Global Research

“Eventually you’ll have the implant, where if you think about a fact, it will just tell you an answer.” – Larry Page, co-founder of Google

The Verge starts with a statement that has become commonplace, the compulsory nod to power one has come to expect when engaged with that whole mammoth enterprise known as Google.  “No technology company is arguably more responsible for shaping the modern internet, the modern life, than Google.”

The story of Google is all minted Silicon Valley: the modest research project birthed in computer lingo and networking, the serendipitous meeting of graduate students, and the finding of auspicious and enormously productive garage locations.  The names tell a story: fresh, childish but hopeful.  Alphabet spawned Google, and so forth.  These were the products of, scorned Jonathan Taplin in his sharp Move Fast and Break Things, spoiled, ignorant brats.

In a sense, the Google experiment is all homage to behavioural tendencies writ large, an attempt on the part of the founders less to control than predict. (This distinction, it must be said, has been lost.)  How do people search for what is important?  Who tells them?  The PageRank algorithm of Google is moderate blessing and heavily laden curse, reducing the conduct of human searches to a dimension of repetition and faux enlargement of knowledge.  But the paradox of such behaviour is not so much a broadening of mind as a reconfirmation of its narrowing. You are fed results you expect; in time, you are delivered the results you expect.  Variety is stifled within the very system that supposedly promotes a world of seamless access.

But there it is. The Google search engine commodifies and controls choice, thereby leaving you with little.  The impression of a world with abundance is essential, and draws out the curse of plenty:  your choice is pre-empted, and typing in a search term generates terms you might wish to pursue.  Even the traditional library is hard to retreat to in certain respects given that librarians are becoming allergic to matters of paper, covers and book spines, a catalogue outsourced beyond its walls. The modern library has become the product of such market management fetish as knowledge centres, which is far more in line with Google speak.

Google has also reduced us to phone-reaching idiocy, an impulsive dive into the creature of all knowing answers that lies in the pocket and is procured at a moment’s notice.  Few conversations go by these days without that nasty God of the search engine making its celebrated entry to dispel doubts and right wrongs.  Not knowing a “fact” is intrinsically linked to the rescue of finding out what Google will tell you.

Larry Page has made little secret of its all-conquering, cerebral mission manifested through the all-powerful search engine.  It verges on the creepily totalitarian, but more in the fashion of Brave New World seductiveness than 1984 torture and stomping.

“It will be included in people’s brains,” he explained to a veteran observer of the company, Steven Levy.  “When you think about something and don’t really know much about it, you will automatically get information.”

Similarly for fellow founder Sergey Brin, Google is viewed “as a way to augment your brain with the knowledge of the world.”

There is the other side: company concentration, exquisitely vast power that has wooed critics, and a self-assumed omniscience that crushes competition.  It is such characteristics that determine Google as a sovereign exception that seems to trounce the prerogative of many states: there are regulations made by elected officials, but these can, and will be subverted, if needed. But there is another side of the Google phenomenon: calculated compliance, and collaboration verging on the obsequious.  Business remains business, and having such a concentrated entity exerting dominion over the Internet and the market is the very thing that should trouble anti-trust specialists.

This very fact struck the Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry as relevant. If Google was to be dealt with in any feasible way, it would have to be through the traditional weaponry of the anti-trust suit (think, he reminds us, of Standard Oil 1910).

“This can’t be fixed legislatively,” suggested Landry to Baton Rouge’s The Advocate. “We need to go to court with an antitrust suit.”

The European Union has already taken up the matter, fining Google $5 billion for antitrust violations relating to its Android market dominance, notably its bundling of the search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system while also making “payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators” to exclusively bundle the Google search app on handsets.

The suggestion for some form of antitrust action against Google and other technological giants in the US itself is now being lost in the political opportunism of the Trump Whitehouse.  On Tuesday, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions convened a gathering of various officials to consider “a growing concern” about how certain companies might “be hurting competition an intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms”.

The problem here is not the premise Sessions is pursuing.  What matters is the reason he is taking such an interest, pressed by the sledgehammer approach advocated by President Donald J. Trump.  That ever sensitive leader of the confused free world claims that the search engine has developed a bias against him, yet another rigged entity in action.

Trump’s critics also have issues with social media sites and Google’s search engine.  Like Hillary Rodham Clinton, they argue, conversely, that such entities promoted the forces of reaction.  Had they not been so easily susceptible to those wicked Russians in spreading misinformation during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump would never have gotten the keys to the White House.  That proposition has been given some academic ballast with Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President – What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know, though it remains qualified at best.

Reaching the age of 20 has certainly brought Google to the summit of criticism and a certain pervasive idolatry. There are those who feel erroneously slighted (Trump and Clinton); there are those who wish their records erased from the search engine in an effort to make their lives anew (the right to forget the foolish error); and then there are those who simply could not be bothered to do a bit more digging for something that is so effortlessly available.  “Google is the oracle of redirection,” claims James Gleick.  In due course, its own influence will, in time, require redirection, and the brats may have to be disciplined accordingly.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Observers shouldn’t read too deeply into the US withdrawing some anti-air missile systems from the Mideast because it’s motivated entirely by economic factors and has nothing to do with standing down in the face of Iran or Russia. 

The Wall Street Journal revealed that the US is pulling four Patriot anti-air missile systems from Bahrain, Jordan, and Kuwait, which happens to coincide with Iran’s recent surface-to-surface missile strike in Iraq and Russia’s decision to send S-300s to Syria. This has given rise to speculation that the American moves are tacitly in response to those latest developments, though nothing could be further from the truth. It should be remembered that Trump promised during his historic speech at the UN that the US will make the Gulf Kingdoms pay more for the security assistance that they receive from his country, a policy  pronouncement that wasn’t made off-the-cuff like he sometimes seems (key word) to do but was read off a script and was therefore preplanned. Thus, it’s most likely that the reason for this decision rests in America’s desire to squeeze more money out of its partners (“vassals”) than anything else. 

Interestingly, however, the very act of withdrawing these defensive systems might prove to be narratively counterproductive for the US because it suggests that the concerns about Iran’s missile program are just hyped-up fearmongering. After all, if this was such a serious security issue, then the US wouldn’t dare withdraw its defensive assets, nor risk doing anything that could even remotely send Iran a signal that it’s “backing down” and therefore “encourage” it. Some cynics might say that “tricking Iran” is one of the unstated strategic reasons for doing so, but that suggestion implies that there’s truth to the US’ accusations that the Islamic Republic is an aggressive regional menace that’s just waiting for the right moment to launch a larger war against its Gulf adversaries. It’s not, or at least in the conventional sense (unconventional means have been ongoing for decades, though it can be argued that they were in response to foreign aggression), and the US could still respond with overwhelming force even if it does. 

Considering this, the US’ Mideast missile pullout isn’t that big of a deal when one really takes the time to think about it. A small number of defensive systems are being removed from the theater, but they’re not going to have any significant effect on altering the balance of power there. While the US might hope that its partners will interpret this move as the beginning of a larger strategic rebalancing away from the region that can only be delayed or partially reversed by paying more money for “defense”, it’s also conceivable that they’ll perceive this as subtle confirmation that Washington doesn’t really believe that Iran is that imminent of a conventional (key word) “threat” if it’s casually removing some anti-missile units without thinking much of it. They probably realize this as it is and have only been pretending otherwise for self-interested reasons anyhow, but it still at the very least gives the public something to ponder and might make them reconsider the truthfulness of official narratives. 

*

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

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

Last year I wrote that Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly was perhaps the worst speech ever delivered from that podium, certainly by a Western leader. This year he surpassed himself.

Why is there no rule to say that someone who openly

• violates the basic norms of the United Nations
• continuously threatens other countries in contravention of the UN Charter’s Article 2.4
• condemns internationalism and multilateralism
• advocates a narrow nationalism/patriotism (to make America great again)
• stops funding the UNESCO
• condemns the International Criminal Court (ICC) and threatens its officials
• withdraws from UNRWA
• withdraws from the Paris Climate Accord
• withdraws from the UN Human Rights Commission
• withdraws from the UN Security Council-based nuclear deal with Iran (JCPOA) etc.

– can not automatically expect to remain a member of the UN world body that is in charge of those organisations and advocates those principles on behalf of the world’s peoples?

His two favourite countries that he singled out as examples for other countries to follow are Saudi Arabia and Israel (if you think I am joking please listen to the speech again, see below), while he attacks Germany, Sweden, China, Iran, Syria and many other countries.

People laughed at his initial remarks when he said that his administration had achieved more than perhaps any other US administration, but they should have left the hall when he started to attack the UN and its organisations in the way he did, and openly declared war against two sovereign states, Iran and Syria, and economic war against China, Russia and others.

***

Jan Oberg’s comments

1. And the German delegates shook their heads when he talked about total energy dependence on Russia.

2. President Trump also violates the UN Charter Article 2.4 which stipulates that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

3. In this – disturbing – speech Trump also said: “The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”
So how then shall we interpret the US Empire’s policies for war and regime change, intervention, CIA and other foreign presence, blatant interference in other countries’ domestic affairs and elections, coup d’etats in dozens of countries since 1945. And who has threatened the sovereignty of the US?

4. If there is a speech that illustrates how the President – and thereby the US Administration at present – ca not possibly be trusted and is the singularly most dangerous to the world, this is it.

Below is the full speech and here is the highlight from the New York Times.

In their obsession for regime change, Ottawa is backing talk of an invasion of Venezuela. And the NDP is enabling Canada’s interventionist policy.

Last week 11 of the 14 member states of the anti-Venezuelan “Lima Group” backed a statement distancing the alliance from “any type of action or declaration that implies military intervention” after Organization of American States chief Luis Almagro stated:

“As for military intervention to overthrow the Nicolas Maduro regime, I think we should not rule out any option … diplomacy remains the first option but we can’t exclude any action.”

Canada, Guyana and Colombia refused to criticize the head of the OAS’ musings about an invasion of Venezuela.

In recent weeks there has been growing tension on the border between Colombia and Venezuela. Some believe Washington is pushing for a conflict via Colombia, which recently joined NATO.

Last summer Donald Trump threatened to invade Venezuela.

“We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary,” the US President said.

Talk of an invasion encourages those seeking regime change. At the start of August drones armed with explosives flew toward Maduro during a military parade in what was probably an attempt to assassinate the Venezuelan president. Two weeks ago the New York Times reported that US officials recently met members of Venezuela’s military planning to oust Maduro. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for the military to oust Maduro in February and other leading Republican Party officials have made similar statements.

Alongside these aggressive measures, Canada has sought to weaken the Venezuelan government. Since last September Ottawa has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Venezuelan officials. In March the United Nations Human Rights Council condemned the economic sanctions the US, Canada and EU have adopted against Venezuela while Caracas called Canada’s move a “blatant violation of the most fundamental rules of International Law.”

Over the past year and a half Canadian officials have campaigned aggressively against the Venezuelan government. Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland has prodded Caribbean countries to join the Lima Group’s anti-Venezuela efforts and made frequent statements critical of Caracas’ democratic legitimacy and human rights record. In June Freeland told the OAS General Assembly,

“we must act immediately on the situation in Venezuela to force the exit of the dictatorship.”

Ottawa has encouraged its diplomats to play up human rights violations and supported opposition groups inside Venezuela. A 27-page Global Affairs report uncovered by the Globe and Mail noted,

“Canada should maintain the embassy’s prominent position as a champion of human-rights defenders.”

Alluding to the hostility engendered by its interference in that country’s affairs, the partially redacted 2017 report recommended that Canadian officials also “develop and implement strategies to minimize the impact of attacks by the government in response to Canada’s human rights statements and activities.”

As part of its campaign against the elected government, Ottawa has amplified oppositional voices inside Venezuela. Over the past decade, for instance, the embassy has co-sponsored an annual Human Rights Award with the Centro para la Paz y los Derechos Humanos whose director, Raúl Herrera, has repeatedly denounced the Venezuelan government. In July the recipient of the 2018 prize, Francisco Valencia, spoke in Ottawa and was profiled by the Globe and Mail.

“Canada actually is, in my view, the country that denounced the most the violation of human rights in Venezuela … and was the most helpful with financing towards humanitarian issues,” explained Valencia, who also told that paper he was “the target of threats from the government.”

In another example of anti-government figures invited to Ottawa, the former mayor of metropolitan Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, called for “humanitarian intervention” before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development last week. He said:

“If the international community does not urgently activate the principle of humanitarian intervention for Venezuela — which developed the concept of the responsibility to protect — they will have to settle for sending Venezuelans a resolution of condolence with which we will not revive the thousands of human beings who will lose their lives in the middle of this genocide sponsored by Maduro.”

In November Ledezma escaped house arrest and fled the country.

The NDP’s foreign critic has stayed quiet regarding the US/Canadian campaign against Venezuela’s elected government. I found no criticism by Hélène Laverdière of US/OAS leaders’ musing about invading or the August assassination attempt on Maduro. Nor did I find any disapproval from the NDP’s foreign critic of Canadian sanctions or Ottawa’s role in the Lima Group of anti-Venezuelan foreign ministers. Laverdière has also failed to challenge Canada’s expulsion of Venezuelan diplomats and role in directly financing an often-unsavoury Venezuelan opposition.

Worse still, Laverdière has openly supported asphyxiating the left-wing government through other means. The 15-year Foreign Affairs diplomat has repeatedly found cause to criticize Venezuela and has called on Ottawa to do more to undermine Maduro’s government.

Is Canadian political culture so deformed that no party represented in the House of Commons will oppose talk of invading Venezuela? If so its not another country’s democracy that we should be concerned about.

*

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

Featured image is from Radio Canada International.

How many more women await our discovery?

My question is not related to ongoing exposés of sexual abuse suffered by women under a culture of male privilege and dominance– the culture known by the trope #MeToo. What concerns me here is a seemingly unrelated silence and need for exposure, namely accomplishments of women scientists. This too is being newly addressed, although desultorily. 

Like millions of others I was alerted to the history of women in science after viewing Hidden Figures. This celebrated film features three African American women working in the 1950s U.S. space program. It’s based on the book by Margot Lee Shetterly, herself African American whose parents and neighbors were professionals working in the time and place of that story. So compelling were Shetterly’s revelations, the film was completed just two years after the book’s release.  While this film is making a profound social impact, to grasp the full context of African American scientists and women in general in the U.S. government’s pioneering space projects, read Shetterly’s full account. Book or film, Hidden Figures will propel more African Americans into the sciences while it impresses on all women the need for us to step out of the margins and into the center of public life.      

Human Computers of NASA (Source: margotleeshetterly.com)

Another ‘hidden figure’ is revealed with the recent award of the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics to British physicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell. Had the monetary award not been $3. million, her story likely wouldn’t be featured in a major U.S. newspaper. (See this)  Nevertheless the article is an opportunity to learn, once again, how a brilliant student of physics, somehow, despite adversarial male and institutional attitudes, managed what many of us cannot: she remained at work, applied her genius and pursued her irrepressible love of science. Burnell persisted despite her Cambridge supervisor, not Burnell, winning a Nobel Prize for his research on pulsars, a discovery she had made. That interview provides an all too common narrative of how modesty allowed Burnell to demure to male colleagues, and be upstaged by her professor. In this account we hear more about her modesty than her professional history and ongoing work at Oxford. 

This review regrettably includes a flawed note on other ‘hidden figures’. It mentions the white scientist Rosalind Franklin and the celebrated film, but fails to name mathematicians Dorothy Vaughan and Katherine Johnson and engineer Mary Jackson featured there. When will we learn to know, repeat and apply these women’s names? Dorothy Vaughan; Katherine Johnson, Mary Jackson; Dorothy Vaughan, Katherine Johnson, Mary Jackson; Dorothy Vaughan, Katherine Johnson, Mary Jackson. And add Margot Lee Shetterly to that deserving list.

Not long after perusing Shetterly’s highly readable and conscientiously researched book, browsing in my local library, I (by chance?) came across The Other Einstein. It’s an historical novel based on credible rumors regarding Mileva Marić-Einstein, a mathematician herself and first wife of the famous physicist. In The Other Einstein, published in 2016, author Marie Benedict explores rumors of a woman whom history not only marginalizes; it denies her any credit as a working scientist. 

A promising student of physics in Zurich, was a close companion of Albert Einstein in university, a member of his circle of aspiring scientists, and mother of his children. Benedict presents a story of Marić that’s debated by others; that is: she was Albert’s indispensable intellectual collaborator and contributor to his research reports—a tantalizing issue which physicist and writer Dennis Overbye mentions in his 2000 Einstein in Love, but leaves undeveloped (see this)  —  deserving of equal credit for his (sic) discovery of relativity. (Did he assign his Nobel prize money to Marić-Einstein as recompense for denying scholarly accreditation to her?) Benedict explores this possibility, offering a convincing portrayal of how Einstein may have exploited Marić’s brilliance and her trust in him, removing her name from publications of their shared scientific discoveries. (A very serious charge which must be thoroughly explored.)

Albert Einstein is so lionized a figure that it will take much more research to clarify Marić-Einstein’s real role in the history of physics. But the accounts by Overbye and Benedict are a start, just as Shetterly’s work is an essential opening act on women in U.S. pioneering research (see this).

Women everywhere struggle on mightily. In small snips we cut away the deep roots of misogyny in every culture. While progress is slow at the legal level, headway is being made by the slogging research work by our writers. Doubtless many more histories await our attention and when we uncover them we will find how many more predecessors broke barriers long before this modern era. Knowing women’s early scientific work, even absent of fanfare or awards, is still empowering to this and future generations.  

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s webpage: www.radiotahrir.org.

Aziz is a veteran anthropologist and radio journalist, also author of Heir to A Silent Song: Two Rebel Women of Nepal, published by Tribhuvan University, Nepal, and available through Barnes and Noble in the USA. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

Featured image: Mileva Marić-Einstein (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Another agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea signed in Jedda, Saudi Arabia on September 16 represents a new page in the shifting political alignments in this area of East Africa.

Previously on July 9 a document was signed by the leaders of the Horn of Africa states in Asmara, the capital of Eritrea. This most recent agreement is designed to expand the initial understanding between Addis Ababa and Asmara leading to greater cooperation in the efforts to put an end to the state of war which has lasted for twenty years.

Military conflict erupted in 1998 after a dispute over Badme on the border of the two countries resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in several major battles over a period of two years. In 2000 the Algiers Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities was brokered by the-then Organization of African Unity (OAU, now the AU), the United Nations, European Union (EU) and the Algerian government. 

The Algiers Agreement established a Boundaries Commission and a Claims Commission aimed at working out the disagreement over Badme. Although the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundaries Commission (EEBC) issued a ruling in 2003, the decision was rejected by the Ethiopian government. Although there was relative peace over the issue for the last decade-and-a-half, the overall situation remained tense until the diplomatic offensive which has been in the works since July.   

This latest accord is framed as a peace and friendship treaty which was brokered by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres and the African Union Commission Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat. As of July it appears as if Ethiopia has relinquished its claim to Badme.

A press release published by Asharq Al-Awsat praised the signing ceremony and noted the presence of the heads-of-state of Eritrea and Ethiopia as well as the top officials of the UN and the AU. A paragraph in the closing section of the document says that President Isaisis Afwerki and Prime Minister Abiy had praised the Saudi authorities for their role in the process. (See this)

An article written by Aaron Brooks which was published in the East African Monitor says of the accord that:

“The key aspect of the peace agreement remains the same since the initial deal was signed in Asmara in July. Article One states that the ‘state of war’ between the two countries is categorically over and the two nations have entered a new era of peace and cooperation. The second article states that Eritrea and Ethiopia will specifically cooperate in the political, security, defense, economic, trade, investments, cultural and social interests of both countries.” (See this)

This same report goes on explaining how:

“Articles five and six detail plans for the former enemies to work together in promoting regional peace and security in the Horn of Africa region. This includes combatting terrorism, human trafficking and the illegal sale of arms and drugs.

Finally, Article Seven states the two countries will establish a joint committee to oversee the implementation of the peace deal.” 

Unrest Flares Again in Ethiopia

With the ascendancy of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed to power in February the new leader of the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) has embarked upon a series of reforms which have serious implications for both domestic and foreign policy. 

These developments have created tensions within Ethiopia prompting ethnic clashes and mass demonstrations among those opposing the Abiy program and others who support the prime minister. As it pertains to the normalization of relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the regional organizations throughout the continent including the African Union (AU) have welcomed the peace agreement believing that this is the best insurance against the resumption of war.

Recent clashes taking place in the capital of Addis Ababa and surrounding areas were said to be sparked by the holding of demonstrations by the now unbanned and returning Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). Abiy who is from the Oromo group has been accused of not taking swift action against the violence. 

The unfurling of OLF flags proved to be provocative in the capital. The Oromo are the largest nationality in Ethiopia which is composed of 80 different ethnic groups.

There have been 28 reported deaths in connection with unrest. Some of the killings were carried out by police in response to demonstrations and street fighting. Over 1,200 people have been arrested by the authorities for engaging in violence and other purported illegal activities. 

Compounding the uncertainty as it relates to the heightening of domestic tensions inside Ethiopia, there is skepticism related to the role on a foreign policy level of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These Arab Gulf states are heavily armed by the United States and Britain and largely serve the regional interests of imperialism. 

Saudi Arabia and UAE have consistently fought against what is perceived as the burgeoning influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the Middle East. Iran has been a close ally of the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria while Riyadh and Abu Dhabi has supported opposition forces alongside Washington and London.

In Yemen the UAE and Saudi Arabia have led an intensive aerial bombing campaign and backed the ground forces of ousted President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi against the people of that impoverished nation since March 2015. Estimates indicate that over 60,000 people have died in Yemen as a direct result of the bombing and ground war by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as its allies. Altogether there have been approximately 100,000 airstrikes by the GCC against Yemen over the last three-and-one-half years. 

Many people have died from combat operations, the bombing of residential areas, schools, hospitals and government installations. Others have lost their lives to diseases and the lack of adequate infrastructure due to the targeting of essential services needed by civilians to survive. 

Yemen has experienced the worst cholera epidemic in the world today. Humanitarian organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) report that there have been one million cases of the dreaded infectious disease documented inside Yemen. Many children and adults have been affected by the outbreak leaving more than 2,000 dead and many others chronically ill. 

The rationale for the bombing of Yemen by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their allies is that the Ansurallah Movement is backed by Tehran which is attempting to seize control of the strategically located country. Iran has denied its direct involvement although they politically defend the Ansurallah (also known as the Houthis) against the war of genocide being waged by the Arab Gulf monarchies.

This genocidal war is being carried out with the indispensable assistance of the Pentagon through the use of U.S.-manufactured war planes, ordnances, aerial coordinates and intelligence guidance and other support. The diplomatic hostility by successive U.S. administrations towards Iran fuels the perpetuation of war in Yemen as well as Syria.

Pan-Africanism and Anti-Imperialism

One of the main objectives of Pan-Africanism is the realization and continuation of peace among African states. Without peaceful relations between AU member-states there can be no genuine development across the continent.

Therefore the signing of these two peace agreements by Eritrea and Ethiopia are more than welcomed by progressive forces in Africa and throughout the Diaspora. The potential for economic and political development in the Horn of Africa is limitless due to its rich resources, productive labor force and important geo-political positioning in East Africa and proximity to the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Peninsula.

Nonetheless, the role of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the process is bound to raise suspicions about the possible underlying aims of these states which are closely aligned with the imperialist policies of the U.S., Britain and the EU. The utilization of the Eritrean port at Assab by the UAE and Saudi Arabia for military purposes is well known.

A June 15 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) report on the offensive by the U.S.-backed GCC aimed at taking control of the Yemen port of Hodeida held by the Ansurallah said:

“Military sources here in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have told the BBC that a major force of Yemeni, UAE and Sudanese troops is on standby in Eritrea to take part in a final push to retake Hodeida port from Houthi rebels. The military campaign to drive out the Iranian-backed rebel militia from the key Red Sea port is being directed, funded and led by the UAE. Officials here have responded to international objections to the campaign by emphasizing that Hodeida port remains open and that maintaining the flow of aid is a top priority.” (See this)

The role of these Arab Gulf states in Yemen and Syria remain inimical to the long term interests not only of the masses of people in these countries notwithstanding the need for the development of cooperation between Africa and West Asia. Genocide in Yemen and Syria fostered by imperialism mirrors the historical plight of Africa from the periods of enslavement, colonialism and modern-day neo-colonialism. 

Genuine Pan-Africanism is inherently anti-imperialist. Without the elimination of western hegemony and its surrogates in Africa and West Asia there can be no lasting peace in these geo-political regions so vital to the future of humanity.   

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Russian military refused to buy Putin’s excuse for Israel’s intentional murder of 15 Russian Air Force personnel.  The Russian military knows precisely what happened and has not been hesitant to make completely clear Israel’s total betrayal of the Russian government’s naive and gullible trust in the criminal state of Israel. (See this)

One marvels at the foreign policy incompetence of Putin’s civilian advisers.  Apparently there is no Russian awareness that the ONLY REASON for Washington’s fake “war on terror” is to clear out of the Middle East all governments with foreign policies independent of Washington, governments that are in the way of Israel’s expansion. 

Israel is especially interested to annex southern Lebanon and wants the Hezbollah militia, which Israel has been unable to defeat, out of the way by using Washington to put Syria and Iran into the same chaos as Washington put Iraq and Libya.  Once Syria and Iran are in chaos, there is no one left to supply Hezbollah, and Israel can again march into Lebanon.

Does the Russian government not understand that the “terrorists” are Washington’s operatives?  Washington pretends that some of these “terrorists” are “democratic rebels” opposing the alleged “Syrian dictatorship.”  Washington pretends that others of its mercenaries are “terrorists,” whose presence is Washington’s justification for having US military forces in Syria illegally to “fight terrorism,” an excuse that has evaporated with Washington’s obvious and determined shielding of the remaining al Qaeda, al Nusra, and ISIS forces in Syria.  The American neoconservatives, most of whom are Zionists tightly allied with Netanyahu, formulated a doctrine of US world hegemony.  This ideological doctrine of “American exceptionalism” serves as a cloak to hide the fact that Washington is serving Israel’s interest in the Middle East.

These completely obvious, transparent facts are apparently over the head of Putin’s civilian advisors.

Nevertheless, the Israeli murder of the Russian airmen has forced Putin to finally honor his contract with Syria and to supply the S-300 air defense system that Syria paid for but Putin, in deference to the criminal state of Israel, refused to deliver.  The S-300 will be delivered in 2 weeks, said the Russian Ministry of Defense.  This air defense system will, I think, allow Syria to close its air space to Israeli, US, and NATO aggression without Putin having to declare a no fly zone, an obvious solution that Putin has avoided in dererence to “Russia’s American and Israeli partners.” 

In my opinion, provocations would have been avoided and lives saved, if the Russian government had established a de facto no-fly zone when Russia first came to Syria’s aid, and if Russia had stuck with the project to defeat Washington’s terrorists without premature withdrawals and ceasefires in the naive hope of obtaining some kind of agreement.  How could the Russian government possibly think that any agreement with Washington, Israel, or any of Washington’s EU puppets would mean anything?  All these Russian hesitations did was to permit Washington to figure out how to interject itself more firmly into Syrian territory. If Russia had acted more decisively and less hesitantly, the Russian airmen and a large number of other people would still be alive.

Is it conceiveable that the Russian government has not yet learned that an agreement with Washington is a fool’s errand?  Washington broke its word and moved NATO to Russia’s border, and all of Europe approved. Washington unilaterally pulled out of the ABM Treaty. Washington and Israel equipped and trained the Georgian military and sent it to kill Russian peacekeepers and attack South Ossetia and then blamed Russia for “aggression.” Washington worked against the success of the Sochi Olympics and used the occasion to spring on an unsuspecting Russian government a neo-nazi coup in Ukraine with the intention of evicting Russia from its Black Sea naval base.  When Crimea voted 97% to rejoint Russia, Washington and its EU puppets falsely alleged that “Russia invaded Ukraine.” When the Ukrainian government installed by Victoria Nuland shot down a Malaysian airliner, as soon as the airliner hit the ground, the blame was put on Russia, where it still lies. Washington unilaterally pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement.  This list just scratches the surface of Washington’s betrayals of Russia.

And the Russian government thinks that an agreement with Washington is meaningful?! 

The only meaningful agreement the Russian government can make with Washington is to sign away Russian sovereignty and accept Russian status as a vassal of Washington.  How many black eyes does the Russian government need to receive before it can comprehend this basic and unalterable reality?

Even the belated, long overdue, step that the Russian government has taken to provide Syria with air defense in order to protect the Syrian/Russian gains in liberating Syria from Washington’s terrorists is too much for Russian “experts,” such as Nikolay Surkov, a senior researcher at the Moscow-based International Institute for World Economy and International Relations. Surkov assured RT that “Russia and Israel are partners, and neither side wishes to endanger this partnership.” (See this) So, why does the utter fool Surkov think Israel had the Russian airplane and its crew destroyed?  Is he an Israeli voice that accepts the false Israeli explanation? 

How can Surkov be considered an “expert” when he is so totally ignorant. Israel and Russia have no common interest whatsoever. Israel’s interest in the Middle East is chaos so that there are no organized states in the way of Israeli expansion.  Russia’s interest is to have stable governments with independent foreign policies that prevent Washington and Israel from siccing the terrorists on the Russian Federation.  If the Russian government does not understand this, it desperately needs a new intelligence agency.  But not one headed by Surkov.

As far as I can tell, neither the Russian government nor the Russian people understand that Washington, Israel, and their NATO vassals are Russia’s enemies, not Russia’s “partners.”  There is no doubt whatsoever that Washington and Israel are intent on Russia’s destruction.  Yet, Russia has “experts,” such as Surkov, who believe, or pretend to believe, that “Russia and Israel are partners.”

If this is the level of intelligence in Moscow, Russia and the rest of us are doomed.

*

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

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

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

At the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump was laughed at by global leaders when he boasted about his accomplishments. He may feel insulted by the reception he got in New York, but a day earlier his administration saw a more tangible display of how much the international community opposes some of his policies.

On Monday, the European Union announced a decision to launch a “special purpose vehicle” with the mission of helping Iran blunt the impact of U.S. sanctions. Iran is still in compliance with its obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the P5+1 signatories – aside from the U.S. – remain firmly in the deal. “We are not backing down [on the Iran nuclear agreement],” said a European diplomat, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. is nearly friendless in its quest to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, save for Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the EU’s initiative is intended to keep the accord alive. China and Russia offered their support for the new financing vehicle.

But, despite their support, Iran has been hit hard by U.S. sanctions as the world dials back on its purchases from Iran. The Iranian rial has plunged in value this year and oil exports are expected to continue to decline. Without the benefits of the nuclear deal, Iran has little incentive to remain in the accord and may eventually bow out.

“Mindful of the urgency and the need for tangible results, the participants welcomed practical proposals to maintain and develop payment channels, notably the initiative to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate payments related to Iran’s exports, including oil,” Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the EU announced in a joint statement. The goal is “to protect the freedom of their economic operators to pursue legitimate business with Iran.”

The EU’s plan consists of an entity setup for the sole purpose of processing payments for companies doing business with Iran. This would allow European companies to buy oil from Iran without fear of getting hit by U.S. sanctions. The trade would presumably take place in a currency other than the greenback because of U.S. sanctions on dollar transactions.

To be sure, the U.S. still wields unparalleled power over the fate of Iran’s oil exports, and has already succeeded in disrupting a larger share of Iranian supply than most analysts had predicted. Estimates from earlier this year pegged Iran’s losses at around 400,000-500,000 bpd, but more recent estimates put the losses at 1 million barrels per day (mb/d), or perhaps even more, by the end of the year. Iran’s oil exports fell to 3.584 mb/d in August, down 150,000 bpd from a month earlier.

The ability of the U.S. to demand compliance from so many countries is a testament to the power of the American-oriented international financial system and the strength of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Still, there are those that believe the aggressive use of sanctions will backfire on the dollar in the long run. In the future, the effort by the P5+1 nations to setup an alternative payments system may be viewed as a turning point, a small but highly symbolic attempt at undermining dollar dominance.

In the short run, it is unclear if the effort will have an impact.

“The question is whether this will work, because of course the US will continue to exert colossal pressure on the European Union and, with a strong desire, can easily trample down any mechanism,” Vladimir Yermakov, director of the department for non-proliferation and arms control at the Russian foreign ministry, told reporters, according to the FT. “Everything depends on how far the Americans want to go and how far our European colleagues will allow them to go.”

It is not clear that European companies will be convinced to trust the “special purpose vehicle” setup by the EU or that buying Iranian oil will go unpunished by Washington. Already, Total SA has withdrawn from a major natural gas project in Iran, and other major European companies such as Peugeot, Renault and Siemens have also suspended their Iranian operations. There is little prospect of their return.

Refiners in Europe have dramatically cut their imports of Iranian oil, which has been an important factor in the decline of Iran’s oil exports. That also seems unlikely to change.

Without the decisions by individual private companies to continue to do business with Iran, the EU initiative could be rendered symbolic. Time will tell.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Media giant Facebook recently announced (Reuters, 9/19/18) it would combat “fake news” by partnering with two propaganda organizations founded and funded by the US government: the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The social media platform was already working closely with the NATO-sponsored Atlantic Council think tank (FAIR.org, 5/21/18).

In a previous FAIR article (8/22/18), I noted that the “fake news” issue was being used as a pretext to attack the left and progressive news sites. Changes to Facebook’s algorithm have reduced traffic significantly for progressive outlets like Common Dreams (5/3/18), while the pages of Venezuelan government–backed TeleSur Englishand the independent Venezuelanalysis were shut down without warning, and only reinstated after a public outcry.

The Washington, DC–based NDI and IRI are staffed with senior Democratic and Republican politicians; the NDI is chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while the late Sen. John McCain was the longtime IRI chair. Both groups were created in 1983 as arms of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Cold War enterprise backed by then–CIA director William Casey (Jacobin, 3/7/18). That these two US government creations, along with a NATO offshoot like the Atlantic Council, are used by Facebook to distinguish real from fake news is effectively state censorship.

Facebook’s collaboration with the NED organizations is particularly troubling, as both have aggressively pursued regime change against leftist governments overseas. The NDI undermined the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, and continues to do so to this day, while the IRI claimed a key role in the 2002 coup against leftist President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, announcing that it had

served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future…. We stand ready to continue our partnership with the courageous Venezuelan people.

The Reuters report (9/19/18) mentioned that Facebook was anxious to better curate what Brazilians saw on their feeds in the run-up to their presidential elections, which pits far-right Jair Bolsonaro against leftist Fernando Haddad. The US government has a long history of undermining democracy in Brazil, from supporting a coup in 1964 against the progressive Goulart administration to continually spying on leftist President Dilma Rousseff (BBC, 7/4/15) in the run-up to the parliamentary coup against her in 2016 (CounterSpin, 6/2/17).

Soon after it partnered with the Atlantic Council, Facebook moved to delete accounts and pages connected with Iranian broadcasting channels (CNBC, 8/23/18), while The Intercept (12/30/17) reported that in 2017 the social media platform met with Israeli government officials to discuss which Palestinian voices it should censor. Ninety-five percent of Israeli government requests for deletion were granted. Thus the US government and its allies are effectively using the platform to silence dissenting opinion, both at home and on the world stage, controlling what Facebook‘s 2 billion users see and do not see.

Progressives should be deeply skeptical that these moves have anything to do with their stated objective of promoting democracy. Bloomberg Businessweek (9/29/17) reported that the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) party went to Facebookheadquarters for discussions with US companies about how it could use the platform for recruitment and micro-targeting in the 2017 elections. AfD tripled its previous vote share, becoming the third-largest party in Germany, the far right’s best showing since World War II.

Public trust in government is at 18 percent—an all-time low (Pew, 12/14/17). There is similar mistrust of Facebook, with only 20 percent of Americans agreeing social media sites do a good job separating fact from fiction. And yet, worldwide, Facebook is a crucial news source. Fifty-two percent of Brazilians, 61 percent of Mexicans, and 51 percent of Italians and Turks use the platform for news; 39 percent of the US gets their news from the site.

This means that, despite the fact that even its own public mistrusts it, the US government has effectively become the arbiter of what the world sees and hears, with the ability to marginalize or simply delete news from organizations or countries that do not share its opinions. This power could be used at sensitive times, like elections. This is not an idle threat. The US created an entire fake social network for Cubans that aimed to stir unrest and overthrow the Cuban government, according to the Guardian (4/3/14).

That a single corporation has such a monopoly over the flow of worldwide news is already problematic, but the increasing meshing of corporate and US government control over the means of communication is particularly worrying. All those who believe in free and open exchange of information should oppose Facebook becoming a tool of US foreign policy.

*

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

Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in April.

Featured image is from the author.

CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are designed to economically grow meat-, milk- or egg-producing animals such as pigs, cattle or chickens by achieving maximum profitability by confining the suffering animals to unnatural, usually indoor facilities (for pigs and chickens) and not allowing them to graze like normal farm animals on healthful open fields. 

CAFOs require huge lagoons to store the fecal and urine waste material, which makes serious pollution of the soil, air and water (not only probable, but) inevitable. The lagoons are around 30 feet deep and the slaughterhouse waste contains a mixture of untreated feces, urine, blood, afterbirth tissue, stillborn pigs, bacteria, drugs and other chemicals. These lagoons commonly overflow when it rains or a hurricane hits. The confined animals usually drown in the worst-case scenarios. 

American CAFOs are already located in many American states and are owned and operated by huge environment-poisoning corporations such as Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Swift & Company and Cargill (the four largest producers of animal meat in the US). 

Low wages are commonly paid to workers (many of whom are poor undocumented immigrants). Workers (and the confined animals) have to endure psychologically-traumatizing environments in addition to having to inhale toxic, disease-producing odors from fecal gases that include hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg smell), ammonia and the most toxic greenhouse gas on earth, methane. Anybody who has been to rural Iowa, where pig CAFOs abound, knows what I am talking about.

It is important to know that a private Chinese corporation purchased Smithfield Foods (the biggest pork producer in the world) for above-market prices in 2013. The deal amounted to 4.7 billion dollars. It allows a foreign nation to import some of its pork without having to endure the massive pollution and environmental degradation that accompanies the CAFO production process. 

A few years ago Wisconsin’s pro-corporate, anti-regulatory Republican Governor Scott Walker and his Republican administration seriously considered allowing a new pig farm/CAFO in an area of northern Wisconsin where effluents would flow towards Lake Superior. It was to be operated by a corporation from Iowa. Wisconsin already has CAFOs that are contaminating Lake Michigan, where fish kills, dead zones and algae blooms are common. Every CAFO require the construction of poisonous cesspool lagoons to store the farm animal waste. The proposed site was to be built in Wisconsin’s northern lakes area that so far have few, if any, dead zones.

Be aware that, in Minnesota, a number of foreign copper/nickel mining corporations that, just like the owners of the infamous CAFOs mentioned above, are close to being awarded permits to operate “experimental” sulfide mines in the water-rich northeast part of the state. 

Minnesota’s regulatory agencies and the business community are consciously ignoring the many catastrophic dangers of copper/nickel sulfide mines AND the massive earthen dam-contained waste storage lagoons that will contain billions of gallons of toxic waste tailings that will likely – at some time in the future – burst through the tall lagoon walls (in the case of the proposed PolyMet mine lagoon, up to 250 feet tall!) when the inevitable heavy rain occurs, allowing their eternally toxic contents to flow into previously pristine watersheds that ultimately drain into Lake Superior to the south and/or the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area to the north.

Below are some images of what happens to a state like North Carolina when it experiences a “100-year hurricane” like Florence (2018), Matthew (2016), Floyd (1999), Fran (1993) or some other catastrophic deluge that can easily happen even in the absence of a hurricane. To learn about the multitude of disastrous sulfide mining tailings lagoon failures around the world, click here.

Red dots represent one of the 2,100 Hog CAFOs in North Carolina. Note the concentration of the CAFOs in the Cape Fear estuary, which was hardest hit by Hurricane Florence (2018).

A North Carolina hog CAFO showing fecal and urine waste storage lagoons before Hurricane Matthew (2016).

For a powerful story in the Washington Post on Hurricane Matthew and North Carolina’s Hog Farm catastrophe after the disastrous flooding, click here.

Putrid sewage lagoons overflowing large CAFO lagoons after another North Carolinian flood.

A North Carolina CAFO after the flooding that made invisible the submerged lagoons with waste eventually entering rivers that drain into North Carolina’s Atlantic Ocean Dead Zone 

Two small North Carolina CAFOs after Hurricane Matthew (2016)

Submerged CAFO confinement buildings containing thousands of trapped, drowned and eventually rotting pigs that could not be rescued 

Some pigs that were released alive before they died drinking the poisoned, infectious, undrinkable water after finally being liberated from their horrid, life-long concentration camp existence. Most of their fellow pigs were trapped inside and drowned immediately

Cleaning up the rotting, bloated CAFO pig carcasses after another deluge. (Jobs, jobs, jobs)

Aerial view of the outlet of tiny Hazeltine Creek as it empties into Quesnel Lake (a once world-famous salmon fishery) at the head of the 600 mile-long Fraser River estuary that is now contaminated with 2.5 billion gallons of toxic sulfide mine waste (including sulfuric acid) that (was) disastrously discharged after heavy rains in 2014. The brown color represents the trunks of the huge trees that were up-rooted during the (flooding.) The diameter of some of the trees measured half the width of the original 6 foot-wide creek. The catastrophic event was British Colombia’s worst environmental disaster in its history.

*

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

Dr Kohls, since his retirement from his holistic mental health practice, has been writing his Duty to Warn weekly column for the Duluth Reader, Minnesota’s premier alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns, which are re-published around the world, deal with the dangers of sulfide mining in northeast Minnesota, corporatism, militarism, racism, American Friendly Fascism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s over-drugging and Big Vaccine’s over-vaccination agendas, as well as other movements that threaten human health, the environment, democracy, civility and the sustainability of the planet and the populace. Many of his columns are archived at a number of websites, including

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; and

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

All images in this article are from the author.

A Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report criticizing Saudi Arabia’s anti-money laundering and terrorism finance measures puts the kingdom on the spot 17 years after the 9/11 attacks and casts a shadow over its diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar on the grounds that the Gulf state supports militants.

In a nod to the kingdom, the international watchdog described as “understandable” the fact the kingdom’s “almost exclusive focus of authorities on domestic (terrorist financing) offences means the authorities are not prioritizing disruption of support for threats outside the kingdom.”

The 246-page report contrasted starkly with US President Donald J. Trump’s assessment expressed in his address to the United Nations general assembly.

“Following my trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Gulf countries opened a new centre to target terrorist financing. They are enforcing new sanctions. They are working with us to identify and track terrorist networks and taking more responsibility for fighting terrorism and extremism in their own region”, Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump, by design or default, did not take into account the flow of substantial amounts of Saudi money to militants in the Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders on Iran. Mounting indications suggest that the Islamic republic’s detractors may be moving to stir unrest among Iran’s ethnic minorities in a bid to change the regime in Tehran.

The flow of funds leaves open the possibility that the kingdom’s laxity in cracking down on funds flowing to extremists beyond its frontiers may be deliberate.

To be sure, Saudi Arabia has been strengthening its anti-money laundering and terrorism finance regime ever since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in which the perpetrators were primarily Saudi nationals and Al Qaeda attacks in the kingdom itself in 2003 and 2004.

Writing in Forbes, journalist Dominic Dudley noted that the FATF report may not have taken into account new anti-money laundering and terrorism finance-related laws adopted last year by Saudi Arabia.

“The new laws were coming in just as the FATF was conducting its research for this report and it is too soon to judge how effective they have been,” Mr. Dudley said.

Even so, it was only with the ascendancy to the throne of King Salman in 2015 and the rise of his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, that the kingdom began to review its more than four decades long global funding of intolerant, anti-pluralistic, supremacist, ant-Shiite and anti-Iranian ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim groups and institutions.

While financing has been severely curtailed and funding vehicles like the Muslim World League have been refashioned to propagate moderation and inter-faith dialogue, the kingdom, as in the case of Balochistan, continues to support ultra-conservatives where it serves its geopolitical goals.

In what apparently reflected frustration with the kingdom’s progress in countering money laundering and terrorism, FATF did not mince its words in its report. “Saudi Arabia is not effectively investigating and prosecuting individuals involved in larger scale or professional (money laundering] activity” and is “not effectively confiscating the proceeds of crime,” the report said.

FATF suggested that the problem was the kingdom’s implementation of anti-money laundering and terrorism finance measures rather than its legal infrastructure.

“Saudi Arabia has a legal framework that provides it with an adequate basis to investigate and prosecute ML (money laundering) activities… Saudi Arabia is not effectively investigating and prosecuting individuals involved in larger scale or professional ML activity. Investigations are often reactive rather than proactive, and tend to be straightforward and single layered.,” the report said.

The report’s wording left the possibility open that poor implementation was the result of either a lack of political will or the fact that there is widespread criticism of Prince Mohammed’s reforms within the bureaucracy and the kingdom’s religious establishment despite a crackdown on any form of dissent.

That possibility gains currency given the fact that FATF acknowledges that

“Saudi Arabia has demonstrated an ability to respond to the dynamic terrorism threat it faces in country. Saudi Arabian authorities have demonstrated that they have the training, experience and willingness to pursue TF (terrorism finance) investigations in conjunction with and alongside terrorism cases.”

The report noted that Saudi Arabia seldom convicted funders of political violence who were not directly involved in attacks.

“This includes TF cases in relation to funds raised in the Saudi Arabia for support of individuals affiliated with terrorist entities outside the kingdom, particularly outside the Middle-East region, which remains a risk. Saudi Arabia’s overall strategy for fighting terrorist financing mainly focuses on using law enforcement measures to disrupt terrorist threats directed at the kingdom and its immediate vicinity,” the report said.

FATF’s criticism is embarrassing for a country that ever since the 9/11 attacks has been attempting to shed its image of having fuelled militancy, position itself as a leader in the struggle against militancy and extremism, and project itself as a 21^st century knowledge hub by liberalizing its strict social and cultural norms, including the recent lifting of the ban on women’s driving.

It is also awkward because the report puts Saudi Arabia in the position of the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to the 15-month-old Saudi-United Arab Emirates-led boycott of Qatar because it allegedly funds and supports militancy. Saudi Arabia’s failure to garner widespread international support for its boycott or force Qatar to concede heightens the awkwardness.

That is even more the case given that Saudi Arabia together with the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt is demanding among other things that Qatar “consent to monthly compliance audits in the first year after agreeing to the demands, followed by quarterly audits in the second year, and annual audits in the following 10 years” – something the kingdom would be unlikely to accept if hypothetically asked in the wake of the FATF report to submit to a similar regime.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa and just published China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom

For those who follow major financial markets closely, the warning signs of the next major US financial market Tsunami are gaining more frequency daily. Some weeks ago attention was on so-called Emerging Markets, especially Turkey, Argentina, Indonesia, India or Mexico. What is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media is the relation of those events to the deliberate withdrawal of dollars from the global financial system by the “creator” of dollars, the US Federal Reserve. Now that process threatens to detonate a dramatic fall in not only US stocks but also in high-risk junk bonds, in US real estate debt, auto debt, credit card debt. The Trump hopes for continued economic success into the 2020 elections or even into the November mid-term elections may be smashed by the will of the Fed.

The interesting fact little-discussed outside professional financial circles is the fact that every major financial panic or crash since at least the Panic of 1893 in the USA has been orchestrated to the advantage of a dominant faction in finance at the expense of rivals. This was the case with the crash of 1907 where the “Federal Reserve” of that time, the faction in Wall Street around J.P. Morgan, triggered a panic to gain certain advantage over troublesome competitors. Since JP Morgan, the Rockefellers and banks of Wall Street manipulated the creation of the private Federal Reserve in 1913, it has been the Fed who engineers periodic market collapses after the same Fed policies created a speculative boom in assets previously.

The Great 1929 Crash on Wall Street was deliberately caused by Fed interest rate policies tied to pressure from Bank of England’s Montagu Norman after 1927 to lower US interest rates to encourage flow of gold into London. When US rates created a dangerous stock market bubble, the Fed moved rates higher in 1929 and burst the bubble, triggering the Great Crash and Great Depression. In the 1990s the Greenspan Fed deliberately encouraged another Wall Street speculative bubble known as the Dot.com bubble, as the Fed chairman gave speeches praising the “new economy,” and feeding a stock bubble with lowered interest rates before raising them again and popping the bubble in March 2000. After the dot.com crash the same Greenspan dramatically lowered rates again to a mere 1% in 2003, explicitly encouraging a real estate boom and praising the Wall Street creation of Mortgage-Backed Securities and “no interest loans.” When the same Greenspan began deliberately to raise Fed rates from 2006 to September 2007, a full-blown US sub-prime mortgage collapse was on. He conveniently resigned just before.

QT and the Coming Bubble Bust

Now the Fed is in the early stages of yet another interest rate tightening cycle, raising rates after an unprecedented ten years of zero rates and Quantitative Easing. In addition to raising rates, it is also unwinding the QE with what is known as Quantitative Tightening—selling off the Treasuries and other bonds it acquired during the past decade of QE, in effect reducing available bank credit. It began timidly in 2017 with ever-so-gradual Fed interest rate hikes from the zero levels of the past eight years. Now with a new Fed chairman, Jerome Powell, rates look set to rise significantly in coming months

It began timidly in 2017 with ever-so-gradual Fed interest rate hikes from the zero levels of the past eight years. Now with a new Fed chairman Jerome Powell, rates look set to rise significantly in coming months. At the same time the Fed has begun to reverse its purchase of some $4 trillion of US Treasury and corporate bonds and assets during the past decade. To date they have sold $231 billion of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, withdrawing the equivalent in banking system liquidity.

The combined impact of rising Fed rates and liquidation of its Treasury holdings from QE is creating a dollar liquidity squeeze worldwide. While the impact so far has first been felt in vulnerable emerging markets like Turkey or Argentina, in recent weeks it has begun to force domestic US interest rates higher and threatens to end the euphoric Wall Street stock bubble that began a decade ago. Since the onset of the crisis in 2008 the S&P 500 stock index has risen an unprecedented 387%, for reference.

Now if we add to the mix the fact that owing to the generous Trump tax cuts and a rise in military and other spending, the Federal US deficit is due to hit nearly $1 trillion this year, and remain at those levels for at least a decade, with Washington in a trade war with China, it’s largest creditor, as well as with Japan, events are primed for rising US interest rates even somewhat independent of the Fed.

A US Debt Bubble

A decade of the lowest Fed interest rates in history has created a grotesque distortion in borrowing in most every sector of the US economy from Federal government to corporations to households. The Federal government debt is presently a record $21 trillion, more than double what it was in 2008 when the Lehman crisis erupted. US corporate debt is an unprecedented $6.3 trillion and only sustainable so long as interest rates remained at record lows.

Debt of US households is more than $13.3 trillion, well above the 2008 peak. Of that most is again mortgage debt, at over $9 trillion, near the level of 2008. Of this debt of households an unprecedented $1.5 trillion is student loan debt. In 2008 that figure was less than half or $611 billion. Add another $1.25 in auto loans and record credit card debt and the stage is set for the US to get caught in a classic debt trap once rising Fed interest rates trigger domino-style bankruptcies as companies and home mortgage holders are unable to meet debt payments and defaults rise.

While it is not at all clear that rising Fed interest rates will trigger a stock market crash in time for the November mid-term elections, the stage is clearly set for the Fed to put the US economy into a severe recession or depression by the time of the 2020 elections. That would finish the Trump presidency should the Powers That Be decide another option is more useful to their global power agenda.

“We won’t be able to call it a recession, it’s going to be worse than the Great Depression,” said Peter Schiff, fund manager who anticipated the 2007 sub-prime crash. Schiff predicts a major economic downturn before the end of the Trump presidency’s first term. “The US economy is in so much worse shape than it was a decade ago.” Only this time the Fed is in a far weaker position than in 2008 and the total US debt is far beyond levels of a decade ago. The US economy and US Government is not as invincible as it appears to some. The question is what would replace it? The China-Russia-Iran Eurasia alternative, the most promising alternative needs to take far more consequent steps to isolate their economies from the dollar if they are to succeed.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author.

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP has unveiled Labour’s plans for a new, publicly-owned water system, run by local councils, workers and customers and for “unprecedented openness and transparency” in how the industry will be managed. Building on Labour’s manifesto commitment to bring key utilities back into public ownership, for the first time McDonnell has outlined in detail how they would do it.

It comes as part of a package of measures to broaden ownership and control in the economy, including giving workers a third of seats on boards, billions of pounds for public services to be raised from Labour’s Inclusive Ownership Fund and a wide-ranging consultation on putting workers and service users in charge of running the water, energy, rail and mail industries which Labour will bring into public ownership. McDonnell also announced plans to launch a campaign against corporate tax avoidance and for Nobel laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz to speak at the first meeting of a new ‘Bretton Woods’ international forum to reform global economic institutions.

Coming off the back of plans to set up a dedicated public ownership unit in the Treasury set out earlier this week, McDonnell said Labour were “planned, ready and prepared” to hand economic power back to workers, citizens and communities to a degree never seen before. He added that the Labour Party is ready “not just to fight another election campaign but to implement our programme when we win” and that “at the heart of our programme is the greatest extension of economic democratic rights that this country has ever seen.”

Extending Economic Democratic Rights

John McDonnell MP, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, said:

“Water bills have risen 40% in real terms since privatisation. Water companies receive more in tax credits than they pay in tax. Each day enough water to meet the needs of 20 million people is lost due to leakages.

“With figures like that, we can’t afford not to take them back. But let’s be clear, nationalisation will not be a return to the past.

“We don’t want to take power away from faceless directors only to centralise it all in a Whitehall office, to swap one remote manager for another.

“Today Rebecca Long Bailey and I are launching a large scale consultation on democracy in our public services. We are also setting out our plans for a new publicly-owned water system that puts this essential service back in the hands of local councils, workers and customers.

“There will be unprecedented openness and transparency in how the industry will be managed. We are ending the profiteering in dividends, vast executive salaries, and excessive interest payments. Surpluses will be reinvested in water infrastructure and staff, or used to reduce bills. Real investment will allow the highest environmental standards.”

On the Public and Community Ownership Unit

“It will bring in the external expertise we will need. Let me make it absolutely clear that the full weight of the Treasury will be used to take on any vested interests that try to thwart the will of the people.

“Some said our manifesto was a fantasy or a wish list, attractive but ultimately not deliverable. I’m telling you today that we are planned, ready and prepared. Not just to fight another election campaign but to implement our programme when we win.”

On the campaign against corporate tax avoidance

“We can’t trust the Tories on this but we shouldn’t just wait until we get into government. We should act now.

”One way is to mobilise shareholder power to demand companies uphold basic tax justice standards. Numerous institutions from churches to trade unions and pension funds have large scale shareholdings in many of the companies that avoid taxes. So today I’m announcing my intention to bring together these organisations to launch a shareholder campaign.

“We’ll be demanding companies sign up to the Fair Tax Mark standards, demonstrating transparently that they pay their fair share of taxes. So fair warning to the tax avoiders, we are coming for you.”

On global dialogue and the international economic forum

“Gordon Brown recently expressed his concern at the current weaknesses in global relationships to deal with any future economic crises. With major nations on the brink of a trade war, and with climate change accelerating, we can’t risk the kind of international breakdown that led to the Great Depression.

“Just as at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, there is an urgent need to work out if the current international system can cope with these threats. It isn’t working for the Western world, where stagnant wages have helped feed the rise of the racist right.

“And it isn’t working for the developing world, whose wealth is plundered by multinational corporations or stashed in Western banks.

“We will be convening in the spring an international social forum to bring together leading economists, politicians and civil society representatives, launching a dialogue on the common risks we face and the actions we need to take.

“I am pleased to announce that Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, has agreed to lead this discussion for us.”

***

Speech to Labour Conference 2018

John McDonnell MP

I want to start by thanking the Treasury Team: Peter Dowd, Shadow Chief Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, Anneliese Dodds, Clive Lewis, Lyn Brown, Lord Dennis Tunnicliffe, Lord Bryan Davies and PPS Thelma Walker who won back Colne Valley from the Tories last year.

This month is the 10th anniversary of the financial crash. J.K.Galbraith in his book on the 1929 crash said sure you can try to create institutions to avoid crashes in the future but the best protection is memory. So it’s worth remembering. The causes of the crash were:

Yes, greed; yes, the deregulation that turned the City into a multibillion pound casino, but more importantly it was caused by the power of a small, financial elite who exercised too much power over our political system.

That power meant the bankers and speculators who caused the crisis wouldn’t be the ones who’d pay for it. It would be our families, working people, our businesses, our young people and especially the most vulnerable in our society.

It’s been 8 hard years of austerity and economic failure. In the 6th richest country in the world it cannot be right that 5000 of our fellow citizens are sleeping on our streets and that 4 million of our children are living in poverty, two thirds of them in households where someone is in work.

That tells you that wages are so low, still below 2010 levels. They are not sufficient to provide a decent life for many of our people. The Tories have created an age of insecurity where people have little if any power or control over their lives. It’s no wonder so many people voted for Brexit. They voted for any form of change. It was an anti-establishment vote.

So I believe it’s time. It’s time to shift the balance of power in our country. It’s time to give people back control over their lives.

Another Anniversary

You know, there’s another anniversary this year. One hundred years ago in 1918 the Labour Party adopted Clause Four as part of our party’s constitution. Let me remind you what it said: “to secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry.”

I say the Clause 4 principles are as relevant today as they were back then. Fair, democratic, collective solutions to the challenges of the modern economy.

The Labour movement has always believed that democracy should not stop when we clock in at the factory gate, in the office lobby, or – like my Mum in BHS – behind the counter.

Democracy is at the heart of our socialism – and extending it should always be our goal. Our predecessors fought for democracy in Parliament, against the divine right of kings and the aristocracy. They fought for working people to get the franchise.

Our sisters fought for women’s suffrage in the teeth of ferocious opposition and our movement fought for workers to have a voice at work. The trade unions founded this party to take that democratic vision even further. So in 2018 I tell you that at the heart of our programme is the greatest extension of economic democratic rights that this country has ever seen.

It starts in the workplace.

It’s undeniable that the balance of power at work has been tipped against the worker. The result is long hours, low productivity, low pay and the insecurity of zero hour contracts.

I want to thank the IPPR for its recent report. It was a brilliant critique of the inequality embedded in today’s economy.

Archbishop Welby took some stick in the media and from some in the establishment for his support for the report. He wasn’t engaging in party politics. He was simply speaking the truth as a moral leader in our society. Just a few words of advice though Archbishop, when they get round to calling you a Marxist, I’ll give you some tips on how to handle it.

So let’s be certain. We will redress the balance of power at work. We will be proud to fulfil John Smith’s, our late leader’s promise, that workers will have trade union rights from day one whether in full time, part time or temporary work.

We’ll ban zero hours contracts. We will lift people out of poverty by setting a real living wage of £10 an hour. Wages will be determined by sectoral collective bargaining. And yes we will tackle the continuing scandal of the gender pay gap.

Corporate Governance

Real power comes from having the right to a collective say at work. Large corporations play a huge role in our lives, yet the decisions about running them are in the hands of a tiny few. Employees who create the wealth have no say in the key decisions that affect their future. After decades of talking about industrial democracy, Labour in government will legislate to implement it. As Jeremy announced yesterday, a third of the seats on company boards will be allocated to workers.

Power also comes from ownership. We believe that workers, who create the wealth of a company, should share in its ownership and, yes, in the returns that it makes.

Employee ownership increases a company’s productivity and encourages long term decision making. Let me thank the Co-op Party for its work on this and Gareth Thomas MP in particular for his ideas.

We will legislate for large companies to transfer shares into an “Inclusive Ownership Fund.” The shares will be held and managed collectively by the workers. The shareholding will give workers the same rights as other shareholders to have a say over the direction of their company. And dividend payments will be made directly to the workers from the fund. Payments could be up to £500 a year. That’s 11 million workers each with a greater say, and a greater stake, in the rewards of their labour.

Societal Dividend

But we all know it’s not just the employees of a company that create the profits it generates. It’s the collective investment in infrastructure, education and research and development that we as a society make that enables entrepreneurs to build and grow their businesses.

So we believe it’s right that society shares in the benefits that investment produces. That’s why a proportion of revenues generated by the ‘inclusive ownership funds’ will be transferred back to our public services as a social dividend. Over time, this will mobilise billions that could be spent supporting our public services and social security system.

Public Ownership

We are extending economic democracy even further by bringing water, energy, Royal Mail and rail into public ownership. Some press said the voters would be horrified. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

Public ownership has proved its popularity in opinion poll after opinion poll. It’s not surprising, look at the scandal of the privatisation of water. Water bills have risen 40% in real terms since privatisation. £18 billion has been paid out in dividends. Water companies receive more in tax credits than they pay in tax. Each day enough water to meet the needs of 20 million people is lost due to leakages. With figures like that, we can’t afford not to take them back.

But be clear, nationalisation will not be a return to the past. We don’t want to take power away from faceless directors to a Whitehall office, to swap one remote manager for another.

Today, Rebecca Long Bailey and I are launching a large scale consultation on democracy in our public services. We are also setting out our plans for a new publicly-owned water system that puts this essential service back in the hands of local councils, workers and customers.

There will be an unprecedented openness and transparency in how the industry will be managed. We are ending the profiteering in dividends, vast executive salaries and excessive interest payments.

Surpluses will be reinvested in water infrastructure and staff, or used to reduce bills. Real investment will allow the highest environmental standards.

Public and Community Ownership Unit

People have had enough of being ripped off by privatisation. That’s why we’ve said no more PFIs and we’ll bring the PFIs back in house. Through our public ownership programme we will set up a ‘Public and Community Ownership Unit’ in the Treasury. It will bring in the external expertise we will need.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the full weight of the Treasury will be used to take on any vested interests that try to thwart the will of the people. Some said our manifesto was a fantasy or a wish list, attractive but ultimately not deliverable. I’m telling you today that we are planned, ready and prepared.

Not just to fight another election campaign but to implement our programme when we win.

Green Book

For too long that establishment has used the Treasury as a barrier against putting power back into the hands of the people. So we will reprogram the Treasury, rewriting its rule books on how it makes decisions about what, when, and where to invest.

We will end the Treasury bias against investing the regions and nations. And we’ll make sure it assesses spending decisions against the need to tackle climate change, protect our environment, drive up productivity and meet the investment challenges of the 4th industrial revolution.

Fair Taxation

We need to exert some people power over our tax system. There are millions of businesses out there which deserve our respect and we will always support them. They are responsible, ethical entrepreneurs, who pay their taxes and support our community. They should know that we are proud of them.

But there is a minority that don’t live up to those standards. They avoid paying their taxes on an industrial scale. They are denying our hospitals, our schools and carers the resources they need.

The Tories record on tackling tax avoidance and money laundering has been a disgrace. We can’t trust the Tories on this but we shouldn’t just wait until we get into government. We should act now.

One way is to mobilise shareholder power to demand companies uphold basic tax justice standards. Numerous institutions from churches to trade unions and pension funds have large scale shareholdings in many of the companies that avoid taxes.

So today, I’m announcing my intention to bring together these organisations to launch a shareholder campaign. We’ll be demanding companies sign up to the Fair Tax Mark standards, demonstrating transparently that they pay their fair share of taxes.

So fair warning to the tax avoiders, we are coming for you.

Global Dialogue

Gordon Brown recently expressed his concern at the current weaknesses in global relationships to deal with any future economic crises. With major nations on the brink of a trade war, and with climate change accelerating, we can’t risk the kind of international breakdown that led to the Great Depression. Just as at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, there is an urgent need to work out if the current international system can cope with these threats.

Over the past few decades that system has concentrated power in the hands of an international financial elite. Individuals, communities, and even nation states have been made increasingly powerless. It isn’t working for the Western world, where stagnant wages have helped feed the rise of the racist right. And it isn’t working for the developing world, whose wealth is plundered by multinational corporations or stashed in Western banks.

We will be convening in the spring an international social forum to bring together leading economists, politicians and civil society representatives, launching a dialogue on the common risks we face and the actions we need to take.

I am pleased to announce that Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, has agreed to lead this discussion for us.

Brexit

This leads us inevitably to the urgent question of Brexit. I don’t have to repeat the criticisms we all have of the Tories’ behaviour over this echoed in the earlier conference debate. Their failures are in plain sight.

I just say to the Tories, in the interests of our country get out of the way and let us get on with securing a way forward. A way forward that will protect our economy, our jobs and standards of living for our people. If they won’t do that then, you know my preference, let’s have a general election.

We are keeping all the options for democratic engagement on the table. But look, I feel so strongly that these Tories should face the people. Face the people for the way they have recklessly put our country’s future at risk over the last two years.

On so many fronts you know the scale of the mess we will inherit from the Tories. A society whose social fabric has been run down to the point of dereliction. A struggling, mismanaged economy vulnerable to another crisis.

Past Shadow Chancellors have come to conference with warnings about how bad the situation is to reduce people’s expectations of what can be achieved when we go into government. This Shadow Chancellor is different.

Real Change

I want you to know that:

The greater the mess we inherit, the more radical we have to be; the greater the need for change, the greater the opportunity we have to create that change and we will.

The Tories’ austerity has been brutal. But what I have resented most is that they try to take away the dreams, the hope and optimism our people, especially our young people, that dream of building a better world.

But they fail to understand that we have an unwavering faith that together people can change the world. We will not settle for anything less.

Yesterday the press reported the Tories were drawing up secret plans for a quick general election. So the message from this conference is bring it on.

Whenever the general election comes, we are ready. Ready to campaign for victory, ready for Government, ready to build the future.

And you know, like Bill Shankly, we’ll be proud to call that future, socialism. Solidarity.

*

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

“Marx was the most hated and slandered man of his time. The absolutist or republican governments deported him. “Bourgeois”, conservatives or democrats united against him”. Statement by Engels at the funeral of Marx.

In this bicentennial of the birth of Karl Marx, intervening in the middle of the period agitated by the debates and the controversies on emigration and exile, it is not useless to recall that the life of Karl Marx was marked by the forced exile, banishment, imprisonment, misery. 

The first years of his revolutionary activist life were peppered with persecutions, expulsions, prohibitions, convictions, and detention. First, faced with persecution in Germany, Karl Marx fled to Paris. Barely installed in the French capital, it is the subject of an order of expulsion on the request of the Prussian power. Then he finds exile in Belgium. Back in Germany, he is banished again immediately. He fled to Paris in 1848. He took part in the days of June. He is arrested and interned in Morbihan. He manages to escape, then crosses the Channel to go into exile permanently to London.

So, Marx was pursued, chased all over Europe. He ended up in exile in England, the only country without legislation for crimes of opinion. However, England, if she grants him the right of exile, she refuses him any right of work.

As socialist militant and historian Franz Mehring writes: 

“Woe to the independent and incorruptible genius that stands proudly against bourgeois society, who knows how to read in the workings of its inner workings the warning signs of its impending end and who forges the weapons that will give him the coup de grace. In such a genius, the bourgeois society reserves agony and tortures that may seem less barbaric than the easel of antiquity and the pyre of the Middle Ages, but which at bottom are all the more cruel“. 

Image on the right: Marx and Engels

Condemned to live in poverty, Marx, to be able to work on his work and the organization of the labor movement, owed his survival only to the financial support of his devoted friend Engels. Unlike the slanders spread over Marx, he never refused to work to better devote himself to the writing of his writings. In truth, it was by the will of the capitalist elites (bourgeoisie) to starve him that he found himself unemployed. Indeed, by his status as exiled and by his stature as “dangerous” revolutionary, Marx could not get a job at the height of his academic skills (Marx had a doctorate in philosophy and had a recognized competence in  journalism).

Clearly, the whole European bourgeoisie marched against Marx: out of the question to grant a job or a simple freelance in a newspaper in Marx. Nevertheless, he manages to be “recruited” as a journalist, but under a false identity, by “New York Daily Tribune” with which he collaborated a good ten years from 1851. With its 200,000 subscribers, the “Tribune” was then the most read and richest newspaper in the United States.

Thus, Marx has never been able to do a fixed job. This leads him to live in extreme poverty. Moreover, Marx writes ironically:

“I do not think we ever wrote about money while missing it so much“.  

Throughout his long life as exiled (from 1848 until his death in 1883), Marx lived in misery, as evidenced by his correspondence with Engels. Admittedly, the latter, also installed in England, provides him with regular financial support, but it barely allows the family of Marx to survive. In spite of this generous pecuniary aid, Marx and his family live in poverty: 

“My wife is sick, little Jenny is sick, Leni has a kind of nervous fever. I can not and I could not call the doctor for lack of money for drugs. For the past eight days I have been feeding the family with bread and potatoes, but I wonder if I could still get them today” (he wrote to Engels on September 4, 1852).

One of his children, Edgar, is dying of malnutrition. 

In fact, until his death, Marx led a life of anchorite. In London, Marx lived in a miserable two-room apartment, described by his family as a slum where anarchically stacked old furniture. 

In addition to the indigence in which Marx was reduced to living, he was also subjected throughout his life to odious calumnies by many authors.  In the aftermath of Marx’s death, the newspaper “The Universe” spreads, in an article where slander disputes it with lies, in a despicable diatribe. The newspaper writes March 19, 1883:

“Marx founded the International, terrible and vast plan, which realization would lead to a dictatorship of the workers and lead the world to “social liquidation”. Marx was Jewish, like his socialist comrade Lassalle. Thus he had to a high degree all the distinctive peculiarities of his race. He loved luxury, ostentation and material well-being, while raging indignantly against capital and the bourgeoisie. Always like Lassalle, husband of a German of princely origin, Marx managed to marry a noble and rich girl, sister of the count of Westphalen, the ultra-conservative Prussian minister of the reaction of 1850. Then the Jew could satisfy his tastes. He surrounded himself with all the luxury which the fortune of his wife allowed him. We had a nice hotel in London; in winter, villas were rented on the Riviera; in the spring, we would enjoy the delicious climate of the Isle of Wight; they settled at Ventnor, the former residence of the Empress of Austria; then in summer we looked for freshness in a chalet in Interlaken or Brunnen. While leading this broad life, Marx continued to make his greatest efforts to revolutionize the workers by exciting them to demand social liquidation. He was careful not to give the example of this liquidation. His generosity for the workers was all platonic. The Jew Marx drew his main ideas from the famous doctrines of Luther. “Do what you please, lie, parry, steal, kill the rich and the princes, just believe you did well. These infamous words, the founder of the International, were appropriate to them; he had arranged them according to the needs of the century.

The workers find fairness requires liquidation and everyone is king under the principles of national sovereignty.

Even today, there are similar slanderous slanders against Marx. 

However, reading the report of the Prussian police on the exile of Marx in London, little suspicious of political sympathy, we discover the truth. In this report, it is written:

“The leader of this party (the Communists) is Karl Marx; the other closest leaders are Friedrich Engels, who lives in Manchester and Freiligrath and Wolff “Lupus” in London, Heine in Paris, Weydemeyer and Cluss in the United States; Burgers and Daniels are in Cologne (Köln) and Weerth in Hamburg. But the active and creative spirit, the true soul of the party is Marx; So I want to talk to you about his personality … he wears a  beard; his eyes are big, fiery and penetrating, he has something sinister, demonic. However, it shows, at first sight, the look of a man of genius and energy. 

His intellectual superiority exerts an irresistible influence on those around him. His wife, the sister of the Prussian minister of Westphalen, is a cultivated and agreeable woman who, for the sake of her husband, has adapted to a gypsy life and now feels perfectly well in their environment, in this misery. He has two daughters and a boy, all very cute and the same intelligent eyes of the father … As a husband and father Marx, despite his agitated and violent character, is the most tender and gentle of men in the world. Marx lives in one of London’s worst neighborhoods and therefore one of the least expensive. His home consists of two rooms, the one facing the street and the Hall and the other is at the back and serves as a bedroom to sleep. In the whole house there is not a single piece of furniture that is clean and in good condition. 

Everything is ruined, chipped, worn, covered with a layer of dust the thickness of a finger; everywhere reigns the greatest disorder. In the middle of the room is a relic, a large table,covered with a layer of wax that has never been sanded. Here piled up manuscripts, books and journals of Marx, children’s toys, pieces for the use of women, tea cups with cracked, dirty edges, spoons, knives, forks, candlesticks, inkwells, Dutch porcelain pipes, tobacco ash: all piled up, stacked on this single table.When you enter  Marx’s house, coal and tobacco smoke are so dense that at first you have to grop as in a cave; then gradually the view becomes accustomed to the smoke and begins to see something, as in a fog.Everything is dirty and dusty, sitting down is really a dangerous business. Here, a chair that only holds three legs, Beyond the children play on another chair, Cooking by chance together. Of course all the snack is offered to the visitor, but the children hang in the middle of the kitchen waste, and you feel that you risk destroying your trousers by putting them on the said chair. But all this does not cause Marx and his wife the least embarrassment. The host is the friendliest in the world; Pipe, tobacco and all that can be found in the house is offered with the greatest cordiality. An intelligent and pleasant conversation overcomes the domestic deficiencies, making tolerable what in a first contact was just unpleasant. Then, at the end of the day, you find the atmosphere interesting and original. 

Obviously, during Marx’s lifetime, the bourgeoisie [capitalist elites] did everything possible to prevent him from acting by demonizing him, by persecuting him with their police arsenal. 

To read complete article click below (word doc)

[DOC]When the bourgeois Europe starved and slandered … – les 7 du quebec

This article was originally published on http://www.les7duquebec.com.

Virtually all politicians lie. The Clintons, Bush/Cheney, and Obama were serial liars.

They never let facts interfere with their domestic and geopolitical agendas, Trump a more congenital liar than his predecessors. 

Habitual or compulsive lying is part of his makeup. It’s so extreme he may be unable to distinguish between truth and falsehoods, especially since he relies on info fed him by hardline neocon advisors and Fox News, his favorite TV channel.

Nearly straightaway in his Tuesday UN address, he turned truth on its head claiming

“(i)n less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

Laughter by attending world leaders and diplomats followed, then silence as DJT recited a litany of one Big Lie after another, along with taking credit for deplorable policies he called major achievements.

Source: White House

They include

• his war on humanity at home and abroad, extreme corporate favoritism,
• JCPOA pullout (breaching an international treaty),
• refusing to sign the Global Compact on migration,
• withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council,
• unlawfully moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem (a UN-declared international city), along with imposing greater hardships on long-suffering Palestinians he doesn’t care a hoot about, along with much more.

His disdain for ordinary people at home and abroad is undeniable, harming them to serve privileged interests exclusively, wanting social justice in America eliminated, his claims otherwise a gross distortion of reality.

His destructive record is indisputable. He lied claiming

“the United States is stronger, safer, and a richer country than it was when I assumed office two years ago.”

He lied saying

“(w)e are…standing up for our citizens and for peace loving people everywhere” his regime ruthlessly exploits and grievously harms.

He lied claiming he “honor(s) the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs and traditions,” adding:

“The United States will not tell you how to live, work, or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

Republicans and “undemocratic Dems” seek dominance over all other nations, pressuring, bullying and bribing allies to bend to their will, waging naked aggression on sovereign independent countries, wanting them transformed into US vassal states.

His outreach to North Korea is all about getting its government to comply with US demands in return for hollow promises – fooling no one in Pyongyang, why respecting its sovereignty, formally ending Harry Truman’s war, and stepping back from the brink on the peninsula is unattainable as it’s always been for nearly 70 years.

Claiming the Saudis and other despotic Gulf states are working with the US “to identify…track, and (combat regional) terrorist networks” ignores their support for this scourge, used as imperial proxies wherever their fighters are deployed.

Calling US/UK-orchestrated, Saudi-led naked aggression in Yemen “civil war” is a bald-faced lie.

So is saying the Saudis and allied Gulf states “pledged millions of dollars to aid the people of Syria and Yemen” – their funding and other aid going to ISIS, al-Nusra, and other ruthless terrorists alone, their terror-bombing and other destructive tactics harming ordinary people in these countries most of all.

Washington fundamentally opposes peace, stability, equity, and justice everywhere – notions Republicans and undemocratic Dems consider anathema.

Their record, especially since the rape of Yugoslavia, speaks for itself, endless war on humanity and all sovereign independent states, wanting all nations transformed into ruler-serf societies – unsafe and unfit to live in.

Like many times before, Trump turned truth on its head claiming credit for “driving…bloodthirsty killers known as ISIS…from the territory they once held in Iraq and Syria.”

Just the opposite is true. Washington and its imperial partners support the scourge of terrorism they pretend to oppose.

War on terrorism in Syria is waged by government forces, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iranian military advisors alone – a campaign Washington, NATO, Israel, the Saudis and UAE oppose.

Threatening Syria like many times before, Trump said “the United States will respond if chemical weapons are deployed by…Assad” – US-supported terrorists alone responsible for numerous CW attacks, no evidence government forces ever used them throughout years of war.

Trump focused his harshest venom on Iran, a nation supporting world peace and stability, involved in combating terrorism in Syria, a righteous mission.

Trump:

“Iran’s leaders sew (sic) chaos, death and disruption. They do not respect their neighbors, borders, or the sovereign rights of nations.”

“Instead, they plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.”

“The Iranian people are rightly outraged that their leaders have embezzled billions of dollars from the treasury, seized valuable portions and looted the religious endowments to line their own pockets and to send their proxies to wage war.”

“Iran’s neighbors have paid a heavy toll for the agenda of aggression and expansion.”

Fact: The above hostile remarks are a litany of bald-faced lies, fooling no world leaders and others in the General Assembly Hall, obvious to everyone hearing them, including savvy global audience viewers where Trump’s address was televised.

Fact: What Trump calls a “horrible 2015 Iran nuclear deal” is an international treaty.

It’s strongly supported by other signatory countries and the world community – other than Israel, the Saudis, and perhaps a few other despotic regimes hostile to sovereign Iran.

The Islamic Republic threatens no other nations. Its nuclear program is entirely legitimate.

It has no military component, repeatedly confirmed by the IAEA, along with stressing that Iran fully complies with JCPOA provisions.

The Trump regime’s pullout flagrantly breached international law, a US specialty time and again, respecting might over right alone, deploring what all just societies cherish most.

Ruthlessly dangerous hardliners in Washington want dominion over planet earth, its resources and populations.

They’re waging endless wars of aggression to achieve its aims, risking a nuclear holocaust if things are pushed too far.

The Trump regime’s pressure and  threats against other nations to support its hostile Iran agenda is a colossal failure. Russia strongly supports Iranian sovereignty.

China, Turkey and India intend to keep purchasing Iranian oil and/or gas. According to Oil Price.com:

“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.”

China could buy all Iranian oil if it wishes. It currently buys about one-fourth of its oil exports. It rejected US demands to halt purchases. So did Turkey. Japan and South Korea may cut but not cease buying Iranian oil.

Trump:

“We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons.”

Fact: The dubious distinction applies to Washington, Israel, and their imperial partners, not Iran, forthrightly combating the scourge these countries support.

They represent humanity’s greatest threat, Trump a front man for dark forces infesting Washington.

His UN address was an affront to what responsible governance is all about, a notion he and regime hardliners reject.

They resemble what Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called “extremist nationalism and racism and through xenophobic tendencies resembling a Nazi disposition.”

Peace and freedom-loving people everywhere tremble because of potential horrors they may unleash next.

Their extremism risks nuclear armageddon.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The only redeeming feature of Trump’s Tuesday UN address was not slamming Russia – other than urging Germany not to buy its oil and natural gas, calling on its government to “immediately change course,” a notion it rejects.

In his General Assembly remarks, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani minced no words, saying

“(u)nlawful unilateral sanctions in themselves constitute a form of economic terrorism and a breach of the ‘Right to Development,’ ” adding:

“The economic war that the United States has initiated under the rubric of new sanctions not only targets the Iranian people but also entails harmful repercussions for the people of other countries, and that war has caused a disruption in the state of global trade.”

“The Iranian people have demonstrated their unwavering resilience during the past forty years despite the difficulties and constraints caused by sanctions, and have shown that they can overcome this difficult phase as well.”

“The multi-millennial history of our country demonstrates that Iran and Iranians have never broken in the face of a storm of events — not even been bowed.”

Rouhani stressed his country’s commitment to world peace and cooperative relations with all other nations, notions the US, NATO, Israel and their imperial partners reject.

“The US understanding of international relations is authoritarian. In its estimation, might makes right,” Rouhani stressed, adding:

“Its understanding of power, not of legal and legitimate authority, is reflected in bullying and imposition.”

“No state and nation can be brought to the negotiating table by force, and if so, what follows is the accumulation in the ‘grapes of wrath’ of those nations, to be reaped later by the oppressors,” he stressed.

In 12 consecutive reports since implementation of the JCPOA, the IAEA affirmed full Iranian compliance.

Straightaway while Obama was still in office, he breached Washington’s Iran nuclear deal international treaty obligations. Trump abrogated them entirely.

Adopted UN Security Council resolutions are binding international law on all member states.

Unanimously adopted SC 2231 (July 2015) affirmed the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal. No nation may legally abrogate it.

Trump’s unilateral pullout made the US more of a pariah state than already – defying the world community, demanding all nations go along with its hegemonic agenda or else.

Longstanding US policy calls for regime change in Iran by whatever means it takes to achieve its objective.

As long as this aim remains unchanged, no amount of diplomacy will soften it. What Iran justifiably calls the “Great Satan” could embroil the entire Middle East and other regions in catastrophic conflict, risking humanity’s survival if things are pushed too far.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Abbas Araghchi said

“(w)e have been informed that the European members of Security Council all intend to support the nuclear deal and stress the need for remaining committed to its implementation,” adding:

“I am confident that the Wednesday’s meeting will proceed against Mr. Trump’s wishes, and this will only isolate the US more.”

“(T)here is no prospect” for responsible US actions because the country “has not reached maturity yet.”

On the sidelines of the General Assembly session, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said irresponsible Trump regime policies toward his country risk “total(ly) destr(oying)” four decades of gains in Sino/US relations, adding:

“China and the US can have competition, but they should not view others with a cold war mentality.”

“There are some forces in the US recently frequently smearing China and creating antagonistic sentiment, which has caused serious damage to China-US relations.”

Irreconcilable differences separate the agendas of both nations on trade and other key issues. Resolving them may be unattainable as long as hardliners control Washington’s geopolitical agenda.

The breach between both nations is widening, a dangerous situation politically, economically and potentially militarily.

US recklessness created greater China-Russia unity, together a powerful counterforce against Washington’s hegemonic agenda.

China’s Global Times (GT) slammed the Trump regime, saying it “sacrifices other countries’ interests” to serve its own.

It unilaterally imposes illegal sanctions on other countries, Trump more frequently than his predecessors.

DLT “withdr(ew) from multiple international organizations and agreements, which has resulted in increasing the cost for other countries to maintain the international order and common interests,” said GT.

His regime is “taking advantage of the rest of the world” while claiming otherwise.

“The US maximized its own interests by hegemony, which will objectively promote the inferiority and barbarization of international relations.”

“The ‘America First’ mindset is a negative approach, and the world is seeing this first hand.”

“(U)nilateral…winner-take-all strategy” is how Washington operates, “the opposite to multilateralism and win-win strategy…”

Russia was restrained in commenting on Trump’s Tuesday address because he refrained from unacceptably bashing the country.

Iran and China responded sharply, justifiably criticizing Washington’s dangerous hegemonic agenda.

It risks possible catastrophic global war, a doomsday scenario if launched and waged with nuclear weapons.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Recently, I wrote an article entitled “Secret US 2006 Gov’t Document Reveals Plan To Destabilize Syria By Using Extremists, Muslim Brotherhood, Elections,” where I detailed the 2006 revelations made by TIME Magazine revealing a leaked two-page document circulated among key figures in the Bush administration that openly stated that the U.S. was “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document made no bones about expressing hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”

The document was a plan to destabilize the Syrian government by creating discord and distrust over the integrity of Syrian elections as well as by using extremists and Muslim Brotherhood activists to break the Syrian government apart and install a more “cooperative” regime in its place.

This document, however, dovetails with a report regarding classified documents released by WikiLeaks in 2011 which revealed a US State Department program of funding and operating anti-Syrian government television channels in order to sow the seeds of destabilization among the population long before the proxy war of Western-backed terrorists and open violence began to take shape in 2011.

Surprisingly, CBS News actually covered the revelation in an article by Craig Whitlock entitled “WikiLeaks: U.S. Secretly Backed Syrian Opposition.” In this article, Whitlock wrote,

The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of people have been killed by Assad’s security forces since the demonstrations began March 18; Syria has blamed the violence on “armed gangs.”

Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria. The channel is named after the Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital.

The funding, like the document referenced previously, was actually prepared and implemented under the Bush Administration, once again proving that the attempt to sabotage and overthrow the Syrian government was not merely an Obama administration plan but one that has been implemented through at least three American presidential administrations though attempts to overthrow and/or weaken the Syrian government go as far back as 1983.

Whitlock also wrote,

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.

The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Damascus at risk.

Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,” read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. “A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,” the cable said.

It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding certain names and program details at the request of the State Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients’ personal safety.

Syria, a police state, has been ruled by Assad since 2000, when he took power after his father’s death. Although the White House has condemned the killing of protesters in Syria, it has not explicitly called for his ouster.

The State Department declined to comment on the authenticity of the cables or answer questions about its funding of Barada TV.

Tamara Wittes, a deputy assistant secretary of state who oversees the democracy and human rights portfolio in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, said the State Department does not endorse political parties or movements.

“We back a set of principles,” she said. “There are a lot of organizations in Syria and other countries that are seeking changes from their government. That’s an agenda that we believe in and we’re going to support.”

The State Department often funds programs around the world that promote democratic ideals and human rights, but it usually draws the line at giving money to political opposition groups.

In February 2006, when relations with Damascus were at a nadir, the Bush administration announced that it would award $5 million in grants to “accelerate the work of reformers in Syria.”

But no dissidents inside Syria were willing to take the money, for fear it would lead to their arrest or execution for treason, according to a 2006 cable from the U.S. Embassy, which reported that “no bona fide opposition member will be courageous enough to accept funding.”

Around the same time, Syrian exiles in Europe founded the Movement for Justice and Development. The group, which is banned in Syria, openly advocates for Assad’s removal. U.S. cables describe its leaders as “liberal, moderate Islamists” who are former members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Barada TV is, of course, at the center of the WikiKeaks report. Whitlock wrote,

It is unclear when the group began to receive U.S. funds, but cables show U.S. officials in 2007 raised the idea of helping to start an anti-Assad satellite channel.

People involved with the group and with Barada TV, however, would not acknowledge taking money from the U.S. government.

“I’m not aware of anything like that,” Malik al-Abdeh, Barada TV’s news director, said in a brief telephone interview from London.

Abdeh said the channel receives money from “independent Syrian businessmen” whom he declined to name. He also said there was no connection between Barada TV and the Movement for Justice and Development, although he confirmed that he serves on the political group’s board. The board is chaired by his brother, Anas.

“If your purpose is to smear Barada TV, I don’t want to continue this conversation,” Malik al-Abdeh said. “That’s all I’m going to give you.”

Other dissidents said that Barada TV has a growing audience in Syria but that its viewer share is tiny compared with other independent satellite news channels such as al-Jazeera and BBC Arabic. Although Barada TV broadcasts 24 hours a day, many of its programs are reruns. Some of the mainstay shows are “Towards Change,” a panel discussion about current events, and “First Step,” a program produced by a Syrian dissident group based in the United States.

Ausama Monajed, another Syrian exile in London, said he used to work as a producer for Barada TV and as media relations director for the Movement for Justice and Development but has not been “active” in either job for about a year. He said he now devotes all his energy to the Syrian revolutionary movement, distributing videos and protest updates to journalists.

He said he “could not confirm” any U.S. government support for the satellite channel, because he was not involved with its finances. “I didn’t receive a penny myself,” he said.

Several U.S. diplomatic cables from the embassy in Damascus reveal that the Syrian exiles received money from a State Department program called the Middle East Partnership Initiative. According to the cables, the State Department funneled money to the exile group via the Democracy Council, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit. According to its Web site, the council sponsors projects in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America to promote the “fundamental elements of stable societies.”

The council’s founder and president, James Prince, is a former congressional staff member and investment adviser for PricewaterhouseCoopers. Reached by telephone, Prince acknowledged that the council administers a grant from the Middle East Partnership Initiative but said that it was not “Syria-specific.”

Prince said he was “familiar with” Barada TV and the Syrian exile group in London, but he declined to comment further, saying he did not have approval from his board of directors. “We don’t really talk about anything like that,” he said.

The April 2009 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Damascus states that the Democracy Council received $6.3 million from the State Department to run a Syria-related program called the “Civil Society Strengthening Initiative.” That program is described as “a discrete collaborative effort between the Democracy Council and local partners” to produce, among other things, “various broadcast concepts.” Other cables make clear that one of those concepts was Barada TV.

It is notable that the “exiles” received much of their funding through the State Department funded Middle East Partnership Initiative, the same organization that was slated to be used for “election monitoring” in the 2006 document covered by TIME.

The question regarding the funding of Barada TV and other initiatives were confirmed by the cables and by the statements of State Department officials. The only real question regarding them, however, is their scale. Whitlock explained further when he wrote,

Edgar Vasquez, a State Department spokesman, said the Middle East Partnership Initiative has allocated $7.5 million for Syrian programs since 2005. A cable from the embassy in Damascus, however, pegged a much higher total — about $12 million — between 2005 and 2010.

The cables report persistent fears among U.S. diplomats that Syrian state security agents had uncovered the money trail from Washington.

A September 2009 cable reported that Syrian agents had interrogated a number of people about “MEPI operations in particular,” a reference to the Middle East Partnership Initiative.

“It is unclear to what extent [Syrian] intelligence services understand how USG money enters Syria and through which proxy organizations,” the cable stated, referring to funding from the U.S. government. “What is clear, however, is that security agents are increasingly focused on this issue.”

U.S. diplomats also warned that Syrian agents may have “penetrated” the Movement for Justice and Development by intercepting its communications.

A June 2009 cable listed the concerns under the heading “MJD: A Leaky Boat?” It reported that the group was “seeking to expand its base in Syria” but had been “initially lax in its security, often speaking about highly sensitive material on open lines.”

The cable cited evidence that the Syrian intelligence service was aware of the connection between the London exile group and the Democracy Council in Los Angeles. As a result, embassy officials fretted that the entire Syria assistance program had been compromised.

“Reporting in other channels suggest the Syrian [Mukhabarat] may already have penetrated the MJD and is using the MJD contacts to track U.S. democracy programming,” the cable stated. “If the [Syrian government] does know, but has chosen not to intervene openly, it raises the possibility that the [government] may be mounting a campaign to entrap democracy activists.”

Barada TV was also one of the staging grounds for the infamous attempt by Western governments to hijack the Syrian airwaves and broadcast filmed images of successful revolution across the screens of the Syrian people in order to break their will and convince them the “revolutionaries” had won before the battles had even gotten off the ground.

This plan was thoroughly exposed by Thierry Meyssan of Voltaire Net who described the plan as follows:

The first meeting assembled PSYOP officers, embedded in the satellite TV channels of Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Fox, France 24, Future TV and MTV. It is known that since 1998, the officers of the US Army Psychological Operations Unit (PSYOP) have been incorporated in CNN. Since then this practice has been extended by NATO to other strategic media as well.

They fabricated false information in advance, on the basis of a ‘story-telling’ script devised by Ben Rhodes’s team at the White House. A procedure of reciprocal validation was installed, with each media quoting the lies of the other media to render them plausible for TV spectators. The participants also decided not only to requisition the TV channels of the CIA for Syria and Lebanon (Barada, Future TV, MTV, Orient News, Syria Chaab, Syria Alghad) but also about 40 religious Wahhabi TV channels to call for confessional massacres to the cry of ‘Christians to Beyrouth, Alawites into the grave!’

The second meeting was held for engineers and technicians to fabricate fictitious images, mixing one part in an outdoor studio, the other part with computer generated images. During the past weeks, studios in Saudi Arabia have been set up to build replicas of the two presidential palaces in Syria and the main squares of Damascus, Aleppo and Homs. Studios of this type already exist in Doha (Qatar), but they are not sufficient.

The third meeting was held by General James B. Smith, the US ambassador, a representative of the UK, prince Bandar Bin Sultan (whom former U.S. president George Bush named his adopted son so that the U.S. press called him ‘Bandar Bush’). In this meeting the media actions were coordinated with those of the Free ‘Syrian’ Army, in which prince Bandar’s mercenaries play a decisive role.

This plan was, of course,  eerily familiar to the false broadcast of the Green Square in Tripoli, Libya which turned out to be faked film footage created on a film set in Qatar.

At the end of the day, the CBS report regarding American funding of anti-Syrian propaganda television networks only confirms the fact that the trail of documentation and the manner in which the overarching agenda of world hegemony on the behalf of corporate-financier interests has continued apace regardless of party and seamlessly through Republican and Democrat administrations serves to prove that changing parties and personalities do nothing to stop the onslaught of imperialism, war, and destruction being waged across the world today and in earnest ever since 2001. Indeed, such changes only make adjustments to the appearance and presentation of a much larger Communo-Fascist system that is entrenching itself by the day, particularly in the Western world.

*

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

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from the author.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will continue striking targets in Syria as previously despite the IL-20 incident and a Russian decision to supply S-300 systems to the Syrian military, the Israeli top leadership declared on September 26 following a special security cabinet meeting.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the IDF is successfully working to prevent “Iran’s military buildup in Syria as well as its attempts to deliver lethal weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon”. Additionally, the prime minister once again blamed Syria for the IL-20 shootdown ignoring the Russian statements that it was a result of Israel’s “hostile actions”.

According to the Russian media, the Russian Armed Forces have started strengthening EW capabilities of its military group in Syria deploying additional EW systems. There are no details on type and number of the deployed systems. However, sources speculate that these are Krasukha-4 multifunctional jamming stations and R-330ZH Zhitel jamming cellular satellite communication stations.

Kommersant newspaper also reported that the Syrian Air Defense Forces will receive at least two regimental sets of the S-300 air defense system. The newspaper’s source speculated that this is only a first phase of the supplies and the number may grow to 4 or even 6-8 S-300 regimental sets.

According to the report, supplied systems will protect the Syrian coastal area as well as the country’s borders with Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.

The situation in the province of Idlib has remained relatively calm since the announcement of the demilitarization zone agreement. The main developments will likely take place closer to October 15, when the zone is set to be established de-facto.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) continued their advance on ISIS near Hajin in the Euphrates Valley. The SDF reportedly captured Shajlah and advanced on ISIS positions in Safafinah.

*

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

An oil price spike is starting to look increasingly possible, with a rerun of 2008 not entirely out of the question, according to a new report.

The outages from Iran are worse than most analysts expected, and bottlenecks in the U.S. shale patch could prevent non-OPEC supply from plugging the gap. To top it off, new regulations from the International Maritime Organization set to take effect in 2020 could significantly tighten supplies.

Put it all together, and “the likelihood of an oil spike and crash scenario akin to the one observed in 2008 has increased,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch wrote in a note. BofAML has a price target for Brent at $95 per barrel by the end of the second quarter 2019. In 2008, Brent spiked to nearly $150 per barrel.

The supply picture is looking increasingly worrying, with Venezuela and Iran the two principal factors driving up oil prices in the fourth quarter. Notably, the bank increased its estimate of supply losses from Iran 1 million barrels per day (mb/d), up from 500,000 bpd previously.

U.S. shale can partially make up the difference, but the explosive growth from shale drillers is starting to slowdown, in part because of pipeline bottlenecks. BofAML sees U.S. supply growth of 1.4 mb/d in 2018 but only 1 mb/d of growth in 2019.

That means that there isn’t the same upward pressure on WTI as there is on Brent, largely because infrastructure bottlenecks in the shale patch keep supplies somewhat stuck within the United States. And it isn’t just in West Texas where the constraints are causing problems. “[B]ottlenecks in the Permian basin could well extend to other areas such as the Bakken or the Niobrara, and we do not even rule out temporary export capacity constraints in the Gulf Coast as domestic output overwhelms logistics,” BofAML said in a note.

Meanwhile, the demand side of the equation is not as clear. For now, demand still looks strong. The IEA puts demand growth for 2018 at 1.4 mb/d, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch agrees. But BofAML says three important demand-side factors to watch, which could undermine the high price scenario.

First, the dollar is strong, which would likely prevent a run up in prices in the same way as in 2008. Second, higher debt levels in emerging markets means that many countries are in a weaker spot than they were in 2008. Third, capital could continue to flee emerging markets because of rising interest rates from the Federal Reserve, U.S. corporate tax cuts and U.S. tariffs.

Why the focus on emerging markets? Beyond the possibility of contagion, emerging markets represent the bulk of oil demand growth, so any faltering would upset the global demand picture. The strong dollar, higher debt and capital flight means that “significant [emerging market] oil demand destruction could follow if Brent crude oil spikes above $120/bbl,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch said.

Nevertheless, there are some ingredients in place that could lead to dramatic price spikes, even if the corresponding demand destruction makes the spike only temporary. BofAML puts total global supply outages at around 3 mb/d, only a bit lower than the recent peak of about 3.75 mb/d in 2014. And that doesn’t take into account the unfolding losses from Iran. In other words, if Iran loses around 1 mb/d of supply due to U.S. sanctions, as looks increasingly likely, total global supply outages could balloon to their highest in about two decades, not seen since the roughly 5 mb/d of outages during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War.

Finally, the 2020 IMO regulations will force marine fuels to lower sulfur content from 3.5 percent to 0.5 percent. This will lead to a sharp increase in demand for diesel and other low sulfur fuels as the deadline for implementation approaches. “[T]he transition to a lower sulfur fuel specification will not likely be smooth,” BofAML notes.

At a minimum, it appears that bearish sentiment from within the oil and gas industry has evaporated. Bloomberg notes that on the earnings calls of 22 major energy companies for the third quarter, not once was the phrase “lower for longer” mentioned, the first time since 2015 that was true. It wasn’t too long ago that blistering U.S. shale growth was thought to have permanently lowered the marginal price of production, which would lead to a period of lower oil prices for the foreseeable future.

That mantra seems to have been fleeting as a growing number of analysts see higher prices ahead with concerns about the possibility of triple-digits.

“The market does not have the supply response for a potential disappearance of 2 million barrels a day in the fourth quarter,” Mercuria Energy Group Ltd. co-founder Daniel Jaeggi said in a speech at the S&P Global Platts Asia Pacific Petroleum Conference, according to Bloomberg. “In my view, that makes it conceivable to see a price spike north of $100 a barrel.” Meanwhile, the co-head of oil trading at Trafigura, another top oil trader, said that $100 oil was possible by the end of the year.

One of the key factors that will determine whether this happens or not is how Saudi Arabia responds.

“Our plan is to meet demand,” said Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih. “The reason Saudi Arabia didn’t increase more is because all of our customers are receiving all of the barrels they want.” His comments came after the OPEC+, which ended with no plans to increase output.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Saudi Aramco has told its customers that might be running short on Arab light crude in October, and that in the long run, it won’t be able to meet demand if Iran is knocked offline.

“[W]e are heading to a price spike, likely $90 to $100” an oil trader told the WSJ. “It’s not just Iran that will suffer. It’s going to have a boomerang effect with rising gasoline prices” in the U.S.

Worse, Saudi Arabia has officially said that it could cover for Iran’s losses, even if most of Iran’s production goes offline. In the past, Saudi officials have suggested that they could produce up to 12.0-12.5 mb/d if it the market needed it. But Saudi sources told the WSJ that producing “11 million is already a stretch, even for just a few months.” With output already up to about 10.4 mb/d, that leaves a significantly smaller pile of spare capacity than is commonly thought.

“It’s tearing higher,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodities strategy at Saxo Bank A/S, according to Bloomberg. “Technicals and fundamentals seem to be pointing in the right direction at the moment and that can be quite a potent cocktail.”

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

“It is rare to find a normal child, even among kindergarteners. Both at home and at school; words like surrender, warplane, shoot, enemy, kill, and Kalashnikov are often heard as children play together.” — Yemeni social worker Asma Juhaff.

September is the month when students around the world head back to school and, despite enduring years of brutal war, Yemen’s children are no exception. In the Khulah School in the northern city of Sadaa, fifth-grader Saleem Ahmed Mutaher sits on the floor with about 70 other students, his mind distracted by the pain of sitting on a hard, dusty floor as well as the strong winds that enter from the classroom’s broken windows.

Ahmed Mutaher is one of millions of students in Yemen relegated to attending class inside of schools destroyed or damaged by years of incessant bombing. Once modest, yet bustling with activity and stocked with just enough to get by, Yemen’s schools have been transformed into terrifying places. Like other sectors in the country, Yemen’s system of education is deteriorating thanks to the ongoing U.S.-backed coalition’s war on the country, a conflict that shows no sign of abating.

Yemen’s Ministry of Education, based in Sanaa, estimates that the Saudi-led coalition has destroyed at least 3,000 schools and partially damaged 1,300 others. In the province of Taiz alone 371 schools have been destroyed or damaged, and in Sadaa 252 schools have suffered damage or have been destroyed as a result of the war.

A further 802 schools have been directly affected by the war, most converted into makeshift shelters to house refugees fleeing from the conflict. The report also states that 680 schools have been closed since the war began. Yemen once boasted 9,517 primary schools and 2,811 high schools. Today, the inability to pay teachers and staff combined with the systematic destruction of Yemen’s civilian infrastructure may lead to the shutdown of the country’s remaining schools.

According to the United Nations:

More than 2,500 schools are out of use; 66 percent of them damaged by airstrikes and ground fighting, 27 percent of them closed, and 7 percent used by armed groups or as shelters by displaced populations.”

Schools that have managed to remain open are at risk of being targeted by coalition bombs, caught amidst armed clashes, or closed due to the fear of disease that is now rampant in Yemen. The UN estimates that “at least 2.9 million Yemeni children have been forced out of school since the start of the war on March 26, 2015.”

Education in Yemen was not in the best of health before the war the began. A lack of equipment, unqualified teachers, and a shortage of textbooks plagued the country’s schools. Now, the ongoing Saudi-led war against Yemen has significantly accelerated the deterioration of an already struggling education system.

Bombs outside the classroom window

Like many children, Saleem Ahmed Mutaher sometimes gets distracted while sitting in class. But while most children are occupied by thoughts of their peers or after-school plans, Ahmed Mutaher’s mind is filled with the pressing fear of an incoming airstrike. While some schools have remained open, they operate under the constant threat of becoming one of the routine targets of coalition airstrikes, exacting a heavy emotional toll on students and staff alike.

On August 13, 2016, students at an elementary school in northern Sadaa were targeted by two consecutive airstrikes while they were busy taking a test. Over 20 students were killed or injured in the attack. As Amnesty International has reported several times, Saudi coalition forces have routinely carried out airstrikes on schools while they were in session, disrupting or shutting down education for thousands of Yemen’s children.

Moreover, simply traveling to school has become an activity fraught with danger, as even school buses have not been immune to the torrent of coalition airstrikes. Last month the coalition targeted a school bus full of children aged six to 11 who were on a field trip in Dhahian city in northern Yemen. Forty children and 11 adults were killed in the attack. Fearing for their children’s safety, many parents have simply opted to keep their children at home this year.

Turning dedicated teachers into desperate mercenaries

For two years, Yemen’s teachers have not received a paycheck — perhaps a minor issue to those funneling American taxpayer dollars into replenishing Saudi Arabia’s ever-expanding arsenal. The shortage of educators has led 4.5 million children to miss out on an education, as teachers are unable to eke out a living due to the ongoing war against a country with a 70 percent rate of illiteracy.

Many teachers have been displaced or are simply unable to reach their schools; and when they can, tight budgets and a dangerous environment often result in reduced teaching hours, severely undermining the quality of education.

As teacher Lutf al-Mutawakkil noted:

This job is the sole source of income for us. It would not be fair to work unpaid for numerous months while our families have no food.”

According to Yemeni Teachers Syndicate, there are some 166,000 school teachers in Yemen, many of them the sole breadwinners for their families.

Last month UNICEF reported that in Yemen, mainly in the northern provinces, 2 million children are not in school and close to 4 million others are at risk of losing access to education because about 67 percent of public school teachers across the country have not been paid for nearly two years.

Two years ago, when the war was in its infancy, state employees — including teachers — had their salaries frozen after Yemen’s Central Bank was moved to Aden, which was under the control of the Saudi coalition-backed government.  At the time, al-Mutawakkil, like other teachers, was hopeful that the cessation of salaries was temporary and that coalition-backed forces in Aden would soon resume issuing paychecks to teachers and other state workers. But as time went by and teachers did their best to provide what education they could with no funding and no pay, hope began to fade. As al-Mutawakkil recounts, “before the war, I did not think that one day I would be forced to stay home with no salary.”

Before the war began, al-Mutawakkil taught at Thula City’s al-Fateh school, 50 km south of Sana’a. A graduate ot Sana’a University, the 49-year-old has been teaching for 16 years, leaving him short on both the skills and options needed to find other avenues of employment.

Like al-Mutawakkil, many teachers will not be found in their classrooms this year as they look elsewhere for a means to feed themselves and their families. Many, also like al-Mutawakkil, will resort to taking up arms and heading to the battlefield in hopes of receiving a salary from any side that is willing to pay it.

Battle, terrorist cells, and early marriage come calling

Teachers are not the only ones whose desperation has driven them to the battlefield. As fifth-grader Ahmed Mutaher told MintPress News:

When you have a school destroyed and teachers refuse to teach you, then it becomes necessary to join the battlefield or to work.”

Ahmed Mutaher, like many school-aged children in Yemen, will likely forgo trying to get an education this year and instead either head to the front lines or seek a living elsewhere in the labor market.

Child labor in Yemen is a deeply rooted issue which was a problem well before the onset of war. In a 2013 study, the ILO, the Social Development Fund, and UNICEF reported that more than 1.3 million children were involved in child labor in Yemen.

Even more alarming is the fact that al-Qaeda and ISIS have taken full advantage of the desperation to lure students who left school to join their ranks. With the rise of poverty, their unfettered access to social media, and a pool of young men with few other options, recruiting into extremist groups has become easier than ever in Yemen.

Last week, the United Nations reiterated the importance of education, warning that children who cannot go to school in a country like Yemen face a bleak future and are early targets for military recruiters. At least 2,635 boys have been recruited and are being used by armed groups across Yemen.

The lack of access to education has also pushed desperate families to dangerous alternatives, including early marriage. A 2016 survey in six governorates revealed that close to three-quarters of women were married before the age of 18 and 44.5 percent before the age of 15. Children without access to education often become illiterate and never develop the skills needed to raise successful children, transmitting poverty to the next generation.

As 16-year-old Samiah al Matri told MintPress:

Unlike my older sisters, who dropped out of school to get married, I have received a lot of support from my father, but that was before the war. Now, my father has the idea of marriage again.

Samiah’s father is a government official who — like many parents — has not received a salary and is unable to afford a private education.

Enduring psychological trauma

For those fortunate enough to escape death, injury or forced conscription, the haunting specter of psychological trauma still awaits.

Ebrahim AbdulKareem recounted to MintPress the toll the war has taken on his son, fourth-grader AbdulKareem.

Every night since last year, AbdulKareem wakes up in the middle of the night crying and calling out in fear as the sounds of airplanes and explosions engulf the capital and our home every night. The psychological effects of war on our son are severe.”

AbdulKareem survived an airstrike that targeted his family’s home in 2015. He lives with his family in the al-Rwadhah zone near the city’s international airport, an area that has come under severe and continuous bombardment since the war began.

As UNICEF said last month, “more than 70,000 children are receiving psychosocial support. More than 131 schools have been rehabilitated; others are currently being rehabilitated.” But, ultimately, many of Yemen’s children will carry the emotional burden of this war for the rest of their lives.

Asma Juhaff, a social worker who works with children, told MintPress:

It is rare to find a normal child, even among kindergarteners. Both at home and at school; words like surrender, warplane, shoot, enemy, kill, and Kalashnikov are often heard as children play together.”

*

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

Ahmed AbdulKareem is a Yemeni journalist. He covers the war in Yemen for MintPress News as well as local Yemeni media.

Featured image is from Felton Davis | CC BY 2.0.

U.S. President Donald Trump praised right-wing and authoritarian governments around the world including Saudi Arabia, Israel, the right-wing Modi government of India, while promoting his economic war of sanctions against Venezuela and Iran, and bragging about his administration’s push for more military spending, furthering neo-liberal policies, trade war with China, crackdown on immigration, as well as rejecting the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court.

“We have passed the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history. We have started the construction of a major border wall, and we have greatly strengthened border security. We have secured record funding for the military — $700 billion this year, and $716 billion next year. Our military will soon be more powerful than it has ever been before,” Trump said.

His comments on more military spending, at the very organization that was founded to promote peace in the world after World War Two, came before he bragged about cutting funds to countries and organizations that do not align with his government’s policies. In recent months, Washington cut funds to several U.N. organizations including those helping Palestinian refugees and proposing human and women’s rights.

Trump also attacked the International Criminal Court, in which a lawsuit is being processed against U.S. crimes in Afghanistan and said that the court did not have “legitimacy, jurisdiction or authority” over the world, and that “we will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.”

Trump also used his speech to attack the leaders of the Iranian government, just days after a terrorist attack took place in the capital.

“Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death and destruction,” Trump told the annual gathering. “They do not respect their neighbors or borders or the sovereign rights of nations,” while praising Saudi Arabia and Israel despite their proven pro-war policies in Syria and Yemen, and Palestine.

Trump called for international trade reforms and insisted that his main objective as president is to protect American sovereignty. He called on OPEC to stop raising oil prices and criticized China’s trade practices.

Trump also prompted murmurs from the crowd of world leaders and diplomats when he declared that he had accomplished more as president than almost any other administration in history. “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay,” he said.

Trump praised North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un on Tuesday for his courage in taking some steps to disarm, but said much work needed to be done and sanctions must remain in place on North Korea until it denuclearizes.

“The missiles and rockets are no longer flying in every direction, nuclear testing has stopped, some military facilities are already being dismantled,” Trump said in his speech to the annual United Nations General Assembly.

“I would like to thank Chairman Kim for his courage and for the steps he has taken, though much work remains to be done,” Trump said. “The sanctions will stay in place until denuclearization occurs.”

Trump’s remarks on North Korea were dramatically different to those in his speech last year at the U.N. assembly, when he threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea and mocked the North Korean leader as a “Rocket Man” on a “suicide mission.”

António Guterres opens the UN General Assembly with an appeal against war, inequality and racism. pic.twitter.com/hWMdmKOiui

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) September 25, 2018

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. 

We consider the globalresearch.ca website our most important source of reliable news for a large range of issues, including health and the environment, analysis of international affairs, and economic analysis.  We especially value its courageous coverage of state crimes against democracy, which are rarely covered by most news and analysis organization.  We trust the site’s integrity and rely on it almost exclusively.

Speaking personally, I would be lost without the extraordinary information provided by globalresearch: I would not know where else to find it.

-Karin Brothers

*     *     *

Video: Syrian Military to Get S-300 Systems, Other Assistance From Russia

By South Front, September 25, 2018

Russia has announced a batch of measures, which will be employed in response to the shootdown of the IL-20 military plane as a result of hostile actions by Israeli F-16 off the Syrian coast.

Breaking: Russia Establishes No-fly Zone Over Latakia Province – Diplomat

By Leith Aboufadel, September 25, 2018

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

US and Israel Warn Russia Against Supplying Syria with S-300 Air Defense Systems

By Stephen Lendman, September 25, 2018

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

Bolton Warns Russian S-300 Missile Sale to Syria Would be “Significant Escalation”

By Zero Hedge, September 25, 2018

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday that the Russian plans to supply Syria with a S-300 missile system would be a “significant escalation” by Moscow and hopes it will reconsider.

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

By Brian Kalman, September 24, 2018

It is important to note that nowhere in this law is there a legal commitment made by the United States itself, to eliminate its own chemical and biological weapons capabilities.

A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis released today highlights the significant health risks posed to military families and communities by a class of synthetic chemicals found in firefighting foam, nonstick cookware and other products.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are long-lasting compounds known to accumulate in the human body and environment, including water supplies. Exposure to these chemicals is associated with a range of detrimental health effects including kidney and testicular cancer, liver damage, and decreased immunological response.

Military installations and adjacent communities are especially at risk because the sites use PFAS-containing firefighting foam in their trainings and operations. These chemicals have seeped into the ground and waterways near military sites, and in turn contaminated groundwater and the drinking water that serves the bases and nearby homes.

In light of a new scientific assessment by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), an office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, UCS found that the threats facing military families and nearby communities is worse than previously thought. The ATSDR draft report suggests that the safe level of PFAS in drinking water should be seven to 10 times lower than the current, non-enforceable federal guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This means that thousands of families living on or near current or former military installations face potential risks from levels of PFAS once deemed safe, and some might not even know it.

“The EPA is not doing nearly enough to protect families, especially military families, from PFAS contamination of their water,” said Genna Reed, the UCS analyst who reviewed the evidence of PFAS contamination. “These chemicals can have serious health consequences, but their manufacturers have downplayed the risks for decades, putting profits ahead of public health.”

“This report reaffirms what concerned Granite Staters already know – urgent federal action is needed to address PFAS contamination at military bases and communities across the country,” said Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire. “I’m glad to be participating in the first-ever Senate hearing on PFAS this week, but we have far more work to do to protect Granite Staters and Americans from contamination in their drinking water. I’ll keep working across party lines to ensure that all of our people have the quality and safe drinking water they need to thrive.”

The draft ATSDR report is the same one that political appointees within the Trump Administration attempted to suppress. In documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by UCS, one White House official called the ATSDR draft a potential “public relations nightmare.” It was only after a robust public outcry and bipartisan congressional oversight that the assessment was finally released.

“Families like mine who lived on or near military bases deserve reliable information about the risks they face,” said Charise Johnson, a research analyst at UCS. “The Trump administration owes it to them to tell the truth and help reduce the risks. It’s no wonder that a White House official referred to the report as a potential ‘public relations nightmare.’”

The UCS analysis, which mapped 131 military sites across 37 states at which PFAS levels have been detected in drinking water and groundwater, found:

• Of the 32 sites with direct drinking water contamination, more than half had PFAS concentrations that were at least 10 times higher than the risk level established by the ATSDR.
• More than 90 percent of the military sites, 118, had PFAS concentrations at least 10 times higher than the threshold identified by the ATSDR report.
• Nearly two-thirds of the sites, 87, had PFAS concentrations at least 100 times higher than the risk level identified in the ATSDR report.
• The ten sites with the highest detected PFAS levels in groundwater include bases in California, Florida, Delaware, Virginia and Texas, as well as former base sites in Louisiana, South Carolina and Illinois. These sites have PFAS levels in groundwater more than 100,000 times higher than the suggested threshold.
• The number of military sites with PFAS contamination is likely even higher since the Pentagon used the EPA’s drinking water health advisory of 70 ppt as the PFAS detection level and only tested for the two most common compounds.

“We need immediate action to reduce the risk to military families from PFAS contamination,” Reed said. “The federal government must limit the future use of PFAS chemicals, set an enforceable standard for PFAS contamination in drinking water, mandate reporting of PFAS releases, and provide support to clean up contaminated sites. Servicemembers, their families and nearby communities deserve better.”

*

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

There’s more bad news for glyphosate, the active ingredient of Roundup, with a recent study suggesting the widely used weed-killer might be contributing to the death of honey bees and native bees around the world.

Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin in the US say honey bees exposed to the organophosphorus compound, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, the world’s biggest selling weed-killer, lose some of the beneficial bacteria in their guts and are more susceptible to infection and death from harmful bacteria.

“We need better guidelines for glyphosate use, especially regarding bee exposure, because right now the guidelines assume bees are not harmed by the herbicide,” says research co-leader Erick Motta. “Our study shows that’s not true.”

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers exposed honey bees to glyphosate at levels known to occur in crop fields, yards and roadsides. Three days later they observed that the insects had significantly reduced gut microbiotas.

Of eight dominant species of healthy bacteria in the exposed bees, four were found to be less abundant. The hardest hit species, Snodgrassella alvi, is a critical microbe that helps bees process food and defend against pathogens.

Native bumble bees have microbiomes similar to those of honey bees, and the researchers say it’s likely that they would be affected in the same way.

“It’s not the only thing causing all these bee deaths, but it is definitely something people should worry about because glyphosate is used everywhere,” says Motta.

The compound is increasingly controversial and newsworthy around the world, with calls for it to be banned – primarily because of alleged links to cancer – alongside pleas not to do so by those determined to keep using their current approach to weed control.

There is particular interest in the possible flow on from recent US court decisions to award a former school groundsman $289 million after finding that Roundup was a substantial contributor to his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The court also refused to hear further arguments from Monsanto in relation to a determination that glyphosate is a carcinogen.

However, just this month a Brazilian court lifted a ban on glyphosate and the French National Assembly rejected onefor the second time.

*

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

Nick Carne is a science journalist based in Adelaide.

Featured image is from Greenpeace.

The announcement that Time magazine would be bought by software CEO Marc Benioff highlighted the growing trend of billionaires buying up media outlets. While media moguls have always been wealthy—with press barons (Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, Donald Newhouse, etc.) still well-represented on Forbes’ running list of the world’s billionaires—what distinguishes this new breed of press magnate is that they bought their media properties with fortunes made in other industries.

Some, like Benioff, come out of the tech industry; tech tycoons like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar and Steve Jobs’ widow Laurene Powell Jobs have profited from a tech boom (or bubble) that gives them plenty of cash to spend. Others come out of the financial sector, which has doubled its share of the US economy over the past 70 years. Real estate developer Mort Zuckerman—who owned The Atlantic from 1980–1999, the Daily News from 1993–2017, and still owns US News & World Report, which he bought in 1984—was a harbinger of non-media money coming into the media sector.

Wherever their money comes from, the new moguls’ interest in buying up outlets is generally less the direct profit involved—media profits are typically declining as the old local monopoly model erodes—and more the power that comes with control of the public conversation. Being a latter-day Citizen Kane is a personal ego boost, to be sure, and provides a platform for an individual ideology—whether it’s Philip Anschutz’s social conservatism or Omidyar’s civil libertarianism.

But it also can be a tool to advance more personal interests: Sheldon Adelson is a fervent supporter of Israel and its Likud Party, but he bought a Las Vegas paper when it was running critical coverage of a lawsuit that threatened to shut him out of the gambling business. Bezos’ purchase of the Washington Postinstantly made him the most powerful media figure in the nation’s capital—a handy position to be in when your company is seeking multi-billion-dollar government contracts.

Whatever the motivation, billionaires buying up media is another step toward oligarchy, as a handful of super-wealthy individuals assume power over crucial news outlets, both locally and nationally.

Research: John McCullough

*

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

Featured image is from  James Duncan Davidson.

The Tory press is apoplectic in their fear of public utilities and the railways being taken back into state ownership and the consequent loss of huge dividend payments to already wealthy investors.

Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, in his speech at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool detailed plans to renationalise the water companies and sack their current executives before re-advertising their jobs with dramatically reduced salaries.

Sources within the Labour Party confirmed that such action would apply to all utility sectors taken back into public ownership and that the huge dividends currently paid out to private and other shareholders would instead be reinvested in the companies themselves.

There is little doubt that the electorate as a whole is sickened by the profiteering of the water, power and electricity companies since privatisation that has seen utilities bills double and treble since being sold to the private sector in a move that has made billionaires out of the sale and resale of these national assets often to foreign investors.

Now that it seems more than likely that there will be a Labour government, the moneyed classes are already making plans to move their assets and themselves abroad. The United Kingdom government under Labour will in future work for the people as a whole and not merely to enrich the city bankers and hedge fund operators.

The Institute of Directors (IOD) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) are incandescent with rage and impotent in their fury in the face of the anticipated reforming Labour government that will replace eight years of Tory rule.

Now Britain looks forward to a new technological age where railways are super efficient with up to date rolling stock and well maintained track, that enables trains to run on time and where utility bills reflect the true cost of provision and not of dividends to fat cat investors.

A country where British national assets are returned to public ownership and control and where Thatcherism is recalled as just another failed Conservative party policy that served to enrich its own supporters whilst impoverishing the rest of us.

Those days will soon be long gone.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Last month, a U.S. Africa Command spokesperson confirmed in a Task & Purpose report that Marine Corps Raiders were involved in a fierce battle in 2017 in an unnamed North African country, where they fought beside partner forces against militants of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). AFRICOM acknowledged that two Marines received citations for valor but withheld certain details, such as the location—undisclosed due to “classification considerations, force protection, and diplomatic sensitivities.”

The command also said the Marine Special Operations unit was engaged while on a three-day train, advise and assist operation. However, subsequent research and analysis strongly suggest U.S. involvement runs much deeper. In fact, the dramatic events described in the award citations obtained by Task & Purpose align with those that took place in Tunisia, which has been combatting a low-level insurgency in its western borderlands for the past seven years. Evidence indicates the battle occurred at Mount Semmama, a mountain range in the Kasserine governorate, near the Algerian border. There, the United States sustained its first casualty in action in Tunisia since World War II.

While not of the same magnitude, the events that AFRICOM confirmed took place on Feb. 28, 2017, echo a disastrous ambush less than seven months later in the village of Tongo Tongo, Niger. In that battle, members of the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara killed four Army Special Forces soldiers and four Nigerien partners. U.S. partner forces engaged militants of AQIM’s Tunisian branch, the Uqba ibn Nafaa Battalion (KUBN) in a firefight, which resulted in the killing of one militant. The engagement also necessitated a request for air support to rout the militants. The jihadis then attempted to flank the joint U.S.-Tunisian force from the rear, forcing the Marines to return fire.

While engaged on the ground, U.S. forces were also part of the air-support component. When a Tunisian soldier manning an M60 machine gun aboard a helicopter sustained wounds after being shot twice by militants returning accurate fire, a U.S. Marine Raider took control of the machine gun to maintain suppressive fire against the militants and simultaneously treated the wounded Tunisian soldier. The Marine Raider unit and their Tunisian partner force each sustained one casualty in the battle, both of whom recovered from their wounds. At the time, local media reported the incident without alluding to any U.S. participation.

Eventually, Tunisian forces secured the site of the battle and seized an Austrian Steyr AUG rifle, ammunition, and other supplies. Two jihadis were killed in action: a Tunisian and an Algerian. The latter was a veteran insurgent who was wounded a decade earlier by a U.S. airstrike while fighting under the banner of Al Qaeda in Iraq, according to a biographical note published by Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate. However, any U.S. involvement in connection to his death was never mentioned.

The United States has maintained a military presence in Tunisia for at least four-and-a-half years, rendering it unlikely that the events of Mount Semmama were an isolated incident limited to a mere advisory role, as the AFRICOM spokesperson claimed. The battle involving U.S. troops occurred amid an intense campaign aimed at dislodging militants from their mountain stronghold. Eleven days before the jointly conducted U.S.-Tunisia operation, another operation had taken place at a nearby location at Mount Semmama, also resulting in the killing of two militants. It is presently unknown whether U.S. troops participated in the preceding operation. It remains an open question as to whether the knowledge of the U.S. encounter in Kasserine would have eventually surfaced had Task & Purpose not filed a Freedom of Information Act request. It was that request which prompted AFRICOM’s release of the partially redacted commendations for valor awarded to two Marine Raiders for their actions at Mount Semmama.

Since its 2010 revolution, Tunisia has carried a burden of expectations as a regional model for democracy, challenged with building political consensus, a staggering economy, a population yearning for progress, and rising security challenges . In this context, the United States has sought to sustain Tunisia’s shaky democratic transition primarily by shoring up its military, which received steadily increasing security assistance from 2014 to 2017. Tunisia now receives more U.S. defense aid than any other country in North Africa and the Sahel region, except for Egypt.

The U.S. military presence has been continuous since February 2014 , when the Pentagon deployed a team of several dozen special operations troops to a remote base in western Tunisia. Tunisian soldiers accompanied by U.S. military advisors have on at least one occasion discovered and observed a populated militant camp in Kasserine. In the years since, the Air Force component of AFRICOM has frequently flown intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions across Tunisia from bases in Sigonella and Pantelleria, Italy. In the wake of the March 2015 terrorist attack at the Bardo Museum in Tunis, U.S. forces provided operational assistance to a counterterrorism operation targeting core members of KUBN in the town of Sidi Aich, Gafsa. U.S. staff and drones have also operated out of the Sidi Ahmed Air Base in Bizerte.

The U.S.-Tunisia partnership in the military and security domain is multifaceted. It is composed of defense capacity-building, strengthening border security , and as is so often emphasized, training partner forces in counterterrorism strategies and tactics. However, the questions of U.S. troops and drones operated out of Tunisia have been a source of polemic and its sensitivity should not be underestimated. American foreign policy is generally unpopular and unfavorable attitudes toward the United States are widespread in Tunisian society. For instance, in 2012 protesters outraged by an anti-Islamic short film ransacked the U.S. embassy and set fire to a nearby American school in the capital of Tunis. More recently, the U.S. decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital triggered a wave of protests across Tunisia.

The issue of U.S. military presence has also sparked controversy, being the subject of heated debates at the Assembly of the Representatives of the People, Tunisia’s parliament. On numerous occasions, there has been pressure on President Béji Caid Essebsi and Prime Minister Youssef Chahed on the matter of national sovereignty. Furthermore, the revelation of the clash in Kasserine eighteen months ago testifies to a deeper level U.S. involvement on the ground than AFRICOM is willing to admit. The details of the 2017 battle at Mount Semmama contribute to a slowly growing public understanding of the expansion of covert and overt military action on the African continent, where the United States is secretly at war .

*

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

Héni Nsaibia is a researcher at the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED). He is also the founder of Menastream, a risk consultancy providing intelligence analysis. Follow him on Twitter: @MENASTREAM .

Russia has announced a batch of measures, which will be employed in response to the shootdown of the IL-20 military plane as a result of hostile actions by Israeli F-16 off the Syrian coast.

According to a September 24 statement by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Russia will provide an S-300 air defense system to the Syrian military within the next two weeks. The Russians will also equip all HQs of the Syrian Air Defense Forces (SADF) with automated process-control systems thus providing the SADF with better intelligence and targeting information and integrating it with the Russian military group deployed in the war torn country. Furthermore, the Russian EW system will suppress communications, radars and satellite navigation of combat aviation involved in any attacks on Syria from the eastern Mediterranean.

Local sources and international observers already noted an increase in the activity of transport aviation at Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base in Lattakia. Reports also appeared that at least 8 Su-30SM and Su-35 fighter jets had been deployed allegedly to carry out combat missions in Syrian airspace.

The Russian Defense Ministry also once again mocked the Israeli version of the IL-20 incident during a press conference held on September 24. The defense ministry released a data captured by the S-400 air defense system deployed at Khmeimim Air Base, which shows how an Israeli F-16 used the IL-20 plane as cover against Syrian air defense fire.

“Today’s data no longer suggests, but clearly proves that the blame for the tragedy with the Russian Il-20 aircraft lies entirely with the Israeli air force and with those who authorized this kind of activity,” military spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov stated during the press briefing.

Earlier, the Israeli military had claimed that its F-16 jets were in Israeli airspace when the IL-20 was accidentally shot down by a Syrian S-200 missile.

The decision to supply Syria with the S-300 system already triggered fire and fury in the US and Israeli media. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin asking him not to supply the system.

“The transfer of advanced weapons systems into irresponsible hands will increase the dangers in the region,” Netanyahu told Putin, according to Israeli media. The prime minister also claimed that “Israel will continue to defend its security and its interests.” On September 25, top Israeli leadership held a security cabinet meeting on the matter.

First reports about a possible decision to deliver S-300 systems to Syria appeared in in April 2018 following a missile  strike by the US-led  bloc on facilities of the Damascus government. Then, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatened that Israeli forces would wipe out these systems if they were employed.

On September 24, US National Security Adviser John Bolton also commented on the S-300 delivery to Syria claiming that it’s a “significant escalation” and accusing Iran of the IL-20 incident.

“There shouldn’t be any misunderstanding here … The party responsible for the attacks in Syria and Lebanon and really the party responsible for the shooting down of the Russian plane is Iran,” Bolton told media.

It’s interesting to note how in an attempt to avoid consequences the US-Israeli bloc blames everybody, including Iran, for the incident, which happened during an Israeli aggression against Syria and as a result of the hostile approach employed by the Israeli military toward a Russian air group.

*

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

Federal safeguards for greater Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears were reinstated today after a judge ruled that the Trump administration’s decision to strip Endangered Species Act protections from the population was illegal.

The decision spares the grizzlies from a planned trophy hunt scheduled to begin this fall in Wyoming and Idaho. Earthjustice, representing the Northern Cheyenne tribe, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and National Park Conservation Association, argued for restoring protections to Yellowstone grizzly bears.

“The grizzly is a big part of why the Yellowstone region remains among our nation’s last great wild places,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Preso, who argued the case. “This is a victory for the bears and for people from all walks of life who come to this region to see the grizzly in its natural place in the world.”

“The Northern Cheyenne Nation views the grizzly bear as a relative entitled to our respect and protection from harm,” said Lawrence Killsback, president of the Northern Cheyenne Nation. “We have a responsibility to speak for the bears, who cannot speak for themselves. Today we celebrate this victory and will continue to advocate on behalf of the Yellowstone grizzly bears until the population is recovered, including within the Tribe’s ancestral homeland in Montana and other states.”

“We’re glad the court sided with science instead of states bent on reducing the Yellowstone grizzly population and subjecting these beloved bears to a trophy hunt,” said Bonnie Rice, senior representative for Sierra Club’s Our Wild America Campaign. “Changing food sources, isolation, inadequate state management plans and other threats that grizzly bears continue to face warrant strong protections until they reach full recovery.”

“People around the world will applaud the decision to again protect Yellowstone’s beloved grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act,” said Andrea Santarsiere, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Facing ongoing threats and occupying a fraction of their historic range, grizzly bears are nowhere near recovery. These beautiful and beleaguered animals certainly shouldn’t be shot for cheap thrills or a bearskin rug.”

“Grizzly bears that call Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks home will no longer be threatened by an aggressive hunt that was planned this fall on lands bordering the national parks, thanks to the court’s ruling,” said Bart Melton, Northern Rockies regional director for National Parks Conservation Association. “The Department of the Interior can now go back to the drawing board to hopefully consider what research, such as the long-term impacts of climate change on the population, must be considered to ensure a healthy long-term future for Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzlies.”

Background

In August 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the Yellowstone-region grizzly bear population from the federal endangered and threatened species list, even though the area’s grizzly population has suffered high levels of human-caused deaths in recent years.

This fall, for the first time in more than 40 years, the states of Wyoming and Idaho announced grizzly hunts that would have allowed for up to 23 bears to be killed outside of Yellowstone National Park. Today’s court ruling blocked the hunts.

The Northern Cheyenne tribe and conservation groups challenged the Fish and Wildlife Service’s disregard of bear deaths following the bears’ recent shift to a more heavily meat-based diet following the loss of other foods.

The tribe and groups also faulted the Service for carving out and delisting the isolated Yellowstone grizzly population instead of focusing on a broader, more durable grizzly recovery in the West. They further challenged the Service’s decision to disallow public input on changes to its management framework for grizzlies, which weakened protections. The court had previously issued an extended a temporary restraining order to prevent the hunt from proceeding while the judge finalized his decision.

*

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 Tuesday, President Trump will make his second appearance at the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly, where he will reportedly use the international spotlight to deliver a speech that centers on favoring U.S. “sovereignty” over our commitments to the global community.

The world has now witnessed the human costs of Trump’s self-defeating “America First” policies: the inhumanity of family separation, the ruined lives from repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and the suffering caused by slashing the numbers of refugees allowed to enter the U.S., to name just a few.

By pushing xenophobic policies that defy international law, the Trump administration is pitting the United States against the very system of multilateralism that our country worked so hard to create in the years after World War II. This system was designed to benefit the entire world — including the U.S. — by promoting peace, security, and human rights while deterring chaos and violence. That’s why undermining it is harmful to everyone, including Americans.

Here are five examples from the past year where the Trump administration has threatened or attempted to weaken multilateralism and international human rights bodies:

1. Threatening the staff of the International Criminal Court

Earlier this month, National Security Advisor John Bolton made outrageous threats against the International Criminal Court, which holds people accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Bolton went so far as to threaten the court’s judges and prosecutors with U.S. criminal prosecution as well as a travel ban and financial sanctions. The White House has said that its threats are related to the potential of a full ICC investigation into U.S. involvement with war crimes in Afghanistan, such as torture.

2. Pulling out of the U.N. Human Rights Council

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley announced in June that the U.S. was leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council. The United States is the first nation to ever withdraw from the council and one of only four nations in the world that does not participate in its proceedings. And last month, National Security Advisor John Bolton threatened to cut U.S. funding to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which monitors rights violations around the world and supports the work of independent human rights experts. That includes the work of Professor Philip Alston, who was attacked by Ambassador Haley for daring to write a report on poverty in America.

3. Withdrawing from negotiations on the Global Compact for Migration

In December, the U.S. chose to leave negotiations for the Global Compact on Migration, an international agreement on managing safe, orderly, and regular migration around the globe. The final text of the Global Compact, which will formally be adopted in Morocco later this year, contains a commitment from 192 states to work to end child immigration detention. The Trump administration deemed these worthy objectives as incompatible to its immigration policies and an infringement on U.S. sovereignty.

4. Leaving UNESCO

The Trump administration declared its plan in October 2017 to withdraw from membership in the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by January 2019 and move it to permanent observer status. While the Trump administration claims the decision was based on the U.N. body’s bias towards Israel, it is doubtful this was the only motivation to pull out, thereby harming critical global work deemed antithetical to Trump’s agenda. In addition to promoting democracy and freedom of the press, UNESCO advances literacy and science education, reports on the negative impacts of climate change, and runs projects on Holocaust awareness and anti-Semitism.

5. Defunding the U.N. Reliefs and Works Agency

Last month, the Trump administration said that it would no longer provide aid to the U.N. Reliefs and Works Agency, which is the primary organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for displaced Palestinian refugees. The U.S. was the agency’s largest funder, giving it over $350 million annually. Now it’s left with a budget deficit of over $270 million.

We can plainly see Trump’s hostility towards the international community. But the public has a right to full transparency about how exactly these unprecedented and hugely damaging actions are coming about. To get some answers, the ACLU has filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the administration demanding records on these counterproductive decisions.

We previously filed FOIA requests about U.S. withdrawals from the U.N. Human Rights Council and UNESCO, as well as its moves to defund international human rights bodies and leave treaties.

Today we’re filing a new FOIA request demanding answers about the administration’s policy toward the International Criminal Court. Does the Justice Department actually believe that it can charge ICC judges with violating U.S. laws? Or were Bolton’s threats just baseless grandstanding in a craven attempt to evade consequences for U.S. torture in Afghanistan?

No one should stand by idly in the face of Trump’s assault on human rights and the international institutions in place to defend them.

*

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

Maya Finoh is Legal Administrative Assistant, ACLU Human Rights Program.

Featured image is from The White House/Flickr.

The Metropolitan Police made one statement in the Skripal case which is plainly untrue; they claimed not to know on what kind of visa Boshirov and Petrov were travelling. As they knew the passports they used, and had footage of them coming through the airport, that is impossible. The Border Force could tell them in 30 seconds flat.

To get a UK visa Boshirov and Petrov would have had to attend the UK Visa Application Centre in Moscow. There not only would their photographs be taken, but their fingerprints would have been taken and, if in the last few years, their irises scanned. The Metropolitan Police would naturally have obtained their fingerprints from the Visa Application.

One thing of which we can be certain is that their fingerprints are not on the perfume bottle or packaging found in Charlie Rowley’s home. We can be certain of that because no charges have been brought against the two in relation to the death of Dawn Sturgess, and we know the police have their fingerprints. The fact of there being no credible evidence, according to either the Metropolitan Police or the Crown Prosecution Service, to link them to the Amesbury poisoning, has profound implications.

Why the Metropolitan Police were so coy about telling us what kind of visa the pair held, points to a wider mystery. Why were they given the visas in the first place, and what story did they tell to get them? It is not easy for a Russian citizen, particularly an economically active male, to get past the UK Border Agency. The visa application process is very intrusive. They have to produce evidence of family and professional circumstances, including employment and address, evidence of funds, including at least three months of bank statements, and evidence of the purpose of the visit. These details are then actively checked out by the Visa Department.

If they had told the story to the visa section they told to Russia Today, that they were freelance traders in fitness products wanting to visit Salisbury Cathedral, they would have been refused a visa as being candidates for overstaying. They would have been judged not to have sufficiently stable employment in Russia to ensure they would return. So what story did Petrov and Boshirov give on their visa application, why were they given a visa, and what kind of visa? And why do the British authorities not want us to know the answer to these questions?

Which brings us to the claims of neo-conservative propaganda website Bellingcat. They claim together with the Russian Insider website to have obtained documentary evidence that Petrov and Boshirov’s passports were of a series issued only to Russian spies, and that their applications listed GRU headquarters as their address.

There are some problems with Bellingcat’s analysis. The first is that they also quote Russian website fontanka.ru as a source, but fontanka.ru actually say the precise opposite of what Bellingcat claim – that the passport number series is indeed a civilian one and civilians do have passports in that series.

Fontanka also state it is not unusual for the two to have close passport numbers – it merely means they applied together. On other points, fontanka.ru do confirm Bellingcat’s account of another suspected GRU officer having serial numbers close to those of Boshirov and Petrov.

But there is a bigger question of the authenticity of the documents themselves. Fontanka.ru is a blind alley – they are not the source of the documents, just commenting on them, and Bellingcat are just attempting the old trick of setting up a circular “confirmation”. Russian Insider is neither Russian nor an Insider. Its name is a false claim and it consists of a combination of western “experts” writing on Russia, and reprints from the Russian media. It has no track record of inside access to Russian government secrets or documents, and nor does Bellingcat.

What Bellingcat does have is a track record of shilling for the security services. Bellingcat claims its purpose is to clear up fake news, yet has been entirely opaque about the real source of its so-called documents.

MI6 have almost 40 officers in Russia, running hundreds of agents. The CIA has a multiple of that. They pool their information. Both the UK and US have large visa sections whose major function is the analysis of Russian passports, their types and numbers and what they tell about the individual.

We are to believe that Boshirov and Petrov were GRU agents whose identity was plainly obvious from their passports, who had no believable cover identities, but that neither the visa department nor MI6 (which two cooperate closely and all the time) knew they were giving visas to GRU agents. Yet this information was readily available to Bellingcat?

I do not know if the two are agents or just tourists. But the claimed evidence they were agents is, if genuine, so obvious that the two would have been under close surveillance throughout their stay in the UK. If the official story is true, then the failures of the UK visa department and MI6 are abject and shameful. As is the failure to take simple precautions for the Skripals’ security, like the inexplicable absence of CCTV covering the house of Sergei Skripal, an important ex-agent and defector supposedly under British protection.

A further thought. We are informed that Boshirov and Petrov left a trace of novichok in their hotel bedroom. How likely is it, really, that, the day before the professional assassination attempt, which involved handling an agent with which any contact could kill you, Boshirov and Petrov would prepare, not by resting, but by an all night drugs and sex session? Would you really not want the steadiest possible hand the next day? Would you really invite a prostitute into the room with the novichok perfume in it, and behave in a way that led to complaints and could have brought you to official notice?

Is it not astonishing that nobody in the corporate and state media has written that this behaviour is at all unlikely, while scores of “journalists” have written that visiting Salisbury as a tourist, and returning the next day because the visit was ruined by snow, would be highly unlikely?

To me, even more conclusively, we were informed by cold war propagandists like ex White House staffer Dan Kaszeta that the reason the Skripals were not killed is that novichok is degraded by water. To quote Kaszeta “Soap and water is quite good at decontaminating nerve agents”.

In which case it is extremely improbable that the agents handling the novichok, who allegedly had the novichok in their bedroom, would choose a hotel room which did not have an en suite bathroom. If I spilt some novichok on myself I would not want to be queuing in the corridor for the shower. The GRU may not be big on health and safety, but the idea that their agents chose not to have basic washing facilities available while handling the novichok is wildly improbable.

The only link of Boshirov and Petrov to the novichok is the trace in the hotel room. The identification there of a microscopic trace of novichok came from a single swab, all other swabs were negative, and the test could not be repeated even on the original positive sample. For other reasons given above, I absolutely doubt these two had novichok in that bedroom. Who they really are, and how much the security services knew about them, remain open questions.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its new white paper stressed it, saying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Stansberry Churchouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A statement by Netanyahu’s office said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

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

RHR said, in a statement,

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from Ma’an News Agency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Konashenkov emphasized that

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

West Refuses to Call Ahvaz Attackers Terrorists 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahvaz attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brookings would also emphasize (emphasis added):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said early Monday,

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

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

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

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

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

He added that,

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

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

— Military Advisor (@miladvisor) September 23, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as one Israeli defense analyst put it,

“Israel should be worried.”

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

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

By Brian Kalman, September 24, 2018

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

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

By Neil Clark, September 24, 2018

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

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

By Zero Hedge, September 24, 2018

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

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

By Federico Pieraccini, September 24, 2018

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

Obtaining Nuclear Weapons Comes at a Great Psychological Price

By Shane Quinn, September 24, 2018

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

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

By Philip Giraldi, September 24, 2018

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

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

Parallels & Comparisons 1929 & 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences for US Midterm 2018 Elections 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Crisis 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Jack Rasmus.

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

The Global Economic Crisis

The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Global Research

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

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

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

click to order directly from Global Research

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

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

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

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

click to order directly from Global Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US “Cannot Ignore” Africa… 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to this, Amsterdam would claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Obligations and the OPCW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued Support of War Criminals

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian Response

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

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

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Emergent Ecological Future?

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

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

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

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

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

An Ecological Civilization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Future?

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Mission accomplished. Moneda taken, President dead.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Most Conventional of Wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies.

Featured image is from the author.

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

Russia’s “Shield” In Syria 

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

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

Bursting The “Bubble” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

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

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

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

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

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

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

By Ellen Davidson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

By Margaret Flowers.

What to do about it

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to donate towards the delegation to the ICC. 

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

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

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

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

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

From Pinterest.

Here are more actions this Antiwar Autumn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Brain implants are now a reality.

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

I put together a short video exploring this topic.

Video Production by Kurt Nimmo

.

*

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

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

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrats have been weak in conviction. 

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

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

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

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

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

* 

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Email: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge.