The Strange Russian Alibi

September 14th, 2018 by Craig Murray

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

Like many, my first thought at the interview of Boshirov and Petrov – which apparently are indeed their names – is that they were very unconvincing. The interview itself seemed to be set up around a cramped table with a poor camera and lighting, and the interviewer seemed pretty hopeless at asking probing questions that would shed any real light.

.

I had in fact decided that their story was highly improbable, until I started seeing the storm of twitter posting, much of it from mainstream media journalists, which stated that individual things were impossible which were, in fact, not impossible at all.

The first and most obvious regards the weather on 3 and 4 March. It is in fact absolutely true that, if the two had gone down to Salisbury on 3 March with the intention of going to Stonehenge, they would have been unable to get there because of the snow. It is therefore perfectly possible that they went back the next day to try again; and public transport out of Salisbury was still severely disrupted, and many roads closed, on 4 March. Proof of this is not at all difficult to find.

This image is from the Salisbury Journal’s liveblog on 4 March.

Those mocking the idea that the pair were blocked by snow from visiting Stonehenge have pointed to the CCTV footage of central Salisbury not showing snow on the afternoon of 4 March. Well, that is central Salisbury, it had of course been salted and cleared. Outside there were drifts.

So that part of their story in fact turns out not to be implausible as social media is making out; in fact it fits precisely with the actual facts.

The second part of their story that has brought ridicule is the notion that two Russians would fly to the UK for the weekend and try to visit Salisbury. This ridicule has been very strange to me. Weekend breaks – arrive on Friday and return on Sunday – are a standard part of the holiday industry. Why is it apparently unthinkable that Russians fly on weekend breaks as well as British people?

Even more strange is the idea that it is wildly improbable for Russian visitors to wish to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge. Salisbury Cathedral is one of the most breathtaking achievements of Norman architecture, one of the great cathedrals of Europe. It attracts a great many foreign visitors. Stonehenge is world famous and a world heritage site. I went on holiday this year and visited Wurzburg to see the Bishop’s Palace, and then the winery cooperative at Sommerach. Because somebody does not choose to spend their leisure time on a beach in Benidorm does not make them a killer. Lots of people go to Salisbury Cathedral.

There seems to be a racist motif here – Russians cannot possibly have intellectual or historical interests, or afford weekend breaks.

The final meme which has worried me is “if they went to see the cathedral, why did they visit the Skripal house?” Well, no evidence at all has been presented that they visited the Skripal house. They were captured on CCTV walking past a petrol station 500 yards away – that is the closest they have been placed to the Skripal house.

The greater mystery about these two is, if they did visit the Skripal House and paint Novichok on the doorknob, why did they afterwards walk straight past the railway station again and head into Salisbury city centre, where they were caught window shopping in a coin and souvenir shop with apparently not a care in the world, before eventually returning to the train station? It seems a very strange attitude to a getaway after an attempted murder. In truth their demeanour throughout the photographs is consistent with their tourism story.

The Russians have so far presented this pair in a very unconvincing light. But on investigation, the elements of their story which are claimed to be wildly improbable are not inconsistent with the facts.

There remains the much larger question of the timing.

The Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals’ doorknob before noon at the earliest. But there has never been any indication that the Skripals returned to their home after noon on Sunday 4 March. If they did so, they and/or their car somehow avoided all CCTV cameras. Remember they were caught by three CCTV cameras on leaving, and Borishov and Petrov were caught frequently on CCTV on arriving.

The Skripals were next seen on CCTV at 13.30, driving down Devizes road. After that their movements were clearly witnessed or recorded until their admission to hospital.

So even if the Skripals made an “invisible” trip home before being seen on Devizes Road, that means the very latest they could have touched the doorknob is 13.15. The longest possible gap between the novichok being placed on the doorknob and the Skripals touching it would have been one hour and 15 minutes. Do you recall all those “experts” leaping in to tell us that the “ten times deadlier than VX” nerve agent was not fatal because it had degraded overnight on the doorknob? Well that cannot be true. The time between application and contact was between a minute and (at most) just over an hour on this new timeline.

In general it is worth observing that the Skripals, and poor Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, all managed to achieve almost complete CCTV invisibility in their widespread movements around Salisbury at the key times, while in contrast “Petrov and Boshirov” managed to be frequently caught in high quality all the time during their brief visit.

This is especially remarkable in the case of the Skripals’ location around noon on 4 March. The government can only maintain that they returned home at this time, as they insist they got the nerve agent from the doorknob. But why was their car so frequently caught on CCTV leaving, but not at all returning? It appears very much more probable that they came into contact with the nerve agent somewhere else, while they were out.

I shall write a further post on these timing questions shortly.

Video: Dr. Chris Busby on Novichoks and the Skripal Russia Poisoning Affair

September 14th, 2018 by Prof. Christopher Busby

This report by prominent British Scientist Dr. Chris Busby was published in April 2018.

In recent developments, Chris Busby’s home was raided by police. He was arrested on trumped up charges.

See screenshot below.

This arrest points to the suppression of Freedom of Expression in the UK, specifically with regards to Busby’s scientific analysis of the Skripal Affair.

The Sun, September 13, 2018

Officers were treated at the scene for various symptoms but were not harmed and have since returned to duty.

Bomb disposal teams were drafted in as a search of the house resulted in items being found that “require expert analysis”, police said.

Police said a 73-year-old local man has been detained under the explosives act and awaits questioning — although they would not confirm if this was Mr Busby. (The Sun, September 13, 2018)

The officers were treated at the scene, they were not hospitalised or harmed and they returned to their duty. They did not even get time off.

In other words, they were not poisoned. The report above contradicts itself. They were taken ill with suspected poisoning. But where is the medical report. Dr. Busby was detained for 19 hours because they the officers were  allegedly feeling unwell. But the report says they weren’t. Lots of innuendos, sloppy journalism.

Busby was one of main voices in the analysis of the impacts of depleted uranium radiation in Iraq.

The British media’s intent was to smear a prominent British scientist and anti-war activist who questions the official story regarding the Skripal affair.Was Dr. Chris Busby framed?

Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, September 14, 2018

***

Dr Busby says a few words about the Russian Nerve Agent issue. He speaks as an expert in this area.

Chris worked for several years at the famous Wellcome Research laboratories in Beckenham, London as a Senior Scientist in the Department of Physical Chemistry. His job, at the basic level, was to help determine the structure and origin of pharmaceutical compounds. So, he is an expert in this area.

He also carried out similar work at Queen Mary College London for his first PhD and synthesised complex organic chemicals.

From that, he relates that the synthesis of a specific small organic chemical like the supposed Novichoks is not very difficult. Most synthetic organic chemists could knock up small quantities of the 234 compound, given the structure.

Mainly, there is no way that the compound that was detected in the Skripal attack could be traced to a Russian laboratory (or any laboratory) by any lab unless the lab already had a sample known to come from the Russian laboratory (or the source laboratory).

The determination and identification methods mainly depend on mass spectrometric fragmentation patterns, and include the spectrum of stray molecular fragments from impurities associated with the synthesis route. This is how Wellcome located Patent jumping, and took this evidence (from Busby and colleagues) into the courts. All chemists know this, and that is why the Porton head said what he said, as any chemist would have been able to raise this issue and show that he was lying, if he said anything else. It is basic physical chemistry.

So, the new headline in the Times, about a secret Russian laboratory is also bogus.

What is also clear is that the mass spectrum of the A234 compound was put on the NIST database in 1998 by a worker from the USA chemical warfare laboratory.

Chris therefore concludes that this whole affair is a tissue of lies and misdirection, rather like the WMD Iraq scenario and is aimed at creating a war with Russia that no one can win and where all life will lose.

The Two Most Dangerous Warmongers in Political Office Today

September 14th, 2018 by Hans Stehling

image: Trump and Netanyahu

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

They work in concert to carefully lay the foundations and propaganda for war, for between them they hope to dominate the world with their egocentric madness for power and influence. One is a former real estate developer and the other an expansionist occupier of foreign land. Both have access to nuclear and chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction. 

They use the most powerful economic and political sanctions available in today’s US-dominated world to aggressively cripple those nation states they wish to either command or destroy and will unilaterally threaten and intimidate all those who oppose them, with financial, economic and military sanctions.

They militarily equip those who do agree to support them, with US-made planes, tanks, helicopters, ships, guns, missiles, drones, chemicals and billions of dollars in aid, in order to help carry out their ideological objectives.

These objectives currently include:

1.     Bankrupting the sovereign state of Iran by closing down its oil industry and global export markets; inciting civil insurrection to bring about unrest and revolution, then to install a puppet government in a plan to control the entire Middle East and its oilfields in conjunction with its own vassal state in the region.

2.     Starving two million Palestinians in Gaza by blockading the delivery of all essential goods, medicines and electricity in order to subjugate an entire people and to transfer those eventually surviving to Jordan, thereby extinguishing any possibility of a Palestinian state, in an overt operation of ethnic cleansing.

3.     Forcibly annexing all its illegally occupied Palestinian Territories and to proclaim a Greater Israel running from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan with the indigenous Arab population forcibly expelled to neighbouring states.

4.     Attacking Lebanon to bring about a regime change compliant to a US-White House agenda.

5.     Intimidating and threatening all 28 Member States of the European Union with trade sanctions if there is any impediment to the US foreign policy of intimidation, annexation and forcible regime change, anywhere in the world.

6.     Threatening Russia with war by continuing provocative military exercises with an aggressive build-up of troops on its borders.

7.     Treating the United Nations, the UN Security Council and its internationally agreed resolutions, with contempt.

Both these warmongers are self-identified Political Zionists who will stop at nothing to achieve their ideological aims of control, domination and ultimate power for themselves and their families. Whilst neither individual is a statesman of any stature, both are dangerous megalomaniacs for whom there are no legal, moral, religious or military boundaries.

They are both willing and prepared to risk nuclear and even chemical warfare in the furtherance of their objectives.

*

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

US Biological Warfare Program in the Spotlight Again

September 14th, 2018 by Peter Korzun

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

This is a scoop to bring the US biological warfare effort back into the spotlight. On Sept. 11, Russian media reported that the Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research laboratory, a research facility for high-level biohazard agents located near Tbilisi, Georgia, has used human beings for conducting biological experiments.

Former Minister of State Security of Georgia Igor Giorgadze said about it during a news conference in Moscow, urging US President Donald Trump to launch an investigation. He has lists of Georgians who died of hepatitis after undergoing treatment in the facility in 2015 and 2016. Many passed away on the same day. The declassified documents contain neither the indication of the causes of deaths nor real names of the deceased. According to him, the secret lab run by the US military was established during the tenure of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. The viruses could spread to neighboring countries, including Russia, Igor Giorgadze warned.

The laboratory’s work is tightly under wraps. Only US personnel with security clearance have access to it. These people are accorded diplomatic immunity under the 2002 US-Georgia Agreement on defense cooperation.

Eurasia Review reported that in 2014 the Lugar Center was equipped with a special plant for breeding insects to enable launching the Sand Fly project in Georgia and the Caucasus. In 2014-2015 years, the bites of sand flies such as Phlebotomins caused a fever. According to the source,

“today the Pentagon has a great interest to the study of Tularemia, also known as the fever of rabbits, which is also equated with biological weapons. Distributors of such a disease can be mites and rodents”.

It makes remember the statement made by Nikolai Patrushev, Head of Russia’s Security Council, in 2015. He warned about the threat stemming from biological weapons laboratories that operate on the territories of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). He specifically mentioned the Richard G. Lugar Center in Georgia.

The US has bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world, including the post-Soviet space. They are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Foreign inspectors are denied access to them. It should be noted that independent journalist investigations have been made public to confirm the fact that the US military conducts secret research to pose a threat to environment and population. Jeffrey Silverman, an American journalist who has lived in Georgia for many years, is sure the Richard Lugar Center, as well as other labs, is involved in secret activities to create biological weapons. Georgia and Ukraine have been recently hit by mysterious disease outbreaks, with livestock killed and human lives endangered. The US military operates the Central Reference Laboratory in Kazakhstan since 2016. There have public protests against the facility.

In 2013 a Chinese Air Force Colonel Dai Xu accused the US government of creating a new strain of bird flu now afflicting parts of China as a biological warfare attack. According to him, the American military released the H7N9 bird flu virus into China in an act of biological warfare. It has been reported that the source of Ebola virus in West Africa were US bio-warfare labs.

Russian experts do not exclude the possibility of the use of a stink-bug by the US military as a biological weapon. A couple of years ago, mosquitoes with Zika virus have been spotted in Russia and South Ossetia to cause outbreaks of human and animal flu.

The US activities violate the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), a legally binding treaty that outlaws biological arms. It effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, retention, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons and is a key element in the international community’s efforts to address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In force since 1975, the convention has 181 states-parties today. The BWC reaffirms the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the biological weapons use. In 1969, US President Richard Nixon formally ended all offensive aspects of the US biological warfare program. In 1975, the US ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the BWC.

Negotiations on an internationally binding verification protocol, which would include on-site inspections by an independent authority to the BWC, took place between 1995 and 2001. The US did not sign up. Its refusal to become a party to the verification mechanisms makes any attempt to enhance the effectiveness of the BWC doomed. A Review Conference is held every five years to discuss the convention’s operation and implementation. The last one, which convened in November 2016, was a frustration with minimal agreement on the final document and no substantive program of work to do before the next event takes place in 2021. There is little hope the BWC will ever be strengthened to have teeth. With no verification mechanism, the US military bio-warfare labs will always be a matter of concern. The issue is serious enough to be included into global security architecture. The UN General Assembly is the right place to raise it. Its 73rd session will open on September 18.

*

Peter Korzun is an expert on wars and conflicts.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Biological Warfare Program in the Spotlight Again

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

As Turkey’s President Erdogan runs out of money, he is now, more than any time before, using religion to exploit the Balkans, especially the states that are more susceptible to Islamic influence. Bosnia is at the fore of Erdogan’s ambitious Islamic agenda, where he is sparing no political capital or financial resources, even under his current economic hardship, to assert his influence and distance the country away from the EU’s reach. Obviously, the Bosnians cannot survive simply on being devout Muslims, with the youth unemployment rate at almost 60 percent. Turkey is unlikely to economically recover anytime soon, and Erdogan’s promises to provide financial aid and investments will ring hollow in the face of his deepening financial crisis.

The war of words, hyperinflation, US sanctions, and reckless investments on borrowed money have steadily been chipping away at the value of the Turkish Lira. Five years ago, $1 was worth 2 lira; today, six liras are exchanged for a dollar, but that has not discouraged Bosnian leaders from seeking closer association with Erdogan.

Image result for Bakir Izetbegovic

Bakir Izetbegovic, the Bosnian Muslim leader and the chairman of Bosnia’s tripartite presidency, said last May (in front of thousands of Turkish expatriates and Bosnian supporters of Erdogan who travelled from all over Europe to Sarajevo) that

“God has sent [our] nations one person to return them to their religion… He is Recep Tayyip Erdogan. We remain standing with God’s help.”

The crowd cheered when a leader of diaspora Turks equated and idealized Sarajevo as “the Jerusalem at the heart of Europe”.

Bosnia was more than willing to open the door for the Turkish president to organize an election rally in Sarajevo, especially following the EU’s refusal to allow him to campaign in its member states. For Erdogan, the Balkans is the region that can put him in a position to realize his political goal of reviving some semblance of the Ottoman Empire while undermining the EU’s influence in these countries.

Bosnia consists of two entities: The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose population is made up of Muslim Bosnians and Catholic Croats; and Republika Srpska, where Orthodox Serbs are a majority. About half of Bosnia’s 3.8 million citizens are Muslims, many of whom consider Erdogan their trusted leader, if not their savior.

For more than a decade, Erdogan has invested heavily in spreading his influence among Balkan states, and Bosnia was and still is one of his main targets. He pledged a multi-billion dollar investment in a key motorway connecting Serbia and Bosnia. Turkey and Bosnia signed a letter of intent for the construction of a highway connecting the two Balkan capitals, a project estimated to cost $3.5 billion, which has not yet started because of lack of financial resources.

Meanwhile, the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA)—a vehicle through which Turkey spreads its Islamic agenda in the Balkans—has completed more than 800 small projects in Bosnia, mostly related to religious institutions.

European leaders have already been voicing concerns over Turkey’s influence in the Balkans. Only a few months ago, French President Emmanuel Macron declared

“I don’t want a Balkans that turns toward Turkey or Russia”.

During his May speech in Sarajevo, Erdogan urged supporters to actively participate in European politics to counter anti-Turkish sentiment.

“You need to be in those parliaments instead of the ones who betray our country,” he said, referring to European lawmakers with Turkish roots.

In a conversation with us, Orhan Hadzagic, a political analyst from Bosnia, said that Erdogan is adulated by Bosnians as more than just a foreign leader. He rhetorically asks,

“From Erdogan’s last visit to Bosnia, what was the benefit for Bosnian citizens from that rally, an event featuring the heads of two parties who support one other?”

Hadzagic is convinced that his country is risking its accession to the EU by opening its doors to Erdogan, from where he is challenging Brussels directly.

“Many NGOs”, he said, “are close to Turkey; they receive financial support to change the negative image and the perception about the rising authoritarian rule in Turkey, among Bosnians.”

Although a large majority of Bosnians do not see any alternative to the European Union, they are passionate in their support of Erdogan. In a poll conducted by the International Republican Institute and released in March of this year, 76 percent of Bosnians said they had positive views about Turkey’s role in their country.

For Erdogan, Bosnia occupies a special place and he will endeavor to maintain his image both as a religious leader and economic savior. That said,

“Erdogan’s list of priorities is growing, so Bosnia is inevitably descending on that list,” said Hadzagic, “which will reduce [Erdogan’s influence on] the state, NGO, and media organizations here in Bosnia. Consequently, it will lead to the reduction of Ankara’s influence.”

As such, Erdogan is increasing his focus on the local media outlets and non-governmental institutions in Bosnia by providing them with some financial aid to support his political agenda. But even that is becoming financially burdensome, making it more difficult to continue with his media campaign.

Sead Numanovic, a well-known journalist from Bosnia, told us that

“The EU and US are still (and I fear they will continue to be) very passive in the Balkans, this environment gives an additional space for Erdogan to work easily on his anti-Western agenda.”

This explains why Erdogan’s AK Party has recently opened an office in Sarajevo, its first official branch in the Balkans.

A spokesperson from the Turkish Embassy in Sarajevo told Foreign Policy that Turkey firmly supports the NATO and EU membership process of Bosnia and Herzegovina—“Turkey is not [in Bosnia] to seek influence, but to encourage political stability for the sake of the entire region.” There is nothing further from the truth.

Xhemal Ahmeti, a historian and expert on Southeast European issues, said that Bosnia’s Muslims currently are most loyal to the Turkish autocrat.

“Bosnian Muslims have lost their hopes that their Trinitarian state will become an EU member. That’s why they rely on Turkey to survive, given that they are sandwiched between Catholics, conservative Croats, and Orthodox jurisdictions”, said Ahmeti. “Paradoxically, though, while the Bosnians Muslims seek Erdogan’s protection from the Orthodox (Serbs and Russians), Erdogan’s close allies are Putin and [Serbia’s Prime Minister] Vucic.”

Bosnian leaders and citizens must realize that Erdogan is moving ever closer to Russia and Iran. The EU has already made it clear that since full adherence to its charter, especially regarding human rights, freedom, and democracy, are prerequisites to EU membership, Bosnia must not cozy up to Erdogan because he has flagrantly abandoned the EU’s founding principles, and the development of a full-fledged democracy in Bosnia does not serve his interest.

It is now up to the Bosnian leaders to determine their own destiny, which must inexorably be linked to full membership with the EU if they want to grow and prosper while embracing full democracy.

This does not suggest that they should sever relations with Turkey as a regional power, with which they will need to intensify the development of a mutually gainful relationship once Erdogan departs the political scene.

In the interim, they must be cautious in their dealings with Erdogan, who manipulates them by using Islam to pursue his sinister political agenda.

*

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

[email protected] Web: www.alonben-meir.com

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

When Bolton expresses his desire to “strangle the ICC in its cradle,” what he really means is he wants US troops to be able to murder babies in their cradles with impunity.

On February 12, 2010, US Army Rangers conducted a nighttime raid on a home in the village of Khataba, outside Gardez, Afghanistan. Dozens of men, women and children, including the district prosecutor and local police chief, had gathered at the house to celebrate the naming of a newborn baby just before the raid occurred. The Rangers stormed the home with guns blazing, killing the prosecutor, police chief, two pregnant women and a teenage girl.

The US military lied about the Khataba raid, initially making the outrageous claim that the women and girl had been killed by their relatives before the assault. But Afghan investigators soon discovered that not only had the American troops killed the civilians, they also dug the bullets out of their riddled bodies and washed the wounds with alcohol in a failed attempt to conceal their crime. When confronted with the evidence, the US-led coalition admitted its forces had indeed killed the women. Despite the US admission, none of the Rangers involved in the atrocity were ever disciplined.

The Khataba raid is but one of many US war crimes and atrocities in Afghanistan. Other notable events include the 2010 serial murder of unarmed Afghan civilians in Kandahar province by members of a self-described Army “Kill Team,” which collected victims’ body parts as grisly souvenirs of their crimes, the torture and murder of detainees at secret prisons including the notorious “Salt Pit” near Kabul and air strikes like the intentional bombing of an international charity hospital in Kunduz that killed 42 patients and staff in October 2015.

To date, no senior US government, military or intelligence officials have been held accountable for these and other incidents that, if committed by America’s enemies, would inarguably be considered — and prosecuted as — war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created two decades ago to address the general impunity enjoyed by many war criminals. And while the court, which has almost exclusively prosecuted Africans, has been widely criticized as the “Infamous Caucasian Court” and an instrument of Western neocolonialism, it has in recent years announced that it would begin investigating US war crimes in Afghanistan, as well as Israeli crimes against Palestine, which became the 123rd ICC member nation in 2015.

Countries with nothing to fear do not fear the ICC. The United States and Israel are very afraid of the ICC. The murder of unarmed civilians is a war crime. So is torture. Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of densely-populated civilian areas, its half-century occupation of Palestinian territory and its construction and expansion of Jews-only settler colonies on Palestinian land are all also illegal under international law. Neither Israel nor the United States has joined the ICC. Other leading human rights violators, including North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Ethiopia, have either never joined or have withdrawn from the court.

The United States, which was instrumental in forging the post-World War II human rights framework embodied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and admirably demonstrated at the Nuremberg trials, has sadly abrogated its role and responsibility to promote and uphold human rights in recent decades. After Nicaragua successfully sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for waging a war of terror against it while supporting the horrifically brutal Contra rebellion, President Ronald Reagan ignored the ruling and angrily withdrew the US from the court. Later, the George W. Bush administration refused to join the nascent ICC on the dubious grounds that the court might be used to “frivolously” charge US troops with war crimes in “politically-motivated” trials.

However, the Bush administration’s concern wasn’t really that the ICC would be used frivolously, but that it would be used seriously, and not to prosecute low-ranking troops but rather officials in Washington, DC, quite a few of whom would surely qualify for prosecution. This was, after all, an administration that went to great lengths to “legalize” torture, and which argued that the president had unlimited wartime powers to, among other crimes, order the massacre of an entire village of civilians.

John Bolton, currently President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, was a key proponent of torture and illegal invasion and occupation when he served in the Bush administration. Bolton has consistently criticized the ICC as a threat to “US sovereignty.” What he really means is that it is a threat to US impunity. When Bolton expresses his desire to “strangle the ICC in its cradle,” what he really means is he wants US troops to be able to murder babies in their cradles with impunity.

That’s what happened on March 11, 2012 when US Army Sgt. Robert Bales raged from house to house in three villages in Panjwai district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan and methodically executed 16 civilians, nine of them children, before setting many of his victims’ bodies on fire. Bales was sentenced to life imprisonment, but such accountability is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to US war crimes and atrocities. And that’s exactly the way that Bolton and the other US officials who fear the ICC want things to remain.

There is much hand-wringing by those who fear President Trump fancies himself above the law. But for too much of its existence and in too many of its affairs, the United States has acted as if the law only applies to itself when it stands to achieve a favorable outcome.

*

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

Lobbyists for “creators” threw their lot in with the giant entertainment companies and the newspaper proprietors and managed to pass the new EU Copyright Directive by a hair’s-breadth this morning, in an act of colossal malpractice to harm to working artists will only be exceeded by the harm to everyone who uses the internet for everything else.

Here’s what the EU voted in favour of this morning:

  • Upload filters: Everything you post, from short text snippets to stills, audio, video, code, etc will be surveilled by copyright bots run by the big platforms. They’ll compare your posts to databases of “copyrighted works” that will be compiled by allowing anyone to claim copyright on anything, uploading thousands of works at a time. Anything that appears to match the “copyright database” is blocked on sight, and you have to beg the platform’s human moderators to review your case to get your work reinstated.
  • Link taxes: You can’t link to a news story if your link text includes more than a single word from the article’s headline. The platform you’re using has to buy a license from the news site, and news sites can refuse licenses, giving them the right to choose who can criticise and debate the news.
  • Sports monopolies: You can’t post any photos or videos from sports events — not a selfie, not a short snippet of a great goal. Only the “organisers” of events have that right. Upload filters will block any attempt to violate the rule.

Here’s what they voted against:

  • “Right of panorama”: the right to post photos of public places despite the presence of copyrighted works like stock arts in advertisements, public statuary, or t-shirts bearing copyrighted images. Even the facades of buildings need to be cleared with their architects (not with the owners of the buildings).
  • User generated content exemption: the right to use small excerpt from works to make memes and other critical/transformative/parodical/satirical works.

Having passed the EU Parliament, this will now be revised in secret, closed-door meetings with national governments (“the trilogues”) and then voted again next spring, and then go to the national governments for implementation in law before 2021. These all represent chances to revise the law, but they will be much harder than this fight was. We can also expect lawsuits in the European high courts over these rules: spying on everyone just isn’t legal under European law, even if you’re doing it to “defend copyright.”

In the meantime, what a disaster for creators. Not only will be we liable to having our independently produced materials arbitrarily censored by overactive filters, but we won’t be able to get them unstuck without the help of big entertainment companies. These companies will not be gentle in wielding their new coercive power over us (entertainment revenues are up, but the share going to creators is down: if you think this is unrelated to the fact that there are only four or five major companies in each entertainment sector, you understand nothing about economics).

But of course, only an infinitesimal fraction of the material on the platforms is entertainment related. Your birthday wishes and funeral announcements, little league pictures and political arguments, wedding videos and online educational materials are also going to be filtered by these black-box algorithms, and you’re going to have to get in line with all the other suckers for attention from a human moderator at one of the platforms to plead your case.

The entertainment industry figures who said that universal surveillance and algorithmic censorship were necessary for the continuation of copyright have done more to discredit copyright than all the pirate sites on the internet combined. People like their TV, but they use their internet for so much more.

It’s like the right-wing politicians who spent 40 years describing roads, firefighting, health care, education and Social Security as “socialism,” and thereby created a generation of people who don’t understand why they wouldn’t be socialists, then. The copyright extremists have told us that internet freedom is the same thing as piracy. A generation of proud, self-identified pirates can’t be far behind. When you make copyright infringement into a political act, a blow for freedom, you sign your own artistic death-warrant.

This idiocy was only possible because:

  • No one involved understands the internet: they assume that because their Facebook photos auto-tag with their friends’ names, that someone can filter all the photos ever taken and determine which ones violate copyright;
  • They tied mass surveillance to transferring a few mil from Big Tech to the newspaper shareholders, guaranteeing wall-to-wall positive coverage (I’m especially ashamed that journalists supported this lunacy — we know you love free expression, folks, we just wish you’d share);

What comes next? Well, the best hope is probably a combination of a court challenge, along with making this an election issue for the 2019 EU elections. No MEP is going to campaign for re-election by saying “I did this amazing copyright thing!” From experience, I can tell you that no one cares what their lawmakers are doing with copyright.

On the other hand, there are tens of millions of voters who will vote against a candidate who “broke the internet.” Not breaking the internet is very important to voters, and the wider populace has proven itself to be very good at absorbing abstract technical concepts when they’re tied to broken internets (87% of Americans have a) heard of Net Neutrality and; b) support it).

I was once involved in a big policy fight where one of the stakes was the possibility that broadcast TV watchers would have to buy a small device to continue watching TV. Politicians were terrified of this proposition: they knew that the same old people who vote like crazy also watch a lot of TV and wouldn’t look favourably on anyone who messed with it.

We’re approaching that point with the internet. The danger of internet regulation is that every problem involves the internet and every poorly thought-through “solution” ripples out through the internet, creating mass collateral damage; the power of internet regulation is that every day, more people are invested in not breaking the internet, for their own concrete, personal, vital reasons.

This isn’t a fight we’ll ever win. The internet is the nervous system of this century, tying together everything we do. It’s an irresistible target for bullies, censors and well-intentioned fools. Even if the EU had voted the other way this morning, we’d still be fighting tomorrow, because there will never be a moment at which some half-bright, fully dangerous policy entrepreneur isn’t proposing some absurd way of solving their parochial problem with a solution that will adversely affect billions of internet users around the world.

This is a fight we commit ourselves to. Today, we suffered a terrible, crushing blow. Our next move is to explain to the people who suffer as a result of the entertainment industry’s depraved indifference to the consequences of their stupid ideas how they got into this situation, and get them into the streets, into the polling booths, and into the fight.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe Just Voted to Wreck the Internet, Spying on Everything and Censoring Vast Swathes of Our Communications

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

On September 13, the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) deployed several battle tanks and armoured vehicles at their observation post near the town of Murak in northern Hama, according to reports by pro-militant sources.

It was first time when the TAF deployed its heavy military equipment in this area. Pro-government activists link this deployment with attempts of the Turkish leadership to prevent an expected military operation of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) in the province of Idlib and nearby areas.

The TAF has 12 observation posts in the so-called Idlib de-escalation zone. Many of them are located in the areas directly controlled by internationally recognized terrorist groups or close to these areas.

On the same day, the SAA artillery carried out strikes on positions of Jaish al-Izza, a close ally of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, near Masasneh in northern Hama. Separately, artillery strikes hit a HQ of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near al-Tamanah in southern Idlib killing several militants inside it.

Government troops also continued their operation against ISIS cells in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert. According to pro-government sources, the SAA further advances along the road towards the T3 pumping station seizing seized loads of weapons, medical supplies, satellite communication devices and a vehicle left behind by ISIS members.

On September 12, in an interview with Fox News, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley claimed that the US and its allies are going to pushing the Assad government not only for possible chemical attacks in Idlib, but for any attack, which hits civilians.

She also recalled allegations that the Assad government had already ordered to use chemical weapons in the area.

It should be noted that according to the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance, chemical attack provocations are being prepared by Idlib militants seeking to trigger a US-led military action against the Damascus government.

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

Twenty-five years ago, on 13 September 1993, the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shook hands on the lawn of the White House in Washington DC.

The occasion was the signing of a ‘declaration of principles’ that, in theory, would lead within five years to a comprehensive peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. The so-called Oslo process – ‘Oslo’ because the secret negotiations that led to the agreement took place in the Norwegian capital – marked a brief moment of optimism during a conflict that has now lasted seventy years, ever since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

The principal Israeli negotiator was Yossi Beilin, and he has just published a fascinating analysis of why that moment of optimism was so brief. In a nutshell: because extremists on both sides unleashed a cycle of violence that in effect stopped the process in its tracks, and because the Israeli side failed to recognise that in ‘asymmetrical negotiations’, the stronger party must be careful not to gain too much.

I find his analysis of particular interest as it closely matches some of what I reported fifteen years ago, on the tenth anniversary of the Rabin-Arafat handshake, as a result of which I got into all sorts of trouble with pro-Israel lobby groups.

And it casts an interesting light on some of the current debate about when, and how, criticism of Israel and Israeli government policies is legitimate. (None of what follows, by the way, is meant to imply that the Palestinian side is entirely free from blame in the continuing conflict. The lack of leadership is not confined to only one side.)

In an article for the BBC news website to mark the tenth anniversary of the Oslo accords, I reported from Jerusalem:

‘Within months of the [White House] signing ceremony, a Jewish settler shot dead 29 Muslim worshippers in a mosque in the ancient West Bank city of Hebron. A little over a month later came the first post-Oslo Palestinian suicide bomb. And in November 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish fanatic.’

Those statements, each of which was entirely true, were condemned at the time by an influential US-based, pro-Israel lobby organisation, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), as a ‘distortion of historical fact’. And in a critique of my accompanying radio report, it added: ‘Although Lustig tried to appear even-handed by interviewing both Israelis and Palestinians, it was clear he was not straying from BBC’s “blame Israel” line.’

Now compare what I reported fifteen years ago with what Yossi Beilin wrote this week:

‘The extreme right in Israel and Islamic groups used violence that we did not foresee to thwart the process and to denigrate it in the eyes of the public. The first murderous event occurred in February 1994, when a religious Jewish doctor from Kiryat Arba settlement, a reserve officer, entered the Hebron Cave of the Patriarchs in his military uniform and massacred 29 Muslims in cold blood and injured many others. The second event was the most dramatic: the assassination of Rabin in 1995 by an extremist Jew who did so explicitly to stop the process.’

Yossi Beilin held several ministerial positions in a succession of Israeli governments, including deputy foreign minister, minister of economy and planning, justice minister and minister for religious affairs. I think it would be quite a stretch to describe him as ‘anti-Israel’.

I dredge up these memories from long ago because too many people still try to argue that criticising Israeli government policies, or even pointing to shared Israeli responsibility in failure, is somehow tantamount to being antisemitic, or at the very least anti-Israel. (My reporting in 2003 was attacked by CAMERA as part of the ‘BBC’s consistent efforts to blame Israel.’ Once, when I was on a visit to Boston, they picketed the event at which I was due to speak and carried placards describing both me and a BBC colleague as antisemites.)

Back in 2003, I pointed out that one of the biggest failures of the Oslo process was that it did not include a commitment to halt the building of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. The pro-Israel lobbyists objected to that as well, but this week Yossi Beilin backed me up: ‘We succeeded in convincing the Palestinians not to mention a freeze in settlement construction, but Israel continued to build settlements after the Oslo agreement, and this was the gravest Israeli provocation.’

The wars in Syria, Yemen and Libya have knocked the Israel-Palestine conflict off the front pages. After all, how much reporting of endless Middle East conflicts can we take? But while we’ve all been obsessed with Brexit, President Trump has nonchalantly ordered the suspension of all US financial aid to the UN’s Palestinian relief organisation UNRWA and of an additional $25 million in aid to Palestinian hospitals in east Jerusalem.

The US president seems to think that the Palestinians can be bullied and threatened into submission. The hard-line Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has never made any secret of his deep antipathy to the Oslo agreement and all it represents, seems to think the same.

History will prove them wrong. And it is not, and never will be, antisemitic to say so.

*

Robin Lustig is a journalist and broadcaster. From 1989-2012 he presented Newshour on BBC World Service and The World Tonight on BBC Radio 4. He studied politics at the University of Sussex and began his journalistic career as a Reuters correspondent in Madrid, Paris and Rome. He then spent 12 years at The Observer before moving into broadcasting in 1989. He has extensive experience of covering major world events for the BBC, and has broadcast live programmes from Abuja, Amman, Baghdad, Berlin, Harare, Hong Kong, Islamabad, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Jerusalem, Kabul, Kosovo, Moscow, New York, Paris, Rome, Sarajevo, Shanghai, Tehran, Tokyo and Washington.

Featured image is from the author.

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

The successful actions of the Syrian Arab Army led to the almost total liberation of the country from various terrorist groups. The only exception is Idlib province, where militants who refused to lay down weapons and join nationwide reconciliation were transported along their family members.

Currently, the key actors in the province are Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) (around 16,000 fighters) (formerly Al Nusra) who control the major part of the region, including the provincial capital, and Bab al-Hawa Border Crossing, located not far from the Turkish border; Falaq al-Rahman (around 6,000 fighters); Nusrat al-Islam (2,500 fighters); Jaysh Al-Izza (approximately 6,000 fighters), and Ahrar al-Sham ( about 1,500 fighters). There are also a lot of foreign mercenaries from across the Middle East, Northern Africa, Asia, and CIS of up to several thousand persons.

According to different sources, from 50,000 to 100,000 militants remain in Idlib, armed with from 300 to 400 units of various armed vehicles. At the same time, they also armed with European-made assault rifles, heavy machine guns, mortars, ATGMs and, which repeatedly fell into the hands of the government forces after clashes with terrorists.

Nowadays, the last preparations are being made for the beginning of the counter-terrorist operation. Its success will allow the Syrian government to move towards a full-fledged political settlement of the crisis. In late August, Syria’s Defense Minister General Ali Abdullah Ayyoub stated that Damascus is determined to recapture Idlib and clear it from terrorists as a result of a large-scale military operation or by political means.

Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Hussam al-Din Ala claimed that Syria is determined to liberate Idlib from HTS and other affiliated groups and to return it to homeland like other regions liberated from terrorism.

It’s worth noting that the first precondition for the liberation of Idlib was created earlier in the year when the Syrian army units established full control over Abu al-Duhur airbase and hence deprive the jihadists of the only one landing strip and the opportunity to receive arms and weapons from the western sponsors. At present, the elite Tiger Forces headed by the legendary commander Suheil Al-Hassan, the 4th Armored Division and the units of the Republican Guard, led by Maher Assad, the younger brother of Syrian leader have already been deployed near the borders of the province.

Moreover, the former militants who joined the Syrians troops to take part in Idlib offensive. Around 400 former Jaysh al-Ababil militants went over to the government forces during the battle for the Eastern Ghouta and would be fighting along Tiger Forces.

Besides the open hostilities, the Syrian army uses proven methods, like dropping leaflets calling militants to lay down arms and surrender. Such tactics worked well during the liberation of Damascus suburbs and southern provinces when thousands of militants were amnestied and returned to peace.

The similar actions have already given positive results in Idlib province. According to a source in Syria’s high command, around 15,000 militants and their family members will soon leave the region through the humanitarian corridor in Abu al-Duhur.

Despite all the efforts of the Western State to destabilise the situation in Idlib by publishing false news on upcoming chemical weapons provocation and providing the jihadists with arms and weapons, the Syrian authorities have all the necessary to liberate the province completely. The courage of the Syrian army, as well as the support of the true allies, will let them to clear the province, and its liberation is just a matter of time.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Selected Articles: The Chemical Weapons Issue in Syria

September 14th, 2018 by Global Research News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

The Tech-Driven New ‘Business Model’ for the US Education System

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, September 14, 2018

As a further elaboration on this theme, here’s my verbatim reply to my well meaning colleague, who’s desire for a higher ed college model outside capitalist economy I share, but which I do not believe will happen. Nor do I think that the two main political parties, Republicans and Democrats, will do much, if anything, about the new tech-driven education business model displacing the current 4 year model. They will not prevent or slow the radical transformation of education in the US but will pass legislation to accelerate it.

U.S. Again Cries ‘Chemical Warfare’ in Syria

By Scott Ritter, September 14, 2018

The Syrian government, backed by Russian airpower and Iranian advisors, is preparing to undertake a major offensive designed to retake the province of Idlib from opposition forces. The newly appointed State Department Special Representative for Syria, Jim Jeffreys, claims that there is “Lots of evidence” that Syria is preparing to use chemical weapons, specifically chlorine gas, in support of the Idlib operation.

Bringing Down a President?

By Philip Giraldi, September 13, 2018

If anyone doubted that the top level of the intelligence agencies in Washington have dedicated themselves to ousting President Donald Trump, the past two weeks should have demonstrated precisely how such a plan of action is being executed. First came the leaked accounts of chaos in the Trump Administration derived from the Bob Woodward book Fear: Trump in the White House.

First They Came for Alex Jones, Then for Russian Cable News RT and Syrian TV. Going to War with Russia, Syria, Iran?

By Ann Garrison, September 13, 2018

Shortly after Alex Jones was kicked off Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, New York City residents let me know via email and Twitter that the Russian cable news outlet RT was gone in their area. They all reported the screen message, “Programming on this network is no longer available.” One said that he had called Spectrum customer service, where a representative confirmed that RT was no longer available, but with no further information. He complained and the rep said she’d pass it upstairs.

The Trump Administration’s Intent Is to “Let the ICC Die”.The International Criminal Court is “Illegitimate” according to Bolton

By J. B. Gerald, September 13, 2018

In a speech to the Federalist Society September 10th National Security Adviser John Bolton announced the U.S. will not cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court. Speaking for the President and Trump administration Mr. Bolton says the U.S. considers the International Criminal Court illegitimate, and he threatens its judges with denial of entry to the States, and impounding their financial assets, and with arrest, if they pursue cases which might “unjustly” place in jeopardy U.S. citizens. This threat extends to those assisting the Court.

Extreme Weather Events and the Seventh Mass Extinction of Species

By Dr. Andrew Glikson, September 13, 2018

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

Anger Soars as Israel Turns Mosque into Wine Shop

September 14th, 2018 by The Palestinian Information Center

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

Activists have unraveled underway Israeli efforts to turn a historical mosque in Majdal city, in territories occupied in 1948, into a museum and a liquor store.

A video posted on Facebook by activists from the so-called “Eraf Watanak” group shows the transformations made by the Israeli authorities who turned the mosque into a wine shop and an artistic exhibition hall.

Documents attached to the video show that the mosque dates back to the Ottoman era and that it was established following the liberation of Jerusalem by Salah al-Deen al-Ayoubi.

“This is another proof of Israeli plans to violate the sanctity of holy shrines,” Lawyer Khaled Zabarqa said. “The mosque still carries signs of its Islamic origin; it still has a minaret, a mihrab (a semicircular niche in the wall of a mosque that indicates the qibla, that is, the direction of the Kaaba in Makkah and hence the direction that Muslims should face when praying), and a minbar (a pulpit in the mosque where the imam stands to deliver sermons).

“To open a bar and a restaurant in the mosque is a dangerous violation of the sanctity of the site and a provocation to adherents of Islam everywhere in the world”, he further stated, calling on the concerned institutions to immediately step in and cease such Israeli aggressions.

*

Featured image is from PIC.

Neocons Plan: War in Syria, Then Iran

September 14th, 2018 by Adam Dick

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

Interviewed Tuesday by host Sharmini Peries at The Real News, Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor and former chief of staff for United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, warned that “the neoconservative agenda” for an escalated United States war on Syria followed by war on Iran has had a “resurrection” in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Regarding talk about the US taking military action in Syria in response to potential allegations of the use of chemical weapons — false flag or otherwise — in the country, Wilkerson comments that the war advocates are “looking for every excuse, any excuse, all excuses, to reopen US operations, major U.S. operations, against [President Bashar al-Assad] in Syria, always realizing that the ultimate target is Tehran.” Tehran is the capital of Iran.

Addressing previous allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syria government that were used to justify US military actions in the country, Wilkerson, who is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, states that he has seen “no proof” that Assad “ever used chemical weapons” and disparages the reputability of the White Helmets organization whose claims have been used to build support for US military actions in Syria.

Wilkerson further warns that the neoconservative agenda regarding war on Syria and Iran also threatens both conflict between the US and Russia and the long-term bogging down of US military forces in major conflict. Wilkerson states:

“My serious concern is about the way [US National Security Advisor John Bolton] and others in their positions of power now are orchestrating a scenario whereby Donald Trump, for political reasons or whatever, can use force in a significant way against Assad and ultimately Iran, because Iran’s forces are there, and ultimately against Russia, because their forces are there in Syria, and this is most disquieting.”

The neoconservatives’ military plan, argues Wilkerson, is “a recipe for” the US military being in the region for “the next generation” with significant force “mired even deeper in this morass” and with the “day after day” attrition of dollars and lives.

Watch Wilkerson’s complete interview here:


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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: A truck drove around Caracas with a banner from the grassroots commune movement, with a picture of Allende on it (@SAPI_ve / Twitter)

Thousands of pro-government supporters took to the streets in Caracas Tuesday in a show of support for President Nicolas Maduro, and to commemorate forty-five years since the vile coup d’etat in Chile which overthrew elected President Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973.

The mobilisation was also in opposition to recent revelations that the current US government had been holding regular meetings with “rebel” Venezuelan military commanders, who were trying to instigate a coup d’etat against the current government.

With the participation of a whole range of pro-government political parties, social movements, and organisations, the march coincided with the Congress of the youth wing of the governing United Socialist Party (JPSUV).

“What we are asking for is that they get their hands out of Venezuela (…) this we say to imperialism, to the enemies of the nation, to the reactionary international and national Right, this people is not willing to put up with more threats and persecutions,” stated Chavista leader Pedro Carreno at the march.

antiimperialist

Crowds gathered in the centre of Caracas to oppose imperialist intervention in Venezuela (Rayner Peña R)

One of the marchers, Janet Quintana, from the Guaicaipuro Vive collective in Miranda state, explained that

“We are rejecting the treason against our country, we reject the hostile interventionism of Mr Donald Trump, we reject all types of psychological or verbal violence against our nation because in Venezuela we are free and we have a participatory democracy.”

President Nicolas Maduro had previously paid homage to Salvador Allende by tweeting that

“We commemorate the eternal memory of the socialist leader Salvador Allende at the 45th year of the magnicide carried out by North American imperialism. His voice converted itself into millions of people who continue struggling for a fairer world. Allende lives, the struggle continues!” read his tweet.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuelans March to Commemorate Allende, Oppose Coup Threat

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

The two reactor Brunswick nuclear plant on the Cape Fear River in North Carolina may be critically threatened by flooding from hurricane Florence. The nuclear plant has a sea wall designed to withstand 22 feet of flooding according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The National Weather Service in Wilmington NC reported on Thursday that the Cape Fear River is expected to crest at up to 22 feet on Tuesday Sept. 17 swollen by hurricane Florence storm surge and downpours.

The seawall was constructed following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan after a tsunami overtopped the sea wall and damaged plant electric power and controls leading to catastrophic meltdowns and release of radiation.

The Brunswick reactors are the same GE Mark I reactors that are at Fukushima. It is highly likely that offsite power to the nuclear plant will be disrupted by hurricane Florence. In this case, onsite emergency generators will be required to maintain cooling systems for the nuclear plants and spent fuel ponds filed with highly radioactive waste.

If water overtops the seawall, it can lead to electrical failure and potential for catastrophic events similar to the Fukishima reactor disaster that resulted in multiple reactor meltdowns and hydrogen explosions in overheating reactors.

“It is extremely worrying that the Tuesday forecast is for a 22 foot flood crest at 22 foot sea wall at the Brunswick plant. Inadequate nuclear safety measures once again pose the unnecessary risk of catastrophic accidents,” said energy expert Roy Morrison.

*

Roy Morrison‘s latest book is Sustainability Sutra Select Books, NY 2017. He builds solar farms.

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

Jackie Wang’s Carceral Capitalism (MIT Press, 2018) is arguably one of the most wide-ranging, critical, and theoretically nuanced examinations of the political economy of the carceral state in the USA to date. While there has been a substantial growth in writing on the criminal justice system in recent years, particularly following critical engagement with Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow (2010), there remains important theoretical gaps in understanding the political and economic dynamics of mass incarceration under neoliberalism. Wang helps to fill those gaps by taking seriously the relevance of radical political economy to understanding the foundations of the carceral state and outlining the limitations of these approaches in acknowledging the centrality of anti-black racism which, as Wang notes, is “at the heart of mass incarceration” (85).

The main theoretical framework underpinning Wang’s analysis is her deployment of the concept of racial capitalism to capture the racialized dimensions of accumulation and class in the contemporary U.S. social system. Wang begins by examining Marx’s analysis of ‘primitive accumulation’ in Capital, and then Rosa Luxemburg’s extension of Marx through her work on the expanded reproduction of capital and the spatio-temporal dynamics of capitalism’s expropriating logic across the world market. Tracing Luxemburg’s analysis to David Harvey and his notion of ‘accumulation by dispossession,’ Wang then explores the limits of conventional Marxist analyses in adequately encompassing all the dynamics of oppression and class stratification in capitalist societies.

In drawing on analyses of racial capitalism and settler colonialism to uncover historical and contemporary forms of dispossession, expropriation, and disposability through state violence, Wang extends her analysis beyond exploitation in the realms of work and production. Rather, she argues that there are dual and mutually overlapping logics of exploitation and expropriation intrinsic to capitalist social systems. Indeed, Wang amends Harvey by adopting the term ‘racial accumulation by dispossession’ to demonstrate that carceral capitalism simultaneously homogenizes subjects through the wage relation and exploitation, but also differentiates them as racialized and gendered subjects (101).

The U.S. Carceral-Debt Economy

From here, Wang highlights two central modalities of oppression within the U.S. carceral-debt economy: predatory lending and parasitic governance. Underscoring financialization in the neoliberal period, Wang illustrates how, through administrative mechanisms that are apparently colour-blind, financialization intensifies expropriation through the inclusion of marginalized and racialized subjects into financial markets as opposed to their exclusion from credit markets, which characterized previous historical periods. In demonstrating the uneven accumulation of credit and uneven distribution of ‘risk’ across class and racial lines, Wang’s chapter on racial capitalism and the debt economy concludes that an anti-black racial order is produced by late-capitalist accumulation in the USA (120).

Analyzing a wide variety of forms and relations of indebtedness within the U.S. economy, from student debt, to securitized mortgage loans, to criminal justice debt, Wang unpacks the ‘racialization of risk’ embedded within the lending practices of financial institutions and the foundational structures of the U.S. economy more broadly (146). Within the context of a low-growth economy, when conventional forms of accumulation are reaching their limits and the low-income access to credit have been all but exhausted, Wang asserts that “fraud and predation become a way to secure profits and maintain growth as there are fewer and fewer domains for expansion” (148). Fraudulent lending practices, regressive surcharges and fees, and forms of high-pressure sales manipulation by financial institutions that target the most vulnerable populations have become central to new forms of surplus extraction within the USA. Wang’s analysis advances a novel theoretical placement of the dispossessions that produce racial capitalism alongside Marxist theorizations of accumulation, crisis, and the state.

Drawing on Marxist theories of public finance as well as Wolfgang Streeck’s notion of the transformation from a postwar ‘tax state’ to a neoliberal ‘debt state,’ Wang highlights the financialization of public debt. With the political ascendance of bondholders, she contends, “government bodies [have] become more accountable to creditors than to the public” through their debt-servicing obligations (18). Wang’s analysis thus uncovers surprising intersections between municipal finance and the new financial architecture of the U.S. criminal justice system as the courts and prison system adapt the neoliberal administrative practices of forging ‘user-funded public services’. Unlike most studies produced by legal scholars and non-profit advocacy groups, Wang situates the shift toward an ‘offender-funded’ criminal justice system in the post-2008 period within the crisis of public finances, particularly of cities, and the turn to fiscal austerity and the radical extension of the neoliberal practices of the ‘new public management’ across all levels of government.

Indeed, Wang shows how the fiscal collapse of cities and municipalities across the USA – from Flint, to Detroit, and Ferguson – emerged from the historical dynamics of financialization, de-industrialization, capital flight, and shifting tax regimes. In the post-2008 crisis period, the additional fiscal pressures prompted states to further download the costs of the carceral system onto offenders.

It is here that Wang makes the novel and controversial argument that the state increasingly relies on the criminal justice apparatus – from the array of fines and fees levied on users of the criminal justice system, to the civil forfeiture of ‘assets’ to police departments, and to the elaborate debt collection efforts of the criminal justice system – to expropriate funds from marginalized segments of the U.S. population. Notably, Wang calls these processes an ‘expropriative tax.’ Wang argues that these regressive methods of revenue extraction enable governments to recover some of the costs of the criminal justice system and serve as an indirect means for austerity-driven governments to service their debts (176). In making this argument, Wang illustrates how deeply engrained the criminal justice system is within the political economy of the USA.

In the second half of her book, Wang explores specific aspects of carceral capitalism. ‘Biopower’ and the construction of juvenile delinquency in the popular imaginary is taken up through an engagement with Agamben, Foucault, and Esposito; algorithmic policing technologies implemented across U.S. police departments form part of what can be summed up as a Silicon Valley-education-policing complex; the politics of safety and liberal anti-racism are probed for how they often constrain critical reflection and political action. Wang concludes with a discussion of potential ‘abolitionist futures’, draws again on Luxemburg for her sense of mass struggle, but also black radical thinkers such as W.E.B. Du Bois, George Jackson, and others. In all this, Carceral Capitalism illustrates the numerous intersections between carceral governance and capitalism in the U.S. and their political importance in American politics today.

Toward a Post-Capitalist, Post-Prison Future

A major political conclusion of Wang’s book is its engagement with prison abolitionism, a central theme of the prison reform movement. While Black Lives Matter, Indigenous groups, and immigrants’ rights organizations around the U.S. and Canada have continued to shed light on the importance of radically restructuring criminal justice apparatuses from their current form, these issues have not figured high on the agenda of the Left. With the intense level of political attention on the Trump administration’s abuse of immigrant families at the U.S. southern border, and calls from some progressive circles for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office, Wang’s text reminds us that all elements of the criminal justice system separate, terrorize, and brutalize many families every day, especially low-income, racialized, and immigrant working-class families.

In the book’s final chapter, entitled “The Prison Abolitionist Imagination: A Conversation,” Wang remarks that, just as it has been said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism, many believe that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine a world without prisons (297). While she certainly illustrates how deeply embedded the criminal justice system is within the capitalist system, Wang offers less in how an integrated anti-capitalist and prison abolitionist movement might take root. Nonetheless, as her argument demonstrates, the depth and scope of carcerality in the U.S. renders piecemeal reform of the criminal justice system not only strategically misguided but also self-defeating. From the surveillance software concocted in universities and sold to police departments by Silicon Valley startups, to the debt-collection companies that rely on the carceral state to collect and pursue unpaid debts, and the more prosaic elements of the criminal justice system, the carceral apparatus is deeply entwined in U.S. capitalism and remains a central issue around which the Left must mobilize in the making of a new working-class movement.

Carceral Capitalism is both an illuminating critique of the U.S. criminal justice system and a much-needed synthesis of anti-capitalist and abolitionist politics. The book is unconventional in form and structure, shifting from the author’s personal reflections on the U.S. criminal justice system, abolitionist poetry and writing, to a sophisticated critique of policing, power, and the political economy of capitalism and the carceral state in the USA. Wang’s analysis also has relevance for the Canadian context, where immigration detention centers continue to indefinitely detain Black and Brown immigrant populations, private security forces continue to proliferate at an unknown rate, and Indigenous populations continue to be targeted by the criminal justice system on a vastly disproportionate scale. There is the same need in Canada to re-insert creative and imaginative modes of thinking about reforming – even abolishing – the criminal justice and prison systems into the radical Left as part of an emancipatory future. Wang urges readers, activists, and onlookers that the prison – as a symbol of carceral capitalism – can only be undone by using “a mode of thinking that does not capitulate to the realism of the present” (298).

*

Dillon Wamsley is a doctoral student in the Department of Politics at York University in Toronto.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Racism and America’s Prison Economy: Carceral Capitalism and Anti-Capitalist Politics

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

As the Trump-Netanyahu conspiracy to destroy the indigenous people of former Palestine gathers pace: as the numbers of unemployed and starving in Gaza increase by the hour: as those without electricity, food and shelter reach crisis point: as disease and contagion spread – the world watches in silence as long-established, vital humanitarian aid is arbitrarily cancelled by Trump upon the demand of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, thereby directly threatening the existence of nearly two million Palestinians in Gaza.

In a scenario reminiscent of other notorious examples of ethnic cleansing, the Likud – White House initiative to destroy an entire people is today being carried out as more illegal settlements are authorised by the Netanyahu government on occupied Palestinian land in open violation and contempt of international law and the will of the United Nations.

The entire US-Israeli operation is a criminal endeavour by a White House under the open influence and funding of a cohort of evangelical Christians and other Zionists who bank-rolled the Trump Presidency using millions of casino dollars and who now act in concert on behalf of the Israel lobby to destroy the Palestinian people and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The EU and the U.N. Security Council must act now to stop this program of ethnic cleansing.   The first action should be to stop all trade with the Israeli state unless or until it complies in full with UNSC Resolution 2334; dismantles its illegal settlements and have those of its citizens in the Occupied Territories repatriated to Israel as demanded by the United Nations.

*

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

Featured image is from American Free Press.

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

Exclusive footage from the censored Al Jazeera documentary, “The Lobby – USA,” shows Israeli government officials taking credit for attacks on Black Lives Matter and reveals an Israel lobbyist explaining how his organization shut down a BLM fundraiser

***

When the Movement for Black Lives released a platform in August 2016 that supported the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement and identified Israel as an apartheid state engaged in a project of genocide against Palestinians, the Israeli government snapped into action.

Previously unreleased footage from Al Jazeera’s censored investigative documentary, “The Lobby – USA,” shows Israeli diplomats complaining about the Black Lives Matter “problem” and boasting about their cultivation of established black civil rights activists as pro-Israel proxies.

The footage also reveals how the Israel lobby orchestrated the sudden cancellation of a Black Lives Matter fundraiser at a New York City nightclub.

Recruiting black communal leaders into Israel’s war on Black Lives Matter

Just days after the Movement for Black Lives released its pro-BDS platform, Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter, James Kleinfeld (who appears as “Tony” in the documentary), attended the 2016 conference of the Israel American Council, or IAC.

Organized as a coalition of the most hardline Israel lobby groups in the US, from Christians United For Israel to the Israel on Campus Coalition, the IAC functions as the right-wing, pro-Likud supplement to AIPAC. With a massive cash infusion from pro-Israel oligarchs such as Sheldon Adelson and Adam Milstein, the IAC has emerged as one of the most powerful arms of Israel lobbying in America.

Kleinfeld attended a break-out session at the IAC conference that was packed with Israeli diplomats serving at consulates across the US. Their anxiety about the Movement for Black Lives platform statement was palpable.

“The major problem with Israel is with the young generation of the black community — Black Lives Matter starts there,” stated Judith Varnai Shorer, the Israeli consul general in Atlanta, Georgia.

Shorer boasted that she and other government officials were taking decisive measures to drive a wedge between established black community leadership and the new generation gravitating towards Black Lives Matter.

“I had last week a sit down dinner at my house for forty people which I considered the leadership of the black community,” the Israeli diplomat recalled. “Many very important people [were there]. They can be part of our doing and activities.”

Andy David, the Israeli consul general in San Francisco, California, described how he personally recruited Clarence B. Jones (image on the right), the former lawyer for Martin Luther King Jr., as an advocate for Israel.

“He’s somebody that I reached out to,” David said of Jones. “He became a close and personal friend. Because of that relationship he published three articles in the Huffington Post explaining why their agenda was hijacked.”

The articles David was referring to were a series of editorials Jones published in the Huffington Post during August 2017. Jones wrote as a civil rights elder concerned that linking efforts against police violence to the Palestinian struggle would disrupt community relations with Jews. He did not acknowledge his apparent relationship to the Israeli government or any input from Israeli officials.

“While the Black Lives Matters Movement may want to encourage the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands, we respectfully suggest that they should not make this a central or major issue in their current struggle for Police accountability for the repeated and successive shootings Blacks across America,” Jones argued.

While Jones’ editorials had negligible impact within Black Lives Matter circles, he represented an important asset for an Israel lobby that feared losing the support of black communal leadership. In 2014, when Jones was honored at the Israeli consulate in New York City, he claimed that “Martin Luther King Jr. would have supported Israel today.”

In his comments at the IAC conference, David, the Israeli consul general, claimed the former civil rights lawyer “wrote the draft speech for Martin Luther King – ‘I Have a Dream.’” Yet the accounts by Taylor Branch, the pre-eminent civil rights scholar and biographer of King, suggest that this was an exaggeration at best.

In the pages of Branch’s voluminous history of King from 1954-63, “Parting The Waters,” Jones is mentioned just once in connection the “I Have A Dream” speech — for his lawsuit against record companies that attempted to sell bootlegged copies of the address.

Branch’s accounts confirm Jones as confidant of King, but he appears to have functioned more as a strategist and paid legal counsel than as an ideological influence. The historian described Jones as “a California entertainment lawyer” known for his “handsome ebony face, sports car, tailored suits, colognes, European accessories, and brisk executive style…”

Touting his supposed friendship with Jones, the Israeli general consul, David, proclaimed, “Martin Luther Kind will turn in his grave if he saw the anti-Israel tendencies or policies that are starting to emerge within Black Lives Matter.”

An email from the Grayzone to Jones’ account at San Francisco State University, where he works as an adjunct professor, and a call to the Dr. Clarence B. Jones Institute were not returned.

Cancelling a Movement for Black Lives fundraiser 

The censored Al Jazeera documentary also reveals how The Israel Project, a major Israel lobbying organization in Washington, arranged the cancellation of a Movement for Black Lives fundraiser at a New York City nightclub.

The fundraiser was to have consisted of a concert directed by Tony award-winning actress Tonya Pinkins at the small Broadway club, Feinstein’s/54 Below. However, just days before the show, the owners of 54 Below announced that they were cancelling the event due to the opposition to Israel expressed in the Movement for Black Lives’ platform.

Because “we can’t support these positions, we’ve accordingly decided to cancel the concert,” the club owners stated.

Eric Gallagher, the development director of The Israel Project, took credit for axing the event.

“I don’t know if you saw that this club ditched a Black Lives Matter event,” Gallagher said to Kleinfeld, the undercover reporter. “One of our donors, we just put in a call to him and he put in a call to the place.”

Al Jazeera cancels “The Lobby – USA,” footage leaks out

In hopes of preventing the public from seeing the full breadth of its political subterfuge, including spying on American citizens in coordination with Israel’s Ministry of Strategy Affairs, the Israel lobby initiated a pressure campaign to prevent Al Jazeera’s release of “The Lobby – USA.”

The campaign consisted of visits by high profile Israel lobbyists Alan Dershowitz and Morton Klein to Doha, as well as threats from Congress to force Al Jazeera to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act if it aired the documentary. Qatar has since donated $250,000 to Klein’s Zionist Organization of America and other hardline Israel lobby outfits.

An August 29 article by the Wall Street Journal reported that Dershowitz and Klein were among 250 influential pro-Trump figures targeted by a Qatari lobbying blitz after the wealthy kingdom fell under embargo by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Qatari royal family’s goal was to preserve its relationship with the Washington by cultivating support within Trump’s inner circle, especially among his most hardline pro-Israel political fixers.

Electronic Intifada reported in June that Qatar had decided to nix “The Lobby” over “national security concerns.” According to reporters Asa Winstanley and Ali Abunimah, Qatari royals fretted that that release of the documentary could be a factor in provoking the US to pull its Al Udeid Airbase from the Gulf country at a time when it was under diplomatic attack by Saudi Arabia and UAE, both close allies of Israel and the US.

Despite the ban, pieces of the documentary have begun to trickle out. This August 27, Electronic Intifada released footage identifying Adam Milstein as a moving force behind the malicious anti-Palestinian blacklisting operation known as Canary Mission. The report came on the heels of a Grayzone exclusive naming pro-Israel lawyer Howard David Sterling as the owner of Canary Mission’s web domain.

More recently, the Grayzone released footage from “The Lobby – USA” showing Emergency Committee for Israel executive director Noak Pollak teaming up with the right-wing Hoover Institution to pay protesters to heckle a 2016 conference of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Reporter Alain Gresh has published a detailed review of the censored documentary at Le Monde Diplomatique. He confirmed an Electronic Intifada report from this March that the film revealed Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs director-general Sima Vaknin-Gil describing the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) as an unregistered agent of Israeli intelligence in its war against the BDS movement.

“Data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best. We have FDD. We have others working on this.” Vaknin-Gil stated in footage contained in the film.

Haaretz editor Amir Tibon has also covered the exclusive reports on the suppressed documentary by Grayzone and Electronic Intifada.

In a recent interview on The Real News and on the Electronic Intifada, journalist Asa Winstanley called for Qatar to end its censorship of Al Jazeera and release the full contents of the network’s documentary investigation into the Israel lobby.

*

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, The Fifty One Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza, and The Management of Savagery, which will be published later this year by Verso. He has also produced numerous print articles for an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie and the forthcoming Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded the Grayzone Project in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

All images in this article are from the author.

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

On September 12, Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) announced that it had abducted Yusuf Nazik, a suspect of the 2013 Reyhanli bombing, in the Syrian city of Lattakia and transported him to Turkey. According to the MIT, Nazik confessed that he participated in the 2013 attack on orders from Syrian intelligence units. He allegedly scouted the crime scene prior to the attack and moved explosives from Syria to Turkey.

On May 11, 2013, two car bombs exploded in the city of Reyhanli in Turkey’s Hatay Province killing 53 people. Then, the Turkish side accused the Syrian Intelligence and Turkish Marxist group Acilciler, now thought to be based in Syria, of being behind the attack. The Syrian side denounced these claims.

Then Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi de-facto placed responsibility for the attacks on the Turkish authorities.

“It was the Turkish government that had facilitated the flow of arms, explosives, vehicles, fighters and money across the border into Syria” he stated adding that Ankara “had turned the border areas into centres for international terrorism”.

Other versions of the incident suggest that ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra (now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) and other al-Qaeda-linked groups operating in the region may have been behind the attack.

In any case, the detention of Nazik and a new wave of Turkish accusations against the Damascus government over the 2013 bombing are a part of the ongoing standoff on the Idlib issue. Ankara’s efforts to show Syria as a state supporter of terrorism are designed to allow the Erdogan regime to take an upper hand in this standoff and to promote Turkish interests within Syria. A part of these interests is to rescue militant groups operating in Idlib and to keep this area outside of the zone of control of Damascus, thus creating another Turkish-occupied zone within the war-torn country.

On the same day, commanders of Turkish-backed groups of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) revealed to Reuters that Turkey has increased weapon supplies, including unguided rockets, to militant groups in the province of Idlib and nearby areas.

According to pro-government sources, militants already used a part of the supplied rockets to shell the government-controlled areas north of Lattakia city, particularly Sqoubin, al-Qanjarah, Demsarkho and Ugarit.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the National Defense Forces (NDF) made an advance against ISIS cells in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert securing the areas of Wadi Salhub and Bi’r Hajjah. The SAA and the NDF are now working to secure the entire road heading towards the T3 pumping station. Then, according to pro-government sources, they will be able to focus on securing the Doubayat gas field and the settlements of Bir Naji, Barabij, Sarayim and Nayriyah.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) captured the villages of al-Baghuz Fawqani and al-Kasrah as well as eliminated 41 ISIS members during the first 48 hours of their operation against ISIS in the Hajin pocket, the SDF announced.

The US-backed force is now developing its advance in the area aiming to eliminate the last ISIS stronghold on this bank of the Euphrates.

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

Fiji’s inclusion as the latest member of the US’ anti-Daesh coalition in Syria has nothing at all to do with protecting the island nation’s people from the world’s worst terrorist group but is the US’ way of pressuring the country to send a none-too-subtle signal to China.

A rather peculiar bit of news emerged earlier this week when the official Twitter account of the US’ “Operation Inherent Resolve”, the formal name of its anti-Daesh coalition in Syria, posted that the South Pacific Island nation of Fiji became the 79thmember of this campaign. The country is literally located on the other side of the world and has no interests whatsoever in the Mideast, nor is it facing any credible threat – whether immediate or latent – from the world’s worst terrorist group. No further details have been forthcoming thus far so it’s unclear whether Fiji will physically “fight Daesh” (which has nowadays become a euphemism for perpetuating the occupation of Kurdish-controlled northeastern Syria)  by volunteering its soldiers as cannon fodder for the US or if it’s just signing on for symbolism’s sake.

Whatever the official role that it’ll play in this multinational coalition, one thing is certain, and it’s that Fiji’s official membership in this US-backed military scheme is designed to send a none-too-subtle signal to China precisely at the moment that the US’ “Lead From BehindAustralian ally is flexing its regional muscles on Washington’s behalf. The proof of this was most visibly seen in Australia tightening its strategic vice-grip over Vanuatu after a fake news campaign fear mongered about an imaginary Chinese naval base there, which followed France’s reaffirmation of interest in the region and the de-facto creation of the “Hex” of anti-Chinese regional forces in the Afro-Pacific. Furthermore, Reuters recently made a hullabaloo about China’s supposed “weaponization of tourism” in Palau, thereby preconditioning the global public to accept the Pacific Islands as the latest theater of New Cold War competition.

For those who might not be aware of Fiji’s history, the country was recently shunned by the West after its 2006 military coup, the leader of which still serves as its Prime Minister. It was during that time that China brought the country in from the cold, proverbially speaking, and made impressive strategic inroads with the most influential state in this geographically broad but sparsely populated space. The West normalized its relations with Fiji since then after lifting its sanctions against the country in 2014, but it appears as though they’ve somehow managed to convince its leadership of the need to join the anti-Daesh coalition in Syria in order to also send a signal to its strategic partner China. It can’t be known for sure, but two possible explanations exist for why this happened.

The first one is that Fiji strategically capitulated to the US and Australia, striking some sort of deal with them to avoid any prospective anti-Chinese pressure against it in exchange for gradually moving away from Beijing. This interestingly resembles the second explanation except for its intent and intensity, which is that the decision shouldn’t be seen as anti-Chinese but rather as part of a delicate and circumstantially necessitated “balancing” act, the success of which could lead to the reinforcement and possibly even strengthening of China’s strategic presence there if it ends up deterring the “Hex” from destabilizing Fiji. It’s far too soon to say which of these two explanations most accurately accounts for why Fiji joined the anti-Daesh coalition, though it’s fair to say that it nevertheless sends a none-too-subtle signal to China that the US remains the South Pacific hegemon.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

A higher ed colleague of mine recently responded to my ‘Amazon the Job Killer’ piece (see post below) which described, in part, how the coming Artificial Intelligence tech revolution will destroy jobs at a rate and magnitude unforeseen before in US history, educational services included.

The colleague had previously shared a graphic with the faculty which highlighted the admirable slogans:

“Education is not a product. Students are not customers. Professors are not tools. The university is not a Factory!”

As a higher ed teacher, this colleague was especially concerned about my analysis of how AI would impact the dominant higher ed college model that has prevailed since 1945–i.e. the four year college experience, now on its last legs propped up increasingly by an unsustainable $1.5 trillion subsidization in the form of student loans, an ‘end of cycle’ solution that cannot continue beyond more than another decade. Certainly teachers would fight back, the colleague argued, as recent teacher strikes in some parts of the US have shown.

But my colleague’s four slogans are more a lament than a call to resistance, since all the four have already become a reality to a significant degree: Higher ed especially has become a product, students obviously are customers, professors are increasingly just tools–soon to be replaced by more efficient, more productive, and more profitable tech tools; and the university is an education factory, maintained by multi-trillion dollar subsidies from the central government that will unravel with the next major recession and economic crisis.

It is a business model that will, like other business models, soon be displaced by a more profitable model based on AI and related technologies. Higher college ed as we know it will largely disappear with the coming diffusion of AI tech throughout the US system. The ‘model’ off 4 year college will soon decline rapidly, I argued.

As a further elaboration on this theme, here’s my verbatim reply to my well meaning colleague, who’s desire for a higher ed college model outside capitalist economy I share, but which I do not believe will happen. Nor do I think that the two main political parties, Republicans and Democrats, will do much, if anything, about the new tech-driven education business model displacing the current 4 year model. They will not prevent or slow the radical transformation of education in the US but will pass legislation to accelerate it.

Here’s My Colleague’s Original Comments:

“well yes, this is a (technology) train that has left the station, but I can’t see the elite institutions succumbing. Small liberal arts institutions are digging their own grave and it is troubling, to say the least, to see so many cooperating in their own demise.”

My Subsequent Reply:

In ten years, K-12 teachers will be machine operator monitors, with lesson plans from software textbooks developed by bureaucrats and delivered to all students everywhere, on handheld devices and from in class monitors. (And eventually removed from brick & mortar classrooms altogether).

In the process, the same ‘cost saving’ K-12 model will quickly migrate to community colleges (already begun) and then to 4 year institutions (ditto, being planned and piloted). The higher education system you see today will be gone by 2035. No more ‘brick & mortar’ institutions. We are living in the twilight of the demise of higher education (and K-12 lower) as we know it. Artificial intelligence will make it all redundant. And the alternative that replaces it far more profitable. Nothing escapes the capitalist dynamic to cut costs and raise profit margins. Education services is no exception.

Yes, teachers will fightback on a local to local basis. But the AFT and NEA and others will continue to defer to the Democratic Party, which will prevent a more national teacher and public employee response to the crisis of jobs and wages for public workers of all kinds. Capitalists have all but destroyed the private sector unions. As I predicted several years ago the target was now the public unions. Next attack will be not only to legalize the open shop, as has been done. But to take away any dues checkoff and collection.

As for elite higher ed, agreed, some will continue the legacy brick and mortar education model (Harvards, Yales, etc.). Or, to put it another way, an ‘extended youth 4 year resort model’ for the well to do who can afford it and take a liberal arts approach to education. But college for the rest will become a glorified STEM training experience or nothing, delivered as I described. In the interim, hundreds of smaller liberal arts institutions will simply disappear.

Capitalism is increasingly unable to deliver, except for below quality jobs and income for most, when compared to what it had in the past. The next global recession, coming in late 2019 or early 2020 for sure, will occur with a Fed and monetary policy left with few response options (rates will have risen only to 3% at most, compared to 5.25% in 2007, and rate cuts will have little effect). And fiscal policy (more tax cuts and government spending) will be confronted with Trump $1 trillion annual deficits for at least another decade and $31 trillion national debt by 2028. So few options for stimulus policy there as well.

Watch for really draconian policy alternatives when the crisis hits, like freezing your savings or forcing you to convert savings to buy your bank’s worthless stock as a bailout). On the fiscal side, watch as they steal social security’s remaining $2.9 trillion Trust Fund’s surplus, and try to turn over medicare to the insurance companies. Private defined benefit pensions in the public sector will be dumped on the government’s PBGC (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) or on a new PBGC like government agency for the public sector, that will, like the private sector PBGC, pay half of what the benefit would have been.

The central political problem to stopping all this is the organization question. There’s no organizational alternative on the horizon for those wanting to challenge these conditions. The quality of the two mainstream parties shows they are in decline, and an alternative has not yet risen. Republicans are becoming Trump’s (and the ultra right) party; Democrats are refusing to allow Sanders and progressives to reform it. (Did you know that more than 100 members of the DNC are corporate heads and lobbyists?). Do you really think they’ll ever turn to economic issues and the working class again? Never, apart from just ‘talking the talk’. That’s why identity politics is their solution and marketing pitch.(My definition of Identity Politics: ‘Self-Divide and Self-Conquer’). Except for the west coast and northeast, the DP has lost influence across the board in state and local politics. In 80% of the states now they’re defunct. They’re a 20% party. Just a national parliamentary (congress) vote seeking party. Sanders’ (and the Our Revolution crowd) quixotic ‘inside-outside’ strategy to reform it is a joke.

Sorry to be so pessimistic. But I’m a devout materialist and refuse to pretty up the scenario. To sum up: AI will devastate conditions further for all but the few, and it will come faster than most think because it makes capital more profitable in a period when US capital is being increasingly challenged by foreign competitors.

Trump is a response to that. What he represents is a policy offensive designed to restore and ensure US global economic hegemony for another decade. He represents a new, more virile, aggressive and violent form of Neoliberalism, that requires a de-democratization domestically, an even more manipulable domestic workforce, and emerging US economic warfare globally against both challengers and allies alike.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Jack Rasmus.

Jack Rasmus is the author of the forthcoming book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: Economic Policy in the US from Reagan to Trump’, to be published by Clarity Press. His latest book is ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, 2017, also published by Clarity. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and his twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

U.S. Again Cries ‘Chemical Warfare’ in Syria

September 14th, 2018 by Scott Ritter

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: U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley at the UN this week. (Twitter/Nikki Haley/U.S. Govt)

Author’s Update 9/12/18: The Syrian government, backed by Russian airpower and Iranian advisors, is preparing to undertake a major offensive designed to retake the province of Idlib from opposition forces. The newly appointed State Department Special Representative for Syria, Jim Jeffreys, claims that there is “Lots of evidence” that Syria is preparing to use chemical weapons, specifically chlorine gas, in support of the Idlib operation.

For its part, Russia claims to have specific intelligence that al Qaeda affiliates, working in conjunction with the White Helmet organization, is preparing to stage a chlorine gas attack designed to look like it was done by the Syrian government. The U.S. has warned that it would launch a major military strike against not only the Syrian government, but also Russian and Iranian targets in Syria, if chemical weapons were used in Idlib.

The issue of provenance is as relevant today as when this article was originally written, with the OPCW still assessing information to determine how the chlorine canisters discovered at Douma got there, and who was responsible for their use. The Douma incident stands as a case study against the rush to judgment when it comes to the attribution of blame, and is even more relevant today, when the mere allegation of chemical weapons use in Syria could lead to a major escalation in the fighting:   

This summer the international monitoring organization tasked with investigating an alleged chemical weapons incident in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7 quietly published an interim report listing its preliminary findings.

Interestingly, the report, issued by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Nobel Peace Prize-winning agency mandated to implement the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, noted that “no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected” on the scene—more simply put, there was no evidence of Sarin nerve agent present at the incident site, despite wide speculation otherwise at the time of the incident.

In fact, this speculation, for which the Trump administration insisted it had evidence, was used as an excuse for the U.S., France, and the UK to launch a coordinated bombing campaign against the Syrian government on April 12.

The report also notes that “various chlorinated organic chemicals” were detected, along with traces of high explosives. The “chlorinated organic chemicals” listed by the OPCW are commonly found in residential environments; several are by-products of chlorinated drinking water. The OPCW report does not provide any information about the concentrations of these chemicals, nor their physical location in relation to the victims alleged to have been killed or injured in the incident. The OPCW is continuing to assess these findings for their significance before reaching any conclusion about their relevance and meaning.

These interim findings are a far cry from the statements made by various American officials in the aftermath of the Douma incident, for which they blamed the Syrian government. On April 13, 2018, Secretary of Defense James Mattis briefed the press following the strike on Syria. In attacking Douma, Mattis said, the Syrian government “decided to again defy the norms of civilized people, showing callous disregard for international law by using chemical weapons to murder women, children and other innocents.” Mattis later added that

“we have the intelligence level of confidence that we needed to conduct the attack,” noting, “we’re very confident that chlorine was used. We are not ruling out sarin right now.”

In the same briefing, Mattis was joined by General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who elaborated on the nature of the targets struck, noting that they were “specifically associated with the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons program,” including one that “was the primary location of Syrian sarin and precursor production equipment.”

The specificity of language used by Secretary Mattis and General Dunford, declaring Syria to have a chemical weapons program with a storage facility containing sarin nerve agent precursor production equipment, and that target modeling was conducted that took into account chemical-specific information in order to mitigate collateral damage, implied a degree of certainty backed by intelligence information that the OPCW findings simply do not support.

While the military attack on Syria in the aftermath of the Douma allegations represents the ultimate manifestation of poor intelligence, the genesis of the Douma intelligence failure did not begin with the Pentagon, but at the Headquarters of the OPCW in The Hague, Netherlands. There, the OPCW maintains an information cell within a situation center tasked with, among other things, collecting all-source information relating to the use of chemical weapons, providing initial assessments of all information with respect to its credibility, and then drafting reports based upon this analysis for use by the OPCW.

According to the OPCW interim report, the information cell monitored media reports about an alleged chemical weapons incident in Douma on April 7 and initiated a search of open-source information to assess the credibility of that allegation. The major sources of information used by the information cell in this task included news media, blogs, and the websites of various non-governmental organizations. The information cell assessed the credibility of the allegation as “high,” and as such the director-general of the OPCW ordered an investigation.

The OPCW has not detailed the methodology used by the information cell regarding its assessed findings. The sources of the images and initial information coming out of Douma, however, were known to be closely affiliated with the Jihadist group Jaish al-Islam, which controlled Douma during the time of the alleged chemical attacks. The “media association” run by Jaish al-Islam, claims that “media is a soft power through which social pressure is practiced,” a statement that should have guided the analysis of any product derived from sources affiliated with that entity. Jaish al-Islam was, at the time of the alleged chemical weapons attack, on the verge of being annihilated by the Syrian Army (indeed, the very next day, April 8, Jaish al-Islam agreed to a ceasefire arrangement which led to the evacuation of thousands of its supporters and their families from Douma.)

Another important factor is the medical findings published by the NGO Syrian-American Medical Society, or SAMS. On April 8, SAMS, in association with Syrian Civil Defense (better known as the “White Helmets”), released a press statement reporting that the day before, “more than 500 cases—the majority of whom are women and children—were brought to local medical centers with symptoms indicative of exposure to a chemical agent. Patients have shown signs of respiratory distress, central cyanosis, excessive oral foaming, corneal burns, and the emission of chlorine-like odor.”

The SAMS/White Helmet press release went on to note that,

“During clinical examination, medical staff observed bradycardia, wheezing and coarse bronchial sounds,” adding that, “The reported symptoms indicate that the victims suffocated from the exposure to toxic chemicals, most likely an organophosphate element.”

“Organophosphate” is a buzzword for sarin nerve agent. And the SAMS report makes clear that its evaluation of the clinical symptoms present among the Douma victims are also linked to chlorine exposure. The problem with the SAMS/White Helmet narrative is that sarin and chlorine don’t mix, a fact known to chemical warfare experts and duly documented in a U.S. Army study. In short, chlorine serves as a catalyst that promotes the decomposition of sarin nerve agent, meaning that if both substances were either combined or released together, the sarin would rapidly decompose.

Moreover, there seems to have been no effort on the part of the OPCW information cell to postulate alternative explanations about what could have caused the casualties that were depicted in the Douma videos. French intelligence, relying on an analysis of the same open-source information used by the OPCW information cell, noted that the symptoms observed in the images and videos “are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid.”

Two observations emerge from that statement. First is that the French have sustained the flawed predicate that chlorine and sarin were used together (“choking agents and organophosphorus agents”), which is an impossibility due to the inherent incompatibility of the substances. Second, the French had assessed that the symptoms observed were characteristic of exposure to hydrocyanic acid, a solution of hydrogen cyanide in water. Hydrogen cyanide is not associated with either chlorine or sarin nerve agent. It is, however, commonly linked to smoke emanating from structure fires. Eyewitness accounts from Douma indicated that there had been dozens of victims from the aerial bombardment that was ongoing, including many who died of asphyxiation in basements filled with smoke from fires ignited by the bombing.

That the OPCW information cell did not at least consider the possibility of a structure fire as the source of the victims observed in the images is indicative of a myopic approach toward analysis when it comes to the issue of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria.

This narrow-mindedness is in large part derived from the history of the OPCW in Syria, and the close operational bonds that organization has developed with anti-regime organizations such as SAMS and the White Helmets. The OPCW’s investigation of an alleged use of sarin nerve agent in the village of Khan Shaykhun in April 2017 revealed that it had provided training to the White Helmets on chemical sampling. It had also developed a working relationship with SAMS and the White Helmets concerning the identification of alleged victims of chemical weapons incidents, and the collection of medical samples used in investigating alleged chemical weapons events.

The front-loading of analytical conclusions by the OPCW information cell in the Douma case infected everything that followed. The State Department issued a statement on April 8 noting that

“The Duma victims’ symptoms, reported by credible medical professionals and visible in social media photos and video, are consistent with an asphyxiation agent and of a nerve agent of some type.”

While the statement is ostensibly sourced to SAMS, the White Helmets, and Douma Revolution, had the OPCW not endorsed these conclusions, but instead provided a more balanced assessment derived from logic (i.e., chlorine and sarin don’t mix) and the consideration of other possibilities (structure fires), perhaps the State Department would have been more measured in its own assessment.

Instead, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, drawing upon the same imagery used by the OPCW, made an emotional case that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government in Douma.

“I could hold up pictures of survivors,” she told the Security Council on April 9. “Children with burning eyes. Choking for breath. I could hold up pictures of first responders. Washing the chemicals off of the victims. Putting separate respirators on the children. Families lying motionless with babies still in the arms of their mothers and fathers.

“I can hold up pictures of all of this killing and suffering for the council to see. But what would be the point?” she added. “The monster who was responsible for these attacks has no conscience. Not even to be shocked by pictures of dead children.”

Haley’s melodrama was matched by President Donald Trump, who tweeted

“Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria.”

Five days later, the U.S.-French-British bombing commenced.

That the U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communities allowed themselves to be manipulated in such a fashion should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with their respective records regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or Iranian nuclear weapons. At the end of the day, however, the decision to use military force should be based on something more than intelligence “assessments” driven by incomplete and possibly misleading information—there should be a concerted effort to ascertain the truth before acting.

In the case of Douma, “truth” (i.e., a factual determination as to whether chemical agent was used) was the domain of the OPCW, and in particular the inspectors of the Fact-Finding Mission organized and mandated to carry out inspections of alleged chemical weapons usage inside Syria. The assessments conducted by the OPCW information cell, however flawed, resulted in the director-general ordering an investigation to be conducted into the Douma allegation. Rather than supporting the OPCW’s efforts in this regard, however, the United States began to attack the credibility of any findings that might accrue from such an investigation by pushing a narrative that held that the Syrian government and their Russian allies were deliberately delaying the access of OPCW inspectors to the Douma site in order to allow evidence of their guilt to degrade.

“Syrian regime forces and their allies are denying international monitors access” to the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, the State Department proclaimed on April 8. President Trump ran with this, declaring in a tweet that the “area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world.” Interestingly, these announcements pre-dated the initial request of the OPCW to send inspectors to Syria by two days—a request which was made at the same time both Syria and Russia were formally requesting the OPCW to come to Syria to investigate the Douma allegations.

However, the OPCW report clearly shows that both the Syrian and Russian governments fully cooperated with the OPCW to provide secure access to Douma, and that any delays that occurred were due to legitimate security issues impacting inspector safety.

Now it looks like the reason the Americans and others accused Russia and Syria of delaying the work of the OPCW inspectors is that they suspected—no matter how much argued to the contrary—conclusive evidence wasn’t there to justify the April 12 military strikes. The United States laid out a military campaign predicated in large part by the notion that Syria continued to possess stocks of deadly sarin nerve agent and was using them against its own people. If one accepted at face value that sarin nerve agent was, in fact, used against Douma, then it automatically followed that there could be sarin-affiliated targets inside Syria worthy of attack.

But if the underlying assumption that sarin nerve agent was used has been proven false, then what does that say about the quality of the intelligence information and associated analysis used to justify American military action? Was the intelligence assessment regarding sarin precursor production equipment based on intelligence independent of the allegations of sarin use put forward by SAMS and the White Helmets, or colored by that erroneous conclusion?

American intelligence is currently being used to bolster charges of malfeasance in North Korea and Iran, and to sustain the potential use of military force if either situation deteriorates further. In a world where the memory of the WMD fiasco in Iraq is still fresh, one would hope that the U.S. intelligence community would attempt to avoid the mistakes of the past, where intelligence was shaped to conform to a political decision developed independent of facts. Given what the OPCW report has revealed, it appears that in the case of Douma, this lesson was forgotten or ignored. Going forward, it is essential that this not be the case, if for no other reason that a war with either North Korea or Iran will be far more consequential than a one-time missile attack against Syria.

*

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

On the Brink with Russia in Syria Again, 5 Years Later

September 14th, 2018 by Ray McGovern

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

The New York Times, on September 11, 2013, accommodated Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s desire “to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders” about “recent events surrounding Syria.”

Putin’s op-ed in the Times appeared under the title: “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In it, he warned that a military “strike by the United States against Syria will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders … and unleash a new wave of terrorism. … It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.”

Three weeks before Putin’s piece, on August 21, there had been a chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed. There soon emerged, however, ample evidence that the incident was a provocation to bring direct U.S. military involvement against Assad, lest Syrian government forces retain their momentum and defeat the jihadist rebels.

In a Memorandum for President Barack Obama five days before Putin’s article, on September 6, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) had warned President Barack Obama of the likelihood that the incident in Ghouta was a false-flag attack.

Despite his concern of a U.S. attack, Putin’s main message in his op-ed was positive, talking of a growing mutual trust:

“A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. [Syria’s chemical weapons were in fact destroyed under UN supervision the following year.]

“I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive … and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust … and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.”

Obama Refuses to Strike

In a lengthy interview with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published in The Atlantic much later, in March 2016, Obama showed considerable pride in having refused to act according to what he called the “Washington playbook.”

He added a telling vignette that escaped appropriate attention in Establishment media. Obama confided to Goldberg that, during the crucial last week of August 2013, National Intelligence Director James Clapper paid the President an unannounced visit to caution him that the allegation that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouta was “not a slam dunk.”

Clapper’s reference was to the very words used by former CIA Director George Tenet when he characterized, falsely, the nature of the evidence on WMD in Iraq while briefing President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in December 2002. Additional evidence that Ghouta was a false flag came in December 2016 parliamentary testimony in Turkey.

In early September 2013, around the time of Putin’s op-ed, Obama resisted the pressure of virtually all his advisers to launch cruise missiles on Syria and accepted the Russian-brokered deal for Syria give up its chemical weapons. Obama follow public opinion but had to endure public outrage from those lusting for the U.S. to get involved militarily. From neoconservatives, in particular, there was hell to pay.

Atop the CNN building in Washington, DC, on the evening of September 9, two days before Putin’s piece, I had a fortuitous up-close-and-personal opportunity to watch the bitterness and disdain with which Paul Wolfowitz and Joe Lieberman heaped abuse on Obama for being too “cowardly” to attack.

Five Years Later

In his appeal for cooperation with the U.S., Putin had written these words reportedly by himself:

“My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’ It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

In recent days, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, has left no doubt that he is the mascot of American exceptionalism. Its corollary is Washington’s “right” to send its forces, uninvited, into countries like Syria.

“We’ve tried to convey the message in recent days that if there’s a third use of chemical weapons, the response will be much stronger,” Bolton said on Monday. “I can say we’ve been in consultations with the British and the French who have joined us in the second strike and they also agree that another use of chemical weapons will result in a much stronger response.”

As was the case in September 2013, Syrian government forces, with Russian support, have the rebels on the defensive, this time in Idlib province where most of the remaining jihadists have been driven. On Sunday began what could be the final showdown of the five-year war. Bolton’s warning of a chemical attack by Assad makes little sense as Damascus is clearly winning and the last thing Assad would do is invite U.S. retaliation.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, with remarkable prescience, has already blamed Damascus for whatever chemical attack might take place. The warnings of direct U.S. military involvement, greater than Trump’s two previous pin-prick attacks, is an invitation for the cornered jihadists to launch another false-flag attack to exactly bring that about.

Sadly, not only has the growing trust recorded by Putin five years ago evaporated, but the likelihood of a U.S.-Russian military clash in the region is as perilously high as ever.

Seven days before Putin’s piece appeared, citizen Donald Trump had tweeted:

“Many Syrian ‘rebels’ are radical Jihadis. Not our friends & supporting them doesn’t serve our national interest. Stay out of Syria!”

In September 2015 Trump accused his Republican primary opponents of wanting to “start World War III over Syria. Give me a break. You know, Russia wants to get ISIS, right? We want to get ISIS. Russia is in Syria — maybe we should let them do it? Let them do it.”

Last week Trump warned Russian and Syria not to attack Idlib. Trump faces perhaps his biggest test as president: whether he can resist his neocon advisers and not massively attack Syria, as Obama chose not to, or risk the wider war he accused his Republican opponents of fomenting.

*

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years, and was a Presidential briefer from 1981 to 1985.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

In an unprecedented attack on one of the most important judicial bodies in the world, National Security Advisor John Bolton on Monday threatened to sanction the International Criminal Court and its staff if the court approves a full investigation into U.S. torture in Afghanistan. The U.S. is not a member of the court, but it has supported the court’s efforts to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable — as long as those efforts don’t involve U.S. or close allies.

In a speech at the Federalist Society, Bolton said of the ICC,

“We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the U.S. criminal system.”

While Bolton’s hostility to international bodies in general — and to the ICC in particular — is not new, he is now setting a new policy on behalf of the U.S. government.

He also made misleading statements and old, half-baked arguments to support the U.S.’s new approach of treating well-respected judges and prosecutors like it treats international drug traffickers or suspected foreign war criminals.

For example, Bolton suggested that the court could investigate and prosecute “acts of aggression” by the United States, warning that the term could be used to cover many U.S. policies. This is fear-mongering and incorrect. In reality, the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression by non-members — and even members must specifically agree to it.

The true reason for the policy now is that the Trump administration wants to stop a long-overdue investigation into U.S. torture. The administration’s threats come as former U.S. officials face, for the first time, the possibility of a full criminal investigation by the court for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an ICC member, which means that the court can prosecute crimes committed there since May 2003 when it joined the court. The impending investigation would also cover CIA torture at secret “black sites” in three European countries that are members: Poland, Romania, and Lithuania.

The ICC prosecutor’s office announced a preliminary examination in 2007 into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. In November 2017, the ICC prosecutor announced that she was seeking a full investigation, which can lead to prosecutions. The full investigation is awaiting authorization by the ICC’s “Pre-Trial Chamber.”

A full investigation would cover crimes by all parties involved in the war since 2003, including the Taliban, Afghan forces, and allied forces including the United States. The investigation could cover acts by civilian and military leaders who approved the illegal torture regime.

Obviously, the Trump administration doesn’t want this to happen. Indeed, in talking about the reasons behind Bolton’s remarks, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that the ICC had just informed the administration that a decision on the investigation was imminent.

A Bush-era law prohibits the government from assisting the ICC in extraditing U.S. citizens, and bars military aid to countries that are ICC members (with some exceptions). However, there is no legal basis for the Trump administration’s threat to criminally prosecute ICC judges and prosecutors and hit them with travel and financial sanctions.

The long-term goal of the Trump administration is clearly to attack the ICC’s legitimacy and pressure other countries to cut its funding and boycott it. This misguided and harmful policy will only further isolate the United States from its closest democratic allies — every other member of NATO except Turkey has joined the ICC. Bolton’s words of intimidation also give solace to war criminals and oppressive regimes seeking to evade consequences for their crimes.

The Trump administration’s new policy is a dangerous attack on the rule of law and an affront to survivors of U.S. torture who have been denied justice for the past 15 years — including during the Obama administration, which decided to “look forward not backward” and failed to hold former Bush administration officials accountable for their torture policy.

This week’s attack on the ICC is also the latest salvo in the Trump administration’s campaign to undermine universal human rights and international bodies. Previous offenses include withdrawing from the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Trump has also pulled out of the negotiations leading up to the Global Compact on Migration, attacked a U.N. independent human rights expert investigating poverty in the United States, and refused to appear at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The American people and our political representatives in Congress must push back against these dangerous actions. The Trump administration’s move must also be strongly resisted by allies abroad to prevent further damage to institutions that were created to fight impunity and hold rights violators accountable.

*

Featured image is from South China Morning Post.

Die Liberty Passion lief am 8. August und die Liberty Promise am 2. September im Hafen von Leghorn ein, wo die Liberty Pride am 9. Oktober ankommen wird. Die drei Schiffe werden dann nacheinander am 10. November, 15. Dezember und 12. Januar nach Leghorn zurückkehren.

Es handelt sich um riesige Ro-Ro-Schiffe, 200 Meter lang und mit 12 Decks, die jeweils 6500 Autos transportieren können. In Wahrheit  tragen sie keine Autos, sondern Panzer.

Sie sind Teil einer US-Flotte von 63 Schiffen, die privaten Unternehmen gehören, die im Auftrag des Pentagons kontinuierlich Waffen weltweit entlang der Häfen der USA, des Mittelmeers, des Nahen Ostens und Asiens transportieren.

Der Hauptanlaufpunkt im Mittelmeer ist Leghorn, da es mit dem benachbarten US-Basis Camp Darby verbunden ist.

Worin die Bedeutung des Stützpunktes besteht, erklärte Oberst Erik Berdy, Kommandant der Garnison der US-Armee in Italien, bei einem kürzlichen Besuch bei der Zeitung “La Nazione” in Florenz.

Die logistische Basis, die sich zwischen Pisa und Livorno befindet, ist das größte Waffenlager der USA außerhalb der Heimat. Der Colonel hat den Inhalt der 125 Bunker von Camp Darby nicht genau benannt. Er kann auf über eine Million Artilleriegeschosse, Flugbomben und Raketen sowie Tausende von Panzern, Fahrzeugen und andere militärische Gegenstände geschätzt werden.

Es kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass es in der Basis Atombomben gegeben hat, gibt oder geben wird.

Camp Darby – betonte der Oberst – spielt eine Schlüsselrolle: Es liefert Waffen an die US-Boden- und Luftstreitkräfte in viel kürzerer Zeit, als sie bei einer direkten Lieferung aus den USA erforderlich wäre. Die Basis lieferte die meisten der Waffen, die in den Kriegen gegen den Irak, Jugoslawien, Libyen und Afghanistan eingesetzt wurden.

Da die großen Schiffe seit März 2017 monatlich in Leghorn einlaufen, werden die Waffen von Camp Darby ständig zu den Häfen von Aqaba in Jordanien, Jeddah in Saudi-Arabien und anderen Häfen im Nahen Osten transportiert, die von den USA und den alliierten Streitkräften in den Kriegen in Syrien, Irak und Jemen genutzt werden. Auf ihrer  Jungfernfahrt entlud die Liberty Passion im April 2017 in Aqaba 250 Militärfahrzeuge und andere Materialien.

Zu den Waffen, die jeden Monat auf dem Seeweg von Camp Darby nach Jeddah transportiert werden, gehören sicherlich auch US-Bomben, mit denen die saudische Luftwaffe (wie Fotobeweise zeigen) Zivilisten im Jemen tötet.

Es gibt auch ernsthafte Hinweise darauf, dass die großen Schiffe in der monatlichen Verbindung zwischen Leghorn und Jeddah auch Fliegerbomben transportieren, die von RWM Italia von Domusnovas (Sardinien) aus nach Saudi-Arabien für den Krieg im Jemen geliefert wurden.

Durch den verstärkten Waffentransit durch das Camp Darby reicht die Kanal- und Straßenverbindung der Basis mit dem Hafen von Leghorn und dem Flughafen von Pisa nicht mehr aus. Daher wurde eine massive Reorganisation der Infrastruktur beschlossen (bestätigt durch Oberst Berdy), einschließlich einer neuen Eisenbahn. Der Plan sieht die Zerstörung von 1000 Bäumen in einem Schutzgebiet vor. Sie wurde jedoch bereits von den italienischen Behörden genehmigt.

Dies alles ist nicht genug. Der Präsident des toskanischen Regionalrates Giani (Pd), der Oberst Berdy empfing, verpflichtete sich, “die Integration zwischen dem US-Militärstützpunkt Camp Darby und der umliegenden Gemeinschaft” zu fördern. Eine Position, die im Wesentlichen von den Bürgermeistern Pisas Conti (Lega) und Livornos Nogarin (M5S) geteilt wird. Letzterer, der Oberst Berdy und den damaligen US-Botschafter Eisenberg empfing, hisste die Stars and Stripes-Flagge am Rathaus.

Manlio Dinucci

(il manifesto, 11. September 2018)

Übersetzung: K.R.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on VIDEO- Die Kunst des Krieges . Die größte US-Waffenkammer in Italien

No dia 8 de Agosto de 2018 fez escala no porto de Livorno,o navio Liberty Passion (Paixão pela Liberdade) e no dia 2 de Setembro, o Liberty Promise (Promessa de Liberdade), que serão secundados, no dia 9 de Outubro, pelo Liberty Pride (Orgulho da Liberdade). Os três navios regressarão a Livorno, sucessivamente, nos dias 10 de Novembro, 15 de Dezembro e 12 de Janeiro de 2019. São navios Ro-Ro enormes, com 200 metros de comprimento e 12 pontes, cada um capaz de transportar 6500 automóveis. Mas eles não carregam carros, mas tanques. Fazem parte de uma frota norte-americana de 63 navios pertencentes a empresas privadas que, por conta do Pentágono, transportam armas continuamente num circuito mundial entre os portos dos EUA, do Mediterrâneo, do Médio Oriente e da Ásia. A escala principal do Mediterrâneo é Livorno, porque o seu porto está ligado à base americana limítrofe de Camp Darby.

Qual é a importância da base foi recordado pelo coronel Erik Berdy, comandante da guarnição do Exército dos EUA em Itália, numa visita recente ao jornal “La Nazione” em Florença. A base logística, situada entre Pisa e Livorno, é o maior arsenal dos EUA fora da pátria. O coronel não especificou o conteúdo dos 125 bunkers em Camp Darby. Pode ser estimado em mais de um milhão de projécteis de artilharia, bombas para aviões e mísseis, além de milhares de tanques, veículos e outros materiais militares. Não pode ser descartado que, no futuro, nessa base estiveram, estão ou podem ter estado bombas nucleares.

Camp Darby – sublinhou o coronel – desempenha um papel fundamental, reabastecendo as forças terrestres e as áreas dos EUA num espaço de tempo muito mais curto do que seria necessário se elas fossem abastecidas directamente pelos USA. A base forneceu a maioria das armas para as guerras contra o Iraque, Jugoslávia, Líbia e Afeganistão. Desde Março de 2017, com os grandes navios que param mensalmente em Livorno, as armas de Camp Darby são constantemente transportadas para os portos de Aqaba na Jordânia, Jeddah na Arábia Saudita e outros portos do Médio Oriente para serem usados pelas forças americanas e pelas forças aliadas nas guerras na Síria, no Iraque e no Iémen.

Na sua viagem inaugural, o Liberty Passion desembarcou 250 veículos militares e outros materiais em Aqaba, em Abril de 2017. Entre as armas que são transportadas por mar todos os meses, de Camp Darby a Gedda, certamente há também bombas americanas para aviões que a aviação saudita emprega (como evidenciado por provas fotográficas) para matar civis no Iémen. Há também sérios indícios de que, na ligação mensal entre Livorno e Gedda, os grandes navios também transportam bombas aéreas fornecidas pela RWM Itália (Radioactive Waste Management) de Domusnovas (Sardenha) http://www.sardiniapost.it/inchieste/rwm-la-fabbrica-bombe-promuove-la-salute-utile-oltre-15-mln/ à Arábia Saudita para a guerra no Iémen.

Como resultado do aumento do trânsito de armas de Camp Darby, a ligação por canal e estrada, da base com o porto de Livorno e o aeroporto de Pisa, já não é suficiente. Uma reorganização maciça da infraestrutura foi decidida (confirmada pelo Coronel Berdy), incluindo um caminho de ferro novo. O plano envolve o abate de 1000 árvores numa área protegida, mas já foi aprovado pelas autoridades italianas. Tudo isto não basta. O Presidente do Conselho Regional da Toscana, Giani (Pd), recebendo o coronel Berdy, prometeu “promover a integração entre a base militar dos EUA de Camp Darby e a comunidade que a circunda”. Posição substancialmente partilhada pelo prefeito de Pisa, Conti (Lega) e de Livorno, Nogarin (M5S). Este último, recebendo o coronel Berdy e depois o Embaixador americano Eisenberg, içou a bandeira de estrelas e riscas, na Comuna.

Manlio Dinucci

Il manifesto, 11 de Setembro de 2018

Video em italiano com subtítulos em português :

 

Traduzido do italiano por Luisa Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on VIDÉO – A Arte da Guerra. Em Itália, o maior barril de pólvora USA.

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

The successful realization of the E-40 waterway project, a little-known initiative to link the Baltic and Black Seas via a renovated system of canals, might be enough to disrupt Belarus’ delicate “balancing” act in favor of the West if its crucial Polish component is completed in the near future.

The NED-funded “EurasiaNet” outlet ran a story about the efforts of environmental protesters to disrupt a planned series of canals in Belarus that would form part of a larger network of waterways connecting the Baltic and Black Seas, a little-known project referred to as the E-40. (see map below)

 

 

Although initiated back in 2014, most of the global media ignored this game-changing vision of regional connectivity, but an excellent analysis about its geostrategic implications was written by Siarhei Bohdan at Belarus Digest. The expert concludes that Belarus would be able to diversify its export routes to the global marketplace and therefore lessen its dependence on Russia. Given that this outcome would naturally have consequences for the course of the New Cold War, it’s worthwhile to take advantage of the attention that “EurasiaNet” drew to the E-40 and examine this proposal more in detail.

The “Viking Silk Road”

The guiding concept behind this series of projects is to restore the Viking-era trade routes that used to run through the region over a millennium ago, thereby making it an indigenous European version of China’s famous Silk Road. According to the E-40’s official website, the main component that needs to be reconstructed is the canal system along eastern Poland’s Western Bug River between the capital of Warsaw and the Belarussian border city of Brest. Environmentalists object to the ecological impact that this could have on local flora and fauna, and they’re also equally worried about the smaller section that’s planned to run through southern Belarus’ pristine Pripyat River, too. Nevertheless, if these NGO obstacles can be surmounted – whether by ignoring their demands for rerouting part of the project or reaching some sort of compromise with them – then the E-40 is bound to revolutionize regional geopolitics.

Taken to its natural conclusion, the E-40 would lead to the disruption of Belarus’ delicate “balancing” act, elaborated on in detail by the author in a piece for Global Research earlier this summer, and possibly even see the Eurasian Economic Union-member drift away from Moscow like Armenia is presently doing in order to explore a trade deal with the EU. It’s been immensely challenging for Russia to counter the West’s structural subterfuge of its peripheral partners (and in the case of CSTO and EAU members Armenia and Belarus, legal allies), and it’s thus found itself in a quandary over how to respond out of concern that ignoring this trend would be strategically suicidal while reacting too decisively could be equally counterproductive. As Russia struggles with this dilemma, Belarus’ wily leader Lukashenko is masterfully exploiting it to his advantage to reap more benefits from Moscow and Brussels.

The Polish Pivot 

Over the past year, however, Lukashenko has also engaged in an informal rapprochement with neighboring nemesis Poland, which had hitherto been obsessively dedicated to his removal from office through its hosting of anti-government NGOs and consistent political opposition to his leadership in general. That evidently began to change after February 2017 when Lukahsneko began speaking out more forcefully against Russia, which the author provocatively addressed in his piece at the time wondering whether “Belarus Is On The Brink Of Pivoting Away From Russia”. The past 18 months must have been full of fruitful behind-the-scenes discussions between Belarus and Poland because of the three high-profile events and statements that just recently took place.

The Polish Ambassador to Belarus met with his host’s Chairman of the National Assembly last month and publicly revealed that trade was up an astounding 21% over the past two years and that both sides will continue to invest in one another.  Shortly thereafter, the Polish Investment and Trade Agency announced its eagerness to continue cooperating with Belarusian companies. Most surprising, however, was the Belarusian Defence Ministry declaring in late August that it’s holding consultations on regional and international military cooperation with Poland, NATO’s vanguard state in Central & Eastern Europe and the site of a planned US military base that’s riled Russia to no end.

Connecting The “Three Seas” To China

Belarus’ Polish pivot will probably also lead to it eventually joining the Warsaw-led “Three Seas Initiative”, a region-wide connectivity platform that basically functions as the 21st-century manifestation of the interwar “Intermarium” project for reviving Poland’s long-lost hegemony, as this would pair perfectly with any prospective Armenian-like EU trade agreement too. Lukashenko was likely emboldened by the fact that tiny Armenia and its new Color Revolutionary Prime Minister Pashinyan was able to clinch such a deal with the EU without any open Russian objections, so it would make sense that his much larger country and its much more “trusted” leadership would try to follow in Yerevan’s footsteps as it seeks to advance its interests by “balancing” between the EU/”Three Seas” and EAU blocs. As he might see it, this could make Russia reconsider taking his country’s “loyalty” “for granted”.

It shouldn’t be overlooked that Poland is China’s top partner in the Central & Eastern European space, thus making Warsaw’s “Three Seas Initiative” of crucial interest to Beijing. Accordingly, China might decide to export some of the products from the China-Belarus Industrial Park that it’s building in Minsk, which is one of its main Silk Road nodes on the continent, along the E-40 for easily connecting with the Scandinavian and Black Sea regional marketplaces. The latter could also link up with the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route that China’s streamlining through the Caucasus and Central Asia and which was mapped out by the author in an earlier analysis about the global significance of the Via Carpathia initiative in Romania. This could in turn guarantee Chinese-Belarusian trade even in the event that Minsk’s relations with Moscow deteriorate due to its Westward pivot.

Concluding Thoughts

For as apparently irrelevant as it might look at first glance, the successful renovation of the Polish canal system between Warsaw and the Belarusian border city of Brest could actually be a geopolitical game-changer in the Central & Eastern European theater of the New Cold War if it expectedly leads to Belarus binning its “balancing” act in favor of a more pronounced pro-Western pivot towards Poland, with all of the resultant implications for the Eurasian Economic Union, the “Three Seas Initiative”, and China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity. The first-mentioned would be thrown even deeper into the dilemma that Armenia first made for it after that EAU-member state pushed forward with its own EU trade agreement if Belarus decides to follow suit, which would naturally facilitate Minsk’s partnership with the “Three Seas” and resultantly serve as yet another trade corridor for China.

Russia is therefore left in a conundrum because it’s unsure of how to respond to this seemingly unexpected but not entirely unforeseeable scenario. Reacting too decisively risks “legitimizing” Lukashenko’s Westward pivot and serving as the tripwire for the EU to potentially offer Belarus a (Polish-led?) support package for relieving any adverse effects that could come from Russia curtailing valuable subsidies to the landlocked country, even if Moscow does so on what it claims is an unrelated and apolitical pretext. On the other hand, ignoring the reality of what’s unfolding risks “normalizing” Lukashenko’s pivot and implying that Russia is proudly subsidizing it for some inextricable reason. Either way, Russia’s “damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t” respond to Belarus, but regardless of what it may or may not do, the renovation of E-40’s crucial Polish canal component could proceed independently thereof and Moscow might not be able to do anything about its long-term geostrategic consequences.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New Viking Silk Road: The E-40 Waterway Project Linking the Baltic to the Black Sea
  • Tags: ,

Bringing Down a President?

September 13th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

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

If anyone doubted that the top level of the intelligence agencies in Washington have dedicated themselves to ousting President Donald Trump, the past two weeks should have demonstrated precisely how such a plan of action is being executed. First came the leaked accounts of chaos in the Trump Administration derived from the Bob Woodward book Fear: Trump in the White House.

Then a New York Times op-ed entitled “I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration” written by one Anonymous who claimed to be a senior official in the White House, exploded on the scene, describing how top officials were deliberately sabotaging Trump’s policies to protect the country.

Fear: Trump in the White House by [Woodward, Bob]

Finally, another another op-ed “Why so many former intelligence officers are speaking out” by former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin appeared, providing a rationale for intelligence officers to speak up against the White House.

There has been considerable chatter in the media regarding the Woodward book and the Anonymous op-ed, but relatively little concerning McLaughlin, who arguably has made the most serious case for pushback against Donald Trump from within the intelligence community. To sum up the op-ed, McLaughlin wrote that many former intelligence officers are beginning to speak out against the foreign policy of the Trump Administration because America’s institutions are being seriously damaged by an “extraordinarily unprecedented context” of threats emerging from both inside and outside the country due to a “president’s dangerous behavior.”

McLaughlin claims that “failure to warn is the ultimate sin in the intelligence world” and that is precisely why he and his colleagues now speak out. In particular, and perhaps inevitably, he cites the “refus[al] to combat a well-documented covert foreign attack on U.S. elections — in the process weakening efforts by others to do so and encouraging Russia to keep it up.”

McLaughlin also addresses the issue of the credibility of the intelligence community after Trump, i.e. will the public and many policymakers henceforth believe that the national security team is in fact politically biased, tainting the judgments that it makes when delivering its intelligence product. He argues somewhat evasively and not altogether clearly that “…we have to hope most people will understand why we reject silence: It’s because this is a threat that we cannot combat silently, as we have been able to do with foreign threats — overseas and out of the public’s eye.”

McLaughlin is praising himself and friends as constituting some kind of loyal opposition consisting of the good guys driven to protect “American values” and “American institutions” from Trump and his “deplorables.” His argument is carefully framed but ultimately self-serving. Witness his own career as Deputy Director of CIA under George Tenet, who famously sat in the United Nations sagaciously nodding to validate the argument that Saddam Hussein threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist support. It was all a lie, leading to America’s greatest foreign policy disaster and McLaughlin was complicit. Did he ever apologize for what he did? No. He was also around when the CIA was “renditioning” people by snatching them off the streets and sending them to foreign lands to be tortured. Did he ever consider how that damaged America’s rule of law? And then there were the torture prisons. Again, silence from the suddenly-found-Jesus John McLaughlin.

And since that time, where was McLaughlin’s conscience when Barack Obama was sitting down with his intelligence advisor John Brennan and making up lists of American citizens to be killed by drone? Or planning the destruction of Libya? Apparently, the only threats that matter are those presumably generated by Donald Trump, who is particularly reviled because he has spoken of bettering relations with Russia. And when McLaughlin inevitably cites the threat from Moscow, he ignores the fact that the United States has been arming Ukraine while at the same time conducting military exercises right on Russia’s border. It has also been sanctioning Russians and Persona Non Grata’ing its diplomats regularly to punish it under Trump, making the bilateral relationship the worst it has been since the end of the Cold War. So where is the coddling of Moscow?

And McLaughlin is also wrong about the timing and substance of the intelligence officers’ speaking out. John Brennan, Michael Morell, Michael Hayden, James Woolsey and James Clapper all have been actively trying to discredit Trump since before he was nominated. Several of them have claimed absurdly that the president is a Russian spy, also suggested in some comments made by McLaughlin himself in July, including that Trump is an “intelligence recruiter’s dream.” So, it all would appear to be less a response to policies than it is a personal vendetta by a number of politicized senior officers who were lined up behind Hillary Clinton with hopes of being personally rewarded after her election.

Finally, though McLaughlin is claiming to support former intelligence officers who bravely speak out when the United States is threatened, he completely ignores a whole lot of them who have been doing just that for many years. They are sometimes labeled whistleblowers or dissidents, but McLaughlin probably considers them to be the lowest of the low. The whistleblowers and their allies have been calling for an end to the warfare surveillance state, which McLaughlin helped create and which he is still sustaining through his fearmongering, Russophobia being the wedge issue that drives both him and his “patriotic” friends. Introspection is apparently not McLaughlin’s strong suit, but he perhaps should pause and think for a second whether he and they are doing the American people any favors by their setting the stage for yet another war in their zeal to bring down Donald Trump.

*

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Featured image is from the author.

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

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibibi calls Alex Jones “the media equivalent of a trench-coated stalker who jumps out from behind a mailbox and starts whacking it in an intersection.” Good description but he rightly warned that “Censorship Does Not End We.”

Shortly after Alex Jones was kicked off Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, New York City residents let me know via email and Twitter that the Russian cable news outlet RT was gone in their area. They all reported the screen message, “Programming on this network is no longer available.” One said that he had called Spectrum customer service, where a representative confirmed that RT was no longer available, but with no further information. He complained and the rep said she’d pass it upstairs.

The RT website confirmed that Charter Spectrum covers the entire NYC area and northern New Jersey. ( Actually, their website still says Time Warner, although Time Warner has been subsumed by Charter Spectrum.)

I submitted a press inquiry as to whether or not RT is still available to Charter Spectrum subscribers in Los Angeles, but had not received a response as of September 11, aka 09/11. I couldn’t help noting that I found myself reporting this on the 17th anniversary of the day that hijacked planes crashed into NYC’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon, creating an excuse for mass surveillance, the legalization of domestic psyops, and every US war since, whatever your theory as to what really happened. Trump and his administration now waffle about whether they’re fighting Syria, Russia, or terrorists, but Russia is clearly the ascendant bogeyman.

RT was taken off cable in Washington, DC on April 1st, though the Kremlin had said the move looked “illegal and discriminatory” according to US law. At the same time Bloomberg News reported the decision and the legal complexity facing cable companies who want to drop RT. That report began by citing US intelligence agencies who describe RT “as part of Moscow’s ‘state-run propaganda machine.’”

US, UK, and France going to war with Russia, Syria, and Iran?

I messaged Hungarian scholar George Szamuely, a fellow at New York City’s Global Policy Institute, who tried to find RT on his TV and got the same “no longer available” screen. He then had this to say:

“Well, I think it’s really alarming that we’re on the eve of what could be a very serious military confrontation in the Middle East, with the United States and the UK and France threatening to go to war in Syria against Russia, Syria, and Iran. At this moment, this very very dangerous moment, we can’t just rely on official sources and officially sanctioned media like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, which are not only using lies of omission but also willfully disseminating disinformation.

“So, while we don’t necessarily have to accept everything we hear on RT as true, it is clearly a disservice to democracy when it is taken off the air. Moreover, it is being taken off the air because of the content of its broadcasts. And that’s very worrying. We need as many sources of information at our disposal as possible. When we hear only one side, we go badly wrong. This is happening right now when mainstream media are putting out the ridiculous, evidence-free assertions that Assad is 100% certain to use chemical weapons. The public is being prepared for a war without any chance of debate. We went through this in 2003, and we don’t want to go through it again, especially with the heightened danger of a nuclear exchange.”

A nuclear exchange?

I can’t imagine that either of the world’s greatest nuclear powers are going to start a nuclear war in Syria, first and foremost because it would be bad for business. There’s no doubt a lot of money to be made in rebuilding Syria from the rubble, as there was in Iraq, but that won’t be possible if it’s a radioactive “exclusion zone” like Chernobyl. There’d also be enough radioactive and political blowback to threaten the survival of either nuclear power.

However, there’s always the possibility of an accident, especially when tensions are this high. Whether it goes nuclear or not, there’s an ugly exchange already underway and sure to get worse. The UN Security Council met at length on September 7 and yet again failed to resolve the conflict. The Council is now deadlocked in a standoff between Eastern and Western powers, as it was throughout the Vietnam War.

Russia’s military engagement in Syria accords with international law because the internationally recognized Syrian government asked them for help. This is one of the lies of omission told by official Western sources and their officially sanctioned media. The US and allies’ engagement violates international law, but if any of you reading this can cite a single example of the US respecting international law, please message me.

The USA’s compliant corporate media reports that Syria is planning a chemical weapons attack in its own Idlib Province and that the Pentagon is strategizing about how to respond. RT reports that the US and its allies are planning a false flag chemical weapons attack and that the US is already using white phosphorous bombs. RT also reports that local residents of Jisr al-Shughur, a city in Idlib, observed a staged chemical weapons attack being filmed to create footage for broadcast after it’s published on social media. (Whether you can still get RT cable or not, you can still get RT online for now.)

Germany is reported to be considering joining the US, UK, and France in Syria “if chemical weapons are used.” After the alleged chemical weapons attacks in April, German hawks were eager to join in, but it was reported that Germans widely believed the attacks were staged, and reason won the day.

YouTube blocks Syrian government channels

Shortly after RT disappeared in NYC and northern New Jersey, YouTube terminated Syrian government channels. As of September 11, RT had not reported the latest censorship of its own network, but they did report “Syrian state YouTube channels ‘terminated’ amid fears of looming false-flag chemical attack.” I checked the three channels they cited and confirmed that they were gone. YouTube left messages that the Syrian Presidency’s channel “has been terminated due to a legal complaint” and that SANA, the Syrian News Agency, “has been terminated for a violation of YouTube’s Terms of Service.” They left no explanation for terminating the Syrian Ministry of Defense Channel.

Orient News” a Dubai-based news service on the Middle East with particular focus on Syria, is still streaming and reporting from inside jihadi-held territory. It’s owned by Syrian businessman and opposition figure Ghassan Aboud.

*

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected].

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

National Security Adviser John Bolton appears to be spiraling down into the same miasma of madness that possesses other members of the Trump administration– perhaps caused by a microbe carried in Trump’s sniffle. This week he threatened justices of the International Criminal Court in the Hague with physical abduction were they to dare indict an American for war crimes committed in Afghanistan.

The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome Statute, which went into effect in 2002 has been ratified by 123 nations of the world. Most of Europe and all of Latin America and half of African states have signed. Virtually the only deadbeats are countries whose officials are afraid of being indicted by the court for serious human rights crimes, such as Syria, China, India, Sudan, Israel, Russia and . . . the United States of America (actually the latter four signed but they pulled out when they realized that they had exposed their state officials to prosecution, what with the war crimes they are constantly committing).

The ICC undertook to try dictator Moammar Gaddafi, but he was killed before he could be brought before it; it still has an outstanding case against the dictator’s son Seif. For Bolton to menace it in this way makes clear that he is in the Gaddafi category, which is why he fears the institution.

Bolton has no particular expertise in anything at all, he is just an angry shyster lawyer picked up by the more insane elements of the Republican Party. He once denied that the United Nations exists, then tried to make himself US ambassador to the United Nations (he wasn’t confirmed, but served briefly on a sneaky Bush recess appointment).

So here are five crimes that this authors alleges Bolton has committed, for which he by all rights should face justice at the Hague, at the hands of the same ICC judges that he just brutishly threatened:

1. Bolton played a key role in hoodwinking the American public into the 2003 US war of aggression on Iraq, for which there was no legitimate casus belli or legal basis for war. The UN Charter forbids the initiation of a war except where a country is attacked and responds in self-defense or where the UN Security Council designates a government as a threat to world order (as it did Gaddafi’s Libya). These attempts to outlaw wars of aggression were a reaction against the Nazi invasion of Poland, etc. People like Bolton, who don’t want any constraints on his power from the international rule of law, are just trying out for the role of people like Nazi generals Günther von Kluge and Gerd von Rundstedt, who led the assault on Poland. (Like Bolton in regard to Iraq, they maintained that they were only defending themselves from a menacing Poland, but nobody believed this lie).

Bolton is manifestly guilty of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute and its 2010 enabling statutes adopted at Kampala: Article 8 bis, para 1, says: For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security under Bush, Bolton was clearly a high executive officer of a government guilty of the crime of aggression.

2. As National Security Adviser, Bolton has supported the Apartheid policies of the far-right extremist government of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu toward the Occupied Palestinians.

Apartheid is a crime under the Rome Statute:

    ‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts . . . committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

He also supports the transfer of Israeli citizens into the Occupied West Bank as squatters on Palestinian land.
8.2.b.viii stipulates as a war crime

    “The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.”

Bolton strongly supports and enables a whole range of war crimes of the Likud regime in Tel Aviv against the Palestinian people, above all keeping them in a condition of abject statelessness and continually stealing their property.

Under war crimes comes “Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

It could be argued that Israel could not engage in these illegal violations of Palestinian rights save for the American veto, so that high US officials who conspire to enable crimes like Apartheid and usurpation of Occupied Territories are even more guilty than Israeli officials.

3. Bolton is in the back pocket of, has spoken for,  the People’s Jihadis (Mojahedin-e Khalq), a group that has been on the US State Department terrorist watch list and which has killed civilians with bombings and attacks in Iran. They even had a base given them for these purposes by Saddam Hussein, in whose company Bolton has fallen, given their alliance with this same Iranian cult.

Screenshot NY Review of Books , July 2018

The MEK is guilty of “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack,” and under this heading, of murder. In fact, it has killed Americans.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Three Charges on Which John Bolton Should be Tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC)

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

In a speech to the Federalist Society September 10th National Security Adviser John Bolton announced the U.S. will not cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court. Speaking for the President and Trump administration Mr. Bolton says the U.S. considers the International Criminal Court illegitimate, and he threatens its judges with denial of entry to the States, and impounding their financial assets, and with arrest, if they pursue cases which might “unjustly” place in jeopardy U.S. citizens. This threat extends to those assisting the Court.

The policy presents an attempt to shield from prosecution “by any means necessary,” U.S. Armed Forces personnel, intelligence agents, and government officials such as himself. By placing these above the law Bolton is threatening the American people with the Trump administration’s impunity. While the policy may allow war crimes and crimes against humanity in U.S. client states, it will also encourage the 123 nations who subscribe to the ICC to view the U.S. as a rogue state and fascist entity.

North Americans concerned with prevention of genocide will note that Bolton’s wish to “let the ICC die” would remove a primary international legal mechanism for calling U.S. leaders to account for crimes such as genocide, aggression, torture. Without the resistance available at least on paper from the ICC, governments such as the Trump administration would have a much freer hand in alleged crimes such as torture in Afghanistan, in black operations sites throughout the world, as well as implication in the use of death squads by U.S. client states or what might be considered the kidnapping of migrant children at American borders.

American law if honestly applied has little to fear from international law so the Trump administration’s further severance of the U.S. from the ICC points up the administration’s exception to the global consensus on a decent standard of human rights. Bolton’s revelations express a movement within U.S. extreme right-wing circles which finds burdensome an ongoing struggling tradition safeguarding American human rights (ie. The Bill of Rights).

The thinking which initiated the presidential killing list under George W. Bush, continues to gain strength, asserting itself at this point due to an ICC investigatory report suggesting that war crimes have been committed in Afghanistan, primarily in 2003-4, where Afghan security forces, U.S. forces and CIA personnel are allegedly implicated.

Afghanistan is a member state of the ICC and the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed there. To quote CTV News:

The 181-page prosecution request, dated November 2017, said “information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that members of United States of America (US) armed forces and members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) committed acts of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, rape and sexual violence against conflict-related detainees in Afghanistan and other locations, principally in the 2003-2004 period.”

During three months (November and December 2017 and January 2018) allegations of 1.7 million war crimes were sent to the ICC from European and Afghan organizations. There is only a slight chance the Trump administration would not consider ICC prosecution of Americans responsible for these crimes, “unjust”. There is no indication that any of the 1.7 million complaints have been addressed by the U.S. system of justice.

Bolton has made a point of assuring Israelis the same protections as American citizens: the ICC is currently considering whether to prosecute Israel’s alleged war crimes against the people of Gaza. The Palestinian request to the ICC for an investigation is given as the reason for the U.S. recent closure of Palestinian Liberation Office in Washington D.C..

Despite these threats the ICC intends to continue its work.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site at  Night’s Lantern 

Partial Sources Online

“US threatens sanctions against International Criminal Court, will close PLO office in Washington,” Elise Labott and Hilary Clarke, Sept. 11, 2018, CNN;

“John Bolton threatens ICC judges with sanctions,” Sept. 10, 2018, Al Jazeera;

“Rights groups warn against U.S. flouting international court,” Kathy Gannon (AP), Sept.11, 2018, CTV News;

“John Bolton threatens war crimes court with sanctions in virulent attack,” Sept. 10, 2018, The Guardian;

“ICC will continue ‘undeterred’ after US threats,” Sept. 11, 2018, The Guardian;

“Israel lodges official protest to International Criminal Court,” Barak David, Aug. 14, 2018, Channel 10 News.

Featured image is from Julie Maas.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Trump Administration’s Intent Is to “Let the ICC Die”.The International Criminal Court is “Illegitimate” according to Bolton
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

UK Mass Surveillance Ruled Unlawful in Landmark Judgment

September 13th, 2018 by Big Brother Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group said:

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

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

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch said:

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

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

Antonia Byatt, director of English PEN said:

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

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

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

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

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

*

Notes

[1] Para. 387

[2] Para. 317

[3] Para. 387

[4] Para. 347

[5] Para. 356

[6] Para. 307

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Mass Surveillance Ruled Unlawful in Landmark Judgment

Extreme Weather Events and the Seventh Mass Extinction of Species

September 13th, 2018 by Dr. Andrew Glikson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

Transforming global fisheries

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

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

Fighting for policy change in South Africa

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

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

Untitled1.png

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

Fishers’ participation in governance processes

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

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

The rise of a global ‘fisheries justice’ movement?

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

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

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

*

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statewide evacuation plans have been formulated since Saturday.

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

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

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

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

*

Featured image is from Fox News.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More Than 1,000 Prisoners Left Behind in Carolinas Hurricane Evacuation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Administration Publishes Plans to Tax Protests and Close White House Sidewalk to Protests

Video: Largest US Weapons Store – in Italy

September 13th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

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

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

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

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

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

Source: PandoraTV

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Translated by Pete Kimberley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activists in South Africa Raise Their Voices Against BRICS

September 13th, 2018 by Fatima Moosa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the importance of global solidarity movements, Dharshini says:

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mattis put on the best face when Bolton was appointed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But then again. 

*

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

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

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

Thanks to the Obama administration’s decision to rescue collapsing Wall Street banks with taxpayer cash and the Trump administration’s massive tax cuts and deregulatory push, America’s five largest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs—have raked in more than $583 billion in combined profits over the past decade, Public Citizen found in its analysis marking the ten-year anniversary of the crisis.

“With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, “the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period. Like bandits.”

Using data from the Federal Reserve, Public Citizen also calculated that America’s the banks now hold a combined $9.7 trillion in assets.

“In the aftermath of the Great Recession, American families continue to struggle. A new report by the Urban Institute finds that nearly 40 percent of Americans had trouble paying for basic needs such as food, housing or utilities in 2017,” Public Citizen notes in its report. “The banks, on the other hand—with more than half a trillion dollars in profits over the past decade—are doing just fine.”

If recent earnings reports are any indicator, big banks are on track to continue shattering profit records thanks to President Donald Trump‘s $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. Big banks are also expected to see a boost from a recently passed bipartisan deregulatory bill that analysts argue significantly heightens the risk of another crash.

“Wall Street’s grip on Washington is painfully evident in the corporate tax giveaways and deregulatory favors that Congress routinely bestows to this bonus-besotted industry,” Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, said in a statement.

According to a Washington Post analysis published on Saturday, many of the lawmakers and congressional aides who helped craft the Democratic Congress’ regulatory response to the 2008 crisis have gone on to work for Wall Street in the hopes of benefiting from big banks’ booming profits.

“Ten years after the financial crisis brought the U.S. economy to its knees, about 30 percent of the lawmakers and 40 percent of the senior staff who crafted Congress’ response have gone to work for or on behalf of the financial industry,” noted the Post‘s Jeff Stein.

Meanwhile, Main Street Americans who lost their homes, jobs, and savings as a result of the greed-driven crash are still struggling to get by on stagnant or declining wages, even as unemployment falls and the economy continues to grow at a steady clip.

*

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Thanks to Obama Bailouts and Trump Tax Cuts, Five Largest US Banks Have Raked in $583 Billion Since 2008 Crash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The global financial crisis and shifts in the global power system

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

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

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

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

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

Hegemonic transition

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

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

From QE to QT, and the Turkey conundrum

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

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

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

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

Another 2008?

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

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

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

Turkey raises stakes in “economic war” with tariff hikes on US goods

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

Quantitative tightening ( QT)

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

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

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

Bankrupting the global South

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

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

Dangerous interregnum

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

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

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

*

Notes

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US-Turkey Stand-off in Context: The Weaponisation of Global Finance

Conjuring Up the Next Depression

September 13th, 2018 by Chris Hedges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from Mr. Fish/Truthdig.


The Global Economic Crisis

The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Global Research

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

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

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

click to order directly from Global Research

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

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

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

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

click to order directly from Global Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Doctrines of Impunity: John Bolton and the International Criminal Court (ICC)

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

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

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

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

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

 Far from fulfilling the “utopian” expectations of it being the deliverer of “unbiased justice” all across the world, the ICC instead functions as a weapon of “lawfare” for reinforcing infowar narratives and advancing American interests, though just like other international structures that the US previously exerted full control over such as the WTO, Washington gradually lost its total dominance over them as its rivals made progress in leveraging them to their own advantage. The same trend appears to have reached the ICC too, at least judging by how angrily the US is reacting to war crimes accusations against it and “Israel” being given attention there. Whereas Obama’s America might have “tolerated” this and rationalized it as “taking one for the team” in order to advance the ideology of Liberal-Globalism, Trump’s America has to patience to continue playing this game.

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Featured image is from LA West Media.

 

Canada: Please Sign Petition for Public Inquiry into Hassan Diab’s Case

September 12th, 2018 by Hassan Diab Support Committee

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

Dear Friends and Supporters,

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

Click here to sign the petition.

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

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

Many thanks to everyone who already signed!

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada: Please Sign Petition for Public Inquiry into Hassan Diab’s Case
  • Tags:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America: One Big Commercial. The Post 9/11 Marriage between the Sport’s Media and the Pentagon

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

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

.

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

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

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

Here’s Haley on September 7:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An empire that may soon be reduced to radioactive ash.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Favorite Candidate for Iraq PM, Haider al-Abadi Has Fallen with the Burned Walls of the Iranian Consulate in Basra
  • Tags: ,

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neocons Step In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward a Progressive Foreign Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Beyond Bolton and the “Law of the Jungle”: The Path to a Progressive U.S. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image result for american psychological association

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

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

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

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

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

A Bit of History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Cares What the American Psychological Association Does?

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

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

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

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

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

How Did They Do It?

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pinochet stepped down 17 years later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected Articles: US Led Wars and Climate Change

September 12th, 2018 by Global Research News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Gramsci, Passive Revolution and 20th Century Iran

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

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

The US: The Century of Lost Wars

By Prof. James Petras, September 12, 2018

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

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

By Catherine Shakdam, September 11, 2018

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

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

By Andrew Korybko, September 11, 2018

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

Climate Refugees Will Vastly Outweigh Recent Migrant Numbers

By Shane Quinn, September 11, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is There a Real Way for English to Retain Its Primacy Across the EU?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Gramsci, Passive Revolution and 20th Century Iran

September 12th, 2018 by Marziyeh Asgari Vash

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramsci and the Concept of Passive Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

The Roots of Underdevelopment in Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

6. Gramsci, p 276. 

7. Ibid, p 59. 

8. Ibid, p 116. 

9. Ibid, p 119. 

10. Cox, pp 166-167.

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

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

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

14. Gheissari, A and Nasr, p 23.

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

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

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

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

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

Featured image is from Anadolu Agency/Fatemeh Bahrami.

The US: The Century of Lost Wars

September 12th, 2018 by Prof. James Petras

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

Introduction

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

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

The Lost Wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

Success in Starting Wars and Failures in Finishing Them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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