Global Research

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

A political commentator from Canada, who is the author of “Voices from Syria”, praised a recent trilateral summit between Tehran, Moscow, and Ankara about the Syrian crisis and said the talks represent “a trajectory towards multi-polar geopolitical alliances”.  

“The trilateral summit is important in the sense that it represents a trajectory towards multi-polar geopolitical alliances as opposed to a US-dominated Unipolar World Disorder of permanent war and poverty, and worse,” Mark Taliano said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

Taliano is an author and independent investigative reporter who recently returned from a trip to Syria with the Third International Tour of Peace to Syria. In his new book titled “Voices from Syria”, he combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes mainstream media narratives about the dirty war on Syria. See Book details below.

***

Tasnim: As you know, a trilateral summit was held in Tehran on Friday between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his Russian and Turkish counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, about the Syrian crisis. According to Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi, the summit was not expected to resolve all issues surrounding the prolonged crisis in Syria but it aimed to facilitate more steps to combat terrorism and restore tranquility to the Arab country. What do you think about the success of the summit as well as Iran’s regional role?

Taliano: Iran and Russia have always acted in accordance with the international law in Syria. They genuinely seek peace, and an end to terrorism and they act accordingly, with the consent of the Syrian government. There may never be peace in Syria and beyond as long as nations that claim to be fighting terrorism actually support terrorism. NATO member Turkey has so far fallen into this venal category.

However, alliances are shifting. Perhaps Turkey is shifting away from its NATO allegiances. For example, Turkey is set to purchase Russia’s S-400 air defense system. Michel Chossudovsky argues that should this occur, “it is tantamount to NATO Exit”. If Turkey leaves what Eva Bartlett has described as the “Axis of Regime Change”, then this could strengthen trajectories towards peace, international law, and the elimination of the West’s al Qaeda/ISIS terrorists, which are a cancer to the world.

The trilateral summit is important in the sense that it represents a trajectory towards multi-polar geopolitical alliances as opposed to a US-dominated Unipolar World Disorder of permanent war and poverty, and worse.

Tasnim: The tripartite talks came as Syrian forces continue to reclaim much of southern parts of the country and are poised to soon launch an offensive in Idlib, one of the last remaining areas outside of Damascus’ control. What is your assessment of the summit’s impact on the military developments in Syria?

Taliano: Significantly, the statement issued at the end of the summit noted that, “They rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighboring countries”.

This is a powerful statement that recognizes and rejects Western attempts to “create new realities on the ground” by staging false flag attacks, and it rejects efforts to partition Syria. The fact that the report has reiterated the endgame of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity is also important.

However, the offensive on Idlib has begun. Legitimate efforts for peace (including the summit) have been exhausted, especially since there are reports that the terrorists are murdering those who seek reconciliation, and those who seek to leave. Additionally, terrorists have been staging provocative and murderous attacks from Idlib to neighboring areas.

Tasnim: During his remarks at the summit, President Rouhani deplored the Washington government’s negative role in the ongoing crisis in Syria and said the “illegal” military presence of the US will only “increase the problems that already exist in the country”. What do you think about the US military presence and its bonds with terror groups in Syria?

Taliano: The West’s alliance with al Qaeda, ISIS, and all of the terrorists in Syria, is appalling. Western policymakers do not represent the will of the people.  They hide their criminality beneath a sophisticated apparatus of deception and propaganda.  Their policies of permanent war and their support for terrorism are a cancer to humanity. These policies “benefit” the transnational billionaire class alone. The world is being thirdworldized, plundered, and destroyed by these mindless elites.

The US military presence in Syria is illegal. It is an illegal occupation. The terrorists will be there as long as the US is there. A Qaeda and ISIS are an integral part of the war machine led by NATO and its allies.

The US and its allies have a long history of using al-Qaeda/militants as proxies: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and beyond.  This cancerous “War on Terror” that is actually a “War for Terror” needs to end.

*

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

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

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 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) today ruled that the UK’s mass interception programmes breached the Article 8 right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court found that the UK’s mass surveillance programmes, revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, did ‘not meet the “quality of law” requirement’ and were  ‘incapable of keeping the “interference” to what is “necessary in a democratic society”’.[1]

The landmark judgment marks the Court’s first ruling on UK mass surveillance programmes revealed by Mr Snowden. The case was started in 2013 by campaign groups Big Brother Watch, English PEN, Open Rights Group and computer science expert Dr Constanze Kurz following Mr Snowden’s revelation of GCHQ mass spying. The legal challenge was made possible by the crowdfunded ‘Privacy Not Prism‘ campaign. Over 1,400 people together contributed nearly £30,000 to the legal fund.

Documents provided by Mr Snowden revealed that the UK intelligence agency GCHQ were conducting ‘population-scale’ interception, capturing the communications of millions of innocent people. The mass spying programmes included TEMPORA, a bulk data store of all internet traffic; KARMA POLICE, a catalogue including ‘a web browsing profile for every visible user on the internet’; and Black Hole, a repository of over 1 trillion events including internet histories, email and instant messenger records, search engine queries and social media activity.

The applicants argued that the mass interception programmes infringed UK citizens’ rights to privacy protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the ‘population-level’ surveillance was effectively indiscriminate, without basic safeguards and oversight, and lacked a sufficient legal basis in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

In its judgment, the ECtHR acknowledged that ‘bulk interception is by definition untargeted’[2]; that there was a ‘lack of oversight of the entire selection process’,[3] and that safeguards were not ‘sufficiently robust to provide adequate guarantees against abuse’.[4]

In particular, the Court noted ‘concern that the intelligence services can search and examine “related communications data” apparently without restriction’ – data that identifies senders and recipients of communications, their location, email headers, web browsing information, IP addresses, and more. The Court expressed concern that such unrestricted snooping ‘could be capable of painting an intimate picture of a person through the mapping of social networks, location tracking, Internet browsing tracking, mapping of communication patterns, and insight into who a person interacted with’.[5]

The Court acknowledged the importance of applying safeguards to a surveillance regime, stating: ‘In view of the risk that a system of secret surveillance set up to protect national security may undermine or even destroy democracy under the cloak of defending it, the Court must be satisfied that there are adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.’[6]

The Government passed the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) in November 2016, replacing the contested RIPA powers and controversially putting mass surveillance powers on a statutory footing.

However, today’s judgment that indiscriminate spying revealed by Mr Snowden breached fundamental rights protected by the ECHR is likely to provoke further questions as to the adequacy of the safeguards around similar mass spying powers in the IPA.

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group said:

“Viewers of the BBC drama, the Bodyguard, may be shocked to know that the UK actually has the most extreme surveillance powers in a democracy. Since we brought this case in 2013, the UK has actually increased its powers to indiscriminately surveil our communications whether or not we are suspected of any criminal activity.

“In light of today’s judgment, it is even clearer that these powers do not meet the criteria for proportionate surveillance and that the UK Government is continuing to breach our right to privacy.”

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch said:

“This landmark judgment confirming that the UK’s mass spying breached fundamental rights vindicates Mr Snowden’s courageous whistleblowing and the tireless work of Big Brother Watch and others in our pursuit for justice.

Under the guise of counter-terrorism, the UK has adopted the most authoritarian surveillance regime of any Western state, corroding democracy itself and the rights of the British public. This judgment is a vital step towards protecting millions of law-abiding citizens from unjustified intrusion. However, since the new Investigatory Powers Act arguably poses an ever greater threat to civil liberties, our work is far from over.”

Antonia Byatt, director of English PEN said:

“This judgment confirms that the British government’s surveillance practices have violated not only our right to privacy, but our right to freedom of expression too. Excessive surveillance discourages whistle-blowing and discourages investigative journalism. The government must now take action to guarantee our freedom to write and to read freely online.”

Dr Constanze Kurz, computer scientist, internet activist and spokeswoman of the German Chaos Computer Club said:

“What is at stake is the future of mass surveillance of European citizens, not only by UK secret services. The lack of accountability is not acceptable when the GCHQ penetrates Europe’s communication data with their mass surveillance techniques. We all have to demand now that our human rights and more respect of the privacy of millions of Europeans will be acknowledged by the UK government and also by all European countries.”

Dan Carey of Deighton Pierce Glynn, the solicitor representing the applicants, stated as follows:

“The Court has put down a marker that the UK government does not have a free hand with the public’s communications and that in several key respects the UK’s laws and surveillance practices have failed. In particular, there needs to be much greater control over the search terms that the government is using to sift our communications.  The pressure of this litigation has already contributed to some reforms in the UK and this judgment will require the UK government to look again at its practices in this most critical of areas.”

*

Notes

[1] Para. 387

[2] Para. 317

[3] Para. 387

[4] Para. 347

[5] Para. 356

[6] Para. 307

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 history of Earth is marked by at least seven major mass extinctions,  including asteroid impact effects 580 million years ago, the end Ordovician glaciation, late Devonian asteroid impacts, end-Permian volcanism and ocean anoxia, end-Jurassic volcanism and Cretaceous-Tertiary asteroid impact—mostly associated with an extreme rise in atmospheric CO₂. Currently the seventh mass extinction of species is taking place, mainly as a consequence of CO₂ rise at a rate close to that induced by an asteroid impact (Figure 1). The Seventh mass extinction is triggered by a species which harnessed transfer of carbon from the Earth’s crust to the atmosphere and has split the atom, but is failing to control the consequences. Such is the scale and the rate of the unfolding climate catastrophe that, in the words of Joachim Schellnhuber, the EU’s chief climate scientist, it threatens the life support systems of the planet.

The glacial-interglacial oscillations of the Pleistocene (from 2.6 million years ago to 11,500 years ago), are giving way to a human-induced extreme thermal event that is leading to the melting of the large ice sheet, a rise in sea level by many meters and ultimately tens of meters, dangerous hurricanes, floods and droughts.

As extreme weather events are killing and injuring hundreds of thousand people and a huge numbers of animals in parts of the globe (see this), the origin of these developments is largely covered-up by the mainstream media. Petty issues are endlessly propagated by the press and in parliaments. It is business as usual among the privileged minorities, emitting carbon at accelerated rates as they drive and fly around a warming world. 

Figure 1. Comparison of the rate of temperature rise between (1) the last glacial termination (14,000 – 11,500 years ago); (2) Paleocene-Eocene thermal event 56 million years ago; (3) 1750-2016 AD Anthropocene event; (4) asteroid impact.

With this perspective, the ignorance of the majority, enhanced by vested interests-controlled mainstream media, and the criminality of atmosphere-polluting lobbies, may only become clear when survivors finally comprehend the loss of large parts of the habitable Earth.

With this perspective the political furor over the difference between 26 percent and 50 percent reduction in emission favored by the different parties is meaningless, since neither target can prevent the amplifying CO₂ feedbacks from continuing to warm the atmosphere, land and oceans (see this Australian National University, see below)).

In true Orwellian Newspeak fashion, the “powers to be” have changed the language, from “climate change” and “global warming” to “electricity power prices”, namely from the future of life on Earth to the hit pocket nerve, a Faustian Bargain which underpins the sacrifice of future generations and much of nature.

The Seventh mass extinction does not rise exclusively from global warming, and can be brought about, separately or in combination, by design or accident, through the probability of a global nuclear cataclysm. As time goes on, this possibility becomes a probability and inevitably a certainty, an increasingly likely prospect on a warming planet burdened by resource wars. The hapless inhabitants of planet Earth are given a non-choice between progressive global heating and the coup-de-grace of a nuclear winter.

From the Romans to the third Reich, the barbarism of rich empires surpasses that of small marauding tribes. It is mainly among the wretched of the Earth that true charity is to be found, where empathy is learnt through suffering.

Further experiments with the fate of Earth are underway. Once new generations of the Hadron Collider have been deemed “safe,” pending further science fiction-like experiments dreamt by ethic-free scientists, Earth may or may not become a black hole. Unfortunately little doubt exists regarding the consequences of the continuing use of the atmosphere, the lungs of the biosphere, as open sewer for carbon gases. As stated by the renown oceanographer Wallace Broecker in 1986,

“The inhabitants of planet Earth are quietly conducting a gigantic experiment. We play Russian roulette with climate and no one knows what lies in the active chamber of the gun.” 

*

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

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 global ‘fisheries crisis’—in which fish stocks are depleted, environmental destruction has reached an apex, and small-scale fisheries are disappearing—is causing irreversible damage to both the fisheries sector and communities sustained by fishing activities. Governments implement stricter regulations and resource management strategies in an attempt to solve the crisis, but these approaches typically leave out the perspectives of small-scale fishers. Despite this, fishing communities are constructing innovative ways to make their voices heard and to protect their lives and livelihoods.

Transforming global fisheries

The overlap of the global food crisis (sparked by the 2007-2008 food price spike), and rapid economic growth occurring in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has contributed to significantly altering patterns of food production, consumption and trade worldwide. Economic growth has also facilitated changing dietary preferences, contributing to a rising global demand for animal protein. Fish protein has become particularly popular in light of health warnings about industrially farmed animals and eating too much red meat. This has caused fish consumption to double worldwide in the last 50 years.

Rising consumption has intensified pressure on the global fisheries sector—particularly to meet the demands of highly populated countries like China. Even South Africa, which has the smallest economy and population among the BRICS, saw fish consumption increase by 26% between 1999 and 2012. In terms of production, China is by far the world leader, and at its 2012 peak contributed 70% of fish to the global supply. Between 2012 and 2014, it further expanded its capture fishing sector by almost 2 million tonnes and its aquaculture sector by nearly 5 million tonnes. India produced at a similar level, contributing 50% of the global fish supply in 2012—ranking third in global capture fisheries (after China and Peru) and second in aquaculture. South Africa has one of the largest capture fishing sectors in the African continent, contributing approximately US$ 435 million to the national economy in 2012.

Fighting for policy change in South Africa

Capture fishing in South Africa is an important source of livelihoods for many coastal communities, of which a large proportion engages in small-scale fishing. Of the 43,458 commercial fishers and 29,233 subsistence fishers in South Africa, approximately 50,000 are considered small-scale.[i] However, despite comprising almost 62% of the fishing population, the South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ national policies have historically not recognised the particular needs of small-scale fishers and the difficulties they are facing, focusing instead on expanding the large-scale industrial fishing industry. This has sparked intense resistance from fishing communities.

After the government adopted its 2005 long-term fisheries policy, leaving small-scale fishers without any access or fishing rights, a group of fishing communities, led by community organisations Masifundise and Coastal Links, took the issue to the South African Equality Court. The Court finally ruled in favour of the development of a new policy. In 2012, the new Policy for the Small-Scale Fisheries Sector in South Africa was completed, introducing new strategies for managing the sector, which aim to secure rights and access for communities by prioritising human rights, gender, and development as key issues. This marked an important victory for South African fishers, demonstrating their capacity for mobilisation and to achieve change. In 2014, Masifundise and Coastal Links also published Small-scale Fisheries Policy: A Handbook for Fishing Communities, providing fishers with accessible information on how the policy could be applied in their daily lives.

Handline fishers off the coast of Cape Point, South Africa. Photo: Rodger Bosch

Fishers’ participation in governance processes

Considering South Africa’s 2012 policy was developed partly as a response to pressure from fishing communities, it has set an important precedent for future fisheries policies, both nationally and internationally. Masifundise and Coastal Links also played key roles in discussions with the FAO’s Committee on Fisheries (COFI), which led to the publication of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) in 2015. These guidelines were the result of a bottom-up participatory process that included 4,000 representatives from small-scale fishing communities, governments, fish workers’ organisations, research institutes, and NGOs.

The development of the SSF Guidelines and South Africa’s national policy signal an important shift in the perception and governance of fisheries sectors. While small-scale fishers have been crucial contributors to the global food system for generations, their rights are only now beginning to be more formally recognised. There appears to be an important connection between this newfound recognition and increasing mobilisation within fishing communities both nationally and around the world.

The rise of a global ‘fisheries justice’ movement?

Increasing mobilisation among fishers, particularly within the last few decades, has demonstrated their commitment to participating in, and shaping, the transformation of the fisheries sector and its socio-political context. Fishers are also joining forceswith farmers, pastoralists, rural, and indigenous peoples, as overlapping food and climate crises highlight common struggles between social movements. Their shared commitment to creating a fair food system has contributed both to a transnational convergence of resource justice movements (e.g. agrarian, climate, environmental), as well as the emergence of what I would argue is a global ‘fisheries justice’ movement.

A key actor in this movement is the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP), of which Masifundise and Coastal Links are active members. Founded in 1997, the WFFP now links 43 national small-scale fishers’ organisations in 40 countries around the world. It focuses on addressing the issues threatening small-scale fisheries (e.g. privatisation, climate change) and advocates for fishers’ human rights and secure livelihoods. The WFFP holds a triennial General Assembly and an annual Coordinating Committee meeting for member organisations to come together, reflect on their goals and actions taken, and develop new strategies for the future.

In an era when power within the food system is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a few huge corporations, movements of small-scale food producers and their allies offer alternatives based on social justice, sustainable production methods, and protecting the environment that rejuvenate hope for the way forward.

*

Elyse Mills is a PhD researcher in the Political Ecology Research Group at the ISS. Her PhD research focuses on the dynamics of fisheries and fishers’ movements in the context of global food and climate politics. She also co-coordinates the Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies (ICAS), and is part of the Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative (ERPI) Secretariat.

Note

[i] Small-scale fishers refers to: ‘Persons that fish to meet food and basic livelihood needs, or are directly involved in harvesting/processing or marketing fish, traditionally operate on or near shore fishing grounds, predominantly employ traditional low technology or passive fishing gear, usually undertake single day fishing trips, and are engaged in the sale or barter or are involved in commercial activity’. Definition from Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) (2012), Policy for the Small-Scale Fisheries Sector in South Africa

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

More than 1,000 inmates at several prisons across the Carolinas will not be moved during a mandatory evacuation of the states’ coastlines ahead of Hurricane Florence, a Category 4 storm that is expected to make landfall Thursday.

“Right now, we’re not in the process of moving inmates [at Ridgeland Correctional Institution],” South Carolina Department of Corrections spokesman Dexter Lee told The State. “In the past, it’s been safer to leave them there.”

The facility holds 934 prisoners and 119 staff members, all of whom are expected to remain.

Vice News reports at least 650 inmates will be forced to ride out the storm at South Carolina MacDougall Correctional Facility, 80 miles north of Ridgeland Correctional Institution. Prisoners at J. Reuben Long Detention Center, on the coast near the North Carolina border, will also stay despite the evacuation order, according to the Sun News.

“We’re monitoring the situation,” Lee told Vice. “Previously, it’s been safer to stay in place with the inmates rather than move to another location.”

Statewide evacuation plans have been formulated since Saturday.

“We know the … order I’m issuing will be inconvenient,” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said Monday. “But we’re not going to gamble with the lives of the people of South Carolina. Not a one.”

In North Carolina, Department of Public Safety spokesman Jerry Higgins revealed the state is moving people out of “fewer than 10” prisons. There are 55 such facilities in the state.

As Hurricane Harvey raged last year, Texas inmates who were not evacuated experienced a shortage of food and water. Similarly, Hurricane Irma saw nearly 4,500 prisoners in Florida remaining in place. During 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, Human Rights Watch reported, in one building alone 600 prisoners were left in their cells for days as the prison flooded.

“They left us to die there,” Dan Bright, an Orleans Parish Prison inmate, told Human Rights Watch.

*

Featured image is from Fox News.

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

In a major reversal of long-standing federal policy, the Trump Administration has issued a new plan to charge demonstrators for the right to use our public parks, sidewalks and streets that are on federal land in the nation’s capital for First Amendment activity.  Among other areas, this includes the National Mall, Lafayette Park, the Lincoln Memorial and the sidewalk in front of Trump Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. 

The federal Pay-to-Protest in DC plan includes charging demonstrators for the cost of barricades and fencing erected at discretion of police; salaries of personnel deployed to monitor the protest; trash removal and sanitation charges; permit application fees and costs that the government will assess on “harm to turf.”

In addition, the Department of Interior under Ryan Zinke has quietly moved to close the iconic White House sidewalk to protest. The National Park Service’s recent regulatory filing shows plans to close the sidewalk to demonstrations leaving only a narrow pedestrian passageway. The Nixon administration notoriously ordered buses to surround the White House during Vietnam War protests, blocking access to the sidewalk.  Now the Trump administration wants to issue a regulatory change to essentially block all protests from the sidewalk permanently.

These plans were contained in a 94-page regulatory proposal that was published in the federal register by the National Park Service, under the Department of the Interior. The public has until October 15, 2018 to register their opposition.

“Never before in history have protestors been required to pay to demonstrate on federal land in the nation’s capital. This is a protest tax on the exercise of First Amendment rights intended to burden and suppress dissent,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, constitutional rights lawyer and executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.

“Free speech is not free if you have to pay for it. The exercise of free speech is a fundamental right and this measure is anti-democratic at its core,” stated Carl Messineo, constitutional rights lawyer and legal director of the PCJF.

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund has launched a legal challenge and grassroots organizing campaign to stop this plan, including a petition in opposition to the plan here.

Click here to read an OpEd by the PCJF’s Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and Carl Messineo in the Washington Post.

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

On 8 August, the Liberty Passion docked at the port of Livorno, and on 2 September, the Liberty Promise. On 9 October, they will be followed by the Liberty Pride. The three ships will then return to Livorno, successively, on 10 November, 15 December and 12 January.

These are enormous Ro/Ro ships (Roll-On/Roll-Off – vehicle transporters), 200 metres long. They have 12 decks, each one capable of housing 6,500 automobiles. However, they are not, in fact, carrying vehicles, but tanks. They are part of a US fleet of 63 ships belonging to private companies who, on behalf of the Pentagon, are constantly transporting weapons in a global circuit between ports in the United States, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Asia.

The main Mediterranean stop is Livorno, because its port is connected to the neighbouring US base of Camp Darby. During a recent visit to the Florence daily ‘La Nazione’, Colonel Erik Berdy, Commander of the US Army garrison in Italy, emphasized the importance of this base.

The logistics base, situated between Pisa and Livorno, constitutes the largest US arsenal outside of the home country. The Colonel did not specify what the content of the 125 bunkers of Camp Darby may be. However, it may be estimated at more than a million artillery projectiles, airborne bombs and missiles, to which should be added thousands of tanks, vehicles and other military material. It can not be excluded that in the base there may have been, there are, or there may be nuclear weapons in the near future.

Source: PandoraTV

Camp Darby, claimed the Colonel, plays a key role by supplying US land and air forces much faster than if they were supplied directly from the USA. The base supplied most of the weapons used for the wars against Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, and Afghanistan. Since March 2017, with huge ships that make monthly stops at Livorno, the weapons from Camp Darby are continually transported to the ports of Aqaba in Jordan, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern ports in order to be used by US and allied forces in the wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

On its maiden voyage, in April 2017, the ‘Liberty Passion’ off-loaded 250 military vehicles and other material in Aqaba. Among the weapons which are transported monthly by sea from Camp Darby to Jeddah, there are also, without any doubt, US airborne bombs that are used by the Saudi air force to massacre civilians in Yemen (as proven by photographic evidence). There are also serious indications that in the monthly link between Livorno and Jeddah, these huge ships also transport airborne bombs, supplied by Rwm Italia in Domusnovas (Sardinia), to Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen.

With the increased transit of weapons from Camp Darby, the canal and land routes from the base to the port of Livorno and the airport at Pisa are no longer sufficient. Consequently, a massive reorganisation of the infrastructures has been decided (and confirmed by Colonel Berdy), including a new railway. The plan calls for the felling of 1,000 trees within a protected zone, which has already been approved by the Italian authorities. But that’s not all.

When Eugenio Giani (Pd), the president of the Tuscan Regional Council, received Colonel Berdy, he agreed to develop « the integration of the US military base of Camp Darby into the neighbouring community ». This is a position substantially shared by the mayor of Pise Conti (Lega) and also by the mayor of Livorno (Movimento 5 Stelle). The latter, in order to welcome Colonel Berdy, and then US ambassador Lewis M. Eisenberg, raised the ‘star-spangled banner’ on the Town Hall.

*

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Translated by Pete Kimberley

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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

On September 11, the US-led coalition and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced that the SDF is kicking off a military operation to eliminate the ISIS-held pocket of Hajin in the Euphrates Valley. According to a coalition spokesman, the SDF ground advance will be backed up by coalition air and artillery strikes.

Hajin and nearby villages are the only remaining major ISIS stronghold in Syria, which the terrorist group actively uses to carry out attacks on the eastern and western banks of the Euphrates. Previously, the SDF repeatedly announced that it’s going to clear the pocket. However, by September 11, no real efforts had been taken in this field.

If the Hajin pocket is seized by the SDF, the US-backed fore will finally be able to declare the eastern bank of the Euphrates free from ISIS, at least technically.

More than 100 US Marines were sent as reinforcements to the US—led coalition garrison in the area of al-Tanf, according to a September 8 announcement by the Pentagon. Many MSM sources described this move as a self-defense effort amid the growing tensions between Russia and the US in the war-torn country.

On September 11, the Russian Center for Syrian Reconciliation in Syria stated that militants have already started filming a chemical weapons attack in the city of Jisr al-Shugur in the province of Idlib.

“According to the information received from inhabitants of Idlib province, militants are now filming a staged provocation in the city of Jisr al-Shugur, where “chemical weapons” are depicted as being used by the Syrian army against civilians. The film crews of several Middle Eastern TV channels arrived in Jisr al-Shugur in the morning, as well as the regional affiliate of one of the main American television news networks,” the Center said.

The plot (yet to be fully confirmed and corroborated) reportedly envisages staged scenes showing members of the White Helmets pretending to help civilians “after the Syrian army allegedly used the so-called barrel bombs with poisonous substances”.

On the same day, during a UN Security Council meeting, the Russian representative Vasily Nebenzya once again emphasized that terrorists in Idlib “must not be shielded because they all are one way or another linked to Al-Qaeda”.

It’s interesting to note that the situation in Idlib has once again highlighted differences between the Syrian-Iranian-Russian bloc and Turkey. While Damascus, Teheran and Moscow are actively working to set conditions to eliminate terrorists, Ankara seems to be one of their defenders alongside with Washington.

On September 10, Turkish President Recep Erdogan said in the Wall Street Journal that

“All members of the international community must understand their responsibilities as the assault on Idlib looms.”

“A regime assault would also create serious humanitarian and security risks for Turkey, the rest of Europe and beyond,” he added once again recalling the accusations against the Syrian government in arbitrary arrests, systematic torture, summary executions, barrel bombs and chemical weapons usage.

Turkey is against the operation against terrorists in Idlib because it will undermine its plans to further expand its influence within Syria and to rescue a core of the opposition forces capable of showing a real military resistance to the Syrian Army – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda in Syria).

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

Amid the backdrop of the beginning of the 10th BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Summit, activists and community organisations held a picket outside the New Development Bank. The Summit kicked off with an address from President Cyril Ramaphosa and other leaders from the bloc. However, prior to the opening addresses, various activists, trade unionists and feminists picketed against what the bloc means. The Daily Vox team was there.

Activists in particular protested against the recent Chinese billion dollar loan to Eskom. The loan has been hailed about being the bailout that South Africa’s electricity parastatal desperately needs.

However, activists says there needs to be questions asked about the loan repayment.

The activists gathered raised concerns about how the repression being faced in other BRICS member countries could be translated to South Africa.

Bandile Mdlalose from the Civil Brics Steering community and Brics From Below coalition told The Daily Vox that:

“The plan is to boycott and protest against the New Development Bank. Part of the reason is because the bank continue putting money into Transnet and Eskom, the very same companies that people do not want because of what they do in their communities. We are here to say the New Development Bank should support communities instead of putting money into corrupt companies that are affecting communities,”

Mdlalose says they cannot support things that affect communities and their health. The rally had different community movements from Durban, Johannesburg and Soweto.

“One: they do not care about South Africa, they do not care about people so this is just a bunch of criminals meeting to decide how they are going to exploit the mineral resources, how they are going to exploit the people,” says Mdlalose about the Brics Summit.

Trevor Ngwane from the Break the Brics Coalition and United Front-Joburg will be leading an action on Thursday. The point of the action is to raise awareness with the media and the public against the environmentally destructive policies of the Brics countries.

“We are also against their undemocratic policies for example India is illegally occupying Kashmir and Putin is an unelected dictator. We are against all these economies and what they are doing,” says Ngwenya.

He says the group undermines worker rights and is not working for the people.

“Our own president in South Africa, Ramaphosa was found connected to the murder of 35 miners who were fighting for a living wage in Marikana,” Ngwenya says.

Desmond D’sa Coordinator of the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance said the point of the picket was about those at the Convention Centre who they don’t have access to about how they are making policies that will be environmentally damaging and harm communities.

D’sa says the Brics institutions are no different from neoliberal organisations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

“The destruction is far and wide throughout the African continent […] The Brics countries have been destructive, looting the resources of the continent and leaving people in abject poverty. We cannot promote the Brics because it is another form of sub-imperialism. It is promoting the capitalist system which has failed people all around the world,” D’sa says.

Regarding the Eskom deal that was signed D’sa says it is just going to leave more people disconnected as the loan will have to be paid back, meaning tariffs are going to increase. He says Ramaphosa has sold out the people of South Africa through this deal.

Makoma Lekalakala from Earthlife Africa says they are concerned that this bank is so different from other banks like the World Bank and the IMF. She says the bank has given money to Transnet and Eskom without following due diligence processes.

“We are concerned that it is a New Destruction Bank […] We are worried that the bank launching in South Africa will mean it will be all across Africa,” says Lekalakala, bringing with it corruption.

She says they are worried about the issue of repression following when these loans are given especially those targeting human rights and environmental activists.

“The summit itself is a summit of heads of countries where there is overt and covert repression in Russia, China, India and Brazil. In South Africa, it might not be overt but I think activists are just worried that Brics is a perpetuation of human rights violations and killing of activists,” Lekalakala says.

Priya Dharshini, a researcher at the Centre for Financial Accountability in New Delhi, said the Brics bank is seen as a new development bank that is going to challenge the hegemony of the World Bank but looking at its functions shows that they are the same.

“It doesn’t challenge the hegemony of the West or of these development banks, says Dharshini adding that these banks have taken the baton in furthering inequality and corporate loot.

“Irrespective of where we come from, we are oppressed by the same people and our problems whether it is land grab or land displacement or here the people are fighting against Eskom…” she said regarding the shared oppressions in the Brics countries.

The head of the Development Bank, K.V Kanuth is from India and someone Dharshini has encountered.

She says he was handpicked by the Modi government to lead the bank and he was instrumental in privatising Indian developmental banks.

“Especially when the monopoly capital hails him a man to be reckoned with and afraid […] him heading NDP is something we really to look at it more critically,” she says.

On the importance of global solidarity movements, Dharshini says:

“One thing that globalisation has done is also kind of globalised oppression of the same people who are doing the same kind of destructive development in one country and another country and they are all together […] and as people who are fighting against these things and fighting for alternative form of development which is more just and inclusive of all people, I think we also need to come together,”

Ilya Matveev from Openleft.ru, was one of the speakers at the Wits teach-in. Matveev says Russia which models itself on the platform of an alternative to the neoliberal system but in fact that it is all rhetoric.

“Russia poses as a kind of alternative to the West but in reality it is not an alternative to West as the same practises are mirrored in Russia. Through the teach-ins, I realised it’s more or less the same in the rest of the Brics countries,” says Matveev.

He says South Africans should be very vigilant when Putin ramps up the rhetoric of anti neoliberal policies and have no illusions about his progressiveness.

The Brics Summit will be ending on Friday July 27 with the members states expected to sign many agreements, deepening the relationship between the countries.

*

Fatima Moosa is one of the The Daily Vox’s Jozi journos. She still hasn’t figured out her beat but loves writing about anything from women in sport, mining in SA and destroying popular opinions about pop culture characters.

All images in this article are from the author.

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

According to Bob Woodward’s latest book, Secretary of Defense Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis believes President Trump has the intellectual and emotional capacity of a fifth- or sixth-grader. Mattis, of course, denies saying this, but true or not the remark undoubtedly angered Trump, the midnight tweeter with a massive ego who never misses an opportunity to go after his political enemies, spewing invective and disparagement. 

Now there are rumors circulating that Mattis will step down in the months ahead. If this happens, who will replace him? 

According to The Washington Post, it may be four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane, or possibly the senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham.

“Depending on the party balance in the Senate after the November elections, Republican leadership may not want to risk losing one its caucus members, especially Cotton, who defeated a Democrat for his seat in 2014,” reports the Post. “Graham has said repeatedly he is not interested in serving in the Cabinet.” 

However, if Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, has anything to say about the vacancy there will be a neocon in that position to compliment the one heading up the State Department. 

Back in March, as Team Trump prepared to bring Bolton onboard, Mattis said he didn’t think he would be able to work with him. Mattis previously joked he believes Bolton is the Devil Incarnate. 

Mattis put on the best face when Bolton was appointed.

“He’s going to come over this week. Last time I checked he’s an American. I can work with an American… It’s going to be a partnership,” he said. 

Arkansas senator Cotton (or Graham), Bolton, and Sec. State Pompeo would be an almost ideal triad for Israel and the neocons who faithfully do the apartheid state’s bidding in Congress. 

For Cotton, it’s all about Israel and the Likudniks. He received $700,000 for his Senate campaign from the Emergency Committee for Israel. 

“During the 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza, when over 500 Palestinian were killed, Cotton called the Israeli defense force ‘the most moral, humanitarian fighting force in the world.’ In December he said Congress should consider supplying Israel with B-52s and so-called ‘bunker-buster’ bombs for a possible strike against Iran,” Medea Benjamin and Nalini Ramachandran wrote back in March, 2015. 

Cotton, like Bolton and Pompeo, wants to bomb Iran. He called the nuclear deal with Iran, which was later trashed by Trump, akin to “appeasement of Nazi Germany.”

He called for a “war on Islamic Terror,” which of course means Iran, not Saudi Arabia, long known to support terrorists who are sadistic head choppers. 

We can’t win the war on Islamic terror on defense, we have to win on offense,” Cotton told CNN. In a speech to The Heritage Foundation the day before, Cotton had compared the negotiations of the P5+1 (the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K. and France, plus Germany) with Iran to the appeasement of Nazi Germany.

Cotton shares a relationship with Bill Kristol, the uber neocon publisher of the Weekly Standard.

“Kristol saw a kindred spirit in Cotton’s aggressive national-security hawkishness, and the men developed what Kristol describes as ‘a bond beyond pure policy,’” writes Molly Ball. 

Cotton is not merely another opportunistic politician clawing his way up the political ladder. He is a dyed-in-the-wool neocon. Both Kristol and Cotton studied under Harvey Mansfield, a disciple of Leo Strauss, the grand daddy of neoconservatism. 

Many of the donors to his Senate campaign are Likudnik hardliners, including Paul Singer and Seth Klarman. John Bolton’s PAC, also financed by Likudniks, dished out over $825,000 to support Cotton’s Senate run. 

If Bolton has any say in the decision to replace Mattis, Tom Cotton will be the next Secretary of Defense. 

Fortunately, it looks like Cotton probably won’t take the job because he believes it will frustrate his desire to be president. 

But then again. 

*

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

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

The 2008 financial meltdown inflicted devastating financial and psychological damage upon millions of ordinary Americans, but a new report released by Public Citizen on Tuesday shows the Wall Street banks that caused the crash with their reckless speculation and outright fraud have done phenomenally well in the ten years since the crisis.

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 US, a declining superpower, is trying to use the power of the dollar as a weapon to punish Turkey and other disobedient actors in the international system.

Mainstream pundits and media commentators see the crisis in US-Turkey relations and the collapse of the Turkish currency as a result of Turkey’s refusal to hand over to the US an American Evangelical priest. The analysis here shows that the roots of the conflict in times of crisis, uncertainty and hegemonic instability, go far beyond political epiphenomena.

Turkey was thrust into a full-blown currency crisis when Donald Trump hoisted tariffs on Turkey’s steel and aluminium exports to the USA, the country’s most serious crisis since Erdogan’s AKP came to power 16 years ago. The Lira lost more than 40 percent of its value, albeit its most recent humble recovery. The pretext for Trump’s punishing attack on Turkey is the continued detention of the evangelical American Presbyterian missionary Andrew Brunson, described by Trump as a “fine gentleman and Christian leader”, who was arrested in October 2016 on charges of espionage accused of involvement in the attempted coup of July the same year.

At first sight, the US-Turkey stand-off appears to be a uniquely Turkish problem triggered by a very public confrontation between two leading members of the “ring of autocrats” of the twenty-first century, Donald Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and worsened by the idiosyncratic and often misguided economic approach of both leaders. This is not the case.

In the first place, the roots of the conflict are domestic. Public agitation over the fate of Brunson serves Trump’s domestic political agenda, appealing to his Christian right base that considers Brunson a martyr: Trump is using it for its own political benefit for the forthcoming US mid-term elections, where evangelical turnout will be crucial for Republicans holding on to the Senate. Similarly, Erdogan aims at strengthening his domestic support base by appealing to Turkish pride and nationalism at a moment when Turkey and the US have diverging agendas in Syria and other conflicts in the greater Middle East, witness the rapprochement between Turkey, Russia and Iran.

However, the underlying motives for the drive to bring the Turkish economy to its knees lie in the bid by the US hegemon to displace and off-load its own crisis onto the back of emerging economies, by means of trade restrictions, economic sanctions, direct confrontation, and most importantly using the dollar’s reserve currency status to hit the currencies of all emerging economies and beyond.

This is not rooted in the personality or psychology of Trump or Erdogan, and this is not just Turkey’s problem. It is a global problem carrying substantial risks of contagion, and hence conflict and war, in Asia, Latin America, Africa and Europe.  Currently, the Turkish crisis looks the most vivid but, as we shall see below, there is much more going on between the US and the rest of the world.

The global financial crisis and shifts in the global power system

As the tenth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers approaches, it seems that none of the underlying contradictions of the world economy have been resolved. Rather, they have only intensified. Soon after the 2008 crisis hit the major economies, governments and central banks took off the books of the banks the worthless, or so-called toxic, assets, which were then transferred onto the states’ budgets rendering legal responsibility to the taxpayer to pay the debts of the banks (what in the relevant jargon is called “deleveraging”). The bailout operation and other similar measures, such as widespread “quantitative easing”, has cost more than 25 percent of global GDP, the landmark operation being the Greek case. This large-scale bailout has increased the volatility of the system without solving the problem.  Ten years after, it is becoming increasingly clear that a new period of intensified crisis is gripping the global economy.

Every national economy, whether big or small, seems to be locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. US sanctions against Iran, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela; and US trade war with China, the EU, Canada and Mexico. These acts of economic warfare, reminiscent of the inter-war period[1], are not only affecting the countries directly targeted, but indirectly also affect a long list of other countries which have close economic links with these targeted countries. For instance, Chinese producers buy iron ore for steel from Australia, Brazil, India, Iran, South Africa, and Ukraine, and bauxite for aluminium from Australia, Brazil, and the poor West African nation of Guinea. All are being affected, some very seriously.

It seems that global trade and the US dollar are used as a weapon by the American President, who sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught he launched against Turkey, as an integral component of his drive to secure US’s geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of the others, even if this hurts its own close allies. Trump’s “America First” policy is just this and configures its strategy as a response to the structural crisis of globalisation/financialisation.

Trump is fully aware of the impact of his policies. The US’s “aggressive unilateralism”, which first emerged in the 1980s under Reagan, is now pushed to its limits. Trump is not some bizarre abnormality, but rather the genuine face of the vital interests of a declining superpower that is prepared to initiate a major crisis and huge devastation worldwide in order to stop its eventual decline. Trump’s coming to power itself is but an epiphenomenon of the deeply embedded structural and historical changes and trends taking place in international political economy and the global system of power.

All such shifts are the results of an increasingly more volatile and chaotic international situation, which is the direct consequence of a process that Giovanni Arrighi, drawing from Gramsci, called hegemonic transition. During that period, systemic chaos is rather unavoidable. The late twentieth century saw renewed great power rivalry, system-wide financial excesses and bursting bubbles centred on the declining superpower, the US, and the emergence of new loci of power in Eurasia, in particular China and India. So, the core logic of this shift can be analysed properly within the context of major global structural changes and re-distribution of power, which have been affecting the world system for the last 30 years or so.

Hegemonic transition

When the authority of a global superpower is on the wane, this affects the entire world order and leads to instability. Even though the US still represents the largest and strongest economic and military power in the world, it is nevertheless struggling with severe weaknesses resulting from low economic growth and the protracted decline of its industry. The most important structural transformation that took place in the US-led global economic system after WWII was a massive crisis in manufacturing manifesting itself as stagflation (economic stagnation accompanied by double-digit inflation). Falling profitability and weakening competitiveness led to the erosion of the production-led mode of accumulation in the United States (the twin crisis of Fordism and the Keynesian management of aggregate demand). When the productive power (and capacity) of the US started to decline, financial speculation began to play a major role in order to compensate the loss of profit rates in production and trade. One of the most striking features of the US economy has become the rise of the rentier and the money capitalist. This was further reinforced with the massive upsurge of the US bond markets and, from the late 1980s in particular, of the junk bond market. This vast financial sector expansion greatly advanced speculation.

The decline in productive capacity and the ever-widening gap between productive and financial accumulation led to recurrent financial and economic crises in every corner of the world. The global chain of extreme financialisation and speculative profiteering broke in 2007-09, only to be transplanted into the euro-zone via the over-leveraged banking sector.

From QE to QT, and the Turkey conundrum

Even if the US economy is in decline in terms of its productive capacity and the share of global trade, one aspect of it still dominates the global economy: dollar seigniorage, or the dominant role of the US dollar in international trade and finance. This is the privilege to profit from the usage of the dollar by the rest of the world as international reserve currency in global trade. All states have to acquire funds of the internationally acceptable money in order to be able to pay for goods and services in global trade. A state first has to earn an international currency from abroad before it can buy anything from abroad. This constraint does not exist for the US because the international currency since 1944 is the US dollar.  The US does not need to earn dollars abroad. The US simply prints dollars at home, which gives the United States an “exorbitant privilege”.

As a result, the US Federal Reserve could dictate the level of international rates through moving the US domestic interest rates, thus determining the costs of credit internationally. Today America borrows from practically the entire world without keeping the reserves of any other currency. Because the dollar is the de facto global reserve currency, America does not have to compete with other currencies in interest rates, and even at low interest rates capital flies to the dollar. The more dollars are circulated outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The US even has the luxury of having its debts denominated in its own currency. Let us be more analytical.

When international credit is cheap economic operators with access to cheap international credit borrow money and invest in projects which seem viable, given the level of low interest rates.  However, when the US decides to make credit expensive (sometimes very expensive) in order to gain competitive advantage or for political reasons, suddenly, such “normal” and “sound” investments may find themselves going bankrupt because of this sudden contraction of cheap credit.

Because only the American state can issue the international reserve currency, the US dollar, the Wall Street, the hub of global financial activity together with the City of London, can swing international economy between oversupplying credit at one time and contracting it at another without even providing a reasonable time of notice. As in real war, so in economic warfare: surprise is the thing to do in order to win. This is exactly what is happening today.

Another 2008?

Since the 2007-08 global financial crisis the reliance of financial markets on policy decisions taken by the American Fed has expanded to unprecedented levels. Immediately after the global crisis hit the US in 2007, the Fed began what was called Quantitative Easing, a type of Keynesian generation of money – in force buying up bonds to revive the flow of credit to a shrinking economy. The Fed bought a staggering sum of bonds from the struggling banks, which increased up to 4.5 trillion dollars from the modest range of $850 to $900 billion in 2010. Since then, four global central banks: the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of Japan and Bank of England have been engaged in QE programs. The result of this QE was that the central banks flooded markets with an unprecedented flow of funds through auctions and lending facilities, approximately creating 4 billion dollar new money a day, and thus financial markets were saved.

This operation plunged the interest rates to zero in an effort to prevent an economic collapse. These sums of money were in turn invested in any part of the world offering high returns as US bonds paid near zero interest. The hope was that lenders go on to pass that liquidity along as credit to companies and households, thus stimulating anaemic economies.  A large amount of this liquidity went into junk bonds in the shale oil sector, which subsidised in reality high-cost US shale production, despite the fact that only a few shale companies were generating enough cash to pay for their spending and dividends, and into the US housing market which experienced a mini boom, both of which played a key role in the initial recovery of the economy from the 2007-08 financial crisis. Private investors, who were looking for new and more profitable avenues to park their investments, low interest new money they borrowed from the Fed, started pumping large amounts of this into emerging markets, such as Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, India and China, where the economies are booming and the US bonds could potentially bring back high returns.

Thus, the corporations as well as private individuals in emerging markets had access to a large amount of cash at their disposal. Even the Russian market received some liquidity dollars until the Trump initiation of the US sanctions in early 2018. As a result, during the last ten years, the supply of cheap dollars to the global system has risen to unprecedented levels, exacerbated by the US, British, German and Japanese QE programmes. Total global debt (the debt of households, governments, corporations and the financial sector) soared to a record $233 trillion in the third quarter of 2017, according to a report from the Institute of International Finance in Washington.

As long as the emerging markets were growing and earning export dollars at times of low interest rates, this debt was manageable. Because of near-zero interest rates, combined with a weak dollar, this level of debt was not difficult to pay for consistently growing emerging economies. However, even though this low-interest credit has helped boost economic growth in the short-term, heavy reliance on this has made the economies of emerging countries vulnerable to sudden financial changes and surprise economic warfare. If the interest rates begin going up quickly, as is currently the case, then many debtors will not be able to pay their debts and the world will again be facing a 2008-style catastrophe. The emerging market economies’ massive dollar debt is the key vulnerability even for still expanding emerging economies, such as Turkey. Turkish companies now owe an estimated $229 billion in foreign-denominated debt, which is more than one-third of the country’s GDP.

Quantitative tightening ( QT)

Recently, everything began to change. The US Federal Reserve ended its programme of QE late last year, and started to reverse it, i.e. selling off the financial assets it had purchased, and hence effectively taking dollars out of the financial system, given the relatively stable performance of the American economy. Now the Federal Reserve is retreating from markets by reducing the amount it reinvests after the bonds in its portfolio reach maturity. Global finance has now de facto been in the new era of Quantitative Tightening (QT). The Federal Reserve raised its policy rates five times, from 0.25 to 1.5 percent. The Bank of England raised its policy rate once, back to 0.5 percent. As a result the dollar’s value has begun to rise.

The rise in the value of dollar, accompanied by two successive interest-rate rises by the USA Fed, has made debt payments for countries, corporations and individuals far more difficult. This is direct US financial policy which is deliberately precipitating a major new economic crisis across the emerging world, especially in Iran, Turkey, Russia, South Africa and China.

The stronger dollar means that emerging markets in particular are facing uncertainties: for companies, and individuals, in these countries that have issued dollar-denominated bonds, their interest payment burdens just got a lot heavier, and investors worry about the ability of emerging market debtors to pay off their dollar-denominated debt.  The Institute of International Finance (IIF) estimated in July 2017 that global debt amounted to 327 percent of the world’s annual economic output (GDP) by the first quarter of 2017 and the rise was driven principally by emerging market borrowing. According to estimates, by the end of 2018, there will be approximately 1 trillion dollar less global QE than in 2017, and the peak for total emerging market dollar debt falling due comes in 2019, with more than 1.2 trillion dollars maturing.  In other words, there will be an equivalent of 1.2 trillion less dollars in the world in 2019.  This is simply to choke off dollar supply.[2]

Bankrupting the global South

The motivations for this trade and currency war are also political: the US punishes Turkey, Iran and Russia for having a divergent geo-political agenda in Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia that clashes strategically with that of the USA. However, whereas it is clear to us that the economic warfare between the USA and Turkey (as well as other emerging powers) has structural causes, it remains to be seen whether this can be translated into political divergence, something which would have serious implications as regards Turkey’s NATO membership and global peace. Political and security dynamics have a relative autonomy and cannot be reduced to financial economics alone.

The ability of the US government to control the global supply of money through its global reserve currency, the dollar, is considered to be the most effective weapon of the US, far more deadly than its grand military machinery. The value of US dollar is now rising strongly against all other currencies, in particular the currencies of emerging economies. The Trump regime is also initiating provocative trade wars and sanctions against Russia, Iran, China and Venezuela. Turkey is not alone in this: it suddenly has a lot in common with Iran, Russia, and China. The US seems to be aiming at a domestic economic advantage via pushing the global South into bankruptcy. This global financial and trade offensive, launched by the Trump administration, has already created huge uncertainty in Asia, Latin America and the EU.  Peter Gowan, in his seminal work, The Global Gamble, noted that “the US economy depends not only upon constantly reproduced international monetary and financial turbulence. …” and “Wall Street” in particular “depends upon chaotic instabilities in ‘emerging market’ financial systems”[3].

Dangerous interregnum

This is yet another clear manifestation of the fact that the world is currently going through a dangerous interregnum. Interregnum, here, as elaborated by Gramsci, can be understood as a period where one arrangement of hegemony is waning, but prior to the full emergence of another. It is poised between inward-looking old hegemonic powers, and reluctant new emergent ones. The US is a declining superpower, with a crumbling infrastructure and a shrinking share of the global economy. China is an ascending superpower, with a burgeoning industrial and technological infrastructure, a growing share of world trade and increasing self-confidence, but not ready yet to lead the world. The post-WWII arrangements that centred power on the Euro-Atlantic hub and Japan under the primacy of the USA were shattered first by the stagflation of the 1970s and then by the global financial crisis of 2008, and currently are fast losing ground in the midst of economic nationalism, trade wars and sanctions.

A new international system is in the making by the arrival of new dynamic actors that demand a redistribution of power. This is basically what causes the breakdown of the global order and forces the ruling elites in many countries to unconstrained economic and political nationalism and authoritarianism. Leadership, order, and regional and global governance are no longer assured. With the breakdown of the key economic and financial structures put in place after the WWII, every major power, especially the declining hegemon, the US, seems to be focusing on the protection of its own interests, leading to financial and economic warfare and extending the possibilities for a new real global war.

We do not know with certainty yet what the ultimate impact of the current stand-off between Trump’s America and a number of emerging powers, from Turkey to China and Russia, will be. However, it is almost certain that our world is, once again, entering a historical moment where uncertain global circumstances and the authoritarian populist agenda of unpredictable political leaders have coincided to initiate a major shift in the way world economy and finance are organised.

*

Notes

[1] Hawley-Smoot Tariff of June 1930, that raised already high import duties on more than 20,000 goods to their highest level in 100 years in American history, was considered by some historians as a contributing factor to the start and severity of the Great Depression and also fed political extremism helping to push Adolf Hitler into power in Germany.

[2] William Engdahl, “Washington’s Silent Weapon for Not-so-quiet Wars”, New Eastern Outlook, 20 August 2018, and Dan Glazebrook, “Trump just triggered a new financial crisis. Here’s why”, RT, 17 August 2018.

[3] Peter Gowan, The Global Gamble: Washington’s Faustian Bid for World Dominance, London and New York: Verso, 1999, p.124.

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

During the financial crisis of 2008, the world’s central banks, including the Federal Reserve, injected trillions of dollars of fabricated money into the global financial system. This fabricated money has created a worldwide debt of $325 trillion, more than three times global GDP. The fabricated money was hoarded by banks and corporations, loaned by banks at predatory interest rates, used to service interest on unpayable debt or spent buying back stock, providing millions in compensation for elites. The fabricated money was not invested in the real economy. Products were not manufactured and sold. Workers were not reinstated into the middle class with sustainable incomes, benefits and pensions. Infrastructure projects were not undertaken. The fabricated money reinflated massive financial bubbles built on debt and papered over a fatally diseased financial system destined for collapse.

What will trigger the next crash? The $13.2 trillion in unsustainable U.S. household debt? The $1.5 trillion in unsustainable student debt? The billions Wall Street has invested in a fracking industry that has spent $280 billion more than it generated from its operations? Who knows. What is certain is that a global financial crash, one that will dwarf the meltdown of 2008, is inevitable. And this time, with interest rates near zero, the elites have no escape plan. The financial structure will disintegrate. The global economy will go into a death spiral. The rage of a betrayed and impoverished population will, I fear, further empower right-wing demagogues who promise vengeance on the global elites, moral renewal, a nativist revival heralding a return to a mythical golden age when immigrants, women and people of color knew their place, and a Christianized fascism.

The 2008 financial crisis, as the economist Nomi Prins points out, “converted central banks into a new class of power brokers.” They looted national treasuries and amassed trillions in wealth to become politically and economically omnipotent. In her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” she writes that central bankers and the world’s largest financial institutions fraudulently manipulate global markets and use fabricated, or as she writes, “fake money,” to inflate asset bubbles for short-term profit as they drive us toward “a dangerous financial precipice.”

“Before the crisis, they were just asleep at the wheel, in particular, the Federal Reserve of the United States, which is supposed to be the main regulator of the major banks in the United States,” Prins said when we met in New York. “It did a horrible job of doing that, which is why we had the financial crisis. It became a deregulator instead of a regulator. In the wake of the financial crisis, the solution to fixing the crisis and saving the economy from a great depression or recession, whatever the terminology that was used at any given time, was to fabricate trillions and trillions of dollars out of an electronic ether.”

The Federal Reserve handed over an estimated $29 trillion of this fabricated money to American banks, according to researchers at the University of Missouri. Twenty-nine trillion dollars! We could have provided free college tuition to every student or universal health care, repaired our crumbling infrastructure, transitioned to clean energy, forgiven student debt, raised wages, bailed out underwater homeowners, formed public banks to invest at low interest rates in our communities, provided a guaranteed minimum income for everyone and organized a massive jobs program for the unemployed and underemployed. Sixteen million children would not go to bed hungry. The mentally ill and the homeless—an estimated 553,742 Americans are homeless every night—would not be left on the streets or locked away in our prisons. The economy would revive. Instead, $29 trillion in fabricated money was handed to financial gangsters who are about to make most of it evaporate and plunge us into a depression that will rival that of the global crash of 1929.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers write on the website Popular Resistance,

“One-sixth of this could provide a $12,000 annual basic income, which would cost $3.8 trillion annually, doubling Social Security payments to $22,000 annually, which would cost $662 billion, a $10,000 bonus for all U.S. public school teachers, which would cost $11 billion, free college for all high school graduates, which would cost $318 billion, and universal preschool, which would cost $38 billion. National improved Medicare for all would actually save the nation trillions of dollars over a decade.”

An emergency clause in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 allows the Fed to provide liquidity to a distressed banking system. But the Federal Reserve did not stop with the creation of a few hundred billion dollars. It flooded the financial markets with absurd levels of fabricated money. This had the effect of making the economy appear as if it had revived. And for the oligarchs, who had access to this fabricated money while we did not, it did.

The Fed cut interest rates to near zero. Some central banks in Europe instituted negative interest rates, meaning they would pay borrowers to take loans. The Fed, in a clever bit of accounting, even permitted distressed banks to use these no-interest loans to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. The banks gave the bonds back to the Fed and received a quarter of a percent of interest from the Fed. In short, the banks were loaned money at virtually no interest by the Fed and then were paid interest by the Fed on the money they borrowed. The Fed also bought up worthless mortgage assets and other toxic assets from the banks. Since Fed authorities could fabricate as much money as they wanted, it did not matter how they spent it.

“It’s like going to someone’s old garage sale and saying, ‘I want that bicycle with no wheels. I’ll pay you 100 grand for it. Why? Because it’s not my money,’ ” Prins said.

“These people have rigged the system,” she said of the bankers. “There is money fabricated at the top. It is used to pump up financial assets, including stock. It has to come from somewhere. Because money is cheap there’s more borrowing at the corporate level. There’s more money borrowed at the government level.”

“Where do you go to repay it?” she asked. “You go into the nation. You go into the economy. You extract money from the foundational economy, from social programs. You impose austerity.”

Given the staggering amount of fabricated money that has to be repaid, the banks need to build greater and greater pools of debt. This is why when you are late in paying your credit card the interest rate jumps to 28 percent. This is why if you declare bankruptcy you are still responsible for paying off your student loan, even as 1 million people a year default on student loans, with 40 percent of all borrowers expected to default on student loans by 2023. This is why wages are stagnant or have declined while costs, from health care and pharmaceutical products to bank fees and basic utilities, are skyrocketing. The enforced debt peonage grows to feed the beast until, as with the subprime mortgage crisis, the predatory system fails because of massive defaults. There will come a day, for example, as with all financial bubbles, when the wildly optimistic projected profits of industries such as fracking will no longer be an effective excuse to keep pumping money into failing businesses burdened by debt they cannot repay.

“The 60 biggest exploration and production firms are not generating enough cash from their operations to cover their operating and capital expenses,” Bethany McLean writes of the fracking industry in an article titled “The Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground” that appeared in The New York Times. “In aggregate, from mid-2012 to mid-2017, they had negative free cash flow of $9 billion per quarter.”

The global financial system is a ticking time bomb. The question is not if it will explode but when it will explode. And once it does, the inability of the global speculators to use fabricated money with zero interest to paper over the debacle will trigger massive unemployment, high prices for imports and basic services, and a devaluation in which the dollar will become nearly worthless as it is abandoned as the world’s reserve currency. This manufactured financial tsunami will transform the United States, already a failed democracy, into an authoritarian police state. Life will become very cheap, especially for the vulnerable—undocumented workers, Muslims, poor people of color, girls and women, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist critics branded as agents of  foreign powers—who will be demonized and persecuted for the collapse. The elites, in a desperate bid to cling to their unchecked power and obscene wealth, will disembowel what is left of the United States.

*

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers University, and an ordained Presbyterian minister. He has written 12 books, including the New York Times best-seller “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt” (2012), which he co-authored with the cartoonist Joe Sacco.

Featured image is from Mr. Fish/Truthdig.

The Global Economic Crisis

The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Global Research

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

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

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

click to order directly from Global Research

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

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

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

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

click to order directly from Global Research

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 Trump administration’s national security advisor John Bolton has never been a fan of international law, a concept he has found, at best, rubbery.  Any institution supposedly guided by its spirit was bound to draw the ire of both his temper and temperament.  Before members of the Federalist Society on Monday, Bolton took to the pulpit with a fury reserved for the unreflective patriot certain that his country, right or wrong, was above such matters. 

“The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.”

The wicked body, in this instance, is the International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute to try instances of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, a “court of last resort” backed by 123 nations. 

The instigation for such concern on Bolton’s part came from the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who requested that the court investigate the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan from 2003 by forces including elements of the US military and intelligence services.  In doing so, she was moving the frame of reference beyond a continent that has featured all too readily in the court’s prosecutions: Africa.   

Bolton was quick off the mark after the announcement in 2017, with a blistering observation in the Wall Street Journal:

“The Trump administration should not respond to Ms. Bensouda in any way that acknowledges the ICC’s legitimacy.  Even merely contesting its jurisdiction risks drawing the US deeper into the quicksand.”

Bolton has been consistent with such tirades.  In 2000, he contemplated the issue of whether there was such a thing as “law” in the matter of international affairs. His sustained attack in Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems remains salient to a parochial understanding of how such rules work.  For Bolton, the central defining issue was one of liberty: how such “law” might “affect individuals in the exercise of their individual freedom”.  Prior to the Second World War, international law was essentially a matter of nation states rather than individuals and groups.   

Bolton wishes it remained there, a courtly, distant matter separate from the populace.  But “the logic of today’s international law proponents drives them toward more pervasive international command-and-control structures that will deeply affect the domestic policies and constitutions of all nations.”  Such law lacked notions of “popular sovereignty or public accountability through reasonably democratic popular controls over creation, interpretation, and enforcement of laws”.  It lacked clear sources and a mechanism to determine its change.  In short, and here, reflective of the sum of all his grievances against international law, such juridical phenomena were not of the US order of things, specifically the “United States Constitution and its system of government, exemplifying the kind of legal system acceptable to a free person.”  

His address to the Federalist Society recapitulates his critique: the “supranational” and “unchecked” conspiracy of the ICC advanced by “‘global governance’ advocates” inimical to the Founders’ vision. 

“Any day now, the ICC may announce the start of a formal investigation against these American patriots, who voluntarily signed on to go into harm’s way to protect our nation, our homes, and our families in the wake of the 9/11 attacks…. An unfounded, unjustifiable investigation.” 

The efforts of the ICC was to be frustrated at every turn.  No assistance would be provided to its functions and its pursuits.

“And, certainly, we will not join the ICC.  We will let the ICC die on its own.  After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.” 

Bolton keeps interesting company in having such views.  The refusal by the US to ratify the ICC’s founding document in 2002 was joined by Israel, Saudi Arabia and China, fearing its “unacceptable consequences for our national sovereignty”.  Bolton subsequently led efforts as Under Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration to broker some hundred bilateral deals preventing countries from surrendering US nationals to the ICC.  These remain, by his own admission, a proud achievement. 

The ICC has had its fair share of bad press.  It groans under a bureaucracy that has led to accusations of justice delayed being justice denied.  It has conspicuously failed to deter the perpetration of atrocities in Syria, Yemen and Myanmar.  It’s Africa-focus has also caused more than a flutter of dissent from states on that continent.  Early last year, the African Union passed a non-binding resolution for member states to withdraw from the court, or at the very least seek reforming it.  South Africa confirmed its desire to remove itself from the jurisdictional reach of the ICC, a decision that continues to shadow law makers. 

Bolton’s resentment, in short, has fuel to fire.  President Donald Trump sees any international pact untouched by his influence to be deficient and contrary to the values of the imperium.  But the ICC still has legs, however plodding, and such efforts to despoil their function will not necessarily cripple, let alone kill it.

In contrast to Bolton’s view is another stream of US legal thought that sees international law and its enforcement as indispensable to peace.  That view is unduly rosy, and held, at times, disingenuously. But for the US Chief Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, delivering his opening address in November 1945 to the judges of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, such a body, far from being abstract, incoherent and spineless, supplied the animating legitimacy for an international court. 

What fouled international law’s decent nest were those wars of imperialism waged during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, leaving the impression “that all wars are to be regarded as legitimate wars.”  Jackson’s point was that no one, not even the leaders of the United States, could always remain unaccountable, anathema to Bolton’s idea of impunity outside the US constitution.

* 

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]

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

President Putin’s decision to remove Russia from the International Criminal Court in 2016 over its hyper-politicized reports about the country’s activities during the 2008 peace-enforcement operation against Georgia and 2014 reunification with Crimea inadvertently gave “normative legitimacy” to Trump leaving the organization too, though Moscow could never have expected that Washington would then take everything to a qualitatively new level by threatening to sanction anyone who dares to cooperate with this globalist body’s cases on American and “Israeli” war crimes.

This much is obvious, and it’s that the US and “Israel” are essentially the same political entity on two different continents, with one hand washing the other, proverbially speaking, and their “deep states” working in full coordination to protect their shared interests across the world. That’s why no one should have been shocked by the Trump Administration’s announcement that it’ll sanction anyone who dares to approach the International Criminal Court (ICC) with accusations of American or “Israeli” wrongdoing or cooperate on any cases against them. Some of the consequences that National Security Advisor John Bolton said could await any potential violators include being banned from entering the US, having any assets there frozen, and even ironically being tried by American courts, which might not be enough to deter everyone but are still substantial enough to make many international elites like the ICC’s judges second guess whether it’s worth getting involved.

Without a doubt, the US wants to prevent any more evidence of it and “Israel’s” war crimes from reaching the public consciousness, hoping that its weaponization of sanctions will be enough to intimidate this globalist body and therefore allow it and its allies to regain some control over the international narrative about their actions in Afghanistan, Palestine, and elsewhere. The blatant unilateralism of this move and the obvious motivation behind it to cover up countless crimes have been loudly criticized all throughout the Alt-Media Community, and rightly so, but the principle of the ICC and its many controversial activities risk being made sacrosanct in response as various forces try to emphasize the immorality of the US’ decision. That, however, is problematic because it could also harm Russia’s reputation by extent, which inadvertently provided “normative legitimacy” to the US’ withdrawal a few years ago.

To avoid any manipulation of the author’s words and intention in writing this piece, it is not being asserted that Russia in any shape or form supports the extraterritorial application of American law, especially regarding sanctions, but just that the prominent action of a Great Power such as itself pulling out of the ICC in 2016 over its hyper-politicized reports about the country’s activities during the 2008 peace-enforcement operation against Georgia and the 2014 reunification with Crimea set the normative precedent for the US to ultimately follow suit under the same pretexts, even if the American claims of the globalist body’s impartiality towards it are hypocritical. The ICC has always been a politicized instrument of control over war-torn countries like the former Yugoslavia and “Global South” ones such as Sudan, and just like the UN itself, it never embodied the “noble ideas” popularly associated with it.

Just like Russia did roughly two years prior, the US is pulling out of the ICC as well, but unprecedentedly going much further in taking everything to a qualitatively new level by threatening to sanction anyone who cooperates with this structure and therefore contributes to sullying the US and “Israel’s” international reputations by drawing global attention to evidence of their war crimes. It doesn’t matter to the US that these claims are based on a lot more fact than the ones levelled against Russia and other countries that have been victimized by this globalist body, but only that its former instrument of control against others is now finally being used against itself, which is why Washington now wants to destroy what it helped create or at the very least thwart its operational effectiveness.

There’s nothing inherently wrong in principle with leaving a hyper-politicized structure that served as a globalist Hybrid War weapon all along, even though it’s understandably unpalatable to many that the US is attempting to justify this through the use of double standards, but it’s very concerning that America is once again expressing its so-called “Exceptionalism” by threatening to sanction anyone who cooperates with the ICC’s efforts to raise awareness of the US and “Israel’s” war crimes. This goes far beyond China’s refusal to ever join this initiative in the first place or Russia’s decision to pull out of it a few years ago and shows that the US is aggressively trying to manipulate the ICC’s activities in a desperate bid to regain control some control over the international narrative, which in and of itself suggests that its many rivals have indeed been successful over the years in breaking through the Mainstream Media’s monopoly.

*

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.

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

After months of speculation about the contradictory remarks delivered by American officials and spokespersons about the White House’s intention to end the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA)’s mandate, America has announced that it is withholding all future payments to the organisation.

“The administration has carefully reviewed the issue and determined that the United States will not make additional contributions to UNRWA,” the US State Department announced.

Justifying its decision, the US said UNRWA is plagued with corruption and its fiscal policies are “irredeemably flawed”. Spokeswoman of the US State Department Heather Nauert added that the Trump administration had “carefully reviewed the issue and determined that the United States will not make additional contributions to UNRWA.”

Anyone with any knowledge of the current US administration would recognise that this is not the real reason that pushed the American administration to make this disastrous decision.

America has for decades been doing its best to protect and appease Israel at the expense of Palestinian human rights and international law, however, the current administration has gone a step further. Under Trump the US is carrying out Israel’s policies on behalf of Tel Aviv, starting with recognising Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

The US has also imposed sanctions on Iran at the behest of Israel, a policy which it is to tighten in the coming months, and now it has ended its annual payments to Palestinian refugees.

“The US did something very important by stopping the funding for the refugee perpetuation agency known as UNRWA,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “It is finally starting to solve the problem… This is a very welcome and important change and we support it,” he added.

It is evident that America’s decision is a big step towards eradicating the Palestinian issue, and changing the facts on the ground in future negotiations regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict; in particular the Palestinian right of return.

Spokesman of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Emmanuel Nahshon, stressed this when he said:

“UNRWA perpetuates the myth of the eternal ‘refugee’ status of the Palestinians… UNRWA is part of the problem, not of the solution.”

The steps taken by Israel on the ground and the US in diplomatic circles are attempts to break the Palestinian will, increase divisions and force submission. They echo Netanyahu’s tweet:

“In the Middle East, and in many parts of the world, there is a simple truth: There is no place for the weak. The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end, peace is made with the strong.”

As UNRWA’s funding crisis becomes more intense, the services it offers to Palestinians will be curtailed, children, expectant mothers and a future generation of Palestinian refugees will pay the price. Education may be halted as limited funds may be insufficient to run schools in the occupied territories and refugee camps in surrounding countries. The Palestinian economy and future state will be weak as a result.

In a leaked email Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner encouraged Israel to review agreements regarding UN operations so Arab states cannot step in to fill the financial void left by the US. Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat has already answered the calls and said:

“I intend to expel it [UNRWA] from Jerusalem”.

With that, we see the beginning of the end of UNRWA.

*

Motasem Dalloul is MEMO’s correspondent in the Gaza Strip.

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

Eleven disadvantaged neighborhoods and communities endure the heaviest use of toxic oil-drilling chemicals in Los Angeles County, according to South Coast Air Quality Management District data analyzed by the Center for Biological Diversity.

The 15 zip codes in which oil companies used the most chemicals known to cause serious health problems (“air toxics”) include several areas of Long Beach, South L.A. County and the Westside. In one Long Beach zip code, the oil industry has used almost 50 million pounds of air toxics since 2013.

Eleven of the 15 zip codes with the heaviest air toxics use contain neighborhoods like Wilmington that are considered “disadvantaged” by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The agency’s CalEnviroScreen index weighs the percentage of residents who are people of color, poverty levels, asthma rates and other measures of pollution burden and vulnerability.

“Oil companies are using massive amounts of chemicals that make people sick in communities already suffering high rates of asthma and other health problems,” said John Fleming, a Center staff scientist who conducted the analysis. “State regulators give out drilling permits like they’re candy, and here in Los Angeles we see how it hurts people of color and vulnerable residents the most.”

An earlier analysis of air district data revealed that oil companies have used more than 98 million pounds of chemicals known to cause serious health problems in L.A. County since 2013. These air toxics were often used dangerously close to homes, hospitals and schools.

Over 80 percent of air toxics usage involved just 12 chemicals, including carcinogens like crystalline silica and formaldehyde. Hydrochloric acid, one of the most frequently used air toxics, is a corrosive gas that can cause suffocation or irreversible lung damage at high concentrations.

Today’s analysis underscores the disproportionate harms of California’s oil extraction on vulnerable communities. Gov. Jerry Brown faces growing pressure to confront California’s oil and gas production prior to hosting the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco this week.

On April 11 a diverse array of environmental, public-health, faith, labor and community groups launched the Brown’s Last Chance campaign to demand that he halt new oil and gas extraction and devise a just transition plan to phase it out entirely. To date more than 800 organizations have signed on.

“Fossil fuel dependence is a disease, and environmental injustice is one of its nastiest symptoms,” Fleming said. “That’s why Governor Brown should tackle the root of this problem by planning an end to California’s incredibly dirty oil extraction.”

Los Angeles County zip codes where air toxic usage was highest between June 4, 2013 and Feb. 28, 2017

*

Featured image is from LA West Media.

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

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Please sign our petition calling on the Government of Canada to conduct a thorough and independent public inquiry into Dr. Hassan Diab’s extradition case.

Click here to sign the petition.

The petition closes on September 13, 2018, at 2:41 pm (EDT).

We would greatly appreciate if you would sign the petition and encourage people you know to sign before the deadline. Please help us make sure that no other Canadian would go through the unjust extradition process that Hassan and his family have endured.

Many thanks to everyone who already signed!

If you are not sure whether you already signed this petition, please take a minute and try signing it again. The petition will inform you if you’ve already signed.

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

I love sports, since I was a young kid. I can remember, vividly, sitting in our living room, circa 1960, on a Sunday afternoon watching the N.Y. Giants football game with my Dad and brother. It was late in the game and the Giants called a timeout. Within seconds the television screen was filled with singer Julie London doing a Marlboro cigarette commercial. As soon as the commercial ended the live shot on the field showed the Giants coming to the line of scrimmage. This all occurred in one minute because timeouts were literally one minute! Sports fans today can testify that timeouts and other breaks in a game reveal a chain of commercials that go on for three to four minutes! Football games in 1960 lasted on average two and a half hours! My family used to leave our house at 3:45 and go to the movies on Sunday afternoons. Today’s football and baseball games go on for nearly four hours! The networks cram in commercials for every break in the action. Plus, they have the play by play announcers doing commercial spots while the games are going on. They’re in the huddle so let’s push some ad for some show coming up on our network.

I’m a columnist and not an investigative reporter, but I can surmise that regulations have been altered. In the ‘good ole days’ of the 50s, 60s and 70s, at least there were roadblocks to overuse of our airwaves. Whatever the limit on how much airtime slotted each hour for commercials, today the sky’s the limit it seems. As far as guardians of the public good, as in not allowing cigarette commercials to be shown, well, look what we now have: Excessive pharmaceutical commercials all day and all night! They push so much **** that a human could ingest, and then they (thank the Lord) have to mention the side effects, which are horrendous. Yet, it’s a multibillion dollar a year industry this Big Pharma.

Just today I was on the treadmill at my local gym, and the television there had limited channels to choose from. So, I went to CNN and was told there would be a story coming on about my right wing congressman running for Governor and possible racist remarks etc. The CNN news host (journalism school grad with modeling experience?) said they’d be right back… and I counted on my watch one minute, two minutes, three minutes, four plus minutes of commercials! Most insulting, the host comes back on and does an interview with someone else on another story, and not the one that was promised. Well, after less than three minutes they go to another commercial break. Unreal!

Today is the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 Twin Towers and Bldg. 7 false flag scenario. What transpired soon after that horrific event was the marriage between the sports media and the Pentagon.

Case in point: before 2009 Pro Football teams stayed in their locker rooms while the National Anthem was played. After the Pentagon threw mega millions at the NFL, we had the weekly honor guards and pomp and circumstance, replete with a giant flag draped over the 100 X 55 yard playing field.

Soldiers wearing camouflage were stationed throughout the stadiums as a final touch to this new commercial. You see, we were and are at war… ‘Perpetual War’ as the late, great Gore Vidal named it. As was the case after  WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, it was in vogue to have ex military personnel obtain electoral office, to further commercialize war. Nowadays, after 9/11, our soldiers have been relabeled as ‘Brave Warriors’ and license plates and car signs advertise our branches of the military for all to see. Of course, the last time our nation actually declared war was WW2. Who cares so long as it sells?

*

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].

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

Now that the noninterventionist president appears ready to give the go-ahead to kill more people in Syria, the corporate script reading media is providing the sort of necessary propaganda required to get the American people in the mood for mass murder.

.

Syria's Assad has approved use of chlorine gas in Idlib: report https://t.co/gTX7NBDmaP pic.twitter.com/YysFQC4nWp

— The Hill (@thehill) September 10, 2018

There is NO EVIDENCE of this. But we no longer need evidence, merely the word of  “anonymous officials” and a crop of neocons who are demonstrable liars and deceivers in the name of state inflicted violence, what they call democracy.

Filming of staged chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib begins, Russian top brass sayshttps://t.co/KZ92pmoDnG
© AP Photo pic.twitter.com/nEptCbScsx

— TASS (@tassagency_en) September 11, 2018

A few days ago, Trump’s combative UN ambassador said the US will not help the Syrian people rebuild their country following its criminal destruction by CIA-Saudi Wahhabi murderers.

Nikki Haley to Russia: US will not "rebuild Syria" for Bashar Assad https://t.co/ce9uUurQQu

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) September 8, 2018

This has been the plan all along. It’s the same treatment Iraq and Libya received, turning those countries into failed states. Nikki didn’t come up with the idea. It was planted in her head by the Israelis and the neocons.

Here’s Haley on September 7:

.@nikkihaley: “The Assad regime has left behind a country of rubble. The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain on history.” pic.twitter.com/Tz54A7jKK9

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 7, 2018

Hardly comparable to the countless tons of rubble—and the dead buried beneath—the US has produced on a practically non-stop crime spree since the Vietnam War. In fact, this has been the state of affairs since the creation of the national security state after the Second World War.

It’s 2002 all over again, the same caliber of premeditated deception and lies are burbling up like acid reflux in the propaganda media, designed to convince us bombing Syria is the sane and logical thing to do in response to what are—and have been—fake chemical attacks, usually staged by the White Helmets.

Naturally, the most ardent neocons in Congress support the coming attack on Syria which will, this time, target al-Assad, his military, and his people.

We are about to potentially witness the wholesale slaughter of 100,000’s of innocent human beings in #Idlib #Syria. Not rebels or terrorists,but children, teachers, merchants, bakers, taxi drivers etc., regular people who find themselves trapped in a war zone with no escape. https://t.co/B5xO31oUbG

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 7, 2018

It looks like an improbable chemical attack really isn’t required as a pretext to turn Syria into the next failed state where ethnic and religious sectarian violence make sure balkanized states cannot challenge Israel and the United States.

Trump and Bolton have apparently decided it doesn’t matter one way or the other if the White Helmets are now in the process of staging a chemical attack. It’s not required.

The Trump administration is mulling whether or not to expand military strikes to include not just Syrian government forces but also the forces of #Syria's military allies in the conflict, Iran and Russia.https://t.co/nZKZW60GGB

— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) September 11, 2018

Bombing the shit—as Trump so eloquently promised—out of Syria will be complimented with a new crop of US soldiers and bases. Trump’s Pentagon will stay there until the process of political and social disintegration is complete—and will (if Germany, Japan, and South Korea serve as examples) stay there indefinitely. That’s how democracy works.

Trump Commits US to ‘Indefinite’ Military Presence in Syria https://t.co/2fbOlQcMfI pic.twitter.com/lGnRO3kRDS

— Global Research (@CRG_CRM) September 10, 2018

For a large number of Americans, an organized kill fest soon to be committed in their name is far down on the list of concerns. In fact, it we can believe Gallup, there is virtually no concern about what this impeding war crime will produce.

Latest Gallup poll shows less than 1% think the most important problem facing US is Russia (h/t @zerohedge@Laeeth parallels nicely with the 52 wk low gold pic.twitter.com/NdoPonNYhf

— Sid Pathak (彭思贤） (@sidpathak92) July 19, 2018

The “situation with Russia” is directly tied to Syria. Russia has said it won’t permit the US to attack al-Assad, his government, military, and the Syria people. It has an armada of warships gathered in the Mediterranean. Putin and the Russians might actually do something this time despite increasing the odds of direct conflict with the US and its ultimate nuclear endgame scenario.

Of course, this “situation” is not about Syria. It’s about another fictional tale—Russian influence of the US election.

Americans are simply not all that interested in war and organized mass murder perpetuated by a government in cahoots with the most pathological of partners—Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Most Americans are worried about falling out of the middle class, availability and affordability of healthcare, and the economy. Nuclear war with Russia and the horrifying prospect of the end of life on planet Earth isn’t even a blip on the radar.

In a climate like this—where a majority of Americans can’t find Syria on a map—war and misery are inevitable.

Like the character Tommy Ray Glatman in the film Dreamscape, the neocons believe they can do whatever they want in this emerging nightmare.

Recall the observation of Republican political strategist and former Nixon dirty trickster, Karl Rove.

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

An empire that may soon be reduced to radioactive ash.

*

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

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

The US favourite candidate for the prime ministership Haider Abadi lost his last chance to renew his mandate for a second term when riots caused arson around the southern city of Basra and burned down the walls of the Iranian consulate in the city.

While the inhabitants demonstrated for their justified demands (fresh water, electricity, job opportunities and infrastructure), sponsored groups with different agendas mixed with the crowds and managed to burn down offices, ambulances, a government building and school associated with al-Hashd al-Shaabi and other anti-US political groups. This mob behaviour forced Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of 54 MPs, to drop his political partner Abadi and to put an end to his political carrier. Moqtada sought to distance himself from the events in Basra in order to let the blame fall on Abadi alone. He has joined the side of the winning horse, that of Iran.

Iraqi political parties had been divided into two camps: one supported by the US and led by Abadi and Moqtada, and another, led by Nuri al Maliki and Hadi al Ameri, defying the US and aligned with pro-Iran groups. The latter coalition had Faleh al-Fayyadi as their candidate and shared the goal of creating one big Shia coalition along with the Sunni.

In the Basra events of last week 16 were killed and 195 wounded. The prime minister ad interim Haider Abadi tried to control the riots by imposing a curfew and then lifting it three times. When the situation got out of hand, Moqtada al Sadr took his distance, pushing his MPs to request the resignation of his political partner Haider Abadi. Sources within Moqtada’s inner circle told me that Moqtada never promoted Abadi as the future prime minister even if he was supporting Abadi’s group.

One decision maker within Hashd al-Shaabi in Basra said that

“the presence of pro-US or pro-Saudi Arabia elements among the demonstrators has contributed to the burning of ambulances, to attacking hospitals belonging to Hashd al-Shaabi, to torching the offices of all anti-Abadi and anti-Moqtada political groups, and to a direct attack against the Iranian diplomatic consulate. It is well known that the south of Iraq, mainly Basra, Amara, Kut,  Nassiriyeh and other areas, was the source of men who joined al-Hashd and fought and defeated ISIS. This issue did not help Abadi and Moqtada since the majority support Hashd. Therefore, the act of attacking Hashd and the Iranian consulate backfired against them and forced Moqtada to abandon his political partner Abadi”.

“Moqtada was never pro-US and never will be. He kept quiet about the US supporting Abadi since the US was also supporting him, as part of the US plan to control the government. Moqtada never supported Abadi as prime minister. Moreover, although Moqtada is against Iranian interference in Iraqi politics, he does not want to see Iraq used as a base for the US to hit Iran”, said the source.

Moqtada al-Sadr learned that Hashd al-Shaabi had decided to stop any more riots in Basra, and that the group was ready to stop his militias if they refused to stand down and leave the streets. He wanted to avoid any direct clash with the experienced fighters of Hashd, and to avoid inter-Shia warfare. Moreover, he had learned of the Federal Court imminent decision to select Maliki-Ameri as the winning coalition, holding the most significant number of MPs. This combination of events led Moqtada to drop Abadi and take his 54 MPs to join the largest coalition. Overt sponsorship by the US and the Basra events have brought Abadi’s political carrier in Iraq to an end.

Iran is pushing the Shia groups, including Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim and the al-Da’wa party to join in one single coalition, along with the Sunni. The Usama al-Nujeifi group saw the desertion of many of its MPs to the Maliki-Ameri coalition. The largest coalition is now expected to include many more than 165 MPs, and thus become eligible to choose the Speaker and his two deputies, the president and the new prime minister.

The emergent large coalition will no longer need the support of the Kurds (42 MPs), who may also see some defections towards the Maliki-Ameri coalition. Masood Barzani will not be able to impose his 27 demands. The Kurds will no longer be the kingmaker.

The rider Abadi fell off the US horse and Iran won influence in Iraq when its consulate was torched in Basra. Important questions remain: Is Iraq capable of avoiding a US embargo if it doesn’t abide by US sanctions on Iran? Will the US accept failure in its efforts to dominate Iraq? Will the US support Mesopotamia in its war against ISIS, or will it allow those who created ISIS to once again undermine the stability of the country?

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

America’s miserable record over 30 years should make it clear a serious and genuine commitment to the rule of international law offers a more viable way forward than the “law of the jungle,” argue Nicholas Davies and Medea Benjamin.

***

Across the arc of chaos and instability caused by U.S. wars, interventions and sanctions around the world, the past several weeks have seen new flare-ups of deadly violence and worsening humanitarian crises.

A single day’s headlines at the beginning of September included;  “School Hit in Huge Somali Explosion; ” “US Army Sends More Military Equipment to Bases in Syria;” “Libya Announces State of Emergency in Capital Tripoli After 39 Deaths in Unrest;” “Lebanon Is Balancing on a Tightrope;” “Saudis Admit Strike on Bus Carrying Children Unjustified;” “Police Disperse Protesters at Entrance to Iraq’s Nahr Bin Omar Oilfield.;” “Brazil Calls in Army After Mob Attacks on Venezuelan Migrants;” “Thousands Mourn Ukraine Rebel Leader;” and an article about Afghanistan “17th US Commander Takes Over America’s Longest War.”

The last article, by Voice of America, reported that General Austin Miller is taking command of 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan as they soldier on in the “graveyard of empires” after 17 years of war. In the heady days after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, who would have predicted that America would soon be mired in its own quagmire in Afghanistan or that the fall of the Berlin Wall would usher in an era of U.S. wars that would sow violence and chaos across so much of the world?

And yet, it was precisely in those heady days at the end of the Cold War that what Mikhail Gorbachev has called Western “triumphalism“ was born. In the bowels of the Pentagon, in corporate-funded Washington think tanks and in offices in the White House under Republican and Democratic administrations, ideologues linked to both parties dreamt of a Pax Americana or a New American Century in which the U.S. would be the unchallenged, even unchallengeable, imperial power.

Two former cold warriors, President Johnson’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, told the Senate Budget Committee in 1989 that the U.S. military budget could safely be cut in half over ten years. Committee Chairman Senator Jim Sasser hailed “this unique moment in world history” as “the dawn of the primacy of domestic economics.”

Instead, despite small cuts in the early 1990s, the military budget never fell below the Cold War baseline established after the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and began climbing again in 1999. The longed-for, post-Cold War “peace dividend” was trumped by a “power dividend” born of triumphalism, wishful thinking and the “disastrous rise of misplaced power” in the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower recognized and warned against in his farewell speech to the nation in 1961.

Many who embraced the enticing vision of “monopoly leadership and domination,” as Gorbachev called it, wanted to believe that a world ruled by American economic and military power would be a reflection of the best in American society. But these privileged members of the liberal elite were quite blind to the endemic injustices inside the United States, let alone the reality of life in the farther reaches of America’s neocolonial empire, policed by head-chopping kings, corrupt dictators and murderous death squads.

Neocons Step In

John Bolton and the neocons were not so idealistic. They simply believed that the U.S. could use its many forms of economic, military and ideological power to impose a new world order that dissenters around the world would be powerless to resist. U.S. dominance would often have to be imposed by force, but resistance would be futile as long as America’s leaders kept their nerve and were prepared to use as much force as necessary to impose their will.

This would require brainwashing new generations of Americans to fill the ranks of a poverty draft of imperial troops and an even larger army of passive consumers, taxpayers and voters who would embrace whatever dreams corporate America and its captive political and media systems conjured for them. Fortunately, the new generation is proving more intelligent, creative and revolutionary than the neocons imagined.

The central dystopian fantasy of the people who have run America for the past generation, drunk on these toxic cocktails of idealism and cynicism, is that the United States can govern the world as a preeminent, supranational economic and military power, exercising the kind of  “monopoly on violence” that national governments claim the right to within their own territory.

In this worldview, when the U.S. uses violence, it is legitimate, by definition; when U.S. opponents use violence, it is illegitimate, also by definition. Noam Chomsky refers to this as “the single standard,” but it is the antithesis of an international order based on the rule of law, in which rules and standards would apply equally to all.

When Bolton threatened the prosecutors and judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with U.S. sanctions and prosecution in U.S. courts, even as he boasted that U.S. efforts to undermine the court have made it “ineffective,” he laid bare the disdain for the rule of international law in America’s “single standard.”

It is not the ICC that “constrain(s) the United States,” but binding multilateral treaties like the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, which were signed and ratified by a wiser generation of American leaders and which Article VI (2) of the United States Constitution defines as part of the “supreme law of the land.” The ICC did not invent these treaties, but it is necessary to enforce them, so Bolton’s speech was just a political attack, with no legal basis, to preserve U.S. impunity for war crimes.

In his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Senator Edward Kennedy described the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy, the ideological blueprint for the invasion, as “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.” But Kennedy’s faith that the rest of the world would reject and resist resurgent U.S. imperialism was overly optimistic, at least in the short to medium term.  Despite an international uproar against the US-led invasion of Iraq, the U.S. war machine rolled on, and other countries have made their accommodations with this ugly reality.

Now the U.S. is outsourcing its wars, arming proxies around the world as a substitute for direct U.S. military action. This minimizes both domestic opposition from a war-weary U.S. public and growing international resistance to the catastrophic results of U.S. wars, while U.S. military-industrial interests are well served by ever-growing arms sales to allied governments.

In a new Code Pink report, “War Profiteers: The U.S. War Machine and the Arming of Repressive Regimes,” we explore the links between the U.S. weapons industry and the atrocities that Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt have used its products to commit, from bombing school buses, marketplaces and hospitals in Yemen to massacring civilians in Gaza and Cairo.

Toward a Progressive Foreign Policy

As we approach the 2018 U.S. midterm election, Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign has served as a template for progressive candidates to stake out more radical positions on healthcare, criminal justice reform, college tuition and other domestic issues. Sanders has successfully tested these positions in a national campaign, but there has been precious little talk of what a more progressive U.S. foreign policy would look like.

Congressman Adam Smith, who would likely become the chair of the House Armed Services Committee if the Democrats win a majority in November, has promised to trim the Trump administration’s nuclear weapons ambitions, and to provide more oversight of the U.S. role in Yemen and “special” operations in countries like Niger.

But we believe that the illegitimate and destructive form of U.S. militarism that has evolved since the end of the Cold War requires a much more fundamental rethink, not just some trimming around the edges.  The world desperately needs American progressives to confront the catastrophic results and existential dangers of the “21st Century American imperialism” that the late Senator Kennedy presciently warned against before its violence and chaos become even more widespread and intractable.

Just as Senator Sanders’ domestic positions are designed to confront the fundamental problems of our society and to propose real solutions to them, progressive politicians must confront the disaster of our militarized foreign policy at its roots, and likewise propose real solutions.

So here are three foundations of a progressive U.S. foreign policy that we would ask progressive office holders and candidates to adopt in 2018:

• An explicit commitment to diplomacy to achieve peaceful coexistence with all our neighbors in a multipolar world, upholding universal protections for human rights and social justice, but not seeking to impose them by force;
• A call for the belated realization of the post-Cold War peace dividend. We suggest cutting the FY2018 US military budget by 50 percent over the next 10 years, as McNamara and Korb called for in 1989. The savings of over $3 trillion per decade could go a long way toward addressing critical social and environmental needs.
• A serious U.S. commitment to the rule of international law, including the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of force. To make this enforceable, the U.S. must accept the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC).

A 50 percent cut in U.S. military spending sounds radical, but this would only be a 25 percent cut from the Cold War baseline that U.S. military spending fell to in the 1950s after the Korean War, in the 1970s after the Vietnam War, and again in the 1990s.

The third item may be a more radical and far-reaching change in U.S. policy: a U.S. agreement to simply be bound by the same rules of international law as our less powerful neighbors.

Under the UN Charter, all nations have agreed to settle their differences peacefully, and the Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force unless authorized by the council.  The monopoly on the use of force that the U.S. has tried to claim for itself is already reserved to the UN Security Council, not to any one country, alliance or coalition.

This has never worked perfectly or prevented all wars. Like domestic law, international law is an imperfect and evolving system of laws, courts and enforcement mechanisms.  But all legal systems work best when the rich and powerful submit to their rules, and courts have the authority to hold even the most powerful people, institutions or countries accountable.

As President Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress after his meeting with Churchill and Stalin at Yalta in 1945,

“(The UN) ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries—and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving Nations will finally have a chance to join.”

Our miserable record over the past 30 years should make it clear to any doubtful American that a serious and genuine commitment to the UN Charter and the rule of international law offers us a more viable, sustainable and peaceful way forward than our deluded leaders’ reversion to the “law of the jungle” or “might makes right,” which has predictably led only to intractable violence and chaos.

Politicians running in the midterm elections and voters who want to end U.S. wars should adopt and uphold these common sense positions.

*

Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. 

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK Women for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic.

They have also co-authored War Profiteers: The U.S. War Machine and the Arming of Repressive Regimes for the Divest From the War Machine 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.

Sometimes the good guys do win. That’s what happened on August 8th in San Francisco when the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) decided to extend a policy keeping its members out of the U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The APA’s decision is important — and not just symbolically. Today we have a president who has promised to bring back torture and “load up” Guantánamo “with some bad dudes.” When healing professionals refuse to work there, they are standing up for human rights and against torture.

It wasn’t always so. In the early days of Guantánamo, military psychologists contributed to detainee interrogations there. It was for Guantánamo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved multiple torture methods, including among others excruciating stress positions, prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, and enforced nudity. Military psychologists advised on which techniques would take advantage of the weaknesses of individual detainees. And it was two psychologists, one an APA member, who designed the CIA’s whole “enhanced interrogation program.”

Here’s a disclaimer of sorts: ever since I witnessed the effects of U.S. torture policy firsthand in Central America in the 1980s, I’ve had a deep personal interest in American torture practices. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, I wrote two books focused on the subject, the latest being American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes.

For a year and a half, I also served on a special ethics commission established by the APA after ugly revelations came out about how that organization’s officials had, in the Bush years, maneuvered to allow its members to collude with the U.S. government in settings where torture was used. In fact, an independent review it commissioned in 2015 concluded that “some of the association’s top officials, including its ethics director, sought to curry favor with Pentagon officials by seeking to keep the association’s ethics policies in line with the Defense Department’s interrogation policies.” Indeed, those leaders colluded “with important DoD officials to have [the] APA issue loose, high-level ethical guidelines that did not constrain [the] DoD in any greater fashion than existing DoD interrogation guidelines.”

In the wake of that independent review, the APA’s Council of Representatives voted that same year to keep psychologists out of national security interrogation settings.

It’s modestly encouraging that this August two-thirds of its governing body voted against a resolution that would have returned psychologists to sites like Gitmo.

What makes the new vote less than completely satisfying, however, is this: the 2015 vote establishing that policy was 157-to-1. This year, a third of the council was ready to send psychologists back to Guantánamo. Like much of the rest of Donald Trump’s United States, the APA seems to be in the process of backsliding on torture.

The details of the parliamentary wrangling at the August meeting are undoubtedly of little interest to outsiders. The actual motion under consideration was important, however, because it would have rescinded part of the organization’s historic 2015 decision, prohibiting its members from providing psychological treatment, as it put it,

“at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, ‘black sites,’ vessels in international waters, or sites where detainees are interrogated under foreign jurisdiction unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights or providing treatment to military personnel.”

Proponents of the new motion argued that keeping psychologists out of places like Guantánamo deprives detainees of much needed psychological treatment. If the association really cared about detainees, they claimed, it would not deny them the treatment they need.

Opponents argued that allowing psychologists to work at Guantánamo gives ethical cover to an illegal detention site where detainees are still being tortured with painful forced feedings, solitary confinement, and the hopelessness induced by indefinite detention without charges. It’s worth noting that the military still refuses to allow the U.N.’s special rapporteur on torture to speak privately with detainees at Gitmo. In addition, at such a detention and interrogation site, any psychologist who was a member of, or employed by, the U.S. military would face an inevitable conflict of interest between the desires of his or her employers and the needs of detainee clients.

The 2015 resolution also prevented APA members from participating in national security interrogations, declaring that they

“shall not conduct, supervise, be in the presence of, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation.”

Military psychologists within the APA were not happy in 2015 about being shut out of national security interrogations and they’d still like to see psychologists back in the interrogation business. This time around, they strategically chose to focus their rhetoric on treatment rather than interrogation. However, the long-term goals are clear. Indeed, in response to a request from those military psychologists, the APA’s Committee on Legal Issues recommended to the board of directors “broadening” the resolution “to allow psychologists to be involved in the practice and policy of humane interrogation.” The board declined — this time, anyway.

Here’s the problem with “humane interrogation”: no one ever admits to using inhumane methods. Unfortunately, there’s a recent and sordid history of U.S. officials claiming that torture is actually humane — albeit “enhanced” — interrogation. In the George W. Bush administration, John Woo and Jay Bybee, who worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, were among those who wrote memos justifying torture. As Bybee explained in an August 2002 memo to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, “real” physical torture must involve pain similar to that experienced during “serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” And the effects of psychological interrogation must last “months or even years” to constitute mental torture — obviously an impossible standard to meet, since no one knows for sure what will happen in the future. In that way, they essentially redefined any form of cruelty, including waterboarding, in any of the CIA’s black sites then scattered around the world or at Guantánamo, as anything but torture.

As it happened, even as defined by the Bush administration, much of what was done in those years would have qualified as torture. Certainly, isolating people, depriving them of sleep, bombarding them with heat, cold, light, and endless loud noise, beating them, and providing them with no hope of eventual release were not exactly acts conducive to long-term mental health. In fact, in 2016 the New York Times interviewed several freed Guantánamo detainees, who reported that the effects of their abuse had indeed lasted “months or even years.”

A Bit of History

The role of American psychologists in designing torture programs goes back at least to the 1950s, as historian Alfred McCoy documented so graphically in his book A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror. At that time, research psychologists at elite universities in the U.S. and Canada experimented on unwitting subjects — including mental patients — in an effort to develop techniques to produce a condition of compliancy in future prisoners, a condition that the CIA called “DDD” (for debility, dependency, and dread).

Much of this research culminated in that Agency’s now-infamous 1963 KUBARK manual on interrogation, which the United States used to train the police and military forces of client states. That manual would be resurrected in 1983 and used in the CIA’s training of the U.S.-backed Contras in Nicaragua’s civil war. Many of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” that became so familiar to us in the George W. Bush years — sensory bombardment, sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, sexual humiliation — were first laid out in that manual. But the CIA evidently misplaced it somewhere in their voluminous files because, after 9/11, instead of hauling it out yet again, they paid $80 million to two psychologists to reinvent the torture wheel. Those two, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, repackaged DDD as “learned helplessness” (borrowing a concept developed by another psychologist, Martin Seligman).

The office of Mitchell Jessen and Associates is seen June 27, 2007, in downtown Spokane. (Brian Plonka / The Spokesman-Review)

Seligman’s role in developing the CIA torture program has been in dispute ever since. At most, he seems to have willingly discussed his theories with CIA personnel. In December 2001, he met at his home with both JamesMitchell and Kirk Hubbard, who was then the chief of research and analysis in the CIA’s Operational Division, among others. In 2002, at the invitation of CIA personnel, he lectured on learned helplessness at the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape school where U.S. military are trained to resist torture. Seligman claims he had no idea how his work was being used until “years later,” when he read a New Yorker article by Jane Mayer (perhaps this one) about CIA torture practices in the post-9/11 era.

“If I had known about the methods employed,” says Seligman, “I would not have discussed learned helplessness with” Agency officials.

Mitchell and Jessen, however, had no such compunctions. They cheerfully designed an interrogation program for the CIA that included such “enhanced techniques” as slamming detainees against walls and locking them in tiny boxes.  As no one is likely to forget, they also retrieved waterboarding from history. This practice had bluntly been called “the water torture” in Medieval Europe and American soldiers were using it in the Philippines, where it was referred to ironically as “the water cure,” as the twentieth century began. To waterboard is essentially to drown a prisoner to the point of unconsciousness, a “technique” the CIA used 83 times on one man (who didn’t even turn out to be an al-Qaeda leader). The whole program was implemented at CIA black sites in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, and Romania, among other places.

For part of this time, Mitchell was a member of the APA and so presumably subject to its code of ethics, which, theoretically at least, prohibited involvement in interrogations involving torture. When concerned APA members tried to bring an ethics claim against him to the group (whose only real sanction would have been to publicly expel him), they got nowhere. Eventually, Mitchell quietly resigned from the association.

Meanwhile, military psychologists were also working on interrogation matters for the Department of Defense. At Guantánamo, they participated in behavioral science control teams (BSCTs, pronounced “biscuits”). Despite the homey-sounding name, those BSCTs were anything but benign. Staffed by psychologists and psychiatrists, the teams, according to a 2005 New England Journal of Medicine op-ed by knowledgeable insiders, “prepared psychological profiles for use by interrogators; they also sat in on some interrogations, observed others from behind one-way mirrors, and offered feedback to interrogators.” 

Guantánamo’s BSCTs, the Journal piece continues, favored an approach to behavioral control taught at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, which “builds on the premise that acute, uncontrollable stress erodes established behavior (e.g., resistance to questioning), creating opportunities to reshape behavior.” This was to be achieved by introducing “stressors tailored to the psychological and cultural vulnerabilities of individual detainees (e.g., phobias, personality features, and religious beliefs).”

But where did the BSCTs get their information about the vulnerabilities of those individual detainees? The International Committee of the Red Cross discovered that it came from their medical records at the detention center, which, according to general medical ethics and the Geneva Conventions, are supposed to be kept confidential.

Those APA members who continue to argue for bringing military psychologists back to Guantánamo insist that it’s possible to keep a firewall between their work as clinicians and the role of interrogator. But how realistic is this, especially within an organization like the military, where obedience and hierarchical loyalty are key values? As the New England Journal of Medicine concludes,

“[The] proximity of health professionals to interrogation settings, even when they act as caregivers, carries risk. It may invite interrogators to be more aggressive, because they imagine that these professionals will set needed limits. The logic of caregiver involvement as a safeguard also risks pulling health professionals in ever more deeply. Once caregivers share information with interrogators, why should they refrain from giving advice about how to best use the data? Won’t such advice better protect detainees, while furthering the intelligence-gathering mission? And if so, why not oversee isolation and sleep deprivation or monitor beatings to make sure nothing terrible happens?”

Who Cares What the American Psychological Association Does?

When it comes to torture, why should the internal politics of one professional association with relatively little power matter? The answer is: because what happens there offers a vivid illustration of how organizations (or even entire nations) can be deformed once torture gains an institutional home.

And as in the APA, in the United States, too, the fight over torture has not ended. On the first day of his presidency, Barack Obama issued two executive orders. One de-authorized the use of those “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and closed the CIA’s black sites. The other was meant to shut Guantánamo as well (but the fervent opposition of most congressional Republicans ultimately prevented this).

Obama also argued that nothing would be “gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” He couldn’t have been more mistaken. Had America’s elected officials spent their time and energy that way, those in George W. Bush’s administration who authorized widespread acts of torture and those who committed them might have been held legally responsible — which is exactly what the U.N. Convention Against Torture (of which the U.S. is a signatory) requires. As a nation, minimally we would have gotten a much fuller accounting of the many cruel and illegal acts committed in our names by top officials, intelligence agencies, and the military after September 11, 2001.

And had all of that happened, we might not be backsliding on torture the way we are. It’s just possible that this country might not have elected a man who campaigned on the promise that he would bring back “waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding” and who, on entering the Oval Office, signed an executive order keeping Guantánamo open.

In addition, the Senate would probably not have approved Gina Haspel who oversaw a CIA black site in Thailand (where acts of torture did take place) to run the Agency. She might have been prosecuted, not promoted to CIA director. And perhaps the president wouldn’t have nominated a Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh, who worked as staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House and was involved in detainee policy. The Washington Post reports that he attended more than one meeting on the treatment of detainees, suggested that they weren’t entitled to legal counsel and strategized about how to keep the Supreme Court from granting them habeas corpus rights. Now, President Trump, citing “executive privilege,” is even withholding 100,000 pages of records from Kavanaugh’s service in the Bush White House — and who knows what they might contain on the subject.

How Did They Do It?

What happened at the APA convention recently also matters because it illustrates the power of organized ethical action. Association members who were determined to keep psychologists out of the torture business formed the APA Watch: Alliance for an Ethical APA. They consulted thoughtfully with each other and allies (including Veterans for Peace), developed and distributed materials aimed at persuading APA members in general, and made personal phone calls to most of the 170 members of the association’s governing Council of Representatives. They combined the wisdom and values of their profession — including the all-important Hippocratic injunction not to harm one’s patients — with energetic, organized action.

It’s an encouraging example for the rest of us, as we enter this crucial election cycle. When we’re smart, committed, and organized, the good guys can win.

*

Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua.

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

On Sept. 11, 1973, the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown by General Augusto Pinochet. In the aftermath, 3,000  leftists were murdered, tens of thousands tortured and hundreds of thousands  driven from the country.

Since it doesn’t serve to justify further domination by the powerful, few in the Canadian media will commemorate the ‘original 9/11’. Even fewer will recognize Canada’s role in the US-backed coup.

The Pierre Trudeau government was hostile to Allende’s elected government. In 1964 Eduardo Frei defeated the openly Marxist Allende in presidential elections. Worried about growing support for socialism, Ottawa gave $8.6 million to Frei’s Chile, its first aid to a South American country.When Allende won the next election Canadian assistance disappeared. Export Development Canada (EDC) also refused to finance Canadian exports to Chile, which contributed to a reduction in trade between the two countries.This suspension of EDC credits led Chile’s Minister of Finance to criticize Canada’s “banker’s attitude”. But suspending bilateral assistance and export insurance was not enough. In 1972 Ottawa joined Washington in voting to cut off all money from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the Chilean government.(When Allende was first elected western banks, including Canada’s, withdrew from Chile.)

From economic asphyxiation to diplomatic isolation Ottawa’s policy towards Allende’s Chile was clear. After he won office in 1970 Allende invited Pierre Trudeau to visit Santiago. Ottawa refused “for fear of alienating rightist elements in Chile and elsewhere.”

Days after Pinochet ousted Allende, Andrew Ross, Canada’s ambassador to Chile cabled External Affairs: “Reprisals and searches have created panic atmosphere affecting particularly expatriates including the riffraff of the Latin American Left to whom Allende gave asylum … the country has been on a prolonged political binge under the elected Allende government and the junta has assumed the probably thankless task of sobering Chile up.” Thousands were incarcerated, tortured and killed in “sobering Chile up”.

Within three weeks of the coup, Canada recognized Pinochet’s military junta. Ross stated:

“I can see no useful purpose to withholding recognition unduly. Indeed, such action might even tend to delay Chile’s eventual return to the democratic process.”

Pinochet stepped down 17 years later.

Diplomatic support for Pinochet led to economic assistance. Just after the coup Canada voted for a $22 million ($100 million in today’s money) Inter American Development Bank loan “rushed through the bank with embarrassing haste.” Ottawa immediately endorsed sending $95 million from the International Monetary Fund to Chile and supported renegotiating the country’s debt held by the Paris Club. After refusing to provide credits to the elected government, on October 2nd, 1973, EDC announced it was granting $5 million in credit to Chile’s central bank to purchase six Twin Otter aircraft from De Havilland, which could carry troops to and from short makeshift strips.

By 1978, Canadian support for the coup d’etat was significant. It included:

• Support for $810 million in multilateral loans with Canada’s share amounting to about $40 million.
• Five EDC facilities worth between $15 and $30 million.
• Two Canadian debt re-schedulings for Chile, equivalent to additional loans of approximately $5 million.
• Twenty loans by Canadian chartered banks worth more than $100 million, including a 1977 loan by Toronto Dominion to DINA (Pinochet’s secret police) to purchase equipment.
• Direct investments by Canadian companies valued at nearly $1 billion.

A 1976 Latin America Working Group Letter noted that “Canadian economic relations, in the form of bank loans, investments and government supported financial assistance have helped consolidate the Chilean dictatorship and, by granting it a mantle of respectability and financial endorsation, have encouraged its continued violation of human rights.”

Canadian leftists were outraged at Ottawa’s support for the coup and its unwillingness to accept refugees hunted by the military regime. Many denounced the federal government’s policy and some (my mother among them) occupied various Chilean and Canadian government offices in protest. The federal government was surprised at the scope of the opposition, which curtailed some support for the junta. A 1974 cabinet document lamented that “the attention… focused on the Chilean Government’s use of repression against its opponents has led to an unfavourable reaction among the Canadian public – a reaction which will not permit any significant increase in Canadian aid to this country.”

The Pierre Trudeau government sought to placate protesters by allowing 7,000 refugees from Pinochet’s regime asylum in Canada. But, they continued to support the dictatorship directly responsible for the refugee problem.

We should remember Canada’s role in the ‘original 9/11’ and vow to fight any future similar moves by our government.

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

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

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

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

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

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. 

“Global Research is massive! I think as a resource for anyone interested in world affairs, it’s probably unrivalled in its depth and breadth.” – William Bowles, Investigating Imperialism

*     *     *

Gramsci, Passive Revolution and 20th Century Iran

By Marziyeh Asgari Vash and Karim Pourhamzavi, September 12, 2018

The struggle for democracy, development, independence and an egalitarian society in Iran is a century old. While colonial and imperial dominance, including  economic-political interventions, were key factors in shaping the (under)development of the country during the 20^thcentury, the dominant liberal approaches have tended to seek explanations for Iranian underdevelopment in a failure of Iran’s own socio-political fabric. 

The US: The Century of Lost Wars

By Prof. James Petras, September 12, 2018

Despite having the biggest military budget in the world, five times larger than the next six countries, the largest number of military bases – over 180 – in the world and the most expensive military industrial complex, the US has failed to win a single war in the 21^st century.

Is Our World Cultural Heritage Worth Saving? Activists Call Out Saudi Arabia on the Disappearing of History

By Catherine Shakdam, September 11, 2018

There is great tragedy in the losses of our cultural memory as every stone, every written line, and every expression of one’s beliefs remain a consecrated declaration of our humanity. To abandon our memories to the fires of intolerance is to normalise ignorance as an enactment of political power

Russia’s Pivoting to the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea via Eritrea and the UAE

By Andrew Korybko, September 11, 2018

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov lauded his country’s relationship with Eritrea and informed the world about Moscow’s plans to build a logistics center there.

Climate Refugees Will Vastly Outweigh Recent Migrant Numbers

By Shane Quinn, September 11, 2018

Great movements of people can be anticipated as a result of unchecked climate change caused by human activity. The recent migrant numbers are a fraction of what can be expected in years to come.

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

If one is to take a look at EU’s language policies, we note numerous attempts to reduce the acute challenges faced by this multinational and multilingual community to the primacy of English does not make the present layout any more democratic, since this primacy grants a number of privileges to the UK and US that may be barely visible, but at the same time remain very real. These days, the European Union uses three languages as its “procedural” languages – English, German and French, along with a total of 21 other official languages. All decisions taken by official bodies of the EU are translated into all of these, while all EU citizens are entitled to the right of making appeals to the bodies of the union in their own language to receive a response properly translated in any of the 24 languages. However, more recently there’s been an ever increasing number of calls in favor of abandoning English as the language of choice the EU, especially after Brexit. Thus, English may soon be reduced to the language of communication for journalists accredited across the EU and those lawyers working within the union. Quite possibly, a large number of officials from different countries will still use this language as a tool of communication, but it won’t be anything near the present situation.

Unsurprisingly, those challenges face an acute threat among British and American political elites that have been elevating English while denigrating all other languages in a bid to promote English and American nationalism for well over a hundred years. This resulted in English becoming predominant at the international stage, to the point when one’s attempts to protest against this situation may result in serious repercussions.

It’s been noted that almost 400 million people speak it as their first language; a billion more know it as a secondary tongue. It is an official language in at least 59 countries, the unofficial lingua franca of dozens more.

It’s curious that as early as in 1919, in his address to the American Defense Society Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed that

“we have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boardinghouse.”

Against this backdrop, as the Trump administration intensifies its crackdown on migrants, speaking any language besides English has taken on a certain charge.

However, as the development of the international community carries on, Washington and London find themselves no longer capable of dictating their outlook on the international politics and trade to the rest of the world. In this situation the European Union doesn’t feel compelled to listen to those forces that they it’s getting increasingly frustrated with, as there are new rules of engagement, under which the US and the UK can no longer speak from the position of moral superiority that was born of their World War II victory. As the events of the 1940s fade into the historical distance, English-speaking societies’ more recent intellectual and moral failures gain relative importance.

It’s been noted that in a world where Germany and France no longer feels compelled to follow American or British «advice» on security and trade policy, the tension is no longer just between liberal and illiberal societies. It’s also between different models of democracy, statehood and social protection. Thanks to Brexit and Trump, the debate may be getting more acrimonious, but perhaps also more exciting because more alternatives are now on the table.

In some countries, such as France and Israel, special linguistic commissions have been working for decades to stem the English tide by creating new coinages of their own.

As the UK is proceeding with its painful divorce with the European Union, there’s an ever increasing number of arguments being made about what language should enjoy primacy within the latter. In its recent revelation the Wall Street Journal would announce:

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, wants to make French grand again and replace English as the default language in EU institutions, the way it was before Britain joined the bloc in 1973. With the UK negotiating to leave the EU next spring, he is eager to restore the linguistic ancient regime.

Among Makron’s leading allies in the battle for the restoration of the status of the French language one may find such prominent figures as the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, a native of the neighboring Luxembourg, who has recently begun to deliver his public statements in French and German.

This, according to several sources, is nothing short of a violation of the long-established tradition of addressing European PMs in three languages, including English. As early as 2016, the chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, Danuta Hübner, stated that after Brexit English will lose its status of the official language of the EU. An ever increasing number of European officials have also noted that across the EU the focus is on the more extensive use of French and German. Even though these days English remains the second language of choice for students across the EU, things may change pretty drastically over the course of the next couple decades. It’s clear that Brexit will trigger an inevitable decline in the worldwide use of English. If today it is the official language of 12.8% of the 511 million population of the EU, after the departure of Britain it will be nothing more than a second official language of two member states – Ireland and Malta.

As the British government grapples with the fraught policy questions that leaving the union raises, the Anglosphere is a balm for those same Euroskeptics, who argue that Britain should just strike out on its own and make its own trade deals with some of the world’s leading economies, including the United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well as rising Asian powers like India. In reality, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand show no inclination to join Britain in new political and economic alliances, with them being more likely to remain indifferent to, or just perplexed by, Britain’s calls for some kind of formalized Anglosphere alliance.

As the turn of events show the primacy that English has been enjoying for so long as the only means of international communication was a sign of bitter injustice for most European states and peoples.

*

Grete Mautner is an independent researcher and journalist from Germany, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from the author.

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

A Washington Post article by Ishaan Tharoor (9/10/18) states that it “can be plausibly argued” that Venezuela is “a threat to the world.” The justification for the remark is unclear, but seems to be based on his claim that a “hemispheric humanitarian calamity is now straining Venezuela’s neighbors, who are struggling to cope with the vast influx of refugees fleeing hunger and depredation.”

The phrase “a threat to the world” has a hyperlink to an earlier Tharoor piece (3/1/18), which includes the claim, “As many as 4 million Venezuelans—more than 10 percent of the population—have already left the country, according to the Brookings Institution,” and goes on to assert, “That displacement threatens to create problems beyond Venezuela’s borders.”

If you follow the link to Brookings, you see that the think think (2/12/18) only says, “Some estimates suggest that there are already 4 million Venezuelans who have left the country in search of better living conditions: over 10 percent of the country’s population.” No source is offered beyond “some estimates.”

I’ve written recently on the scale of Venezuela’s migration (FAIR.org, 8/31/18), given the comparisons to Syria that Tharoor and others have tossed around. According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration figures, by July 2018, about 1.6 million Venezuelans had fled its economic crisis, far from the 5 million that have fled Syria’s civil war to live abroad, and whom no decent person would call a “threat to the world.”

The UNHCR has appealed for $46 million to offset the costs of the exodus from Venezuela’s economic depression to its neighbors. That’s 0.006 percent of the recently approved Pentagon budget. Threat to the world? Unless you accept Trump’s racist logic that Mexico poses a “threat” to the United States because of the millions who have fled poverty there, then Tharoor’s remark is not only preposterous but offensive.

Trump’s policy has been to deliberately make Venezuela’s economic crisis worse, which makes its migration crisis worse. In August 2017, as US economist Mark Weisbrot (The Hill, 8/28/17) explained, Trump imposed sanctions—illegal under various treaties the US has signed—that

do their damage primarily by prohibiting Venezuela from borrowing or selling assets in the US financial system. They also prohibit Citgo, the US-based fuel industry company that is owned by the Venezuelan government, from sending dividends or profits back to Venezuela.

According to Reuters (9/14/17), Citgo had been sending about $1 billion per year back to Venezuela before Trump’s sanctions cut off that flow of revenue —about 20 times more than what the UNHCR has asked for to help Venezuelan migrants. That’s the easiest cost of the sanctions to estimate. The other costs come from gravely impeding Venezuela’s capacity to restructure its debt, which is crucial to any recovery. US clout stems from the fact that all Venezuela’s foreign currency bonds are governed under New York state law.

Amazingly, the closest Tharoor’s article came to saying anything about Trump’s draconian sanctions—which could be made even more devastating through the imposition of an oil embargo, a move that is made more likely by a deluge of articles like his—is when Tharoor mentioned a travel ban:

President Trump, meanwhile, has played the part of the hectoring American hegemon rather well. His administration included Venezuela among the mostly Muslim-majority countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban, shutting the door to a nation in desperate need.

I asked the Washington Post to correct Tharoor’s article so his readers are not left completely ignorant of Trump’s economic sanctions on Venezuela, and worked up into a panic about a democracy that poses them no threat. Notwithstanding Dean Baker’s struggles to get basic facts reported accurately in the Post when elite agendas are served by “mistakes,” I hope others also ask the paper to show a semblance of honesty.

*

Joe Emerberger is a writer based in Canada whose work has appeared in Telesur English, ZNet and Counterpunch.

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 struggle for democracy, development, independence and an egalitarian society in Iran is a century old. While colonial and imperial dominance, including  economic-political interventions, were key factors in shaping the (under)development of the country during the 20^th century, the dominant liberal approaches have tended to seek explanations for Iranian underdevelopment in a failure of Iran’s own socio-political fabric. 

Stanford professor Abbas Milani, for instance, claims that the British were simply “looking after their own interests” when they dominated Iran in the first half of the 20^th century. In his view the underdevelopment, social disintegration, dysfunctional economy and the condition of what could be seen as a failed state in that period was due to Iranian “collaborators” with the British. Therefore, the burden of responsibility does not lie with the imperial structure itself and its role in Iran but with the agent, in this case the “collaborator”, even though they would not exist in the first place if there was not a specific structure for that function.

Moreover, Milani’s micro-focus on the Iranian collaborators as the cause of the country’s underdevelopment is simply not consistent with the history of colonialism and imperialism, their relationships with the countries on which they impose themselves and the material conditions which result from dominance and exploitation.

The macro-systemic fact about European colonialism is that it relied on collaborators in all its colonies and subordinate territories. Imperial expansionism through collaboration by the local elite was considered “cheap” expansion and avoidance of costly clashes with the locals was at the heart of European imperial policies.  Critical theorists such as Johan Galtung also suggest that the dynamic between the elite in the Centre and the elite in the Periphery continued to exist in the post-colonial period, and its effects continue to this day. Therefore, the correlation between the British imperial forces and local Iranian collaborators in the early 20^th century can be viewed as part of a larger structure in which capitalist/imperialist Core states exploit the Periphery.

One of the problems arising from the view that local actors are primarily responsible for underdevelopment in the Periphery is the ease with which this slips into an Orientalist form of analysis. By contrast, critical theories provide more useful insights into understanding underdevelopment in the Periphery. Our own focus here is on a specific aspect of the Gramscian concept of ‘passive revolution’. This aspect can be interpreted and hypothesised as the route to progress and development in the Periphery is obstructed by Core states due to their exploitation of the former. We can apply this approach to four periods in 20^th century Iran, as a case study, showing that, to a significant extent, underdevelopment is due to colonial and imperialist interventions.

Gramsci and the Concept of Passive Revolution

‘Passive revolution,’ in Gramsci’s writings, is part of a broader concept of ‘hegemony’. For Gramsci, hegemony, as a complex and systemic form of social control by a ruling elite, is a dialectical product of history or what he referred to as an ‘historic bloc’. Moreover, the success of the social forces of an historic bloc in altering an older regime, through establishing their own hegemony, is, for Gramsci, a feature that accompanies industrial and advanced capitalist states.  Passive revolution occurs when the historic bloc was unable to completely alter or abolish an older regime and the social forces of the new historic bloc were not capable of establishing their own hegemony. Indeed, Gramsci referred to several elements that lead to the situation of passive revolution or as he put it a “‘revolution’ without a ‘revolution’.”

He also highlighted the interference of ‘international forces’ in the affairs of weaker states as a crucial factor in the development of the condition of passive revolution and the underdevelopment that results from it. As to why a passive revolution is a half way revolution which is disturbed by external factors, Gramsci wrote:

… one can see how, when the impetus of progress is not tightly linked to a vast local economic development which is artificially limited and repressed, but is instead the reflection of international developments which transmit their ideological currents to the periphery – currents born on the basis of the productive development of the more advanced countries – then the group which is the bearer of the new ideas is not the economic group but the intellectual stratum, and the conception of the state advocated by them changes aspect; it is conceived of as something in itself, as a rational absolute.  

What Gramsci had in mind here was 19^th century Italy. He viewed the Italian reformist Risorgimento movement during the 19^th century as a passive and uncomplete revolution, given that it lacked other social elements which were necessary for a historic bloc. The movement was ideas from intellectuals without an efficient, organic and local economic group or class. However, it must be noted that Gramsci was writing and applying his elaboration of the concept of passive revolution within the European context. In contrast to the Middle East, Europe has no history of suffering from modern colonialism, nor did it experience consistent foreign interventions in the modern era. However, Gramsci referred to the French revolution in 1789 and its uneven effect on the rest of Europe, when he wrote about the ‘reflection of international development’ on the ‘periphery’. In relation to Italy, he suggested, it was haunted in the 19^th century by the ‘passive’ effect of the French revolution.       

Robert Cox has interpreted the Gramscian notion of passive revolution and its implications today to refer to ‘industrialising Third World countries’. Without providing much information regarding the effect of external forces, or the characteristics of such effects, he argues that Third World countries have ‘imported or had thrust upon them aspects of a new order created abroad, without the old order having been displaced’. Using the Iranian case, we can read the broad ‘external effect’, elaborated in Gramsci and Cox’s frameworks, within the Middle Eastern historical context. Accordingly, colonial and imperial domination of countries in the Periphery prevent the formation of new historic blocs that can transform these societies and subordinate local needs to imperial terms and interests. In relation to Iran, imperial forces changed the course of history towards the condition of passive revolution four times in the 20^th century.

The Roots of Underdevelopment in Iran

The Constitutional Revolution in 1906 was the first victim of imperial interference in Iran. European power over the Iranian economy, widespread poverty, underdevelopment and dysfunctional absolute monarchy had already provoked several Iranian social forces to take action to change the status quo by the end of the 19^th century. A new historic bloc was constituted by politicians, organic intellectuals, peasants and the clergy. It was eventually able to reduce the power of the monarchs of the time, Muzafaraldin and his son Muhammad Ali who succeeded him, through the establishment of the first modern Iranian constitution. However, the Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907 saw Iran divided into two areas of influence: British in the south and Russian in the north and centre. The latter bombarded the nascent Iranian parliament with the collaboration of Muhammad Ali. Ervand Abrahamian refers to this external intervention as a “typical military coup” whose subsequent economic-political aftershakes continued to haunt Iran up until the mid-20^th century. To put it another way, the structural underdevelopment resulting from the role that British and Russian intervention played in beating back the Iranian progressive constitutionalist movement; potentially progressive and modernising change gave way to passive revolution and thus continuing economic underdevelopment and political stagnation.

The second Iranian socio-political upheaval during the 20^th century took place in the mid-1920s under the leadership of military figure Reza Khan, later Reza Shah. Gheissari and Nasr describe modern Iranian politics as a controversy between democratic idealism and a stable state with a developed economy. Reza Khan stood for and prioritised the latter. Having sufficient reasons not to trust the British, he became known as the father of modern Iran and unified, built and stabilised the state through cooperation with the Germans. However, despite being officially neutral in the Second World War, Iran was invaded and occupied by Soviet, British and American forces which replaced Reza Shah with his young son. This was ‘justified’ by claiming they needed to get US aid to the Soviets via the Iranian railways and secure the country’s oilfields for the Allies. 

The third episode took place in the 1950s. By the early 1950s, many Iranians wanted more than nine percent of the revenue derived from the country’s oilfields and also to establish economic and thus political sovereignty. However, British Petroleum (BP) wanted to cling on to its monopoly over Iranian oil, so the democratically-elected prime minister, Muhammad Mosaddeq, moved to nationalise the oil industry. The CIA and the MI6 responded by organising a coup in 1953 to overthrow Mosaddeq.  Progressive and democratic change – in effect, political and economic development and modernisation – was derailed. Moreover, in different ways, the aftermath of the 1953 coup affected the outcome of the 1979 ‘revolution’ and therefore its impact continues to this day. 

The aftermath of the 1953 coup brings us to the fourth and final episode. Following the 1953 coup, the political parties functioning within the parliamentary system, including Mosaddeq’s National Front and the socialist party Tudeh, were banned. While political suppression accompanied the entire Cold War era, political Islam was systematically viewed as an anti-communist force and became allied with the Shah.  Indeed, the history of employing Islamic forces in favour of imperial interests goes back long before the 1953 coup in Iran. The fact that the Islamists became the de facto winners of the 1979 revolution in Iran tends to support the view of scholars such as Tariq Ali; Islamism emerged as a political force in the Middle East to fill the political vacuum created by imperial policies in the region.  The suppression of progressive, secular forces impeded the emergence of a modernising historic bloc. Instead, the way was opened for the Islamists to install a socially repressive regime and economic, political and social underdevelopment continue to characterise Iranian society. 

Some local elements may deserve consideration as part of the cause-root of underdevelopment in the Periphery. However, the limitation of any approach that focuses predominantly on local actors in the Periphery is that these are abstracted from material relations shaped by more powerful players such as imperialist powers and past colonial subordination and/or ongoing economic exploitation and subordination is downplayed or even ignored. 

The Iranian case indicates that on four occasions during the last century imperial forces have turned progressive movements and potentially progressive outcomes into passive revolutions, thereby maintaining their dominant economic position and political influence; in other words, their hegemony. Perhaps, then, it is time for a reconsideration of just why and how underdevelopment in the Periphery is produced and reproduced by Core-Periphery relations themselves.

*

Marziyeh Asgari Vash is a Postgraduate Student in the Department of Law and Politics at the University of Tehran. She is also a political commentator in some Iranian reformist newspapers such as Hemdely (Solidarity). 

Karim Pourhamzavi is a PhD Candidate and a member at the Centre for Middle East and African Studies at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. 

Notes

1. Abbas Malini was delivering his speech in November, 2013 for lunching his book the Shah in Vancouver, Canada. The event was sponsored by the book publisher the Persian Circle. 

2. Robinson, R. Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism. In Owen, R and Sutcliffe, B. (1972). Studies in the Theory of Imperialism. (ed). London: Longman, pp 117-140.

3. See: Galtung, J. (1971). A Structural Theory of Imperialism. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 8. No. 2, pp 81-117.  

4. Gramsci, A. (1992). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Hoare, Q and Smith, N, G. (ed). New York: International Publishers, pp 179-180.

5. See: Robert Cox interpretation of the Gramscian concept of Passive Revolution in: Cox, W. R. (1983). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium – Journal of International Studies. Vol. 12. No. 2, pp 162-175.

6. Gramsci, p 276. 

7. Ibid, p 59. 

8. Ibid, p 116. 

9. Ibid, p 119. 

10. Cox, pp 166-167.

11. Gheissari, A and Nasr, V. (2006). Democracy in Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 23.

12. Except the peasants, each of the elite on the politicians and the clergy part also had counterparts who stood for the absolute monarchy and opposed constitutionalism. These two groups were also defeated by the constitutionalists. See: Kasravi, A. (1984). Tarikhe Mashrote Iran (The History of the Constitutional Revolution in Iran). Tehran: Amir Kabir. (Farsi). 

13. Abrahamian, E. (2008). A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 49-50.

14. Gheissari, A and Nasr, p 23.

15. Reza Khan Administration provided the finance for its projects, such as building the first railway, from creative economic management such as implying local tax on imported goods. See: Gheissari, A and Nasr, pp 40-41.

16. For more figures and statistic data, see: Ferrier, R. W. (1982). The History of British Petroleum. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

17. Behrooz, M. (1999). Rebels with a Cause. London: I. B. Tauris. 

18. Abrahamian, E. (2001). The 1953 Coup in Iran. Science & Society. Vol. 65. No. 2, pp 182-215.

19. See: Ali, T. (2002). The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity. London: Verso.

Featured image is from Anadolu Agency/Fatemeh Bahrami.

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

Introduction

Despite having the biggest military budget in the world, five times larger than the next six countries, the largest number of military bases – over 180 – in the world and the most expensive military industrial complex, the US has failed to win a single war in the 21^st century.

In this paper we will enumerate the wars and proceed to analyze why, despite the powerful material basis for wars, it has led to failures.

The Lost Wars

The US has been engaged in multiple wars and coups since the beginning of the 21^st century.  These include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, Venezuela and the Ukraine. Besides Washington’s secret intelligence agencies have financed five surrogate terrorist groups in Pakistan, China, Russia, Serbia and Nicaragua.

The US has invaded countries, declared victories and subsequently faced resistance and prolonged warfare which required a large US military presence to merely protect garrison outposts.

The US has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties – dead, maimed and deranged soldiers. The more the Pentagon spends, the greater the losses and subsequent retreats.

The more numerous the vassal regimes, the greater the corruption and incompetence flourishes.

Every regime subject to US tutelage has failed to accomplish the objectives designed by its US military advisers.

The more spent on recruiting mercenary armies the greater the rate of defection and the transfer of arms to US adversaries.

Success in Starting Wars and Failures in Finishing Them

The US invaded Afghanistan, captured the capital (Kabul) defeated the standing army …and then spent the next two decades engaged in losing  irregular  warfare.

The initial victories laid the groundwork for future defeats. Bombings drove millions of peasants and farmers, shopkeepers and artisans into the local militia. The invaders were defeated by the forces of nationalism and religion linked to families and communities.  The indigenous insurgents overcame arms and dollars in many of the villages, towns and provinces.

Similar outcomes were repeated in Iraq and Libya. The US invaded, defeated the standing armies, occupied the capital and imposed its clients—- which set the terrain for long-term, large-scale warfare by local insurgent armies.

The more frequent the western bombings, the greater the opposition forcing the  retreat of the proxy army.

Somalia has been bombed frequently. Special Forces have recruited, trained, and armed the  local puppet soldiers, sustained by mercenary African armies but they have remained holed up in the capital city, Mogadishu, surrounded and attacked by poorly armed but highly motivated and disciplined Islamic insurgents.

Syria is targeted by a US financed and armed mercenary army.  In the beginning they advanced, uprooted millions, destroyed cities and homes and seized territory.  All of which impressed their US – EU warlords.  Once the Syrian army united the populace, with their Russian, Lebanese (Hezbollah) and Iranian allies, Damascus routed the mercenaries.

After the better part of a decade the separatist Kurds, alongside the Islamic terrorists and other western surrogates retreated, and made a last stand along the northern borders–the remaining bastions of   Western surrogates.

The Ukraine coup of 2014 was financed and directed by the US and EU. They seized the capital (Kiev) but failed to conquer the Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.  Corruption among the US ruling kleptocrats devastated the country – over three million fled abroad to Poland, Russia and elsewhere in search of a livelihood.  The war continues, the corrupt US clients are discredited and will suffer electoral defeat unless they rig the vote .

Surrogate uprisings in Venezuela and Nicaragua were bankrolled by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They ruined economies but lost the street wars.

Conclusion

Wars are not won by arms alone.  In fact, heavy bombing and extended military occupations ensure prolonged popular resistance, ultimate retreats and defeats.

The US major and minor wars of the 21^st century have failed to incorporate targeted countries into the empire.

Imperial occupations are not military victories.  They merely change the nature of the war, the protagonists of resistance, the scope and depth of the national struggle.

The US has been successful in defeating standing armies as was the case in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Ukraine.  However, the conquest was limited in time and space.  New armed resistance movements led by former officers, religious activists and grass roots activists took charge… 

The imperial wars slaughtered millions, savaged traditional family, workplace and neighborhood relations and set in motion a new constellation of anti-imperialist leaders and militia fighters.

The imperial forces beheaded established leaders and decimated their followers.  They raided and pillaged ancient treasures.  The resistance followed by recruiting thousands of uprooted volunteers who served as human bombs, challenging missiles and drones.

The US imperial forces lack the ties to the occupied land and people. They are ‘aliens’ serving time; they seek to survive, secure promotions and exit with a bonus and an honorable discharge.

In contrast, the resistance fighters are there for the duration.   As they advance, they target and demolish the imperial surrogates and mercenaries.  They expose the corrupt client rulers who deny the subject people the elementary conditions of existence – employment, potable water, electricity etc.

The imperial vassals are not present at weddings, sacred holidays or funerals, unlike the resistance fighters.  The presence of the latter signals a pledge of loyalty unto death.  The resistance circulates freely in cities, towns and villages with the protection of the local people; and by night they rule   enemy terrain, under cover of their own people, who share intelligence and logistics.

Inspiration, solidarity and light arms are more than a match for the drones, missiles and helicopter gunships.

Even the mercenary soldiers, trained by the Special Forces, defect from and betray their imperial masters.  Temporary imperial advances serve only to allow the resistance forces to regroup and counter-attack.  They view surrender as a betrayal of their traditional way of life, submission to the boot of western occupation forces and their corrupt officials.

Afghanistan is a prime example of an imperial ‘lost war’.  After two decades of warfare and one trillion dollars in military spending, tens of thousands of casualties, the Taliban controls most of the countryside and towns; enters and takes over provincial capitals and bombs Kabul.  They will take full control the day after the US departs.

The US military defeats are products of a fatal flaw:  imperial planners cannot successfully replace indigenous people with colonial rulers and their local look-alikes.

Wars are not won by high tech weapons directed by absentee officials divorced from the people: they do not share their sense of peace and justice.

Exploited people informed by a spirit of communal resistance and self-sacrifice have demonstrated greater cohesion then rotating soldiers eager to return home and  mercenary soldiers with dollar signs in their eyes.

The lessons of lost wars have not been learned by those who preach the power of the military–industrial complex, which makes, sells and profits from weapons but lack the mass of humanity with lesser arms but with great conviction who have demonstrated their capacity to defeat imperial armies.

The Stars and Stripes fly in Washington but remain folded in Embassy offices in Kabul, Tripoli, Damascus and in other lost battlegrounds.

*

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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

Prisoners in many states in the U.S. began a coordinated National Strike on August 21, the anniversary of the killing of Black Panther member and prison activist George Jackson by guards in an escape attempt, in 1971, at San Quentin prison in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the context of the times, a mass radicalization led by Blacks and youth, the incident became a cause celebre.

The strike was set to end on September 9, the anniversary of the great prison uprising at the Attica prison in New York, also in 1971. The rebellion was crushed in blood, in a massive attack ordered by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, billionaire scion of the oil industry family. This too deepened the mass radicalization by exposing the horrors of U.S. prisons.

The central demand of the current actions – which range from work stoppages, hunger strikes and sit-downs to boycotts of prison stores – is an end to prison slave labour.

Most Americans and people around the world do not know that slavery is allowed in prisons by the U.S. Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment, which ratified the abolition of chattel slavery of African Americans won in the Second American Revolution (Civil War), contained a fatal flaw. It allowed slavery of people convicted of a crime, i.e. prisoners, although not of ownership of them (chattel slavery).

Jim Crow in the South

Almost immediately, states, especially in the former Confederacy, began passing vagrancy laws to round up ex-slaves and sell their labour. This was curtailed in the period of Radical Reconstruction, but emerged full-blown in the counter-revolution to the Civil War that established Jim Crow in the South. White rule created a huge economic sector based upon unfree Black labour, as in the prison chain gangs at institutions as the notorious Parchman Farm in Mississippi, as well as in contract labour, where private capitalist firms worked Black prisoners into the grave.

Prison slave labour was also implemented in the rest of the country, although not as violently as in the Jim Crow South.

While the Black movement in the 1960s and ‘70s overthrew the Jim Crow system, prison slave labour has continued throughout the country.

The current action by prisoners must be seen as a part of the labour movement, as a movement of part of the working class, whose employment as slaves lowers the wages and conditions of the whole working class.

While white prisoners are also employed as slaves in work inside the prisons as well as in contract work for outside firms, 60 per cent of prisoners are African American or Latino, with 38 per cent Blacks. Given the whole history of unfree Black labour from chattel slavery up to the present, it isn’t surprising that reports reaching support organizations on the outside say that Blacks have taken the lead in these multiracial actions.

Much work by prisoners in many institutions isn’t paid for at all, direct slavery. In other prisons, the slavery is barely covered up by pitiful ‘wages’.

Here are what some prisoners report:

Anthony Forest: “Because I know how to strip floors, wax them, take the gum up off floor, I started doing that. At 16 cents an hour.”

Darryl Aikens: “I started out as a line server, serving food for breakfast and dinner. Then I became a dishwasher and maintenance in the kitchen. It paid 13 cents an hour. I worked and made $20 a month, and they [prison authorities] took 55 per cent of that for restitution [for food etc.]”

Cole Dorsey: “It’s kind of like a modern-day plantation situation, specifically targeting poor people, and most especially, the most marginalized communities, black and brown…”

For some prisoners, the ‘pay’ is more, even up to $2 an hour, but some of that is taken back for ‘restitution’.

The Demands

There are nine other demands prisoners are raising in addition to an end to slave labour, centering on prison conditions and prisoner rights. One of these is the right to vote. Only two states, Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote. In the remaining 48 they cannot. Given that there are some 2.8 million prisoners, that’s a large number who are disenfranchised. This is in contrast to Canada and 14 European countries where prisoners can vote and 16 more where some can vote.

Four states – Iowa, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia – permanently deny felons the vote for the rest of their lives after being released from prison. Six others do the same for some felons. Others deny parolees the franchise.

Given that the majority of prisoners are African American or Latinos, the denial of their right to vote is part and parcel of racist laws in a majority of states progressively whittling down voting rights for racial minorities won in the radicalization of The Sixties.

Part of the background is the sheer size of the prison population in the USA. The statistics are well known. With five per cent of the world’s population, the U.S. has twenty-five per cent of the world’s prisoners. This is the result of a deliberate policy of the ruling capitalist class, carried out by both parties of big business. From 1970 to 2005, the prison population rose 700 per cent, and remains high today.

A major tool the government has used is the phony War on Drugs. While begun by Republicans, it was sharply intensified under the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, which saw an acceleration of the rate of arrests and convictions for drug offenses, including for simple possession and other non-violent ‘crimes’.

The Clintons were part of the fear of “Black crime” whipped up in the 1990s. Hillary Clinton coined the phrase “super predators” – young Black men devoid of humanity, preying on white people. Under her husband, the president, a law was passed restricting the rights of prisoners to seek relief from their mistreatment through the courts. One of the demands in the current strike is to repeal that law.

In the 2016 election, candidate Hillary Clinton defended the “super predators” phrase, as did her husband while campaigning for her, against vocal Black Lives Matter protestors.

Given the highly disproportionate number of Blacks who were swept up, a key element of all this is “The New Jim Crow,” a new form of the national oppression of African Americans, a new caste system, explained by Michelle Alexander in her book of that title.

This goes well beyond the time Blacks are locked up. Once released, the onus of being an ex-felon coupled with institutionalized racism means that it is difficult for Black ex-prisoners to find meaningful employment, and other results of their being imprisoned. So there is a large number of Blacks who are still caught up in the system long after they have done their time.

It is difficult to obtain the full information about the strike, as the authorities just deny that anything is happening in in their prisons, or punish leaders in ways that make it hard to communicate with the outside.

Amani Sawari, an African American woman, is a spokesperson for Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, a network of prisoners who have studied the law while inside, helping to organize the strike. She is now on the outside, and reports on the retaliation against the strikers. Two leaders she mentions are Jason Walker and Comrade Malik, both in solitary confinement.

“Comrade Malik hasn’t been allowed to take showers. They are hunger-striking. Jason Walker hasn’t been allowed to have toilet paper, towels or have access to taking a shower or having clean clothes, in retaliation to his organizing of the strike in Texas.”

She explains that Comrade Malik was sent into solitary confinement, itself an internationally recognized form of torture, in a preemptive move on August 15. “He’s in a concrete cell that’s over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Texas…. He’s only escorted out in handcuffs. He’s not allowed to have easy communications with the outside.”

Jason Walker wrote an article about the conditions in Texas prisons. “After that article was written, he was moved to solitary confinement. But even in groups, like in South Carolina, prisoners in McCormick [prison] have been having daily strip searches done on them since August 20, the day before the strike began.

“Also, David Easley and James Ward, they are in Ohio [state prison], Toledo’s correctional facility, are not allowed to have contact with the outside. They’re also in solitary confinement.

“So we can see that retaliation is happening against individual organizers in the beginning. And now we’re seeing when inmates are standing up and choosing to strike, they are moved to solitary to try to keep prisoners from joining. But this is spreading the fire. Prisoners know that this is a climate where they can actually stand up and feel supported. There have been solidarity marches and rallies in at least 21 cities across the country.”

These brave men and women taking action in the face of being retaliated against not only deserve our support. We must begin to educate the labour movement and all workers that prisoners are part of the working class, and it is in the interests of all workers to come to their defense.

*

[Quotations are abridged from interviews on Democracy Now. The historical part on the Thirteenth Amendment and its results is paraphrased, with additions by me, from an op-ed in the New York Times by Erik Loomis, history professor at Rhode Island University – BS.]

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: Outside view of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington, US on 10 September 2018 [Yasin Öztürk/Anadolu Agency]

The US on Monday announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) Washington diplomatic mission as the Donald Trump administration prepares to roll out its Middle East peace plan, Anadolu reports.

The State Department announced the decision, saying “the PLO office in Washington will close at this point.” The office had served as Palestine’s de facto embassy in Washington.

The department said “the PLO has not taken steps to advance the start of direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel,” and pointed to Palestinian calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Israel as reasons for its decision.

“We have permitted the PLO office to conduct operations that support the objective of achieving a lasting, comprehensive peace between Israelis and the Palestinians since the expiration of a previous waiver in November 2017,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement.

“However, the PLO has not taken steps to advance the start of direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel. To the contrary, PLO leadership has condemned a US peace plan they have not yet seen and refused to engage with the US government with respect to peace efforts and otherwise,” she added.

Image on the right: Outside view of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington, US on 10 September 2018 [Yasin Öztürk/Anadolu Agency]

Another State Department spokeswoman later said the mission was ordered to vacate its office no later than Oct. 10.

Mark Perry, a former unofficial advisor to late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, ripped Washington’s announcement, saying

“the US has always been Israel’s lawyer.”

“Ironically, the announcement is actually good news — as it ends the pretence that the US actually cares about peace in the Middle East,” Perry told Anadolu Agency.

“The US is now perfectly aligned with the Israeli national project. Israel does not now, and never has, believed in the peace process or sought reconciliation with the Palestinians,” he said. “Rather, its goal is the destruction of the Palestinian national project. What changed today is that the US has now joined that effort.”

National Security Advisor John Bolton later Monday said Washington would act if the ICC decides to prosecute Israel, the US or any of its other allies.

Those actions include potential sanctions of ICC funds residing in the US, as well as a ban on ICC prosecutors and judges from entering the US

“We will take note if any countries cooperate with ICC investigations of the United States and its allies, and we will remember that cooperation when setting US foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels,” Bolton said.

We will let the ICC die on its own, after all, for all intents and purposes the ICC is already dead to us he added.

The comments come as the Trump administration prepares to roll out its plan to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel, a deal that Trump has framed as the “deal of the century.”

Palestinian officials continue to deny any role for the US in peace talks with Israel after Trump unilaterally declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital last year, upending long-held underpinnings of peace talks which had maintained the issue was to be determined as part of final status negotiations.

The decision provoked worldwide condemnation.

Husam Zomlot, the PLO’s US ambassador, strongly condemned the decision to shutter the organisation’s offices as a “reckless act” that ultimately confirms that the US “is blindly executing Israel’s ‘wish list,’ which starts with shutting down Palestinian diplomatic representation in the US.”

Image below: Outside view of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington, US on 10 September 2018 [Yasin Öztürk/Anadolu Agency]

Zomlot insisted the US action would not deter Palestine in its mission “to hold Israel accountable by referring it to the International Criminal Court,” or force Ramallah to return to US-brokered negotiations.

“We stand firm in our decision not to cooperate in this ongoing campaign to liquidate our rights and cause. Our rights are not for sale, and we will block any attempts at bullying and blackmailing us to forgo our legitimate and internationally endorsed rights,” he said in a statement.

“While today is a dark day for peace in the Middle East, for multilateralism, and the integrity of the international political and legal system, we will continue our struggle to pursue all possible legal and political means to achieve peace, independence, and our internationally enshrined rights,” he added.

Before the formal announcement of the mission’s closure, Palestinian officials described the move as “an escalation that will have serious political consequences by sabotaging the entire international system to protect the Israeli occupation and its crimes.”

“This is another blow by the Trump administration against peace and justice,” said PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat.

The decision to close the Palestinian mission is the latest effort to ramp up pressure on Ramallah. The US has already halted all funding to the UN’s Palestine refugee agency and cut more than $200 million in aid to the Palestinians.

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

India is increasingly finding itself caught between competing alliances.

On one hand, ties between Washington and New Delhi have improved in recent years in large part to what both sides perceive as increased threats from China both militarily and economically in the South China Sea and overall Indo-Pacific region.

On the other, New Delhi has also experienced improved bilateral relations with Tehran. This improvement in relations, in large part, comes from the two countries’ own oil related interests. Iran, since earlier sanctions against its energy sector were removed in 2016, has been eager to recapture lost market share both in India and the overall Asia-Pacific region as it quickly ramped up oil production post sanctions.

India, as the world’s third largest oil importer after China and the U.S., needs Iranian oil for its expanding refinery sector and also the diversity of supply extra Iranian oil imports would provide. Iran has also been offering India generous discounts on its oil imports this year. As recently as late July, with the first phase of new U.S. sanctions impending, Iran upped the ante ever more by offering to ensure oil cargoes to India after some local insurers stopped providing the service. Currently, India is Iran’s second largest buyer of crude oil after China.

Now, recent data shows that India has been trimming its purchases of Iranian crude due to increased pressure from Washington. Earlier this week, preliminary tanker arrival data indicated that India had imported 532,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian oil in August, a 32 percent plunge from just one month earlier. Despite the marked decrease, the August figure is still 56 percent higher than the same period last year as Indian refiners continue to take advantage of Iranian discounts.

Another problem for India is the fact that annual import plans from its refiners were already in place before President Trump’s decision in May to reimpose sanctions against Iran over its nuclear development plans. In April, industry sources told media outlets that Indian refiners had planned to double its import of Iranian crude in 2018/19, mostly due to advantageous pricing and discounts offered by Iran. The development at the time marked a pivot in Indian-Iranian bilateral relations and a win-win scenario for the energy sectors in both countries.

Though India trimmed its Iranian oil procurement last month, the question going forward is whether or not this trend will last. New Delhi, for its part, has been waffling over that very question. At times, the country appears to offer a conciliatory tone to Washington to trim Iranian oil imports, while at other times it seems poised to push back against that pressure.

Examining India’s oil imports just from the last three months may help provide a possible future trajectory. India cut its Iranian oil imports in June (just a month after Washington stated it would reimpose sanctions against Iran) by 16 percent from the previous month. In July, however, India’s state refiners actually increased its oil imports from Iran by 30 percent over the previous month, a record high bump to 768,999 bpd. India’s oil imports from Iran in July represented an 85 percent spike from the 415,000 bpd shipped in July 2017. Notably, the marked increase in July’s figures came as Indian state-owned refiners increased Iranian oil procurement in anticipation of uncertainty over upcoming sanctions.

Given the mixed signals over compliance with Washington’s desire for India to cut Iranian oil and with Iran offering even more advantageous procurement incentives to Indian refiners, it appears that India will continue to buy Iranian oil above 2017 levels.

India also bring its own pressure to bear on the U.S. since Washington is becoming increasingly reliant on New Delhi as a deterrent to Chinese hegemony in the region. This week high level Indian and U.S. officials are meeting in New Delhi over several key issues.

Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman are holding the first high-level talks with their U.S. counterparts, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Part of the agenda includes the goal of boosting cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region and finalizing a pact on encrypted defense technologies.

Though not officially on the agenda, India could also pressure Pompeo for a waiver over its Iranian oil procurement. In July, lower level Indian officials, including those with the ministries of external affairs, home and finance, met with a U.S. delegation led by Marshall Billingslea, the American assistant secretary for Terrorist Financing in the Department of the Treasury to discuss Iranian sanctions, marking what Indian media outlet the Hindustan Times called at the time, “a strong pitch to the US for leniency in complying with sanctions on Iran, citing their likely impact on its oil imports and investment in the Chabahar port.” However, nothing concrete materialized from the meeting.

Pompeo said on Tuesday that the issues of Russian arms sales to India and Iranian oil “will certainly come up [during this week’s meeting in New Delhi], but I don’t think they will be the primary focus of what it is we are trying to accomplish here.”

*

Tim Daiss is an oil markets analyst, journalist and author that has been working out of the Asia-Pacific region for 12 years. He has  covered oil, energy markets and geopolitics for Forbes, Platts, Interfax, NewsBase, Rigzone, and the UK-based Independent (newspaper) as well as providing energy markets analysis for subscription newsletters. He has also authored geopolitical reports and analysis for Singapore-based consultancy Enerdata.

Featured image is from the author.

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

Should it matter this much?  A wealthy, successful individual expressed fury at the most popular object of vitriol in any sport. The umpire or referee is only ever neutral in the eyes of a falsely contrived standard: that someone must be objective, neutral and mindful of enforcing the rules of the game.  In the eyes of the player, the figure who judges and assesses the course of a match can become an enemy, a monster of burden.  In the US Open Women’s Tennis Final, that beast was umpire Carlos Ramos. 

It all began with coach Patrick Mouratoglou, who seemed to be signalling to Serena Williams during the match, thereby committing a violation in attempting to steer the game.  Williams lost one point as a result.  Calls of “liar” and “thief” followed, resulting in another violation.  Matters escalated, and Williams was held to have committed another code violation in demolishing her racquet.  Her call of fury: “Sexism!”

Williams was truculent, justifiably at first instance for not necessarily noticing her coach and being punished as a result.  But a person who has won 23 times at the highest level is bound to feel slighted by certain decisions, notably those that throw her off her stroke. The blood, and mind, has adjusted to glory.  It did not take time for the machine of social media and commentary to boil down the details and decide that a strict reading of the rules by Ramos entitled him to be pilloried.  He was all establishment, all power, and poor discretion.  A woman, accused former world number one Billy Jean King, is deemed hysterical if she disagrees with an umpire’s ruling; a man, she suggested, is considered outspoken and forthright, the bad boy to be celebrated.

King went so far as to see the entire spectacle in terms of archaic laws and an “abuse of power”, a small step towards throwing the entire rule book out, along with its musty ridden representatives. She fantasised about the injustice of the whole thing, and proceeded to strain the scene of every single implication of identity: “The ceiling that women of colour face on their path to leadership never felt more impenetrable than it did on at the women’s US Open final on Saturday.”

Commentators focused on the denial of Williams’ entitlement for a suitable comeback “just one year after having a baby and fighting for her own life after childbirth.” Destiny had been confounded.  Shaded into obscurity was Williams’ victorious Japanese opponent Naomi Osaka, herself of colour and her country’s first Grand Slam title winner, and of a state not exactly renowned for splashing out on hand clapping ceremonies of racial tolerance and cuddly harmoniousness.

Image on the right: Carlos Ramos

As is rarely the case in such suppositions, a closer examination of the Ramos record to men and women would have been instructive, including those super stars who feel they are above reproach from the person in the chair.  Many less robust umpires prefer to let the hotheads be; we live in an age of extreme trigger warning laced sensitivity.

Ramos, for his part as a firm, if pedantic umpire, has stared down players of all sorts, merits and vintages.  The men should know.  Novak Djokovic received a fault for time violations during the 2017 French Open; the inevitable loud retort landed him a code violation.  Andy Murray received a rap over the knuckles for uttering “stupid umpiring” during the 2016 Olympics.  Ditto the perennially volatile infant-in-a-man’s body Nick Krygios, whose abuse of a towel boy earned him a violation that same year.

The issue of gender never featured during this particular final, bar an anguished cry from Williams suggesting it might have.  For Ramos to have not issued code violations could just as well have led to arguments of sexism in reverse.  Attempts to read it otherwise return to the traditional hostility (archaic or otherwise) shown towards a figure touted as neutral when he is deemed sporting kind’s appointed enemy.  This was a more traditional spat between sports performer and the ruling figure, one imposed upon the players by authority and regulation.  Williams bucked it and was duly punished.  Her opponent could only watch and feel embarrassed.

Mouratoglou, who has bleached himself of blame, added further grist to that troubled mill in the match’s aftermath, suggesting that all coaches breached the code during matches.  He, however, had not been caught doing it – at least till now.  “All coaches are coaching throughout the match.  But check the record. I’ve never been called for a coaching violation in my career.” It’s not a violation if you’re not caught.

He also found time to dash off other locker-room opinions, showing an urgent need to sing for his supper:

“The star of the show has been once again the chair umpire.  Second time in this US Open and third time for Serena in a US Open Final.  Should they be allowed to have an influence on the result of a match?  When do we decide that this should never happen again?”

The umpire will always have an influence on the outcome of a match because decisions change the course of proceedings.  Perhaps a ceremonial and deterrent lynching might be in order?  (King makes a more modest recommendation: permit coaches latitude to be involved during the match.)

Gender codes and socially stretched theories have a habit of denying the individual free will.  Forget it, banish it; the spectator, commentator and agonisingly opinionated will foist one upon you.  Agency is banished, subordinated to a superstructure.  Williams is not treated as a grand slam champion and athletic phenomenon (her track record heavenly screams it), but a creature crushed by the “male” perception that looms large, or some other impediment that does wonders to distract from her brattish appeal. (During the 2009 US Open, the brat was in full flight when Williams threatened to deposit a tennis ball down an unfortunate lineswoman’s throat.)

This was a battle of wills, and Williams lost it.  We return to the old story: the umpire did it, and thank the confused deities above he did.  He has always been responsible for the Great Flood, syphilis and famine.  He might be cruel to children, perhaps even eat them.  He will always be and coming out in defence of the umpire in any sport is much like siding with Colonel William Bligh against the mutineers.  We all need our anointed alibis to justify defeat and loss.

*

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]

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

“A concerted effort to preserve our heritage is a vital link to our cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, and economic legacies – all of the things that quite literally make us who we are.” – Steve Berry

Over the centuries, militant groups and radical regimes have targeted not just innocent lives but also historic and cultural artifacts preserved and revered by their victims.

And yet, for a lack of political will, or worse still, cultural ethnocentric blindness, we have mostly allowed for our world cultural heritage to sit at the mercy of tomb-raiders, and intolerant fundamentalists, caring little for the depletion of our intellectual wealth.

There is great tragedy in the losses of our cultural memory as every stone, every written line, and every expression of one’s beliefs remain a consecrated declaration of our humanity. To abandon our memories to the fires of intolerance is to normalise ignorance as an enactment of political power.

It boggles the mind to think that having come so far in the assertion of our rights we still fail to grasp how intrinsically essential our rights to our collective religious and cultural history are, and how much they stand a testimony to our intellectual evolution.

Again … to disappear but a fragment of our history is an affront to humanity as a whole. 

But since stones and relics do not so easily upset our sensitivities as they fall before the ire of zealots, idleness has emboldened cultural tyrants to the sum of a veritable cultural genocide.

Thomas Campbell, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City put it perfectly when as he decried radicals’ cultural ransacking in Iraq:

“This mindless attack on great art, on history, and on human understanding constitutes a tragic assault not only on the Mosul Museum, but on our universal commitment to use art to unite people and promote human understanding.”

None more than Saudi Arabia have contributed to the systematic obliteration, redacting, and negation of such wealthy legacy. By the virtue of geography, and political reach the kingdom sits over the cradle of civilisation and monotheism … axe at the ready should cultural pluralism upset its taste for intellectual uniformity.

The very country who fretted only but a little over the death of school children by its warplanes in Yemen earlier this August, has had decades and centuries of practice in the sentencing of our past. 

To argue ignorance or disinterest can no longer stand a reasonable argument if we consider that religious radicalism – in its most violent expression, seeks first to assert itself by disappearing that which stands in opposition to its vindictive truth. 

I would like to think that our streets have witnessed too much of such fundamentalism for any of us NOT to look beyond the infection to seek the rotten core.

The first expression of Terror is in one’s rejection of others’ history, others’ beliefs, others’ cultural markers, and others’ traditions. We are who we are because others were before us. 

I realise that before our current political reality and more to the point nations’ needs to form alliances to assert influence and economic continuity pragmatism has demanded that we all be made to look away before cultural barbarism, but how long before History becomes an endangered species … so to speak?

How much more of the Middle East must we see swallowed, and communities’ cultural identities levelled before our voices rise in defense of the innocent? Because truly, no people deserve to witness the fall of their culture and traditions.

Saudi Arabia’s propensity to waste that which opposes its reactionary and intransigeant interpretations of the Scriptures was first deplored by Alois Musil, a 19th century Czech-Austrian academic, explorer and author. 

In his book: Al Saud, Musil recalls a frightful event, that for reason we have yet to come to terms with failed to rise but an eyebrow among nations – least of all Muslim nations: the destruction of Islam’s sacrosanct Blackstone.

The Blackstone which is believed by some to have been brought down from the Heavens by Angel Gabriel, is centrestage to the Hajj pilgrimage, as every pilgrim must begin circumambulating the Kaaba, from its exact location.

Today only fragments remain of a relic cherished by over a billion men and women across the world. 

This is not the only affront Al Saud carried out against the very faith it says to hold custodianship over, and Islam only sits one victim among many of such broad intolerance.

From the ransacking of the Prophet Muhammad‘s last resting place, to the destruction of Al Baqee cemetery in Madina, to the destruction of temples, churches, holy relics predating Islam, the once colourful and buoyant history of the Hijaz (now known as Saudi Arabia), and to a greater extent the Middle East, has been reduced to a dying flicker.

If not for the efforts of the Al Baqee organization in the United States, which task has been to tiressly call for the protection of our world religious heritage, I doubt any voice would have risen in opposition to such terrible crimes, nevermind speaking them to the public. 

Religious and cultural pluralism are on death row … now would be a good time to call for accountability. That is of course we are serious about our human rights.

Below, we’ll show that 9/11 could NOT have been an inside job …

I. The 9/11 Commission and Congressional Investigation Into 9/11 All Disproved Any Conspiracy

9/11 was thoroughly and exhaustively investigated by the 9/11 Commission, Congress and U.S. scientific agencies.

This horse has already been beat to death, and anyone who raises questions is a nutjob.

True, the 9/11 Commission didn’t believe that the government told the truth about 9/11,  and said the government obstructed their investigation.

 For example:

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was “set up to fail”

• The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”;“This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.  When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions”

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said“At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

Some examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation include:

• An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

• The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this)

• The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

• As reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

The CIA also videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread.

And Susan J. Crawford – the senior Pentagon official overseeing the military commissions at Guantánamo told Bob Woodward:

We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.

Indeed, some of the main sources of information were tortured right up to the point of death.

Moreover, the type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creatingfalse confessions. (and see this, this, this and this).

And according to NBC News:

• Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

• At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”

• One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

• The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

Indeed, the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 (Bob Graham)  and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a NEW 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

But hey … nothing’s perfect.  We should just let bygones be bygones.

II. No One Could Have Foreseen 9/11

No one could have foreseen the diabolical 9/11 plan.    After all, America has not been directly attacked for centuries.

And crashing planes into buildings?  No one could have imagined such an out-of-the-blue attack.

True, overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable.  And Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable. (even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable).

And a top NSA whistleblower says that the NSA had all of the information it needed prior to 9/11 to stop the attacks. The only reason NSA didn’t share that information with other agencies is because of corruption … in an effort to consolidate power. And widespread spying by the U.S. government onAmericans began before 9/11 (confirmed here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). And the government tapped the 9/11 hijackers’ phones, and heard the 9/11 hijackers’ plans from their own mouths.

But our government officials were busy at the time … and maybe they just took their eyes of the ball.

Anyway, knowing it could happen doesn’t mean that they let it happen on purpose.

III. They Didn’t Have Time to Stop It

Even when government officials realized what was happening, they didn’t have time to react and stop it.

After all, the hijacked planes were being flown hundreds of miles an hour.  And by the time our government and military men knew what was happening, it was all over.

True, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) – responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S. – has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes only a few minutes.

NORAD regularly and successfully scrambled fighter jets in response to suspicious or unidentified aircraft flying in US airspace in the years preceding 9/11.  See this report from the General Accounting Office andthis article from AP.  To do this, NORAD keeps a pair of fighters on “alert” at sites around the U.S. These fighters are fueled, armed, and ready to take off within minutes of receiving a scramble order. See these reports from American Defender, Air Force Magazine, Bergen Record, 12/5/2003 and The First 600 Days of Combat (page 14).

For example, NORAD scrambled:

• Between 1990 and 1994, NORAD scrambled 1,518 fighter jets (page 4)

• Between 1996 and 1998, NORAD’s Western Air Defense Sector scrambled fighters 129 times to identify unknown aircraft that might be a threat, and 42 times against potential and actual drug smugglers

• In 1997, NORAD’s Southeast Air Defense Sector tracked 427 unidentified aircraft, and fighters intercepted these “unknowns” 36 times. The same year, NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector handled 65 unidentified tracks and the Western Air Defense Sector handles 104 unidentified tracks

• In 1998, the Southeast Air Defense Sector logged more than 400 fighter scrambles

• In 1999, NORAD’s fighters at a single base – Homestead Air Reserve Base in Florida – scrambled 75times per year, on average

• In 2000, NORAD’s fighters fly 147 intercept missions

• And between September 2000 and June 2001, NORAD flew 67 intercepts

Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:

• NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases

• Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds

• Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them

You might think that the military couldn’t find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew “like the back of my hand” and who handled two actual hijackings says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

The Director of the American U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) said:

If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

There is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control … Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State.’

NORAD’s actions on 9/11 were so odd that it was forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version has been exposed as false. When someone repeatedly changes his testimony after being caught in lies, how believable is he?  The falsity of NORAD’s explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

But hey, they probably just had an off day.

IV. No One Could Keep Such a Big Conspiracy Secret … Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans

If Americans were somehow involved in letting 9/11 occur, someone would have talked.

Some jerk would have had too much to drink, and bragged about his dastardly deed at a bar.

True, military analyst and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said: “Secrets … can be kept reliably … for decades … even though they are known to THOUSANDS of insiders.”

And many other huge projects involving many thousands of people were kept secret for many years.

But that can’t be true for 9/11  (even though government officials say that 9/11 was state -sponsored terrorism).

V. Our Government Wouldn’t DO Something Like That

Third, there’s no way government officials, military or intelligence personnel – who are sworn to protect and defend America – would do something like that!

True, the U.S. government officials have admitted that they’ve repeatedly carried out false flag attacks.

But 9/11 was obviously different.

VI. But the Whole Controlled Demolition Thing Is Bulls**t

Whatever you else you may think, the whole “bombs took down the Twin Towers” thing is bulls**t.

True, the collapse of the third World Trade Center skyscraper on 9/11 – one that was never hit with a plane – makes no sense. But that building, World Trade Center 7, is not one of the Twin Towers.

And admittedly, thousands of  engineers and architects and scientists (and see this) think that the Twin Towers themselves may well have been brought down with high-tech explosives.

But they’re obviously all high on drugs.

VII  You Don’t Want to Be Labeled As Crazy (Or Worse) … Do You?

If – after reading the 7  facts above – you still question 9/11, then you might need a friendly warning …

If you don’t knock it off, you might be labeled crazy … or a terrorist.

VIII  We Have to Censor the Conspiracy Theorists

After all, we’ve got to censor those darn conspiracy theories.

We hope that the above-described essay disproves – once and for all – all of the crazy theories going around the Intertubes, and that everyone will shut up once and for all about 9/11.

Richard Gage  is founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth.

AE911 Truth is a non-profit organization of architects, engineers, and affiliates dedicated to investigating the events of September 11, 2001.

This GRTV video interview, recorded for the 17th anniversary of 9/11, features Richard Gage addressing:

• questions about the bottom line flaws in the official story of this ‘terrorist event’.
• how different audiences are receiving the message, moving from awareness to practical action for justice,
• and why 9/11 Truth matters almost two decades into the so-called ‘Global War on Terrorism.’

Richard Gage also mentions a 9/11 Justice for All Rally on Capitol Hill on the afternoon of September 11, 2018.

The event will be live-streamed and archived at the following link

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

For some time I have pointed out the paradox of the American liberal/progressive/left being allied with the CIA, FBI, military/security complex and deep state. 

Now leftist Ann Garrison has noticed the paradox of this alliance. She concludes that the left has lost its mind. 

Indeed, it has.

Out of its hatred of Trump the “left” [largely the Left Democrats]  has united with the forces of  war that are leading to conflict with Russia. 

To read the complete article on Paul Craig Roberts website click here 

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

Featured image: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met Eritrea’s Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, August 31, 2018, Sochi, Russia

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov lauded his country’s relationship with Eritrea and informed the world about Moscow’s plans to build a logistics center there.

He was speaking alongside his Eritrean counterpart at a press conference in Sochi after their bilateral meeting, which he also noted included discussions about building regional transport corridors, pipelines, and opening up a Russian language department in one of Asmara’s universities. Lavrov also said that the UNSC sanctions against Eritrea that were imposed in 2009 after reports that the country was aiding Somalia’s Al-Shaabab should be lifted, and he praised Eritrea for all that it’s done in the name of regional peace over the past few months in view of its rapidly moving rapprochement with Ethiopia that completely transformed the geopolitical situation in the Horn of Africa.

In terms of the bigger picture, it appears as though Russia is keen to use Eritrea as a gateway to regional giant Ethiopia, which is the second-most-populous country in Africa and its fastest-growing economy. The Eritrean-Ethiopian rapprochement will see Addis Ababa diversify its access to the rest of the world from its erstwhile mono-dependence on Djibouti, which will expectedly see Eritrea’s connectivity role growing in importance as well. Moreover, Russia’s intended investments in Eritrea signal that it’s serious about its so-called “Pivot to Africa” and eager to establish a strategic presence in the Red Sea-Horn of Africa region after being reportedly offered a naval base in neighboring Sudan and amidst unconfirmed reports that it was earlier considering one in the breakaway region of Somaliland.

Another point to bear in mind is that the UAE is Eritrea’s top international partner and is responsible for not only breaking the country’s international isolation after building a base there for assisting in the War on Yemen,  but is also considered to be one of the key facilitators of the Eritrean-Ethiopian rapprochement. Abu Dhabi is therefore a rising transregional power that’s also simultaneously cultivating much stronger ties with Moscow than ever before, with both parties signing an official Declaration of Strategic Partnership in early June after Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed travelled to the Russian capital to meet with President Putin. Accordingly, Russian-Emirati ties will converge in Eritrea, and possibly soon thereafter, even in Ethiopia as well.

Unbeknownst to many, the Russian-Emirati Strategic Partnership is already surprisingly robust as it is even without any overlapping interests in the Horn of Africa. The two sides inked a nearly $2 billion defense deal in February 2017 and have vowed to cooperate in the cybersecurity and energy spheres.  In addition, the oil-rich collection of emirates wants to purchase Russia’s electric cars and motorcycles, as well as the Aurus brand of luxury sedans that President Putin recently popularized. In fact, the sky’s not even the limit to Russian-Emirati cooperation, literally, because Moscow is preparing to send one of its partner’s cosmonauts to the International Space Station in the near future.

Altogether, the grand strategic importance of Russian-Eritrean relations rests in their potential to not only facilitate Moscow’s “Pivot to Africa” in the Horn of Africa and especially in Ethiopia, but also in their ability to strengthen the already solid and fast-moving partnership between Russia and the UAE via the third-party country in which they evidently have many shared interests. Furthermore, successfully proving the concept that Russian-Emirati cooperation can bring tangibly positive dividends in other countries such as Eritrea might also open up the door for Abu Dhabi to invite Moscow into South Yemen where it previously exerted influence during the Soviet era, thereby possibly allowing it to contribute to the reconstruction of that war-torn society and solidify its strategic presence in the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden region.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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

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

This is the 17th anniversary of 9/11.  During the years that have passed large numbers of experts have established conclusively that the official government account of the event is false. Every year fewer people believe the unbelievable conspiracy theory that a handful of Saudi Arabians outwitted the entirety of the US National Security State and attacked with hijacked airliners the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Nevertheless, the official story still stands, just as the official story of President Kennedy’s assassination still stands despite majority disbelief, just like the official story of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty still stands despite all evidence to the contrary.  In the US the government never corrects its proven lies.

People all over the world are amazed that Americans could witness videos of the two towers blowing up floor by floor and the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7 and conclude that they were witnessing buildings collapsing from asymetrical structural damage and limited, short-lived office fires.  

The 9/11 fabrication and the Osama bin Laden myth were used by the Cheney/Bush regime to destroy the civil liberty protections in the US Constitution and to elevate the executive branch above both domestic and international law.  This has culminated in yesterday’s declaration of US lawlessness by President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who stated that the US government will use any and all means to protect US and Israeli war criminals from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. (See this)  

The cost of 9/11 far exceeds the WTC buildings and the lives that were lost.

The real cost is the US Constitution, the separation of powers, civil liberty, and the rule of law.

*

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

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

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

Tensions are growing in Syria as Turkey is reportedly increasing its troops stationed at the Syrian border, and the United States is responding to accusations that it used illegal chemical weapons over the weekend. RT’s Rachel Blevins reports.

In the video below (starting at 2:25), Mark Taliano, Canadian independent journalist and analyst on the Syrian crisis comments on Western support of Al Qaeda terrorists
and the the issue of the expected upcoming false flag in Idlib.

*

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

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

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

Perhaps they had a chance back during the Obama days when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed her amusing “Reset” in USA-Russia relations to the new Medvedev Presidency following Putin’s rotation to the seat of Prime Minister in March 2009. Had Washington been a bit more perceptive and offered serious alternatives, it is conceivable that Washington would today have a geopolitical isolation of their second major problem on the Eurasian Continent, namely, the Peoples’ Republic of China. Recently the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, Wess Mitchell, testified to the Senate where he candidly revealed the true reasons for current Washington and London campaigns and sanctions against Russia. It has nothing to do with faked allegations of US election interference; it has nothing to do with poorly-staged false flag poisoning of the Russian Skripals. It’s far more fundamental and takes us back to the era before the First World War more than a century ago.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 21 August, Wess Mitchell, the successor to Victoria Nuland, gave an extraordinarily honest statement of real US geopolitical strategy towards Russia. It revealed a bit more honesty apparently than the US State Department wanted, because they quickly sanitized their published version on the department website.

Censored!…

In his opening remarks to the Senate committee members Mitchell stated:

“The starting point of the National Security Strategy is the recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition, and that past US policies have neither sufficiently grasped the scope of this emerging trend nor adequately equipped our nation to succeed in it.

Then he continues with the following extraordinary admission:

“Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power.”

In the State Department’s later sanitized version, the original text,

“It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.”

And the sentence,

“The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power,” mysteriously were deleted. Because it was formal testimony presented to the Senate, however, the Senate version remains true to his original text, at least of 7 September, 2018. The State Department has been caught in a huge blunder.

If we pause to reflect on the meaning behind the words of Wess Mitchell, it’s pretty crude and wholly illegal in terms of the UN Charter, though Washington today seems to have forgotten that solemn document. Mitchell says US national security priority is to, “…prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.” He clearly means powers hostile to efforts of Washington and NATO to dominate Eurasia, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than a quarter century ago.

But, wait. Mitchell earlier cites the two dominant powers who combined, he says, are the current prime foe of US global control. Mitchell states explicitly, “Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership.” But US control of Eurasia then means US control of Russia, China and environs. Eurasia is their land space. The Wess Mitchell Senate declaration is a kind of obscene global rollout of the 19^th Century USA Monroe Doctrine: Eurasia is ours and “hostile powers” such as China or Russia who try to interfere in their own sovereign space, become de facto “enemy.” Then the formulation “building up the material and ideological wherewithal…” What’s that supposed to mean as justification for Washington policy to prepare a military response? Both nations are energetically moving, despite repeated Western economic warfare, to build their economic infrastructure independent of NATO control. That is understandable. But Mitchell admits it is for Washington Casus Belli.

To realize what a strategic blunder the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs made with that one careless sentence and why the State Department rushed to delete his remarks, a brief excursion into basic Anglo-American geopolitical doctrine is useful. Here, discussion of the worldview of the godfather of geopolitics, British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder is essential. In 1904 in a speech before the Royal Geographical Society in London, Mackinder, a firm advocate of Empire, presented what is arguably one of the most influential documents in world foreign policy of the past two hundred years since the Battle of Waterloo. His short speech was titled “The Geographical Pivot of History.”

Russia and Eurasian Pivot

Mackinder divided the world into two primary geographical powers: Sea power versus Land power. On the dominant side was what he termed the “ring of bases” linking sea powers Britain, USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and Japan in domination of the world seas and of commerce power. This ring of dominant sea-powers was inaccessible to any threat from land powers of Eurasia or Euro-Asia as he termed the vast continent. Mackinder further noted that were the Russian Empire able to expand over the lands of Euro-Asia and gain access to the vast resources there to build a naval fleet, “the empire of the world might then be in sight.” Mackinder added, “This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia.”

Mackinder noted the enormous geopolitical implications of the then-new Russian Trans-Siberian Railway linking the vast territory of Russia from in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Vokzal, across all Russia some 6,000 miles to Vladivostock on the Pacific. He warned his select British audience, “the century will not be old before all Asia is covered with railways,” creating a vast land area inaccessible to the naval fleets of the British and later, Americans.

What the world has experienced since that prophetic 1904 London speech of Mackinder is two world wars, primarily aimed at breaking the German nation and its geopolitical threat to Anglo-American global domination, and to destroy the prospect of a peaceful emergence of a German-Russian Eurasia that, as Mackinder and British geopolitical strategists saw it, would put the “empire of the world” in sight.

Those two world wars in effect sabotaged the “covering of all Eurasia with railways.” Until, that is, in 2013 when China first proposed covering all Eurasia with a network of high-speed railways and infrastructure including energy pipelines and deep-water ports and Russia agreed to join the effort.

The Washington-orchestrated coup d’etat in Ukraine in February, 2014 was explicitly aimed at driving a bloody and deep wedge between Russia and Germany. At the time, Ukraine was the prime energy pipeline link feeding the German industry with Russian gas. German exports of everything from machine tools to cars to high-speed locomotives to build the rapidly-recovering Russian economy was transforming the geopolitical balance of power in favor of an emerging German-Russian-centered Eurasia to the detriment of Washington.

In an interview in January, 2015 following what he called “the most blatant coup in history”, the USA coup in Ukraine, Stratfor founder George Friedman, a student of Mackinder, stated,

“…the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.”

Desperate Measures

At this point Washington is becoming more than a little desperate to bring the genie back in the bottle that their clumsy 2014 Coup d’etat in Ukraine caused to get out. That coup forced Russia to take more seriously its potential strategic alliances in Eurasia and catalyzed present Russia-China cooperation as well as the Russian engagement with key Eurasian neighbor states in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Wess Mitchell’s predecessor, Victoria Nuland, with her cocky hubris in Ukraine, when she was caught telling her Kiev Ambassador, “F**k the EU,” was noted across Eurasia. She gave the Washington game away. It’s not about principled diplomatic partnership. It’s about power and empire.

Now Wess Mitchell’s admission that the US strategic policy is to “prevent domination of Eurasia by hostile powers” tells Russia and tells China, had they had any doubts, that the war is about a fundamental geopolitical contest to the end over who will dominate Eurasia—it’s legitimate inhabitants, centered around China and Russia, or an imperial Anglo-American axis that has been behind two world wars in the past century. Because Washington mismanaged the Russian “Reset” that was meant to draw Russia into the NATO web, Washington today is forced to wage a war on two fronts—China and Russia—war it is not prepared to win.

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

This article was first published by the New Eastern Outlook

Featured image is from the author.

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 operation of the Syrian Arab Army in the province of Idlib represents the last step of the central government of Damascus in the liberation of the country from the scourge of Islamist terrorism. With the defeat of Daesh and the removal of the remaining pockets of resistance, Assad’s soldiers have accomplished an extraordinary task. Meanwhile, the United States continues its illegal presence in Syria, through its support of the SDF in the north of the country for the purposes of sustaining the destabilizing potential of terrorist networks in the region and beyond. In light of this unfavorable situation for the Americans, it is easy to explain the transfer of commanders and high terrorist spheres from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan, as confirmed by several official Russian, Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi sources.

The logic behind such a move has everything to do with the ongoing process of Eurasian integration. Progress in this regard has been multifaceted in recent months and years. It ranges from the most important event, namely the entry of Pakistan and India into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), to other less known events, such as the signing of the Caspian Sea treaty by Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan. The United States is committed to stopping this integration. Staying true to Brzezinski’s grand strategy, based on the concepts of Heartland and Rimland, it has not been difficult for policy makers and advisors of the current US administration to understand the importance of Afghanistan in helping the process of Eurasian integration by fomenting terrorism. Afghanistan plays an important double role as a hinge between both Eurasia and the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

The central geographical position of the Afghan state gives it an important geopolitical role, especially from 2001, when it was illegally invaded under false pretenses and without justifying proof (as recently documented by The Corbett Report). The complicated relations between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan derive essentially from the destabilizing role played by Pakistan (especially its military and intelligence wings) in Afghanistan from the 1980s to today, courtesy of financial support received from Saudi Arabia and the political, and military and intelligence support from the US. Islamabad has for decades made itself available as a launching pad for more or less official operations since the times of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen, supported by Reagan and declared “Freedom Fighters”, are none other than the forebears of today’s Al Qaeda terrorists, which has mutated into other appellations in Syria like Al Nusra and Daesh. The formula has changed little over the last 30 years, the ingredients being Saudi money, Pakistani support, and American weaponry and intelligence.

Eurasian integration has accelerated considerably in recent years thanks to the influence of Russia and China in the region. Over a short time, Beijing has proposed the construction of various infrastructure projects (the most famous being the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC) in Pakistan to improve the transport network as well as the delivery of goods and trade. Pakistan was one of the first countries to adhere politically and economically to the Chinese initiative known as One Belt One Road (renamed the Belt Road Initiative, or BRI). Thanks to Moscow’s skilful diplomatic and political work, New Delhi’s pronounced distrust of the new alliance between China and Pakistan has decreased. Putin and Xi Jinping have literally accompanied over months, if not years, the process of rapprochement between Pakistan, India, Russia and China, with the aim of laying the foundations for an entry of the two countries into the SCO. The idea of ​​Xi and Putin is based on a strategic parity between New Delhi and Islamabad, well balanced thanks to two friendly countries like Russia and China.

The entry into the SCO was already broached in 2015 as a revolutionary act for the region, with the clear objective of working together to pacify Afghanistan and to advance the commercial and social integration of the Eurasian continent. Terrorism is a monumental challenge in this context and one of the main threats to the Chinese BRI project. Both Moscow and Beijing need to protect their commercial and financial projects in the region by preventing the use of terrorism as a means of sabotaging future rail, road and energy-development projects. The intention to use the SCO as an international framework to bring the five key players of the region (Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, China and Russia) to the same table is a master stroke for which Xi Jinping and Putin will be remembered.

Putin and Xi Jinping have a lot to offer in almost all the proposals made, from military defense guaranteed by alliances or arms sales, to economic benefits stemming from Beijing’s financial power. Moscow and Beijing offer both military sovereignty and economic cover to countries that have always been easy targets for terrorism, corruption and malfeasance as a result of the attention they attract from Beijing and Moscow’s political opponents, mainly Washington. Afghanistan is an example, but the agreement signed concerning the Caspian Sea is also a clear example of Eurasian integration prevailing over every external attempt to influence events in Washington’s favor. The agreement signed in Aktau, between Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan, forever seals any military expansionist aims of the United States or its allies. In the Caspian Sea, no foreign military presence will ever be allowed, not even temporarily.

The agreement on the Caspian Sea is a great victory for Moscow, together with the tripartite discussions between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, which allow for Russia to strengthen its southern borders, expand new trade alliances, and actively combat terrorism in all its forms (including the Taliban in Afghanistan). For Beijing, these tripartite talks advance two key factors influencing the development of the BRI. Firstly, it mitigates, and if necessary combats, the danger of terrorism, often used as an instrument against the BRI’s infrastructure by China’s adversaries, typically the US. Secondly, it deepens talks with the Indian counterpart and opens more channels of communication between Beijing and New Delhi as well as between Modi and Xi Jinping. Although both countries are members of the BRICS, India has an intense relationship with Washington allies Australia and Japan. New Delhi tries to present itself as a balancing actor that offers an alternative to minor countries in Southeast Asia. Washington would like to use Indian influence to play these countries against China, but New Delhi and Beijing are working to prevent this in favor of broader Eurasian integration.

In spite of what Washington may hope for and encourage, New Delhi’s role does not necessarily come into conflict with Beijing’s policies in the region. To overcome existing tensions, especially after the clashes on their common border more than a year ago, it was crucial to create a framework suitable to eliminate distrust between the two countries and increase mutual confidence. In this sense, India’s entry into the SCO represents a great incentive for a constant improvement in relations between the two countries. It should be remembered that trade between Beijing and New Delhi is constantly increasing and personal relations between Modi and Xi Jinping have repeatedly shown themselves to be at important levels. The entry of Pakistan and Afghanistan into the equation makes the picture more complicated, but certainly not impossible. Such forums for negotiations as the SCO provides allows for the ironing out of differences.

Meanwhile, Washington is not standing idly by watching this Eurasian integration proceed unopposed, and has begun to create the ideal conditions for further chaos in Afghanistan. The Taliban, having remained undefeated over the last 18 years of war, have started new offensives in the country, even expanding into areas they have never controlled since the Americans arrived. They could end up controlling more territory than before the War on Terror began. Washington struggles to impose stable control over the territory. But it also has every interest in ensuring that Afghanistan remains a source of instability in the region, also involving Pakistan in this process, exacerbating the frictions between New Delhi and Islamabad and possibly involving Beijing as well.

Persistent and credible reports continue to indicate the relocation from Syria of a large number of local leaders and commanders of terrorist groups supported by Washington. In addition to saving them from sure defeat at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army, the United States has begun to relocate numerous extremist Salafists loyal to the ISIS to the Eurasian country for more than a year. It is therefore not surprising that the increasing presence of ISIS in Afghanistan has led to clashes with the Taliban, engaging in a power struggle over money and drug-trade routes.

As the contrasting examples of Syria and Libya showed, alliances between countries is what make a genuine struggle against international terrorism effective. In Afghanistan the situation is complicated by the presence and interference of the United States. But after 18 years, the White House’s excuse of being there to fight terrorism is wearing thin. Not coincidentally, Afghanistan is an observer member of the SCO, holding increasingly frequent talks with all the parties involved, specifically with China, Russia, India and Pakistan. The direction is decidedly towards an alliance that has as its ultimate objective the elimination of Daesh in the country and a political dialogue with the Taliban, even if this second objective is only currently a vague possibility.

The United States is committing the same mistake in Afghanistan that it committed in Iraq following the war in 2003 and and in Libya following the killing of Gaddafi in 2011. These countries, which were not openly hostile to the United States (especially Saddam Hussein, who was strongly anti-Iranian), today find themselves in chaos (Libya), with Washington and Italy playing a weak hand in supporting the Fayez al-Sarraj government while that of General Haftar controls more than half of the country with Russian and French support. In Iraq, the government is openly pro-Shia, maintaining privileged, direct relations with Iran and allowing Russia to use its airspace to target US-backed terrorists.

Washington, using tactics of destruction and chaos, has forced several countries to seek protection from the likes of Russia and Iran. Afghanistan is moving in the same direction, even though the country currently has tens of thousands of foreign troops who will eventually have to end their war mission under the the NATO banner, finally freeing the region from the negative influence of Washington and her allies.

Washington’s recent choices certainly do not help advance American interests in the region. Trump has blocked some funding for the Pakistani armed forces as well as several joint training courses between the Pakistani and American intelligence services. Washington is also blocking 300 million dollars of aid on the basis of Islamabad not acting sufficiently to combat militants.

Russia in the north, China in the east and Iran in the South are ready to integrate the strategic triangle between their borders (the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India), into the Eurasian plan of development and progress. Despite Washington’s attempts at sabotage, whether economically or militarily, covertly or overtly, the path towards a new Eurasian century seems linked to events like the treaty on the Caspian Sea, the ending of the war in Syria, and the deterioration of security conditions in Afghanistan. These are all events that mark the end of American hegemony in the region.

Piece by piece, China, Russia and Iran are snatching historic allies such as Turkey and Pakistan away from Washington, with the ultimate goal of pushing American influence out of the region. Without these key allies, Washington’s capacity to destabilize the region is reduced considerably. The agreement on the Caspian Sea, like the SCO in Central Asia, therefore serves the purpose of preventing external interference, especially by the United States.

In the name of effectively fighting terrorism and stabilizing key countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria, China and Russia are advancing the project of Eurasian integration for the benefit of the whole region and beyond. Washington will have little capacity to throw a spanner in the works and attempt to sabotage the whole project as it finds itself progressively pushed out of the region.

*

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.

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 Dutch government has supported an armed group in Syria, who by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service has been classified as a terrorist organisation. According to research presented today by Dutch newspaper Trouw and television program Nieuwsuur.

In October a trial will start against a Dutch citizen that joined Jabhat al-Shamiya and actively participated in actions this group carried out in Syria. This group has previously been classified as a terrorist organisation by the Dutch government.

Trouw and Nieuwsuur, in the past months, have interviewed hundreds of rebels and others involved in the NLA (Non Lethal Assistance) program, a secret government program. Using this program, the Dutch government (from 2015 till early 2018) delivered ‘non-lethal goods’ to 22 rebel groups in Syria. Even though Dutch parliament members have repeatedly requested more information on the NLA program, the Dutch government has thus far not released the names of the rebel groups it has been supporting.

Rebel leaders and others involved have confirmed that the Dutch government in 2017 provided Jabhat al-Shamiya (‘Levant Front’) uniforms and pick-up trucks. Jabhat al-Shamiya has been classified as a salafist and jihadist organisation by the same government that supported them. In a law suit last year, the public prosecutor’s office stated that this organisation was striving for the creation of a caliphate and can’t be classified any other than a ‘criminal organisation with terrorist aims’. Trouw and Nieuwsuur have identified at least 6 specific brigades in this organisation that have received support from the Dutch government.

The program costs several millions

The Dutch government told the parliament in 2015 that it would only support moderate groups in Syria. And that the ‘moderately armed groups’ would be judged by strict criteria before they would receive support. For example, the Dutch government would check if said groups would be following the ‘humane rules of war’. On top of that, these groups ‘would be continuously monitored’. The Dutch government, at the time, has said that supporting ‘moderate’ groups is necessary because it would allow these groups to have more power at the future negotiation table with the Syrian government. The rebels are primarily fighting Assad, initially ISIS too, but some rebel groups have merged with ISIS too.

Trouw and Nieuwsuur’s research has shown that besides uniforms and pick-up trucks, such as the Toyota Hilux and Isuzu D-max, the Dutch government has also provided rebel groups with satellite phones, laptops, mattresses, backpacks and cameras. The rebels told Trouw and Nieuwsuur that they are “very happy with the Dutch support and that they’re actively using the goods in their battles”. Videos have shown that these rebel groups were indeed using the pick-up trucks said to have been provided by the Dutch government and were seen mounting machine guns on top to target military targets. In these videos it was impossible to see where the vehicles came from, because these vehicles have been stripped of number plates or any other form of identification.

Public information on the NLA program is difficult to obtain, requests by Nieuwsuur and Trouw, using the Act on public access to government information, have been repeatedly denied. In a response to the articles released today, the Dutch government has promised that they stopped the program: “From our own monitoring we concluded that the risks were simply too great and due to the politically changed situation in Syria, we don’t think it was necessary anymore to continue our support. Reports from Nieuwsuur and Trouw have proven that our own assessment was correct and that we did the right thing to discontinue support”.

The program, supporting terrorist rebels in Syria, costed the Dutch tax payer 25 million Euros.

*

Author’s note: This article will be expanded upon when more information is released.

All images in this article are from Defend Europa.

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

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history,  a decisive watershed, a breaking point.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.

9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.

In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property on 9/11,  from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11”.

The latter build  upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed “in the name of  9/11” involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.

The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties.

Today we commemorate the tragic events of 9/11 with evidence, detailed analysis and a sense of history. Below is a selection of articles on different dimensions of the ongoing debate on 9/11.

Michel Chossudovsky, September 11, 2018

*     *     *

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2018

“Going after bin Laden” has served  to sustain the legend of the “world’s most wanted terrorist”, who  “haunts Americans and millions of others around the world.”

Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly claimed that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remain unknown:  “It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

Triggering War. A Manufactured “Catalytic Event” Which Will Initiate An All Out War? Are We Going to Let this Happen Again?

By Prof. Graeme McQueen, September 08, 2018

One of the purposes of the September 11, 2001 operation, in my view, was precisely to change that situation – to arouse intense feelings of unity, aggression and support for government in order to banish once and for all the Vietnam Syndrome and to launch with great energy the new global conflict formation (the “War on Terror”) so that the 21st century, with the military leading the way, would become another American Century.

9/11 Unmasked

By Professor Piers Robinson, September 11, 2018

It is against this backdrop that 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth now emerges. The book is the culmination of seven years work by the 9/11 Consensus Panel which includes 23 experts from fields including physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, piloting, airplane crash investigation, medicine, journalism, psychology, and religion.

Why I Don’t Speak of the Fake News of “9/11” Anymore

By Edward Curtin, September 09, 2018

I kept thinking of the ongoing language and logic used to describe what had happened that terrible day in 2001 and in the weeks to follow.  It all seemed so clichéd and surreal, as if set phrases had it been extracted from some secret manual, phrases that rung with an historical resonance that cast a spell on the public, as if mass hypnosis were involved.  People seemed mesmerized as they spoke of the events in the official language that had been presented to them.

9/11 Truth: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

By David Ray Griffin, September 05, 2018

At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery. The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.

Osamagate

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2018

The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly “against international terrorism” has been launched [October 2001], yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the “Islamic Militant Network” as part of Washington’s foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA.

Video: The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw

By Barrie Zwicker and Michael Welch, September 09, 2018

In January 2002, only four months after the terrorist attacks blamed on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, a seasoned journalist, media critic and critical thinker by the name of Barrie Zwicker became the first broadcaster in the world to challenge the official 9/11 narrative on national television with his seven part series, The Great Deception.

Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 07, 2018

One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to “fabricate an enemy”. The “outside enemy” personified by Osama bin Laden is “threatening America”. Pre-emptive war directed against “Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down. America is under attack.

The Fakest Fake News: The U.S. Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

By Edward Curtin, September 11, 2018

With the publication of 9/11  Unmasked: An Review Panel Investigation, they now have a brilliant source book to use to turn their suspicions into certitudes.  And for those who have never doubted the official account (or accounts would be more accurate), reading this book should shock them into reality, because it is not based on speculation, but on carefully documented and corroborated facts, exacting logic, and the scientific method.

The Invasion of Afghanistan, October 7, 2001: Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

By David Ray Griffin, September 05, 2018

There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.”1 This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.

What Happened on the Planes on September 11, 2001? The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls. The 9/11 Commission “Script” Was Fabricated

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 04, 2018

In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating evidence”, was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. According to the Report, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was only recovered in the case of one of the flights (UAL 93).

Federal Grand Jury Petition Filed for New 9/11 Investigation

By Bruce G. Morgan, September 10, 2018

On April 10th of this year, the non-profit Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Manhattan, formally requesting that he present to a grand jury, as a U.S. Attorney, extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11/2001. The petition cites broad and conclusive evidence, providing proof of explosives and incendiaries employed at ground zero to bring down the twin towers and WTC Building 7.

9/11 Attacks: Thousands of 9/11 First Responders Have Cancer

By Derrick Broze, September 05, 2018

As Americans prepare for the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, nearly 10,000 first responders and New York City residents have reported 9/11-related cancers. The numbers were released by the federally funded World Trade Center Health Program.

***

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

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

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

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

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

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

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. 

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 US-led propaganda campaign against the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance has reached a new level as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is openly preparing to kick of a ground assault on terrorist groups in northwestern Syria.

During a September 7 UN Security Council briefing, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley stated that

“when Russia and the Assad regime say they want to counter terrorism, they actually mean they want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes. They want to punish the civilians who had the courage to rise up against Assad.” She further stated that “the Assad regime” must halt an offensive in Idlib because it will undermine “peace talks”.

“We consider any assault on Idlib to be a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Syria. If Assad, Russia, and Iran continue, the consequences will be dire,” Haley said.

On the same day, CNN released another fabulous report based on anonymous US defense officials. According to the report, Russia warmed the US-led coalition twice that its forces and the Syrian military are prepared to attack terrorists in the 55-km zone claimed by the US-led coalition around its military garrison at al-Tanf. CNN speculated that this attack may endanger US troops deployed there, but did not elaborate how it is possible if US personnel are not embedded with terrorists.

Following the report, the coalition kicked off a military exercise involving 100 US servicemen in the al-Tanf area.

“Our forces will demonstrate the capability to deploy rapidly, assault a target with integrated air and ground forces, and conduct a rapid exfiltration anywhere in the OIR combined joint operations area … Exercises like this bolster our defeat-ISIS capabilities and ensure we are ready to respond to any threat to our forces,” CENTCOM spokesman Navy Captain Bill Urban stated.

On September 8, clashes erupted between a unit of the Syrian Military Intelligence and security forces of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the city of al-Qamishli. Kurdish sources claimed that clashes erupted after government troops had entered the SDF-controlled area without a permission. Pro-government sources say that the SDF attack had been pre-planned. 12 government servicemen and 7 SDF personnel were killed in the incident.

On September 9, the SDF’s political wing, the Syrian Democratic Council, released a statement claiming that it regrets the incident.

“The coincidence of this incident with the summit in Tehran is questionable,” the SDC added in the same statement de-facto accusing Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey of the escalation.

Meanwhile, multiple reports have been released by pro-militant media activists and mainstream media outlets on alleged civilian casualties and damage to the civilian infrastructure as a result of the airstrikes of the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces. The reports came when Syrian and Russian forces expanded their airstrikes on targets belonging to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and the Turkistan Islamic Party in northern Lattakia and southern and southwestern Idlib.

A source in the 4^th Armoured Division of the Syrian Arab Army told SouthFront that these strikes are preparations for a ground phase of the offensive in the area. However, no details when it’s set to be started were provided.

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’s official. The Syrian Army assisted by Russian air support is closing in on the last major pocket of terrorists remaining in the country in the province of Idlib near Aleppo. The United States, which has trained and armed some of the trapped gunmen and even as recently as a year ago described the province as “al-Qaeda’s largest safe haven since 9/11,” has perhaps predictably warned Syria off. The White House initially threatened a harsh reaction if the Bashar al-Assad government were to employ any chemical weapons in its final attack, setting the stage for the terrorists themselves to carry out a false flag operation blamed on Damascus that would bring with it a brutal response against the regime and its armed forces by the U.S., Britain and France.

In support of the claims relating to chemical weapons use, the Trump Administration, which is itself illegally occupying part of Syria, is as usual creating a bogus casus belli. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said in a news conference that

“This is a tragic situation, and if they [Russia and Iran] want to continue to go the route of taking over Syria, they can do that. But they cannot do it with chemical weapons. They can’t do it assaulting their people and we’re not going to fall for it. If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who’s going to use them.”

As with all Haley commentary, the appropriate response should be expressing wonderment at her ability to predict who will do something before it occurs followed by “Not quite Nikki.” She should familiarize herself with her own State Department’s travel warning on Syria which states explicitly that “tactics of ISIS, [al-Qaeda affiliate in Idlib] Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use of…chemical weapons.”

Setting the stage for a false flag provoked attack on a country that does not threaten the United States was bad enough, but now Washington has apparently hardened its line, indicating that any use of the Syrian Army to clear the province of rebels will “…not be tolerated. Period.” Haley again spoke out at the United Nations, saying “…an offensive against Idlib would be a reckless escalation. The regime and its backers must stop their military campaign in all its forms.” In support of its inflexible stance, the White House has been citing the presence of a large civilian population also trapped in the pocket even though there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone in Washington actually cares about Syrian civilian casualties.

And there is always Iran just waiting to get kicked around, when all else fails. Haley, always blissfully ignorant but never quiet, commented while preparing to take over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council last Friday, that Russia and Syria “want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes” before launching into a tirade about Iran, saying that

“President Trump is very adamant that we have to start making sure that Iran is falling in line with international order. If you continue to look at the spread Iran has had in supporting terrorism, if you continue to look at the ballistic missile testing that they are doing, if you continue to look at the sales of weapons we see with the Huthis in Yemen — these are all violations of security council resolution. These are all threats to the region, and these are all things that the international community needs to talk about.”

And there is the usual hypocrisy over long term objectives. President Donald Trump said in April that “it’s time” to bring American troops home from Syria -once the jihadists of Islamic State have been definitively defeated. But now that that objective is in sight, there has to be some question about who is actually determining the policies that come out of the White House, which is reported to be in more than usual disarray due to the appearance last week of the New York Times anonymous op-ed describing a “resistance” movement within the West Wing that has been deliberately undermining and sometimes ignoring the president to further Establishment/Deep State friendly policies. The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House, which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today.

The book and op-ed mesh nicely in describing how Donald Trump is a walking disaster who is deliberately circumvented by his staff. One section of the op-ed is particularly telling and suggestive of neocon foreign policy, describing how the White House staff has succeeded in “[calling out] countries like Russia…for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly” in spite of the president’s desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and Trump, describing how “…the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken to hold Moscow accountable.”

If the op-ed and Woodward book are in any way accurate, one has to ask “Whose policy? An elected president or a cabal of disgruntled staffers who might well identify as neoconservatives?” Be that as it may, the White House is desperately pushing back while at the same time searching for the traitor, which suggests to many in Washington that it will right the sinking ship prior to November elections by the time honored and approved method used by politicians worldwide, which means starting a war to rally the nation behind the government.

As North Korea is nuclear armed, the obvious targets for a new or upgraded war would be Iran and Syria. As Iran might actually fight back effectively and the Pentagon always prefers an enemy that is easy to defeat, one suspects that some kind of expansion of the current effort in Syria would be preferable. It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with Russia, which would be unpredictable, but an attack on Syrian government forces that would produce a quick result which could plausibly be described as a victory would certainly be worth considering.

By all appearances, the preparation of the public for an attack on Syria is already well underway. The mainstream media has been deluged with descriptions of tyrant Bashar al-Assad, who allegedly has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The rhetoric coming out of the usual government sources is remarkable for its truculence, particularly when one considers that Damascus is trying to regain control over what is indisputably its own sovereign territory from groups that everyone agrees are at least in large part terrorists.

Last week, the Trump White House approved the new U.S. plan for Syria, which, unlike the old plan of withdrawal, envisions something like a permanent presence in the country. It includes a continued occupation of the country’s northeast, which is the Kurdish region; forcing Iran plus its proxies including Hezbollah to leave the country completely; and continued pressure on Damascus to bring about regime change.

Washington has also shifted its perception of who is trapped in Idlib, with newly appointed U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey arguing that “. . . they’re not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator.” Jeffrey, it should be noted, was pulled out of retirement where he was a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spin off. On his recent trip to the Middle East he stopped off in Israel nine days ago to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The change in policy, which is totally in line with Israeli demands, would suggest that Jeffrey received his instructions during the visit.

Israel is indeed upping its involvement in Syria. It has bombed the country 200 times in the past 18 months and is now threatening to extend the war by attacking Iranians in neighboring Iraq. It has also been providing arms to the terrorist groups operating inside Syria.

And Netanyahu also appears to be preparing his followers for a bit of bloodshed. In a recent ceremony, he boasted that “the weak are slaughtered” while “the strong” survive — “for good or ill.” Commentators in Israel noted that the words were very close to those used by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf in a chapter describing the historical inevitability of domination by the Aryan race. They also observed that Netanyahu, like Trump, also needs a war to free himself from his legal problems.

Taking the president, the U.N. Ambassador, the Israeli Prime Minister and the U.S. Special Representative for Syria at their words, it would appear that the Washington Establishment and its Israeli manipulators have narrowed the options for dealing with Syria and its regional supporter Iran to either war or war. Add to that the closing time window for doing something to ameliorate the Trump Administration’s panic over the impending midterm election, and it would seem that there is a certain inevitability regarding the process whereby the United States military will again be on the march in the Middle East.

*

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from the author.

Seventeen years have passed since the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001, and there are still many unanswered questions surrounding that fateful day.

In 2011, experts and scientists from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4-day period.

Through their analysis and scientific investigations, they hope to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001.

This video features the full presentation by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada.

Press For Truth and The International Center for 9/11 Studies Present:

“The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception”

Produced by: Steven Davies, Dan Dicks, Bryan Law

An over 5-hour DVD, with comprehensive coverage of the 4 day Toronto Hearings from September 2011.

by Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 9780973714715

List Price: $24.95

click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

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

Due to persecution, violence and wars often waged or funded by Western governments, almost 70 million people have been forced from their homes in recent years. This is a record total surpassing the 60 million uprooted during the Second World War, easily the most bloody conflict in human history. During the early summer of 1940, as the German invasion of France was reaching a remarkably swift end, 12 million refugees were on the roads of northern France bound for goodness knows where.

About three generations later, more than 16 million were displaced worldwide in 2017, and the annual trend remains on an upward curve. Tellingly, Afghanistan and Iraq have among the largest numbers of displaced people, with millions fleeing both countries throughout this century. The exoduses can be linked directly to massive blows inflicted upon Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States Armed Forces, the most powerful military of all time.

Refugee influxes into wealthy European states have sparked a seemingly great “crisis”. In Europe, Germany has accepted easily the largest number of migrants, with more than a million people arriving since 2015 – yet even this figure constitutes just over 1% of the existing German population.

Jordan, with just under 10 million inhabitants, took in during the same period about 1.3 million Syrian refugees, while tiny Lebanon (population now six million) absorbed up to 1.5 million migrants. Since 2014, about 600,000 asylum seekers arrived in Italy from Africa, risking their lives crossing the treacherous Mediterranean Sea in unsuitable craft. In recent months, however, the far-right Italian government is refusing to receive further migrants, including people fleeing countries that Benito Mussolini attacked before and during World War II, like Ethiopia, Egypt and Tunisia.

It is not regarded as a calamity by Western elites when poor Middle East nations like Jordan and Lebanon accept massive migrant numbers, placing further strain on their creaking infrastructure and shrinking resources. Many of these refugees fled a Syria in which “rebel opposition groups” were heavily supported by the West, comprising mainly of terrorists linked to organizations like Al-Qaeda.

Yet a much larger catastrophe than the above is quickly and silently approaching: Great movements of people can be anticipated as a result of unchecked climate change caused by human activity. The recent migrant numbers are a fraction of what can be expected in years to come. A little more than a generation from now, in 2050, up to a billion people are expected to have departed countries decimated by climate change. When the 21st century reaches its end, anywhere up to two billion people could be forced from their homelands.

The pace of climate change has shocked even experienced climate experts, while mounting evidence whittles down the ever-dwindling band of skeptics. Climate analyst Katrin Meissner, of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia, said in July that the speed of warming is, “much faster than anything encountered in Earth’s history. In terms of rate of change, we are in uncharted waters”.

The reality is that our planet is very delicately balanced, and any slight disruption to its methodologies – caused by humans for example – can have major, long-lasting consequences. Meissner’s co-author, scientist Alan Mix of Oregon State University, warns

“We can expect that sea level rise could become unstoppable for millenia, impacting much of the world’s population, infrastructure and economic activity”.

This is particularly worrying as most of the world’s largest cities are built on coastlines, such as New York City, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Mumbai, Shanghai, etc. In recent decades, tens of millions across the world have been leaving rural inland areas and flocking to urban coastal heartlands. Today, about 40% of all humans live within 100 kilometers of a coastline.

However, global sea levels have been rising continuously over the past century and more, linked to greater burning of fossil fuels by industrial nations. With the increasing melt of both Arctic and Antarctica at either ends of the globe, rates of sea level rise have shot up during the previous 20 years. Over the past generation, oceans have been rising twice as fast as before.

Altogether, our water levels have now climbed about 20 centimeters globally since 1850. Come the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), anything up to a further 98 centimeter sea level rise (over three feet) can be expected – driven by a melt of the massive Greenland ice sheet, which is 1,500 miles long. The Greenland ice sheet is disappearing at a quicker rate than predicted, melting almost twice faster than it was during the late 19th century, mainly due to significantly increased summer temperatures.

Meanwhile, the greatest number of people living by coastlines are those residing in China and India, the world’s most inhabited countries comprising more than a third of the entire human population. Remarkably, about half of China’s 1.3 billion citizens live alongside the country’s industrialized coastlines. Over the past five decades, many millions of Chinese have moved from the country’s inland regions towards the seas in search of greater commerce and rich marine pickings.

As the oceans continue their inexorable rise, where are all these coastal dwellers going to go? Erik Solheim, the UN environment chief, said recently that “we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future”. Those living in Africa, the Middle East and much of Asia are enduring increasingly intolerable temperatures, droughts, floods, and so on.

Climate change is already biting hard in China, easily the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter over the past decade. Coastal cities like Guangzhou (14.5 million population) in southern China are particularly vulnerable, and last summer it was drenched under record flooding as a result of major storms, another classic symptom of climate change. Places like Guangzhou, whose population has exploded, will be hugely affected in years to come, inevitably leading to mass exoduses.

The deadly phenomenon of worsening weather events has been repeated elsewhere in China. Shanghai, on China’s east coast with a population of over 24 million, was declared in 2012 as the most vulnerable big city in the world to flooding by British and Dutch scientists. If carbon emissions continue along their upward trajectory, Shanghai could be largely immersed under the Pacific Ocean by the year 2100. Yet, currently, China burns coal at a far greater level than any other country while it is also the world’s largest oil importer, policies which are having serious consequences.

In a few years, China’s population will be overtaken by neighboring India. Though India is a poor country with severe internal problems, its carbon emissions continue to rapidly grow at this pivotal period. India is among the biggest coal and oil consumers, now ranking as the third largest greenhouse gas producer in the world, having long since left Russia behind in fourth place. India’s carbon emissions have increased by almost 10% in the past two years alone, and at this rate it will eventually overtake America in second – though in per capita terms (per person) the US is still clear of even China.

Situated along India’s coastal areas are about 450 million of the nation’s 1.3 billion inhabitants. Disconcertingly, the Indian Ocean is rising almost twice as fast as the global mean average. This is mainly due to the excessive heat and wind the Indian Ocean is absorbing in this region, as water expands considerably when trapping heat. The rising ocean will have serious repercussions for coastal places like Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India’s most populous city with over 12 million people residing in the inner urban areas, spreading to over 20 million on its metropolitan outreaches. Within the next century, it is expected that about 40% of Mumbai will be swallowed by the rising ocean, leading to further mass departures.

This is a scenario that may well be seen time and again across the world’s major cities. In the US, there are a number of low-lying urban centers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts such as Boston, New York City, Miami, New Orleans, etc. In New York City for instance, America’s most populous town (8.5 million), average sea levels have risen by over a foot since 1900. That is about twice the overall planetary rate of sea level rise during the same period.

By 2050, water levels in the New York area are expected to rise by at least another 28 centimeters (almost a foot), but perhaps approaching closer to two feet. Come 2100, anything up to a six foot sea rise may be expected. With alarming climate reports building up, it is hardly surprising New York City planners are outlining major proposals to protect the metropolis from these unprecedented crises looming on the horizon.

*

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

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 looks like Trump will plunge us into war, either in Iran or Syria, and possibly both with the truly frightening prospect of Russia and the US going up against each other. 

I remember Bush the Elder’s first war in Iraq. I recall my coworkers all of a sudden morphing into little war zealots overnight, demanding I show the flag and support for “our” troops. 

During the second rape of Iraq it was simply remarkable watching the televised talking heads condemning those of us opposed to that illegal and criminal war. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News told us to shut up. All of a sudden practicing the First Amendment was considered traitorous behavior (unless you worked for Fox News). Supporting the troops was mandatory. There were waving flags and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS billboards and bumperstickers everywhere. Yellow ribbons tied around old oaks trees. Endless super-hysterical news broadcasts spreading easily debunked lies. 

Later, it was discovered Bush and his coterie of mentally-disturbed neocons had lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But this didn’t matter, not to the president and his advisers or, for that matter, millions of Americans who were convinced—thanks primarily to non-stop war propaganda—Saddam wanted to kill every last American with nukes and nerve agents. A couple years later George W. Bush responded to the criticism by staging a comedy routine about not finding WMDs under his desk. 

If Trump decides to bomb Syria and Iran, the same demands will be made. Support our troops. Show your support with a flag or lapel pin. Anti-war protests—rare events these days, although they do happen on occasion—and criticism of the government will be considered giving comfort to the enemy and seriously unAmerican. 

Corporate polls report Americans believe Iran is America’s gravest and most portent threat. China and North Korea follow Iran. Thanks to ceaseless propaganda churned out by the corporate script-reading media, Americans also consider Syria, Afghanistan, and the Islamic State as enemies. 

The internet-based alternative media—now under attack as Russian fueled useful idiots—is far more prevalent and influential than it was in 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq. If a serious confrontation occurs in Syria between US and Russian troops, there will be close to zero tolerance for criticism. Ditto an incident in the South China Sea or on Russia’s border where NATO is piling up troops and staging live fire exercises. 

If war comes, the state will move to—as that great libertarian Bill O’Reilly said—force you to shut up and support the troops, which is code for supporting mass murder, war crimes, and turning largely defenseless countries into failed states unable to resist occupation and dismemberment. 

The destruction of Alex Jones and his Infowars is only the beginning. He was taken out because he is the loudest and most abrasive critic (although this criticism generally doesn’t extend to Trump and his cronies). But make no mistake—the deplatforming of Jones is a template for the ultimate destruction of all dissenting voices, including those over on the easily compromised left who are not on foundation payrolls or taking cash from George Soros. 

War brings out the true nature of the state. Its violence and murder is not confined to foreign enemies who “hate us for our freedom.” It extends to all critics, especially those with reach like Alex Jones.

*

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

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation.

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

We, the undersigned group of scholars and teachers, deplore the autocratic and arbitrary reduction of ward representation for Toronto city council contained in Bill 5 being rushed through the Ontario Legislature by the just-elected Doug Ford-led Conservative provincial government.

There are numerous problems with this initiative – both in terms of policy and process – that cannot be squared with democratic values or procedures.

As policy, reducing the number of city councilors will not make for better representation or government or cost reductions for the city, as the Ford government claims. Indeed, as we saw with a similar cynical reduction of MPPs by a previous Conservative government, reducing the number of politicians did not lead to any cost savings, but merely shifted where money was spent in a poor and half-hearted attempt to respond to constituent demands, and had the effect of weakening local influence and centralizing more power at Queen’s Park and the Premier’s Office.

As policy, reducing the number of city councilors will weaken the democratic representation and advocacy roles so crucial to local government. Fewer wards mean that many more people will be trying to get the attention of fewer politicians. Far from increasing accountability, this will have the effect of insulating politicians from public pressure as bigger wards mean increased costs to run for office and politicians that will be indebted to those who can fund their campaigns. Meanwhile, local citizens will find it much harder to organize a grassroots campaign in these larger wards.

As policy, reducing the number of city councilors will make it harder to have a council that truly reflects the economic and social diversity of the city, as all research on representation shows that winner take all voting systems combined with large riding sizes tend to benefit the most established and powerful groups in society (i.e. wealthy white males) and fail to reflect the class, gender, ethnic and racial diversity of the community.

As process, it is conventional to signal the desirability of such reforms in the campaign period for provincial office, rather than announcing it after the election when voters now have no ability to consider it in casting their vote.

As process, it is conventional to take input on such proposed changes from the institutional representatives and voters that will be affected by the changes and develop an interactive policy approach that operates on realistic timelines to gain, respond, and act on such input, rather than ram through arbitrary changes just months before they need to be put into practice.

As process, it is conventional for governments elected under the first-past-the-post electoral system, particularly those that have gained a majority of seats but only a minority of the popular vote, to act with caution in taking up divisive policy issues, especially when such issues touch on the democratic rules of the game themselves. To radically alter the representational structure of another level of government, without warning and without input from said government or its electorate, is clearly an abuse of the power that the first-past-the-post voting system grants to legislative majority governments.

At this point, it would be fruitless to demand that the Ford Conservative government reverse its actions on this issue as the government has made it clear by its actions and stated public rationales that its ‘reforms’ are, like their ‘austerity’ agenda, ideological in nature, scope and objectives and, as such, not subject to reasoned, informed, evidence-based discussion or deliberation or non-partisan considerations of the public good or fair play. As with conservative movements across western countries, the point of such efforts is to weaken the already shallow substance of democratic representation, deliberation and accountability in favour of strengthening the power of those with substantial wealth.

However, armed with evidence-based insights about these attacks on democracy at both the procedural and institutional levels, we can recommend specific political reforms to help reverse and prevent such undemocratic initiatives in the future. As such we call on citizens, organized groups in civil society, and the key Ontario opposition parties to support the introduction of the following reforms:

1. The immediate introduction of a proportional voting system for provincial elections. The results of the 2018 Ontario provincial election and the subsequent actions by the Ford Conservative government demonstrate clearly why the first-past-the-post voting system is a danger to the survival of democracy itself. Conservative governments are increasingly demonstrating their willingness to abuse the democratic trust that is required for FPTP to operate. With just 40% of the popular vote, the Ford Conservatives are pushing through a host of policies that a majority of Ontarians clearly oppose, and they are doing so in a manner that prevents that opposition from organizing and bringing pressure to bear on the government. The opposition parties in Ontario should declare their commitment now to introduce PR after the next election, if they are elected.

2. The establishment of a legitimate public consultative process to determine the proper levels of representation for the city of Toronto, as well as other reforms of governance (like the introduction of a proportional voting system for the city), with a commitment by the provincial government to act on them.

3. A removal of the ban on political parties or slates running for municipal office in Toronto. As research clearly demonstrates that an absence of organized groups at the local level is the key barrier to people running for and participating in local politics, this politically-motivated restriction should be repealed.

4. Establish a Citizens’ Assembly to rethink the role and purpose of local government, including ways to rebalance the influence between the provincial and local levels, and between property developers, ratepayers and tenants. •

Endorsed by:

• Nadia Abu-Zahra, Associate Professor International Development University of Ottawa
• Christo Aivalis, SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of History, University of Toronto
• Patricia Albanese, Professor, Dept of Sociology, Ryerson University
• Ahmed Allahwala, Associate Professor, Teaching Stream, Department of Human Geography, UTSC
• Sabah Alnaseri, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Miriam Anderson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Caroline Andrew, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa
• Sedef Arat-Koc, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Hugh Armstrong, Professor Emeritus, Carleton University
• Ian Balfour, Professor, Dept. of English, York University
• Rachel Barken, SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Sociology, York University
• Deborah Barndt, Professor Emerita, York University
• Tim Bartkiw, Associate Professor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University
• Ranu Basu, Associate Professor, Geography, York University
• Shyon Baumann, University of Toronto
• Ray Bazowski, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• William Bedford, PhD Candidate, FES, York University
• Andrew Biro, Professor, Department of Politics, Acadia University
• Simon Black, Assistant Professor of Labour Studies, Brock University
• Niko Block, author and Graduate Studies, Department of Politics, York University
• Nicholas Blomley, Professor of Geography, Simon Fraser University
• Larry S. Bourne FRSC FCIP, Professor emeritus, University of Toronto
• Susan Braedley, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Carleton
• Linda Briskin, Professor Emeritus, Social Science Department York University
• Deborah Brock, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University
• Susannah Bunce, Associate Professor, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Bill Burns Adjunct Faculty Graduate Studies, York University
• Nergis Canefe, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and the School of Public Policy, York
• John Carlaw, Graduate Research Fellow, Centre for Refugee Studies, York University
• Jenny Carson, Associate Professor, Department of History, Ryerson University
• Jon Caulfield, Senior Scholar, Urban Studies Program, York University
• Chris Chapman, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, York University
• Soma Chatterjee, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, York University
• Cara Chellew, Research Administrator, Major Collaborative Research Project Global Suburbanisms, York University
• Sheila Colla, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York
• George Comninel, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Creighton Connolly, Postdoctoral fellow, National University of Singapore
• Rosemary J. Coombe, Senior Canada Research Chair in Law, Communication and Culture, York University
• Matt Corbeil PhD Candidate York University
• Deborah Cowen, Professor, Department of Geography & Planning, University of Toronto
• Cathy Crowe, Distinguished Visiting Practitioner, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Simon Dalby, Professor, School of International Policy and Governance, Wilfrid Laurier University
• David B. Dewitt, Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Don Dippo, Professor, Faculty of Education, York University
• Stephan Dobson, Contract Faculty, Dept. of Social Science, York University
• Daniel Drache, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Lisa Drummond, Associate Professor, Urban Studies, Dept of Social Science, York University
• Robert J. Drummond, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Geneviève A. Dumas, Professor Emerita, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen’s University
• Michael Ekers, Assistant Professor, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto, Scarborough
• Theresa Enright, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto
• Lorna Erwin, Associate Professor, Sociology, York University
• Fay Faraday, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York
• Steven Farber, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Scarborough
• Dena Farsad, PhD Candidate, York University
• Leesa Fawcett, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Jennifer Foster, Associate Professor, York University
• Liette Gilbert, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Sam Gindin Graduate Faculty York University
• Jill Glessing, Continuing Education, Ryerson University
• Luin Goldring, Professor, Sociology, York University
• Kanishka Goonewardena, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• John Greyson, video/filmmaker, Toronto
• Sean Grisdale, PhD Student in the Geography Department at the University of Toronto
• Shubhra Gururani, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Oded Haas, PhD Candidate, York University
• Ratiba Hadj-Moussa, Professor, Department of Sociology, York University
• Laam Hae, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Paul A. Hamel, Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
• Pierre Hamel, Sociology, University of Montreal
• Rebecca Hall, Assistant Professor, Development Studies, Queen’s University
• Bob Hanke Adjunct Faculty Department of Communication Studies York University
• Judy Hellman, Professor Emerita, Departments of Social Science and Politics, York
• Stephen Hellman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Jordan House, Phd Candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Johanna Householder, Professor, Faculty of Art, OCAD University
• Jennifer Hyndman, Professor and Director, Centre for Refugees Studies, York University
• Susan Ingram, Associate Professor, Dept of Humanities, York University
• Adrian Ivakhiv, Steven Rubenstein Professor of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont
• Les Jacobs, Professor, Department of Social Science, York
• William Jenkins, Associate Professor, Geography, York University
• Josee Johnston, University of Toronto
• Ilan Kapoor, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Ali Kazimi, Associate Professor, Department of Cinema & Media Arts, York University
• Matthew Kellway, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Ryan Kelpin, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Azam Khatam, PhD., Instructor at York University, Disaster and Emergency Management program
• Loren King, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University
• Stefan Kipfer, Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Margaret Kohn, University of Toronto
• Abidin Kusno, Professor, Environmental Studies, York University
• Hannes Lacher, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Danielle Landry Lecturer, School of Disability Studies, Ryerson University
• Robert Latham, Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Nicole Latulippe, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Ute Lehrer, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Nina Levitt, Associate Professor, Department of Visual Art & Art History
• Steven Logan, University of Toronto Mississauga
• Brenda Longfellow, Associate Professor, Department of Cinema and Media Arts, York University
• Stephen Longstaff, Professor Emeritus, Sociology, York University
• Meg Luxton, Professor, Women’s Studies, York University
• Lucy Lynch, Project Coordinator, MCRI Global Suburbanisms, York University
• Margaret MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Sara Macdonald, Phd candidate, Utrecht University
• Heather MacRae, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Rianne Mahon, CIGI Chair and Professor, Balsillie School of International Affairs and Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University
• Stephen Mak, Architect, Toronto
• Loren March, PhD Candidate, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Judith Marshall, Research Associate, CERLAC, York University
• Carlota McAllister, Associate Professor, Anthropology, York University
• Eleanor MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen’s University
• Kenneth Iain MacDonald, Dept of Geography and Program in Planning, Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies, University of Toronto
• Jc Elijah Madayag-Bawuah, Graduate Student, Department of Social Science, York University
• Terry Maley, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Raul Mangrau, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Susan McGrath C.M., Professor Emerita, York University
• Wendy McKeen, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, York University
• Paul Christopher Gray, Assistant Professor, Department of Labour Studies, Brock University
• Tanner Mirrlees, Associate Professor, UOIT
• Radhika Mongia, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University
• Colin Mooers, professor, Dept of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Esteve Morera, Associate Professor, Departments of Philosophy and Politics, York
• Allan Moscovitch, Professor Emeritus, Carleton University
• Alex Murray, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Karen Murray, Associate Professor and Democratic Administration Program Coordinator, Department of Politics, York University
• Lisa Myers, Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Natasha Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Judith Nagata, Professor Emerita of Anthropology and Asian Studies, York University
• Nicole Neverson, Associate Professor, Sociology Ryerson University
• Glen Norcliffe, Professor Emeritus, Geography, York University
• Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Hadley Obodiac, Filmmaker, Toronto
• Kris Olds, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Umut Ozsu, Associate Professor, Department of Law, Carleton University
• Laurence Packer, FRES, Distinguished Research Professor, York University
• Simon Parker, Co-Director, Centre for Urban Research, University of York, UK.
• Leo Panitch, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Melanie Panitch, Associate Professor, School of Child and Youth Care, Ryerson
• Daniel J. Paré, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa
• Jessica Parish, Visiting Scholar, City Institute York University & Research Associate, Lancaster House Publishing
• Justin Paulson, Associate Professor, Department Sociology and Anthropology and Institute of Political Economy, Carleton
• Linda Peake, Director, The City Institute at York University
• Peter Penz, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Ellie Perkins, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Camilla Perrone, Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florence, Italy
• Frederick Peters, City Institute at York University
• Jay Pitter, Author, Placemaker, Lecturer
• Scott Prudham, Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, School of the Environment, University of Toronto
• John Radford, Emeritus Professor, Department of Geography, York University
• Tracey Raney, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Katharine N Rankin, Professor, Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Veronika Reichert, Teaching Assistant, PhD Student, Department of Politics York University
• Markus Reisenleitner, Professor, Department of Humanities, York University
• Mahmud Rezaei, Assistant Professor, Architect & Urban Designer, Visiting Scholar, the City Institute at York University
• Richard Roman, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
• Herman Rosenfeld Retiree Education Department UNIFOR
• Stephanie Ross, Associate Professor, School of Labour Studies, York
• E. Natalie Rothman, Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Historical and Cultural Studies, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Sue Ruddick, Professor, Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Parastou Saberi, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Geography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
• Lake Sagaris, Investigador y Profesor Asociado Adjunto, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
• Anders Sandberg, Professor, Environmental Studies, York University
• Richard Saunders, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Rebecca Schein, Human Rights/Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University
• Dayna Nadine Scott, York Research Chair in Environmental Law & Justice in the Green Economy
• Jo Sharma; Associate Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough
• John Shields, Professor Dept. of Politics and Public Administration Ryerson University
• Tyler Shipley, Professor of Culture, Society and Commerce, Department of Liberal Studies, Humber College
• Joel Shore, Professor of Biology, York University.
• Myer Siemiatycki, Professor, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Brian C.J. Singer, Dept. of Sociology, Glendon, York University
• David Skinner, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies, York University
• Charles Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, University Saskatchewan
• André Sorensen, Professor, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Luisa Sotomayor, PhD, Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Elaine Stavro, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Trent
• Arne S. Steinforth, Department of Anthropology, York
• Lindsay Stephens, Course Instructor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto, Scarborough
• Andrew Stevens, Associate Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina
• Donald Swartz, Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton
• Richard Swift Author and Educator Canadian Dimension
• Zack Taylor, Director, Centre for Urban Policy and Local Governance, University of Western Ontario
• Roza Tchoukaleyska, Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies, Memorial University of Newfoundland
• Sam Tecle, PhD candidate, Sociology, York University
• Mark Thomas, Associate Professor, Sociology, York University
• Neil Thomlinson, Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson
• Stefan Treffers, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, York University
• Eric Tucker, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York
• Steven Tufts, Associate Professor, Geography, York University
• Ethel Tungohan, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Murat Ucoglu, Phd candidate, FES, York University
• Peter Vandergeest, Professor, Geography, York University
• Krys Verrall Adjunct Faculty Department of Humanities York University
• Peter A. Victor Emeritus Professor, York University
• Ron Vogel, Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration. Ryerson University
• David Wachsmuth, Canada Research Chair in Urban Governance, McGill University
• Sarah Wakefield, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Alan Walks, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Toronto – Mississauga
• John Warkentin, Professor Emeritus, Geography, York University
• Traci Warkentin, Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• James Watson, PhD candidate, Department of Sociology, McMaster
• Elizabeth Watters, Lecturer, School of Social Work, York University
• Christopher Webb, PhD Candidate, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Daphne Winland, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Patricia Wood, Professor, Department of Geography, York University
• Jenny Wüstenberg, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, York
• B.H. Yael, Professor, Integrate Media, Faculty of Art, OCAD University
• Douglas Young, Associate Professor, Dept of Social Science, York University
• Kathy L. Young, Professor, Geography, York U
• Anna Zalik, Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University

*

L’8 agosto ha fatto scalo nel porto di Livorno la Liberty Passion (Passione per la Libertà) e il 2 settembre la Liberty Promise (Promessa di Libertà), che saranno seguite il 9 ottobre dalla Liberty Pride (Orgoglio di Libertà).

Le tre navi ritorneranno quindi a Livorno, in successione, il 10 novembre, il 15 dicembre e il 12 gennaio.

Sono enormi navi Ro/Ro, lunghe 200 metri e con 12 ponti, capaci ciascuna di trasportare 6.500 automobili. Non trasportano però automobili, ma carrarmati.

Fanno parte di una flotta statunitense di 63 navi appartenenti a compagnie private che, per conto del Pentagono, trasportano in continuazione armi in un circuito mondiale tra i porti statunitensi, mediterranei, mediorientali e asiatici.

Il principale scalo mediterraneo è Livorno, perché il suo porto è collegato alla limitrofa base statunitense di Camp Darby.

Quale sia l’importanza della base lo ha ricordato il colonnello Erik Berdy, comandante della guarnigione in Italia dello Us Army, in una recente visita al quotidiano «La Nazione» di Firenze.

La base logistica, situata tra Pisa e Livorno, costituisce il più grande arsenale Usa fuori dalla madrepatria. Il colonnello non ha specificato quale sia il contenuto dei 125 bunker di Camp Darby.

Esso può essere stimato in oltre un milione di proiettili di artiglieria, bombe per aerei e missili, cui si aggiungono migliaia di carrarmati, veicoli e altri materiali militari.

Non si può escludere che nella base vi siano state, vi siano o possano esservi in futuro anche bombe nucleari.

Camp Darby – ha sottolineato il colonnello – svolge un ruolo chiave, rifornendo le forze terrestri e aree statunitensi in tempi molto più brevi di quanto occorrerebbe se venissero rifornite direttamente dagli Usa.

La base ha fornito la maggior parte delle armi per le guerre contro l’Iraq, la Jugoslavia, la Libia e l’Afghanistan.

Dal marzo 2017, con le grandi navi che mensilmente fanno scalo a Livorno, le armi di Camp Darby vengono trasportate in continuazione nei porti di Aqaba in Giordania, Gedda in Arabia Saudita e altri scali mediorientali per essere usate dalle forze statunitesi e alleate nelle guerre in Siria, Iraq e Yemen.

Nel suo viaggio inaugurale la Liberty Passion ha sbarcato ad Aqaba, nell’aprile 2017, 250 veicoli militari e altri materiali. Tra le armi che ogni mese vengono trasportate via mare da Camp Darby a Gedda, vi sono certamente anche bombe Usa per aereo che l’aviazione saudita impiega (come risulta da prove fotografiche) per fare strage di civili nello Yemen.

Vi sono inoltre seri indizi che, nel collegamento mensile tra Livorno e Gedda, le grandi navi trasportino anche bombe per aereo fornite dalla Rwm Italia di Domusnovas (Sardegna) all’Arabia Saudita per la guerra nello Yemen.

In seguito all’accresciuto transito di armi da Camp Darby, non basta più il collegamento via canale e via strada della base col porto di Livorno e l’aeroporto di Pisa. È stata quindi decisa una massiccia riorganizzazione delle infrastrutture (confermata dal colonnello Berdy), comprendente una nuova ferrovia.

Il piano comporta l’abbattimento di 1.000 alberi in un’area protetta, ma è già stato approvato dalle autorità italiane.

Tutto questo non basta.

Il presidente del Consiglio regionale toscano Giani (Pd), ricevendo il colonnello Berdy, si è impegnato a promuovere «l’integrazione tra la base militare Usa di Camp Darby e la comunità circostante».

Posizione sostanzialmente condivisa dal sindaco di Pisa Conti (Lega) e da quello di Livorno Nogarin (M5S). Quest’ultimo, ricevendo il colonnello Berdy e poi l’ambasciatore Usa Eisenberg, ha issato sul Comune la bandiera a stelle e strisce.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO PANDORATV :

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

Andy Steele (AS): Dr. Leroy Hulsey got a BS in civil engineering I 1965 from the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy and an MS in civil engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla in 1966. He did post-graduate work at the University of Illinois at the Ph.D. level from 1968 to 1971, and in 1976 he got his Ph.D. in structural engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla. He has owned and run three high-tech engineering research corporations and has extensive teaching and research experience. Currently he’s the chair of the civil engineering and environmental engineering department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

We’re going to be talking about the World Trade Center 7 Study, giving an important update to our audience. He’s here to do that. First, Dr. Hulsey, I just want to welcome you back to 9/11 Free Fall.

Leroy Hulsey (LH): Thank you. I appreciate that.

AS: Before we get started, for newcomers, people who may not be aware of who you are and what the study is about, briefly tell us more about yourself and why you decided to undertake this study.

LH: One of the members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth contacted me. He is originally from the East Coast and is now located in Anchorage. He was looking for a person who could actually conduct research. So he made contact with me. That was several years ago. I turned the opportunity down to do the research work. The approach was made again and I turned it down again. The approach was made again, and I put together an estimate of what I thought it would cost to do it. The dialogue began. At that point I decided I was old enough to not worry about whether there would be any consequences to this, so I went ahead and said, “Okay, I’ll do it.”

At the end of the day, I began the study for the sole purpose of bringing the truth to what had been done previously and try to explain how this building may have come down, or may not have—I may not be able to fully explain it, but we can certainly tell you what didn’t happen. That’s what my goals have been from the very beginning—to at least establish that pattern. Right now we’re close to having everything completed.

AS: Please tell us what the study is, and also tell us what a finite element analysis is, exactly, for the layman.

LH: Okay, so as a forensic engineer, I would typically like to take a building that has come down and try to explain every little detail of what may have happened, what may have transpired. And typically you would have the broken elements of the building there to sort your way through, to have metallurgical tests done on the samples. You’d do all kinds of investigations on various parts and pieces in the laboratory. And then through that process that’s the experimental process.

And then from there you would develop basically a computer model to simulate what that building truly was in the real world.

That is what we often call a finite element model, meaning that we take the system in its entirety and break it up in discrete little pieces and then put it all back together, so it looks like the real structure.

A jigsaw puzzle is an example of taking a beautiful picture and cutting it up in all these little pieces and if put back together right, it looks the original picture.

That’s what this does, except mathematically, we can then begin to look at the stress throughout each one of those little pieces and how they connect to each other and how they respond and work together. That’s what we ended up doing—using two finite element computer programs for the whole purpose of being able to understand, as the result of certain effects, how that building might respond to those conditions.

And then we also used the two computer programs for the purpose of correlating the results to see if the two models with two different programs were giving us comparable, if not the same, results.

I also had two Ph.D. working for me—one of those is still with me, the other graduated. They did, individually, evaluations of the same stuff, so that we could correlate their thinking with each other.

And also, as a third quality control standard, I then reviewed their work. So the process was checked and checked and rechecked to ensure that what we were doing was accurate and that our interpretations of the results were the same.

Now keep in mind, when I said that initially, as a forensic engineer, I would start experimentally, we didn’t have that option here. We did not have the option of having parts and pieces and crumbled debris to be able to evaluate the materials. That just wasn’t an option for us. However, what we did use was the erection drawings: Take those erection drawings, which is what the building was built by, and from that create our computer models. But we were not able to correlate against experimental damages that were out there in the field. That was all hauled away before we ever had access to it, unfortunately.

And so, though that is an issue that concerned me. But we feel like what we’ve done is quite accurate and quite understandable and very beneficial to help you understand what may have actually happened here.

What you haven’t seen anything about—I made a presentation on September 6^th last year. I haven’t said anything since. Since September 6^th we’ve been working on progressive collapse and those issues.

At that time, I said very clearly and emphatically that fire did not bring this building down. Since then, we’ve been looking at various aspects of what the building collapse might look like. Right now I can tell you, without anybody seeing it yet, that if you take our building and put it in a video beside the real building coming down, the two side by side, they look almost identical, which is quite different than what you’ve seen previously by the analysis that was done by NIST. Their building looks quite different in the way it comes down versus the way the true building came down.

So at this point in time, we are effectively about two weeks from having all of the analysis done on the progressive collapse. We’re basically just going through and refining it. Then we will have a report by the end of the year. The idea there is to try to have sufficient people reviewing our work to provide a peer review of our effort. That would be in the structural area, perhaps the materials side, perhaps the architectural side, so that we have truly a quality review by the peers.

So that’s where we are. We’re close to being done. We intend to have everything written by somewhere before the end of the year.

AS: Right. And it’s impressive work. I know a lot of effort has been put into it by yourself, by the graduate students. And this is a very important study that is coming out here. I mean, it’s probably one of the most important ones in our century currently. And I’m not overstating it, because this is a very controversial issue. A lot of engineers are not satisfied with the story that we’ve gotten from NIST. A lot of family members are not satisfied. And this is actually doing what NIST should have done.

I want to go back to what you said about how your model looks more like the building as it comes down as opposed to NIST’s, which, from my own layman point of view, looks like one of those novelty soda cans crinkling in the Spencer shops—you know, that twists around.

I just want you to analyze that a little bit. What do you think you did differently from NIST to achieve that outcome?

LH: Well, it’s not completely clear everything they did for progressive collapse, but here’s a couple things that they did do which effects their results. When they modeled the building, they only modeled the connections over part of the floor system. The other part they approximated by what’s called pins and joints—fixed joints and so forth. It turns out that the stiffness within those two areas are quite different by making that decision to try to simplify computer time, if that’s what they were doing.

They actually affected the behavior of the structure. And so if you take that idea and you progress it all the way to the 47 stories and begin to look at what happened if you take out some floors and take out some columns and the building starts coming down, you’ll notice that part of that building is quite different in looks than the other part of the building. That’s where the stiffness values are changing.

What we’ve done is model the building with connections. We simulated those connections accurately and put in springs to save computer time. But those springs act like the true connections in the building. When you do that, you actually want to get a representation that is highly accurate of what that building would be subjected to if you put a load on it.

So that’s at least one of the differences.

AS: It’s just interesting that you can do this—recreate the building, throw it through all these different scenarios. We’re going to talk about the different scenarios you’ve tried. But first, for the audience, please describe NIST’s collapse scenario—what they said happened inside the building to make it look like a controlled demolition and how you went about trying to simulate it. You’ve touched on this already, but what steps did you do to try to get that entire internal structure to go down and leave that exterior standing?

LH: Well, I don’t know that I’m prepared today to give you all the details of what NIST did. I can tell you how they were looking at column 79 coming down and affecting the floors down below, and the number of floors that were affected. The vertical supporting lateral restraint on the north side only was from floor 8 to floor 13, and they had lateral support buckling initiated over nine floors. That was their argument of what may have actually happened during the collapse. We attempted to do that same simulation and we could not get anywhere close to the answers that they were talking about—using two different computer programs, two different individuals trying to accomplish that same task. There’s just no way that that could’ve occurred, according to our results and our studies.

We’ve taken a look at things quite differently than NIST did. Their argument was that the floor was not compositely connected to the girders and didn’t have shear connectors on the beams, and so all of that would affect the behavior. Actually, we found that they did have shear connectors on their girders. We studied it with shear connectors and without shear connectors and found that there was sufficient friction to enable that thing to behave—particularly since there were shear connectors on the beams, and there’s no argument about that.

So, consequently, the floor stiffness was quite a bit significantly better than they thought it was. And so when you take a look at that massive concrete resistance, with the floor systems and the beams and the girders all working together as a unit, it’s going to take a tremendous effort to get that to start acting like they were suggesting it had to do.

Furthermore, what we determined is that they treated the exterior walls as fixed. That simply was not the case. So we actually applied the connections that actually were installed in the building as springs and simulated the behavior around the exterior of the building as well as the interior of the building to get the performance. So when it begins to move, there is some resistance to rotation, but not a lot.

Furthermore, it’s pretty interesting to make sure that if we looked at the concrete floor, it should be connected to the girders and the beams but not necessarily to the columns. So that we looked at as well to evaluate the potential influence of the floor and the beam-girder system and the column system and how that all interacted.

The other thing we did which was quite a bit different in terms of the behavior is we actually attempted to get an understanding of the aggregate that was actually used at the job site. Those aggregates have a certain behavioral characteristic both thermally as well as mechanically.

AS: Before you continue, what is an aggregate, for our audience?

LH: Broken rocks and sand.

AS: Okay.

LH: They put it into cement and water and they stir it up and they take it out to the job site and they pour it—they place it in a set of form and it hardens. And then they use floats to actually float it down. If it’s a trowel finish they trowel it, and then you get a smooth floor system out of it. Once it’s hardened, then it carries load as well.

Okay, so then we begin to look at the potential ways that this building could come down. Now keep in mind, we should not forget that we have video of some of building as it comes down. There’s just no doubt about that. The top 26 stories we can see everything that’s going on, at least on one side or two.

So if you take our building and you put it there and you subject it to some condition, what happens to your building? What is it going to take to make that building act like the true building? At that point in time, we began to look at alternate things that might have occurred.

Lots and lots and lots of people argue that, okay, the interior columns came out first, they went down, and they dragged the exterior columns in, and they buckled and it folded down upon itself.

Well, if you look at the video, that couldn’t have happened.

And if you look at the video, in another sense there’s an exterior surface on that wall system and that exterior surface is not very structural. So if there’s any movement relative to one column to another, one member to another, you’re going to see it on the surface of that sheathing. And you just don’t see much.

Therefore, that tells you automatically, if it’s not bending with respect to its neighbor, not moving with respect to its neighbor, then the two neighbors are going down together. And if that’s the case, there’s no relative displacement between the edges, which means that there’s no warping and there’s no bending and there’s no rippling and there’s no—any of that stuff on that surface.

That being said, that’s telling you that it’s a free fall condition. So that’s what we’re finding right now.

AS: One thing about this whole issue that I think makes it very difficult is the disagreement over certain facts. And I’ll use one example. In NIST’s report, they claim there is raging fires under the beams that pushed the girder off its seat, but when you look at the actual pictures of an hour before, the fires are out in the area of collapse initiation. So now this takes it into a realm where it’s not just a math problem you give to high school students—you know, 5 plus 7, this is the answer, and one guy does it right and one guy does it wrong—but it’s taking in different evidence points. And NIST, in my view, was selectively making the evidence—fitting it with the results that they wanted to come to. How much did that affect your research into this study?

LH: What we did is, we said: “Okay, we’re not going to argue with you about the fires. We’ll just take those fires and use them, which is a worse scenario than is truly out there. And if we can’t determine the same thing you did with that, then obviously one of us is wrong.”

So that’s what we did. And we determined a number of things through that process. First of all, we put the fires there. We let it move. And the first thing we discovered is their movement of five and a half inches—when they first said that it moved off and shoved off the support and that enabled column 79 to not be braced and it came buckling down. Well, guess what: They forgot the fact that there was a stiffener plate there that prevented it from being able to be shoved off.

Secondly, there were a number of factors associated with that whole scenario. They also were looking at the expansion of the girder and on the floor system. And if you really stop and take a look at that, when you heat up a floor, it’s going to start moving with respect to the stiffest point. And what NIST did is that they fixed the exterior walls, and when they did that, the floor system moved away from the exterior wall system. And therefore it shoved it. They claimed it shoved it five and a half inches—they later said, I think, it was around six inches—off of that seat. But, again, there was a stiffener there, and it couldn’t have happened.

But in our analysis, we did not lock in that exterior wall. We put the connections that were actually built into the building there—as well as the rest of it—and let that thing move. And when it moved, it did not move from the exterior wall inward towards column 79, it moved just the opposite. So we were getting horizontal movements in the neighborhood of one point two (1.2) inches, maybe two inches, not five and a half or six inches. So there was just no way it was going to move off of anything.

That automatically says, okay, what they’re saying is not one of those things that could’ve happened.

Now, the next question to is ask yourself, “Okay, so were these fires. Really? Where did the combustibles come from?” We’re talking about fires on floors much of which were conditions of business or secure information. Don’t you think that that stuff would’ve been locked up in files and cases, and not out on the desk? And even if was out on the desks, are there enough combustibles to keep that fire raging for that many hours? I just don’t think so.

So there are just so many issues with respect to what they were coming up with in terms of a solution, and it was not consistent with what was actually built there.

Furthermore, what I did, which was a lot different than they, I attempted to get the actual aggregate for the floor, dolomite. I looked at the thermal expansion and—I wrote a paper about this some years ago, about what it takes to expand the concrete with different aggregates and how that correlates with the steel expansion; they are different.

I saw no evidence where they actually considered the floor system expanding at a different rate than the girders and the beams. So all of that also impacted the end result.

We looked at all those issues very carefully and looked at the possibility of whether the building could actually have come down as they said it would. And I see no—nothing in our analysis shows that could’ve even remotely been possible.

AS: Now you talk about “remotely possible”: The scenario of this girder getting pushed off its seat and all these internal failures happening to cause the inside come down and leave the exterior standing as a shell for a few moments before it comes down—and that’s why it lookslike a controlled demolition, according to them—can the exterior columns ever still stand if the core columns have failed?

LH: Well, I don’t know. I can tell you that we were not able to get that to happen. Our analysis does not show that that’s a possibility. We tried to simulate whether they actually buckled inward, as many people argue. We tried to simulate all those conditions, and we used more than one computer program. We even took simpler models to examine the theory behind that whole phenomenon, and it became very clear that that was not going to happen.

So, that means something else is happening—right?—to get the conditions they saw.

AS: Let’s get into something else there. First I want to ask: What other scenarios were plugged into the finite element analysis besides what they were claiming happened?

LH: You mean by them or by us?

AS: By NIST, with the official story, obviously you want to check that scenario. But what other scenarios? Because there are people who come out of the woodwork and say, “Well, maybe NIST got it wrong, but I don’t believe it’s controlled demolition. Maybe this or that happened instead.” They’ll throw out theories. What other ideas were looked into?

LH: I don’t know that I can be prepared to talk about every little detail that NIST did in that regard today, but I can tell you that we looked at every aspect of what we thought could happen in that scenario. And you’ve got to remember something: This building is not symmetrical. Because it’s not symmetrical, if something happens some place within the building, it’s not going to come straight down. It’s going to come down at an angle or rotate or any number of things, because the centroid of that building is not in the middle. It’s just not. And so if there are things that are going on that cause it to come straight down, then there’s got to be influences to make that happen. And I didn’t see a lot of evidence where they were doing a big study about that thought.

We have extensively studied that carefully. I’m not going to tell you that it’s controlled demolition. I’m going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.

AS: Now in terms of those modes of failure that look like the way the building came down, could you get into that with our audience?

LH: I can tell you that we looked at several floor levels, taking out the interior columns. The core columns. And then we delayed the coming down of the exterior columns and we determined that wasn’t what really happened because the behavior was totally different. The columns, if they were going to fold inward, didn’t happen. We tried everything. We looked at the individual column-buckling behavior from the bottom of the substation all the way to the top. We looked at various aspects of every single column to try to understand what it would take to do what many people think it did. We couldn’t ever get it to do those things.

So then we started looking at severing the exterior columns as well. And when we began to do that, then the behavior of the system begins to look a lot like the—and I’m talking about after or just simultaneously to the interior columns—then you’re getting a behavior that’s very, very similar to what you see in the video.

AS: What could cause those columns to sever in those moments? What natural phenomenon do you think could cause that many core columns to just break at the same time to give us what we saw that day?

LH: I don’t believe there is a natural phenomenon that’s going to do that.

AS: Well, I will let our audience draw their own conclusions from that statement. Obviously, the report is going to be coming out very soon—by the end of the year. They can look into this in more detail when it does come out. What’s next? I mean, you touched on this before, but when you’re all completed, all the work is done, you said it’s going to be published as a paper. Please describe that process for our audience so they can know what to expect.

LH: I don’t believe it’s going to be one paper. I think it’s going to be several papers.

Before I get there, let me talk about something else that’s really kind of an important idea here. If it truly was fire, as NIST believes it is, or say they believe it to be, then there had to be a professional responsibility to change the codes so that we as structural engineers of record can prevent a failure like this in the future. Yet nothing like that was done, to my knowledge.

Secondly, if it was not fire and was something else, then there’s a responsibility to make people aware of what really did truly happen. And I don’t see that evidence either.

So if there was a fire issue, then there had to be a responsibility to change and update the codes to protect against future fire damages.

But if you go back and you look at history, take a look at the number of buildings that have come down because of fire—ha, there aren’t any.

So, at the end of the day, that gives you some indication of the fact that this building—there are more questions than there are answers.

Now, coming back to the question you asked: We will probably submit several papers for publication. And right now my Ph.D. student is working on about four papers in his Ph.D. Three of those are not related to World Trade Center 7 but they are related to fires and to fire testing and to fire codes and to fire responsive behavior. And the last paper is on the progressive collapse of this building.

I expect there to be at least four papers come of out this study—and I’m talking about in respected journals around the country. I’m not overly optimistic that they will be published in this country. I’m probably going to submit them in Europe or some place like that where people are more receptive to reviewing them scientifically, and maybe there won’t be as much politics involved in what may or may not have happened here.

AS: Yeah, to me, from what I’ve experienced, it’s not even a question of science, it’s a question of politics—and psychology, too. Because a lot of what holds people back from doing a fair analysis is preconceived notions that they won’t let go of. But I do want to see this out around the world. I know the difficulties we face her in the United States in getting information about this building out. What kind of challenges do you expect to find when the paper is published? What do you anticipate are the criticisms or problems that people are going to try to find with the work?

LH: You know, I don’t even know. I don’t know that there could be too many challenges if it’s published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, because those are supposed to be scientists that review it and agree that the science is correct.

If people start criticizing that work, then I guess an approach is to say, “Okay, show me where there are problems. Show me why yours is better. Show me what you can do to prove that something is different than what we said it is.”

AS: That is how science works. That is how we come to truth. And I think that is the best answer that I could’ve heard. You’re a teacher, and you have to deal with students throughout the year, and you talk to them about the profession that they want to take on—a very important profession. Every time we step into a building, we see the good work of people like Dr. Hulsey here, as the building doesn’t come down. They’re very sturdy and last for years and that requires a lot of education. What particular ramifications, for the engineering community, and your students going into their careers, will this study and this issue have, in your view?

LH: Well, I think somewhere along the way we’ve got to come to a realization that it was either a fire or it wasn’t. If it’s a fire then the code needs to change—if it was a fire failure then the code needs to change. If it was not, then say that, and get on with the business at hand, and we move and we fire-protect the buildings just like we have always. Or maybe do a little better job, but at least realize that it’s going to take a lot to have a problem.

AS: Dr. Hulsey, I think that is a very good update. You gave us your time frame. You told us some about what your findings were. I just want to know now, do you have any final thoughts or anything that you want to get out there to the audience that I didn’t think to ask you today?

LH: Well, I don’t know how well we’re going to be able to do this, but it’s my intention right now to show the building video as it’s coming down and beside it, our anticipated failure type, with our building coming down in the same framework of the video, so you could see it coming down, and the time it takes for it come down, and the way it comes down, comparison one by one, those two side by side. That’s what I want to show. If this is really very, very good—and I anticipate it to be really good—then the layman can see, without having to worry about the science, here’s what our analysis shows, here’s what the building did.

AS: Well, that is going to be available for everybody to see. I know there’s going to be a lot of interest in this. So, when we have the video, we’ll direct everybody to it. Dr. Hulsey, I know it’s been a long time you’ve been at this. Believe me, I know what it’s like to be on a projects for a number of years and be coming towards the completion of it. I’m working on one right now. So I appreciate all the hard work that you and your students have put into this. Looking forward to the results. And thank you so much for coming on 9/11 Free Fall.

LH: You betcha. You have a good evening and a good day.

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

Ethiopia is a landlocked country, bordering on Somalia which is dominating the Horn of Africa. Due to several border conflicts during the past decades with Somalia, many of them supportive of Ethiopia by the US military, the border between the two countries has become porous and ill-defined. Ethiopia is also bordering on Djibouti, where the United States has a Naval Base, Camp Lemonnier, next to Djibouti’s international airport. The base is under AFRICOM, the Pentagon’s African Command. AFRICOM has its boots in Ethiopia, as it does in many other African countries.

Ethiopia’s new Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, has already demonstrated that he is poised to hand over his country to western interests, vultures, such as the World Bank, IMF and eventually the globalized Wall Street banking clan. In fact, it looks like these institutions were instrumental in manipulating parliamentary maneuvers, with arm-twisting of the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to make Mr. Abyi the new Prime Minister, succeeding Mr. Hailemariam Desalegn, who rather suddenly was forced to resign in February 2018, amidst endless foreign induced protests and violent street demonstrations. With EPRDF Ethiopia is a de facto one-party state. EPRDF is a coalition of different regional representations.

Read also Ethiopia – Breaking the Dam for Western Debt Slavery. 

Proud Ethiopia, has never been colonized by western powers per se, except for a brief Italian military occupation (1935 – 1939) by Mussolini. And now, in the space of a few months, since Mr. Abiy’s ascent to power, the country is being enslaved by the new western colonial instruments, the so-called international development institutions, the World Bank, IMF – and others will follow. 

Mr. Abiy is an Oromo leader; Oromia being a disputed area between Ethiopia and Somalia. The latter is effectively controlling the Horn of Africa, overseeing the Gulf of Aden (Yemen) and the entire Iran controlled Persian Gulf area. Control over the Horn of Africa is on Washington’s strategic wish list and may have become an attainable target, with the Oromo leader and new PM, Abiy Ahmed.

Think about it – Yemen, another ultra-strategic location, being bombed to ashes by the Saudis on behalf of the western powers, primarily the US and the UK, being subdued for domination by the west wanting to control the Gulf area, foremost Iran and her riches. On the other hand, Ethiopia, a prime location as an assault basis for drones, war planes and ships.

Curiously, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, a former rebel leader, elected in 1991 and in power for 21 years, died suddenly at age 57 in August 2012, while actually recovering from an undisclosed illness in a hospital abroad, allegedly from an infection – according to official Ethiopian state television. He was succeeded by Mr. Hailemariam, who last February had to resign. 

In the same vein of strange events – events to reflect on – PM Zenawi, about 18 months before he died, signed on 31 March 2011 a no-bid contract for US$ 4.8 billion with ‘Salini Costruttori’, alias Salini Impregilo. The Italian company, well established in Ethiopia since 1957, is responsible for the construction of the controversial “Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam”, formerly the Millennium Dam on the Nile. When finished, it will be African’s largest artificial water reservoir with a capacity of 74 billion m3. 

Under construction since 2011, this gravity dam on the Blue Nile River in Ethiopia’s Benishangul-Gumuz Region, about 15 km from the Sudanese border, is expected to produce 6.45 gigawatts which will make it the largest hydroelectric power plant in Africa and the 7^th largest in the world. The works are about two thirds completed, and the dam will take from 5 to 15 years to fill up.

The project was fiercely contested by Egypt which claimed that the dam would reduce the agreed amount of Nile water flowing into Egypt. However, Prime Minister Zenawi argued that the dam would not reduce the downstream flow, and – in addition to generating hydropower and making Ethiopia Africa’s largest electricity exporter, would help regulate irrigation, thus, helping to avert Ethiopia’s notorious droughts and famines that kill regularly tens of thousands of people. Indications are that this dam project could become an economic “power house” for Ethiopia, a country otherwise known as impoverished and destitute. 

This water flow conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt was discussed in numerous meetings and conferences of the World Bank sponsored Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), encompassing ten riparian countries (Burundi, D.R. Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda); and about 350 – 400 million people. It is not clear whether the dispute was ever satisfactorily settled.

Mr. Zenawi’s successor, PM Hailemariam Desalegn, continued with the project unchallenged and unchanged until his sudden resignation earlier this year. At the end of August 2018, in a surprise move, the new PM, Abiy Ahmed, ousted the dam project’s subcontractor, METEC, under the pretext of numerous work delays. METEC is a state enterprise run by the Ethiopian military. According to several insider accounts, there were never any complaints about project delays, caused by METEC. The new sub-contract was to be awarded to a foreign private company.

Simultaneously, in another alarming occurrence, on 26 August 2018, Mr. Simegnew Bekele, the chief engineer and project manager of the controversial dam, was found murdered, shot to death, in his Landcruiser in an Addis Ababa parking lot.

The series of events, starting from the signing of the dam project in 2011, to the sudden death of then PM Zenawi a year later, the resignation of his successor, Mr. Hailemariam, earlier this year, the hasty appointment of the neoliberal PM Abiy Ahmed in February 2018, the assassination of the dam’s project manager in August 2018 – all this looks like well-orchestrated, with a few hick-ups in between that were rapidly ironed out – to pave the way for a neoliberal, corporate and maybe foreign military take-over of this once proudly independent country, an African nation with a potentially prosperous future.

*

This leads to the other side of the same coin, the west is interested in.

With a population of about 104 million (2018 est.), Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Sub-Saharan Africa and one of the most densely populated ones, with an annual population growth rate of about 2.5%. Ethiopia is known for endemic poverty and her periodic droughts. Ethiopia is also the world’s second fastest growing non-oil economy (after Bhutan), having increased her GDP more than ten-fold since 2000, from US$ 8 billion to US$ 80.6 billion in 2017, however with a nominal GDP of only US$850, or US$2,100 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). 

Agriculture contributes about 36% to GDP, indicating a considerable growth potential with regulated irrigation expected to emanate from the Renaissance Dam project. Economic expansion amounted to more than 10% in 2017 and is projected at close to 9% per year through 2019. 

This economic profile, plus the potential increase in output from the Grand Renaissance Dam, offer more than fertile grounds for corporate exploitation through debt enslavement and privatization of public, civil and social services. This has already started. Ethiopia’s current debt is a modest 33.5% of GDP – but is predicted to grow to at least 70% by 2022. – Why?

In November 2017 the World Bank has committed US$ 4.7 billion over the coming 5 years, roughly a billion per year – which may be called blank checks. These funds are destined for structural adjustment type activities, for loosely defined and little controlled budget support measures, much of which, as worldwide experience shows, is likely to ‘disappear’ unproductively, leaving behind public debt – and what’s much worse, a plethora of austerity conditions, from cutting public employment, to privatization of water, electricity and other public services, as well as ‘land-grabbing’ type agricultural concessions to foreign agricultural enterprises. 

The latter will be especially attractive, thanks to the new regulated irrigation potential, making Ethiopia’s desert fertile – but leaving hardly any additional food at affordable prices for the impoverished population in the country. Frequently such land concessions come with long-term GMO contracts attached. Bayer-Monsanto may already be a player in Ethiopia’s future agricultural sector. If so, the country may not only be enslaved by debt, but also by endless, oppressive, land-destructive GMO contracts that bear high risks for human health.

Such a WB commitment will usually be followed by an IMF intervention, both of which will serve as leverage for further debt from private banking and corporate investors. The modest 2017 debt ratio of about one third to GDP may explode and skyrocket in the near future, making Ethiopia to the Greece of Africa, shamelessly exploited and “milked” to the bones by western corporate and financial interests.

Fortunately, there are other economic interests alive in Africa and especially in Ethiopia. There is, for example, China, for whom Ethiopia is a key partner and a linchpin for President Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive China-initiated infrastructure development plan, spanning the globe from east to west, via different routes, one of them via Africa. Although China has become cautious over the past years with direct investments in Ethiopia, mainly due to the lasting unrests, said to be over ‘territorial issues’, Ethiopia remains an important partner, because of its strategic location next to the tiny port of Djibouti, where China has a naval base. Ethiopia is also attractive for manufacturing with low-cost labor and because of her transport links to other African countries, and a potentially large consumer market.

Chinese, Russian and other eastern investments are usually based on mutual benefits, in contrast to the western one-sided exploitation method. Hopefully, Chinese, Russian and other eastern investments may continue as a strong counter-balance to the west, and help bringing a more equitable development model not only to Ethiopia, but to the African Continent in general. In fact, recent statements by the leaders of South Africa, Ghana and Rwanda have praised Chinese investments over the western abusive ‘carrot and stick approach’. With the help of China, Russia and other eastern investors, Ethiopia might prevent western vultures from devouring the poverty struck nation and from falling into the trap of neoliberal, everything-goes “free market ideology” – to the detriment of the Ethiopian population. 

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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 21^st 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. 

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: Tankers at Strait of Malacca (Source: author)

Indonesia (RI), the 4^th most populous nation on Earth and the country with the largest Muslim population is, and since the 1965 US-orchestrated anti-Communist coup has been, the most radically pro-Western and anti-socialist place in Asia.

This is where you could end up in prison for publicly declaring that you are a Communist, or just an atheist. And this is where Western pop music, junk food and brutally meaningless Hollywood blockbusters are rubbing shoulders with the Saudi-style interpretation of Islam; with Wahhabism, that has been spread with the direct involvement of the US, UK and other Western countries.

The more intolerant Indonesia gets, the more ‘tolerant’ it is called by its ally and patron – the West. The most miserable and unprotected the Indonesian masses get, the more their country defined is as a ‘democracy’. 

Indonesian racism against the Chinese people (and in fact everything Chinese) has been legendary, and always welcomed and encouraged by Washington, London and Canberra.

After 1965, for several decades until the Presidency of Abdurrahman Wahid (the progressive Muslim cleric who had been deposed during a constitutional coup in 2001), everything Chinese was banned in Indonesia, including Chinese characters, language, publications, films, and even red lamps, cakes and dragons. The same went for things Soviet, or Russian, although that was never directly specified.

The West scored a great victory in Indonesia. It ‘lost’ Vietnam and Laos, but it gained an entire archipelago overflowing with natural resources; the place that it has been plundering brutally and consistently, from 1965 until now. It helped to shape a country hopelessly corrupt, ruled by servile elites who have been interested exclusively in their own profits, while in the process sacrificing the greatly impoverished majority of badly educated and religiously and ideologically (by the West and by the extreme capitalist dogmas) indoctrinated people.  

*

Indonesia ‘absorbed’ a substantial number of Chinese post-revolution religious ‘exiles’, particularly right-wing Christian priests and preachers, who settled down in the cities like Surabaya, and who, while relying on Western support and funding, continue spreading anti-PRC and anti-Communist propaganda.

It is very little wonder that after continuous right-wing political indoctrination and religious ‘bombardment’, collaboration with the West has been accepted by the great majority of Indonesian citizens without any soul searching or second thought. Jakarta ‘cooperates’ openly and proudly with the US, UK, Australia and other Western countries (as well as with Japan) especially when it comes to politics, diplomacy, but also the economy and even military.

This fact is often overlooked by left-wing analysts, while it is being taken for granted by the West. But the aggressive/servile position of the country has been ruining tens of millions of lives in Indonesia itself, as well as abroad (the genocide committed by the Indonesian troops in East Timor killed approximately 30% of human beings there, while further hundreds of thousands have been murdered in an ongoing genocide in occupied part of Papua).

*

It is worth noting the toadying language of the ‘official’ English-language pro-Western anti-left daily newspaper of Indonesia, “The Jakarta Post”, which on August 31, 2018, ran the front-page story titled “RI Joins in US-led Exercise”:

“Indonesia together with several South and Southeast Asian states, are participating in a United States-led exercise to strengthen cooperation and training in tackling maritime security challenges, which also promoting US foreign policy goals in the region.”

Appalling grammar is not the only problem. The Jakarta Post actually proudly describes the exercises that are expected to run until September 7:

“While the exercise is aimed at increasing information sharing among regional partners against transnational crime, the US also said in was one of the avenues to promote its free and open Indo-Pacific strategy”.

In short: to keep antagonizing and provoking China.

Then comes a piece of useful information:

“Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson said the US believed the exercises were “critical in achieving our US foreign policy goals and strengthening our relationship with our partners in the Indo-Pacific region…” Defense cooperation between the US and Indonesia had never been stronger, Thompson said, noting the US$2.3 billion of combined defense trade between direct commercial sales and foreign military sales.”

Of course, Indonesia is not the only country in the region which is participating in these exercises. Other staunch allies of the West are ‘on board’ as well, among them Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore.

But Indonesia is a colossus, at least in terms of the population, its natural resources and geographical location. And it is sitting right at the strategic waterway – Strait of Malacca. 

Of course, it is poor, isolated and thoroughly indoctrinated, precisely as the West likes its ‘client’ states to be.

It exports jihadi cadres wherever the West needs them (from Afghanistan where they fought against the Soviet Union, to Syria and Sothern Philippines during the last years), it supports ‘free trade’ and unbridled capitalism, and it robs its own people on behalf of the foreign powers. Only those cynical and ruthless ‘elites’ of Indonesia have been benefiting from the situation. With great zeal, they used to serve Dutch colonizers, then Japanese. Now they are selling themselves and their country to the West in general, while ruling over their unfortunate people with an iron fist.

Indonesia buys weapons using money it gets from plundering its natural resources. And it strongly dislikes China and ferociously attacks everything left of the center. The West is, naturally, giving it standing ovations.

As the world is once again getting polarized, between the imperialist West (plus its dependencies), and countries that are ready to defend their freedom, Indonesia is expected to play an increasingly important role on the global stage. 

This role will be, unfortunately, extremely negative, at least from the point of view of those brave nations that are ready to confront the West and its lethal imperialism.

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

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

Only with context can we gain insight and perspective into the horrible, barbaric 9/11 attack.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

Scores of government officials throughout the world have admitted (either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos) to carrying out – or seriously proposing – false flag attacks:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this, this and this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked several attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. The staged attacks included:

• The German radio station at Gleiwitz [details below]

• The strategic railway at Jabłonków Pass, located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia

• The German customs station at Hochlinden

• The forest service station in Pitschen

• The communications station at Neubersteich

• The railroad station in Alt-Eiche

• A woman and her companion in Katowice

The details of the Gleiwitz radio station incident include:

On the night of 31 August 1939, a small group of German operatives dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources vary on the content of the message). The Germans’ goal was to make the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs.

To make the attack seem more convincing, the Germans used human corpses to pass them off as Polish attackers. They murdered Franciszek Honiok, a 43-year-old unmarried German Silesian Catholic farmer known for sympathizing with the Poles. He had been arrested the previous day by the Gestapo. He was dressed to look like a saboteur, then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene so that he appeared to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented to the police and press as proof of the attack.

(3) The minutes of the high command of the Italian government – subsequently approved by Mussolini himself – admitted that violence on the Greek-Albanian border was carried out by Italians and falsely blamed on the Greeks, as an excuse for Italy’s 1940 invasion of Greece.

(4) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

Location of Mainila on the Karelian Isthmus shown in relation to the pre-war Finnish-Soviet border. (Source: CC BY-SA 3.0)

(5) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(6) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

(7) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews who were Holocaust survivors attempting to flee to safety in Palestine right after World War II, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).

(8) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

The U.S. Army does not believe this is an isolated incident. For example, the U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies said of Mossad (Israel’s intelligence service):

“Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

And former Israeli Prime Moshe Minister admitted in his diary:

I have been meditating on the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much blood ….

(9) An official CIA history admits (and here) that  in 1954, CIA contractors flew planes painted with Guatemalan air force insignia, and then bombed targets in Guatemala. In addition, radio messages about troop movements had been pre-recorded at a CIA base in Florida. This led to the overthrow of the Guatemalan government.

(10) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(11) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

The Economist notes:

Starting in the 1950s Turkey’s deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged “false flag” attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.

(12) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(13) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s through the 1980s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” … so that “a state of emergency could be declared, so people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

The CIA also stressed to the head of the Italian program that Italy needed to use the program to control internal uprisings.

False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include – by way of example only:

• The murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960)

• Bombings in Portugal (1966)

• The Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969)

• Terror attacks in Turkey (1971)

• The Peteano bombing in Italy (1972)

• Shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974)

• Shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977)

• The Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977)

• The abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978) (and see this)

• The bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980)

• Shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985)

(14) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]”.

(15) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(16) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. This plan was subsequently admitted again in other declassified government documents.

Provocations considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff included:

Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims ….

***

3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

***

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

***

8. it is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban-aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba, The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraftand would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-national distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attackby Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to “tell” the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft-will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MiGs.

b. On One such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been Jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart.

U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed:

The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft …. There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.

And see this.

(17) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(18) The U.S. Department of Defense also suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

A North Vietnamese P-4 engaging USS Maddox (Source: Public Domain)

(19) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war. NSA historian Robert J Hanyok writes that “the overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack had happened. So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that an attack occurred.”

(20) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(21) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

(22) A declassified 1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign police and troops on how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how to investigate terrorist acts:

The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with foreign police/security organizations through its field stations ….

[CIA provides training sessions as follows:]

a. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in the uses of commercial and military demolitions and incendiaries as they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage operations.

b. Introducing the trainees to commercially available materials and home laboratory techniques, likely to he used in the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by terrorists or saboteurs.

c. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept of target analysis and operational planning that a saboteur or terrorist must employ.

d. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices and techniques giving practical experience with both manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication.

***

The program provides the trainees with ample opportunity to develop basic familiarity and use proficiently through handling, preparing and applying the various explosive charges, incendiary agents, terrorist devices and sabotage techniques.

(23) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(24) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(25) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(26) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and see Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(27) In 1993, a bomb in Northern Ireland killed 9 civilians. Official documents from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (i.e. the British government) show that the mastermind of the bombing was a British agent, and that the bombing was designed to inflame sectarian tensions. And see this and this.

(28) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this and this.

(29) Similarly, a CIA “psychological operations” manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a “martyr” for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

(30) Official German intelligence service documents admitted (original German) that, in 1994, the German intelligence services planted plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to frameRussia for exporting dangerous radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals. This frame-up job was so successful at whipping up fear that it got German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to “help” secure Russia’s nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.

(31) A Rwandan government inquiry admitted that the 1994 shootdown and murder of the Rwandan president, who was from the Hutu tribe – a murder blamed by the Hutus on the rival Tutsi tribe, and which led to the massacre of more than 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus – was committed by Hutu soldiers and falsely blamed on the Tutis.

(32) The Saudi government blamed Iran for the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers housing complex for American military personnel in Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi Interior Minister subsequently admitted that the attack “was executed by Saudi hands. No foreign party had any role in it”.

(33) An Indonesian government fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

Image on the right: A picture of one of 1999 Russian apartment bombings. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

(34) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(35) CIA agents and documents admit that the agency gave Iran plans for building nuclear weapons … so the U.S. could frame Iran for trying to build the bomb.

(36) As reported by the New York Times, BBC and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that in 2001, the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”. They lured foreign migrants into the country, executed them in a staged gun battle, and then claimed they were a unit backed by Al Qaeda intent on attacking Western embassies”. Specifically, Macedonian authorities had lured the immigrants into the country, and then – after killing them – posed the victims with planted evidence – “bags of uniforms and semiautomatic weapons at their side” – to show Western diplomats.

(37) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, black-clad thugs were videotaped getting out of police cars, and were seen by an Italian MP carrying “iron bars inside the police station”. Subsequently, senior police officials in Genoa admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8 Summit, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(38) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war.

The U.S. government was so desperate to pin 9/11 on Iraq that it implemented a special type of torture on the Guantanamo suspects.   The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread.

The entire torture program was geared towards obtaining false confessions linking Iraq and 9/11.  Senator Levin revealed that the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating falseconfessions. (and see this, this, this and this).

According to NBC News:

• Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

• At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”

• One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

• The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

(Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind also reported that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this and this.)

Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

A 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 both say in sworn declarations that the Saudi government is linked to the 9/11 attacks.   Top American intelligence officials admit that the CIA and Saudi Arabia conspired to keep the real details of 9/11 secret. Indeed, the U.S. went to extreme measures to destroy evidence regarding what really happened on 9/11.

Subsequently, the same judge who has shielded the Saudis from liability for funding 9/11 has awarded a default judgment against Iran for $10.5 billion for carrying out 9/11 … even though no one seriously believes that Iran had any part in 9/11.

(Many U.S. officials have also alleged that 9/11 was actually facilitated by rogue elements in the U.S. government.)

(39) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. And see this.

(40) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(41) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(42) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester.

(43) In 2003, the U.S. Secretary of Defense admitted that interrogators were authorized to use the following method:

False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him.

While not a traditional false flag attack, this deception could lead to former detainees – many of whom were tortured – attacking the country falsely blamed for the interrogation and torture.

(44) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(45) Similarly, in 2005, Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School – a renowned US defense analyst credited with developing the concept of ‘netwar’ – called for western intelligence services to create new “pseudo gang” terrorist groups, as a way of undermining “real” terror networks. According to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, Arquilla’s ‘pseudo-gang’ strategy was, Hersh reported, already being implemented by the Pentagon:

“Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, US military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists…

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls ‘action teams’ in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. ‘Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?’ the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. ‘We founded them and we financed them,’ he said. ‘The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.’ A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, ‘We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.’”

(46) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(47) In 2005, British soldiers dressed as Arabs were caught by Iraqi police after a shootout against the police. The British soldiers shot two Iraqi policemen, killing one. The soldiers apparently possessed explosives, and were accused of attempting to set off bombs. While none of the soldiers admitted that they were carrying out attacks, British soldiers and a column of 10 British tanks stormed the jail they were held in, broke down a wall of the jail, and busted them out. The extreme measures used to free the soldiers – rather than have them face questions and potentially stand trial – could be considered an admission.

(48) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(49) A very high-level French counterterrorism official, Paul Barril, admits that French, US and UK intelligence services worked together to poison Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium in 2006 in order to frame and discredit Russia. And see this.

(50) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(51) A 2008 US Army special operations field manual recommends that the U.S. military use surrogate non-state groups such as “paramilitary forces, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political ‘undesirables.’” The manual specifically acknowledged that U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and “Terrorism” (as well as “transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms-dealing, and illegal financial transactions.”)

(52) The former Italian Prime Minister, President, and head of Secret Services (Francesco Cossiga) advised the 2008 minister in charge of the police, on how to deal with protests from teachers and students:

He should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior … infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs inclined to do anything …. And after that, with the strength of the gained population consent, … beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite them. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes.

(53) An undercover officer admitted that he infiltrated environmental, leftwing and anti-fascist groups in 22 countries. Germany’s federal police chief admitted that – while the undercover officer worked for the German police – he acted illegally during a G8 protest in Germany in 2007 and committed arson by setting fire during a subsequent demonstration in Berlin. The undercover officer spent many years living with violent “Black Bloc” anarchists.

(54) Denver police admitted that uniformed officers deployed in 2008 to an area where alleged “anarchists” had planned to wreak havoc outside the Democratic National Convention ended up getting into a melee with two undercover policemen. The uniformed officers didn’t know the undercover officers were cops.

(55) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(56) The oversight agency for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police admitted that – at the G20 protests in Toronto in 2010 – undercover police officers were arrested with a group of protesters. Videos and photos (see this and this, for example) show that violent protesters wore very similar boots and other gear as the police, and carried police batons. The Globe and Mail reports that the undercover officers planned the targets for violent attack, and the police failed to stop the attacks.

(57) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(58) Austin police admit that 3 officers infiltrated the Occupy protests in that city. Prosecutors admit that one of the undercover officers purchased and constructed illegal “lock boxes” which ended up getting many protesters arrested.

(59) In 2011, a Colombian colonel admitted that he and his soldiers had lured 57 innocent civilians and killed them – after dressing many of them in uniforms – as part of a scheme to claim that Columbia was eradicating left-wing terrorists. And see this.

(60) Rioters who discredited the peaceful protests against the swearing in of the Mexican president in 2012 admitted that they were paid 300 pesos each to destroy everything in their path. According to Wikipedia, photos also show the vandals waiting in groups behind police lines prior to the violence.

(61) On November 20, 2014, Mexican agent provocateurs were transported by army vehicles to participate in the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping protests, as was shown by videos and pictures distributed via social networks.

(62) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(63) Two members of the Turkish parliament, high-level American sources and others admitted that the Turkish government – a NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks in Syria and falsely blamed them on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(64) The former Director of the NSA and other American government officials admit said that the U.S. is a huge supporter of terrorism. Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. The U.S. and its allies have been supporting Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups for many decades, and providing them arms, money and logistical support in Libya, Syria, Mali, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries. U.S. allies are also directly responsible for creating and supplying ISIS.

It’s gotten so ridiculous that a U.S. Senator has introduced a “Stop Arming Terrorists Act”, and U.S. Congresswoman – who introduced a similar bill in the House – says: “For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”

(65) Government officials on both sides of the conflict, as well as the snipers who actually pulled the trigger, all admit that shots were fired on both sides – killing both government officials and anti-government protesters in Ukraine – to create maximum chaos and destabilization.

(66) Speaking of snipers, in a secret recording, Venezuelan generals admit that they will deploy snipers to shoot protesters, but keep the marksmen well-hidden from demonstrator and the reporters covering the events so others would be blamed for the deaths.

(67) Burmese government officials admitted that Burma (renamed Myanmar) used false flag attacks against Muslim and Buddhist groups within the country to stir up hatred between the two groups, to prevent democracy from spreading.

(68) Israeli police were again filmed in 2015 dressing up as Arabs and throwing stones, then turning over Palestinian protesters to Israeli soldiers.

(69) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

(70) The CIA has admitted that it uses viruses and malware from Russia and other countries to carry out cyberattacks and blame other countries.

(71) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants.

(72) German prosecutors admit that a German soldier disguised himself as a Syrian refugee and planned to shoot people so that the attack would be blamed on asylum seekers.

(73) Police frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

Newsweek reported in 1999:

Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot themduring a stakeout.

Wikipedia notes:

As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

(As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

(74) A former U.S. intelligence officer alleged:

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

He has himself admitted to carrying out a false flag attack.

(75) A former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer admits that the CIA carried out false flag operations.

(76) The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by the CIA and FBI as false flags.

(77) The Director of Analytics at the interagency Global Engagement Center housed at the U.S. Department of State, also an adjunct professor at George Mason University, where he teaches the graduate course National Security Challenges in the Department of Information Sciences and Technology, a former branch chief in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and an intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Homeland Security (J.D. Maddox) notes:

Provocation is one of the most basic, but confounding, aspects of warfare. Despite its sometimes obvious use, it has succeeded consistently against audiences around the world, for millennia, to compel war. A well-constructed provocation narrative mutes even the most vocal opposition.

***

The culmination of a strategic provocation operation invariably reflects a narrative of victimhood: we are the victims of the enemy’s unforgivable atrocities.

***

In the case of strategic provocation the deaths of an aggressor’s own personnel are a core tactic of the provocation.

***

The persistent use of strategic provocation over centuries – and its apparent importance to war planners – begs the question of its likely use by the US and other states in the near term.

(78) False flags are so common that there are official rules of engagement prohibiting false flags in naval, air and land warfare.  Long-standing rules of customary international law also prohibit false flags.  Such rules wouldn’t be necessary unless false flags were common.

(79) Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the “benefits” of false flags to justify their political agenda:

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

Postscript: It is not just “modern” nations which have launched false flag attacks. For example, a Native American from one tribe (Pomunkey) murdered a white Englishwoman living in Virginia in 1697 and then falsely blamed it on second tribe (Piscataway). But he later admitted in court that he was not really Piscataway, and that he had been paid by a provocateur from a third tribe (Iroquois) to kill the woman as a way to start a war between the English and the Piscataway, thus protecting the profitable Iroquois monopoly in trade with the English.

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

Last week, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to stop protecting al-Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the Syrian government leave Idlib under al-Qaeda control. While it may seem hard to believe that the US government is helping al-Qaeda in Syria, it’s not as strange as it may seem: our interventionist foreign policy increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.

Does the Trump Administration actually support al-Qaeda and ISIS? Of course not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.

Let’s have a look at the areas where the US is turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

First, Idlib. As I mentioned last week, President Trump’s own Special Envoy to fight ISIS said just last year that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” So why do so many US officials – including President Trump himself – keep warning the Syrian government not to re-take its own territory from al-Qaeda control? Wouldn’t they be doing us a favor by ridding the area of al-Qaeda? Well, if Idlib is re-taken by Assad, it all but ends the neocon (and Saudi and Israeli) dream of “regime change” for Syria and a black eye to Syria’s ally, Iran.

Second, one of the last groups of ISIS fighters in Syria are around the Al-Tanf US military base which has operated illegally in northeastern Syria for the past two years. Last week, according to press reports, the Russians warned the US military in the region that it was about to launch an assault on ISIS fighters around the US base. The US responded by sending in 100 more US Marines and conducting a live-fire exercise as a warning. President Trump recently reversed himself (again) and announced that the US would remain at Al-Tanf “indefinitely.” Why? It is considered a strategic point from which to attack Iran. The US means to stay there even if it means turning a blind eye to ISIS in the neighborhood.

Finally, in Yemen, the US/Saudi coalition fighting the Houthis has been found by AP and other mainstream media outlets to be directly benefiting al-Qaeda. Why help al-Qaeda in Yemen? Because the real US goal is regime change in Iran, and Yemen is considered one of the fronts in the battle against Iranian influence in the Middle East. So we are aiding al-Qaeda, which did attack us, because we want to “regime change” Iran, which hasn’t attacked us. How does that make sense?

We all remember the old saying, attributed to Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack, that “if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” The “experts” would like us to think they are pursuing a brilliant foreign policy that will provide a great victory for America at the end of the day. But as usual, the “experts” have got it wrong. It’s really not that complicated: when “winning” means you’re allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS, you’re doing something wrong. Let’s start doing foreign policy right: let’s leave the rest of the world alone!

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

Update: Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton indicated during a speech on Monday that the United States, Britain, and France have agreed that another use of chemical weapons by Syria would be taken “very seriously” and will require a much “stronger” and harsher response. 

Trump’s NSC head John Bolton warns Syria that US, France and Britain will hit Assad harder than last two times if he uses chemical weapons in looming battle for last major rebel stronghold in Idlib.

— Dion Nissenbaum (@DionNissenbaum) September 10, 2018

His remarks came during what’s being described as his first major speech since joining the Trump administration at an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society at a Washington, D.C., hotel.

Meanwhile Turkey has also weighed in regarding the ongoing Russian and Syrian allied assault on Al Qaeda-held Idlib, which began days ago when Russia initiated a bombing campaign ahead of an imminent and massive Syrian Army ground offensive.

Turkey’s defense minister has called for all air and ground attacks on Idlib to stop immediately, calling for an urgent ceasefire to be established, according to Turkish state media.

Bolton’s warning of a “third chemical attack” today comes on the heels of a Sunday Wall Street Journal story citing unnamed U.S. officials who claim to have intelligence showing Assad “approved the use of chlorine gas in an offensive against the country’s last major rebel stronghold.”

It appears the Trump White House is now signalling that an American attack on Syrian government forces and locations is all but inevitable.

But this time the stakes are higher as Russia has built up an unprecedented number of warships in the Mediterranean Sea along the Syrian coast in response to prior reports that the U.S., France, and Great Britain could be preparing an attack.

* * *

Earlier:

At this point there’s not even so much as feigning surprise or suspense in the now sadly all-too-familiar Syria script out of Washington.

The Wall Street Journal has just published a bombshell on Sunday evening as Russian and Syrian warplanes continue bombing raids over al-Qaeda held Idlib, citing unnamed US officials who claim “President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has approved the use of chlorine gas in an offensive against the country’s last major rebel stronghold.”

And perhaps more alarming is that the report details that Trump is undecided over whether new retaliatory strikes could entail expanding the attack to hit Assad allies Russia and Iran this time around.

That’s right, unnamed US officials are now claiming to be in possession of intelligence which they say shows Assad has already given the order in an absolutely unprecedented level of “pre-crime” telegraphing of events on the battlefield.

And supposedly these officials have even identified the type of chemical weapon to be used: chlorine gas.

The anonymous officials told the WSJ of “new U.S. intelligence” in what appears an eerily familiar repeat of precisely how the 2003 invasion of Iraq was sold to the American public (namely, “anonymous officials” and vague assurances of unseen intelligence) — albeit posturing over Idlib is now unfolding at an intensely more rapid pace:

Fears of a massacre have been fueled by new U.S. intelligence indicating Mr. Assad has cleared the way for the military to use chlorine gas in any offensive, U.S. officials said. It wasn’t clear from the latest intelligence if Mr. Assad also had given the military permission to use sarin gas, the deadly nerve agent used several times in previous regime attacks on rebel-held areas. It is banned under international law.

It appears Washington is now saying an American attack on Syrian government forces and locations is all but inevitable.

And according to the report, President Trump may actually give the order to attack even if there’s no claim of a chemical attack, per the WSJ:

In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists.

And further:

The Pentagon is crafting military options, but Mr. Trump hasn’t decided what exactly would trigger a military response or whether the U.S. would target Russian or Iranian military forces aiding Mr. Assad in Syria, U.S. officials said.

Crucially, this is the first such indication of the possibility that White House and defense officials are mulling over hitting “Russian or Iranian military forces” in what would be a monumental escalation that would take the world to the brink of World War 3.

"Lots of evidence"
Trump regime not even trying, they're just phoning this disinformation campaign in pic.twitter.com/YD9MtXK97c

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) September 7, 2018

The WSJ report cites White House discussions of a third strike — in reference to US attacks on Syria during the last two Aprils after chemical allegations were made against Damascus —  while indicating it would “likely would be more expansive than the first two” and could include targeting Russia and Iran.

The incredibly alarming report continues:

During the debate this year over how to respond to the second attack, Mr. Trump’s national-security team weighed the idea of hitting Russian or Iranian targets in Syria, people familiar with the discussions said. But the Pentagon pushed for a more measured response, U.S. officials said, and the idea was eventually rejected as too risky.

A third U.S. strike likely would be more expansive than the first two, and Mr. Trump would again have to consider whether or not to hit targets like Russian air defenses in an effort to deliver a more punishing blow to Mr. Assad’s military.

Last week the French ambassador, whose country also vowed to strike Syria if what it deems credible chemical allegations emerge, said during a U.N. Security Council meeting on Idlib: “Syria is once again at the edge of an abyss.”

With Russia and Iran now in the West’s cross hairs over Idlib, indeed the entire world is again at the edge of the abyss.

developing…

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

Although not a topic for polite conversation, nor a widely recognized ‘acceptable’ issue for mainstream academics and journalists, the issue of 9/11 and the multiple questions that persist with respect to this transformative event continue to bubble under the surface. 9/11 ushered in the global ‘war on terror’, shaping the geo-political agenda of Western governments for almost two decades now and having a deleterious impact on civil liberties across Western liberal democratic states. Torture has been used as part of official policy and there is bulk data collection and surveillance of entire populations.

In recent years, further information has come into the public domain, via the UK Chilcot report regarding the formative stages of the post 9/11 ‘war on terror’: Within days of 9/11 having occurred a British embassy cable reported that ‘the “regime-change hawks” in Washington are arguing that a coalition put together for one purpose (against international terrorism) could be used to clear up other problems in the region’; Chilcot also published a Bush-Blair communication from the aftermath of 9/11 which discussed phase two of the ‘war on terror’ and indicated debate over when to ‘hit’ countries unconnected with Al Qaeda, such as Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Broadly speaking, Chilcot corroborated former Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark’s claim that he was informed, immediately after 9/11, that seven countries, including Syria, were to be ‘taken out’ in five years.

It is against this backdrop that 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth now emerges. The book is the culmination of seven years work by the 9/11 Consensus Panel which includes 23 experts from fields including physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, piloting, airplane crash investigation, medicine, journalism, psychology, and religion. It’s honorary members include the late Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary Pres. of the Italian Supreme Court, and others listed here, including Lynn Margulis (also late). The panel has examined and reviewed a wide variety of evidence which brings into question the official narrative regarding 9/11 and employed a standard ‘best-evidence consensus model’ commonly used in science and medicine in which each ‘consensus point’ was only accepted after three rounds of review and a vote of at least 85 percent.

The results, detailed and fully referenced, are presented in this book and cover remarkably wide and disparate areas in which the official narrative, as sanctioned by the official 9/11 Commission Report, are questioned. These areas include questions regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers and the third building, WTC7, which collapsed much later in the day, the attack on the Pentagon, the hijacked flights, US military exercises on and before 9/11, the activities of key military and political leaders, the relationship between the alleged hijackers and Osama bin Laden and evidence concerning insider trading.

The question now, both for the academy and for journalists, is whether this accumulation of substantial questions can be ignored any longer, especially given the evidence we now have that the so-called ‘war on terror’ was exploited, right from the start, in order to engage in a series of regime-change wars. We already have had the notable establishment figures Senator Bob Graham and CIA’s Bob Baer publicly raising questions regarding, for example, alleged Saudi involvement in 9/11 whilst a very recent book by Duffy and Nowosielski also raises questions with regard to the actions of the CIA in relation to 9/11.

In addition, there is currently an abundance of activity that has emerged from professional-based organisations: the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry has recently filed a Grand Jury petition with the U.S Attorney in Manhatten, the Bobby Mcilvaine Act is being promoted to congress persons by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the WTC7 collapse is due to report shortly.

The diligent and painstaking work by Griffin and Woodworth and the 9/11 Consensus Panel lays down a serious challenge for mainstream academics and journalists to start to ask substantial questions about 9/11 and to examine the event in a way that enables there to be a full, accurate and truthful rendering of the events in question. If they are true to the ideals of their respective professions, journalists and academics will address these difficult questions, search for the facts, and speak truth to power. Failure to do so will, in the final analysis, render much of these professions defunct and irrelevant.

*

This article was first published on OffGuardian.

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

If you want to fathom today’s world, absolutely nothing is more important than to understand the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the definitive book on the subject.

For seventeen years we have been subjected to an onslaught of U.S. government and corporate media propaganda about 9/11 that has been used to support the “war on terror” that has resulted in millions of deaths around the world.  It has been used as a pretext to attack nations throughout the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

It has led to a great increase in Islamophobia since Muslims were accused of being responsible for the attacks. It has led to a crackdown on civil liberties in the United States, the exponential growth of a vast and costly national security apparatus, the spreading of fear and anxiety on a great scale, and a state of permanent war that is pushing the world toward a nuclear confrontation.  And much, much more.

The authors of this essential book, David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, and all their colleagues who have contributed to this volume, have long been at the front lines trying to wake people up to the real news about 9/11.  They have battled against three U.S. presidents, a vast propaganda machine “strangely” allied with well-known leftists, and a corporate mass media intent on serving deep-state interests, all of whom have used illogic, lies, and pseudo-science to conceal the terrible truth.  Yet despite the establishment’s disinformation and deceptions, very many people have come to suspect that the official story of the September 11, 2001 attacks is not true.

With the publication of 9/11  Unmasked: An Review Panel Investigation, they now have a brilliant source book to use to turn their suspicions into certitudes.  And for those who have never doubted the official account (or accounts would be more accurate), reading this book should shock them into reality, because it is not based on speculation, but on carefully documented and corroborated facts, exacting logic, and the scientific method.

The book is based on the establishment in 2011 of a scientific review project comprising 23 experts with a broad spectrum of expertise, including people from the fields of chemistry, structural engineering, physics, aeronautical engineering, airline crash investigation, piloting, etc. Their job was to apply systematic and disciplined analyses to the verifiable evidence about the 9/11 attacks.  They used a model called the Delphi Method as a way to achieve best-evidence consensus.

This best-evidence consensus model is used in science and medicine, and the 9/11 Consensus Panel used it to examine the key claims of the official account(s). Each “Official Account” was reviewed and compared to “The Best Evidence” to reach conclusions. The authors explain it thus:

The examination of each claim received three rounds of review and feedback.  According to the panel’s investigative model, members submitted their votes to the two of us moderators while remaining blind to one another.  Proposed points had to receive a vote of at least 85 percent to be accepted…This model carries so much authority in medicine that medical consensus statements derived from it are often reported in the news.

They represent the highest standard of medical research and practice and may result in malpractice lawsuits if not followed.

This research process went on for many years, with the findings reported in this book.  The Consensus 9/11 Panel provides evidence against the official claims in nine categories:

1. The Destruction of the Twin Towers
2. The Destruction of WTC 7
3. The Attack on the Pentagon
4. The 9/11 Flights
5. US Military Exercises on and before 9/11
6. Claims about Military and Political Leaders
7. Osama bin Laden and the Hijackers
8. Phone Calls from the 9/11 Flights
9. Insider Trading

Each category is introduced and then broken down into sub-sections called points, which are examined in turn.  For example, the destruction of the Twin Towers has points that include, “The Claim That No One Reported Explosions in the Twin Towers,” “The Claim That the Twin Towers Were Destroyed by Airplane Impacts, Jet Fuel, and Fire,” “The Claim That There Were Widespread Infernos in the South Tower,” etc.  Each point is introduced with background, the official account is presented, then the best evidence, followed by a conclusion. Within the nine categories there are 51 points examined, each meticulously documented through quotations, references, etc., all connected to 875 endnotes that the reader can follow.  It is scrupulously laid out and logical, and the reader can follow it sequentially or pick out an aspect that particularly interests them.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel members describe their goal and purpose as follows:

The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.

The goal of the Consensus Panel is to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.

As a sociologist who teaches research methods and does much research, I find the Consensus Panel’s method exemplary and their findings accurate. They have unmasked a monstrous lie.  It is so ironic that such serious scholars, who question and research 9/11, have been portrayed as irrational and ignorant “conspiracy theorists” by people whose thinking is magical, illogical, and pseudo-scientific in the extreme.

A review is no place to go into all the details of this book, but I will give a few examples of the acumen of the Panel’s findings.

As a grandson of a Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department (343 firefighters died on 9/11), I find it particularly despicable that the government agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that was charged with investigating the collapse of the Towers and Building 7, would claim that no one gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers, when it is documented by the fastidious researcher Graeme MacQueen, a member of The 9/11 Consensus Panel, that over 100 firefighters who were at the scene reported hearing explosions in the towers.  One may follow endnote 22 to MacQueen’s research and his sources that are indisputable. There are recordings.

On a connected note, the official account claims that there were widespread infernos in the South Tower that prevented firefighters from ascending to the 78th floor.  Such a claim would support the notion that the building could have collapsed as a result of fires caused by the plane crashing into the building.  But as 9/11 Unmasked makes clear, radio tapes of firefighters ascending to the 78th floor and saying this was not so, prove that “there is incontrovertible evidence that the firefighter teams were communicating clearly with one another as they ascended WTC” and that there were no infernos to stop them, as they are recorded saying.  They professionally went about their jobs trying to save people.

Then the South Tower collapsed and so many died.  But it couldn’t have collapsed from “infernos” that didn’t exist.  Only explosives could have brought it down.

A reader can thus pick up this book, check out that section, and use common sense and elementary logic to reach the same conclusion.  And by reaching that conclusion and going no further in the book, the entire official story of 9/11 falls apart.

Or one can delve further, let’s say by dipping into the official claim that a domestic airline attack on the Pentagon was not expected. Opening to page 78, the reader can learn that “NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski was warned of the Pentagon attack by an intelligence officer,” who specified the illogical spot where the attack would happen shortly before it did.

In Miklaszewski’s words,

“And then he got very close to me, and, almost silent for a few seconds, he leaned in and said, ‘This attack was so well coordinated that if I were you, I would stay off the E Ring – where our NBC office was – the outer ring of the Pentagon for the rest of the day, because we’re next.’”

The authors say correctly,

“The intelligence officer’s apparent foreknowledge was unaccountably specific.”

For if a terrorist were going to fly a plane into Pentagon, the most likely spot would be to dive into the roof where many people might be killed, including top brass and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. To make an impossibly acrobatic maneuver to fly low into an outside wall would make no sense.  And for the government to claim that this impossible maneuver was executed by the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, a man who according to documentation couldn’t even pilot a small plane, is absurd. But the intelligence officer knew what would happen, and the reader can learn this, and marvel.

Or the reader can start from the beginning and read straight through the book.  They will learn in detail that the official version of the attacks of 9/11 is fake news at its worst.  It is a story told for dunces.

Griffin and Woodworth and their colleagues simply and clearly in the most logical manner show that the emperor has no clothes, not even a mask.

Since knowing the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001 is indispensable for understanding what is happening in today’s world, everyone should purchase and read Unmasking 9/11: An International Review Panel Investigation.  Keep it next to your dictionary, and when you read or hear the latest propaganda about the 9/11 attacks, take it out and consult the work of the real experts.  Their words will clarify your mind.

It is the definitive book on the defining event of the 21st century.

*

This article was first published on OffGuardian.

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).