Global Research

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: A girl child taking extra class in the summer in Damascus

My friend, a senior UN official based in Amman, Jordan, recently received a newsletter from an Israeli institution – “IMPACT-se”. Their report was called, ‘modestly’, “Reformulating School Textbooks During the Civil War”.

It is full of analyses of the Syrian curriculum. 

Interesting stuff, without any doubt: Manipulative, negative, but interesting. It made it to many other places in the Middle East; to Lebanon, for instance, where even the word “Israel” is hardly ever pronounced.

Predictably, being compiled in Israel, the report trashes Syria, its ideology, and the determined anti-imperialist stand of President al-Assad. 

However, that may backfire. Excerpts that are quoted from the Syrian curriculum would impress both education experts, as well as the general public, if they were to get their hands and eyes on them. And I am trying to facilitate precisely that, in this essay.

What the report found outrageous and deplorable, others could find very reasonable and positive. Let’s read, here is what the “IMPACT-se” is quoting, while ringing alarm bells:

“Saddam Hussein took power, and his period witnessed a number of wars in the Arab Gulf area. The first was with Iran, called the First Gulf War (1980–88), which occurred through incitement by the US, in order to weaken both countries. History, Grade 12, 2017–18, p. 105.”

Well put, isn’t it? But it gets much better, philosophically. Imagine, this brilliant intellectual stuff is actually served to all Syrian children in their public schools, while in Europe and North America; kids are fed with neo-colonialist mainstream propaganda. No wonder that Syrian children are much better versed in what is happening in the world. No wonder that millions of Syrian refugees are now ready to return home, after the abuse they received abroad, and after realizing how indoctrinated and brainwashed by Western propaganda, the people all over the world are. 

“IMPACT-se” continues quoting the Syrian curriculum, naively thinking that the words engraved there, will terrify the entire world:

“This competition and struggle worsened as the capitalist system developed and new occupying forces such as the US, took control over international politics. It exploited its scientific, technological, economic and military supremacy in order to expand its influence and [gain] control over the capabilities of the peoples of the world. This was done in cooperation with its allies, to increase its presence in the international arena as the only undisputed superpower. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 81.(The US) strives to maintain its supremacy by monopolizing developing technology, controlling wealth and energy sources in the world, most importantly oil, and forcing its hegemony on the international community. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 82.

This could be easily written by the progressive economist Peter Koenig, by the international lawyer Christopher Black, or, why not, by myself. 

Children in Damascus taking summer programme

The people, who worked on the Syrian curriculum, combined two things brilliantly: 1) indisputable facts, 2) elegant simplicity! Actually, this curriculum should be offered not only to the Middle East kids, but all over the world.

Look how skillfully and honestly it summarizes modern history:

“After the disappearance of international balance and unipolar hegemony took control of the world, the US began searching for excuses to justify its intervention in other countries. It occupied Afghanistan in 2002, under the pretext of fighting against “terrorism” in order to realize its political and economic goals. One of the goals was to build an advanced military base close to countries which the US considers to be dangerous (Russia, China, India, Iran and North Korea). In addition, Afghanistan had many assets (such as iron ore and gas). In 2003, the US—helped by a group of countries—declared war on Iraq under the pretext that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction and aiding terrorism. The occupation came after an unjust siege and air strikes over Iraqi cities and institutions, without authorization from the UN general assembly and the Security Council. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 82

Making the world become one form, one structure and one model, which is the most powerful model now controlling the world, economically and militarily—the American model. The hegemony of the capitalist system . . . turning the world into a consumer market for Western products and ideas, while stripping the nation of its principles, customs and traditions, abolishing its personality and identity, first diluting and then gradually eliminating nations and cultures. National Education, Grade 12, 2017–18, p. 31.”

According to “IMPACT-se”, this is supposed to scare random readers, providing proof how evil the ‘regime in Damascus’ is!

The opposite is true.

An international (non-Western) educator, who is presently based in the Middle East, explained to me over a cup of coffee. I think that this statement is actually a good summary of what many others that are studying the Syrian curriculum really feel:

“Education reflects the vision of a given society.  The heart of what a society expects from its citizens is in the curriculum.  Having carefully read the analysis of the new Syrian curriculum and textbooks reinforces my strong conviction of how great a society Syria really is.”

*

Let us see the ‘other side’; those who are critical of Syrian education, those who are making a living from such criticism and from antagonizing the system.

ESCWA (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia), based in Beirut, Lebanon, has an initiative defined as ‘the future of Syria for the peace-building phase’. This ‘process’ involves Syrian experts from all walks of life.

But who are these experts? In 2018, during the expert’s meeting on education, the list included these specialists:

– Former professors (education and law) of Aleppo University

– Former professor of Damascus University

– Head of an education NGO in Lebanon

– Academics and researchers now based in Turkey and Germany

– Independent consultants

Clearly, if at this meeting any participants were Syrians, they were ‘former some things’. Meaning exiles, anti-government cadres, and mostly pegged to some Western organization (predominantly the organizations based in France or Germany). Not one person from the legitimate government of Syria was invited! A typical Western approach: “about them, without them”.

With or without textbooks children flock to school in newly liberated Aleppo, January 2017

And these people who are serving Western interests, are supposed to help to define a component on education which is considered vital to “reconciliation and social cohesion in post-war Syria”.

Predictably, instead of promoting reconciliation, the speeches were full of hate, bitter and aggressive, anti-Syrian and pro-Western. ‘Experts’ used terminology such as: ‘Hegemony of the Syrian regime’, ‘The Ba’ath Party is only concerned about ideology, never giving Syrians an identity’ (they were actually demanding that religions would serve as ‘identity’, replacing the presently secular Syrian state), ‘We need to talk about the truth of what happened in 2011, what led to the war in 2011. Without that nothing makes sense’ (but the ‘truth about 2011’ in their minds has definitely nothing to do with the fact that the West encouraged the anti-government rebellion, injected jihadi cadres and triggered the brutal civil war aimed at overthrowing a social state).

Their main point seems to be: ‘The war has strengthened the culture of hatred’.

Correct, but not because of the Syrian state, but, because of people like those ‘experts’!

What do they really want? Religion instead of secularism, capitalism instead of socialism, and of course, the Western perception of ‘democracy’, instead of a patriotic and pan-Arab independent vision of the state.

*

No matter how one turns it, the Syrian education system, including its curriculum, appears to be greatly superior to those in the neighboring countries. Perhaps that is why it is being placed under scrutiny and under attack.

After all, wasn’t the main goal of the West, in 2011 and after, to destroy yet another socialist, internationalist state that was primarily serving its people?

And the state of Israel? What is “IMPACT-se” mainly complaining about? What is irking it most, in the Syrian curriculum? Perhaps this, in its own words and analyses:

“The Syrian curriculum bases Syrian national identity on the principles of a continued struggle to realize one Arab Nation that includes all Arab states, constituting one country, the “Arab Homeland.” The textbooks present the borders dividing the Arab states as artificial, having been imposed by European colonialism.”

For most of us, this is actually, not bad, is it?

Or possibly this:

“The current borders are political ones, drawn through the policy of the colonial powers that had controlled the region, especially France and Britain. They do not overlap the natural borders that used to separate the Arab Homeland from the neighboring countries. So, important changes took place in these borders to the benefit of those countries and to the detriment of the Arab land. Geography of the Arab Homeland and the World, Grade 12, 2017–2018, p. 13.”

What is incredibly impressive, is, how the Syrian curriculum addresses the Soviet period of its close ally – Russia:

“We shall become acquainted with the reality of Russia prior to the Communist Revolution, and the causes which led to its political, economic, social and intellectual renaissance, from World War I until the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Russian Federation in 1991. History, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 98. 

The Socialist Revolution in Russia broke out in order to confront the imperial regime. It declared the establishment of the first socialist country in 1917. [The Revolution] was based on the rule of the workers and the peasants, and it had a global impact, as it supported national liberation movements. History of the Modern and Contemporary World, Grade 11, 2017–18, p. 168.

Gorbachev took over the leadership of the state and party in 1988, and aspired to implement a plan of economic, social and ideological reconstruction. However, the imperialistic countries conspired against the destiny of the Soviet Union and took advantage of the administrative corruption and the circumstances of multiple nationalities, leading to its dissolution in 1991 and the establishment of the Russian Federation in its place. History, Grade 8, 2017–18, pp. 99–100”

Actually, if I could, if I were to be allowed to, I’d love my publishing house (Badak Merah) to publish the Syrian curriculum, or at least its part on history and politics, for everyone outside Syria to read.

What the Israeli “IMPACT-se” sees as alarming or negative, most people all over the world and particularly in the Arab region, would definitely perceive as truthful, optimistic and worth fighting for.

Are the experts from “IMPACT-se” so naïve that they do not realize it? Or is there something else going on? Perhaps we will never find out. 

No matter what: thank you for reminding us of the great Syrian curriculum! It clearly shows how great a nation Syria is!

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

All images in this article are from Yayoi Segi.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“Every notion of progress is refuted by the existence of the Iliad.” – Roberto Calasso, The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony

“The spectacle is the nightmare of imprisoned modern society which ultimately expresses nothing more than its desire to sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of sleep.” – Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

It’s still the same old story.  The best propaganda places individual stories within a larger framework.  The individual is extolled or damned in the service of the controlling myth.

Senator John McCain is a case in point.  As an individual, he is not important, except as the glorified stories about him and his own confabulations about himself can be used to enhance the controlling myth.  American history is replete with such bloodthirsty, war-mongering individuals, whose lives and stories serve to enhance the American myth of being “God’s New Israel” and Americans being God’s chosen people whose mission is to spread “freedom” and “democracy” around the world with our “terrible swift swords.”  

As Bob Dylan put it,

“But I learned to accept it/Accept it with pride/For you don’t count the dead/When God’s on your side.”

Myths are the invisible narrative skeletons of our outward lives. They are limited in number and keep getting reused in different forms.   All we do hangs upon their bones.  This is true for nations and for individuals.  Myths are what people take for granted and do not question.  Our lives are telling stories, and myth means story.  

We tell our lives by living stories.  Then others tell those stories about us when we are dead.  

Of course, some control freaks try to manage their myths from the grave, as did McCain, who knew how the game is played, and who got his brothers-in-arms, George W. Bush and Barack Obama to polish his myth as he lay silent before them.  

“We Lost a Good One,” blared the New York Times, as McCain was lying in state, and liars of state, Bush and Obama, were preparing to shill for him as they shilled for war and the overthrow of foreign governments for their masters.  Another member of the Club, Joseph Biden, had done his part in the mythologizing a few days earlier when he shed his famous “regular guy” tears as he spoke of his dear friend.  For those outside such a small circle of friends – the millions of passive TV spectators in the society of the spectacle – tears seal the deal, set the myth into an emotional space that just feels right. In mythmaking, feeling is all; facts don’t matter. And the military and religious symbolism, the pageantry and the majesty of the setting, make the eulogies resound more loudly.  

It is through symbols, not just words, that the “people” are brought together to celebrate their mythic uniqueness, for the word symbol comes from the Greek, meaning to throw together, and for the in-crowd that is what they do.  We are in this together, one nation under God….while outside, as McCain, Bush, Obama, et al. never failed to remind us “folks,” there lurks the diabolic (to throw apart) devils from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Russia, etc. ready to divide us from within and attack us from without.  We are the good “insiders,” they are the evil “outsiders.”  Such verbiage constitutes the essence of cultural myth creation and the core of American Exceptionalism.  It is practiced by the politicians and mainstream corporate media every day.

In speaking about McCain, Bush and Obama did so from within the frame of this great American Myth of Exceptionalism and God’s Chosen People.  McCain, who is a small piece of a much larger myth, was just another name added to the Pantheon.  Bush once said, “Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.”  And Obama once confessed, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.”  One can easily understand why McCain chose them.

Bush eulogized McCain thus:

“In one epic life was written the courage and greatness of our country.”

Wasn’t it great to kill millions of Vietnamese and Iraqis?  Only the courageous from the home of the brave can perform such honorable duties, especially from the air. 

“He respected the dignity inherent in every life, a dignity that does not stop at borders and cannot be erased by dictators,” said Bush, adding: 

Whatever the cause, it was this combination of courage and decency that defined John’s calling, and so closely paralleled the calling of his country. It’s this combination of courage and decency that makes the American military something new in history, an unrivaled power for good.”

Moreover, Obama intoned with such eloquence:

And finally while John and I disagreed on all kinds of foreign policy issues, we stood together on America’s role as the one nation, believing that with great power and great blessings comes great responsibility…But John understood that our security and our influence was won not just by our military might, not just by our wealth, not just by our ability to bend others to our will, but from our capacity to inspire others with our adherence to a set of universal values. Like rule of law and human rights and insistence on the God-given dignity of every human being.

Now I wonder what John’s and Barack’s dead victims in Libya and Syria would have to say about their “universal values” and respect for the “rule of law”?  Can the dead laugh sardonically?

The recent spectacle over John McCain’s death is a perfect example of myth creation.  McCain is, however, a metaphor for the larger ongoing narrative that has been going on for centuries and seems to have no end.  

McCain’s apotheosis is a made for TV American hero movie, one that he first helped create and one that John Wayne would envy, as blatantly jingoistic and racist as Wayne was in “The Green Berets,” a movie released in 1968, the year after our hero McCain’s dubious involvement in the tragedy of the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier that killed 137 sailors, his being shot down while bombing North Viet Nam, and his subsequent years in captivity.  No doubt Sydney Schanberg’s devastating expose of McCain’s explanation of his years as a POW will play no part in today’s mythologizing.

If only Wilfred Owen’s words could have been piped into the National Cathedral during the funeral ceremony, maybe the mythmaking would have ceased and truth revealed.  

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

But that is wishful thinking in this land of make-believe, where such poetic obscenities are not allowed in the Cathedral of God’s People.  

*

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Ontario labour movement is in deep crisis. Some impressive struggles aside, it has been staggering since the end of the great mobilizations of the 1990s. Given the labour movement’s historic role in leading and supporting progressive change, its current disorientation should be a matter of alarm to its members of course, but also to anyone concerned with countering the insatiable greed and social destructiveness of capitalism.

There is a tendency within the Canadian labour movement – reinforced as we head into Labour Day – to reduce this crisis to a lack of unity. But the content of ‘unity’ matters and is inseparable from the question of direction. Battles over jurisdictional claims are certainly destructive. However, in the absence of political struggle, calls for unity can also be used to silence criticism and block difficult debates over vision and strategy. It is the lack of such crucial debates – which inevitably come with some divisions along the way – that is perhaps most disturbing about the state of today’s labour movement.

Consider. In the 1930s, the great breakthrough in the American labour movement, which also shaped the Canadian movement, was the birth of the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) and its principle of unionization across skills. But it only came alongside a difficult but necessary exit from the craft-based AFL (American Federation of Labor), a tectonic break that represented profound ideological and strategic differences. When the AFL and CIO came together again in the mid-1950s the ‘harmony’ it brought didn’t bring a stronger, more solidaristic movement. Rather, the newly unified federation, the AFL-CIO, oversaw four decades of stagnation and decline in U.S. unions accompanied by some of the most shameful undermining of working class struggles abroad.

Conservatives on the Attack

With the election of the Progressive Conservatives led by Doug Ford, the threat of further, more damaging defeats as austerity gains traction is clear enough. Low-wage workers have already seen a freeze on the planned increases in minimum wages even as top executive compensation has increased by 50 per cent over the past decade. Very modest proposed increases in welfare benefits are also being cut, though income support benefits are lower today than a quarter of a century ago. And the already thin democracy in the administration of Toronto is about to get thinner with the radical unilateral trimming of the size of city council.

Coming soon are deep cuts to public spending in Ontario, which may well be much larger than anything attempted by the Conservative government of Mike Harris in the late 1990s. A combination of 4 per cent planned spending cuts, $7.5-billion in revenue cuts and $6-billion lost in accounting changes leaves a minimum of $22-billion to be hacked from public services by year three of the Conservative’s mandate.

Detailed reviews underway of government spending will set the stage for a massive attack on Ontario’s public sector. CUPE anticipates that in the hospital sector alone, 3,500 hospital beds and 16,500 staff would have to be cut to meet the target of eliminating $22-billion. In announcing a ‘line by line’ review of provincial spending the Conservatives referred to a commitment, not mentioned during the election, to reduce the province’s $315-billion debt. To significantly reduce Ontario’s debt, even over 20 years, would mean amputating public services.

Yet – and this is the most immediate sign of the crisis in labour – as the Conservatives prepare an onslaught of cutbacks, labour has been all but silent about how, beyond lamentations of another government turning to austerity, it will respond as a class. If that passivity continues, Ford’s Conservative government can be expected to read that as an invitation to go further and faster.

The challenge posed by the Conservative’s class agenda – tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, funded by cuts to public spending for working people – is to mobilize the working class in its own defense and in defense of the unemployed, the poor, the disabled, the young and the elderly, all of whom will be victims of the Conservative’s attack. Right-wing populism can only be defeated by exposing it and winning the support of the broadly defined working class, thereby deconstructing the Conservative base and forcing the Conservatives to retreat.

An obvious reference point here is the ‘Days of Action’, the dramatic class response that emerged in Ontario in the mid-90s to the radical neoliberal policies of Harris, when labour faced a comparable threat to the Ford cuts of today. Many young activists have little knowledge of the remarkable mobilizations undertaken by labour and its allies in that period. This makes it important to recall, by way of a brief overview, this suppressed historical memory.

Days of Action, Days of Possibilities

The Days of Action were a series of one-day city-wide protests, including one-day general strikes (by their very nature political strikes) that began in late 1995 and ultimately came to eleven Ontario communities over a two-and-a-half-year time span. The Toronto protest alone involved an estimated crowd of over 250,000.

In the 1990s, popular reaction against the ‘neoliberal’ undermining of social programs and attacks on the labour movement intensified across the core capitalist countries. In response, many European countries elected social democratic governments. The election of the NDP in Ontario, in 1990, preceded all of them. As elsewhere, this didn’t turn out as hoped. With the economy in recession, the NDP retreated from promises like socialized auto insurance and used state power to open and roll back public sector union contracts. The demoralization in the labour movement over this betrayal contributed to the election in 1995 of the hard-right Conservative government led by Mike Harris.

Harris acted quickly to implement his so-called ‘Common Sense Revolution’. One wing of the labour movement argued that there was no choice but to wait for the next election. This wasn’t convincing. The next election was far off and a good deal of damage, much of it seeming irreversible, would occur in the interim. In any case, the NDP’s performance in office had left it discredited even among former strong supporters – its’ vote had fallen by over 40% in 1995 and there was little enthusiasm for placing all of labour’s trust in the NDP again.

Against this, some labour and community militants called for a ‘general strike’. This had even less traction across the movement. The labour leadership’s strong aversion to this especially uncertain terrain was reinforced by an awareness that the kind of unity such a strategy demanded was simply absent. More important, since a good number of union members had for various reasons supported Harris, the labour movement could hardly claim a mandate for such a radical step.

In that sense, the strategy behind the Days of Action reflected the weakness of the labour movement as much as its strength. Nevertheless, the response brokered by the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) among its often-fractious unions demonstrated the kinds of organizing capacities the labour movement still retained.

The OFL assigned key staff to work on the Days of Action full-time and to coordinate bringing both paid and voluntary organizers into each community well in advance of their actual day of action. Committed unions put their own staff and local activists to work reaching their members, some of whom grasped the threat and were quite ready to protest, but many who were unconvinced about either the issues or the tactics. Efforts to get members on side ranged from leafletting plants to training activists for one-on-one conversations, and in some cases carrying out mini-protests on specific issues to generate momentum. The preparations culminated in mass membership meetings in every workplace or local to get clear mandates for one-day strikes.

At the same time, OFL organizers and local union leaders began discussions at the community level with social movements, NGOs, and church groups around the core issues, with special concern to overcome long-standing suspicions of the union movement. This led to the formation of local coalitions, co-chaired by a trade unionist and someone from the movements (at least one of whom was to be a woman). The coalitions spoke to local groups and the media, wrote op-eds, bought radio ads, and also leafletted door-door (130,000 such leaflets were distributed in London, where the first Day of Action occurred).

Workplaces were shut down by workers, reinforced by cross-picketing (i.e. workers left their own work-sites to picket other workplaces, in part because shutting down your own workplace was illegal – though such legalities were in any case largely ignored). Schools were generally closed, not so much because of the teacher unions – whose attitudes were mixed – but by parents keeping their kids out, and by high school students themselves generally organizing the closing of their schools. At Oakwood Collegiate, for example, students went from classroom to classroom and got permission from each teacher to have some time to explain what the issues were and why a dramatic response was necessary. Thousands of workers were bussed in from nearby, and often distant, communities and mass marches took place, lined by hundreds of marshals to keep the march peaceful (and in Toronto by dozens of bands and singers along the route). The marches led into packed meetings in the largest spaces in the community, brimming with collective confidence and a newfound sense of social power.

To a degree not fully grasped at the time, even by those advocating the approach, the plan that labour had more or less stumbled into was strategically impressive and, given the defeat of the NDP and the absence of their support for extra-parliamentary political actions, politically bold.

• It allowed the unions supporting the action to focus their limited but solid core of organizers on one community at a time (something a general strike could not do).
• The announcements of the shutdowns a few months in advance resulted in a media frenzy warning of coming chaos in the community; this led workers to spontaneously and widely discuss the merits of the strategy.
• Because workers lost a day’s pay, they would only join the protest if won over to its necessity. That forced unions to convince their members to participate.
• Spreading the protests over an extended period of time kept the issue of the Harris cuts alive over a long stretch of time. This was something that waiting for the next election or pushing for a general strike (which at the time was likely to be short-lived) could not.
• The emphasis on shutting down workplaces for a day served the educational function of linking the Harris program to the corporate sector’s backing of the Harris assault on the poor, public services and union rights. It was also hoped that, fearing further workplace disruption, the corporations might push Harris to soften his agenda.
• Because the Days of Action were illegal walkouts any worker picketing her workplace could be fired. Unions therefore cross-picketed with, for example, postal workers shutting down auto plants and vice-versa. This created new worker solidarities at the very base of the working class movement.
• It brought community organizations, which had been very active at that time, into the mobilizations. This added significantly to the legitimacy of the protests and undermined charges that the Days were a self-serving union protest. As a gesture towards inclusiveness, the co-chairs of the broad coalitions in each community included one person from labour and one from the movements, with at least one co-chair having to be a woman. The mobilizations brought labour and social movements together, and within the social movements, provided a measure of coherence and strategic focus to its array of otherwise energetic but dispersed activities.
• The strategy could be effective even if not all unions participated. With municipal services interrupted, bus drivers shutting down transit, post offices and other government offices closed, and the most important manufacturing industry in the province, automotive, committed to the shutdowns, the message of broad and growing militant opposition within the labour movement was powerfully delivered. (That schools were also closed in spite of the vacillation of the teachers’ unions added to the sense of general community paralysis).

Three aspects of the Days of Action were especially noteworthy. First, though the protests against Harris had begun among the social movements, the centrality of the labour movement to social protest was confirmed. Only labour could effectively interrupt the daily functioning of workplaces and cities and the OFL proved especially adept at organizing these shutdowns. Second, this didn’t mean that the labour leadership could simply dictate the workplace shutdowns. Workers would only follow if they could be convinced that there were solid reasons to protest, that there was a credible plan of action with some possibility of success, and if they knew they wouldn’t be alone. Third, the Days were a reminder of the radical potentials of rank and file workers.

In this regard, the politicization of workers through the protests and strikes was repeatedly demonstrated. Workers moved organically toward larger more ambitious political perspectives: posing what kind of society they wanted to live in; consolidating a sense of solidarity across the working class; and recognizing that class is expressed in the community not just at the workplace. Workers were, often tentatively, sometimes with greater confidence, moving to a practice that might fit the label ‘class struggle unionism’.

But Was it Successful?

In measuring the outcome of the Days of Action, it’s useful to step back and look closer at the nature of unionized labour. Unions are organizations structured – ideologically and practically – around representing particular groups of workers within capitalism as they bargain with their employer or lobby the state. Though the boundaries of how unions do this get stretched from time to time this primary function has, over time, decisively shaped union cultures and practices.

To the extent that unions basically see themselves as ‘transactional’ – mediating a deal between workers and employers or the state – this has profound implications. For one, the fact that labour is not inherently a commodity but an expression of human creativity gets lost. For another, the focus is primarily on improvements in individual bargaining units, not the larger society and so the working class remains fragmented. And it is the immediate which dominates, not a seemingly remote vision. In good times, unions have proven able to make gains for their members through such a narrow unionism. But in bad times, this orientation leaves workers vulnerable as unions turn defensively inward. Neoliberalism has reinforced such inclinations within labour, as the drive to individualize and marketize tends to turn workers into consumers and unions into business-like institutions competing in labour markets.

Without a social vision, larger class perspective, or strategy for addressing the power of the state and not just the power of their particular employer, the reach and potential power of workers is restricted. Hence the defeats the union movement has experienced across a few generations now. This is the basis for American union organizer Jane McAlevey’s call for the fundamental importance of re-establishing a commitment among unions to ‘deep organizing’.

It was of course always naïve to expect that this kind of labour movement could suddenly burst through its structures and accumulated baggage and suddenly prove capable of defeating a recently elected anti-labour, anti-social government. The key issues in assessing the Days of Action and drawing future lessons therefore revolve around whether the Days gave workers confidence that fighting back – as opposed to passive acceptance – makes a difference, and whether they opened the door to building a stronger movement.

The answer is yes, they did. The Days of Action didn’t force the Harris government to fully reverse course but they did blunt his agenda. The threat to remove the right to strike in the public sector was stopped; likewise the attack on the interest arbitration system was halted, in the face of an illegal strike threatened by hospital workers; and social expenditures, which saw severe cuts at the beginning of the government’s term, were stabilized and in some cases reversed. In health care, for example, by 1997 expenditures in Ontario were growing significantly faster than they had been historically and far faster than they were in the final two years of the preceding NDP government. All this was significant and seen by the working class as victories.

Even more important, the Days introduced a new generation of workers and activists to organizing and politics. Suddenly, the union movement was a place to be, introducing young workers to the thrill of solidarity and exciting them with engagement in the larger questions of society. Slowly and unevenly and with varying degrees of clarity and confidence, this raised expectations and generated probing questions about what a different kind of labour movement might be.

But as the Days of Action ran out of steam, so did the other possible trajectories come to an end. Ultimately, the intimations of a revolution in trade union structures, culture, and strategies didn’t materialize. This was highlighted in two particular ways.

One was that after the demands of the labour movement were largely satisfied (for the time being at least) with respect to public sector spending and collective bargaining, the tents were folded up, even though the attack on other sections of society, like the poor and the disabled continued. The other was that no consideration was given to a plan that looked beyond the shutdowns. To take just one example: as the organizers left one community and moved to another, no organizational presence was sustained in the communities evacuated and typically no creative attempt was made to build new structures to carry on the battle in new ways.

This wasn’t just a failure of the labour leadership, though they certainly carry a good share of the responsibility. The members, on their own, didn’t grasp the importance of – or simply lacked the confidence and capacities to pursue – addressing the longer-term direction of their own and other unions.

Nor was the socialist left, in spite of its constant emphasis on transforming unions, able to do so. Once the labour leadership unilaterally decided to end the shutdowns, the left criticized the lack of democracy and broad consultation in how this decision was made and pressed for a step-up in militancy. But the left was itself far too disorganized and wedded to unproductive formulas to be able to use the opening created by the Days of Action to establish new connections to the working class, recruit activists to a larger vision, and effectively pose the transformation of unions as a condition for effecting and sustaining a more radical movement.

The sense in which the Days of Action ‘failed’ didn’t therefore lie in the fact that the Harris regime’s reforms laid the basis for the neoliberal politics that the Liberals sustained – defeating it totally was not possible – but that openings had occurred and the labour movement and its allies failed to build on them.

What has Changed in the Union Movement as we Face the Ford Regime’s Assaults?

History is a good teacher but former blueprints can’t simply be repeated. In drawing on the lessons of earlier experiences, sensitivity to what has changed is imperative. Four such changes seem especially significant with respect to the Ontario labour movement.

The first and most obvious is that even if the labour movement was not as strong then as often recalled, the defeats since have left unions in Ontario even more demoralized and disoriented and, moreover, more divided than ever. It will take some time and much effort to get the labour movement into active collective struggle.

A second difference lies in the pivotal role of the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers – the predecessor of Unifor). This involved the union’s presence in the key auto sector and its readiness and capacity to shut the industry down in the 1990s, and especially its role then in easing tensions between public and private sector unions. This critical union division revolved around the NDP’s intervention in public sector collective agreements. The CAW’s decision to maintain solidarity with the public sector ameliorated that split (though it made for sharp antagonisms between the CAW and some of the private sector unions who staunchly defended the NDP), and kept the public sector unions from being dangerously isolated by the rest of the labour movement.

Today, however, the leadership of Unifor is as distant from the public sector leaders as from those in the private sector, a division highlighted by, but extending beyond, Unifor’s departure from the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), Canada’s central labour body. Moreover, its economic clout and militancy has been eroded alongside the decline of Ontario’s manufacturing base as well as the union’s own response to that economic reality. This matters a great deal as there seems today to be no union ready and able to fill the strategic role the CAW played earlier. Reflecting the more general malaise in the labour movement today, where the OFL earlier rose to the occasion and became a place for debate and movement building, it seems to have drifted into operating more like a space where strategic discussion is laid to rest.

A third difference is that through the 1990s there was still an active growing complex of social movements leading a range of creative struggles. Today, however, with a few significant exceptions, this is no longer the case. But the popular frustrations that currently exist, especially among young people, are profound and potentially bursting into new political movements. As we’ve seen with regards to Sanders in the U.S. and Corbyn in the UK, in the right mix of circumstances and struggles, the energy and creativity of alienated young people can become a major political force even with barely developed institutional bases.

A fourth change is that the NDP, largely discredited when the Days of Action were initiated, has more momentum today. In their alignment with ‘third way’ politics in the 1990s, NDP leaders and functionaries looked with suspicion on the protests, seeing them as encouraging an alternative to electoral politics and also expecting that, if the party were to identify with and support the Days, this would hurt them electorally. Today, in contrast, sections of the party – having observed developments elsewhere – are less closed to positive engagement with any new round of protests. Indeed, given the fortunes of European social democracy, such alignments are seen by some (within limits of course) as necessary to survive electorally.

The point here, given the state of the Ontario labour movement, is to avoid framing the coming debate in the movement simply in electoral versus non-electoral terms. Electoral politics are clearly essential to struggles over the direction and ultimate transformation of the state. The issue is the vital importance of the labour movement not limiting itself to expressing its politics through the NDP and insisting on the need to include, in its overall strategy, the independent organizing and mobilizing of the working class.

As with the Days of Action, a strategy of waiting for the next election can simply encourage the government to hit harder and bring changes that may be extremely difficult to turn back. As experience in Ontario has shown, leaving politics to the politicians not only hurts electoral outcomes – elections depend on organizing informed grassroots activism well before any election campaign proper starts – but also removes a crucial check on what social democratic parties will do when elected.

What Now?

Socialist parties were once seen as distinct from other parties not just in their policies, but especially in their commitment to developing the capacities of the working class. Their emphasis was on education and cultivating among workers the ability to analyze, organize, debate, strategize and act collectively. In the absence of such a party, the weight for addressing this now falls on the unions. Whether they can take up this challenge is a central question to address in any sustained effort to take on the Ford government.

The reality of the current moment is that solidarity pacts or joint strategic discussions between unions are all too rare in Ontario and Canada today. In the context of the current divisions in the labour movement, with unified working class action a number of steps away, a starting point would be for unions to start addressing their own members. Internal plans should be developed – now – to disseminate information on the Ford government cuts and employer attacks and to, establish fight-back committees and train cadre to lead multiple discussions at every level of the union. Such discussions would include how to address what might be done to win workers over in our own workplaces (since not all are with us) much as is done in traditional unionization drives. This process could be extended to the community and begin to raise what kind of larger strategies seem necessary.

It is only out of such worker engagement within each union, and the ferment stimulated by trying to figure out how to overcome individual and workplace isolation and build effective resistance, that there is any chance for the inklings of solidarity across unions to start emerging and coalescing into something larger that might revitalize the overall labour movement.

Moving beyond such essential initial steps demands a strategic orientation that is now largely absent in each union. In the public sector, that orientation is clear. Public sector unions need to meaningfully re-establish their credibility in the general fight for social services. Public sector workers know what the impact of the cuts on services will be, and know how services can be improved and expanded. Public sector unions must back this by fully committing – whether in terms of resources, bargaining, campaigning or industrial action (work slowdowns, stoppages, work-ins, and the like) – to the defense, improvement, and expansion of public services and supporting any social groups joining that struggle. Only out of such creative and bold struggles will it become clear how vital it is for the public sector unions to go beyond their own struggles and come together in a common fight for public services and greater democratic control.

In the private sector, the issues are more complicated, since influencing individual jobs, levels of employment and security requires having some direct control over investment, capital flows and trade – issues that extend well beyond provincial jurisdiction (though this should not preclude workers acting more aggressively to block workplace closures or to argue for their socialization and conversion). An initial focus for forming the basis for such anti-neoliberal reforms might begin by taking advantage of new opportunities for major breakthroughs in unionization.

As the province reduces the number of inspectors and the regulation of workplace standards, and as corporations respond to legislated increases – like the substantial gains in minimum wages so inspiringly won through the Workers’ Action Center – by trying to recoup their costs through reducing worker benefits, forcing even greater speed-up, or manipulating the existing rules, the necessity of unionization increasingly surfaces. The message to the workers is straightforward: if you want higher standards, even ones you’re supposed to legally have, the only way to get and protect those standards is to unionize. The message to the labour movement itself is that – particularly in organizing the growing marginalized and precarious workforce – unionization must be understood as building the working class as a whole, not as an exclusive competition among unions for dues-paying members.

This implies not just a commitment of more resources, but a solidaristic strategy and must be insisted on as the only orientation to organizing that can meet the class attack that is coming from the Ford government. For example, in organizing franchise workers such as those at Tim Horton’s, where popular sympathies generally stand with the workers after the craven corporate counter-response to the increase in minimum wages, why wouldn’t every community with such a franchise should set up a community-based committee with organizers from every local union, gather contacts from union members with relatives or friends in the sector and move toward a province-wide unionization of the workers?

Other responses will depend on the pattern of Ford’s program of cuts and the government’s response to specific bargaining rounds. As that unfolds and particular unions act to challenge Ford’s attacks, it will be essential to recognize the strategic importance of these struggles to all coming struggles and organize solidaristic picket lines and whatever else might be demanded to advance the struggle.

All this is crucial in itself and also because it sets the stage for a strategy which, if not identical to the Days of Action, is based on the same systematic, gradually escalating, and comprehensive spirit of organizing political strikes that build momentum community by community.

Building for the Future

Building for the future can’t be postponed to ‘the future’. If people had, during the hectic and exciting Days of Action, raised the need for transforming our unions and creating new forms of permanent working class organizations in the community, this would no doubt have been treated as an abstract diversion. Too many more pressing issues were at hand. Yet it is that stubborn insistence on what is immediate – even if understandable at any particular moment – that has condemned the working class in Ontario (and Canada) to the exhausting treadmill of defensive battles. That legacy of repeatedly ignoring larger issues now sees workers and communities facing yet another round of assaults, this time even less prepared to respond.

Workers and unions desperately need to think larger and more long-term. This cannot be reduced to calls for ‘more militancy’, as important as that is. It begs the question: Militancy for what? What kind of society do we want, and what is our strategy for getting there? What kind of collective capacities and institutions do we need to build? And what does this all mean for transforming our unions?

The stakes couldn’t be higher. The wave of harsh austerity we will soon face may be more punitive than even the Harris government’s cutbacks. What was so important in resisting Harris and will now again be central is to recognize that we are under attack as a class and must think, strategize and fight back as a class. To be effective this must include preparing, organizing and mobilizing for political strikes – the attack is that significant.

Without the Ontario labour movement asserting a leadership role in fighting for dignity, equality, and social solidarity, it will continue to fade as a relevant social force. Without a vibrant labour movement, it is hard to imagine sustaining any mass, disciplined, and strategic fight-back; and without that, not only the distant future, but also tomorrow, looks grim. Unless the trade union movement rises to this challenge – not just in rhetoric, not just to defend its particular interests, but as a social force with a vision of a future that escapes the crippling mean-ness and inequality of capitalism, all working people will suffer.

Only the most serious commitment to organizing and mobilizing the working class in response brings the possibility of union revival (attend meeting in Toronto). And only that kind of ambition, with the class consciousness it brings and the grounded unity and class struggle it rests on, carries the antidote to the neoliberalism which has yoked us for decades.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

It’s called diplomatic give-and-take for a reason.

The United States cannot get some of what it wants without giving North Korea some of what it wants. Yet that is precisely what Washington has been trying to do—and predictably getting nowhere, as President Trump acknowledged by postponing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s latest mission to Pyongyang. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis tried to increase pressure on the North by announcing, “We have no plans at this time to suspend any more exercises.” While he clarified that no decision had yet been made, he also noted, “We are going to see how the negotiations go, and then we will calculate the future, how we go forward.”

Washington is insisting that Pyongyang fulfill its commitment at the Singapore Summit to “work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” without addressing its own commitments at that summit “to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations,” and “to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean peninsula.” Policymakers opposed to negotiations have disclosed intelligence that North Korea is continuing to produce fissile material and missiles, as if it is obliged to stop without any deal.

While the Trump administration demanded that the North move first, reportedly by providing a complete inventory of its nuclear material and production facilities, the North countered with the demand that Washington join South Korea in declaring an end to the Korean War. The declaration would commit to initiating a peace process that would include military confidence building measures to reduce the risk of deadly clashes in the contested waters of the West (Yellow) Sea and the Demilitarized Zone and culminate in a formal peace treaty.

The administration contends that the North wants the peace declaration before taking steps to denuclearize, but as North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho told ASEAN foreign ministers in early August,

“We believe that a method involving the balanced, simultaneous, step-by-step implementation of all terms in the Joint Statement, preceded by the establishment of trust, is the only realistic means of achieving success.”

He emphasized the North’s “unswerving resolution and commitment to responsible, good-faith implementation of the Joint Statement,” and the “unacceptability of a situation in which we alone are the first to move unilaterally.”

His statement is just the latest indication that a deal is possible if the United States is prepared to accept a peace declaration. Seeking a nuclear inventory in return will only initiate a long period of uncertainty, however, with little benefit to the US and allied security while Washington tries to verify that inventory and while North Korean manufacture of fissile material and missiles runs free. A better starting point for Washington to seek is a suspension of the production of plutonium, highly enriched uranium, and intercontinental- and intermediate-range missiles, along with a declaration of the locations of related production sites.

Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula depends less on maintaining maximum pressure than on addressing what Kim Jong Un wants in negotiations. Contrary to the conventional wisdom about the end of the US alliance with South Korea, the abandonment of the nuclear umbrella, the withdrawal of US forces, a Marshall Plan, or even written security assurances, what Kim wants is an end to US enmity—what the North Koreans call the US “hostile policy”—and reconciliation. Based on what North Korean diplomats have been telling US officials and ex-officials for years, this entails the normalization of political and economic relations, a “peace regime” on the Korean Peninsula, and ultimately, an alliance like the one the United States has with the ROK, one that would be backed by a continuing US troop presence on the peninsula.

Most experts assume that the North has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons. That is mere speculation. There is no way to know for sure whether or not Kim is willing to keep his pledge to disarm and what he will want in return. Diplomatic give-and-take with concrete proposals for reciprocal steps is the only way to find out. Dismantling production facilities and verifying disarmament will take years. So will convincing steps toward reconciliation. Only then will Kim reveal his willingness to give up his weapons.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

South Korea has recently refused an official request by Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to visit Seoul over the coming months, Israeli media reported.

Israel’s Ynet news site reported that Tel Aviv’s Ambassador in South Korea, Chaim Choshen, had proposed the visit on behalf of the Foreign Ministry and in coordination with the president’s office”.

The site added that South Korea did not disclose why it refused the visit, but its refusal was clear.

According to the site, some Israeli circles believe that Seoul’s refusal stems from a growing frustration with Israel’s continued refusal to purchase military equipments from Korea.

Others have said that the decision was made because Israel did not congratulate the country following the historic meeting held between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean ruler Kim Jong-un in April this year.

It has also been suggested that South Korea has been evading signing a free trade agreement with Israel although the deal has been approved and has been awaiting Korea’s signature for over a year.

South Korea voted in the United Nations against US President Donald Trump’s decision to transfer the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In 2016, Amazon Web Services released Rekognition, a service that lets users analyze digital imagery in order to identify objects, including faces, based on a machine-learning algorithm.

The company has touted uses for this product that include identifying triggering content in images, determining emotions in an image, cashier-less grocery stores (which they have implemented in Amazon Go) — and, most worrisome, “public safety.”

The implications of this technology are eerily dystopian. The software is designed to identify up to 100 faces in an image or video, and can identify the emotions and actions of subjects. In the hands of the police, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the National Security Agency (NSA), this poses an existential risk to privacy, oppressed groups, left organizations and any other targeted person.

And the unfortunate truth is that it is already being licensed to police departments. As an ACLU report reveals, police departments in Orlando, Florida, and Washington County, Oregon, are already using it. If legal restrictions are overcome, this could easily be licensed to a company like Axon to be used in police body cameras in numerous cities.

Even scarier, consider if ICE were able to license this technology. It could use it to hunt down any undocumented immigrant it has a photo of. Even worse, it could cross-list any photo to which it has access against a database of identification images — and mark anyone who isn’t in its system for tracking and detention.

The ACLU only listed agencies to which it submitted public records requests. Amazon Web Services (AWS) has specially tailored contracts for federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the IRS, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, and many others.

The truth is, we don’t know which of these groups might be using Rekognition. It took a year from when Orlando’s police department began using Rekognition before the ACLU found out through a public-records request.

This doesn’t even account for agencies like the CIA and NSA, which presumably would remain unreported if they were to use AWS technologies.

Given the NSA’s $10.8 billion budget in 2013 (its usually confidential budget was leaked for the year of 2013) and its primary function of surveillance, we might expect that it has either contracted Rekognition technology or built its own even better surveillance algorithms. And we might expect the deployment of similar technology by the CIA, with its leaked 2013 budget of $14.7 billion.

An Amazon Rekognition interface records information about the faces of shoppers (Source: SocialistWorker.org)

*

Where does this leave us? Are we doomed to a world dominated by a ubiquitous surveillance state that until a few years ago was beyond our wildest fears? Is privacy dead?

Machine learning has gone through astronomical growth over the last few years. From Google’s self-driving cars to medical research, machine learning has the potential for spectacular good. And while it remains largely a buzzword in society — to the extent it is even discussed — tech companies large and small are investing billions in it.

Interviewing people in the tech community, many tech workers were convinced that this technology is inevitable. If Amazon, Google, Facebook and others weren’t pushing it forward, other companies or the NSA would be. But this doesn’t justify the resignation that society will inevitably have indiscriminate surveillance.

Under capitalism, the government relies on the military-industrial complex to refine the means to exploit people at home and abroad. While the government would presumably continue to work on this technology in any case, contracting the work to private-sector corporations helps to secure the support of the richest people in our society, who ultimately have massive political influence over the government because of their wealth.

Therefore, examples such as Google employees’ victory in forcing the company not to renew its Maven contract with the defense department for drone technology should be viewed as a substantial victory. Similarly, boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) movements against Israel (and similar historical movements against South Africa) have the potential to destabilize oppressive states.

But this can be taken a step further. Military and security organizations don’t exist in a bubble. They depend on hundreds of thousands of workers. From electricians who wire up CIA buildings to coders who build surveillance software, we find laborers capable of literally shutting down the system when organized collectively.

And we’ve also seen individual attempts from the inside to reveal and destabilize the state’s undemocratic surveillance by the likes of Edward Snowden. While these actions are admirable and at least brought the issue to public light, they haven’t measurably slowed the trend towards increasing surveillance.

*

All this provides some insight into how workers at Amazon could respond to Rekognition.

Beyond achieving the temporary victory of stopping this one corporation’s licensing of surveillance technology (and thereby slowing down its spread), such struggles broaden awareness of the extent to which this technology is being applied and help to develop a working-class consciousness more aware of its own power in fighting back.

In doing so, tech workers’ struggles can contribute to a culture that is safer for government workers to fight back (just as protests in the U.S. against the war in Vietnam preceded soldiers’ resistance against officers in Vietnam).

Unfortunately, the tech sector has scant history of labor organizing, which has only begun to change recently. Earlier this year, tech workers at Lanetix surprised many by voting to unionize. The company responded by firing its entire engineering staff. At other tech companies, this idea of unionizing is only a distant hope of labor organizers.

Part of the difficulty in organizing tech workers lies in the fact that most of society and a sizeable portion of the left do not view engineers as part of the working class.

But like the rest of the working class, tech workers sell their labor for a wage, and in exchange, produce a commodity, which their employers sells for a profit — i.e., more than the employer had to lay out for wages, raw materials and other costs — in contrast to those who receive a salary for managing others or who passively acquire income due to their existing ownership of wealth.

As in other industries, we observe that technology firms constantly seek to extract as much labor from employees as possible (by getting workers to put in as many hours as possible as efficiently as possible) while making costs as low as possible (by pushing down wages, benefits and working conditions).

While the level of education required and the scarcity of those seeking tech work means firms are compelled to offer higher salaries, tech workers are, like other workers, exploited in the production process.

There’s also a drive to de-skill tech work — just as has happened in other industries. Examples of this de-skilling include the simplification of coding languages, the standardization of coding practices, and the automation of software maintenance.

Although software coders may earn higher wages than many other workers, they still have the same relationship to the means of production, which implies a shared interest in fighting exploitation that will only become more pronounced as software production becomes further deskilled over time.

*

Thus, it’s reasonable to think that tech workers, given their incentive to fight back against their exploitation under capitalism, might even embrace the strike weapon. At this time, though, the strike seems distant from the current consciousness in tech.

Furthermore, generating labor struggle in response to Rekognition presents the added challenge of relating to a broader working-class and social concern, rather than a workplace issue. Broader community organizing, therefore, seems essential in sparking opposition to Amazon’s licensing of Rekognition.

Fortunately, this has already begun — witness the press conference about Rekognition outside of Amazon led by ACLU of Washington, Council on American-Islamic Relations WA, and several others. Community organizing in Washington County, Oregon, and Orlando against their police departments’ use of this technology could add helpful pressure.

Despite these challenges, some aspects of tech offer unique organizing advantages. Many tech companies originated in an economic situation that promised high profit margins, given the newness of products and the automation of services done via manual labor. These high profit margins implied a flexibility that allowed companies to achieve immense success without the bad PR that accompanies cutting corners.

This is emphasized by Google’s moto “Don’t be evil,” which it not-so-coincidentally abandoned in 2016. The idea of making lots of money while making the world a better place fused the counter-culture of the 1960s with a frontier business ethos that has been labeled “the Californian Ideology.”

However, as competition between tech companies increases and their profit margins decrease, the contradictions of this philosophy have come to the surface. Companies are being forced to choose between profits and morals, a choice that unsurprisingly favors the former.

Google’s don’t-be-evil mantra, though formally abandoned, was still enough to give employees leverage to challenge the military drone development in Project Maven. Google workers organized thousands of employees to express their anger at the project, and a dozen employees resigned over the issue.

In doing so, they were able to create enough bad PR for Google to force it to come to terms with this contradiction. Ultimately, Google had to cancel the drone contract. While this PR may seem insignificant — it seems unlikely that people are going to stop using Google search based on this — Google’s management has other concerns: in particular, employee recruitment and retention.

Many tech workers have invested themselves in the idea that their work should make the world a better place, and Google worried about losing talent if they didn’t address the outcry.

Analyzing the value of Google’s brand from an employee recruitment perspective is difficult to measure, but given that the Maven contract only promised Google $9 million per year, it is no surprise that they chose to abandon it rather than risk losing more employees over this issue.

*

The prospect for Amazon employees to scuttle Rekognition may not be as rosy. Google promoted itself as an ethical corporation; Amazon has never held itself up to such standards.

It has had its share of negative media coverage — from the New York Times coverage of its cutthroat corporate culture in corporate jobs to poor working conditions at Amazon warehouses. Amazon has similarly demonstrated steadfast resistance to union drives.

Related to this is the fact that a majority of Amazon’s 566,000 employees are not in corporate or software jobs, but instead working in warehouses and logistics. So the subset of Amazon employees who bought into this “Californian Ideology” is smaller than at Google. Lastly, in the retail market, the likes of Walmart set a low bar for Amazon to match in terms of labor standards.

Another source of added difficulty at Amazon is the sheer value of surveillance contracts with government agencies. The Rekognition website details pricesranging from $.0004 to $.001 per image processed (it is cheaper for larger contracts), and $.10 per minute of video processed for facial recognition purposes.

Considering the billions of images and billions of minutes of video that governments might eventually license for, the numbers quickly add up. Remembering the NSA’s multibillion-dollar budget, surveillance is big business. Forcing Amazon to cancel these contracts will require far more than it took to get Google to cancel their $9 million-per-year drone contract.

Finally, there’s the issue that Rekognition still isn’t familiar to many at Amazon. When I asked Amazon workers what they thought of Amazon’s licensing of Rekognition to police, the majority of Amazon employees said they had not heard of the service.

In an effort to spread knowledge of Rekognition and its risks, while simultaneously putting pressure on Amazon, employees began internally circulating a letter to Jeff Bezos modeled on the Google employees’ letter about Project Maven.

It remains to be seen how much traction this letter might get, but the fact that it’s now public knowledge that workers at Amazon have begun such a discussion is an encouraging sign about the future prospects for resistance by tech workers.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In a post-capitalistic world that seems very specifically and violently designed to rip off the poor for the benefit of the rich, spending money is complicated. But at least, until recently, you could live without fear that some multibillion-dollar Silicon Valley giant would buy up your banking data in order to serve you more effective ads. Based on new details about an apparent arrangement between Google and Mastercard, those days are over.

Bloomberg reports that, after four years of negotiations, Google purchases a trove of credit card transaction data from Mastercard, allegedly for “millions of dollars.” Google then reportedly used that data to provide select advertisers with a tool called “store sales measurement” that the company quietly announced in a blog post last year, though it failed to mention the inclusion of Mastercard data in the workflow. The tool can track how online ads lead to real-world purchases, and that extra data is designed to make Google’s ad products more appealing to advertisers. (Read: everybody makes more money this way.) The public was not informed of the reported Mastercard deal, though advertisers have had access to the transaction data for at least a year, according to Bloomberg.

This is a hell of a bombshell, when you think about it. Thanks in part to heavy government regulation, your credit card and banking data has long been private. If you wanted to spend $98 at Sephora on a Tuesday afternoon, that transaction was between you, your bank, and Sephora. It now appears that Google has found a way to weasel its way into the data pipeline that connects consumers and their purchases. If you clicked on a Sephora ad while logged in to Google in the past year and then bought stuff at Sephora with a Mastercard in the past year, there’s a chance Google knows about that, at least on some level, and uses that data help its advertisers stuff their coffers.

But when you consider everything else that Google knows about you, the proposition becomes more Orwellian. Google told Gizmodo in a statement, also shared with Bloomberg, that it encrypts and anonymizes the credit card transaction data that it’s using with the new ad tool. There’s no getting around the fact that Google becomes a more powerful, all-seeing ad engine when it can see specific details about people’s spending habits, even if they’re anonymized and used in aggregate, as Google says the data it gets from Mastercard is. This future—one where your email, your search history, your social connections, and now, your spending habits—is one that we should really be scared of, say privacy advocates.

….

Read Complete article on Gizmodo

Clarification: Google tells Gizmodo that the financial data it uses is to inform advertisers about the effectiveness of their advertising and that it does not use this data in ad targeting. We’ve updated the story with this new information and clarified this distinction.

*

Adam Clark Estes is Senior editor at Gizmodo.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Both  Trump and Netanyahu want the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) eliminated – pretending millions of Palestinian refugees don’t exist.

Established in 1949, it provides healthcare, education and other vital social services for millions of displaced Palestinians – in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provides similar services for refugees elsewhere.

Netanyahu  accused UNWRA of “incitement against Israel” – the same blame game his regime uses against anyone criticizing Israel.

He, Trump, and hardliners want vital aid for millions of Palestinian refugees ended.

They want their fundamental rights denied, including continued occupation and land theft, self-determination in name only, along with East Jerusalem as their exclusive capital and right of return for diaspora Palestinians denied.

They want refugee status for millions of dispossessed Palestinians and UNWRA providing them vital humanitarian aid abolished – part of their scheme to impose Trump’s no-peace/peace plan “deal of the century” on Palestinians, forcing them to abandon all rights.

After cutting $200 million in humanitarian aid to Palestinians and ending all US aid to UNWRA, the Trump regime began pressuring other countries to cease funding the agency next year, according to Israel’s Hadashot TV, citing senior Netanyahu regime officials.

They want to “close down UNWRA altogether,” according to the report. They falsely claim only 500,000 Palestinians exist, only 20,000 abroad, not over five million as defined by the UN and under international law.

They pressured Jordanian King Abdullah to take over for UNWRA. He rejected the scheme so far.

On August 31, the State Department said the US will no longer  “make…contributions to UNWRA,” calling the agency and its humanitarian operations “irredeemably flawed,” wanting it shut down.

The US provided about one-third of its funding. Eliminating it created a major budget shortfall.

On Saturday, in response to Trump policy, an EU statement pledged increased funding support for UNWRA, saying it’s

“committed to secure the continuation and sustainability of the agency’s work which is vital for stability and security in the region,” adding:

“(M)any others in the international community, including many Arab states, have pledged their support to the continuity of the work that UNRWA is doing.”

A Palestinian Authority (PA) statement denounced Trump’s action. So did Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, calling its move a scheme “to wipe out the right of return…a grave US escalation against the Palestinian people.”

“US leadership is the enemy of our people and of our nation, and we will not surrender before such unjust decisions.”

Palestinian refugees are unlike other displaced people. They have no homeland to return to – 78% of it stolen by Israel in 1948, the rest in June 1967.

In July 1980, Israel’s Jerusalem Law annexed the city as its exclusive capital, ignoring Security Council Resolution 465 (March 1980), fundamental international law, stating:

“(A)ll measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development (and) have been established in breach of international law.”

As long as Washington supports Israeli actions, no matter how harmful to Palestinians and others, it can do what it pleases unaccountably.

Settlements keep expanding exponentially. Gaza remains oppressively blockaded, solely for political reasons unrelated to security.

The Trump and Netanyahu regimes are waging war on Palestinians without declaring it.

On Saturday, UNWRA head Pierre Krahenbuhl said

“I wish to convey – with confidence and steadfast determination – to Palestine refugees in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, that our operations will continue and our agency prevail,” adding:

“The funding decision of (America) will not modify or impact the energy and passion with which we approach our role and responsibility towards Palestine refugees. It will only strengthen our resolve.”

“All staff will be at their duty stations, and will keep our installations open and safe. It is crucial to project the strongest sense of unity and purpose.”

Keeping UNWRA operating and viable depends on the world community making up for the funding shortfall created by the Trump regime’s action – rejecting its  demand to end all agency funding next year and shut it down.

*

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  

On August 31, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, president of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) in southeast Ukraine’s Donbass region was assassinated. 

DPR and the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) broke away from Ukraine after the Obama regime’s coup, replacing democratic governance with Nazi-infested fascist tyranny.

Was it an extrajudicial assassination ordered by Trump hardliners, which took Zakharchenko’s life, murdered by a blast in central Donetsk?

His bodyguard was also killed, nine others injured, including DPR Finance Minister Alexander Timofeev, reportedly in grave condition.

Acting DPR Prime Minister Dmitry Trapeznikov replaced Zakharchenko. According to the deceased president’s advisor Alexander Kazalov, a number of suspects were detained.

A state of emergency was declared, border checkpoints closed. Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blamed Kiev for the incident, saying:

“Instead of implementing the Minsk agreements and looking for means to settle the internal conflict, Kiev’s party of war is implementing a terrorist scenario and is aggravating the already difficult situation in the region. Without fulfilling its peace promises, they decided to launch a bloody slaughter.”

Undermining the Minsk Peace Agreement

Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called Zakharchenko’s murder a well-planned “blatant provocation aimed at (further) undermining implementation of the Minsk Agreement in eastern Ukraine … Given the current situation, it’s impossible to talk about the nearest meetings in the Normandy format (involving Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine) like many of our European partners would have wanted. It is a serious situation that must be analyzed. We are doing it right now.”

Minsk was dead on arrival like earlier ceasefire agreements – not worth the paper it’s written on because Washington wants endless conflict, not resolution – ongoing for over four years. Russia and Donbass alone fully observed Minsk principles.

Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) spokeswoman Elena Gitlyanskaya said Kiev had nothing to do with it.

Putin called Zakharchenko a true people’s leader, a brave and resolute person, a patriot of Donbass,” adding:

“The vile murder of Alexander Zakharchenko is another evidence: those who chose the path of terror, violence, intimidation, do not want to seek a peaceful, political solution to the conflict, do not want to conduct a real dialogue with the inhabitants of the southeast.”

“They make a dangerous bet on the destabilization of the situation, to put the people of Donbass on their knees. This is not going to work.”

*

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  

GR Editor’s Note:

“How could killing humans have been fun? Can God forgive me?” is not a quote from John McCain, it is from a Vietnam War veteran (quoted by the author)  “who  came back with medals. He didn’t seem to consider himself a ‘hero’.”

***

Obit scribblers are calling John McCain a war “hero.” Well, I have to concede that unlike so many warmongering chickenhawks such as Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan and most other neocons, McCain did actually serve in the military. But the same could be said for nearly all top Nazis including Hitler and Goering; they fought in a war and they loved war. They were destructive persons who learned nothing positive from their military experience.

Of course few of the pundits and politicians who are eulogizing McCain would wish to include Nazis in their hall of fame, nor would most of them care to designate most neocons as anything less than patriots. So what is it that might qualify someone as a hero, or as a war criminal? Having been in the military, I sometimes think about that. These are some thoughts that come to mind.

Heroism is sort of like morality, it’s usually defined by the powers that be. And a lot of it has to do with being in the right place at the right time. An example of that would be the five Marines in the famous photo of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima. What made them more heroic than the many thousands of other GIs who fought on that and other islands in the Pacific, you might ask. And the answer is: time & place, plus a photographer to take their picture. So they were in a dramatic photo, and that was at a time when the government needed heroes to sell war bonds.

Military discipline is such that soldiers tend to do as told, even under fire. It’s a military axiom that soldiers fear their sergeants more then they fear the enemy’s bullets, and I think there’s a huge amount of truth in that. Even though a sergeant may not be particularly fearsome, there’s a huge power structure behind him. Individual soldiers become part of the military machine.

My friend Van Dale Todd was in Vietnam and came back with medals. He didn’t seem to consider himself a “hero,” what he emphasized was that he’d been through an experience. “You don’t know what it’s like to see your buddies die!” he often said, and then one night he killed himself in front of me. That was in San Francisco, in 1972. In his diary he’d written, “How could killing humans have been fun? Can God forgive me?”

Many Vietnam veterans suffered from PTSD. Many died before their time, some shortly after coming home, others years or even decades later, in their 30s or even in their 50s, not necessarily from physical injuries, but often from invisible damage they’d incurred during the war. I never met any who considered themselves “heroes.”

War criminals? Van never spoke of himself as being a “war criminal,” but he’d been trained to enjoy killing “the enemy,” and I think it bothered him immensely that he had enjoyed it. That, I think, was a major factor in his suicide. Certainly not the only factor. He took part in antiwar actions, and it shocked him to find nobody representing the power structure (news reporters or judges) would hear what he had to say. Of course, the corporate media makes a big show of honoring military personnel and veterans — but only as long as we go along with the bullshit, buy into their narrative and regurgitate propaganda. During the Vietnam War, media pundits used to tell us that the U.S. was there to defend democracy, and to back it up they’d say, “Ask a GI!” implying that people who’d been in the military believed in the war and would speak in support of it. Well, you probably know the rest of that story.

I often think of the characters in the Iliad and the Odyssey, wondering how those guys could be considered heroes. Socrates apparently thought they were; he held Achilles up as an inspiring example of a man who stood by his principles. That strikes me as really strange. In my view, Achilles was the archetypal spoiled brat who just wanted to have his own way. Then there was Odysseus, a notorious liar, who got tangled up in his own lies, and that’s basically what brought about the loss of his ships and the deaths of his crews on the way back to Ithaca. The leader of it all was King Agamemnon, a rather poor general, also a poor father who sacrificed his own daughter, and on returning to his home at the end of the war he was killed by his wife, which is about what he deserved. Those “heroes” were made of rather poor stuff, and a couple of their gods, Zeus and Athena, both of then deceitful schemers, weren’t too great either. The only person in the Iliad who comes off as genuinely heroic is Hector. It’s interesting that Homer, presumably a Greek himself, would present their enemy’s champion and other Trojans as being about the only decent persons in the whole story.

Achilles, Odysseus, Agamemnon and all the rest of them. Those were the men who fought the Trojan War, the elite officer class, that is. Homer called them heroes and sang their praises, but tongue in cheek, while carefully letting us know who those guys really were.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Daniel’s Free Speech Zone.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Australian press have been in a state of drooling ecstasy.  Part of it is because Australia can be relevant, however negative it might be, to their monster cousin, defender and protector known as the United States.  This time, its cultural – in the legal sense.  Erin Brockovich has found herself doing the media rounds on yet another legal project, this time against the Australian Defence forces in Katherine in the Northern Territory.  “Australia’s Defence has left Katharine hanging out there like a sitting duck.” Central to this are the dangers of using per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a long time favourite of the ADF. The nagging question is not new: Do they cause various diseases, including cancer?

Brockovich and her legal outfit Shine Lawyers have smell legal briefs in the offing.  Lawsuits have been launched against the Defence Department in Katherine, and Oakey in Queensland. The firm is hungry, searching out potential sites of contamination in Western Australian and Victoria.

For Brockovich, there is a sense of environmental redux in all of this: contamination of local water supplies and the environment, the sort that made her case in Hinkley, California, famous.  (Julia Roberts did the rest in her 2000 portrayal.)  Then it was hexavalent chromium and its illegal dumping by Pacific Gas and Electric Company; now it is PFAS chemicals and Australia’s glorious defenders of the realm who have done everything to terrify and console inhabitants.

“People in Katherine,” notes Brockovich, “are receiving bottled water from their government, they are receiving advisories not to eat fish and some food yet they say it doesn’t harm your health.”

The Department of Defence, for its part, has been less than reassuring, issuing potted missives and disclaimers. It insists that a “national program to review, investigate and implement a comprehensive approach to manage” PFAS substances “on, and in the vicinity of, some of its bases around Australia” is being undertaken.  In the comatose, dulling tones characteristic of that deparment, it speaks of being “proactive” in this regard, and claims to be entirely “open and transparent in making the verified test results available to the local community”.

The effort on the part of the Australian government has been a muddling one serving to inspire suspicion rather than meek acceptance on the issue of PFAS. The Chair of the PFAS Expert Health Panel, Professor Nick Buckley, was quizzed about his expertise in the area in July, a point that was rebuffed by suggesting that it was good to have someone “without any preconceived views on PFAS itself.”

The letter from Buckley to editors of the Newcastle Herald and Sydney Morning Herald, which was intended to be a corrective to the reports circulating on this discrepancy, was formulaic and sterile.

“The conclusions of the panel on the evidence are in agreement with international agency reports and systematic reviews.  These reviews (and ours) consistently note that there are likely biological effects, and express concerns about possible health effects.”

But doubt had to be factored in the assessments (this panel is, after all, aligned with the auspices of the Department of Defence, yet another example of independence in action), as “they also all agree that, despite there being many studies, there is not consistent evidence that any human disease definitely increased as a result of exposure.”  The meanness of this is evident in that concerns about “likely” biological effects are registered, but that the evidence does not stack up conclusively.

This is also a point that is reiterated through other government channels.  The New South Wales government’s information sheet from last year documents concerns covering PFAS substances noting, firstly, their pervasive use for decades, meaning that they can be “found widely in the land and water environments around the world” and that food remains “the most important source of exposure”.  But having painted a nightmarish scenario, one of disease and human demise, the tone changes.  Don your scientific hats, everybody; there is no “consistent evidence that exposure [to PFASs] causes adverse human health effects.” But evidence gathered from animal studies suggests otherwise, meaning that “potential health effects cannot be excluded.”

It is precisely such grounds of qualification that pique Brockovich’s interest.  And she is welcome in certain circles as a legal marauder, a useful David to have a battle with Goliath.  The standing ovation (or written ovations) she receives when spending time in Australia vary in levels of gush, the legal saint come to right the wrongs of the large and unscrupulous.   She is seen as edgy, and plays up to the image.

“I can drive better here than I can in the United States.  Cause remember, its backwards for us.  That’s how I work.”

Arrestingly cute, and does wonders to boost the ambitious girl across the pond image. The hack for The Sydney Morning Herald was certainly won over by her striking height, “with blonde hair coiffed”.  She strides (good to know), and then repairs to lunch at Otto.  Brussels sprouts and risotto follows.  “Because I learned in a certain way, I was perceived different. (American illiteracy can be fashionable.) And then because you’re different, society wants to tell you you’re inferior.  I had to learn their way or it was the highway.”

Brockovich returns the favour, telling her Australian clients through her Shine Lawyers profile how they are “laid back, [have a] good work ethic and have a wicked/demented sense of humour which I love.”  Environmental stalwarts such as the Great Barrier Reef, the Daintree, and koalas (she claims to love them) are also noted.

Such profiles must, however, bear fruit.  As the legal proceedings gain traction, the Australian government has stepped up its activity in terms of “managing” PFAS, another box ticking venture that hopes to pacify the suspicious and throw off critics.  In August, the first round of recipients for the cash laid aside for the Australian Research Council’s Special Research Initiative PFAS Remediation Research Program was announced.  The press release announcing the venture was so loud with praise it can only be questioned: “Some of Australia’s best scientists and researchers will commence ground-breaking work to address PFAS contamination in the environment”.  Time for the lawyers step in.

*

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  

The nasty slur campaign against Jeremy Corbyn has just plumbed new depths with a hark-back to 1968 and the Rivers of Blood speech by Enoch Powell. It seems to have been prompted by a remark Corbyn made in 2013 that British Zionists had two problems:

“One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony.”

In anti-Semitism terms that’s a flogging offence, even when it might be true. The former chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, immediately took umbrage saying that Corbyn’s criticism of British Zionists was the most offensive statement made by a senior politician since Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech. Sacks told the New Statesman:

“It was divisive, hateful and, like Powell’s speech, it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

He said Corbyn had implied “Jews are not fully British” and that he was “using the language of classic pre-war European anti-Semitism”, adding that Corbyn was an anti-Semite who “defiles our politics and demeans the country we love”. He had “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map”.

Lost irony

Sacks’s words could equally be taken to mean those who align themselves with Israeli hate and the wish to kill Palestinians and wipe Palestine from the map – which they have already done quite literally. And if Corbyn defiles our politics so does the Israel lobby. But the irony must have escaped him.

Just how righteous is the moralising Lord Sacks? In a House of Lords debate in 2014 on the Middle East in general and the question of formal recognition of Palestine by the UK in particular, the former chief rabbi got up and made a speech that was more like a pro-Israel rant. After a long winded spiel about the history of Israel and Jerusalem – from the Jewish angle of course – he went on to demonise Hamas and Hezbollah in the manner recommended by Israel’s hasbara handbook and all the more absurd when Israel’s hands are so unclean. Everyone knows that Hamas has agreed to a long-term truce with Israel provided it ends the illegal occupation, gets back behind its 1967 borders and accepts the refugees’ right of return – all as per UN resolutions and subject to a Palestinian referendum. And Hezbollah, as Sacks knows perfectly well, was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon after the 1982 war. 

Israel, said Sacks, is the place where his people were born almost 4,000 years ago. As an ardent promoter of the Jewish religion, the Jewish state and the idea that God gave Jews exclusive title to Jerusalem, he seemed oblivious to the irony of his speech, especially where he said:

Where does he get his information? Israel won’t define its boundaries, leaving them fluid for endless expansion, and does a first-class job of delegitimising itself by its defiance of international law and utter contempt for norms of human decency and obligations under the UN Charter and other agreements.

Distorting history and religion

Zionists distort the scriptures to claim Jerusalem is theirs by divine right, but it was already 2,000 years old and an established, fortified city when King David captured it. The Jews lost Jerusalem to the Babylonians, recaptured it, then lost it again to the Roman Empire in 63 BC. When they rebelled Hadrian threw them out in 135. Until the present illegal occupation the Jews had only controlled Jerusalem for some 500 years, small beer compared to the 1,277 years it was subsequently ruled by Muslims and the 2,000 years, or thereabouts, it originally belonged to the Canaanites.

Jerusalem was also a Christian city. The 4th century saw the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Persians came and went. Then, after the Islamic conquest in 690, two major shrines were constructed over the ruins of the earlier temples – the Dome of the Rock from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to Heaven, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Crusaders retook Jerusalem in 1099 and the Temple Mount became the headquarters of the Knights Templar. In 1187 Saladin ended the Crusader Kingdom and restored the city to Islam while allowing Jews and Christians to remain if they wished.

As the saying goes, “None has claim. All have claim!”

Nowhere in his speech did Lord Sacks address the main question of British recognition of Palestinian statehood. Nowhere did he recommend the jackboot of oppression be immediately lifted and the Palestinians granted their human rights and their freedom. That would surely have been the Christian position and, I imagine, the true Jewish one. 

It is what the rabbi failed to say on this important occasion that makes me wonder whether he’s an instrument of God or just another preacher of Israeli hasbara. I read somewhere that Lord Sacks is of Polish/Lithuanian extraction. Most Palestinians can demonstrate ancestral ties to the ancient Holy Land. Can he?

“Jeremy Corbyn moved the rock and the anti-Semites crawled out” 

Corbyn is also in trouble over a remark he made in 2010 at a meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign suggesting that MPs who took part in a parliamentary debate on the Middle East had their comments prepared for them by the Israeli ambassador. I’d say that was fair comment, although the scriptwriters were more likely to have been Mark Regev’s propaganda team in Tel Aviv. Regev, a propaganda expert from the dark side, is now Israel’s ambassador in London. Oh, the irony (again).

And a few days ago we heard that Jews are preparing to quit Britain because they fear Jeremy Corbyn taking power, according to former chairman of the Conservative Party Lord Feldman. So says The Times.

Feldman wrote an open letter to Corbyn telling him that Jewish people were making contingency plans to emigrate because Labour had become a hotbed of anti-Jewish feeling.

“Many Jewish people in the United Kingdom are seriously contemplating their future here in the event of you becoming prime minister. Quietly, discreetly and extremely reluctantly, they are making contingency plans.” 

One of these is Mark Lewis, a prominent solicitor and a former director of lawfare firm UK Lawyers for Israel, who is emigrating to Israel with his partner, Mandy Blumenthal. It is believed she is National Director of Likud-Herut UK, an affiliate of the Zionist Federation and whose website is full of preposterous ideas such as:

“We believe that terms like ‘illegal occupation’ should never go unchallenged…” and “Such criticism as we may have [of Israel] should never be expressed publicly…”

Lewis, who describes himself as an “unapologetic Zionist”, said: “Jeremy Corbyn moved the rock and the anti-Semites crawled out from underneath.” And he told the Evening Standard: “I don’t feel welcome in this country anymore.” So he’s off to that hotbed of racism and apartheid, Israel.

Being unwelcome is not a happy feeling. I know this from my trips to Israel, what with their rudeness, threatening behaviour, intrusive searches, hostile questioning and unforgivably vile treatment of our Palestinian friends. It’s not as if we want to be in Israel – we are forced to divert there on account of Israel’s illegal military occupation. And when we eventually reach Palestine we have to put up with the presence of arrogant Israeli gunslingers strutting the streets, setting up hundreds of roadblocks, using obstructive tactics with brutish behaviour, creating endless queues and interfering with Palestinian life at every level.

And if we try traveling to Palestine direct, like the humanitarian aid boats Al-Awda and Freedom last month, we get violently and unlawfully assaulted on the high seas, beaten up, thrown in a stinking Israeli jail and have our belongings and money stolen by the Israeli military desperate to maintain their illegal blockade of Gaza.

So, if Messrs Feldman, Lewis and Blumenthal feel more comfortable with those criminals they’d better join them. 

In answer to the babble put out by Zio-propagandists, church leaders in the Holy Land issued their 2006 Jerusalem Declaration saying:

This still stands. And as the declaration also points out, “discriminative actions [by the occupation] are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.”

That comes from genuine churchmen working in the front line against armed Zio-thugs whose vicious day-to-day persecution of the Christian and Muslim communities in the Holy Land makes a nonsense of accusations of anti-Semitism in the UK.

I think we can deduce from all this that Zionism is a menace. Nothing has changed for the better; it has got steadily worse.

“We want our Jerusalem back, and our state”

In 2010 Father Manuel Musallam, a gritty Catholic priest with long experience of Israel’s cruel and illegal occupation, told members of the Irish government:

Archbishop Theodosius Hanna (Greek Orthodox Church) told them: 

Corbyn should remind his tormentors of all this and take no lectures from those who support Zionism and adore the racist state it spawned.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Monopoly media news fabricators would have us believe that false flags are conspiracy theories.  In the real world, however, false flag terrorism is military doctrine. [1]

Western-supported al Qaeda terrorists [2] in Syria have a long history of conducting false flag terror operations, largely because they serve imperial agendas of advancing terrorist interests. 

In the following video, Father Gerges Rizk describes 2011 false flag tactics, committed by terrorists in Daraa, Syria, to displace peaceful protestors, and to falsely blame the Syrian government.  

Interview by Eva Bartlett

Prof. Tim Anderson explains the complicity of “Western Liberal Media” in advancing false flag agendas:

“Even after Syrian nun Mother Agnes Mariam had denounced ‘false flag’ crimes and reported on the recycling of photos of dead bodies (SANA 2011), and after western journalist Nir Rosen (2012) reported that the Islamist ‘rebels’ were dressing up their own casualties as ‘civilians,’ the WLM stuck to its jihadist-linked sources, reporting that the Syrian Army was constantly targeting ‘civilians.’ [3]

The entire cycle of false flag attack, followed by media complicity, followed by escalated military “interventions” based upon false pretexts, is entirely illegal according to international law. 

US National Security Adviser John Bolton’s recent threat, which basically telegraphed an upcoming false flag chemical weapons attack, is criminal.  The threat itself, explains international lawyer Christopher Black, “is an act of aggression meant to terrorise the people of Syria.” Additionally, Black asserts that “any military action against Syria will be an act of aggression and a war crime.” [4]

In light of an anticipated criminal aggression against Syria, based upon a predicted false flag attack, the Global Network for Syria made the following statement:

“We therefore urge the US, UK and French governments to consider the following points before embarking on any military intervention:

• In the cases of three of the previous incidents cited in the 21 August statement (Ltamenah, Khan Sheykhoun, Saraqib) OPCW inspectors were not able to secure from the militants who controlled these areas security guarantees to enable them to visit the sites, yet still based their findings on evidence provided by militants.
• In the case of Douma, also cited, the interim report of OPCW inspectors dated 6 July based on a visit to the site concluded that no evidence was found of the use of chemical weapons and that evidence for the use of chlorine as a weapon was inconclusive.
• Western governments themselves acknowledge that Idlib is controlled by radical Islamist extremists. The British government in its statement on 20 August justified its curtailment of aid programmes in Idlib on the grounds that conditions had become too difficult. Any action by the Syrian government would not be directed at harming civilians, but at removing these radical elements.
• Any military intervention without a mandate from the United Nations would be illegal.
• Any military intervention would risk confrontation with a nuclear armed comember of the Security Council, as well as with the Islamic Republic of Iran, with consequent ramifications for regional as well as global security.
• There is no plan in place to contain chaos in the event of sudden government collapse in Syria, such as might occur in the contingency of command and control centres being targeted. Heavy military intervention could result in the recrudescence of terrorist groups, genocide against the Alawite, Christian, Druze, Ismaili, Shiite and Armenian communities, and a tsunami of refugees into neighbouring countries and Europe. “ [5]

Now that Syria is on the cusp of total victory, the West is scrambling to engineer yet another disastrous false flag. 

*

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. Washington’s Blog,” Fifty-eight « Admitted » False Flag Attacks

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror.” Mondalisation.ca, 3 February. 2016/Washington’s Blog, 2 February, 2016. (https://www.mondialisation.ca/fifty-eight-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5505411) Accessed 1 September, 2018.

2. The “War on Terror” itself is a false flag in the sense that the West positions al Qaeda et al. as enemies when they are in fact proxies.

3. Prof. Tim Anderson, “Watchdogs to Attack Dogs: Western Liberal Media Failures on Syria.” telesur, 25 March 2016. (https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Watchdogs-to-Attack-Dogs-Western-Liberal-Media-Fails-Syria-20160325-0015.html) Accessed 01 Sept. 2018.

4. Christopher Black, Facebook commentary, 31 August, 2018.

5. Prof. Tim Anderson, Baroness Cox, and Peter Ford, “Statement on Impending US, UK and French Military Intervention in Syria.” Global Research, August 31, 2018/ Global Network for Syria, 31 August, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/statement-on-impending-us-uk-and-french-military-intervention-in-syria/5652472) Accessed 01 September, 2018.

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Amid a worsening in U.S.-Russian relations that renowned scholar and left-wing journalist Stephen Cohen has recently characterized as being worse than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a veritable onslaught of intense and unrelenting anti-Russian sentiment has been unleashed in the U.S.

The supposed rationale for this initiative is hostility toward President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, though it’s surely possible to discover other grounds for the first’s opponents to criticize him, and the anti-Russian venom is by no means limited to the nation’s government.

Unlike its prototype that began shortly after World War II, however, this time it’s not being spearheaded by an array of rock-ribbed conservatives, leaders of traditional religious groups, immigrants from Eastern Europe and the broader military-industrial complex but by a coalition of media personalities (a disproportionate amount of whom are comedians and late-night television hosts), Hollywood celebrities, prominent Democrat elected politicians, former intelligence agents and directors, webzine journalists and others who during the years of the George W. Bush presidency were known as neoconservatives. As a whole this somewhat ragtag assembly consists of people who describe themselves as liberals, progressives and leftists.

The initial rallying cry for this xenophobic crusade was signaled by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election campaign when, among other illiberal and unsubstantiated claims, she denounced her then-opponent Donald Trump as someone Russian President Vladimir Putin would “have as a puppet” (1) and routinely slandered Julian Assange and Wikileaks as being under Russian control (2). In her exact words, “there’s no difference.”

The drumbeat of Russophobia intensified in the final days of the campaign and rather than dissipating, only increased after the election, soon taking center stage in American political discourse, with the “Russian hacking” of state voting systems having been decided upon as a strategy for invalidating the election result. The topic has been resurrected in recent days, notably by former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in calling for annulling the election of Donald Trump, though the earlier accusation of tampering with voting machines and systems, now largely refuted, is no longer alluded to.

As all such politically-motivated initiatives aimed at the lower emotions and in this case at a several-decades-long history of deeply (perhaps ineradicably) ingrained anti-Russian fear and animus, this one has swept caution, healthy scepticism, moderation and decency aside.

Immediately after the election, filmmaker Michael Moore (who’s made a lucrative career out of straddling the divide between liberals and progressives) made inflammatory statements appealing to “patriotic generals” and praising the role of the Central Intelligence Agency, both in clear reference to saving the republic from President Trump.

Hollywood veteran Rob Reiner and the newly-created Committee to Investigate Russia produced a video in which actor Morgan Freeman menacingly intones:

“We have been attacked. We are at war.” (3)

In recent days late-night TV host and comedian Bill Maher fawned over ex-CIA director John Brennan in a manner more befitting an aspiring poet flattering a Roman emperor on his HBO show. Maher, who has used the word before, coaxed a by no means reluctant Brennan into acknowledging the charge of treason against Trump for having met with Russian President Putin in Helsinki in July. (4)

As writer Michael McCaffrey put it, only in a highly-charged politically environment like that obtaining in the U.S. currently could “a former CIA director who has committed crimes and war crimes such as implementing and covering up Bush’s rendition and torture regime, spying on the US Senate, and masterminding Obama’s deadly drone program, get a delirious ovation from those on the left.”

With the death of Senator John McCain on August 25, the quintessential imperialist who spent a disproportionate amount of the days in each year traveling the world inciting insurrections and wars – more than any other American official, and politician of any nationality, in history that I can think of – became the new icon of the American liberal-left self-styled resistance. He has been lionized, canonized, practically deified as a sterling example of what an American political leader should be, an Ahura Mazda to Trump’s Ahriman in the Zoroastrian scheme.

The current liberal-progressive (its own nomenclature) dispensation has traveled a long way from denouncing Joseph McCarthy‘s red hunt – a sign at a recent anti-Trump march read “Joe McCarthy, where are you when we need you?” – and organizing to prevent the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to clamoring for the 21st-century equivalents of both.

*

Notes

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrDjJixbSc

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBdK4L2RdKE

3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB9FDl1siS4

4) https://youtu.be/1Tv7-sIRwMg

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says his country will procure Russia’s S-400 air defense missile system “in the shortest time,” paying no heed to warnings issued by the US, a NATO partner.

“Turkey needs S-400s and its deal has been done,” Erdogan said at a graduation ceremony for military officers in the western city of Balikesir on Friday.

“God willing, we will buy them in the shortest time,” he stressed.

On April 3, Erdogan and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin said in the Turkish capital Ankara that they had agreed to expedite the delivery of S-400 missile systems. The delivery had previously been scheduled for late 2019 and early 2020.

The S-400 system, whose full name is the Triumf Mobile Multiple Anti-Aircraft Missile System (AAMS), is an advanced Russian missile system designed to detect, track, and destroy planes, drones, or missiles as far as 402 kilometers away. It has previously been sold only to China and India.

Washington and NATO officials strive to prevent the sophisticated Russian-built anti-aircraft weapon system from collecting information about the US-made all-weather stealth multirole warplanes, technically known as the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters, just as they are gaining a foothold in Europe.

Interview with Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (starts at 0’45” )

US Secretary of Defense James Mattis on August 28 said his country is concerned about Turkey’s intent to purchase the S-400s, adding that Washington does “not recommend” it.

Washington warned that any such acquisition would inevitably affect the prospects for Turkish military-industrial cooperation with the US.

However, Erdogan on Friday said that Ankara “needed cooperation with other countries as much as that with Europe and America.”

The purchase of the Russian missile system comes amid rising tensions between Ankara and the US over the detention of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor, in Turkey over terror-related charges.

Brunson was indicted by a Turkish court on charges of having links with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militant group and the movement of the US-based opposition cleric Fethullah Gulen. Ankara accuses Gulen of having masterminded the July 2016 coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The spat has hit trade ties between the US and Turkey hard and affected the Turkish economy. The lira has already lost about 30 percent of its value against the US dollar since the beginning of August.

Turkey and the US also disagree over their military interventions in the Syria war and the US conviction of a Turkish state bank executive on sanctions-busting charges in January.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

UPDATE: I find people need more explanation than I realised. The UK is bound by a common position under EU common foreign policy (third pillar). So until Brexit the official line must still be always given that the UK is not considering moving its Embassy. Post Brexit that restriction is lifted. What my source is saying is that secret contingency planning for a post Brexit move to Jerusalem is underway in the FCO. What I have been pressing the FCO for is an admission that planning is taking place. Obviously this is not something they would want to be public knowledge at present.

My source stated that the move is partly ideological, and partly to sweeten relationships with the USA in seeking a trade deal. My own observation is that the Tories probably think this would cause more trouble between Corbyn and the Parliamentary Labour Party, and that the Westminster classes are totally out of touch with real public opinion on Palestine, as they seldom meet anybody who does not share their extreme zionism.

***

This information about planning being carried out in great secrecy came to me from an FCO source I had no previous contact with, so I do not know the reliability. It might even be a hoax to make me look foolish. Therefore I decided to check the story with the FCO Press Department, but I can’t get any response out of them. Not answering questions appears to be the standard British state response to independent journalists now. If this is nonsense, it would have taken the FCO two minutes just to tell me so.

So I am posting this here with the caveat that the information is not verified yet. There is much to be said on motive, both from what I was told by the source and from my own gloss, but I shall leave that until we can make more progress on validation. Obviously, I hope the posting may spur the FCO to respond, or others to corroborate the leak.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Earlier this year, the Trump regime cut over $300 million in UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) aid, providing vital services for millions of Palestinian refugees.

On August 29, remaining US funding for UNWRA was halted entirely, the Trump regime in cahoots with Israeli harshness on defenseless Palestinians, pressuring, bullying and intimidating PA leadership to bow to their will.

They want Palestinians to accept a no-peace/peace plan, abandoning fundamental rights dear to everyone everywhere, including self-determination, the right of return, and freedom from illegal occupation harshness.

A Trump regime official said a  statement on halting all US UNWRA funding will be announced in the coming weeks.

On August 24, Trump regime hardliners cut another $200 million in humanitarian aid to Palestinians – funds to be used for so-called “high priority projects elsewhere,” according to the State Department.

The Trump and Netanyahu regimes are suffocating millions of Palestinians, holding them hostage to their demands.

UNWRA spokesman Christopher Gunness said

“(w)e have been given to understand that certainly for this year, we should not expect any US funding, and we have built zero US funding into our planning assumptions for next year,” adding:

Depriving millions of “hungry, angry, under-educated” Palestinians of essential humanitarian aid, fuels conflict instead of ending it.

“We have robustly gone after non-US funding among traditional donors and emerging markets. And we have been unprecedentedly successful,” Gunness explained, adding:

“In just seven months, we have raised 238 million dollars – $50 million from Saudi Arabia, $50 million from the UAE,” along with generous Russian and Turkish contributions. (W)e still have a deficit for this year of $217 million” along with considerable funding needed for next year.

Separately, Germany pledged to significantly increase its UNWRA funding for Palestinian refugees, Foreign Minister Heiko Mass saying it won’t make up for the agency’s shortfall entirely, adding:

It’s important for EU countries “jointly (to) undertake further efforts. The loss of this organization could unleash an uncontrollable chain reaction.”

An appeal to Arab League countries was made to fund what the Trump regime halted. Last year, Washington supplied $365 million to UNWRA, about one-third of its $1.2 billion budget, a significant shortfall to make up with all US funding to the agency halted.

Part of Trump regime policy is getting denying diaspora Palestinians their legitimate right of return to their homeland – what no government can legally deny them.

On Wednesday, Ziofascist US UN envoy Nikki Haley said the Trump regime took the Palestinians’ right of return “off the table” in future peace talks – largely by pretending only around half a million Palestinian refugees exist, not five million, including their descendants, the legitimate number.

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

They want fundamental Palestinian rights denied – the notion of Palestine as their legitimate homeland abandoned.

It’s part of longstanding US/Israeli collective punishment on Palestinians, an unaccountable high crime against humanity, toughened since Trump took office.

*

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 Russian Government and President Putin are coming under pressure not from US sanctions, which are very good for Russia as they force Russia into independence, but from Russian patriots who are tiring of Putin’s non-confrontational responses to Washington’s never-ending insults and military provocations. Russian patriots don’t want war, but they do want their country’s honor defended, and they believe Putin is failing in this job. Some of them are saying that Putin himself is a West-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationist.

This disillusinonment with Putin, together with Putin’s endorsement of raising the retirement age for pensions, a trap set for him by Russia’s neoliberal economists, have hurt Putin’s approval ratings at the precise time that he will again be tested by Washington in Syria.

In many columns I have defended Putin from the charge that he is not sufficiently Russian. Putin wants to avoid war, because he knows it would be nuclear, the consequences of which would be dire. He knows that the US and its militarily impotent NATO allies cannot possibly conduct conventional warfare against Russia or China, much less against both. Putin also undersrtands that the sanctions are damaging Washington’s European vassals and could eventually force the European vassal states into independence that would constrain Washington’s belligerence. Even with Russia’s new super weapons, which probably give Putin the capability of destroying the entirety of the Western World with little or no damage to Russia, Putin sees no point in so much destruction, especially as the consequences are unknown. There could be nuclear winter or other results that would put the planet into decline as a life-sustaining entity.

So, as I have suggested in many columns Putin is acting intelligently. He is in the game for the long term while protecting the world from dangerous war.

Whereas I endorse Putin’s strategy and admire his coolness as a person who never lets emotion lead him, there is nevertheless a problem. The people in the West with whom he is dealing are idiots who do not appreciate his statesmanship. Consequently, each time Putin turns the other cheek, so to speak, the insults and the provocations ratchet upward.

Consider Syria. The Syrian Army with the help of a tiny part of the Russian Air Force has cleared all areas of Syria but one of the American-instigated-financed-and-equiped forces sent by Washington to overthrow the Syrian government.

The remaining US proxy force is about to be eliminated. In order to save it, and to keep a Washington foothold that could permit a restart of the war, Washington has arranged yet another false flag “chemical attack” that the presstitute and obiedient Western media will blame on Assad. President Trump’s National Security Adviser, a crazed, perhaps insane, Neoconservative, has told Russia that Washington will take a dim view of the Syrian/Russian use of chemical weapons against “Assad’s own people.”

The Russians are fully aware that any chemical attack will be a false flag attack orchestrated by Washington using the elements it sent to Syria to overthrow the government. Indeed, Russia’s ambassador to the US explained it all yesterday to the US government.

Clearly, Putin hopes to avoid Washington’s orchestrated attack by having his ambassador explain the orchestration to the American officials who are orchestrating it. (See this)

This strategy implies that Putin thinks US government officials are capable of shame and integrity. They most certainly are not. I spent 25 years with them. They don’t even know what the words mean.

What if, instead, Putin had declared publicly for the entire world to hear that any forces, wherever located, responsible for an attack on Syria would be annihiliated? My view and that of Russian patriot Bogdasarov is that such an ultimatum from the leader of the country capable of delivering it would cool the jets of Russophobic Washington. There would be no attack on Syria.

Bogdasarov and I might be wrong. The Russian forces deployed around Syria with their hypersonic missiles are more than a match for the US forces assembled to attack Syria. However, American hubris can certainly prevail over facts, in which case Putin would have to destroy the sources of the attack. By not committing in advance, Putin retains flexibility. Washington’s attack, like its previous attack on Syria, might be a face-saver, not a real attack. Nevertheless, sooner or later Russia will have to deliver a firmer response to provocations.

I am an American. I am not a Russian, much less a Russian nationalist. I do not want US military personnel to be casualties of Washington’s fatal desire for world hegemony, much less to be casualties of Washington serving Israel’s interests in the Middle East. The reason I think Putin needs to do a better job of standing up to Washington is that I think, based on history, that appeasement encourages more provocations, and it comes to a point when you have to surrender or fight. It is much better to stop this process in its tracks before it reaches that dangerous point.

Andrei Martyanov, whose book I recently reviewed on my website, recently defended Putin, as The Saker and I have done in the past, from claims that Putin is too passive in the face of assaults. (See this) As I have made the same points, I can only applaud Martyanov and The Saker. Where we might differ is in recognizing that endlessly accepting insults and provocations encourages their increase until the only alternative is surrender or war.

So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the Russian government is: How long does turning your other cheek work? Do you turn your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage in a confrontation? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country’s honor? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war or submission? Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear war?

I think that Martyanov and The Saker agree that my question is a valid one. Both emphazise in their highly informative writings that the court historians misrepresent wars in the interest of victors. Let’s give this a moment’s thought. Both Napoleon and Hitler stood at their apogee, their success unmitigated by any military defeat. Then they marched into Russia and were utterly destroyed. Why did they do this? They did it because their success had given them massive arogance and belief in their “exceptionalism,” the dangerous word that encapsulates Washington’s belief in its hegemony.

The zionist neoconsevatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in “the end of history,” that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.

When confronted with such deluded and ideological force, does turning the other cheek work or does it encourage more provocation?

This is the question before the Russian government.

Perhaps the Russian government will understand the meaning of the orchestrated eulogies for John McCain. It is not normal for a US senator to be eulogized in this way, especially one with such an undistinguished record. What is being eulogized is McCain’s hatred of Russia and his record as a warmonger. What Washington is eulogizing is its own committment to war.

*

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  

Make no mistake: the Trump loyalist or “Trump base” will always be that whether Mr. Trump remains president or not; whether he suddenly quits to play golf in Scotland; whether he secretly flies to Moscow to take sanctuary from the legal guns about to charge him with money laundering, bank fraud, embezzlement or treason; or whether he is kidnapped by space aliens, all of whom will be characterized by the “alt-Right” and select Fox News extremists as Godless liberals, secularists and the violent left.

The Trump loyalist, in his absence, will seek and demand another in his stead. And the “movement”, to which money and reputations are intimately linked, will supply one.

It is altogether clear that the dilemma now crystallized and embodied in the figure of Donald J. Trump is actually one within the very lifeblood of the American electorate – in numbers from one-third to almost one-half of them. Such zeal. Such iconoclastic passions. Such preference for lawlessness and immorality, yet justified with religious overtones. One might call the whole legion a “Fifth Column”, which is exactly what those who undermine government, legality, and democratic institutions are called.

There is one catch in Mr. Trump’s jagged, mercurial, half-diminished mind that bears watching and it might be the very thing that collapses everything from within: he might make a BIG MISTAKE. By mistake I don’t mean shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, starting a nuclear exchange or provoking a confused loon to blow-up CNN (those acts he’ll escape from).

To illustrate: How many “on the fence” Trump-Republicans have now doubted their loyalty after he embarrassed the Office of the President through continued open hostility to Sen. John McCain (on the deathbed)? But this was only one daily mistake. But one each day equates to thousands in time and with each falls away another Trump supporter. There will be no mad rush out of Trump’s ensnaring vineyard of delusions. That’s a pipe-dream (another delusion). But drain the swamp he will – of his own kind through misadventure, high-stakes gambling, and delusions of invincibility of such fervor the patient gods of destiny will finally answer back with Almighty karma. And if for some reason he gets away with all of it – if for some reason – there is always St. Peter waiting on the other side of the veil.

Through and through, piece by piece, section by section, Mr. Trump has prevailed in eliminating opposition (so thinks he) until the time will arrive when only his “base” remains. Then … God help him if he accidentally slips. What if he – through inadvertence or a sudden psychotic break – insults, belittles, verbally assaults, humiliates or threatens one or more in the “base”? Talks trash on Mike Pence’s Rapture? Such are BIG MISTAKES that result from taking risks larger than the last to appease a narcissistic and commanding ego. Self-delusions of invincibility always keep raising the bar until proven utterly fraudulent.

No, dead or alive, impeached or exonerated, Mr. Trump will remain the chosen one to his God-fearing evangelicals and the one man who fooled almost all Republicans almost all of the time.

The GOP-Trump gambit was to elicit support from the most authoritarian portions of the populace. From the large pool of Republican-leaning church goers who listen more to the pulpit than their own pulse, he secured votes to accelerate the decimation of the safety nets; turn the New Testament on its head by dividing bread instead of multiplying it; suffered the “little children” in concentration camps; erected tables for money changers to bull-drive markets; convinced the elderly to support candidates who would vote away the security of government health care from not only themselves, but also from their children and grandchildren. Trump is permitted to throw the first stones because he is “God’s Will” for America, say the faithful.

For workers-at-large – unaided by education in their historic role in fighting and gaining employee rights and a living wage – a decades-long inculcation by Republican leaders, media demagogues, and Christian-right evangelicals reached fruition in the Trump era. By reverse engineering the proletariat revolutions of the last century, this one didn’t seek to overturn the Czar and the forces of oppression in order to build a “worker’s paradise”, but to convince the workers to overturn themselves and side with their historic nemesis. They believed their defenders were the “bosses”. Did they think they would share in unbridled profiteering now accruing to the wealthiest? Did they believe to gain by the plundering of worker protections earned over the last one-hundred years through the blood, sweat and tears of their working grandparents and great-grandparents? Did they think they and their families would be immune to climate-change and polluted air and water enabled through Mr. Trump’s deregulations and eliminations of environmental protections? Or were they motivated by pure unadulterated hate instilled in them by these same agents for the sole benefit of same?

History will unravel the threads that led here and the ones that will lead away. But Mr. Trump is not the problem; he is a symptom of it.

Whatever political changes result from the mid-term elections, the battles will continue (more fiercely) for the simple reason that each opponent – the Trump base and the opposition – are more emboldened today than before.

Such a play as this has several more acts to divulge before we can cross the turbulent waters safely; before we can read from the same page; before we can weigh what is lost against what is gained. Any assessment is best after the fact, not before. We can’t see the whole film now because we are in one of its frames.

Nearing the end will come a time to collectively answer what now is being collectively asked: Who are we? What is America? What are American values? What does America stand for? Because I have shown partisanship in this writing, I am not one to supply these answers, but others exist who can help lead the way to those answers.

All roads point to this ending because this battle began there. And having begun there it will end only when collective agreement is reached. And despite the pain, conflict and losses incurred throughout the travel, America will have grown.

This I believe.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On August 20, the Economist ran an article on Venezuela saying that “forced migration from the country might surpass the Syria crisis.” The magazine reported:

The UN’s International Organization for Migration estimates that at the end of 2017 approximately 1.6 million Venezuelans were living outside their country. Today that number is likely to be far higher: as of June 2018 there were nearly 1 million Venezuelan migrants in Colombia alone. The UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, has recorded 135,000 asylum applications from Venezuelans during the first seven months of 2018, already 20 percent more than for the whole of 2017. The total number of displaced Venezuelans may already have reached 4 million, out of a population of some 30 million. The outflow could eventually surpass the 6 million people who have fled the Syrian civil war.

The UN’s International Organization for Migration estimates that, by July of 2018, 2.3 million Venezuelans were living abroad (which includes hundreds of thousands who have spent decades abroad).  Why does the Economist say it “may already” be 4 million? A good guess is that they are relying on the estimates of Tomas Paez, a vehemently anti-government Venezuelan academic who has long been a favorite source for corporate journalists (FAIR.org, 2/18/18). Paez has estimated that 1.6 million people left Venezuela from 1999–2015, about five times more than UN Population Division estimates for that period.

No doubt as Venezuela’s economy entered what could fairly be called a “collapse” starting in 2015, migration began to skyrocket, and it is indeed likely to get worse, thanks to illegal economic sanctions that Trump enacted in August 2017.

What about the Economist‘s Syria comparison? First of all, Syria’s civil war has not just created a massive “outflow” of refugees. It also created an enormous population of internally displaced people, as wars typically do. As of 2017, Syria had 6 million people forcibly displaced within its borders. Another 5 million refugees were still living in three bordering countries (Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey). That brings the total of those forcibly displaced by Syria’s civil war to nearly 11 million—almost seven times larger than the most credible estimate of the numbers displaced (so far) by Venezuela’s economic crisis.

Syria had a population of about 21 million in 2011 when the civil war began. It has now been estimated to be about 18 million. So more than half of Syria’s 2011 population are now refugees, either internally or externally—a far cry from the 13 percent of the Venezuelan population claimed by Paez (and hinted at by the Economist), or the 5 percent (1.6 million) estimated by the UN’s International Organization for Migration to have left since 2015.

In absolute terms, Colombia’s population of internally displaced is even larger than Syria’s. As of March 2018, the UNHCR estimated it at 7.7 million out of total population of about 50 million, or more than one in seven. Of course, relative to population, Syria’s internally displaced population is vastly larger than Colombia’s. Still, 7.7 million internally displaced is a hell of a disaster to sweep under the rug, but those are the benefits of being a government in the good graces of the US and its allies.

The Economist doesn’t mention that US policy (backed by the entire Western establishment) is to use harsh and illegal economic sanctions to deliberately make Venezuela’s economic crisis worse, which will help drive more people to leave the country. US economist Mark Weisbrot, who was recently given a very rare bit of space to state this fact, noted afterwards that

Brian Ellsworth, a journalist for Reuters who reports from Venezuela, has joined the latest avalanche of trolls, bots and blowhards who swarmed me because I dared to mention on BBC World TV, on Friday night, that Trump’s financial embargo against Venezuela makes it more difficult for any government to stabilize the economy—a fact that no economist would dispute. Indeed, that is the purpose of the embargo.

The Western establishment includes prominent human rights groups, who often express the same imperial perspective one finds in the Economist.  By citing these outfits, corporate media seem to provide critical assessments that are independent of Western officialdom. Don’t buy it. Amnesty International has refused to oppose US economic sanctions on Venezuela, and has also refused to denounce flagrant efforts by US officials to incite a military coup. Amnesty’s Americas director Erika Guevara-Rosas tweeted the dubious Economist article comparing Venezuela to Syria.

Guevara-Rosas also tweeted out an article praising John McCain. McCain’s death has been a real “teachable moment,” showing how tiny the ideological differences are between corporate media and the human rights industry. Four different Human Rights Watch (HRW) officials used their Twitter accounts to spread praise for McCain. In 2011, McCain tried to have Venezuela placed on the US “sponsors of terrorism” list—not scary at all, coming from a man who joked about bombing Iran. McCain dutifully echoed theVenezuelan opposition’s line (also the Western media line, andHRW’s line) that the country is a “dictatorship.”

Ken Roth (HRW’s executive director) said McCain “will be remembered for his firm, principled opposition to torture, especially by Bush, a member of his own party.” Jose Miguel Vivanco saidMcCain was “a giant in North America politics and an ally in the defense of human rights.” Sarah Margon, HRW’s Washington director, said that McCain’s death ”feels exceptionally tough for those of us who have fought for human decency and basic rights alongside and with him.” Dinah PoKempner, HRW’s general counsel, spread an article that called McCain a “war hero.”

HRW followed up with an official statement saying McCain “was for decades a compassionate voice for US foreign and national security policy.”

And, of course, the Economist’s obituary (8/30/18) similarly laid the praise on thick, casting McCain as part of a heroic Republican “resistance” to Donald Trump: “The talk was never straighter, the stance never more upright, than when he called on his fellow Republicans not just to endure, but to resist.” McCain voted with Trump 83 percent of the time, according to the FiveThirtyEight website.

The victims of empire are never more invisible than when it is time to whitewash a departed warmonger. McCain’s “war hero” credibility stems from being a direct perpetrator of, and not simply a cheerleader for, the mass slaughter in Vietnam that took the lives of millions of people—or “gooks,” as McCain unapologetically preferred to call them. It is left to independent voices like Max Blumenthal (Consortium News, 8/27/18), to review McCain’s bloodthirsty record:

McCain did not simply thunder for every major intervention of the post-Cold War era from the Senate floor, while pushing for sanctions and assorted campaigns of subterfuge on the side. He was uniquely ruthless when it came to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally recruit far-right fanatics as American proxies.

In Libya and Syria, he cultivated affiliates of Al Qaeda as allies, and in Ukraine, McCain courted actual, sig-heiling neo-Nazis.

While McCain’s Senate office functioned as a clubhouse for arms industry lobbyists and neocon operatives, his fascistic allies waged a campaign of human devastation that will continue until long after the flowers dry up on his grave.

Unless there is radical change—real “resistance”—that transforms the organizations that people rely on to be ”informed” (media and NGOs included), Donald Trump, like Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, will eventually be whitewashed as well.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The eulogies for the recently deceased John McCain, a US Senator for Arizona, have been plentiful, and so far as the American mainstream media is concerned, they have verged on the hagiographic. He has been variously described as a “patriot”, a “war hero” and a “defender of freedom”. Most perplexingly, McCain was lauded as a “warrior for peace”.

But while praise for McCain has been dutifully administered in reverential terms by both liberal and conservative figures, the truth is that there is widespread dissent about McCain’s legacy as a man, as a military officer, as well as a politician. Perhaps, most worrisome is the construction of McCain’s legacy as one of the resolutely principled maverick and insatiable peaceseeker.

On the contrary, McCain operated at the highest echelons of the American Establishment, a closeted world of vested interests comprising a network geared towards the enrichment of the American elite. He was a captive of the defence industry and an unceasingly aggressive spokesperson for the post-Cold War era militarism that has compromised the United States and brought it down low in the eyes of the global community of nations.

So why the almost uncritical eulogising of a controversial life beset by allegations of incompetence, corruption and disloyalty?

Perhaps it is the tradition of the people of the United States to venerate their warriors. From the highest serving general to the lowest level footsoldier, Americans have a penchant for what might be termed ‘soldier worship’. There is also a tendency for disparate groups of people to pull together behind someone when confronted by an idea or by a person to whom they feel repugnance. It is certainly the case that the transition from life to death brings out the sentimental in people whether such death is sudden or prolonged. And, of course, as with most cultures, Americans are cautious about speaking ill of the dead.

Each of these have doubtlessly played a part in the positive reviews of the life of John McCain since his passing. John Sidney McCain III was born into a family of naval servicemen, two of who reached the rank of admiral. He served as a naval aviator during the Vietnam War and later retired as a captain. McCain also engaged in a well-publicised, long-running feud with Donald Trump who as a polarising figure has succeeded in arraigning different strands of his countrymen against his presidency. His demise, caused by the effects of a malignant brain tumour, was a cruel one. Glioblastoma is the most aggressive form of cancer.

But there is much to question about McCain.

McCain joined the US Navy following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather. Each man had reached the pinnacle of service and became the first father and son pair to achieve the rank of four-star admiral. When he retired in 1981, McCain had been the recipient of a Silver Star and Purple Heart. He had also received a Distinguished Flying Cross for his “exceptional courage, superb airmanship, and total devotion to duty” during a bombing raid over Hanoi in 1967, and had been awarded the Legion of Merit with Combat “V” award “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services to the Government of the United States while interned as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam from October 1967 to March 1973.”

But the competence of the future senator as an aviator has been consistently questioned. For instance, in 1960 while on a training exercise, he crashed his plane into Corpus Christi Bay, in the process shearing the skin off its wings. The following year, while serving with an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean theatre, he flew through electrical wires in southern Spain causing a power failure in the surrounding area. And in 1965, while en route to Philadelphia for the Army-Navy football game, he crashed a T-2 trainer jet in Virginia.

These incidents, caused by a carefree attitude described as “cocky, occasionally cavalier and prone to testing limits”, led to rebukes by the naval authorities. They also explain a great deal about the allegations surrounding his responsibility for two more serious incidents.

Sarcastically dubbed ‘Ace McCain’ by his commanders, McCain’s career as an aviator was, nonetheless, allowed to continue. Although the official inquiry into the catastrophic fire onboard the USS Forrestal in July 1967 was officially blamed on the accidental firing of a rocket caused by an electrical power surge during preparations for a strike against a target in North Vietnam, the claim that the disaster, which killed 134 sailors while injuring another 161, was caused by McCain ‘wet-starting’ his jet has refused to die. ‘Wet-starting’ refers to where pilots flood the combustion chamber of their craft with extra fuel before ignition in order to create either a loud bang or a plume of flame.

McCain is claimed by some to have done this and that the ensuing concatenation of maladies are traceable to his reckless act.  That he avoided the consequences of his actions is said to be due to the seniority and influence of his high-ranking father who some, including Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, allege was at the time cooperating with the coverup pertaining to the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty by the armed forces of the state of Israel, which had occurred the previous month. Three months later, McCain was shot down while conducting a bombing sortie over North Vietnam.

No official blame has ever been attached to McCain for his shooting down. But as his aircraft was lost behind enemy lines, its remains were not subjected to the same sort of forensic analysis as had occurred after the earlier mishaps while in control of the cockpit. In all three incidents, McCain’s skill and judgment had been called into question.

Aviators like McCain had been trained to stay at altitudes of 4,000 to 10,000 feet in environments where there were heavy deployments of surface-to-air missile launchers. They had equipment which warned the pilot that they were being tracked and also when a missile locked on them. These missiles were relatively easy to out-manoeuvre up to a point. This changed when there were multiple launches of between 6 and 12 missiles. McCain claimed in his autobiography that 22 missiles were fired at his squadron that day and that one blew off his right wing. He had been flying at an altitude of 3,000 feet above Hanoi.

It is McCain’s conduct as a prisoner of war which has brought him the most public scrutiny. Officially, he is a hero for withstanding torture: beatings, the withholding of medical treatment and a lengthy spell in solitary confinement, although he wilted and made at least one propaganda broadcast for North Vietnamese radio in which he pronounced himself guilty of “crimes against the Vietnamese country and people.”

The United States military Code of Conduct prohibits prisoners of war from accepting parole or other favours from the enemy, although during the Vietnam War, latitude was generally given to those who were seriously ill or injured.

McCain, who sustained two broken arms and a broken leg when ejecting from his plane, has been accused by some fellow veterans who were held at the same camps as he, as one who sold out his fellow prisoners and other servicemen by cooperating with his captors in order to be the beneficiary of a cushy captivity. His detractors accuse him of making broadcasts designed to infringe upon the morale of his fellow servicemen and of giving up military secrets such as that related to his flight, rescue ships and the order of attacks.

And while they allow that McCain refused an offer of early repatriation unless all prisoners were released, some allege that he was given special treatment with two other ‘defectors’ for cooperating. In fact, they argue that McCain’s refusal was an easy one given that he knew that his future prospects in the military and any public office would have been ruined. Many veterans claimed that those who were granted early release in three sets of releases in 1968 were collaborators who they dubbed ‘the slipperies’, ‘the slimies’ and ‘sleazies’, and that McCain had acknowledged this.

To be sure, several of McCain’s co-prisoners have spoken on his behalf over the years. Men like George Day and Orson Swindle confirm that torture was regularly administered and that they were forced to talk, although they attempted to mislead their captors by telling untruths. In McCain’s case, he claims his response to questions asking him about future bombing runs was simply to give those that had already taken place. He also claims to have given the names of the offensive line up of the Green Bay Packers football team as members of his squadron.

Render Crayton, McCain’s co-prisoner for one year (1971-1972) at the camp referred to as the  ‘Hanoi Hilton’, has often spoken up on behalf of McCain and claims that McCain “gave hell to his captors”. An example of this was deciding one morning to loudly sing the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. The penalty for this insubordination was to be removed from a “big room” to “smaller cell rooms”.

This does not impress those veterans against McCain who assert that no one witnessed the series of tortures he claimed to have endured. In his autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain admitted that he felt guilty throughout his captivity because he knew that he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs owing to the fact that he was the son of the commander-in-chief of all US forces in the Pacific region, including Vietnam. His captors referred to him as the ‘Crown Prince’.

They also point to the tremendous lengths McCain went towards blocking the release of classified documents during the 1991-1993 Senate Committee hearings on Prisoners of War and those Missing in Action as evidence of his having a personal interest in suppressing information which would discredit him. Through McCain’s efforts, documents such as related to all the Pentagon debriefings of returned prisoners were classified by legislation. A ‘Truth Bill’, which had been twice introduced to ensure transparency over missing men was bitterly opposed by McCain who then sponsored a new bill which sought to create a bureaucratic maze ensuring that only a few non-descript documents could be released. It was passed into law.

His rationale that the sealing of these files was for reasons of privacy and preventing the reviving of painful memories were not accepted by those who point to the fact that debriefings from returning Korean War prisoners of war are available to the public, and, as was the case with Korea, could have provided useful leads in so far as the fate of those who were missing in action in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Those who opposed McCain were often subjected to vitriolic abuse by a man who developed a renowned temper. He referred to individuals and groups campaigning for information on MIAs as “hoaxers”, “charlatans” and “conspiracy theorists”. They retorted by dubbing him the ‘Manchurian Candidate’. In fact many of them along with the veterans against McCain often refer to his conduct while in captivity as having been nothing less than treachery.

Claims that McCain was on a list of 33 American prisoners of war earmarked to be executed for treason cannot be corroborated. But possible retribution against him by hardline military officers was rendered impossible by the US Defense Department whose officials had adopted a general policy of “honour-and-forgive” for returning prisoners of war. One specific element of this policy was not to prosecute any prisoners of war for making pro-North Vietnamese propaganda statements while in captivity. And to back this up, a move in 1973 by an Air Force colonel charging seven enlisted men of collaborating with the enemy while they were held as prisoners of war by North Vietnam was dismissed by the secretaries of the Army and Navy for lack of evidence and the mitigating circumstances of the “long hardship” they endured while in captivity.

While McCain is perceived by his detractors as having escaped punishment for his ‘disloyalty’ while in uniform, some point to his treatment of his first wife as evidence of his capacity for betrayal. A beautiful divorcee who he had married in 1965, Carol McCain had remained loyal to her husband during the period of his captivity. However, in 1969, she was badly injured in a motor accident and had to undergo numerous operations. She lost several inches in height and gained weight. McCain confessed that he returned home to a wife who appeared to be a different woman. He admitted to philandering and eventually divorced her to marry a woman who was 18 years younger than him.

His critics make the case that McCain lost interest in spouse who was no longer the ‘trophy wife’ he had married and replaced her with an extremely attractive woman whose family were very wealthy and well-connected in the state of Arizona, where he would begin his political career. His critics cite this as evidence of McCain’s ruthless and calculating streak, which was guided neither by virtue nor by principle.

As a politician, McCain has been lauded as having been guided by a code of “honour, courage, integrity and duty.” His maverick reputation is seen as evidence of his ability to eschew the narrow confines of partisan politics. But his tenure as a senator was beset by allegations of corrupt practices, of being a pork-barrel politico in the thrall of the military industry and Israel lobby, and of being a warmonger who supported America’s recent wars, which has led to the destruction of whole countries and of countless innocent casualties.

As a new senator in the early 1990s, McCain was involved in a corruption scandal after he and four senators from the Democratic Party were accused of trying to intimidate regulators on behalf of a campaign donor who was eventually imprisoned for corrupt management practices. He escaped with a reprimand for having “exercised poor judgment”, but with the accompanying judgment that his actions “were not improper”.

In August 2006, McCain was captured in a photograph going onboard a luxury yacht rented by the Italian con-man Raffaello Follieri in Montenegro. It was here that McCain met the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska for a second time, after their initial meeting in Davos. Both meetings had been arranged by Rick Davis, who like Paul Manafort has been a long-time conduit between American big shots and the Russian ultra-rich. Nathaniel Rothschild, who has large business interests in Montenegro, a country that granted him citizenship in 2013, also met with McCain.

Events unfolded to reveal that McCain had been part of an elaborate scheme which enabled Western financiers to buy up Montenegro and bribe influential members of the country’s elite who would be pliable to the idea of prising Montenegro away from Serbia. The long-term goal was for Montenegro to declare its independence and pave the way for its accession to membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), an objective that came to fruition in 2017.

McCain’s scheming in regard to Montenegro highlights his connections to the wealthy interests who control Western politicians, both of who work hand-in-hand in advancing Western geopolitical interests. The co-opting of Montenegro into the Western financial sphere and its membership of (NATO) were manoeuvres calculated to injure Russia’s commercial and military interests.

First of all, the oil and gas explorations subsequently embarked upon in the outlying Adriatic Sea is designed to create a market which aims to undercut or totally nullify Russian ambitions to supply oil and gas to countries in the region via a South Stream pipeline project. Secondly, transforming its military status from one of neutrality to being part of the Atlantic Alliance is in keeping with NATO’s post-Cold War eastward expansion, a policy which is designed to intimidate Russia, and which is in defiance of the agreement reached at the end of the Cold War between the leaders of the West and the former Soviet Union, that Germany reunification was predicated on the condition that NATO would not expand eastwards.

John McCain, by words and deeds, demonstrated his support for the anti-Russian sentiment that has permeated corridors of power in the United States since the coming to power of Vladimir Putin, a nationalist who brought to an end the mass plunder of Russia’s resources by Western interests during the government led by Boris Yeltsin. Indeed, no politician better embodied the twin doctrines that encapsulate the militarism pursued by the United States in the aftermath of the US-Soviet Cold War than McCain. These are philosophies espoused by Paul Wolfowitz and Zbigniew Brzezinski. The former provided that American policy was to ensure that after the fall of the Soviet Union, no other power should be permitted to rise and compete with the United States for global influence, while the latter was fixated on militarily intimidating Russia while seeking its dismemberment and relegation to a region designed to serve the energy needs of the West.

His dismissal of Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country” and his forthright comment that Montenegro’s accession to NATO was “vital for regional stability and the joint effort of the Western allies to resist a resurgent Russia”, provided clear evidence of his position.

McCain’s anti-Russian posture ensured an enduring animus between himself and Vladimir Putin. Although McCain claimed that the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 was “a mistake” initiated by Mikheil Saakashvili, then president of Georgia, Putin accused the United States of fomenting the conflict in order to strengthen McCain’s bid for the White House. “The suspicion arises”, Putin claimed, “that someone in the United States especially created this conflict to make the situation more tense and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US president.”

While Putin’s allegations were pooh-poohed by the White House as “patently false” and by the state department as “ludicrous”, events in Ukraine in 2014 clearly demonstrated McCain’s involvement in the American-sponsored overthrow of the elected government led by Viktor Yanukovytch. This was made possible by utilising the street muscle of ultranationalist groups such as Pravy Sektor. McCain was repeatedly photographed with Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the far right Svoboda Party which has been accused of being neo-Nazi in ideology while being vocally Russophobic and anti-Jewish.

McCain, who wielded a great deal of power as a long-term senator, allegedly chaired an important CIA meeting in Cairo that was pivotal in fomenting the so-called Arab Spring. And just as he met with political extremists in Kiev prior to the US-backed coup, in 2011 he was seen walking the streets of Benghazi where he was photographed meeting anti-Gaddafi rebels who embraced the Islamist creed of al-Qaeda, the alleged perpetrators of the September 11th attacks on the United States. He called the rebels “heroic” and lobbied for US military intervention weeks before NATO began its bombardment and training of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Force (LIFG). And given his vocal support for overthrowing the government of Gaddafi and his ‘fact-finding’ tour, he was also likely to have been influential in paving the way for President Barack Obama’s decision to authorise the use of predator drones. McCain would later be pictured with Senators Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal giving an award to Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the leader of the now disbanded LIFG.

The Libyan intervention, enabled by the United Nations resolution based on the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine, of course ended in human disaster. Gaddafi was toppled, but a nation which was once Africa’s most prosperous country soon degenerated into a failed state composed of warring militias, Islamist strongholds that have imposed rule by Sharia, and the establishment of slave markets composed of human chattel of Black African origin. The removal of Gaddafi which McCain cheered on has led to a deterioration of security beyond Libya as Islamist terror groups situated in the Maghreb (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) and further down in the Lake Chad Basin (Boko Haram) have been strengthened because of the availability of large quantities of arms and munitions previously owned by the fallen Libyan army.

McCain’s dallying with extremists also extended to illegally entering into Syrian territory in 2013 and meeting with anti-government rebels who he described as “brave fighters who are risking their lives for freedom”, but who most neutral observers would classify as terrorists.

McCain’s support respectively for the Iraq War which overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Western-backed insurgencies in Libya and Syria, NATO expansion and confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia clearly mark him out as a supporter of American militarism, a geopolitical policy that has caused tremendous harm to American prestige among the community of nations, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, caused large-scale human displacement and a refugee crisis, and which has persistently kept NATO and Russia at loggerheads. It makes a mockery of Congressman John Lewis’s attempt to eulogise him as a “warrior for peace”. Indeed, it was no surprise that the arms giant Lockheed Martin, which has profited from the wars supported by McCain, issued a tribute after his death.

That he sympathised with the neoconservative ideology and was beholden to the objectives of the Israel lobby is beyond doubt. His support for American interventions in the Arab world targeting secular governments perceived as not towing the line with Israel was apparent in his role in fomenting insurgencies in Libya and Syria, the latter in regard to which he unceasingly promoted a more direct form of US involvement.

It is also confirmed by his long-term attitude of belligerence towards Iran, which he consistently denounced during his presidential campaign in 2008. While on the hustings, he notoriously broke out in song by substituting the lyrics of the Beach Boys hit Barbara Ann with “Bomb Iran”. His statements tended to indicate that he would have been in favour of attacking Iran at the behest of Israel and its US-based lobby groups, an action that was strongly resisted by Barack Obama. McCain, not surprisingly was dismissive of the Obama administration’s deal with Iran over its nuclear strategy, which he derisively referred to as a “feckless” approach to foreign policy.

McCain was despite his maverick label an establishment man adept at manoeuvering between the public spotlight and the shadowy, largely unseen world of what many now understand to be the ‘Deep State’. He was almost certainly a key player in the machinations of America’s ‘double government’ and its formulation of national security policy which, as Professor Michael Glennon pointed out in a lengthy research paper, has essentially remained unchanged from successive administrations starting with George W. Bush, through to the one headed by Barack Obama, and now that of Donald Trump.

Far from the mainstream narrative that he was a beloved figure, McCain has gone to his grave leaving a great number disgruntled for various reasons. For many veterans, he will forever be ‘Johnny Songbird’ of ‘Hanoi Hilton’ infamy; like his father, a man of the establishment who covered up many unflattering secrets of the state including that pertaining to the sinking of the USS Liberty which he never sought to redress.

To his former Vietnamese foes he remains the celebrity captive, the admiral’s son immortalised as an ‘air pirate’ depicted in a statute bent on his knees next to the lake from where he was retrieved after parachuting from his downed aircraft.

To white nationalists he is a ‘race traitor’ who supported successive amnesties for illegal immigrants and to the anti-war segment of the political left, he does not deserve praise for participating in a colonial war of aggression against the Vietnamese people, while the isolationist segment of the political right decried his persistent support for foreign wars of intervention.

John McCain was not a straightforward hero. Nor was he an exceptional politician. The unbridled facts of his life and career in the military and as a public figure embody much of what is dysfunctional about the American republic. To succumb to the blatant myth-making and obfuscation of his life represents a failure of the nation to properly reflect and critically examine itself.

That cannot bode well for the future.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Adeyinka Makinde.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

An organised expose by the Syrian and Russian governments over a 3 day period starting 27^th August may have thwarted a British backed plan to stage a “false flag” chemical weapons attack in Idlib province that would have forced the US to launch a missile and air assault on Syria.

According to Russian Defence Ministry spokesperson, Igor Konashenkov, a militant group [affiliated to al Qaeda] , Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, was going to be the conduit for this false flag operation. It would foment an attack targeting innocent citizens of Idlib and then put the blame upon the Syrian government. Eight chlorine tanks were delivered to Jisr al-Shughur town for this purpose. Militants “trained in handling poisonous substances under the supervision of specialists from the private British military company Oliva arrived in the town a day earlier. The militants had the task of simulating the rescue of the victims of the chemical weapons attack dressed in the clothes of the famous White Helmets.”  Konashenkov accused British special services of being “actively involved “in the “provocation” which will “serve as another reason for the US, the UK and France to hit Syrian government targets with air strikes.”     

False flag operations of this sort have happened a number of times before in Syria. In April 2018, the White Helmets staged such an operation as admitted by some of the so-called “victims” themselves. A year before that, in April 2017, a fake chemical attack became the excuse for US missile strikes against Syrian military installations in Syayrat Airbase It will be recalled that in  August 2013, a fabricated chemical weapons attack was the rationale for a full-scale military assault on Syria ordered by President Barack Obama which was averted at the eleventh hour partly because of the mobilisation of mass public opinion and partly because of some sane voices in the top brass of the US military itself. 

The 2013 episode like other false flag operations in Syria from 2011 to the end of 2016 had a singular underlying goal: the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad. Whatever the justifications provided, there was a convergence of motives among those who sought Bashar’s overthrow. For the leaders of the US, Britain, France and Israel, Bashar especially through his links with Iran and Hezbollah was a formidable obstacle to their agenda for hegemonic control over West Asia.

For the Saudi political elite it was his association with Iran — the elite’s rival for regional influence — that was the problem. For the Saudi religious elite, on the other hand, what was unacceptable was Bashar’s affiliation to a minor Shia sub-sect. The Qatari elite was incensed by Bashar’s opposition to the construction of a massive inter-state gas pipe-line starting from the tiny state that would have had far-reaching geo-economic and geopolitical consequences. The elite in Ankara with its connection to the Muslim Brotherhood failed to persuade Bashar to incorporate Brotherhood elements and ideology into Damascus’s governing power structure. For all these different reasons, Bashar became the common target for regime change.

But by early 2017 it was clear that Bashar could not be ousted. Apart from the solid support of a wide spectrum of his own society, he has the backing of Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah. He has now regained control of most of Syria. The militants, whose acts of terror have alienated the vast majority of Syrians, are totally isolated. Besides, Donald Trump who assumed the US presidency in January 2017 is not interested in regime change in Syria. In fact, now that the militants have been vanquished he is more inclined towards withdrawing from Syria. There are indications that he wants to work with Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to restore peace and stability in Syria. 

This is anathema to the ‘Deep State’ in the US. Cooperating with Putin or withdrawing from Syria, from the perspective of those elements in the intelligence and security services, the military, the Congress, the media, some of the lobbies and special interest groups that constitute the Deep State, would spell the end of US hegemony and dominance of West Asia.  For the advocates of hegemony, it means surrendering to Russia whose power and influence in the region is growing. It would also facilitate the entrenchment of Iranian and Hezbollah influence in Syria. This, the Deep State argues, will weaken Israel’s position and increase its vulnerability. US’s other allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia, other Gulf monarchies, Egypt and Jordan will also feel threatened. It explains why Deep State elements are insisting that the US retains a foothold in Syria.

It is in this context that Idlib assumes added significance. The British plan to launch a “false flag “chemical weapons attack may yet happen. And it may yet lead to a US helmed assault upon Syria.

*

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Nicaragua just defeated a U.S.-backed violent coup attempt, and no one cares.

Well, let me revise that: Very few care. English teachers may care because they may find it fascinating the phrase “violent coup” is one of the only English phrases often introduced with the prefix “U.S.-backed.”

But I can tell you for certain the mainstream media don’t want you to care. They don’t even want you to know it happened. And they certainly don’t want you to know that it followed a simple formula for U.S.-backed coups in leftist and anti-imperialist nations throughout Latin America, a formula our military intelligence apparatus has implemented in numerous countries tirelessly, like an overused football play.

On the corporate airwaves you won’t hear about U.S.-backed anything. If the U.S. military backed up a truck, CNN wouldn’t mention it, NPR would tell you the truck was dealing with an “organic internal protest movement” and Fox News would blame a black person.

Back to Latin America. The U.S. has lomg had a policy of undermining, infiltrating and bringing down any Latin American government that doesn’t line up with our unfettered capitalistic neoliberal policies. If a leader says, “Hey, let’s live a different way in which everyone is taken care of and we help out our brothers and sisters,” then the U.S. will make sure he or she ends up wearing cement shoes at the bottom of a lake somewhere. (And those cement shoes won’t even be crafted by union cement workers because all the unions have been destroyed. So you’ve got freelance underpaid children making the shoes—probably part of the “gig economy” with some sort of cement shoe appthat tricks cement layers into working for pennies because they don’t understand the algorithm is screwing them hard!)

Anyway, Nicaragua is the latest U.S.-backed attempted coup. So, this seems like a good time to present: How to Create a U.S.-Backed Government Coup!

You can play along at home—especially if your home is in Nicaragua or Venezuela.

STEP ONE: Create a strong U.S.-backed “fifth column.”

Don’t tell me you don’t know what a “fifth column” is. How could you be so naive! (This is the part where I mock you for lacking knowledge that I myself learned only last week.)

As smart person Peter Koenig explains,

“A Fifth Column is a group of people who undermine the government of a country in support of the enemy. They can be both covert and open.”

There are various ways to create fifth columns. We here in the U.S. like to create ours with a good, wholesome front: nonprofit organizations. Our two favorites are USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). What is the NED? Well, as Editor of Consortium News Robert Parry put it,

In 1983, NED essentially took over the CIA’s role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly. NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons. …

(When I picture a neocon slush fund, I picture Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell and Bill Kristol naked in a small bathtub filled with the vomit of all their victims. Yes, it’s gross. But it’s less gross than what a neocon slush fund really is.)

So we use NED and USAID to destabilize countries. Keep in mind, though it may not sound like much, there are consequences to destabilizing countries. By doing it, we indirectly kill a lot of people, or at least ruin their lives, leaving them poor or destitute. But to create a successful coup, it’s important you don’t care about any of that stuff. Leave that for the nerds with their pencils and their statistics. If babies die because they can’t get the medical treatment they need, not your problem. You’ve got other stuff to do—like wipe bird shit off your $1,200 loafers.

STEP TWO: Undermine the country’s economy.

This can be done via sanctions, as we are currently doing in Venezuela and Iran. Simultaneously, use the fifth column and the obedient American media hacks (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC) to convince the people of said country that their economic troubles are the fault of only their president.

“It’s the Venezuelan president’s fault you don’t have toilet paper! He’s hoarding all the toilet paper. He’s sitting up there on a throne made of Angel Soft triple ply! His anus is singing ‘Joy to the World’ right now!”

But, what our corporate media really don’t want you to know is the truth. Peter Koenig, who was also an international observer for the Presidential Economic Advisory Commission (showoff), stated,

… It is absolutely clear who is behind the food and medicine boycotts (empty supermarket shelves), and the induced internal violence [in Venezuela]. It is a carbon copy of what the CIA under Kissinger’s command did in Chile in 1973 which led to the murder of the legitimate and democratically elected President Allende and to the Pinochet military coup. …

So you create economic troubles, which make people hungry and angry, and that leads to …

STEP THREE: Wait for internal protests and/or create them.

Basically, there were legitimate protests in Nicaragua because what country doesn’t have protests now and again? But then the U.S. and our front groups threw kerosene on the situation. The NED-funded publication Global Americans actually bragged about the kerosene it threw. In an article titled “Laying the groundwork for insurrection: A closer look at the U.S. role in Nicaragua’s social unrest,” it said, “… the NED has funded 54 projects in Nicaragua between 2014 and 2017.”

So various U.S.-backed groups redirected the protests against the Daniel Ortega government. Some protesting students were even flown to the United States for further instruction from Freedom House, which has deep ties to the CIA. Once here, the students posed for photos with none other than U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

If there’s one thing I trust, it’s people who are proud to meet Marco Rubio. I mean, even Marco Rubio’s kids tell people that Joe Biden is their father.

So as with Syria, after genuine protests began in Nicaragua, the U.S. used the fifth column to exacerbate the tension and channel the protests toward a violent showdown.

STEP FOUR: Get violent while accusing the government of getting violent.

We’ve seen this tactic in Nicaragua and Venezuela. There was violence on both sides of the protests, but far more on the U.S.-backed sides, sometimes with help from the CIA or alumni from our military training facilities like The School of the Americas. But because of media propaganda, many believe there is primarily violence on the government side, when in fact it’s the opposite.

STEP FIVE: If steps 1 through 4 don’t work, kidnap or assassinate.

The time may come when you’ve exhausted other options and simply must whack a dude. Don’t feel bad. It happens to the best of us.

Or, if you’re feeling generous, you can put said target on a U.S. military plane and fly him to Africa against his will—as happened in 2004 to the president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He was kidnapped by our military and taken on one of the most awkward 14-hour flights one can imagine.

There is an endless number of examples. Want some more? How about the 1973 CIA-backed overthrow and killing of socialist President Salvador Allende in Chile? But have no fear, he was replaced by murderous dictator Augusto Pinochet, whom the U.S. liked A LOT better. (We shared the same taste in death squads.)

Ecuadorean President Jaime Roldos Aguilera died in an airplane “accident” in 1981 after going forward with a plan to reorganize Ecuador’s fossil fuel industry, which U.S. interests were very much against. His airplane fell out of the sky after coming down with a bad case of the CIA.

Even NBC has recounted the bizarre CIA plots to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba, some of them involving exploding cigars. To be honest, I can’t look down on that because it is the funniest way to kill someone. So as long as it gets a laugh, I approve.

And a few weeks ago, we saw an attempt to kill President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela with a small explosive drone. While there’s no indication the U.S. military was directly involved, that’s not really how it rolls. The military prefers to fund front groups so it looks like the U.S. had nothing to do with it. And keep in mind there WAS a U.S.-backed coup against Hugo Chavez, Maduro’s predecessor, in 2002. So taking out the Chavez-Maduro government has been a long-term goal of the U.S. deep state.

There you have it—thanks for playing How to Create a U.S.-Backed Government Coup!

Join us next week for How to Create a U.S.-Backed Cholera Outbreak! … starring Saudi Arabia! … And definitely NOT starring MSNBC. It has no idea what you’re talking about.

*

Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor and activist. Camp is the host of the weekly comedy news TV show “Redacted Tonight With Lee Camp” on RT America. He is a former comedy writer for the Onion and the Huffington Post and has been a touring stand-up comic for 20 years.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The United States on Friday cut funding to the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees, saying its business model and fiscal practices were an “irredeemably flawed operation”.

“The administration has carefully reviewed the issue and determined that the United States will not make additional contributions to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency),” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement.

She said the agency’s “endlessly and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries is simply unsustainable and has been in crisis mode for many years”.

UNRWA provides services to about five million Palestinian refugees.

More than 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their land in the events leading to the establishment of the state of Israel. Surviving refugees and their descendants still live in camps in neighbouring Arab countries, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As part of its decision, the US will also call for a sharp decrease in the number of Palestinians who are recognised as refugees, reducing the current five million figure to fewer than a tenth of that number, an official familiar with the decision told the Washington Post.

An anonymous official in the office of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, told the AFP news agency on Saturday that Israel supported the US decision to cut funding from UNWRA.

“Consolidating the refugee status of Palestinians is one of the problems that perpetuate the conflict,” the official said.

Palestinian Ambassador to the US Husam Zomlot said Washington does not have the authority to define the status of Palestinian refugees.

“By endorsing the most extreme Israeli narrative on all issues including the rights of more than 5 million Palestinian refugees, the US administration has lost its status as peacemaker and is damaging not only an already volatile situation but the prospects for future peace in the Middle East,” Zomlot said in a statement.

The decision came after the US State Department announced in January it was cutting its funding for UNRWA by more than half, withholding $65m out of a previously earmarked $125m aid package.

The cuts have fuelled despair and protests over recent months in Gaza, the Palestinian enclave besieged for 11 years, where 1.3 million people out of two million residents are refugees, and 80 per cent of the population is dependent on aid.

In July, after 125 local UNRWA staff members lost their jobs and 800 more had their contracts downgraded in the wake of the cuts, a Palestinian aid worker attempted to set himself on fire during a demonstration.

“UNRWA has thrown my family and I onto the street. The street will not be able to sustain us,” Nidal Wishah, the aid worker, wrote in a column published by MEE.

For nearly 70 years, the agency offered registered Palestinian refugees in the occupied territories, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria access to education, health care and social services in addition to providing support to purchase food.

US President Donald Trump has argued that the US, which has been the largest donor to the agency for decades, is paying too much without getting “appreciation or respect”.

“With Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?” he tweeted in January.

Many Palestinians, however, say the US is cutting the aid to pressure them into going along with the Trump administration’s so-called “deal of the century” peace plan, and to strip the majority of Palestinians of their refugee status, erasing the issue of the right of return altogether.

Earlier this week, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said:

“We will be a donor if it [UNRWA] reforms what it does … if they actually change the number of refugees to accurate account, we will look back at partnering them.”

One former US Agency for International Development official told Foreign Policy, which first reported the story earlier this week, that the US decision to cut all funds was “dangerous”.

“An immediate and capricious cut off of UNRWA funding … risks collapsing the Palestinian Authority, empowering Hamas, and shifting the responsibility of health, education, and ultimately security services to the Israelis,” Dave Harden was quoted as saying.

“The decision is dangerous, with unpredictable consequences.”

In an opinion piece for MEE on Friday, journalist Ben White wrote that the halting of aid to UNRWA is only the latest in a series of US policy moves to “defeat the Palestinian struggle”.

“In the context of Israel’s ‘Jewish nation-state’ law, the US recognition of Jerusalem, and moves towards annexation of West Bank territory,” White wrote, “those seeking the elimination of UNRWA envisage its demise to be a crucial part of the consolidation of an apartheid, single state, and the defeat of the Palestinian struggle.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Russian Navy will hold drills in the Mediterranean Sea, near Syria, in the period from September 1 to September 8, the Russian Defense Ministry announced on August 30. The drills will involve 25 warships led by the Marshal Ustinov missile cruiser and 30 aircraft, including the strategic Tu-160 missile-carrying bombers, the Tu-142MK and Il-38 anti-submarine warfare planes, Su-33 fighter jets and Su-30SM aircraft of naval aviation. The defense ministry said that “the grouping will practice a set of tasks of air defense, anti-submarine and anti-sabotage warfare and also mine counter-measures support”.

According to Syrian experts, these drills are a response to the growing threat of a new round of US missile strikes on government facilities in Syria.

On August 30, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that the US currently has some 70 delivery vehicles with about 380 cruise missiles in the Middle East and is capable of preparing a missile-strike group for an attack against Syria in just 24 hours.

The US rejects all reports that it is beforehand preparing for an attack on Syria, but says that it’s ready to act if the Assad government uses “chemical weapons”.

Meanwhile, Syrian Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Walid Muallem stated that the White Helmets had kidnapped 44 children in Idlib to use in a staged chemical weapons attack in the militant-held part of the province. The minister also emphasized that the Syrian military does not possess chemical weapons and there is no need for the Syrian army to use any kind of such weapons to defeat terrorists in the country.

In the area of al-Safa in southern Syria, the Syrian Army captured positions between the hill of Abu Ghanim and the and the area of Umm Marzakh thus splitting the ISIS-held pocket into two parts. Clashes are ongoing.

Warplanes of the US-led coalition carried out airstrikes on several ISIS positions on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, including the area of the al-Azraq oil field. These airstrikes are most likely a US response to the recent series of ISIS attacks on the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.

However, while the ISIS-held pocket of Hajin on the eastern bank of the Euphrates is not cleared, these attacks can hardly be stopped any time soon. The key question is why are the US-led coalition and the SDF not hurrying up to deal with ISIS terrorists there?

*

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, 

BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ,

BCH:qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq,

ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On Friday, Brazil’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) overruled a UN Human Rights Council (HRC) panel of independent experts. 

In August, it ruled for former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s right to run for reelection in October – even though he’s imprisoned on trumped up corruption charges he and his legal team strongly deny.

The HRC panel called on Brazil’s ruling authorities “not to prevent him from standing for election in the 2018 presidential elections, until his appeals before the courts have been completed in fair judicial proceedings,” adding:

“Lula can enjoy and exercise his political rights while in prison, as candidate in the 2018 presidential elections.”

“This includes having appropriate access to the media and members of his political party.”

On Friday, the TSE ruled against Lula’s legitimate right to seek reelection by a 6 – 1 majority vote. Panel member Edson Fachin, supporting Lula’s electoral right, called the HRC’s ruling legally binding.

Anti-Lula judge Luis Barroso voted against his legitimate right, claiming he acted according to Brazil’s constitution and its so-called “clean slate” law.

It bars anyone convicted of serious crimes, corruption, or removed from office by impeachment, from seeking election, Barroso adding:

Lula’s guilt or innocence doesn’t matter, only his conviction, even if unjust, enough to bar him from seeking reelection, he claimed.

Lula’s legal team vowed to appeal the ruling in the nation’s Supreme Court. So did his Brazilian Workers Party, a statement saying:

“We will present all appeals before the courts for the recognition of the rights of Lula provided by law and international treaties ratified by Brazil. (W)e will defend Lula in the streets, with the people.”

A “Lula on the ballot box” for president Twitter campaign was launched. If unsuccessful, his Workers Party vice presidential candidate Fernando Haddad (a former academic and Sao Paulo mayor) may seek Brazil’s presidency in his stead.

On Friday, he tweeted:

“What is in play is the foundation of democracy. The right of the people to choose their president.”

US dirty hands are involved in Latin American politics and most elsewhere, meddling in the internal affairs of numerous countries worldwide, seeking imposition of its will.

The Obama regime was involved in Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment and ouster from office – on trumped up budget-manipulation charges.

She committed no crimes. Nothing justified her removal. Allegations against her were fabricated. Lula was imprisoned on false charges – to assure US-supported fascist tyranny remains in charge.

A US-orchestrated parliamentary coup ousted Rousseff (Lula’s successor) from power in August 2016 – Lula targeted a similar way on fabricated corruption charges.

Imprisoning him was all about wanting him barred from seeking reelection, almost certain to win if allowed to run.

Supported by Washington, Brazilian fascists want nothing standing in their way of retaining power in October.

If Haddad replaces Lula on the ballot, their scheme may fail.

*

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  

An aggressive sign of an affluent society can usually be gauged by its invidious misuse of its privilege.  Poverty is deemed necessary, and the rich must try to understand it.  To be privileged is to be guilty, a tickling of the conscience as the pennies pile up and the assets grow; and from that premise, efforts must be made to give shape to the forgotten, and, in most cases, the invisible.

To be guilty is a spur for works that supposedly highlight those nagging reasons for feeling guilty.  You might supply donations.  You can become a philanthropist.  You can join a charity.  Obscenely, you can become a creature of mocking persuasion, a person of pantomime: you can assume the position of a poor person, a homeless person, and pretend to be him.  And let it be filmed.

“When I was given the opportunity to spend 10 days experiencing different forms of homelessness for an SBS documentary, I jumped at the chance to understand more about a crisis that now sees more than 116,000 Australians homeless on any given night.”

So go the words of veteran thespian Cameron Daddo, a person who never explains how understanding Sydney’s poverty leads to results, other than spending time on the screen and proving rather awkward to boot.

The individuals involved in the tawdry Australian spectacle Filthy Rich & Homeless have various reasons for participating.  They have a chance, not merely to appear before the cameras, but to explore another part of Sydney.  What matters for Skye Leckie is the anger of authenticity.  Socialite that she is, she does not believe that her participation in the venture is “poverty porn” despite being the very same creature who benefits from having a good quotient of poor around.

“Those who say it’s stunt TV are being totally ignorant to the homeless situation out there.”

This is a delicious way of self-justification, a positioned blow to excuse how her exploitation of a social condition is entirely justified by a mysterious, holy insight.  Her pantomime, in other words, is heralded as genuine.

Benjamin Law, author and very much an identity beacon (those things help these days), played the cool cat.  In such ensembles, it’s always good to have the confidently composed, the person who won’t fall for the pathos of the show.

“I went to Filthy Rich and Homeless being adamant that it was only 10 days, and that I wasn’t going to cry – I felt it’d almost be insulting to people who were actually homeless.”

So goes his justification for actually participating in the project: he would hold firm, stay calm, keep his tear ducts dry.

“But when it’s demonstrated that this could easily be a family member, and someone you love, I couldn’t not be affected.”

The show is sugary fodder for social media masturbation, an ever so prodding tease for those who feel pangs of stirring guilt. Nonsense about “genuine compassion” and “empathy” whirl through the chattersphere, with a disconcerting gurgle of approval at the program.  The implication is clear: like true porn, it produces a release, an orgiastic sensation.  The poor are sociological wank fodder.  In the aftermath is the little death, or should be.  Such programs float on the froth of sentiment, and last longer than they should.

There are shades of the carnivalesque, as Michael Bakhtin called it, in this exercise.  The tradition of the carnival, he explained, suggested alternate worlds, inverted ones where social orders might, just temporarily, be suspended.  The performer, and the audience, would become one.  Communal dialogue might emerge.  But the participants will eventually go home; the nobility will revert to their high standing, and the poor will undress and return to their squalid, putrid existence.

Feudalism and tribalism may have made their official exit in the historical textbooks, but we still find stirrings of old custom in the media industry.  The poor are there to be mocked; the vulnerable are there to be, in some form, exploited.  Gone is the exaggerated chivalric code, as meagre as it was (keeping people in place), and the presumption of charity.  In its place is the clawing, scraping urge of the media moguls and networks keen to capitalise upon a condition, a disability, a drawback.  Poverty is visual and lucrative for all – except the impoverished.

An obvious flaw in this project – several wealthy members of society burying themselves in the poor underbelly – is contrived anonymity. The monarchs supposedly travel incognito amongst the slums.  The participants supposedly become unknown for a time.  The King and Queen scrap around the hovels.  But who recognises them?  Presumably everybody.  Not having a home, or living in indigence, doesn’t mean not having access to the saturation coverage called the World Wide Web.  The camera crews might be a giveaway, the very reality of which produces distortions in the interviews.

The grotesque scene uncovers itself, and the tears, spilling on cue, supply catharsis.

“Most interesting,” noted the Sydney Morning Herald, “is just how little time on the street it takes for them to be reduced to tears.”

To be fair, they only had ten days, so the performance clock was ticking.  The filthy rich feel justified – they acknowledged pain and desperation.  The poor, their role achieved, can simply go on living.

*

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

First published by Global Research on January 3, 2018

In 2007, the late Prof. Jules Dufour raised concerns about US global deployment of military personnel and its network of military bases. The US views the world, he said, “as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit.” “Humanity is being controlled and enslaved” he argued by this network.

The US is dividing the world into geographic command units, like US Northcom or US Southcom, proved the US focus on global control.

Dufour mentions the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases (No Bases Network) as essential in achieving a cohesive, coordinated front against US global control. The No Bases Network, born at the conference in Ecuador (March 2007), was concerned about the expansion of US Network of bases, and specifically about the plan for renewal of permission of the US Military base in Manta. Rafael Correa, then president of Ecuador, was invited and he expressed there his decision to not renew permission for the base, a position that will be later included in Ecuador’s new Constitution, approved by referendum in 2008, which specifically prohibits foreign military bases on Ecuador’s soil. The Manta base was closed in September 2009. (1, 2)

This year the Conference of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases will take place in Baltimore, US (Jan. 12 to 14).  It will have three keynote speakers: Mr. Ajamu Baraka, 2016 US Green Party candidate for vice president and current President of the Black Alliance for Peace; Ms. Ann Wright, Retired US Army Colonel and leading member of Veterans for Peace and CODEPINK; and, Mr. David Vine, Associate Professor of Anthropology, American University in Washington DC, and author of the 2015 book “Base Nation. How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and The World.” (3)

The conference can increase awareness about organizing for peace. Since 9/11 we live ongoing conflicts and today the menace of war escalating into nuclear madness is higher and the US refuses to be rational provoking countries with nuclear capabilities like North Korea -Korean War ended in 1953 with a truce, no peace agreement has been signed. Propaganda, irrational thinking and permanent war seem acceptable, even normal. The US network of bases overseas has a life of its own and favor war rather than diplomacy. Politicians show lack of maturity, even common sense while in the press there is growing obsession with North Korea and Russia. Nuclear war means human annihilation; still, STRATCOM recommends irrationality and vindictiveness as proper strategy.

From Forts to Bases Overseas

“Since the end of WWII, the idea that our country should have a large collection of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops permanently stationed overseas has been quasi religious dictum of US foreign and national security policy.” The policy underlying such belief is called “forward strategy.” Prof. Vine argues that in the minds of policy makers the need for overseas bases and troops is a given. They are expensive, up to 120 billion (Afghanistan and Iraq in 2012 raised the costs to U$S 170 billion), taxpayers pay on average U$S 10-40 000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the US. (4)

There are costs beyond financial too. The families of military personnel suffer separation and frequent moves; one in 3 service women are now assaulted (sexually) and a huge number of these assaults take place overseas. Outside base gates there is prostitution relying on human trafficking, as in South Korea, and rapes against local population, as in Okinawa (Japan). There is also widespread environmental damage. US bases are built by displacing local population, as in Greenland and Diego Garcia; and they are 21 century colonialism, like Guam and Puerto Rico. US bases are often located in undemocratic countries, like Qatar and Bahrain; some are connected to mafia organizations, like in Italy; and some are linked to torture and imprisonment, like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib. (4)

The network of US bases facilitates wars that cost millions of lives. They contribute to increasing tensions, rather than stabilize dangerous regions, and discourage diplomatic solutions to conflicts. The network maintains the US in a state of permanent war, with an economy and government constantly preparing for battle. Notably, having bases and troops overseas is rooted in US history of frontier forts, crucial for western expansion and overtaking of Native-American lands. Fort Harmar was first (1785), soon others followed in what are Ohio and Indiana today. Each fort helped waves of US settlers move into Native American lands. In 1830 Andrew Jackson created the Indian Removal Policy forcing Natives to give up their lands east of the Mississippi River; this was to be the “very western edge of civilization” and the “permanent Indian frontier,” but soon after (1832-34) the Santa Fe and Oregon trails started and conquest continued. Expansion moved beyond, taking Mexican land (California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and the Republic of Texas) and Oregon from Great Britain after 1846. By 1878 there was a network of 90 forts throughout the US. (4)

Outside the US, bases emerged in Guantanamo (Cuba) and Panama. In 1939 Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed an interest in getting new island bases in the Caribbean and by the time the U.S. entered WWII there were new bases in 20 countries. Commercial and military planning developed together; “Pan Am Airways secretly acquired basing right for the military throughout Latin America.” Thus, new bases flourished in the war while Pan Am ensured for itself and US airlines a useful advantage when war ended. But, the end of WWII favored the rights of people, requiring a more cautious approach in showing power. Installations and periodic displays of “military might” ensured economic and political advantages for the US. It was a “global economic access without colonies.”  (4)

In the 1980s under Carter there was build up in the Middle East. Later, the fall of the Soviet Union pressed the US to close about 60% of its bases bringing home 300 000 troops. But, in 1991 the Gulf War in Iraq, and in 2001-2003 the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, were excuse for renewing US overseas bases. Its format changed, “Little Americas” were substituted by smaller, strategic, and at times secretive sites called “Lily pads.” As forts worked in taking over Indian land, bases worked maintaining US power around the world. They are “the global cavalry of the 21C,” says Vine. As the number of giant Cold War-era bases shrunk, the smaller ones proliferated giving the US greater geographic scope. (4)

Costly Strategy: Displacement, Toxic Environments, Democracy, People and Money

A good argument against US bases overseas is cost, including more than money. They do not favor stability or security, but undermine both, displace local populations at a high cost to them, cause environmental damage and favor alliances with dictators and the mafia contributing to spreading oppressive/repressive regimes rather than democracy. They favor prostitution, rape, the sexual abuse of women, a distorted view of masculinity and hurt US image abroad and people abroad and at home.

Displacement

The “strategic island concept” was the basis for growth and required small islands with good anchorage (for airstrips) and insulated from locals. The islands were under UK sovereignty and had to have “negligible” population. Chagos Islands fit both criteria; Diego Garcia was approved as a site. Local population was deported in stages in 1973 in cargo ships, most of them sleeping above guano (bird shit), and later abandoned on the docks of Mauritius and the Seychelles. Some compare these conditions to conditions in slave ships. Chagossians are people of color who two years after their removal still lived in abject poverty; the Washington Post named them true victims of an “act of mass kidnapping.” Similar things happened to the indigenous population of the Bikini islands, the island Culebra in Puerto Rico and to Viequeños, displaced to the center of their island. The US Army is familiar with displacing indigenous people; it has done its share in the US for more than 100 years. Indigenous people at home ended also traumatized and impoverished. (4)

Toxic Environments

Although the US military have been concerned about their environmental footprint, most bases cause profound environmental damage and significant risk to humans and the natural environment because of their activities. Bases store weapons and explosives containing toxic chemicals. There is pollution in the form of toxic leaks, accidental detonations and other accidents. Their carbon footprint is large for the number of people living and working there. Bases use massive amounts of fuel, oil, lubricants and other petroleum products for training and exercises, and war time activities are even worse. Military bases are high consumers of heat, air conditioning and power. The US armed forces consume more oil everyday than the entire country of Sweden. (4)

Victim of Agent Orange

There is contamination in South Korea due to chemical, fuel and other toxic waste leaks and spills, and in some cases deliberate burial from US bases. In Diego Garcia the US military destroyed the island´s reef with explosives removing tons of coral to build a runway, thousands of trees were clear cut and Agent Orange was used to clear jungle foliage, and, US naval vessels dumped waste and treated human sewage into the island protected coral lagoon for 30 years. In Okinawa 80 barrels containing dioxin and other contaminants were discovered buried under a soccer field close to two schools while Agent Orange was stored and buried at the base during the Vietnam War. In Philippines, when the US military left in 1992, there was unexploded ordnance, asbestos, heavy metals and leaking fuel tanks and dangerous pesticides. In Panamá there were 100 000 unexploded ordnance while mustard gas bombs were found in San Jose. Places under colonial or semi colonial rule faced some of the worst environmental damages from US bases. (4)

Democracy – Befriending dictators and in bed with the Mob

A large scale study of US bases since 1898 confirmed that autocratic states have been consistently attractive as base hosts while democratic ones have not. US military interventions to protect US economic interests took place in Honduras, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama. The term “banana republic,” coined by short story writer O. Henry, describes weak, marginally independent countries facing economic and political domination, a colony but in name. In 1954 the CIA used a banana plantation in Honduras to train a US backed mercenary army to overthrow the elected government of Guatemala because it had threatened the banana monopoly of the United Fruit Co, “Chiquita.” In the 1980s The Tripartite, an unholy alliance created to support the Contras against the Sandinistas, had Honduras providing them sanctuary, Argentina being a “front” to hide US involvement while the US paid (from secret sales of weapons to Iran), and Israelis and Chileans trained them. The human costs were more than 270 disappeared in Honduras, 50 000 dead in Nicaragua, 75000 dead in El Salvador and 240 000 dead or disappeared in Guatemala –genocide. (4)

The US has been consistently attracted by dictators; Vine believes it is because they provide access and sustainability for their bases. But dictators do more than this and are often put in place by the US itself when their ideological interests are in sync. After WWII caution was required in expressing power so empire building discourse changed. Seventy three million people had died because of fascism, including military and civilians from Allied and Axis powers.  Before WWII British empire building was direct offering no apologies. President Taft was similar:

“The day is not far distant when…the whole hemisphere will be ours in fact as by virtue of our superiority as a race, it already is ours morally.”

But after WWII such strategy was untenable. Still, the goals were the same, so someone had to complete dirty deeds when needed. Dictators and mobsters are good at this and asked few questions; discarding them when expired is easier because they work against the Law and are not liked by many. (4, 5, 6)

In Italy “proliferation of US and NATO bases helped strengthen the political and economic power of criminal organizations.”  A relationship between the US military and the Camorra (Naples mafia) is not an aberration, Vine says, but a strategy the military used to keep cost manageable, military contracts encouraged cutting corners. The US base in Sicily is closely linked to the mafia since WWII when Sicilian born Lucky Luciano transformed it into a powerful and wealthy national crime syndicate in the US (commanding over drugs, prostitution and other criminal activities). Luciano was jailed, but released to help Navy officers to “protect” New York from Axis spies and saboteurs during WWII. After WWII he got clemency from NY governor and returned to Italy. His business in the US went to Vito Genovese, who came from Naples where he had been working with the US Army. The “exchange” worked well for both of them. (4)

In Naples the mafia receives military contracts in construction. In Sicily firms controlled by the Cosa Nostra gained similar contracts for the Comiso base, now closed. In the 1990s three major janitorial, grounds keeping and maintenance contractors at Sicily´s Sigonella naval base were shown to have mafia ties. “Ties between the military and the Mafia may not have been simply the result of questionable oversight, but a deliberate decision,” argues Vine. Gricignano and surrounding areas where Navy personnel live are at the center of the Camorra illegal dumping of garbage and toxic waste since the 1980s –a U$S 20 billion a year illicit business. The Camorra solves the waste disposal problems of northern Italy businesses disposing of hazardous waste cheaply -burying refuse in illegal dumps, pumping chemicals into underground ditches and burning trash in secluded areas. The area is called “triangle of death” because of elevated levels of radiation, nitrates, bacteria, arsenic. Chemicals used in cleaning solvents have been found in the water, air and soil. The Navy is concerned; the Gricignano base prohibits sailors from using tap water and Italian produce is labeled by origin to avoid contaminants. (4)

People – Prostitution, Rape, Militarized Masculinity and Perks

Commercial sex zones developed around US bases worldwide looking similarly: liquor stores, fast food outlets, tattoo parlors, bars, clubs and prostitution. Baumholder and Kaiserlautern (Germany), Kadena and Kin Town (Okinawa), even domestic ones like Fort Bragg (North Carolina) have red light districts. Overseas is worse. In South Korea “camptowns” are a critical part of the economy, male officials strategizing for GIs to spend their money there, and affect politics and culture. “Our government was one big pimp for the US military,” says a former sex worker. Filipina women fill most of the bars and clubs in South Korea today; they come from a poorer country and need to send money home. Military contractors are involved as in Bosnia (1998) where DynCorp employees talked openly of buying women and the company leadership had connections with the mafia and took their employees to the brothels. A rape videotaped was never investigated; Kathryn Bolkovac, a Dyncorp employee part of UN police force, testified to stories of women trafficked from the east, forced into prostitution to pay debts, some terrified, she suspected beaten and tortured. (4)

In addition to “camptown” prostitution there is pervasive objectification of women in the military which plays a role in the victimization of locals, women in the military and at home partners and others. Environmental health expert, H. Patricia Hynes notes that sexual objectification shapes the epidemic of sexual assault and harassment so common in the military today. Pornography contributes and it is pervasive. Around two thirds of incidents of unwanted sexual contact take place in military installations while overseas bases are particularly dangerous. Much of the military leadership fails to grasp the nature of the problem, take steps to protect female troops and enforce its own laws. In the military rape is pandemic because females are considered inferior, often reduced to sex objects, while men are trained to enact a masculinity based on dominance over others considered inferior, weaker and deserving being dominated and abused. Men who spent time in the US military are more likely than their civilian counterparts to be imprisoned for sexual offences. A disproportionate number of men in the military have been victims of violence too, which makes them more likely to become abusers themselves. Beyond sexual abuse the rates of domestic violence in the military may be about 5 times the civilian rates. (4)

“Bases add facilities, fancier food, and recreational amenities: steak and lobster, flat screen TVs, Internet Connections…the military refer to these comforts collectively as “ice cream.” Right now…there is no ice cream at small outposts…but eventually…it is a building block process.”

Perks for military personnel are tempting but basic; but, perks at overseas bases are greater for the generals and the admirals, who often enjoy personal assistants, chefs, vehicles, and private planes. There are cases, like African Command commander General William Ward were multiple forms of misconduct were found, free meals, tickets to musicals, including billing the government for hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal travel and more. (4)

Money matters

The costs of overseas bases are high; they include from airplane tickets for family members and shipping of belongings, to housing, costs of living allowances, temporary accommodations, meals, per diems, and the building of schools, clinics, churches and more. The average cost of running an overseas Air Base without personnel is U$S 200 million, twice the cost of running it in the US.  Air Force personnel overseas cost U$S 40 000 more per person than in the US. The military ship tens of thousands of vehicles to and from bases overseas, costing about U$S 200 million/year. The Pentagon Overseas Cost Summary for 2012 was U$S 22.7 billion. But Anita Dancs, an economist, estimated the cost much higher in 2009 at US$ 250 billion. Vine decided working a conservative estimate including costs the Pentagon did not include and reached U$S 71.7 billion per year. When he added costs from the War Budget (U$S 96.9 billion) the total estimate was close to US$ 170 billion, a bit closer to Dancs’ and much higher than the Pentagon’s. (4)

Every base built overseas is a theft from American society, Vine argues. The costs to host countries are also high; and, there are financial expenses like money spent cleaning the environmental damage caused but also soundproofing homes and paying damages for crimes committed by US troops. There are also the Costs of Rising Hostility, the damage done by US bases to the US international reputation and its standing in the world. Only some benefit: contractors. KBR (latest incarnation of Brown & Roots) received contracts for more than U$S 44 billion while the Supreme Group (transporting/serving meals) received contracts for U$S 9 billion –the Pentagon now says Supreme overbilled them. Agility Logistics with contracts for U$S 9 billion was indicted on criminal charges for U$S 6 billion in false claims and price manipulation. Furthermore, even though contractors enjoyed billions in taxpayer funds many used legal and illegal means to minimize US taxes paid on profits, using offshore subsidiaries for this. (4)

The Threat of Nuclear War or When “Crazy” Rules

The risk of using nuclear weapons increases with increasing aggressiveness and war. John LaForge points to headlines in American newspapers giving the impression that using nuclear weapons can be legal. They are not, he says: any use of nuclear weapons would be indiscriminate and illegal by definition. International covenants, treaties, and protocols forbid indiscriminate destruction, attacks that are disproportionate to a military objective, and weapons’ effects that “treacherously wound,” harm neutral states, or do long-term damage to the environment. There is a huge difference between conventional and nuclear weapons he argues. The later cannot be used without committing war crimes:

“Any government which adopts a defense policy implying such an attack is therefore inciting its own forces to commit war crimes on a gigantic and suicidal scale.”

John E. Hyten (Source: Wkimedia Commons)

John E Hyten, the US (STRATCOM) Strategic Command Chief general, was in the news discussing the use of nuclear weapons; he would be in charge of nuclear forces in a war. (7)

A 1995 STRATCOM report mentioned as detrimental for the US to portray itself as “too rational” recommending instead projecting an “irrational and vindictive” national persona with some “potentially ‘out of control’” elements. I guess we are there now. The hegemonic principle in place means the US and its allies “should possess an offensive nuclear capacity to destroy their enemies denied to other nations, and can flout international law and their foreign obligations on a whim.”  As Joshua Cho argues, the US has unleashed far more violence and aggression abroad and the latest international poll found that “the US is considered the greatest threat to world peace, beating out all other competitors—including North Korea—by decisive margins.” He adds, “A casual examination of the United States’ record abroad can yield similar damning conclusions: the United States is the world’s nuclear menace, not North Korea.” (8) Thus, we are looking at the monster in the mirror: it is us! That is the US and its Western allies, including Canada.

Notes

1. The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases, Prof. Jules Dufour, Global Research, https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

2. US Closes Military Post in Ecuador, Gonzalo Solano, AP (September 19, 2009).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803407.html

3. Conference on US Military Bases, Baltimore, Maryland. noforeignbases.org

4. Vine, David (2015) “Base Nation How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and The world,” Metropolitan Books, New York.

5. Morris, James (1979) “Farewell The Trumpets, An Imperial Retreat,” Penguin Books, London.

6. WWII, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

7. What Kind of Nuclear Attack Would be Legal? John LaForge, Counterpunch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/07/what-kind-of-nuclear-attack-would-be-legal-2/

8. The World’s Real Nuclear Menace Isn’t North Korea, Joshua Cho, Counterpunch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/29/the-worlds-real-nuclear-menace-isnt-north-korea/

This article was first published in June 2011

Prisoners earning 23 cents an hour in U.S. federal prisons are manufacturing high-tech electronic components for Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missiles, launchers for TOW (Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles, and other guided missile systems. A March article by journalist and financial researcher Justin Rohrlich of World in Review is worth a closer look at the full implications of this ominous development. (minyanville.com)

The expanding use of prison industries, which pay slave wages, as a way to increase profits for giant military corporations, is a frontal attack on the rights of all workers.

Prison labor — with no union protection, overtime pay, vacation days, pensions, benefits, health and safety protection, or Social Security withholding — also makes complex components for McDonnell Douglas/Boeing’s F-15 fighter aircraft, the General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16, and Bell/Textron’s Cobra helicopter. Prison labor produces night-vision goggles, body armor, camouflage uniforms, radio and communication devices, and lighting systems and components for 30-mm to 300-mm battleship anti-aircraft guns, along with land mine sweepers and electro-optical equipment for the BAE Systems Bradley Fighting Vehicle’s laser rangefinder. Prisoners recycle toxic electronic equipment and overhaul military vehicles.

Labor in federal prisons is contracted out by UNICOR, previously known as Federal Prison Industries, a quasi-public, for-profit corporation run by the Bureau of Prisons. In 14 prison factories, more than 3,000 prisoners manufacture electronic equipment for land, sea and airborne communication. UNICOR is now the U.S. government’s 39th largest contractor, with 110 factories at 79 federal penitentiaries.

The majority of UNICOR’s products and services are on contract to orders from the Department of Defense. Giant multinational corporations purchase parts assembled at some of the lowest labor rates in the world, then resell the finished weapons components at the highest rates of profit. For example, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Corporation subcontract components, then assemble and sell advanced weapons systems to the Pentagon.

Increased profits, unhealthy workplaces

However, the Pentagon is not the only buyer. U.S. corporations are the world’s largest arms dealers, while weapons and aircraft are the largest U.S. export. The U.S. State Department, Department of Defense and diplomats pressure NATO members and dependent countries around the world into multibillion-dollar weapons purchases that generate further corporate profits, often leaving many countries mired in enormous debt.

But the fact that the capitalist state has found yet another way to drastically undercut union workers’ wages and ensure still higher profits to military corporations — whose weapons wreak such havoc around the world — is an ominous development.

According to CNN Money, the U.S. highly skilled and well-paid “aerospace workforce has shrunk by 40 percent in the past 20 years. Like many other industries, the defense sector has been quietly outsourcing production (and jobs) to cheaper labor markets overseas.” (Feb. 24) It seems that with prison labor, these jobs are also being outsourced domestically.

Meanwhile, dividends and options to a handful of top stockholders and CEO compensation packages at top military corporations exceed the total payment of wages to the more than 23,000 imprisoned workers who produce UNICOR parts.

The prison work is often dangerous, toxic and unprotected. At FCC Victorville, a federal prison located at an old U.S. airbase, prisoners clean, overhaul and reassemble tanks and military vehicles returned from combat and coated in toxic spent ammunition, depleted uranium dust and chemicals.

A federal lawsuit by prisoners, food service workers and family members at FCI Marianna, a minimum security women’s prison in Florida, cited that toxic dust containing lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic poisoned those who worked at UNICOR’s computer and electronic recycling factory.

Prisoners there worked covered in dust, without safety equipment, protective gear, air filtration or masks. The suit explained that the toxic dust caused severe damage to nervous and reproductive systems, lung damage, bone disease, kidney failure, blood clots, cancers, anxiety, headaches, fatigue, memory lapses, skin lesions, and circulatory and respiratory problems. This is one of eight federal prison recycling facilities — employing 1,200 prisoners — run by UNICOR.

After years of complaints the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General and the Federal Occupational Health Service concurred in October 2008 that UNICOR has jeopardized the lives and safety of untold numbers of prisoners and staff. (Prison Legal News, Feb. 17, 2009)

Racism & U.S. prisons

The U.S. imprisons more people per capita than any country in the world. With less than 5 percent of the world population, the U.S. imprisons more than 25 percent of all people imprisoned in the world.

There are more than 2.3 million prisoners in federal, state and local prisons in the U.S. Twice as many people are under probation and parole. Many tens of thousands of other prisoners include undocumented immigrants facing deportation, prisoners awaiting sentencing and youthful offenders in categories considered reform or detention.

The racism that pervades every aspect of life in capitalist society — from jobs, income and housing to education and opportunity — is most brutally reflected by who is caught up in the U.S. prison system.

More than 60 percent of U.S. prisoners are people of color. Seventy percent of those being sentenced under the three strikes law in California — which requires mandatory sentences of 25 years to life after three felony convictions — are people of color. Nationally, 39 percent of African-American men in their 20s are in prison, on probation or on parole. The U.S. imprisons more people than South Africa did under apartheid. (Linn Washington, “Incarceration Nation”)

The U.S. prison population is not only the largest in the world — it is relentlessly growing. The U.S. prison population is more than five times what it was 30 years ago.

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan became president, there were 400,000 prisoners in the U.S. Today the number exceeds 2.3 million. In California the prison population soared from 23,264 in 1980 to 170,000 in 2010. The Pennsylvania prison population climbed from 8,243 to 51,487 in those same years. There are now more African-American men in prison, on probation or on parole than were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began, according to Law Professor Michelle Alexander in the book “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.”

Today a staggering 1-in-100 adults in the U.S. are living behind bars. But this crime, which breaks families and destroys lives, is not evenly distributed. In major urban areas one-half of Black men have criminal records. This means life-long, legalized discrimination in student loans, financial assistance, access to public housing, mortgages, the right to vote and, of course, the possibility of being hired for a job.

State Prisons contracting slave labor

It is not only federal prisons that contract out prison labor to top corporations. State prisons that used forced prison labor in plantations, laundries and highway chain gangs increasingly seek to sell prison labor to corporations trolling the globe in search of the cheapest possible labor.

One agency asks: “Are you experiencing high employee turnover? Worried about the costs of employee benefits? Unhappy with out-of-state or offshore suppliers? Getting hit by overseas competition? Having trouble motivating your workforce? Thinking about expansion space? Then Washington State Department of Corrections Private Sector Partnerships is for you.” (educate-yourself.org, July 25, 2005)

Major corporations profiting from the slave labor of prisoners include Motorola, Compaq, Honeywell, Microsoft, Boeing, Revlon, Chevron, TWA, Victoria’s Secret and Eddie Bauer.

IBM, Texas Instruments and Dell get circuit boards made by Texas prisoners. Tennessee inmates sew jeans for Kmart and JCPenney. Tens of thousands of youth flipping hamburgers for minimum wages at McDonald’s wear uniforms sewn by prison workers, who are forced to work for much less.

In California, as in many states, prisoners who refuse to work are moved to disciplinary housing and lose canteen privileges as well as “good time” credit, which slices hard time off their sentences.

Systematic abuse, beatings, prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation, and lack of medical care make U.S. prison conditions among the worst in the world. Ironically, working under grueling conditions for pennies an hour is treated as a “perk” for good behavior.

In December, Georgia inmates went on strike and refused to leave their cells at six prisons for more than a week. In one of the largest prison protests in U.S. history, prisoners spoke of being forced to work seven days a week for no pay. Prisoners were beaten if they refused to work.

Private prisons for profit

In the ruthless search to maximize profits and grab hold of every possible source of income, almost every public agency and social service is being outsourced to private for-profit contractors.

In the U.S. military this means there are now more private contractors and mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan than there are U.S. or NATO soldiers.

In cities and states across the U.S., hospitals, medical care facilities, schools, cafeterias, road maintenance, water supply services, sewage departments, sanitation, airports and tens of thousands of social programs that receive public funding are being contracted out to for-profit corporations. Anything publicly owned and paid for by generations of past workers’ taxes — from libraries to concert halls and parks — is being sold or leased at fire sale prices.

All this is motivated and lobbied for by right-wing think tanks like that set up by Koch Industries and their owners, Charles and David Koch, as a way to cut costs, lower wages and pensions, and undercut public service unions.

The most gruesome privatizations are the hundreds of for-profit prisons being established.

The inmate population in private for-profit prisons tripled between 1987 and 2007. By 2007 there were 264 such prison facilities, housing almost 99,000 adult prisoners. (house.leg.state.mn.us, Feb. 24, 2009) Companies operating such facilities include the Corrections Corporation of America, the GEO Group Inc. and Community Education Centers.

Prison bonds provide a lucrative return for capitalist investors such as Merrill-Lynch, Shearson Lehman, American Express and Allstate. Prisoners are traded from one state to another based on the most profitable arrangements.

Militarism and prisons

Hand in hand with the military-industrial complex, U.S. imperialism has created a massive prison-industrial complex that generates billions of dollars annually for businesses and industries profiting from mass incarceration.

For decades workers in the U.S. have been assured that they also benefit from imperialist looting by the giant multinational corporations. But today more than half the federal budget is absorbed by the costs of maintaining the military machine and the corporations who are guaranteed profits for equipping the Pentagon. That is the only budget category in federal spending that is guaranteed to increase by at least 5 percent a year — at a time when every social program is being cut to the bone.

The sheer economic weight of militarism seeps into the fabric of society at every level. It fuels racism and reaction. The political influence of the Pentagon and the giant military and oil corporations — with their thousands of high-paid lobbyists, media pundits and network of links into every police force in the country — fuels growing repression and an expanding prison population.

The military, oil and banking conglomerates, interlinked with the police and prisons, have a stranglehold on the U.S. capitalist economy and reins of political power, regardless of who is president or what political party is in office. The very survival of these global corporations is based on immediate maximization of profits. They are driven to seize every resource and source of potential profits.

Thoroughly rational solutions are proposed whenever the human and economic cost of militarism and repression is discussed. The billions spent for war and fantastically destructive weapons systems could provide five to seven times more jobs if spent on desperately needed social services, education and rebuilding essential infrastructure. Or it could provide free university education, considering the fact that it costs far more to imprison people than to educate them.

Why aren’t such reasonable solutions ever chosen? Because military contracts generate far larger guaranteed profits to the military and the oil industries, which have a decisive influence on the U.S. economy.

The prison-industrial complex — including the prison system, prison labor, private prisons, police and repressive apparatus, and their continuing expansion — are a greater source of profit and are reinforced by the climate of racism and reaction. Most rational and socially useful solutions are not considered viable options.

Firsr published by Global Research on April 3, 2016

The proportion of deaths due to cancer around the world increased from 12 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2013. Globally, cancer is already the second-leading cause of death after cardiovascular diseases.

In India, government data indicates that cancer showed a 5 percent increase in prevalence between 2012 and 2014 with the number of new cases doubling between 1990 and 2013. The incidence of cancer for some major organs in India is the highest in the world. Reports have also drawn attention to rising rates of breast cancer in urban areas, and, in 2009, there was a reported increase in cancer rates in Tamil Nadu’s textile belt, possibly due to chemically contaminated water.

The increase in prevalence of diabetes is also worrying. By 2030, the number of diabetes patients in India is likely to rise to 101 million (World Health Organisation estimate). The number doubled to 63 million in 2013 from 32 million in 2000. Almost 8.2 percent of the adult male population in India has diabetes. The figure is 6.8 percent for women.

In India, almost 76,000 men and 52,000 women in the 30-69 age group died due to diabetes in 2015, according to the WHO. The organisation reports South-East Asia had a diabetic population of around 47 million, which is expected to reach 119 million by 2030.

A new study in The Lancet has found that India and China continue to have the largest number of underweight people in the world; however, both countries have broken into the top five in terms of obesity.

India leads the world in terms of underweight people. Some 102 million men and 101 million women are underweight, which makes the country home to over 40 percent of the global underweight population.

Contrast this with India’s surge in obesity. In 1975, the country had 0.4 million obese men or 1.3 percent of the global obese men’s population. In 2014, it was in fifth position globally with 9.8 million obese men or 3.7 percent of the global obese men’s population. Among women, India is globally ranked third, with 20 million obese women or 5.3 percent of global population.

Although almost half the nation’s under-5s are underweight, the prevalence of underweight children in India is among the highest in the world; at the same time, the country is fast becoming the diabetes and heart disease capital of the world.

Many social and economic factors, including environmental pollution, poor working and living conditions, tobacco smoking, lack of income and economic distress, lack of access to healthcare and poverty, contribute to ill health and disease. However, conditions like cardiovascular disease and obesity have among other things been linked to sedentary lifestyles and/or certain types of diet, not least modern Western-style convenience food (discussed later).

Western junk food aside, it will be shown that even when we have access to sufficient calorific intake or seemingly nutritious and wholesome traditional diets, there is little doubt that due to the processes involved in growing and processing the food we eat, diet can be a (major) contributory factor in causing certain conditions and illnesses.

The junk food revolution, ‘free’ trade and poor health

The impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the subsequent flood of cheap US processed food into the country has adversely affected the health of ordinary people. Western ‘convenience’ (junk) food has displaced more traditional-based diets and is now readily available in every neighbourhood. Increasing rates of diabetes, obesity and other health issues have followed. This report by GRAIN describes how US agribusiness and retailers have captured the market south of the border and outlines the subsequent impact on the health of Mexican people.

In Europe, due to the ‘harmonisation’ of food regulatory standards, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could seriously impact the health of Europeans. Washington wants Europe to eliminate all restrictions on imports of food from the US and to adopt a US-style food supply regulatory regime, stripped of the precautionary principle. US corporations want to make it difficult for European consumers to identify whether what they’re eating is food that was produced using health-damaging practices that EU consumers are against, like GMOs, chlorine-washed chicken and meat from animals treated with growth hormone.

These types of trade agreements represent little more than economic plunder by transnational corporations. They use their massive political clout to author the texts of these agreements with the aim of eradicating all restrictions and regulations that would impede greater profits.

Western agribusiness, food processing companies and retail concerns are gaining wider entry into India and through various strategic trade deals are looking to gain a more significant footprint within the country. The Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture and the ongoing India-EU free trade agreement (like TTIP, both are secretive and largely authored by powerful corporations above the heads of ordinary people) talks have raised serious concerns about the stranglehold that transnational corporations could have on the agriculture and food sectors, including the subsequent impact on the livelihoods of hundreds of millions and not least the health of the public.

Western style fast-food outlets have already been soaring in number throughout the country. Pizza Hut now operates in 46 Indian cities with 181 restaurants and 132 home delivery locations, a 67 percent increase in the last five years). KFC is now in 73 cities with 296 restaurants, a 770 percent increase. McDonalds is in 61 Indian cities with 242 restaurants as compared to 126 restaurants five years back, a 92 percent increase). According to a study published in the Indian Journal of Applied Research, the Indian fast food market is growing at the rate of 30-35 percent per annum (see this).

Heart disease, liver damage, stroke, obesity and diabetes are just some of the diseases linked to diets revolving around fast-food. Frequent consumption of fast food has been associated with increased body mass index as well as higher intakes of fat, sodium, added sugars and sugar-sweetened beverages and lower intakes of fruits, vegetables, fibre and milk in children, adolescents and adults. Fast food also tends to have higher energy densities and poorer nutritional quality than foods prepared at home and in comparison with dietary recommendations (see this).

To further appreciate just how unhealthy even seemingly healthy food can be in well-stocked supermarkets, this report in The Guardian reveals the cocktails of additives, colourants and preservatives that the modern food industry adds to our food.

Moreover, in many regions across the globe industrialised factory farming has replaced traditional livestock agriculture. Animals are thrown together in cramped conditions to scale up production and maximise output at minimum cost. For example, just 40 years ago the Philippines’ entire population was fed on native eggs and chickens produced by family farmers. Now, most of those farmers are out of business. And because world trade rules encourage nations from imposing tariffs on subsidised imported products, they are forced to allow cheap, factory-farmed US meat into the country. These products are then sold at lower prices than domestic meat. There is therefore pressure for local producers to scale up and industrialise to compete.

Factory farms increase the risk of pathogens like E coli and salmonella that cause food-borne illness in people. Overuse of antibiotics can fuel the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the use of arsenic and growth hormones can increase the risk of cancer in people and crowded conditions can be a breeding ground for disease. And genetically modified animal feed is also a serious issue, leading to concerns about the impact on both animal and human health.

The green revolution, micronutrient deficient soil and human health

We often hear unsubstantiated claims about the green revolution having saved hundreds of millions of lives, but any short-term gains have been offset. This high-input petro-chemical paradigm helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health (see this report on India by botanist Stuart Newton – p 9 onward).

Adding weight to this argument, the authors of this paper from the International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development state:

“Cropping systems promoted by the green revolution have increased the food production but also resulted in reduced food-crop diversity and decreased availability of micronutrients (Welch, 2002; Stein et al., 2007). Micronutrient malnutrition is causing increased rates of chronic diseases (cancer, heart diseases, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis) in many developing nations; more than 3 billion people are directly affected by the micronutrient deficiencies (Cakmak et al., 1999; Welch, 2002; WHO, 2002; Welch and Graham, 2004). Unbalanced use of mineral fertilizers and a decrease in the use of organic manure are the main causes of the nutrient deficiency in the regions where the cropping intensity is high (Prasad, 1984; Welch, 1993, 2005).”

The authors imply that the link between micronutrient deficiency in soil and human nutrition is increasingly regarded as important:

“Moreover, agricultural intensification requires an increased nutrient flow towards and greater uptake of nutrients by crops. Until now, micronutrient deficiency has mostly been addressed as a soil and, to a smaller extent, plant problem. Currently, it is being addressed as a human nutrition problem as well. Increasingly, soils and food systems are affected by micronutrients disorders, leading to reduced crop production and malnutrition and diseases in humans and plants (Welch et al., 1982; Welch and Graham, 2004). Conventionally, agriculture is taken as a food-production discipline and was considered a source of human nutrition; hence, in recent years many efforts (Rengel and Graham, 1995a, b; Cakmak et al., 1999; Frossard et al., 2000; Welch and Graham, 2005; Stein et al., 2007) have been made to improve the quality of food for the growing world population, particularly in the developing nations.”

Pesticides, the environment, food and health

Hand in hand with the practices outlined above has been the growth of the widespread intensive use of chemical pesticides. There are currently 34,000 pesticides registered for use in the US. Drinking water is often contaminated by pesticides and more babies are being born with preventable birth defects due to pesticide exposure. Illnesses are on the rise too, including asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases and several types of cancer. The association with pesticide exposure is becoming stronger with each new study.

In Punjab, pesticide run-offs into water sources have turned the state into a ‘cancer epicentre‘, and Indian soils are being depleted as a result of the application of green revolution ideology and chemical inputs. India is losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of the indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is become deficient in nutrients and fertility.

India is one of the world’s largest users of pesticides and a profitable market for the corporations that manufacture them. Ladyfinger, cabbage, tomato and cauliflower in particular may contain dangerously high levels because farmers tend to harvest them almost immediately after spraying. Fruit and vegetables are sprayed and tampered with to make them more colourful, and harmful fungicides are sprayed on fruit to ripen them in order to rush them off to market.

Consider that if you live in India, the next time you serve up a good old ‘wholesome’ meal of rice and various vegetables, you could take in half a milligram of pesticide also. That would be much more than what an average North American person would consume.

Research by the School of Natural Sciences and Engineering (SNSE) at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore has indicated disturbing trends in the increased use of pesticide. In 2008, it reported that many crops for export had been rejected internationally due to high pesticide residues. Moreover, India is one of the largest users of World Health Organization (WHO) class 1A pesticides, including phorate, phosphorus, phosphamidon and fenthion that are extremely hazardous.

Kasargod in Kerala is notorious for the indiscriminate spraying of endosulfan. The government-owned Plantation Corporation of Kerala aerially sprayed the harmful pesticide on cashews for a period of over 20 years. Consequently, it got into rivers, streams and drinking water. Families and their children have been living with physical deformities, cancers and disorders of the central nervous system ever since.

Officials and the pesticide companies benefited from the spraying. At the time, cashew was grown without pesticides throughout Kerala, but the government-run plantation invested millions of rupees of public money in spraying the deadly pesticide. Endosulfen poisoning cases also emerged elsewhere, including Karnataka.

The SNSE notes that pesticide use across India has greatly increased over the years. This not only impacts the health of consumers but also the health of agricultural workers who are subject to pesticide drift and spaying, especially as they tend to wear little or no protection. Research by SNSE shows farmers use a cocktail of pesticides and often use three to four times the recommended amounts (see this).

Forced-fed development: who benefits?

If there are any beneficiaries in all of this, it is the pesticide manufacturers, the healthcare sector, especially private clinics and drug companies, and the transnational food and agribusiness companies, which now see their main growth markets in Asia, Africa and South America, where traditionally people have tended to eat food from their own farms or markets that sell locally-produced foods.

Of course, the commodification and privatisation of seeds by corporate entities, the manufacturing and selling of more and more chemicals to spray on them, the opening up fast food outlets and the selling of pharmaceuticals or the expansion of private hospitals to address the health impacts of the modern junk food system (in India, the healthcare sector is projected to grow by 16 percent a year) all amounts to the holy grail of neoliberal capitalism, GDP growth; which increasingly means a system defined by jobless growth, greater personal and public debt and massive profits for large corporations and banks.

While there are calls for taxes on unhealthy food and emphasis is placed on encouraging individual ‘lifestyle changes’ and ‘healthy eating’, it would be better to call to account the corporations that profit from the growing and production of health-damaging food in the first place and to get agriculture off the chemical treadmill.

Part of the solution entails restoring degraded soils. It also includes moving towards healthier and more nutritious organic agriculture, encouraging localised rural and urban food economies that are shielded from the effects of rigged trade and international markets and shying away from the need for unhealthy food-processing practices, unnatural preservatives and harmful additives.

In India, it also involves calling a halt to the programmed dismantling of local rural economies and indigenous agriculture under the guise of ‘globalisation’ for the benefit of transnational agribusiness and food retail corporations. And it entails placing less emphasis on a headlong rush towards urbanisation (and the subsequent distortion of agricultural production), while putting greater emphasis on localisation.

First published on Global Research on June 8, 2018

In 2015, ninety-two American missile officers were suspended because they had been cheating, taking drugs, or sleeping in the missile silos. These men are employed to guard and to operate 150 nuclear missiles at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming which constitutes one-third of the 400 Minuteman 3 missiles that stand “on hair trigger alert” 24 hours a day in silos which are scattered across the northern Great Plains.

Two officers aged between 22 and 27 are in charge of each missile silo, and each man is armed with a pistol to shoot the other if one shows signs of deviant behaviour.

The missile silos are equipped with antiquated equipment including floppy disks and telephones that often don’t work. Each Minuteman 3 missile contains three hydrogen bombs, almost 50 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The officers in charge of these deadly weapons are clearly expected to follow strict behavioural standards at all times.

During the investigation, fourteen airmen had allegedly been using cocaine. Other drugs involved were ecstasy, cocaine, LSD and  marijuana.  All in all roughly one hundred officers were involved in the cheating scandal in 2015 and 2016.

Airman 1st Class Nickolos A. Harris, said to be the leader of the drug ring, testified that he had no trouble obtaining  LSD and other drugs from civilian sources and he pleaded guilty to using and distributing LSD plus ecstasy, cocaine and marijuana.

A side note – because LSD had showed up so infrequently in drug tests across the military, in December 2006 the Pentagon eliminated LSD screening from standard drug-testing procedures.

In more episodes of gross malfeasance, 2013 Vice Admiral Timothy Giardina, the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, was sacked for illegal gambling while Major General Michael Carey, a man in charge of all of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missile silos, was dismissed after a visit to Moscow when he became inebriated and insisted on singing in Russian night clubs, while cavorting with inappropriate women.

Considering all of these facts among many others, it is amazing to me that we are still here having not been incinerated in a global nuclear holocaust. Suffice it to say, we are in the hands of fallible men armed to the teeth with missiles and hydrogen bombs.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Masud Wadan reporting from Kabul.

To mark the legitimacy of US military in Afghanistan, Washington recently declined participating in a Russia-led peace talks on Afghanistan which had been scheduled for September 4 in Moscow. In a statement, the Russian embassy in Kabul expressed disappointment and described Washington’s refusal as based  on “unfounded reasons”.

The Afghan ministry of external affairs also toed the US line and refused to participate in the meeting citing that the talks are not led by Afghanistan. 

Not the first time, the US did turn down Russia’s invitation for Afghan peace talks on April 14 last year. The US doesn’t want Russia on board. However, there are no reasonable grounds to reject Russia’s engagement in Afghanistan’s dilemma. At that time, Pakistan was right to concern that the US’ involvement is a must because Washington is the “biggest stakeholder” there. 

Kabul questions Moscow-led talks for “not including it as a weighty party”, but it forgot to point criticism to the recent official talks between the US envoy and Taliban representative in Qatar’s Doha that went by without a scrap of Afghan role. 

When Moscow saw the distaste of the US and the US-led Afghan government, it announced on August 27 that it will postpone the event to a later date. Russia’s summit was then called off and the US thought it had won. 

Amidst fragile relations between regional powers, Moscow talks were to include Pakistan, China, Iran and India. The US has called the September 4 gathering as “broad” because it includes the arch-enemy Iran. 

Before the announcement of postponement, a Tajikistan’s Air Force fighter jet flew into Afghanistan’s airspace in northern Takhar province and bombed militants in an eyebrow-raising attack. The targets were reportedly the drug dealers. But for us, the point of concern is not the kind of targets; it is about why it happened at this moment. 

Although Russian officials were quick to apparently deny involvement in the attack, it might be our mistake to not see Moscow’s fury in the attack. It is clear that Tajikistan had been far from firing a single shot at us in the past 17 years of the US invasion. It could send a direct message to the US and Afghan allies for their concurrent ignoring of Russia’s power.  

It has to be admitted that Russia has grown inclined to Afghanistan. It has offered to arm the Afghan army with air power outmatching the status quo, but the government in Afghanistan has been nudged to show apathy. 

Russia steps forward as critic of the US-led unipolarization in the world and is moving into action to replace the unipolarity with a multipolar international system to undercut the US’s existential threat in the region.  

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Thursday in Moscow:

“The US has tried to bring Afghanistan to peace on its own, and it didn’t work. The International Community now has to take care of this matter collectively”.

The Taliban leadership is a nonentity. It is a brainwashed force picking up arms for a loaf of bread under the fake motto of fighting the “infidel” West. All the spokesmen or representatives acting on behalf of Taliban are media fabrications. The term “Taliban” is now used as a pretext by involving various sides to secure their own place in Afghanistan and the region’s multidimensional interests.  

The armed conflict and military power is not always used for attack on foreign territories, just as is the case of Afghanistan. The war strategists believe that compellence, deterrence and coercion are important factors that bring the enemy to its knees (by grace of military strength and influence).

Afghanistan’s battleground is the one where intensity of violence affects decision making in the surrounding region. With this privilege in hand, the primary force – the US – draw on further advantages from the rival states. 

We can’t hold Russia’s existence as solely responsible for the unrest in the South Asian region, nor are China or Iran individual causes behind the fiasco in Afghanistan. With the world engaged in debates over the US’s rivalry with Russia or China, an immeasurable amount of Uranium and Rare Earth Elements and narcotics are being flown from southern Helmand province to outside. This is a multifaceted war. If the underground minerals ever come to an end, then policies would undergo major changes. 

US soldiers in Afghanistan’s poppy fields

It has to be asserted that Afghanistan’s prolonged war is largely built around the deterrence and compellence policies that materialize the objective of a hegemonic role over the world.

According to causal theory, nothing has caused the Afghan war to happen but rather the war, in essence, is a necessity that generates a shower of foreseen interests and consequential benefits. This hypothesis can be reinforced with a look to chaos in almost every corner of the world. When the options for instigation of war run out, they resort to doubling of tariffs on imports from China and Europe. 

The global disorder is a smooth pathway to global hegemony which is the ultimate goal of the US. In the face of an immense and complex imperial agenda, it would be a grave mistake to expect an end to Afghanistan’s conflict.

The Afghan war is a coercive process of armed battle between two fronts: Afghan army and Taliban insurgents. Both forces are designed carefully and driven into a quagmire where they can’t escape or at least find a room to question the legitimacy and rightfulness of the deadly conflict. 

To grease the wheels of war, the war theorists employ violent doctrines. The terrorist forces trained to fight the Afghan government and destroy infrastructures are made up of children kidnapped from the same territory – Afghanistan – and raised in sanctuaries under violent treatment. To inflict fatalities and damage upon the Afghan nation in full swing, the warmongers recruit heartless alien nationals mostly Arab, Chechens, Pakistanis and others. 

The US has no excuse to justify the Afghan war. Typically, the Kabul-based US embassy posted a condolence message on its facebook page about a recent suicide attack on teenagers taking college entry test that killed more than 50 students.  The post had just been inundated with offensive comments against the US’s war policies in Afghanistan. 

It is amazing to know that after Russia, now China is digging for a one-way solution to the threats from Afghanistan as they found the US uncooperative. In a recent strange move, Beijing has said to be fully funding a base in isolated Wakhan Corridor and may send hundreds of troops there. 

Wakhan Corridor

A side valley to the Wakhan Corridor.  over the Panshir valley

Once the camp is completed, the People’s Liberation Army is likely to send hundreds of military personnel to Afghanistan’s secluded Wakhan Corridor. Kabul has not commented on this so far and it is certain that the government would oppose the move because it conflicts with US interests.  The Afghan embassy in Beijing refutes the claim that China is building a training camp in  the Wakhan corridor (SCMP, Hong Kong,  August 28, screenshot above)

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

US President, Donald Trump, has threatened to withdraw from the World Trade Organization.

Trump, in an interview with Bloomberg News, said he will pullout from the organization if it “does not shape up”. The US president warned that he could even take action against the WTO. Trump has complained that the US is being treated unfairly in global trade and has blamed the World Trade Organization for allowing it to happen.

Regarding tariffs, Trump said he will enact import duties on 200-billion dollars-worth of Chinese goods as early as next week. Following his remarks, Asian stock markets dropped and partially erased gains made in this week’s global rally. Trump has ignited a global trade war by slapping sharp tariffs on goods from the EU, Canada, Mexico, and China.

*

PressTV: What is your take on this?

PK: Well, it looks like this latest threat to exit WTO goes into the same direction as his trade war with the EU and with China, and also with the new NAFTA Agreement – which so far was negotiated only with Mexico and does not include Canada; it eventually would have another name.

The new trade agreement with Mexico was negotiated like all trade agreements with the US, behind closed doors. Canada was invited to also join, but as far as I know, no decision has been taken yet. At the outset it looks like the new “draft” agreement with Mexico is worse than the original – with all the rights and benefits going to big US corporations.

In the case of Mexico, it is really only a “draft”; nothing has been accepted yet. It will be subject to Mexican approval once the new President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador is sworn-in in December 2018.

What Trump is doing – or attempting to do – with tariffs and with sanctions – is dividing the world, breaking up alliances, i.e. trade alliances in the case of WTO. It’s the old rule: “Divide to Conquer” – and conquer in this case means that when alliances like WTO – in the creation of which – by the way – the US and the EU were instrumental – are broken up, the US will engage in bilateral agreements with individual nations – like in the case of the “new NAFTA” – negotiating with Mexico alone, dictating her terms to weaker nations. If Canada will be ready again for a NAFTA-like agreement, the process will be similar, with Washington in the driver’s seat.

What transpires from these negotiations, or tariff impositions – like China and the EU, or even the reneging of the Iran Nuclear Deal – is Make America Great Again, meaning really American Corporatism, not the people.

New bilateral trade deals will continue to allow bilateral outsourcing to cheap labor countries, for example between the US and Mexico – and the export of highly subsidized US goods. In the case of agriculture, NAFTA killed hundreds of thousands of small farming businesses in Mexico – which was one of the key reasons for the massive increase of illegal migration to the US.

This will hardly be different in a new agreement. That’s why nothing is done yet. The progressive new President, López Obrador, may not easily submit to a flagrant one-sided agreement.

The case of tariffs on China for 200 billion worth of merchandise – has a different purpose – namely to degrade the value of the Chinese currency, the Yuan, which is emerging rapidly as one of the world’s foremost reserve currencies, to the detriment of the US dollar. The Trump move is meant to discourage countries to adopt the Yuan among their reserve currencies. Some success was indeed registered by Trump’s announcement – the Asian markets dropped drastically wiping out much of the gains made during last week’s rally. This, however, will be short-lived, as investors realize the hot air behind the threat and that these tariffs will really make hardly a dent in China’s economy which is dominating the Asian market and doesn’t really depend on exports to the US.

If the US would indeed exit WTO – which is by no means sure, since Trump likes to play god, threatening, fearmongering – and then negotiate under conditions of intimidation and coercion – so, if the US would actually get out of WTO, they – the US – might set themselves up as sort of a competitor to WTO, negotiating individual bilateral deals with nations – especially weaker ones. They would no longer be under the oversight of WTO – and as with the International Court of Justice – to which the US does not belong – complaining would be meaningless.

But we are not there yet.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Dear Readers,

With constant changes being made to the way search engines and social media reference and display articles from independent media, making sure we do everything in our power to keep our content as accessible to you as we can is a full time job. It’s also a job we can’t do on our own: we need your help!

Modifications to search engine algorithms often mean results from independent media get pushed down and out. This has an adverse effect on website traffic and, therefore, website revenue. Our content has always been free of charge and, with your help, we would like to keep it that way.

If you can see your way to making a financial contribution, large or small,  to help us stay on course through these rough waters, we would be greatly indebted to you. Please consider making a one-time donation, a monthly recurring donation, becoming a Global Research member, or making a purchase from our online store.

DONATE AND/OR BECOME A MEMBER   (link to donation page)             

Global Research Members enable us to make CRG articles and videos available to the broadest possible readership. Becoming a member essentially constitutes an endorsement of the Global Research website.

Donation by mail 

*     *     *

California Votes to Support U.N. Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, Restrict Presidential Authority for Nuclear Strike

By Physicians for Social Responsibility, August 31, 2018

On Tuesday, August 28, the California Senate voted to approve AJR 33, a resolution introduced by Assembly member Monica Limón that urges the U.S. to embrace the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and implement important protective nuclear policies. The Senate also approved AJR 30, a resolution introduced by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry that supports federal legislation to restrict the President’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a first nuclear strike. Both resolutions passed the Assembly last week.

Oil Change International Responds to Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal’s Quashing of Trans Mountain Expansion Pipeline’s Cabinet Approval

By Oil Change International, August 31, 2018

Today, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline’s Cabinet approval was fatally flawed in not one but two ways: in failing to properly consult Indigenous peoples and First Nations, and in failing to properly account for the full environmental impacts of the project by excluding the Trans Mountain Expansion’s associated tanker traffic.

Statement on Impending US, UK and French Military Intervention in Syria

By Prof. Tim Anderson, Baroness Cox, and Peter Ford, August 31, 2018

Reports have appeared of activity by the White Helmets group, or militants posing as White Helmets, consistent with an intention to stage a ‘false flag’ chemical incident in order to provoke Western intervention. These activities have reportedly included the transfer of eight canisters of chlorine to a village near Jisr Al Shughur, an area under the control of Hayat Tahrir Ash Sham, an affiliate of the terrorist group Al Nusra. Some reports refer to the involvement of British individuals and the Olive security company. Other reports indicate a build-up of US naval forces in the Gulf and of land forces in areas of Iraq adjoining the Syrian border.

Video: Who Was Pope Francis Before He Became Pope?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett, August 31, 2018

The military government headed by General Jorge Videla acknowledged in a Secret Memo that Father Bergoglio had (without evidence) accused two priests of having established contacts with the guerilleros, and for having disobeyed the orders of the Church hierarchy (Conflictos de obedecencia).  The document acknowledges that the “arrest” of the two priests, who were taken to the torture and detention center at the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA, was based on information transmitted by Father Bergoglio to the military authorities.

Pressured by Washington, Credit Suisse Freezes $5 Billion of Russian Money: A Recipe for Accelerated De-Linking From the Dollar Economy?

By Peter Koenig, August 30, 2018

A few days ago, Reuters reported that Switzerland’s second largest bank, Crédit Suisse, has ‘frozen’ about 5 billion Swiss francs of Russian money, or about the same in US-dollars, for fear of falling out of favors with Washington – and being ‘sanctioned’ in one way or another. Crédit Suisse, like her bigger sister, UBS, have been amply punished already by Washington for facilitating in the US as well as in Switzerland tax evasion for US oligarchs. They want to be good boys now with Washington.

Erasing the Truth and Fabricating Fake Narratives

By Mark Taliano, August 30, 2018

Western media monopolies, appendages of the billionaire ruling class, select for narratives which glorify criminal foreign policies. Hence, these monopolies are cheerleaders for uninterrupted wars of aggression.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: SADC 38th Summit with outgoing chair President Cyril Ramaphosa and his successor President Hage Geingob of Namibia.

Perhaps the most consistent regional organization on the African continent recently completed its summit meeting in the Republic of Namibia held on August 17-18 under theme of “Promoting Infrastructure Development and Youth Empowerment for Sustainable Development”.

Namibia was the founding location in August 1992 when the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was transformed from the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) initiated in 1980. 

During the early 1990s, the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) had completed the independence process after the defeat of the apartheid regime’s South African Defense Forces (SADF) in neighboring Angola. Cuban Internationalists, the military forces of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA)-led government (FAPLA), along with People’s Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN), the armed wing of SWAPO and Umkhonto We Sizwe, the armed divisions of the African National Congress (ANC), combined their forces to defeat the settler-colonial regime in the south of the oil-rich nation. A ceasefire between the revolutionary forces of Cuba, Angola, Namibia and South Africa, backed by overwhelming public opinion within the African continent, and the racist regime in Pretoria, resulted in a negotiated withdrawal from Angola by the SADF allowing for internationally-supervised democratic elections to take place in the-then South West Africa, which became Namibia at the time of liberation on March 21, 1990. 

Today’s president of Namibia, Hage Geingob, faces challenges in his task as the chair of the organization. Within his own country the intensification of a debate around land redistribution is scheduled for later this year. 

After a quarter century of national independence the question of land ownership along with natural resources have not been resolved. The apartheid regime represented a subordinate outlet of the world capitalist system. Land and mineral theft fueled the profit-making mechanism which held the majority African population in virtual bondage.

In neighboring South Africa the land question is also generating international attention. A resolution passed in April by the National Assembly indicated that further measures would be taken to constitutionally facilitate the expropriation the agricultural areas and mines for the benefit of African people. 

United States President Donald Trump in late-August stated through twitter that he was ordering Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate the deaths of white farmers in South Africa and the political process related to land reform. These comments generated a rebuke from leading figures within the South African body politic including President Cyril Ramaphosa and Foreign Affairs Minister Lindiwe Sisulu. 

A statement issued by Sisulu on the eve of the 38^th Summit addressed South Africa’s role as chair of SADC over the past year. She noted that:

“We needed to maintain the focus, in particular, on industrial development, promotion of regional value chains and value addition in the region. In this regard, the theme for our tenure of office, ‘Partnering with the Private Sector in Developing Industry and Regional Value Chains’, was chosen with the full realization that our goals can only be met if we focus on strong and meaningful partnerships with the private sector, which is part of the engine for sustainable economic growth. Through the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap, we recognize that trade liberalization can meaningfully contribute towards sustainable and equitable development, whilst meeting the goals for poverty alleviation. Production should not only be in terms of quantities, but also quality, based on effective and efficient systems, while being mindful of the comparative advantages of SADC member states. “ 

Other Issues Related to the Crisis of Governance in the Union of Comoros, Western Sanctions Against Zimbabwe and the DRC Political Transition

SADC membership extends from South Africa, Lesotho, eSwatini (formerly Swaziland) and Namibia to as far north as the Central African state of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Going east, the African islands-nations of Mauritius, Madagascar, Union of the Comoros and Seychelles are also member-states.

SADC 38th Summit participants in Namibia

The most recent member, the Union of the Comoros in the Indian Ocean, has experienced political difficulties. A referendum passed in mid-August sponsored by President Azali Assoumani extends his term in office and abolishes the constitutional court. 

These moves have angered the opposition forces including the Juwa Party whose Secretary General Ahmed el-Barwan has been arrested. In addition, the former President Ahmed Abdallah Sambi has as well been placed in detention. The administration of President Assoumani announced that there was a post-referendum attempted military coup which is necessitating the enhanced security measures.

Comoros consists of a three island archipelago in which the government has sovereignty. The fourth island, Mayotte, is claimed by Paris to be French territory. France is the former colonial power which relinquished control of the three islands in 1975. 

After meeting several legal requirements Comoros was admitted to full membership of SADC at its August summit. The nation becomes the 16^th state to be a part of the regional organization.

Namibian head-of-state President Hage Geingob as the new SADC chair has committed to working towards a political solution to the crisis. Opposition parties have appealed for “international assistance” in addressing what they charge as the undemocratic practices of Assoumani.

After the Republic of Zimbabwe held harmonized national elections on July 30 with numerous foreign observer teams invited to monitor the polls, the U.S. and Britain have still not lifted sanctions. SADC has made a renewed call for the abolition of the economic embargo on Zimbabwe in light of the recent multi-party elections and the transparency under which the results were tabulated and transmitted irrespective of allegations made by the western-backed opposition Movement for Democratic Change Alliance (MDC-T), which made a failed attempt to overturn the results through a petition to the constitutional court.

In the DRC, incumbent President Joseph Kabila has agreed to not seek another term in office after elections have been delayed for more than a year. SADC pledged to assist DRC in making the transition to new leadership smooth and efficient.

The region as a whole is rich in mineral, agricultural and energy resources. South Africa encompasses the largest economy and most industrialized state on the continent. SADC countries are part of a preferential trade agreement with the European Union (EU) along with some countries which have been involved in the U.S.-sponsored Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in effect since 2000.

Foreign Relations and the Quest for Economic Development

SADC has set goals to rapidly increase the process of industrialization. Nonetheless, the character of western capitalist relations in terms of ownership and trade continue to serve as impediments.

Volatility in the commodities export market has considerably slowed economic prospects for several regional states. Mozambique, which was considered in recent years as having one of the fastest growing national economies in the SADC region and beyond, has been compelled to restructure its financial obligations to the international financial institutions dominated by the western states.

Although the mineral wealth and relatively stable political situation in the SADC region has given the area an advantage, the broader international dominance of finance capital can ultimately determine the economic well-being of the sub-continent. These structural contradictions between the West and African Union (AU) countries are a challenge in obtaining sustainable industrialization and consistent growth.

SADC 38th Summit with South Africa Foreign Affairs Minister Lindiwe Sisulu

The imperative is to increase inter-African trade both within the SADC region and the larger African continent. Yet the demand for foreign exchange and access to capital, no matter how successful, does not necessarily result in the capacity for independent economic sovereignty. 

Some are looking at the newly-proposed African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) adopted for implementation at a special summit of the AU in Rwanda on March 21, 2018. However, some governments within SADC and the broader continent are treading softly as it relates signing and ratifying the pact due to considerations based upon their national and international foreign investment portfolios and trade priorities. 

What is required are bold approaches to economic integration informed by the need to severe the tentacles of dependency and embark upon radical transformation. Such a domestic and foreign policy orientation would inevitably strengthen the potential for long-term genuine development based upon the needs of the majority of people within these respective African societies.      

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

With rare exceptions, UN secretaries general serve US-led Western interests, supporting aggression by failing to denounce it, disgracing the office they hold, breaching UN Charter principles.

Since installed as UN secretary general by Washington in January 2017, former Portuguese prime minister Antonio Guterres said nothing about US-led aggression in Syria or anywhere else.

He failed to denounce US-led terror-bombing, the rape and destruction of Raqqa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq – massacring countless thousands of defenseless civilians, turning both cities to rubble on the phony pretext of combating ISIS Washington created and supports.

He said nothing about US-led destruction of vital infrastructure in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

In response to US planned and orchestrated aggression in Yemen, Saudi/UAE terror-bombing doing its dirty work, he issued pathetic statements through his spokesman, calling for transparent investigations into incidents massacring countless numbers of Yemeni civilians – whitewashed every time initiated.

Last April, Saudi/UAE terror-bombing slaughtered over five dozen Yemeni civilians at a wedding party, scores more wounded, an atrocity at what was supposed to be a joyous occasion.

A survivor called what happened “something out of judgement day, corpses and heads scattered, engulfed by fire and ashes.”

Yemenis experienced many “judgment day(s)” since conflict began in March 2015, millions in the country enduring nightmarish conditions.

Following the wedding party atrocity, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres failed to denounce it – issuing a pathetic statement through his spokesman alone saying:

“The Secretary-General reminds all parties of their obligations under international humanitarian law concerning the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure during armed conflicts.”

Instead of condemning Saudi-led US aggression in Yemen, he called the conflict a “stupid war.”

He criticized Syrian forces involved in combatting US-supported terrorists, their right to self-defense, affirmed under Security Council Resolution 2401 and other international law.

He’s been silent about flagrant US/NATO/Israeli/Saudi, UAE violations of SC Res. 2254, calling for ceasefire and diplomatic resolution to years of conflict – Obama’s war, continued endlessly by Trump.

On August 29, a Guterres statement through his spokesman opposed Syrian efforts to liberate Idlib province from US-supported terrorists, saying:

“The Secretary-General urgently appeals to the Government of Syria and all parties to exercise restraint and to prioritize the protection of civilians.”

“He calls on the Astana guarantors (Russia, Iran and Turkey) to step up efforts to find a peaceful solution to the situation in Idlib…”

He said nothing about US-supported terrorists controlling the province, holding hundreds, maybe thousands, of civilians hostage as human shields.

He ignored Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, saying al-Nusra and other terrorists in Idlib are “us(ing) this de-escalation zone to prepare attacks on the positions of the Syrian army and even for attempts to attack the Russian military base in Khmeimim using aerial drones.”

He was silent about an impending CW false flag wrongfully blamed on Damascus, used as a pretext for greater US, UK, French terror-bombing of Syrian sites.

He ignored Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muellem, saying al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets kidnapped 44 Idlib children, intending to use them as CW false flag props.

He failed to explain that Damascus eliminated its entire CW stockpile, never used these weapons any time during years of war, successfully liberating areas controlled by US-supported terrorists using conventional weapons alone.

Why would government forces use chemical or other banned weapons now, winning without them, giving Washington and its imperial partners reason to terror-bomb the country?

Guterres has been silent about what’s most important to explain.

On Thursday, Syrian UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari blasted his unacceptable bias, supporting aggressors in the country instead of denouncing them, saying:

“Here we are talking about our surprise with (Guterres’) statement aligning (his) position (with) those countries targeting my government and my country…and referring to the threats expressed by the delegates of the US, Britain and France.”

Jaafari accused these countries and their imperial partners with waging endless war on the Syrian Arab Republic, opposing restoration of peace and stability to the nation.

“The Syrian government (and) its allies (are) the only part(ies) implementing UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to combating terrorism. Nobody else is fighting ISIS (and other terrorists) in Syria but the Syrian army supported by our allies,” Jaafari stressed.

Former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford believes the US, Britain and France intend “fabricat(ing) (a CW) incident,” a pretext for escalating war instead of trying to resolve it.

“The intentions could hardly be made more plain, and almost every day (there’s) new evidence,” he said, suggesting what’s coming – hyped by US and other Western media.

They’re conditioning the public to accept escalated US-led naked aggression in Syria, pretending it’s in response to CW use by its forces, a Big Lie. When repeated enough it’s believed by most people.

“(W)e better brace ourselves,” said Ford. “We better stand by for a crisis much more serious than the Douma crisis unless we raise our voices loud enough.”

*

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  

Featured image: Some of the 114 boxes of urgently needed medical supplies being loaded onto the flotilla boat, Al Awda

It is 30 days since the Israeli military stopped the Freedom Flotilla Coalition’s ship Al Awda and took control of the medical supplies for Gaza… For one month the Freedom Flotilla Coalition has demanded the immediate release of the 114 boxes and thousands of people from around the world have called Israeli embassies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their countries demanding the release. 

Please sign the petition demanding that the Israeli military releases the boxes of medical supplies.

The medical supplies are desperately needed in Gaza as Israeli snipers continue to kill and wound hundreds of Palestinians each week. On Friday 24 August 2018, using excessive lethal force against the peaceful protesters in eastern Gaza Strip for the 22^nd Friday in a row, Israeli forces wounded 89 civilians, including 17 children, 2 women and 3 paramedics, after hitting them with live bullets and tear gas canisters. Five of those wounded sustained serious wounds and dozens of civilians suffered tear gas inhalation.

According to the Palestine Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), 130 Palestinians have been killed, including 23 children, 3 journalists, 2 para medics and 1 woman.  Among those killed are three people with disabilities and a young girl.

6,729 people have been wounded by gunfire including 1,140 children, 203 women, 78 journalists and 103 paramedics. Among those wounded, 422 are in serious condition and 69 people have had lower or upper limbs amputated. Statistics of the injured only include those directly hit with bullets and tear gas canisters, but there are thousands of other people who have suffered tear gas inhalation and sustained bruises.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition continues to demand the immediate release of the 114 boxes of medical supplies (sterile gauze and sutures) for the health services of Gaza that were carried on the Al Awda and Freedom boats of the 2018 Freedom Flotilla to Gaza, hijacked by Israeli forces on July 29 and August 3. As Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Margot Wallström has stated, the cargo must be released, according to international law.

Please sign the petition demanding that the Israeli military releases the boxes of medical supplies.

As we reminded the Israeli Government in our August 9, 2018 statement, international law requires the delivery of medical supplies. Article 23 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention IV, 1949) says that “Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores … intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary.”

Additionally, the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (12 June 1994) says in paragraph 104: “The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted. Further, the Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict (2006), says in point 2 in the commentary to Rule 2.3.10: “By extension, all objects indispensable to the survival of civilians should be protected, especially medications. The protection means that the enemy is not permitted to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless the aforementioned items.”Our Israeli attorney, Gaby Lasky has been in contact with Israeli Occupation authorities to arrange delivery of the humanitarian medical supplies, but to date none have arrived in Gaza.

Please sign the petition.

*

Here is a sample letter that can be used to contact your Ministry of Foreign Affairs to demand that the State of Israel releases the boxes of medical supplies

On July 29, 2018 the Al Awda, a ship belonging to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition and subsequently a second vessel, the Freedom, were brutally attacked by Israel Occupation Forces in International waters, resulting in injuries to five peaceful participants as well as the unlawful and unwarranted confiscation of the boats, intended to be gifted to fishers in Gaza, the illegal detention of participants and crew, and confiscation of their cargo of desperately needed medical supplies.  These basic medical supplies were intended to be distributed to those on the front lines of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.

International law requires the delivery of medical supplies. Article 23 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention IV, 1949) says that “Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores … intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary.”

Additionally, the  San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (12 June 1994) says in paragraph 104: “The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements,
including search, under which such passage is permitted. Further, The Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict (2006), says in point 2 in the commentary to Rule 2.3.10: “By extension, all objects indispensable to the survival of civilians should be protected, especially medications. The protection means that the enemy is not
permitted to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless the aforementioned items.”

Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Margot Wallström has written that  “…. the behaviour of the Israeli authorities in relation to the Swedish flagged vessel Freedom and the persons on board lacks support in international law.” Furthermore she states that “The government has also demanded that the ship, its cargo and the persons that were on board should be released.”

To date none of the cargo has arrived in Gaza.  Full inventories of the medical supplies in each box have been provided previously to Israeli authorities and can be produced on request. We urge you to demand that the Israeli military immediately releases the 114 boxes of medical supplies and two fishing vessels to Gaza, as required by
international law.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The main obstacle to the development of the Cuban economy’s potential is not related to nature but to an immoral way of doing politics: the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba.

When a hurricane is identified as a threat to the island, all Cubans begin to worry. Despite measures adopted by our Civil Defense system to protect human life and material resources, it is well known that the powerful winds and rain show no mercy.

Every natural phenomenon that strikes leaves damage that must be repaired as soon as possible. Thus, some plans are put on hold to free resources for the recovery, and the state cannot move forward as fast as it would like.

Damages caused by Hurricane Irma, for example, were estimated at more than  13 billion pesos, mostly to housing, healthcare facilities, schools, agriculture, hotel infrastructure, as well as roads.

However, paradoxically, the main obstacle to the development of the Cuban economy’s potential is not related to nature, but to an immoral form of politics: the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba.

The numbers are clear. Over almost 60 years, the most unjust, harsh, unrelenting system of unilateral sanctions that has ever been imposed on any country has caused the country damages amounting to over 933.67 billion dollars. From April 2017 to March 2018 alone, the impact was 4,321,200,000 dollars.

The current U.S. administration, far from desisting in this hostile policy, has reinforced it, and implemented it rigorously.
The blockade puts a brake on the implementation of both the country’s National Economic and Social Development Plan and the UN 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals.

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

The U.S. government has taken a step back in bilateral relations with Cuba, following President Donald Trump’s signing of the “Presidential National Security Memorandum on the Strengthening of U.S. Policy towards Cuba,” on June 16, 2017, which endorsed among its objectives the tightening of the blockade.

In November of that same year, the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and State issued new regulations and provisions to comply with the aforementioned Memorandum.

The measures adopted further restricted the right of U.S. citizens to travel to our country and imposed additional obstacles to the limited opportunities allowed U.S. companies in Cuba, by establishing a list of 179 Cuban entities with which U.S. institutions, corporations, and individuals are prohibited from conducting transactions.

The new sanctions against Cuba have caused a significant decrease in visits from the United States, and have generated greater obstacles to economic and commercial relations of Cuban companies with potential U.S. and third-country partners.

These measures not only affect the Cuban state economy, but also the country’s non-state sector.

The ongoing persecution of Cuban financial transactions and of banking and credit operations with Cuba on a global scale has intensified. This has caused serious damage to the country’s economy, in particular, to commercial activities of companies and national banks in their work with international banking institutions.

*

Source

Cuban Report regarding resolution 72/4 of the United Nations General Assembly, entitled “Necessity to end the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”

Featured image is from Juvenal Balán.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On Tuesday, August 28, the California Senate voted to approve AJR 33, a resolution introduced by Assembly member Monica Limón that urges the U.S. to embrace the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and implement important protective nuclear policies. The Senate also approved AJR 30, a resolution introduced by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry that supports federal legislation to restrict the President’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a first nuclear strike. Both resolutions passed the Assembly last week.

AJR 33 was introduced by Senator Bill Monning. Monning is well aware of nuclear dangers, having formerly served as Executive Director of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.

“Since the height of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have dismantled more than 50,000 nuclear warheads, but 15,000 of these weapons still exist and post a risk to human survival,” he said. “Cities across California have passed similar resolutions. and California has long led the nation on important policies like this, and we must do so again, this time on the critical issue of nuclear weapons.”

The California Senate vote comes just weeks after the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a resolution to support the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and other critical nuclear security polices as part of the “Back from the Brink” campaign, a grassroots movement that is growing throughout the nation.

Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA) is at the front of this effort. Our organization was founded over 35 years ago with the singular mission of stopping the nuclear arms race and preventing nuclear war. We understood then as we do now that nuclear weapons pose a lethal threat to health and survival, contaminate the environment, and squander financial resources better spent on making our communities healthy and whole.

Today, nuclear threats loom as large as when PSR-LA was founded.

“Nuclear weapons pose a tremendous threat to public health,” said Dr. Robert Dodge, President of PSR-LA. “And today I’m very concerned. We are in the midst of a new arms race and have a President who has threatened to use nuclear weapons. But it’s not too late to change course. Today California endorsed two common sense resolutions that support policies which provide a clear pathway back from the brink of nuclear war.”

The “Back from the Brink” campaign has support from prominent public health, science, environmental, faith-based and justice organizations. The U.S. Conference of Mayors voted unanimously in June to support a similar resolution, and cities throughout the country are following suit. The U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons endorsed in AJR 33 also has broad support, from the American Medical Association to Pope Francis to former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry. The Treaty, which was adopted last year with the support of 122 countries, bans nuclear weapons in the same way that biological and chemical weapons are banned. The U.S. and other nuclear states currently oppose it.

PSR-LA and supporters of the Back from the Brink campaign believe that local resolutions such as those endorsed by Los Angeles and California are key to building the public awareness and political will needed to eliminate nuclear weapons.

“We intend to build upon these successes, city by city, state by state, until the United States joins the majority of the world’s nations who want nuclear weapons banned,” said Denise Duffield, Associate Director of PSR-LA. “We must take action now, while there’s still time to protect all that we hold dear.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Around 200,000 US troops are stationed in 177 countries throughout the world. Those forces utilize several hundred military installations. Africa is no exemption. On August 2, Maj. Gen. Roger L. Cloutier took command of US Army Africa, promising to “hit the ground running.”

The US is not waging any wars in Africa but it has a significant presence on the continent. Navy SEALs, Green Berets, and other special ops are currently conducting nearly 100 missions across 20 African countries at any given time, waging secret, limited-scale operations. According to the magazine Vice, US troops are now conducting 3,500 exercises and military engagements throughout Africa per year, an average of 10 per day — an astounding 1,900% increase since the command rolled out 10 years ago. Many activities described as “advise and assist” are actually indistinguishable from combat by any basic definition.

There are currently roughly 7,500 US military personnel, including 1,000 contractors, deployed in Africa. For comparison, that figure was only 6,000 just a year ago. The troops are strung throughout the continent spread across 53 countries. There are 54 countries on the “Dark Continent.” More than 4,000 service members have converged on East Africa. The US troop count in Somalia doubled last year.

When AFRICOM was created there were no plans to establish bases or put boots on the ground. Today, a network of small staging bases or stations have cropped up. According to investigative journalist Nick Turse,

 “US military bases (including forward operating sites, cooperative security locations, and contingency locations) in Africa number around fifty, at least.”

US troops in harm’s way in Algeria, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan Tunisia, and Uganda qualify for extra pay.

The US African Command (AFRICOM) runs drone surveillance programs, cross-border raids, and intelligence. AFRICOM has claimed responsibility for development, public health, professional and security training, and other humanitarian tasks. Officials from the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, among other agencies, are involved in AFRICOM activities. Military attachés outnumber diplomats at many embassies across Africa.

Last October, four US soldiers lost their lives in Niger. The vast majority of Americans probably had no idea that the US even had troops participating in combat missions in Africa before the incident took place. One serviceman was reported dead in Somalia in June. The Defense Department is mulling plans to “right-size” special operations missions in Africa and reassign troops to other regions, aligning the efforts with the security priorities defined by the 2018 National Defense Strategy. That document prioritizes great power competition over defeating terrorist groups in remote corners of the globe. Roughly 1,200 special ops troops on missions in Africa are looking at a drawdown. But it has nothing to do with leaving or significantly cutting back. And the right to unilaterally return will be reserved. The infrastructure is being expanded enough to make it capable of accommodating substantial reinforcements. The construction work is in progress. The bases will remain operational and their numbers keep on rising.

A large drone base in Agadez, the largest city in central Niger, is reported to be under construction. The facility will host armed MQ-9 Reaper drones which will finally take flight in 2019. The MQ-9 Reaper has a range of 1,150 miles, allowing it to provide strike support and intelligence-gathering capabilities across West and North Africa from this new base outside of Agadez. It can carry GBU-12 Paveway II bombs. The aircraft features synthetic aperture radar for integrating GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions. The armament suite can include four Hellfire air-to-ground anti-armor and anti-personnel missiles. There are an estimated 800 US troops on the ground in Niger, along with one drone base and the base in Agadez that is being built. The Hill called it “the largest US Air Force-led construction project of all time.”

According to Business Insider,

“The US military presence here is the second largest in Africa behind the sole permanent US base on the continent, in the tiny Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti.”

Four thousand American servicemen are stationed at Camp Lemonnier (the US base located near Djibouti City) — a critical strategic base for the American military because of its port and its proximity to the Middle East.

Officially, the camp is the only US base on the continent or, as AFRICOM calls it, “a forward operating site,” — the others are “cooperative security locations” or “non-enduring contingency locations.” Camp Lemonnier is the hub of a network of American drone bases in Africa that are used for aerial attacks against insurgents in Yemen, Nigeria, and Somalia, as well as for exercising control over the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. In 2014, the US signed a new 20-year lease on the base with the Djiboutian government, and committed over $1.4 billion to modernize and expand the facility in the years to come.

In March, the US and Ghana signed a military agreement outlining the conditions of the US military presence in that nation, including its construction activities. The news was met with protests inside the country.

It should be noted that the drone attacks that are regularly launched in Africa are in violation of US law. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), adopted after Sept. 11, 2001, states that the president is authorized to use force against the planners of those attacks and those who harbor them. But that act does not apply to the rebel groups operating in Africa.

It’s hard to believe that the US presence will be really diminished, and there is no way to know, as too many aspects of it are shrouded in secrecy with nothing but “leaks” emerging from time to time. It should be noted that the documents obtained by TomDispatch under the United States Freedom of Information Act contradict AFRICOM’s official statements about the scale of US military bases around the world, including 36 AFRICOM bases in 24 African countries that have not been previously disclosed in official reports.

The US foothold in Africa is strong. It’s almost ubiquitous. Some large sites under construction will provide the US with the ability to host large aircraft and accommodate substantial forces and their hardware. This all prompts the still-unanswered question — “Where does the US have troops in Africa, and why?” One thing is certain — while waging an intensive drone war, the US is building a vast military infrastructure for a large-scale ground war on the continent.

*

Arkady Savitsky is a military analyst based in St Petersburg, Russia.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, United States [Atılgan Özdil/Anadolu Agency]

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has said that the right of return of Palestinian refugees displaced since 1948 is an issue that should be taken “off the table”, according to the Times of Israel.

Commenting at an appearance at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a pro-Israel think tank based in Washington DC, Haley suggested on Tuesday that the Trump administration would consider an official rejection of the Palestinian demand that all refugees who were displaced as a result of the Nakba (Catastrophe) and their descendants, be allowed to return to their ancestral homeland following a peace deal with Israel.

“I absolutely think we have to look at right of return,” Haley told attendees, before agreeing that the issue should be taken off the negotiating table.

“I do agree with that, and I think we have to look at this in terms of what’s happening [with refugees] in Syria, what’s happening in Venezuela.”

Earlier this week, Israeli media sources reported that the Trump administration is allegedly planning to release information on the US government’s official position on the right of return in the coming days. They are expected to argue that only half a million Palestinians can be considered legitimate refugees, and will reject the UN designation that gives refugee status to the children of those expelled.

Haley also referenced US aid cuts to Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA which estimates that there are at least five million Palestinian refugees alive today, a figure Haley disputed.

“We will be a donor if [UNRWA] reforms what it does … if they actually change the number of refugees to an accurate account, we will look back at partnering them,” she argued.

Yesterday, a report by Foreign Policy revealed that the Trump administration has decided to “end funding altogether” to UNRWA, a move expected to worsen the agency’s financial crisis. The report follows revelations earlier this month that US President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner has been pushing for the refugee status of thousands of Palestinians to be removed in an effort to halt the majority of UNRWA’s operations.

“It is important to have an honest and sincere effort to disrupt UNRWA,” Kushner wrote in an email dated 11 January, just days before the US froze $65 million in funding to the UN branch. “This [agency] perpetuates a status quo, is corrupt, inefficient and doesn’t help peace.”

Israel has argued that UNRWA is seeking to destroy Israel through demographics by supporting Palestinian refugees in multiple locations, which together outnumber the Israeli population. Consequently any one-state solution would see a Palestinian majority in the Jewish state, a situation Tel Aviv wishes to avoid.

Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have encouraged the US to slash Washington’s donations to UNRWA, despite international concern over the worsening of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“This is the consequence of the unholy alliance between the federal government and corporations taking shortcuts through consultation,” declared Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. “My faith in the judicial system is somewhat restored today.”

Indigenous peoples and climate campaigners scored a major victory in Canada on Thursday as the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the government’s review of the controversial Trans Mountain Pipeline, a project of Kinder Morgan, did not adequately consult with First Nations before greenlighting the project.

The ruling comes after ongoing and mass opposition to the project, and members of the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam First Nations—committed to fight the pipeline with every means necessary—have said they never consented to the pipeline passing through their lands and amid vital waterways.

This is the consequence of the unholy alliance between the federal government and corporations taking shortcuts through consultation. My faith in the judicial system is somewhat restored today. – Grand Chief Stewart Phillips on the #TransMountain court decision today#cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/kyEPBAAHUX

— Wilderness Committee (@wildernews) August 30, 2018

In a statement on Twitter, the Sacred Trust of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation said it was glad the FCA  “has recognized our inherent governance rights.”

#BREAKING Canada's Federal Court of Appeal has rejected @JustinTrudeau govt's approval to build the #TransMountain expansion project. This is an huge #victory for #Indigenous groups & people across #Canada who have stood against this pipeline. RT their success!!#NoTMX #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/rpzSkmvnwb

— Greenpeace Canada (@GreenpeaceCA) August 30, 2018

“Today’s decision is a major win for Indigenous Nations and for the environment,” said Greenpeace USA tar sands campaigner Rachel Rye Butler. “It has long been obvious that the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project violates Indigenous sovereignty and would cause irreparable harm to our environment and the health of people; while threatening the extinction of the Southern Resident orca. It’s time to pull the plug on this project once and for all.”

As the Financial Post reports:

The decision means the National Energy Board will have to redo its review of Kinder Morgan Canada’s project. In a written decision, the court says the energy board’s review was so flawed that the federal government could not rely on it as a basis for its decision to approve the expansion.

The court also concludes that the federal government failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with First Nations before giving the green light to the project. That decision means the government will have to redo part of its consultations with Indigenous groups.

“This is a great victory for Indigenous communities everywhere fighting against destructive projects being imposed upon their territories,” said Patrick McCully, climate and energy program director at Rainforest Action Network, after the ruling. “It signals that governments, corporations, and funders must all respect Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.”

Though the widely criticized effort by the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to purchase the pipeline from Kinder Morgan has not been completed, company shareholders officially approved the sale barely an hour after the Federal Court of Appeals ruling was made public.

“The Liberal government has bought a $7.4 billion (and rising) pipeline expansion project that will now be forced into years of further review and delay,” said Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians. “Prime Minister Trudeau knew the Harper-era NEB process was broken and its band-aid attempts to fix it clearly failed. It is time for real political leadership that truly respects Indigenous rights, does not bow to the interests of Big Oil, and prioritizes all of our interests in setting us on a path to a sustainable economy and environment. It is time to put a stop to the Kinder Morgan buy-out.”

UNBELIEVABLE! The Court of Appeal just quashed the approval of the TransMountain pipeline meaning years of delays. Yet, @JustinTrudeau's gov't is still saying they want to buy the project.

How much money are they willing to burn?#cdnpoli #bcpoli #NoTMX #WrongSideOfHistory pic.twitter.com/dWappUvJ9T

— Mike Hudema (@MikeHudema) August 30, 2018

And as Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said in response,

“No matter who owns this pipeline and tanker project, it will be stopped.”

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Featured image is from Greenpeace Canada.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In November 2014, a Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) accused Harvard of “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering the undergraduate admissions program” – citing harm to Asian-American applicants.

The lawsuit claimed Harvard uses racial “quotas” and “racial balancing” in admitting undergraduates, adding:

The university “uses ‘holistic’ admissions to disguise the fact that it holds Asian Americans to a far higher standard than other students and essentially forces them to compete against each other for admission.”

Since 2000, Asian-Americans applying to Harvard had the lowest admission rate of any racial group despite higher test scores.

SFFA head Edward Blum said findings “expose(d) the startling magnitude of Harvard’s discrimination against Asian-American applicants,” adding:

“We believe that…further…evidence (will show) Harvard is in deliberate violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.”

SFFA accused university officials of attempting to suppress data revealing its discriminatory practices.

Treating university applicants and other individuals differently based on race, ethnicity, and/or religion is clearly discriminatory.

In 2013, Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research (OIR) found that college admissions policies produce “negative effects” for Asian-Americans – along with advantaging legacy students and athletes over their low-income counterparts.

OIR findings showed Asian-American applicants ranked significantly better in test scores, academics, and alumni interview evaluations.

White students ranked higher only in personal qualities, assigned by the admissions office.

On August 30, the Justice Department filed a Statement of Interest, supporting the plaintiff in Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

SFFA seeks relief from Harvard’s discriminatory practices under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

Following a complaint by over 60 Asian-American organizations, the DOJ initiated a Title VI investigation into Harvard’s admissions practices.

According to the DOJ’s August 30 Statement of Interest issued,

“Harvard has failed to show that it does not unlawfully discriminate against Asian Americans.”

“As a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding every year, Harvard specifically agrees to not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions decisions.”

“(T)he students and parents who brought this suit have presented compelling evidence that Harvard’s use of race unlawfully discriminates against Asian Americans.”

“In today’s filing, the United States urges the court to grant the plaintiffs the opportunity to prove these claims at trial.”

The DOJ’s statement rejected Harvard’s motion for dismissal of the suit before going to trial. DOJ lawyers criticized university officials for failing to act on the OIR’s report, revealing discrimination against Asian-American applicants.

University spokeswoman Anna Cowenhoven denied charges by the plaintiff and DOJ that Harvard’s admissions practices are discriminatory, a statement saying:

“We are deeply disappointed that the Department of Justice has taken the side of Edward Blum and Students for Fair Admissions, recycling the same misleading and hollow arguments that prove nothing more than the emptiness of the case against Harvard.”

As part of its investigation, the DOJ had access to applicants’ admissions files, rating procedures, and internal university correspondence.

Harvard admitted using race in its admissions process. It failed to show how it’s weighed against other factors in judging applicants (including grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, etc.).

Nor did it show how it assures no illegal discrimination occurs. Supreme Court rulings require university assurances. Harvard failed to do it in this case.

It uses a possibly biased against Asian-Americans “personal rating,” based on an applicant’s file.

It rates candidates for admission on “likability,” “human qualities,” being a “good person,” and other “subjective” factors – admitting it scores Asian-Americans lower on “personal ratings” than candidates of other races.

The DOJ also cited evidence showing university “admissions officers and committees consistently monitor and manipulate the racial makeup of incoming classes…result(ing) in (admissions practices assuring) stable racial demographics…”

The Supreme Court ruled against attempts to “racially balance” student bodies, calling the practice “patently unconstitutional.”

The DOJ also said Harvard

“never seriously considered alternative, race-neutral ways to compile a diverse student body, which it is required to do under existing law.”

The case has yet to go to trial. It remains ongoing until resolved judicially at the district or higher court levels.

Resolution could affect admissions practices at all US colleges and universities.

*

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  

On August 28, ISIS militants carried out several positions of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the al-Azraq oil field area in eastern Deir Ezzor. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the SDF repelled the attack with help from the US-led coalition airpower.

This was the second major ISIS attack on SDF positions in Deir Ezzor province in August. The previous one took place on August 20 and also targeted the SDF-controlled oil field – the al-Omar oil fields in southeastern Deir Ezzor.

These attacks show that despite claims by the SDF and the coalition that ISIS was fully defeated in most of northwestern Syria, cells of the terrorist group are still operating there.

Over the last few days, the Syrian military has deployed a large number of former Free Syrian Army (FSA) members, whom reconciled with the government in eastern Damascus, to a frontline with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) in northern Hama.

According to reports in Syrian media, more former FSA members from the Damascus countryside will be deployed in the area soon. The participation of these units in the upcoming operation against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham shows that all sections of the Syrian society see Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a dangerous terrorist group, which has to be eliminated.

Idlib militants are trying to hold civilians hostage to be used as human shields and this festering “abscess” has to be eliminated, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on August 29 following talks with his Saudi counterpart Abdel Al-Jubeir.

“For understandable reasons, Idlib is the last major stronghold of terrorists who are trying to gamble on the status of the de-escalation zone and hold civilians as human shields and bring the armed formations ready for negotiations with the Syrian government to their knees. So, from all standpoints, this ‘abscess’ has to be liquidated,” the foreign minister said.

“It is necessary to urgently separate regular armed formations from Jabhat al-Nusra gunmen and simultaneously lay the groundwork for an operation against these terrorists and do everything to minimize risks to civilians,” Lavrov added.

Media reports on the alleged June meeting in Damascus between high-ranking representatives of US and Syrian special services are “fake news,” Russian Special Presidential Envoy for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said on August 29. Bogdanov’s remarks followed a report by Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar that representatives of US special services made a private visit to Damascus in June and held consultations with the Syrian government.

*

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  

National security advocates have been crotchety ever since the release of Chelsea Manning for a sentence they hoped would go the full, crushing 35 years.  Her sins were intimately tied up with making WikiLeaks the publisher of fame, less than fortune: the disclosure of 750,000 classified diplomatic and military documents which revealed, to various degrees, the inner workings of the US military industrial complex.  But a moment of enlightenment prevailed, and President Barack Obama deemed her case suitable for commutation in one of his last executive acts. 

While the idea of a celebrity whistleblower is rife with problems (the stereotype is usually that of an insecure, inconspicuous figure, a persecuted shrinking violet), Manning has managed to become one since her release in May 2017.  Identity politics has been grafted upon the political necessaries of exposing injustices and atrocities.  Data security has been paired with transgender politics.

In Australia, joined (even chained?) to the hip of the US imperium, not all are revelling in Manning, the spiller of secrets big and small.  She was a military intelligence analyst gone bad, and for those reasons, should be treated as such.

“Despite the media breathlessly describing Manning as a whistleblower,” penned a sceptical Rodger Shanahan of the Lowy Institute, “she is far from that.  In fact, if she thought she was a whistleblower she could have availed herself of the 1988 Military Whistleblowers Act.”

For Shanahan, being a whistleblower requires you to be an ascetic person of scrupulous credentials, and free of confusion.  Most of all, you must be bureaucratically minded, a team player who uses internal channels laid out by the managers.  Manning was not aggrieved by US military practice, he surmises, merely “downloading material from the classified system for onforwarding to WikiLeaks” within two weeks of her first deployment. (How unprincipled!)

Shanahan’s attempt to demolish Manning’s credentials are typical of an individual who believes in the constipated restrictions imposed on the meaning of whistleblower.  The first is a charmingly naïve assumption that the Military Whistleblowers Act somehow immunises the discloser from prosecution, casting a cordon of iron clad protection from venal employers.  Even more importantly, there is an assumption that internal disclosures made by the morally worried and concerned work, a cynic’s ploy to pretend to be an idealist.

What matters in that approach is to keep abuses within the corrupt family, to exclude prying eyes and, most importantly of all, to let matters of redress and reform drift into splendid inertia.  Actual changes and means to hold agents responsible for abuse tend to happen from the outside, the shock of the new.  Little wonder, then, that such catalysts – in this case Manning, and then her provision to WikiLeaks – are treated as such crass and vulgar acts, disruptive and therefore in need of containment.

What is problematic for Manning is that certain records speak volumes to immigration officials.  They are not to be considered in context; what matters is the fact of a conviction, not the extenuating circumstances that could excuse, or at least mitigate, the reasons for it.  Good character, to that end, is ever slippery, but officialdom demands certitude.

Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) permits the minister power to refuse a person a visa on grounds of character if they have been sentenced to prison for one year or longer.  The bar is low, with a visa refusal possible if the minister “reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.”

The notice from the Department of Home Affairs to Manning notes how it “holds information about your criminal history listed at the end of this notice, which indicates that you have a substantial criminal record within the meaning of that term as defined in s. 501(7) of the Migration Act”.  The character test, for that reason, was not satisfied.

Digital Rights Watch chairman Tim Singleton Norton, on peering into the crystal ball of decision making in the home ministry, smells the intrusive hand of power.  The ban was “nothing more than a political stunt designed to appease the current US administration, and an unnecessary imposition on the movement of a world-renowned civil rights activist.”

Not all in the Australian political classes are comatose to Manning’s broader contributions.  The Australian Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale and Labor equality spokeswoman Louise Pratt have lobbied the Morrison government on the subject of providing Manning a visa.  The organiser of her speaking tour, Think Inc., has been particularly keen that immigration minister David Coleman and home affairs minister Peter Dutton apply their “ministerial discretion to allow Ms Manning entry into Australia.”

Think Inc.’s application seeking re-evaluation of Manning’s visa application argues that,

“she poses no threat to members of the Australian community.  Think Inc. believes Ms Manning is entitled to freedom of expression and political opinion which are the foundations of a free and democratic society and fundamental human rights.”

The organisation is attempting to win the argument on the ideas front, wonderful if those listening care for them.

“Ms Manning,” claims the director Suzi Jamil, “offers formidable ideas and an insightful perspective which we are hoping to bring to the forefront of Australian dialogue.”  These include “data privacy, artificial intelligence and transgender rights.”

Hugh de Kretser of the Human Rights Law Centre has been blunter:

“She’s generating vital debate around issues like mass surveillance of citizens by governments.  The visa should be granted.”

Jamil, perhaps prudently, avoided those other ideas that have stuck in the craw of establishment toadies: that Manning represents the oft needed instability caused by openness and transparent shocks of information to those fanatical about secrecy.

*

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  

Today, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline’s Cabinet approval was fatally flawed in not one but two ways: in failing to properly consult Indigenous peoples and First Nations, and in failing to properly account for the full environmental impacts of the project by excluding the Trans Mountain Expansion’s associated tanker traffic.

In response, Senior Campaigner Adam Scott of Oil Change International released the following statement:

“Today’s court decision is a major victory for Indigenous rights, coastal protection, and the fight to stop our worsening climate crisis. The courts have upheld Canada’s laws in the face of a government unwilling to do the right thing.

“The Trudeau government abandoned its promise of reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous Peoples when it forced this dangerous project on numerous individual, rights-holding First Nations in 2016. Respecting Indigenous rights requires ensuring free, prior, and informed consent, not continuing Canada’s colonial legacy of privileging extractive industry.

“De facto halting this dangerous project keeps open the only credible path for Canada to live up to its obligation to fight climate change. Building new, long-lived pipelines in support of ever-growing oil production and export is wholly incompatible with the rapid transition away from fossil fuels required.

“The Trudeau government’s disastrous decision to bail out this project using taxpayer money now looks even more foolish than it did in May.

“This project will never be built. A growing and courageous movement for a better future will never let that happen.”

*

Featured image is from The Tyee.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

We, members of the Global Network for Syria, are deeply alarmed by recent statements by Western governments and officials threatening the government of Syria with military intervention, and by media reports of actions taken by parties in Syria and by Western agencies in advance of such intervention.

In a joint statement issued on 21 August the governments of the US, the UK and France said that ‘we reaffirm our shared resolve to preventing [sic] the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and for [sic] holding them accountable for any such use… As we have demonstrated, we will respond appropriately to any further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime’.

The three governments justify this threat with reference to ‘reports of a military offensive by the Syrian regime against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Idlib’.

On 22 August, Mr John Bolton, US National Security Adviser, was reported by Bloomberg to have said that the US was prepared to respond with greater force than it has used in Syria before.

These threats need to be seen in the context of the following reports and considerations.

Reports have appeared of activity by the White Helmets group, or militants posing as White Helmets, consistent with an intention to stage a ‘false flag’ chemical incident in order to provoke Western intervention. These activities have reportedly included the transfer of eight canisters of chlorine to a village near Jisr Al Shughur, an area under the control of Hayat Tahrir Ash Sham, an affiliate of the terrorist group Al Nusra. Some reports refer to the involvement of British individuals and the Olive security company. Other reports indicate a build-up of US naval forces in the Gulf and of land forces in areas of Iraq adjoining the Syrian border.

We therefore urge the US, UK and French governments to consider the following points before embarking on any military intervention:

• In the cases of three of the previous incidents cited in the 21 August statement (Ltamenah, Khan Sheykhoun, Saraqib) OPCW inspectors were not able to secure from the militants who controlled these areas security guarantees to enable them to visit the sites, yet still based their findings on evidence provided by militants.
• In the case of Douma, also cited, the interim report of OPCW inspectors dated 6 July based on a visit to the site concluded that no evidence was found of the use of chemical weapons and that evidence for the use of chlorine as a weapon was inconclusive.
• Western governments themselves acknowledge that Idlib is controlled by radical Islamist extremists. The British government in its statement on 20 August justified its curtailment of aid programmes in Idlib on the grounds that conditions had become too difficult. Any action by the Syrian government would not be directed at harming civilians, but at removing these radical elements.
• Any military intervention without a mandate from the United Nations would be illegal.
• Any military intervention would risk confrontation with a nuclear armed comember of the Security Council, as well as with the Islamic Republic of Iran, with consequent ramifications for regional as well as global security.
• There is no plan in place to contain chaos in the event of sudden government collapse in Syria, such as might occur in the contingency of command and control centres being targeted. Heavy military intervention could result in the recrudescence of terrorist groups, genocide against the Alawite, Christian, Druze, Ismaili, Shiite and Armenian communities, and a tsunami of refugees into neighbouring countries and Europe.

In the event of an incident involving the use of prohibited weapons – prior to taking any decision on military intervention – we urge the US, UK and French governments:

• To provide detailed and substantive evidence to prove that any apparent incident could not have been staged by a party wishing to bring Western powers into the conflict on their side.
• To conduct emergency consultations with their respective legislative institutions to request an urgent mission by the OPCW to the site of any apparent incident and give time for this mission to be carried out.
• To call on the government of Turkey, which has military observation posts in Idlib, to facilitate, in the event of an incident, an urgent mission by the OPCW to the jihadi-controlled area, along with observers from Russia to ensure impartiality.

We further call on the tripartite powers to join Turkish and Russian efforts to head off confrontation between the Syrian government forces and the militants opposing them by separating the most radical organisations such as Hayat Tahrir Ash Sham and Hurras Ad Deen from the rest, eliminating them, and facilitating negotiations between the Syrian government and elements willing to negotiate.

You may download the statement here.

*

Dr Tim Anderson, University of Sydney

Lord Carey of Clifton, Crossbench Member of the House of Lords and former Archbishop of Canterbury

The Baroness Cox, Crossbench Member of the House of Lords

Peter Ford, British Ambassador to Syria 2003-06

Dr Michael Langrish, former Bishop of Exeter

Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Independent Labour Member of the House of Lords

The Dirty War on Syria

Author: Prof. Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Pages: 240

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

click to purchase, directly from Global Research Publishers

Este articulo fué publicado por Global Research el 19 de marzo 2013

La version original en inglès con una nota introductoria (Agosto 2018) por el autor 

***

El cónclave del Vaticano ha elegido el Cardenal Jorge Mario Bergoglio como Papa Francisco I

¿Quién es Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

En 1973, había sido nombrado “Provincial” de la Argentina por la Compañía de Jesús.Por este cargo, Bergoglio era el jesuita de más alto rango en Argentina durante la dictadura militar encabezada por el general Jorge Videla (1976-1983).

Más tarde se convirtió en obispo y arzobispo de Buenos Aires. El Papa Juan Pablo II lo elevó al rango de cardenal en 2001.

Cuando la Junta Militar entregó el poder en 1983, el presidente debidamente electo Raúl Alfonsín creó una Comisión de la Verdad respecto a los delitos vinculados a la “Guerra Sucia”.

La junta militar había sido apoyada secretamente por Washington.

El Secretario de Estado norteamericano, Henry Kissinger tuvo un papel detrás de la escena en el golpe militar de 1976.

El lugarteniente de Kissinger en América Latina, William Rogers, le dijo dos días después del golpe de Estado que “tenemos que esperar una buena cantidad de represión, probablemente una buena cantidad de sangre, en la Argentina en poco tiempo“…. (National Security Archive, 23 de marzo de 2006)

“Operación Cóndor”

Irónicamente, un importante juicio comenzó en Buenos Aires el 5 de marzo de 2013, una semana antes de la investidura cardenal Bergoglio como Pontífice. El juicio en curso en Buenos Aires busca: “considerar la totalidad de los crímenes cometidos bajo la Operación Cóndor, una campaña coordinada por varias dictaduras apoyadas por Estados Unidos en América Latina en las décadas de 1970 y 1980 para perseguir, torturar y asesinar a miles de opositores de esos regímenes”.Para más detalles, consulte Operation Condor: Trial On Latin American Rendition And Assassination Programde Carlos Osorio y Peter Kornbluh, 10 de marzo de 2013La junta militar encabezada por el general Jorge Videla fue responsable de asesinatos, incluyendo el de un sinnúmero de sacerdotes y monjas que se opusieron al dominio militar tras el golpe de estado del 24 de marzo de 1976, patrocinado por la CIA, que derrocó al gobierno de Isabel Perón:

“Videla fue uno de los generales culpables de crímenes contra los derechos humanos, incluyendo las “desapariciones”, torturas, asesinatos y secuestros. En 1985, Videla fue condenado a cadena perpetua en la prisión militar de Magdalena.”

Wall Street y la agenda económica neoliberal

“Por lo menos dos casos involucran directamente a Bergoglio. Uno se relaciona con la tortura de dos de sus sacerdotes jesuitas – Orlando Yorio y Francisco Jalics – que fueron secuestrados en 1976 en los barrios pobres donde abogaban por la teología de la liberación. Yorio acusó a Bergoglio de haberlo efectivamente entregado a los escuadrones de la muerte… al negarse a decirle al régimen que apoyaba su labor. Jalics se negó a hablar de ello después de mudarse a reclusión en un monasterio alemán.” (Los Angeles Times, 1 de abril de 2005)

Las acusaciones dirigidas contra Bergoglio respecto a los dos sacerdotes jesuitas secuestrados no son más que la punta del iceberg. Así como Bergoglio era una figura importante en la Iglesia católica, ciertamente no era el único que apoyó la Junta Militar.Según el abogado de Myriam Bregman: “las declaraciones del propio Bergoglio demostraron que funcionarios de la iglesia sabían desde el principio que la junta estaba torturando y asesinando a sus ciudadanos, y sin embargo, respaldaron públicamente a los dictadores.” La dictadura no podría haber funcionado de esta manera sin este apoyo clave“. (Los Angeles Times, 1 de abril 2005, énfasis añadido)La jerarquía católica entera estaba detrás de la dictadura. Vale la pena recordar que el 23 de marzo de 1976, en vísperas del golpe militar:

“Videla y otros conspiradores recibieron la bendición del arzobispo de Paraná, Adolfo Tortolo, quien también se desempeñó como vicario de las fuerzas armadas. El mismo día de la toma de posesión, los líderes militares tuvieron una larga reunión con los dirigentes de la Conferencia Episcopal. Al salir de esa reunión, el arzobispo Tortolo declaró que si bien “la iglesia tiene su misión específica… hay circunstancias en las que no pueden abstenerse de participar, incluso cuando se trata de problemas relacionados con el orden específico del Estado.” Él instó a los argentinos a “cooperar de manera positiva” con el nuevo gobierno“. (The Humanist.org, enero de 2011, énfasis añadido)

En una entrevista con El Sur, el general Jorge Videla, quien actualmente cumple una pena de cadena perpetua confirmó que:

“Mantuvo a la jerarquía católica del país informada sobre la política de su régimen de “desaparecer” a los opositores políticos, y que los líderes católicos ofrecieron consejos sobre cómo “manejar” dicha política.

Jorge Videla dijo que tuvo “muchas conversaciones” con el prelado de Argentina, el cardenal Raúl Francisco Primatesta, sobre la guerra sucia de su régimen contra activistas de izquierda. Dijo también que hubo conversaciones con otros obispos importantes de la Conferencia Episcopal Argentina, así como con el nuncio papal en el país en ese momento, Pío Laghi.

“Ellos nos aconsejan sobre la manera de hacer frente a la situación“, dijo Videla” (Tom Henningan, Former Argentinian dictator says he told Catholic Church of disappeared, Irish Times, 24 de julio de 2012, énfasis añadido)

Al apoyar a la Junta militar, la jerarquía católica fue cómplice de los asesinatos y la tortura en masa, un estimado de “22.000 muertos y desaparecidos, desde 1976 hasta 1978… Miles de víctimas adicionales fueron asesinados entre 1978 y 1983, cuando los militares fueron depuestos.”(National Security Archive, 23 de marzo 2006).

La Iglesia Católica: Chile versus Argentina

Vale la pena señalar que, a raíz del golpe militar en Chile el 11 de septiembre de 1973, el cardenal de Santiago de Chile, Raúl Silva Henríquez, condenó abiertamente la junta militar encabezada por el general Augusto Pinochet. En marcado contraste con Argentina, esta postura de la jerarquía católica en Chile fue fundamental para frenar la ola de asesinatos políticos y violaciones de derechos humanos dirigidas contra partidarios de Salvador Allende y opositores al régimen militar.Si Jorge Mario Bergoglio hubiese adoptado una postura similar a la del Cardenal Raúl Silva Henríquez, miles de vidas se habrían salvado.

La “Operación Cóndor” y la Iglesia Católica

La elección del cardenal Bergoglio en el cónclave del Vaticano para servir como Papa Francisco I tendrá repercusiones inmediatas en el presente juicio contra la “Operación Cóndor” en Buenos Aires.

La Iglesia estuvo involucrada en el apoyo a la Junta Militar. Esto es algo que emergerá durante el curso de las actuaciones judiciales. Sin duda, habrá intentos para ocultar el papel de la jerarquía católica y del recién nombrado Papa Francisco I, quien se desempeñó como jefe de la orden jesuita en Argentina durante la dictadura militar.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio: ¿”El Papa de Washington en el Vaticano”?

La elección del Papa Francisco I tiene amplias implicaciones geopolíticas para toda la región de Latinoamérica.

En la década de 1970, Jorge Mario Bergoglio apoyó a una dictadura militar de patrocinio estadounidense.

La jerarquía católica en la Argentina apoyó al gobierno militar.

Los intereses de Wall Street se mantuvieron a través de la oficina de José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz en el Ministerio de Economía.

La Iglesia Católica en América Latina es políticamente influyente. También posee control sobre la opinión pública. Esto es conocido y comprendido por los arquitectos de política exterior estadounidense.

En América Latina, donde varios gobiernos están ahora desafiando la hegemonía de Estados Unidos, uno podría esperar – dada la trayectoria de Bergoglio – que el nuevo Pontífice Francisco I como líder de la Iglesia Católica, jugará de facto, un discreto rol político “encubierto” a nombre de Washington.

Con Jorge Bergoglio, el Papa Francisco I, en el Vaticano (que sirvió fielmente a los intereses estadounidenses en el apogeo del general Jorge Videla) la jerarquía de la Iglesia Católica en América Latina puede volver a ser efectivamente manipulada para socavar a los gobiernos “progresistas” (de izquierda), no sólo en la Argentina (respecto del gobierno de Cristina Kirchner), sino en toda la región, incluyendo Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia.

El restablecimiento de un “Papa pro-estadounidense” se produjo una semana después de la muerte del presidente Hugo Chávez.

¿El Papa de Washington y Wall Street en el Vaticano?

El Departamento de Estado norteamericano presiona rutinariamente a los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad con miras a influir en la votación relativa a las resoluciones del Consejo.

Operaciones encubiertas y campañas de propaganda estadounidenses se desarrollan rutinariamente con objeto de influir en las elecciones nacionales en diferentes países alrededor del mundo.

¿El gobierno estadounidense habrá intentado influir en la elección del nuevo pontífice? Jorge Mario Bergoglio era el candidato preferido por Washington.

¿Hubo presiones encubiertas ejercidas discretamente por Washington, dentro de la Iglesia Católica, directa o indirectamente, a los 115 cardenales que son miembros del cónclave del Vaticano, para llevar a la elección de un pontífice que fielmente sirve a los intereses de la política exterior estadounidense en América Latina?

Nota del Autor

Desde el comienzo del régimen militar en 1976, fui profesor visitante en el Instituto de Política Social de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. Mi principal objetivo de investigación en ese momento era investigar los efectos sociales de las letales reformas macroeconómicas aprobadas por la Junta Militar.

Impartí clases en la Universidad de Córdoba durante la primera oleada de asesinatos que también apunto a miembros del clero católico de base progresista.

La ciudad norteña industrial de Córdoba era el centro del movimiento de resistencia. Fui testigo de cómo la jerarquía católica activa y sistemáticamente apoyó a la junta militar, creando un clima de intimidación y temor en todo el país. El sentimiento general era en ese entonces que los argentinos habían sido traicionados por las altas esferas de la Iglesia Católica.

Tres años antes, al momento del golpe militar del 11 de septiembre de 1973 en Chile, que llevó al derrocamiento del gobierno de la Unidad Popular de Salvador Allende, era profesor visitante del Instituto de Economía de la Universidad Católica de Chile, en Santiago de Chile.

Inmediatamente después del golpe de Estado en Chile, fui testigo de cómo el cardenal de Santiago, Raúl Silva Henríquez, actuando a nombre de la Iglesia Católica, se enfrentó a la dictadura militar.

Michel Chossudovsky es autor galardonado, Profesor de Economía (Emérito) de la Universidad de Ottawa, Director del Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), y Editor de globalresearch.ca. Es el autor de Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) y America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). También es colaborador de la Enciclopedia Británica. Sus escritos publicados se encuentran en más de veinte idiomas.

How Father Jorge Maria Bergoglio supported Argentina’s military junta’s “Dirty War” in the 1970s was known and documented prior to his accession to Vatican.

Image: Father Bergoglio with General Jorge Videla, Argentina, 1970s

The media was complicit through omission. The Catholic hierarchy including the Vatican conclave of “Cardinal Electors” turned a blind eye. They were fully aware of Bergoglio’s insidious role. 

The military government headed by General Jorge Videla acknowledged in a Secret Memo that Father Bergoglio had (without evidence) accused two priests of having established contacts with the guerilleros, and for having disobeyed the orders of the Church hierarchy (Conflictos de obedecencia).  The document acknowledges that the “arrest” of the two priests, who were taken to the torture and detention center at the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA, was based on information transmitted by Father Bergoglio to the military authorities.

María Marta Vásquez, her husband César Lugones (see picture right) and Mónica Candelaria Mignone allegedly “handed over to the death squads” by Jesuit “Provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio are among the thousands of “desaparecidos” (disappeared) of Argentina’s “Dirty War”, which was supported covertly by Washington under “Operation Condor”. (See memorialmagro.com.ar)

The accusations directed against Bergoglio regarding the two kidnapped Jesuit priests and six members of their parish are but the tip of the iceberg. “La punta dell’iceberg”.

While Bergoglio was an important figure in the Catholic Church, he was certainly not alone in supporting the Military Junta.

Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky 

For further details and documents see:

Who is Pope Francis? Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 29, 2018

**

Author’s Note

From the outset of the military regime in 1976, I was Visiting Professor at the Social Policy Institute of the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina. My major research focus at the time was to investigate the social impacts of the deadly macroeconomic reforms adopted by the military Junta. 

I was teaching at the University of Cordoba during the initial wave of assassinations which also targeted progressive grassroots members of the Catholic clergy.

The Northern industrial city of Cordoba was the center of the resistance movement. I witnessed how the Catholic hierarchy actively and routinely supported the military junta, creating an atmosphere of  intimidation and fear throughout the country. The general feeling at the time was that Argentinians had been betrayed by the upper echelons of the Catholic Church.

Three years earlier, at the time of Chile’s September 11, 1973 military coup, leading to the overthrow of the Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende,  I was Visiting Professor at the Institute of Economics, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago de Chile.

In the immediate wake of the coup in Chile,  I witnessed how the Cardinal of Santiago, Raul Silva Henriquez –acting on behalf of the Catholic Church– courageously confronted the military dictatorship of general Augusto Pinochet.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Read Part I here.

Ethnolinguistic Serbdom

Serbia’s Prince Miloš’s schemes to solve the „Serbian Question“ were based exclusively on the historical (state) rights of the Serbs. However, during his reign, a new and cardinal dimension on an understanding of Serbian national identity and, therefore, the idea of the creation of the national state of the Serbs was introduced into Serbian political thought by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787–1864) who framed the concept of a linguistic Serbdom.

In his brief essay “Срби сви и свуда” (“Serbs All and Everywhere”),[1] V. S. Karadžić established the linguistic criteria for determining Serbian national self-identity and reformulation of the whole concept of nation and nationality.[2] Namely, up to 1836, the Serbs were self-identified mainly as the Balkan community of Orthodox Christianity that both used the Cyrillic alphabet and maintained a national legend of the Kosovo tragedy of the defeat of the Serbs by the Ottomans in 1389 and heroic legends about it.[3]  Nevertheless, this traditional and conservative confession-based approach to the national identity of the Serbs (and other South Slavs) did not satisfy the Serbian intelligentsia which was heavily influenced in the time of Karadžić by the 19^th-century German (linguistic) definition of the self-national identity (i.e., all German-speaking populations belong to the German nation).[4]

The nation-state building process in South-Eastern Europe is based on the development of nationalism as the phenomenon of the last two centuries. Nationalism itself is “associated with the spread of national ideologies leading in due course to the creation of sovereign nation-states”.[5] A fact is that the early 19^th-century nationalism in South-East Europe was directly inspired by Western European ideas of Enlightenment which were based on secularization, historicism, and the spoken language by the folk. With regard to the Serbs, the ideas of the Enlightenment were primarily accepted and advocated by the Austrian urban Serbian settlers and secular intelligentsia who were in constant ideological conflict with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Therefore, it is surprising but true, that the early 19^th-century Serbian nationalism was in essence secularist in a form which resulted from the confluence of a rapid decline of the Ottoman central power in Istanbul and new ideas of Western European Enlightenment, particularly those of German Romanticism.

Ethnic map of Socialist Yugoslavia according to 1981 census.

S. Karadžić was inspired to apply the German language-based approach to the issue of what constituted the Serbian identity.[6] At the time of a rising Croatian linguistic and political nationalism, framed by Austria’s sponsored “Illyrian Movement,” he declared the Štokavian dialect (claimed by the Croatian “Illyrians” as one of three dialects of the Croatian national language) as the cardinal indicator of Serbian national identity, and identified all the South Slavs who spoke this dialect as ethnolinguistic Serbs. In accordance with the German model of the time, he did not consider religious affiliation in creating his national identity model, although he recognized that the ethnolinguistic Serbs belonged to three different confessional denominations. Therefore, he considered all the Bosnians and the Herzegovinians to be ethnolinguistic Serbs for the very reason that all of them spoke the Štokavian, but he distinguished three (confessional) groups of the inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina, taking religion into consideration: the Serbs of the “Greek-creed” (the Eastern Orthodox), “Roman-creed” (the Roman Catholic) and “Turkish-creed” (the Islamic).[7] It should be noted that the former Serbo-Croatian language was officially divided by the Yugoslav linguists and philologists into three dialects according to the form of the interrogative pronoun what: Kajkavian (what = kaj), Čakavian (what = ča), and Štokavian (what = što).[8] At the time of V. S. Karadžić’s writing, the Kajkavian dialect was spoken in the northwestern parts of Croatia proper, the Čakavian in the northern coast area and the islands of the eastern Adriatic shore and the Štokavian within the area from the Austrian Military Border in the northwest to Mt. Shara in the southeast. The Štokavian dialect is (officially) divided into three sub-dialects according to the pronunciation of the original Slavic vowel represented by the letter jat.[9]

Disputes on the “Serbs All and Everywhere”

There is considerable controversy among the South Slavic philologists, linguists and historians regarding exactly how V. S. Karadžić treated the Štokavian-speaking Roman Catholic South Slavs (present-day Croats). This question became one of the most disputed topics with respect to V. S. Karadžić’s philological work and the apple of discord between the Serbian and Croatian researchers. Nevertheless, it is not precisely clear whether he evidently viewed them as Croats, or as Serbs. It appears, however, that V. S. Karadžić considered them in essence as the ethnolinguistic Serbs since they spoke the Štokavian dialect regardless of their own national (self)identity at that time. For him, all the Roman Catholic-creed Štokavians would eventually have to call themselves “Serbs”; and if they did not want to do so, they would end up without a national name. In other words, V. S. Karadžić was treating the Štokavian-speaking Roman Catholics in fact as Roman Catholic ethnolinguistic Serbs.[10] This conclusion was suggested also by the American historian from Dubrovnik Ivo Banac who notes that: “As early as 1814, for example, [Karadžić] held that one of the Štokavian subdialects was characteristic of ‘Roman Catholic Serbs’”[11] Nevertheless, many Croatian authors are of the opinion that V. S. Karadžić “tries to negate the existence of any significant number of Croats, distorting historic and linguistic factors to prove his arguments. At this time, the Croats, along with the Bulgarians, were seen as the biggest obstacle to Serbian dominance in the Balkans”.[12] However, for V. S. Karadžić a small number of the real ethnolinguistic Croats (the Čakavians) or of those who at that time clearly identified themselves as Croats (the Čakavians and the Kajkavians) was a reality. His point of view was moreover supported by the majority of the Slavic philologists at the end of the 18^th century and the first half of the 19^th century[13] who did not see in V. S. Karadžić’s opinion any kind of policy of Serbian expansionism at the Balkans. However, contrary to the Croatian allegations regarding V. S. Karadžić’s “imperialistic ideology of Serbian territorial expansionism”, any claim that at that time a significant number of the South Slavic Roman Catholic Štokavians were, in fact, the ethnolinguistic Croats is in support of Croatian assimilation policy (Croatization) of the Roman Catholic Štokavians which was begun at the time of V. S. Karadžić by the Croatian “Illyrian Movement”. The movement in the name of a Yugoslav unity appropriated the Serbian literal language standardized by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (only for the Serbs) as a Croat literal language based exactly on the Štokavian dialect spoken at that time by no significant number of those who declared themselves as Croats but spoken by all of those who declared themselves as the Serbs and by those who had only a regional identity (Slavonian, Dalmatian, Dubrovnik, Bosnian…). Therefore, from the time of the Croatian “Illyrian Movement” to the present the Croats are, in fact, using the Serbian national language as their own literal one.[14] However, as a direct consequence of such Croatian linguistic policy, the Roman Catholic Štokavians of the time of V. S. Karadžić are today completely Croatized.

As a matter of fact, V. S. Karadžić was unable to fix precisely the southeastern ethnоlinguistic borders of the Serbian nation within the framework of his linguistic model of national identity, as he did not know how many Serbs (i.e., the Štokavian speakers) lived in Albania and Macedonia because of the lack of any relevant statistics and other documentation. For instance, in 1834, he was informed by some merchants about the existence of around 300 “Serbian” villages in Western Macedonia. However, he had serious doubts about the accuracy of this information when he heard that the people from these villages spoke the “Slavic language”, since this could have meant either the Bulgarian or Serbian.[15] He acknowledged, nevertheless, the existence of transitional zones between the Štokavian dialect and the Bulgarian language in Western Bulgaria (Torlak and Zagorje regions) but he excluded most of Macedonia and Albania from his Štokavian-speaking zone.[16] Finally, he was only able to conclude that the Štokavian dialect was definitely spoken in the area between the Timok River and Mt. Šara.

It is of crucial importance to emphasize that V. S. Karadžić’s ideas on South Slavic identities were not original but in fact based on the theory developed by the leading 19^th-century Slavonic philologists Dositej Obradović, Pavel Josef Šafařik, Jan Kollár, Josef Dobrovský, Jernej Kopitar and Franc Miklošič, who claimed that the genuine Slovene dialect was the Kajkavian, the native Croatian dialect was the Čakavian (and to a certain extent the Kajkavian) and that the true Serbian dialect was the Štokavian.[17]In other words, a Croat claimed Karadžić’s ethnolinguistic “imperialism” prompted by the desire to create a Greater Serbia was nothing else than an internationally recognized reality of the South Slavic ethnolinguistic division by the leading Slavic philologists of the time and who were of different ethnonational backgrounds.

Nevertheless, Karadžić’s concept of a language-based Serbian nationhood had a significant impact on 19^th and 20^th-century scholars, both the Serbs and the others:

1. It gave a strong impetus to the revision of the traditional picture of the Serbian ethnolinguistic territories in the Balkans.
2. As a result of V. S. Karadžić’s theory, the claim that there was a large Serbian population in Western Bulgaria and most of Macedonia and Albania was finally abandoned.
3. The literary and cultural legacy of Dubrovnik was asserted to be exclusively Serbian.[18]

Ethnolinguistic Statehood

A Romanticist-based idea of Serbian national statehood reached its final stage when Ilija Garašanin (1812–1874) drafted a plan for consolidation of all ethnolinguistic Serbian territories within a single national state. His unfinished Начертаније (Outline) became one of the most significant and influential works in the history of South Slavic political thought, greatly influencing the development of Serbia’s national program and foreign policy in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Written in 1844 as a top-secret document submitted only to Serbia’s Prince Aleksandar Karađorđević I (1842–1858), it became, however, known in the Austro-Hungarian diplomatic circles in 1888, and a wider audience became familiar with the text in 1906 when a Belgrade-based journal published it.[19]

Different interpretations of I. Garašanin’s ultimate idea of statehood are primarily inspired by two cardinal problems in dealing with the reconstruction of the text of Outline:

1. The original is not preserved, and the text can be reconstructed only from several copies.[20]
2. Garašanin (the “Balkan Bismarck”)[21] did not succeed in completing the original text of Outline that was delivered to the Prince Aleksandar.

Similar to the case of V. S. Karadžić’s linguistic model of Serbian national identity, to a large extent, Garašanin’s project of the creation of a united national state of the Serbs was also very much inspired by foreigners. More precisely, by three works written in 1843 and 1844 and translated into Serbian: Савети (The Advice) by the Polish Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski (1770–1861), a leader of the Polish émigrés in Paris; Фрагмент из српске историје (A Fragment from the History of Serbia) by the Englishman David Urkwart, and План (The Plan) by the Czech Francisco Zach. Nevertheless, these authors championed the idea of creating a united South Slavic state under the leadership of Serbia, intended as a barrier to Russian and Austrian political influence in the Balkans. This united South Slavic state was to be placed under French and British protection.[22] However, I. Garašanin did not accept the plan to unite Serbia with all South Slavic territories of the Austrian Empire (populated by Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) into a single, federal state as he advocated the creation of a single centralized national state only of the ethnolinguistic Serbs whose boundaries would embrace a complete Serbian national entity.[23]

There are three crucial reasons why I. Garašanin designed a united Serbian national state instead of a South Slavic one:

1. He favored the idea of an ethnically uniform state, as advocated by the German Romanticists.[24]
2. He believed that a multinational South Slavic state would easily disintegrate as a result of the frequent struggles between the different nations.
3. He believed that only an ethnically uniform state organization could be inherently stable.[25]

Garašanin designed his plans in an expectation that both the Ottoman Empire and the Austrian Empire, as multinational and imperialistic states, would be dismantled in the immediate future due to their internal instability. In his view, in the event of the Austrian and the Ottoman dismemberment the principal duty of Serbia had to be to place all ethnolinguistic Serbs, especially those who had been living in undisputable Serbian historical lands, into a single national state organization. The core of a united Serb national state was to be the Principality of Serbia, which had at that time the status of an autonomous tributary within the Ottoman Empire.

Garašanin designed two stages to rally all Serbs into a united national state. This timetable corresponds to I. Garašanin’s prediction that the Ottoman Empire would collapse first, followed by the Habsburg Monarchy:

1. In the first stage, Serbia would annex all the Serbian ethnographic territories within the Ottoman Empire: i.e., Bosnia-Herzegovina, part of West Bulgaria, Montenegro, Sanjak (Raška), part of North Albania and, finally, Kosovo-Metochia.
2. The lands of the Austrian Empire that were inhabited by the ethnolinguistic Serbs — the Military Border, Slavonia, Srem, Bačka, Banat, and Dalmatia — would be subject to the same action in the second phase of Serbian national unification.[26]

Disputes on the “Outline”

In South Slavic and international historiography, there is a two-camp dispute about the principles on which I. Garašanin based his idea of Serbian statehood:

1. The first group claims that at the time I. Garašanin was writing the Outline the Serbian Minister of Internal Affairs, sought to create a Serbian national state solely on the principle of historical state rights. They argue that I. Garašanin took as a model the glorious Serbian medieval empire, which lasted from 1346 to 1371, and hence that he did not consider the territories settled by the Serbs in the Austrian Empire as they had not been included in the Serbian mediaeval empire, but focused only on those within the Ottoman Empire because they composed the Serbian mediaeval state. In their view, I. Garašanin always referred to the Serbian Empire of Stefan Dušan (1331–1355, proclaimed emperor in 1346), the borders of which reached the Drina River on the west, the Sava and Danube Rivers on the north, the Chalkidiki Peninsula on the east, and the Albanian seacoast and the Gulf of Corinth on the south. Therefore, the territories of the Austrian Military Border, Slavonia, Srem, Bačka, Banat, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which were not included in the medieval Serbian Empire, were not treated by him as the lands to which Serbia had historic (state) rights.[27]
2. The second group argues that I. Garašanin advocated the creation of a national state on the basis of both Serbian ethnic and historical (state) rights. This view is based on the last chapter of the Outline, in which I. Garašanin urged the dissemination of Serbian nationalist propaganda in the territories settled by the Serbs in the Austrian Empire and West Bulgaria. Hence, according to this second group, I. Garašanin clearly regarded these territories as a part of a united Serbian national state by calling for the ethnic rights of the Serbs.[28]

Nevertheless, in order to settle this problem, I took into consideration primarily the whole text of the Outline. It is clear that I. Garašanin did not call for Macedonia to be included into the united national state of the Serbs. Instead of Macedonia, he favored the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In fact, to champion Serbia’s territorial expansion toward the southern portion of the Balkan Peninsula, I. Garašanin turned his eyes toward the western part of the Balkan Peninsula because his ultimate aim was to unite all Serbs but not to unite all South Slavs. It meant that the Principality of Serbia needed to be expanded to include the western Balkan territories, where the ethnolinguistic Serbs were settled, but not the southern ones, where the language-based Serbs either had already disappeared or were a minority.

Garašanin could not have supported the policy of the southward expansion of the medieval Serbian state (at the expense of the Byzantine Empire),[29] because he advocated the German Romanticist principle of establishing a single national state organization based on the common language as the crucial marker of national identity. If I. Garašanin’s project of a united Serbian national state organization is compared to V. S. Karadžić’s picture of the ethnographic dispersion of the Serbs, it is clear that both of them were speaking about exactly the same Balkan territories. Therefore, the fundamental principle behind I. Garašanin’s project of a united national state of all Serbs was, in fact, V. S. Karadžić’s linguistic model of Serbian national identity. Finally, as for V. S. Karadžić, a main political motif for I. Garašanin’s Outline was to prevent Croatian territorial claims and national expansion in the lands settled by the Roman Catholic and Muslim Štokavian speakers who at that time usually had the only regional identity or already felt as ethnic Serbs.

It should be stressed that I. Garašanin adopted V. S. Karadžić’s language-based concept of nation and hence identified the Serbs with the Štokavian-speaking South Slavic population. I. Garašanin excluded Macedonia from his concept of the language-based Serbian statehood because he had adopted V. S. Karadžić’s view that there were no Štokavian speakers in most parts of Macedonia and Albania. However, he had also adopted V. S. Karadžić’s claim that the entire population of Bosnia-Herzegovina belonged to the language-based Serbian nationality, and hence he included Bosnia-Herzegovina within the language-based Serbian national state organization. Moreover, he understood V. S. Karadžić’s transitional zones in West Bulgaria to be territories inhabited mostly by the Štokavian speakers. According to the same principle, the territories of the Austrian Military Border, Dalmatia, Slavonia, Bačka, Srem, and Banat would also be included in Garašanin’s language-based national state of the Serbs.

The idea that I. Garašanin supported only the historical rights of the Serbs in the creation of the Serbian united national state should be finally rejected by historians. The cases of Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina provide the strongest evidence in support of this conclusion. The territory of Macedonia was a political center during Stefan Dušan’s Serbian Empire. The largest Macedonian city, Skopje, was selected as the capital of the Serbian Empire, and it was where king Stefan Dušan was crowned as the emperor and had his imperial court. Yet this historical Serbian land did not find its way into the state projected by I. Garašanin. In contrast, Bosnia-Herzegovina, a province that had never been part of the Serbian medieval state, was incorporated into I. Garašanin’s united national state of all Serbs.

With respect to the Roman Catholic Štokavian speakers, I. Garašanin also followed V. S. Karadžić’s model of the ethnolinguistic Serbdom and therefore incorporated into the Serbian language-based national state all West Balkan territories settled by the Štokavian-speaking Roman Catholics. However, I. Garašanin did not include into a future Serbian national state the territories inhabited by both Čakavian and Kajkavian speakers as they were not considered Serbs. This is the real reason why Slovenia, Istria, a majority of East Adriatic Islands and present-day North-West Croatia (i.e., territories around Zagreb) were not mentioned in the Outline as the parts of his state project.

Garašanin’s language-based statehood was designed as an empire under the Serbian ruling dynasty. For him, the geographical position of the country, the natural and military resources and, above all, a single ethnic origin and language shared by its citizens, guaranteed a long existence of the state.[30] He favored a centralized inner state organization similar to that of the Principality of Serbia, but he did not have in mind a federation or confederation[31] as his state was to be composed of only one ethnolinguistic nation – the Serbs.

Conclusions

The issue of national self-determination, the idea and goals of nationhood, and the methods and means for the attainment of such goals, were foremost in the thinking of 19^th-century Serbian intellectuals and politicians. Vuk Stefanović Karadžić’s linguistic model of the Serbian national identification and Ilija Garašanin’s model of the Serbian national-state unification were the most important of all of the 19^th-century Serb projects to solve the “Serb Question”. Both were essentially based on the ideological constructs intended to unite all Serbs (within the Ottoman Empire and the Austrian Empire) and to create a single national state of the Serbs as the answer to the rising Croatian nationalism and territorial claims with respect to the Balkans formulated by Austria-sponsored “Illyrian Movement” which had as its ultimate national-political goal the establishment of a Greater Croatia in the Austrian Empire including all territories settled by the Štokavian speakers west of the Drina River.[32]

The language-based model of a unified Serbian national state after the Serbian liberation from the Ottoman Empire and the Austrian Empire, combined to some extent with the principle of historical state rights, is the keystone of I. Garašаnins’s arguments.

Both, V. S. Karadžić’s new model of language-based Serbian nationhood, drafted in his article “Serbs All and Everywhere”, and I. Garašanin’s new model of language-based Serbian statehood, drafted in Outline, are of extraordinary importance in the history of the political thought of the South Slavs. However, the real meaning of both models is differently explained by Serbian and Croatian linguists, philologists and historians: i.e., a majority of the former understand these models as a good way to politically and culturally unify the Serbian nation, while, conversely the majority of the latter saw in these models the ideological foundations for Serbia’s territorial expansion and political domination in the Balkan Peninsula.

Shortly, the main conclusions are that V. S. Karadžić’s understanding of language in the conception of the Serbian linguistic nationalism was primarily of an ethnic nature and that I. Garašanin drafted a project of a united Serbian national state by implementing a linguistic model of Serbian national identification exactly as developed by V. S. Karadžić.Finally, in my opinion, both models were primarily designed as the instruments with which to counter Croatian nationalistic propaganda and territorial claims developed by the “Illyrian Movement” in the 1830s.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine On Global Politics (www.global-politics.eu). Contact: [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1]  From the essay’s title, one can understand that the author claimed that the Serbs were living everywhere in the world and that all world nations were of Serbian origin. However, V. S. Karadžić’s essay is only about all of those who were Serbs as defined by his new linguistic identity criteria regardless of where they were living and to which confessional denomination they adhered. This politically motivated “misunderstanding” usually originates on the Croat side as an example of the (Orthodox) Serb genocide ideology and policy against the (Roman Catholic) Croats. See, for instance: Ante Beljo et al., eds., Greater Serbia from Ideology to Aggression (Zagreb: Croatian Information Centre, 1992), 17−22. This typical Croat propaganda book was published during the time of the bloody destruction of Yugoslavia in order to show that “Serbia’s aggression” towards Croatia was rooted on the 19^th and 20^th century imperialistic ideology of Serb intellectuals.

[2] Вук Стефановић Караџић, „Срби сви и свуда“, Koвчежић за историју, језик и обичаје Срба сва три закона, (1, Беч, 1849), 1−27; Judah, The Serbs, 55, 61−62. On national identity see: David McCrone, Frank Bechhofer, Understanding National Identity(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

[3] On the myth and reality of the Kosovo Battle and Kosovo legend, see: Ратко Пековић (уредник), Косовска битка: Мит, легенда и стварност (Београд: Литера, 1987).

[4] For details on the German Romanticism, see: Oskar Walzel, German Romanticism(Literary Licensing, LLC, 2013).

[5] Mark Biondich, The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence Since 1878(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 13.

[6] Милосављевић, Срби и њихов језик, 22−25.

[7] Караџић, „Срби сви и свуда,“ (1849), 6−7. Similar opinion had, for instance, and a leading Balkan geographer and ethnographer of the time Jovan Cvijić at the beginning of the 20^th century [Јован Цвијић, Oснове за географију и геологију Makeдоније и Старе Србије (Београд: СКА, 1906); Јован Цвијић, Метанастазичка кретања, њихови узроци и последице (Београд: СКА, 1922), 202−33].

[8] Dalibor Brozović, Pavle Ivić, Jezik srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski(Zagreb: Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod „Miroslav Krleža“, 1988); Robert D. Greenberg, Language and Identity in the Balkans (Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 16−23.

[9] Vladimir Dedijer, History of Yugoslavia (New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Co., 1975), 103; Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 304−08.

[10] Вук Стефановић Караџић, Писменица сербского иезика, по говору простога народа (Беч: Штампарија Јована Шнирера, 1814), 105; Караџић, „Срби сви и свуда“, 6; Милосављевић, Срби и њихов језик, 128.

[11] Ivo Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics(Ithaca−London: Cornell University Press, 1984), 80.

[12] Beljo et al, Greater Serbia from Ideology to Aggression, 17−18.

[13] On this issue, see more in: Милосављевић, Срби и њихов језик.

[14] Лазо М. Костић, Крађа српског језика (Баден, 1964); Предраг Пипер, Увод у славистику 1 (Београд: Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства, 1998), 116−127; Петар Милосављевић, Српски филолошки програм (Београд: Требник, 2000), 9.

[15] Караџић, „Срби сви и свуда“, 1; Владимир Стојанчевић, “Једна неиспуњена жеља Вукова”, Ковчежић за историју Срба сва три закона (12, Београд), 74−77; Милосављевић, Срби и њихов језик, 125.

[16] Вукова преписка, IV (Београд, 1909), 648.

[17] See more in: Милосављевић, Срби и њихов језик.

[18] For instance: Ђорђе Николајевић, Српски споменици (Београд: Летопис Матице српске, 1840); Ђорђе Николајевић, „Епархија православна у Далмацији“, Српско-далматински магазин (15, Задар, 1850); Цвијић, Oснове за географију и геологију Makeдоније и Старе Србије, 43−44; Grégoire Gravier, Les frontiers historiques de laSerbie (Paris: Armand Colin, 1919); Цвијић, Метанастазичка кретања, њихови узроци и последице, 202−233; Никола Радојчић, “Географско знање о Србији почетком XIX века”, Географско друштво (Београд, 1927); Лујо Бакотић, Срби у Далмацији од пада Млетачке Републике до уједињења (Београд: Геца Кон А. Д.: 1938), 64−81, 110−121.

[19] John R. Lampe, Yugoslavia as History. Twice There Was a Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 52.

[20] Радош Љушић, Књига о Начертанију: Национални и државни програм Кнежевине Србије (1844) (Београд: БИГЗ, 1993).

[21] Дејвид Мекензи, Илија Гарашанин: Државник и дипломата (Београд: Просвета, 1987), 15.

[22]  Ljiljana Aleksić, „Šta je dovelo do stvaranja ’Načertanija’“, Historijski pregled, (2, Zagreb, 1954), 68−71.

[23] “The Načertanije itself uses the language of romantic nationalism to propose a Serbian state…” Lampe, Yugoslavia as History, 52.

[24] Ibid.

[25] The history of all multiethnic Yugoslav states from 1918 to 1991 clearly proved the rightness of I. Garašanin’s point of view.

[26] As in the case of Karadžić’s model of ethnolinguistic identification of the Serbs, I. Garašanin’s project of creation of a united Serbian ethnonational state was inspired by Croatian imperialistic ideas of the Croatian ethnonational identity and creation of a united Greater Croatia within the borders of the Austrian Empire. Both V. S. Karadžić and I. Garašanin well understood that the “Illyrian Movement” was, in fact, the Austrian sponsored political movement for creation of a Greater Croatia in the Austrian Empire mostly at the expense of the Serbs. According to the Austrian/Croatian idea promulgated by the “Illyrian Movement”, all Roman Catholic South Slavs had to be named as the ethnolinguistic Croats and as such included into the Austrian Empire. The Croats hoped to create within the Austrian Empire a separate administrative province of a Greater Croatia with Bosnia-Herzegovina.

[27] For instance: Љушић, Књига о Начертанију, 94−100, 153; Dušan Bilandžić, Hrvatska moderna povjest (Zagreb: Golden marketing, 1999), 29−30.

[28] For example: Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia, 83−84: Damir Agičić, Tajna politika Srbije u XIX stoljeću (Zagreb: AGM−Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu: 1994), 25−26.

[29] The Serbian Empire was definitely broken apart in 1371 by the Ottoman victory in the Battle of Marica (September) and by the death of the Emperor Stefan Uroš in the same year (December). See more in: Јованка Калић, Срби у позном Средњем веку(Београд: Службени лист СРЈ, 2001).

[30] Љушић, Књига о Начертанију, 76−87.

[31] Charles Jelavich, “Garashanins Natchertanie und das gross-serbische Problem”, Südostforschungen (XXVII, 1968), 131−147.

[32] For more details on this issue, see: Vladislav B. Sotirović, The Croatian National (“Illyrian”) Revival Movement and the Serbs: From 1830 to 1847 (Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2015).

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

It would seem that the proxy war that Washington has been waging on Syria has been nothing but a terrible, humiliating mess, but instead of calling it quits the White House is busy shifting gears again. While demonstrating its intention to strengthen its military presence in Syria, while still providing assistance to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK that is outlawed in Turkey, the US is now embarking on the mission of creating no-fly zones, the goal it has been after all along.

To achieve this goal, the Pentagon has deployed its radar systems in a number of cities in northern Syria, that are supposedly going to be used to monitor the operations carried out by the Turkish military. It seems that the relations between Ankara and Washington has hit an all time low if it comes down to the latter keeping a watchful eye of the former. It’s obviously not a coincidence that the safety umbrella that US policymakers are trying to pop open over the northern Syria is going to cover massive detachments of radical militants that have been rallying in Idlib from all parts of Syria, and now we see the reasoning behind this trend. It’s clear that Washington didn’t want to waste those valuable psychopaths that received an extensive amount of military training, since it hasn’t lost hope that it could still take down Damascus if the no-fly zones plan comes into fruition.

There has already been three full radars installations deployed in the areas of Kobani and Sarrin in the north of the Aleppo Governorate along with a total of 13 mobile radar systems that are going to be used for the monitoring of the Syrian sky. The rapid creation of no-fly zones in Syria has marked a new phase of Western military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic. This scenario has already been tested by Washington in Iraq and Libya, that is why American think tanks have been pushing for this option in Syria for almost a decade now.

Once a no-fly zone in Syria is declared, this step can followed by high precision weapons being used by the US-led coalition to destroy Syrian airfields, leaving Syrian armed forces without close air support. Should this plan come to fruition, any plane entering the no-fly zone will be detected and destroyed. Back in 2011, Washington was following the same exact path in Libya, first rendering Libyan airfield useless, before destroying radar installations and launch pads that could still prevent strikes on Libyan military facilities.

However, one must not forget that, according to the UN Charter, the authority to maintain international peace and security rests upon the shoulders of the UN Security Council. Both Washington, and its obedient vassals like the Great Britain have no privilege to do whatever they want if the rights of yet another international player is violated by their actions. It is the Security Council that determines the course of action whenever any threat to the international peace and security surfaces on the horizon. In a desperate attempt to force the UN Security Council into introducing a no-fly zone over northern Syria, the United States and its allies have been staging a new chemical provocation, for this time in Idlib, in a desperate attempt to push the blame on Damascus yet again.

According to the opinion voiced by a prominent Lebanese analyst, Nidal Sabi the threats that the US, France and Great Britain are voicing against Syria can result in an armed intervention against it, should there be a pretext in the form of chemical attack in Idlib presented as a justification. According to this expert, this provocation is being staged now by the accomplices of various terrorists groups that are known to the world as the White Helmets.

Foreign “experts” have already arrived to the village of Kafer-Zait in the Idlib Governorate to stage a chemical attack. According to truly independent sources in this region, the White Helmets have delivered chemical munitions to the warehouse of the terrorist group known as Ahrar al-Sham from the village of Afs, using two heavy duty trucks. This deadly load was accompanied by a total of eight representatives of the White Helmets that was received upon their arrival by the warlords of the terrorist formation. Later on, almost a half of the deadly munitions were transported to another location in the south of Idlib for a second false-flag attack to be staged there. It’s believed that these toxic substances will be unleashed against the village of Kafer-Zait. Then a group of local residents is going to pretend to be suffering from chemical poisoning so that the White Helmets could valiantly rush for their rescue in the process of filming a nerve-wrecking video that is going to be distributed across the Middle East and the MSN

This false-flag attack is going to mark the start of an all-out assault against Syrian people that is going to be mounted by the US-led coalition. According to the MSN, American warships are preparing to launch a total of 56 cruise missiles against various targets across Syria. Further still, this salvo is going to be supported by B-1 Lancers that carrying JASSM missiles from the US Air Force Al Udeid base in Qatar.

This nothing new in this flawed circuit of the American foreign policy that goes from the provocation, to hysteria, to retaliation and the regime change. But its use in Syria will effectively mark the end of international law and global security. Washington is behind itself with its attempts to de-legitimize its enemy, that is why it feels bold enough to tread the limits of international law. And it is quite remarkable that without any sort of permission granted by Damascus, Washington has not just been illegally occupying a strip of the Syrian territory, it’s going to use this fact to stage yet another act of aggression against Syria, while being unable to hide its disgusting habits. However, nobody is willing to discuss that with the destruction of the Syrian air force, pro-Damascus forces will lose the last advantage they have had over the forces of international terrorism.

Moreover, Russia has been pretty active in conducting air strikes again radical militants too. The unilateral declaration to establish a no-fly zone, and Washington will never obtain the approval from the UN Security Council to create one, will effectively mean the declaration of war against Syria, Russia, Turkey and Iran. The implications are obvious. Russia’s air forces will not flee, nor will abandon the bombing campaign, that has been of great assistance to Assad’s offensive.

For their part, Syrian jihadists will only rejoice if the “two Shaytans” will try to consume each other with infernal fires.

But for the United States and Britain, such a prospect can also lead to serious consequences. In the US there’s an ever increasing number of people wonder what is the reasoning behind Washington’s obsession with regime change in Syria and is it really worth all the risks that that the Trump administration is so willing to ignore that it gets disturbing. American instructors that keep training all sorts of radical militants all across the Middle East are joking they are breeding the “next generation of al-Nusra,” but will they be just as cynical if they learn that these skills are going to be put to the test both in the EU and in the US itself.

*

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Post-9/11, Washington launched a drone war on Yemen as part of the “global war on terrorism” – largely killing defenseless civilians, supporting terrorists, not combatting them. The Bush/Cheney regime began what Obama and Trump escalated. 

US-backed full-scale Saudi/UAE-led aggression on the country began in March 2015.

Operating covertly, US special forces aid the blockade and slaughter, along with CIA/Pentagon intelligence and logistical support, along with direct US involvement in conflict on the ground – responsible for the world’s severest humanitarian crisis.

The campaign against Houthi fighters aims to restore US-appointed puppet president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi to power – no matter the human cost, regardless of millions of Yemenis suffering from malnutrition, famine, untreated diseases, and Saudi/UAE terror-bombing.

A UN-sponsored report by a so-called Group of Regional And International Eminent Experts on Yemen said

“the Government of Yemen and the coalition, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and in the de facto authorities have committed acts that may, subject to determination by an independent and competent court, amount to international crimes.”

There’s no ambiguity about what’s going on and the culpable parties.

Airstrikes on civilian sites caused most casualties, targeting residential areas, markets, mosques, funerals, weddings, detention facilities, medical facilities, and other non-military related sites – flagrant war crimes under international law.

The so-called “Group of Experts (said they have) reasonable grounds to believe that individuals in the Government of Yemen and the coalition may (sic) have conducted attacks in violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution that may amount to war crimes.”

“There is little evidence of any attempt by parties to the conflict to minimize civilian casualties.”

Throughout years of full-scale war from March 19, 2015 through August 23, 2018, the UN Human Rights Office turned truth on its head, way-understating the casualty count – claiming 6,600 civilians killed, another 10,563 injured, while admitting the real figures are likely much higher.

An earlier UNICEF report said at least one Yemeni child under age-five dies every 10 minutes from starvation alone.

Annualized that’s 52,560 deaths – plus countless numbers of older children and adults perishing from starvation, many more from untreated diseases, and other war related factors, along with deaths from Saudi/UAE terror-bombing.

Three-and-a-half years of US-orchestrated, Saudi/UAE-led naked aggression and blockade likely caused hundreds of thousands of casualties – many times more than the way understated UN figures, the casualty count increasing daily, a genocidal holocaust killing a sovereign nation, largely ignored by world leaders and major media.

There’s no ambiguity about horrific ongoing war crimes, Washington, NATO, the Saudis and UAE largely responsible, even Israel to blame for supporting US-orchestrated aggression.

The so-called Group of Experts ignored US responsibility for orchestrating naked aggression on the region’s poorest country.

Houthi fighters aren’t free from culpability for illegal actions throughout the war. Yet their offenses are minor compared to US-sponsored aggression on the country, along with Saudi/UAE-led bombing and other high crimes, including illegal detentions, torture, and other abuses.

The so-called Group of Experts failed to lay blame where it mostly belongs. The scourge of US imperialism is what its endless wars of aggression are all about.

*

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 July, Kyiv witnessed the celebrations of the 1030th anniversary of Kievan Rus Christianization. Two largest Ukrainian Orthodox confessions – the Ukrainian Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC KP) and the Ukrainian Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) – traditionally held separate sacred processions on different days.

The state-backed UOC KP’s procession was attended by President Petro Poroshenko, vast number of government officials and the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s delegates. Kyiv had assumed that the latter would come with the Tomos of Autocephaly (independence) for the Ukrainian Church but it never happened. And in his long speech,  President Emmanuel Macron of France didn’t even hint at the date when this important for the Ukrainian faithful event could take place.

In April, President Poroshenko met with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in his residence in the Phanar quarter (Istanbul). As it was revealed later, one of the main agenda topics was the bestowal of autocephaly for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. At the moment, the church situation in Ukraine is complicated. The country faces a fierce conflict between the UOC KP and UOC MP backed by Kyiv and Moscow. The UOC of the Kyivan Patriarchate broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1990s, when the independent Ukrainian state emerged. However, it still has been recognized by none of the Local Orthodox Churches.

Poroshenko is said to be setting up the new Autocephalous Church with this religious organization as its cornerstone. Obviously, the “hostile” UOC MP won’t be included in the Single Local Church and will witness even higher pressure than now when its property is being seized or desecrated by pro-government radical nationalists.

Nevertheless, for Kyiv and personally Poroshenko the autocephaly project is a thing that really matters. On the eve of the 2019 presidential elections in Ukraine, the Tomos (if granted by Constantinople) should become one of the aces up his sleeve in the election race. That’s why it was decided to boost the process.

Since April, Poroshenko kept claiming that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church would likely become autocephalous on 28 July, when the UOC KP celebrates the 1030th anniversary of Kievan Rus Christianization. Many Ukrainians believed in their president’s words, and when the Tomos wasn’t granted, they lashed out not only at the government but also at Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew personally.

For example, the author of one of critical articles, expressing his indignation, not just accuses Constantinople of undermining the process of autocephaly bestowal but suggests that it should be proclaimed unilaterally, without the Phanar’s consent. Moreover, he blames Patriarch Bartholomew for his ties with Catholics and his inability to make firm decisions.

Besides that, the Ukrainians fear that the Phanar is concerned only with the matters of property. In particular, another critical article even provides a list of churches, buildings and territories which can possible come into Constantinople’s possession. However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s representatives will need a place to live and hold divine services in. No one really means confiscating the property of Ukrainian Churches and handing it to the “Greek intruders”.

Of course, not all Ukrainian media outlets criticize the Phanar, but such harsh statements like the above-mentioned aren’t rare. The Ukrainians seem to have been hurt by broken promises. But what can the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Patriarch Bartholomew be blamed for? They didn’t promise the Ukrainian people that the Tomos would be bestowed on a certain date, they only named it the ultimate goal. The Phanar clearly understands that against the background of the today’s conflict between the faithful in Ukraine, autocephaly can be granted only after finding a way to heal the division. Why don’t some Ukrainians understand this? Don’t they see that they are throwing themselves under the bus by criticizing the Mother Church? The whole thing can easily come to naught: watching how groundlessly it is being criticized, the Patriarchate can turn away from Ukraine and never realize the dreams for autocephaly…

*

Tamar Lomidze is a journalist of Brentwood News (Los Angeles, USA) and belongs to the Georgian Orthodox Church.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

French environment minister Nicolas Hulot has resigned live on national radio in a surprise move that will come as a blow to President Emmanuel Macron’s green credentials.

Hulot, a former broadcaster known in France for his wildlife and conservation documentaries, told France Inter that he had taken the decision to quit the government, saying he had felt alone in pushing for more ambitious climate policies and an energy transition to take place in France.

“I don’t want to lie to myself anymore. I don’t want to give the illusion that my presence in the French government shows that we are doing what it takes to face these challenges. I have taken the decision to leave the government.”

“This is about being sincere with myself,” he said.

Hulot said he had not told President Emmanuel Macron or Prime Minister Edouard Philippe about his intention to resign, which also came as a surprise to the two journalists interviewing him on the morning news programme.

Hulot was made environment minister for the first time in May 2017 after deciding not to run as a presidential candidate a year earlier.

As part of Macron’s government, he was forced to accept the implementation of the EU-Canada free trade agreement and a delay in reducing the share of nuclear power in France’s energy mix to 50 percent by 2025 — decisions to which he publicly objected. Rumours of Hulot’s imminent resignation were common during his time in office.

Describing his “immense friendship” with Macron’s government, Hulot said that although he had no regrets in joining the government he had suffered from his time in office, increasingly accommodating himself with “small steps” at a time when “the planet is becoming a sauna and deserves that we change the way we think and operate”.

“Am I up to the task? Who would be up to this task on their own? Where are my troops? Who is behind me?”, he asked.

The environmentalist and former TV presenter admitted that he had been thinking about resigning throughout the summer but that it was the presence of hunting lobbyist Thierry Coste at a ministerial meeting to which he was not invited that prompted him to take the decision.

“We have to talk about this because it’s a democratic issue to ask who holds the power and who governs in this country,” he told France Inter.

Hulot said his time in office had been “an accumulation of disappointments”, citing France’s failure to move away from nuclear power. He said he felt like he had “a bit of influence but no power”.

He stressed that the transition to a carbon-free world was a “collective responsibility” and that the dominating liberalism model had to be put into question if the world was to move to a green economy.

“I hope that my resignation will lead to a profound introspection of our society on the reality of the world,” he said, pleading all sides not to use his resignation as political tool.

Benjamin Griveaux, spokesman for the French government told French TV channel BFM TV he regretted the way Hulot has chosen to make his decision public, adding:

“I think it would have been basic courtesy to warn the president and the prime minister.”

Opposition politicians were also quick to respond to the announcement.

The leader of the opposition les Republicans party Laurent Wauquiez, told RTL radio that he understood that Hulot felt he had been “betrayed” by Macron.

“I don’t necessarily share his opinions, but I can understand that he feels betrayed — like many French people — by the fact strong promises were made but the impression that these promises have not been kept.”

Ségolène Royal, former environment minister under the previous socialist government during which the Paris Agreement was signed, wrote on twitter:

“I respect Nicolas Hulot’s choice. As I know from experience, he has proved that the battles for the environment are very difficult but so crucial.”

“France needs to keep the climate leadership and be ready to fight for those forces around the planet that hope for a better future.”

Yannick Jadot, from the French Green party, said:

“The departure of Nicolas Hulot from the government is the consequence of the absence of environmental policies from this government.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Experts from numerous countries around the globe are gathering for a United Nations meeting to discuss “killer robots.” The weeklong event that opened Monday is the second at the U.N. offices in Geneva and will focus on lethal autonomous weapons systems.

Futuristic robots that can conduct war without human intervention is a big concern among official in the United Nations, according to a report by ABC News. The experts who have gathered for the meeting will discuss ways to define and “deal with” the problems that could arise from the creation of “killer robots.”

Although U.N. officials say that in theory, fully autonomous, computer-controlled weapons don’t exist yet, and the debate is still in its infancy, the discussion is all but mandatory as the experts and officials have often grappled with the very basic definitions. The United States has argued that it’s premature to establish a definition of such systems, much less regulate them, but the meeting will focus largely on those aspects.

Other experts and some of the top advocacy groups say governments and militaries should be prevented from developing such systems, which have sparked fears and led some critics to envision harrowing scenarios about their potential uses.

As the meeting got underway, Amnesty International urged countries to work toward a ban.

Killer robots are “no longer the stuff of science fiction,” Rasha Abdul Rahim, an artificial intelligence researcher for the human rights organization, said. Rahim warned that technological advances are outpacing international law.

Part of the trouble for activists, however, is that the U.N.-backed conference that convened the meeting works by consensus. A single participating country — like a big military power — therefore could scuttle efforts to reach an international ban. –ABC News

And who is to say that a ban will stop the future use of killer robots anyway?  If a country decided to use them despite the ban, ink on paper will be meaningless.

Amandeep Gill, who is chairing the meeting and a former Indian ambassador to the U.N.-backed Conference on Disarmament, said that he personally believes progress is being made on the issue. He said all of the countries generally fall into three camps of thought: One seeks a formal, legal ban on such weapons; another wants a political, but non-binding agreement; and a third wants no changes at all.

“We are coming closer to an agreement on what should be the guiding principles — guiding the behavior of states and guiding the development and deployment of such systems around the world,” Gill told reporters Monday. “And this is not an insignificant outcome.”

“There is a lot of movement within the governments,” said Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jody Williams. “We’re up to 26 now that have called for a ban,” said Williams, who won the 1997 Nobel for her work against landmines. “Logic would dictate — at least in my thinking — that there would be a mandate toward negotiating a binding instrument, and that’s what we’re pushing for here this week.”

At a news conference hosted by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Williams said the group wants “meaningful human control” when it comes to the use of military weapons.  They also want to progress toward a ban on all computer-controlled weapons systems.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Every two years, the Stimson Center Task Force on U.S. Drone Policy, directed by Rachel Stohl, issues a pamphlet of recommendations to the U.S. government on the use of weaponized UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) or RPAs (remotely piloted aircraft). Over the course of the past six years, it has become all too clear that no one in the government actually reads these reports, and the tone of the latest installment in the series, “An Action Plan on U.S. Drone Policy: Recommendations for the Trump Administration,” understandably conveys frustration.

The first report, issued in 2014, seemed to be filled with optimism and congeniality, and the second report (actually called by the Task Force a “Report Card“), issued in 2016, offered a gentle admonition of the Obama administration for its failure to make its policies and practices transparent or to produce anything even approaching international norms for the use of the new technology.

Now the task force seems to have thrown caution to the wind, recognizing that the Trump administration could not care less what the Stimson Center has to say. Despite the failures of the Obama administration to heed most of the recommendations of the first report, as reflected in that administration’s poor “grades” in the second report, it has become increasingly clear that the Trump administration has no intention even of showing up for school: “U.S. drone policy under the Trump administration has thus far been defined by uncertainty coupled with less oversight and less transparency.”

Critics of the U.S. government’s drone program (myself included), have explained in meticulous detail how the entire institution of premeditated, intentional, extrajudicial assassination of persons (usually able-bodied Muslim males) suspected of possibly plotting possible future terrorist attacks–or simply being potentially capable of doing so–rests upon a lamentable framework of linguistic legerdemain. People may despise President Trump, but no one with any familiarity with the history of the use of lethal drones can deny that the “killing machine” is President Obama’s lasting legacy.

What is good about the 2018 Stimson Center report is that the authors explicitly articulate criticisms diplomatically skirted in the earlier reports, particularly the first one, which was produced under the guidance of a variety of industry and military experts and expressed general agreement with them that the use of lethal drones was morally and legally permissible.

Four years later, perhaps out of exasperation, the Stimson Center has finally decided to voice some serious objections to what has been going on for the past sixteen years. Consider these examples:

Currently, the U.S. drone program rests on indistinct frameworks and an approach to drone strikes based on U.S. exceptionalism. Ambiguity surrounding U.S. drone policy has contributed to enduring questions about the legality, efficacy, and legitimacy of the U.S. drone program.

This one is buried in a footnote (#1), but is noteworthy:

Although not included in this report, the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens is a critical aspect of this conversation. In 2014, the Obama administration released a Justice Department memo articulating its legal justification for targeting an American citizen abroad, Anwar al-Awlaki. The memo, released to the public following lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times, argues that U.S. citizenship did not make Anwar al-Awlaki immune from the use of force abroad and that the killing of a U.S. citizen by the U.S. government is authorized by the law of war under a public authority exception to a U.S. statute prohibiting the foreign murder of U.S. nationals.

Or consider this zinger:

By requiring some connection to an imminent threat, a “near certainty” of the presence of the targeted subject, and no perceived risk of civilian casualties, the PPG [Presidential Policy Guidance] was at least intended to minimize civilian harm. Nevertheless, some elements of the PPG — such as the requirement that a threat be both continuing and imminent — seem inherently contradictory, and many critics of U.S. drone strikes have questioned whether strikes outside areas of active hostilities are lawful.

Another one:

The U.S. government’s refusal to release information about the targets of its drone attacks and the difficulty in accessing the locations where U.S. drone strikes have occurred have made it difficult for third parties to assess the legality of specific attacks.

While there is consensus that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, critics of U.S. policy and practice argue that U.S. drone strikes to conduct targeted killings outside these areas should be governed not by the law of armed conflict but by the stricter requirements of international human rights law, which permits killings of individuals only to prevent an imminent threat to life.

I am not sure why Syria is included in the list as a U.S. war zone, alongside Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is good to know that the Stimson Center is at least considering criticisms brushed aside by everyone in the government and given short shrift in the 2014 report. Better late than never. Perhaps they have been reading some of the critical books which have been rolling out in a steady stream since 2015?

Another possibility is that they no longer feel the need to hold back as they did during the Obama administration because, well, Trump is president. They may as well express all of their concerns so that at least they will seem to have been on the right side of history, even if no one in either administration took seriously anything they ever said. That may sound harsh, but I cannot help thinking that if the 2014 report had been less conciliatory, then perhaps it would have garnered more attention from the press, and there might have been some sort of public debate over the abysmal practice of assassination by remote control.

By now, euphemistically termed “targeted killing” is considered perfectly normal by nearly everyone (save radical book authors, antiwar activists, and libertarians), and rolling back Obama’s radical expansion of executive power will be all but impossible to effect, except, perhaps, if “The Resistance” somehow succeeds in removing Trump from office. But wait: then Mike Pence will be president! Does anyone truly believe that Pence would be more willing than Trump to cede power? No, it is the nature of power-seeking individuals (above all, politicians) to amass power until it is taken from them.

Given that “The Resistance” recently acquiesced in the bestowal upon Commander-in-Chief Trump of a $700+ billion defense budget, I don’t see the practice of drone assassination being curtailed anytime soon. Particularly since the Pentagon produces projections for funding which extend ahead for the next twenty-five years, effectively locking in place what they have done and are doing, thereby ensuring that there will be even more of the same. As missile-equipped UAVs continue to be produced and distributed in a dizzying flurry, and more and more operators are trained to kill, enticed by lucrative salaries and benefits packages, the hit lists will grow longer as well. Given the nature of lethal creep, I predict that some of the unarmed military UAVs already hovering in US skies will be weaponized for use in the homeland. Recall the case of Micah Johnson, who was blown up by the Dallas police using an explosive-equipped robot.

So, yes, things have predictably gone from bad to worse, for lethal creep leads to further lethal creep, with no real end in sight. The 2018 Stimson Center report observes that the Trump administration is currently rolling back “restraints” and “guidelines” said to have been implemented during the Obama administration. Among the changes being considered are:

1. Expanding the targets of armed strikes by eliminating the requirement that the person pose an “imminent threat,”

2. Loosening the requirement of “near certainty” that the target is present at the time of the strike to a “reasonable certainty,” and

3. Revising the process through which strike determinations are made by reducing senior policymaker involvement and oversight in such decisions and delegating more authority to operational commanders.

Hooah! MAGA! USA! USA!

In all seriousness, the Obama administration’s “restraints” were never anything more than an effort to quell criticism. Smile politely and gush about “just war theory,” and people will leave you alone, Obama learned from his targeted killing mentor, John Brennan. “Infeasibility of capture” was always a farce (see the cases of Anwar al-Awlaki and Osama bin Laden). And “near certainty”? Why don’t we ask Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto about that one? Or, for that matter: Abdulrahman al-Awlaki?

The fundamental point cannot be overstated: by redefining “imminent threat” as no longer requiring “immediacy” and asserting the right to kill anyone anywhere deemed dangerous by a secretive committee of bureaucrats using deliberations conducted behind closed doors and never shared with the public (invoking State Secrets Privilege), the Obama administration paved the way to the latest slide down a slippery slope to even more wanton state homicide.

During the first two years of Trump’s presidency, Obama has been reveling in portrayals of himself as some sort of saint by “The Resistance” and the adoration of throngs of people who find him dignified and “presidential” next to his successor. But Obama’s own erection of a U.S. killing machine, and normalization of the insidious policy of summary execution by lethal drone outside areas of active hostilities, even of U.S. citizens, will haunt humanity for decades to come.

*

Laurie Calhoun is the author of We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, You Can Leave, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique.

All images in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq.

The article, entitled “Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin’s Plans for Midterms,” claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian president “who have provided crucial details” that have now stopped reporting at a critical time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to “…American officials familiar with the intelligence” who “…spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal classified information.”

After reading the piece, my first reaction was that Judith Miller was back but the byline clearly read Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg. Noms de plume, perhaps? The article is so astonishingly bad on so many levels that it could have been featured in Marvel Comics instead of the Gray Lady. First of all, if American intelligence truly has in the Kremlin high level human agents, referred to as humint, it would not be publicizing the fact for fear that Moscow would intensify its search for the traitors and discover who they were. No intelligence officer speaking either openly or anonymously would make that kind of fatal mistake by leaking such information to a journalist.

If indeed the source of the leak was a genuine intelligence officer it suggests a different, more plausible interpretation. The CIA might, in fact, have no high-level agents at all at the Kremlin level and is intent on having the Russians waste time and energy looking for the moles. There is additional evidence in the article that the agent story might be a fabrication. The authors assert that the CIA agents in Moscow provided critical information relating to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The nature of that information, if it existed at all, is something less than transparent and the piece cites no less an authority on Moscow’s subversion than ex-Agency Director John Brennan, who connived at electing Hillary when he was at CIA and has had an axe to grind ever since. Having Brennan as a source is an indication that the two journalists were desperate and were willing to cite anyone.

And then there are the narratives that the journalists accept to make their whole story credible. As the title of the article suggests, they believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a “plan” for America’s midterm elections. To support that conjecture they cite recent assertions from both corporate and government leaders that there has been meddling in cyber systems and on social media over the past few months, though it is interesting to note that no evidence has been provided to link such activity to Russia.

So, does Putin have a plan? The New York Times apparently believes he does. And what would that plan involve? The Times thinks it is no less than “a broad chaos campaign to undermine faith in American democracy.” It also cites Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats as affirming that Putin is “intent on undermining American democratic systems.” Think about that for a moment. Why would Russia want to damage an already oftentimes dysfunctional system of government? To replace it with what? A dictatorship might be more effective and even warlike, contrary to Russia’s own interests. Why mess with something that is already messy all by itself?

The article also hurls out other lies and half-truths. It assumes that Russia was trying to change the outcome of the 2016 US election, for which there is no evidence at all, and it also claims that Putin is killing off spies, citing the Skripal case in Britain, for which proof of an actual Russian connection has never been presented.

And finally, then there is an odd whine from a former CIA Russia expert John Sipher blaming the intelligence failure on the likelihood that the Agency Station in Moscow is tiny and ineffective because “The Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people” in their expulsion of sixty American diplomats/spies in March. Sipher is inter alia confirming to Moscow that many of those expelled were, in fact, CIA. He also needs to recall that the persona non grata (PNG) move was in response to the US expelling sixty Russians and closing two diplomatic facilities over Skripal, which means the United States deliberately took self-inflicted steps that it should have known would cripple its ability to spy in Moscow. And now it is complaining because it doesn’t know what is going on.

*

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.