Global Research

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

A report from Russian Television asserts that the U.S. Government is positioning weaponry for yet another bombing-raid to punish Syria for having Bashar al-Assad as its President.

Headlining “Terrorists readying chemical attack to frame Damascus & provide pretext for US strikes” RT reported on Saturday, August 25th, that

“The US and its allies are preparing new airstrikes on Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said, adding that militants are poised to stage a chemical weapons attack in order to frame Damascus and provide a pretext for the strikes.”

Screengrab from RT News

A day prior, Eva Bartlett, who reports for several news-media, headlined at RT “Bolton calls on Al-Qaeda to stage more chemical attacks in Syria” and said,

“In a move that was entirely predictable, the US administration is once again threatening to bomb Syria if there is a ‘chemical weapons attack’.” 

There is considerable evidence that all of the prior alleged chemical-weapons attacks by Syria’s Government against innocent non-combatants were, in some instances, actually staged and photographed by the White Helmets and other supporters of jihadist groups in Syria, or else were actual chemical attacks which had been perpetrated by those jihadist groups in order to serve as ‘justification’ for the U.S. and its allies to bomb Syria so as to help those jihadists to bring down Syria’s Government. (The CIA and King Saud have been unsuccessfully trying, ever since 1949, to take over the committedly secular, non-sectarian, nation of Syria. In fact, the CIA perpetrated two of the three Syrian coups that were carried out in 1949.)

For example, back on 19 December 2013, Seymour Hersh, who has been pretty much banned from U.S. news-media ever since he started reporting and exposing lies by the George W. Bush Administration about terrorism, headlined in the London Review of Books, “Whose Sarin?”and he reported that

“in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence” in order to ‘justify’ U.S. invasions, now in Syria, as also in other countries.

He boldly noted that

“The press would follow suit. The UN report on 16 September confirming the use of sarin was careful to note that its investigators’ access to the attack sites, which came five days after the gassing, had been controlled by rebel forces.”

He wrote that,

“Theodore Postol, a professor of technology and national security at MIT, reviewed the UN photos with a group of his colleagues and concluded that the large calibre rocket was an improvised munition that was very likely manufactured locally. He told me that it was ‘something you could produce in a modestly capable machine shop’. The rocket in the photos, he added, fails to match the specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the Syrian arsenal. The New York Times, again relying on data in the UN report, also analysed the flight path of two of the spent rockets that were believed to have carried sarin, and concluded that the angle of descent ‘pointed directly’ to their being fired from a Syrian army base more than nine kilometres from the landing zone. Postol, who has served as the scientific adviser to the chief of naval operations in the Pentagon, said that the assertions in the Times and elsewhere ‘were not based on actual observations’.”

He noted that:

“The White House’s misrepresentation of what it knew about the attack, and when, was matched by its readiness to ignore intelligence that could undermine the narrative. That information concerned al-Nusra, the Islamist rebel group designated by the US and the UN as a terrorist organisation.”

Actually, ever since 2012, the U.S. Government was actually employing Al Nusra, which was the name given to Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch. In fact, as an intelligence-analyst, Bill Roggio, reported and documented extensively throughout December 2012 (and I quoted from and linked-to extensively in an article five years later), the U.S. basically hired Nusra as its agency to train and lead the vast majority of the forces (all but the few who weren’t jihadists) that were trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government, back in 2012. 

Furthermore, on 14 January 2014, the detailed report by Dr. Postol and his MIT colleague Richard Lloyd, was made public, and it asserted, with unambiguous clarity: “The US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT.” They proved that Obama had been lying, but didn’t put it in those words, because that would have made it be totally banned from any but very ‘alternative’ news-media in the U.S. (such as you might be reading here).

The next day, January 15th, McClatchy newspapers ran an article (and all other mainstream U.S. ’news’ media continued to ignore the MIT study) “New analysis of rocket used in Syria chemical attack undercuts U.S. claims”, which article included some of the study’s findings, but surrounded those by, and closed with, mainstream authorities (as if those two MIT specialists in the matter weren’t also that) denigrating the very idea, for irrelevant reasons. The closing of that McClatchy article was: “Some say they are worried that the failure to declare one delivery system may also mean that other items went undeclared. ‘The most likely explanation for some of the delivery systems not showing up on the chemical declaration is that Assad doesn’t want to incriminate himself or his regime,’ said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association.” In other words: the U.S. Government’s mouthpieces simply couldn’t deny the facts that were in the Lloyd-Postol report, so they deflected to other, far less relevant, matters, to help McClatchy deceive Americans.

From that moment onward, there could be no reasonable doubt but that the U.S. Government was hiring Al Qaeda in Syria to lead the U.S. effort to replace Syria’s Government, by jihadists. The U.S. ’news’media lie — they consciously misrepresent — like the U.S. Government does, and all in service to the billionaires (and their paid agents) who control this country.

*

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

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  

As will be documented here, America’s troops in Syria are not there in order to fight, but to assist Kurdish separatists in the northeast, and to assist the Al Qaeda led-and-trained jihadist forces elsewhere in Syria (such as in the East Ghouta suburb of Damascus) to overthrow and replace Syria’s popular and democratically elected, strongly secular and anti-sectarian President, Bashar al-Assad.

Occasionally, the U.S. Government also has helped ISIS to take over and control parts of Syria, such as the city Deir Zor, which is Syria’s oil-producing capital. For example, on 17 September 2016, the U.S. bombed Syria’s army in Deir Zor so that the surrounding ISIS forces could (and did) rush in and take control there. Subsequently, the U.S. bombed the Iraqi ISIS controlled city Mosul, and the U.S and Turkey provided a protected pathway for any surviving ISIS jihadists to travel from there to Deir Zor, so as to strengthen ISIS’s grip on that Syrian city. Also, at least one non-jihadist anti-Assad fighter quit working with U.S. forces once discovering that the U.S. was secretly funneling weapons from their camps to ISIS camps.

According to a Western-sponsored poll of Syrians in 2015, all across the country, 82% blamed the war in Syria mainly on the U.S. Government. In that same poll, only 22% of Syrians approved of Al Qaeda in Syria; but, starting in 2012,

Al Qaeda in Syria provided the leadership for almost all of the dozens of jihadist groups that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the other fundamentalist-Islamic allies of the U.S. Government, were recruiting and helping to transport into Syria, so as to establish Sharia law in Syria (in other words: to overthrow Assad). Without the support of Al Qaeda in Syria, the entire American effort to overthrow Assad would quickly have collapsed. This is one of the reasons why Al Qaeda in Syria adopted a number of different names, mainly “Al Nusrah,” so that the U.S. CIA and other agencies could work with them: it’s because the name “Al Qaeda” was poison to American and European audiences — and not only to the vast majority of Syrians.

The examples that will be presented here, of contemporaneous news-reports from 2012, which covered America’s backing of Al Qaeda, and America’s heavy dependence upon Al Qaeda, were reported by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which itself is funded by the U.S. and Israeli Governments and supports the overthrow of Assad, so that no one can reasonably consider their reports to be slanted in favor of Syria’s Government.

click to read articles. 

Al Nusrah Front conducts joint operation with Free Syrian Army

BY BILL ROGGIO | August 4th, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD’s Long War Journal.

Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo

BY BILL ROGGIO | December 10, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio

US adds Al Nusrah Front, 2 leaders to terrorism list

BY BILL ROGGIO | December 11, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio *

Syrian National Coalition urges US to drop Al Nusrah terrorism designation

BY BILL ROGGIO | December 12th, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio

Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria: An Islamic Emirate for al-Qaeda

December 2014, by Jennifer Cafarella

So, there’s no real disagreement as to whether the U.S. Government backs Al Qaeda in Syria, and sometimes backs ISIS in Syria and, even under the loudly anti- “radical Islamic terrorism” President Donald Trump, strengthens ISIS there so as to assist the downfall of Assad, the elected national leader.

It’s proven by actions, not by mere words — which can’t be trusted regarding this war (if any war). Syria’s Government passionately objects at the U.N., to America’s insistence upon replacing Assad’s Government (which the U.S. and its allies call instead a ‘regime’), and America’s continued attempts at replacing this by a Sharia-law dictatorship, which very few Syrians actually want. But both the facts of the case, and the objections by the Syrian Government, are simply ignored.

By contrast, America’s assistance to Kurdish separatists in the northeast of the country is publicly acknowledged.

America’s position in that war is in blatant violation of international law, because the U.S. was never invited in by the Syrian Government, the U.S. has instead been only an invading force there (unlike Russia and Iran, both of which were invited into the country so as to get rid of the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Kuwaiti-Turkish and Al Qaeda and other jihadist, invaders). This shows that international laws mean nothing when the violator is the U.S. and its allies. Whereas ‘The West’ freely violates international laws, other countries do so only at their own peril. Consequently, the U.S. and its allies are destroying the U.N.

*

This article was originally published on The Saker.

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

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 

The right of return is universally recognized under international law.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

1. “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states:

“1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

The UN Human Rights Committee is comprised of international experts involved in monitoring implementation of the ICCPR.

According to the body, “there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one’s own country could be reasonable.”

Adopted near the end of Israel’s 1948 war, UN Resolution 194 resolved that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible” – Article 11.

In May 1949, UN Resolution 273 granted Israel UN membership conditional on accepting and implementing UN Resolutions 181 (partitioning Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states) and 194, granting Palestinians their universally recognized right of return.

Throughout his tenure, Trump and his regime hardliners have been more contemptuous of fundamental Palestinians rights than his predecessors.

He clearly doesn’t give a damn about them, his actions leaving no ambiguity. He partners with Netanyahu regime high crimes – falsely blamed on Hamas and Palestinian resistance against apartheid viciousness.

He supports Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital, what the world community rejects.

In January, after he took Jerusalem “off the table” in future peace talks, Israel’s Hadashot television news said the Netanyahu regime’s next goal is for the US to reject the fundamental right of return for millions of Palestinians.

Once announced, Trump will present his so-called “proposal for peace,” complying with Israeli demands – denying Palestinians their fundamental rights.

On Saturday, Hadashot news said Trump will formally reject the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees.

In early September, his regime will announce a policy that “from its point of view” annuls this international law affirmed fundament right no nations have the right to deny.

The announcement will claim only around half a million Palestinian refugees exist, not five million, including their descendants.

The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) defines a Palestinian refugee as “persons (including their patrilineal descendants) whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” – along with others affected the same way during Israel’s Six Day War of aggression.

Article 26 of the PLO’s Palestine National Covenant, the basis of all Palestinian law, states the struggle of its people is “to retrieve (their) homeland, liberate and return to it, and exercise the right to self-determination in it…”

Rights afforded under the UN Refugee Convention (1951) apply to descendants of refugees.

The Trump and Netanyahu regimes want UNWRA abolished, its humanitarian aid to millions of Palestinian refugees ended.

Their scheme is all about claiming these refugees don’t exist, wanting diaspora ones denied their international law affirmed right of return to their homeland.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the world body “recognizes descendants of refugees (worldwide) as refugees for purposes of their operations.”

Trump and Netanyahu regime hardliners want this notion abandoned. They want fundamental Palestinian rights denied.

They want refugee status for millions of Palestinians ended, making it easier to exploit them ruthlessly, wanting the notion of Palestine as their legitimate homeland erased.

That’s what the scourge of Zionist extremism is all about – denying indigenous Palestinians and their descendants their fundamental rights.

*

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The Venezuelan Migrant Crisis has been regionally politicized and is now at risk of being militarily and strategically exploited by the US.

Long-simmering tensions finally exploded in a Brazilian border town after four Venezuelans robbed, beat, and stabbed a restaurant owner before the locals violently drove hundreds of them back to their country, which dangerously led to some of these coercively “repatriated” migrants carrying out reprisal attacks against some Brazilians in Venezuela. Brasilia responded by deploying troops to the border town and Venezuela demanded that its southern neighbor ensure the security of its citizens in the country, but the flood of an estimated 2.3 million Venezuelan migrants throughout the region over the past couple of years has overwhelmed local communities and contributed to a destabilizing “Weapons of Mass Migration” dynamic.

To explain, Ivy League researcher Kelly M. Greenhill’s breakthrough 2010 research describes the inevitably disruptive effect that different categories of large-scale population flows can have and how this can be exploited for political purposes. The estimated 50,000 Venezuelan migrants that crossed into Brazil’s Roraima border state where the latest clashes took place are equivalent to nearly 10% of its total population, so it was only a matter of time before tensions with the locals spilled over and created a political crisis. Something similar is also happening elsewhere in South America, albeit not yet to as dramatic of a degree as in northern Brazil, but the political ripples are nevertheless apparent.

Ecuador just mandated that the citizens of its nominal Bolivarian “ally” can only enter the country with their passports instead of their usual identity card that most of them had been using for years now per an agreement between both countries, which was soon thereafter followed up by Peru announcing the same restriction that is intended to curtail the flow of Venezuelan migrants into both Andean countries who oftentimes lack this international document. It’s predicted that this could lead to thousands of Venezuelan migrants being stuck in Colombia, which is why the US announced that it’ll dispatch a hospital ship to NATO’s newly designated and first-ever Latin American “global partner” following Mattis’ recent visit to the country.

This is a disturbing sign of “mission creep” that follows deliberately leaked reports last month about Trump’s purported willingness to invade Venezuela last year, which seem in hindsight to have been part of a pronounced psychological pressure campaign on the beleaguered country’s leadership that preceded the failed US-linked drone assassination attempt against Maduro four weeks later. Although the Venezuelan-Brazilian clashes in northern Roraima State last weekend were an organic outcome of the “Weapons of Mass Migration” dynamic that the US created through its Hybrid War on Venezuela, the tacit regional coordination between Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia wasn’t, with this actually being part of the US’ preplanned politicization of the humanitarian crisis.

It was purely coincidental that the clashes happened when they did, but they provided a convenient justification for clamping down on the freedom of regional movement that Venezuelan migrants previously enjoyed and consequently provoking the manufactured pretext for the US to dispatch its hospital ship to Colombia where many of them are now stranded in desperate conditions. It’s conceivable that a more robust military deployment to the country could be forthcoming and committed to under the disguise of a “humanitarian intervention”. The US’ goal might not be to invade Venezuela like recent reports alleged, but to use the Migrant Crisis that it’s partially responsible for as the opportunity to make Colombia the post-“Pink Tide” regional leader.

Colombia’s comparatively larger population and economy, as well as its geostrategic bi-oceanic position, make it the US’ ideal “Lead From Behind” partner, and its growing proxy influence over Ecuador, Peru, and part of the anti-government Venezuelan population is leading to the de-facto creation of a so-called “Gran Colombia” that the US wants to use for reorganizing South America. Its newly elected right-wing leader declared that it will withdraw from the Unasur continental integrational bloc, which follows Ecuador threatening to seize its headquarters in the country last month, so it wouldn’t be surprising if Colombia encourages its Ecuadorean, Peruvian, and possibly even Brazilian neighbors to do the same and effectively destroy the bloc, thus reversing one of the greatest accomplishments of the “Pink Tide” era.

*

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  

The news is out.  Dewayne Johnson v Monsanto is the first case to go to trial against the weed killer giant. The plaintiff’s lawyers asserted that Monsanto’s Roundup and Ranger Pro, two products that the groundskeeper used to spray as part of his job as a pest control manager at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, caused his terminal cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Review on the case 

The 46-year-old former groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company, accusing the agribusiness giant of failing to warn about the dangers of its products and health hazards from exposure, being responsible for his cancer. The jury further found that Monsanto “acted with malice or oppression”, awarding the plaintiff $289 million, from which $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages. Monsanto, a unit of Bayer AG, is facing more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States, but this case is the very first to go to trial and make Monsanto liable.

Johnson’s lawyer Brent Wisner said in a statement.

“We were finally able to show the jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known for decades that … Roundup could cause cancer,”  The decision, he continued, sent a “message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup are over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits”.

Only a few months after Bayer purchased Monsanto, shares fell as much as 14 percent, even though the German company denies the verdict. 

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Dewayne Johnson, the plaintiff who won against Monsanto, was diagnosed with NHL, which is a type of cancer of the lymphatic system. Tumors develop from the lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell.  Some of the circumstances that may increase NHL risk include old age, use of immunosuppressant drugs, exposure to certain chemicals, such as weed and insect killers. 

Glyphosate-a probable carcinogen? 

Several studies have linked glyphosate, the chemical used in the popular weed killer Roundup, to cancer.

Glyphosate, used since 1974, effectively kills or suppresses all plant types, including grasses, perennials, vines, shrubs, and trees. When applied at lower rates, glyphosate is a plant-growth regulator and desiccant. It has agricultural and non-agricultural uses throughout the world.

In March 2015, a working group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, known as IARC, to evaluate the carcinogenicity of five herbicides and insecticides, among these- the most heavily used herbicide in the world, glyphosate.  The study concluded that this chemical is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals. IARC also reasoned that there was strong proof for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations. 

The IARC Monographs are based on systematic collections and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by objective experts. 

Some of these studies found a link between people exposed to this herbicide and an increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 

On the other hand, one of the evidence that led to IARC’s classification of the chemical as probably carcinogenic to humans, was a set of studies made on animals that showed how the glyphosate has been linked to tumefactions in mice and rats, also known as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate. 

Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.” (group 1 is for agents that are definitely carcinogenic to humans; 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans; 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans; 3, not classifiable; and 4, probably not carcinogenic to humans.).

According to a study published in the International Journal of Cancer in July 2008, glyphosate contained in Roundup was found to be one of the herbicides most associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma:

“When different NHL entities were analysed separately, the odd ratios  for the subtype small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (SLL/CLL) was increased for both phenoxy herbicides and, especially, glyphosate’’

The medical Journal Cancer also  published in 1999 a  case-control study, concluding “increased risk for NHL was found for subjects exposed to herbicides and fungicides“.

Monsanto also based its defense on numerous studies and it said it would appeal the verdict. Jurors heard testimony by statisticians, doctors, public health researchers and epidemiologists who disagreed on whether glyphosate can cause cancer and, in the end, they decided in favor of the plaintiff.

*

Gregory A. Cade has been a lawyer for over 20 years. With the help from his firm, Environmental Litigation Group, they have helped over 200.000 people and they have won more than $1 billion for their clients. Now, they are ready to help even more people who have suffered because of glyphosate.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook.

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

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

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

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

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

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The U.S. blockade on Cuba, imposed for more than 60 years, cost the tiny Caribbean island US$4.2 billion between April 2017 and March 2018, bringing Cuba’s total losses over six decades to US$134.5 billion.

In an annual report detailing the impact of Washington’s ongoing financial and trade policy, Cuba’s Foreign Ministry branded the blockade “the most unfair, severe and prolonged system of unilateral sanctions that has been applied against any country.”

The report, published Friday, noted that bilateral relations between the two nations – which had begun to thaw under the Barack Obama administration – experienced “a serious setback” in June 2017, when new U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memo strengthening the blockade.

Later that year, Trump’s administration then published a list of 179 Cuban entities with which U.S. institutions and individuals or legal entities were banned from doing business.

“The new sanctions against Cuba have caused a decrease in visitors from the United States and have generated major obstacles to the economic and commercial relations of Cuban companies with potential U.S. partners and third countries,” reads the latest report, which covers the period from April 2017 to March 2018. “These measures not only affect the state economy, but also the non-state sector of the country.”

Strengthening the blockade has impacted Cuba’s financial and credit relationships with the international community, the report states, causing “serious damage” to the country’s economy.

Stricter sanctions have also been accompanied by increased threats from Washington, D.C., the report continues, generating instability and stymying national development.

“The resurgence of the blockade against Cuba has been accompanied by aggressive, threatening, disrespectful and conditioning rhetoric from the highest levels of the U.S. government, which generates greater distrust and uncertainty in financial institutions, U.S. companies and suppliers due to the real fear of being penalized for relating to Cuba,” the report reads.

“The economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba is the main obstacle to development of all the potentialities of the Cuban economy. It represents a brake for the implementation of both the National Economic and Social Development Plan, as well as the 2030 Agenda and its Objectives of Sustainable Development.

“It is the main obstacle to the development of economic, commercial and financial relations of Cuba with the United States and, because of its extraterritorial nature, with the rest of the world.”

The United States has lost nearly all international support for the blockade since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

After agreeing to a historic U.S.-Cuban detente in 2014, Obama eased the embargo, which was put into place in 1962. But in 2017, Trump tightened travel and trade restrictions again. Only the U.S. Congress can lift the blockade in full.

The United Nations has adopted a non-binding resolution calling for an end to the sanctions with overwhelming support every year since 1992.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Syria’s Idlib province is the last major stronghold in the country infested with US-supported terrorists.

Led by elite Syrian Tiger forces, government troops are mobilizing for an offensive to liberate the province, aided by Russian airpower.

Russian reconnaissance flights have been monitoring Iblib’s southern and western countrysides, tracking movements of heavily armed US-supported terrorists.

The offensive is set to be launched in the coming days, fierce resistance likely. The greatest obstacle Syrian forces face is US opposition to resolving the conflict it initiated for regime change.

According to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, Trump regime hardliners “are impeding a normal settlement of the…fight against terrorism in Idlib.”

They reject ending illegal US occupation of northern and southwest Syria. “Unlike the US and” its imperial partners, Russia continues going all-out to achieve “stabilization and normalization of the situation in that country together with the guarantor countries Turkey and Iran.”

Are Washington and Britain planning another Chemical Weapons false flag incident this time in Idlib province, intending to wrongfully blame it on Assad – a pretext for US-led terror-bombing of Syrian military and other targets like earlier.

On Wednesday, Trump’s hardline national security advisor John Bolton threatened Damascus, saying:

“We now see plans for the Syrian (forces) to resume offensive military activities in Idlib province.”

“We are obviously concerned about the possibility that Assad may use chemical weapons again.”

“Just so there’s no confusion here, if the Syrian (forces) use chemical weapons, we will respond very strongly, and they really ought to think about this a long time.”

Fact: No evidence suggests government forces used CWs at any time throughout years of US-sponsored naked aggression in the country.

Fact: Plenty of evidence indisputably proved that US-supported terrorists used CWs many times, mainly against civilians, Damascus falsely blamed for their high crimes.

Bolton lied calling Israeli terror-bombing of Syrian targets “self-defense.” US claims about combating the scourge of ISIS in Syria it supports is another bald-faced lie.

On Wednesday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets are preparing to stage another (false flag) CW attack – in Idlib province to be wrongfully blamed on government forces.

“(R)eports say that the past few days have witnessed an unusual activity by the White Helmets members as information is being reported about terrorists preparing to carry out a chemical attack in the areas between Jisr al-Shughour and the northeastern countryside of Lattakia province with the aim of accusing the army of this attack,” said SANA, adding:

“…White Helmets members used eight vans to transport a shipment of barrels from Atma factory near the Turkish borders which specializes in recycling chlorine, moving from Idlib’s northern countryside through Ariha until they reached Jisr al-Shughour area, all under heavy protection form  al-Nusra terrorists, all while calls have been made to ‘reserve members’ of the White Helmets in several areas, instructing them to report for work.”

A joint US, UK, French statement said a military response would follow another CW incident, similar to their mid-April aggression, falsely accusing Syria of using CWs at the time.

A Final Comment

Sergey Lavrov slammed a secret world body directive prepared last year. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has prohibited UN agencies from involvement in rebuilding liberated Syrian areas until (US-plotted) “political transition” (regime change) in the country is achieved.

The document titled “Parameters and Principles of UN Assistance in Syria” was clearly prepared on orders from Washington, Guterres aiding its imperial agenda in Syria and elsewhere – circumventing the Security Council, breaching its resolutions on Syria, other international law and the UN Charter.

Lavrov slammed his complicity with Washington’s “absolutely destructive” agenda, obstructing conflict resolution and reconstruction in Syria.

Guterres secretly prohibited UN agencies “from participating in any kind of projects aimed at restoring the Syrian economy,” said Lavrov.

The Trump regime and Guterres flagrantly breached Security Council Resolution 2254, stressing the “critical need to build conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees…and the rehabilitation of affected (Syrian) areas.”

The Trump regime and its imperial allies want endless war for regime change continued – a high crime supported by Guterres.

*

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

That an economic world war has already started is beyond dispute. Whether it is Washington or Trump who has lost it is immaterial but between the sanctions imposed on several countries and prohibitive tariffs inflicted on friends and foes alike most are warning against a catastrophe, not just for those directly involved, but the world generally.    

Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal is, arguably, at the heart of the recent trade spats between the US and the five co-signatories. Although it must be said that US sanctions were not unique to Iran. Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Russia and many others were and are victims of American sanctions declared on a capitalist whim. Iran itself was victimised on no other pretext than its Islamic Revolution.

As has become customary America has no compunction about lying. Russia was sanctioned on trumped up charges of invading East Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, meddling in the 2016 American presidential elections and, the most recent charge of “highly likely” having poisoned a former, inconsequential Russian double agent, who is an MI6 asset.

But, thus far the Russian economy has not succumbed. Instead, on 1 March 2018 President Putin announced what was to upset US military superiority irretrievably, at least for several decades to come: Russia has developed weapons against which there is no defence.

Abandoning the JCPOA on the pretext that Washington wants the treaty renegotiated opened the way to a new barrage of sanctions against Iran with Trump declaring that state parties and commercial entities found breaking them will be penalised. The other five signatories/guarantors to the JCPOA protested. Russia already a victim of US sanctions openly declared that she will continue normal relations with Iran. 

China, with tariffs already imposed on her for some nefarious allegations among them currency manipulation, which to all intents and purposes has escalated into a trade war, saw fit to find ways around the sanctions against Iran. In anticipation of the November threat on import of Iranian oil China has increased its monthly volume substantially setting a ceiling well above the present, in readiness. India, another major Iran oil importer, has followed suit.

But China is the world’s second largest economy and the Renminbi is now part of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket of currencies. Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” program of turning China into an advanced manufacturing powerhouse is, too, no reason for the US to cheer. A further manifestation of China’s growing economic muscle is the launch of the Petroyuan last March. There is, therefore, no disputing that China is signalling its challenge to US economic dominance. To make matters worse China is no military walkover, not even for the USA. 

For their part the European signatories, namely, Britain, France and Germany were disgruntled. The JCPOA debacle resulted in the reactivation of the ‘blocking statute’ to protect European companies doing business in Iran. But Washington had by then assaulted Europe with the 25% steel and aluminium tariffs slapped on Mexico, Canada, China, Russia et al.. Brussels retaliated with a US$3.3 billion in tariffs against US products. However, fearing an escalation Europe pledged to increase imports of American soy bean and LNG.

America’s NATO allies are, therefore, not off-limits. Given the strain in relations with Turkey in recent years it is not surprising that tariffs would hit Ankara too. On the pretext that Turkey is holding an American citizen under house arrest for spying, the Turkish lira is now in a tailspin. Qatar, a Turkish ally, has pledged financial support. In fact, there is an obvious overall realignment going on where Turkey is visibly going the Eurasian way. 

Meanwhile, when sanctioned by the Obama administration Russia looked East towards China as an ally, now declared a strategic alliance. Trump then is forced, at least for now, to write off a hot war as an option to bring everyone to heel. Defeat in Syria is no help.

Fortunately for Trump, whose 2020 re-election depends on the success of his first term, today’s war is hybrid, asymmetrical and can be executed on several platforms simultaneously. An economic assault by the world’s number 1 economy under the circumstance must seem to him feasible. Fortunately for the world, America’s economy is groaning under the burden of massive debts caused by her perpetual war policy, one intended to keep the military industrial complex ticking over nicely. 

Thus far the annual US$1 trillion defence budget is financed by printing dollars, the world’s number one reserve currency facilitating international trade. The Petrodollar takes care of the oil trade the world over because OPEC under Saudi influence will not have it any other way. Why? Because it buys them US protection.

But to overcome unreasonable American sanctions and exorbitant tariff increases that go against WTO regulations, countries are beginning to trade in their own currencies and the Euro. The oil and gas trade has found an alternative in the Petroyuan, which has shown strong growth indicating that it has the ability to challenge the Petrodollar. Its success will destroy the US dollar’s dominant position. 

Trump himself appears unable to push his campaign pledges through. On the foreign front, under him Russophobia has gotten worse. At home “Making America Great Again” is driving him ever fiercer towards protectionism and trade wars. As a result the US is now regarded as unpredictable, unreliable and maybe even dangerous. So why is Trump pushing hard on sanctions and tariffs?

Despite his Helsinki meeting with Putin, Trump has imposed even harsher sanctions on Moscow based on unproven allegations made by London reminiscent of the false narrative leading to the Iraqi invasion. 

On China Trump threatens further tariffs as high as US$500 billion. Can China withstand such an onslaught? Beijing, however, holds over a trillion US dollars in American debt instruments. When push comes to shove will this be weaponised? 

A combination of factors have, therefore, come together to drive the trade wars: the American mid-term elections; military defeat in Syria; and, de-dollarisation. And, Trump has adopted Bush’s uncompromising position of either the world is with the US, or against the US. As it stands the world is looking a lot like it is “against” the US  except for such fading powers as Britain and Japan, and Australia, never a power centre.

An off-ramp is, then, sorely needed especially when the trade wars have added momentum to de-dollarisation which, when accomplished, loosens the stranglehold of the dollar over the global economy. When the trade wars have backfired on Washington can Trump be persuaded to step back from the brink and gracefully accept the end of US hegemony?

But what if the US will not relinquish its imperial ambitions? What if the US is not looking for an off-ramp? If so, why wouldn’t she? Could it be that her imperial agenda is long term and not easily surrendered?

It is fair to argue that with regard Iran and Turkey — and Syria, too –all three being staunch supporters of Palestine, America is looking for trouble in an effort to execute the Zionist “Greater Israel” project, which objective is to make Israel the regional imperial power, which in turn is the proxy for the West, namely, the United States. Greater Israel would roughly stretch from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East into Iraq, north through Lebanon to southern Turkey and in the south it cuts the Arabian peninsula into two, all areas very rich in oil and gas.

Nevertheless, this does not completely explain Trump’s global rampage. But if the Greater Israel project is a part of a Zionist US imperial plan — in less emotive terms the neo-conservative global New World Order — then a plausible answer is possible. The trade war is Washigton’s strategy of choice as a first phase to bring the world to its knees. 

But why should Moscow and Beijing surrender to Washington’s imperial will when they hold the trump card, the former militarily and the latter financially? President Putin has said, “Why would we want a world without Russia?” And, would not President Xi be thinking the same?

*

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of JUST Malaysia.

First published by Global Research on August 25, 2018

***

Very few people know who is Nikola Tesla.

They have heard of the Tesla electric car, but  generally the broader public is unfamiliar with Nikola Tesla, the Serbian scientist and his pathbreaking inventions in electricity and wireless technology.

Many of his inventions were stolen by US corporations. 

Wireless technology was in large part based on Tesla inventions. Nikola Tesla foresaw the advent of the cell phone back in 1926:

“We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. … and the instruments through which we shall be able to do this will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone.  A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket.”

In a  January 30, 1926 interview in Collier’s, Tesla revealed with tremendous foresight what a Future World with wireless technology would look like. In other words, he described the World in which we live in today.  “When wireless technology is perfectly applied, the whole earth will be converted into  a huge brain.”  Does this not describe our World today?

In fact Tesla described a World Beyond today’s World:

“Belted parking towers will arise in our large cities, and the roads will be multiplied through sheer necessity, or finally rendered unnecessary when civilization exchanges wheels for wings.

Tesla’s perspective was largely humanitarian reflecting a historical commitment to social progress. It was unduly optimistic. The military applications of wireless technology which constitute the basis of modern warfare were not mentioned.  Neither did he focus on the potential impacts of wireless radiation on human health (Beware of 5G: a Health Hazard for Future Generations and the Public is Not Informed).

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 25, 2018

***

Below are excerpts from Tesla’s historic 1926 interview (emphasis added)

1920s telephone, private collection.

From the inception of the wireless system,…  I saw that this new art of applied electricity would be of greater benefit to the human race than any other scientific discovery, for it virtually eliminates distance.

The majority of the ills from which humanity suffers are due to the immense extent of the terrestrial globe and the inability of individuals and nations to come into close contact.

“Wireless will achieve the closer contact through transmission of intelligence, transport of our bodies and materials and conveyance of energy.

When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole.  We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance.

Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles; and the instruments through which we shall be able to do his will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. 

A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket. [i.e. a mobile cell phone]

We shall be able to witness and hear events–the inauguration of a President, the playing of a world series game, the havoc of an earthquake or the terror of a battle–just as though we were present.

When the wireless transmission of power is made commercial, transport and transmission will be revolutionized.  Already motion pictures have been transmitted by wireless over a short distance.

Later the distance will be illimitable, and by later I mean only a few years hence.  Pictures are transmitted over wires–they were telegraphed successfully through the point system thirty years ago.  When wireless transmission of power becomes general, these methods will be as crude as is the steam locomotive compared with the electric train.

Perhaps the most valuable application of wireless energy will be the propulsion of flying machines, which will carry no fuel and will be free from any limitations of the present airplanes and dirigibles.  We shall ride from New York to Europe in a few hours.  International boundaries will be largely obliterated and a great step will be made toward the unification and harmonious existence of the various races inhabiting the globe.  Wireless will not only make possible the supply of energy to region, however inaccessible, but it will be effective politically by harmonizing international interests; it will create understanding instead of differences.

Modern systems of power transmission will become antiquated.  Compact relay stations one half or one quarter the size of our modern power plants will be the basis of operation–in the air and under the sea, for water will effect small loss in conveying energy by wireless.”

Present wireless receiving apparatus … will be scrapped for much simpler machines; static and all forms of interference will be eliminated, so that innumerable transmitters and receivers may be operated without interference.  It is more than probable that the household’s daily newspaper will be printed ‘wirelessly’ in the home during the night.  Domestic management–the problems of heat, light and household mechanics–will be freed from all labor through beneficent wireless power.

I foresee the development of the flying machine exceeding that of the automobile, and I expect Mr.  Ford to make large contributions toward this progress.  The problem of parking automobiles and furnishing separate roads for commercial and pleasure traffic will be solved.  Belted parking towers will arise in our large cities, and the roads will be multiplied through sheer necessity, or finally rendered unnecessary when civilization exchanges wheels for wings.

The world’s internal reservoirs of heat, indicated by frequent volcanic eruptions, will be tapped for industrial purposes.  In an article I wrote twenty years ago I defined a process for continuously converting to human use part of the heat received from the sun by the atmosphere.  Experts have jumped to the conclusion that I am attempting to realize a perpetual-motion scheme.  But my process has been carefully worked out.  It is rational.”

(quoted from John B. Kennedy, An Interview with Nikola Tesla, Collier Magazine, January 30, 1922)

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The call comes after a San Francisco jury on August 10 ordered Monsanto to pay nearly $290 million in punitive and compensatory damages to Dewayne Johnson, a cancer patient whose terminal illness was allegedly caused by glyphosate in the company’s weed killer product.

“This case is a precedent that dismisses previous arguments that the herbicides supplied to the U.S. Military by Monsanto and other American chemical companies during the Vietnam War are not harmful to people’s health,” deputy Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nguyen Phuong Tra said Thursday.

“We believe Monsanto should be held responsible for compensating Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange for the damage caused by the company’s herbicides,” Tra said.

Founded in 1901 in St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto began producing agrochemicals in the 1940s. It was acquired by Bayer for more than $62 billion in June.

Monsanto was one of the producers of Agent Orange, a defoliant used by U.S. troops to strip Vietnamese forces of ground cover and food. Between 1961 and 1971 the U.S. Army sprayed some 80 million liters of Agent Orange over 30,000 square miles of southern Vietnam.

Dioxin, a highly toxic chemical in the defoliant, has been linked to many major health problems such as cancer, mental disabilities and birth defects.

Millions of Vietnamese over several generations have suffered from health problems due to exposure to Agent Orange, according to government data.

In 2004, Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange filed a class action lawsuit in a New York court against Monsanto, Dow Chemical and more than 30 manufacturers of the toxic defoliant. The case was however dismissed by the U.S. court citing lack of evidence.

On the other hand, Monsanto has multiple times been ordered by U.S. courts to pay compensation to American plaintiffs who suffered health issues from exposure to the company’s chemicals.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

As the tired, weak, dispute-driven, Conservative government flounders onwards towards an ignominious and disastrous Brexit departure from the European Union, the majority of the electorate in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, London, Cardiff and Glasgow eagerly await the election and installation of a Labour administration to take control.

A new, exciting dawn awaits Britain as essential services such as road, rail, mass transport systems and public utilities are taken back into British public ownership from their current foreign owners.

Banking and financial services in the City will be closely controlled and monitored to root out the corruption that is endemic in boardrooms throughout London as remuneration committees vote themselves and their friends ever increasing bonuses running into many millions annually as workers struggle on year-on-year under a pay freeze.

Commuters and communities will see an immediate change as priorities shift from the top 5% to the rest of society.

The corrupt ‘money for honours’ system that has given the country a swollen, puffed-up, moneyed House of ermine-clad peers who scratch each other’s backs as they disrupt the business of Parliament, will suffer a radical overhaul.

The sick and disabled will be able to eat again as the oppressive Conservative legislation that deprived them of proper food, medical attention, health benefits and housing is reversed and instead of taxing the poor out of existence, the tax-avoiding cohorts of hedge fund managers, bankers and City traders will be caught in a new net, operated by a vigilant Inland Revenue that will have no truck with the large accounting firms that are hired to audit but edit instead.

It’ll be ‘a new world, Golda’ once there is a Labour government in situ.  No one will be forced to go without heating, food or medical attention.  Food banks will be unnecessary and non-existent in a Labour-controlled economy.

The NHS will be totally overhauled to provide a 24/7 world-class medical service not a 5-day bankrupt apology for a Health Service. The most effective drugs and up to date scanning will be available for all, 24/7, not just those in private hospitals in London who cater for overseas visitors.

The education system, nationwide, will be made fairer and more equitable with priority for school places going to the children and families of British-born citizens in preference to non-nationals.

Housing and land will be made affordable for all citizens as there will be legislation prohibiting the amassing of land banks with planning consents by private house builders.  Local authorities will be required to build a stipulated number of affordable houses each year.  There will be no exceptions as at present for developers claiming non-viability. Local demand will always have priority over that of foreign investors.   And rents, all rents, commercial and residential, will need to be regulated with immediate effect.

Freedom of the press, media and internet will be guaranteed by statute but the deliberate dissemination of fake news or the hounding of innocent citizens will be unlawful.

There will be a prohibition on the sale of any British PLC to an overseas registered buyer without prior official authority from UK government.

Britain is a rich country brought down by an anachronistic class system that ensures the vast majority of the working population is shackled by legislation and local government that exists to make the City richer and the ordinary citizen, poorer.

The United Kingdom will, thank God, change as soon as Labour takes power. We’ll make Britain great again!  But, unlike America, we’ll do it honestly and efficiently so that every single citizen of the United Kingdom, benefits and thrives under a democratic, transparent government that exists to serve the majority.

And finally, lobbyists acting for and paid by a foreign state or by their London embassy or diplomatic mission, will be required by law to be registered as ‘foreign agents’ and their movements and activities restricted as a matter of British national security.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

One thing already seems clear in the Trump era: the world will not turn out to be the American president’s playground.  His ultra-unilateralist, rejectionist policies on trade, the Iran denuclearization agreement, the costs of defense, and climate change are already creating an incipient anti-Trump movement globally (and in the United States as well). To a remarkable degree, the countries he has targeted are banding together to oppose him and his policies.  That still inchoate but gathering opposition assures that, whatever Donald Trump’s view of America may be, it is no longer — in the phrase coined 20 years ago by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright — the “indispensable nation.” Abroad or even at home, with the president facing increasingly strong headwinds on climate change at the state and local level, we’re entering a new world order on the heels of the collapsed American domination of the past three-quarters of a century.

Let’s consider the opposition Trump has generated on an issue-by-issue basis.

Cross-Border Trade

In January 2017, on his first day in office, President Trump promptly withdrew the United States from the long-negotiated 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) pact, deeply disappointing among others a close ally, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. He had assiduously curried favor with Trump as soon as he was elected, on and off the golf course.  A day earlier in January, Abe had even succeeded in getting his own parliament to approve the agreement.

But in an act by Washington’s allies unprecedented in the last seven decades, Abe, along with the leaders of the 10 other countries in that pact — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam — refused to take Trump’s executive order as TPP’s death sentence.  Instead, in a groundbreaking step into a new world, they resumed negotiations on the pact in the Chilean city of Viña del Mar.

This March, after months of deliberation, they signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in Chile’s capital city, Santiago. For the signatories, it reduces tariffs drastically, while introducing sweeping new trade rules in markets covering half a billion people on either side of the Pacific Ocean.

This was a landmark event, inaugurating an era in which countries long accustomed to following cues from Washington forged ahead without its participation. In doing so, they rejected Trump’s view of trade as a zero-sum game, consisting of winners and losers. Reflecting the common perception of the signatories, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said,

“We need to stay on the course of globalization, yet learning from our past mistakes.”

Bachelet’s view was shared by Abe, who leads the country with the third largest economy in the world. Japan is a key player in global trade. So, too, is the 28-member European Union (EU) whose aggregate gross domestic product ($17.278 trillion) far exceeds Japan’s ($4.872 trillion).

Soon after recovering from Trump’s TPP exit, Abe decided to revive his country’s stalled free-trade talks with the EU. Their shared disapproval of the American president’s trade policy led the two sides to rapidly overcome their differences. In July 2017, Abe formally agreed to an outline of a free-trade deal with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.  By so doing, the EU and Japan, highly developed democracies, made clear their commitment to the liberal, free-trading, rules-based international order, which runs counter to Trump’s worldview.

In July 2018 in Brussels, the European Union and Japan inked the globe’s largest free-trade deal, the Economic Partnership Agreement. Remarkably, it covers almost a third of the globe’s gross domestic product and 600 million people. Toshimitsu Motegi, Japan’s minister for economic revitalization, summed up the situation in this way:

“The signing of the Japan-EU deal today will show the world once again our unwavering political will to promote free trade.”

Juncker was even more upbeat.

“[The] impact of today’s agreement goes far beyond our shores,” he said. “We are showing that we are stronger and better off when we work together. And we are leading by example, showing that trade is about more than tariffs and barriers. It is about values, principles, and finding win-win solutions for all those concerned.”

For the first time since the end of World War II, Washington’s allies in the West as well as the East thumbed their noses at an American president.  That made it a truly historic event.

The EU Goes Head to Head With Trump

In May, when Donald Trump exited the multilateral Iran denuclearization deal endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, Juncker was equally strident in his criticism of him. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had been signed in July 2015 by six world powers (America, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia) and the EU, was being implemented as specified in the document. Yet Trump announced the reimposition of the American sanctions that had been in place before the JCPOA. These covered Iran’s energy, banking, and other sectors, and included a provision penalizing foreign businesses worldwide that continued trading with or investing in Iran. 

The American president’s 11-minute TV address explaining his decision ignored the 10 quarterly reports by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming that Iran was in compliance with the pact. Altogether his address contained 10 false or misleading statements, including the howler that Iran was on the “cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Before launching economic warfare against Tehran, Trump had alienated the EU by refusing to grant it an exemption from steel and aluminum tariffs he started imposing on China and other countries in March. An American president is authorized to take such action only to protect “national security.” EU officials argued, to no avail, that their bloc was an ally of the United States and so, by definition, not a national security threat.

“We are witnessing today a new phenomenon: the capricious assertiveness of the American administration,” Tusk said, on the eve of an EU summit in Sofia, Bulgaria, in mid-May. “Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, some could even think, ‘With friends like that, who needs enemies?’”

At that meeting, EU members agreed unanimously to stick to the JCPOA as long as Iran agreed to do the same.

On August 7th, U.S. sanctions went into effect on any financial transactions involving American dollars relating to Iran’s automotive sector, purchases of commercial planes, and metals, including gold. The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, immediately instructed European companies not to comply with Washington’s demand to cease trading with Iran. Those firms deciding to pull out would require the EU’s authorization to do so. The commission went on to set up a mechanism that would allow firms affected by the sanctions to sue the American government in the national courts of member states.

Russia and China, co-signatories to the JCPOA, concurred with the EU.

“We are deeply disappointed by U.S. steps to reimpose its national sanctions against Iran,” said the Russian foreign ministry. “This is a clear example of Washington violating U.N. resolution 2231 [on the Iran deal] and international law.”

China’s foreign ministry also regretted Washington’s decision and urged all involved parties to stay on track for full implementation of the 2015 accord.

The unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 2231, passed under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, had endorsed the Iran denuclearization pact, making it part of international law. It included a call for “promoting and facilitating the development of normal economic and trade contacts and cooperation with Iran.”

As if brazenly violating international law weren’t enough, the Trump administration decided to penalize U.N. member states for abiding by that resolution — a frontal attack on a rules-based international order. Fearing U.S. sanctions, some European companies had already backed off their Iranian investments and trade before August 7th. Consider that an apt illustration of a Trumpian world in which it’s the lawbreaker who punishes the law-abiding.

Trump on NATO

As a businessman occupying the White House, Donald Trump has introduced a profit-and-loss paradigm to foreign policy — be it cross-border trade or military budgets. That helps explain his continual drumbeat of criticism about how other NATO members are not spending enough on defense.

At the July NATO summit in Brussels, Trump was implacable on that issue, summing up his position in this way to CBS News:

“Many of those countries are in NATO and they weren’t paying their bills.”

A typical Trumpian claim, it bore no relation to reality.  As German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen explained, “NATO does not have a debt account.”

Apparently, the president confused direct and indirect contributions to NATO. In 2017, NATO’s budget was $1.652 billion. Member states contribute according to an agreed-upon formula related to a country’s GDP. The U.S. contributes 22.14% of that budget, Germany 14.65%, France 10.63%, and Britain 9.84%. All paid on time.

Then there are indirect contributions to NATO. These are related to how much equipment and manpower a member state volunteers to a certain military operation, of which the best known at the moment continues to be the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan launched after the 9/11 attacks almost 17 years ago. In order to facilitate and encourage such contributions, NATO leaders agreed in 2014 to increase their spending on defense to at least 2% of their GDP by 2024. Many are on course to do so. Recently, however, Trump upped the ante, suggesting that the figure be 4%, a goal even the U.S., with by far the largest military budget in the world, does not now reach.

Currently, the U.S. is spending 3.6% of its GDP on its military. That amounts to $683 billion (and the military budget Trump just signed raised that to $717 billion), or 71% of total NATO defense spending. That is what led the American president to describe the present situation as “disproportionate and not fair to the taxpayers of the United States.” Unsurprisingly, Trump failed to compare like with like. Defense of country is normally defined in terms of a possible aggressor. In that sense, the European members of NATO are focused on Russia. Collectively, NATO’s EU members spend $254 billion on defense, or 10 times Russia’s $24.2 billion defense budget.

By contrast, since the end of World War II, the Pentagon has equipped itself to fight wars across the world and dominate both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. That explains why, of the 20 aircraft carriers in service around the globe, 10 belong to its navy. Constructing an aircraft carrier takes years and is hugely expensive, apart from the support ships it needs to form a complete carrier task force.  But as a well-armed, aircraft-equipped, floating part of sovereign U.S. territory, powered by dual nuclear reactors, it is unmatched in its lethal power. This is what led former defense secretary William Cohen to state that, without “flattops,” the United States would have “less of a voice, less of an influence.”

In stark contrast, among Washington’s European allies, Britain has just one aircraft carrier, as does France. Notably, their carriers rarely steam past the Horn of Africa or the Persian Gulf.

Britain is already past the 2% mark for defense spending and France is just .2% short of the agreed-upon target. Since May of last year, France has been governed by 40-year-old President Emmanuel Macron, a staunch advocate of the closer integration, financially and otherwise, of EU members.  In a September 2017 speech, he floated the idea of a joint enterprise to allow Europe’s militaries to coordinate and react swiftly together.  As a result, this June, ministers from Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal signed a letter of intent in Luxembourg to form the European Intervention Initiative (EII).  It would exist outside the EU’s structures and be focused on joint planning for future natural disasters, crisis intervention, and the evacuation of citizens from hostile countries, among other things.

At present, its aims remain modest, but the key point is simple.  The principle that European militaries should act collectively without the involvement of the Pentagon is to be put into practice.  That is likely to prove but one more step on the path toward turning Albright’s indispensable nation into an increasingly dispensable America. If Donald Trump or his successor persists in weakening NATO, he or she will only encourage the Europeans to build on the EII concept.

A Climate-Denying President Is Rebuffed at Home

As a global opposition to Donald Trump begins to form, on one issue, climate change — that affects all humanity — a distinctly American opposition is preparing to join the growing international one.  In June 2017, Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, while appointing an unparalleled crew of climate-change deniers to his administration and reneging on President Barack Obama’s pledge by 2025 to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% (from 2005 levels).

To the relief of most of the planet’s inhabitants, Trump’s withdrawal proved to be a solo act, with the remaining 194 signatories remaining firmly on board. Their representatives were among the 3,000 diplomats and observers who assembled in Bonn, Germany, in May to deliberate on giving the agreement further clout. To the consternation of the Trump administration, the next crucial meeting, a Global Climate Action Summit, will take place in September — and guess where? —  in California.

That state’s governor, Jerry Brown, has been a key figure in rallying support for the Paris Accord and opposition to Trump’s climate-change deniers at the state and local levels. Along with former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, Brown has sponsored the We Are Still In coalition. In November 2017, the two of them published a remarkable report showing that cities, states, and businesses representing more than half of the U.S. economy and population had declared their support for the agreement.

“If these non-federal actors were a country,” it pointed out, “their economy would be the third largest in the world, bigger than all but two national parties to the Paris Agreement.”

In his withdrawal statement, Trump stated that

“the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.”

That accord’s main aim was to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees centigrade from the preindustrial level.

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump added.

Within a few hours, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto tweeted back,

“I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future.”

Pittsburgh is one of 405 municipalities representing 70 million Americans that have signed on to a Climate Mayors initiative, which has only grown in the past year. More than 80 American cities — even some, like San Diego, run by Republicans — have committed to a future of 100% renewable energy. In fact, Trump’s decision actually spurred some cities to make new efforts to accelerate the pace of change. New York decided to electrify its bus fleet and pledged to divest from fossil fuels, while suing the world’s largest oil corporations for their role in escalating sea-level rise, heat waves, and other natural disasters. It also promised to abandon coal-fired electricity, as did Los Angeles.

Donald Trump is not going to change.  He has declared his intention to seek reelection in 2020 and will continue to nurture his base by endlessly demonstrating his version of Make America Great Again. The 54 million followers he has on Twitter generally seem to applaud the macho bluster with which he conducts his bouts of disruptive diplomacy. So don’t expect him to moderate either his ultra-unilateralist policies or the style in which he delivers them.

The question for the future is this: To what extent can the incipient anti-Trump movement globally and domestically coalesce in ways that will set our world on a new course — one that will make Donald Trump and his Washington cronies the dinosaurs of Planet Earth? 

*

Dilip Hiro, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World. His 37th book, soon to be published, is Cold War in the Islamic World: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Struggle for Supremacy (Oxford University Press).

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

If Micronesia’s centrally positioned Chuuk State votes for independence next year, then it could set off a chain reaction of events that would seriously undermine the US’ Pacific strategy and work out to the supreme benefit of China.

What’s Chuuk?

Radio New Zealand recently reported on a little-known event of disproportionate geostrategic significance in the Pacific region when it ran an article earlier this week titled “Chuukese defiant about independence from FSM”. This piece raised awareness not only of the Chuukese secessionist campaign within the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), but also about how the US Ambassador politically intervened to warn against voting for this move during next March’s plebiscite. The casual reader might not have ever heard of Micronesia, nor understand why the possible secession of one of its states warrants an analysis by the author, but The Diplomat’s Thomas R. Matelski answered this question in February 2016 in his article titled “America’s Micronesia Problem”.

The Chinese Challenge

To sum it up, he said that the US needs to pay extra attention to the Pacific Island states of the “Compact Of Free Association” (COFA) whose post-independence economic and security agreements with America are set to expire in the coming future, as Micronesia’s is in 2023. The US Army War College fellow warned that China could quickly replace the US in what Beijing’s strategists regard as the “Second Island Chain”, which would have the effect of threatening the Pentagon’s Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) in the West Pacific waters between Guam and Papua New Guinea. Even if the Chinese military doesn’t move into this space, an allied government there could refuse to renew COFA and therefore deprive the US Navy of its existing rights there.

For those who may not be aware of what COFA is, it’s basically a lopsided post-independence deal between the US and the three Pacific Island nations that it occupied after World War II (Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau) as part of the UNSC-approved “Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands”. This arrangement pretty much grants the US military the freedom to do as it pleases in exchange for allowing the small population of “Global South” people in this part of the world the right to unrestrictedly migrate to the US or any of its other territories if they so choose. It was never about the islands’ development and was more than likely forced on their leaders out of Cold War geostrategic considerations, which is why it’s so controversial.

“Balkanizing” The Pacific

Chuuk is especially important in this context because its independence campaign represents the first real threat to Micronesia’s unity, which isn’t constitutionally enshrined and therefore makes the state’s secession legally possible. Some observers were of the impression that this was all just one big bluff in order to improve Micronesia’s standing during the ongoing talks to renew COFA, but Chuuk’s determination to go forward with this vote despite the US Ambassador saying that the state’s people would lose their migration rights to the US under COFA if they seceded proves that they’re more serious about this than outsiders might have initially thought.

The US usually doesn’t mind the “Balkanization” of any region in the Eastern Hemisphere – and actually encourages it in most instances — because this outcome is thought to facilitate its divide-and-rule strategy in the 21^st century, which is why its opposition to Chuuk’s secession is a curious exception to this established pattern. The reason for this is that the US prefers to deal with the hundreds of microcosmic islands within the COFA space on three easily manageable bilateral bases because of the understandable efficiency of this arrangement, but also due to credible fears that China could take advantage of the region’s “Balkanization” to disrupt the Pentagon’s SLOC in these strategic waters per the scenario outlined by Matelski.

 American Solutions

Therefore, the US has a national security interest of paramount importance in retaining the indivisibility of the COFA states, though it for whatever reason refuses to offer more beneficial socio-economic benefits to its proxy states in order to compete with China. Should it decide to be less stingy, then the US could steal China’s thunder by turning the islands into pro-American welfare states and indefinitely preempting any legitimate separatist threat to its military superiority in the region. Barring the political will to invest more in Chuuk, Micronesia, and the COFA states as a whole, then the US will probably resort to disruptive political measures to stop the centrifugal process that “Balkanization” would produce there.

The first thing that it can do is try to get the vote delayed or outright scrapped, but if that’s not possible, then the US will continue to pressure and intimidate pro-independence supporters. There’s also a chance that it might try to pay off some members of the vote-counting authority in order to rig the results. In the somewhat unlikely event that the Chuukese people succeed in their democratic separatist aspirations, then the US would immediately challenge the constitutionality of this move and offer full legal support to the Micronesian government. Under no circumstances will it allow Chuuk to make any independent military or political decisions, especially regarding China, and could blockade it as a last resort if this happens.

Concluding Thoughts

All in all, the case of next year’s Chuukese separatist referendum from Micronesia represents an unlikely example of a seemingly obscure event in a sparsely populated and far-off place potentially having disproportionate geostrategic importance in the New Cold War. It’s not likely to develop into a full-fledged crisis because the US should be able to prevent an adverse outcome of the vote by hook or by crook, but even so, the fact that the people are going forward with this initiative anyhow speaks to the genuine grievances that they have with Micronesia, COFA, and consequently, the US. If the vote is conducted in a free and fair manner, then the world will finally discover whether these concerns are shared by the majority of the population or not.

The US should have invested more effort into sincerely developing its partners’ socio-economic potential over the decades, and the groundswell of negative sentiment surrounding it is entirely of its own making. The Chinese economic model wouldn’t be attractive to the people of Chuuk or anyone else in the COFA space if the US was taking care of their needs like it was expected to, though it’s not too late for Washington to “win hearts and minds” if it offers these countries a much better deal than before. Time will tell whether this happens or not, but it’s revealing that it has thus far refused to do this and raises the obvious question of why that is when considering the magnitude of what’s at stake.

*

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  

Washington’s global hegemonic project of war and poverty has extended its reach into the recesses of the United Nations.

Whereas the steady flow of Syrian refugees back to their homeland is an on-going humanitarian success story, reports now indicate that the UN is blocking its own agencies from participating in the restoration of Syria’s economy.

The West seeks to suppress all of the conditions which encourage resettlement, as it promotes conditions which sustain and grow its terrorist proxies. 

The U.N, purportedly an agency for peace and stability has become, in this instance, an imperial agency for war, death, and destruction.

Meanwhile, Western politicians who voice empty words about ending the refugee crisis are mere fronts for policymakers who seek (and achieve) the opposite.

Al Qaeda and all of the terrorists in Syria are the real faces of Western politicians and policymakers who have, since before the war began, sustained and supported the terrorists – and continue to do so. The same conditions which sustain terrorism, and weaken the state, open the country up for imperial plunder and control.

 Separately, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, basically set the stage for another false flag as a pretext for further US war crimes in defense of terrorists, by advising,  

“Just so there’s no confusion here: if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons, we will respond very strongly, and they really ought to think about this a long time.” 

Investigative journalist, and member of the Syria Solidarity Movement, Rick Sterling told Radio Sputnik that Bolton’s statement was “just another violation of international law”, that “it’s a threat that the US will use force,” and that “it’s another unauthorised assertion that the US is the judge, jury and executioner of the violations of the chemical weapons treaty.”

Imperialists and their proxies are the problem.  Terrorism and permanent global warfare will not subside until this root cause is addressed.

(Photos below: Terrorist damage to Syria’s industrial base, Aleppo, Syria, Source: author)

*

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.

Notes

1. Merrit Kennedy, “U.N.: More Than 600,000 Syrians Have Returned Home In 2017.” npr . 11 August, 2017. (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/11/542828513/u-n-more-than-600-000-syrians-have-returned-home-in-2017) Accessed 24 August, 2018. 

According to Russian Defense Ministry, 101,641 refugees returned to Syria from January 2018 – July 2018. (https://arabic.rt.com/middle_east/957970-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%A6-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%B2%D8%A7-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D9%88%D8%A5%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%86/amp/) Accessed 24 August, 2018.

2. RT News, “ ‘Secret Directive’ Bans UN Agencies From Helping Rebuild Syria Until ‘Political Transition’. Lavrov. “ RT World News, 20 August 2018/ GR 22 August, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-directive-bans-un-agencies-from-helping-rebuild-syria-until-political-transition-lavrov/5651479) Accessed 24 August, 2018.

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In 2013 Tom Engelhardt wrote, referring to the United States presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen, where at eight United States air strikes had killed almost 300 wedding guests: “we have become a nation of wedding crashers, the uninvited guests who arrived under false pretenses, tore up the place, offered nary and apology, and refused to go home.”

That was never truer than in Afghanistan. Contrary to widespread news reports, the United States did not begin its involvement in Afghanistan with the invasion and occupation of the country in October 2001. Its modern focus on Afghanistan can be traced back at least to the 1970s.

In the late 1970s Afghanistan was ruled by a relatively secular regime. The last King, Mohammad Zahir Shah had been deposed in a 1973 coup and a republic established. Shah was replaced by Mohammad Daoud Khan who ruled from July 1973 to April 1978 when he was assassinated. His replacement, Nur Mohammed Taraki lasted until September 1979 when he was also assassinated, a fate that also befell his successor Hafizullah Amin.

The turmoil was not entirely domestic related. Throughout the 1970s, Afghanistan’s only real foreign friend was the Soviet Union. This was a temptation too great for the Americans to resist. United States President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski persuaded Carter to support an insurrection against the Taraki Government. To this end, foreign insurgents were to be trained in Pakistan, armed by the Americans, and largely financed by Saudi Arabia.

These insurgents were then infiltrated not only into Afghanistan, but also the Muslim dominant Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, and Xinjiang province of China, also with a large Muslim population.

The objective, as Brzezinski disclosed in his book The Grand Chessboard, (1997) was “to give the Soviet Union it’s own Vietnam.” The program to train and infiltrate terrorists into Afghanistan, Xinjiang and the Central Asian republics was code named Operation Cyclone. This was the origin of the group that came to be known as al Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the list.” The members of that list were then known as Mujihideen, foreign fighters that could be relied upon to pursue goals consistent with the objectives of United States geopolicy.

One of the leaders of this fighting force was Osama bin Laden a Saudi Arabian from a wealthy Saudi family.

Brzezinski’s task was at least partially successful. The Soviet leader Brezhnev eventually agreed to the multiple requests of the Afghanistan government for assistance, and dispatched troops to Afghanistan. This has been falsely depicted as a Soviet “invasion” ever since. Militarily and politically it was a disastrous for the Soviet Union. The last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ordered the withdrawal of the combat troops in May 1988 and it was successfully concluded by the following February.

Political instability continued however, with a bitter civil war that eventually led to the formation of the Taliban government. That government never had full control of all of Afghanistan’s territory, with significant portions under the control of sundry warlords, particularly in the north of the country. The Taliban’s singular achievement was to slash opium production to a tiny fraction of the volume that had produced more than 90% of the world’s heroin supply.

The events of 11 September 2001 gave the United States its excuse to once again focus on ‘regime change’ in Kabul. What the western media resolutely fails to tell its readers/ listeners is that the decision to invade Afghanistan was in fact taken in July 2001 when the Taliban Government refused to award the contract for a gas pipeline from the enormously resource-rich Caspian basin through Afghanistan to an American company, and instead gave to an Argentinian company Bridas.

Afghanistan was, for the Americans, the only feasible route for the pipeline as alternative routes were through Iran, Russia or China, none of whom were geopolitically feasible for the United States.

The ostensible public reason for the invasion and occupation was the alleged refusal of the Taliban Government to hand over Osama bin Laden, the alleged ringleader of the 9/f that evidence was produced they were willing to hand bin Laden over to an international tribunal for trial.

That evidence was never forthcoming. There were two reasons for this: the evidence is non-existent; and more importantly for present purposes, the decision to invade had already been made. Regardless of what the Afghanistan government did or did not do, their fate had already been determined.

Now, nearly 17 years later, the Americans and their allies such as Australia are still there. As Engelhardt said, they arrived uninvited, trashed the place, and refused to leave.

The longer they stay, the hollower the original justification is revealed to be the case. The public is still fed the same nonsensical excuses, such as training the Afghan troops to be able to be responsible for their own security. Evidence of ‘ghost’ troops, rampant corruption and a manifest unwillingness as well as an inability to be an effective fighting force has done nothing to diminish the propaganda.

Rather than bringing ‘peace and stability’, training Afghans to a mythical self-sufficiency, or helping rebuild Afghanistan’s shattered infrastructure, the time is long past for an honest appraisal of what western Allied forces are really trying to achieve in Afghanistan. There are a number of motives that readily reveal themselves.

The first relates to Afghanistan’s geography. It is strategically located in close proximity to, or bordering upon, the United States’ designated enemies, China, Iran and Russia. A map of US military bases shows that they closely follow the pipeline route, and are readily accessible to the poppy fields that once again produce more than 90% of the world’s heroin.

The refining of opium into heroin requires imported chemicals, and those are flown into Afghanistan on planes operated by the occupying NATO forces. This should not come as a surprise, despite being totally suppressed by the western media. Peter Dale Scott (American War Machine, 2010) and Alfred McCoy (Politics of Heroin New ed. 2003) have long pointed out the central role of drug trafficking in the financing of CIA clandestine operations.

Those military bases have also fulfilled a further role as ‘black sites’ where alleged terrorists are illegally rendered, to be tortured, indefinitely imprisoned, or simply disappeared.

A second reason relates to Afghanistan’s resource wealth. One of the least publicized facts about Afghanistan is it is enormous potential as a source of oil, gas, precious metals, precious stones, and perhaps most significantly rare earth minerals.

A number of US geological survey reports in recent years have conservatively estimated Afghanistan’s resources and those areas to be in excess of $3 trillion. It is hardly surprising given this potential bonanza, which Trump himself described as being sufficient to pay for Afghanistan’s own occupation, that the United States and its allies “refuse to go home.”

The third factor relates to the geopolitical changes occurring in the region. As corrupt and incompetent as the current Afghanistan government is, it is still able to discern that the continued US occupation is a road to nowhere. Afghanistan has, since June 2012 had observer status of the Shanghai Corporation Organisation, rapidly emerging as one of the most influential groups in the Eurasian region.

The SCO grouping poses a progressively stronger challenge to the US centred geopolitical world, and the US is not giving up its previous unipolar status without a fight.

The Mujihideen of the 1970s and 1980s, now morphed into various guises but still under US direction, is being used to destabilize and disrupt those same nations targeted during those earlier decades. It is one of the major reasons why the SCO has security related issues as a central focus.

On 4 September 2018 the Taliban will be participating in Russian sponsored peace talks in Moscow. Twelve countries and the Taliban were invited, but the United States and Afghanistan governments have announced that they will not be attending. The Afghan government says it prefers “direct talks” with the Taliban, although given the realities of the presence of foreign occupying troops, it is difficult to see how direct talks will produce a meaningful result while their status remains undetermined. It is also an open question as to how freely the Afghan government decision was made.

The Americans have also declined to take part, saying that the talks were “unlikely to yield any progress” toward a settlement. Rather obviously, progress is difficult if one of the principal players refuses to participate. The more likely real reason for American non-participation is that they do not control the agenda, the venue, or the outcome. Rather than being part of the solution, they remain instead a major part of the problem.

After nearly 17 years of occupation, destruction, civil war and a manifest absence of progress, it is clearly way past the time when there was a fresh approach with Afghanistan’s needs being the top priority. For the reasons set up above that has not been the case for the past several decades. Progress is unlikely to be achieved as long as the uninvited guests refuse to go home.

*

James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

With no main electricity for 16-20 hours per day, hospitals in Gaza are reliant on backup generators to keep essential services running. UN-donated fuel to keep these life-saving services running is expected to be used up in the next few days unless emergency funding is secured.

On Monday, Mr McGoldrick called on the international community to urgently prevent essential services from shutting down:

“Life-saving services in the Gaza Strip rely heavily on donor-funded emergency fuel. We have now run out of funds and are delivering the final supplies in the next few days. Without funds to enable ongoing deliveries, service providers will be forced to suspend, or heavily reduce, operations from early September, with potentially grave consequences.”

The severe shortage of emergency fuel endangers patients’ lives, including new born babies in intensive care – a service supported by Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) in Gaza. This was emphasised by the UN this week:

“Among the most vulnerable to shortages are 4,800 patients in Gaza’s hospitals, who rely each day on electrical devices in intensive care units, including newborns, and those on dialysis or in trauma departments. Medical services for over 1.6 million other Palestinians will suffer from reduction or cessation of services, due to lack of emergency fuel at the main health facilities, and over half the population face the risk of possible sewage overflow, if fuel runs out for the 41 main sewage pumping stations in the Gaza Strip. Overall, the reduced functioning of water and sanitation facilities risks an increase of waterborne disease and outbreaks in a densely-populated, urban area.”

It is vital that international donors, including the UK, step in immediately to keep Gaza’s health system running. In the long-term, they must also work towards sustainable solutions to the electricity crisis, including through a lifting of Israel’s 11-year illegal closure. The UN estimates that US$4.5 million is required to cover humanitarian fuel costs until the end of 2018.

The crisis affecting the provision of health services in Gaza is further compounded by the mass trauma casualties which have entered hospitals in the context of Israel’s use of force against protesters taking part in the “Great March of Return” since 30 March.

On Friday 17 August, the twenty-first Friday of the “Great March of Return” demonstrations, a high number of casualties were again reported. According to the Ministry of Health, two Palestinians were killed and 270 injured by Israeli forces. Karim Abu Fatair, 30, was fatally shot in the head by an Israeli sniper near to the perimeter fence in central Gaza. Saadi Akram Ahmad Abu Maamar, 27, also succumbed to his wounds at demonstrations in central Gaza.

Since 30 March, 160 Palestinians have been killed and 18,000 people injured. According to the World Health Organization, 9,447 people have been hospitalised, of whom 48% (4,508) were shot. Of those hospitalised 5,924 received limb injuries.

Outside of hospitals, frontline health workers have come under attack by Israeli forces using live ammunition, tear gas and rubber bullets. From 30 March to 13 August, three paramedics have been killed and 379 injured. Two health facilities – a health centre for people with disability and a Ministry of Health ambulance station – were also reportedly damaged in and Israeli air strike on 14 July.

*

Featured image is from MAP.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Western media has described the unrest and violence in Nicaragua as a “campaign of terror” by government police and paramilitary. This has also been asserted by large non governmental organizations (NGOs). In May, for example, Amnesty International issued a report titled “Shoot to Kill: Nicaragua’s Strategy to Repress Protest”. 

A Miami Herald op-ed summarized,

“It’s not like there’s any confusion over who’s to blame for the recent killings amid Nicaragua’s political violence. Virtually all human rights groups agree that Ortega’s police-backed paramilitary goons are the culprits.”

Much less publicized, other analysts have challenged these assertions. They claim the situation is being distorted and the reality is very different. For example,  wrote an open letter condemning the Amnesty report for being biased and actually contributing to the chaos and violence. 

To learn more about the situation, Task Force on the Americas (TFA) invited Camilo Mejía to speak in the San Francisco Bay Area. TFA has a long history of work in Central and South America educating the public, lobbying around US foreign policy and leading delegations to see the reality in Central and South America. 

Veterans for Peace (VFP) quickly agreed to co-sponsor events with Camilo in San Francisco and Oakland. Veterans for Peace also has a long history with Nicaragua. VFP was founded partially in response to US aggression in Central America. VFP members protested against US shipments to the Nicaraguan Contras. VFP member Brian Willson had both legs cut off when a train carrying weapons destined for Central America ran over him. The current VFP president, Gerry Condon, was at that protest and helped stop the blood gushing from Willson’s severed legs. Brian Willson lives in Nicaragua today.   

Camilo Mejía was born in Nicaragua, the son of famous musician Carlos Mejía Godoy. His mother was a staunch Sandinista activist but separated from the father soon after his birth. She brought Camilo to the United States as a single mother in 1994, four years after the Sandinista electoral defeat. Living in Florida, Camilo struggled to make ends meet and joined the US Army to pay for college. Just a few months before completing his service, Camilo was ordered into the 2003 invasion of Iraq. After serving one tour of war duty, he refused to return and was imprisoned for 9 months. 

Camilo was honored as a “Prisoner of Conscience” by Amnesty International. Thus Camilo’s criticism of the Amnesty report on Nicaragua has special significance. Camilo is Nicaraguan, a member of Veterans for Peace, and a hero to both VFP and Amnesty. He is also the author of the compelling autobiography “Road from Ar Ramadi.”  

As news of Camilo’s upcoming visit to San Francisco was spread, we quickly started to feel a reaction. There is a large and diverse Nicaraguan exile community in San Francisco. While some support the Sandinista government, others are adamantly opposed and some even supported the Contras decades ago. Anti-Ortega Nicaraguan exiles in San Francisco began organizing a protest .

Camilo’s visit to speak on Nicaragua also prompted a reaction from some Americans who had once supported the Sandinistas but now support the opposition. They campaigned to have their viewpoint presented at our events. TFA and VFP organizers thought there was no need to include the opposition voice since their characterization of the conflict is widespread. However Camilo wanted to be transparent and not exclude the opposition. He thought that if we allowed an opposition supporter to speak briefly, they were more likely to listen to his analysis and he could directly address their concerns.  

At the San Francisco event, protesters arrived early in front of the War Memorial Veterans Building. When the event started, protesters flooded into the venue. As promised, an opposition supporter was invited to speak briefly.The audience of about 120 was split between those who wanted to hear Camilo and those who came to protest. Camilo’s talk was repeatedly interrupted and police arrived to prevent violence. Camilo asked what kind of “democracy” was this they claimed to want for Nicaragua when they would not listen or allow him to speak here in San Francisco?  

Camilo showed two short video clips. The first video showed opposition activists torturing a Sandinista supporter under the oversight of a Catholic priest and the remains of a Sandinista burned alive. 

A second video showed a statement from an American who has lived in Nicaragua for many years. He described how gangs had invaded his town, set up road blocks, intimidated and abused local civilians. He described the joy of the community when the roadblocks were removed and masked “protesters” departed. 

The audience got increasingly disruptive during the question period. A prominent Nicaraguan opposition supporter came forward, offering to quiet the disrupters. After receiving the microphone from Camilo, she did the opposite.The disruptions escalated and the event had to be ended early. The protesters had completed their mission: they had prevented Camilo from being able to present his perspective. 

Organizers from TFA and Veterans for Peace decided the Sunday event in Oakland needed to be handled differently. Members of Veterans for Peace, including chapter president Paul Cox and others, prevented the protesters from entering. Ultimately the venue was packed with interested listeners. The anti-Ortega crowd protested on the sidewalk and street but were not able to disrupt the event. 

With the loud opposition outside, Camilo was introduced by VFP President Gerry Condon. He gave a clear and concise history of key events in Nicaraguan political history including: 

• Nicaragua was connected to the gold rush in California in the the mid 1800’s. That is when the idea of a trans-oceanic passage through Nicaragua was born. 
• When Cesar Sandino launched guerrilla war in the 1920’s and 30’s there were two priorities: advancing the working class and anti-imperialism.  
• The Frente Sandinista which carried out the 1979 revolution had nine commanders: three from each of three factions. 
• After the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, splits emerged and ultimately Sergio Ramirez formed the Movimiento Renovador Sandinista (MRS). The more affluent members plus intellectuals, writers, and musicians gravitated toward it. But though they were well connected to western solidarity activists, they had no popular platform nor base. They did poorly in elections and moved toward neoliberal policies and the NGO world. 
• Since taking power in 2007, Daniel Ortega and Sandinistas have improved living conditions for the poor with free healthcare, free education and better economic policies. Nicaragua now supplies 80 – 90% of its own food needs. 
• Up until April, Nicaragua was vastly safer than neighboring countries. Their “community policing” is considered a model. 
• Support for Ortega and the Frente Sandinista has steadily increased. In 2006, they won 38% of the vote; in 2011, it increased to 62%; in 2016 support increased to 72% with 68% turnout.   
• There has been much misinformation about the proposed changes in social security which sparked the protests in April. To stabilize the social security funding, the IMF wanted to implement an austerity plan which would have doubled the work requirements and raised the qualification age from 60 to 65. The Sandinista proposal was much more progressive, requiring wealthy individuals and businesses to pay much more with minor changes for others.   
• The death count has been manipulated. Some deaths are counted twice; people who were said to be dead have turned up alive; dead Sandinista supporters have been counted as protesters. The first deaths on April 19 were one student, one police officer and one bystander killed by sniper fire. Camilo asks: Was this done by the government or by outside forces? 
• The National Endowment for Democracy and other US agencies have trained students and others in using social media, video and symbols to stir up dissent and destabilize Nicaragua.   

At the Oakland event, Camilo showed a torture video which demonstrates opposition violence. He also showed video of the huge July 19 celebration of the the revolution anniversary. His talk was followed by many questions including from opposition supporters. 

At times during the event, there was tension and concern about violence from the protesters outside. Some Nicaraguan families were afraid for their safety. After the event, they had to be escorted with protection to their cars. The car of one Nicaraguan family was besieged by the anti-Ortega crowd. Camilo and his young daughter had to be quickly taken away amidst shouts and waving placards. 

Ultimately Camilo’s visit accomplished the goal. Media interviews in Spanish and English reached many thousands.  In these and the public presentations, he brought information and analysis which has been largely censored or ignored in coverage of Nicaragua. 

Camilo believes Nicaragua has temporarily defeated a “soft coup” attempt but the danger is not over. The opposition forces internally and internationally are still there.

*

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and current board president of Task Force on the Americas. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: A Palestinian man can be seen demolishing his home on his wedding day after he was forced to do so by Israeli forces [Quds TV/Twitter]

Israeli occupation police on Saturday evening forced a Palestinian man in the Negev to demolish his home on his wedding day, Arab48 reported.

Faisal Abu-Binniyah in Wadi Al-Naam village was forced to raze the property in which he planned to start his new family, his brother Jalal said, leaving “him without an alternative”.

“The demolition of my brother’s house ended our happiness at his marriage as we were subject to repeated raids by Israeli police and repeated threats to pay high fines if we did not demolish the house,” Jalal told Arab48.

Jalal described the measures of the Israeli police against his family as a “revenge policy”, stating that this is “intentionally planned against Arabs.”

Wadi Al-Naam is the largest unrecognised Arab villages in the Negev with a population estimated to be more than 13,000.

Most of the residents in this village were forced out of their homes by the Israeli occupation forces in 1953. Like all other unrecognized villages they lack the basic infrastructure including access to running water and connection to the national grid.

According to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), more than half of the approximately 160,000 Bedouins in the Negev reside in unrecognised villages.

The unrecognised Bedouin villages were established in the Negev soon after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war following the creation of the State of Israel.

Right groups say that the demolition of unrecognised Bedouin villages is a central Israeli policy aimed at removing the indigenous Palestinian population from the Negev and transferring them to government-zoned townships to make room for the expansion of Jewish Israeli communities.

This article was written at the height of the 2008-2009 economic crisis which coincided with the US presidential election campaign. It was published in the week following Obama’s victory in the November 2008 elections. 

The October 2008 economic meltdown was the result of a deliberate process of financial manipulation. Ten years later under the Trump administration, financial warfare has become increasingly sophisticated. Manipulations of  foreign exchange markets combined with economic sanctions have been used by Washington in alliance with Wall Street to trigger economic instability in targeted countries, including Iran, Turkey, Russia and Venezuela.  

The following article provides a brief history of “financial warfare” from the 1997 Asian Crisis (triggered by the manipulation of forex markets) to the October 2008 financial meltdown, not to mention the bailout procedures put forth by powerful banking conglomerates.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 24, 2018

****
The October 2008 financial meltdown is not the result of a cyclical economic phenomenon. It is the deliberate result of US government policy instrumented through the Treasury and the US Federal Reserve Board.

This is the most serious economic crisis in World history.

The “bailout” proposed by the US Treasury does not constitute a “solution” to the crisis. In fact quite the opposite: it is the cause of further collapse. It triggers an unprecedented concentration of wealth, which in turn contributes to widening economic and social inequalities both within and between nations.

The levels of indebtedness have skyrocketed. Industrial corporations are driven into bankruptcy, taken over by the global financial institutions. Credit, namely the supply of loanable funds, which constitutes the lifeline of production and investment, is controlled by a handful of financial conglomerates.

With the “bailout”, the public debt has spiraled. America is the most indebted country on earth. Prior to the “bailout”, the US public debt was of the order of 10 trillion dollars. This US dollar denominated debt is composed of outstanding treasury bills and government bonds held by individuals, foreign governments, corporations and financial institutions.

“The Bailout”: The US Administration is Financing its Own Indebtedness

Ironically, the Wall Street banks –which are the recipients of the bailout money– are also the brokers and underwriters of the US public debt. Although the banks hold only a portion of the public debt, they transact and trade in US dollar denominated public debt instruments Worldwide.

In a bitter twist, the banks are the recipients of  a 700+ billion dollar handout and at the same time they act as creditors of the US government.

We are dealing with an absurd circular relationship: To finance the bailout, Washington must borrow from the banks, which are the recipients of the bailout.

The US administration is financing its own indebtedness.

Federal, State and municipal governments are increasingly in a straightjacket, under the tight control of the global financial conglomerates. Increasingly, the creditors call the shots on government reform.

The bailout is conducive to the consolidation and centralization of banking power, which in turn backlashes on real economic activity, leading to a string of bankruptcies and mass unemployment.

Will an Obama Administration Reverse the Tide? 

The financial crisis is the outcome of a deregulated financial architecture.

Obama has stated unequivocally his resolve to address the policy failures of the Bush administration and “democratize” the US financial system. President-Elect Barack Obama says that he is committed to reversing the tide:

“Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people.” (President-elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008, emphasis added)

The Democrats casually blame the Bush administration for the October financial meltdown.

Obama says that he will be introducing an entirely different policy agenda which responds to the interests of Main Street:

“Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of men and women all across Main Street. Tomorrow you can choose policies that invest in our middle class and create new jobs and grow this economy so that everybody has a chance to succeed, from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor, from the factory owner to the men and women who work on the factory floor.( Barack Obama, election campaign, November 3, 2008, emphasis added)

Is Obama committed to “taming Wall Street” and “disarming financial markets”?

Ironically, it was under the Clinton administration that these policies of “greed and irresponsibility” were adopted.

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act (FSMA) was conducive to the the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

A pillar of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place in response to the climate of corruption, financial manipulation and “insider trading” which resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash.

Bill Clinton signs into law the  Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, November 12, 1999

Under the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, effective control over the entire US financial services industry (including insurance companies, pension funds, securities companies, etc.) had been transferred to a handful of financial conglomerates and their associated hedge funds.

The Engineers of Financial Disaster

Who are the architects of this debacle?

In a bitter irony, the engineers of financial disaster are now being considered by President-Elect Barack Obama’s Transition Team for the position Treasury Secretary:

Lawrence Summers played a key role in  lobbying Congress for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. His timely appointment by President Clinton in 1999 as Treasury Secretary spearheaded the adoption of the Financial Services Modernization Act in November 1999. Upon completing his mandate at the helm of the US Treasury, he became president of Harvard University (2001- 2006).

Paul Volker was chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the l980s during the Reagan era. He played a central role in implementing the first stage of financial deregulation, which was conducive to mass bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, leading up to the 1987 financial crisis.

Timothy Geithner is CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is the most powerful private financial institution in America. He was also a former Clinton administration Treasury official. He has worked for Kissinger Associates and has also held a senior position at the IMF. The FRBNY plays a behind the scenes role in shaping financial policy. Geithner acts on behalf of powerful financiers, who are behind the FRBNY. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Jon Corzine is currently governor of New Jersey, former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Larry Summers (left) and Timothy Geithner

At the time of writing, Obama’s favorite is Larry Summers, front-runner for the position of Treasury Secretary.

Harvard University Economics Professor Lawrence Summers served as Chief Economist for the World Bank (1991–1993). He contributed to shaping the macro-economic reforms imposed on numerous indebted developing countries. The social and economic impact of these reforms under the IMF-World Bank sponsored structural adjustment program (SAP) were devastating, resulting in mass poverty.

Larry Summer’s stint at the World Bank coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the imposition of the IMF-World Bank’s deadly ” economic medicine” on Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and the Balkans.

In 1993, Summers moved to the US Treasury. He initially held the position of Undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs and later Deputy Secretary. In liaison with his former colleagues at the IMF and the World Bank, he played a key role in crafting the economic “shock treatment” reform packages imposed at the height of the 1997 Asian crisis on South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia.

The bailout agreements negotiated with these three countries were coordinated through Summers office at the Treasury in liaison with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions. Summers worked closely with IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer, who was later appointed Governor of the Central Bank of Israel.

Larry Summers became Treasury Secretary in July 1999. He is a protégé of David Rockefeller. He was among the main  architects of the infamous Financial Services Modernization Act, which provided legitimacy to inside trading and outright financial manipulation.

Larry Summers and David Rockefeller

“Putting the Fox in Charge of the Chicken Coop”

Summers is currently a Consultant to Goldman Sachs [Oct 2008]and managing director of a Hedge fund, the D.E. Shaw Group,  As a Hedge Fund manager, his contacts at the Treasury and on Wall Street provide him with valuable inside information on the movement of financial markets.

Putting a Hedge Fund manager (with links to the Wall Street financial establishment) in charge of the Treasury is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

The Washington Consensus

Summers, Geithner, Corzine, Volker, Fischer, Phil Gramm, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Rubin, not to mention Alan Greenspan, al al. are buddies; they play golf together; they have links to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg; they act concurrently in accordance with the interests of Wall Street; they meet behind closed doors; they are on the same wave length; they are Democrats and Republicans.

While they may disagree on some issues, they are firmly committed to the Washington-Wall Street Consensus. They are utterly ruthless in their management of  economic and financial processes. Their actions are profit driven. Outside of their narrow interest in the “efficiency” of “markets”, they have little concern for “living human beings”. How are people’s lives affected by the deadly gamut of macro-economic and financial reforms, which is spearheading entire sectors of economic activity into bankruptcy.

The economic reasoning underlying neoliberal economic discourse is often cynical and contemptuous. In this regard, Lawrence Summers’ economic discourse stands out. He is known among environmentalists for having proposed the dumping of toxic waste in Third World countries, because people in poor countries have shorter lives and the costs of labor are abysmally low, which essentially means that the market value of people in the Third World is much lower.  According to Summers, this makes it far more “cost effective” to export toxic materials to impoverished countries. A controversial 1991 World Bank memo signed by of Chief Economist Larry Summers reads as follows (excerpts, emphasis added):

DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP

“‘Dirty’ Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the Less Developed Countries? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality…. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I’ve always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. [the demand increases when income levels increase]. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand…. ”

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/summers.htm

Summers stance on the export of pollution to developing countries had a marked impact on US environmental policy:

In 1994, “virtually every country in the world broke with Mr. Summers’ Harvard-trained “economic logic” ruminations about dumping rich countries’ poisons on their poorer neighbors, and agreed to ban the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD [developing] countries under the Basel Convention. Five years later, the United States is one of the few countries that has yet to ratify the Basel Convention or the Basel Convention’s Ban Amendment on the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries. (Jim Valette, Larry Summers’ War Against the Earth, Counterpunch, undated)

The 1997 Asian Crisis: Dress Rehearsal for Things to Come

In the course of 1997, currency speculation instrumented by major financial institutions directed against Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea was conducive to the collapse of national currencies and the transfer of billions of dollars of central bank reserves into private financial hands. Several observers pointed to the deliberate manipulation of equity and currency markets by investment banks and brokerage firms.

While the Asian bailout agreements were formally negotiated with the IMF, the major Wall Street commercial banks (including Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and J. P. Morgan) as well as the “big five” merchant banks (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney) were “consulted” on the clauses to be included in the Asian bail-out agreements. [Note: These are 1997 denominations of major financial institutions]

The US Treasury in liaison with Wall Street and the Bretton Woods institutions played a central role in negotiating the bailout agreements. Both Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, were actively involved on behalf of the US Treasury in the 1997 bailout of South Korea:

[In 1997] “Messrs. Summers and Geithner worked to persuade Mr. Rubin to support financial aid to South Korea. Mr. Rubin was wary of such a move, worrying that providing money to a country in dire straits might be a losing proposition…” (WSJ, November 8, 2008)

What happened in Korea under advice from Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers et al, had nothing to do with “financial aid”.

The country was literally ransacked. Undersecretary of the Treasury David Lipton was sent to Seoul in early December 1997. Secret negotiations were initiated.  Washington had demanded the firing of the Korean Finance Minister and the unconditional acceptance of the IMF “bailout”.

A new finance minister, who happened to be former IMF and World Bank official, was appointed  and immediately rushed off to Washington for “consultations” with his former IMF colleague Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer.

“The Korean Legislature had met in emergency sessions on December 23. The final decision concerning the 57 billion dollar deal took place the following day, on Christmas Eve December 24th, after office hours in New York. Wall Street’s top financiers, from Chase Manhattan, Bank America, Citicorp and J. P. Morgan had been called in for a meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also at the Christmas Eve venue, were representatives of the big five New York merchant banks including Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney. And at midnight on Christmas Eve, upon receiving the green light from the banks, the IMF was allowed to rush 10 billion dollars to Seoul to meet the avalanche of maturing short-term debts.

The coffers of Korea’s central Bank had been ransacked. Creditors and speculators were anxiously awaiting to collect the loot. The same institutions which had earlier speculated against the Korean won were cashing in on the IMF bailout money. It was a scam. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Recolonization of Korea, subsequently published as a chapter in The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003.)

“Strong economic medicine” is the prescription of the Washington Consensus.  “Short term pain for long term gain” was the motto at the World Bank during Lawrence Summers term of as World Bank Chief Economist. (See IMF, World Bank Reforms Leave Poor Behind, Bank Economist Finds, Bloomberg, November 7, 2000)

What we dealing with is an entire ” old boys network” of officials and advisers at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, the Washington Think Tanks, who are  in permanent liaison with leading financiers on Wall Street.

Whoever is chosen by Obama’s Transition team will belong to the Washington Consensus.

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act

What happened in October 1999 is crucial.

In the wake of lengthy negotiations behind closed doors, in the Wall Street boardrooms, in which Larry Summers played a central role, the regulatory restraints on Wall Street’s powerful banking conglomerates were revoked “with a stroke of the pen”.

Larry Summers worked closely with Senator Phil Gramm (1985-2002),chairman of the Senate Banking committee, who was the legislative architect of the  the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, signed into law on November 12, 1999 (See Group Photo above). (For Complete text click US Congress: Pub.L. 106-102). As Texas Senator, Phil Gramm was closely associated with Enron.

In December 2000 at the very end of the Clinton mandate, Gramm introduced a second piece of legislation, the so-called Gramm-Lugar Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which paved the way for the speculative onslaught in primary commodities including oil and food staples.

“The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus “protect financial institutions from overregulation” and “position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century.” (See David Corn, Foreclosure Phil, Mother Jones, July August 2008)

Phil Gramm was McCain’s first choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

Under the FSMA new rules – ratified by the US Senate in October 1999 and approved by President Clinton – commercial banks, brokerage firms, hedge funds, institutional investors, pension funds and insurance companies could freely invest in each others businesses as well as fully integrate their financial operations.

A “global financial supermarket” had been created, setting the stage for a massive concentration of  financial power. One of the key figures behind this project was Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, in liaison with David Rockefeller. Summers described the FSMA as “the legislative foundation of the financial system of the 21th century”.  That legislative foundation is among the main causes of the 2008 financial meltdown.

Financial Disarmament

There can be no meaningful solution to the crisis, unless there is a major reform in the financial architecture, implying inter alia the freezing of speculative trade and the “disarming of financial markets”.  The project of disarming financial markets was first proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1940s as a means to the establishment of a multipolar international monetary system. (See  J.M. Keynes, Activities 1940-1944, Shaping the Post-War World: The Clearing Union, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Royal Economic Society, Macmillan and Cambridge University Press, Vol. XXV, London 1980, p. 57).

Main Street versus Wall Street

Where are Obama’s “Main Street appointees”? Namely individuals who respond to the interests of people across America.  There are no labor or community leaders on Obama’s list for key positions.

The President-elect is appointing the architects of financial deregulation.

Meaningful financial reform cannot be adopted by officials appointed by Wall Street and who act on behalf of Wall Street.

Those who set the financial system ablaze in 1999, have been called back to turn out the fire.

The proposed “solution” to the crisis under the “bailout” is the cause of further economic collapse.

There are no policy solutions on the horizon.

The banking conglomerates call the shots. They decide on the composition of the Obama Cabinet. They also decide on the agenda of the Washington Financial Summit (November 15, 2008) which is slated to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a new “global financial architecture”.

The Wall Street blueprint has already been discussed behind closed doors: the hidden agenda is to establish a unipolar international monetary system, dominated by US financial power, which in turn would be protected and secured by US military superiority.

Neoliberalism with a “Human Face”

There is no indication that Obama will break his ties to his Wall Street sponsors, who largely funded his election campaign.

Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bill Gates’ Microsoft are among his main campaign contributors.

Warren Buffett, among the the world’s richest individuals, not only supported Barak Obama’s election campaign, he is a member of his transition team, which plays a key role deciding the composition of Obama’s cabinet.

Warren Buffett

Unless there is a major upheaval in the system of political appointments to key positions, an alternative Obama economic agenda geared towards poverty alleviation and employment creation is highly unlikely.

Barack Obama. November 7 Press Conference.
Joe Biden (far left), newly appointed chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (far right). Photo: Charles Dharapak

What we are witnessing is continuity.

Obama provides a ” human face” to the status quo. This human face serves to mislead Americans on the nature of the economic and political process.

The neoliberal economic reforms remain intact.

The substance of these reforms including the “bailout” of America’s  largest financial institutions ultimately destroys the real economy, while spearheading entire areas of manufacturing and the services economy into bankruptcy.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Update August 23: Mark Penn writing in The Hill points out that Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign violations that were not campaign violations. Moreover, Cohen himself did not make the hush payment to Karen McDougal. He coordinated the payment made by American Media. The hush payments were not made with campaign funds and in no way comprise violation of any law. This false plea by Cohen was apparently made in exchange for light treatment of his apparently very real income tax evasion. In other words, Cohen “composed” to use Alan Dershowitz’s phrase.

*

Russiagate is an orchestration. It is the response of the military/security complex to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign statement that he intended to normalize relations with Russia.

Trump recognized that the extreme Russophobia, which the hegemonic neoconservatives had whipped up since Vladimir Putin’s statement at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 that Russia was a sovereign country and intended to act like one, was a threat to life on earth. The neoconservatives, who have controlled US foreign policy since the Clinton regime, are unwilling to accept limitations by any other country on Washington’s ability to act unilaterally.

When Putin blocked the Obama regime’s invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives paid Putin back by using NGOs and Ukranian politicians financed by Washington to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine and to put in office a government hostile to Russia. The intent was to use Ukraine, a Russian province for more than three centuries, to create problems for Russia that would absorb Russia’s attention and return a free hand to Washington and Israel in the Middle East and also to evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base in Crimea. When Crimeans voted to reunite with Russia, Washington misrepresented the democratic result of self-determination as a “Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea.” Such an extraordinary misrepresentation destroyed any remaining confidence the Russian government might have had in Washington’s veracity.

From here relations between the two nuclear powers deteriorated rapidly. As I and Stephen Cohen have emphasized, the danger of nuclear war is today far higher than ever during the long Cold War as there is today no trust whatsoever between the two governments.

Donald Trump is totally correct that nuclear war would be a terminable event and that nothing is more important than restoring a cooperative and mutually respectful relationship between the US and Russia.

The problem is that the military/security complex sees it differently. After 70 years of entrenchment the military/security complex is an independent political force. President Eisenhower warned the American people about this likely outcome in 1961 to no avail. From the standpoint of the military/security complex, the problem of normalizing relations with Russia is that it downgrades the “Russian threat” that is so essential to the $1,000 billion annual budget of the military/security complex and the power that such a massive budget conveys. Only 16 countries in the world out of 195 countries have a GDP greater than $1,000 billion. The military/security complex is large enough to be a member of the G-20 and to have its own currency and military.

Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, quickly organized the Russiagate conspiracy against Trump. Comey, Rosenstein, Clapper, Mueller, McCabe, Peter Strzok and others were, and are, apparently implicated as active participants in orchestrating an alleged collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to steal the US presidential election. Based on deception of the FISA Court, warrants were illegally obtained that became the basis for appointing Mueller as a special prosecutor to construct by whatever means possible a case against President Trump.

After two years the only evidence we have of Russiagate is that it is a conspiracy against President Trump and the American people. Indeed, Mueller, fully aware that there was no Trump-Putin conspiracy, has not bothered to look for any evidence as there can be no evidence of something that did not happen. He pulled out of a hat some phony and meaningless indictments of some Russians in order to make it look like there was a conspiracy without having to prove it, but his main focus has been on framing Paul Manafort.

Mueller’s investigation of Manafort has nothing to do with the Russiagate story line. Manafort’s alleged crimes are far outside Mueller’s mandate and took place, if they did, years before the alleged events of Russiagate. Manafort’s conviction by a jury on 8 of the 18 counts is being misrepresented by the Trump-hating presstitutes as vindication of the Russiagate investigation and as “A dark day for Trump,” with the presstitutes suggesting a Watergate parallel that will force Trump from office.

Manafort was found guilty not of Russiagate, but of income tax evasion and misrepresenting his financial position on a loan application.

We do not know if Manafort is guilty or is simply a victim of Mueller’s frameup and an incompetent jury. American juries are notoriously incompetent, which is why 97% of felony indictments are settled with a plea bargain. Even the innocent had rather work out a plea arrangement and admit to something that they did not do than to face an insouciant American jury. Remember the jury that condemned the survivors of the FBI’s massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, to be locked away for many years so that they could not talk and tell of the mass murder inflicted on a religious group by the FBI.

It is unclear how much of a crime it can be to misrepresent your financial position on a loan application when one of the causes of the mortgage-backed derivative crisis was the misrepresentation of mortgage applicants on the loan documents by the companies issuing the mortgages. Instead of prosecution, Washington relied on the Federal Reserve to bail out the banks holding the misrepresented loans.

Income tax invasion is the purview of the IRS, not of a special prosecutor who is supposed to be looking for evidence of a Trump-Putin conspiracy.

So, why did Mueller focus on Manafort? Let Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz tell you:

“All the Special Counsel needs, in order to charge a subject of an investigation with lying to a prosecutor, is a single witnesses willing to contradict the subject.

“The witness may not only be “singing,” he may also be “composing” — that is, making up or embellishing a story because he knows that the better his story, the better the deal.

“Under federal law, the testimony of such a “flipped witness” need not be corroborated in order to secure a conviction.

“Even one question that results in an answer that is contradicted by one witness would be enough to spring the perjury trap.” (See this)

President Trump has made various statements disputing the orchestrated Russiagate accusations that, if Manafort as witness for the Special Prosecutor contradicted, could send the President of the United States to prison for perjury.

Knowing this, Mueller, in my opinion a proven corrupt person, decided to put the squeeze on Manafort in order to force Manafort to save himself by giving false testimony against Trump.

This tactic is used every day by state, local, and federal prosecutors. Americans who believe the indictments and convictions are unaware that 97% of the time the convictions rest on self-incrimination in order to avoid worse punishment.

In Manafort’s case it didn’t, or hasn’t, worked. Yet. Manafort is due for a second trial, this time for allegely acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Ukrainian interests and for making false statements not under oath to the US government. Reportedly, Manafort is being held in solitary confinement, a form of torture designed to break a person’s spirit.

Like Manafort’s first trial, his second trial has nothing whatsoever to do with Russiagate, but you will never learn that from the presstitute media or from the Democratic Party. Manafort can still be coerced to say something that can be used to drive Trump from office.

What about Michael Cohen, a former attorney for Trump? Mueller saw no value in the Cohen case and passed it off to a regular US attorney to prosecute. Therefore, it would appear not to be part of the Russiagate investigation.

Cohen avoided a jury and said he was guilty of five counts of personal income tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution in order to get a loan, and two counts related to illegal campaign contributions. With regard to the campagin contributions, he contradicted his previous statements. He said that on Trump’s instruction, he paid off two women who were claiming sexual affairs with Trump.

The intricacies of American laws relating to politics are often unclear. Apparently, the charge is that Cohen used monies raised for a political campaign to pay off two women, who saw and capitalized on an opportunity to extort Trump for money, and this was an illegal use of the money. Why a lawyer would pay off women, whose stories might or might not be true, in an illegal way when his client is a multi-billionaire doesn’t make much sense.

But these are not the kind of questions that the presstitutes are interested in.

Nevertheless, Cohen’s plea is associated with a case brought by another prosecutor, not by Special Prosecutor Mueller. I am not sufficiently familiar with US legal procedures to be able to say how this gets brought back into Mueller’s investigation.

The facts are this:

The US military/security complex will not permit any normalization of relations with Russia. Period. At some point Putin and Lavrov and the idiot Russian Atlanticist Integrationists will have to acknowledge this fact, or Russia will be destroyed.

Trump, by declaring normalization of relations as one of his two principal goals for his presidency, earned the emnity of the powerful military/security complex. By defeating Hillary for the presidency, Trump inflamed the US media’s hatred, committed as the presstitutes are to Identity Politics and hatred of the “white male oppressors” who elected Trump. Trump will never be forgiven for preventing the election of the first female president of the United States, an unpardonable crime by a misogynist white male who “grabs women by the pussy.”

The hatred of Trump by the military/security complex and by the hating Identity Politics of the Democratic Party is giving the world the spectacle of an American democratic presidential election being overthrown by a conspiracy between the military/security complex, the Democratic Party, and the “whores” who constitute the American print and TV media.

President Trump stands up for himself on Twitter — I am surprised that Twitter hasn’t suspended his account — but otherwise seems powerless. Whoever advised Trump to appoint Rosenstein, a person committed to Trump’s destruction, as deputy attorney general, which is the ruling position in view of the weak and stupid AG Sessions who recused himself from the Russiagate investigation, intended Trump’s destruction. A disreputable person committed to Trump’s destruction is appointed by Trump to destroy Trump. How can a person so unclued survive?

As I wrote during the presidential campaign, Trump has no idea of Washington and no idea who to appoint who would support him rather than work against him. Consequently, he has a government working against him.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are working to prevent the Republican Party from supporting the party’s president. They could easily succeed. The entirety of the House and Senate of both parties is in thrall to the campaign donations of the military/security complex.

What can President Trump do? He could fight, not with words on Twitter, but with the powers of the presidency. There is far more evidence that Russiagate is a conspiracy against the President of the United States than there is evidence that it is a Trump-Putin conspiracy to steal the election from Hillary. If Mueller can indict on the basis of no evidence, Trump can order the Attorney General to indict on the basis of massive evidence that Russiagate is a conspiracy against the President of the United States.

Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, the New York Times, Washington Post, et. al., are all members of the conspiracy to overthrow democracy in America and establish the undisputed rule of the military/security complex.

The idiot presstitutes’ hatred of Trump might leave them unaware of the conspiracy in which they are participating, but there is no doubt that the American presstitutes are engaged in the overthrow of American democracy, however little of American democracy still exists.

This column is not an endorsement of Trump. It is an endorsement of truth, and it is an endorsement of the American people who in their distress and with the best information that they could acquire elected Donald Trump their President.

Trump is wrong on the environment. Environmental protections put in place after years of struggle are being eviscerated by industry polluters who have gained controll over the environmental regulatory agencies. This is not a unique happening of the Trump presidency. It began under VP Dick Cheney, the real president during the 8 years of the George W. Bush regime. Cheney turned the environmental protection regulatory agencies over to industry polluters.

Trump is wrong on Iran. He is in Israel’s hands, hoping that the power of the Israel Lobby can shield him from the presstitutes and the military/security complex. What Israel is doing by attempting to use US military force against Iran is unifying a new alliance that is too powerful for the Washington/Israeli alliance. Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Iran, India, and Pakistan are the locations of populations that massively outnumber Washington’s empire. Each of these countries are being united by Washington’s stupid and inexplicable actions against each.

Militarily, Israel is of no consequence. Twice the vaunted Israeli Army, capable of nothing but murdering unarmed women and children, were defeated and driven out of southern Lebanon by a few thousand Hezbollah militia. Israel is too cowardly to try it a third time, and is relying on the stupid Americans to do the job for them.

The entire world looks at America and Israel, and what does the world see? Two countries, both the result of exterminating the native populations, distrusted and universally hated, both of which survive by purhasing the governments of other countries and by endless lies that describe everyone but themselves and their vassals as evil criminals that must be destroyed.

For example, the Gaza Strip, the largest concentration camp ever in the world, is being systematically destroyed along with all life within it by Israel under cover of the obvious and transparanent lie that all within Gaza are terrorists outfitted with bomb belts who are committed to the destruction of Israel. Not only men of fighting age, but also old men, pregnant women, children, all Palestinians are being murdered by the Israeli military. The United States Secretary of State agrees with Israel that all Palestinians must be destroyed, the sooner the better.

The Chinese are busy taking advantage of the financial opportunities that the idiot Americans forfeit, but otherwise do not seem to have any strategic sense of how to proceed in the drama unfolding in front of their eyes. For China, money is now all.

The Russians are infected with the American propaganda infused into their veins during the Yeltsin era when Russia was an American puppet state. Slowly, if not surely, the Russians are coming to their senses and realizing that they have no American “partner.”

If Trump is defeated and moved off the table, what happens when Russia and China finally realize that there is to be no conciliation with Washington? When all the false hopes and bets of the Russian and Chinese governments of conciliation on the basis of mutual economic interests come to naught, what happens?

It will be the end of life on earth.

The Russiagate “investigation” appears to be timed to influence the midterm elections with unsubstantiated accusations made just before the elections in an attempt to produce a Democratic Congress that would impeach President Trump on false charges. The presstitutes would cover up the frameup. In other words, the real election meddling is being done by the Russiagate “investigation.” (See this and this)

Such an impeachment would be a coup. The consequence would be deep and permanent divisions in American political life and more rabid Russiaphobia that would result in war.

The danger is real that the Democrats’ Russiagate “investigation” aided and abetted by the presstitute media will result in nuclear Armageddon.

*

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

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Turkey is in the eye of the storm, the rift between Washington and Ankara simmering.

It’s all about President Erdogan’s ties with America’s main adversaries – Russia and Iran. He rejects US sanctions on both countries, intends maintaining normal political and economic relations.

It’s also about US efforts to marginalize, weaken, contain and isolate Russia, including Trump regime hardliners wanting no nations buying its S-400 air defense systems – the most sophisticated ones in use, more advanced and effective than America’s long-range surface-to-air Patriot missiles.

[It should be noted that India is also contemplating purchasing the S-400 in defiance of Washington.]

In June, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell warned Turkey, saying

“(w)e made it clear that if (Erdogan) buys S-400s, there will be consequences.”

“We will introduce sanctions within the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Delivering F-35 combat aircraft Ankara contracted for may be halted.”

Mitchell unjustifiably claimed that the Trump regime has “legal authority that would allow (it) to withhold transfer under certain circumstances, including national security concerns.”

On Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert (image on the right) said the Trump regime may impose sanctions on any countries contracting to buy Russian S-400s.

“It goes against our policy to have a NATO ally such as Turkey use an S-400 system,” she said, adding:

“Part of the problem with that…it is not interoperable with other NATO systems. And so we are against…having some of our partners and allies around the world potentially purchase S-400s.”

Remarks by Mitchell and Nauert reflect US political and economic war on Russia, along with promoting sale of US products over foreign ones – especially when bought from nations Trump regime hardliners consider adversaries.

On August 21, Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport’s CEO Alexander Mikheev said S-400s will be delivered to Turkey in 2019, fulfilling the contractual agreement between Moscow and Ankara – a Turkish downpayment of the $2.5 billion purchase price already made.

Ankara defends its sovereign right to buy weapons and other products from any nations it wishes, free from foreign interference.

In July 2017, senior Turkish ruling Justice and Development party official Berat Conkar said the following:

“Notwithstanding our repeated statements about Ankara’s immutable position regarding the purchase of the S-400s, the American side continues to insist on putting this issue on the agenda, which, frankly, is rather difficult to explain,” adding:

“The question of buying the S-400s is closed, and we have explained the situation to our NATO and US partners in the clearest way possible and at the highest level, through the president and the foreign minister.”

“We have repeatedly stressed that we are acting within the framework of international norms, purchasing those weapons systems which we deem necessary to ensure our own national security.”

US efforts to convince Turkey to pull out of its contractual agreement to buy S-400s failed.

On Wednesday, Erdogan’s spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said Trump regime policies are at odds with how NATO member states treat each other.

US policy toward Turkey “is proof that Trump is targeting a NATO ally as part of an economic war…intend(ing) to use trade, tariffs and sanctions to start a global trade war.”

Ankara “cannot…keep silent in the face of” unacceptable Trump regime “attacks” – including doubled tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum exports to America.

Republican and undemocratic Dem regimes demand all nations bend to their will. They consider sovereign national rights, recognized under international law, unacceptable.

The rift between Washington and Ankara shows no signs of easing.

*

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In spite of American objections, The Philippines is continuing discussions with Russia regarding the purchase of submarines as part of President Rodrigo Duterte’s drive to modernise the Philippine navy.  Since the initial US admonition of The Philippines for its talks with Russia, the US has formally invited The Philippine President for talks regarding the sale of US equipment which Washington promises is top quality. Duterte however has openly disagreed with several of the points the American side has made while he has also questioned Washington’s sincerity.

The Philippine President responded by reminding the US side of a recently cancelled deal for Canadian helicopters. After initially finalising the agreement with Ottawa, Liberal Canadian government ministers delayed the delivery of the helicopters based on inter-governmental disagreements over the “human rights record” of The Philippines. As a response, Duterte simple cancelled the deal and vowed to buy the helicopters from a more reliable nation. When reacting to the letter from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and US Defense Secretary James Mattis imploring The Philippines to buy military hardware from America, Duterte stated

“”I would like to remind America all of them…how sure (are they) that I will be able to get what I bought?”.

Duterte also reiterated a previous criticism when he said that the US was selling The Philippines old, under-maintained and sub-par equipment. He again highlighted a lethal crash of a US helicopter that killed Filipino soldiers.

“It’s very important to me. I owe it to my soldier. We bought six helicopters. They said, they’re refurbished, they were used by NATO. Apparently, they were overused. Three of the helicopters crashed, killing all my soldiers…now you are talking about procurement. Prove to me first that you are in utter good faith but I do not want to communicate with them”.

Rodrigo Duterte further criticised the broader characteristics of contemporary US-Philippine relations after describing atrocities committed by the US during the Philippine-American War and Moro Rebellion. Regarding this he stated,

“It’s hard for you to say we are friends. We are friends but remember we are friends because you made us a colony years ago. It was not a friendship agreed upon”.

Duterte closed by saying that the US is attempting to sell overpriced F-16s to The Philippines when more cost effective helicopters and small planes are what is needed to fight jihadist and communist terror groups. While the Philippine President said he is prepared to meet with US officials to discuss military supplies, he has no plans to fly to the US to do so.

The Philippines and the United States – Who needs who?

Recent years have seen the US use ever more threatening language against countries with which it has disagreements. This is especially true regarding military hardware and beyond this, when the US believes it will lose out on potential sales to Russian suppliers, things can get incredibly heated can be witnessed in respect of both Turkey and India. Washington is currently putting pressure on both nations (but especially Turkey) not to buy Russian military hardware in the future.

The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) authorises Washington to level sanctions against any nation that continues to transact with Russia, Iran and the DPRK. In this sense, if The Philippines does purchase the submarines from Russia, the US could very easily sanction Manila.

Interestingly, the letter sent from Washington directly to Duterte was not the kind of ultimatum one has come to expect from the US. Rather than lambaste Duterte for engaging in a positive early stage security partnership with Russia and rather than warming of sanctions, the letter spoke of a “special relationship” between the US and The Philippines while the rest of the letter read more like a sales brochure for US military hardware manufactures whose products were proudly declared as “peerless”.

While the US remains a major trading partner with The Philippines, for the United States, The Philippines has always been more about its strategic location than about its economic potential. This is indeed one of the reasons why recent decades have seen little US interest in developing the civilian economy of The Philippines. The fact of the matter is that the US is content with a poor but politically stable Philippines in order to suit its regional interests which are aimed squarely against China.

The top export destinations of the Philippines are China ($15B), the United States ($10.5B), Japan ($9.6B), Hong Kong($9.2B) and Singapore ($4.88B). (Source: OEC)

The top import origins of the Philippines are China ($19.4B), Japan ($10.1B), the United States ($7.51B), Other Asia($6.78B) and Thailand ($6.76B). (Source: OEC)

In this sense, one could argue that the powerful and wealthy United States actually needs The Philippines more than the militarily weak and economically developing Philippines needs the United States. While America no longer has bases on Philippine territory in its name as it does in Japan and South Korea, the US does have agreements with Manila that allow it to use many strategic Philippine naval and air bases as if they were American in all but name. It would be difficult to rapidly replace these treaty agreements with  Manila in respect of acquiring a similar deal in another ASEAN member state. Furthermore, while China has overlooked the US influence on the Philippine armed forces because of a long history dating back to the colonial period, if the US were to try and effectively colonise Vietnamese military bases, China would see this as a direct provocation without any historic justifications while even some anti-Chinese Vietnamese nationalists might not want the US to “come back” in such a fashion after being so dramatically kicked out in 1975.

As part of the wider US strategy to provoke China at both ends of the South China Sea, having access to The Philippines remains important and perhaps indispensable for the US military. Unlike his predecessors, President Duterte has mercilessly criticised the United States while also demonstrating that while he considers himself a friend to China, he is by no means hesitant in respect of criticising China.  This 21st century non-alignment strategy of Duterte has clearly forced many nations to remain on their toes in respect of trying to guess what Duterte will do next, while his strong statements of criticism against the US colonial legacy clearly has Washington in damage control mode as the friendly letter sent to Duterte regarding weapons sales indicates.

The United States, China and Russia all take Duterte very seriously 

While some strong leaders such as Turkey’s President Erdogan, Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi inspire contempt among many US policy makers, Duterte is clearly taken seriously even by those in the US who pretend otherwise. This is the case because Duterte has stated that he expects the US to behave in a neo-colonial manner and even expects the CIA to execute him. Because of this, Filipinos throughout the world are prepared for the worst and as a result of Duterte’s consistently strong popularity means that while a nation as powerful as the US could easily topple any Philippine government, if they did overthrow Duterte, the backlash could forever change Filipino perceptions of the United States in a holistically negative manner. Beyond this even if someone other than the US overthrew Duterte, because of his many warnings about the US, many millions of Filipinos would automatically blame the US for any regime change. This the US is clearly treading carefully, at least for the time being.

Furthermore, Duterte’s openness to new partnerships means he is taken seriously by not only the Chinese and Russian superpowers but by great economic powers including Japan, Korea and fellow ASEAN members, while Duterte also looks to make a historic visit to the major weapons producer that is Israel in a matter of weeks.

Because of this, it is clear that any nation which alienates Duterte will lose out on deals to which ever nation is on better terms with The Philippines. By having all of the major economic and military powers seeking better relationships with Manila, Duterte has transformed a colonial mentality into one where many nations are in a de-facto position of competing for partnerships with The Philippines.

Many a bluff to call 

The United States has recently imposed punitive tariffs and sanctions against long time NATO ally Turkey while in the economic trade war few traditional partners have been spared whether South Korea, Japan all 28 states of the European Union, Canada, or Mexico. Thus far The Philippines has not be subject to these kinds of threats.

In spite of Donald Trump having clearly positive sentiments about Duterte, when it comes to possible sanctions against The Philippines it is mainly a matter of the US doing a cost benefit analysis and bluff calling at the same time. Should the US impose sanctions against The Philippines, Duterte is the kind of leader who might just tell the US that it can no longer exercise usage rights over strategic military facilities in The Philippines.

At such a point the US could either accept this and hope to exude economic pressure over an erstwhile “ally” or otherwise conduct a hybrid regime change operation – one that could backfire terribly on the US.

Conclusion 

Because Duterte has positioned himself in a position to attach multiple strong economic and military powers to The Philippines, the US risks losing the former colony for generations to come if it overreacts to Duterte’s desire to pursue dialogue with Russia over the submarine deal. In this sense, Duterte has been able to do what few leaders of more powerful countries have been able to get the United States to do – sit up, take notice and act cautiously rather than on impulse.

*

Adam Garrie is Director at Eurasia future. He is a geo-political expert who can be frequently seen on RT’s flagship debate show CrossTalk as well as Press-TV’s flagship programme ‘The Debate’. Garrie has also commented on geopolitical events on international television and radio in the United States, Lebanon, Russia, Pakistan, Germany, Britain and Ecuador.A global specialist with an emphasis on Eurasian integration, Garrie’s articles have been published in the Oriental Review, Asia Times, Geopolitica Russia, the Tasnim News Agency, Global Research, RT’s Op-Edge, Global Village Space and others.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

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. 

*     *     *

China’s Strategic Interests in Central America: El Salvador Breaks Off with Taiwan

By Andrew Korybko, August 24, 2018

El Salvador’s decision to break off ties with Taipei and “defect” to Beijing obviously had a lot to do with the economic aid that China promised it, but the People’s Republic is embracing the Central American nation for strategic reasons that go far beyond the symbolism of international recognition and include the establishment of an influential foothold in the US’ “backyard”.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Beijing’s Alternative Idea of Globalization

By Prof. Fabio Massimo Parenti, August 24, 2018

Is the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) a strategic tool of Beijing or a geopolitical lever to confront the West? Is BRI comparable to the old Marshall Plan, the US-led project at the beginning of the Cold War to confront the Soviet Union?

What Is Financial Imperialism? Looting Greece

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, August 24, 2018

This month, August 2018, marks the ‘end’ of the 3rd debt bailout of Greece, 2015-18. If one were to believe the European and US press, Greece has now recovered and emerged from the bailout and its now nearly decade-long debt crisis, and the depression it created. But that conclusion couldn’t be further from the truth.

How China’s Mobile Payment Ecosystems Are Making Banks Obsolete

By Ellen Brown, August 24, 2018

Giant Chinese tech companies have bypassed credit cards and banks to create their own low-cost digital payment systems.

The US credit card system siphons off excessive amounts of money from merchants, who must raise their prices to cover this charge. In a typical $100 credit card purchase, only $97.25 goes to the seller. The rest goes to banks and processors. But who can compete with Visa and MasterCard?

Additional articles:

“Fake Democracy”: Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance, F. William Engdahl

By F. William Engdahl and Michael Welch, August 24, 2018

In the book, Engdahl outlines a weapon of war in the costume of furthering democratic rights and freedoms. Various case studies include the break-up of the Soviet Union, the break up of Yugoslavia, and the attempted overthrow of the Chinese State.

America’s Footprint and Iran’s Political History: Resistance in the Name of Self-Determination

By Catherine Shakdam, August 24, 2018

If the world has grown accustomed to America’s distaste of Iran on account of its system of governance and political elite as a negation of its own political paradigm, it would be wise to reposition Tehran and Washington’s relations within their rightful context.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“This case is way bigger than me. I hope it gets the attention that it needs.” — Dewayne Johnson, former school groundskeeper awarded $289 million in damages from Monsanto

As a Saskatchewan resident for many years, I often heard the phrase “Roundup Ready.” It was coined as if it were a harmless jingle for soda pop. The ad still rings in my ears.

All farmers know of Roundup, the most effective weed killer. Most urbanites do as well. The way the corporate giant Monsanto has marketed, promoted, and created an artificial need for Roundup is a true story of profiteering and avarice. Now, finally, even some courts are accepting that it likely kills much more than just weeds and that Monsanto has acted to cover up concerns about the safety of Roundup.

A few years ago, Dewayne Johnson, a courageous man and one who is also dying of cancer, launched a lawsuit against Monsanto. In early August, Johnson had his day in court — and won. He showed that David can still take down Goliath — something that some of us had begun to wonder about given all the nasty stories of corporate greed, seed manipulation and cover-ups we have come to know.

But some days there are heroes. And Dewayne Johnson and the thousands of cancer patients now suing Monsanto are modern-day heroes. The 46-year-old father of two was composed in court as the San Francisco jury sided with him, noting that exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in his getting cancer, and ordering Monsanto to pay Johnson $289 million in damages. Monsanto states it will appeal, but the appeal will cost the transnational corporation $25 million a year in interest should their appeal not be successful. Reason to pause, perhaps, for a bit of reflection.

Meanwhile, Bayer, the German company that bought Monsanto a few years ago, saw its stock plunge by billions following the court decision.

For years many have been concerned that Roundup causes cancer. Many have also been concerned about the marketing of genetically modified (GM) seed, specifically modified to only grow if used with glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

Monsanto’s determination to link the growth of crops to the use of its herbicide is Orwellian. The traits most often “modified” in GM crops are those related to tolerance for herbicides, linking plant growth to its use. There is lots of money to be lost if glyphosate, the active ingredient, becomes widely considered a carcinogen and is eventually banned. The European Union was seriously considering banning the chemical, but in November 2017 it bowed to concerns from member countries, Germany in particular, which is home to Monsanto’s parent company’s headquarters.

Dewayne Johnson’s lawsuit was expedited because his cancer is terminal and it was believed that because of his health he might die before having his day in court. Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma two and a half years into a job as the integrative pest manager for a California school district. A large part of his job was to spray these products in bulk 30 times a year.

Johnson was not told that Roundup could cause cancer. On the job there were a few accidents with the sprayer used to spread the herbicide and Johnson was doused with the liquid at least twice.

Monsanto maintains, even after this ruling, that Roundup is safe. Meanwhile, the top scientists with the World Health Organization in 2015 classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

This court case is about much more than one man and his family. Roundup is one of the most popular herbicides in the world and its use is ubiquitous. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, is the most widely sold herbicide in Canada and Roundup the most widely used weed killer in the world. So much so, that its residues are hard to avoid. U.S. scientists have even recorded traces of glyphosate in rainfall. In April of 2017, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found residues of glyphosate in 30 per cent of the more than 3,200 food products it tested, including grains and common cereals. It found 1.3 per cent contained residues above the allowable limits.

In early July, before this court ruling, the state of California moved to list glyphosate as cancer-causing, a first step toward requiring Monsanto to change its labelling.

Like Dewayne Johnson, there are thousands more people suing or expected to sue Monsanto in the United States. The impact of this jury decision on Monsanto could eventually lead to billions more in damages.

But this court case has also brought to light how Monsanto has tried to manipulate the results of scientific evidence in its favour to show that Roundup is safe for use. The San Francisco trial brought to light that Monsanto manipulated information and published ghostwritten documents as independent, credible, scientific reports.

In Canada, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), a coalition of groups, is at the forefront of tracking stories related to glyphosate and other pesticides, GM crops, and seed issues. CBAN notes that the amount of herbicides sold in Canada has risen by 130 per cent since 1994. CBAN writes in a recent release:

“The widespread cultivation of GM glyphosate-tolerant crops, in particular, has driven up the use of glyphosate-based herbicides. Glyphosate is the top pesticide ingredient sold in Canada, followed by 2,4-D and glufosinate ammonium. Glyphosate use in Canada tripled between 2005 and 2011, climbing from 30.2 million litres to 89.7 million in Western Canada, and from 3.8 million litres to 12.3 million in Eastern Canada.

This increased use of glyphosate has resulted in the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.  In response, biotechnology companies have genetically engineered crops to be tolerant to the older herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba. These GM crops will further increase the herbicide load in the environment and lead to even more herbicide-resistant weeds.”

For now, Bayer’s Monsanto will likely do its best to fight for the survival of Roundup — given the many billions to be made on the sale of the herbicide and Roundup Ready seed, and the billions that could be lost in lawsuits. But even once it decides to cut its losses and move on, the use of herbicides linked to GM crops will still be a major issue. And like the tobacco industry, the chemical industry will have to be pursued publicly, long and hard, for all to see.

*

Lois Ross is a communications specialist, writer, and editor, living in Ottawa. Her column “At the farm gate” discusses issues that are key to food production here in Canada as well as internationally.

Featured image is from  Gustave Deghilage/Flickr.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On August 22, an IED blast hit a vehicle of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near the village of al-Hawaji west of the Omar oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. According to the ISIS-linked news agency Amaq, four SDF members were killed in the attack.

Separately, a booby-trapped motorcycle hit an oil truck of the SDF near the village of Juma east of the Omar oil fields. Amaq claimed that ISIS members had captured and executed the truck driver.

In response to the attacks, warplanes of the US-led coalition carried out a series of strikes south of al-Omar allegedly killing several ISIS members in the area, according to pro-SDF sources.

This was not the first time when the terrorist group engaged the SDF in the oil fields area. On August 18, over 20 ISIS members stormed SDF positions near al-Omar. At least 7 ISIS members were killed in the followed clashes.

On August 23, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) sent another batch of reinforcements including battle tanks and artillery guns to a frontline with Idlib militants. According to a source in the 4^th Armoured Division, the limited SAA advance on militant positions can be started by the end of August.

Meanwhile reports appeared that at least 500 former members of various militant groups, which have reconciled with the Damascus government, will participate in the upcoming SAA advance on Idlib. According to reports, all these former militants are currently part of various units of the SAA 5^th Assault Corps.

These reports have already caused a new media scandal within pro-militant sources, which have described this situation as another juggling act by the Assad government. SouthFront recalls that one of the key points for militants reconciling with the government is that they have to do their military service, which is obligatory for Syrian men.

*

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

If the world has grown accustomed to America’s distaste of Iran on account of its system of governance and political elite as a negation of its own political paradigm, it would be wise to reposition Tehran and Washington’s relations within their rightful context.

To look upon the Islamic Republic through America’s lense borders the irrational if we consider that America’s ire is based purely on Iran’s willingness to exist beyond US control in a world dominated and marked by US hegemonism.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s inferred claims  that Iran remains a threat to the ‘Free World’ exist I’m sorry to say in a vacuum. America’s stance on Iran is no more logical than it is warranted, especially now that the White House is openly plotting regime change – in contradiction with international law.

Iran “is run by something that resembles the mafia more than a government,” Pompeo said, citing what he called Iranian leaders’ vast wealth and corruption. Pompeo’s speech was the latest step in a communications offensive launched by the Trump administration that is meant to foment unrest in Iran, US officials familiar with the matter told the press this August.

If Americans feel entitled to their outrage following allegations of Russian meddling during 2016 presidential elections, it stands to reason that Iranians would too, feel resentment towards Washington for its self-confessed coup d’etat against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh back  in 1953.

This coup d’etat allowed for the Shah to consolidate power and thus render Iran’s budding democracy null and void.

A report by the BBC recalls 1953 events  along the following terms:

“US and British intelligence agencies orchestrate a coup to oust Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadeq. The secular leader had sought to nationalise Iran’s oil industry.”

And yes 1953 may feel like a long time ago if not for the millions of lives which were ultimately sold out to absolutism. Iran was robbed of its sovereignty and right to political self-determination to secure Britain’s oil monopoly in the region by the one power whose birthright was forged in the rejection of Britain’s imperialism. How is that for historical irony?

It was US President Dwight Eisenhower’s decision to support Britain against Iran’s rising nationalist movement that ultimately ruined what had been political kinship. Where US President Harry Truman had been sympathetic to Iran’s rising nationalism and democratic undertones, his successor, President Dwight Eisenhower considered any government opposed to western interest aka corporations’ access to natural resources, an enemy to be crushed – hence Washington’s support of a Britain in running Iran’s democracy to the ground.

And yet, once upon a time … not too long ago America and Iran shared in their dreams of freedom, democracy, and territorial sovereignty. Once upon a time, back when the United States had not yet betrayed its position to neo-imperialism, Washington sat still the model Iranian ambitioned to emulate to free themselves of Britain’s colonial grasp. 

Unknown to most Iran still holds two men, two Americans for their unrelenting support of Iran’s sovereign claim against both colonialism and communism: Howard Baskerville and Morgan Shuster.

On the day of his funeral in Tabriz, where Baskerville was killed in combat on April 19, 1909 to defend Iran’s democratic aspirations, Hassan Taqizadeh, a prominent Iranian politician and diplomat, noted,

“Young America, in the person of young Baskerville, gave this sacrifice to the young Constitution of Iran.”

Speaking on Iran-US relations post-1953 Bill James, a leading American historian wrote in his 1989 book The Eagle and the Lion:

“Iranians of all political persuasions increasingly formed a negative opinion of the US They no longer saw the United States as an external, liberating force whose influence would protect Iran and from its traditional enemies – Britain and Russia. Instead they developed a perspective in which the protector had become the exploiter.”

It is not so much that Iran hates the United States but rather that it blames US officials for interrupting its political and institutional independence – thus forcing millions to live at the mercy of a violent and reactionary autocrat.

While the Shah may have been the darling of many western capitals, his proclivity to torture, imprison and exile all who voiced any criticism to his absolute rule sits him firmly among the most violent and despised criminals our century has so far come across.

He was, let us all remember, a favourite of the US Establishment, yet another ‘friendly’ autocrat America was keen to hail a strategic ally, even if in contradiction of the very democratic principles it says to represent.

History, readers will find, does not speak highly of the ‘American model’ since it stole Iran’s democratic dream to assert the rule of a tyrant: the Shah.

Today the Trump’s administration is working relentlessly towards the promotion of a regime change so that once again, Iran’s sovereignty would be disappeared to capitalists’ hunger. Let’s not pretend that America’s interests in toppling Tehran’s government are not financially self-serving.

With vast reserves of oil and gas, and a land that stretches thousands of miles at a key geostrategic chokepoint, Iran is a jewel among all jewels – even more so than its neighbour: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

So what if America does not agree with Iran’s system of governance? So what if it looks upon Iran’s clergy with disdain for its speaks of values foreign to its own conceptualisation of power?

Are we to understand that America’s political alliances are a reflection of its deepest socio-political thoughts? What is there to say then of America’s love affair with Saudi Arabia and other totalitarian regimes?

Washington’s war games in Iran are not to be taken lightly since they entail the negation of a nation’s right to its political future. Can we in all good conscience deny Iran the political  freedom we claim for ourselves? 

Is the right to resist oppression tethered to geography and our own sense of western entitlement or is it a natural right all nations are to exercise freely?

Earlier this August Secretary of State Mike Pompeo unveiled his plan to coordinate the Trump administration’s post-nuclear deal approach to Iran and bolster support for the strategy abroad.  

‘The Iran Action Group’, as it has been branded,  will be helmed by Brian Hook, the secretary of state’s senior policy adviser, who will receive the title of special representative for Iran. Pompeo told reporters that the coalition is charged with “directing, reviewing and coordinating all aspects of the State Department’s Iran-related activity” and will report directly to him.

And: “We’re committed to a whole-of-government effort to change the Iranian regime’s behavior, and the Iran Action Group will ensure that the Department of State remains closely synchronized with our interagency partners.”

In the face of such hyper-exceptionalism it is nations’ right to political self-determination we are ultimately sacrificing. 

Professor Jordan Peterson once said that to “think is to take the risk of offending others” … I would add that to exercise one’s democratic right is to be willing to resist political oppression.

America’s move of late to cosy up to Iran’s ‘opposition’ groups so that it could bolster a political alliance petitioning for change risks ushering yet another era of political oppression. Should the likes of the MEK – a well-known terror group now sold as palatable to serve Washington’s immediate political interests , or Iranian monarchists be offered the time of day, we stand to unleash forces which will ultimately sow discord, instability, and violence.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri’s claim in The Diplomat  that Iran’s monarchy could ‘save Iran as it once did’ is as dishonest as it is ludicrous. 

Iran’s monarchical past was as painful as it was bloody … to argue otherwise is to deny Iranians the democracy they so valiantly bled for. And while many may still object, Iran’s future belongs to Iranians.

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  

The chair of a UN Human Rights Council investigation into Israel’s use of force against protesters in Gaza has stepped down less than a month after being appointed. 

Former Pentagon official David Crane resigned from the inquiry for “personal reasons”, according to a statement by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued on Wednesday.

Crane, a former prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, was the chair of a three-member commission appointed in July, a month after member states voted for an investigation into Israel’s use of force.

After Israel’s 2006 war with Lebanon, Crane said the country had a right to defend itself but “tends toward disproportional responses”.

Israel denounced the launch of the probe by the Human Rights Council, which it has repeatedly accused of disproportionately focusing on alleged abuses by Israel.

But the Times of Israel noted after Crane’s appointment that there had been a surprising lack of reaction from Israel, suggesting officials may have been happier with Crane than previous appointments to similar positions.

The committee is due to meet officially in early September and provide an oral update to the Human Rights Council later in the month.

At least 170 Palestinians have been killed during weekly protests in Gaza since March, with most of them shot dead by Israeli snipers.

An Israeli court ordered an investigation into two of those deaths, including the case of a teenager who, according to footage published on social media, appeared to be shot in the back as he was running in the opposite direction to Israeli forces.

Crane served as a US government official for 30 years before serving as chief prosecutor in the International Criminal Court’s proceedings for war crimes committed during the civil war in Sierra Leone.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

American progressives have been desperate lately that their cries merely echo through a wilderness, but now comes Andre Vltchek’s latest book, Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism to magnify our voices.

As a Russian born but Western raised ‘professional expat’, Vltchek has spent his life covering the world’s tragedies, in film and word, until he can no longer bear the pain. As revealed by a series of short takes written over the last few years, Vltchek’s only hope is the energetic optimism that animates revolutionaries the world over. I was privileged to observe that phenomena in early sixties Cuba, as was at other periods Vltchek. But Andre has also seen and documented the horrors of empire across our troubled world, over and over again until cry out he must.

Remembering how Hugo Chavez was vilified in the name of politeness for mocking George W. Bush at the UN in 2006, he warns:

“Well, that is not how real revolutions have been ignited. This is not how the successful anti-colonialist wars are fought. When the real battle begins, ‘politeness’ is actually mostly unacceptable, simply because the oppressed masses are endlessly pissed off, and they want their feelings to be registered and expressed forcefully by the leaders. Even the search for ‘objectivity’ is often out of place, when still fragile revolutions have to face the entire monumental hostile propaganda of the regime (of the Empire), as well as foreign sponsored ‘opposition’, NGOs and corrupt ‘civil societies’.”

It’s twelve years later, and Donald Trump has been wondering aloud whether it’s time to invade Chavez’s hand-picked successor, Nicolas Maduro for failing to maintain the privileges of the few as he tries to ensure the survival of the many. Vltchek castigates the ‘Western left-wing’ for failing to support revolutions around the globe, and As Trump tries to cut a deal with North Korea, he points out something of which few in the US are aware: the ‘hermit kingdom’ joined Cuba in Angola and Namibia’s fights against colonialism. His description of what, on the other hand, passes for intellectual is a paean to those of us who have fled academia:

Cults of formal learning, of facts and information have been erected. Holed up in innumerable officially recognized institutions, the scholars, certified demagogues, researchers and media people have been ‘studying’ each other, recycling and quoting each other, filling millions of books with essentially the same narrative. ‘New’ and ‘revolutionary’ academic discoveries mostly lead to the same old conclusions, to stale intellectual and moral passivity, cowardice and spinelessness.

Vltchek’s prescience is remarkable, given that these essays were written before the election of Donald Trump, which, with deep state accusations of ‘Russian interference in our (sic) democracy’, has triggered internet wars over ‘truth’. Donald Trump’s cries of ‘fake news’, suggest that “It is now easy to imagine that the Empire might soon introduce some fascist institution like a ‘Department of Truth'”.

When Western journalists refer to revolutions or simply, existing socialist countries, the emphasis is always on violence (as is the current review of 1968 demonstrations in In These Times attests)… For all Vltchek’s penchant for drama, it is interwoven with crucial information:

The legal systems of socialist societies with their emphasis on socio-economic protection and support of the workers, are completely different from those of the capitalist societies, in which the central role of law is to protect private property and ease the flow of capital, in opposition to the interests of the workers.

Indeed, the Western media invariably talks about Russia either with accusations or disdain, never mentioning the fact that its current president rescued the socialist baby from the bathwater that Yeltsin was throwing out, and that his high domestic approval ratings are largely due to real improvements in the lives of ordinary Russians, even as he modernizes the country in the face of Western disparagement.

For those of us who have been pursuing the crusade against empire for decades, feeling our efforts are almost in vain, Vltchek’s latest contribution is both a passionate cry and a breath of fresh air.

*

Born in Phila, Deena Stryker spent most of her adolescent and adult years in Europe, resulting over time in several unique books, her latest being Cuba, Diary of A Revolution.

Title: Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism

Author: Andre Vltchek

Publisher: PT. Badak Merah Semesta; 1 edition (May 27, 2018)

ISBN-10: 6025095418

ISBN-13: 978-6025095412

Click here to order.

.

.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

El Salvador’s decision to break off ties with Taipei and “defect” to Beijing obviously had a lot to do with the economic aid that China promised it, but the People’s Republic is embracing the Central American nation for strategic reasons that go far beyond the symbolism of international recognition and include the establishment of an influential foothold in the US’ “backyard”.

El Salvador’s Shocking “Defection”

The US was shocked by El Salvador’s decision earlier this week to break off ties with Taipei and “defect” to Beijing, so much so that it ominously declared that it will “reevaluate” its relationship with the country. The Central American state’s presidential spokesman explained that his government was motivated by economic factors, remarking that

“Fundamentally, it’s an interest in betting on the growth of our country with one of the world’s most booming economies. El Salvador can’t turn its back on international reality.”

Expectedly, the official US statement on the matter warned that “China’s apparent interference in the domestic politics of a Western Hemisphere country is of grave concern to the United States” and that “China’s economic inducements facilitate economic dependency and domination, not partnership”, which is a common infowar narrative that it’s deployed all across the world in an attempt to dissuade countries from participating in Beijing’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity.

Silk Road Scaremongering

That’s actually what the fuss is mostly all about too, OBOR, because of China’s interest in reportedly helping El Salvador reopen the La Union port in the Gulf of Fonseca, which triggered fake news claims that it’s secretly planning to open up a military base there. Beijing has no interest in doing so, nor is it even capable of pulling this off if it wanted to because of the cross-hemispheric Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) involved that pass through US-controlled maritime territory in the “Compact Of Free Association” states and Hawaii.

What the US is really scared about, however, is that China will use the Salvadoran port in the tri-border area with neighboring Honduras and Nicaragua to extend its political influence in the US’ Central American “backyard” through economic means, essentially weaning the region away from Washington per Beijing’s grand strategy in this part of the world and putting the People’s Republic in a position to exert influence here just like the US is doing in the South China Sea, albeit through economic and other means instead of military ones.

The Chinese government is capable of indefinitely subsidizing certain companies that operate at a loss so long as they succeed in dislodging established competitors from targeted markets, such as the US in Central America, which is a matter of national economic security for Washington because of the 2004 CAFTA-DR free trade agreement that it signed with these states (including El Salvador, the first country to implement it in force) and the Dominican Republic.

What this means in practice is that CAFTA-DR will have to either be renegotiated or scrapped just like NAFTA in order to eliminate any chance of China exploiting these countries’ free trade arrangements with the US in order to gain backdoor access to its market. This is a very delicate situation for the US because the countries involved might simply clinch a regional Silk Road free trade agreement with China if Trump pulls out of the CAFTA-DR, therefore strategically “ceding” this region to Beijing.

“Weapons Of Mass Migration”

Economic security isn’t the only concern for the US either because the three countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras form what Washington policymakers like to call the “Northern Triangle”, which is where many of its illegal migrants originate. The notorious MS-13 cartel from El Salvador is an especially serious security threat all throughout the US, but now Washington has to contend with the prospects that its government could come under Beijing’s influence and refuse to accept the forced repatriation of these criminals.

This theoretical “Weaponization of Mass Migration” is enough to send chills down the spine of every Trump Administration official who might credibly fear that the other countries of the “Northern Triangle” could try to more aggressively bargain for a better migration deal for their compatriots and potentially “blackmail” the US that they’ll go the way of El Salvador if Washington doesn’t capitulate to their demands. Illegal migration is one of Trump’s signature domestic issues, but now he might be forced to contend with the prospects of his policies have geopolitical implications vis-à-vis the New Cold War with China.

Ghosts Of The Old Cold War

Just like during the Old Cold War when the specter of a communist “domino effect” rattled US decision makers so much that they overreacted to the USSR’s influence in Central America through coups and death squads, so too might the same thing be happening nowadays in the New Cold War when it comes to “containing” China in this region. In fact, history has already proven itself capable of repeating in this part of the world given the ongoing US-backed Hybrid War on Nicaragua and the de-facto dictatorship that it recently helped impose on neighboring Honduras.

It therefore wouldn’t be surprising if this same regional strategic template is expanded to El Salvador just like it was during the Old Cold War when the US supported the government’s anti-communist death squads, albeit remixed with the US backing anti-government “rebels” (death squads) this time ahead of the February 2019 presidential election. The 2014 one was narrowly won by the FMLN’s candidate, the leftist party that emerged from the civil war, and the victor is a former rebel who probably still privately harbors a hatred for the US and sympathy for socialist countries like China.

That would partially explain why the government was willing to risk the US’ wrath by bravely going through with this move, which is more of a geostrategic pivot away from Washington than anything else. With Washington being painfully aware of this, it therefore can’t be discounted that it will try to destabilize the situation in one of the hemisphere’s poorest and crime-ridden countries in order to tip the electoral balance in favor of the pro-American right-wing ARENA party that previously enjoyed a monopoly on power for two decades until the FMLN’s narrow 2009 upset that repeated itself in 2014.

The FMLN has its work cut out for it because it must simultaneously safeguard security in the world’s deadliest country outside of a warzone while also delivering something of significance to its population in order to justify the risky pivot towards China that will undoubtedly incur the US’ punishment sooner than later, especially in the run-up to next year’s vote. Should the FMLN win once again, probably by another razor-thin margin, then it could be expected that the US will allege fraud, impose sanctions, and then use this as the justification for clandestinely arming “democratic freedom fighters” from neighboring Honduras.

Concluding Thoughts

For all of the aforementioned reasons relating to the US’ economic and strategic security, the tiniest mainland country in the Western Hemisphere has suddenly turned into a New Cold War battlefield between the US and China, and its upcoming election early next year will be a pivotal test for assessing which of these two is “winning”. It should be warned, however, that Central America once again has all the trappings of a regional crisis because of just how closely the contemporary state of affairs mirrors the one from the 1980s at the high point of Hybrid War unrest.

A repeat of that scenario could cynically be used to justify Trump’s border wall and redirect the new Mexican leader’s strategic focus towards dealing with a large-scale crisis along its southern frontier that might ironically include its own uncontrollable migrant component. This possible eventuality carries with it the risk of enormous blowback for US interests that far eclipse whatever domestic political gains it might reap from such a scenario, which therefore throws Washington into the dilemma of either “surrendering” El Salvador and potentially the rest of Central America to China or militantly pushing back and destabilizing its own “backyard”.

*

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  

The heart can only take so much. And you’ll be hard-pressed to stop yours from breaking after reading the following and taking it in. This is Zayd Hussein Tayyeb. He’s an Ansarullahi medic from the holy city of Dahyan in Yemen’s Saada. He’s saved countless lives on the northern Yemeni front, both civilians and fighters. On the left he is pictured with his younger brother Yusuf and his three sons, Ahmed, Ali and Hassan on Eid al-Adha last year. A family united. A family intact. Although the criminal, barbaric war and siege brought upon the Yemeni nation by US-UK-‘Israeli’-backed Saudi Arabia raged all around them… They stayed together and found a way to observe Islam’s second holiest celebration.

Fast forward to the present when tragedy struck. That’s the middle photo. On August 9th, the monstrous, blood-drenched House of Saud bombed a school bus full of children in Dahyan as it passed through a market back to summer camp where Yemeni youths were learning and memorizing the Holy Qur’an. At least 51 children–most of them under 10–were slaughtered and more than 79 others were wounded in the massacre carried out by the Saudi “royals” with US-ZOG-provided armaments.

Source: author

As he had done so many times before, Mr. Tayyeb rushed to the scene minutes after the American-Saudi crime to help recover the bodies of martyrs and assist with the injured in hopes of preventing anymore deaths. The carnage was mind-boggling. Little children beheaded, dismembered and lifeless everywhere. Bloody coloring books and backpacks scattered across the streets. Mr. Tayyeb combed through the wreckage looking for survivors and instead… Found his son. Dying inside but persevering nevertheless, he solemnly carried the child’s broken and battered frame to safety.

Then he found his other son. Then his brother, who had been chaperoning the picnic the children departed from before the Wahhabi tyrants took their lives. That he had the strength not to shatter after finding his slaughtered kin and then also continue to help other devastated parents… is proof positive that chivalry is far from dead. Indeed, chivalry’s very essence is Yemeni.

Now for the snapshot on the right–Eid al-Adha 2018. Only a father and his youngest son remain. A family in pieces. A family destroyed. Zayd, a hero in every sense of the word, boomed that the curses of ALLAH (SWT) are upon the oppressors, criminals and murderers of the cowardly Saudi-UAE coalition and he also said that the covenant made by Ansarullah to avenge all the oppressed and disenfranchised of Yemen was one that could not ever be broken.

Defiant and true words from a defiant and true man. Ansarullah has avenged the Saada School Bus Massacre in spades and continues fighting off the invaders from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi with everything they have, prevailing even when obscenely outnumbered.

Still, one cannot help but feel profound sadness for the Tayyeb family and all other Yemeni families whose stories are like theirs. This shouldn’t be happening. This isn’t something that anyone should have to live with. Even the followers of Ahlul Bayt (A.S.) who were told by Imam Ali (A.S.) fourteen centuries ago that those who walk his path would know hardship upon hardship. The heart can only take so much. Unless it is a Yemeni heart. Because a Yemeni heart can take any agony… Any tragedy… Any suffering… Grow another layer of armor… And pump better and stronger than it did before. Ta7ya Yemen.

We pray that Zayd Hussein Tayyeb’s heart heals in time. And that little Hassan’s heart is too young now to know the crippling and excruciating hurt of this loss and that he’ll grow up to honor his uncle and his brothers with a righteous life. We pray for their health. We pray for the preservation of their lives. We pray for the elevation of Yusuf (R.A.), Ahmed (R.A.) and Ali’s (R.A.) souls.

And it goes without saying, in the spirit of Ansarullah’s Sarkha, that we pray for retribution to be drilled into all who had a hand in this barbaric and evil affront to humanity. May such savages be shown no mercy. May they get to know–intimately and repetitively–that ALLAH (SWT) is Al-Mountaqim and Al-Muzil. Justice for the Tayyeb family. Justice for all of Yemen.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

For more than half a century, Israel has maintained a cover of silence and opacity regarding its nuclear program and arsenal, backed up by the threat of severe punishment and persecution for any Israeli (see Mordechai Vanunu) who dares publicly breach the cover. In return for this silence, plus a pledge of restraint on certain nuclear development activities, the United States has reportedly agreed in writing not to pressure Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or get rid of its nuclear arsenal. (See this recent New Yorker article by Adam Entous.) US policy on Israel also includes its own public silence concerning Israeli nuclear weapons. But this policy should change as a result of a new scientific study of an event that took place nearly 40 years ago, during the Carter Administration. That study makes it virtually certain that the event was an illegal nuclear test. This strengthens previous analyses concluding that Israel likely carried out a nuclear test in violation of US law and the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The response to this new study will determine whether the United States and the international community of nations are serious about nuclear arms control.

On September 22, 1979, a US Vela satellite, designed to detect clandestine nuclear tests, recorded a “flash” off the coast of South Africa that every nuclear scientist monitoring the satellite’s detectors at the time believed fit the classic description of a nuclear explosion. President Jimmy Carter’s book based on his White House diaries notes that he was immediately informed of the “flash” by his national security team; with the information came speculation that the event was an Israeli nuclear test at sea, with South African participation. Corroborative data from different sources was immediately sought and analyzed, but much of that data and analysis has remained classified to date (nearly 40 years later), despite attempts to get the government to remove the classification. Independent scientific studies of the event have reinforced the growing circumstantial evidence that the Vela event was an atmospheric nuclear test, and that Israel was the perpetrator, with possible assistance from apartheid South Africa’s navy. The US government’s position, held to this day, was to neither admit nor deny that a test took place. A panel of scientists carefully selected by the Carter White House produced a report in 1980 that did not rule out a test, but said the probability of its being something other than a test was more likely. That conclusion is now derided by nearly all independent observers who have studied and reported on the issue.

Important new and dispositive evidence that the “flash” was a nuclear test has been added recently by two respected scientists, Christopher Wright of the Australian Defense Force Academy and Lars-Eric De Geer of the Swedish Defense Research Agency (Ret.), writing in the journal Science & Global Security. (The 22 September 1979 Vela Incident: The Detected Double-Flash, Science & Global Security, 25:3, 95-124, DOI: 10.1080/08929882.2017.1394047)

Using data first gathered by Distinguished Professor Lester VanMiddlesworth of the University of Tennessee on radioactivity found in the thyroids of sheep in Australia within the time period following the “flash,” plus meteorological data from the time and some radionuclide and hydro-acoustic data released by the US government, Wright and De Geer have produced an analysis of the Vela event that removes virtually all doubt that the “flash” was a nuclear explosion. The explosion was one of small yield, perhaps to simulate the result of firing a nuclear artillery shell. Wright and De Geer do not speculate on who might have performed the test. But none of the five recognized nuclear weapon states would feel the need to perform a small clandestine test of that kind. Similarly, in 1979, neither India nor Pakistan nor South Africa had nuclear development and logistics capabilities at a stage where a nuclear test of that kind in that area was feasible for them. Israel was the only country that had the technical ability and policy motivation to carry out such a clandestine test, which, according to some sources, was the last of several and was detected by the Vela satellite because of a sudden change in cloud cover.

The new study by Wright and De Geer should receive wide attention because it provides a test of the commitment by the international community to nuclear arms control and nonproliferation norms. While a comprehensive nuclear test ban is yet to be achieved, the nations of the world did manage to put in place an extremely important arms control, non-proliferation, and environmental protection measure called The Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT). This treaty, which went into force in 1963, bans nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water, thus rendering legal only those nuclear tests performed underground. Israel signed the treaty in 1963 and ratified it in 1964. The Israeli nuclear test puts Israel in violation of the LTBT, which has been signed by 108 countries, including all the officially recognized nuclear weapon states plus India, Pakistan, and Iran. Israel would also be in violation of the Glenn Amendment to the Arms Export Control Act, a US law passed in 1977, requiring the cutoff of military assistance to any country setting off a nuclear explosion. The president can waive the sanction, but he has to face the issue.

In the meantime, what should be a consequence of the flagrant violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty?

At a time when public demands for nuclear transparency are loudly and justifiably trumpeted toward Iran and North Korea, which are pariahs in many Western eyes, it is illogical at best and hypocritical at worst for the world, and particularly the United States, to maintain public silence on Israel’s nuclear program, especially in the face of a violation of an important nuclear norm. For the sake of future progress on arms control, on steps to reduce nuclear risk, and on honest public as well as private communication among governments and their constituents to achieve such progress, it is time to end an existing double standard that has allowed Israel to escape accountability for developing advanced nuclear weapons by violating a major international treaty.

*

Leonard Weiss is a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation and a member of the National Advisory Board of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington, DC.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Dozens of members of the same extended family trying to flee air strikes in Hodeidah were killed on Thursday when their vehicle was targeted by a purported Saudi strike, according to a health official.

The deaths of 27 civilians, mostly children, followed an earlier strike on Wednesday night targeting a residential neighbourhood in al-Duraihimi district in the coastal city, killing four people and wounding others.

The district has been under siege from Saudi- and UAE-backed forces loyal to President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. Battles have raged in and around Hodeidah for weeks as pro-government fighters try to recapture the strategic port city from Houthi rebels. Civilians have been trapped in the city by the fighting.

On Thursday morning, relatives of the victims of Wednesday’s air strike decided to flee the area, which has seen intense fighting.

They rented an old pick-up truck, but their vehicle was targeted while it was barely 500 metres outside the al-Koie neighbourhood, according to the head of Hodeidah’s health office Abdurrahman GarAllah.

“There were 27 in the car; most of them were children and all of them were killed by the air strike, in addition to four people who were killed on Wednesday night inside their house,” GarAllah said.

He added that all the casualties came from the same family; the men had already fled earlier on Thursday with the injured people and only children and women were left in the houses.

Duraihimi has been inaccessible to aid groups, prompting residents to appeal to international organisations to intervene to open a safe passage for civilians looking to escape the violence, but the district remains under siege with daily battles blocking people from leaving.

“No one can enter Duraihimi to help civilians but the ICRC and they have not entered it yet, so civilians risk their lives to flee the city or relieve wounded,” GarAllah told MEE.

@ICRC_ye is concerned by the events in Duraihami City in Hodeida governorate. The ICRC is still assessing the situation and will reach out to all the parties to the conflict. #Yemen

— ICRC Yemen (@ICRC_ye) August 14, 2018

“It is dangerous to stay in our houses, and it is even more dangerous to flee,” a civilian in Duraihimi told MEE on condition of anonymity. “In all cases the war will target us, but I prefer to stay at my home waiting for my destiny”.

He added that in addition to air strikes, rockets and mortars have targeted homes and civilians in Duraihimi.

The Houthis accuse the Saudi-led coalition of killing civilians; the coalition denies targeting residential neighbourhoods.

The Duraihimi resident who spoke to MEE blamed the raging war for the deteriorating humanitarian situation.

“We do not care who the killer is, for us the war is the killer, and we hope that it stops as soon as possible. We do not need anything but a ceasefire,” he said.

A pro-Hadi fighter in Hodeidah confirmed to MEE that there is fierce fighting in Duraihimi and it is not safe for civilians to flee.

“No one can decide who hit the car in al-Koie neighbourhood. The battles are ongoing in that area which is still under the control of the Houthis. Maybe an air strike or a Houthi rocket targeted the car, this needs investigation,” he said.

“We always advise civilians not to flee their houses amid battles. It is not safe for them at all. It is better for them to stay at their houses until the ICRC enters to help them.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Is the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) a strategic tool of Beijing or a geopolitical lever to confront the West? Is BRI comparable to the old Marshall Plan, the US-led project at the beginning of the Cold War to confront the Soviet Union?

Many in the West are suspicious of the BRI, even though there is positive interest developing around the world. These suspicions have been recently recalled by Gu Bin in an opinion piece, published by the FT, which demolishes the BRI-Marshal Plan comparison, considered wrong, technically and historically.

The BRI is indeed a recent Chinese proposal of international cooperation, centered on increasing land, sea, and air connectivity in Asia, Europe, Africa and the entire world. It is a new Chinese proposal for enhancing world cooperation, multilateralism and dealing with global problems. It is not an aid plan and it is not against Chinese competitors.

I have already written,

“The new Chinese cultural power on the world scale is supported, legitimized and deeply rooted in the material manifestations of the BRI, which includes more than 100 organizations. The initiative is already a reality, in the process of being updated, and is inclusive, cooperative and open to adaptation, being free from ideological and political discriminant. This reality is the opposite of the old and smaller Marshall Plan. The intrinsic principles of the BRI adhere to those of the UN Charter, aiming to satisfy mutual advantages for all the participants.”

Considering the current geopolitical tensions in Asia, Europe and Africa, it is almost impossible not to view the BRI from a strategic perspective. Strategically, the advancement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and its relations with the Eurasian Economic Union is another sign within the strategic framework of the BRI. In spite of this, I totally agree with Professor Gu Bin when he tries to show the reasons behind the BRI and its incomparability with the old Marshall Plan. The amount of financial resources is for example incomparable, trillions versus billions.

Moreover, the BRI has been criticized as an expansion of the recent explosion of China’s national power, even though the willingness of acquiring a more important role in global trade and value chains could be traced back to around 20 years. The Chinese strategies of the last 20 years have created the conditions for the BRI to be a realistic and attractive project.

I refer to the “go west” and “go abroad strategy.” The first was deployed from the late 1990s to today, favoring the development of China and boosting national connectivity and that with neighboring countries; while the second, from 2000 up to now, has guaranteed support for Chinese investments abroad, operated by national champions. The BRI is, therefore, a consequence of the success achieved in the past years at domestic level and many investments, which we could today relate to the BRI, actually took place before its official launch in 2013 (for example, the Chongqing-Duisburg railway or Piraeus port).

Some countries argue that there is no clear agenda in the BRI, nor a guarantee of security. Beyond the most biased comments by the major competitors of China, in general, these criticisms do not capture the genealogy and the sense of the BRI. There cannot be a defined agenda because of the large number of countries involved (more than 60) and the geopolitical uncertainties.

There are plenty of differences with the old Marshall Plan, in the international political context; it is more multipolar than bipolar; the economic and geographical size of China’s initiative, the principles and values of the proponent to the manifested goals. In the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the party defined two ambitious goals: building new forms of international relations centered on win-win cooperation and mutual respect, and working hard to create a community of shared future for humanity.

Indeed, the Chinese strategy of global projection is based on a series of principles that derive from the concept of mutual respect and dialogue between peers. This is the core of the Chinese alternative idea of globalization and this is behind the BRI. Nothing similar can be traced back to the Marshall Plan. In this sense, the BRI is an important project for both China and the world.

*

This article was originally published in the Global Times.

The author is associate professor of economic and political geography. He teaches at the Institute Lorenzo de’ Medici, Florence, is member of CCERRI think tank, Zhengzhou, and member of EURISPES, Laboratorio BRICS, Rome. His latest book is Geofinance and Geopolitics, Egea. [email protected]

Featured image is from Liu Rui/Global Times.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

No president in US history was removed from office by impeachment.

Under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 4, impeachment and conviction require proving “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 2 empowers House members to impeach a sitting president. Senate members alone are empowered to try them.

According to Law Professor Charles L. Black, obstruction of justice could be a justifiable ground for impeachment if “it occurs in connection with governmental matters, and when its perpetrator is the person principally charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

According to the Ohio State Bar Association,

“any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice.”

Examples include “any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime.”

“The acts by which justice is obstructed may include bribery, murder, intimidation, and the use of physical force against witnesses, law enforcement officers or court officials.”

“The purpose may be to influence, delay or prevent the communication of information to law enforcement officers; to influence, delay or prevent court testimony; to alter or destroy evidence; or to evade a subpoena or similar court process.”

No legal basis exists for charging Trump with obstruction of justice. No evidence suggests it. Nothing indicates he or his team colluded improperly or illegally with anyone in Russia.

Anything related to his private sex life isn’t an impeachable offense. Nor are his views on any issues – no matter how extreme, offensive and unacceptable.

Only two presidents were impeached, neither convicted and removed from office. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

He was targeted for policies diverging from longstanding official ones, dark forces getting revenge by trumping up Watergate charges against him.

A similar plot is simmering to get Trump, wanting him impeached and removed from office for the wrong reasons, not the right ones.

Indicting a sitting president is another matter entirely. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. The supreme law of the land states:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal of office.” It’s not a procedure to punish.

Knowledgable about parliamentary abuses of power, America’s framers limited impeachment to removal from office alone.

Indictments are about holding individuals accountable for unlawful acts. If removed from office, former presidents as private citizens can be charged with offenses, prosecuted and convicted – what never happened before in US history.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton said presidents “would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

If indicted while in office, a president would be unable to carry out his or her constitutional duties, notably if convicted and imprisoned.

Billionaire hedge fund manager connected to undemocratic Dems Tom Steyer spent millions of dollars on a campaign to impeach Trump and remove him from office, falsely saying:

He “brought us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructed justice at the FBI and, in direct violation of the Constitution, has taken money from foreign governments and threatened to shut down news organizations that report the truth.”

Trump called him “wacky and totally unhinged.” Wicked more aptly describes him. Reportedly he has presidential ambitions. Publicly he said he’s not ruling out a 2020 run.

Figures close to him indicated he intends to seek the presidency in 2020 if undemocratic Dems win majority House and Senate control in November, or close to it.

His Need to Impeach petition campaign got over 5.6 million signatures so far, stating: “We the people must impeach this president. Sign on now.”

According to an unnamed Dem donor,

“(t)here’s no secret he’s going to be running for president, especially if Democrats take the House.”

“Anyone who says this movement of his is purely about saving the country from Trump and not about any future political ambitions is just out of touch.”

Undemocratic Dems and media  want Trump removed from office for the wrong reasons, not the right ones – further evidence that America’s political process is too debauched to fix.

*

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

This month, August 2018, marks the ‘end’ of the 3rd debt bailout of Greece, 2015-18. If one were to believe the European and US press, Greece has now recovered and emerged from the bailout and its now nearly decade-long debt crisis, and the depression it created. But that conclusion couldn’t be further from the truth.

Greece has only now exchanged one set of creditors for another. In the first bailout in 2010 it was mostly the private banks of Europe to which it was indebted. In the second bailout, the pan-European state institutions (sometimes called the Troika: (European Commission, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund) stepped in and provided loans for Greece to bailout its private creditors. In fact, Greece never saw the money. The Troika paid off the private investors and in effect transferred their debt to Troika balance sheets. Greece had to make even larger payments–this time to the Troika. The Troika then paid off the banks. (German Institute studies show that 95% of all the payments on debt by Greece to the Troika eventually were redistributed by the Troika to the northern European banks). The Troika thus served as the ‘middleman’ bill collector for the bankers.

The Eurozone’s double dip recession of 2011-13 exacerbated Greece’s debt still further, requiring it to borrow even more in 2015-18 to pay the Troika debt in incurred in 2012-15 (that was incurred to pay the 2010 private debt). So Greece was further indebted in 2015-18 to finance and pay for the debt in incurred in 2012 to pay for the debt it incurred in 2010. Each time a new debt deal was agreed to, the debt was in effect ‘rolled over’. Whether paid through the Troika or directly, the payments always end up in the private Euro banks.

Now the press ‘spin’ is that Greece is emerging from this raising new debt to pay for past debt. But not so. All that’s changed is that Greece can now borrow (i.e. more debt) from private investors once again, as it had before 2012. This time, it will borrow from the private sector (bond speculators, hedge funds, other vulture capitalists) in order to pay off the Troika for past debt.

How does Greece pay the interest on the debt? From austerity imposed on its citizens, especially workers, small businesses, the poor. The Greek state and the Greek central bank (a mere appendage of the European Central Bank under the Euro) collect the surplus managed by the Greek-Syriza government (from tax hikes, pension cuts, wage cuts, sale of national industries–i.e. austerity). The Greek central bankers then make the interest payments on the debt from loans from the Troika (who pay the bankers). Now Greece can continue paying the Troika and bankers indirectly, while it borrows anew from private investors once again and pays them interest on the new debt as well.

Nothing changes for the austerity measures. Austerity remains. Greek unemployment still remains at depression levels at 19.5% Employment levels are still 17.5% below pre-depression period highs. Greek wages continue to stagnate: Skilled workers’ wages have been cut 35%, unskilled cut 31%, and minimum wages reduced by 22%.  Pensions continue to be cut and age eligibility to collect a pension raised by 10 years. Taxes have been raised on workers and small businesses alike. It’s still austerity by another name. And they call it recovery! The only change is who is the bill collector? The Troika? The new private lenders? Both? The answer is now both. The Troika moves to the sidelines and let’s the private vulture investors once again step in to loan Greece money (to pay the Troika and their Euro banks), while the vultures once again charge interest on top of the new debt they extend to Greece.

In my 2016 book, ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, Clarity Press, I described this new form of exploitation on a national scale, in which State institutions and apparatuses now play in the 21st century an increasing direct role in extracting surplus and value from workers and small business classes on behalf of the big capitalist banks. This is a form of imperialism different from pre-20th century and early 20th century explanations (influenced heavily by Lenin and Hilferding). In the concluding chapter the historical evolution of imperialism from 19th to 21st century are discussed, and the various debates. Greece is the microcosm case example of the new form.

*

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

Dr. Jack Rasmus is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Title: Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges

Author: Jack Rasmus

Publisher: Clarity Press (October 15, 2016)

ISBN-10: 0986085340

ISBN-13: 978-0986085345

Click here to order.

.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Bulletin, Aug. 20: Some 100 additional former government officials, including ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and other officials, have asked to have their names added to the protest letter over Trump’s suspension of the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Donald Trump has provoked a revolt within the department of dirty tricks. The Central Intelligence Agency, which overlaps with the Pentagon officer corps, has issued a protest signed by over 70 former CIA officials denouncing the removal of the security status of former CIA chief John Brennan.

Why would such a rogues’ gallery of assassins, torturers and spies suddenly unite on an unprecedented scale and become partisans of the “free speech” of John Brennan? Brennan denounced Trump as dangerous and unfit, and he described Trump as “drunk on power” after the president revoked his security clearance.

The CIA is not an agency unto itself. It is deeply connected to the ruling class and its officialdom. Trump is acting more and more like an authoritarian ruler and making sections of the political and military establishment nervous.

He is using the powers of the presidency to endanger imperialist interests and capitalist commercial interests without deliberation or consultation with the most powerful elements in capitalist society.

The letter defending the “free speech” of former CIA director John Brennan can be seen as a message to Trump concerning his authoritarianism and his flouting of basic capitalist procedures of behavior established by custom and by law.

This letter is also a defense of the agency itself. These 70 plus cutthroats consider themselves defenders of U.S. capitalism around the world. It is perhaps hard work setting up eavesdropping, torture sites, assassinations, kidnapping, etc. In fact, it can involve risks. (Although the higher-ups who order the dirty tricks do not expose themselves to personal risks at all.) These CIA criminals want to be treated with respect by the chief executive of U.S. imperialism, but Trump has demeaned them and the FBI repeatedly.

The movement began with retired Navy Adm. William H. McRaven. He had been commander of the Joint Special Operations Command and oversaw the 2011 raid by Navy SEALs that [allegedly] “took out” Osama bin Laden and had his body dumped into the sea. McRaven is now a chancellor of the University of Texas system.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post, McRaven denounced Trump for “McCarthyite tactics” and, as an act of solidarity with Brennan, asked that his own security clearance be taken away, too.

To show how the CIA was primed for this attack, one of the signers told a Slate reporter on Aug. 17:

“[T]he statement was circulated to all living ex-directors and deputy directors at noon on Thursday, with a request to reply by 6 that night.”

All but four responded.

Who is Brennan?

According to Glenn Greenwald, writing in The Guardian on Jan. 7, 2013, President Barack Obama had to withdraw Brennan’s nomination for CIA director because of his record under the George W. Bush presidency of defending torture, as well as “rendition” (sending prisoners to third countries to be tortured at secret sites), electronic surveillance of civilians, targeted drone strikes in which the “targets” were unknown, etc.

This quarrel amounts to one section of the state defending its right to speak against the president. The CIA, which has overthrown governments, destroyed movements and assassinated leaders is claiming First Amendment “free speech” rights for Brennan.

Trump is screwing up the job of protecting U.S. imperialism

But more important, as defenders of U.S. capitalism, they feel that Trump is screwing up the job. In this, they speak for a large section of the military, the diplomatic corps and the capitalist brain trust.

They fear that Trump is moving in an authoritarian direction — against them!

When Trump abuses the masses of people with his racism, misogyny, anti-immigrant fanaticism and cruelty, there is no mention of the freedom to live, let alone to speak of the victims of racist police murder. They said not a word about the kidnapping of women and children at the border and the wholesale violation of domestic and international asylum laws. Nor did these butchers mention a thing about the innocent civilians killed by U.S.-made drones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and U.S. bombs in Yemen.

They said nothing about the rights of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier to be protected from unjust imprisonment, or the right of the incarcerated masses to be free of sadistic prison guard persecution.

Trump’s grand military parade canceled

It is no accident that the same week this CIA protest letter was circulated, Trump’s Washington, D.C., grand military parade was cancelled. It had been an authoritarian move, characteristic of dictators. Trump claimed he wanted a parade like the one he saw in Paris during his visit to French President Emmanuel Macron last year.

He forgot that the parade he saw was not for Macron but for Bastille Day, a national holiday which the French ruling class uses annually to pump up patriotic war sentiments.

The fact that Trump wanted the Pentagon to back a parade aimed at glorifying himself was not greeted kindly among the brass, especially since he is trying to discipline them. Even though Trump has given them hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and soldiers, they were not buying his extravagant appetite for pomp and ceremony dedicated to celebrating — Trump!

Secretary of Defense James Mattis denied that the price tag for the parade would be $92 million, but all other government and department estimates were around that figure. Trump tried to place the blame for the cancellation on the majority African-American city. They rebutted his argument, showing that the D.C. part of the cost was miniscule.

So Trump had to suffer a public humiliation at the hands of the brass. They don’t want to fan the flames of Trump’s authoritarianism at a time when he is wrecking their alliances in NATO and blocking them in their drive against Russia.

Clearly, the capitalist state is deeply divided with differences over what the crisis of imperialism is and how to deal with it.

Trump and Turkish crisis

Looking at the crisis from Trump’s point of view, Turkey under President Recep Erdogan is turning into an enemy that has to be subdued. Turkey is holding a U.S. operative under house arrest. He is a pastor under suspicion of participating in the anti-Erdogan coup in 2016 and of being linked to Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric living in the Pocono mountains of Pennsylvania whom Erdogan accuses of engineering the coup.

Regardless of the merits of the case, Trump reduces the issue to one of bringing a small, defiant government in Ankara to its knees, in order to let the world know how allegedly all-powerful Washington is.

Looking at the same crisis from the Pentagon’s point of view, Trump has made an enemy of an important NATO ally that is desperately needed in the struggle for the military to regain some of its foothold in the Middle East. To complete the argument, the strategic Incirlik NATO air base is in Turkey. Trump has jeopardized all this in order to put Turkey “in its place.”

Looking at it from the vantage point of Wall Street, Trump has doubled the tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum, escalating a tariff war when Turkey is in the middle of an economic crisis that is leading to a debt crisis. The Turkish ruling class is in debt to many European countries, especially Spain and Greece. As the value of the Turkish lira falls, its debt to Europe becomes more burdensome. Furthermore, by squeezing Turkey, Trump runs the risk of triggering defaults, both in Turkey and in continental Europe.

Indeed, all sectors of the ruling class are watching Trump’s attack on Turkey with great trepidation.

Trump and Saudi-Qatari conflict

Or look at the crisis in the Gulf states, where Saudi Arabia is in a virtual war with Qatar. Saudi Arabia has blockaded Qatar because it is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, a political rival to the Saudis in the Middle East.

In this conflict, in spite of mediation efforts by Secretary of Defense Mattis, Trump has come down heavily on the side of the Saudis, especially after they wined and dined him, giving him the royal treatment on his early visit there.

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former CEO of ExxonMobil, intervened last year to stop the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates from carrying out a joint invasion of Qatar. This may have been what led to his firing by Trump. (Al Jazeera, Aug. 1)

Qatar is the site of a strategic U.S. air base, Al Udeid, which is home to the Air Force Central Command and some 10,000 American troops.

Revolt of the spies

On the international scale, the CIA and the Pentagon have significant overlap. A number of Pentagon generals and admirals have been appointed directors of the CIA. In any case, both agencies share the task of securing the U.S. imperialist empire, using different means.

While they are always at war with one another over turf, resources, etc., they are both deeply concerned with how Trump’s policies affect them. Trump blames members of the CIA and the FBI for the Mueller investigation. In fact, Trump removed former CIA director Brennan’s security clearance because he was part of the “Russia witch hunt.”

Trump’s military policy, which seeks to weaken if not to destroy NATO, strikes at the heart of U.S. military strength in Europe, up to and including on the borders of Russia.

Trump is attacking the CIA and FBI as part of a “Russia witch hunt” while also attempting to weaken the U.S. strategic military alliance with NATO.  These two policy conflicts alone could bring about a bloc from above to interfere with Trump’s poorly thought-out strategic view of how to ensure U.S. imperialist world domination.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Giant Chinese tech companies have bypassed credit cards and banks to create their own low-cost digital payment systems.

The US credit card system siphons off excessive amounts of money from merchants, who must raise their prices to cover this charge. In a typical $100 credit card purchase, only $97.25 goes to the seller. The rest goes to banks and processors. But who can compete with Visa and MasterCard?

It seems China’s new mobile payment ecosystems can. According to a May 2018 article in Bloomberg titled “Why China’s Payment Apps Give U.S. Bankers Nightmares”:

The future of consumer payments may not be designed in New York or London but in China. There, money flows mainly through a pair of digital ecosystems that blend social media, commerce and banking—all run by two of the world’s most valuable companies. That contrasts with the U.S., where numerous firms feast on fees from handling and processing payments. Western bankers and credit-card executives who travel to China keep returning with the same anxiety: Payments can happen cheaply and easily without them.

The nightmare for the US financial industry is that a major technology company – whether one from China or a US giant such as Amazon or Facebook – might replicate the success of the Chinese mobile payment systems, cutting banks out.

According to John Engen, writing in American Banker in May 2018, China processed a whopping $12.8 trillion in mobile payments in the first ten months of 2017. Today even China’s street merchants don’t want cash. Payment for everything is with a phone and a QR code (a type of barcode). More than 90 percent of Chinese mobile payments are run through Alipay and WeChat Pay, rival platforms backed by the country’s two largest internet conglomerates, Alibaba and Tencent Holdings. Alibaba is the Amazon of China, while Tencent Holdings is the owner of WeChat, a messaging and social-media app with more than a billion users.

Alibaba created Alipay in 2004 to let millions of potential customers who lacked credit and debit cards shop on its giant online marketplace. Alipay is free for smaller users of its platform. As total monthly transactions rise, so does the charge; but even at its maximum, it’s less than half what PayPal charges — around 1.2 percent. Tencent Holdings similarly introduced its payments function in 2005 in order to keep users inside its messaging system longer. The American equivalent would be Amazon and Facebook serving as the major conduits for US payments.

WeChat and Alibaba have grown into full-blown digital ecosystems – around-the-clock hubs for managing the details of daily life. WeChat users can schedule doctor appointments, order food, hail rides and much more through “mini-apps” on the core app. Alipay calls itself a “global lifestyle super-app” and has similar functions. Both have flourished by making mobile payments cheap and easy to use. Consumers can pay for everything with their mobile apps and can make person-to-person payments. Everyone has a unique QR code, and transfers are free. Users don’t need to sign into a bank or payments app when transacting. They simply press the “pay” button on the ecosystem’s main app and their unique QR code appears for the merchant to scan. Engen writes:

A growing number of retailers, including McDonald’s and Starbucks, have self-scanning devices near the cash register to read QR codes. The process takes seconds, moving customers along so quickly that anyone using cash gets eye-rolls for slowing things down.

Merchants that lack a point-of-sale device can simply post a piece of paper with their QR code near the register for customers to point their phones’ cameras at and execute payments in reverse.

A system built on QR codes might not be as secure as the near-field communication technology used by ApplePay and other apps in the U.S. market. But it’s cheaper for merchants, who don’t have to buy a piece of technology to accept a payment.

The mobile payment systems are a boon to merchants and their customers, but local bankers complain that they are slowly being driven out of business. Alipay and WeChat have become a duopoly that is impossible to fight. Engen writes that banks are often reduced to “dumb pipes” – silent funders whose accounts are used to top up customers’ digital wallets. The bank bears the compliance and other account-related expenses, and it does not get the fees and branding opportunities typical of cards and other bank-run options. The bank is seen as a place to deposit money and link it to WeChat or Alipay. Bankers are being “disintermediated” – cut out of the loop as middlemen.

If Amazon, Facebook or one of their Chinese counterparts duplicated the success of China’s mobile ecosystems in the US, they could take $43 billion in merchant fees from credit card companies, processors and banks, along with about $3 billion in bank fees for checking accounts. In addition, there is the potential loss of money market deposits, which are also migrating to the mobile ecosystem duopoly in China. In 2017, Alipay’s affiliate Yu’e Bao surpassed JPMorgan Chase’s government market fund as the world’s largest money market fund, with more than $200 billion in assets. Engen quotes one financial services leader who observes,

“The speed of migration to their wealth-management and money-market funds has been tremendous. That’s bad news for traditional banks, where deposits are the foundation of the business.”

An Amazon-style mobile ecosystem could challenge not only the payments system but the lending business of banks. Amazon is already making small-business loans, finding ways to cut into banks’ swipe-fee revenue and competing against prepaid card issuers; and it evidently has broader ambitions. Checking accounts, small business credit cards and even mortgages appear to be in the company’s sites.

In an October 2017 article titled “The Future of Banks Is Probably Not Banks,” tech innovator Andy O’Sullivan observed that Amazon has a relatively new service called “Amazon Cash,” where consumers can use a barcode to load cash into their Amazon accounts through physical retailers. The service is intended for consumers who don’t have bankcards, but O’Sullivan notes that it raises some interesting possibilities. Amazon could do a deal with retailers to allow consumers to use their Amazon accounts in stores, or it could offer credit to buy particular items. No bank would be involved, just a tech giant that already has a relationship with the consumer offering him additional services. Phone payment systems are already training customers not to need bankcards, which means not to need banks.

Taking those concepts even further, Amazon (or eBay or Craigslist) could set up a digital credit system that bypassed bank-created money altogether. Users could sell goods and services online for credits, which they could then spend online for other goods and services. The credits of this online ecosystem would constitute its own user-generated currency. Credits could trade in a digital credit clearing system similar to the digital community currencies used worldwide, systems in which “money” is effectively generated by users themselves.

Like community currencies, an Amazon-style credit clearing system would be independent of both banks and government; but Amazon itself is a private for-profit megalithic system. Like its Wall Street counterparts, it has a shady reputation, having been variously charged with worker exploitation, unfair trade practices, environmental degradation, and extracting outsized profits from trades. However, both President Trump on the right and Senator Elizabeth Warren on the left are now threatening to turn Amazon, Facebook and other tech giants into public utilities. This opens some interesting theoretical possibilities. We could one day have a national non-profit digital ecosystem operated as a cooperative, a public utility in which profits returned to the users in the form of reduced prices. Users could create their own money by “monetizing” their own credit, in a community currency system in which the “community” is the nation or even the world.

*

This article was first posted on TruthDig.com.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. A 13^th book titled Banking on the People: Democratizing Finance in the Digital Age is due out this fall. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Nefarious obstructions to scientific goals include both dishonorable and illegal activities.  Current laws, studies, and news reports reveal fraudulent concealment of hazardous waste, inappropriate influence by private corporate powers, and disinformation from corporate non-profit front groups and public relations firms.  These miscreant activities prevent and discourage science that is needed to avoid chemical injuries through reduced exposures, regulation of dangerous products, and assessment of liability. Full disclosure will allow objective scientific inquiry without corruption by conflicted interests.  Scientists may then advocate precautionary principles that will protect health and environment and allow long denied assistance and treatment for the chemically injured.

*

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated in a 1991 Freedom of Information (FOIA) request,

“Hazardous waste is legally allowed to be recycled into pesticides as well as other commodities”

However, the EPA was unable to identify which pesticides or other commodities used hazardous waste in their products. [1] Fifteen years later these questions are still unanswered despite requests for production in civil lawsuits, subsequent FOIAs to various federal agencies, and despite the fact that some of the pesticides are now banned.  These chemicals continue to injure and disable millions of people of all ages yet information on their provenance, content and contaminants remains a fraudulently concealed secret.

According to the Texas Dept. of Health and Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) a list of pesticide ingredients they reviewed are often contaminated with “technologically enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM)”.  Other indications of radiation in pesticides include the August 1991 legislative report, Agricultural and Rural Impacts of Uranium Recovery Activities in the South Texas Uranium District, principal investigator, Sarah Hana.  This report mentions radiation in pesticides and fertilizers as a confounding factor in discovering the environmental and health effects of uranium mining. [2] Additionally, the EPA “Special Project” to investigate heavy metal and radiation inclusions in Pesticides revealed a  memo from staffer, Amy Rispin, to Tina Levine, Ph.D.,  which stated,

“Marty Halper (with the radiation division)] indicated that it was possible that coal or petroleum products from certain naturally radioactive geological formations might themselves be radioactive.” [3]

Convicted corporate felons in the hazardous waste business have purchased nationwide pest control companies that apparently are being used to fraudulently conceal disposal of hazardous waste. [4] In “Silent Spring”, Rachel Carson wrote about her primary fear,

“In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world.” [5]

Inappropriate conflicts of interest obstruct scientific goals by suppressing and blocking publication of important information.  The current scandal regarding fluoridation of drinking water wherein Harvard study director, Chester Douglass, did not report a seven-fold increased risk from early fluoride exposures linked to osteosarcoma cancer in young boys, is but one example of scientific obstruction.  Eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions have called for an investigation and an immediate nationwide halt on drinking water fluoride programs. [6]

Corporate Public Relation firms have used propaganda effectively for selling new drugs, promoting anti-environmental pro industry views, as well as spreading ‘blame the victim’ views maligning the chemically injured and disabled together with their physicians.  In the Columbia Journalism Review article, “Bitter Pill”, author Trudy Lieberman states,

“as direct-to-consumer advertising has increased, delivering ever-higher ad revenues to the nation’s media. Instead of standing apart from the phenomenon and earning the public’s trust, the press too often is caught up in the same drug-industry marketing web that also ensnares doctors, academic researchers, even the FDA, leaving the public without a reliable watchdog.” [7]

Consistent attacks have been waged against the chemically injured as evidenced in the conflicts of interest in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) Interagency Workgroup Draft Report on MCS.  The principal author/editor of this report, Dr. Frank Mitchell simultaneously served as advisor to anti- MCS/chemical injury industry front group, Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute (ESRI). [8] After years of denying the claims of chemical illness by Gulf War Veterans a new report has recognized these injuries.  Citing new scientific research on the effects of exposure to low levels of neurotoxins, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses concludes in its draft report that

“a substantial proportion of Gulf War veterans are ill with multisymptom conditions not explained by wartime stress or psychiatric illness.” [9]

There have been several instances where corporate powers have attempted to block any assistance for those with chemical injuries.  One such incident was reported by Ann Campbell, M.D., chair, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Task Force of New Mexico, when industry front groups lobbied the New Mexico legislature against recognition and assistance for persons with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities as well as publishing an opinion editorial in two newspapers that criticized the New Mexico legislature for assisting the MCS population. [10]

When secrets involving the contents of chemicals as well as studies that illustrate chemical injuries are kept from scientific investigators the task of discovering causal links and cures for injuries becomes all but impossible. 

In order to remove nefarious obstacles to scientific goals several actions must take place:

1. Repeal of provisions that encourage “recycling” of hazardous materials and radiation into pesticides and other consumer products and which reward bad actors.  Failure to ban this practice prevents the elimination of toxic products and allows cheap and easy disposal of hazardous waste, while hiding the identity and liability of the corporations who are responsible for contamination and injuries. [11]
2. Repeal of “Confidential Business Information” laws that prevent investigators from discovering the complete contents of pesticides and other toxic products as well as “inert” and active ingredient suppliers.  Modern reverse engineering allows disclosure of contents to all competitors; therefore information is only kept from investigators and victims of corporate injury.  Confidential Business Information laws prevent physicians, scientists and attorneys from learning the full truth about toxic products and those responsible for injuries.
3. Prohibitions against conflicts of interest in scientific studies, on scientific and regulatory boards, and in educational settings.  Scientific investigation must be based on unbiased truth.  
4. Potentially harmful products must be labeled to disclose all contents, including “inerts” or contaminates such as heavy metals and radiation, and all suppliers of the constituent product.  This provision embraces the Precautionary Principal that requires that action be taken when there is evidence of harm even if complete proof is not available. [12]

*

Elizabeth M. T. O’Nan is director of Protect All Children’s Environment.

Notes

1. Environmental Protection Agency, Freedom of Information response to Rep. James Clark, Dec. 11, 1990, document number 10F8.

2. Hana, Sarah, report to the 72^nd Legislature of the State of Texas, August 1991, “Agricultural and Rural Impacts of Uranium Recovery Activities in the South Texas Uranium district.

3. Environmental Protection Agency memo from Amy Rispin to Tina Levin, Ph.D, Registration Division, included with letter dated Nov. 9, 1992 to E.M.T. O’Nan de Iglesias.

4. Helm, Andrea, Green Line, June 1991, Vol. IV, No. 9, “EPA waste policy threatens health”.

5. Carson, Rachel, “Silent Spring”, 1962, Fawcett Crest Books.        

6. National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280, EPA Union Press Release, August 19, 2005, EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up

7. Lieberman, Trudy “Bitter Pill”, Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 2005. 

8. Wilkenfeld, Irene, Comments on Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) Interagency Workgroup Draft Report on MCS, September 15, 1998.  

9. Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veteran’s Illnesses, 2004, Scientific Progress in Understanding Gulf War Veteran’s Illnesses: Report and Recommendations

10. McCambell, Ann, 2001, “Multiple Chemical SensitivitiesUnder Siege”, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, issue 210.

11. Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,  Part 261, Sections 261.2 and 261.6

12. Montegue, Peter. 2004, Fourteen Reasons for Precaution, Rachel’s Environment & Health News #791, May 13, 2004

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

F. William Engdahl was interviewed for the Global Research News Hour radio program about his recent book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. 

In the book, Engdahl outlines a weapon of war in the costume of furthering democratic rights and freedoms. Various case studies include the break-up of the Soviet Union, the break up of Yugoslavia, and the attempted overthrow of the Chinese State.

F. William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst, strategic risk consultant, professor and lecturer. He has contributed to a number of international publications on political affairs and economics, including Asia Times, FinancialSense.com, The Real News, RT.com Op Edge and Foresight Magazine among others. He is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization. His various books on geopolitics have been translated into 14 different languages.

An abbreviated version of this interview aired in May on the Global Research News Hour.

Transcript – GR interviews F. William Engdahl. May, 2018

Global Research: So we’re joined right now by F. William Engdahl. He is based in Germany. He is a prominent commentator and geopolitical analyst. And he is also the author of a recent book. Right in 2018, fresh off the press you might say! And the name of the book is Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. So, F. William Engdahl, thank you very much for joining us!

While we’re talking about the subject of ‘fake democracy,’ we’re talking essentially about the new – er, not so new, but a weapon of warfare that’s being utilized by the imperial power that is the U.S. as a way of executing regime change in order to further their own imperial interests and I think that the way most people are accustomed to thinking about U.S. military power, their thinking about aggressive wars and pretexts built on self-defence against the ‘communists’ or the ‘terrorists’ or whatever. But we’re dealing… we seem to be dealing with a mechanism here that’s much more insidious. So do you want to maybe just sort of help us introduce this mechanism, and how far back it goes?

William Engdahl: The mechanism goes back – and the reason I decided to dedicate an entire book to this … in the degree of calculation and diabolical mechanisms that are employed – it’s often very, very poorly understood especially when countries that are – the country that is the target of these mechanisms.

It came out of a project proposed during the Reagan Administration in 1983 by Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey- Bill Casey, and at that time the CIA was under the spotlight in Senate hearings and exposés around the world, the revelations by CIA whistle-blowers like Mr. Marchetti or others, and for their involvement in the Pinochet coup in Chile, for the Iranian toppling of Mossadeq in the fifties and … all that was beginning to come out and it was having huge negative effects, and Casey proposed doing what the CIA does but doing it privately, and that resulted in creation of something by U.S. Congress called the National Endowment for Democracy. And the name is very deliberately chosen. It’s a linguistic manipulation, if you will. Seems (to) sound like the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts…It sounds very philanthropic.

In reality, this is a CIA directed, U.S. Intelligence community directed operation using Non-Governmental Organizations, in a coherent way, I call them ‘fake democracy’ NGOs and even give a better description in the actual book itself. And I detail which NGOs are used for that.

The monies come from U.S. government or from certain private foundations who seem to have unlimited funds and seem to be very closely connected to the State Department and the Intelligence community, and they have systematically targeted nation after nation to topple regimes that are not friendly to the Washington agenda.

GR: As I understand it we’re kind of talking about what I think of as a Trojan Horse, except instead of a wooden horse full of soldiers that’s being sent to the target country, here we’re talking about, well, like you say these human rights and democracy furthering organizations that are undermining the sovereign authority of the country.

WE: The way it works is – very valid one, I agree – the first step occasion that these U.S. government directed fake democracies NGOs came with Poland, with the Solidarność movement, where the U.S. government through these NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy, the AFL-CIO connected… of the NED and others, they funneled millions of dollars, U.S. taxpayer dollars, into Lech Walesa’s Solidarność and created mass protests on the streets in Poland at a point where the communist government was simply powerless to intervene, among other reasons because, unbeknownst to most people, the Polish Pope John Paul II … and he met with Ronald Reagan and entered into a secret agreement, and this was later confirmed by his – Reagan’s National Security Advisor – a secret agreement to bring down the communist regime in Poland, and they did that very successfully.

And just to give you an idea, they – once they brought down the regime, the U.S. brought in its economic shock troops in the form of Harvard economists Jeffrey Sachs in his famous, or infamous shock theory. What they did was to demand the Polish – the communist, everyone was under State control – that they immediately privatize everything, that they free up the zloty against the dollar so the zloty fell like a stone. And then if you suddenly had dollar assets, like Western investors who were on the inside of the scheme did, you could buy up some of the Crown Jewels of the Polish economy for pennies on the dollar. And the losers in this were the Polish people who – unemployment exploded, just a time of incredible misery, and this is basically the model, that was then turned in 1989 to three major communist countries at the same time and this is all under George Herbert Walker Bush – George Bush Sr. – from the CIA Director who was very much in the middle of these so-called fake democracy NGOs. And they targeted the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and the People’s Republic of China, all three simultaneously in 1989.

In the case of the Soviet Union, they managed to bring in a CIA asset by the name of Boris Yeltsin, and use Yeltsin to simply what I call in the book the Rape of Russia – to literally steal and rob from the Russian State and the Russian people almost anything of value they could get their k leptocratic hands on. And, in the case of Yugoslavia, it led – it was the ignition that led to the explosion of a civil war in Yugoslavia between Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia … and completely destroyed that country.

In the case of China, the Chinese … somehow managed to get wind of what was going on and kicked out certain NGO operatives that were connected (to) the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Ambassador at that time people like James Lilley who was a former CIA crony (under) George Bush Sr., no accident that he was Ambassador at that time. And of course, in my estimation running the Tiananmen Square destabilization on the ground in Beijing.

By the way, one thing that I document quite in detail in the book, and people may be shocked by this: there was never a student massacre by the People’s Liberation Army in Tiananmen Square in June of 1989. That was fabricated by the U.S. Ambassador James Lilley and by the Western media … This gives you an idea of how these fake democracy NGOs…

GR: When we talk about fake democracies, it all seems very benign at first, and what we’re finding is that this covert funding that’s going to promote certain candidates or certain movements, and that has the appearance of making the target government that the U.S. figures are looking to overthrow, giving them a bad image both in the eyes of the domestic population and in the eyes of the wider world. Is it possible to detail some of the money flows? How does it translate on the ground?

WE: How it translates on the ground is the money goes to all sorts of – the means are just innumerable. All sorts of NGOs in target countries that prop up out of thin air, and then, you know, ‘democracy for Ukraine’ or ‘freedom for Iran’ … but they’re simply financed by U.S. government money, or indirectly by think tanks … following the money.

And – this is – we’re talking about billions of dollars – what they do is they refine the sort of leaders and, again, in the period of the Ukraine colour revolution, the so-called Orange Revolution 2003, 2004 and also in Georgia next door, they begin focusing on election processes and having poll watchers that they train – biased incredulous poll watchers…not neutral poll watchers from international organizations, but fake poll watchers. And then coordinating with embedded media like CNN or BBC to put out a certain message, and then they use other techniques.

There’s an organization that did the successful overthrow of Milosevic after 2000 in Yugoslavia and Serbia, called Otpor, trained by U.S. Intelligence. And that later transformed itself into a professional organization keeping the cover of this successful Serbian regime change organization but they call CANVAS, C-A-N-V-A-S, and the same people are involved. They’re very secretive about where they get their funding from but it’s clear that it’s coordinated with the U.S. State Department’s Intelligence.

And what they do, they serve as the logistics training centre, the people on the ground for the U.S. government in – usually through the Embassy – begin recruiting student activists usually, they’re the most effective, and bringing them into training systems, usually in Belgrade or elsewhere, sometimes they leave the country. And they’re trained in techniques of non-violence according to textbook regime shops – Albert Einstein Institution – non-violence is a method of warfare… and they’re trained in techniques, very much similar to what we see going on today in Armenia. But they’re trained in techniques to discredit the power and the authority of authoritarian governments, or governments who try to resist mass protests, as many governments will do. Certainly you can imagine the U.S. government …it would stop at nothing to crush certain dissent.

The techniques that are – have been refined in facebook and twitter. For example, in the Arab Spring, which was a NGO operation backed by the U.S. government when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, to change the map of the Middle East and bring U.S. military control of the key oil and gas regions of the world outside of Russia and the Russian Federation under direct U.S. military control, that process is ongoing to this day.

The techniques are constantly being refined. The RAND corporation, research and development corporation as detailed in the book, Manifest Destiny, is developing techniques they call ‘swarming.’ And they did a study of all or most of the major world brilliant military commanders from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and others, and their military tactics. They identified how to … with the doctrine of ‘swarming’ as in a swarm of bees…And then they applied this to these mass protests, and using GPS satellite communication with certain key leaders in these protests, they used twitter and facebook to communicate with groups of protesters that have been prudent for each other and normalized. And then their tactics will be protest- and-run, protest-and-run, regroup in different parts of the city and then keep the government completely off guard, keep the military or the security police off guard, so that the power of the State looks like it’s impotent. And that begins to undermine authority.

GR: William, I want to try to get…

WE: I should add that in most cases, and certainly this is the case in Ukraine in 2014.

GR: I want to make sure a specific distinction here.

WE: Yes?

GR: I mean, with these popular mobilizations, we’re not talking about a homogeneous group of people who are all being paid off by the National Endowment for Democracy. There are a lot of sincere people who are being caught up in all of this. It’s just that these …well funded mechanisms are just so effective at reaching out to people, but a lot of the people who are being brought in are, they’re rather sincere in their convictions. I mean, is that not true? Is that not accurate? I mean we’re not just talking about every activist … getting a pay cheque.

WE: Exactly! Crucial point about this, and I’m glad you brought it up, is that the…no no no no, the key leaders that steer the thing, and for most of the protesters, most of them are as you say innocent and want more freedom – and who doesn’t want individual freedom and democracy being all good things, and maybe your nation’s economy is really down and you think well the Western goods are prosperous. If we go along with the West we’ll get all these American quality of life and so forth, which never happens…

Let’s take the example of Egypt… and there you had the case of certain key organizations, umbrella organizations … that mobilized millions of students. I know some are – have spoken to me, some of the students who were in those protests, and they deeply believed that they were fighting for democracy and human rights. And that, without that it doesn’t work. It’s not convincing. So that’s an essential element of it.

But what most of the students didn’t realize is that behind the scenes were front organizations of a political terrorist cult, and I use that term very precisely, called the Muslim Brotherhood, which was created in Egypt by British Intelligence in the 1920s. And in the time of the Arab Spring and backed by the Hillary Clinton State Department as the alternative to governments like Mubarak or Libya’s Gaddafi, or Ben Ali in Tunisia. And so the demonstrations spread. Were successful. There was collusion on elements of the Egyptian military to – who were pressured by the Pentagon to not support Mubarak at a critical moment. But, once Mubarak stepped down, the Muslim Brotherhood and the U.S. government moved to have early elections, and the only organized force that was prepared to win early elections was the Muslim Brotherhood. And that’s where you got Mohammed Morsi and the government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and supported by the U.S. State Department and the CIA which had been working, collaborating in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood since the early 1950s.

So in this, I document in some detail in an earlier book of mine called The Lost Hegemon: Whom the Gods would Destroy, which details the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA.

In any event, the students were suddenly completely left in the lurch by Washington and the U.S. government, because their agenda was to bring in this political terrorist organization called the Muslim Brotherhood and impose a U.S. controlled regime on the country.

GR: Could you talk about the importance of some of these economic arrangements – the IMF. Because it seems like a consistent element in all successful coloured revolutions is the willingness of the favoured political order to jump on board with IMF style reforms. I mean, are we talking about a kind of like a one-two – first you get the revolution and then you cement it with an IMF style arrangement?

WE: Well, it works both ways actually. I think that uh, let’s take the case Poland. In the case of Poland they had borrowed heavily in the dollar markets to finance the economic shortages and so forth, because it was a very grim time economically for Warsaw Pact countries at the end of the 1980s. And at a certain point they were cut off from Western credits – Western private bank credits – unless they would agree, the government would need to submit to IMF conditionalities, and that set the trap.

And this was also the case in Yugoslavia, where a similar situation ensued and the IMF conditionalities were used to create the economic tensions between different parts of Yugoslavia – different ethnic groups in Yugoslavia to create the … And then under Bush Senior, the U.S. Congress passed a law that forced the break-up of Yugoslavia if they wanted to receive any further U.S. credits.

So the IMF was used, in the case of the Russian Federation, the IMF was brought in by the Bush Administration in 1990 as the <inaudible> of the economic transformation order …part of the economic transformation of the former Soviet Union. And they would play an instrumental role in forcing – Boris Yeltsin was the willing actor in this – but forcing the privatization of State assets and selling them off on the world market at pennies on the dollar. And that’s the crucial role of the IMF in all of this.

GR: In terms of financing these revolutions, how much of that funding is coming from, you know, authorized by Congress versus off-the-book financing, and where is the off-the-book financing coming from?

WE: [Chuckle] That would be a little difficult because I… certain … I am hesitant to name on the air, but there are private foundations. If you go into the book you find them amply documented with footnotes and sources. But there are private foundations that work in connection with the U.S. government finance, the National Endowment for Democracy, the NED. And the breakdown of that is very difficult simply because they don’t disclose in an open and honest way fully what they’re financing. It’s a lot of covert fund transfers from offshore entities and so forth. So, it’s very difficult to trace.

GR: Can you speak to any funding sources that we know about? For example, we’ve heard about Iran-Contra, where they were able to uh, further illegal uh, shipments. The arms for hostages deal where they were able to utilize drug networks to finance the Contras in Nicaragua – some interesting things happening there currently. You also mention in the book about gold that had belonged to the Japanese during the war, and that was then – ended up in the Phillipines. So I was wondering if you could speak to some of those source – I mean we may not have the exact breakdown but we do know that some of that money ended up coming from some of these off-the-book sources and entering into these… money-laundering and what not.

WE: Well the destruction of the Soviet Union and the rape of Russia, the things you mention, it wasn’t Japanese gold, it was gold that the Japanese occupation army during World War II stole from as it traveled from Mongolia, from Indonesia and other countries that they occupied … And it was buried deep caves in the Philippines in the event Japan would lose the war. The Emperor’s family was the only ones – they were the only ones privy to the locations, until Ferdinand Marcos, an asset of the CIA, he was President of the Philippines – a dictator – back in the 1980s, managed to uncover some of the sites. He got hold of one of the … of the Japanese Army, and they were digging some of these places, and eventually uncovered the stolen gold.

Well, he made a mistake in using another CIA asset named Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian a rms dealer, ostensibly the richest man in the world at that time. Adnan Khashoggi is used by Marcos to sell the Japanese gold onto the world market…and Adnan Khashoggi took his friend George Herbert Walker Bush, one of the CIA members in the agency, U.S. government, and they destabilized and toppled the Marcos regime. So they used that Philippine gold – the Marcos gold – as collateral to create derivatives that were used to nominally back up the buying up of the Russian State assets by certain so-called Russian oligarchs, who laundered the money through Western banks in Switzerland and the Jersey Islands offshore in Ukraine, other places. And all of that was done under the supervision of the CIA. Edmond Safra’s Bank was one of the banks involved as well.

GR: It’s not as if every time there’s a popular mobilization that there isn’t a genuine effort at revolutionary pressure, but I think that – I mean I’ve participated in popular mobilizations myself…

WE: As have I! [laughter]

GR: Since there are people who do legitimately want to overthrow an oppressive government, an oppressive regime, versus those that are stage-managed by these U.S. covert sources…Is there a way that we can distinguish between a genuine and a fake democracy revolution?

WE: It’s sometimes very difficult. For example the ongoing protests in Yerevan and Armenia. Armenia is a former Soviet – part of the Soviet Union, as well, and is a member of the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union with the countries with Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and others. And a very strategic country for the security of Russia.

Now the protests that have broken out a couple of weeks ago in Armenia are aimed at closing – successfully closing the resignation of Serzh Sargsyan who – former president for the last decade – who had been elected by the Parliament … As prime minister and back after a new law was introduced which transferred all of the presidential powers to lead into the prime minister. So the mass protests have been focused on the fact that Sargsyan was simply playing a trick to become defacto dictator for life, a little bit like a reverse play on the Erdogan operation in Turkey where the powers devolved from prime minister which Erdogan was, to president which he is now. It went the other way in Armenia.

Now, the popular opposition … Nikol Pashinyan, a former journalist, is the only candidate to replace Sargsyan as prime minister. Sargsyan resigned and announced that “I was wrong, and Pashinyan was right.” What we don’t know, and this is very fine line…yes, the same U.S. government NGOs and private foundations that work with those U.S. government NGOs or the National Endowment for Democracy, are very active in Armenia and have been active in Armenia, on all the kinds of financing operations that have been connected with coloured revolutions in the past. This time, the opposition leader, Pashinyan, goes out of his way to stress that he’s not against Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union or against Russia, that he’s against the corruption of the Sargsyan – the former government, and the fact that the Armenian economy is in such bad shape.

So, there are genuine grievances that the population has, but the point is the U.S. State Department is very much on the scene there in telephone contact with Pashinyan, and all the indications are it hasn’t been at its initiation a coloured revolution. The U.S. State Department the intelligence agencies are for sure trying to draw up the best way to take advantage of that in Azerbaijan, the … conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, that … into a shooting conflict a year and a half ago. Parliamentarians from Azerbaijan are saying let’s take advantage of this chaos in Armenia and retake Nagorno-Karabakh which is majority Armenian ethnic population. It seceded in 1991 from Azerbaijan and has been contested by it. A truce agreement between both countries upsets it. A very uneasy truce. So, in some cases, it’s a very difficult distinction.

Let’s take another example. There is a series of student-led protests in Hong Kong, which used to be a British colony as of about 1989. 1999 rather. And those protests were given the name in the media as the ‘umbrella revolution,’ because umbrellas were used by the students who… in it as a symbol. Later, it came out that they were of course protesting the heavy-handed , anti-democratic measures of Beijing to control the political process in Hong Kong. It’s reverted to China after the British left in ’99. And initially it wasn’t clear if that was a genuine student protest or not. It later became clear that the Vice President of the National Endowment for Democracy was direct on the scene orchestrating the events in Hong Kong against the Beijing government, who embarrassed Beijing.

So, you have to look at these things sometimes in great detail, and like I say, in the case of Armenia, I would say the jury’s still out. My own sense is that it is being manipulated in the direction of a coloured revolution by the U.S. government’s State Department, Intelligence Agency, but it’s not one hundred per cent clear yet.

GR: There was the revolution, or U.S. interference in Russia and the looting of Russia throughout the 1990s. Yeltsin was eventually removed and Vladimir Putin came in and since Vladimir Putin has arrived, I think the future of anymore of this kind of U.S. intervention within Russia seems to be very uh, dim, as is the case, it seems to me in China. Again as you mention, that revolution – that fake democratic revolution as you put it, it does not seem to have prevailed. So what are your thoughts about the future of this mode of … this fake democratic … mechanism of warfare. Are the other states catching on? Are they going to be able to defend themselves from this? Are they learning their lessons?

WE: Yes and no I would say. Russia has certainly learned its lesson, and the Russian security services are quite sophisticated. They began figuring out the pattern of Ukraine, Georgia, the attempted pattern in Belarus…and they passed a bill in the Duma called the Law Against Undesirable NGOs, which various NGOs screamed and hollered about. They take it as trying to re-install the Soviet Union… China has made a similar crack-down on the NGOs, and other countries – smaller countries, I would say Armenia is a good example, are less experienced in this kind of thing, and therefore less prepared to deal with it in an effective way. So it’s very uneven.

It’s very uneven and these are highly insidious operations where you have some of the NGOs popping up and calling for democracy and more freedom for whatever in some country whether it be Egypt or whatever. And then it’s picked up by select Western media like CNN or BBC, and – as a genuine grassroots movement, and the focus on the dictatorial regimes go mostly – regimes don’t want to be given bad press – as dictatorial, if they can avoid it. So, sometimes they’re thrown off guard by that kind of thing. It’s done in a very calculated way.

Recall the Trump campaign he said, “The time is over when America needs to intervene (in) other country’s affairs” – secrecy demands and so forth. And some people thought, “Oh! This is an end to the coloured revolutions by Washington.” Well, it’s been in no way, shape or form the end of that from Washington. There have been numerous attacks since Trump has been in office. That’s continually what’s being done on a lower profile.

So I would urge your listeners to look at the book in detail where I go into all this, and develop it historically. And you can get a much better sense. I think one of the most important questions of warfare that has been developed by any NATO country post 1945 period.

GR: Well, I agree. It’s definitely worth the read and the name of that book again is Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance, and it was authored by our featured guest, F. William Engdahl. So, thank you very much for sharing these perspectives with us. It’s very important to understand.

WE: Well, thank you! And one thing if I might mention it before we close, is if listeners go onto my website williamengdahl.com they can click and receive a free regular geopolitical newsletter to get my sense of some of these topics that we’ve covered today in the interview, and also follow my writings and interviews on all of these subjects.

Title: Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance

Author: F. William Engdahl

Publisher: mine.books (March 2, 2018)

ISBN-10: 3981723732

ISBN-13: 978-3981723731

George Orwell’s famous novel, 1984, is a masterful fictional account of a state which imposes cognitive dissonance on its citizens to control their perception of reality. It is summed up in the statement, “War is Peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.”

The story of this book, Manifest Destiny, is an account of how agencies of US intelligence including the CIA and State Department, in collaboration with private “democracy” NGOs, developed and refined techniques of Orwellian doublethink or cognitive dissonance to create a series of regime changes around the world that sounded noble, democratic, but in reality were not.

William Engdahl describes the background beginning in the 1980’s with Reagan’s CIA Director leading to creation of a series of private NGO’s to covertly manipulate aspirations for freedom and democracy from Poland and other communist countries in the late 1980’s, to the Soviet Union to Yugoslavia and China. The book details the refinement of what came to be called Color Revolutions by the early years of this century in Ukraine, Georgia and later with the US-orchestrated Arab Spring. It’s an account of how elite circles in the USA and Europe along with their think tanks refined methods to impose a new tyranny on countries from Ukraine to Egypt to Libya and beyond. The aim was to use democratic aspirations of ordinary people, often youth, to topple regimes resisting what David Rockefeller once called a One World Government, a global corporate tyranny. This is an almost incredible chronicle of how select NGOS speak about freedom, human rights, democracy in order to bring war, violence and terror. The book is a must read for anyone wanting to truly understand world events of the past three decades or more.

Click here to order.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

You can sense Australian politicians – or at least a good number of them – fuming at being cobbled together with the counterparts of other states deemed less worthy of the tag of “stable”.  Take, for instance, entertaining Italy, tenaciously temporary about its leaders. 

“We said,” reflected a rueful Senator Derryn Hinch of the Justice Party, “‘how often they change their governments, how often they changed their leaders, what a stupid country and how irresponsible.”  

The Italy of the antipodes (without the colour); a state so obsessed with leadership change that it requires a session of bloodletting every two years or less.  This is a country incapable of keeping stable governments, a state where the party system holds true over democratic instincts.  The pack mentality of committing parricide has come to the fore again, with Malcolm Turnbull facing the last hours of his prime ministership.

Turnbull has fought, setting his own expectations before the coup plotters: show that there is enough support for a new leader. Forty-three signatures were required, thereby outing the plotters.  (At this writing, the forty-third signature has been obtained.)  For such anti-Turnbull figures as Senator Eric Abetz, this was simply poor form: how dare the Australian prime minister ask who was being disloyal?

The other demand from Turnbull was getting advice from the Solicitor General on the eligibility of his executioner-in-chief Peter Dutton to continue to sit in parliament. The issue there is whether Dutton has benefitted from the commonwealth in a way that is in conflict with his duties as a parliamentarian.  That advice, needless to say, has been unequivocal.  Only the High Court could rule on that with any certainty.

For these political creatures, the party ballot comes before the electoral vote, a situation that has an odd echo of the Holy Roman Empire rather than a modern democracy.  This, in the absence of wars (at least internal ones), disruptions to the local currency, and a collapse of the financial system, suggests a certain suicidal eccentricity on the part of Australian politicians.

It has been a disastrous sequence of events for that unfortunate system known as Australian democracy.  As it lurches to the next faction (the Founding Fathers in the United States had much to say about those, establishing a Republican system that would prevent this nonsense), we face the prospect of the executive being decapitated yet again.  The genius of the US example, at least, was to keep the executive out of Congress’s way, an effort to make sure that checks and balances prevailed in the unruly viper’s nest of politics.

The rhetorical sequences are always the same when it comes to slaughtering an elected leader in the party room, strummed out to the same tedious instrumental fashion.  The person who wins praises the predecessor having even as the wounds are fresh; the defeated party promises no vengeance, and bears no ill-feeling.  Labor’s Kevin Rudd, on failing to beat Julia Gillard, the same individual who lay in the party knives into him: “I bear no malice; I bear no grudges” or words to that effect.  From the ousted Liberal leader Tony Abbott to Malcolm Turnbull: “There will be no sniping, no wrecking, no undermining.”

Now, the round robin word cycle replays itself before the heralded execution of yet another Australian prime minister.  We are told that it has been a good government with sound policy (no mention of defeats in the Senate of key policy positions are mentioned).  There have been good achievements, evidently so profoundly effective as to warrant an assault on the leader.

In the distance are the drum banging shock jocks, populist town criers in the employ of the Murdoch press and associated lobbies ever keen to jockey for positions.  Sky News has become a fox hole of determination against Turnbull.  The Australian has become a front line position of assault.  Peta Credlin, Abbott’s long time iron maiden advisor and bull ram, has been lobbing grenades into the Turnbull camp with a satanic fury.

The party of contenders, bickerers and potential stealers is getting crowded.  Turnbull might take some heart from this: a larger field limits the options and minimise Dutton’s chances.  Treasurer Scott Morrison has nominated; foreign minister Julie Bishop is also considering.  The former Nationals leader and permanent media surfer Barnaby Joyce is giving Turnbull advice to stand in the second ballot as a matter of moral duty.  Turnbull, however, does not intend to contest the ballot, thereby leaving the way open to any of the three.

Outside the Liberal Party, the Labor Party is breathing heavily, aroused by the prospects of snatching power.

“It is now clear that the Liberals cannot provide the leadership that the Australian people deserve,” chortled Senator Penny Wong.  “The only party capable of delivering that government and governing for all Australians is the Australian Labor Party.”

The Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale felt sour.

“It’s a disgrace. It’s utterly shameful.  We haven’t had a stable government in this country for a decade now. I’ve got a 10-year-old boy, he’s seen a half a dozen different prime ministers.”

It is such faffing indulgence that costs democracies dearly, lending a helping hand to authoritarian tendencies while unmasking the true power dynamic at play in the Westminster system.  It has also crowned the populist barkers and howlers, letting Murdoch know how close he is to the centre of that bubble known as Canberra.  Turnbull would have been best served to take the matter to the Governor-General, declared the situation untenable and called for fresh elections.

Instead, we bear witness to a puerile, party game, short-termed, governed by the crudest of self-interest and a desperate desire to preserve seats.  It has let the desire for vengeance and the streak of cowardice prevail over the functions of presentation. (Exeunt the Australian voter!)  Turnbull has delayed and aggravated his would-be executioners, but the time has arrived.

With each orchestrated fall comes the reckoning about possible change.  Should there be fixed four-year terms of parliament?  One way of saving the system might be to save the executive, and the only way to save the executive from the trivial, poll-driven mutilations of party hacks will be for Australia to become a republic of some sort – or at least one where the executive has a separate political line free from severance.  But that would minimise the all-powerful position political parties have in Australia.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On Aug 15, the popular British tabloid Daily Mail “explained” to the British public the Morandi Bridge disaster in one of its usually longish, cliché-dominated and gossipy stories as follows:

Are the 39 dead in Genoa paying the price of years of collusion between Italian officials and mafia? See this.

The article is instructive because it could be one of the first popular examples of a free-for-all frenzy, an international media campaign launched to undermine Italy and in particular its National Unity government (Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte) that is enjoying an enthusiastic support in its effort to re-establish in practice and in principle the idea of independence and National Sovereignty, and to free Italy from the international financial potentates emanating from Wall Street and the city of London.

Like its more arrogant (and equally superficial) relative,  The Economist, famous for targeting Aldo Moro just before his kidnapping and assassination, the Daily Mail knows the level of its readers and sticks to it. What do they know about Italy? Well, they know the Mafia! So, what happened in Genoa it’s clear:

Many Italians blame organised crime. Planning for the Morandi Bridge, along the route connecting Italy with France, began in the early 1960s, and it opened in 1967.

Although there’s no evidence of any criminal involvement in its construction, Italy’s First Republic, from 1948-1992, was infamous for the collusion between Christian Democrats and organised crime.

Pathetic, but not surprising. Besides the many unanswered questions on how the collapse happened, the British tabloid does not realize that:

1) what both, the Italian people and the government have identified as the culprit is the Benetton Family, the financially ravenous and fashionable local oligarchs who are connected to the overlord of the city. The Benetton became rich first, buying “chip” (cheap), very chip… zero money down, and then cannibalizing the public wealth created by generations of workers and entrepreneurs. In particular the Autostrade per l’Italia, the Highways. The magic of Privatization!

2) The basic Italian infrastructures, what Italy still lives on, are the result of the first two decades of the First Republic.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Former US Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley Smith explained “almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to ‘influence an election,’ from buying a good watch to make sure he (or she) gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he (or she) feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he (or she) looks good on a debate stage.”

He added that US election rules and standards are “murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a ‘campaign expense’ or a personal expense.” It’s certainly highly unlikely to swing an election for one candidate over another.

Long knives wielded by dark forces hostile to Trump are out to remove him from office for the wrong reasons – not the right ones, no legitimate ones ever used against a US president before.

Bill Clinton’s illicit sex with Monica Lewinsky, including in the Oval Office’s back study bathroom, then lying about his escapade, didn’t bring him down.

Numerous US presidents and wannabe ones had extramarital affairs – including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, among others.

Little or nothing was said about their private lives while campaigning or throughout their tenure.

Trump’s sex life is his own business, no one else’s except his wife’s. It’s unrelated to affairs of state – only a crime when rape is committed.

On Tuesday, Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen admitted in court he was directed by DJT to make hush money payments to two of his paramours – believed to be porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Daily Mail, May 17, 2018

According to Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis, if hush money payments by his client on behalf of Trump “were a crime, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for” DJT?

Davis formerly served as Clinton White House special counsel, more recently as a lobbyist for notorious despots and predatory corporate clients. He lacks credibility on issues relating to Trump.

In Manhattan District Court, Cohen said payments to the women in question were made “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” adding:

“I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the (2016 presidential) election.”

Formal charges against Cohen haven’t been announced. He pleaded guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion and one count of bank fraud, along with admitting he made what he called illegal campaign contributions on behalf of Trump.

He struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors, cooperating with them against DJT to mitigate his sentence, likely saying what they wanted to hear to save his skin from many years in prison.

Reportedly he was warned if he goes on trial and is convicted, he’ll be locked up longterm and heavily fined.

He once bragged he’d “take a bullet” for Trump. Now he’s aiming the other way, including by secretly recording his conversations with DJT. One apparently discussed hush money payments to his paramours.

It’s unclear if payments criminally violated campaign finance rules. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said “(t)here is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen.”

Screenshot Reuters.com, August 21, 2018

On December 12, Federal District Court Judge William Pauley will formally sentence him – likely to months in prison and a small fine, not years behind bars and a much heavier one.

Giuliani downplayed the notion that he can harm Trump, saying he’s not a credible witness against DJT. “The deputy US attorney came out in a press conference and called him a liar.”

Reportedly he’s willing to cooperate with special counsel Mueller against the president. Whether and to what extent he’s able to harm Trump remains to be seen given that no evidence suggests he or his team were complicit with Russia to help him triumph over Hillary or in any other illegal or unethical way.

*

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Elections ideally are designed to allow voters the opportunity to make “educated decisions” in electing the right representatives. However, in the “democratic” societies, the genuine working people candidates have limited access — if any at all — to reach out and present their platform in the elections. Therefore, voters end up choosing and “electing” only the 1% candidates. This process (which is dominated and controlled by the 1% power and money) is designed to legitimize the anti-working people governing system as “democratic”.

However, under certain political conditions, these “democratic” elections become the pretext in giving birth to a totalitarian government. In other words in politics as in physics or chemistry, under certain conditions, matter through a process of qualitative changes negates itself. For a physicist or chemist working in a lab, these intense transformations and mutations are usual occurrences. However, in the field of social science, these qualitative changes are rare with drastic consequences but possible.

For instance, in Germany, in May 1928, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) get less than a tenth of total votes in the Reichstag (Parliament) elections. More than two years later, in September 1930 election, the same Nazi Party votes increased by up 700 percent! Two years later in July 1932, the Nazi party becomes the largest Party in Germany. Finally, on January 30th, 1933, Hitler is appointed as Chancellor and became the head of the German government which led to WWII.

It is imperative that readers know the aim of reviewing this history is by no means to draw a comparison between the German elections in early 30’s to today’s elections in the U.S. This nominal analogy would be unscientific and meaningless. Besides the rise of Fascism in Germany was solely the direct result of betrayal by the leadership of the two largest parties, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Communist (Stalinist) Party (KPD) of Germany. The attention should be on the fact of how quickly through a series of normal “democratic” elections an undemocratic and totalitarian regime did arise. The goal is to be mindful of this history and prevent a repeat of the same mistakes. When the economic crisis deepens, the 1% in the name of national security — which only means the security of their own power and wealth — would take off their pretentious “democratic” mask, reveal their true nature and govern with the iron fist.

In less than 11 weeks, the American people will be at the polls to elect their candidates. However, not all voters realize that their vote in the next election or elections thereafter is a vote for war and political repression. American people are bombarded with the Pro or Anti Trump slogans. The “Pundits” are running their mouths overtime these days to convince the voters how important it is to win the majority in the house. Some forecast that a “Blue Wave” in the 2018 Midterm Election is looking more and more likely to give Democrats a comfortable majority in the House; meanwhile Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist to President Trump, warns the GOP that “you’re going to get smoked” if you play by “the traditional Republican playbook”! No one bothers to explain how working people would benefit if the Democratic or Republican Party wins the majority in the House. Would dire issues, such as; the Minimum Wage, Healthcare, Immigration, DACA, the Environment and the rapid problem of Homelessness in America be discussed in the House in order to be resolved once and for all?

True Peace activists should analytically look at the international political situation first. In regard to the upcoming election, for those who seek a long-lasting Peace, the understanding of the role of the United States outside of her borders is essential. Domestic dramas are endless and are designed to distract working people from the unvarnished truth. Mr. Mueller or Mr. Giuliani, Mrs. Conway or Mrs. Omarosa and other characters alike, can entertain us for years but none of them will ever question the creeping censorship that is suffocating the voices of freedom in the U.S. or stand up against selling the weapons of mass destruction to Saudi Arabia and Israel who are killing innocent children with impunity. Nor do they care about poisonous foods that the powerful firms are producing for the mass consumption; or the factories that are polluting our water and air. It is the duty of hard-working people to end these out of control economic plundering, cruel injustices and insane wars.

A united front against war and totalitarianism is possible. It is a lot easier for the different forces and organizations to unite when all are under attack and have to defend themselves. It is just the question of understanding and will. The Trump administration with its Dollar Diplomacy is sanctioning America’s “friend and foe” in hope to regain the U.S. global hegemony. The U.S. cannot compete with China in producing goods since American capitalists have left their offices in the factories a long time ago and became the speculative financier of Wall Street. That is why war and sanctions are their weapons of choice. But while wars and sanctions are breaking the victim nations apart, like a double bladed sword they are also hurting American working families. It is the hard-working people who are paying $250 Million a day to cover the cost of these insane wars abroad. The 1% is the only section of the American society that benefits from wars. It is time for Peace activists and democratic-minded people to utilize their forces independent of the major parties and energetically participate in the upcoming elections to challenge the 1% candidates against all the U.S. military wars abroad and the internal war against the working people.

Political conditions are ripe for intense qualitative changes. The question is if the 99% is able to create a conscious leadership on time.

*

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

It was long overdue, but Pope Francis’s letter of condemnation and apology regarding the abuse of children by Catholic priests did sent a few ripples of comfort and reckoning.  He conceded that the Church “showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them”.  He acknowledged the “heart-wrenching pain” of the victims who had been assaulted by the clerical class, and the cries “long ignored, kept quiet or silenced”.

“With shame and repentance,” went the Pope’s grave words, “we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives.”

What is left hanging in the air is any system of defined accountability, one characterised by an ancient institution mothballed by secrecy and obfuscation.  In the pointed words of Irish abuse survivor Marie Collins,

“Statements from the Vatican or Pope should stop telling us how terrible abuse is, and how all must be held accountable.” 

The Pope had been given a prompting this month, a nasty reminder he acknowledged in his note. 

“Even though it can be said that most of these cases belong to the past, nonetheless as time goes on we have come to know the pain of the many of the victims.” 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had made a near 900 page grand jury report investigating clerical sex abuse of minors public, a digging enterprise spearheaded by the Pennsylvania state Attorney General Josh Shapiro.  The grizzly bounty came to 301 accused priests, with some 1,000 victims throughout the state, and even then, it only covered six of the eight dioceses in the state. 

The details read like chillingly lurid pornography: a priest in the Diocese of Erie who “fondled boys and told them he was giving them a ‘cancer check’”; a priest in the Diocese of Allentown who impregnated a 17-year-old and “forged another pastor’s signature on a marriage certificate”.  What also accompanied such acts of molestation was the divine remit: victims were assured that their sexual provision was part of a broader Godly purpose.

The exploits of some of the accused resemble catalogues of brutal overachievement.  Rev. Edward R. Graff, who served in the diocese of Allentown for 35 years, could add scores of victims to his repertoire. Much of his conduct was executed on the premise that he was “an instrument of god”.

After the abuse comes the vast apparatus, the doctrinally directed cover-ups that warn of continuing offending behaviour while still keeping matters bolted and in-house.  The report notes the point. 

“What we can say, though, despite some institutional reform, individual leaders of the church have largely escaped public accountability.  Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all.  For decades.”

Within the church itself, church officials received protection and succour.

“Monsignors, auxiliary bishops, bishops, archbishops, cardinals have mostly been protected; many, including some named in this report, have been promoted.”

Matters have been particularly heady in the field of child abuse accusation this US summer.  Cardinal Theodore McCarrick resigned his cardinalship after accusations of abuse from adult seminarians and children.  On the other side of the planet, one of the Vatican’s highest ranking officials, Australia’s Cardinal George Pell, is busy battling charges of historical sex abuse.

Resistance to prodding from the secular world remains trenchant in some branches of the Church. In Australia, despite the passage of legislation breaching the sacred seal of the confession, priests have openly stated that they would sooner go to prison than reveal the contents of a penitent’s confession, even if it discloses instances of child abuse.  Church business remains resistant, defiantly so. 

To that end, the shaking measures of legal action may be one of few mechanisms to ensure accountability.  Criminal prosecutions have tended to rarely succeed; issues of evidence and the passage of time often condemn them.  Civil lawsuits, as Timothy D. Lytton of Georgia State University argues, might have more prospects of success.  This, however, will face bars imposed by the statute of limitations.

“Unless lawmakers across the country pass reforms to extend or suspend the statute of limitations in their states, I believe that the church will never provide a full accounting of the scandal.” 

The language of Pope Francis can be misconstrued as healing and resolving.  It does neither.  The Church sprawls and continues to exist with its own rationales, its basis of functioning. It was the world’s first operational corporation, its crimes and infractions as much to do with that logic than anything else.  Until its approach to the powerful clerical class is reformed, the abuses will continue in the shadow of misused divinity.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

It took oil company Shell more than 16 years to directly warn its shareholders that climate policy posed a financial risk to the company’s business model despite knowing — in private and for decades — about the relationship between its products and climate change.

Shell started commissioning confidential work about the impact of burning fossil fuels on the global climate as early as 1981. However, analysis by DeSmog UK and DeSmog found that Shell did not start mentioning the possibility of climate change to shareholders in annual reports before 1991 — 10 years after the company started a research stream to study climate change.

Analysis of Shell’s annual reports and financial records at the time show the company did not give a clear warning to its shareholders about the financial risks “related to the impact of climate change” and attached to their investments until 2004.

DeSmog UK and DeSmog have worked through Shell companies’ annual reports submitted to the UK’s Companies House and 10-K’s and 20-F forms filed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to compare what the company knew in private at the end of the 1980s and what it told its shareholders about the environmental and financial risks attached to their investment during the following decade.

Early Days

A black and white picture of the Shell Group’s managing directors published in The Shell Transport and Trading Company’s 1997 annual report. 

What Shell knew about climate change at the end of the 1980s is well-established and revealed in a confidential report commissioned by and for Shell called “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The report was dated 1988 and made public for the first time this year after being uncovered by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent and published on Climate Files. It reveals the company’s examination of climate change had already been ongoing for at least seven years.

The 87-page report warned Shell that its own products were responsible for global warming and that “there is reasonable scientific agreement that increased levels of greenhouse gases would cause a global warming”.

Source: ‘The Greenhouse Effect’ 1988 report 

By 1988, Shell knew that its fossil fuel products were contributing to climate change and that dangerous levels of warming could cause parts of the Earth to become uninhabitable. Yet, it took the company another decade, until 1997, to suggest that “environmental risks” could affect some of the statements the group made about its business operations.

Until 2005, Shell was registered as two different companies, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company in the Netherlands and the Shell Transport and Trading company in the UK, although both companies operated as a single-unit. The Shell Group also included a U.S.-based subsidiary, Shell Oil.

This analysis includes information provided to shareholders through Royal Dutch Petroleum annual reports from 1982-1997, Shell Transport and Trading’s annual reports from 1989 to 2004, filings from Shell Oil from 1993-1998, and Shell’s corporate responsibility reports starting in 1997.

Early 1990s: Controlling the Climate Change Narrative  

Despite knowing about the consequences of burning fossil fuels in the early 1980s, Shell made no direct mention of carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, or climate change until 1991.

That year, a Royal Dutch Petroleum annual report recognised “the concern expressed by a number of experts that higher carbon dioxide emissions might increase the possibility of climate change.”

Source: Royal Dutch Petroleum Company’s 1991 annual report 

The UK-based Shell Transport and Trading company first hinted at the impact of burning fossil fuels without using the term “climate change” in its 1992 report — the year of the first United Nations (UN) climate talks in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Shell group chairman Peter Holmes wrote that the Rio de Janeiro conference had “set the environmental agenda for the coming years” and that environmental and development problems “can only be solved by true international cooperation” and “governments’ willingness to consult business and industry in drawing up laws and putting the emphasis on self-regulation”.

While Holmes chose not to mention the term “climate change” when addressing shareholders about the company’s financial situation, the same year, Shell was keen to show the public what it knew about the possible catastrophic consequences of global warming.

Footage of a 1991 public film about climate change released by Shell’s film and video unit was rediscovered last year. The half-hour documentary called “Climate of Concern” shows that the company had a deep understanding of global warming 27 years ago.

The film warned that burning fossil fuels was warming the world and would cause extreme weather, floods, famines, and climate refugees.

There is no indication of how many people might have seen the film at the time of its release but the short documentary shows how Shell tried to shape its narrative around climate science and its impacts.

DeSmog UK and DeSmog found no evidence of Shell mentioning the film to its shareholders in its 1991 annual reports. A picture of the film’s DVD case was however included on page 32 of Shell’s 1997 sustainability report under a section titled “living up to our principles”.

In this section, Shell said it was making efforts to encourage “open communication” and recognised that its “traditional corporate culture has not necessarily encouraged openness”.

Source: The Shell Report/Shell sustainability report 1997

The cover of the film “Climate of Concern” was included as an example of the company’s “award-winning film and video unit which produces documentaries that contribute to world debates on such issues as deforestation, water, soil erosion, and poverty”. Climate change was not mentioned as a theme for the film and video unit’s work.

1993: ‘Possibility’ of Climate Change but Business as Usual

The confidential report “The Greenhouse Effect” shows that Shell had a clear grasp of global warming and its causes by the late 1980s.

Yet, throughout the 1990s, the company continued to push mixed messages, acknowledging the “possibility of climate change” while emphasising the “scientific uncertainties” over the impact of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Shell justified its business-as-usual approach by arguing that the world will continue to depend on fossil fuels “for years to come” to meet growing energy demand and ensure “sustainable development”.

In its 1993 accounts, the Shell Group acknowledged the “possibility of climate change” as “probably the greatest environmental dilemma facing all of us” while emphasizing that “scientific uncertainty still surrounds the world’s understanding of climate behaviour”.

For the first time, Shell also recognised that “there is sufficient indication of potential risk for governments and industry to take prudent precautionary measures which are based on sound science and take account of the economic and social needs and aspirations of developing and developed countries”.

Source: Royal Dutch Petroleum and The Shell Transport and Trading’s 1993 annual reports 

But despite knowing about the impact of burning fossil fuels on the climate, Shell told its shareholders it had to “continue to invest and provide for the future energy needs of society in ways which are environmentally acceptable” while ensuring “the economic viability of the industry”.

Shell knew of the huge environmental risks attached to its own products. In the 1988 report “The Greenhouse Effect”, Shell mentions “a second generation of studies” to answer questions about the future accessibility and costs of fossil fuels.

Yet, in 1993, Shell suggested to its shareholders that investments in the fossil fuel industry will continue to be profitable for years to come.

That year’s Shell Transport and Trading annual report filed at the UK’s Companies House stated that environmental expenditures and the carbon cost of new projects were “comparable to those faced by companies in other similar business” and that impact on the group’s future earnings would depend on “the ability to recover the higher costs on consumers and/or through fiscal incentives offered by governments”.

The company concluded that “over time there will be no material impact on the total of [the] Group companies’ earnings”.

A passage from Shell Oil’s 1993 10-K form filed under SEC in the U.S. told shareholders that Shell “can comply fully [with existing environmental laws] without material adverse impact on its financial position”.

Source: Shell Oil’s 1993 10-K form 

Shell’s interpretation of environmental regulation and a growing cost of carbon as an “adverse” factor on its business interests contradicts its own findings in the “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The 1988 report concluded that climate change’s “potential implications for the world” were “so large that policy options would need to be considered much earlier” than the end of the century  — or within seven years of 1993.

Instead, in 1993, Shell Transport and Trading Company argued that to meet growing energy demand “society will have no option but to use all available energy sources”, citing “plentiful” coal, the “vast potential” of natural gas”, and oil reserves “that have never been higher”.

Source: The Shell Transport and Trading’s 1993 annual report 

The following year, in 1994, the Shell Group accounts stated that its companies “firmly intend to build on their significant strength in upstream and downstream oil, natural gas, and chemicals and their much smaller, but nevertheless significant, position in coal”.

Shell’s commitment to coal overlooked confidential warning in “The Greenhouse Effect” report that burning coal was causing more carbon dioxide emissions than other fossil fuels. At the time, the report recommended “a swing from coal towards gas”.

1996: Precautionary Measures to Tackle Climate Change

Three years on, the Shell group was still emphasising “uncertainties” about climate science but told its shareholders in its companies’ annual reports that it would take “prudent precautionary action” to tackle the issue.

Source: Royal Dutch Petroleum and The Shell Transport and Trading Company’s 1996 annual reports 

That year, Shell also cemented its commitment to “sustainable development” which the company defined as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” through economic development, environmental protection, and social responsibility.

1997: ‘Possibility of Human Climate Change’ and Cautionary Statement

In 1997, Shell’s language when referring to climate change remained much unchanged.

The group companies’ reports continued to describe the issue as “the possibility that human activities are causing damaging climate change”. The same year, a majority of countries signed the Kyoto Protocol, the first international agreement on climate change which committed countries to set internationally binding emission reduction targets.

Source: Royal Dutch Petroleum and The Shell Transport and Trading’s 1997 annual reports

The UK-listed Shell Transport and Trading Company added a cautionary statement to its annual report which identified “environmental risks, fiscal and regulatory developments” as variables which could affect the risk factors associated with “the oil, gas, chemicals, renewable resources, and coal businesses”.

This was the first time the Shell Group mentioned the potential impact environmental risk could have on shareholders’ investment in the company’s fossil fuel products, according to DeSmog’s analysis.

Source: The Shell Transort and Trading Company’s 1997 annual report 

The same year, Shell’s sustainability report made the case for the intensification of the companies’ oil and gas operations, blaming coal for being a “much larger carbon intensive resource”.

Shell claimed that “all the world’s estimated resources of conventional oil and gas could be consumed without raising atmospheric carbon concentration above the limits suggested by even the most pessimistic observers”.

Source: The Shell Report/Shell sustainability report 1997 

This is in direct contradiction with Shell’s own findings more than a decade earlier in the 1988 “The Greenhouse Effect” report which identified the carbon dioxide emission share of each of the company’s fossil fuel products.

At the time, the report concluded that of “the total emission of 5.3 GtC, 44 percent came from oil, 38 percent from coal, and 17 percent from gas” — correctly suggesting that burning oil and gas would generate fewer carbon dioxide emissions than coal but would still contribute to the global warming effect.

Source: ‘The Greenhouse Effect’ 1988 report 

Between 1993 and 1998, Shell Oil filed 10-K annual reports, available through the SEC’s public records archives in the U.S.DeSmog found no evidence that any of the filings mentioned the terms “climate change”, “global warming”, or “greenhouse gas”.

During the same period, the Shell group annual reports filed at Companies’ House in the UK all included references to “climate change” and set out the company’s response to environmental and development challenges.

Late 1990s and Early 2000s: Corporate Spin and Peddling Back Climate Science

In 1999, the Shell Group strengthened its language and told its shareholders about opportunities in the clean energy sector linked to “the need to respond to the threat of global warming”.

It added that Shell companies were cutting their greenhouse gas emissions and considering the potential carbon costs of its products.

Shell Transport and Trading also announced that a decision was taken in August 1999 for the company to divest its coal business.

But over the following years, the company appeared to back-peddle over how much it was ready to tell shareholders about the risks attached to their investments.

In 2000, the Shell Transport and Trading Company annual report stated that the Shell Group’s commitment to sustainable development justified the company supplying China with “coal gasification technology”, which it described as using “coal more efficiently and cleanly”.

Coal gasification is a technology that involves chemically transforming the coal into synthetic natural gas rather than burning it directly.

Laszlo Varro, former head of gas, coal, and power markets at the International Energy Agency (IEA) and now its chief economist, previously told the BBC that coal gasification is actually more carbon intensive than coal mining and is “not attractive at all from a climate point of view”.

In 2001, Shell labelled the issue “the perceived threat of global warming” and added that the “world’s dependency on hydrocarbons will remain for decades to come”.

In 2003, neither Royal Dutch Petroleum’s nor Shell Transport and Trading Company’s annual report explicitly mentioned “climate change”, “global warming”, or “greenhouse gases”. Instead, the companies shunted discussion of the topic to that year’s sustainability report called The Shell Report, a supplement that focuses on environmental and social issues, sent to investors alongside the annual report.

In that year’s Shell Report, the company stated its concern about man-made climate change and added “action is needed now”. That strong language was yet absent from the company’s financial statement.

Source: The Shell Report/ Shell sustainability report 2003

2004: Climate Change Identified as a Financial Risk for Investment

In 2004, the Shell Group made a significant shift in the way it talked about climate change to its shareholders.

For the first time, Shell included a clear statement in its companies’ annual report about the financial risk attached to investments in the companies’ operations.

It warned shareholders that “government action” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was leading to challenges to future oil and gas developments. Shell acknowledged that the risks attached to the delivery of new fossil fuel projects “could have an adverse impact on the group’s operational performance and financial position”.

Source: The Shell Transport and Trading Company’s 2004 annual report 

This was the first time Shell issued a clear warning to it shareholders about the financial risks attached to their investments — 16 years after it was first warned in detail about the role its own products played in contributing to dangerous global warming.

Responding to the findings, a Shell spokesperson told DeSmog:

“Shell has long acknowledged the climate challenge, an issue that has been part of public discourse for many decades, and our position on climate change has been publicly documented for more than two decades through publications such as our annual report and sustainability report.”

“We take seriously our responsibility to report clearly and transparently on financial risks, which includes complying with U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. “

DeSmog’s anlysis shows Shell’s financial statements and corporate documents filed between the early 1990s and 2004 give an insight into how the company shaped and controlled its own narrative around global warming and its impact over the decades.

While Shell was comfortable using The Shell Report, sustainability reports, and its film and video unit to promote its clear understanding of climate science in the 1990s and early 2000s, it took the company much longer to overtly tell its shareholders of the financial risk climate policy and the impacts of global warming posed to their investments.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Associated Press has revealed that the US-backed, Saudi-led war against Yemen includes the use of Al Qaeda as a mercenary force against Houthi rebels.

This confirms as fact what was widely dismissed by Western politicians and a complicit Western media as a “conspiracy theory” since 2011.

Evidence that the US and its allies enlisted Al Qaeda and other extremist groups to wage serial proxy wars across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), from Libya and Syria to Yemen, has piled up into a mountain emerging high above the fog of disinformation behind which these wars had been fought.

The AP article titled, “AP Investigation: US allies, al-Qaida battle rebels in Yemen,” would report (emphasis added):

Again and again over the past two years, a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States has claimed it won decisive victories that drove al-Qaida militants from their strongholds across Yemen and shattered their ability to attack the West. 

Here’s what the victors did not disclose: many of their conquests came without firing a shot.

That’s because the coalition cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash, an investigation by The Associated Press has found. Hundreds more were recruited to join the coalition itself.

AP would also link the Muslim Brotherhood directly to Al Qaeda militants, stating:

In some places, militants join battles independently. But in many cases, militia commanders from the ultraconservative Salafi sect and the Muslim Brotherhood bring them directly into their ranks, where they benefit from coalition funding, the AP found.

This is further evidence exposing the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in preparing the grounds for the US-engineered 2011 “Arab Spring” uprisings and the planned violence that accompanied them.

Of course, while Western leaders and the media attempted to deny complicity in the dominant role Al Qaeda played in conflicts across MENA for years, a look at any conflict map – be it in regards to Syria or Yemen – reveals that pockets of extremists operating in both nations are adjacent to US-Saudi-controlled supply lines and US-Saudi controlled territory – not because the US or Saudi Arabia are fighting Al Qaeda and its affiliates – but because they are protecting and using these extremists to fight their various regional wars on their behalf.

As to why the US and Saudi Arabia might be aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, AP would quote Michael Horton of the Jamestown Foundation. AP would report:

“Elements of the US military are clearly aware that much of what the US is doing in Yemen is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that,” said Michael Horton, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a US analysis group that tracks terrorism.

“However, supporting the UAE and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against what the US views as Iranian expansionism takes priority over battling AQAP and even stabilizing Yemen,” Horton said.

However, the US has failed to make a case as to what threat Iran constitutes that is equal or greater to the threat posed by Al Qaeda. It was supposedly Al Qaeda, not Iran that hijacked airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in 2001 – tipping off a now nearly two decade-long “War on Terror.” In fact – Iran has invested blood and treasure in fighting and defeating Al Qaeda and its proxies, including the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” in both Syria and Iraq – contributing directly to both terrorist organizations’ defeat.

It would appear that if Iran is involved in Yemen, it is also clearly fighting against Al Qaeda there as well.

And while the AP investigation presents a coalition of convenience between Al Qaeda and the US-backed Saudi-led coalition – the truth is that Saudi Arabia itself is the original “Islamic State,” having sponsored the perversion and abuse of Islam via Wahhabism since its inception, the recruitment and indoctrination of extremists through a global network of madrases funded by Riyadh sine the Cold War, and the direct arming and backing of terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda as they wage war in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

The US for its part, also – knowingly and willingly – is aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, using them as auxiliaries to fight where US troops cannot either for political or practical reasons.

This is not merely a recent arrangement wrought from stark realism, this was a plan that has been developed over the course of at least three US presidencies – George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump.

It was in Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker piece titled, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” which revealed (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh’s article too made a clear link between Al Qaeda extremists, the Muslim Brotherhood and the US and Saudi sponsors preparing both for what his sources claimed was a “cataclysmic conflict.”

Thus Al Qaeda forming the backbone of the US-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, or Al Qaeda fighting Washington’s proxy wars in Libya or Syria is no mere coincidence or accident, or even just a recent phenomenon emerging from growing Western desperation to “contain Iran,” but part of a long-planned geopolitical gambit aimed at eliminating Washington’s competitors and establishing itself as sole hegemon over the MENA region.

The revelations should further bolster the moral imperative of Iran and its allies – including Russia, Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. It should also further undermine the credibility of both the US and its allies, as well as the “international order” they presume dominion over.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On June 13, 2018 the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy presented its 2018 Democracy Award to a collection of Korean activists who aim to topple the communist government of North Korea.

The event was timed to coincide with President Donald Trump’s peace summit in Singapore with Kim Jong-Un. The ceremony appeared to be the opening shot of a massive public relations effort aimed at stifling normalized relations with North Korea.

NED founder Carl Gershman and NED director Andy Card with a group of Korean defectors and activists

I covered the ceremony because these organizations are doing precisely what Congress accuses Russia-funded media outlets and troll farms of doing in the United States. They interfere in other countries’ politics with foreign money. The only difference is they do it openly, and in the name of spreading freedom.

Founded in 1983 by then president Ronald Reagan, the National Endowment for Democracy became an international vehicle for the neoconservative agenda. Its founding cadre were Cold War ideologues who were, like so many early neoconservative operatives, former Trotskyists who once belonged to the Social Democrats USA party.

Over the years, the NED and its partner organizations have weaponized civil society and media against governments that stand in the way of right-wing, free market parties and corporate interests.

Heavy payouts for anti-DPRK testimony, often with embarrassing results

Among the groups honored at the NED gathering was the Unification Media Group. They foment internal opposition to the North Korean government through shortwave radio broadcasts.

Also on hand was a collection of defectors. These activists are responsible for much of what the West believes about North Korea and its human rights record. While many tell harrowing tales of escape from political repression, others have been exposed as serial fabricators lured by hefty sums of cash.

In 2017, South Korea quadrupled the payout for testimony from North Korean defectors to a whopping $860,000. The bounty has incentivized colorful accounts of sadistic — and unusually creative — human rights abuses.

According to one defector, a crowd of 10,000 was forced to watch the execution of 11 musicians for the crime of viewing porn. He said the musicians were shot with anti-aircraft guns, then run over with tanks. Another defector claimed female prisoners were raped and then forced to hand their babies over to be used as food for hungry guard dogs.

That same year, news of the defection of 13 North Korean waitresses provided a boost to Pyonyang’s opponents

But recently, the waitresses’ manager admitted to tricking the women into leaving under pressure from the South Korean intelligence services. The scandal is now under UN investigation.

A separate UN investigation accusing Kim Jong-Un of crimes against humanity was marred by fabricated testimony from defectors like Shin Dong-hyuk, who confessed to inventing parts of his story.

Testimony to US Congress by another defector, Kwon Hyuk, who claimed to have witnessed live human experimentation in North Korean prisons, helped drive the passage of the North Korea Human Rights Act in 2004. But Kwon too was unmasked as a fabulist and quickly disappeared from the public eye.

The right-wing network behind Korea’s celebrity defector

Yeonmi Park is maybe the most famous North Korean defector. She emerged on the international scene at the One World Summit in 2014 with a heartrending tale of escape through China.

But key parts of Park’s story at the summit differed from previous testimony she had delivered.

One of the many inconsistencies in Park’s story was documented by journalist Mary Ann Jolley, who reported that Park initially claimed she had escaped through China with her mother and father.

At the One World Summit, however, Park’s interviewer claimed that she trekked through China with only her mother, who was raped by a Chinese broker — adding an entirely new dramatic piece to her narrative.

All along, Park was profiting from her fame, earning $12,000 and up for speeches, and receiving critical backing from a libertarian political network that included the for-profit Freedom Factory and the Atlas Foundation.

She was also made a media fellow by the Oslo Freedom Forum, an operation run by Venezuelan-American oligarch Thor Halvorssen that weaponizes human rights in the service of neoconservative foreign policy objectives.

Image on the right: In 2014, in partnership from libertarian tech billionaire Peter Thiel, Halvorssen launched the deliberately provocative “Hack Them Back” campaign to disrupt inter-Korean peace talks.  

The campaign nearly brought the Koreas to the brink of war, as the North threatened to retaliate against the launch of balloons into its territory containing messages denouncing its leader. South Korea’s government also condemned the balloon launch, while peace activists and local residents on the border attempted to block it.

Park played a starring role in the imbroglio, drumming up support for Halvorssen’s crusade among Silicon Valley powerbrokers.

The destabilizing operation prompted Mike Bassett, a former reconaissance soldier at the Korean Demilitarized Zone and ex-information warfare officer, to describe Park as an instrument of well funded elements hostile to peace on the Korean peninsula. He wrote that her

“change in narrative warrants serious scrutiny because that narrative changed as a result of a political and economic agenda rather than a genuine desire to inform the public about the best way to liberate North Koreans from oppression.”

Despite being criticized for changing her narrative again and again, Park returned to the national stage this June thanks to the New York Times, which featured her in an inflammatory viral video aimed at undermining the Trump-Kim summit during which she compared North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to Adolph Hitler.

The neoconservative New York Times columnist Bari Weiss also pointed to Park’s largely discredited narrative to attack the peace summit, writing that Park herself had been raped on her way through China. Yet Park never even made this claim. Fortunately for Weiss, her editors at the New York Times opinion section had not bothered to conduct even a cursory bit of research on the defectors she cited.

The Transitional Justice Working Group, an NED grantee, is responsible for delivering some of these testimonies to the West.

At the NED ceremony, we met the group’s director, Hubert Younghman Lee, who emphasized the importance of American backing:

“I’d like to express our sincere gratitude to bipartisan support, and also US congresspeople and US citizens especially. We are doing this work with US citizens’ tax [dollars].”

As with many high profile defectors, information delivered to Western media by South Korean intelligence has often proven unreliable, and provoked some embarrassing media updates.

In 2016, Western media filled with reports that North Korea had executed General Ri Yong-gil. However, General Ri turned up alive days later.

Three years before, Western media buzzed with reports that Kim Jong Un had executed his ex-girlfriend, Hyon Song-wol, by firing squad. Months later, Hyon appeared alive as ever, performing her music on North Korean television.

So this begs the question: is North Korea populated by zombies who rise from the dead? Or is a US-funded influence operation cultivating opposition to engagement with North Korea by relying on often unreliable sources with dubious agendas?

Bipartisan support

During the NED ceremony, Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi recalled a trip she took to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital.

“When we saw the people in Pyonyang — the blank faces, the brainwashing that went on — the poverty of spirit I saw exceeded the poverty [of] any place in the world.”

Pelosi then claimed that locals were executed on the spot for unauthorized corn consumption.

“They would get shot if they just took one corn on the cob, one husk of corn,” she claimed.

Pelosi was among a bipartisan cast of lawmakers on hand to pay homage to the NED. They included Republican representatives like Ed Royce and Pete Roskamp, as well as Democrats like Rep. Julian Castro and Stephanie Murphy.

Though the NED was hailed by Congress as a politically benign entity advancing democracy and human rights, its record tells a different story.

Sowing chaos, spreading instability, and opening markets

The NED’s first success was the defeat of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua’s 1990 elections, replacing it with the neoliberal party of Violeta Chamorro.

Since then, the NED’s advanced US interests in countless countries: it helped swing a Russian election for Boris Yeltsin in 1996, it drove a failed coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002, it orchestrated a successful one in Haiti in 2004, and another one in Ukraine in 2014, which paved the way for neo-Nazis to move into the mainstream.

Philip Agee, the late CIA whisteblower, described the work of the NED as a more sophisticated version of the old-fashioned covert operations that Langley used to engineer.

“Nowadays, instead of having the CIA going around behind the scenes and trying to manipulate the process by inserting money here and giving instructions secretly and so forth, they have now a sidekick, which is this National Endowment for Democracy, NED.”

Agee’s words were openly confirmed by Alan Weinstein, a former Trotskyist and founding member of the NED. Weinstein told the Washington Post in 1991,

“A lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty-five years ago by the CIA.”

Since then, NED funding has almost quadrupled. In the past four years alone, the organization has directed at least 4 million dollars into parties and media outfits in Nicaragua.

That prompted an NED funded publication — the Global Americans — to boast of the role the group played in “laying the groundwork for change” in Nicaragua, where violent protests attempted to topple the country’s elected president, Daniel Ortega. The article went on to say that “it’s becoming more and more clear that U.S. support has helped play a role in nurturing the current uprisings.”

Uyghur “re-education camp” allegations against NED target China

Another top target of NED and its Washington partners is China.

The US has worked closely with Uyghur Muslims, an ethnic minority group that has faced discrimination at the hands of the Chinese government. As the confrontation with Beijing deepens, the US has attempted to use Uyghurs as a bargaining piece to ratchet up the pressure on Beijing.

At the ceremony, I met Omer Kanat, chairman of the World Uyghur Congress — a group funded almost entirely by the NED.

“The Chinese authorities have put more than one million Uyghurs in re-education camps, it is very similar to concentration camps,” Kanat claimed to me.

He said that his organization, a top NED grantee, had supplied much of the information the US government and Western media rely on about the alleged camps.

The World Uyghur Congress is funded largely by the NED and has helped introduce the story of Chinese re-education camps to the American public.

Indeed, along with the US-funded Radio Free Asia, which Kanat used to work for, Kanat’s US-funded Uighur Congress is responsible for widely reported claims that as much as one tenth of the Muslim population of China’s Xianjing province has been placed in re-education camps.

The numbers of Uighurs said to be housed in these camps vary wildly, from 120,000 to 500,000 to a million. And the sources invariably boil down to US-backed media like Radio Free Asia.

Western analysts concede that testimonies from actual camp prisoners is rare. One of the few detailed testimonies arrived through an anonymous source.

Kanat himself conceded that he did not know how many people were in the alleged camps, and that he was relying on “Western media estimates” to make his claim of one million.

The disturbing but still-unverified allegations about Uyghur re-education camps have added momentum to a new Trump national defense doctrine that singles out China as a top American adversary. With help from pundits like late night comedian John Oliver, who also echoed the claims of US-government backed sources on Xianjang, Washington appears to be hoping that a carefully crafted PR campaign will reverse Americans’ generally favorable attitude towards China.

Making Mongolia neoliberal

The NED has also turned up the heat on China by interfering in its neighbor’s elections.

Back in 1996, the International Republican Institute (IRI) — an NED partner group — helped propel right-wing libertarian parties to victory in Mongolia, dealing a death blow to the country’s socialist tradition and driving record levels of economic inequality.

At the NED ceremony, I spoke to an IRI staffer, Alexander Moree, who presented the group’s work in Mongolia as a blueprint for a post-communist North Korea.

“So we took a group of defector-scholars over to Mongolia to study their transition,” Moree explained to me. “So Mongolia’s transition, if you don’t know, it was a peaceful democratic transition, there was no fighting, there was no revolution. But it developed a successful free market economy with peaceful elections without any dramatic turnover of power. It’s more of an island of democracy in Asia, and that’s more the model we want to encourage the North Koreans to pursue.”

“So like, transitioning from a socialist economy to a free market economy is paramount?” I asked him.

“Exactly.”

The meddling machine McCain built

The IRI has been led for years by Senator John McCain, who turned the group into what the New York Times called “a revolving door for lobbyists and out-of-power Republicans that offers big donors a way of helping both the party and the institute’s chairman.”

Carl Gershman founded the National Endowment for Democracy. He’s neoconservative activist with roots in Trotskyism. Today, Gershman still embraces the ideology of permanent worldwide revolution.

But with peace looming on the Korean peninsula, Gershman was forced to reassure his grantees that their work for regime change would not become irrelevant.

“There is some concern among the activists that the focus on the nuclear issue today will reduce pressure for human rights in North Korea and maybe even reduce support for the kind of work that is being done by the organizations that we have honored this evening,” Gershman said. “I want to assure our friends that NED’s support is solid.”

In the Longworth hallway outside of the NED event, I asked Nancy Pelosi if she thought the US government should stop funding organizations that seeking regime change against North Korea if it signed a peace treaty with the South.

“I don’t know if that’s what they do,” Pelosi responded, referring to the NED and regime change, “but I do know they promote human rights where ever they [are].”

I then asked if she considered NED activities to be the same sort of foreign meddling Russia is accused of carrying out in the US.

“I’m not going into any hypotheticals,” she said, dismissing the issue out of hand.

America remains obsessed with the specter of Russian interference and Moscow’s supposed active measures against our political system. But at the same time, official Washington celebrates its own taxpayer funded meddling machine as an engine of “democracy promotion.” Does the American public know what’s being done with its money, and will there ever be a public debate on the consequences of Washington’s regime change efforts?

*

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.

All images in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

US leaders who provided military support to the Saudi-led coalition that bombed civilians in Yemen this August could be charged with aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes under customary international law, which is part of US law.

The 500-pound laser-guided MK 82 bomb, which the coalition dropped on August 9, killed 51 people, including 40 children. The bombing constituted a war crime.

“They came to the hospital in cars and ambulances. Dozens of children with an array of grisly wounds,” Marta Rivas Blanco, a nurse from the International Committee of the Red Cross who works at the Al Talh hospital, wrote in the Guardian. “Some were screaming, some were scared, many went straight to the morgue.”

Lockheed Martin, one of the leading US defense contractors, manufactured the bomb, which was part of a US-Saudi arms deal last year.

Aiding and Abetting a War Crime

According to customary international law, aiding and abetting a war crime requires three elements: 1) a person or entity committed a war crime; 2) another actor committed an act that had a substantial effect on the commission of the war crime; and 3) the other actor knew that the act would assist, or have a substantial likelihood of assisting, the commission of the war crime. All three of those elements were present in the August 9 bombing.

First, the coalition committed a war crime. Willful killing and the targeting of civilians constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The US War Crimes Act defines grave breaches of Geneva as war crimes.

Targeting a busload of children in a busy marketplace is a war crime. The Saudi government called it “a legitimate military action,” claiming to have targeted “Houthi leaders who were responsible for recruiting and training young children, and then sending them to battlefields.”

Second, US leaders provided the means to commit the war crime. The purchase of the bomb was part of an arms deal with Saudi Arabia that the US State Department sanctioned. In May 2017, on his first stop abroad after taking office, Trump signed a $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi king in Riyadh.

Third, the US military knew that supplying the bomb to the coalition was likely to result in the commission of a war crime. A similar bomb killed 155 people in a funeral hall in Yemen in October 2016.

After the 2016 bombing, the Obama administration, citing “human rights concerns,” banned the sale to Saudi Arabia of precision-guided military technology. That ban was reversed the same month Trump made his deal in Riyadh, and the US government reauthorized the provision of Paveway laser-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia.

US Assistance Facilitates More War Crimes

The August 9 school bus bombing was one of over 50 airstrikes on civilian vehicles by the coalition so far in 2018. Amnesty International has documented 36 coalition airstrikes, many of which may constitute war crimes.

On April 23, 2018, Saudi aircraft dropped cluster bombs made by Raytheon on a wedding in Yemen, killing 22 people, including children. When they explode, cluster bombs scatter tiny bomblets. Some remain unexploded and detonate when people accidentally step on them or children pick them up off the ground. These weapons are banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions.

The Saudi war on Yemen could not continue without support from the United States and the United Kingdom, according to Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution.

US military assistance to the coalition includes in-air refueling of Saudi and United Arab Emirates aircraft, logistical support and intelligence sharing. But US involvement in the war escalated late last year when a team of Green Berets secretly arrived at the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

At least 6,385 civilians have been killed and 10,000 injured since the war began. Airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition account for over 60 percent of the civilian casualties.

Yemen has one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises. At least 22.2 million people — and nearly all Yemeni children — need humanitarian aid, and it is suspected that more than 1 million people have cholera. Nevertheless, the coalition restricts aid and imports of food, medicine and fuel.

On March 15, 2018, the UN Security Council issued a Presidential Statement calling for full humanitarian and commercial access and all parties to comply with their international humanitarian law obligations.

Congress Condemns US Role in Yemen

The US House of Representatives unanimously passed a non-binding resolution in November 2017, calling on the US military forces to withdraw from “unauthorized hostilities” in Yemen. It stated that US military aid to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen was not sanctioned by prior congressional authorizations. The resolution condemned the targeting of civilians and urged all parties to “increase efforts to adopt all necessary and appropriate measures to prevent civilian casualties and increase humanitarian access.”

On August 13, 2018, Trump signed the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains an allocation of $717 billion for the US military. In that legislation, Congress included several provisions to achieve accountability for US support of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

Section 1274 directs the Defense Department to conduct a review of whether US or Saudi coalition forces in Yemen are violating US or international law.

But when Trump signed the bill, he attached a signing statement saying his administration would treat the provisions of section 1274 “consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which could impair national security, foreign relations, law enforcement, or the performance of the President’s constitutional duties.”

Section 1290 requires the secretary of state to certify that Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are making good faith efforts to end the civil war in Yemen; taking appropriate measures to alleviate the humanitarian crisis; undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians; complying with laws regarding military purchases from the US; and taking appropriate steps to avoid disproportionate harm to civilians.

Trump also attached a signing statement to that provision, saying any certification which section 1290 purported to require would have to be “consistent with the President’s constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and as the sole representative of the Nation in foreign affairs.”

Calls for an Independent Investigation

UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the August 9 bombing and called for an independent investigation. Saudi Arabia says it will mount its own investigation. And US Secretary of Defense James Mattis vowed to send a three-star general to Riyadh to help the Saudis in their investigation.

“What Yemenis need is really an independent investigation, which has been put forward in the UN twice already and has been rejected by the Saudi-led coalition and the US unfortunately has provided cover for the Saudi-led coalition at the UN,” Shireen al-Adeimi, Yemeni activist-scholar and assistant professor at Michigan State University, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!

Following the August 9 bombing, three letters written by Congress members from the House and Senate requested investigations, explanations and briefings about US support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

Thirty House Democrats signed a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, expressing “deepening concern regarding the humanitarian crisis in Yemen” and requesting a briefing for all House members during the first week of September “on the policy objectives of the United States with respect to Yemen.” In the letter, the Congress members cited sections 1274 and 1290 of the NDAA.

In addition, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-California) wrote a letter asking the Defense Department’s inspector general to initiate an investigation to determine whether coalition operations in Yemen are violating US and/or international law. Lieu said he was

“deeply concerned that continued U.S. refueling, operational support functions, and weapons transfers could qualify as aiding and abetting these potential war crimes.”

Lieu made reference to the conclusion of the UN panel of experts on Yemen that all parties to the conflict, “including the U.S.-supported Coalition, were implicated in ‘widespread violations’ of international law and that measures to minimize civilian casualties remained ‘largely ineffective.’”

And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) wrote to Gen. Joseph Votel, head of US Central Command (Centcom), asking him to clarify his assertion that Centcom cannot determine whether the United States provided assistance for coalition strikes resulting in civilian deaths.

In her letter, Warren cited an article by The Intercept, quoting an intelligence report with “what appear to be comments from an American intelligence analyst” who oversaw a May 2018 strike from a coalition command center in Riyadh, which suggested that US military observers possess detailed information about how strikes are carried out.

The bottom line is that Congress must immediately end all US involvement in the war in Yemen and refuse to appropriate funding for arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE while they continue bombing and blockading Yemen.

*

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and an advisory board member of Veterans for Peace. An updated edition of her book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, was recently published. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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  

Samir Amin, already a major figure in the political economy of development, was the author of the first article in the first ever issue of ROAPE, in 1974.  As the editorial noted, the article was ‘a summary of his basic model of the workings of the international system as a whole, presented at length in his two recent books’ (the two- volume Accumulation on a World Scale, Monthly Review Press, 1974). The editorial continued:

It provides us with an ideal starting point: a general view of international capitalism, identifying the crucial differences in the dynamic of accumulation at the centre and at the periphery: differences which promote development in the metropoles and inhibit it in Africa. It is our hope that his work, which represents the most significant African contribution to the debate on underdevelopment, will be studied widely and discussed critically.

And so it was. Some of the subsequent issues of ROAPE in the 1970s, as well as books and articles in other journals published in that period endorsed or took issue implicitly or explicitly with his model of accumulation. The idea that a home grown capitalism was developing  in African countries contested any view of the world in which Amin’s centre was inhibiting any possibility of, in his phrase, a ‘self-centred system’  in which value is transferred from the periphery to the centre through a process of unequal exchange where returns to labour at the periphery are less than returns to labour at the centre. Cheap labour produces the exports of raw material, both agricultural and mineral, to a centre where the value of labour embodied in the final product is higher. In his overall model, the centre produces the capital goods that produce the consumer goods for their mass markets. The periphery produces export goods which pay for the imports of what are relatively luxury products for a small elite class within the peripheral economies. Even if some of those consumer goods are produced within the peripheral economies, their markets are small and the capital goods needed for that production have to be imported from the centre.

Re-reading the analysis in Amin’s article is a sobering experience: fast forwarding to the present, little has changed. Even if there were countries which tried in some way to break with the system – Nyerere’s Tanzania with its policy of Socialism and Self-reliance, for example – they never broke or were allowed to break with the system of capital accumulation in which profits found their way to the developed economies of what we now term the ‘Global North’.  Of course there has been some development of capitalism in Africa but this has not resulted in significant structural changes to economies. They are still largely dependent on the vagaries of world commodity markets, exporting raw materials and importing capital and consumer goods directed to a domestic market of higher income consumers, whose income derives from the high end of commodity trading, financial activities and their servicing, and those with larger farms and estates. Meanwhile large proportions of the African populations languish on or below the poverty line. The self-centred economy described in Amin’s article and books, has as its ‘central determining relationship’ that of the production of capital goods for the production of consumer goods for the mass market. In the periphery on the other hand, that relationship is a ‘peripheral- dependent’ between earning export income in order to consume ‘luxury’ goods. In the capitalist developed countries this system had been achieved in Amin’s approach, by a ‘social contract’ between increasingly monopolised capital and organised labour which allowed for some degree of ‘planning’ to avoid the cyclical fluctuations associated with capitalism before the second world war and especially between the first and second world wars. Amin defines the underlying contradiction of capitalism which causes these fluctuations as one between what the system allows to be produced and what it prevents, in its search for profit, people to consume, but argues that ensuing cyclical fluctuations have been moderated by the ‘social contract’.

However, in analysing the system in this way, Amin rejected the prevailing view in both the capitalist ‘West’ and the socialist ‘East’ the idea that development entailed catching up with the developed capitalist countries. His key insight was to argue that given the way the global system worked, countries such as those of Africa were not going to achieve the status of a developed country by imitating their development trajectory, or by concentrating on their raw material export base and slowly industrialise by importing capital goods. The history of the world was not about followers catching up with leaders but about dominant civilizations being ‘transcended’ by peripheral ones as the former decline and the peripheral overtake them with different social organizations. In this case a socialist self-centred development would eventually transcend moribund capitalism. This required an overall strategy of ‘self-reliance’ but one built up from popular bases ‘becoming aware of reality’ (Amin’s emphasis) and allowed for the increasing domination of a ‘self-centred’ system.  Of course the political activity required to achieve this in the face of an active and global imperialism has and continues to be the key issue, and not just in the periphery. As Amin observed:

It is quite appropriate to describe the task of transition thus: transition from the capitalist world system, based on hierarchies of nations, to a world socialist system, which cannot be made up of relatively isolated and autarkic ‘socialist’ nations. Here the true solidarity of the peoples involved in the struggle for reshaping the world comes to the fore, due to the limited prospects for progress in the Third World where the conditions for transcending advanced capitalism express nothing more than the weakness of the forces of socialism at the centre of the system. (ROAPE, 1974:20)

He regarded the China of the Cultural Revolution as addressing this issue and indeed although China developed in a way that Amin may not have foreseen there is some basis for the view that it did first ensure an autocentric development path, only engaging with global capitalism when it was in a strong position to do so. Much has changed in China since 1974, as is the case across the world. We are now possibly in an even less favourable phase of world history. The contradictions of capitalism at the centre are being resolved in ways which inhibit the periphery even further from a socialist self-centred development. In the past four decades we have lived through the triumph and the crisis of neoliberalism, the global financial monopolisation of capital, the colonisation of the State by private capital principally by the privatisation of state assets, and the liberalisation of the labour market with stricter anti-union laws and transnational freedom of movement resulting in the suppression of wages with the consequent increased social inequality and deprivation. Africa economies and the rest of peripheral capitalism have been ruthlessly subject to neoliberal policies which have made them even less able, even if willing, to pursue a self-centred path.

These developments are fundamentally the reaction to the falling profit rates of the 1970s as wages, after pressure from organised labour, took an increasing share of the value of output. Capital’s recovery of value from labour points to the central contradiction of capital that Amin set out in his article:  that the only way value can be realised in a mass consumption market is for the masses to have the power to consume.  As consumers’ incomes were squeezed under neoliberalism, this contradiction was resolved by increasing credit to consumers which led to the financial crash of 2007/8 and can only lead to another financial crash, which some believe is imminent. Underlying these developments is increased automation, computerization and robotization which reduces the need for physical labour, creates ever cheaper durable consumption goods and leads to a contradiction between technology and the way society is organised, or as Marx would have put it, between the productive forces and the relations of production.

Samir Amin’s later writings (see for example, The Implosion of Capitalism. Samir Amin, 2013) clearly recognised the changes that the world had seen since 1974 outlined above, but his conception of the period since 1974 as a long crisis of capitalism and his advocacy of peripheral countries ‘de-linking’ from the global economy, more fully discussed in John Saul’s contribution and touched on by Ray Bush, do find their origin in his work four decades earlier. It is a mark of the power of his original insights that they are as relevant today as they were then.

*

This article was originally published on ROAPE.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Individuals severely injured by chemicals during childhood are often disabled for life. However, many challenges children with chemical disabilities must overcome are frequently overlooked. These include; being denied an education, treatment by physicians who believe chemical injuries to be psychological in origin, and having their families torn apart. Educational and medical records, interviews, and published independent studies showing health and social ramifications, demonstrate these unheeded and especially detrimental effects. It is imperative that these neglected consequences compel adequate precautionary provisions, preventing predictable and exponential increases in chemical injuries and ensuring correct treatment and invaluable disability assistance for the chemically disabled.

*

Many individuals severely injured by chemicals during childhood are disabled. Yet, it is rarely recognized that these chemical disabilities require different accommodation than other more well-known disabilities. Sadly, obtaining the disability access necessary for these individuals is often very difficult to impossible and often precludes them from their education as well as numerous other activities. There is the added challenge of finding knowledgeable medical treatment, as well as the humiliating incidence of misdiagnosis and hostility when faced with a physician that is ignorant or misinformed. There is evidence that family strife and divorce increase after a home is contaminated or lost to environmental contamination. These effects are not adequately comprehended or addressed by physicians, school systems, legal systems, or government; and the consequences are especially harsh for injured children, as well as their families.

The intention of this poster and paper is to demonstrate the acute need for education of physicians, disability coordinators, teachers and governments regarding chemical injury, to fully inform lawmakers and risk assessors of the true cost and disability that result from the use of unsafe chemicals and portray the immense need for further research.

Nine individuals, aged 2 to 58 years old, injured during their childhoods, were surveyed using identical questions. The resultant evidence is supported by citing relevant literature.  The percentages resulting from the survey were calculated rounding to the nearest hundredth place, excluding participants “Not Applicable” responses.

Elementary and high schools are traditionally considered to be places of learning; where parents entrust their children to the care of teachers, councilors and administrators devoted exclusively to the education and welfare of their pupils. However, these institutions become the antithesis of these wholesome goals as soon as disability assistance is required.  If the disability is uncommon, these disabled children face more difficult obstacles. Obstinacy and the fear of setting precedent constantly take priority over the welfare and education of these disabled children all over the United States. Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents reported that their schools were not willing to accommodate their disability and refused to accommodate their disability. One-hundred percent (100%) of respondents reported that their schools proposed situations that would have been hazardous to their heath and that when they attempted these situations that they sustained health damage. One-hundred percent (100%) of the respondents also report difficulty obtaining accommodation for testing for required and standardized tests, even when the burden of home schooling or distance learning had been assumed by the often disabled parent or parents. Though atypical, these accommodations normally could be easily implemented with a little expense and a modicum of cooperation from the schools. One proposal using computers and video conferencing to link classrooms to the home of a disabled child was not even considered by the school when the parent of the disabled child offered to donate the required funds. Chemical Intolerance is recognized as a disabling condition by the United States Social Security Administration and as such its accommodation by schools is required by United States federal law. Because there is little monetary incentive, few lawyers are willing to represent these students.  In most cases pro bono attorneys either do not exist or are not familiar with education law. This leaves parents who are often financially stressed and homeless due to contamination and physically ill from the injuring chemicals, attempting the daunting process of finding safe housing, while they must simultaneously struggle to provide an education for their chronically ill children on their own.  Often seriously ill parents have no choice but to provide a safe alternative to the free public education to which they are legally entitled from their government. 

The individuals injured during childhood also face a great deal of uncertainty in their future, even when they manage to advance to higher education. While 86% report that they have, or intend to complete college level courses, one-hundred percent (100%) report that they are not being accommodated in their colleges in any way. One-hundred percent (100%) report that they would have preferred a different college if they had been assured accommodation as well as chosen a different field of study had they been sure of accommodation in the workplace. There is also a great deal of disillusionment, one-hundred (100%) report that they feel their employment prospects are not good and that they are concerned about gaining accommodation from their prospective college or workplace.

In addition to the previous challenges, these individuals must try to find physicians educated in chemical injury. There are very few qualified and knowledgeable physicians who are familiar with chemical injuries. Therefore, chronically ill individuals are often forced to seek medical treatment from unqualified and consequentially dangerous physicians.  Frequently, even well meaning physicians dispense hazardous recommendations. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents report that they have had an uneducated physician make harmful recommendations. Dr. Jeannette Sherman states,

“The ability to recognize chemically caused disease and injury has come to the forefront because it is necessary not only to treat these conditions, but, more important, to anticipate the consequences of chemical exposures, and to prevent them.”1

While Dr. Marc Lappé reports,

“Childhood or even fetal exposure to carcinogens can amplify the noxious effect of certain chemicals.”2

 Even worse, often misinformed and unqualified physicians proceed to diagnose these maladies as psychological and berate their young patients for being malingerers.  In seventy-eight percent (78%) of responses there were reports of physician abuses, such as suggesting that the respondents were not ill or disabled, as well as being treated with disrespect. Ironically, these doctors either do not genuinely believe their own misdiagnosis, or truly feel those afflicted with mental illness can be healed by antagonistic and unkind behavior. This type of treatment by a physician from whom one hopes to receive succor would test the emotions of an adult, but when children are confronted by these “respected adults” it can have severe consequences. One-hundred percent (100%) reported that this had a bad affect on their self-esteem and confidence, and that the experiences still influenced them today. In the words of one individual “Even as a well-adjusted adult with a chronic illness, I have found myself nearly suicidal after certain doctor appointments.” 

The social consequences must also be considered. One-hundred percent (100%) of respondents reported that they were precluded from typical childhood activities because of the chemical exposures. Eighty-three (83%) reported that they felt this affected their social lives negatively. Seventy-one percent (71%) had to leave their home because of the contamination by the injuring chemical. In conversation with Dr. Stephen Kroll-Smith, head of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, it became clear that what is generally found in families that have had their homes contaminated, is that the experience, although to some extent contingent on the health of their pre-contamination familial relationship, does exert considerable stress on the families relationships. Additionally, there is a correlation with a gender response, that shows women are more likely to be concerned about the contamination, more active in its identification and the evacuation or removal if possible; men, however, in general, seem less concerned about the often elusive and barely discernable contaminants.  The convergence of these outlooks adds strife to the family.

In conclusion, I believe that these results show the dire need for disability accommodation for those who are chemically disabled during childhood. Competent medical diagnosis and treatment with adequate precautionary provisions will serve to halt these unnecessary childhood injuries.  There also is a great need for further research into how this little understood disability affects children.

*

Notes

1. Sherman, J. D., Chemical Exposure and Disease. Princeton Scientific Publishing Company, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey, 1994.

2. Lappé, Marc, Chemical Deception: The Toxic Threat to Health and the Environment. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1991.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

It doesn’t take rocket science to discover what I did in Namibia. There, I met common people, in slums and universities. I met UN experts and Namibian government officials. I undusted various archive documents. I consulted scholars in neighboring South Africa.

In Africa, Namibian history is no secret. Nothing is taboo. This is what is common knowledge in Windhoek or in Cape Town in neighboring South Africa:

The Germans drove into the desert, and then exterminated, over 80% of the entire nation – the Herero. The Nama people lost around 50% of its population. The concentration and extermination camps were built; monstrous medical experiments on human beings were perpetrated. German ‘doctors’including those who were working on ‘the pure race doctrine’ in Namibia (the doctrine later used by the Nazis in Europe), subsequently ‘educated’ many German racist physicians, including the notorious ‘Angel of Death’ – Mengele. The most notorious doctor, who experimented on human beings in Africa, was Eugen Fischer.

Hanging, Herero Holocaust

Not surprisingly, the first German governor of the colony was the father of Hitler’s deputy, Herman Goering.

The holocaust in Africa is directly connected to the holocaust in Europe.

Almost the official, and a thousand times repeated lie related to the birth of German Nazism, a lie that is even taught in many European schools, would easily collapse like a house of cards if Namibian history were to get closely examined. The lie, in different variations, sounds like this: “Germany, deeply humiliated after WWI, facing terrible economic crises, suddenly went amok, got radicalized and ended up bringing extreme-right nationalist bigots to power.”

Do you recall the official Western line about a ‘peaceful Germany, a land of scholars and philosophers; a nation which shocked itself and the world, by suddenly turning to extreme violence and mass murder, abandoning its noble traditions?’ Such reasoning would stand only if the Others (non-white, non-Europeans), were not considered as human beings.

The Namibian holocaust (but also to some extent, the mass murder that Germany committed against the people of today’s Tanzania) shows that Germany clearly has a history of genocidal behavior, and that it committed, in the 1930’s and 1940’s, on its own continent, precisely what it had been doing much earlier, in Africa.

Liberation struggle for Namibia

Obviously, all that was not just about Nazism (there were no Nazis yet, during the holocaust in Africa), but about the entire culture and mindset of the German people.

Fortunately, the silence has not been complete. Two monstrous events have been compared and linked together. Sporadically, the truth about the Namibian horror past has been appearing, even in the mainstream press.

On 21 October 2012, the Canadian daily newspaper, The Globe and Mail, reported:

“In the bush and scrub of central Namibia, the descendants of the surviving Herero live in squalid shacks and tiny plots of land. Next door, the descendants of German settlers still own vast properties of 20,000 hectares or more. It’s a contrast that infuriates many Herero, fuelling a new radicalism here.

Every year the Herero hold solemn ceremonies to remember the first genocide of history’s bloodiest century, when German troops drove them into the desert to die, annihilating 80 percent of their population through starvation, thirst, and slave labor in concentration camps. The Nama, a smaller ethnic group, lost half of their population from the same persecution.

New research suggests that the German racial genocide in Namibia from 1904 to 1908 was a significant influence on the Nazis in the Second World War. Many of the key elements of Nazi ideology – from racial science and eugenics, to the theory of Lebensraum (creating ‘living space’ through colonization) – were promoted by German military veterans and scientists who had begun their careers in South-West Africa, now Namibia, during the genocide…”

In Windhoek, the capital of Namibia, a European expert working for the UN, a friend of mine, spoke to me, like almost everyone there, passionately, but without daring to reveal her name:

“The first concentration camps on earth were built in this part of Africa… They were built by the British Empire in South Africa and by Germans here, in Namibia. Shark Island on the coast was the first concentration camp in Namibia, used to murder the Nama people, but now it is just a tourist destination – you would never guess that there were people exterminated there. Here in the center of Windhoek, there was another extermination camp…”

Acknowledging its crimes against the Jews (but not always against the Roma people), Germany maintains as monuments, all former concentration camps, including Buchenwald and Dachau. But there is absolutely nothing it does to honor the memory of its victims in other parts of the world, particularly Africa.

Racism is one of the essential characteristics of Nazism. Isn’t it a clear expression of racism to treat the victims of the same crime differently, simply because of the color of their skin?

*

Now the Namibian people are suing Germany in a court in New York City.

It appears they have had enough. Enough of waiting, of humiliation. For years there has been no compensation to the families of the victims, and no serious compensation to the nation.

For years, the Namibian government has been negotiating at least for the return of all skulls of the local people, which were used in German laboratories and by German scientists to prove the superiority of the white race, as well as ‘sub-humanness’ of other races, including the blacks. German colonialists decapitated countless Herero and Nama people, and at least 300 heads were transported to German laboratories for ‘scientific research’. Many were later ‘discovered’ in the Medical History Museum of the Charite hospital in Berlin, and at Freiburg University.

Insults were added to injury. Until now, the German settlers enjoy a repulsively lavish lifestyle on land that was stolen from the Herero and Nama people. Many descendants of the victims of the Southwest African holocaust are now living in overcrowded slums.

German and other Central European tourists are ‘in love with Namibia’; for its dunes, spectacular and pristine coast, as well as for the white German enclaves. I asked several of them about the past. Most of them did not know and seemed not to be interested to learn.

But the world may ‘discover’ the Namibian past, very soon, as Western imperialism is crumbling and oppressed people are rising to their feet.

There is where many of the Herero and Nama people live now

Demands for compensation and acknowledgments of the horrific colonialist past are now flowing from Pakistan, India and other countries that were devastated by European racism and imperialism. The Namibian case may set the entire planet into motion, as it is almost the entire world that had been devastated by European colonialism.

The US courts may not resolve much, but what is happening there is symbolic, and just a beginning.

AFP reported on July 31^st:

“US District Judge Laura Taylor Swain presided over the one-hour hearing in a New York federal court but concluded the session by saying that she would not rule immediately. She also did not set a date for a decision.

The German government wants the lawsuit thrown out on the grounds of state immunity from prosecution. The Herero and Nama groups are seeking reparations for the genocide of their peoples under German colonial rule…

The Herero and Nama people brought the class-action lawsuit last year, seeking reparations over the tens of thousands killed in the massacres.”

There will be no easy victory for the Herero and Nama people. They have no lobby in the United States, and even back in Namibia, they are poor. They own no international media, no international banks or corporations.

But they are right in demanding justice!

The renowned Canadian international lawyer, Christopher Black, declared for this essay:

“The European colonial powers imposed their dominance over other peoples through war and terror and committed violence on a vast scale. Their actions constitute the war crime of aggression and crimes against humanity, murder assault and slavery. Many of those nations are still trying to escape and recover from the occupation and destruction imposed on them and should be compensated by those colonial powers for the damage done. Meaningless apologies are not enough. There is legal precedent for the requirement that the colonial powers pay reparations to those peoples as Germany had to do regarding its genocide against the Jews. The determination of the amount and in what form it should be paid would be a contentious issue but the victims of colonialism have a moral and legal right to compensation for the crimes committed against them and the lasting damage done.”

Percentage-wise, the Herero and Nama nations lost more people than any other race, nation or ethnic group, during the entire 20^th Century.

Without understanding what they suffered, what was done to them, there is no way to understand what took place right before and during World War II.

The entire anti-imperialist world has a clear obligation to support the cause of the Herero and Nama people in their quest for justice. Enough of ‘broken links’ and outright lies. Justice has to be the same for all. Nations that were, or are victims of Western genocides, massacres and colonialist plunder, should unite and declare loudly and clearly: “Never again!”

*

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note

In 2014, after I published my report about Namibia, exposing the German ‘semi-denial’ that it had committed a Holocaust in its former Southwest African colony; a renowned German university sent me a letter. I paraphrase here, but the essence of the letter is kept intact:

“Dear Professor Vltchek, we are impressed by your research and your conclusions, and we would like to translate and publish your groundbreaking analyses in German language. Unfortunately, we cannot afford any payment…”

It was one of the major universities in the country, with tremendous budgets and an international reputation.

I replied, asking why, with all those scholars and academics, with PhDs and experts, they had never sent a team of experts to Namibia, to investigate one of the most horrid crimes committed in the 20^th Century? I wanted to know, why they would suddenly want to rely on the work of a foreigner, an outsider, an internationalist who refuses to call himself an academic (for me it is now a totally discredited term)? Murdering the Herero and Nama people in Southwest Africa by Germans was, after all, the key for comprehending what happened several decades later, in Europe itself, during the Holocaust that Germany went on to commit against the Jewish and Roma people.

The university never replied. I suppose they sensed that I was ‘dragging them’ into some extremely dangerous waters. They did not want to ‘be there’; they preferred the safe, calm waters, where some foreign left-wing intellectual writes something, they translate and publish it, putting a disclaimer that this doesn’t necessarily reflect the position of their respected journal and the university. As far as they were concerned, taboos should remain taboos, and the dunes of Namibia should be stirred just a little bit, for a limited intellectual discussion only. No storm, please!

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Donald Trump has in just over two years abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), ditched the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), withdrawn the US from the Paris climate agreement, and unilaterally removed American participation in the Iranian nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Some of these decisions have undoubtedly received popular support from far beyond America’s shores. Washington’s withdrawal from the TPP was welcomed by the People’s Republic of China. During the Obama presidency, Xi Jinping strongly protested the exclusion of Beijing from the TPP. In the case of the TTIP, European allies for the most part were strongly opposed to the treaty because European multinationals would be subjected to sanctions and fines from American authorities.

The climate agreement, placing important limits on CO₂ emissions as well as imposing regulations governing pollution, has been strongly resisted by US energy oligarchs. The withdrawal from the Paris accord has satisfied a substantial proportion of Trump’s donors linked to the hydrocarbon industry and beyond. Finally, the abandonment of the JCPOA was praised by Riyadh and Tel Aviv, two essential partners in Trump’s domestic and foreign strategies.

Observing the consequences of these political choices in the months since, it is easy to see how the world has reacted in a more or less similar fashion, which has been by ignoring the United States and emphasizing cooperation amongst themselves. The TPP, with its agreements between 11 countries, has remained in place without Washington. The development of relations between ASEAN and China continues on without Washington’s participation. While the TTIP has been halted, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), is in its final approval stage, an agreement between Canada and the EU that bypasses the American-inspired TTIP. The Iran deal remains in force despite Washington’s cowardly withdrawal, and the five countries remaining in the Iranian nuclear agreement have every intention of respecting the JCPOA, which had been negotiated over a number of years.

In addition to withdrawing from the above treaties, Washington has started a serious trade war and is imposing tariffs on allies and enemies alike. From Russia to the EU, as well as China, South Korea, Japan and Turkey, everyone is facing the unprecedented decision to apply tariffs on trade. In Trump’s mind, this is the only way to balance a trade deficit that has now reached more than 500 billion dollars.

In addition to the dismantled treaties and imposition of tariffs, Trump strongly criticized some pillars of the post-World War II liberal order, such as NATO and America’s European allies themselves. The suggestion that NATO may be obsolete has shaken the European capitals to their core, even as the Russian Federation may see it as signalling the prospect of positive relations with the United States. Later it was understood that Trump’s strategy was to present himself before his electors with tangible achievements, in this case a substantial increase in military spending by NATO countries in Europe. Trump wants a commitment of 2% of GDP to be spent on defense, and NATO’s leaders are now agreeing on the need to invest more money.

Finally, the devastating blow came with the abandonment of the Iranian nuclear agreement, creating significant tensions with European allies. Washington has decided to impose sanctions on companies that do business with Tehran from November 2018. The EU immediately passed a law to shield EU companies from American fines, but many French and German companies appear to have already abandoned their projects in Iran, fearing Washington’s retribution.

Trump even began directly targeting historical allies, first strongly criticizing May in the UK over the slowness of Brexit, then Erdogan’s Turkey for the purchase of the S-400 system as well as the detention of an American pastor (accused of having participated in the attempted coup of 2016), and giving the green light to Saudi Arabia for its commercial and political war with Qatar, a close ally of Turkey.

In this uncertain and unprecedented environment, Donald Trump’s best friends are Israel and Saudi Arabia, with the Italian government offering a friendly face in Europe, the only big European country not opposed to The Donald. The Italian government intends to present itself in contradistinction to France and Germany, returning to influencing the European decisions. We shall come to see how valid this political path is, especially in light of what Trump will ask Conte in exchange for political support, especially with regard to Libya and on various trade and tariff issues.

Trump seems to have been outlining, over almost 24 months of his presidency, his political strategy. The neoconservatives, in the wake of 9/11, used military force in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no rival power able to stand in their way. With Obama, the strategy turned to operating under the cover of democracy and human rights, using more subtle means for bringing about regime change, such as color revolutions. It seems this general strategy continues with Trump, through the means currently available to him. US military planners nowadays must contend with an effective military force that keeps throwing a spanner in their works, Moscow returning Crimea to the Russian Federation and intervening in Syria to support the legitimate government of Syria.

Trump seems to have understood the message coming from Beijing and Moscow regarding the inviolability of their territory, their spheres of influence and their sovereignty. For this reason, Washington’s aggression seems to be focussing more on the economic arena. Trump has weaponized the dollar and is wielding it against allies and enemies alike to extract benefits for the United States. What the current administration intends to do is use the status of the dollar (already a reserve currency and the medium of exchange for such things as oil) as a weapon against adversaries and allies. And it is painful for those at the receiving end, given that the global economy revolves around Washington and the dollar.

The ability to bar European companies from operating in Iran derives from the status of the petrodollar. Washington forbids foreign banks from working with Iranian banks, effectively blocking the flow of US dollars into the country. This is aside from excluding targets from the SWIFT banking network.

To understand the consequences of these actions, it is important to note how presidents prior to Trump worked to advance American imperialism. As noted, following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several countries began to anticipate and plan against scenarios of American aggression. Alliances have been strengthened (Pakistan with China, India with Russia, Qatar with Turkey, Iran with Russia and China, Iran with Russia and Turkey), many issues are being slowly resolved (India and Pakistan, South Korea and North Korea) and many countries prefer to buy arms from Russia and China in order to keep American imperialism at bay.

The methodology of color revolutions, in the light of the protection now being offered by the likes of Russia and Iran, was employed in the place of direct military intervention (as occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan) in other theaters (Libya, Ukraine and Syria). After the wars in 2002 and 2003 in Iraq and Afghanistan, China, Russia and Iran drew a red line regarding Washington’s interventionism. The effectiveness of color revolutions was diminished when the Russians, the Chinese and Iranians started expelling the various NGOs funded by the likes of Soros and other globalist financiers to bring about regime change under the cover of democracy and human rights.

The outlook of Washington’s political establishment is based on military hard power that is now inferior in offensive capability than the Sino-Russo-Iranian one, ensuring the strategic independence of Eurasia and its partners (Turkey, India, Qatar, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Egypt, the Philippines, etc.). In terms of color revolutions, the artifice has now been brought to light, and countries on the receiving end of such attacks can now recognize them and quickly act to forestall them, as happened in Hong Kong in 2014.

Donald Trump seems to have resorted to the only weapon left available to him, namely, the economic power of the US dollar, offering him the opportunity to shape events. It is a strategy with short-term benefits by devastating effects for Washington in the long run. Indeed, the only way to combat US financial dominance is to ditch the US dollar for other currencies. Washington’s economic power derives from the use that the world makes of the dollar. Clearly, then, Trump’s decision to use the US dollar as a weapon will cost his country dearly in the future, the dollar probably bound to lose its role as a global reserve currency. As history has shown, when a reserve currency is transferred to another currency, the empire that depended on this reserve-currency status itself went into decline. This occurred with the France and Britain, and it will likely occur with the United States.

If the S-400 militarily represents the middle finger to Washington, denying as it does US air dominance, de-dollarization is the obvious answer to Trump’s use of the US dollar as a weapon to wield against friends and enemies.

This vulnerability is a wake-up call for US allies, who have filled their pockets and state coffers with US dollars printed at zero interest rates. Just look at the situation in Turkey, with almost 100 billion dollars in foreign debt. Ankara suffers from the excessive dollarization of its economy. It thus remains vulnerable to a US dollar attack by Trump, and without Qatar coming to the rescue with 15 billion dollars worth of investment, the Turkish lira would have not been able to resist for much longer. The danger of an economic collapse is real, along the same lines as was experienced in Asia in the late 1990s through devastating financial-speculation attacks. In contrast, Moscow finds itself with a very low public debt and just 13 billion in dollar-denominated securities, continuing apace the de-dollarization of its economy.

Trump has indirectly set in motion a much needed global rebalancing. Washington’s downsizing into a smaller power will come about above all through a fundamental change at the global economic level. As long as Washington is free to print money, increase debt, exchange dollars for real goods, and remain credible to the rest of the world that continues to purchase US treasuries instead of gold as a safe haven, Trump will be free to use the US dollar as a baseball bat with which he can whack friends and opponents over the head.

The potential use of the US dollar as a baseball bat has been evident for more than a decade for Russians, Chinese and Iranians. For this reason, they have been exchanging their dollars for other currencies for years. The United States, as a declining empire, is lashing out, employing every weapon available to try and arrest its diminishing status as the world’s sole superpower. Now it is the turn of America’s allies to relinquish the dollar, coming to understand that real sovereignty is ensured through economic sovereignty.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Getting into Afghanistan was easy. Working with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, US special forces and CIA paramilitaries quickly overcame resistance leading to the fall of the capital Kabul. American Marines and Army units soon followed to finish the job. By the time I arrived in Kabul in late December 2001 both a US Embassy and CIA Station were up and running and fully staffed. Soon thereafter, the country had an interim government to be followed by Hamid Karzai as the new president, reportedly because he was able to speak good English, which made him ipso facto the best qualified candidate.

To be sure, Usama bin Laden and many Taliban escaped to Pakistan due to the pusillanimous decision making of General Tommy Franks at the battle of Tora Bora, but the United States could nevertheless have pulled up stakes at that point and left the country to the Afghans to sort out. The Bush Administration thought otherwise and decided to stick around for a while to stabilize the situation and “build democracy.” More than 100,000 American soldiers eventually wound up in the country supplemented by NATO allies to suppress any Taliban or al-Qaeda resurgence while rebuilding the Afghan Army.

That was nearly seventeen years ago and 14,000 US troops remain in country. More than 2,000 Americans and 90,000 Afghans have died in the process of nation building while more than a million more Afghans are refugees. The Afghan Army continues to struggle with a 30% annual desertion rate and some are beginning to ask how it is that a lightly armed and relatively untrained Taliban is able to engage it with success, in the process reacquiring control over more than a third of the country. And al-Qaeda is still around while ISIS has also appeared, having been largely driven out of Iraq and Syria.

Even though President Donald Trump has taken his generals’ advise and increased the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan – yet another surge – many in Washington believe that he is seeking a way out and will order a staged withdrawal before the end of the year, possibly before the November elections. If that is so, the recent talks between US diplomats and Taliban representatives are significant in that they might lead to a political settlement in which the Taliban has some designated role in a new government arrangement. Skeptics, of course, note how such agreements are not worth the paper they are written on and the Taliban will simply bide its time before eliminating its weaker coalition partners.

Those who are arguing for what would appear to be a permanent US military presence backed up by air power believe that there are several good reasons for hanging on. The basic argument is that it is essential to keep the Islamist Taliban out. It is also argued that the appearance of ISIS and persistence of al-Qaeda suggest that a genuine terrorist threat remains. And then there is the always useful geostrategic issue, namely that the increasing role of China in seeking to develop a “new silk road” through Afghanistan to the West must be monitored lest it bring about a new political alignment in central Asia. China is, of course, the over-the-horizon threat to American military hegemony that the military industrial complex dreams about to keep the money flowing into the coffers of the defense contractors and congressmen.

There are several problems with the thinking behind the permanent garrison in Afghanistan that is being promoted:

• First of all, there are no indications that the Afghan Army will ever become more effective, meaning that whatever happens the Taliban will continue to gain strength and territory until it again becomes the Afghan government. Trying to avert that outcome by way of a money pit training program is futile.

• Second, the terrorist threat is greatly overstated. Both al-Qaeda and ISIS are non-government actors that are in Afghanistan and Pakistan only because it is currently available. They are not friends of the Taliban and any Taliban government would not share power with them with the understanding that the US would bomb Kabul back into the stone age if it were to accommodate them.

• And third, what China does will not be seriously impacted whether it is being watched by Washington or not. Beijing has been successful exploiting its own form of economic imperialism and it is a neighbor to Afghanistan. An empowered US Embassy backed up by a few thousand troops will not change that.

So getting out of Afghanistan is a lot harder than getting in and the US military appears to be mired in a conflict where it is most engaged in avoiding defeat. A continued large US presence in Afghanistan does little more than create a group of hostages to a policy that is not working and which has already cost trillions of borrowed dollars. It is time to end the farce right now and leave. The Afghans are a fiercely independent people who recognize an invasion and occupation by foreign armies when they see it. They successfully resisted Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the Mughal Emperors of India, the British Empire, Soviet Russia and eventually they will also outlast the United States. Time for America to realize all that and pull the plug.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In America free speech, media, and academic freedoms are threatened. 

Social media, Google, and other tech giants are complicit in a campaign to suppress content conflicting with the official narrative.

What’s increasingly going on is the hallmark of totalitarian rule – controlling the message, eliminating what conflicts with it, notably on major geopolitical issues including US foreign policy.

Losing the right of free expression endangers all others. When truth-telling and dissent are considered threats to national security, free and open societies no longer exist – the slippery slope where America and other Western societies are heading.

The following headlines should scare everyone:

NYT: “Facebook Says It Removed Pages Related to ‘Inauthentic Behavior’ ”

Washington Post: “Sprawling Iranian influence operation globalizes tech’s war on disinformation”

Wall Street Journal: “Facebook Pulls Accounts Peddling Misinformation From Iran, Russia”

CNN: “Facebook takes down 652 pages after finding disinformation campaigns run from Iran and Russia”

The UK owned and controlled BBC: “Facebook and Twitter remove accounts linked to Russia and Iran campaigns”

Other Western major media had similar headlined reports. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said hundreds of pages on its platform were removed for exhibiting signs of “ties to state-owned media” – including “activities the US government (said are) linked to Russian military intelligence” and Iran. (August 21, 2018)

Facebook deleted accounts based on information supplied by the CIA, US State and Treasury Departments, acting as an agent for the imperial state.

The same goes for Twitter, Google, YouTube, Microsoft, and other tech giants – in cahoots with Washington against the most fundamental of fundamental freedoms.

Facebook removed 652 pages. Twitter suspended 284 accounts for engaging in what it called “coordinated manipulation” – code language for truth-telling  Washington wants suppressed.

Google removed Google Plus and YouTube content – based on information supplied by the CIA-funded FireEye cybersecurity firm, Langley calling the company a “critical addition to our strategic investment portfolio for security technologies.”

According to Facebook, pages allegedly connected to Russia, Iran, and other US sanctioned countries are targeted for removal, claiming some seek to influence US midterm elections – providing no evidence proving any of the targeted pages were involved in illegal or improper activities.

FB allied with the Atlantic Council (AC) – a neocon think tank promoting NATO’s killing machine, America’s military, industrial, security, major media complex, not to mention Israel.

FB partnered with AC’s imperial geopolitical agenda to censor material labelled “foreign interference” – AC’s Digital Forensic Research Lab involved in so-called “fact-checking,” code language for flagrant censorship.

The CIA-linked FireEye said so-called “inauthentic behavior” targeted for removal includes “anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes, as well as support for specific US policies favorable to Iran, such as the US-Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA).”

In cahoots with forces in Washington, Microsoft’s so-called Digital Crimes Unit shut down 84 websites it claimed were associated with Russian hackers – no evidence cited proving it.

Its Microsoft AccountGuard initiative offers free cybersecurity protection to US political candidates and campaign offices at the federal, state and local levels.

No evidence suggests any threats to America’s political process exists – just invented ones to bash Russia.

The new normal in America and other Western societies considers anything conflicting with the official narrative on vital issues “inauthentic behavior.”

Are these nations heading toward eliminating the right of free expression altogether- falsely claiming it’s to protect national security?

It appears to be what’s going on in the West – the possible elimination of free and open societies already gravely threatened.

*

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

North America has been hit by three major earthquakes within the last 24 hours.  A magnitude 6.2 earthquake struck just off the coast of Oregon early on Wednesday, and that was followed by a magnitude 5.3 earthquake in Ometepec, Mexico that was so powerful that it was felt all the way in Mexico City.  And just a few hours ago, an enormous magnitude 6.3 earthquake hit Alaska.  The “Ring of Fire” has awakened, but up until the last 24 hours North America had largely been spared.  Something truly unusual appears to be happening to our planet, and many are deeply concerned that this rise in seismic activity could be building up to a major event.  Yesterday I reported that 144 major earthquakes had occurred over the last 7 days, but now that number has risen even higher.  I just checked, and the USGS says that the number of major earthquakes over the past 7 days has now risen to 157.  In case you were wondering, that is not normal.

Now that the west coast has been hit, the mainstream media is finally starting to take notice of all the shaking that has been going on, and some outlets are even breathlessly proclaiming that “the Big One” could soon hit California.

For example, the following comes from the Sun…

A HUGE 6.3-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Oregon on America’s West Coast today.

The quake, which registered 188 miles from the coastal city of Bandon, has sparked fears the so-called “Big One” could hit near California.

A 6.3-magnitude earthquake has struck off the coast of Oregon (Source: The Sun)

Just a few weeks ago, two earthquake swarms hit the Cascadia Subduction Zone in less than a week.  So the fact that this latest earthquake hit the exact same area is definitely raising concerns about what may happen next.

One of these days the “Big One” will hit the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and the devastation will be off the charts.  Here is more from the Sun…

It last struck in 1700, when it sunk the stretch by as much as 20 metres, tjhough there are no written records of the natural disaster.

The death toll from that magnitude-9 quake is unclear but it is understood to have unleashed a tsunami which travelled 5,000 miles across the Pacific to Japan.

It has been estimated that the Cascadia Subduction Zone has the potential to create a seismic event 30 times more powerful than anything that the San Andreas Fault can produce.  In fact, the head of the FEMA division that oversees Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska once publicly stated that in the event of a magnitude 9.0 earthquake “everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast”…

…By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”

In the Pacific Northwest, everything west of Interstate 5 covers some hundred and forty thousand square miles, including Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Eugene, Salem (the capital city of Oregon), Olympia (the capital of Washington), and some seven million people.

Are you starting to understand the gravity of the situation?

We are talking about the potential for a natural disaster that is unlike anything that we have ever seen in American history by a very wide margin.

According to the Express, scientists believe that “the Big One” could produce a tsunami that is 85 feet high…

Scientists have predicted the ‘Big One’ could trigger a tsunami of 85ft high waves and could potentially drown as many as 33,000 people on the West Coast.

More than 160 experts have since 2013 gathered to develop the Oregon Resilience Plan.

If the Big One is to happen soon it can devastate and affect the regional and national economy.

Do you remember the giant tsunami in the movie San Andreas?  Well, the truth is that what we are potentially facing is even worse than that.

Right now the big question is whether all of the earthquakes that we have been witnessing along the Ring of Fire are somehow related.  Some experts are downplaying that idea, but a professor of earthquake engineering at the University of Bristol is reminding us that ultimately “all earthquakes are connected”…

Colin Taylor, professor of earthquake engineering at the University of Bristol, told Standard.co.uk: “The majority of earthquakes around the world are driven by plate tectonics over the earth’s crust. They occur when quakes move past, or under, each other. Every now and again, they reach the limit of their strength and break, emitting energy.

“So technically, that means all earthquakes are connected. But it’s too difficult to say whether they are connected directly.”

According to the NOAA, 39 percent of all Americans live in counties that are directly on the shoreline.

Let that sink in for a moment.

To say that we are extremely vulnerable to tsunamis is a major understatement.  The experts tell us that a “mega-tsunami” can reach speeds in the open ocean of up to 500 miles an hour, and when they reach shore they can produce waves that are several hundred feet high.

If a mega-tsunami hit anywhere along the west coast of the United States, it would instantly crash our economy and it would be the deadliest and costliest natural disaster that we have ever seen.

So let us hope that “the Big One” does not hit us any time soon, because when it does strike life in America will immediately and irrevocably change forever.

*

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Joory Basheer, 3, and her father at the Palestinian Society for Cancer Care.

For the fourth time in two months, Nevin Abu El-Jidian failed to cross the Erez checkpoint, which separates the Gaza Strip from Israel and the West Bank. Israeli authorities asked her to come back again with an updated radiograph of her breast cancer. “The officer told me I have to go back to Gaza and take an updated one.” But, even then, passage into Israel is not guaranteed, the officer told her.

However, getting that X-Ray is no easy feat for Nevin, 35. While waiting at the Erez crossing, her brother delivered the updated radiograph to the Palestinian side, who then passed it on to the Israeli side.

“The officer blackmailed me when he realized I have cancer,” Nevin said in a telephone interview.

According to testimony collected by the Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, officers at the Erez crossing often exploit vulnerable patients to obtain information, forcing them to inform on friends and family. Refusal to collaborate results in denying passage to these patients.

Three hours passed since the last call with Nevin, who was waiting at the crossing when she told me that the Israeli authorities had forced her to wait until the rest of Gaza’s ‘ordinary patients’ passed through. In spite of the intimidating journey, she was finally allowed to leave, but at a cost:

“when I got out of the departure terminal I could not catch the bus, so I had to take a taxi and pay $81.” That’s five times more than she could afford.

In her fight against breast cancer, Nevin must receive 33 chemotherapy sessions at the Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem every 60 days. She was diagnosed 18 months ago, and like more than 8,260 cancer patients, including 3,500 children, she faces grim prospects for sustained care in Gaza amid diminishing supplies of drugs.

“The lack of drugs and the long delays in letting patients pass imposed by the Israeli authorities mean more pain and dwindling hopes of recovering,” she added.

According to the Gaza Health Ministry, 1,500 people are diagnosed with cancer each year in Gaza, an alarmingly high rate according to health officials. And, with the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of the territory, seeking treatment abroad is often an arduous process.

Meanwhile, chemotherapy drugs have been prohibited from entering Gaza, along with other medical equipment needed to perform radiotherapy, molecular therapy, PET scans and isotope scans, according to the Executive Director of the Palestinian Society for Cancer Care, Rizk al-Soos.

“Patients who can afford the journey are forced to travel to Israeli hospitals, and even Egyptian hospitals for treatment to avoid Israeli blackmail. But, most patients have no means to afford travel costs to either destination.”

The Palestinian Society for Cancer Care provides aid and support to 1,204 cancer patients and their families in the Gaza Strip, where nearly 16,000 cancer patients struggle to survive, especially as 80% of cancer drugs have been depleted, a life-threatening situation for many of the patients.

Last week, Dr. Ashraf al-Qedra, spokesperson of the Health Ministry in Gaza, announced that al-Rantisi Pediatric Hospital has run out of Neupogen, a drug that can help the body make white blood cells after receiving chemotherapy, which is essential for the immune systems of patients. As a result, health officials suspended all chemotherapy sessions at the hospital.

The diminishing drug supply comes with Israel tightening the noose on Gaza in recent years. Figures provided by the Israeli Ministry of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Gisha indicate that in the first quarter of 2018 alone, 833 applications for travel permits by residents of Gaza were denied on the grounds that the applicant’s “first-degree relative is a Hamas operative.” For comparison, the Israeli authorities refused only 21 applications on these grounds throughout 2017.

Physicians for Human Rights – Israel and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza report that as of June 2018, the Israeli authorities rejected applications by at least 13 patients in need of medical treatment unavailable in Gaza, including cancer patients.

Even if those denied patients were lucky to obtain travel permits, they might collide with another barrier: “Poverty,” Mr. al-Soos said while flipping through a patient’s file who died recently of cancer.

Jehad Abu Hasna, 30, died last May. Initially, Israeli authorities denied his application for a travel permit several times before finally allowing him to travel, al-Soos said.

“Despite receiving the permission to cross the border to treat his brain cancer, Jehad failed to obtain the bus/taxi and accommodation expenses for 20-40 days in Jerusalem.”

Then, Jehad’s wife informed the Society’s administration of her husband’s death after the family was not able to afford his treatment.

“Every Neupogen dose costs $40.” Mr. al-Soos explained.

In Gaza, poverty and unemployment affect half of the population. The year-long energy crisis has left households with as little as four hours of power a day, putting enormous strain on health, water and sanitation systems as well as on all productive sectors. Salary cuts and payment delays for tens of thousands of public sector employees have curtailed people’s purchasing power and worsened their debt burdens.

“We were informed that the majority of the drugs that are required to manage care for cancer patients are depleted, which exacerbates the existing crisis,” Said Dr. Mahmoud Daher, the World Health Organization director in Gaza.

“The chronic drug shortage has been going on for several years; all the cancer patients are at risk of losing their lives because of this situation,” he added.

I met Joory Basheer, a three-year old eye cancer patient with her 36 years-old father who visited the Palestinian Society for Cancer Care to seek out support for his child.

According to Joory’s father, Israeli authorities denied her application for a travel permit after they claimed her mother, who would have accompanied Joory, has a Hamas relative.

Caught between Israel’s restrictions and crippling poverty, Gaza’s cancer patients find themselves in a grim reality with little reason for hope. Yet, despite her daily pain, Nevin feels lucky to have been be able to travel for treatment, but she is not sure whether the Israeli authorities will block her next time, as they did with the young Joory.

*

Ahmad Kabariti is a reporter based in Gaza. He covers political, humanitarian and social issues.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Those who wage wars of aggression are criminals despite holding high office and should be prosecuted for crime against humanity, says Dr Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, author and anti-war advocate.

“We have people in high office who instigate those wars, they are responsible. What we should focus on is that these people should not be running the country because people of these countries don’t want war; they want peace.”

“If we are in a democratic environment – the European Union, the United States, Canada and all other countries that have been involved in the [US-NATO] military coalition – the people should confront their leaders and say what they are doing is criminal,” he adds.

Chossudovsky was commenting on a statute that came into effect on June 18, which made the act of war a crime that the International Criminal Court (ICC) can prosecute.

What it means is, under the law, political and military leaders who order the invasion of foreign countries may be punishable for committing crimes of aggression at the ICC at The Hague.

Nonetheless, the extent of the ICC’s power to bring warmongers to court remains a debate. This is because only 35 countries have so far ratified the statute. The world’s mightiest nations, including the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and Japan, do not recognise the law, making the court’s reach severely limited.

The ICC Needs to be Democratised

Watch the video from the interview here. (or click screen, redirects to Awani Review)

Having been vocal against wars for so many years, Chossudovsky seems to have too much to say and in trying to explain, we find a wealth of information from this man who could be a library on war.

“Well, the ICC has a whole legal body of precedents – the Nuremberg (war crime trials of the 1940s) and can certainly pass judgment. But what must be emphasised is that the major culprits of war have never been indicted. We are talking about the post war era – or rather so-called post war era because there have been a series of US-led wars and atrocities [since the end of World War II]

Chossudovsky emphasises that the only wars which are allowed are wars of self defence. Even so, he says some nations have misused the excuse to justify wars of aggression.

“Harry Truman on August 6, 1945 ordered the bombing of Hiroshima. Over one hundred thousand people were killed in the first seven seconds. On August 9, they launch a second bomb on Nagasaki. That day, Truman made a statement. He said ‘The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.’

“First of all, thats a lie – everybody knows that. Did the media report it, did they unfold the lie? Was Harry Truman indicted for his actions? That kind of lies is what the Nuremberg tribunal calls propaganda. You make people believe that it is collateral damage,” says Chossudovsky.

He also states that while the ICC has the powers, it hasn’t been as effective in dispensing justice, particularly in getting past the veto powers of the United Nations security council.

“They have never really indicted the major powers who wage war on third world and developing countries. They have never indicted those leaders because that legal structure is most probably controlled by the same powers.”

While states that have yet to ratify the crimes of aggression statute can still be referred to the ICC by the United Nations security council, members are likely to veto accusations made against them.

Chossudovsky insists that one must go after the main players who call the shots and not the smaller perpetrators only. He picked out former US and UK’s tops such as George Bush and Tony Blair in the Iraq invasion.

It is to be noted that the crimes of aggression statute cannot be enforced retrospectively over conflicts but it may offer some prospect of deterrence.

“What we can say without doubt is that all wars of aggression are criminal. There’s such things as humanitarian war and the war of terrorism is bogus,” says Chossudovsky.

“Those leaders, from a legal point of view – whether it is Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, Theresa May – are legally defined as war criminals. They are criminals occupying high office.”

Misleading the World to War is a Crime

Watch the second video from the interview here. (redirect to Awani Review)

*

Cynthia Ng is anchor and news editor at Astro AWANI and AWANI Review.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity calls attention to Washington’s strategic interest of overthrowing the progressive and revolutionary governments of our region with the support of the local oligarchies aligned with the United States.

They intend to bring down the popular governments that are standing, to dismantle the advances in Latin American unity and to annul the leaderships that have been constituted because this can be electoral processes for the return of progressive and revolutionary forces where they have managed to remove them through institutional coups d’état or pre- or post-electoral frauds and scams. They go so far as to attempt the destruction of moral and historical references of leaders who are no longer with us like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and Néstor Kirchner.

The hegemonic media carry out a media lynching of the popular leaders with which they target the psychological ground in the masses so that the judiciary can then advance in its persecution and prosecution.

Like in the cases of Lula in Brazil and Rafael Correa in Ecuador the architecture of impunity has been set into motion against the popular and progressive camp and now they are doing it to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina as well as other former authorities and activists of her project. The impunity that gives them the right to occupy all the spaces of power, allows them to invent anything they like. They don’t need proof. 

Their self-assumed superiority gives them heir to white democracies’ with which our nation states were forged in blood and fire, is enough justification.

As in Brazil, where all that was needed was the “conviction” by a judge, formatted in the United States, to proclaim Lula was guilty sending him to prison in order to prevent the popular preference for his candidacy for president from becoming a reality. Or in Ecuador where they are trying to annul Rafael Correa by trying to incriminate him in an alleged unsuccessful kidnapping of a proven criminal character. Or they can invent all sorts of slanders confessed by businessmen who buy their impunity in exchange for accusations.

But when the evidence is convincing and points to its mercenaries or hit men, such as the drones that exploded near the Venezuelan president, it is not enough for the media monopolies to recognize that it was an obvious assassination attempt, and instead accuse their own victims. In the midst of countries in which the explosive mix of social consequences of neoliberal policies is forged, an offensive that is once again unleashed on those who represent social justice projects.

However, the popular rebellions are growing through all the veils of repressive and media shielding. That is why right-wing governments are continuously militarizing our societies in a preventive’ way. They obey Washington’s intention to fill our territories with its military bases and to reform and unify military doctrines, with the return of the national security doctrine. They aim to redirect the military force towards supposed internal enemies.

We repudiate the tour to South America by the head of the Pentagon, James Mattis, who came to ensure the growing U.S. control over our natural resources, the subordination of our national states and the strategic plan to overthrow the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro Moros, by force.

The peoples of our Americas, who have suffered more than 500 years of domination, will not abandon the emancipatory route that we build day by day. On the contrary, we will defend our popular leaders with whom we will continue to build the path of the Great Homeland.

End the persecution of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Rafael Correa!

Stop the general offensive against the government and people of Venezuela!

Free Lula!

*

Initial Endorsers

Evo Morales Ayma, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia;

Nicolás Maduro Moros, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela;

Dilma Rousseff, former president of the Federative Republic of Brazil;

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Argentina;

Pablo González Casanova, former rector UNAM and José Martí International Prize of UNESCO, México;

Roberto Fernández Retamar, president of Casa de las Américas, Republic of Cuba;

Jorge Arreaza, Minister of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela;

Ernesto Villegas, Minister of Popular Power for Culture of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela;

Ricardo Patiño Aroca, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Ecuador;  

Danny Glover, United States;

Fernando Morais, Brazil;

John Saxe Fernández, México; 

Rafael Cancel Miranda, Puerto Rico;

Gabriela Rivadeneira, Ecuador;

Martin Almada, Paraguay;

Fernando Gonzalez LLort, Cuba;

Iraida Vargas, Venezuela;

Fernando Rendón, Colombia;

Galo Mora, Ecuador;

Hector Díaz Polanco, México;

Frei Betto, Brazil;

Hildebrando Pérez Grande, Perú;

Piero Gleijeses, United States;

Leonardo Boff, Brazil;

Stella Calloni, Argentina;

Pável Eguez, Ecuador;

Mario Sanoja, Venezuela;

Hugo Yasky, Argentina;

James Early, United States;

Fernando Buen Abad Domínguez, Mexico/Argentina;

Gilberto López y Rivas, México;

Gustavo Espinoza Montesinos, Perú;

João Pedro Stédile, Brazil;

Jose Pertierra, United States;

Manuel Dammert, Perú;

Teresa Castro, México;

Pilar Bustos, Ecuador;

Carlos Molina Velázquez, El Salvador;

Daniel Kovalik, United States;

Alejandro Zúñiga, Australia;

María Nela Prada, Bolivia;

Estela Bravo, United States;

Irene León, Ecuador;

Bill Fletcher, Jr., United States;

Oscar Bonilla, Ecuador;

H. Bruce Franklin, United States;

Héctor Béjar Rivera, Perú;

Lachlan Hurse, Australia;

Rosa Salazar, Ecuador;

Manuel Robles, Perú;

Consuelo Sanchez, México;

Jane Franklin, United States;

Juan Cristóbal, Perú;

Vicente Otta, Perú;

Nelson Valdes, United States;

Orlando Perez, Ecuador;

Rick Sterling, United States;

Winston  Orrillo, Perú;

T. M. Scruggs, United States;

Eduardo González Viana, Perú;

Margot Palomino, Perú;

José Agualsaca, Ecuador;

Oswaldo Galarza, Ecuador;

Ricardo Ulcuango, Ecuador;

Manuel Azuaje Reverón, Venezuela;

Reinaldo Iturriza, Venezuela;

Eleazar Díaz, Venezuela;

María Fernanda Barreto, Venezuela;

Rosa Miriam Elizalde, Cuba;

Enrique Ubieta, Cuba;

Manuel Santos, Cuba;

Edwin Jarrin, Ecuador;

Soledad Buendía, Ecuador

Secretariat of the Network in Defense of Humanity

Pablo Sepulveda, Chile/Venezuela;

Omar González, Cuba;

Atilio Boron, Argentina;

Carmen Bohórquez, Venezuela;

Hugo Moldiz, Bolivia;

Katu Arkonada, Basque Country;

Angel Guerra, Cuba/México;

Luciano Vasapollo, Italy;

Marilia Guimaraes, Brazil;

Nayar López, México;

Chandra Muzaffar, Malaysia;

David Comissiong, Barbados;

Alicia Jrapko, United States;

Paula Klachko, Argentina;

Roger Landa, Venezuela;

Ariana López, Cuba

Michel Chossudovsky, Canada