think that there’s been a long-standing observation that the US drive to upset or instigate regime change within Damascus, it ain’t working. Even the balkanization project, the idea that balkanizing it in ways that favor the US, NATO, and their imperial lackeys if you want to put it that way, it seems to be in some turmoil. What options would you say the US has at this point? Short of a declaration of surrender?

DO: Well there is, there will be no declaration of surrender. Let’s not kid ourselves. Basically, what the US does in Syria, similar to what it does everywhere else, it generates activity. It generates activity in order to be in a position to order more weapons systems, more munitions, basically chew through more materiel, because that’s what the contractors require, and those contractors, military contractors, finance various congressional campaigns. That’s the entire political ecosystem, and what happens on the ground is sort of a sideshow.

Now in terms of strategic objectives, whatever they are, the US definitely isn’t achieving them. There’s that encampment they have in Al-Tanf in the south, there are a few other locations in the north where they’re playing along with the Kurds, which is poisoning their relationship with Turkey. They did completely destroy Raqqa and made absolutely no effort to clean it up, to restore it, so there are still rotting bodies there buried under a piles of rubble, and it’s been many months. It’s basically a humanitarian atrocity that they’ve perpetuated in Raqqa, but they’re not achieving anything except wasting money and war materiel. And I think that that is actually their goal at this point is to generate military activity.

GR: Well, it’s an interesting point. I mean, we’re not just talking about imperial control of resources and strategic areas but also that idea of just using military activity as a way of generating money for the major military contractors, defense contractors, and affiliated interests. Which kind of brings me to another dynamic in play, the US military. It’s huge, at least in terms of the amount of money it spends, more than about 10 time – more than the next 10 countries combined. Russia doesn’t spend nearly as much, but yet they’re much more strategic and efficient in the way they utilize and spend money on their military.

DO: In terms of purchasing parity it’s one Russian dollar to 10 U.S. dollars in defense spending. That’s really the ratio. The US has to spend ten times more than Russia to get the same or inferior results. There are a lot of reasons behind this.

GR: So in terms of that parity, would you say that Russia is a effectively now a rival of the US militarily? Can they counterbalance the US in every Realm?

DO: Oh, no, absolutely not. Basically, Russian posture, the Russian posture is to make sure that the US and NATO have absolutely no plan whatsoever to attack Russia, or to attack Russia’s allies. Perish the thought. But other than that, Russia’s posture is completely defensive, and American posture, because there is no need to defend the American homeland from anyone, nobody is planning to attack the United States, is purely offensive.

Now, it takes ten times more resources to attack than to defend. That is generally understood as a principle. And so, the US is trying to pursue a policy that really leads it to not any kind of victory or even a stand off, it leads them to national bankruptcy, nothing more.

GR: Well, what about the economic dynamics that have been playing out lately? The sanctions that are being leveled against Russia and Iran? And I’m wondering how that’s playing out within the EU, because the US is allied with the European Union, but European Union interests are being affected by sanctions, and so I’m wondering, are we seeing a potential breakup of that alliance? While there are efforts, there have historically been efforts to break up an alliance between Russia and China, I’m wondering if, which of those alliances is more fragile, if I could put it that way.

DO: It’s really hard to figure out what is going to snap first. There’s definitely a huge amount of tension between Washington and the European Union. There is a huge amount of tension building up within the European Union itself, because the whole liberal juggernaut that started bringing in unlimited quantities of migrants into Europe, you know that is definitely running into a huge, huge problem, huge conflict that is internal to the EU.

Now, the relationship between the EU and Russia has not really been all that badly damaged by Washington and by these sanctions that the Europeans have gone along with willy-nilly, many of them complaining all along the way. And, definitely, in terms of, for instance, energy cooperation between the EU and Russia is back on track because there are really no other options that the EU has to supply itself with natural gas other than to do business with Russia, and at this point that means also to circumvent the Ukraine because nobody really wants to do business with the Ukraine anymore. It’s basically a sort of poisoned chalice at this point.

You know, in terms of what the sanctions have done to the Russian economy, yes, they cost them a couple of percentage points of GDP growth, but the beneficial effect of those sanctions is often underestimated. It really woke Russia up to the fact that it has to become self-sufficient in many areas, and it has become self-sufficient in numerous areas and is working very hard to achieve self-sufficiency in more areas and to find new trading partners that aren’t going to sanction them. So, the sanctions have really woken up the Russians to the fact that the Americans are not their friends, will never be their friends, and have prompted them to act accordingly.

GR: The US economic situation, they have an unsustainable debt crisis. It doesn’t look like they’re ever going to be able to crawl out of it, they don’t have the ability to maintain the, their current trajectory. I mean, we’re probably looking at another stock market crash, probably sooner rather than later, and I think the writing is on the wall in that regard. That’s bound to affect the way the US comports itself in the world, even though they won’t say it out loud. I mean, you suggested that earlier.

So when it comes to that economic dimension, and other countries are no doubt aware of the unsustainability of the US economic situation, so how do you see things playing out? Are things going to come apart in a disastrous way? Or are there going to be sort of sneaky…people moving away to that secondary pole, the Russia-China-Iranian axis, if you will. Economically, how are people, how are the competitor nations going to respond to what appears to be the inevitable demise of the…and collapse of the US economy?

DO: Well, I think the writing has been on the wall for a really long time now. It’s just a question of when, and nobody knows the answer. And the big task in front of many countries in the world right now, and it’s a huge task, is de-dollarization. You have something like a hundred and eighty different currencies that all use the US dollar to trade with each other, that all have price lists in dollars, that convert to dollars in order to trade with each other and then convert back and use the fact that there’s this gigantic pool of dollar liquidity that they can tap into anytime they need to.

But the downside of that is that anytime anyone trades using the US dollar, they become part of the US jurisdiction and become subject to American sanctions. And it used to be that the US was sort of a good citizen – good global citizen – allowing itself to benefit from the fact that everybody uses the US dollar. Now, there’s huge benefit to the US. But in return it pretty much allowed people to use the dollar as they wished. But now, with Trump specifically, with his trade policies, the US requires other countries to use the dollar in America’s economic interests and to their own detriment. And that’s when everybody wakes up and notices.

But then the task is to de-dollarize, and it’s a huge task, because China is not really ready to replace the dollar with its own yuan. Nobody really expects China to step in and play such a huge role so quickly. China generally takes a long time to make such adjustments and takes many small steps. And nobody else really wants to do it either.

So, we’re in a period where there will be lots of half measures, there will be a lot of forced measures taken if the situation deteriorates suddenly. But I think that there’s a really good chance that there will be a lot of damage to international trade and to international supply chains if this dollar liquidity evaporates, because the only two ways, and it’s actually one and the same way, out of this crisis that the US has put itself into with its completely unsustainable rate of growth of its indebtedness, is either a deflationary collapse or an inflationary collapse or some combination of both.

So that you have, you know, falling prices on some things and hyperinflation in other areas. There’ll be huge economic distortions, and the rest of the world will simply have to co-exist. They have a hoard of dollars, they use that hoard of dollars in order to trade with each other, they have contracts signed that are all in dollars. So, how do you de-dollarize that? It’s a gigantic task.

GR: Yeah, I’m kind of interested in your take on the way…the media messaging around these realities, because they seem to be extremely diversionary. I mean there’s the long-standing… Well the…Russiagate, the attacks on Trump that we’ve been seeing in an ongoing way, I mean there’s certainly a lot of ridiculousness around that and particularly the… what we’ve seen recently about this Skripal affair.

And this… What they’re trying to explain, that there’s these two ex.. this spy was somehow assassinated by these two Russian agents, and that story seems to have been falling apart the more you look into it. Although they seem to be, like Theresa May and her allies, seem to be doubling down on this failing narrative. What is your take about the way the media continues to propel this mythology about Russia and its onerousness … its toxicity on the world stage? Is this a manifestation… Are you seeing a manifestation of your long-standing thesis about collapse, collapse of Empire?

DO: Well, I think that basically the West, the collective West, has run up against Russia as a sort of immovable object that is completely indigestible, unprocessable for it. And coinciding with that is just a catastrophic decrease in the quality of Western leadership. Whether you look at Trump, whether you look at Theresa May, or Emmanuel Macron, or just about all of this recent crop of European leaders, with few exceptions, they’re all just absolutely incapable of being even coherent, never mind formulating some strategy or plans. They’re failing, and everybody sees that they’re failing, and they can’t stop themselves. They just go on with whatever narrative they’ve concocted.

With the Skripal affair, it’s preposterous throughout. There’s absolutely no evidence behind the British story, and there are a lot of facts that are just completely contradictory and negate the narrative that has been voiced. And so the Russians are happy to basically sit back and ignore all of that. They know that there will be sanctions, these sanctions have nothing to do with chemical weapons, they have nothing to do with anything except one fact: Russia is sitting on a stockpile of energy resources that will last it for hundreds of years.

And it has enough to export for as long as it sees fit. But really, it wants to become independent of energy exports, and that is a big problem for the West because the West has absolutely no strategy to become independent of Russian energy imports. There’s nothing they can do about it except basically do whatever Russia is willing to do for them, to basically agree to cooperate with Russia.

They’re basically jumping up and down mad that they have this problem that they can’t solve. They can’t attack Russia militarily. They’re trying to attack Russia economically, but that’s not working. They’re trying to isolate Russia, and as a result of that Russia is strengthening ties with countries all over the world. You know the SCO organization is now almost half of the world’s GDP, almost half of the world’s population. And it’s a security organization that Russia is part of.

You know, they try to stage little provocations like the little training exercises along the Russian border in the Baltics that are supposed to frighten Russia. Now if NATO attacked Russia, Russia would have them arrested. It doesn’t really make sense as a plan, but it makes sense as an internal narrative, something that these incompetent Western leaders can tell their own people.

GR: Dimitry, I think we got to leave it there, but I really want to thank you. I really value your unique out-of-the-box thinking and the insights that you share with us and our listeners. Thanks so much for joining us.

DO: Thank you, Michael.

GR: We’ve been speaking with Dmitry Orlov, Russian-American engineer, writer, and blogger. You can see more of his articles at the site cluborlov.com.

-end of transcript-

Global Research News Hour Episode 230

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

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. Ron Ridenour (2018), The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert p.xiii, Punto Press Publishing, New York, NY
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_fSu7dNIZY
  3. Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge (p.2); https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
  4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/crisis-of-the-u-s-dollar-system/3482
  5. https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick
  6. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564
  7. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-elections-of-at-least-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481
  8. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
  9. https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-criminal-inhumanity-syria/
  10. John Walcott (Dec. 11, 2016), ‘Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials’, Reuters; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B
  11. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/uk-charges-russians-skripal-novichok-nerve-agent-attack-180905101911944.html

Ten Modern Methods of Mind Control

September 29th, 2018 by Nicholas West

This article was first posted on Global Research in January 2015.

The more one researches mind control, the more one will come to the conclusion that there is a coordinated script that has been in place for a very long time with the goal to turn the human race into non-thinking automatons.  For as long as man has pursued power over the masses, mind control has been orchestrated by those who study human behavior in order to bend large populations to the will of a small “elite” group.

Today, we have entered a perilous phase where mind control has taken on a physical, scientific dimension that threatens to become a permanent state if we do not become aware of the tools at the disposal of the technocratic dictatorship unfolding on a worldwide scale.

Modern mind control is both technological and psychological.  Tests show that simply by exposing the methods of mind control, the effects can be reduced or eliminated, at least for mind control advertising and propaganda.  More difficult to counter are the physical intrusions, which the military-industrial complex continues to develop and improve upon.

1. Education — This is the most obvious, yet still remains the most insidious.  It has always been a would-be dictator’s ultimate fantasy to “educate” naturally impressionable children.  No one has been more instrumental in exposing the agenda of modern education than Charlotte Iserbyt — one can begin research into this area by downloading a free PDF of her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, which lays bare the role of Globalist foundations in shaping a future intended to produce servile drones lorded over by a fully educated, aware elite class.

2. Advertising and Propaganda — Edward Bernays has been cited as the inventor of the consumerist culture that was designed primarily to target people’s self-image (or lack thereof) in order to turn a want into a need.  This was initially envisioned for products such as cigarettes, for example.  However, Bernays also noted in his 1928 book, Propaganda, that “propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.” This can be seen most clearly in the modern police state and the growing citizen snitch culture, wrapped up in the pseudo-patriotic War on Terror.  The increasing consolidation of media has enabled the entire corporate structure to merge with government, which now utilizes the concept of propaganda placement.  Media; print, movies, television, and cable news can now work seamlessly to integrate an overall message which seems to have the ring of truth because it comes from so many sources, simultaneously.  When one becomes attuned to identifying the main “message,” one will see this imprinting everywhere.  And this is not even to mention subliminal messaging.

3. Predictive Programming — Many still deny that predictive programming is real.  I would invite anyone to examine the range of documentation put together by Alan Watt and come to any other conclusion.  Predictive programming has its origins in predominately elitist Hollywood, where the big screen can offer a big vision of where society is headed.  Just look back at the books and movies which you thought were far-fetched, or “science fiction” and take a close look around at society today.  For a detailed breakdown of specific examples, Vigilant Citizen is a great resource that will probably make you look at “entertainment” in a completely different light.

4. Sports, Politics, Religion — Some might take offense at seeing religion, or even politics, put alongside sports as a method of mind control.  The central theme is the same throughout: divide and conquer.  The techniques are quite simple: short circuit the natural tendency of people to cooperate for their survival, and teach them to form teams bent on domination and winning.  Sports has always had a role as a key distraction that corrals tribal tendencies into a non-important event, which in modern America has reached ridiculous proportions where protests will break out over a sport celebrity leaving their city, but essential human issues such as liberty are giggled away as inconsequential.  Political discourse is strictly in a left-right paradigm of easily controlled opposition, while religion is the backdrop of nearly every war throughout history.

5. Food, Water, and Air — Additives, toxins, and other food poisons literally alter brain chemistry to create docility and apathy.  Fluoride in drinking water has been proven to lower IQ; Aspartame and MSG are excitotoxins which excite brain cells until they die; and easy access to the fast food that contains these poisons generally has created a population that lacks focus and motivation for any type of active lifestyle.  Most of the modern world is perfectly groomed for passive receptiveness — and acceptance — of the dictatorial elite.  And if you choose to diligently watch your diet, they are fully prepared to spray the population from the above.

6. Drugs — This can be any addictive substance, but the mission of mind controllers is to be sure you are addicted to something.  One major arm of the modern mind control agenda is psychiatry, which aims to define all people by their disorders, as opposed to their human potential.  This was foreshadowed in books such as Brave New World.  Today, it has been taken to even further extremes as a medical tyranny has taken hold where nearly everyone has some sort of disorder — particularly those who question authority.  The use of nerve drugs in the military has led to record numbers of suicides.  Worst of all, the modern drug state now has over 25% of U.S. children on mind-numbing medication.

7. Military testing — The military has a long history as the testing ground for mind control.  The military mind is perhaps the most malleable, as those who pursue life in the military generally resonate to the structures of hierarchy, control, and the need for unchallenged obedience to a mission.  For the increasing number of military personal questioning their indoctrination, a recent story highlighted DARPA’s plans for transcranial mind control helmets that will keep them focused.

8. Electromagnetic spectrum  — An electromagnetic soup envelops us all, charged by modern devices of convenience which have been shown to have a direct impact on brain function.

In a tacit admission of what is possible, one researcher has been working with a “god helmet” to induce visions by altering the electromagnetic field of the brain.

Our modern soup has us passively bathed by potentially mind-altering waves, while a wide range of possibilities such as cell phone towers is now available to the would-be mind controller for more direct intervention.

9. Television, Computer, and “flicker rate”— It’s bad enough that what is “programmed” on your TV (accessed via remote “control”) is engineered; it is all made easier by literally lulling you to sleep, making it a psycho-social weapon.  Flicker rate tests show that alpha brain waves are altered, producing a type of hypnosis — which doesn’t portend well for the latest revelation that lights can transmit coded Internet data by “flickering faster than the eye can see.”  The computer’s flicker rate is less, but through video games, social networks, and a basic structure which overloads the brain with information, the rapid pace of modern communication induces an ADHD state.  A study of video games revealed that extended play can result in lower blood flow to the brain, sapping emotional control.  Furthermore, role-playing games of lifelike war and police state scenarios serve to desensitize a connection to reality.  One look at the WikiLeaks video Collateral Murder should be familiar to anyone who has seen a game like Call of Duty.

10. Nanobots — From science fiction horror, directly to the modern brain; the nanobots are on the way.  Direct brain modification already has been packaged as “neuroengineering.” A  Wired articlefrom early 2009 highlighted that direct brain manipulation via fiber optics is a bit messy, but once installed “it could make someone happy with the press of a button.”  Nanobots take the process to an automated level, rewiring the brain molecule by molecule.  Worse, these mini droids can self-replicate, forcing one to wonder how this genie would ever get back in the bottle once unleashed. Expected date of arrival?  Early 2020s.

A concerted effort is underway to manage and predict human behavior so that the social scientists and the dictatorial elite can control the masses and protect themselves from the fallout of a fully awake free humanity. Only by waking up to their attempts to put us to sleep do we stand a chance of preserving our free will.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ten Modern Methods of Mind Control

Israel gets away with murdering Palestinians and other horrific human rights abuses because the international community fails to hold it accountable.

Peaceful Gazan Great March of Return protests began on March 30, continuing each Friday, yesterday for the 27th consecutive time, the horrific death and injury toll mounting.

According to Gaza’s health ministry, Israeli forces Friday 28, 2018 killed seven Gazans, including two children, injuring over 500 others, around 90 from live fire.

Ministry spokesman Dr. Ashraf al-Qedra said “the types of injuries, and the deliberate use of sniper fire against the protesters, reflect one of the bloodiest and most brutal military assaults against the processions in the Gaza Strip, since the massacre of May 14” when Israeli forces massacred 60 Palestinians, including six children, injuring over 2,700 others.

On Friday, 35 children, four women, four medical workers, and two journalists were wounded, including from live fire.

At least 10 Palestinians sustained serious wounds, some life-threatening.

Since March 30, Israeli forces killed nearly 200 Gazans, around 20,000 others wounded, nearly half from live fire, including by exploding dumdum bullets, able to inflict fist-sized wounds and destroy internal organs.

According to Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) field workers,

“border area(s) witnessed heavy deployment of the Israeli forces this week as the latter heavily fired live bullets, increasing the number of causalities,” adding:

“The Israeli forces continued to use upon highest military and political echelons excessive force against the peaceful demonstrators who posed no threat or danger to the life of Israeli soldiers in the areas of demonstrations.”

Actions since March 30 have been peaceful, protesters courageously putting themselves in harm’s unarmed. Israeli claims otherwise are bald-faced lies, trying to unjustifiably justify cold-blooded murder.

Thousands of Gazans turned out yesterday, including women, children and the infirm, peacefully protesting against suffocating blockade responsible for protracted humanitarian crisis conditions.

Gathering around 300 meters from the border fence, demonstrators displayed Palestinian flags. They chanted slogans, sang national songs and set tires ablaze.

Some threw stones and launched flaming kites cross-border. Countless numbers were harmed by toxic tear gas inhalation, the same pattern repeating each Friday.

Lethal and other brute force against defenseless civilians flagrantly violates the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Fourth Geneva, and other international law.

Israeli officials have never been held accountable for decades of high crimes, including premeditated wars of aggression. They enjoy world community immunity to keep committing what no just societies tolerate.

On the same day, Israeli forces invaded Ahed Tamimi’s Nabi Saleh village, kidnapping three Tamimi family children, two aged-11, the other aged-12.

They’re held at an unknown location incommunicado, denied access to their parents and legal counsel.

Israeli forces abduct, traumatize, and brutalize Palestinian children as young as age-six, holding them in seclusion, harshly interrogating them for days, forcing them to sign confessions in Hebrew they don’t understand for offenses they didn’t commit or are too minor to matter.

According to Defense for Children International Palestine (DCIP), up to 700 Palestinian children are kidnapped, detained, and prosecuted in rubber-stamp military tribunals annually.

Most are charged with stone-throwing. Imprisonment up to 10 or 20 years can follow, depending on the child’s age.

The vast majority of victims experience physical violence during arrest, detention and interrogation.

Abductions nearly always occur pre-dawn by dozens of heavily armed soldiers. Victims are terrorized, traumatized, beaten, sleep-deprived, and otherwise harshly abused – physically, emotionally, and verbally, leaving permanent scars.

According to DCIP, child fatalities in Occupied Palestine are at a record-high this year – other than when Israeli wars of aggression were waged.

“Israeli forces have operated with near complete impunity for so long that unlawful killings and other flagrant violations of international law have become the norm,” DCIP’s Accountablity Program director Ayed Abu explained, adding:

“Impunity combined with the rise in Israel’s use of live ammunition as a method of quelling demonstrators since 2014 means there is no legal mechanism that will halt this bloodshed.”

Last May, Israel’s Supreme Court OK’d use of live fire against peaceful Palestinian protesters. It rejected petitions by the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Yesh Din, Gisha, and HaMoked.

Justices called use of live fire in accordance with Israeli law, falsely claiming Palestinian protesters endanger Israeli soldiers, civilians and security.

A joint Adalah/Al Mezan statement said the following in response to the ruling:

“The Israeli Supreme Court completely ignored the broad factual basis presented to it by the petitioners, which includes multiple testimonies of wounded and reports of international organizations involved in documenting the killing and wounding of unarmed protesters in Gaza,” adding:

Justices “refused to watch video clips, documenting Israeli shootings of demonstrators and, rather than actually examining the case, fully accepted the claims presented to it by the state.”

“The extreme nature of the ruling is also highlighted by the striking absence of any mention of the casualty figures that had been presented to the court.”

Israel’s High Court unjustifiably justifying live fire against peaceful Palestinian demonstrators flagrantly violates core international law.

World community indifference to fundamental Palestinian rights lets Israel get away with murder and other flagrant human rights abuses time and again.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 27th Straight Bloody Friday in Gaza. Israeli Forces Kill Children

History and Political Thought: South Slavic Ideologies, Greater Croatia

September 29th, 2018 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

Read Part I, II, III.

An importance and influence of P. R. Vitezović’s ideological concept

P. R. Vitezović’s works had a great impact on the development of the South Slavic national ideologies, national consciousness, and nationalism. Paradoxically but true, P. R. Vitezović influenced at the great degree the 18th century Serbian and Bulgarian national movements. His heraldic manual under the title Stemmatographia, sive Armorum Illyricorum delineatio, descriptio et restitution (Vienna, 1701), in which coats of arms of all “Illyrian” (i.e., according to him, Croatian) historical provinces were presented, was translated into the Slavonic-Serbian language, adapted and expanded in the mid-18th century by the Serbian patriot of the Bulgarian ethnic origin from South Hungary, Hristifor Žefarović (1700–1753). Nonetheless, previously to P. R. Vitezović, the examples of coats of arms of Illyria (i.e. the Balkans) were available in Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia (Basel, 1544) and revised by the Italian version in 1575. A very idea of the Illyrian (i.e. the Balkan or the South Slavic) unity could be found exactly in S. Münster’s Cosmographia, where the lands of Carinthia, Carniola, Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina are described as the Illyrian provinces.

P. R. Vitezović used, in addition to S. Münster’s Cosmographia, as a basis for his own armorial manual, a heraldic work of the Herzegovinian nobleman and admiral in the Spanish navy service, Petar Ohmučević (known in Spain as Don Pedro) from 1596. P. Ohmučević’s version of unified Pan-Illyrian Empire of Stefan Dušan Almighty (a Serbian ruler from 1331 to 1355) was illustrated by coats of arms of the following “Illyrian” lands: Macedonia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Rascia, and Littoral. P. Ohmučević’s armorial manual was used and extended by Mavro Orbin (Mauro Orbini) from Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in his famous work where coats of arms of Bulgaria, Slavonia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Dalmatia, Serbia, Croatia, Rascia and Littoral were considered as historical provinces of South Slavic Empire of Stefan Dušan who was the most famous, mighty and glorified South Slavic ruler as the Emperor of Serbia from 1346 to 1355 (Banac 1993: 218–225).[i] Nevertheless, in P. R. Vitezović’s interpretation, all of these coats of arms were heraldic insignias of the Croatian historical and ethnolinguistic provinces. These insignias were followed in P. R. Vitezović’s armorial work by the next arms of the Croatian lands: Bohemia, Muscovy, Poland-Lithuanian Republic, Ukraine, Carinthia, Carniola, Istria, Moldavia, Transylvania, Wallachia, Lower and Upper Austria, Prussia, Venice, Hungary, Albania, Celta, Crete, Dacia, Dardania, Epirus, Greece, Japodia, Liburnia, Mysia, Pannonia, Romania, Scythia, Baltic Slavonia, Thessaly, Odrysia, Thrace, and Triballia. The real purpose of P. R. Vitezović’s armorial was to demonstrate his idea of Pan-Croatianism, according to which, all Slavs were the ethnolinguistic Croats and subsequently, a Greater Croatia (but no longer the Illyrian Empire of Stefan Dušan) had to be established under the Habsburg scepter.

However, while S. Münster’s and P. Ohmučević’s Illyrian heraldic manuals were for Vitezović the Croatian, for H. Žefarović the same S. Münster’s and P. Ohmučević’s Illyrian coats of arms were the Serbian. Subsequently, H. Žefarović’s Stemmatographia (Σтемматографϊа) (Vienna, 1741) of coats of arms of all “Serbian” historical-state lands which had to belong to revived Serbian Empire of Stefan Dušan, contributed to the growth of both Serbian national awareness and nationalism. H. Žefarović presented a triumphant mighty Emperor Dušan surrounded by 24 Balkan coats of arms that represented a unified Serbian Empire (i.e. the Balkan Empire). The message was that all the lands of S. Dušan’s crown (but in fact the whole Balkans) should be politically united into a single (Serbian) state. The shorter version of the Σтемматографϊа circulated among the Austrian and Ottoman Serbs at the beginning of the 19th century having a strong impact on the idea of the restoration of the Serbian medieval state during the time of the First Serbian Uprising against the Turks (1803–1813) and after that as well (Ćorović 1993: 556; Mladićević 1994: 54–59).

The 19th– and 20th-centuries state and national coats of arms of Croatia and Croats and Serbia and Serbs were modeled according to Vitezović-Žefarović drawings. H. Žefarović’s Σтемматографϊа, which was based on P. R. Vitezović’s Stemmatographia…, became one of the most influential ideological and programmatic “lighthouses” for the Serbs in their struggle for the national unification. P. R. Vitezović created in his Stemmatographia…, according to the drawing of Mavro Orbin, the coat of arms of Bulgaria, and invented a completely new coat of arms of Romania. Shortly, P. R. Vitezović’s “Illyrian” heraldry became one of the most influential contributors to the iconography of the Balkan nationalism. Both P. R. Vitezović’s and H. Žefarović’s heraldic manuscripts were the sources of national identities for the succeeding Croatian and Serbian generations (Banac 1991b; Banac 1993). H. Žefarović’s collection of “Illyrian” (i.e., the Serbian) coat of arms clearly conveyed the notion that adherence to the Orthodox Christianity made for the Serbs a nationhood and suggesting that the Serbian historical-national task was to unite all the lands of old Illyricum under a single coat of arms of Serbia.

Nevertheless, P. R. Vitezović ideologically mostly influenced the development of the Croatian nationalism particularly in the 18th and the 19th centuries. His armorial and ideological Pan-Croatianism was a historical construction and a political program. During these two hundred years, his ideological influence extremely benefited to the Croatian resistance against the Hungarian claims on historical-state rights over the provinces of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia but, unfortunately, also to the creation of the extreme anti-Serbian feelings and the policy of Croatian genocide on the Serbs in the 20th century. Nevertheless, at the turn of the 19th century, P. R. Vitezović’s writings were in great demand by the Croats and were reprinted in many occasions. During the whole 19th century, P. R. Vitezović’s Croatia rediviva… was playing a role of “a Bible of the Croatian national policy” and nationalism too (Šišić 1934: 46; Banac 1993). For example, several the most significant and influential 19th-century Croatian politicians (some of them the leaders of the Croatian national revival movement – the Illyrian Movement) as Ljudevit Gaj (1809–1872), Ivan Derkos (1808–1834), Janko Drašković (1777–1856), Ante Starčević (1823–1896), and Eugen Kvaternik (1825–1871) were rather familiar with P. R. Vitezović’s work, which crucially influenced their ideology of a Pan-Croatianism. For Lj. Gaj, A. Starčević, and E. Kvaternik (“the fathers of Croatian nation”), the names of separate South Slavic nations were only synonyms for the common ethnic name of the Croats (Gaj 1835: 1; Gaj 1965: 299–301; Starčević 1971; Kvaternik 1971). Further, for I. Derkos and J. Drašković, the Orthodox Serbs from Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, and the Military Border were only ethnolinguistic Croats (Derkos 1832; Drašković 1832).

The insignia (coat of arms) of the Illyrian Movement, invented by Lj. Gaj, was a Morning Star that was inspired by P. R. Vitezović’s work as well. Ljudevit Gaj still sincerely believed in the Illyrian proto-homeland of all Slavs and moreover found “evidence” for this hypothesis in the large number of the Czech, Polish, and Russian coats of arms. For him simply the “Illyrian” (i.e., the Croatian) Morning Star became “only common coat of arms of all our (i.e., the Slavonic-Croatian) tribes and lands” (Gaj 1863, 194). A. Starčević and E. Kvaternik, the founders of the most nationalistic Croat political party – the Croatian Party of Rights, denied the legitimacy of any other term and name of the Balkan Slavs than the “Croat” one. In other words, all South Slavs were speciums of Croatian gens. In conclusion, the modern Croatian national-political ideology of Lj. Gaj, A. Starčević, and E. Kvaternik was directly derived from P. R. Vitezović’s Croatocentric terminology, ideology and viewpoints of the Balkan and world affairs.

P. R. Vitezović’s conception of linguistic nationhood that the language was the pivotal national identifier, significantly influenced the South Slavic Romanticist’s linguistically based definitions of nationhood. This new approach had a considerable impact to South Slavic national ideologists especially during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.[ii] Ultimately, P. R. Vitezović’s idea of Lithuanians’ (as “Slavic” people) Balkan origin based on ethnolinguistic determination of the nation was shared by famous Lithuanian 19th–20th-century linguist and national worker Jonas Basanavičius, who claimed after many years of scientific investigation and comparison of contemporary Lithuanian and old Thracian languages that Lithuanian ancestors migrated from the Western Balkan province of Thrace (being of ancient Thracians’ origin) to the Baltic littoral (Basanavičius 1898, 8–15, 21, 34−35, 74). Still, the Balkan region of Thrace was a part of P. R. Vitezović’s Croatia rediviva or unified Croatia populated by ethnolinguistic Croats from the time of Antique onward.

It can be given a final conclusion that P. R. Vitezović by following the main idea of the medieval and Renaissance South Slavic writers upon the Slavic matters, who apotheosised Slavism, transformed the message of one of them, Vinko Pribojević, that historical task of the Slavic nation was to rule the world (“ut totius orbis habenas regeret” (Pribojević 1951, 78) into the new futurological anticipation that ethnolinguistic Croats had a historical destiny to rule the globe. Shortly, while Pribojević was speaking in the favor of world Slavic Empire, P. R. Vitezović introduced a concept of the ethnolinguistic ecumenical Croatian state.

Conclusion

Pavao Ritter Vitezović (1652–1713), an aristocrat of the German origin of the Dalmatian city of Senj, was the first South Slavic national ideologist who extended the Croatian ethnic name not only to all Balkan Slavs but rather to all Slavs. Using several different medieval historical sources upon the Slavic settlement on the Balkan Peninsula and many of South Slavic literal and historical works that recorded a popular tradition about the Balkan-Illyrian origin of all Slavic people, P. R. Vitezović concluded that legendary Slavic progenitors – the brothers Czech, Lech and Rus’ – should be understood as the persons of the Croat ethnolinguistic origin. Identifying the brothers as the Croats, P. R. Vitezović concluded that in fact, the entire Slavic population in the world descended from the Croat origin.

During the last stage of the Great Vienna War (1683–1699), between the Christian Alliance against the Ottoman Sultanate, when the struggle between Venice and the Habsburgs for the division of the South Slavic lands emerged, P. R. Vitezović wrote a memorandum to the Habsburg Emperor in order to refute any Venetian claim on the territory of the “Croatian” historical lands. His work about limites totius Croatiae (“the borders of whole Croatia”) demonstrated the borders of a Greater Croatia, which was divided into two parts: Croatia Septemtrionalis (North Croatia) northward from the Danube River, composed by Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, and Croatia Meridionalis (South Croatia) that was the Balkan Peninsula with Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Albania, Epirus, Thessaly, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Thrace. The Balkan Croatia was further subdivided into Croatia Alba (White Croatia) and Croatia Rubea (Red Croatia). A trans-Danubian Croatia was subdivided into Sarmatia: Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, and Venedia: Bohemia, Moravia, and Lusatia. Shortly, the 17th-century Croatian usage of the terms “Illyrian” and “Croat” as the synonyms, P. R. Vitezović simply extended to all Slavs understanding them as the people of the Croat origin. In other words, every Slavic nation was seen as specium of the Croatian gens.

The ideology of Pan-Croatianism created by Pavao Ritter Vitezović, who developed the ancient theory upon derivation of all Slavs from the Balkans, was a historical construction and a political program as a protest against long-time fragmentation of alleged Croatian historical and ethnic territories, but it was at the same time politics against territorial pretensions on alleged Croatian historical-ethnic space by the Republic of St. Marco. Finally, P. R. Vitezović attempted by his writings to obtain a Habsburg political-military support for the creation of a unified or Greater Croatia, i.e. Croatia rediviva. P. R. Vitezović’s arguments were both historical and ethnolinguistic that helped him to appropriate a vast territory of Europe, from the Adriatic and the Black Sea to the Ural Mt and the Baltic Sea, to the Croatdom. Surely, he did not envisage any kind of a unified South Slavic state under the name of Yugoslavia or so, but he only designed a united Pan-Croatian political community paving the ideological road for the Habsburg expansionistic policy at the Balkans and Central Europe in the future.

P. R. Vitezović considered the whole territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a Croato-Slavic land primarily due to the fact that his knowledge about Poland and Lithuania, for the most part, came from the writings of pro-Polish and pro-Slavic authors who saw Lithuania as the Slavic territory. Lithuania at that time was very much Polonized through the spreading of the Polish language and culture. In addition, P. R. Vitezović’s apprehension of Lithuania as a Croato-Slavic land came from the facts that the Slavic languages, among the others, were languages of the official correspondence within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and what is more important, that a majority of Lithuania’s population was of the ethnic Slavic origin. Subsequently, according to his Croatocentric doctrine, a “Slavic” Grand Duchy of Lithuania was actually populated by ethnolinguistic Croats and, therefore, had to belong to a Greater Croatia rediviva.

Finally, we can agree with Simpson Catherine Anne that for P. R. Vitezović the value of the past was equal to that of the present, i.e. the past and the present are juxtaposed and intertwined, and that he occasionally subordinated the present to the past in the light of his national and political ideals (Simpson 1991: 94–107). It explains why in P. R. Vitezović’s historiographic discourse there is no clear distinction between the past and the present. Also, Blažević Zdenka was right that “both function as argumentative axes around which the functional and transtemporal Croatia as a discursive articulation of Vitezović’s worldview is being build” (Blažević 2000: 230). Clearly, P. R. Vitezović’s “metahistorical” Croatia as “temporalized narrative space” produced by historical discourse” (Velčić 1991: 111) would not be made to fit the geographic boundaries of its contemporary toponym.

*

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

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former University Professor, Director of Democracy Rooting Centre, Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine On Global Politics Since 2014 (www.global-politics.eu). Contact: [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] For the Serbs, Emperor Dušan was a representative of the national statehood, glory, and power. At the time of the Ottoman occupation, the Serbian national dream and political ideology were framed within the idea to re-establish the Empire of Stefan Dušan (Stanojević 2015: 50−58). About the Empire of Stefan Dušan, see (Stevanović 2001).

[ii] See, for instance in (Banac 1983, 448–474; Sotirović 2000, 7–24).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History and Political Thought: South Slavic Ideologies, Greater Croatia

The rising African Great Power of Ethiopia might prospectively export electricity to Saudi Arabia upon the completion of its Grand Renaissance Dam and thus become the next de-facto member of the GCC+.

“Friendly Competition”

The Gulf Cooperation Council Interconnection Agency’s (GCCIA) Ahmed Ali Al-Ebrahim told Climate News that the regional integration organization will undertake a two-year feasibility assessment to examine the possibility of building an electricity cable between Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia via Yemen (and then either Djibouti or Eritrea) in order to have the landlocked giant power the Kingdom’s economy upon the completion of its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) sometime in the coming future. The proposal is enterprising enough to warrant a deeper analysis about its grand strategic implications, which would turn the rising African Great Power into a de-facto member of the GCC+, the informal expansion of the Gulf Monarchies’ platform for multilaterally engaging with the rest of the world.

Ethiopia appears to be the object of “friendly competition” between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, especially seeing as how both of their leaders are separately hosting and rewarding their Ethiopian and Eritrean counterparts following their historic peace agreement, though this dynamic actually stabilizes the country much more than it undermines it. Yemen is also the object of “friendly competition” between the GCC’s two leaders, though it’s of an entirely different nature because of the armed conflict that they’re waging there. Even so, the outcome of that war and the informal separation of spheres of influence between them will greatly determine which of the two Red Sea-bordering states the prospective electricity cable will pass through.

Yemen In The Way

Saudi Arabia is fighting to reclaim hegemonic control over the entirety of its southern neighbor’s territory, though the UAE cleverly undermined its “big brother’ by backing the South Yemeni separatists against the unpopular “official” government of President Hadi and the North Yemeni Houthi rebels. This wouldn’t ordinarily be relevant to the Horn of Africa’s transregional integrational plans had Djibouti not entered into a recent tiff with the UAE over control of its national port after evicting the Emirates from it earlier this year. This means that Abu Dhabi is extremely unlikely to greenlight an electricity cable through its de-facto “eight emirate” of South Yemen to Ethiopia via Djibouti unless the latter “makes amends” for what it did, which probably won’t happen.

Image result for ethiopia grand renaissance dam

Moreover, the North Yemeni Houthis have fought the GCC-led “coalition” to a standstill in their home region, thereby making it politically impossible that the de-facto rulers of this part of the war-torn country would approve of their nemesis snaking a cable through their territory to either Eritrea or Djibouti. The obvious workaround would be for Saudi Arabia to cut Yemen entirely out of the equation and simply commit to the extra costs of a longer undersea cable from its own border to Eritrea’s en route to Ethiopia, which might realistically end up being the final solution to the integrational conundrum posed by the Yemeni conflict. In the event that the cable is laid one way or another, then it would lead to two primary regional outcomes.

Egypt & The GCC+

The first is that Egypt’s concerns that GERD would ever be weaponized against its national interests would be further allayed than they already recently have been by the fact that its chief financial patrons are cooperating with the project through the planned electricity cable. This would reinforce the incipient trust between these two Great Powers and contribute to a strengthening of (GCC-facilitated) intra-African relations as a result. Relatedly, Ethiopia would join Egypt as a de-facto member of the GCC+, which would represent the organization’s deepest expansion into the Horn of Africa after the UAE set up bases in Eritrea and the breakaway Somali region of Somaliland to wage the War on Yemen.

Importantly, by becoming the center of “friendly competition” between a variety of Great Powers – whether Saudi Arabia and the UAE like in this instance, or even also China and the US more broadly – Ethiopia can position itself as too valuable for any of them to destabilize without harming their own regional interests. This is more significant of a strategy than ever before considering that Prime Minister Abiy is facing the greatest test of his premiership thus far after the “Flag War” in Addis Ababa and subsequent need to decide upon which of the two competing nationalisms (or perhaps a “hybrid” thereof) that the country will embrace as it works towards an “Ethiopian Renaissance”.

Concluding Thoughts

All told, the proposal for Ethiopia to export GERD’s electricity to Saudi Arabia is a very promising one that epitomizes “win-win” outcomes for this pair of countries and their broader regions as a whole. Saudi Arabia will able advance its ambitious Vision 2030socio-economic series of projects that aim to move the Kingdom away from its oil-related dependencies and towards more sustainable models, while Ethiopia will become a crucial pillar of the GCC’s post-oil planning (which could then expand beyond electricity to include more agricultural exports too) and thus safeguard its national security by becoming much too important of a country for them to destabilize like they’ve done to others. This will benefit both the Gulf and the Horn of Africa, thus strengthening their transregional integration prospects.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

The creation of demilitarisation zone in northern Syria was announced last week. The joint decision of Moscow and Ankara was supported among a number of pro-Turkish groups. However, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Huras al-Din, and the Turkistan Islamic Party armed groups have rejected the Idlib agreement.

It’s obvious, that the agreement between Russia and Turkey is a temporary project aimed at stopping the bloodshed and restoring sovereignty. Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad in an interview with Al-Watan newspaper reaffirmed the Syria government’s resolve to recapture Idlib from terrorists by any means necessary.

While the parties that have agreed are trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, the terrorists seek to seize the ‘last opportunity’ to earn some money. Their fate has already been determined, and they would need significant resources to take shelter in Turkey. Therefore, slavery, drug smuggling as well as trafficking of artefacts is still flourishing in the province.

First of all, the drug smuggling brings considerable profit to the various terrorist groups. Initially, the drugs are smuggled from Lebanon, and then they are packaged in Idlib and sent to Turkey via Afrin. There the psychotropic substances are transported by sea to Europe.

The same method is used by HTS for the illegal sale of human organs to the European continent. The locals who refuse to join the ranks of the terrorists are being kidnapped and smuggled to the Turkish towns of Antioch and Kiliss. The illegal surgery on the transplantation of donor organs [source to be confirmed] under the auspices of the Turkish officials is being carried out there.

Besides, the radicals trade artefacts, are still in high demand among collectors around the world. During the Syrian war, they plundered hundreds of historical and cultural sights and turned the ancient town of Sarmada, located not far from Turkey into a black market.

Within the framework of creating the demilitarisation zone, mechanisms are envisaged to suppress the financing of militants in Idlib province. In turn, the Syrian Arab Army initiated a large-scale liberation operation. The government forces started patrolling the nearby areas in the southeast of the province for further creation of humanitarian corridors.

These measures have already yielded positive results. The terrorists’ network of underground tunnels used for bypassing observation posts was discovered by the Syrian servicemen not far from the Abu Duhur crossing. Moreover, last week the elite Tiger Forces took captive a terrorist named Abu Yahya, who tried to commit a terrorist attack at the border crossing when the locals were leaving the demilitarisation zone.

After being interrogated, the captive said that he had been fought in the ranks of HTS in a unit of 300 fighters.

“I was trained in a camp near Saraqib along with my brothers for committing single terrorist attacks. I was quite impressed to see the White Helmets activists being trained there too”, Abu Yahya added.

The captive also reported that the U.S., Britain, and Turkish military instructors separated terrorists for the groups and taught them various disciplines as explosives engineering, artillery bombardment, urban battles, and preparation of suicide bombers. Most likely the White Helmets were trained the proper handling of chemicals for the upcoming chemical weapons provocation.

The HTS field commanders make every effort for setting up a defense position. By oppressing the locals and smuggling, the terrorists earn a big sum of money and recruit new fighters under the black banners. The longer Idlib matter is being resolved; what is more difficult is the restoration of control over the region for the Syrian army.

It’s quite difficult to establish how the situation will be developed in Idlib as Russia and Turkey have entirely different interests in Syria. However, the results of their efforts should turn into the elimination of Idlib hornet’s nest.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Demilitarization Zone in Northern Syria: What Is Going On in the Idlib Hornet Nest?

Lavrov Slams Western Unilateralism at UN General Assembly

September 29th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

In his UN General Assembly address and remarks to reporters in New York, Lavrov diverged from his usual measured approach when discussing geopolitical issues.

He slammed US-led Western unilateralism without naming countries or their ruling authorities.

Calling Western sanctions against Russia “political blackmail,” he criticized baseless accusations against his country, along with denouncing “overt endeavors to undermine democratically elected governments” – referring to Syria and other sovereign states attacked by the US and its imperial partners.

His address was reminiscent of Putin’s 2007 Munich Security Conference tough talk, enraging Washington at the time.

“When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” he stressed, adding:

Unipolarity and other imperial notions of world supremacy reflect “Cold War bloc thinking.”

A world with “one master, one sovereign” is unacceptable…pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

“(T)his certainly has nothing in common with democracy…(W)e are constantly being taught about democracy (by the West). (T)hose who teach us do not want to learn themselves.”

“(T)he unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.”

‘(T)he model itself is flawed because…(u)nilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems.”

They create major ones, plunging the world “into an abyss of permanent conflicts,” along with “greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.”

“One state…first and foremost the United States” imposes its will on other nations politically, economically and militarily.

Abuses by a dominant nation forces others to react defensively, producing an arms race menacing everyone.

Putin denounced what he called illegitimate military operations, flagrantly violating UN Charter principles and other international law.

He urged working together cooperatively to resolve differences. US militarism near Russia’s borders threatens its security.

Provocative US-led NATO actions undermine mutual trust. Where is Washington’s commitment to non-proliferation matching Russia’s pledge, Putin asked?

In his Friday UN General Assembly address, Lavrov slammed “unilateral approaches” on major world issues – including Middle East peace, the Iran nuclear deal, climate change, and others.

He said if Washington values nation state sovereignty, it should stop (illegally) interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.

He warned of a “desire of some Western states to retain their self-proclaimed status as world leaders and to slow down the irreversible, objective process of establishing multipolarity,” adding:

“These powers do not hesitate to use any methods, including political blackmail, economic pressure and brute force.”

Clearly he referred to Washington and its key NATO partners. He “warn(ed) terrorists and their sponsors (in Syria) that new provocations involving chemical weapons are unacceptable.”

He urged conflict resolution, rebuilding the Syrian Arab Republic, aiding millions of displaced refugees return home, and reconstructing war-torn areas without “double standards.”

Addressing the endless Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he said

“(d)espite the complexity of the situation in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya, we must not lose sight of the age-old Palestinian problem.”

“A fair solution is crucial if we want the entire Middle East to recover. I want to warn against a one-sided approach and attempts to monopolize the peace process.”

“We will make every effort, including in the within the Middle East Quartet, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”

“Mutually acceptable initiatives must lay the groundwork for a peaceful and secure co-existence of the two nations, Israel and Palestine.”

One-sided US support for Israel, along with disdain for Palestinian rights, prevents conflict resolution.

The Netanyahu regime categorically rejects Palestinian self-determination the way it should be – within pre-1967 borders. So does Washington despite claims otherwise.

Lavrov stressed Russia’s commitment to preserving the JCOPA Iran nuclear deal, Trump’s unilateral pullout a flagrant violation of the international treaty.

Russia’s foreign minister slammed illegally installed Kiev putschists, saying their “sponsoring nations must bring their proteges back to their senses, push them to end the blockade of the Donbass and to stop discriminating against national minorities across Ukraine.”

Russia is committed to furthering political and economic cooperation among all nations, notably stressing the development of a “Greater Eurasian Partnership.”

At his Friday news conference, Lavrov again slammed interference by Washington and its imperial partners in the internal affairs of other nations.

He stressed support for the sovereign independence of all countries, calling multilateralism vital in today’s world where geopolitical issues are “cross-border ones.”

There’s no ambiguity about “who is calling for meddling and who isn’t,” he stressed.

US-led Western countries pressure, bully, threaten and blackmail other countries to enforce their will, an agenda threatening world peace.

“(D)ictate and coercion” belong in the dustbin of history, mutual cooperation among all nations replacing it, Lavrov stressed.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lavrov Slams Western Unilateralism at UN General Assembly

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies continues their slow advance on ISIS positions in the al-Safa area in the al-Suwayda-Rif Dimashq desert. The SAA reportedly ambushed at least two groups of ISIS members killing six terrorists and destroying a vehicle.

Nonetheless, most of the area remains in the hands of ISIS. At least 15 SAA troops have been killed in the clashes there.

A unit of the Syrian Air Force Intelligence Directorate (SAFID) cracked down an ISIS cell in the village of al-Harrah in western Daraa detaining. According to reports, five suspects were detained, at least one SAFID servicemember was killed and an unknown number of terrorist was eliminated during the operation.

In western Aleppo, Nour al-Din al-Zenki arrested several members of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) accusing them of carrying out several attacks in the town of Darat Izza. Members of the group also captures several Hayat Tahrir al-Sham positions at the al-Shikh Barakat mount. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham responded by deploying additional reinforcements in the area.

Some sources speculated that a new round of tensions between various militant groups in Idlib and western Aleppo has been caused by the recent Turkish-Russian agreement to impose a demilitarized zone there.

During a House Armed Services Committee subcommittee hearing on September 26, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Robert Karem accused the Assad government and Russia of turning Idlib into the terrorist stronghold in Syria.

“There is no dispute that Idlib has become a hornet’s nest of multiple terrorist organizations. Regrettably, this is the product of the Russian and Regime approach to consolidating control on the ground in Syria. They have used de-escalation zones and local negotiated deals to purge areas in Syria and used Idlib as a dumping ground. And they have allowed the free transit of the worst terrorists to go to Idlib,” he stated hinting that the Pentagon’s official attitude is that efforts of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance are allegedly leading to the growth of the terrorist threat in the war torn country.

On September 27, speaking at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once again stated that Israel is adamant in its will to act in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in order to deter what he described as “Iran’s aggression”.

He also made new allegations on Iran’s nuclear program claiming that there is a secret “atomic warehouse” near Tehran, which is capable of containing as much as 300 tons of “nuclear-related material.”

“Today I am disclosing for the first time that Iran has another secret facility in Tehran, a secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and material for Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program,” Netanyahu stated adding that the data had been allegedly obtained as a result Israeli forces’ raid on Iran’s alleged “nuclear atomic archive”. A part of this data was presented by Netanyahu in April 2018 with similar claims that Iran has not abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Meanwhile, the US has renewed its efforts to create the so-called Arab NATO to confront the Iranian influence in the Middle East.

According to U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Arabian Gulf Affairs Tim Lenderking, the new entity will be entitled the Middle East Strategic Alliance and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Egypt and Jordan would become the core of the bloc.

These developments show that the US-Israeli bloc is set continue its military, diplomatic and economic efforts in an attempt to reshape the current balance of power in the Middle East and to counter the growing Iranian influence.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Pentagon Says Russia, Assad Turned Idlib into Terrorist Stronghold

Fragility of Middle East Alliances Becomes Ever More Apparent

September 29th, 2018 by James M. Dorsey

A podcast version of this story is available on Soundcloud, Stitcher, TuneIn and Tumblr.

Three recent developments lay bare the fragility of Middle Eastern alliances and a rebalancing of their priorities: the Russian-Turkish compromise on an assault on the rebel-held Syrian region of Idlib, the fate of troubled Abu Dhabi airline Ettihad, and battles over reconstruction of Syria.

These developments highlight the fact that competition among Middle Eastern rivals and ultimate power within the region’s various alliances is increasingly as much economic and commercial as it is military and geopolitical. Battles are fought as much on geopolitical fronts as they are on economic and cultural battlefields such as soccer.

As a result, the fault lines of various alliances across the greater Middle East, a region that stretches from North Africa to north-western China, are coming to the fore.

The cracks may be most apparent in the Russian-Turkish-Iranian alliance but lurk in the background of Gulf cooperation with Israel in confronting Iran as well as the unified front put forward by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Russia, prevented, at least for now, a rupture with Turkey, by delaying an all-out attack on Idlib despite Iranian advocacy of an offensive. Turkey, already home to three million Syrians, feared that a Syrian-Russian assault, would push hundreds of thousands, if not millions more across its border.

If Iran was the weakest link in the debate about Idlib, it stands stronger in its coming competition with Russia for the spoils of reconstruction of war-ravaged Syria.

Similarly, Russia appears to be ambivalent towards a continued Iranian military presence in post-war Syria, a potential flashpoint given Israel’s opposition and Israeli attacks that led earlier this month to the downing of a Russian aircraft.

By the same token, Turkey, despite its backing of Qatar in its 15-month-old dispute with a Saudi-UAE-led alliance that is boycotting the Gulf state diplomatically and economically, poses perhaps the greatest challenge to Qatari efforts to project itself globally by operating one of the world’s best airlines and positioning itself as a sports hub.

Turkey, despite its failure this week to win the right to host Euro 2024 and its lack of the Gulf’s financial muscle, competes favourably on every other front with Qatar as well as the UAE that too is seeking to project itself through soft as well as hard power and opposes Mr. Erdogan because of his Islamist leanings, ties to Iran, and support of Qatar. Turkey wins hands down against the small Gulf states when it comes to size, population, location, industrial base, military might, and sports performance.

That, coupled with a determination to undermine Qatar, was likely one reason, why the UAE’s major carriers, Emirates and Etihad that is troubled by a failed business model, have, despite official denials, been quietly discussing a potential merger that would create the world’s largest airline.

Countering competition from Turkish Airlines that outflanks both UAE carriers with 309 passenger planes that service 302 destinations in 120 countries may well have been another reason. Emirates, the larger of the two Emirati carriers, has, a fleet of 256 aircraft flying to 150 destinations in 80 countries.

These recent developments suggest that alliances, particularly the one that groups Russia, Turkey and Iran, are brittle and transactional, geared towards capitalizing on immediate common interests rather than shared long-term goals, let alone values.

That is true even if Russia and Turkey increasingly find common ground in concepts of Eurasianism. It also applies to Turkey and Qatar who both support Islamist groups as well as to Saudi Arabia and the UAE who closely coordinate policies but see their different goals put on display in Yemen.

The fragility of the alliances is further underwritten by Turkish, Russian and Iranian aspirations of resurrecting empire in a 21st century mould and a Saudi quest for regional dominance.

Notions of empire have informed policies long before realignment across Eurasia as a result of the focus of the United States shifting from the Middle East to Asia, the rise of China. increasingly strained relations between the West and Russia, and the greater assertiveness of Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran.

Then president Suleyman Demirel told this author already in the 1990s in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union and the emergence of independent, mostly ethnically Turkic Central Asian republics that “Turkey’s world stretches from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China.”

In a world in which globalization is shaped by geopolitical zones rather than individual countries, Russia’s imperative is to be a region by defining itself as an Asian rather than a European power that would be on par with China, the European Union, and a US zone of influence.

“Putin does not think along national lines. He thinks in terms of larger blocks, and, ultimately in terms of the world order,” said former Portuguese minister for Europe, Bruno Macaes in a recently published book, The Dawn of Eurasia.

In doing so, Russia is effectively turning its back on Europe as it reinvents itself as an Asian power on the basis of a Eurasianism, a century-old ideology that defines Russia as a Eurasian rather than a European power.

The Eurasian Economic Union, that groups Russia, Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia, is a vehicle that allows Russia to establish itself as a block in the borderland between Europe and Asia.

Similarly, Eurasianism has gained currency in Turkey with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who enabled by the demise of the Soviet Union and the re-emergence of a Turkic world, projects his country as a crossroads between Europe, Africa and Asia rather than a European bridge to Asia.

In that vein, Turkish columnist Sinan Baykent projected this week’s fence-mending visit to Germany by Mr. Erdogan and his proposal for a summit on Syria of Turkish, Russian, German and French leaders as a Eurasian approach to problem solving.

The meeting between Mr. Erdogan and German chancellor Angela Merkel was meant “to pave the way for a Eurasian solution for the region… There is a new axis forming today between Berlin, Moscow, Ankara, Tehran and maybe Paris… All of these countries are fed up with American unilateralism and excessive policies displayed by the Trump administration.,” Mr. Baykent said.

If Turkey and Russia’s vision of their place in the world is defined to a large extent by geography, Iran’s topology dictates a more inward-looking view despite accusations that it is seeking to establish itself as the Middle East’s hegemon.

Iran is a fortress. Surrounded on three sides by mountains and on the fourth by the ocean, with a wasteland at its centre,” noted Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence platform.

Gulf fears are rooted not only in deep-seated distrust of Iran’s Islamic regime, but also in the fact that the foundation of past Persian empire relied on control of plains in present-day Iraq.

As a result, the manoeuvring of Gulf states, in contrast to Turkey and Russia, is driven less by a conceptual framing of their place in the world and more by regional rivalry and regime survival. Countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE walk a fine line focusing geopolitically on an increasingly unpredictable United States and economically on China and the rest of Asia, including Russia, Korea and Japan.

What the plight of Idlib, potential change in aviation and competition for reconstruction contracts highlight is the brittleness of Middle Eastern alliances that threatens to be reinforced by economics becoming an increasingly important factor alongside geopolitics.

“Stakes for all parties are starting to divert from each other in Syria and the prospects of cooperation with Russia and Iran are becoming more challenging,” said Turkish columnist Nuray Mert commenting on the situation in Idlib.

Her analysis is as valid for Idlib as it for the prospects of many of the Middle East alliances.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa and just published China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom  He is a frequent contributor to global Research. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fragility of Middle East Alliances Becomes Ever More Apparent

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have committed perjury under oath during Senate confirmation hearing testimony.

He may have lied about his knowledge of and/or involvement in Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiretapping, torture and other lawless programs.

Did he lie as well in response to Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusations?

Ahead of her Thursday Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, Ford said Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down and sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers in the 1980s.

By letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, she said what’s going on now “are all the ills that I was trying to avoid. Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and my terror about retaliation,” adding:

“Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room.”

“They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.”

“Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.”

“They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth, I feared he (might) inadvertently kill me.”

“At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.”

“After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me.”

“Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.”

“I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6, I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information.”

“It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.”

In response to Ford’s compelling accusations, the American Bar Association (ABA) urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the confirmation process until an FBI investigation into Ford’s charges is conducted and completed.

By letter to committee chairman Grassley and ranking minority committee member Feinstein, ABA president Robert Carlson said the following:

“The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI,” adding:

A Supreme Court appointment is “too important to rush to a vote. Deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court.”

Whether Carlson’s letter makes a difference ahead a scheduled Friday confirmation vote will be known in the coming hours.

Separately, two more women accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault while he was in high school or college.

Accusations this serious against anyone demand an investigation to determine who’s truthful and who’s not. It’s especially vital with a Supreme Court seat at stake.

If accusations by Ford and other women are verified as genuine, a sexual predator should never be allowed on the nation’s High Court.

Nor should war crimes by presidents and other US officials be tolerated.

But it happens repeatedly, indicating Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed even if guilty of perjury and sexual assault.

It’s further proof that lofty principles US officials claim to value is pure fantasy.

One more point. If majority Senate members reject Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, Trump will surely nominate another right-wing hardliner.

No one favored by Republicans or undemocratic Dems today approaches the stature William Brennan, William Douglas, Thurgood Marshall or Louis Brandeis.

America’s most distinguished and respected jurists are no longer considered Supreme Court material – more evidence of how low things in the nation have sunk.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Bar Association (ABA) Calls for Investigating Sexual Assault Charges Against Judge Kavanaugh
  • Tags:

Tortured Solutions: Ecuador, the UK and Julian Assange’s Fate

September 29th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The pulse of negotiations, a flurry of communications, and the person central to this is one who threatens to go nowhere – for the moment.  But go somewhere these parties would wish Julian Assange to do.  For six years, cramped within a space in London a stone’s throw away from Harrods, one he has made his tenuous home, a citadel of sporadic publishing and exposes; for six years, an unruly, disobedient tenant whose celebrity shine has lost its gloss for certain followers and those who did, at one point, tolerate him.

The landlords have lost patience, and Lenín Moreno is willing to call in the arrears.  He has made it clear that, whilst Assange has been subjected to an unacceptable state of affairs (“Being five or six years in an embassy already violates his human rights”), he should also be moved on in some form with the British authorities.  How that moving takes place is producing a host of large, ballooning questions.

Ultimately, the current Ecuadorean leadership finds little to merit Assange’s effort.  He intrudes into the political affairs of other countries with audacity; he disturbs and interrupts the order of things with relish and, for those reasons, ought to be regarded with suspicion. 

“I don’t agree with what he does,” Moreno is on record as saying.  “It is somewhat disgusting to see someone violating people’s right to communicate privately.” 

Moreno, despite being classed as a protégé of his predecessor Rafael Correa, has done his level best to spruce up the country’s image for the United States whose Vice President, Mike Pence, duly acknowledged on a visit in June this year. He has moved on former figures within the previous administration, including Correa, claiming instances of corruption and crime.  Previous contracts made with Chinese companies are also being scrutinised for their value. 

Moreno is prudish and inaccurate on the issue of private communications and the WikiLeaks experiment. What he ignores is the driving rationale for the spicy vigilantism of the publishing outfit, an attempt to subvert a certain order of power that was crying out for a revision. This revision, applied through the lens of transparency, would arm the weak and powerless with knowledge while defending their privacy.  The powerful and brutish, on the other hand, must be kept exposed, under a form of public surveillance and permanent review.  Transparency for the powerful; privacy for the powerless.   

The asymmetrical order of information, however, lauds the reverse of this. States are patriarchs beyond scrutiny; they dispense, with occasional bad grace, the odd favour that entitles the public to see its activities.  Freedom of information statutes and regulations give the impression that the public are, somehow, entitled to see material that is supposedly their resource. (How condescending to tell citizens that they have a resource that can only be accessed carefully, via suspicious gatekeepers obsessed with national security.)  

In return, these gorged bureaucracies conduct surveillance upon their citizens with a sneering conviction, and ensure that a fictional public interest is deployed against those who would dare air the cupboard of skeletons. 

The current state of negotiations are blurry.  On Wednesday, Moreno claimed that Ecuadorean and British officials were nattering over permitting Assange to leave the embassy “in the medium term”.  His lawyers have been notified of the process, but nothing else is forthcoming.   

What tends to be written about Assange is itself a product of the dissimulation that he has attempted to banish from political conservation.  His variant of the Midas touch is less turning things to gold than simulacrums of truth.  A piece on the Australian SBS site notes how, “Previous sexual assault charges filed against him in Sweden have been dropped.”  The stopper here is that he was never charged, being merely a subject of interest who needed to be questioned.  The rest is an awkward, concocted silence.

Assange, more significantly for the geopolitical boffins, took a dump in the imperium’s gold water closet, and now faces the consequences.  It has come in drips and drabs: cutting off internet access on March 27; restricting visitors and the access of journalists.  Moreno himself has suggested that Assange stop what he does best: express unsavoury opinions.  Should Assange promise “to stop emitting opinions on the politics of friendly nations like Spain or the United States then we have no problem with him going online.”  Turning Assange into a eunuch of public affairs is a top priority.    

Moreno’s predecessors have shaken their heads in disbelief at the treatment being dished out to the Australian publisher.  To ban visitors, argued Correa, was “a clear violation of his rights.  Once we give asylum to someone, we are responsible for his safety, for ensuring humane living conditions.” (It should be noted that Correa himself authorised a temporary suspension of internet access to Assange in 2016, a brief measure taken to stem the publisher’s zeal in attacking Hillary Clinton during the US presidential elections.) 

This will be a slow torture, a cruel process of breaking down resistance.  The issue in such cases is to avoid going potty and losing all sense of bearing.  Should Assange even maintain a sense of psychic composure after this relentless attempt to dissolve his will, history should record it as one of those infrequent secular miracles that the human spirit can provide.

* 

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tortured Solutions: Ecuador, the UK and Julian Assange’s Fate

Iran’s nuclear program is the most intensively monitored on the planet. It has no military component, no credible evidence suggesting otherwise.

All the huffing, puffing and posturing histrionics by Netanyahu and other Iranophobes can’t refute cold hard facts.

IAEA officials have unimpeded access to all Iranian sites designated for inspection.

Twelve consecutive agency reports unequivocally affirmed full Iranian compliance with JCPOA provisions. No Islamic Republic nuclear weapons program exists. No credible evidence suggests its leadership or military intends one.

Claims otherwise are bald-faced lies. On Thursday, Netanyahu once again used the UN General Assembly as a platform to turn truth on its head about Iran.

He was silent about Israel’s open secret. It’s the only nuclear armed and dangerous regional state. The whole world knows what he and other Israeli officials won’t openly admit.

In a 2012 General Assembly address, Netanyahu made a fool of himself before a world audience. His cartoon bomb presentation on Iran bombed.

So did his Wednesday presentation, a litany of beginning-to-end Big Lies.

Netanyahu:

“We opposed (the JCPOA) because the deal paved Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal.”

“And by lifting the sanctions, it fueled Iran’s campaign of carnage and conquest throughout the Middle East.”

“We oppose it because the deal was based on a fundamental lie that Iran is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.”

Fact: The world community, including leaders and diplomats attending the UNGA session, knows all of the above accusations are disgraceful bald-faced lies.

Not a shred of credible evidence supports them. Plenty of evidence debunks them, notably from IAEA inspectors.

Watch below Netanyahu’s speech at the UNGA.

Last May, coincidentally with Trump’s JCPOA pullout, Netanyahu claimed Israel has thousands of incriminating documents, charts, presentations, photos and videos, showing Tehran lied for years to the international community.

Without credible evidence backing his announcement, he falsely claimed Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program called Project Amad – to “design, produce and test 5 warheads, each of 10 kilotons TNT yield for integration on a missile.”

He turned truth on its head, claiming Iran built a secret underground facility for developing nuclear cores and implosion systems.

Intensive IAEA inspections refuted him, an agency statement repeatedly stating that

“Iran is (fully) implementing its nuclear-related commitments.”

Time and again, Netanyahu turns truth on its head about Iran. His dissembling wore thin long ago. His Wednesday theatrics once again backfired, a clearly understood exercise of Iranophobic deception – new accusations as fabricated as earlier ones.

Netanyahu:

“Today I’m disclosing for the first time that Iran has another secret facility in Tehran. A secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and material for Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program.”

Fact: Not a shred of credible evidence supports his fabricated accusation.

Press TV called his Wednesday theatrics a “new vaudeville” act “without providing any proof to support his claims” because none exists.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif blasted him, saying

“the boy who can’t stop crying wolf is at it again.”

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said his presentation failed to mention full Iranian compliance with JCPOA provisions.

In late August, Netanyahu disgracefully threatened Iran with “atomic annihilation,” adding “our enemies know very well what Israel is capable of doing” – virtually admitting that the Jewish state is nuclear armed and dangerous.

At the time, Zarif tweeted:

“Iran, a country without nuclear weapons, is threatened with atomic annihilation by a warmonger standing next to an actual (Dimona) nuclear weapons factory,” adding:

His remarks were “beyond shameless…No arts and craft show will ever obfuscate that Israel is only regime in our region with a secret and undeclared nuclear weapons program — including an actual atomic arsenal.”

“Time for Israel to fess up and open its illegal nuclear weapons program to international inspectors.

Israel refuses to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran a signatory country since 1968 when NPT was opened for signatures.

The Islamic Republic fully complies with its provisions. The US and Israel flagrantly breach them unaccountably.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The recently published, U.S.-financed report on South Sudan’s brutal conflict is just another dramatic illustration of how the U.S. publicly laments violence it has helped to create and perpetuate while obfuscating the sordid legacy of its foreign interventions.

A new report financed by the U.S. government on the state of South Sudan’s civil war has found that the conflict has resulted in the deaths of nearly 400,000 people since it began five years ago, indicating that past statistics had severely underestimated the death toll.

Yet, while the U.S.-funded report bemoans the situation in Africa’s youngest country, it fails to acknowledge the U.S.’ role in igniting the conflict, which largely resulted from the U.S.’ 2011 intervention in Sudan that led to the country’s partition and later to the current chaos that has now claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

The report, published by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by the U.S. Institute of Peace, revealed on Wednesday that at least 382,900 people in South Sudan have died as a result of the conflict in the country. About half of the deaths resulted from ethnic violence while the remaining deaths were caused by the increased risk of disease and reduced access to health care — underscoring the drastic effect the fighting has had on the country’s infrastructure.

The statistics provided in the report are astronomical compared to past estimates of the death toll resulting from the conflict, as past estimates claimed that the death toll stood at around 50,000. Yet, as the new report reveals, the actual death toll is more than seven times higher than past estimates.

Illuminating but leaving much in the dark

While the U.S.-funded report seems to be the first of its kind to more accurately record the massive toll the war has taken on the people of South Sudan, it unsurprisingly fails to acknowledge the U.S.’ role in perpetuating as well as creating the conflict.

Image result for Stephen Hadley

This is likely a result of the U.S. Institute of Peace having funded the project, as that organization — much like the related organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — promotes the role of the U.S. as benevolent global hegemon in “managing international conflicts.” In other words, the USIP — currently headed by former National Security Adviser under George W. Bush and Raytheon board member Stephen Hadley (image on the right)— sees American foreign interventions, including military interventions, as not only positive but necessary.

Yet, the conflict of South Sudan, which is undeniably the result of U.S. policy, has hardly had positive results. As The New York Times noted in 2014, South Sudan – as well as its brutal civil war – “is in many ways an American creation, carved out of war-torn Sudan in a referendum largely orchestrated by the United States, its fragile institutions nurtured with billions of dollars in American aid.”

Indeed, the creation of South Sudan at America’s behest was the ultimate result of long-standing U.S. efforts to exploit the decades-old conflict between Sudan’s northern and southern elites in a bid to weaken the Sudanese government, whose growing ties to China and the Soviet Union threatened American access to Sudan’s oil fields as well as American hegemony in Africa.

Soon after the state’s creation, civil war broke out, officially the result of a straightforward power struggle between U.S.-backed President Salva Kiir and his former deputy, Riek Machar, with the violence subsequently taking on an ethnic component.

Yet, a major reason for the perpetuation of the ethnic violence and high death toll of the conflict is the policies of President Kiir, whose government utilized a “scorched earth” campaign and has sought to use “population engineering” to forcibly relocate ethnic minorities. Kiir, and officials in his government have also directly ordered mass killings and property seizures against civilians.

In addition, Kiir’s rival, Machar, also has a long history of ethnic massacres and mass murder under his belt. The U.S., having thrown its support behind Kiir and Machar after elections in 2011, was well aware of the fact that it had effectively backed mass murderers taking control of the country after helping to create it. Many analysts have pointed out that Machar apparently instigated the country’s civil war at Washington’s behest after the Kiir government began to work closely with China, particularly in South Sudan’s oil sector.

Furthermore, the U.S. has continued to exacerbate the situation in South Sudan, as it wages a barbaric proxy war between the U.S. and China over the new nation’s considerable oil reserves. While a recent “peace deal” between the two factions supporting Kiir and Machar in the conflict has given some hope, the reality of the conflict as a battle between powerful U.S. and Chinese oil interests instead suggests that such peace efforts are likely doomed to fail.

Thus, in a sense, the recently published, U.S.-financed report detailing the jarring death toll of South Sudan’s “civil war” is just another dramatic illustration of how the U.S. publicly laments violence it has helped to create and perpetuate, while obfuscating the sordid legacy of its foreign interventions.

*

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

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

Western interference in all things Bosnian is hardly news. Not today, not yesterday, not 26 years ago, when the then-US ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman, encouraged Bosnian Muslim fundamentalist leader Alija Izetbegovic to reject a peace plan – accepted, incidentally, by the very same Bosnian Serb leaders soon to be demonized by the unipolar West as “aggressors” on their own land – that had a good chance of preventing the outbreak of a bloody, three-and-a-half-year civil war that produced about 100,000 dead and many more wounded and homeless people in this former federal republic of ex-Yugoslavia.

But it is news when such a charge comes out of the mouth of Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, who, although eager to keep and develop good relations with Russia and China, has over the years remade himself into an essentially pro-Western politician, whose main ambition is to integrate his country and the rest of the Balkans into the EU, torpedoes be damned. Thus, Vucic’s announcement that, as soon as the October 7 general elections in Bosnia were over, he would present “astonishing evidence of the most brutal interference of certain Western powers in the elections in Republika Srpska” (one of two entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a majority Orthodox Serb population, taking up 49% of the country, the other being the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dominated by Muslims and Catholic Croats), is a fairly reliable sign that the West has truly outdone itself, even by its own standards of “democracy export,” going so far, in Vucic’s words, that certain Western ambassadors were calling opposition candidates and threatening them not to switch allegiances, otherwise they would “answer both for real and imagined crimes.”

The first accusations of US meddling in the upcoming Bosnian general elections could already be heard back in May, when the Bosnian Serb government presented evidence to the UN Secretary-General regarding US State Department and USAID media financing designed to influence the elections, to the tune of more than $12 million. Then in June, President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik similarly accused the British government, referring to its decision to send 40 intelligence specialists to, as British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson (he of the “go away and shut up” Russia fame) put it, counter “malign external influence” – as “meddling in internal affairs” and “an act that borders on intrusion into this country.” In August, Dodik once again pointed his fingers at the Americans, charging that they were interfering in the upcoming elections by funneling “anti-corruption” funds to local, anti-government NGOs. And then in the first days of September, Dodik reproached the outgoing US ambassador to B-H, Maureen Cormack for – you guessed it – “flagrantly meddling in political processes and elections in Bosnia,” having lobbied for US sanctions against the vice-president of Dodik’s party, Nikola Spiric and his family, for alleged corruption – during the 2014 (!) election campaign. In Spiric’s own words, Cormack “made a desperate move 28 days before the general election in order to help her puppets from Sarajevo – the Alliance for Change.”

Dodik went even further, opining that Cormack was, in fact, the ambassador of George Soros, and that the real reason behind the sanctions against Spiric was his “refusal to support the anti-Serbian agenda of the B-H Intelligence-Security Agency… and participate in a commission that was supposed to legalize eavesdropping” of him, current Republika Srpska Prime Minister Zeljka Cvijanovic, Serbian President Vucic and other officials of Serbia and Republika Srpska. Earlier in the month, before the sanctions against Spiric had been announced, Zeljka Cvijanovic had already publicly accused the B-H agency of illegally eavesdropping on “around 70” officials from Serbia and Republika Srpska.

So the stage is set for, to say the least, eventful elections in the (former) unipolar world’s model democratic and multi-ethnic protectorate, Bosnia and Herzegovina, still “supervised” by a de facto viceroy in the form of a “High Representative,” with a “constitutional court” in which three of the nine judges are foreigners, and unwieldy and paralyzed institutions that are producing a “fatalistic cynicism” amongst its populace. That is, if regular elections even take place. For, there are increasing fears that there is a (naturally) Western scenario for preventing or voiding the elections in Republika Srpska in order to block the victory of Dodik and his ruling coalition. According to sources cited by Serbian Sputnik, two scenarios are in play: according to the first, the elections would be sabotaged in advance if it was judged that Dodik is too strong, while, according to the second, the election results would not be recognized should Dodik’s party gain the majority of the vote. Mass demonstrations would be incited in either case, with the lead role being played by the British, due to the “weakening” of America’s Balkan policy under Donald Trump.

The mass demonstration scenario is not unrealistic. Demonstrators in varying numbers have been occupying the main square of Banja Luka, the Republika Srpska capital, for months, accusing the government of complicity in the death of 21-year old David Dragicevic, even though they have yet to produce concrete evidence (doesn’t that sound familiar) for their claims. The victim’s father has even threatened that there would be “no election in Republika Srpska until the murder of David and other children is solved.” The demonstrations are obviously well financed, and are supported and occasionally attended by members of the pro-Western opposition. And, considering that, on the eve of the elections, Dodik is slated to visit Russia and meet its president, Vladimir Putin (Russia has consistently upheld the integrity of B-H, as provided for by the Dayton Peace Accords of 1995, and the absolute equality of its three constituent peoples, which was reiterated during Sergey Lavrov’recent visit to the country) it will indeed be exceedingly difficult for the end-of-history West to refrain from trying to “teach” the Balkan deplorables at least one more lesson in “democracy.” Because all the previous ones there and elsewhere – Syria, Libya, Iraq instantly come to mind – have produced such wonderful results…

*

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

Aleksandar Pavic is an independent analyst and researcher.

Featured image is from the author.

The scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology has issued a rare “Expression of Concern” and requested corrections to articles it published that failed to fully disclose Monsanto’s role in reviews of glyphosate’s cancer risks.

The journal said all five articles it published in a 2016 supplemental issue titled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate” failed to include an accurate disclosure of the pesticide-maker’s involvement.

The five articles at issue were all highly critical of the 2015 finding by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen.

“It’s deplorable that Monsanto was the puppet master behind the supposedly ‘independent’ reviews of glyphosate’s safety,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These papers were manufactured as a way to counteract the World Health Organization’s findings on glyphosate’s cancer risks. They could mislead the public in dangerous ways and should be completely retracted.”

The documents revealing Monsanto’s role in the reviews came to light during a trial that culminated last month when a jury found that exposure to glyphosate products was a “substantial” contributing factor to the terminal cancer of a California groundskeeper, who was subsequently awarded $289 million in damages.

Those documents exposed that Monsanto improperly edited the articles and directly paid some of the authors a consulting fee for their work.

In an October 2017 letter to the publisher, the Center for Biological Diversity and three other national environmental health groups demanded the articles be retracted.

The Declaration of Interest statement that was originally published with the papers:

  • Failed to disclose that at least two panelists who authored the review worked as consultants for, and were directly paid by, Monsanto for their work on the paper;
  • Failed to disclose that at least one Monsanto employee extensively edited the manuscript and was adamant about retaining inflammatory language critical of the IARC assessment — against some of the authors’ wishes; the disclosure falsely stated that no Monsanto employee reviewed the manuscript.

Additionally, multiple internal emails from Monsanto indicated the pesticide maker’s willingness to ghostwrite or compile information for the authors of the reviews, dictate the scope of one of the reviews, and identify which scientists to engage or list as authors of the reviews.

In an email sent yesterday to the Center, a representative from the publisher of the articles, Taylor and Francis, wrote:

“We note that, despite requests for full disclosure, the original Acknowledgements and Declaration of Interest statements provided to the journal did not fully represent the involvement of Monsanto or its employees or contractors in the authorship of the articles.”

Despite the misconduct that Taylor and Francis acknowledged in the Expression of Concern, the publisher has refused to issue a retraction for the papers, in contradiction to its own Corrections Policy, and has allowed the title of the supplemental issue to retain the phrase “an independent review.”

“This peek behind the Monsanto curtain raises serious questions about the safety of glyphosate,” said Donley. “Monsanto’s unethical behavior and the publisher’s response undermine scientific integrity and ultimately public health.”

Evidence continues to mount about the toxicity of glyphosate, not only to humans, but to the broader environment. Glyphosate was recently found to make honeybees more susceptible to infection from pathogens, implicating it as a contributing factor in worldwide bee declines.

*

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

Just as any new technology claims to offer the most advanced development; that their definition of progress will cure society’s ills or make life easier by eliminating the drudgery of antiquated appliances, the Wifi Alliance  was organized as a worldwide wireless network to connect ‘everyone and everything, everywhere” as it promised “improvements to nearly every aspect of daily life.”   

The Alliance, which makes no pretense of potential health or environmental concerns, further proclaimed (and they may be correct) that there are “more wifi devices than people on earth”.   It is that inescapable exposure to ubiquitous wireless technologies wherein lies the problem.   

Soon after the 1895 discovery of xrays, the budding new technology was not without its health risks of burns and hair loss.  Yet the use of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has evolved at a dramatic exponential rate from Marie Curie’s day into a mega-trillion dollar omnipotent industry creating a world totally dependent on its pernicious wireless applications.

The medical and scientific data is overwhelming and irrefutable as the wireless industry, the MSM and government agencies, frequently the last to acknowledge a pervasive health problem, continue to protect the industry from widespread public awareness of the insidious effects of the latest generation of digital by-products.   

Even prior to the 1997 introduction of commercially available wifi devices which has saturated every industrialized country, EMF wifi hot spots were everywhere.  Today with the addition of cell and cordless phones and towers, broadcast antennas, smart meters and the pervasive computer wifi, both adults and especially vulnerable children are surrounded 24-7 by an inescapable presence with little recognition that all radiation exposure is cumulative.    

Without the expansion of EMF and all its invasive algorithmic gadgets into our personal lives, intelligence gathering would be severely curtailed, without which Big Brother would be relegated to knocking on doors and hand written notes.  Surely with an estimated $21 trillion missing from the Pentagon, there must be one black budget item to lessen the harmful EMF emissions?

The National Toxicology Program (NTP), a branch of the US National Institute for Health (NIH), conducted the world’s largest study on radiofrequency radiation used by the US telecommunications industry and found a ‘significantly statistical increase in brain and heart cancers” in animals exposed to EMF (electromagnetic fields).  The NTP study confirmed the connection between mobile and wireless phone use and human brain cancer risks and its conclusions were supported by other epidemiological peer-reviewed studies.  Of special note is that studies citing the biological risk to human health were below accepted international exposure standards.    

Professor Emeritus Martin Pall, PhD with degrees in physics, biochemistry and genetics is uniquely qualified and has been researching EMF health effects for almost twenty years.  

“…what this means is that the current safety standards as off by a factor of about 7 million.’ Pointing out that a recent FCC Chair was a former lobbyist for the telecom industry, “I know how they’ve attacked various people.  In the U.S. … the funding for the EMF research [by the Environmental Protection Agency] was cut off starting in 1986 … The U.S. Office of Naval Research had been funding a fair amount of research in this area [in the ‘70s]. They [also] … stopped funding new grants in 1986 …  And then the NIH a few years later followed the same path …”

As if all was not reason enough for concern or even downright panic,  the next generation of wireless technology known as 5G (fifth generation), representing the innocuous sounding Internet of Things, promises a quantum leap in power and exceedingly more damaging health impacts with mandatory exposures.    

 The immense expansion of radiation emissions from the current wireless EMF frequency band and 5G about to be perpetrated on an unsuspecting American public should be criminal.  Developed by the US military as non lethal perimeter and crowd control, the Active Denial System emits a high density, high frequency wireless radiation comparable to 5G and emits radiation in the neighborhood of 90 GHz.   

The current Pre 5G, frequency band emissions used in today’s commercial wireless range is from 300 Mhz to 3 GHZ as 5G will become the first wireless system to utilize millimeter waves with frequencies ranging from 30 to 300 GHz. One example of the differential is that a current LANS (local area network system) uses 2.4 GHz. 

Hidden behind these numbers is an utterly devastating increase in health effects of immeasurable impacts so stunning as to numb the senses.

In 2017, the international Environmental Health Trust recommended an EU moratorium “on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”   In its declaration, the EHT asserted that current “radio frequency electromagnetic fields has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment”…”at levels well below most international and national guidelines.”

Described by the ETF as the “next great unknown experiment on our children”, the FCC approved “Spectrum Frontiers, in July, 2016 “making the US the first country in the world to open up higher-frequency millimeter wave spectrum for the development of 5G fifth-generation wireless cellular technology.” 

Here’s how ETF summarizes 5G:  

5G technology is designed to carry higher loads of data more rapidly through wireless transmission and will be effective only over short distance. It is poorly transmitted through solid material.  Construction of many new antennas will be required and full-scale implementation will result in antennas every 10 to 12 houses in urban areas, thus massively increasing mandatory exposure.”  

5G small cell antennas will unleash round-the-clock millimeter, mini and micro wave radiation immensely more powerful than the current EMF wireless system and will no doubt be sold to a gullible American public as an economically beneficial national jobs program.  

In addition, 5G is required to create the Internet of Things (IoT) which promises to wirelessly connect all devices able to transfer data over a cohesive network without computer or human interaction  including homes appliances, every ‘smart’ device, city and vehicle and any embedded electronic system that can exchange data.  The IoT of building a new ‘smart’ grid of communications that will connect, just as the Wifi Alliance once suggested, “everyone, everything and everywhere. 

An integral part of IoT will be to function at its true potential as an interface with Artificial Intelligence.  AI is a self-aware intelligent computer with an ‘automated reasoning’ ability that “perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success.”  

Today’s AI’s are able to replace human functions and are capable of doing human things faster and better than any human.   In other words, you may be relieved of all requirements to work or think or function as an engaged human being.   All it would take is for an indulgent public to allow IT to do the thinking; make all life decisions until eventually there would be no real purpose in life and humans will be superfluous or extinct. 

As AI development is being driven by superstars at Silicon Valley, pre-eminent scientist Stephen Hawking suggested that

AI would be biggest event in human history.  Unfortunately it might also be the last” and he feared “the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans.”

*

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Geopolitics of The Russian Far East

September 28th, 2018 by Andrew Korybko

Despite being a far-flung and underdeveloped region, the Russian Far East might turn out to be the country’s most promising one if several visionary connectivity proposals are implemented.

Russia has been prioritizing the development of its far-flung and long-neglected Far Eastern region for the past three years now ever since it commenced the now-annual Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in September 2015, but despite the plethora of deals that were signed during the last four such gatherings, what’s urgently needed is the implementation of four visionary connectivity projects in order to turn this part of the country into the next frontier of the emerging Multipolar World Order. In the order of their prospectively phased implementation, these initiatives are:

The above hyperlinks provide more information about what each megaproject entails, but for simplicity’s sake, here’s a rough approximation of how they’d all look if ever successfully completed:

Red: NISEC

Blue: KC

Pink: TTC

Green: ICRR

Brown: Trans-Siberian Railway (TSR)

Yellow Stars: Yakutsk and Vladivostok

The TSR already exists, and a rail link between Yakutsk, Tynda, and Skovorodino forms part of the TTC, but the rest of this ambitious connectivity vision still has to be constructed. It’s hampered, however, by three geopolitical impediments that affect the following projects:

  • no Russian-Japanese World War II peace treaty (NISEC);
  • no Korean War peace treaty (KC);
  • and poor Russian-American relations (TCRR).

Another obvious obstacle is the capital needed to fund everything, though that could potentially be unleashed after the peaceful resolution of the three aforementioned issues. All the related parties have an enduring strategic interest in strengthening their complex interdependency with one another in order to reap the mutually beneficial dividends associated with multilateral integration projects, reduced transportation costs, and quicker shipment times brought about by these overland shortcuts.

Although the Northern Sea Route will undoubtedly become an important transit route in the future, it’s nowhere near as time-efficient as if exports were made across the highlighted rail routes. The grand strategic vision is to use these connectivity corridors as avenues for comprehensively expanding each partner’s relations with one another, with the final goal being the creation of a new large-scale integrational platform between them that could be relied upon to stabilize the region and bring wealth to its people through the improved access to previously untapped natural resources that it’ll provide.

For this far-reaching series of ideas to become a reality, however, the three previously mentioned impediments must be resolved. NISEC is in and of itself both a sub-regional integrational platform and a proposal for solving the long-running dilemma that’s thus far prevented Russia and Japan from signing a World War II peace treaty. As for the KC, the US is working very hard to denuclearize North Korea and promised its leadership plenty of American investments if this process is ultimately completed, which could in turn make a South Korean-Russian rail route feasible. Regarding Russian-American relations, these might be improved through a so-called “New Détente”.

So long as the political will is there, then the capital can be found, though Russia could greatly facilitate this by requesting to join the joint Indo-Japanese “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” (AAGC) as its third strategic partner following the conclusion of a peace treaty with Tokyo. Furthermore, North Korea’s successful denuclearization and America’s promised investments to it afterward could conceivably see both of them and South Korea joining in the AAGC too, with all parties pooling their resources to participate in the Russian Far East’s integrational development as the crucial link connecting each of them. Russian-American relations would have to remarkably improve, but this isn’t impossible.

Even in the event that they don’t, however, then Russia, Japan, the Koreas, and India could cooperate in developing the Far East together without the US’ participation. These leading Asian economies might also having an interest in funding the remaining portion of the TTC in order to offset any speculative future disruptions across the Bering Strait if they forecast that Russian-American tensions will continue to endure across the decades. This overland shortcut to the Arctic might be expensive but it would more than pay for its cost through the investor states’ access to the region’s untapped mineral and energy resources, as well as their reliable access to the Arctic Ocean.

Altogether, the ambitious grand strategic vision put forth in this policy proposal aims to transform the Russian Far East from the country’s domestic backwater to its international showcase, and in the process make it the next frontier for multipolarity. The solely economic nature of this series of initiatives makes it so that they holistically complement China’s own One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity and thus enable Russia to “balance” between it and the AAGC, which can bring about enormous economic benefits if it can encourage them to engage in an intense “friendly competition” over developing the Far East.

This policy proposal was inspired by the insight obtained through the author’s participation in a Duma round table discussion about the integrational prospects of the Russian Far East that was held on 27 September, 2018.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons at foot of article. 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.

Components of chemical weapons were delivered to the Syrian province of Idlib from several European states, Director of the Department for Arms Non-Proliferation and Control at the Russian Foreign Ministry Vladimir Yermakov stated on September 25. On September 20, Russian Foreign Minisry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that a threat of staged chemical attack in the province of Idlib still remains. The diplomat stated that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) was supplying its allied militant groups with chemical agents with this purpose.

These statements by the Russian side show that the situation in Idlib still remains complicated and chances of a new escalation are high if militants attempt to sabotage the demilitarization agreement reached earlier this month.

Meanwhile, the Russian-language media speculates that Russia will provide Syria with a batch of short-to-medium range air defense systems additionally to the already announced supply of S-300. These reports remain unconfirmed.

Jordan and Syria may open the Nasib border crossing in the first half of October, according to the Jordanian newspaper al-Ghad. On September 25, Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis announced that the Syrian side of the crossing had been restored.

If true, this development will mark another stage in the restoration of southern Syria after its liberation by government forces earlier this year. This will also allow more Syrian refugees to return to their homes from Jordan.

US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has ordered the military to pull out four Patriot air defense systems from from Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reported on September 26, citing several senior military officials.

According to speculations sparked by this report, the decision is aimed at boosting the US effort to counter more global “threats” such as China and Russia as Washington shifts its global strategy. Nonetheless, a conflict with Iran and support to Israel are important points of the foreign policy of the current US administration. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated this officially. Furthermore, his administration has made a number of steps in this direction. In light of the recent developments over Syria, including the IL-20 incident and a Russian decision to supply an S-300 system to the Syrian military, it is highly unlikely that the US will decrease its military, diplomatic and economic involvement in the Middle East issues anytime soon.

*

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

Selected Articles: Trump’s Lies at the UN General Assembly

September 28th, 2018 by Global Research News

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.

*     *     *

Trump at the UN: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, September 28, 2018

In typical Trump style, he immediately launched into bragging about his accomplishments. Like most of his recent public appearances, it was a campaign speech directed to his political base.

Did Donald Trump Kill the Liberal-Globalist “New World Order” at the UN?

By Andrew Korybko, September 27, 2018

The future that Trump envisions is “classic” in the sense of evoking key components of the US’ historic soft power (“freedom”, “liberty”, “sovereignty’) but also “modern” in that they’re all being put to use to defend and ultimately advance the country’s global leadership at the expense of its rivals, which it expects to either destroy (be it through kinetic Hybrid War means or non-kinetic economic ones) or co-opt into this “reformed” framework.

Washington Amplifies War Threats Against Iran, Bullies the World

By Keith Jones, September 27, 2018

US President Donald Trump used his second day of high-profile appearances at the United Nations Wednesday to amplify Washington’s war-threats against Iran and bully countries around the world.

Video: President Trump’s Disturbing Speech at the UN: This Is Not the Time to Just Laugh!

By Farhang Jahanpour, September 27, 2018

His two favourite countries that he singled out as examples for other countries to follow are Saudi Arabia and Israel (if you think I am joking please listen to the speech again, see below), while he attacks Germany, Sweden, China, Iran, Syria and many other countries.

Lies and Laughter: Trump’s UN General Assembly Dissembling and Rage

By Stephen Lendman, September 26, 2018

Laughter by attending world leaders and diplomats followed, then silence as DJT recited a litany of one Big Lie after another, along with taking credit for deplorable policies he called major achievements.

Trump Praises Saudi Arabia, Israel at UN, Rejects Globalism

By Telesur, September 26, 2018

U.S. President Donald Trump praised right-wing and authoritarian governments around the world including Saudi Arabia, Israel, the right-wing Modi government of India, while promoting his economic war of sanctions against Venezuela and Iran, and bragging about his administration’s push for more military spending, furthering neo-liberal policies, trade war with China, crackdown on immigration, as well as rejecting the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Trump’s Lies at the UN General Assembly

Trump at the UN: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

September 28th, 2018 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

This past week Donald Trump appeared before the United Nations Assembly in New York. In typical Trump style, he immediately launched into bragging about his accomplishments. Like most of his recent public appearances, it was a campaign speech directed to his political base. He proclaimed to the Assembly he had achieved more in his first two years than had any other president in a like period. The claim elicited laughs from the audience, which Trump would brush off later in a press conference saying “We were laughing together, they weren’t laughing at me”. Sure, Donald. That’s what happened! 

In the course of his over-the-top, self-congratulatory announcement he said the US economy had grown faster in his first two years at the presidential helm than in any administration before during a like period, he had reduced unemployment to the lowest rate ever in the US, and his policies have produced record wage gains for American workers.  The reality, however, is none of the above is true.

What’s somewhat ironic is that Trump’s lies and misrepresentations about the performance of the US economy are buttressed in part by official US statistics. He didn’t have to lie outright. It is often forgotten that statistics are not actual data. They are not numbers and facts that are actually observed, collected and reported in their original form. Statistics are ‘operations’ on and manipulation of the actual data, i.e. the real numbers. Statistics are created numbers. The operations and manipulations are often justified by arguing they improve the data, reveal it more accurately. Sometime this is so. But too often the manipulations are designed to boost the raw data to show the economy is doing better than it actually is (i.e. GDP and growth is better than it really is); or reduce the numbers to show the same effect (i.e. inflation is not as high as it really is); or that wages are rising for everyone when in fact they may not be for most.

In Trump’s UN speech, we therefore find an ironic congruence of typical Trump imagined facts that don’t actually exist and official government statistics that are not lies per se but are nonetheless distortions and misrepresentations created by the many complex, often convoluted operations and manipulations performed on the actual facts.

Who’s lying? There are different ways to lie. Trump does it crudely and blatantly. Official stats often do it cleverly and opaquely. The debunking of Trump claims before the UN about US GDP, US unemployment, and US wages in what follows shows how the crude and the clever often coincide.

Trump’s ‘US GDP Is Growing at Record Rate’ Claim

Let’s take US economic growth or GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Trump claims the last quarter’s GDP growth of 4.2% was the best ever.  Apart from the fact that the US economy has grown quarterly faster many times before, the 4.2% is a misrepresentation—even if it’s the official US figure. Here’s why:

United States GDP Growth Rate

GDP is defined as the total goods and services produced in a given year that is sold in that year. So prices are associated with the output of actual goods and services produced. But real growth of the economy should not include prices. Therefore prices are adjusted out from what’s called the ‘nominal GDP’ number. Nominal GDP last quarter was 5.4%. Trump’s ‘real GDP’ number of 4.2% means inflation was 1.2% for the period, according to the ‘GDP Deflator’ price index that’s used to adjust GDP for inflation.

But does anyone really believe inflation was only 1.2%? No one that was paying for double digit hikes in insurance premiums and copays during the quarter, or a dollar plus more for a gallon of gasoline to get to work, or who has had to pay rent hikes by their landlord of 20% or more, or is paying higher local property taxes and fees, or has opened their utility bill envelopes lately. What wage earning household believes inflation is running at only 1.2%? And if inflation is higher than that, then the adjustment for inflation to the 5.4% nominal GDP results in a ‘real GDP’ of far less than Trump’s official 4.2%.

So why is inflation so underestimated, resulting in real GDP being over-estimated at 4.2%?

One reason actual inflation is much higher is that government statisticians arbitrarily assume that consumers are buying more online where goods are cheaper, even though the government itself has said its procedure for estimating online sales is a ‘work in progress’ and at best a guesstimate.

Another reason inflation is underestimated at 1.2% is government bureaucrats at the Commerce Dept. (responsible for estimating GDP) assume that the quality of goods sold today is better than in the past. So they reduce the actual price that households really pay for the product in the marketplace and assign a lower, fictional price when they calculate the 1.2% GDP Deflator.

Or they assume that rents aren’t really rising as fast as they are in fact, because their models definition of rent includes homeowners with mortgages supposedly paying a ‘rent’ to themselves as well. That’s called ‘imputed rents’. Of course it’s nonsense. Homeowners don’t pay themselves rents. But when you assume they do, it means 100 million homeowners pay rents to themselves that barely changes year to year, while true renters keep paying 20% or more. When rents are then ‘averaged out’ for both homeowners and real renters, the actual rent inflation comes out much lower as a contribution to total GDP inflation. There are dozens of other techniques by which the ‘GDP Deflator price index’ is manipulated to come up with only 1.2% inflation—and thus overstate real GDP to 4.2%.

The US has other inflation indexes it could use to adjust for real GDP more accurately, but it doesn’t use them. It prefers the ‘lowball’ GDP Deflator price index. The Consumer Price Index, CPI, is closer to the actual inflation, at  2.7%. If the CPI were used to adjust nominal GDP, the 4.2% real GDP would be only 2.7%. The US Central Bank, the Fed, uses yet another index called the Personal Consumption Expenditure or PCE. That’s at 2.2%, also much higher than 1.2%. If the PCE was used real GDP would be 3.2% not 4.2%. So the most conservative and lowest inflation indicator is used to estimate real GDP. And that’s how Trump gets his phony 4.2% real GDP—i.e. his ‘greatest in history’ US growth number.

But even the CPI, at 2.7%, underestimates inflation. It uses what’s called the ‘chained index’ method for calculating annual inflation rates. That simply takes the actual current year CP inflation and averages, or ‘smooths’, it out with the preceding years of inflation. The resulting ‘averaging of averages’ is a lower than actual annual rate of inflation.

There are other problems with GDP that further reduce the 4.2% assumed real growth rate. Periodically the government changes its definition of what makes up the GDP. The re-definitioning often results in a higher GDP than previous. It’s not a real growth increase, just growth by definition. This redefining GDP is going on globally as well. In Europe for example they now include drug smuggling and services from brothels as contributing to GDP. Of course, to estimate these ‘services’ contributions to total GDP one needs to get a price. Drug peddlers don’t tell the government what they’re selling their heroin or cocaine for. And it’s doubtful that government statisticians stand outside the brothels or interview street walkers to determine the price they charged their ‘johns’. So government statisticians simply make up the numbers and plug them into their GDP calculations. One of the most egregious examples of GDP growth by definition occurred in recent years in India. By redefining GDP it doubled its value overnight.  The US engaged in its own form of GDP redefinition a few years back as well, when the economy recovery just couldn’t get off the ground and stagnated in late 2012.

Back in 2013 US GDP was arbitrarily redefined to include categories that had never been included—like the estimation of the value of company logos, trademarks, and intellectual property that never gets sold. What was for decades considered a business cost and not an investment—i.e. research and development—was now added to GDP figures. This change to GDP raised it by $500 billion annually starting in 2013. It’s no doubt higher today. That’s about 0.2% to 0.3% artificial boost to GDP just by redefining it. The point is no one knows the price of new categories like logos, trademarks, and the like. Government bureaucrats simply make them up (like they do ‘imputed rents’) and add them to the GDP totals.

What this all means is that Trump’s boast of his record 4.2% GDP is not really 4.2%, but something far lower, probably around 2%.  That’s only a few tenths of one percent higher than under Obama, when GDP averaged around 1.7%-1.8% annually.

Trump’s bragging of historic growth misses another really important problem with GDP:  It avoids the question of who benefits from the 4.2% (or 2% in fact).  Who gets the income generated from the 4.2%, or 2.7%, or 2%, or whatever. The flip side of the 4.2% GDP is what is called National Income. National Income is what the GDP creates for businesses, investors, wage earners, etc. who make the goods and services that create the National Income. But to whom is the 4.2% national income equivalent of GDP really benefitting? Is it the roughly 130 million wage earners? Or is it the owners of capital, their shareholders and managers, the self-employed? How much do those who make the goods and services—i.e. wage earners—get of the National Income?  And is the share of total National Income they are getting distributed more or less equally among the 130 million, or is it skewed to the high end of the wage and salary structure, i.e. the top 10% of wage and salary earners—i.e. the business professionals, tech sector engineers, high paid health professionals, etc.?

Trump’s ‘Wages Are Rising Fast’ Claim

Trump brags that wages are rising at 2.9% a year now. However, that 2.9% is for full time permanent employed workers only. (Read the fine print in the Labor dept. definitions).  Excluded are the roughly 50 million part time, temp, on call, under-employed and unemployed. And the wages are rising nicely claim may include extra hours worked—i.e. more overtime for the full time employed and extra part time jobs and gig jobs for the part time and temp employed. Workers’ earnings may thus rise due to more hours worked, not actual wage rate increases. Independent reports show, moreover, that employers are giving raises mostly in lump sum and bonus payments instead of wage rate per hour hikes. That way they can discontinue paying the lump sums and bonuses more easily in the future.

Apart from applying only to full time permanent employed, the 2.9% is a distortion for tens of millions of workers as well because it is an average. It represents those at the top of wages and salary—the best off 10% of tech, healthcare, and select other occupations getting most of the 2.9%. They may be getting 4% and more. Those in the less preferred occupations get far less than 2.9%, or nothing at all in wage hikes. The average is 2.9%. So at least 100 million wage earners are getting far less than 2.9%–which then needs adjusting for a much higher than reported inflation rate. The result is a real wage gain for 100 million or more that is negative, not 2.9%.  But Trump doesn’t bother to explain that. The devil is in the details, as they say.

Here’s another problem with the official government wage data reported in the GDP-National Income numbers you probably never heard of. It reduces the share of wages in National Income even more than is reported officially. According to GDP rules, 65% of the profits of unincorporated businesses (i.e. sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corps, etc.) are considered wages in the National Income data. That’s right. Business Income—aka profits of non-corporate business—is considered ‘wages’ and added to the totals for wages in the GDP-National Income calculations.

The biggest misrepresentation of wage gains, however, is due to the underestimating of true inflation. What matters is ‘real wages’, what wages can actually buy. Trump’s 2.9% wage increase is not adjusted for inflation. It’s not ‘real’. If CPI inflation is 2.7% and nominal wages are rising at 2.9%, then real wages are actually stagnant at best at 0.2%. And if inflation for the more than 100 million primarily wage earning households is really around 3.5%–given recent hikes in oil and gas prices, rents, healthcare costs, utilities costs, local taxes and fees, etc.—then real wages for the 100 million or so are actually falling by 0.6% or more. Just as they have been falling every year since 2009.

Trump’s ‘Unemployment is at an Historic Low 3.9%’ Claim 

Like the numbers for GDP, inflation, and wages there are problems associated as well with Trump’s jobs data claim in his UN Speech.  The 3.9% unemployment rate Trump declared as ‘the lowest it’s ever been’ refers to the unemployment rate for only former full time permanently employed workers. (The lowest ever rate was 1.9% in 1944, by the way). The 3.9% excludes the 50 million part time, temps, on call, i.e. what’s called the underemployed. If the underemployed are included the unemployment rate rises to about 8%–in other words more than double the 3.9% for full time permanent workers only.

United States Unemployment Rate

But both the 3.9% and 8% are still underestimates of the true unemployment in the US at present. In the US, someone is considered unemployed only if they are ‘out of work and looked for work in the preceding 4 weeks’. Otherwise, they’re considered part of what’s called the ‘missing labor force’ and not counted in the 3.9% (or 8%). (Note that being unemployed in the US also has nothing at all to do with whether or not you’re getting unemployment benefits).

Another problem with the 3.9% is that it is based in large part on gross and arbitrary assumptions by government statisticians as to the number of new jobs that were created due to ‘new businesses being formed’. The government assumes hundreds of thousands of net new businesses are created every month, each with a number of employees. But the government just makes an assumption of how many businesses and number of employees. It then adds these assumed numbers to the actual numbers of unemployed counted for a recent month. Worse still, this assumed number of new jobs is based on businesses and jobs created nine months prior to the present. For example, assumed new business formations and jobs back in January 2018 are then plugged into current September 2018 job numbers. That boosts the number of jobs in September, to get the lower, 3.9% unemployment rate. And we’re talking about tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of net jobs from nine months ago being added to current unemployed totals in the present. In short, boosting job numbers (and thus reducing unemployment to 3.9%) from ‘New Business Formation’ assumptions nine months prior is a way of padding the numbers.

Another set of problems in estimating the 3.9% occurs due to how the Labor Dept.’s household surveys are conducted to provide the 3.9% unemployment rate. The government surveys 60,000 households a month by telephone. But not everyone has a telephone or responds to a government call to participate in the survey. Typically refusing to participate in such government surveys are inner city youth, workers ‘working off the books’ and receiving cash instead of wages, most of the 10 undocumented workers in the US, itinerant workers without cellphones, and others. In other words, how the government surveys to get its estimated 3.9% unemployment rate is not sufficiently accurate either.

There’s an even greater gap in government estimations of unemployment. There’s still millions more who are not counted at all.  Millions of workers in recent years have dropped out of the labor force altogether. Remember, if you’re not working or looking actively for work you’re not even in the labor force. Your ‘joblessness’ is therefore not even considered in calculating the unemployment rate.  You may be jobless but you’re not unemployed, given the oxymoron US definition of unemployed. And the number of those who have dropped out of the labor force altogether, and thus not considered in calculating the unemployment rate, in the past decade number in the millions!

There’s what’s called the ‘Labor Force Participation Rate’ (LFPR). It is the percentage of the working age population that is employed or else unemployed and actively looking for work. That’s about 58% of the potential working age workforce in the US at present. But before the 2008 crash the percentage or LFPR was 63%. So 5% of the labor force has somehow ‘disappeared’ during the last decade. They’re not factored in the unemployment rate calculations. They may be without jobs, but they’re not considered unemployed. That 5% decline in the LFPR represents 5% of the total civilian labor force, which is about 165 million. So 5% of 165 million is a massive number of another 8.25 million. Having dropped out of the labor force, it is safe to assume most are unemployed or only temporarily or partially employed. About a million of them were able to arrange permanent social security disability benefits.

Mainstream and government economists try to explain away this massive drop out of the labor force by saying it reflects a growing number of retiring baby boomers. But that’s questionable, since the fastest growing numbers of people entering the labor force today (not dropping out) are workers older than 65 and 70, who are returning to work because they cannot afford to retire on the paltry benefits, 401k pensions, and IRAs they have, or the minimal savings they were able to accumulate since the 2008 crash.

To sum up:  If to the ranks to the roughly 6.5 million full time permanent unemployed (the 3.9%) are added the 4% or so underemployed and discouraged, there are officially about 8% of the 165 million that are unemployed. That rate is double Trump’s claim of only 3.9%. But add a further 2%–i.e. the ‘hidden’ unemployed not counted in the underground economy, plus the mis-estimation of unemployment due to government survey methods, plus the million or so who have gone on social security disability, plus the 8 million more who have dropped out of the labor force altogether—and the true unemployment rate is somewhere between 15% and 18%, not 3.9%.  But you won’t hear that from Trump, or for that matter from government bureaucrats that create the low ball number, or from the media and press that favorably promote the lowest possible number.

Trump’s ‘Stock Markets are at Record Highs’ Claim  

In this case Trump is also lying. He claims that he is totally responsible for the current record highs in the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq stock markets in the USA. Record levels in all the three major stock markets are of course fact. That is not the locus of Trump’s lying. The lie is he claims his economic policies, especially tax cuts and military spending and business deregulation are the direct cause of the record stock market levels. While it is true that Trump’s investor-business tax cuts have contributed in 2018 to boosting stocks. The cuts have reduced US budget revenues by more than $300 billion in just the first half of 2018. The tax cuts have thus far provided an artificial windfall to corporate profits of at least 20%, according to numerous studies. Other studies show that 49% of the tax-profits windfall has gone into corporations buying back their stock and paying more dividends to shareholders. Estimates by Goldman Sachs bank research and other sources are that $1.3 trillion will be spent by corporations on buybacks and dividends. That is a major factor why stocks just keep rising this year regardless of concern about trade wars, emerging markets’ currency collapse, Fed raising rates, the spread and deepening of recessions in key global economies, etc.  Trump’s lie, however, is his taking credit for the entire stock bubble, when in fact a wall of money has been handed to investors and corporations ever since 2009 by continuous tax cutting under Obama, free low interest money provided by the Federal Reserve for six years, and other forms of subsidization or business by the US government, which is now the hallmark of 21st century capitalism in America.

Trump’s tax cuts and spending may be boosting stock buybacks and dividends—that in turn keep driving stock prices ever higher. But this policy has been going on since 2010. Every year since 2010, buybacks and dividend payouts have on average exceeded $1 trillion a year. Corporate profits have almost tripled. The Fed kept interest rates so low for so long that corporations, like Apple, borrowed billions by issuing new corporate bonds, with which to buy back its stock, increase its dividends, and invest massive sums directly itself in the stock market—even as it hoarded 97% of its $252 billion in cash offshore.

Trump thus lies when he takes full credit for the stock market at record highs. Obama and George W. Bush before him actually are even more responsible than he is.

*

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

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

Read Part I and II.

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Vitezović’s anthropological-political ideology

One of the most significant questions of our interest, which needs a satisfactory answer, is: Why P. R. Vitezović considered Lithuania as a Croato-Slavonic land, and therefore, Lithuania’s inhabitants as the Croato-Slavs?

The most possible and realistic answers to this question are:

  1. Because of the historical development of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which brought the ethnic Lithuanians into very closer cultural relations with the Slavs (the Eastern and the Western) that resulted in the graduate process of Slavization of Lithuania’s cultural life and Lithuania’s ruling class. This historical fact influenced Vitezović to conclude that all (or majority) inhabitants of Lithuania were of the Slavic, i.e. the Croat origin.
  2. Because of pro-Slavic and pro-Polish historical sources and writings related to the affairs of the common Polish-Lithuanian state which were read and used by Vitezović. Consequently, a Croatian nobleman got the impression that the entire territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was settled by the Slavic population and that their common spoken and written language was Slavic.

In the next paragraphs the most remarkable historical facts in connection with this problem and offered hypothetical answers to the formulated question are going to be presented.

In several letters written by the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (1316–1341) from 1322 to 1324, he named himself as lethphanorum ruthenorumque rex (“King of the Lithuanians and Ruthenians”[1]), although he did not have in reality a title of the king. However, it clearly shows that he was a ruler of the Slavic subjects. When the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the time of Gediminas extended its state borders towards the east and the south-east, i.e. when the territories populated by the Slavic people became incorporated into the 14th-century Lithuania, the country became multiethnic, multilinguistic and multiconfessional medieval state in which gradually the Slavs significantly outnumbered the ethnic Lithuanians: for instance, there were 70% of the Slavs and 30% of the Lithuanians in the mid-16th century on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Kapleris, Meištas 2013: 123).[2] Furthermore, in the following centuries, as Lithuania was extending her borders far to the east, south-east and south-west, making more profound contacts with her Slavic neighbors and even including them into her state borders, the Lithuanian language acquired significant and numerous Slavic borrowings.

Lithuania map

The map of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

The conflict with the Polish Kingdom over Galicia, Volynia and Podolia in the 14th–15thcenturies ended in the sharing of these three provinces, mainly populated by the Slavs, between Poland and Lithuania (Kojelavičius 1650/1669: 489–513). It is known that nearly 150 Slavisms entered Lithuanian language, either from the side of East Slavs or from the Poles, before the 17th century (for instance, words like angelas, bažničia, gavėnia, kalėdos, krikštas, velykos, etc). A number of the Slavic borrowings in the Lithuanian language appreciably increased during the time of J. Križanić and P. R. Vitezović – for both of whom the language was a crucial indicator of the national identity.

The Slavic population (for example, tradesmen from Rus’ lands) was living in Lithuania’s capital Vilnius from the time of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Algirdas (1345–1377), who declared in 1358 that all “lands of Rus’” should belong to Lithuania (Kiaupa et al. 2000: 110). J. Križanić, who was travelling across the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and was living in Vilnius for several months in a Dominican monastery, became familiar with ethnically and religiously heterogeneous situation within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, with number of Slavic population in Lithuania and Vilnius and with often usage for the official purposes of the Slavic language within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which in general became a Lithuanian-Slavic state.

An influence of the Slavic tradition, culture, and especially vernacular, within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, have been particularly strong in the area of writings (literal-administrative language). In the first half of the 15th century, the Old Slavonic language was used in Lithuania as one of the three written languages alongside with the Latin and the German. The so-called Old Church Slavonic language was used in Lithuania in relations with the Russian duchies, the Tatars in Crimea and in the internal life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For instance, during the time of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Vytautas the Great 1390–1430, a state-official Slavonic language (Old Church Slavic) was used for writing of the first annals of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes (Chronicle of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes, 1429–1430, with Shorter Compilation of Lithuanian Chronicles added around 1446). Furthermore, Christianisation of Lithuania from 1387 established strong prerequisites for the usage of the Polish language for the official purposes in the next centuries.

In a period of the Lithuanian history after the death of Vytautas the Great, in the official domestic civic life, in addition to the Lithuanian and the East Slavic language (spoken in the cities) were used as well as the German, Latin and Polish (spread out in the second half of the 15th century). In the Renaissance time, there were many texts and books in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania printed in the Old East Slavonic or the Polish language (as well as in the Lithuanian). It is a fact that on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the first half of the 16th century the first books were printed in two Slavonic languages: the Old East Slavonic and the Polish. The printing of the so-called Brasta Bible in the Polish language in 1563 shows clearly that a sphere of influence of the Polish (i.e. Slavic) language within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was significantly spreading on. At that time, the Lithuanian rulers, court, and nobility (magnates) already used overwhelmingly the Polish language in a public life within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It is paradoxically, but true, that the Lithuanian aristocracy and ruling political elite, which tried to defend Lithuania’s state (political) independence from the Kingdom of Poland, accepted both the Polish culture and the Polish language, which became an official language of their communication with a Polish-Lithuanian ruler and the Polish political elite. Shortly, Lithuanian magnates did not become defenders of the Lithuanian language, as they were defenders of the Lithuanian independent statehood. Subsequently, spoken Polish language became a very serious competitor to the Lithuanian language (vernacular) within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that finally led to the gradual, but inevitable, Polonization, i.e. Slavization, of Lithuania’s cultural life.[3] Literary and linguistic developments within the Republic of Two Nations (Poland-Lithuania) helped to accelerate the Polonization of the ethnic Lithuanian, Russian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian aristocratic circles (Kamiński 1980; Kamiński 1983: 14–45; Maczak 1992: 194; Bideleux, Jeffries 1999: 129).

For Lithuania’s ruling elite the notion of “nation” was not connected with the language (spoken or written) or ethnicity as it was in the case of J. Križanić and P. R. Vitezović for whom spoken and written language was a crucial national identifier. Contrary to these two Croatian intellectuals, for Lithuania’s magnates, the “nation” (natio) was connected to the statehood and social strata belonging, but not to the language or ethnicity. Therefore, for example, during the conclusion of the Lublin Union with Poland in 1569 the ruling elites of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, composed by the ethnic Lithuanians and the ethnic Slavs, who spoke and wrote in the Polish language, called themselves Lithuanians what means actually natio Lithuanica (Lithuania’s “political nation”), i.e. the aristocracy who lived within the state borders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[4] In this respect, the most influential champion and ideologist of natio Lithuanica was Mykolas Lietuvis (Vaclovas Mikolajaitis/Michalo Lituanus), a Lithuanian aristocrat from Maišiagala, who developed his theory about “political nation” of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in his historic treatise De Moribus Tartarorum, Lithuanorum et Moschorum (“On the Customs of the Tatars, Lithuanians and Muscovites”), written in the Latin in 1550 (incomplete text of this treatise was printed in 1615). It is a matter of fact that after the Lublin Union of 1569 the Poles became the senior partners in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth till its final dismemberment in 1795 (Wandycz 1997: 72–78, 88–93, 102–107). The Lithuanian nobility, i.e. natio Lithuanica, became assimilated or Polonized to such extent that the term “Polish” represented joint Lithuanian and Polish interests. In fact, Polish and Lithuanian ethnically different groups of aristocracy identified themselves with one cultural tradition and as a united “political nation” (Davies 1981: 115–159; Johnson 1996, 52).

The ethnolinguistic structure of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the following centuries was changing in the favor of the ethnic Slavs. Thus, at the time of the Lublin Union in 1569, the ethnic Lithuanians constituted around one-third of total Lithuania’s population (approximately 3.000.000 people were living at that time within the whole territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). However, at the same time, 2/3 of the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were ethnic Slavs who lived in the eastern and south-eastern provinces annexed by the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, i.e. the former duchies of Polotsk, Vitebsk, Volynia, Kiev and Smolensk (Kiaupa et al. 2000: 162). We have to keep in mind as well the fact that the Slavic territories, ruled by Lithuania’s nobility till the Lublin Union of 1569, were approximately ten times bigger than Lithuania proper (Samalavičius 1995: 42).

After 1569, a linguistic polarization within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania remained. There were still two basic spoken languages – the Lithuanian and the Slavic – and two bureaucratic languages – the Old Slavic and the Latin (Bideleux, Jeffries 1999: 122). However, in present-day West Belarus and present-day West Ukraine after 1569, the educated, middle, and administrative classes and the landowning gentry became predominantly the Polish-speaking social strata. The spreading of the Polish language in both written and spoken forms in Lithuania was going through Lithuania’s landowning and political aristocracy who have been in most frequent contacts with their Polish counterparts, through the Polish priests, monks and the Polish intellectuals.

Especially the 17th century, a century of J. Križanić and P. R. Vitezović, was a period of expansion of the Polish language in the public life in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Moreover, at the first year of realm of Friedrich August II Saxon (1697–1706/1709–1733) in 1697 the Polish language officially eliminated the Old East Slavonic language from public offices in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – coaequatio iurium (Šapoka 1936: 371–374; Kiaupa et al. 2000: 265). In the late 17th century, both magnates and gentry of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania knew Polish and used it. There was formed, even, the so-called Lithuanian type of the Polish language. On the same territories of the Polish Kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania through which J. Križanić traveled, the urban centers were as well Polonized (i.e. got Slavic feature). The lower classes and the rural population of serfs were East Slavs. Even Lithuania’s capital Vilnius or Ukrainian L’viv, a political-cultural center of Galicia, became the “Polish”, i.e. the Slavic, that the Polish-speakers regarded themselves as essentially Poles even at the beginning of the 20th century (Johnson 1996, 52).

The Polish historiography during the last two centuries created an image that a federal state of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after 1569 was actually only the Polish one. Certainly, cultural-linguistic Polonization spread faster, but in the sphere of politics and social life the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was as well, gradually, but certainly becoming the “Polish” for the reason that people from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not oppose in high degree the appropriation of the Polish language and culture (Kiaupa et al. 2000, 362). According to Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, “since Lithuanian [language] is directly related to the Slavonic languages, and since an old form of Byelorussian (not Lithuanian) was the official language of the grand duchy [of Lithuania], the Lithuanian nobility probably felt some degree of cultural kinship with their Polish counterparts… Indeed, the Lithuanian nobility gradually became thoroughly ‘polonized’” (Bideleux, Jeffries 1999: 122)… “with the ironic result that Polish [language] eventually became more widely used among the Lithuanian than among the Polish nobility in the future Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth” (Davies 1982: 20–21).

Because of right belief that the Lithuanian language is closely related to Slavonic languages (the standpoint favored by our-days contemporary linguistics) and because of the Polonization (Slavization) of upper strata of the Lithuanian society, Pavao Ritter Vitezović at the end of the 17th century considered all (or at least overwhelming majority) inhabitants of Lithuania as the Slavs (i.e. the Croats) and Lithuania as the Slavic (i.e. Croatian) country.

As a result of the Polonization of the vast territories of East-Central Europe from 1569 to 1795 many Poles considered these lands as the Polish linguistic and cultural space. It became a common attitude of modern Western historians of non-Polish origin to describe the Republic of Two Nations as an exclusively the Polish one, due to the great scope of the Polonization of the Lithuanian society and culture. For example, Alan Palmer has an opinion that the ethnic Lithuanians were readily assimilated by the Poles: the greatest of the Polish dynasties, the Jagiellonian one (1386–1572) was in fact of the Lithuanian origin, and Vilnius (Wilno) was a city, despite its Lithuanian foundation, a symbol of the Polish-Lithuanian cultural union (Palmer 1970: 4). Such impression had and Juraj Križanić who passed across the whole present-day Ukraine, a main part of present-day Belarus and who spent some time in Vilnius as well becoming a member of estate circle of the Dominican Order in Lithuania’s capital. At the turn of the 18thcentury, the members of natio Lithuanica and the Lithuanian middle-class society faced the real danger of denationalization through the process of Polonization. Ultimately, it should not be forgotten that overwhelming majority of 7,5 million of total population of the Republic of Two Nations (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow), i.e. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (established by the Lublin Union in 1569) were the ethnic Slavs; the fact which induced P. R. Vitezović to consider the whole Republic as exclusively the Slavic state and, according to his Croatocentric theory, to understand the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as in fact the Croatian ethnolinguistic territory.

A pro-Polish viewpoint of Stanislaw Orzechowski and especially of Martinu Kromer (Martin Cromer) about the Polish-Lithuanian relationships, Lithuania’s incorporation into the Polish Kingdom after 1569, and the Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, became one of the most significant sources about the ethnolinguistic situation within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for both J. Križanić and P. R. Vitezović. In his Razgowori ob wladatelystwu (1661–1667), J. Križanić frequently cited Martinu Kromer, the author of a history of Poland under the title De origine et rebus gestis Polonarum (Basel, 1555), who saw Lithuania as an ordinary province of Poland. Particularly it has been Križanić who was acquainted with quite number of the Polish and other authors who wrote on “Slavic matters” and who considered the whole territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as an exclusively Slavic country.

As a consequence, J. Križanić became acquainted with the work Bellum Prutenum (“The Prussian War”) written in 1515 by the poet Jan Vislicius who presented the Lithuanian history as a part of the Slavic one. J. Vislicius viewed the future development of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania only within a united “Polish Sarmatian Empire”. After the Lublin Union of 1569, the Polish doctrine of Sarmatism, which proclaimed Lithuania, Samogitia (Žemaitia) and the Russian duchies as integral parts of the Polish state, became popular on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a result of firm contacts of Lithuania’s nobles (ethnic Lithuanians and ethnic Slavs) with Poland, the Polish culture and the Polish state ideology. It is quite sure that J. Križanić and P. R. Vitezović were familiar with the Polish doctrine of Sarmatism and especially J. Križanić with the influence of this doctrine among noble circles within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. However, the line of reasoning of the Sarmatian doctrine presented the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the Slavic one; a viewpoint that was accepted by P. R. Vitezović and even served him to name total population of the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Muscovite Russia as Sarmaticos, which belonged to his Croatia Septemtrionalis.

Finally, if we know that J. Križanić’s writings about the “Slavic matters”, based very much on his personal experience about the Polonization of Lithuania, were one of the most significant sources for P. R. Vitezović, it is not surprising that Pavao Ritter Vitezović interpolated the whole territory of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania into the Slavic lands, and furthermore, according to his ideological doctrine into a Greater Croatia.

*

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. Vladislav B. Sotirović is Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine On Global Politics Since 2014 (www.global-politics.eu). Contact: [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] A meaning of the ethnonym „Ruthenians“ is very disputed among the historians and ethnologists. Undoubtedly, it lables the East European Slavs in whole or in part.

[2] According to Istorijos egzamino gidas, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1430, there were 24% Lithuanians, 72% East Slavs and 4% Tatars while in 1569, there were 30% Lithuanians, 63% East Slavs and 7% Poles (Kapleris, Meištas 2013: 123).

[3] For a more extensive treatment of the Polish-Lithuanian relationships, see in (Davies 1981).

[4] About differences between the feudal-time “political” and Romanticism-time “linguistic” conceptions of “nation”, see in (Hutchinson, Smith 1994; Johnson 1996: 45–62, 136–148; Bideleux, Jeffries 1999: 153–161; Guibernau, Rex 1999; Hobsbawm 2000).

Featured image is from Global Politics.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and The Idea of a Greater Croatia. Pavao Ritter Vitezović

Kristallnacht ‘Bleeds’ into Charlottesville

September 28th, 2018 by Philip A Farruggio

After the assassination of German diplomat Ernst Vom Rath in Paris by a 17 year old Polish Jewish boy, all hell broke loose November 9th and 10, 1938 in Germany. Hitler’s SA Nazis, along with a multitude of German civilians went on a rampage never seen before of that magnitude. They burnt to the ground 267 Jewish synagogues, ravaged 7,500 Jewish owned businesses, and most horrific, beat, tortured and even raped. Thirty thousand Jewish men and boys were rounded up and shipped to concentration camps, many never to be seen again. Blaming the victim for all this, the German government issued a one billion Reich mark atonement tax on the Jewish community. Laws were then passed to ultimately deny German Jews their basic citizenship and rights as human beings. The pogroms went on into Austria as well, with Austrian Nazis and their sympathizers doing equally horrendous deeds. As historians of any note fully realize, Kristallnacht paved the way for the Final Solution, replete with  gas chambers and crematoriums. These anger filled thugs could have easily chanted ‘Jews won’t replace us’ as they did their dirty deeds.

Almost 80 years later, the usually serene college town of Charlottesville, Virginia heard the chants of ‘Jews won’t replace us’. We all saw and heard the marchers that night carrying those Nazi like torches and chanting that phrase… over and over. Our fine president, after surmising all that occurred  between what the media labeled the Alt Right and Alt Left, was more than charitable. He simply said that there were ‘nice folks’ on both sides of the skirmishes. I for one did not hear or see the following: Jewish folks working for the Trump administration, Jewish supporters of Trump and the Israeli government showing outrage at his remarks and handling of it all. Imagine for a minute if it were a march by Palestinian Americans carrying those torches and shouting that phrase. Imagine if it were a march of Black Americans shouting ‘Whites won’t replace us’. Just you imagine.

My column is not just about white supremacists spreading their hate. Yes, it includes that of course. No, my column is about the legitimization by those in elected office of this mindset. Once we all sit back and say nothing to these actions or really inactions, we give them license! As with the 2002-03 illegal and immoral invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, too much silence by too many Americans just gives the evil ones the green light. Evil is defined in many ways. I like this one: Something that brings sorrow, distress or calamity. As the great Ed Norton said to Ralph Kramden in the Honeymooners: “Maybe the phrase fits Ralph.”

When we as a culture allow such terrible actions to be conducted, the ‘skies that limit’. When some of our police officers (a small minority) start shooting unarmed people, many who happen to be Black, and there is not enough outrage by the majority of us… sadly the signs point to a coming ‘Police State’. When peaceful protest is restricted or now even taxed with fees, that ‘Police State’ is around the corner.

You know, look at that Charlottesville incident closely. By many accounts the local police were actually told to ‘Stand down’ as the two opposing protest groups were nearing each other. Why? Was it to allow for what then happened? The more there is such conflict and street violence, the more those who run things can use for a coming ‘Police State’. All Trump did was exacerbate things by giving a pass to those Neo Nazis. The same thing is happening throughout Europe, as more countries are experiencing  this new Neo Nazi upsurge. Over there the main focus is on all those refugees from places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen to name but a few. Why are there so many refugees? Well, ask yourself if our government, from Bush Jr. to Obama and now to Trump, did not intercede in those nations to cause such chaos? Sadly, for those of us who truly love our nation, the frustration levels are higher than ever before! During the Vietnam era things were terrible, but now…. when will the next Kristallnacht occur?

*

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].

The so-called “New World Order” of American-led unipolar globalism is dead after “The Kraken” delivered a scathing attack against all aspects of the Liberal-Globalist system that America itself previously pioneered, which he’s proudly seeking to replace with a nationalist-oriented model of International Relations that cleverly attempts to co-opt multipolar processes in order to most effectively thwart China’s Silk Road-assisted rise. 

[The kraken (/ˈkrɑːkən/) is a legendary cephalopod-like sea monster of giant size that is said to dwell off the coasts of Norway and Greenland.]

The “New World Order” is dead, and Trump killed it. The pre-2016 worldwide power structure of American-led unipolar globalism was already fraying at the seams with the rise of China, Russia, Iran, and other multipolar Great Powers, but it could have nevertheless evolved to incorporate all of them within the prevailing Liberal-Globalist system as long as the US was willing to continuing sacrificing its own sovereignty to do so in becoming the “first among equals” prior to its eventual “dethroning”. That was the approach that Obama and his predecessors were applying in leveraging a combination of divide-and-rule policies to weaken America’s rivals alongside carrying out nifty outreaches to co-opt them into what it hoped could indefinitely remain a primarily US-influenced system, but Trump has done away with any pretenses of “equality” and is unabashed in his pursuit of unparalleled American hegemony across the world.

Reference Materials 

For the majority of the global public who might have yet to realize what’s going on and why, here are five of the author’s previous articles that should be skimmed through in order to provide the appropriate strategic context to Trump’s plans:

The ultra-concise summary of the above is that Trump is deliberately behaving as chaotically as possible in his quest to destroy everything that he inherited so as to provide the US with the greatest possible opportunity to shape the new global system that will arise out of the ashes of the old one. 

The Reverse-Thucydides Trap 

The primary motivation for doing so is that the US gradually lost its previous monopoly over the Liberal-Globalist processes that it relied upon to control the international system after the Old Cold War, with the unofficial beginning of the New Cold War in 2014 and its resultant developments making this obvious beyond any doubt. China, more so than any of the US’ other rivals, managed to obtain an “uncomfortable” amount of influence over the world system, especially after unveiling its One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity that would inevitably lead to it replacing the US as the worldwide hegemon (albeit in what it purports will be a more equal international order) if left unobstructed. The US’ many Hybrid Wars were thus far insufficient in thwarting China’s Silk Road-assisted rise, which is why Trump decided to go for the “nuclear option” of trying to radically change the course of International Relations from Liberal-Globalism back to its erstwhile model of Nationalism. 

China can only succeed with the Silk Road so long as the processes of American-initiated Liberal-Globalism continue unabated, as it’s impossible for it to achieve its goals without free trade, a UN-centric rules-based system, and the progressive surrendering of US state sovereignty to the so-called “international community”, all of which are opposed by Trump. Thus, the Thucydides Trap that’s been often discussed in academic circles as supposedly being in effect between a hegemonic US and a rising China is actually reversed since the US has ceded its control over the previous hegemonic system to China and is now behaving as the upstart power trying to undermine the existing state of affairs. The US is therefore functioning as a “revolutionary state” in many – but, importantly, not all – ways, and everything that Trump spoke about in his UN speech should be seen as describing his country’s alternative model to what is now the Chinese-led Liberal-Globalist order.  With that in mind, it’s possible to identify some of its main characteristics. 

The Trump World Order

The future that Trump envisions is “classic” in the sense of evoking key components of the US’ historic soft power (“freedom”, “liberty”, “sovereignty’) but also “modern” in that they’re all being put to use to defend and ultimately advance the country’s global leadership at the expense of its rivals, which it expects to either destroy (be it through kinetic Hybrid War means or non-kinetic economic ones) or co-opt into this “reformed” framework. Without further ado, here are the three main tenets of the Trump World Order:

The Nation-State Is Holy While Liberal-Globalism Is Sacrilegious:

Trump has a burning hatred for the Liberal-Globalist order and sincerely believes that it infringes on every country’s sovereignty, thus restricting its citizens’ freedom to prosper and undermining their personal liberties. In the Trump World Order, the UN either remains the practically useless talking club that it already is or is turned into a more effective instrument of American power after others submit to its authority and “allow” the “benevolent hegemon” to shape the world as it sees fit. The latter scenario isn’t going to happen without Russia, China, Iran, and even the EU resisting as much as realistically possible within their individual limits, which is why Trump is essentially encouraging the small- and medium-sized countries that function as objects of competition between them and other Great Powers to break ranks with everyone else and “go it their own way” while following America’s lead. 

Trump is counting on the de-facto “defection” of those states to pave the way for its Liberal-Globalist “Lead From Behind” Great Power proxies to join the Trump World Order as well prior to commencing the UN’s much-needed reform, which is a seemingly impossible feat to pull off but could nevertheless potentially succeed through the US’ weaponization of “Economic Nationalism” that will be described in a moment. Simply put, the US is basically trying to rewrite the “rules-based” order so that national interests aren’t as obviously subordinated to supranational ones like they’re presently becoming, even if the rest of the world ends up being compelled to settle for less by surrendering some of their own sovereignty to America in order to receive the “least-bad” outcome from this “New Deal”. Correspondingly, Trump sees the UN’s radical reform as an eventual step towards “stabilizing” this new US-led nation-centric arrangement. 

The Weaponization Of “Economic Nationalism” Is The US’ Modus Operandi: 

Trump’s speech drew a lot of attention to the unbalanced trade deals between the US and its many partners across the world, with the American leader arguing that everyone else is ripping his country off in order to profit at its workers’ expense. He’s previously accused corrupt politicians of continuing these outdated arrangements after the Old Cold War in order to satisfy their short-term self-interests despite these deals being completely disadvantageous to the US’ own long-term national ones. The US never used to mind “subsidizing” its “vassals” so long as this contributed to them reinvesting their profits in socio-economic programs designed to keep communism at bay, but the end of the Old Cold War changed that strategic paradigm, as did the EU and other countries’ incremental adoption of some core socialist principles. As such, Trump is opposed both in principle and strategy to continuing what he views as a Liberal-Globalist subsidization scheme for transferring American wealth to the rest of the world. 

Glenn Diesen, a member of Russia’s prestigious Valdai Club think tank and networking platform, published a comprehensive report at the end of last year about “The Global Resurgence Of Economic Nationalism” that does an excellent job explaining why the US decided to make the switch from Liberal-Globalism to this “classic” economic model and is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand this “flip-flop” dynamic. In short, as was mentioned earlier in this analysis, the US no longer believes that the old rules that it at one time directly created still advance its interests after its competitors succeeded in gradually turning this very same system against it, hence the need to “reset” the state of affairs in the hope of powerfully shaping the resultant outcome that arises out of the chaotic aftermath that “The Kraken” catalyzed.  The so-called “trade war” is the structural weaponization of “Economic Nationalism” and Trump’s battering ram for destroying the “New World Order” that his predecessors perpetuated.  

The Empire Will Be Reformed Through More Burden-Sharing And The “Lead From Behind” Stratagem

The US knows that its “vassals” are slowly but surely being wooed by its rivals, especially China and Russia, even though Washington has been subsidizing their economies and militaries for decades. This calls for drastic measures to prevent those countries from fully drifting out of its orbit, hence the weaponization of “Economic Nationalism” that’s exploiting their existing “complex interdependency” with the US while it still exists as a tool of American coercion. The US is leveraging its relationships with the EU, NATO, and the Gulf Kingdoms in order to get the first-mentioned to purchase its comparatively more expensive energy and the latter two to pay more for the so-called “security umbrella” that they’re led to believe “protects” them from Russia and Iran, respectively. Proverbially speaking, Trump is discontinuing the US’ previous policy of “providing free lunches” to its partners and is now trying to gain a tangible “return on investment” for the billions that it subsidized over the decades. 

It’s notable that the American President specifically praised India, Saudi Arabia, “Israel”, and Poland all in a row in his speech, which signals that they’re the US’ preferred “Lead From Behind” partners for managing regional affairs in the Trump World Order. These countries are such promising “vassals” for the US because they each aspire to become regional hegemons and already preside over their own integrational frameworks. India is expected to become the US’ most important strategic partner in the 21st century, and the “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” that it jointly founded with Japan could one day compete with China’s Silk Road in the broader Afro-Bengal Ocean. As for Saudi Arabia and “Israel”, they manage what could be described as the GCC+ that also counts Jordan and Egypt as members, while Poland is the leader of the “Three Seas Initiative”. Altogether, the US is building a new system of alliances all across the Eurasian Rimland for “containing” China, Iran, and Russia respectively. 

Concluding Thoughts 

Wrapping everything up, “The Kraken’s” UN speech can be read as a manifesto of the Trump World Order that the US is striving to build as an alternative to the Chinese-led Silk Road one that poses the greatest challenge thus far to America’s predominant position over global affairs. Instead of continuing to play by the rules that his predecessors established and which at one time were advantageous to America’s grand strategic interests, Trump is creating as much chaos as possible in order to destroy the world system that previous presidents built after China began to gradually take it over. The US’ hegemony would eventually decline with the passage of time if it didn’t radically reverse its decades-long stance and start rapidly replacing Liberal-Globalism with the “classic” nation-centric model, one which also at the very least superficially appeals to the ongoing multipolar processes of the day and is more than capable of co-opting “Rising Powers”. 

Gone are the days when the US used to support free trade, a UN-centric rules-based system, and the progressive surrendering of its sovereignty to the so-called “international community” because the world is now entering the era of the Trump World Order where America prioritizes fair and reciprocal trade, the unilateral advancement of its national interests, and the strengthening of its sovereignty, all of which collectively contribute to undermining the Chinese-led Silk World Order. It should be said, however, that the US’ standards will remain hypocritical because it still won’t tolerate others pursuing their own interests at its expense even though it’s doing the same at China’s and everyone else’s, but that just speaks to the fact that International Relations is approaching what could be described as Hyper-Realism because of the unregulated competition between all countries as they struggle to strike a “balance” between the American and Chinese global models. 

Interestingly enough, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova seemingly endorsed two of the main tenets of the Trump World Order by writing on Facebook that “The two cross-cutting themes in Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly are: the need to defend their own sovereignty and the lack of alternatives for defending national interests. It is worth noting that this is applicable not only to the US, but all the countries in the world.” She may have been trying to make a witty rhetorical point, but nonetheless there’s a lot of substance to her reaction because Russia does indeed defend its sovereignty and sees no alternative to advancing its national interests, which is proven by its Machiavellian “balancing” strategy all across Afro-Eurasia. That’s not to say that Russia will finally do what the US wants and begin “balancing” between it and China, but just that Moscow will still survive and thrive if Washington’s model happens to gain the upper hand over Beijing’s in the New Cold 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 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.

China and the Middle East: Venturing Into the Maelstrom

September 27th, 2018 by James M. Dorsey

For all that China’s twenty-first-century ‘rise’ is a much-discussed notion both within the country and globally, it is an increasingly difficult concept to grasp or keep pace with. As a result, books which dissect and analyse developments from a regional perspective are of great value, particularly when they focus on widely-overlooked regions as James M. Dorsey‘s China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) does.

Exploring China’s growing and increasingly complex political, economic and security entanglements in the ‘Greater Middle East’ (a region whose extent and diversity is discussed in this podcast), Dorsey argues that this “key global crossroads” (p. 1) is already becoming an arena where Beijing is being forced to reappraise its international strategy and abandon long-cherished principles including ‘non-interference’. In a time of profound transition documented by Dorsey himself, such developments are likely to have implications of not just regional, but global significance.

*

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 and the Middle East: Venturing Into the Maelstrom (Global Political Transitions)

Author: James M. Dorsey

Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan; 1st ed. 2019 edition (July 20, 2018)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 3319643541

ISBN-13: 978-3319643540

Click here to order.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China and the Middle East: Venturing Into the Maelstrom

US President Donald Trump used his second day of high-profile appearances at the United Nations Wednesday to amplify Washington’s war-threats against Iran and bully countries around the world.

At a UN Security Council session ostensibly devoted to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, Trump put the world on notice: the US—acting in flagrant violation of the UN-backed nuclear accord that it, the four other permanent UN Security Council members, and Germany reached with Tehran in 2015—will launch the next volley in its economic war against Iran in little more than a month. Starting November 5, the US will enforce a total embargo on Iranian oil exports, the principal source of funds for its state budget, and freeze Iran’s central bank out of the US-dominated world banking system thereby crippling the rest of its foreign trade.

Companies and countries that fail to abide by these “tougher than ever before” sanctions will, Trump vowed, face “severe consequences.” That is fines, exclusion from the US market, and other “secondary sanctions.”

The US sanctions against Iran are both illegal and an act of war. They are aimed at crashing Iran’s economy and impoverishing its people so as to either force Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime to surrender to US diktats or goad it into military action.

In his UN Security Council appearance Trump tried to legitimize this reckless, criminal enterprise with the most hackneyed denunciations. The fascist-minded billionaire accused Iran of being “the world’s leading sponsor of terror” and fueling “conflicts across” the Middle East “and beyond.”

As if the world could forget that it was US imperialism that was the principal bulwark of the bloody quarter-century long dictatorship of the Shah; that in the four decades since the 1979 Iranian Revolution Washington has waged an unrelenting campaign of economic pressure and military threats against Iran; that since 2001 the US has invaded and occupied Iran’s neighbours, Iraq and Afghanistan; that these wars are part of more than a quarter-century of ruinous wars Washington has waged across the Middle East with the aim of securing unbridled hegemony over the world’s most important oil-exporting region; and that in its regime-change wars and intrigues the US has repeatedly aligned, in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, with al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists.

Trump, who doubled as chair of the Security Council session and head of the US delegation, led off the main discussion at Wednesday’s meeting with a brief ten-minute speech in which he repeated many of the threats he had made in a longer rant before the UN General Assembly Tuesday.

He denounced Iran and Russia for “enabling” the “butchery” of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. He boasted of the missile strikes the US mounted on Syria in April 2017 and April 2018 and he signaled that the US stands ready to intervene on a much wider scale should Assad and his allies launch an offensive in Idlib.

Trump, who in his first appearance at the UN General Assembly last year threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea, told the Security Council he believes the US can now work with Pyongyang. But, he insisted, there would be no lessening in the brutal sanctions that have been imposed on North Korea until it has completely “denuclearized,” and he underlined the point by denouncing unnamed countries for purportedly violating the sanctions.

The only new element in Trump’s Security Council remarks was an entirely gratuitous attack on China, which he claimed “is attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 (congressional) election … against my administration.”

Trump coupled this inflammatory charge to the trade war that he has launched against Beijing, with $250 billion in Chinese exports now subject to punitive US tariffs. “They do not want me, or us, to win” the elections, asserted Trump. “Because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade. And we are winning on trade, we are winning at every level.”

The Security Council meeting was tension-filled, a product of the mounting tensions between all the great powers as they strive to assert the economic and strategic interests of their rival capitalist elites under conditions of economic crisis, trade war, surging geopolitical conflict and mounting class struggle.

French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May both solidarized themselves with the US campaign for regime-change in Syria, with May thanking the US for spearheading last April’s airstrikes, in which both France and Britain participated. Both also said Russia needed to be called to account for the Skripal affair, recycling the utterly unsubstantiated claims that the Kremlin ordered a chemical-weapons hit on a one-time double agent.

However, both Macron and May felt compelled to restate their support for the nuclear deal and warn about the repercussions of repudiating an agreement negotiated by the great powers and at the behest and largely in conformity with the aims of Washington.

Macron and May’s remarks merely reiterated what they and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have been saying for months. However they were given added force by Tuesday’s joint declaration from the foreign ministers of the three countries and Russia and China that the European Union is setting up a “special purpose vehicle” to enable European companies and ultimately others to carry on trade with Iran in defiance of the US sanctions.

The European imperialists, as demonstrated by their history and their frantic efforts to rearm, are no less rapacious than Wall Street and Washington. But they are irate that the US has sabotaged their plans to conquer the markets and lay claim to the energy reserves of Iran, a country that business publications describe as the world’s last “liberalizing” large economy and which has a government eager to extend them lucrative concessions.

Even more grating is their fear of the economic and political fallout of the military-strategic collision that Washington is precipitating. A war between the US and Iran would engulf the entire Middle East, send oil prices soaring, precipitate a surge in refugees, and result in a bloody repartition of the region under conditions where the European powers do not as of yet have the military means to determine or decisively shape the outcome.

Many informed observers question whether the “special vehicle,” the details of which have yet to be hammered out, will prove effective in sustaining anything more than token levels of trade between Europe and Iran in the face of Washington’s capacity to inflict punishment on those who defy its sanctions. Already a “Who’s Who” of major European-based companies have announced they are pulling out of Iran.

Politically, however, the “special vehicle” represents an unmistakable challenge to Washington—all the more so that it is being mounted in conjunction with Russia and China—and one with potentially tectonic implications for the world economy and geopolitics, given the vital importance to American imperialism of maintaining the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and principal medium of trade.

Not surprisingly, the European announcement has enraged the Iran regime-change hawks at the helm of the Trump administration. Appearing at a United Against Nuclear Iran conference in New York later Tuesday, alongside the director of Israel’s Mossad spy agency and the Saudi Foreign Minister, Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acted as a tag team.

Bolton ratcheted up the war threats against Iran. Addressing Tehran, he thundered,

“If you cross us, our allies, or our partners; if you harm our citizens; if you continue to lie, cheat, and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay. … We are watching, and we will come after you.”

Pompeo used similar language, but also lashed out at the P-5, the other great powers that negotiated and continue to uphold the Iran nuclear accord:

“I was disturbed and indeed deeply disappointed to hear remaining parties in the deal announced they are setting up a special payment system to bypass US sanctions. This is one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional and global peace and security.”

Iran has emerged as a focal point of US-European tensions. But the rift is deep with Germany, the EU’s dominant power, insisting that Europe can no longer rely on the Trans-Atlantic alliance, forged to wage the Cold War, and must develop the military and financial infrastructure to assert its own predatory interests on the world stage, independently of, and, when needed, against America.

Trump, for his part, further stoked tensions with Europe in recent days. According to news reports, he railed against the EU, saying its trade practices were “worse” than China’s in a meeting with Macron Monday. And in his General Assembly speech the next day, he attacked Germany, saying it “will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course” and scrap the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project.

Over the course of his two days at the UN, Trump threatened, bullied and denounced much of the world, giving voice both to the insatiable aspirations of US imperialism for world hegemony and the acute dissatisfaction of its ruling elite at the vast erosion of its economic and geopolitical power. More than a quarter-century of mounting imperialist violence has failed to reverse this decline. But the response of the American oligarchy is to double-down on aggression and militarism, setting a course for war with Iran, while mounting military-strategic offensives against Russia and China, and roiling its ostensible European allies.

*

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

Trump Regime Rage Against Sovereign Independent States

September 27th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

Straightaway in office, Trump was co-opted by hardline extremists. Things worsened dramatically after Pompeo replaced Tillerson at State and Bolton took over from McMaster as national security advisor.

Trump’s outreach to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was all for naught, his agenda undermined by Pompeo and Bolton, making unacceptable demands in return for hollow promises sure to be broken.

Trump’s eagerness to rapprochement with Russia and Vladimir Putin personally was sabotaged by falsely accusing the Kremlin of interfering in America’s political process, along with numerous other fabricated charges.

Pompeo, Bolton, other regime hardliners, and congressional Russophobes want adversarial relations with Moscow maintained, demonization is their strategy, preventing any chance for improved ties.

“The Russian are Coming”. Washington considers Russia its sworn enemy, China increasingly treated the same way, the only two nations able to effectively challenge US hegemonic aims, especially when united for common objectives.

Trump regime anti-Iran rage risks possible war on the Islamic Republic, hellbent for regime change.

Pompeo, Bolton, and other regime extremists want Israel’s main regional rival eliminated, despite the Islamic Republic wanting cooperative relations with all countries, threatening none – not America, Israel or any others.

Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries, a cold hard fact ignored by Iranophobic US officials and major media.

They feature the official falsified narrative alone, suppressing hard truths. Iran’s leadership renounced nuclear weapons, wanting them eliminated altogether. Its ballistic and other missiles, along with its military preparedness, is all about defense, not offense.

Trump’s geopolitical team is going all-out to replace its sovereign independent governance with pro-Western puppet rule.

If sanctions, orchestrated terrorist attacks and other destabilization tactics fail, naked aggression may be next.

Other JCPOA signatories oppose DLT’s opposition to the deal. Russia and China intend maintaining normal relations with the Islamic Republic, refusing to go along with illegal US sanctions.

Days earlier, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Brussels intends creating special payment channels to maintain trade relations with Iran, facilitating its oil, gas, and other exports, bypassing the US-controlled Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) system.

What Brussels actually implements, not what it says, alone matters, the jury still out on its policies toward Iran.

After chairing a Security Council session, Trump’s news conference included disinformation and Big Lies – notably on Syria, Iran, Israel/Palestine, and China.

Venezuela was also harshly targeted in his General Assembly address and on the sidelines of the session. More on this below.

Moscow, Damascus, Hezbollah fighters, and Iranian military advisors alone have gone all-out to defeat the scourge of ISIS and other terrorists in Syria the Trump regime and its imperial partners support.

During his Wednesday press conference, Trump took credit for their accomplishments.

“Nobody is going to give me credit, but that’s OK,” he roared.

He falsely claimed orders given to Pompeo and Bolton, along with his tweets, stopped an Idlib (liberating) offensive, saving “millions of people (from being) killed.”

He repeated the Big Lie about the  JCPOA being the “worst deal ever,” unleashing venom on the Islamic Republic whenever the topic is raised.

He boasted about US sanctions war on the country, harming ordinary people – accomplishing no strategic aims now or earlier since the 1979 revolution ended a generation of US-installed fascist dictatorship.

He falsely called himself “a facilitator” in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – ignoring his one-sided support for the Jewish state, inflicting enormous hardships on millions of Palestinians, including illegally blockaded Gazans and refugees he doesn’t give a hoot about.

He lied claiming “(w)e have evidence” that China is interfering in America’s upcoming midterm election, adding Xi Jinping may not be a good friend “anymore.”

Beijing’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi denounced the false accusation, saying

“(w)e do not and will not interfere in any countries’ domestic affairs,” adding:

“We refuse to accept any unwarranted accusations against China, and we call on other countries to also observe the purposes of the UN charter and not interfere in other countries’ internal affairs.”

Trump escalated Obama’s political and economic war on Venezuela. His Tuesday General Assembly remarks viciously attacked its sovereign independent Bolivarian social democracy – calling its legitimate governance “the socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro” – a bald-faced lie.

He vowed “further action” against the country, coinciding with implementing additional illegal sanctions on high-ranking Maduro officials.

Earlier US sanctions created economic and financial crisis conditions. “(A)ll options are on the table” to topple its government, he roared earlier.

Ahead of his Wednesday Security Council remarks, he repeated the threat, adding stronger measures may be implemented against the country than already, telling reporters “you know what I mean by strong” – suggesting another coup attempt or possible military intervention.

During his Wednesday press conference, he again said

“(a)ll options are on the table, every one…with respect to Venezuela.”

Maduro’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza called Trump’s threats “grotesque,” adding “its easy for (him) to promote violence and the assassination of leaders in a country.”

Hardline US geopolitical policies are counterproductive longterm, making more adversaries than friends.

They’re contributing to growing US isolation internationally. They risk greater aggressive wars than already, including possible direct confrontation with Russia and China.

Imperial madness is self-defeating longterm, a reality Trump doesn’t understand, nor his extremist geopolitical team.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Regime Rage Against Sovereign Independent States

Israel has very real reasons to fear Russia’s S-300 shipment to Syria if Damascus actually ends up independently wielding this defensive system to safeguard its airspace every time that it’s threatened, though that might be exactly why Tel Aviv and its American ally might wage an overwhelming preemptive strike to prevent that from happening. 

It would be a strategic game-changer if the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) obtained the S-300s and used them to protect against any forthcoming Israeli and/or American strikes (whether carried out by warplanes or missiles), but it’s doubtful that either of them will peacefully forgo their freedom to militarily operate in the country with impunity. In and of itself, the SAA’s possession of this system would enable it to impose a “no-fly zone” over the country, to say nothing of extending this weapon’s reach into Israel’s de-facto borders and therefore hindering the Israeli Air Force’s ability to fly over its own territory. There’s no conceivable way that Israel would allow that to happen, nor that the US would accept its aircraft being unable to enter into the northeastern Kurdish-controlled part of the country that it’s occupying, which is why there’s either more to this announcement than is being made public or the world should brace for an impending joint strike by both of them against these systems.

About the first possibility, it should be noted that Shoigu didn’t say anything about Russia pulling out of its existing “deconfliction mechanisms” with Israel or the US, meaning that a “loophole” technically exists for both of them to avoid having their aircraft or missiles shot down so long as they coordinate their operations with Moscow like they were supposed to all along through these agreements. That, however, doesn’t remove the challenge posed to these “gentlemen’s deals” by the SAA, which could theoretically shoot down their aerial assets or missiles despite Russia “greenlighting” them beforehand. The very fact that the SAA might be able to independently wield the S-300s outside of Russian control terrifies Israel and the US and is enough of a strategic uncertainty that neither of them is likely to allow that state of affairs to ever enter into existence. The reasons for this are many, but the most important ones are as follows.

To begin with and to repeat what was mentioned earlier, Israel will not accept Syria having the military possibility to target aircraft over its own airspace, the same as the US won’t do the same when it comes to Damascus obtaining the means to shoot down its planes flying over the northeast of the country. This would suggest that Russia might place restrictions on the locations where Syria could deploy these systems in order to prevent them from targeting either of those parties’ aircraft over those areas, but since the S-300’s range is between 200-250km, they can easily cover those territories anyhow, thus making this a moot point. Furthermore, there doesn’t exist enough trust between Israel and the US on the one hand and Russia – let alone Syria, too – on the other for the first-mentioned pair to not be concerned about this even if it was the case.

Another point that needs to be mentioned is that Israel isn’t going to tolerate any so-called “safe zones” for the IRGC and Hezbollah in Syria, which is what Damascus would de-facto be creating if it was given control of its own S-300s. Russia must certainly be aware of Israel’s publicly proclaimed stance on this issue and would know that delivering the S-300s to Damascus could trigger Tel Aviv into destroying these assets if they ever targeted its aircraft, so this once again brings the analysis back to wondering whether Syria would really be gaining independent control over these systems like many in the public seem to think they would or if Russia would secretly still be in control of them. The latter scenario isn’t speculation either because presidential spokesman Peskov said that the S-300s are “not directed against third countries, they are meant to protect our own troops.

This statement is relatively ambiguous because it seems to somewhat contradict what Shoigu said about Syria obtaining control over these systems, and it would be unprecedented for Russia to “outsource” the security of its personnel to Syria when it’s more than capable of protecting them on its own with the said systems. It could be, however, that Peskov is just adding “diplomatic sugar” to Shoigu’s announcement and “covering up” for Russia’s shipment of S-300s to the SAA by giving it a “publicly plausible” reason that doesn’t have any official “anti-Israeli” purpose. If that’s what’s happening, then it should still be expected that Israel will strike these units like it threatened to do earlier in the year when there was renewed talk about their transfer to the SAA, and it might even be joined by the US in doing so for the reasons mentioned earlier in this analysis.

Russia didn’t sacrifice as much as it already did just to get to this far of a point in the war and have the SAA possibly obliterated by an overwhelming swarm of Israeli and American missiles in response to its partner using the S-300s against either of their aircraft, nor will Moscow likely order its soldiers to function as “human shields”/“tripwires” for guaranteeing that Russia retaliates against their possible destruction. The stakes seem to have been raised in this game of geopolitical poker, though cooler heads will probably prevail in thwarting the worst-case scenario that was just described. Some way or another, Russia will probably ensure that it still retains a degree of control over the S-300s that it transfers to the SAA, possibly including the authority to temporarily prevent them from locking onto certain targets on a case-by-case basis following the approval of Israeli and American operations coordinated through the “deconfliction mechanism”.

Syria must certainly know that using the S-300s to attack Israeli aircraft over Israel or American ones over the Kurdish-controlled northeast that the Pentagon is occupying would most likely trigger a devastating response, so even in the event that it has full independent control over these weapons, it probably wouldn’t use them for those purposes. It would, however, protect its most important infrastructure and facilities from attacks by either of them, but therein lays the rub because neither Israel nor the US could be certain that those locations aren’t functioning as “safe zones” for the IRGC or Hezbollah, much less their speculative missile-making warehouses, so the “security dilemma” (to reference a well-known concept of International Relations theory) is still much too intense for them not to be “provoked” into a “preemptive”, or at the very least overwhelming retaliatory, strike.

In summary, Israel and the US have everything to fear from Syria gaining unrestricted control over the S-300s, but likewise, so too does Syria almost counterintuitively have something to fear from this too because of the likelihood that it could “push” both of them into launching a preemptive strike against it. Russia also – again, counterintuitively – shares the same fears as well because it probably doesn’t have the “political will” to risk World War III through the necessary brinksmanship of backing up the SAA if it shoots down Israeli and/or American jets and/or missiles, leave alone if it’s victimized by a devastating preemptive or retaliatory strike, which raises the question of why it’s transferring S-300s to it in the first place unless there’s much more to this agreement than meets the eye. Nothing is as it seems, that much is clear, but it’ll take the unfolding of forthcoming events for observers to get a better idea of what might really be going on.

*

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 InfoRos.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia: We Need to Protect Our Troops in Syria. The S-300 Air Defense System

Time to Wake Up: The Neoliberal Order Is Dying

September 27th, 2018 by Jonathan Cook

In my recent essay, I argued that power in our societies resides in structure, ideology and narratives – supporting what we might loosely term our current “neoliberal order” – rather than in individuals. Significantly, our political and media classes, who are of course deeply embedded in this neoliberal structure, are key promoters of the very opposite idea: that individuals or like-minded groups of people hold power; that they should, at least in theory, be held accountable for the use and misuse of that power; and that meaningful change involves replacing these individuals rather than fundamentally altering the power-structure they operate within.

In other words, our political and media debates reduce to who should be held to account for problems in the economy, the health and education systems, or the conduct of a war. What is never discussed is whether flawed policies are the fleeting responsibility of individuals and political parties or symptoms of the current neoliberal malaise – manifestations of an ideology that necessarily has goals, such as the pursuit of maximised profit and endless economic growth, that are indifferent to other considerations, such as the damage being done to life on our planet.

The focus on individuals happens for a reason. It is designed to ensure that the structure and ideological foundations of our societies remain invisible to us, the public. The neoliberal order goes unquestioned – presumed, against the evidence of history, to be permanent, fixed, unchallengeable.

So deep is this misdirection that even efforts to talk about real power become treacherous. My words above and below might suggest that power is rather like a person, that it has intention and will, that maybe it likes to deceive or play tricks. But none of that is true either.

Big and little power

My difficulty conveying precisely what I mean, my need to resort to metaphor, reveals the limitations of language and the necessarily narrow ideological horizons it imposes on anyone who uses it. Intelligible language is not designed adequately to describe structure or power. It prefers to particularise, to humanise, to specify, to individualise in ways that make thinking in bigger, more critical ways near-impossible.

Language is on the side of those, like politicians and corporate journalists, who conceal structure, who deal in narratives of the small-power of individuals rather than of the big-power of structure and ideology. In what passes for news, the media offer a large stage for powerful individuals to fight elections, pass legislation, take over businesses, start wars, and a small stage for these same individuals to get their come-uppance, caught committing crimes, lying, having affairs, getting drunk, and more generally embarrassing themselves.

These minor narratives conceal the fact that such individuals are groomed before they ever gain access to power. Business leaders, senior politicians and agenda-setting journalists reach their positions after proving themselves over and over again – not consciously but through their unthinking compliance to the power-structure of our societies. They are selected through their performances in exams at school and university, through training programmes and indentures. They rise to the top because they are the most talented examples of those who are blind or submissive to power, those who can think most cleverly without thinking critically. Those who reliably deploy their skills where they are directed to do so.

Their large and small dramas constitute what we call public life, whether politics, world affairs or entertainment. To suggest that there are deeper processes at work, that the largest of these dramas is not really large enough for us to gain insight into how power operates, is to instantly be dismissed as paranoid, a fantasist, and – most damningly of all – a conspiracy theorist.

These terms also serve the deception. They are intended to stop all thought about real power. They are scare words used to prevent us, in a metaphor used in my previous post, from stepping back from the screen. They are there to force us to stand so close we see only the pixels, not the bigger picture.

Media makeover

The story of Britain’s Labour party is a case in point, and was illustrated even before Jeremy Corbyn became leader. Back in the 1990s Tony Blair reinvented the party as New Labour, jettisoning ideas of socialism and class war, and inventing instead a “Third Way”.

Image result for rupert murdoch + tony blair

The idea that gained him access to power – personified in the media narrative of the time as his meeting with Rupert Murdoch on the mogul’s Hayman Island – was that New Labour would triangulate, find a middle way between the 1 per cent and the 99 per cent. The fact that the meeting took place with Murdoch rather than anyone else signalled something significant: that the power-structure needed a media makeover. It needed to be dressed in new garb.

In reality, Blair made Labour useful to power by re-styling the turbo-charged neoliberalism Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative party of the rich had unleashed. He made it look compatible with social democracy. Blair put a gentler, kinder mask on neoliberalism’s aggressive pursuit of planet-destroying power – much as Barack Obama would do in the United States a decade later, after the horrors of the Iraq invasion. Neither Blair nor Obama changed the substance of our economic and political systems, but they did make them look deceptively attractive by tinkering with social policy.

Were the neoliberal order laid bare – were the emperor to allow himself to be stripped of his clothes – no one apart from a small psychopathic elite would vote for neoliberalism’s maintenance. So power is forced to repeatedly reinvent itself. It is like the shape-shifting Mystique of the X-Men films, constantly altering its appearance to lull us into a false sense of security. Power’s goal is to keep looking like it has become something new, something innovative. Because the power-structure does not want change, it has to find front-men and women who can personify a transformation that is, in truth, entirely hollow.

Power can perform this stunt, as Blair did, by repackaging the same product – neoliberalism – in prettier ideological wrapping. Or it can, as has happened in the US of late, try a baser approach by adding a dash of identity politics. A black presidential candidate (Obama) can offer hope, and a woman candidate (Hillary Clinton) can cast herself as mother-saviour.

With this model in place, elections become an illusory contest between more transparent and more opaque iterations of neoliberal power. In failing the 99 per cent, Obama so woefully voided this strategy that large sections of voters turned their back on his intended successor, the new makeover candidate Hillary Clinton. They saw through the role-playing. They preferred, even if only reluctantly, the honest vulgarity of naked power represented by Trump over the pretensions of Clinton’s fakely compassionate politics.

Unstable politics

Despite its best efforts, neoliberalism is increasingly discredited in the eyes of large sections of the electorate in the US and UK. Its attempts at concealment have grown jaded, its strategy exhausted. It has reached the end-game, and that is why politics now looks so unstable. “Insurgency” candidates in different guises are prospering.

Neoliberal power is distinctive because it seeks absolute power, and can achieve that end only through global domination. Globalisation, the world as a plaything for a tiny elite to asset-strip, is both its means and its end. Insurgents are therefore those who seek to reverse the trend towards globalisation – or at least claim to. There are insurgents on both the left and right.

If neoliberalism has to choose, it typically prefers an insurgent on the right to the left. A Trump figure can usefully serve power too, because he dons the clothes of an insurgent while doing little to actually change the structure.

Nonetheless, Trump is a potential problem for the neoliberal order for two reasons.

First, unlike an Obama or a Clinton, he too clearly illuminates what is really at stake for power – wealth maximisation at any cost – and thereby risks unmasking the deception. And second, he is a retrograde step for the globalising power-structure.

Neoliberalism has dragged capitalism out its nineteenth-century dependency on nation-states into a twenty-first ideology that demands a global reach. Trump and other nativist leaders seek a return to a supposed golden era of state-based capitalism, one that prefers to send our children up chimneys if it prevents children from far-off lands arriving on our shores to do the same.

The neoliberal order prefers a Trump to a Bernie Sanders because the nativist insurgents are so much easier to tame. A Trump can be allowed to strut on his Twitter stage while the global power-structure constrains and undermines any promised moves that might threaten it. Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel’s biggest cheerleader and has launched US missiles at Syria.

Faustian pacts

The current power-structure is much more frightened of a left insurgency of the kind represented by Corbyn in the UK. He and his supporters are trying to reverse the accommodations with power made by Blair. And that is why he finds himself relentlessly assaulted from every direction – from his political opponents; from his supposed political allies, including most of his own parliamentary party; and most especially from the state-corporate media, including its bogus left-liberal elements like the Guardian and the BBC.

The past three years of attacks on Corbyn are how power manifests itself, shows its hand, when it is losing. It is a strategy of last resort. A Blair or an Obama arrive in power having already made so many compromises behind the scenes that their original policies are largely toothless. They have made Faustian pacts as a condition for being granted access to power. This is variously described as pragmatism, moderation, realism. More accurately, it should be characterised as betrayal.

It does not stop when they reach high office. Obama made a series of early errors, thinking he would have room to manoeuvre in the Middle East. He made a speech in Cairo about a “New Beginning” for the region. A short time later he would help to snuff out the Egyptian Arab Spring that erupted close by, in Tahrir Square. Egypt’s military, long subsidised by Washington, were allowed to take back power.

Obama won the 2009 Nobel peace prize, before he had time to do anything, for his international diplomacy. And yet he stepped up the war on terror, oversaw the rapid expansion of a policy of extrajudicial assassinations by drone, and presided over the extension of the Iraq regime-change operation to Libya and Syria.

And he threatened penalties for Israel over its illegal settlements policy – a five-decade war crime that has gone completely unpunished by the international community. But in practice his inaction allowed Israel to entrench its settlements to the point where annexation of parts of the West Bank is now imminent.

Tame or destroy

Neoliberalism is now so entrenched, so rapacious that even a moderate socialist like Corbyn is seen as a major threat. And unlike a Blair, Obama or Trump, Corbyn is much harder to tame because he has a grassroots movement behind him and to which he is ultimately accountable.

In the US, the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party prevented the left-insurgent candidate, Bernie Sanders, from contesting the presidency by rigging the system to keep him off the ballot paper. In the UK, Corbyn got past those structural defences by accident. He scraped into the leadership race as the token “loony-left” candidate, indulged by the Labour party bureaucracy as a way to demonstrate that the election was inclusive and fair. He was never expected to win.

Once he was installed as leader, the power-structure had two choices: to tame him like Blair, or destroy him before he stood a chance of reaching high office. For those with short memories, it is worth recalling how those alternatives were weighed in Corbyn’s first months.

On the one hand, he was derided across the media for being shabbily dressed, for being unpatriotic, for threatening national security, for being sexist. This was the campaign to tame him. On the other, the Murdoch-owned Times newspaper, the house journal of the neoliberal elite, gave a platform to an anonymous army general to warn that the British military would never allow Corbyn to reach office. There would be an army-led coup before he ever got near 10 Downing Street.

In a sign of how ineffectual these power-structures now are, none of this made much difference to Corbyn’s fortunes with the public. A truly insurgent candidate cannot be damaged by attacks from the power-elite. That’s why he is where he is, after all.

So those wedded to the power-structure among his own MPs tried to wage a second leadership contest to unseat him. As a wave of new members signed up to bolster his ranks of supporters, and thereby turned the party into the largest in Europe, Labour party bureaucrats stripped as many as possible of their right to vote in the hope Corbyn could be made to lose. They failed again. He won with an even bigger majority.

Redefining words

It was in this context that the neoliberal order has had to play its most high-stakes card of all. It has accused Corbyn, a lifelong anti-racism activist, of being an anti-semite for supporting the Palestinian cause, for preferring Palestinian rights over brutal Israeli occupation. To make this charge plausible, words have had to be redefined: “anti-semitism” no longer means simply a hatred of Jews, but includes criticism of Israel; “Zionist” no longer refers to a political movement that prioritises the rights of Jews over the native Palestinian population, but supposedly stands as sinister code for all Jews. Corbyn’s own party has been forced under relentless pressure to adopt these malicious reformulations of meaning.

How anti-semitism is being weaponised, not to protect Jews but to protect the neoliberal order, was made starkly clear this week when Corbyn criticised the financial elite that brought the west to the brink of economic ruin a decade ago, and will soon do so again unless stringent new regulations are introduced. Useful idiots like Stephen Pollard, editor of the rightwing Jewish Chronicle, saw a chance to revive the anti-semitism canard once again, accusing Corbyn of secretly meaning “Jews” when he actually spoke of bankers. It is a logic intended to make the neoliberal elite untouchable, cloaking them in a security blanket relying on the anti-semitism taboo.

Almost the entire Westminister political class and the entire corporate media class, including the most prominent journalists in the left-liberal media, have reached the same preposterous conclusion about Corbyn. Whatever the evidence in front of their and our eyes, he is now roundly declared an anti-semite. Up is now down, and day is night.

High-stakes strategy

This strategy is high stakes and dangerous for two reasons.

First, it risks creating the very problem it claims to be defending against. By crying wolf continuously about Corbyn’s supposed anti-semitism without any tangible evidence for it, and by making an unfounded charge of anti-semitism the yardstick for judging Corbyn’s competence for office rather than any of his stated policies, the real anti-semite’s argument begins to sound more plausible.

In what could become self-fulfilling prophecy, the anti-semitic right’s long-standing ideas about Jewish cabals controlling the media and pulling levers behind the scenes could start to resonate with an increasingly disillusioned and frustrated public. The weaponising of anti-semitism by the neoliberal order to protect its power risks turning Jews into collateral damage. It makes them another small or bigger drama in the increasingly desperate attempt to create a narrative that deflects attention from the real power-structure.

And second, the effort to stitch together a narrative of Corbyn’s anti-semitism out of non-existent cloth is likely to encourage more and more people to take a step back from the screen so that those unintelligible pixels can more easily be discerned as a smoking gun. The very preposterousness of the allegations, and the fact that they are taken so seriously by a political and media class selected for their submissiveness to the neoliberal order, accelerates the process by which these opinion-formers discredit themselves. Their authority wanes by the day, and as a result their usefulness to the power-structure rapidly diminishes.

This is where we are now: in the final stages of a busted system that is clinging on to credibility by its fingernails. Sooner or later, its grip will be lost and it will plunge into the abyss. We will wonder how we ever fell for any of its deceptions.

In the meantime, we must get on with the urgent task of liberating our minds, of undoing the toxic mental and emotional training we were subjected to, of critiquing and deriding those whose job is to enforce the corrupt orthodoxy, and of replotting a course towards a future that saves the human species from impending extinction.

*

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

This article was originally published on CounterPunch.

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

Featured image is from the author.

“White Man’s Burden”, a colonial euphemism for what Marthe Raymond calls “White Supremacy Colonialism” is a subconscious driver behind what Canada and its allies are currently imposing on Syria. According to this “logic”, we can bomb and slaughter and behead and deny food and medicine and almost everything else to Syrians because, apparently, they DO NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS. It is the “logic” of imperialism.

As soon as you go to Syria and meet Syrians, the logic is totally destroyed, and the “civilized” mask of imperialists disintegrates and reveals them for what they are: war criminals.  Whereas colonial logic would have us believe that we are superior to Syrians, the inverse is true on many levels. For example, whereas Canada and its allies support al Qaeda in Syria, Syria and Syrians are (successfully) combatting al Qaeda.  Whereas Canada and its allies support sectarianism and fundamentalist interpretations of Sharia law, as observed in terrorist-occupied areas of Syria, the Syrian government supports the opposite: democracy, pluralism, and non-sectarianism.

Whereas the West supports ignorance and barbarism, Syria supports enlightenment and civilization. Prof. Tim Anderson reports that,

“(u)nder the Saudi-backed sectarian terror groups (mainly Jaysh al Islam, Faylaq al Rahman, and Jabhat al Nusra), all schools had been closed, commandeered by the armed groups for their own purposes. Only a few small classrooms were used for Saudi-style religious instruction.

The result is that, after six years of jihadist occupation, as teachers confirmed to us, most primary school age children had never been to a real school; until now.” [1]

(Source: Prof. Anderson/AHT)

Despite 7 years of imperial war against Syria, most Canadians find evidence-based assertions about Syria and Syrians to be ridiculous.  Why is this?  The broad-based ignorance is largely a product of our “colonial” monopoly mass media, which is an echo chamber for criminal war propaganda.      

We have allowed this colonial mindset, coupled with a sophisticated apparatus of deception, to blind us to the reality to which we are accomplices.  The reality is an overseas holocaust where Western barbarism is slowly but surely being defeated as the world tilts towards a multipolar orientation. 

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Note

1. Prof. Tim Anderson, “After Years of War, East Ghouta’s Schools Reopen.” American Herald Tribune, 24 September, 2018.( https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/2492-east-ghouta-schools.html) Accessed, 26 September, 2018.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Since 2012 Venezuela has undergone an economic war directed mostly by and from the U.S. that has targeted market prices of goods and services, in part, by the impact of unilateral economic sanctions, but also in large part by the manipulation of the exchange rate in the illegal parallel market that determined the prices of goods and services in Venezuela. The aim has been to disarticulate the economic and political stability of the Venezuelan constitutional order, within a plan that aims for regime change. 

The economic war has partially achieved the intended goal by creating shortages and disrupting production. The result has been a spiraling inflationary process, only kept at bay by the recent monetary measures adopted by the Maduro government.

But in order to understand the importance of those monetary measures, it is first essential to understand the mechanism of the foreign induced inflationary process that had taken a grip on the Venezuelan economy.

The inflationary phenomenon

35784762

In her outstanding book “The Visible Hand of the Market – Economic Warfare in Venezuela”, Venezuelan economist Pasqualina Curcio describes in full details the mechanism by which “people in Venezuela have endured episodes of disproportionate and induced increase of prices, of galloping inflation, with repercussions on the purchasing power, especially the working class.” [1] 

She backs up her conclusions with statistical analyses and econometric models to show how the “economic crisis” is induced by external factors with the participation of domestic economic forces.

Inflation is basically a situation where there is a distortion of prices that affects the purchasing power of individuals. That is, prices rapidly go up while consumers’ purchasing power decreases. A high inflation rate is considered an anomaly in the economy. This anomaly is often caused by factors such as shortages of goods and services and/or high exchange rates resulting in a rise in prices.

First, it’s important to notice three important features of Venezuelan economy that are relevant to the way market prices are determined:

1. There are relatively few private importers in Venezuela but they control an important economic sector. This implies that they have the power to fix prices differently from what demand and supply would dictate. 

2. In Venezuela there has been a Currency Exchange Control since 2003 with a preferential U.S. dollar to the (Venezuelan currency) Bolivar exchange rate to favor imports.

3. Venezuela is a large importer of many products for direct consumption (20% of imports) and as inputs for national production (79% of imports); therefore market prices are determined largely by the value of the international currency. For example, if corn is purchased abroad at $1 a kilo, say, the retail price in Venezuela, under normal circumstances, should be $1 plus any other additional cost incurred by the importer/distributor/retailer, and his/her profit, in equivalent Venezuelan currency.

The first feature of the Venezuelan economy has allowed importers to control the supply of products creating shortages and fixing higher prices. We can be sure that at a time of economic uncertainty they may be inclined to use the power to their advantage, financial or political.

The second feature is intended to help society with affordable imports of essential goods that would be retailed at lower prices.

The third feature makes it such that prices will be in turn determined by the exchange rate. Therefore, prices of goods and services can easily be manipulated by manipulating the exchange rate for financial or political gain.

But another reality – outside Venezuela – is central to understanding how prices are pushed out of control. A parallel and illegal exchange rate “market” has been represented by a website identified as Dolar Today established in Florida that is overtly anti Venezuelan government. The site has been publishing subjective rates drastically devaluating the real market value of the Venezuelan currency. What makes this market illegal is that it is totally unregulated and it is driven by websites and social media, not to mention by its political intent. 

Example

Keeping these few elements in mind, I will try to provide a simple hypothetical example that might help understand the mechanism of the inflationary process that has wrongly been attributed to the socialist administration of the Maduro government. [2]

This might actually point out that it is the capitalist behavior, particularly when it is politically motivated, that has manufactured the economic crisis in Venezuela.

Let’s say an importer wanted to buy 1,000 Kg of a certain product in the international market at a cost of US$ 10 per kilo. The importer would need to get US$ 10,000 from the Central Bank of Venezuela at the official preferential exchange rate of, say, BsF 10 for US$ 1, for a total of BsF 100,000 in Venezuelan currency (we use here the old currency, Bolivar Fuerte, used at the time reference in the example).

Let’s say the importer uses a mark up of 100%, the price of the product in Venezuela should be the equivalent of US$ 20/Kg, that is BsF 200/Kg, using the same preferential rate of exchange (assuming no other costs for the sake of the example).

However, the importer (and/or any other economic player including individual speculators) may use his/her economic power or opportunity in either or both of the following actions:

1. Reduce the supply in order to increase the price (this has explained in large part the shortages of certain essential products and the corresponding price increase).

2. Jack up the price by claiming a much higher parallel and illegal exchange rate posted in the website Dollar Today. If the website posted, for example, an exchange rate of BsF 100,000 for US$ 1, the speculative retail price of a kilogram of the product in question would be BsF 2 million (BsF 100,000 x US$ 20/Kg), instead of BsF 200 (BsF 10 x US$ 20/Kg). 

The example is simple but the price fixing based on the parallel exchange rate market is real and proven by Pasqualina Curcio in her book. 

The Maduro government has implemented remedial policies like the CLAP (Local Distribution and Production Committees) to offset shortages and price hikes. However, the Venezuelan government has been unable to stop the parallel market based in the U.S. This market has falsely and relentlessly devaluated the Venezuelan currency over time.

How is the monetary conversion solving the problem

Last August the Maduro government announced an ambitious but realistic plan called Program of Economic Recovery, Growth and Prosperity. The program has 10 strategies including a new redesign of fiscal and tax policy, a new policy of subsidizing gasoline, an increase of four percentage points to the Value Added Tax (IVA), a guaranteed minimum wage, and the establishment of a single exchange rate, which will fluctuate according to the auction system under the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) regulation. [3]

In fact, just last September 7 Venezuela has taken a further step towards freeing up the exchange of its new Sovereign Bolivar (BsS) currency, with the government authorizing public and private firms and banks, as well as ordinary citizens, to trade in other currencies for the first time since 2003.

When Maduro launched the plan he said,

“We are going to dismantle the perverse war of neoliberal capitalism to install an honest, balanced, sustainable, healthy and productive economic system.”

This might have not been a coincidental reference to the IMF neoliberal measures being forced on the Mauricio Macri government in Argentina causing, by the way, high inflation and popular unrest.

The centerpiece of the economic plan, however, has been the implementation of a drastic monetary reform in order to stop the rampant inflation that was facilitated by a financial system dependent on the U.S. dollar as a reference currency. The reform slashed five zeros to the old currency and linked the new BsS to the crypto currency Petro, in turn anchored to one of the largest of Venezuelan natural resources, oil. Currently, one Petro equals US$ 60, based on a barrel of Venezuelan crude, and that is equivalent to 3,600 BsS. More significant is that the minimum wage is now BsS 1,800, which increased dramatically the purchasing power of workers. Before the reform the minimum wage in today’s currency would have been BsS 51.96.

Maduro has stated that anchoring serves to lower inflation because

“we are not going to be subject to the value of our monetary sign being determined by a web page, [but] it will be determined by the oil market, which may be unstable at some point but has its regularity, its own structuring, many countries are involved.”

There is no shortage of critics saying that the monetary reform will not work but I have yet to read any sound explanation for the criticism.

Certainly, prices fixing and control remain an issue to watch carefully. The Venezuelan government and 35 companies, including Cargill, Polar and El Tunal (among the largest in the food sector), have agreed and made public the first 25 prices of items prioritized by the Venezuelan government that will be subject to regulation, under a scheme of sustainable prices and subject to modification. More items will be regulated in the near future.

The new economic program will reduce or mitigate the temptation of illegal resale, contraband or hoarding, because the new price structure is now anchored to an international reference currency that cannot be manipulated.

Another important outcome is that by de-linking the currency from the dollar, Venezuela is effectively able to bypass the multiple sanctions from the US, Canada and European countries. There have been no new sanctions against Venezuela since last May. [4]

Although it is too soon to see any real impact, these new measures promise to put an end to inflation by regaining control of the economy that was left in the hands of a small powerful minority taking advantage of the possibilities of speculation and corruption allowed by the illegal currency exchange market. 

Internationally, the new economic plan has implicitly been endorsed by China. The online media outlet venezuelanalysis.com reported that Maduro’s visit to China at the beginning of September has resulted in Venezuela and China signing twenty-eight bilateral agreements, including a new US$ 5 billion Chinese loan and joint plans for a fourth satellite, in addition to strengthening political ties.

Even further, Venezuela will now join China’s ambitious New Silk Road commercial plan, which is estimated to be worth US$ 900 billion. The project looks to connect Europe, Asia, and the Middle East in a monumental economic road and maritime chain that will include 60 countries, 75 percent of the world’s energy reserves, and 70 percent of its population. Venezuela is the second Latin American country to sign up for the project with the world largest oil reserves, following Uruguay earlier this year. [5] China-Venezuela economic partnership builds confidence in the Maduro administration recent reforms.

Concluding thoughts

It is important to remember that classic economics talks about the determination of prices based on supply and demand. But in practice, geopolitical factors may have more relevance in determining prices. In its worse case, the situation occurs when undue control over the economy is exercised from another country for political reasons, to such an extent that speculation and abuses on the part of consumers and producers alike become the norm. 

Venezuela has a major challenge: the U.S. determination for regime change against all international covenants. The U.S. government is doing so by implementing unilateral punitive actions based on uncorroborated human rights violations, humanitarian crisis and migration crisis. All these accusations have been disproved at the highest international instances.

The Organization of American States (OAS) overall has restrained itself from condemning Venezuela, except for its Secretary General that seems to be pursuing a personal vendetta with calls to military intervention in Venezuela, against the mandate required by his position.

Venezuela has been subjected to an economic war well demonstrated by economist Pasqualina Curcio in her book, which is orchestrated outside the country and therefore out of its control. For instance, the currency values that are published daily in web pages and disseminated in social networks do not respond to any economic criteria or economic reality. They respond instead to a political intention seeking destabilization through the distortion of the markets and of the Venezuelan economy in general.

The Maduro administration has responded to all economic impacts with policies that protect the population, as well as with unique programs that aim to a recovery and a prosperous future. A strict control of the implementation of the plan by all economic players is necessary. Even neoliberal policies enforce tight controls on the economy. The IMF and World Bank are typical examples. The real issue is to what ends the policies and controls are practiced and whom are they meant to benefit.

More importantly, the Venezuelan government has constantly invited the private sector and the political opposition to partake of the new opportunities.

However, there is also a clear message that the foreign “visible hand” of the market will meet the “hard hand” of the State if necessary.

*

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

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and writer based in Vancouver, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” http://www.cubasolidarityincanada.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] A PDF file can be download from https://bibliotecadaluta.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/the-visible-hand-of-the-market-economic-warfare-in-venezuela-pasqualina-curcio-c.pdf

[2] I have also benefitted from enlightening conversations on the topic with Wilfredo Perez Bianco, Consul General of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Vancouver, Canada, to whom I am very grateful.

[3] http://www.mppef.gob.ve/nuevo-convenio-cambiario-vs-bloqueo-y-desabastecimiento/

[4] https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Venezuelas-Monetary-Revolution-Vis-a-Vis-Economic-Sanctions-20180808-0023.html

[5] https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14056 

Featured image is from PravdaReport.

The Battle for Our Minds

September 27th, 2018 by Patrick Lawrence

There are battlefields in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere, but given the state of corporate media, perhaps the most consequential battle now being fought is for our minds, says Patrick Lawrence.

After reading The New York Times piece “The Plot to Subvert an Election” I put the paper down with a single question.

Why, after two years of allegations, indictments, and claims to proof of this, that, and the other did the newspaper of record—well, once the newspaper of record—see any need to publish such a piece? My answer is simple: The orthodox account of Russia-gate has not taken hold: It has failed in its effort to establish a consensus of certainty among Americans. My conclusion matches this observation: The orthodox narrative is never going to achieve this objective. There are too many holes in it.

Screengrab from The New York Times

“The information age is actually a media age,” John Pilger, the noted British–Australian journalist, remarked during a symposium four years ago, when the Ukraine crisis was at its peak. “We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media—a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.”

Pilger revisited the theme in a piece last week on Consortium News, arguing that once-tolerated, dissenting opinion has in recent years “regressed into a metaphoric underground.”

There are battlefields in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere, but perhaps the most consequential battle now being fought is for our minds.

Those who dispense with honest intellectual inquiry, healthy skepticism of all media, and an insistence that assertions require supporting evidence should not win this war. The Times piece by Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti—two of the paper’s top-tier reporters—is a case in point: If the Russia-gate narrative were so widely accepted as their report purports, there would have been no need to publish such a piece at this late date.

Many orthodox narratives are widely accepted however among a public that is not always paying attention. The public too often participates in the manufactured consent. Usually it take years for the truth to be widely understood. Sometimes it comes when the U.S. admits it decades later, such as the role of the CIA in the coups in Iran and Chile. Other times it comes through admissions by former U.S. officials, such as former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara about the Vietnam War.

Even Recent Narratives are Fraying

There are more recent examples of official narratives quickly fraying if not starting to fall apart, though Establishment media continues to push them.

For instance, there are serious doubts about who was responsible for alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria. The most significant was in Eastern Ghouta in August 2013 followed by attacks in Khan Sheikhoun (April 2017) and Douma (April 2018).

The corporate media accounts of each of these attacks have been countered with persuasive evidence against the prevailing view that the government of Bashar al–Assad was to blame. It has been provided journalists (Seymour Hersh), a scientist (Theodore Postol), and on-the-ground correspondents and local witnesses. These reports are subject to further verification. But by no means do official narratives stand without challenge.

There is also the case of Malaysian Flight MH–17, shot down over Ukrainian territory in June 2014. The official report, issued a year later, concluded that the plane was downed by Ukrainian rebels using a Russian-supplied missile. The report was faulty from the first: Investigators never visited the site , some evidence was based on a report produced by Bellingcat , an open-source web site affiliated with the vigorously anti–Russian Atlantic Council, and Ukraine was given the right to approve the report before it was issued.

Last week the Russian military disclosed evidence that serial numbers found in the debris at the MH–17 crash site indicate the missile that downed the plane was produced at a Soviet military-production plant in 1986 owned by Ukraine. Let us see further verification of this evidence (although I seriously doubt any Western correspondent will seek any). The official report of 2015 noted the serial numbers, so we know they are authentic, but it did not use them to trace the missile’s provenance.

There is also the seriously muddled case of the poisoning of the Skripals in Britain.  Why hasn’t the Western media dug into this story rather than accept at face value the pronouncements of the British government?

A month ago I lamented the damage Russia-gate has done to many of our most important institutions, the press not least among them. What is the corporate media thinking? That once President Trump is dumped, all will return to normal and professional standards will be restored? One can also argue the reverse: that adversarial journalism has returned to the White House beat largely out of personal animus towards Trump and that it will disappear again once a more “normal” president is in office.

As Pilger put it, “This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new ‘groupthink,’ as [Robert] Parry called it, dispensing myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.”

In other words, Establishment journalism has shifted far afield from its traditional ideals of non-partisan, objective reporting and is instead vying for your mind to enlist it in its agenda to promote American interests abroad or one party or the other at home.

We can’t let them get away with it. Our minds are our own.

*

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

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist.

The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic?

September 27th, 2018 by David Ray Griffin

Synopsis

In The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic? David Ray Griffin traces the trajectory of the American Empire from its founding through to the end of the 20th century. A prequel to Griffin’s Bush and Cheney, this book demonstrates with many examples the falsity of the claim for American exceptionalism, a secular version of the old idea that America has been divinely founded and guided.

The Introduction illustrates the claims for divine providence and American exceptionalism from George Washington to the book Exceptional by Dick and Liz Cheney. After pointing out that the idea that America is an empire is no longer controversial, it then contrasts those who consider it benign with those who consider it malign. The remainder of the book supports the latter point of view.

The American Trajectory contains many episodes that many readers will find surprising:

  • That the sinking of the Lusitania was anticipated, both by Churchill and Wilson, as a means of inducing America’s entry into World War I;
  • that the attack on Pearl Harbor was neither unprovoked nor a surprise;
  • that during the “Good War” the US government plotted and played politics with a view to becoming the dominant empire;
  • that there was no need to drop atomic bombs on Japan either to win the war or to save American lives;
  • that US decisions were central to the inability of the League of Nations and the United Nations to prevent war;
  • that the United States was more responsible than the Soviet Union for the Cold War;
  • that the Vietnam War was far from the only US military adventure during the Cold War that killed great numbers of civilians;
  • that the US government organized false flag attacks that deliberately killed Europeans;
  • and that America’s military interventions after the dissolution of the Soviet Union taught some conservatives (such as Andrew Bacevich and Chalmers Johnson) that the US interventions during the Cold War were not primarily defensive.

The conclusion deals with the question of how knowledge by citizens of how the American Empire has behaved could make America better and how America, which had long thought of itself as the Redeemer Nation, might redeem itself.

Reviews

“David Ray Griffin is a master of the art of courageously, constructively and meticulously exposing and debunking dangerous disinfectant for brainwashed minds. Just as his previous book,Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, was essential reading to understand the world in which we now live,The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic? is essential reading to understand the true nature of the ‘exceptional’ role of the United States in world affairs—past, present and future.”

John Whitbeck, International lawyer; author of The World According to Whitbeck

“This new book by David Ray Griffin is essential reading for anybody who wants to understand the dark side of US Imperialism in its global context.“

Dr. Daniele Ganser, Director Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research; author of many books, including NATO’s Secret Armies.

“David Ray Griffin has done it again. His new book should be read as a prequel to the seminal Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World.

Supported by extensive research, Griffin thoroughly debunks the myth of an American Empire as a benign, exceptionalist, divinely ordained historical agent. Instead of Manifest Destiny, what reality-based Griffin charters is the ‘malign’ ways of US foreign policy since the 19th century; a trajectory founded by slavery and genocide of indigenous peoples and then imperially expanded, non-stop. ‘Malign’ happens to be a term currently very much in vogue across the Beltway—but always to designate US competitors Russia and China.

Griffin consistently challenges Beltway gospel, demonstrating that if the US had not entered WWI, there may have been no WWII. He unmasks the lies surrounding the true story of the Pearl Harbor attacks. He asks: If the US was really guided by God, how could it ‘choose’ to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, knowing that ‘the atomic bombs were not necessary to end the war?’ Griffin also shows how the Cold War was actually conceptualized several years before the 1950 National Security Council paper 68 (NSC-68). He revisits the origins of irrational hatred of Iran; the demonization of Cuba; the lies surrounding the Vietnam debacle; the false flags across Europe via Operation Gladio; the destruction of Yugoslavia; the decades-long evisceration of Iraq; and the ramifications of the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.This sharp, concise history of the American Empire ultimately demonstrates, in Griffin’s analysis, the ‘fraud’ of endorsing self-praising American Exceptionalism. A must read.” 

Pepe Escobar, Asia Times/Hong Kong;author of 2030 and Empire of Chaos

“Since the turn of the 20th century, through two global wars and numerous others to follow, including current ones raging in multiple theaters, America’s longstanding aim is to control planet earth, its resources and populations. Griffin explains it in lucid detail, America’s imperial history, rarely taught in US classrooms to the highest levels of higher education. Readers can get it all in Griffin’s important new book. It’s vital truth-telling, explaining the American way – responsible for inflicting enormous harm on countless millions at home and abroad.”

Stephen Lendman

“David Ray Griffin, in book after book since the attacks of 11 September 2001, has meticulously exposed the underside of the American empire and its evil masters. His persistence in trying to reach people and to warn them of the horrors that have resulted is extraordinary. Excluding his philosophical and theological works, this is his fifteenth book since 2004 on these grave issues of life and death and the future of the world.

In this masterful book, he provides a powerful historical argument that right from the start with the arrival of the first European settlers, this country, despite all the rhetoric about it having been divinely founded and guided, has been “more malign that benign, more demonic than divine.” He chronologically presents this history, supported by meticulous documentation, to prove his thesis. 

Edward Curtin


The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic?

Author: David Ray Griffin

ISBN: 978-0-9986947-9-5

Click here to order.

.

.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic?

On Tuesday 25 July 2017, four protestors stopped a convoy of lorries going to a fracking site in Lancashire. Today, three of the activists were sentenced to custodial sentences.

Residents of Little Plumpton have been fighting Cuadrilla Resources’ plans for years. What started as a handful of local residents bemused that a new fossil fuel industry was about to start in their village escalated into a resistance of national symbolic importance.

Today’s ruling represents a trend of escalation between environmental protestors and the police — from mass arrests of Dakota Access pipeline protestors in the US, to UK police abusing their powers when going undercover in environmental movements, and mass online surveillance of fracking activists via Facebook.

Rich Loizou, Simon Roscoe Blevins, and Richard Roberts all spent between two and four days on top of the lorries that were making their way to the Preston New Road fracking site. All three were found guilty of a public nuisance offence by a jury on 22 August 2018. A fourth protestor, Julian Brock, pleaded guilty at a separate hearing so did not face trial.

DeSmog UK was reporting from the site on the day of the action. Breaking through a police convoy accompanying the lorries, they managed to climb on top vehicles as they passed the local anti-fracking camp at Maple Farm.

Blevins and Roberts were today sentenced to 16 months, while Loizou was jailed for 15 months. They are  to serve half of their sentences in jail, with the remainder on license. Brock, who pleaded guilty, received a 12 month suspended sentence.

DeSmog UK looks back on the day protesting against fracking became a jailable offence.

Source: Rob McEwen

Source: Mat Hope

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Day Fracking Protest Became a Jailable Offence — In Pictures

Bolton’s Red Sky Worldview: ICC, International Law, and Iran

September 27th, 2018 by Prof. Richard Falk

To be sure, on September 10th John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Advisor, pushed all the thematic buttons that might beexpected of a luncheon speaker invitedto address the Federalist Society, long known asthe ideological home of rabid advocates of the so-called ‘new sovereignty.’ The hallmark of this pre-Trump neocon law bastion of Scalia worshippers was their role in the career nurturing of such jurisprudential embarrassments as John Yoo and Jack Goldsmith. Yoo the notorious author of the torture memos and Goldsmith the public servant usually give credit forcrafting an expert approval text validating ‘extreme rendition’ of CIA suspects to notorious ‘black sites,’ known around the world as safe havens for torture, surely acrude instance ofex parte criminal legalism. It should be noted that both of these individuals are senior faculty members at two of America’s finest law schools, UC Berkeley and Harvard, both of which exhibit institutional pride in the fact of treating legal ethics as integral part of professional education.

John Bolton was the safest of choices as a featured speaker, having earned his Federalist Society credentials many times over.  He seems perversely proud of leading the unprecedented effort on behalf of George W. Bush in 2002 to ‘unsign’ the Rome Statute, the treaty that brought the International Criminal Court (ICC) into force in 2002, and now has 123 sovereign states as parties, including all NATO members except the U.S. and Turkey.

At the talk, Bolton paused to boast of orchestrating this unusual move to highlight and underscore this repudiation of the ICC by the Bush presidency, and in the process, of the crusading success of a transnational civil society movement and a coalition of moderate governments around the world to institutionalize individual accountability of political leaders and military commanders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It should be humiliating that such a global undertaking to strengthen international criminal law enforcement is regarded as posing a direct threat to Americans and governmental policy. It puts a preemptive twist on the previous reliance on ‘victors’ justice to ensure that none of the Allied crimes during World War II would be subjected to legal scrutiny while the crimes of German and Japanese political leaders and military commanders were being prosecuted.

Actually, even if Bush had not bothered to have the Clinton signature removed, the U.S. would never in this dark period of anti-internationalism have joined the ICC. To become a party to the treaty would have needed the additional step of ratification of the Rome Statute, and that would require an affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate. A favorable outcome would have been even more unlikely than for Donald Trump to nominate Anita Hill or Robert Mueller as his next choices for the U.S. Supreme Court. In this sense, only the up tempo language of Bolton is notable for its willingness to denigrate and even smear the ICC.

Slick Willy Clinton had his own reservations about the treaty and never took the normal step following an official signature of a negotiated inter-governmental agreement of submitting it for ratification. Indeed, it is a technical violation of customary international law that imposes a good faith obligation on governments to seek formal adherence of signed treaties in accordance with constitutional procedures of the particular state. In other words, even the supposedly liberal side of American political life has opted out of its earlier tradition of supporting the institutional development of the Rule of Law on a global level as an aspect of its commitment to the role of law and institutions as essential ingredients of a peaceful and just world order.

Congress removed any doubt as to its hostility toward the ICC when in 2002 it passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, authorizing the President to use all necessary means, even force, to prevent prosecution at The Hague of Americans accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity. What is especially disturbing about such a slap at criminal accountability is the absence of slightest show of concern as to whether the allegations in a particular case were well grounded in evidence or not.  When Bolton alluded to this bit of ultra-nationalism he appropriately noted that the legislation enjoyed bipartisan support, which suggests that the American posture of claiming ‘lawless geopolitics’ for itself is a fixed feature of world order for the seeable future no matter who occupies the Oval Office. It is ironic that while criminality is ensured of impunity, the practice of impunity, a dubious encroachment on the logic of legality, is not only claimed but offered that most unusual feature of international enforcement.

Bolton implied that the problems of criminality in world affairs are associated with the leaders of the foreign adversaries of the United States, identifying such individuals as Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, and Qaddafi. His assertion implied that the good behavior of the United States and its allies was such as to be inherently benevolent and the bad behavior of its adversaries would require more than law to deter: “The hard men of history are not deterred by fantasies of international law such as the International Criminal Court.” We can only meekly ask, “Are the supposedly soft men  of history, such as Trump or G.W. Bush, any less undeterred?” “And why should we ever expect these hard men to be deterred if the ICC and international law are but ‘fantasies.’

Getting back to Bolton’s luncheon remarks, his own summary of his feverish assault on the audacity of the ICC to consider investigating Israel’s international crimes, and the alleged crimes of the Taliban and the United States in Afghanistan reads as follows:

 “This administration will fight back to protect American constitutionalism, our sovereignty, and our citizens. No committee of foreign nations will tell us how to govern ourselves and defend our freedom. We will stand up for the US constitution abroad, just as we do at home. And, as always, in every decision we make, we will put the interests of the American people first.”

These are predictable sentiments, given the occasion and taking into account Bolton’s long advocacy of a militarist foreign policy that disregards the restraints of law, morality, and political prudence. It isthe ethics and politics of this disregard that is Bolton’s real message. We should be attentive to this real message hidden within the fiery ‘sovereignty, first’ verbiage, which is that the geopolitical practices of the United States will not be subject to legal accountability no matter how flagrant the violation of fundamental norms might be in the future. Bolton may overstep the bounds of the liberal order when he attacks the ICC as an institution, which had not been previously treated as a threat to American foreign policy. Only recently did it dawn on Washington policymakers that the ICC might at some point actually challenge what the U.S. and its allies, most notably Israel, are doing in the world.

Previously, the U.S. was a supporter of criminal accountability of foreign leaders, especially if they were adversaries of the U.S. It should be remembered that even during the Bush presidency, the government sent dozens of government lawyers to Iraq to help prepare a war crimes prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his entourage after their capture. This capture occurred in the course of a war of aggression initiated against Iraq in 2003 without any prior provocation. The U.S. attack, regime change, and long intrusive occupation took place, it should be recalled, despite the failure of the U.S. Government to secure the support of the UN Security Council despite a feverish attempt to gain authorization.

In other words, so far as even the Boltons of this world are concerned, there is nothing wrong with criminal accountability of leaders and military personnel so long as the indictments, prosecutions, and punishments are confined to enemies of the United States. Such a self-serving geopolitical appropriation of international criminal law should not be confused with legitimate law, which presupposes that the rules, norms, and procedures apply to all relevant actors, the strong as well as the weak, the victors as well as the defeated, geopolitical wrongdoers as well their adversaries.

What is sad about the Bolton worldview, and indeed the new sovereignty ideologues that shape the public image of the Federalist Society, aside from its influence in the Trump Era, is that it completely misunderstands the relevance of international law in this period of global interdependence and planetary challenge. State-centric world order as beset by geopolitical rivalries is a blueprint for civilizational collapse in the 21st century, and probably represents the worst possible way to uphold core sovereign rights and national interests over time.

What is still sadder is that the Bolton/Trump worldview, which seems so outlandish and anachronistic is not that extremist, compared to Democratic establishment approaches, when it comes to behavior. It represents a surreal rhetorical extension of the bipartisan consensus that is complacent about the failures of the neoliberal international order, including especially the destructive impacts of predatory globalization on democratic forms of governance, on safeguarding of social and economic rights, and on ecological sustainability.

As many have noted Hilary Clinton’s push toward a confrontation with Russia was more in keeping with Bolton’s preferred foreign policy than the more accommodationist proposals of Trump during his presidential campaign. It is against such a background that I reach the lamentable conclusion that when it comes world peace and global justice the Democratic Party establishment has little to offer when it comes to foreign policy, and may be more inclined to initiate wars and raise geopolitical tensions than even their reactionary and militarist Republican rivals. Bernie Sanders, although international affairs is not his strong suit, at least gestured toward a less militarist and dysfunctional  foreign policy. For the Democratic Party to generate enthusiasm upon American youth and the deeply discontented in the country it must reinvent itself by embracing progressive and forthcoming policies than in the recent past and positions that are more constructive and programmatic than even the Sanders foreign policy. Without such bold moves there will be a loud sigh of relief when Trump loses control of Congress in November, and even louder one when Trump leaves the White House, but the American ship of state will still resemble the maiden voyage of the Titantic.

As if to confirm the analysis above we should take account of Bolton past warmongering toward North Korea including advocating a preemptive strike, and recently articulating grossly unlawful threats of force directed at Iran. It should be appreciated that contemporary international law, as embodied in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter forbids threats as well as uses of aggressive force.

Such a prohibition underlines the criminality of Bolton’s recent formulations of military threats directed at Iran:

“I might imagine they [“the mullahs of Tehran”] would take me seriously when I assure them today: If you cross us, our allies, or our partners; if you harm our citizens; if you continue to lie, cheat and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay.”

Such chilling words must be understood in the context of Bolton’s past advocacy of bombing Iran and of the Trump approach to the region that can be summarized in a few words: ‘do what Netanyahu wants.’

Even if war and aggression do not actually occur, and we must pray that they do not, this kind of geopolitical bullying by a leading official of a country that has up to one thousand military bases spread around the world should be criminalized, and not just criticized as intemperate.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bolton’s Red Sky Worldview: ICC, International Law, and Iran
  • Tags:

A terrorist attack shook the southwestern city of Ahvaz in the Islamic Republic of Iran on Saturday September 22 morning of during a military parade in commemoration of the anniversary of the war with Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s. 

A group of terrorists opened fire at the soldiers in the military parade and the crowd, which included women and children where at least 25 people were killed and 55 others wounded according to IRNA news agency.

According to Tasnim new agency, the terrorist group infiltrated the back position of the military parade and from that position fired shots at the ceremony.

The terrorists could not penetrate the ceremony but fired from a distance, where they initially targeted the memorial platform where high profile attendees were sitting and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, fleeing after they opened fire.

Ali Hussein Zadeh, assistant of the head of political affairs in Khuzestan province, told Tasnim news agency that four terrorists carried out the attack, adding

“the number of martyrs is increasing and the condition of some of the wounded is critical”.

Meanwhile, the Iranian FARS news agency quoted an informed source as saying that two terrorists were killed and another wounded while a fourth was arrested by security forces during the terrorist attack in the city of Ahvaz.

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday that the terrorists who carried out the Ahvaz terrorist attack on Saturday had received support from neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf, stressing that those involved in the terrorist attack will not escape punishment and that Iran’s retaliation will be crushing.

Rouhani said in a speech on Sunday that he would leave Tehran for New York to participate in the UN General Assembly, saying Iran will not go easy on the Ahvaz’s crime, pointing out that the US administration is behind these young mercenaries.

“We know who committed the crime of Ahvaz and who is behind them, and we will respond to the crime in accordance with the laws and interests of the country”, Rouhani reiterated.

While the international community condemned this act of terror against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the US administration and its regional gulf puppet Saudi Arabia and UAE kept silent. This muffled stance was in divergence to that of other nations, which offered their sympathies to the victims and condemnation of the attack, with several ambassadors in Tehran writing personal messages, while leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bashar Assad released official statements.

US, MEK and Ahwazia Coordination

The aggressors are a terrorist organization backed by Washington and Tel Aviv and funded by Saudi Arabia under the name of “Ahwazia”, an extremist ethnic terrorist organization that claims to defend the rights of Arab Iranians.  Iranian researcher Dr. Mohamed Sadiq al-Husseini wrote that according to Iranian intelligence sources revealed that the terrorist attack of Ahvaz city was conducted in coordination between the “People’s Mojahedin Organization” of Iran or the “Mojahedin-e Khalq” [MEK] and the “Ahwazia” an Arab-Iranian separatist group with alleged connections to Saudi Arabia, also known as the “Ahvaz National Resistance”.

This link would directly put the US on top of the list of suspects who most probably have incited these terrorist attacks against Iran.

Keeping in mind that that the MEK, an Iranian cult of highly suspicious funding which is beloved by Trump insiders like John Bolton and Rudolph Giuliani for its extremely vocal pro-regime change agenda, was removed from the US State Department’s list of designated terrorist organizations by none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.  After its extensive lobbying campaign in Washington in 2012, Hillary Clinton de-listed the Iranian dissident MEK, from the State Department’s terror list.

The delisting happened despite NBC News’ report that the MEK has been murdering Iranian nuclear scientists in broad daylight.  The report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem cited US officials who said MEK members teamed up with “Israelis” to attach small magnetic bombs to the exterior of scientists’ cars before detonating them.  As a result, five nuclear scientists since 2007 have been killed so far. But apparently the State Department did not buy that report, as they told “The Washington Post” in September 2012 that the group has “renounced violence and turned over its weapons to US forces.”

In the current US administration, there are even much more aggressive support for the MEK represented by none other than the warmongering John Bolton. Bolton has also long backed the cult-like terrorist group despite the fact that the MEK has been held responsible for the murder of multiple American military personnel, a kidnapping attempt of a US Ambassador, and other violent attacks in Iran before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The MEK was based in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein, who provided arms, financial assistance, and political support.  In 1997, it was among the first groups cited on the US list of foreign terrorist organizations.

However, as it was removed from that list by Hillary Clinton in 2012, Bolton has since spoke at an MEK rally in 2017, for the eighth time, in Paris.  Other speakers at MEK rallies have reportedly been paid tens of thousands of dollars for their appearances.

US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about supporting the Iranian people has always been void, but promoting someone with Bolton’s views and connections to the highest level of government shows just how devious that rhetoric is. Whenever Bolton talks about supporting “the Iranian opposition,” these cultists are the people he’s talking about.  When he talks about regime change in Iran, he thinks these are the people should take over.

To date, no American MEK booster has risen as high in the government, but now the group will have an admirer advising the controversial US president on a daily basis.

Al-Saud Pay MEK’s Terrorism Bill

According to Dr. Mohamed Sadiq al-Husseini, an intelligence source specialized in Iranian affairs revealed to him the following details concerning the terrorist attack that took place on Saturday morning in Ahvaz:

1) The elements carrying out the armed terrorist attack on the military parade were trained in a Saudi camp southeast of Riyadh specialized for training members of the People’s Mujahideen MEK and other Iranian opposition groups.

2) The training is conducted by Jordanian and Saudi officers under the supervision of US Central Intelligence generals and “Israeli” generals.

3) All camp operations and needs are funded through the Saudi Ministry of Defense.  The funding includes the transfer of Iranian elements from European countries, especially from Albania to the Saudi run camp.

4) CIA and Mossad elements manage operational tasks, such as moving terrorists and weapons into Iran through commercial companies and non-governmental organizations located in Iraq’s Al-Basra city.

5) The CIA and Mossad assets in Al-Basra have nothing to do with training and their responsibilities are limited to logistics.

Recently, Beirut based Al-Manar TV channel revealed reports that training for the elements of the MEK is taking place in Western countries, “Israel” and in special camps inside Saudi Arabia, and terrorist cells are being moved to incite acts of terrorism against Iran through demonstrations and protests funded by intelligence agencies in those western countries.  According to these reports, leaders of MEK have met several times with “Israeli” security officials inside and outside “Israel”.

US officials, including the current national security adviser, have no illusions about the MEK’s disingenuous propaganda lines about seeking democracy or enjoying support inside Iran.  They know very well how despised the MEK is in that country.  Unlike other Iranian opposition groups, however, the MEK can mount military operations.  Its members are experienced in sabotage, assassinations, and terrorism, as well as in guerrilla and conventional warfare.

Hence, they possess qualities that are extremely useful for the US’s strategic objective to cause either regime change (by invasion) or regime collapse (by destabilization).

In other words, for Washington’s anti-Iran neocons, the MEK is not needed to replace the current government and Supreme leader in Iran; it just needs to assist its desired collapse with Saudi funding.  After all the losses incurred by the US foreign policy in the middle east due to incompetent regional allies, the US’s wishful thinking that ensuing chaos would weaken Iran and shift the regional balance of power toward US allies like “Israel” and Saudi Arabia, will only trigger a wave of more losses that will accelerate the demise of the US puppet regimes in the 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.

Featured image is from the author.

Following a strong, united Labour Party conference, the country now needs a General Election as soon as possible to allow this radical political force to negotiate a sensible Brexit deal with Europe. We need a reforming Government to replace the worn-out ‘May and Johnson’ sideshow that has done so much damage to our national economy and foreign relations, our currency, our defence and our National Health Service.

After this week’s rousing Labour conference, Jeremy Corbyn has now firmly established himself as the next Prime Minister with the impressive John McDonnell as Chancellor. Together they make an exceedingly strong team, not least to finalise the current failed Brexit negotiations with Europe.

Labour will take back the railways and utility companies into public ownership in order to provide a state-owned and operated, modern mass transport system for the 21st century and to regain state control of water, the vitally important natural resource for life. Both of these are integral parts of a new, radical approach to government that has been so obviously lacking within the current Conservative administration.

Democracy is government by the people and for the people – that means all the people not just the bankers, bond dealers, hedge-fund operators and currency gamblers in the City. Labour is now a party of integrity that has undertaken to work for everyone in this country who is entitled to vote. That alone is one of the principal differences from the current tired, out-of-touch administration.

A Labour Government will show the world that British goods and services, and British enterprise, are ready to compete with the best in the world. We are already the leaders in many fields and with a radical, reforming government that will bring in legislation to support industry and commerce and all those who work in companies and organisations throughout the United Kingdom, we will once again be proud to be British. Proud to develop new goods and new markets, worldwide.

But the country needs a General Election in order to move forward. Enough economic and political damage has already been done. Let’s put a stop to that, now! This is not a party political message – this is plain common sense.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst from the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In the midst of a UN speech praising the Israeli government and their heavy-handed tactics against the Palestinian civilian population of the territory the Israeli military has been occupying since 1967, Donald Trump voiced support for the ‘two-state solution’ to the conflict. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated that, “Palestinians will never have a state” as long as he is in power.

After Trump and Netanyahu met on the sidelines of the United Nations Wednesday, he told reporters that even though Trump said that he favored a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians,

“Everyone defines the term ‘state’ differently.”

However, since 1933, the Montevideo Convention has been the internationally-accepted definition for a state under international law. Adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States, the convention stipulated that all states were equal sovereign units consisting of a permanent population, defined territorial boundaries, a government, and an ability to enter into agreements with other states.

Israel, although recognized as a state in 1948, has never defined its borders, and has, through the decades, encroached further and further onto Palestinian land, so that it now controls more than 80% of the land area of what was, until 1948, the land of Palestine.

Trump reportedly said to the reporters,

“In one way it’s more difficult, because it’s a real estate deal. But in another way it works better because you have people governing themselves.”

But Netanyahu criticized Trump’s statement, saying that Israel must permanently maintain its military occupation and control over the Palestinian civil population, with no Palestinian state that is both sovereign and self-deterined.

In response, the Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah, said:

“The two-state solution means to us that we have a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the only way to achieve 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.

Featured image is from IMEMC.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu Response to Trump’s Advocacy of Two-State Solution: “Palestinians Will Never Have a State”
  • Tags: , ,

Washington’s Sanctions Machine

September 27th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

Perhaps it is Donald Trump’s business background that leads him to believe that if you inflict enough economic pain on someone they will ultimately surrender and agree to do whatever you want. Though that approach might well work in New York real estate, it is not a certain path to success in international relations since countries are not as vulnerable to pressure as are individual investors or developers.

Washington’s latest foray into the world of sanctions, directed against China, is astonishing even when considering the low bar that has been set by previous presidents going back to Bill Clinton. Beijing has already been pushing back over US sanctions imposed last week on its government-run Equipment Development Department of the Chinese Central Military Commission and its director Li Shangfu for “engaging in significant transactions” with a Russian weapons manufacturer that is on a list of US sanctioned companies. The transactions included purchases of Russian Su-35 combat aircraft as well as equipment related to the advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile system. The sanctions include a ban on the director entering the United States and blocks all of his property or bank accounts within the US as well as freezing all local assets of the Equipment Development Department.

More important, the sanctions also forbid conducting any transactions that go through the US financial system. It is the most powerful weapon Washington has at its disposal, but it is being challenged as numerous countries are working to find ways around it. Currently however, as most international transactions are conducted in dollars and pass through American banks that means that it will be impossible for the Chinese government to make weapons purchases from many foreign sources. If foreign banks attempt to collaborate with China to evade the restrictions, they too will be sanctioned.

So in summary, Beijing bought weapons from Moscow and is being sanctioned by the United States for doing so because Washington does not approve of the Russian government. The sanctions on China are referred to as secondary sanctions in that they are derivative from the primary sanction on the foreign company or individual that is actually being punished. Secondary sanctions can be extended ad infinitum as transgressors linked sequentially to the initial transaction multiply the number of potential targets.

Not surprisingly, the US Ambassador has been summoned and Beijing has canceled several bilateral meetings with American defense department officials. The Chinese government has expressed “outrage” and has demanded the US cancel the measure.

According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from Rosoboronexport, Russia’s principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress named, characteristically, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016 US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation.

Explaining the new sanctions, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert issued a statement elaborating that the initial sanctions on Russia were enacted “to further impose costs on the Russian government in response to its malign activities.” She added that the US will “urge all countries to curtail relationships with Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors, both of which are linked to malign activities worldwide.”

As engaging in “malign activities” is a charge that should quite plausibly be leveled against Washington and its allies in the Middle East, it is not clear if anyone but the French and British poodles actually believes the rationalizations coming out of Washington to defend the indefensible. An act to “Counter America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions” is, even as the title implies, ridiculous. Washington is on a sanctions spree. Russia has been sanctioned repeatedly since the passage of the fraudulent Magnitsky Act, with no regard for Moscow’s legitimate protests that interfering in other countries’ internal politics is unacceptable. China is currently arguing reasonably enough that arms sales between countries is perfect legal and in line with international law.

Iran has been sanctioned even through it complied with an international agreement on its nuclear program and new sanctions were even piled on top of the old sanctions. And in about five weeks the US will be sanctioning ANYONE who buys oil from Iran, reportedly with no exceptions allowed. Venezuela is under US sanctions to punish its government, NATO member Turkey because it bought weapons from Russia and the Western Hemisphere perennial bad boy Cuba has had various embargoes in place since 1960.

It should be noted that sanctions earn a lot of ill-will and generally accomplish nothing. Cuba would likely be a fairly normal country but for the US restrictions and other pressure that gave its government the excuse to maintain a firm grip on power. The same might even apply to North Korea. And sanctions are even bad for the United States. Someday, when the US begins to lose its grip on the world economy all of those places being sanctioned will line up to get their revenge and it won’t be pretty.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author.